Connecticut Ave bike lanes are back!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What if the goal was a safe and thriving neighborhood? If you want a dedicated tunnel to downtown then take Metro.

If the goal is a safe and thriving neighborhood then the impact of any plan on accidents and traffic volume within the neighborhood is vitally important.

If your goal is to ban cars that's simply not happening.

A safe and vibrant neighborhood has bike lanes.

Pretty sure there are many, many safe and vibrant neighborhoods that don’t have bike lanes.

But how many neighborhoods have bike lanes that aren't safe and vibrant?

Lots. You especially see this in other cities that haven’t been overrun with gentrification.

Ah, so bike lanes are gentrification? So how does that apply for the stretch of Connecticut Avenue in question, the whitest, wealthiest part of the city?

No, if you could actually read and follow a thread, you would know that I was saying there are a lot of bike lanes in neighborhoods that aren’t safe and vibrant (this was the question that had been asked). This is especially true in cities with less gentrification, as they have put in bike lanes but the inner cities are still not great areas (e.g., many Midwestern cities).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What if the goal was a safe and thriving neighborhood? If you want a dedicated tunnel to downtown then take Metro.

If the goal is a safe and thriving neighborhood then the impact of any plan on accidents and traffic volume within the neighborhood is vitally important.

If your goal is to ban cars that's simply not happening.

A safe and vibrant neighborhood has bike lanes.

Pretty sure there are many, many safe and vibrant neighborhoods that don’t have bike lanes.

But how many neighborhoods have bike lanes that aren't safe and vibrant?

Lots. You especially see this in other cities that haven’t been overrun with gentrification.

Ah, so bike lanes are gentrification? So how does that apply for the stretch of Connecticut Avenue in question, the whitest, wealthiest part of the city?

LOL yeah this whole thing is probably just straight up racism based on biking demographics.

Drivers are disproportionately black and brown. If you bike to work and whatnot, it's probably because you're high income and can afford to live within biking distance of where you need to go. That's why cyclists in DC are almost entirely white.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What if the goal was a safe and thriving neighborhood? If you want a dedicated tunnel to downtown then take Metro.

If the goal is a safe and thriving neighborhood then the impact of any plan on accidents and traffic volume within the neighborhood is vitally important.

If your goal is to ban cars that's simply not happening.

A safe and vibrant neighborhood has bike lanes.

Pretty sure there are many, many safe and vibrant neighborhoods that don’t have bike lanes.

But how many neighborhoods have bike lanes that aren't safe and vibrant?

Lots. You especially see this in other cities that haven’t been overrun with gentrification.

Ah, so bike lanes are gentrification? So how does that apply for the stretch of Connecticut Avenue in question, the whitest, wealthiest part of the city?

LOL yeah this whole thing is probably just straight up racism based on biking demographics.

Drivers are disproportionately black and brown. If you bike to work and whatnot, it's probably because you're high income and can afford to live within biking distance of where you need to go. That's why cyclists in DC are almost entirely white.

Totally has nothing to do with the highways, bridges without adequate sidewalks, and giant roads with high speeds and wide setbacks in a state of decay that lie along the shores of the Anacostia. Yeah, totally has nothing to do with that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What if the goal was a safe and thriving neighborhood? If you want a dedicated tunnel to downtown then take Metro.

If the goal is a safe and thriving neighborhood then the impact of any plan on accidents and traffic volume within the neighborhood is vitally important.

If your goal is to ban cars that's simply not happening.

A safe and vibrant neighborhood has bike lanes.

Pretty sure there are many, many safe and vibrant neighborhoods that don’t have bike lanes.

But how many neighborhoods have bike lanes that aren't safe and vibrant?

Lots. You especially see this in other cities that haven’t been overrun with gentrification.

Ah, so bike lanes are gentrification? So how does that apply for the stretch of Connecticut Avenue in question, the whitest, wealthiest part of the city?

LOL yeah this whole thing is probably just straight up racism based on biking demographics.

Drivers are disproportionately black and brown. If you bike to work and whatnot, it's probably because you're high income and can afford to live within biking distance of where you need to go. That's why cyclists in DC are almost entirely white.

