Connecticut Ave bike lanes are back!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why will it be a good thing for drivers that bikes will now just take the while travel lane to ride this making everyone behind them slow to a crawl? How is that better than a dedicated bike lane?

Its not exactly clear to me, but drivers probably think bike riders will either cease to exist or get in a car instead if there are no bike lanes. Why drivers want more cars on the road with them continues to confound me, so I'm guessing they think they just poof out of existence.

It's not exactly clear to me, but bike riders seem to think that drivers will either cease to exist or get on a bike instead if we just keep adding to the more than 150 miles of bike lanes DC already has.

People use infrastructure after it is built. The more bike lanes (actual good ones that is) get built, the more people ride bikes. This isn't a mystery, as its well documented around the world. The pandemic put a dent in DC ridership, but its growing again. Keep building bike lanes, and people will convert car trips to bike trips (its often faster already!). Once they do that, they start advocating for more infrastructure and so forth.

That's what drivers actually fear, not that the bike lanes will be empty. The possibility of cars losing their primacy, and all the identity issues tied to that are the real issues.

The only people with identity issues tied to transportation are bicyclists. Everyone else just wants to get places as efficiently and hassle free as possible.

If people didn't tie their identity to their car, then people would be driving vans instead of SUVs. You wouldn't be able to sell a luxury car or muscle car and no one would be lifting their trucks. The Honda Fit would be the best selling car in the country instead of being discontinued. Etc...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why will it be a good thing for drivers that bikes will now just take the while travel lane to ride this making everyone behind them slow to a crawl? How is that better than a dedicated bike lane?

Its not exactly clear to me, but drivers probably think bike riders will either cease to exist or get in a car instead if there are no bike lanes. Why drivers want more cars on the road with them continues to confound me, so I'm guessing they think they just poof out of existence.

It's not exactly clear to me, but bike riders seem to think that drivers will either cease to exist or get on a bike instead if we just keep adding to the more than 150 miles of bike lanes DC already has.

No, bike riders simply want to not die on the streets. Also, bonus, if it is safe to ride, then others who are not as fearless as those who ride currently, may give it a shot, and that opens up driving lanes and parking spaces for the people who want to, or have no choice but to drive.

You could just not ride bikes on very busy streets. That's an easy way to avoid dying.

My family and I enjoy playing with firearms, and it is our right, but it's possible we could get hurt. What is the city going to do to protect us?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why will it be a good thing for drivers that bikes will now just take the while travel lane to ride this making everyone behind them slow to a crawl? How is that better than a dedicated bike lane?

Its not exactly clear to me, but drivers probably think bike riders will either cease to exist or get in a car instead if there are no bike lanes. Why drivers want more cars on the road with them continues to confound me, so I'm guessing they think they just poof out of existence.

It's not exactly clear to me, but bike riders seem to think that drivers will either cease to exist or get on a bike instead if we just keep adding to the more than 150 miles of bike lanes DC already has.

People use infrastructure after it is built. The more bike lanes (actual good ones that is) get built, the more people ride bikes. This isn't a mystery, as its well documented around the world. The pandemic put a dent in DC ridership, but its growing again. Keep building bike lanes, and people will convert car trips to bike trips (its often faster already!). Once they do that, they start advocating for more infrastructure and so forth.

That's what drivers actually fear, not that the bike lanes will be empty. The possibility of cars losing their primacy, and all the identity issues tied to that are the real issues.

The only people with identity issues tied to transportation are bicyclists. Everyone else just wants to get places as efficiently and hassle free as possible.

Most people who ride bikes to work also don't have any identity wrapped up in it, and they also just want to get around without a hassle. For me, it's just as fast to bike to work as it is to Metro (and only about 5 minutes slower getting home), but it's better exercise than riding the subway is. It's not more efficient -- that's what makes it better exercise -- but "as hassle free as possible" is pretty much the exact definition of what people on bikes are hoping for from protected bike lanes.

I get that and appreciate what you are saying. The problem is that the advocates for this particular project are demanding that driving, on an extremely congested road during rush hour, become even more hassled. Connecticut is just a very bad road for this type of project and the amount of people that benefit is so few.

