Connecticut Ave bike lanes are back!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you build they will come is a fallacy. Take a look at the bike lanes installed on Old Georgetown Rd in Bethesda. They have definitely affected traffic in a negative way and are vastly underused. Cyclists can continue as they care to without new infrastructure designed specifically for them and if someone feels uncomfortable cycling where there is no bike lane they can consider alternative transportation like Metro or car.

Not only have they negatively affected traffic, they have negatively affected Pike and Rose. It’s not a coincidence that the food hall recently closed.

lol. you think the food hall closed because of bike lanes? 🤡

You people are so stupid. The food hall closed because of customers. The number of customers coming to Pike and Rose has declined because the bike lanes has decreased road capacity which has decreased the number of trips to Pike and Rose. Those decreased car trips were not replaced by cyclists, despite your “studies” about bike lanes and retail business.

lololol. they already found a new upscale tenant for that space.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Meanwhile bus services, which I would argue are used by far more people than bike lanes, are being scorched in DC. I get it that fewer people are taking mass transit and changes are needed, but the proposed changes are grim for neighborhoods not close to metro. Bike lanes just can’t work for many, including senior citizens, people mobility impaired. A holistic approach is really needed.

good news! the venn diagram between bike lane supporters and bus supporters is a circle. there is no bike advocate that does not support bus improvements. you just hear less about it because generally people are not insanely and irrationally triggered by buses, so DDOTs improvements to bus corridors (bumpouts etc) attract little attention. Sometimes some people whine about a lost parking spot or two but generally the plans go through.

Liar liar pants on fire. K street would like a word.

False. The K St redesign was hastily upended, and as a result, the Council shifted the K St budget to other bus services, such as overnight buses and the Circulator: https://www.axios.com/local/washington-dc/2023/06/05/dc-transportation-budget-metro

LOL. WABA lists getting Charles Allen to drop funding for the K St Transitway as one of their accomplishments.
https://waba.org/blog/2023/04/we-made-major-progress-in-the-fy24-d-c-budget/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Meanwhile bus services, which I would argue are used by far more people than bike lanes, are being scorched in DC. I get it that fewer people are taking mass transit and changes are needed, but the proposed changes are grim for neighborhoods not close to metro. Bike lanes just can’t work for many, including senior citizens, people mobility impaired. A holistic approach is really needed.

good news! the venn diagram between bike lane supporters and bus supporters is a circle. there is no bike advocate that does not support bus improvements. you just hear less about it because generally people are not insanely and irrationally triggered by buses, so DDOTs improvements to bus corridors (bumpouts etc) attract little attention. Sometimes some people whine about a lost parking spot or two but generally the plans go through.

Liar liar pants on fire. K street would like a word.

False. The K St redesign was hastily upended, and as a result, the Council shifted the K St budget to other bus services, such as overnight buses and the Circulator: https://www.axios.com/local/washington-dc/2023/06/05/dc-transportation-budget-metro

LOL. WABA lists getting Charles Allen to drop funding for the K St Transitway as one of their accomplishments.
https://waba.org/blog/2023/04/we-made-major-progress-in-the-fy24-d-c-budget/

Dang, talk about lying. The top bullet is:

"The Mayor’s budget included no funds for Metro for DC— and now the Council changed the FY24 budget to include funding to start our free bus system in Washington, DC."

As much as you love a new talking point, K St does not show that bike people are against buses. It shows that they redirected funds to *other* bus projects while continuing to hope for a preferred design for K St. It's an absolute baldfaced lie to claim WABA advocated against bus funding.

So now I await your latest ridiculous arguments. Maybe it's that "bike bros" are hanging out in the Comet Ping Pong basement, and a protected bike lane is a way to get them there faster?

[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:

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.

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.

DC attracts plenty of single post-college younger residents (and in any case it’s doubtful that many want to live in Chevy Chase DC or Cleveland Park vs U St or Petworth). DC needs to do more to retain families who otherwise move to the suburbs better quality public schools and overall public services. Conn. ave. Bike lanes aren’t at the top of their priority list.

For a lot of younger families who are car free or car-light, yes they are. You clearly have no idea of the demographic shift away from the Boomer-led car era.

Petworth is full of parents, and hardly anyone uses the bike lanes, fyi. Bikes are extremely impractical when you have children.

This is a reality for a lot of younger families.

If we had the proper infrastructure, more people would do this.

We have more than 150 miles of bike lanes. We've spent billions of dollars on biking infrastructure. Still, the number of people on bikes is microscopic. People don't ride bikes because they don't want to ride bikes, and it has nothing to do with whatever you think the infrastructure is still missing.

The bolded is a flat out lie, and a lot of the 150 miles of bike lanes you are citing is simply paint on the ground. That isn't infrastructure. Ergo, the false conclusion you are drawing is a result of the false premise and lies you start with.