Totally has nothing to do with the highways, bridges without adequate sidewalks, and giant roads with high speeds and wide setbacks in a state of decay that lie along the shores of the Anacostia. Yeah, totally has nothing to do with that.

Black people are driving in from PG and Charles counties but nice try.

[Anonymous]

Don't fall for any of this baited bullshit.

The issue is straight forward. In 2018 questions were raised about the safety of the reversible lanes. A determination was made that accidents (ie: safety) were proportionately higher on Connecticut in comparison to Wisconsin during rush hour. DDOT declared that the reason for the disproportionate level of accidents was due to the reversible lanes and not congestion. This was a mistake and a reversible error. Everything flows from that single mistaken determination.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What if the goal was a safe and thriving neighborhood? If you want a dedicated tunnel to downtown then take Metro.

If the goal is a safe and thriving neighborhood then the impact of any plan on accidents and traffic volume within the neighborhood is vitally important.

If your goal is to ban cars that's simply not happening.

A safe and vibrant neighborhood has bike lanes.

Pretty sure there are many, many safe and vibrant neighborhoods that don’t have bike lanes.

But how many neighborhoods have bike lanes that aren't safe and vibrant?

Lots. You especially see this in other cities that haven’t been overrun with gentrification.

Ah, so bike lanes are gentrification? So how does that apply for the stretch of Connecticut Avenue in question, the whitest, wealthiest part of the city?

LOL yeah this whole thing is probably just straight up racism based on biking demographics.

Drivers are disproportionately black and brown. If you bike to work and whatnot, it's probably because you're high income and can afford to live within biking distance of where you need to go. That's why cyclists in DC are almost entirely white.

Wow, you clearly haven't seen back of house at restaurants and bars where all the brown people you seem to never see, who cycle to work leave their bikes. This is quite a take.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What if the goal was a safe and thriving neighborhood? If you want a dedicated tunnel to downtown then take Metro.

If the goal is a safe and thriving neighborhood then the impact of any plan on accidents and traffic volume within the neighborhood is vitally important.

If your goal is to ban cars that's simply not happening.

A safe and vibrant neighborhood has bike lanes.

Pretty sure there are many, many safe and vibrant neighborhoods that don’t have bike lanes.

But how many neighborhoods have bike lanes that aren't safe and vibrant?

Lots. You especially see this in other cities that haven’t been overrun with gentrification.

Ah, so bike lanes are gentrification? So how does that apply for the stretch of Connecticut Avenue in question, the whitest, wealthiest part of the city?

LOL yeah this whole thing is probably just straight up racism based on biking demographics.

Drivers are disproportionately black and brown. If you bike to work and whatnot, it's probably because you're high income and can afford to live within biking distance of where you need to go. That's why cyclists in DC are almost entirely white.

Totally has nothing to do with the highways, bridges without adequate sidewalks, and giant roads with high speeds and wide setbacks in a state of decay that lie along the shores of the Anacostia. Yeah, totally has nothing to do with that.

Black people are driving in from PG and Charles counties but nice try.

I doubt there is a single (brown or any) person coming from PG or Charles County into DC via Connecticut Avenue.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What if the goal was a safe and thriving neighborhood? If you want a dedicated tunnel to downtown then take Metro.

If the goal is a safe and thriving neighborhood then the impact of any plan on accidents and traffic volume within the neighborhood is vitally important.

If your goal is to ban cars that's simply not happening.

A safe and vibrant neighborhood has bike lanes.

Pretty sure there are many, many safe and vibrant neighborhoods that don’t have bike lanes.

But how many neighborhoods have bike lanes that aren't safe and vibrant?

Lots. You especially see this in other cities that haven’t been overrun with gentrification.

If there's one thing we can take off the table absolutely when it comes to this particular bike lane debate, it's gentrification. You can't gentrify out the landed gentry.

Bike lanes are not about gentrification but they are about density, vibrancy and smart growth. Connecticut Ave has had the reputation of being rather boring and, well, old. Bike lanes add a certain hipness factor to attract younger buyers and renters. This is the group that developers who want to build dense housing need to attract.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What if the goal was a safe and thriving neighborhood? If you want a dedicated tunnel to downtown then take Metro.

