Connecticut Ave bike lanes are back!

[Anonymous]

For our friends downtown. If you really redoing the safety study then please look at the data that was originally done as well.

The whole predication for the safety determination was the relative accident rate during rush hour. The ill-fated previous study had determined that the reversible lane configuration was the primary cause based on a handful of observed confusions. While that indeed was a condition partially responsible for the disparity the primary reason was simple, well known, and shown in the data. Congestion.

Reversing this mistaken identification of the primary cause creates a different decision tree.

Connecticut Avenue is distinguished from Wisconsin in two primary ways: 1) Rush hour volume is significantly higher on Connecticut in both absolute and relative terms; 2) From N-S volume increases on Wisconsin while it decreases on Connecticut. Please note that bicycle volume, although meager, does not follow this pattern. The reason, as we all know, is the absence of metro service and the existence of Beach Drive/Rock Creek Parkway.

Beach Drive/Rock Creek Parkway is not only the most popular bike route, in absolute numbers, it is also the primary outlet for vehicle traffic on Connecticut when congestion is high. The secondary outlet is through the neighborhoods. All of this is clearly shown in the data by both the volume numbers and the turn off/on count.

Because of the large volume discrepancy between rush and non-rush hour traffic, Connecticut is effectively two separate roads from a safety aspect. In congestion terms it would be considered High during rush hour and Medium otherwise. This is an important distinction because the safety remedies for one level could be catastrophic for the other.

As an example, there is indeed a study that road diets, and other congestion inducing efforts, can decrease accidents in Medium congestion conditions. It even makes sense. Unfortunately, in High congestion conditions, the exact opposite occurs and there are a multitude of studies that support this. This is problematic on Connecticut because a disproprtionate share of accidents occur during the rush hour High congestion period. The net effect is to make Connecticut less safe in both absolute and relative terms. Once again, this is all clearly shown in the data and mistakenly attributed to the reversible lanes as a primary cause.

As for pedestrians only, there are indeed intersections, as shown by overlaying the two sets of volume and accident data, that do need some safety tweaks. These intersections are obvious, well known and correspond with the entrances to rock creek, the neighborhood cuts throughs, the cross town routes and the metro stations. Nebraska, Macomb, Van Ness, and Calvert. Those coincidentally are also, except for Calvert, the intersections with the highest volume, highest congestion, and highest rate of accidents.

Extending lights and increasing the physical prominence of those intersections would go a long way with minimal ancillary impacts. Such enhancements would not only help pedestrians they would also benefit bicyclists since the primary bicycle routes are either them or their neighboring road, for instance Tilden and Cathedral.

The primary safety issue with Connecticut was not reversible lanes. It was, and will always be, congestion during peak hours. Any solution that increases congestion during peak hours does not comport with Vision Zero because doing so will cause more accidents than it prevents during off peak hours.

If safety is the goal then we must make sure to switch between different solutions for peak and off-peak hours lest we inadvertently cause more problems than we fix.

[Anonymous]

How many bike-related accidents in the past 20 years have occurred in the Connecticut Avenue corridor where the bike lanes were proposed?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:For our friends downtown. If you really redoing the safety study then please look at the data that was originally done as well.

The whole predication for the safety determination was the relative accident rate during rush hour. The ill-fated previous study had determined that the reversible lane configuration was the primary cause based on a handful of observed confusions. While that indeed was a condition partially responsible for the disparity the primary reason was simple, well known, and shown in the data. Congestion.

Reversing this mistaken identification of the primary cause creates a different decision tree.

Connecticut Avenue is distinguished from Wisconsin in two primary ways: 1) Rush hour volume is significantly higher on Connecticut in both absolute and relative terms; 2) From N-S volume increases on Wisconsin while it decreases on Connecticut. Please note that bicycle volume, although meager, does not follow this pattern. The reason, as we all know, is the absence of metro service and the existence of Beach Drive/Rock Creek Parkway.

Beach Drive/Rock Creek Parkway is not only the most popular bike route, in absolute numbers, it is also the primary outlet for vehicle traffic on Connecticut when congestion is high. The secondary outlet is through the neighborhoods. All of this is clearly shown in the data by both the volume numbers and the turn off/on count.

Because of the large volume discrepancy between rush and non-rush hour traffic, Connecticut is effectively two separate roads from a safety aspect. In congestion terms it would be considered High during rush hour and Medium otherwise. This is an important distinction because the safety remedies for one level could be catastrophic for the other.