Try again: if biking were safe, more people would be doing it. Despite the infrastructure, there are a lot of young families who are using cargo bikes and electric bikes as a replacement for a car or second car, and it works very well for them. Just imagine how many more would do this if they felt it was safe enough!

Yes, yes, we know. Tens of thousands of bikers are ready to crawl out of the woodwork at any moment, if those pesky drivers would just get out of the way.

It’s a bit chicken and egg. Bike lanes are needed to help transform Connecticut Ave from a somewhat sleepy linear retirement community (albeit one with traffic) into a vibrant urban corridor. Bike lanes will attract the private investment to add density, thousands of new housing units to attract young creatives. That, in turn, will generate thousands of bike riders for the new infrastructure.

It is really more about converting the road from a dangerous traffic sewer to a bona fide main street that connects various commercial nodes.

How does making traffic worse and more dangerous during peak usage make it less of a traffic sewer?

The concept is to encourage more commuter traffic not to use Connecticut and distribute it via more efficient utilization of the area street grid. A traffic sewer is incompatible with a multimodal boulevard and urban place making design.

I'll make it more clear
- How does either plan encourage traffic not to use Connecticut if not via increased congestion caused by removing traffic lanes?
- Distributing it = more traffic on residential roads
- The third statement is an axiom of traffic management (please note that this axoim is neither contested nor disputed). Increasing congestion during periods of high congestion, such as occurs during peak usage, increases accidents.

This has never been the case, and you can go back to the original DDOT documents on the study, and yet, despite it having been pointed out to you a million times, you still make this false claim.

Distributed network of roads does NOT mean the incomplete street grid in upper NW, but rather the other routes into DC which include other arterials as well as metro. The number of additional cars projected on to residential side streets is infintesimal.

If that's what you want to cite then you should know that that DDOT study showed ZERO increase in Metro usage, did not break things down by time of day, did not take into account any other road changes, and excluded Chevy Chase (but included Palisades). In addition those "arterial" roads are things like Nebraska (which is already bumper to bumper and the most dangerous intersection) and Beach (which is the main bicycle route).

But at least you are finally acknowledging that it makes Connecticut more of a traffic sewer.

That was DDOT's stated goal from the outset. This isn't the "gotcha" you think it is.

The Avenue is already a traffic sewer. The question is whether it will be one with, or without bike lanes, and the forces of no changes have managed to talk the Mayor into the worst possible solution for all users and nearby residents.

The stated goal was safety and a lot of time and effort has been spent trying to pretend that making Connecticut a worse traffic sewer was not the goal. Heck, the person I was responding to even flat out accused everyone of lying for pointing that out.

One of the underlying problems with the plans has been the rampant and bold dishonesty of many of its proponents in their effort to hide the fact that increasing congestion is their proposed mechanism of action.

I appreciate your honesty regarding this but you are an outlier.

You mean DDOT is the outlier? their goal is to slow traffic of cars down. There are a lot of ways to do this. Reducing from 6 to 4 the travel lanes is one of them. The only real question in this whole process is whether one of the lanes would be converted into use for bikes only. The answer now is no.

So we will live with that result, which will mean cars and buses will go even slower because they will be stuck behind cyclists, particularly on the part of the road that have uphill grades.

Oh well. I prey that impatient motorists do not mow down cyclists with impunity.

Slowing down traffic doesn't work. You're not going to convince drivers that a 20 minute drive should now take 30 minutes. They'll just take an alternative route. It's like when there's construction. They'll just speed down side streets to get around it.

Then you add more stop signs, raised crosswalks and speed humps. This isn't hard, people.

Arms races never work.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you build they will come is a fallacy. Take a look at the bike lanes installed on Old Georgetown Rd in Bethesda. They have definitely affected traffic in a negative way and are vastly underused. Cyclists can continue as they care to without new infrastructure designed specifically for them and if someone feels uncomfortable cycling where there is no bike lane they can consider alternative transportation like Metro or car.

Not only have they negatively affected traffic, they have negatively affected Pike and Rose. It’s not a coincidence that the food hall recently closed.

lol. you think the food hall closed because of bike lanes? 🤡

You people are so stupid. The food hall closed because of customers. The number of customers coming to Pike and Rose has declined because the bike lanes has decreased road capacity which has decreased the number of trips to Pike and Rose. Those decreased car trips were not replaced by cyclists, despite your “studies” about bike lanes and retail business.

I'm a person who drives as well as bikes on Old Georgetown Road. The food hall at Pike and Rose closed because people driving to work in the morning, or driving home from work in the afternoon, sometimes have to spend a few more minutes on the Old Georgetown Road part of their drive?