If the goal is a safe and thriving neighborhood then the impact of any plan on accidents and traffic volume within the neighborhood is vitally important.

If your goal is to ban cars that's simply not happening.

A safe and vibrant neighborhood has bike lanes.

Pretty sure there are many, many safe and vibrant neighborhoods that don’t have bike lanes.

But how many neighborhoods have bike lanes that aren't safe and vibrant?

Lots. You especially see this in other cities that haven’t been overrun with gentrification.

If there's one thing we can take off the table absolutely when it comes to this particular bike lane debate, it's gentrification. You can't gentrify out the landed gentry.

Bike lanes are not about gentrification but they are about density, vibrancy and smart growth. Connecticut Ave has had the reputation of being rather boring and, well, old. Bike lanes add a certain hipness factor to attract younger buyers and renters. This is the group that developers who want to build dense housing need to attract.

That's pretty stupid then. The desirability, clearly measured in housing prices, is directly related to wearing mom jeans. Parents don't want hip. That's what we grew out of and why we moved there. Stop trying to be something we're not instead embrace who we are because there's a lot of good things about that, not least of which is our taste in music because modern music really sucks.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What if the goal was a safe and thriving neighborhood? If you want a dedicated tunnel to downtown then take Metro.

If the goal is a safe and thriving neighborhood then the impact of any plan on accidents and traffic volume within the neighborhood is vitally important.

If your goal is to ban cars that's simply not happening.

A safe and vibrant neighborhood has bike lanes.

Pretty sure there are many, many safe and vibrant neighborhoods that don’t have bike lanes.

But how many neighborhoods have bike lanes that aren't safe and vibrant?

Lots. You especially see this in other cities that haven’t been overrun with gentrification.

If there's one thing we can take off the table absolutely when it comes to this particular bike lane debate, it's gentrification. You can't gentrify out the landed gentry.

Bike lanes are not about gentrification but they are about density, vibrancy and smart growth. Connecticut Ave has had the reputation of being rather boring and, well, old. Bike lanes add a certain hipness factor to attract younger buyers and renters. This is the group that developers who want to build dense housing need to attract.

That's pretty stupid then. The desirability, clearly measured in housing prices, is directly related to wearing mom jeans. Parents don't want hip. That's what we grew out of and why we moved there. Stop trying to be something we're not instead embrace who we are because there's a lot of good things about that, not least of which is our taste in music because modern music really sucks.

Connecticut has always had the odd juxtaposition of million dollar homes a block from struggling shops. The houses are desirable, but the business strip is not. This is largely because Connecticut is a traffic sewer and most people using it are just trying to go somewhere else as fast as physics allows. The entire design of the commercial strip reflects an old suburban form, where you let the high-volume road bisect the business district, which really disrupts business synergy and creates a place few would want to linger. Some think you can slap a bike lane on this design and "save" it.

But its doomed to a slow and steady decay, as people with choice seek out places like the Wharf and Union Market for their discretionary dollars. Places that don't have an arterial running right through the middle of it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What if the goal was a safe and thriving neighborhood? If you want a dedicated tunnel to downtown then take Metro.

If the goal is a safe and thriving neighborhood then the impact of any plan on accidents and traffic volume within the neighborhood is vitally important.

If your goal is to ban cars that's simply not happening.

A safe and vibrant neighborhood has bike lanes.

Pretty sure there are many, many safe and vibrant neighborhoods that don’t have bike lanes.

But how many neighborhoods have bike lanes that aren't safe and vibrant?

Lots. You especially see this in other cities that haven’t been overrun with gentrification.

If there's one thing we can take off the table absolutely when it comes to this particular bike lane debate, it's gentrification. You can't gentrify out the landed gentry.

Bike lanes are not about gentrification but they are about density, vibrancy and smart growth. Connecticut Ave has had the reputation of being rather boring and, well, old. Bike lanes add a certain hipness factor to attract younger buyers and renters. This is the group that developers who want to build dense housing need to attract.

