upzoning: what will it really change?

[Anonymous]

it can be a very good thing and help promote walkability. you need some density to support commercial amenities. people can be short-sighted.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Who is Nick?

Anti-bike nutjob.

My name is not Nick, I’m a cyclist and I think it makes more sense to put bike lanes where there is the most population density and where there is the highest deaths due to traffic violence. To argue otherwise seems like whack job type stuff to me.

Again, what’s wrong with Metro train and metro bus that we’ve collectively paid $10 billion for and has an annual operating budget of $2+ billion? You can put your little bike right on the front.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Who is Nick?

Anti-bike nutjob.

My name is not Nick, I’m a cyclist and I think it makes more sense to put bike lanes where there is the most population density and where there is the highest deaths due to traffic violence. To argue otherwise seems like whack job type stuff to me.

Again, what’s wrong with Metro train and metro bus that we’ve collectively paid $10 billion for and has an annual operating budget of $2+ billion? You can put your little bike right on the front.

And you can put your little self inside the bus instead of inside a car. Easy-peasy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Who is Nick?

Anti-bike nutjob.

My name is not Nick, I’m a cyclist and I think it makes more sense to put bike lanes where there is the most population density and where there is the highest deaths due to traffic violence. To argue otherwise seems like whack job type stuff to me.

Again, what’s wrong with Metro train and metro bus that we’ve collectively paid $10 billion for and has an annual operating budget of $2+ billion? You can put your little bike right on the front.

The craziest thing about bike lanes in D.C. is how few people use them. It would be cheaper if the city paid each bicyclist $10,000 to take the bus.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Who is Nick?

Anti-bike nutjob.

My name is not Nick, I’m a cyclist and I think it makes more sense to put bike lanes where there is the most population density and where there is the highest deaths due to traffic violence. To argue otherwise seems like whack job type stuff to me.

Again, what’s wrong with Metro train and metro bus that we’ve collectively paid $10 billion for and has an annual operating budget of $2+ billion? You can put your little bike right on the front.

Metro doesn't go everywhere and doesn't operate at all hours. But I agree it's a great option.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Who is Nick?

Anti-bike nutjob.

My name is not Nick, I’m a cyclist and I think it makes more sense to put bike lanes where there is the most population density and where there is the highest deaths due to traffic violence. To argue otherwise seems like whack job type stuff to me.

Again, what’s wrong with Metro train and metro bus that we’ve collectively paid $10 billion for and has an annual operating budget of $2+ billion? You can put your little bike right on the front.

The craziest thing about bike lanes in D.C. is how few people use them. It would be cheaper if the city paid each bicyclist $10,000 to take the bus.

OK Nick

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Who is Nick?

Anti-bike nutjob.

My name is not Nick, I’m a cyclist and I think it makes more sense to put bike lanes where there is the most population density and where there is the highest deaths due to traffic violence. To argue otherwise seems like whack job type stuff to me.

Again, what’s wrong with Metro train and metro bus that we’ve collectively paid $10 billion for and has an annual operating budget of $2+ billion? You can put your little bike right on the front.

The craziest thing about bike lanes in D.C. is how few people use them. It would be cheaper if the city paid each bicyclist $10,000 to take the bus.

Every mile you bike reduces the burden on us all. Every mile you drive increases the burden on us all.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Who is Nick?

Anti-bike nutjob.

My name is not Nick, I’m a cyclist and I think it makes more sense to put bike lanes where there is the most population density and where there is the highest deaths due to traffic violence. To argue otherwise seems like whack job type stuff to me.

Again, what’s wrong with Metro train and metro bus that we’ve collectively paid $10 billion for and has an annual operating budget of $2+ billion? You can put your little bike right on the front.

The craziest thing about bike lanes in D.C. is how few people use them. It would be cheaper if the city paid each bicyclist $10,000 to take the bus.

Every mile you bike reduces the burden on us all. Every mile you drive increases the burden on us all.

Ok, Yoda. You and the other 300 white guys in DC who are really into bikes -- your efforts make no difference whatsoever to climate change. They may make you feel like you are contributing to the solution somehow but you aren't. It's all far, far, far too small to matter.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Who is Nick?

Anti-bike nutjob.

My name is not Nick, I’m a cyclist and I think it makes more sense to put bike lanes where there is the most population density and where there is the highest deaths due to traffic violence. To argue otherwise seems like whack job type stuff to me.

Again, what’s wrong with Metro train and metro bus that we’ve collectively paid $10 billion for and has an annual operating budget of $2+ billion? You can put your little bike right on the front.

The craziest thing about bike lanes in D.C. is how few people use them. It would be cheaper if the city paid each bicyclist $10,000 to take the bus.

Every mile you bike reduces the burden on us all. Every mile you drive increases the burden on us all.

Ok, Yoda. You and the other 300 white guys in DC who are really into bikes -- your efforts make no difference whatsoever to climate change. They may make you feel like you are contributing to the solution somehow but you aren't. It's all far, far, far too small to matter.

I'd say it's funny that you don't see Black and Latino people or women, say who work at the state department. But then it's people who don't see them, like you, who end up hitting them with your cars.