By the way, if you haven't tried biking to Pike and Rose instead of driving, I really recommend it. The car traffic within Pike and Rose is always terrible, because it's so popular. If you're on a bike, you can get where you're going much faster, and it's much easier to park. Or you can take a bus or Metro and then walk.

[Anonymous]

Preach.

[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:

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.

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.

DC attracts plenty of single post-college younger residents (and in any case it’s doubtful that many want to live in Chevy Chase DC or Cleveland Park vs U St or Petworth). DC needs to do more to retain families who otherwise move to the suburbs better quality public schools and overall public services. Conn. ave. Bike lanes aren’t at the top of their priority list.

For a lot of younger families who are car free or car-light, yes they are. You clearly have no idea of the demographic shift away from the Boomer-led car era.

Petworth is full of parents, and hardly anyone uses the bike lanes, fyi. Bikes are extremely impractical when you have children.

This is a reality for a lot of younger families.

If we had the proper infrastructure, more people would do this.

We have more than 150 miles of bike lanes. We've spent billions of dollars on biking infrastructure. Still, the number of people on bikes is microscopic. People don't ride bikes because they don't want to ride bikes, and it has nothing to do with whatever you think the infrastructure is still missing.

The bolded is a flat out lie, and a lot of the 150 miles of bike lanes you are citing is simply paint on the ground. That isn't infrastructure. Ergo, the false conclusion you are drawing is a result of the false premise and lies you start with.

Try again: if biking were safe, more people would be doing it. Despite the infrastructure, there are a lot of young families who are using cargo bikes and electric bikes as a replacement for a car or second car, and it works very well for them. Just imagine how many more would do this if they felt it was safe enough!

Yes, yes, we know. Tens of thousands of bikers are ready to crawl out of the woodwork at any moment, if those pesky drivers would just get out of the way.

It’s a bit chicken and egg. Bike lanes are needed to help transform Connecticut Ave from a somewhat sleepy linear retirement community (albeit one with traffic) into a vibrant urban corridor. Bike lanes will attract the private investment to add density, thousands of new housing units to attract young creatives. That, in turn, will generate thousands of bike riders for the new infrastructure.

It is really more about converting the road from a dangerous traffic sewer to a bona fide main street that connects various commercial nodes.

How does making traffic worse and more dangerous during peak usage make it less of a traffic sewer?

The concept is to encourage more commuter traffic not to use Connecticut and distribute it via more efficient utilization of the area street grid. A traffic sewer is incompatible with a multimodal boulevard and urban place making design.

I'll make it more clear
- How does either plan encourage traffic not to use Connecticut if not via increased congestion caused by removing traffic lanes?
- Distributing it = more traffic on residential roads
- The third statement is an axiom of traffic management (please note that this axoim is neither contested nor disputed). Increasing congestion during periods of high congestion, such as occurs during peak usage, increases accidents.

This has never been the case, and you can go back to the original DDOT documents on the study, and yet, despite it having been pointed out to you a million times, you still make this false claim.

Distributed network of roads does NOT mean the incomplete street grid in upper NW, but rather the other routes into DC which include other arterials as well as metro. The number of additional cars projected on to residential side streets is infintesimal.

If that's what you want to cite then you should know that that DDOT study showed ZERO increase in Metro usage, did not break things down by time of day, did not take into account any other road changes, and excluded Chevy Chase (but included Palisades). In addition those "arterial" roads are things like Nebraska (which is already bumper to bumper and the most dangerous intersection) and Beach (which is the main bicycle route).

But at least you are finally acknowledging that it makes Connecticut more of a traffic sewer.

That was DDOT's stated goal from the outset. This isn't the "gotcha" you think it is.

The Avenue is already a traffic sewer. The question is whether it will be one with, or without bike lanes, and the forces of no changes have managed to talk the Mayor into the worst possible solution for all users and nearby residents.

The stated goal was safety and a lot of time and effort has been spent trying to pretend that making Connecticut a worse traffic sewer was not the goal. Heck, the person I was responding to even flat out accused everyone of lying for pointing that out.

One of the underlying problems with the plans has been the rampant and bold dishonesty of many of its proponents in their effort to hide the fact that increasing congestion is their proposed mechanism of action.

I appreciate your honesty regarding this but you are an outlier.

You mean DDOT is the outlier? their goal is to slow traffic of cars down. There are a lot of ways to do this. Reducing from 6 to 4 the travel lanes is one of them. The only real question in this whole process is whether one of the lanes would be converted into use for bikes only. The answer now is no.

So we will live with that result, which will mean cars and buses will go even slower because they will be stuck behind cyclists, particularly on the part of the road that have uphill grades.

Oh well. I prey that impatient motorists do not mow down cyclists with impunity.