Honestly, the real breakdown is between people that use the road during peak hours and those that use it in the middle of the day. Something like making the third lanes car only during rush hour and bike/bus only during the day would have been agreeable to most but there is a subset of people that demanded punishment above all else.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why will it be a good thing for drivers that bikes will now just take the while travel lane to ride this making everyone behind them slow to a crawl? How is that better than a dedicated bike lane?

Its not exactly clear to me, but drivers probably think bike riders will either cease to exist or get in a car instead if there are no bike lanes. Why drivers want more cars on the road with them continues to confound me, so I'm guessing they think they just poof out of existence.

It's not exactly clear to me, but bike riders seem to think that drivers will either cease to exist or get on a bike instead if we just keep adding to the more than 150 miles of bike lanes DC already has.

No, bike riders simply want to not die on the streets. Also, bonus, if it is safe to ride, then others who are not as fearless as those who ride currently, may give it a shot, and that opens up driving lanes and parking spaces for the people who want to, or have no choice but to drive.

Number of recorded bike rider deaths along the project corridor = 0.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why will it be a good thing for drivers that bikes will now just take the while travel lane to ride this making everyone behind them slow to a crawl? How is that better than a dedicated bike lane?

Its not exactly clear to me, but drivers probably think bike riders will either cease to exist or get in a car instead if there are no bike lanes. Why drivers want more cars on the road with them continues to confound me, so I'm guessing they think they just poof out of existence.

It's not exactly clear to me, but bike riders seem to think that drivers will either cease to exist or get on a bike instead if we just keep adding to the more than 150 miles of bike lanes DC already has.

People use infrastructure after it is built. The more bike lanes (actual good ones that is) get built, the more people ride bikes. This isn't a mystery, as its well documented around the world. The pandemic put a dent in DC ridership, but its growing again. Keep building bike lanes, and people will convert car trips to bike trips (its often faster already!). Once they do that, they start advocating for more infrastructure and so forth.

That's what drivers actually fear, not that the bike lanes will be empty. The possibility of cars losing their primacy, and all the identity issues tied to that are the real issues.

The only people with identity issues tied to transportation are bicyclists. Everyone else just wants to get places as efficiently and hassle free as possible.

Most people who ride bikes to work also don't have any identity wrapped up in it, and they also just want to get around without a hassle. For me, it's just as fast to bike to work as it is to Metro (and only about 5 minutes slower getting home), but it's better exercise than riding the subway is. It's not more efficient -- that's what makes it better exercise -- but "as hassle free as possible" is pretty much the exact definition of what people on bikes are hoping for from protected bike lanes.

I get that and appreciate what you are saying. The problem is that the advocates for this particular project are demanding that driving, on an extremely congested road during rush hour, become even more hassled. Connecticut is just a very bad road for this type of project and the amount of people that benefit is so few.

Honestly, the real breakdown is between people that use the road during peak hours and those that use it in the middle of the day. Something like making the third lanes car only during rush hour and bike/bus only during the day would have been agreeable to most but there is a subset of people that demanded punishment above all else.

And I hear what you're saying, too, and appreciate your reasonable point and approach. It seems like the city wants to make driving more of a hassle on Connecticut regardless -- they're looking for traffic-calming measures along with pedestrian safety improvements. If that's the framework they're operating in, it does sort of make sense to also include bike lanes.

Literally anything like what you're suggesting above would be an improvement over current biking conditions -- and probably over current driving conditions -- my household has two cars, I'm not anti-car, but part of the reason I take Metro or bike to work is that driving just seems like the worst possible option. I am often able to bike in the far right lane at least as fast as traffic is moving during rush hour, especially right near the Cleveland Park Metro stop. The desire to punish opponents on both sides of the debate here seems likely to leave us all worse off, regardless of mode.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why will it be a good thing for drivers that bikes will now just take the while travel lane to ride this making everyone behind them slow to a crawl? How is that better than a dedicated bike lane?

Its not exactly clear to me, but drivers probably think bike riders will either cease to exist or get in a car instead if there are no bike lanes. Why drivers want more cars on the road with them continues to confound me, so I'm guessing they think they just poof out of existence.

It's not exactly clear to me, but bike riders seem to think that drivers will either cease to exist or get on a bike instead if we just keep adding to the more than 150 miles of bike lanes DC already has.

No, bike riders simply want to not die on the streets. Also, bonus, if it is safe to ride, then others who are not as fearless as those who ride currently, may give it a shot, and that opens up driving lanes and parking spaces for the people who want to, or have no choice but to drive.