[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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://www.fox5dc.com/news/connecticut-avenue-bike-lane-plan-faces-opposition

They're eliminating two lanes on Connecticut freaking Avenue. That is honestly one of the stupidest decisions ever made by the DC Government.

Is it just me or is it totally insane to promote higher density while intentionally removing transportation infrastructure.

I could see removing a lane for a bus lane, but a bike lane is insane. CT Ave goes up a steep hill. I hear a lot about the Netherlands model. You know what the Netherlands doesn’t have? Hills. By all means turn the Old City, that’s mostly flat, into a bike utopia. This seems like an intentional plan to make upper CT an undesirable place to live which is consistent with other DC government behaviors, like the housing homeless in apartment buildings and hotels in the same area. I guess the plan is to intentionally impoverish the area so it can be redeveloped?

The city is intentionally making traffic worse because they think that will prompt people to switch to bikes. That's obviously ridiculous. People will just leave or stop going to parts of the city where it's hard to get around.

The idea that I am going to bike to the small businesses along CT Avenue is absurd. In a funny way, adding bike lanes will benefit suburban malls (which I historically have tried to avoid) as one can drive and park and do multiple errands.

If we're going to argue entirely by first-person anecdote, I will chime in to say that I routinely bike to small businesses on Connecticut and Wisconsin avenues, because errands within two miles of my house are the perfect thing to bike to instead of driving.

The bigger issue is that tens of thousands of people use these roads every day. How many people use these bike lanes? Some of these lanes aren't even used by 10 people a day.

I don't know if we have data that shows that bike lanes are used by fewer than 10 people a day. When I bike to work along Connecticut, I usually see more than 10 other people on bikes just when I'm on the road, so I can guarantee that a bike lane there would get more use than that.

There's no question that thousands of people use that road every day. But are we sure that two lanes in each direction, with protected bike lanes, will lead to significantly less use of the road by drivers than the reversible lanes and the parking? Some tradeoff that makes the roads safer and more usable for non-drivers but still leaves most cars able to use the road as they currently do would surely be OK, no? Or is your argument that anything that delays a driver's commute by, say, 4 minutes in total is unacceptable?

Honest question, why can’t bikers ride from their neighborhood to CT Ave and then slap the bike on front of the bus? Or leave it in a locker and jump on the metro? What is so difficult about this? This seems like a solution in search of a problem.

The “safety” case looks even worse when considering that there have been zero accidents involving bicycles even resulting in minor injuries - even accidents not involving cars - so far this year along CT Ave from Kalorama to the District line. Literally none.

We require a few blood sacrifices before making any changes. There is no way to identify safety issues without that. We are very smart people.

/s

I don’t understand this response. I would presume that data driven policy would focus limited resources on trying to address priorities. In this case, bicycle safety on Connecticut Ave is not a priority based on the data.

When looking at the data, it is clear that the priorities should be Ward 2 (2 bike fatalities, 2 major injuries, 91 minor injuries) and not Ward 3 (0 fatalities, 1 major injury and 3 minor injuries). In fact, directing resources and attention to Ward 3 and away from Ward 2 for cycling infrastructure is actually condemning more people in Ward 2 to death or maiming. You want talk about blood sacrifice? That’s the blood sacrifice that is actually being made.

It neglects data on near misses or hazards that have not yet killed people. That's not a good way to be "data driven".

Prioritizing resources based on data is great. But some improvements aren't resource issues but rather "don't inconvenience drivers" because no one has died yet. It can also argue for more resources rather than just shifting where current resources are spent.

That help?

Nobody bikes on that road. You're demanding to spend tens of millions of dollars, decrease pedestrian safety, destroy small businesses, create a transportation nightmare and massively increase traffic in residential neighborhoods around dozens of schools in order to protect a group of people that in a best case scenario can be counted on one hand and aren't currently in danger.

Nobody uses infrastructure that isn't there already? You sound nuts.

Lol, ok. Point out what is incorrect in that statement.

Perspective, logic, reason. Any other questions?

How ironic.

Please explain your perspectice, logic and reasoning because there doesn't seem to be any and you are avoiding answering the simple question. What exactly is incorrect about that statement?

Cars are bad. Driving them hurts the environment, kills people, and ruins cities.
Please explain why you disagree with that in explicit detail. Otherwise you are wrong.

/s

This is a case of sarcasm to point out how ridiculous you are. Try to keep up.

Cars are not bad. People are. My electric car is fine for the environment. Idiot drivers kill people, not cards. And, no, cars do not ruin cities.

[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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://www.fox5dc.com/news/connecticut-avenue-bike-lane-plan-faces-opposition

They're eliminating two lanes on Connecticut freaking Avenue. That is honestly one of the stupidest decisions ever made by the DC Government.

Is it just me or is it totally insane to promote higher density while intentionally removing transportation infrastructure.