Slowing down traffic doesn't work. You're not going to convince drivers that a 20 minute drive should now take 30 minutes. They'll just take an alternative route. It's like when there's construction. They'll just speed down side streets to get around it.

Then you add more stop signs, raised crosswalks and speed humps. This isn't hard, people.

Actually, it is. Add more speed bumps and people are more likely to blow stop signs. I'd rather have people stop at intersections than mid-way down the block. Seems safer?

[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:

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.

DC attracts plenty of single post-college younger residents (and in any case it’s doubtful that many want to live in Chevy Chase DC or Cleveland Park vs U St or Petworth). DC needs to do more to retain families who otherwise move to the suburbs better quality public schools and overall public services. Conn. ave. Bike lanes aren’t at the top of their priority list.

For a lot of younger families who are car free or car-light, yes they are. You clearly have no idea of the demographic shift away from the Boomer-led car era.

Petworth is full of parents, and hardly anyone uses the bike lanes, fyi. Bikes are extremely impractical when you have children.

This is a reality for a lot of younger families.

If we had the proper infrastructure, more people would do this.

We have more than 150 miles of bike lanes. We've spent billions of dollars on biking infrastructure. Still, the number of people on bikes is microscopic. People don't ride bikes because they don't want to ride bikes, and it has nothing to do with whatever you think the infrastructure is still missing.

The bolded is a flat out lie, and a lot of the 150 miles of bike lanes you are citing is simply paint on the ground. That isn't infrastructure. Ergo, the false conclusion you are drawing is a result of the false premise and lies you start with.

Try again: if biking were safe, more people would be doing it. Despite the infrastructure, there are a lot of young families who are using cargo bikes and electric bikes as a replacement for a car or second car, and it works very well for them. Just imagine how many more would do this if they felt it was safe enough!

Look at the city's budget. DC spends $200 million on bike things every single year.

Also, if biking isn't safe, then *no one* should be allowed to put children on bikes.

Bowser's budget included a whole lot more than $200M this year. To quote from the 2024 budget:

"$257.2 million to improve safety and mobility, including $90.9 million to install traffic safety infrastructure
around schools+ $56.4 million for Vision Zero improvements, hardening, and asset preservation+ $39.1 million
for bicycle and pedestrian safety+ $32.0 million for roadway segments and intersections where users have safety
concerns+ $18.5 million for signs+ and $15.3 million for expansion of Capital Bikeshare and electrification of
the bikeshare fleet

• $236.5 million for new or rehabilitated trail segments, including $52.0 million for the Long Bridge pedestrian
and bicycle connection+ $45.9 million for the Shepherd Branch Trail+ $36.5 million for the Anacostia River
Trail+ $36.5 million for the Metropolitan Branch Trail+ and $25.4 million for the Suitland Parkway Trail"

not every penny just for cyclists but gives you a sense of scale of funding that's been provided

This is mostly federal funding and there is money for infrastructure repairs and improvements every year. This isn't BILLIONS for cyclists, but rather general improvements that in some cases, have some infrastructure for cycling. But go ahead with your "it is all going to that wasteful mode of cycling and nothing else" tripe that you keep trying to spread.

Pretty remarkable there's a half billion dollars in one year's budget. They're cutting teachers at my kid's school. They say they don't have enough money to pay them. There's way more kids at our school than they are cyclists in the entire DMV.

Capital budget for roads is different than operational budget for teachers and other salaries. This has already been explained up thread when you, or someone like you made the same complaint.

So what? Have you figured out how to spend the same dollar twice? Every dollar in a budget that goes for one thing is a dollar that can't go for another thing.

The fact remains: we spend billions of dollars subsidizing the hobby of a tiny number of white guys while cutting funding for schools that mostly serve black children.

[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:

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.

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.

DC attracts plenty of single post-college younger residents (and in any case it’s doubtful that many want to live in Chevy Chase DC or Cleveland Park vs U St or Petworth). DC needs to do more to retain families who otherwise move to the suburbs better quality public schools and overall public services. Conn. ave. Bike lanes aren’t at the top of their priority list.

For a lot of younger families who are car free or car-light, yes they are. You clearly have no idea of the demographic shift away from the Boomer-led car era.

Petworth is full of parents, and hardly anyone uses the bike lanes, fyi. Bikes are extremely impractical when you have children.

This is a reality for a lot of younger families.

If we had the proper infrastructure, more people would do this.

We have more than 150 miles of bike lanes. We've spent billions of dollars on biking infrastructure. Still, the number of people on bikes is microscopic. People don't ride bikes because they don't want to ride bikes, and it has nothing to do with whatever you think the infrastructure is still missing.

The bolded is a flat out lie, and a lot of the 150 miles of bike lanes you are citing is simply paint on the ground. That isn't infrastructure. Ergo, the false conclusion you are drawing is a result of the false premise and lies you start with.