That's pretty stupid then. The desirability, clearly measured in housing prices, is directly related to wearing mom jeans. Parents don't want hip. That's what we grew out of and why we moved there. Stop trying to be something we're not instead embrace who we are because there's a lot of good things about that, not least of which is our taste in music because modern music really sucks.

Connecticut has always had the odd juxtaposition of million dollar homes a block from struggling shops. The houses are desirable, but the business strip is not. This is largely because Connecticut is a traffic sewer and most people using it are just trying to go somewhere else as fast as physics allows. The entire design of the commercial strip reflects an old suburban form, where you let the high-volume road bisect the business district, which really disrupts business synergy and creates a place few would want to linger. Some think you can slap a bike lane on this design and "save" it.

But its doomed to a slow and steady decay, as people with choice seek out places like the Wharf and Union Market for their discretionary dollars. Places that don't have an arterial running right through the middle of it.

But what about the new Promenade?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What if the goal was a safe and thriving neighborhood? If you want a dedicated tunnel to downtown then take Metro.

If the goal is a safe and thriving neighborhood then the impact of any plan on accidents and traffic volume within the neighborhood is vitally important.

If your goal is to ban cars that's simply not happening.

A safe and vibrant neighborhood has bike lanes.

Pretty sure there are many, many safe and vibrant neighborhoods that don’t have bike lanes.

But how many neighborhoods have bike lanes that aren't safe and vibrant?

Lots. You especially see this in other cities that haven’t been overrun with gentrification.

If there's one thing we can take off the table absolutely when it comes to this particular bike lane debate, it's gentrification. You can't gentrify out the landed gentry.

Bike lanes are not about gentrification but they are about density, vibrancy and smart growth. Connecticut Ave has had the reputation of being rather boring and, well, old. Bike lanes add a certain hipness factor to attract younger buyers and renters. This is the group that developers who want to build dense housing need to attract.

That's pretty stupid then. The desirability, clearly measured in housing prices, is directly related to wearing mom jeans. Parents don't want hip. That's what we grew out of and why we moved there. Stop trying to be something we're not instead embrace who we are because there's a lot of good things about that, not least of which is our taste in music because modern music really sucks.

Connecticut has always had the odd juxtaposition of million dollar homes a block from struggling shops. The houses are desirable, but the business strip is not. This is largely because Connecticut is a traffic sewer and most people using it are just trying to go somewhere else as fast as physics allows. The entire design of the commercial strip reflects an old suburban form, where you let the high-volume road bisect the business district, which really disrupts business synergy and creates a place few would want to linger. Some think you can slap a bike lane on this design and "save" it.

But its doomed to a slow and steady decay, as people with choice seek out places like the Wharf and Union Market for their discretionary dollars. Places that don't have an arterial running right through the middle of it.

Utter nonsense

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What if the goal was a safe and thriving neighborhood? If you want a dedicated tunnel to downtown then take Metro.

If the goal is a safe and thriving neighborhood then the impact of any plan on accidents and traffic volume within the neighborhood is vitally important.

If your goal is to ban cars that's simply not happening.

A safe and vibrant neighborhood has bike lanes.

Pretty sure there are many, many safe and vibrant neighborhoods that don’t have bike lanes.

But how many neighborhoods have bike lanes that aren't safe and vibrant?

Lots. You especially see this in other cities that haven’t been overrun with gentrification.

If there's one thing we can take off the table absolutely when it comes to this particular bike lane debate, it's gentrification. You can't gentrify out the landed gentry.

Bike lanes are not about gentrification but they are about density, vibrancy and smart growth. Connecticut Ave has had the reputation of being rather boring and, well, old. Bike lanes add a certain hipness factor to attract younger buyers and renters. This is the group that developers who want to build dense housing need to attract.

That's pretty stupid then. The desirability, clearly measured in housing prices, is directly related to wearing mom jeans. Parents don't want hip. That's what we grew out of and why we moved there. Stop trying to be something we're not instead embrace who we are because there's a lot of good things about that, not least of which is our taste in music because modern music really sucks.