As an example, there is indeed a study that road diets, and other congestion inducing efforts, can decrease accidents in Medium congestion conditions. It even makes sense. Unfortunately, in High congestion conditions, the exact opposite occurs and there are a multitude of studies that support this. This is problematic on Connecticut because a disproprtionate share of accidents occur during the rush hour High congestion period. The net effect is to make Connecticut less safe in both absolute and relative terms. Once again, this is all clearly shown in the data and mistakenly attributed to the reversible lanes as a primary cause.

As for pedestrians only, there are indeed intersections, as shown by overlaying the two sets of volume and accident data, that do need some safety tweaks. These intersections are obvious, well known and correspond with the entrances to rock creek, the neighborhood cuts throughs, the cross town routes and the metro stations. Nebraska, Macomb, Van Ness, and Calvert. Those coincidentally are also, except for Calvert, the intersections with the highest volume, highest congestion, and highest rate of accidents.

Extending lights and increasing the physical prominence of those intersections would go a long way with minimal ancillary impacts. Such enhancements would not only help pedestrians they would also benefit bicyclists since the primary bicycle routes are either them or their neighboring road, for instance Tilden and Cathedral.

The primary safety issue with Connecticut was not reversible lanes. It was, and will always be, congestion during peak hours. Any solution that increases congestion during peak hours does not comport with Vision Zero because doing so will cause more accidents than it prevents during off peak hours.

If safety is the goal then we must make sure to switch between different solutions for peak and off-peak hours lest we inadvertently cause more problems than we fix.

At the very least, it sounds like allowing parking on Connecticut during rush hour is a disaster. The entirety of the road should be used for transportation. Light timing at that time of day should also prioritize Connecticut. You could set a green wave to work at 25mph and solve most of the problems. This should also keep through-traffic largely on Connecticut. You could even get smart lights if you're feeling fancy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:For our friends downtown. If you really redoing the safety study then please look at the data that was originally done as well.

The whole predication for the safety determination was the relative accident rate during rush hour. The ill-fated previous study had determined that the reversible lane configuration was the primary cause based on a handful of observed confusions. While that indeed was a condition partially responsible for the disparity the primary reason was simple, well known, and shown in the data. Congestion.

Reversing this mistaken identification of the primary cause creates a different decision tree.

Connecticut Avenue is distinguished from Wisconsin in two primary ways: 1) Rush hour volume is significantly higher on Connecticut in both absolute and relative terms; 2) From N-S volume increases on Wisconsin while it decreases on Connecticut. Please note that bicycle volume, although meager, does not follow this pattern. The reason, as we all know, is the absence of metro service and the existence of Beach Drive/Rock Creek Parkway.

Beach Drive/Rock Creek Parkway is not only the most popular bike route, in absolute numbers, it is also the primary outlet for vehicle traffic on Connecticut when congestion is high. The secondary outlet is through the neighborhoods. All of this is clearly shown in the data by both the volume numbers and the turn off/on count.

Because of the large volume discrepancy between rush and non-rush hour traffic, Connecticut is effectively two separate roads from a safety aspect. In congestion terms it would be considered High during rush hour and Medium otherwise. This is an important distinction because the safety remedies for one level could be catastrophic for the other.

As an example, there is indeed a study that road diets, and other congestion inducing efforts, can decrease accidents in Medium congestion conditions. It even makes sense. Unfortunately, in High congestion conditions, the exact opposite occurs and there are a multitude of studies that support this. This is problematic on Connecticut because a disproprtionate share of accidents occur during the rush hour High congestion period. The net effect is to make Connecticut less safe in both absolute and relative terms. Once again, this is all clearly shown in the data and mistakenly attributed to the reversible lanes as a primary cause.

As for pedestrians only, there are indeed intersections, as shown by overlaying the two sets of volume and accident data, that do need some safety tweaks. These intersections are obvious, well known and correspond with the entrances to rock creek, the neighborhood cuts throughs, the cross town routes and the metro stations. Nebraska, Macomb, Van Ness, and Calvert. Those coincidentally are also, except for Calvert, the intersections with the highest volume, highest congestion, and highest rate of accidents.

Extending lights and increasing the physical prominence of those intersections would go a long way with minimal ancillary impacts. Such enhancements would not only help pedestrians they would also benefit bicyclists since the primary bicycle routes are either them or their neighboring road, for instance Tilden and Cathedral.

The primary safety issue with Connecticut was not reversible lanes. It was, and will always be, congestion during peak hours. Any solution that increases congestion during peak hours does not comport with Vision Zero because doing so will cause more accidents than it prevents during off peak hours.