Try again: if biking were safe, more people would be doing it. Despite the infrastructure, there are a lot of young families who are using cargo bikes and electric bikes as a replacement for a car or second car, and it works very well for them. Just imagine how many more would do this if they felt it was safe enough!

Yes, yes, we know. Tens of thousands of bikers are ready to crawl out of the woodwork at any moment, if those pesky drivers would just get out of the way.

It’s a bit chicken and egg. Bike lanes are needed to help transform Connecticut Ave from a somewhat sleepy linear retirement community (albeit one with traffic) into a vibrant urban corridor. Bike lanes will attract the private investment to add density, thousands of new housing units to attract young creatives. That, in turn, will generate thousands of bike riders for the new infrastructure.

It is really more about converting the road from a dangerous traffic sewer to a bona fide main street that connects various commercial nodes.

How does making traffic worse and more dangerous during peak usage make it less of a traffic sewer?

The concept is to encourage more commuter traffic not to use Connecticut and distribute it via more efficient utilization of the area street grid. A traffic sewer is incompatible with a multimodal boulevard and urban place making design.

I'll make it more clear
- How does either plan encourage traffic not to use Connecticut if not via increased congestion caused by removing traffic lanes?
- Distributing it = more traffic on residential roads
- The third statement is an axiom of traffic management (please note that this axoim is neither contested nor disputed). Increasing congestion during periods of high congestion, such as occurs during peak usage, increases accidents.

This has never been the case, and you can go back to the original DDOT documents on the study, and yet, despite it having been pointed out to you a million times, you still make this false claim.

Distributed network of roads does NOT mean the incomplete street grid in upper NW, but rather the other routes into DC which include other arterials as well as metro. The number of additional cars projected on to residential side streets is infintesimal.

If that's what you want to cite then you should know that that DDOT study showed ZERO increase in Metro usage, did not break things down by time of day, did not take into account any other road changes, and excluded Chevy Chase (but included Palisades). In addition those "arterial" roads are things like Nebraska (which is already bumper to bumper and the most dangerous intersection) and Beach (which is the main bicycle route).

But at least you are finally acknowledging that it makes Connecticut more of a traffic sewer.

That was DDOT's stated goal from the outset. This isn't the "gotcha" you think it is.

The Avenue is already a traffic sewer. The question is whether it will be one with, or without bike lanes, and the forces of no changes have managed to talk the Mayor into the worst possible solution for all users and nearby residents.

The stated goal was safety and a lot of time and effort has been spent trying to pretend that making Connecticut a worse traffic sewer was not the goal. Heck, the person I was responding to even flat out accused everyone of lying for pointing that out.

One of the underlying problems with the plans has been the rampant and bold dishonesty of many of its proponents in their effort to hide the fact that increasing congestion is their proposed mechanism of action.

I appreciate your honesty regarding this but you are an outlier.

You mean DDOT is the outlier? their goal is to slow traffic of cars down. There are a lot of ways to do this. Reducing from 6 to 4 the travel lanes is one of them. The only real question in this whole process is whether one of the lanes would be converted into use for bikes only. The answer now is no.

So we will live with that result, which will mean cars and buses will go even slower because they will be stuck behind cyclists, particularly on the part of the road that have uphill grades.

Oh well. I prey that impatient motorists do not mow down cyclists with impunity.

Slowing down traffic doesn't work. You're not going to convince drivers that a 20 minute drive should now take 30 minutes. They'll just take an alternative route. It's like when there's construction. They'll just speed down side streets to get around it.

Then you add more stop signs, raised crosswalks and speed humps. This isn't hard, people.

Actually, it is. Add more speed bumps and people are more likely to blow stop signs. I'd rather have people stop at intersections than mid-way down the block. Seems safer?

Raised crosswalks are like speed humps. If they are where the stop signs are, people will stop. It will be painful for their cars otherwise.

And it isn't like these roads have tumbleweeds on them. There is plenty of "cut through" traffic already.

[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:

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.

DC attracts plenty of single post-college younger residents (and in any case it’s doubtful that many want to live in Chevy Chase DC or Cleveland Park vs U St or Petworth). DC needs to do more to retain families who otherwise move to the suburbs better quality public schools and overall public services. Conn. ave. Bike lanes aren’t at the top of their priority list.

For a lot of younger families who are car free or car-light, yes they are. You clearly have no idea of the demographic shift away from the Boomer-led car era.

Petworth is full of parents, and hardly anyone uses the bike lanes, fyi. Bikes are extremely impractical when you have children.

This is a reality for a lot of younger families.

If we had the proper infrastructure, more people would do this.