You could just not ride bikes on very busy streets. That's an easy way to avoid dying.

Except the busy streets have the places to buy food. Maybe the way to avoid dying is for motorists to acknowledge cyclists are using the same roads and lanes and follow the law, the same as is requested for cyclists.

Check this out: It turns out you won't starve if you can't ride your bike.

I did some research and it turns out DC has a whole subway system. If that's not your thing, we also have a bus system. Don't like the bus? There's ubers. There's water taxis. You can even walk! We have sidewalks everywhere!

There's so many transportation options here.

It is easier and faster to bike, as I do not live close to the metro. But thanks anyhow.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why will it be a good thing for drivers that bikes will now just take the while travel lane to ride this making everyone behind them slow to a crawl? How is that better than a dedicated bike lane?

Its not exactly clear to me, but drivers probably think bike riders will either cease to exist or get in a car instead if there are no bike lanes. Why drivers want more cars on the road with them continues to confound me, so I'm guessing they think they just poof out of existence.

It's not exactly clear to me, but bike riders seem to think that drivers will either cease to exist or get on a bike instead if we just keep adding to the more than 150 miles of bike lanes DC already has.

People use infrastructure after it is built. The more bike lanes (actual good ones that is) get built, the more people ride bikes. This isn't a mystery, as its well documented around the world. The pandemic put a dent in DC ridership, but its growing again. Keep building bike lanes, and people will convert car trips to bike trips (its often faster already!). Once they do that, they start advocating for more infrastructure and so forth.

That's what drivers actually fear, not that the bike lanes will be empty. The possibility of cars losing their primacy, and all the identity issues tied to that are the real issues.

The only people with identity issues tied to transportation are bicyclists. Everyone else just wants to get places as efficiently and hassle free as possible.

Most people who ride bikes to work also don't have any identity wrapped up in it, and they also just want to get around without a hassle. For me, it's just as fast to bike to work as it is to Metro (and only about 5 minutes slower getting home), but it's better exercise than riding the subway is. It's not more efficient -- that's what makes it better exercise -- but "as hassle free as possible" is pretty much the exact definition of what people on bikes are hoping for from protected bike lanes.

I get that and appreciate what you are saying. The problem is that the advocates for this particular project are demanding that driving, on an extremely congested road during rush hour, become even more hassled. Connecticut is just a very bad road for this type of project and the amount of people that benefit is so few.

Honestly, the real breakdown is between people that use the road during peak hours and those that use it in the middle of the day. Something like making the third lanes car only during rush hour and bike/bus only during the day would have been agreeable to most but there is a subset of people that demanded punishment above all else.

It is DDOT, not the bike advocates, who are proposing and implementing 24/7 parking on both sides. Bike advocates supported the 24/7 parking on one side with bike lanes taking the other car lane. Instead the project opponents said that cars would be diverted on to side streets, that emergency equiment would get stuck in traffic and so on. But instead of addressing the project opponent concerns, DDOT simply said screw it, we will do Concept C except without bike lanes. It is really a worse solution for everyone. It is hard to understand why project opponents support this solution, given their stated concerns still exist.

Maybe for them, it wasn't about their stated concerns, but rather a weird anti-bike fetish?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why will it be a good thing for drivers that bikes will now just take the while travel lane to ride this making everyone behind them slow to a crawl? How is that better than a dedicated bike lane?

Its not exactly clear to me, but drivers probably think bike riders will either cease to exist or get in a car instead if there are no bike lanes. Why drivers want more cars on the road with them continues to confound me, so I'm guessing they think they just poof out of existence.

It's not exactly clear to me, but bike riders seem to think that drivers will either cease to exist or get on a bike instead if we just keep adding to the more than 150 miles of bike lanes DC already has.

No, bike riders simply want to not die on the streets. Also, bonus, if it is safe to ride, then others who are not as fearless as those who ride currently, may give it a shot, and that opens up driving lanes and parking spaces for the people who want to, or have no choice but to drive.

Number of recorded bike rider deaths along the project corridor = 0.

False. WABA says someone died in the 70s or 80s.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why will it be a good thing for drivers that bikes will now just take the while travel lane to ride this making everyone behind them slow to a crawl? How is that better than a dedicated bike lane?