If safety is the goal then we must make sure to switch between different solutions for peak and off-peak hours lest we inadvertently cause more problems than we fix.

A very thoughtful analysis.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:For our friends downtown. If you really redoing the safety study then please look at the data that was originally done as well.

The whole predication for the safety determination was the relative accident rate during rush hour. The ill-fated previous study had determined that the reversible lane configuration was the primary cause based on a handful of observed confusions. While that indeed was a condition partially responsible for the disparity the primary reason was simple, well known, and shown in the data. Congestion.

Reversing this mistaken identification of the primary cause creates a different decision tree.

Connecticut Avenue is distinguished from Wisconsin in two primary ways: 1) Rush hour volume is significantly higher on Connecticut in both absolute and relative terms; 2) From N-S volume increases on Wisconsin while it decreases on Connecticut. Please note that bicycle volume, although meager, does not follow this pattern. The reason, as we all know, is the absence of metro service and the existence of Beach Drive/Rock Creek Parkway.

Beach Drive/Rock Creek Parkway is not only the most popular bike route, in absolute numbers, it is also the primary outlet for vehicle traffic on Connecticut when congestion is high. The secondary outlet is through the neighborhoods. All of this is clearly shown in the data by both the volume numbers and the turn off/on count.

Because of the large volume discrepancy between rush and non-rush hour traffic, Connecticut is effectively two separate roads from a safety aspect. In congestion terms it would be considered High during rush hour and Medium otherwise. This is an important distinction because the safety remedies for one level could be catastrophic for the other.

As an example, there is indeed a study that road diets, and other congestion inducing efforts, can decrease accidents in Medium congestion conditions. It even makes sense. Unfortunately, in High congestion conditions, the exact opposite occurs and there are a multitude of studies that support this. This is problematic on Connecticut because a disproprtionate share of accidents occur during the rush hour High congestion period. The net effect is to make Connecticut less safe in both absolute and relative terms. Once again, this is all clearly shown in the data and mistakenly attributed to the reversible lanes as a primary cause.

As for pedestrians only, there are indeed intersections, as shown by overlaying the two sets of volume and accident data, that do need some safety tweaks. These intersections are obvious, well known and correspond with the entrances to rock creek, the neighborhood cuts throughs, the cross town routes and the metro stations. Nebraska, Macomb, Van Ness, and Calvert. Those coincidentally are also, except for Calvert, the intersections with the highest volume, highest congestion, and highest rate of accidents.

Extending lights and increasing the physical prominence of those intersections would go a long way with minimal ancillary impacts. Such enhancements would not only help pedestrians they would also benefit bicyclists since the primary bicycle routes are either them or their neighboring road, for instance Tilden and Cathedral.

The primary safety issue with Connecticut was not reversible lanes. It was, and will always be, congestion during peak hours. Any solution that increases congestion during peak hours does not comport with Vision Zero because doing so will cause more accidents than it prevents during off peak hours.

If safety is the goal then we must make sure to switch between different solutions for peak and off-peak hours lest we inadvertently cause more problems than we fix.

Good analysis. And if you sprinkle in 2000 new bike commuters during peak congestion times as the bike supporters envision there will be carnage on a daily basis.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For our friends downtown. If you really redoing the safety study then please look at the data that was originally done as well.

The whole predication for the safety determination was the relative accident rate during rush hour. The ill-fated previous study had determined that the reversible lane configuration was the primary cause based on a handful of observed confusions. While that indeed was a condition partially responsible for the disparity the primary reason was simple, well known, and shown in the data. Congestion.

Reversing this mistaken identification of the primary cause creates a different decision tree.

Connecticut Avenue is distinguished from Wisconsin in two primary ways: 1) Rush hour volume is significantly higher on Connecticut in both absolute and relative terms; 2) From N-S volume increases on Wisconsin while it decreases on Connecticut. Please note that bicycle volume, although meager, does not follow this pattern. The reason, as we all know, is the absence of metro service and the existence of Beach Drive/Rock Creek Parkway.

Beach Drive/Rock Creek Parkway is not only the most popular bike route, in absolute numbers, it is also the primary outlet for vehicle traffic on Connecticut when congestion is high. The secondary outlet is through the neighborhoods. All of this is clearly shown in the data by both the volume numbers and the turn off/on count.

Because of the large volume discrepancy between rush and non-rush hour traffic, Connecticut is effectively two separate roads from a safety aspect. In congestion terms it would be considered High during rush hour and Medium otherwise. This is an important distinction because the safety remedies for one level could be catastrophic for the other.