We have more than 150 miles of bike lanes. We've spent billions of dollars on biking infrastructure. Still, the number of people on bikes is microscopic. People don't ride bikes because they don't want to ride bikes, and it has nothing to do with whatever you think the infrastructure is still missing.

The bolded is a flat out lie, and a lot of the 150 miles of bike lanes you are citing is simply paint on the ground. That isn't infrastructure. Ergo, the false conclusion you are drawing is a result of the false premise and lies you start with.

Try again: if biking were safe, more people would be doing it. Despite the infrastructure, there are a lot of young families who are using cargo bikes and electric bikes as a replacement for a car or second car, and it works very well for them. Just imagine how many more would do this if they felt it was safe enough!

Look at the city's budget. DC spends $200 million on bike things every single year.

Also, if biking isn't safe, then *no one* should be allowed to put children on bikes.

Bowser's budget included a whole lot more than $200M this year. To quote from the 2024 budget:

"$257.2 million to improve safety and mobility, including $90.9 million to install traffic safety infrastructure
around schools+ $56.4 million for Vision Zero improvements, hardening, and asset preservation+ $39.1 million
for bicycle and pedestrian safety+ $32.0 million for roadway segments and intersections where users have safety
concerns+ $18.5 million for signs+ and $15.3 million for expansion of Capital Bikeshare and electrification of
the bikeshare fleet

• $236.5 million for new or rehabilitated trail segments, including $52.0 million for the Long Bridge pedestrian
and bicycle connection+ $45.9 million for the Shepherd Branch Trail+ $36.5 million for the Anacostia River
Trail+ $36.5 million for the Metropolitan Branch Trail+ and $25.4 million for the Suitland Parkway Trail"

not every penny just for cyclists but gives you a sense of scale of funding that's been provided

This is mostly federal funding and there is money for infrastructure repairs and improvements every year. This isn't BILLIONS for cyclists, but rather general improvements that in some cases, have some infrastructure for cycling. But go ahead with your "it is all going to that wasteful mode of cycling and nothing else" tripe that you keep trying to spread.

Pretty remarkable there's a half billion dollars in one year's budget. They're cutting teachers at my kid's school. They say they don't have enough money to pay them. There's way more kids at our school than they are cyclists in the entire DMV.

Capital budget for roads is different than operational budget for teachers and other salaries. This has already been explained up thread when you, or someone like you made the same complaint.

So what? Have you figured out how to spend the same dollar twice? Every dollar in a budget that goes for one thing is a dollar that can't go for another thing.

The fact remains: we spend billions of dollars subsidizing the hobby of a tiny number of white guys while cutting funding for schools that mostly serve black children.

1) you clearly don't understand how municipal budgets work
2) once again, there isn't "billions" being spent on "the hobby" as you put it. No matter how much you try to claim otherwise. It is a lie.

[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:

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.

DC attracts plenty of single post-college younger residents (and in any case it’s doubtful that many want to live in Chevy Chase DC or Cleveland Park vs U St or Petworth). DC needs to do more to retain families who otherwise move to the suburbs better quality public schools and overall public services. Conn. ave. Bike lanes aren’t at the top of their priority list.

For a lot of younger families who are car free or car-light, yes they are. You clearly have no idea of the demographic shift away from the Boomer-led car era.

Petworth is full of parents, and hardly anyone uses the bike lanes, fyi. Bikes are extremely impractical when you have children.

This is a reality for a lot of younger families.

If we had the proper infrastructure, more people would do this.

We have more than 150 miles of bike lanes. We've spent billions of dollars on biking infrastructure. Still, the number of people on bikes is microscopic. People don't ride bikes because they don't want to ride bikes, and it has nothing to do with whatever you think the infrastructure is still missing.

The bolded is a flat out lie, and a lot of the 150 miles of bike lanes you are citing is simply paint on the ground. That isn't infrastructure. Ergo, the false conclusion you are drawing is a result of the false premise and lies you start with.

Try again: if biking were safe, more people would be doing it. Despite the infrastructure, there are a lot of young families who are using cargo bikes and electric bikes as a replacement for a car or second car, and it works very well for them. Just imagine how many more would do this if they felt it was safe enough!

Look at the city's budget. DC spends $200 million on bike things every single year.

Also, if biking isn't safe, then *no one* should be allowed to put children on bikes.