Its not exactly clear to me, but drivers probably think bike riders will either cease to exist or get in a car instead if there are no bike lanes. Why drivers want more cars on the road with them continues to confound me, so I'm guessing they think they just poof out of existence.

It's not exactly clear to me, but bike riders seem to think that drivers will either cease to exist or get on a bike instead if we just keep adding to the more than 150 miles of bike lanes DC already has.

People use infrastructure after it is built. The more bike lanes (actual good ones that is) get built, the more people ride bikes. This isn't a mystery, as its well documented around the world. The pandemic put a dent in DC ridership, but its growing again. Keep building bike lanes, and people will convert car trips to bike trips (its often faster already!). Once they do that, they start advocating for more infrastructure and so forth.

That's what drivers actually fear, not that the bike lanes will be empty. The possibility of cars losing their primacy, and all the identity issues tied to that are the real issues.

The only people with identity issues tied to transportation are bicyclists. Everyone else just wants to get places as efficiently and hassle free as possible.

Most people who ride bikes to work also don't have any identity wrapped up in it, and they also just want to get around without a hassle. For me, it's just as fast to bike to work as it is to Metro (and only about 5 minutes slower getting home), but it's better exercise than riding the subway is. It's not more efficient -- that's what makes it better exercise -- but "as hassle free as possible" is pretty much the exact definition of what people on bikes are hoping for from protected bike lanes.

I get that and appreciate what you are saying. The problem is that the advocates for this particular project are demanding that driving, on an extremely congested road during rush hour, become even more hassled. Connecticut is just a very bad road for this type of project and the amount of people that benefit is so few.

Honestly, the real breakdown is between people that use the road during peak hours and those that use it in the middle of the day. Something like making the third lanes car only during rush hour and bike/bus only during the day would have been agreeable to most but there is a subset of people that demanded punishment above all else.

It is DDOT, not the bike advocates, who are proposing and implementing 24/7 parking on both sides. Bike advocates supported the 24/7 parking on one side with bike lanes taking the other car lane. Instead the project opponents said that cars would be diverted on to side streets, that emergency equiment would get stuck in traffic and so on. But instead of addressing the project opponent concerns, DDOT simply said screw it, we will do Concept C except without bike lanes. It is really a worse solution for everyone. It is hard to understand why project opponents support this solution, given their stated concerns still exist.

Maybe for them, it wasn't about their stated concerns, but rather a weird anti-bike fetish?

It really isn't. The issue is that removing two lanes during rush hour will indeed do everything thing that the opponents say it will. It will increase congestion which will increase accidents during the times that most of the accidents occur. It will divert traffic onto side streets during the times kids are walking and biking to and from school.

It'll be fine midday but that's not when the majority of traffic is.

The opponents don't support the new plan any more than the old plan because the same problems exist. It's still a bad plan. The only difference is that there is a sense of schadenfreude regarding the people that pushed the entire mess in the first place.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why will it be a good thing for drivers that bikes will now just take the while travel lane to ride this making everyone behind them slow to a crawl? How is that better than a dedicated bike lane?

Its not exactly clear to me, but drivers probably think bike riders will either cease to exist or get in a car instead if there are no bike lanes. Why drivers want more cars on the road with them continues to confound me, so I'm guessing they think they just poof out of existence.

It's not exactly clear to me, but bike riders seem to think that drivers will either cease to exist or get on a bike instead if we just keep adding to the more than 150 miles of bike lanes DC already has.

No, bike riders simply want to not die on the streets. Also, bonus, if it is safe to ride, then others who are not as fearless as those who ride currently, may give it a shot, and that opens up driving lanes and parking spaces for the people who want to, or have no choice but to drive.

Number of recorded bike rider deaths along the project corridor = 0.

False. WABA says someone died in the 70s or 80s.

So fewer than the number who've been killed by lightning?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why will it be a good thing for drivers that bikes will now just take the while travel lane to ride this making everyone behind them slow to a crawl? How is that better than a dedicated bike lane?

Its not exactly clear to me, but drivers probably think bike riders will either cease to exist or get in a car instead if there are no bike lanes. Why drivers want more cars on the road with them continues to confound me, so I'm guessing they think they just poof out of existence.