As an example, there is indeed a study that road diets, and other congestion inducing efforts, can decrease accidents in Medium congestion conditions. It even makes sense. Unfortunately, in High congestion conditions, the exact opposite occurs and there are a multitude of studies that support this. This is problematic on Connecticut because a disproprtionate share of accidents occur during the rush hour High congestion period. The net effect is to make Connecticut less safe in both absolute and relative terms. Once again, this is all clearly shown in the data and mistakenly attributed to the reversible lanes as a primary cause.

As for pedestrians only, there are indeed intersections, as shown by overlaying the two sets of volume and accident data, that do need some safety tweaks. These intersections are obvious, well known and correspond with the entrances to rock creek, the neighborhood cuts throughs, the cross town routes and the metro stations. Nebraska, Macomb, Van Ness, and Calvert. Those coincidentally are also, except for Calvert, the intersections with the highest volume, highest congestion, and highest rate of accidents.

Extending lights and increasing the physical prominence of those intersections would go a long way with minimal ancillary impacts. Such enhancements would not only help pedestrians they would also benefit bicyclists since the primary bicycle routes are either them or their neighboring road, for instance Tilden and Cathedral.

The primary safety issue with Connecticut was not reversible lanes. It was, and will always be, congestion during peak hours. Any solution that increases congestion during peak hours does not comport with Vision Zero because doing so will cause more accidents than it prevents during off peak hours.

If safety is the goal then we must make sure to switch between different solutions for peak and off-peak hours lest we inadvertently cause more problems than we fix.

Good analysis. And if you sprinkle in 2000 new bike commuters during peak congestion times as the bike supporters envision there will be carnage on a daily basis.

Well, no, the significant increase in bike commuters would only have been there, even in the most bike-happy scenarios, if there were protected bike lanes. Much harder to get hit by a car in a protected bike lane than just in the road.

[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.

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.

It basically boils down to all road surface belongs to private vehicles. Anything that infringes on that will be opposed with fury. This isn't about problem solving, but maintaining a hierarchy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

It basically boils down to all road surface belongs to private vehicles. Anything that infringes on that will be opposed with fury. This isn't about problem solving, but maintaining a hierarchy.

Your bike is not a private vehicle? Really?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

It basically boils down to all road surface belongs to private vehicles. Anything that infringes on that will be opposed with fury. This isn't about problem solving, but maintaining a hierarchy.

Your bike is not a private vehicle? Really?

Well actually his mommy makes him share it with his little brother.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

It basically boils down to all road surface belongs to private vehicles. Anything that infringes on that will be opposed with fury. This isn't about problem solving, but maintaining a hierarchy.

Your bike is not a private vehicle? Really?

Well actually his mommy makes him share it with his little brother.

We share the bike like we share your mom. Have an app and everything.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Providing parking doesn't benefit the most people. It benefits the people lucky enough to score a spot.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:How many bike-related accidents in the past 20 years have occurred in the Connecticut Avenue corridor where the bike lanes were proposed?

Hundreds, if not thousands.

[Anonymous]

Folks, Connecticut Avenue bike lanes are dead and not coming back. Get over it. The coupe de grace was when senior Washington DC business leaders told the mayor very clearly that bike lanes on Connecticut Ave would have a very negative impact on her stated goal of having more office workers back in downtown. Considering that DC is facing an acute revenue challenge that that the mayor already is committed to spending in excess of $400 million to revitalize downtown, killing the Connecticut Ave bike lanes was a no-brainer for her administration.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Folks, Connecticut Avenue bike lanes are dead and not coming back. Get over it. The coupe de grace was when senior Washington DC business leaders told the mayor very clearly that bike lanes on Connecticut Ave would have a very negative impact on her stated goal of having more office workers back in downtown. Considering that DC is facing an acute revenue challenge that that the mayor already is committed to spending in excess of $400 million to revitalize downtown, killing the Connecticut Ave bike lanes was a no-brainer for her administration.

Funny, but the DDOT proposal on the table is actually worse for both people taking the bus, driver and cyclists. So if the goal from downtown business leaders was throughput, DDOT has failed miserably.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Folks, Connecticut Avenue bike lanes are dead and not coming back. Get over it. The coupe de grace was when senior Washington DC business leaders told the mayor very clearly that bike lanes on Connecticut Ave would have a very negative impact on her stated goal of having more office workers back in downtown. Considering that DC is facing an acute revenue challenge that that the mayor already is committed to spending in excess of $400 million to revitalize downtown, killing the Connecticut Ave bike lanes was a no-brainer for her administration.

I fully agree. Unfortunately, the alternative plan does just as much damage on that front.