Bowser's budget included a whole lot more than $200M this year. To quote from the 2024 budget:

"$257.2 million to improve safety and mobility, including $90.9 million to install traffic safety infrastructure
around schools+ $56.4 million for Vision Zero improvements, hardening, and asset preservation+ $39.1 million
for bicycle and pedestrian safety+ $32.0 million for roadway segments and intersections where users have safety
concerns+ $18.5 million for signs+ and $15.3 million for expansion of Capital Bikeshare and electrification of
the bikeshare fleet

• $236.5 million for new or rehabilitated trail segments, including $52.0 million for the Long Bridge pedestrian
and bicycle connection+ $45.9 million for the Shepherd Branch Trail+ $36.5 million for the Anacostia River
Trail+ $36.5 million for the Metropolitan Branch Trail+ and $25.4 million for the Suitland Parkway Trail"

not every penny just for cyclists but gives you a sense of scale of funding that's been provided

This is mostly federal funding and there is money for infrastructure repairs and improvements every year. This isn't BILLIONS for cyclists, but rather general improvements that in some cases, have some infrastructure for cycling. But go ahead with your "it is all going to that wasteful mode of cycling and nothing else" tripe that you keep trying to spread.

Pretty remarkable there's a half billion dollars in one year's budget. They're cutting teachers at my kid's school. They say they don't have enough money to pay them. There's way more kids at our school than they are cyclists in the entire DMV.

Capital budget for roads is different than operational budget for teachers and other salaries. This has already been explained up thread when you, or someone like you made the same complaint.

So what? Have you figured out how to spend the same dollar twice? Every dollar in a budget that goes for one thing is a dollar that can't go for another thing.

The fact remains: we spend billions of dollars subsidizing the hobby of a tiny number of white guys while cutting funding for schools that mostly serve black children.

What’s wrong with once in a while spending a little to invest in the makers group? Usually DC just shovels bags and bags of cash to the takers group.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Meanwhile bus services, which I would argue are used by far more people than bike lanes, are being scorched in DC. I get it that fewer people are taking mass transit and changes are needed, but the proposed changes are grim for neighborhoods not close to metro. Bike lanes just can’t work for many, including senior citizens, people mobility impaired. A holistic approach is really needed.

The current policy is to provide exceptional funding to the highest cost and most expensive form of transit that caters to affluent white people while divesting in funding and support for transit that serves poor Black people.

When people cheat by not paying the Metro fare, costing Metro upwards of $42m annually, it’s hard to argue that Metro somehow should invest more in areas with the highest level of fare fraud.

[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:

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.

DC attracts plenty of single post-college younger residents (and in any case it’s doubtful that many want to live in Chevy Chase DC or Cleveland Park vs U St or Petworth). DC needs to do more to retain families who otherwise move to the suburbs better quality public schools and overall public services. Conn. ave. Bike lanes aren’t at the top of their priority list.

For a lot of younger families who are car free or car-light, yes they are. You clearly have no idea of the demographic shift away from the Boomer-led car era.

Petworth is full of parents, and hardly anyone uses the bike lanes, fyi. Bikes are extremely impractical when you have children.

This is a reality for a lot of younger families.

If we had the proper infrastructure, more people would do this.

We have more than 150 miles of bike lanes. We've spent billions of dollars on biking infrastructure. Still, the number of people on bikes is microscopic. People don't ride bikes because they don't want to ride bikes, and it has nothing to do with whatever you think the infrastructure is still missing.

The bolded is a flat out lie, and a lot of the 150 miles of bike lanes you are citing is simply paint on the ground. That isn't infrastructure. Ergo, the false conclusion you are drawing is a result of the false premise and lies you start with.

Try again: if biking were safe, more people would be doing it. Despite the infrastructure, there are a lot of young families who are using cargo bikes and electric bikes as a replacement for a car or second car, and it works very well for them. Just imagine how many more would do this if they felt it was safe enough!

Look at the city's budget. DC spends $200 million on bike things every single year.

Also, if biking isn't safe, then *no one* should be allowed to put children on bikes.

Bowser's budget included a whole lot more than $200M this year. To quote from the 2024 budget:

"$257.2 million to improve safety and mobility, including $90.9 million to install traffic safety infrastructure
around schools+ $56.4 million for Vision Zero improvements, hardening, and asset preservation+ $39.1 million
for bicycle and pedestrian safety+ $32.0 million for roadway segments and intersections where users have safety
concerns+ $18.5 million for signs+ and $15.3 million for expansion of Capital Bikeshare and electrification of
the bikeshare fleet

• $236.5 million for new or rehabilitated trail segments, including $52.0 million for the Long Bridge pedestrian
and bicycle connection+ $45.9 million for the Shepherd Branch Trail+ $36.5 million for the Anacostia River
Trail+ $36.5 million for the Metropolitan Branch Trail+ and $25.4 million for the Suitland Parkway Trail"

not every penny just for cyclists but gives you a sense of scale of funding that's been provided

This is mostly federal funding and there is money for infrastructure repairs and improvements every year. This isn't BILLIONS for cyclists, but rather general improvements that in some cases, have some infrastructure for cycling. But go ahead with your "it is all going to that wasteful mode of cycling and nothing else" tripe that you keep trying to spread.