It's not exactly clear to me, but bike riders seem to think that drivers will either cease to exist or get on a bike instead if we just keep adding to the more than 150 miles of bike lanes DC already has.

People use infrastructure after it is built. The more bike lanes (actual good ones that is) get built, the more people ride bikes. This isn't a mystery, as its well documented around the world. The pandemic put a dent in DC ridership, but its growing again. Keep building bike lanes, and people will convert car trips to bike trips (its often faster already!). Once they do that, they start advocating for more infrastructure and so forth.

That's what drivers actually fear, not that the bike lanes will be empty. The possibility of cars losing their primacy, and all the identity issues tied to that are the real issues.

The only people with identity issues tied to transportation are bicyclists. Everyone else just wants to get places as efficiently and hassle free as possible.

Most people who ride bikes to work also don't have any identity wrapped up in it, and they also just want to get around without a hassle. For me, it's just as fast to bike to work as it is to Metro (and only about 5 minutes slower getting home), but it's better exercise than riding the subway is. It's not more efficient -- that's what makes it better exercise -- but "as hassle free as possible" is pretty much the exact definition of what people on bikes are hoping for from protected bike lanes.

I get that and appreciate what you are saying. The problem is that the advocates for this particular project are demanding that driving, on an extremely congested road during rush hour, become even more hassled. Connecticut is just a very bad road for this type of project and the amount of people that benefit is so few.

Honestly, the real breakdown is between people that use the road during peak hours and those that use it in the middle of the day. Something like making the third lanes car only during rush hour and bike/bus only during the day would have been agreeable to most but there is a subset of people that demanded punishment above all else.

It is DDOT, not the bike advocates, who are proposing and implementing 24/7 parking on both sides. Bike advocates supported the 24/7 parking on one side with bike lanes taking the other car lane. Instead the project opponents said that cars would be diverted on to side streets, that emergency equiment would get stuck in traffic and so on. But instead of addressing the project opponent concerns, DDOT simply said screw it, we will do Concept C except without bike lanes. It is really a worse solution for everyone. It is hard to understand why project opponents support this solution, given their stated concerns still exist.

Maybe for them, it wasn't about their stated concerns, but rather a weird anti-bike fetish?

It really isn't. The issue is that removing two lanes during rush hour will indeed do everything thing that the opponents say it will. It will increase congestion which will increase accidents during the times that most of the accidents occur. It will divert traffic onto side streets during the times kids are walking and biking to and from school.

It'll be fine midday but that's not when the majority of traffic is.

The opponents don't support the new plan any more than the old plan because the same problems exist. It's still a bad plan. The only difference is that there is a sense of schadenfreude regarding the people that pushed the entire mess in the first place.

This is actually false. The Save Connecticut Avenue people have been posting around town that they are happy with the DDOT proposal. In other words, all of the doom and gloom they "opposed" was a ruse because all the really opposed was bike lanes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why will it be a good thing for drivers that bikes will now just take the while travel lane to ride this making everyone behind them slow to a crawl? How is that better than a dedicated bike lane?

Its not exactly clear to me, but drivers probably think bike riders will either cease to exist or get in a car instead if there are no bike lanes. Why drivers want more cars on the road with them continues to confound me, so I'm guessing they think they just poof out of existence.

It's not exactly clear to me, but bike riders seem to think that drivers will either cease to exist or get on a bike instead if we just keep adding to the more than 150 miles of bike lanes DC already has.

No, bike riders simply want to not die on the streets. Also, bonus, if it is safe to ride, then others who are not as fearless as those who ride currently, may give it a shot, and that opens up driving lanes and parking spaces for the people who want to, or have no choice but to drive.

Number of recorded bike rider deaths along the project corridor = 0.

Percentage of crashes with injuries in the ward for cyclists? ~20%.

You know, dying on a street because you got run over by a car is really bad. However, a human body impacting with a 2-3 ton cage of metal moving at 30-40mph is pretty much always a very painful ordeal with weeks to months of recovery.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why will it be a good thing for drivers that bikes will now just take the while travel lane to ride this making everyone behind them slow to a crawl? How is that better than a dedicated bike lane?

Its not exactly clear to me, but drivers probably think bike riders will either cease to exist or get in a car instead if there are no bike lanes. Why drivers want more cars on the road with them continues to confound me, so I'm guessing they think they just poof out of existence.