I could see removing a lane for a bus lane, but a bike lane is insane. CT Ave goes up a steep hill. I hear a lot about the Netherlands model. You know what the Netherlands doesn’t have? Hills. By all means turn the Old City, that’s mostly flat, into a bike utopia. This seems like an intentional plan to make upper CT an undesirable place to live which is consistent with other DC government behaviors, like the housing homeless in apartment buildings and hotels in the same area. I guess the plan is to intentionally impoverish the area so it can be redeveloped?

The city is intentionally making traffic worse because they think that will prompt people to switch to bikes. That's obviously ridiculous. People will just leave or stop going to parts of the city where it's hard to get around.

The idea that I am going to bike to the small businesses along CT Avenue is absurd. In a funny way, adding bike lanes will benefit suburban malls (which I historically have tried to avoid) as one can drive and park and do multiple errands.

If we're going to argue entirely by first-person anecdote, I will chime in to say that I routinely bike to small businesses on Connecticut and Wisconsin avenues, because errands within two miles of my house are the perfect thing to bike to instead of driving.

The bigger issue is that tens of thousands of people use these roads every day. How many people use these bike lanes? Some of these lanes aren't even used by 10 people a day.

I don't know if we have data that shows that bike lanes are used by fewer than 10 people a day. When I bike to work along Connecticut, I usually see more than 10 other people on bikes just when I'm on the road, so I can guarantee that a bike lane there would get more use than that.

There's no question that thousands of people use that road every day. But are we sure that two lanes in each direction, with protected bike lanes, will lead to significantly less use of the road by drivers than the reversible lanes and the parking? Some tradeoff that makes the roads safer and more usable for non-drivers but still leaves most cars able to use the road as they currently do would surely be OK, no? Or is your argument that anything that delays a driver's commute by, say, 4 minutes in total is unacceptable?

Honest question, why can’t bikers ride from their neighborhood to CT Ave and then slap the bike on front of the bus? Or leave it in a locker and jump on the metro? What is so difficult about this? This seems like a solution in search of a problem.

The “safety” case looks even worse when considering that there have been zero accidents involving bicycles even resulting in minor injuries - even accidents not involving cars - so far this year along CT Ave from Kalorama to the District line. Literally none.

We require a few blood sacrifices before making any changes. There is no way to identify safety issues without that. We are very smart people.

/s

I don’t understand this response. I would presume that data driven policy would focus limited resources on trying to address priorities. In this case, bicycle safety on Connecticut Ave is not a priority based on the data.

When looking at the data, it is clear that the priorities should be Ward 2 (2 bike fatalities, 2 major injuries, 91 minor injuries) and not Ward 3 (0 fatalities, 1 major injury and 3 minor injuries). In fact, directing resources and attention to Ward 3 and away from Ward 2 for cycling infrastructure is actually condemning more people in Ward 2 to death or maiming. You want talk about blood sacrifice? That’s the blood sacrifice that is actually being made.

It neglects data on near misses or hazards that have not yet killed people. That's not a good way to be "data driven".

Prioritizing resources based on data is great. But some improvements aren't resource issues but rather "don't inconvenience drivers" because no one has died yet. It can also argue for more resources rather than just shifting where current resources are spent.

That help?

Nobody bikes on that road. You're demanding to spend tens of millions of dollars, decrease pedestrian safety, destroy small businesses, create a transportation nightmare and massively increase traffic in residential neighborhoods around dozens of schools in order to protect a group of people that in a best case scenario can be counted on one hand and aren't currently in danger.

Nobody uses infrastructure that isn't there already? You sound nuts.

Lol, ok. Point out what is incorrect in that statement.

Perspective, logic, reason. Any other questions?

How ironic.

Please explain your perspectice, logic and reasoning because there doesn't seem to be any and you are avoiding answering the simple question. What exactly is incorrect about that statement?

Cars are bad. Driving them hurts the environment, kills people, and ruins cities.
Please explain why you disagree with that in explicit detail. Otherwise you are wrong.

/s

This is a case of sarcasm to point out how ridiculous you are. Try to keep up.

Cars are not bad. People are. My electric car is fine for the environment. Idiot drivers kill people, not cards. And, no, cars do not ruin cities.

Better than a gas/diesel engine, but still not great (mining, tire wear, roads, parking, etc.). And most drivers are idiots at some point. They just all think they are super.

[Anonymous]

Why don't people who want a car-centric sprawl move to LA? That should be their Mecca!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Who is Nick?

Anti-bike nutjob.

My name is not Nick, I’m a cyclist and I think it makes more sense to put bike lanes where there is the most population density and where there is the highest deaths due to traffic violence. To argue otherwise seems like whack job type stuff to me.

Can you show a correlation between population density and use of bikes. I see more people biking in my Arlington neighborhood with spread out space than in the Rosslyn Ballston corridor.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why don't people who want a car-centric sprawl move to LA? That should be their Mecca!

Why don’t people who want to bike move to Memphis. At least in Memphis, they are more likely to be murdered than to die in a traffic accident they caused.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why don't people who want a car-centric sprawl move to LA? That should be their Mecca!

Why don’t people who want to bike move to Memphis. At least in Memphis, they are more likely to be murdered than to die in a traffic accident they caused.

Why don't you make like a tree and...