Connecticut has always had the odd juxtaposition of million dollar homes a block from struggling shops. The houses are desirable, but the business strip is not. This is largely because Connecticut is a traffic sewer and most people using it are just trying to go somewhere else as fast as physics allows. The entire design of the commercial strip reflects an old suburban form, where you let the high-volume road bisect the business district, which really disrupts business synergy and creates a place few would want to linger. Some think you can slap a bike lane on this design and "save" it.

But its doomed to a slow and steady decay, as people with choice seek out places like the Wharf and Union Market for their discretionary dollars. Places that don't have an arterial running right through the middle of it.

Maine Ave with I-395 adjacent is not exactly a country lane at the Washington Wharf.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What if the goal was a safe and thriving neighborhood? If you want a dedicated tunnel to downtown then take Metro.

If the goal is a safe and thriving neighborhood then the impact of any plan on accidents and traffic volume within the neighborhood is vitally important.

If your goal is to ban cars that's simply not happening.

A safe and vibrant neighborhood has bike lanes.

Pretty sure there are many, many safe and vibrant neighborhoods that don’t have bike lanes.

But how many neighborhoods have bike lanes that aren't safe and vibrant?

Lots. You especially see this in other cities that haven’t been overrun with gentrification.

If there's one thing we can take off the table absolutely when it comes to this particular bike lane debate, it's gentrification. You can't gentrify out the landed gentry.

Bike lanes are not about gentrification but they are about density, vibrancy and smart growth. Connecticut Ave has had the reputation of being rather boring and, well, old. Bike lanes add a certain hipness factor to attract younger buyers and renters. This is the group that developers who want to build dense housing need to attract.

That's pretty stupid then. The desirability, clearly measured in housing prices, is directly related to wearing mom jeans. Parents don't want hip. That's what we grew out of and why we moved there. Stop trying to be something we're not instead embrace who we are because there's a lot of good things about that, not least of which is our taste in music because modern music really sucks.

Connecticut has always had the odd juxtaposition of million dollar homes a block from struggling shops. The houses are desirable, but the business strip is not. This is largely because Connecticut is a traffic sewer and most people using it are just trying to go somewhere else as fast as physics allows. The entire design of the commercial strip reflects an old suburban form, where you let the high-volume road bisect the business district, which really disrupts business synergy and creates a place few would want to linger. Some think you can slap a bike lane on this design and "save" it.

But its doomed to a slow and steady decay, as people with choice seek out places like the Wharf and Union Market for their discretionary dollars. Places that don't have an arterial running right through the middle of it.

Maine Ave with I-395 adjacent is not exactly a country lane at the Washington Wharf.

And Maine doesn't go through the district either, it acts as a boundary. Most business entrances, outdoor seating, amenities open onto 7th or Wharf Street, which is often inaccessible to cars entirely. The businesses that do open to Maine are buffered by the cycle track... Oh wait.

You can't see how that's different from Connecticut where half the businesses are on the east and the other half on the west and both open to face a never ending parade of cars honking and revving at each other?

Who is frequenting the businesses on Connecticut other than locals?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What if the goal was a safe and thriving neighborhood? If you want a dedicated tunnel to downtown then take Metro.

If the goal is a safe and thriving neighborhood then the impact of any plan on accidents and traffic volume within the neighborhood is vitally important.

If your goal is to ban cars that's simply not happening.

A safe and vibrant neighborhood has bike lanes.

Pretty sure there are many, many safe and vibrant neighborhoods that don’t have bike lanes.

But how many neighborhoods have bike lanes that aren't safe and vibrant?

Lots. You especially see this in other cities that haven’t been overrun with gentrification.

If there's one thing we can take off the table absolutely when it comes to this particular bike lane debate, it's gentrification. You can't gentrify out the landed gentry.

Bike lanes are not about gentrification but they are about density, vibrancy and smart growth. Connecticut Ave has had the reputation of being rather boring and, well, old. Bike lanes add a certain hipness factor to attract younger buyers and renters. This is the group that developers who want to build dense housing need to attract.

Uh rent is expensive. Owning and storing a car is expensive. Younger people who have lower disposable income depend on biking to get around. So if the city wants to continue to attract these post-college younger residents, bike lanes is a great way to do it.