It's not exactly clear to me, but bike riders seem to think that drivers will either cease to exist or get on a bike instead if we just keep adding to the more than 150 miles of bike lanes DC already has.

People use infrastructure after it is built. The more bike lanes (actual good ones that is) get built, the more people ride bikes. This isn't a mystery, as its well documented around the world. The pandemic put a dent in DC ridership, but its growing again. Keep building bike lanes, and people will convert car trips to bike trips (its often faster already!). Once they do that, they start advocating for more infrastructure and so forth.

That's what drivers actually fear, not that the bike lanes will be empty. The possibility of cars losing their primacy, and all the identity issues tied to that are the real issues.

The only people with identity issues tied to transportation are bicyclists. Everyone else just wants to get places as efficiently and hassle free as possible.

Most people who ride bikes to work also don't have any identity wrapped up in it, and they also just want to get around without a hassle. For me, it's just as fast to bike to work as it is to Metro (and only about 5 minutes slower getting home), but it's better exercise than riding the subway is. It's not more efficient -- that's what makes it better exercise -- but "as hassle free as possible" is pretty much the exact definition of what people on bikes are hoping for from protected bike lanes.

I get that and appreciate what you are saying. The problem is that the advocates for this particular project are demanding that driving, on an extremely congested road during rush hour, become even more hassled. Connecticut is just a very bad road for this type of project and the amount of people that benefit is so few.

Honestly, the real breakdown is between people that use the road during peak hours and those that use it in the middle of the day. Something like making the third lanes car only during rush hour and bike/bus only during the day would have been agreeable to most but there is a subset of people that demanded punishment above all else.

And I hear what you're saying, too, and appreciate your reasonable point and approach. It seems like the city wants to make driving more of a hassle on Connecticut regardless -- they're looking for traffic-calming measures along with pedestrian safety improvements. If that's the framework they're operating in, it does sort of make sense to also include bike lanes.

Literally anything like what you're suggesting above would be an improvement over current biking conditions -- and probably over current driving conditions -- my household has two cars, I'm not anti-car, but part of the reason I take Metro or bike to work is that driving just seems like the worst possible option. I am often able to bike in the far right lane at least as fast as traffic is moving during rush hour, especially right near the Cleveland Park Metro stop. The desire to punish opponents on both sides of the debate here seems likely to leave us all worse off, regardless of mode.

The road diet was always going to happen. Some people were in denial about that. But it was always going to happen. The question is what to do with the remaining space. There are options there. Parking isn't the best one. Hardstop.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why will it be a good thing for drivers that bikes will now just take the while travel lane to ride this making everyone behind them slow to a crawl? How is that better than a dedicated bike lane?

Its not exactly clear to me, but drivers probably think bike riders will either cease to exist or get in a car instead if there are no bike lanes. Why drivers want more cars on the road with them continues to confound me, so I'm guessing they think they just poof out of existence.

It's not exactly clear to me, but bike riders seem to think that drivers will either cease to exist or get on a bike instead if we just keep adding to the more than 150 miles of bike lanes DC already has.

People use infrastructure after it is built. The more bike lanes (actual good ones that is) get built, the more people ride bikes. This isn't a mystery, as its well documented around the world. The pandemic put a dent in DC ridership, but its growing again. Keep building bike lanes, and people will convert car trips to bike trips (its often faster already!). Once they do that, they start advocating for more infrastructure and so forth.

That's what drivers actually fear, not that the bike lanes will be empty. The possibility of cars losing their primacy, and all the identity issues tied to that are the real issues.

The only people with identity issues tied to transportation are bicyclists. Everyone else just wants to get places as efficiently and hassle free as possible.

Most people who ride bikes to work also don't have any identity wrapped up in it, and they also just want to get around without a hassle. For me, it's just as fast to bike to work as it is to Metro (and only about 5 minutes slower getting home), but it's better exercise than riding the subway is. It's not more efficient -- that's what makes it better exercise -- but "as hassle free as possible" is pretty much the exact definition of what people on bikes are hoping for from protected bike lanes.

I get that and appreciate what you are saying. The problem is that the advocates for this particular project are demanding that driving, on an extremely congested road during rush hour, become even more hassled. Connecticut is just a very bad road for this type of project and the amount of people that benefit is so few.

Honestly, the real breakdown is between people that use the road during peak hours and those that use it in the middle of the day. Something like making the third lanes car only during rush hour and bike/bus only during the day would have been agreeable to most but there is a subset of people that demanded punishment above all else.

And I hear what you're saying, too, and appreciate your reasonable point and approach. It seems like the city wants to make driving more of a hassle on Connecticut regardless -- they're looking for traffic-calming measures along with pedestrian safety improvements. If that's the framework they're operating in, it does sort of make sense to also include bike lanes.

Literally anything like what you're suggesting above would be an improvement over current biking conditions -- and probably over current driving conditions -- my household has two cars, I'm not anti-car, but part of the reason I take Metro or bike to work is that driving just seems like the worst possible option. I am often able to bike in the far right lane at least as fast as traffic is moving during rush hour, especially right near the Cleveland Park Metro stop. The desire to punish opponents on both sides of the debate here seems likely to leave us all worse off, regardless of mode.

The road diet was always going to happen. Some people were in denial about that. But it was always going to happen. The question is what to do with the remaining space. There are options there. Parking isn't the best one. Hardstop.

Then the pedestrian/parking option it is. It benefits more and screws over the same (large) amount of people as the bike plan.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why will it be a good thing for drivers that bikes will now just take the while travel lane to ride this making everyone behind them slow to a crawl? How is that better than a dedicated bike lane?

Its not exactly clear to me, but drivers probably think bike riders will either cease to exist or get in a car instead if there are no bike lanes. Why drivers want more cars on the road with them continues to confound me, so I'm guessing they think they just poof out of existence.

It's not exactly clear to me, but bike riders seem to think that drivers will either cease to exist or get on a bike instead if we just keep adding to the more than 150 miles of bike lanes DC already has.

People use infrastructure after it is built. The more bike lanes (actual good ones that is) get built, the more people ride bikes. This isn't a mystery, as its well documented around the world. The pandemic put a dent in DC ridership, but its growing again. Keep building bike lanes, and people will convert car trips to bike trips (its often faster already!). Once they do that, they start advocating for more infrastructure and so forth.

That's what drivers actually fear, not that the bike lanes will be empty. The possibility of cars losing their primacy, and all the identity issues tied to that are the real issues.

The only people with identity issues tied to transportation are bicyclists. Everyone else just wants to get places as efficiently and hassle free as possible.

Most people who ride bikes to work also don't have any identity wrapped up in it, and they also just want to get around without a hassle. For me, it's just as fast to bike to work as it is to Metro (and only about 5 minutes slower getting home), but it's better exercise than riding the subway is. It's not more efficient -- that's what makes it better exercise -- but "as hassle free as possible" is pretty much the exact definition of what people on bikes are hoping for from protected bike lanes.

I get that and appreciate what you are saying. The problem is that the advocates for this particular project are demanding that driving, on an extremely congested road during rush hour, become even more hassled. Connecticut is just a very bad road for this type of project and the amount of people that benefit is so few.

Honestly, the real breakdown is between people that use the road during peak hours and those that use it in the middle of the day. Something like making the third lanes car only during rush hour and bike/bus only during the day would have been agreeable to most but there is a subset of people that demanded punishment above all else.

And I hear what you're saying, too, and appreciate your reasonable point and approach. It seems like the city wants to make driving more of a hassle on Connecticut regardless -- they're looking for traffic-calming measures along with pedestrian safety improvements. If that's the framework they're operating in, it does sort of make sense to also include bike lanes.

Literally anything like what you're suggesting above would be an improvement over current biking conditions -- and probably over current driving conditions -- my household has two cars, I'm not anti-car, but part of the reason I take Metro or bike to work is that driving just seems like the worst possible option. I am often able to bike in the far right lane at least as fast as traffic is moving during rush hour, especially right near the Cleveland Park Metro stop. The desire to punish opponents on both sides of the debate here seems likely to leave us all worse off, regardless of mode.

The road diet was always going to happen. Some people were in denial about that. But it was always going to happen. The question is what to do with the remaining space. There are options there. Parking isn't the best one. Hardstop.

Then the pedestrian/parking option it is. It benefits more and screws over the same (large) amount of people as the bike plan.

Exactly. It’s a no brainer. If both plans deliver bad traffic then the plan that provides the most benefit to the most people is the obvious best choice.