Pretty remarkable there's a half billion dollars in one year's budget. They're cutting teachers at my kid's school. They say they don't have enough money to pay them. There's way more kids at our school than they are cyclists in the entire DMV.

Capital budget for roads is different than operational budget for teachers and other salaries. This has already been explained up thread when you, or someone like you made the same complaint.

So what? Have you figured out how to spend the same dollar twice? Every dollar in a budget that goes for one thing is a dollar that can't go for another thing.

The fact remains: we spend billions of dollars subsidizing the hobby of a tiny number of white guys while cutting funding for schools that mostly serve black children.

The only way a person could think that going somewhere on a bike is "the hobby of a tiny number of white guys" is if they literally only see people on bikes if the people are white men in biking clothes on roads in affluent areas, and every other person on a bike, anywhere else, is literally invisible to them.

[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:

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.

DC attracts plenty of single post-college younger residents (and in any case it’s doubtful that many want to live in Chevy Chase DC or Cleveland Park vs U St or Petworth). DC needs to do more to retain families who otherwise move to the suburbs better quality public schools and overall public services. Conn. ave. Bike lanes aren’t at the top of their priority list.

For a lot of younger families who are car free or car-light, yes they are. You clearly have no idea of the demographic shift away from the Boomer-led car era.

Petworth is full of parents, and hardly anyone uses the bike lanes, fyi. Bikes are extremely impractical when you have children.

This is a reality for a lot of younger families.

If we had the proper infrastructure, more people would do this.

We have more than 150 miles of bike lanes. We've spent billions of dollars on biking infrastructure. Still, the number of people on bikes is microscopic. People don't ride bikes because they don't want to ride bikes, and it has nothing to do with whatever you think the infrastructure is still missing.

The bolded is a flat out lie, and a lot of the 150 miles of bike lanes you are citing is simply paint on the ground. That isn't infrastructure. Ergo, the false conclusion you are drawing is a result of the false premise and lies you start with.

Try again: if biking were safe, more people would be doing it. Despite the infrastructure, there are a lot of young families who are using cargo bikes and electric bikes as a replacement for a car or second car, and it works very well for them. Just imagine how many more would do this if they felt it was safe enough!

Look at the city's budget. DC spends $200 million on bike things every single year.

Also, if biking isn't safe, then *no one* should be allowed to put children on bikes.

Bowser's budget included a whole lot more than $200M this year. To quote from the 2024 budget:

"$257.2 million to improve safety and mobility, including $90.9 million to install traffic safety infrastructure
around schools+ $56.4 million for Vision Zero improvements, hardening, and asset preservation+ $39.1 million
for bicycle and pedestrian safety+ $32.0 million for roadway segments and intersections where users have safety
concerns+ $18.5 million for signs+ and $15.3 million for expansion of Capital Bikeshare and electrification of
the bikeshare fleet

• $236.5 million for new or rehabilitated trail segments, including $52.0 million for the Long Bridge pedestrian
and bicycle connection+ $45.9 million for the Shepherd Branch Trail+ $36.5 million for the Anacostia River
Trail+ $36.5 million for the Metropolitan Branch Trail+ and $25.4 million for the Suitland Parkway Trail"

not every penny just for cyclists but gives you a sense of scale of funding that's been provided

This is mostly federal funding and there is money for infrastructure repairs and improvements every year. This isn't BILLIONS for cyclists, but rather general improvements that in some cases, have some infrastructure for cycling. But go ahead with your "it is all going to that wasteful mode of cycling and nothing else" tripe that you keep trying to spread.

Pretty remarkable there's a half billion dollars in one year's budget. They're cutting teachers at my kid's school. They say they don't have enough money to pay them. There's way more kids at our school than they are cyclists in the entire DMV.

Capital budget for roads is different than operational budget for teachers and other salaries. This has already been explained up thread when you, or someone like you made the same complaint.

So what? Have you figured out how to spend the same dollar twice? Every dollar in a budget that goes for one thing is a dollar that can't go for another thing.

The fact remains: we spend billions of dollars subsidizing the hobby of a tiny number of white guys while cutting funding for schools that mostly serve black children.

The only way a person could think that going somewhere on a bike is "the hobby of a tiny number of white guys" is if they literally only see people on bikes if the people are white men in biking clothes on roads in affluent areas, and every other person on a bike, anywhere else, is literally invisible to them.

LMFAO

[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:

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.

DC attracts plenty of single post-college younger residents (and in any case it’s doubtful that many want to live in Chevy Chase DC or Cleveland Park vs U St or Petworth). DC needs to do more to retain families who otherwise move to the suburbs better quality public schools and overall public services. Conn. ave. Bike lanes aren’t at the top of their priority list.

For a lot of younger families who are car free or car-light, yes they are. You clearly have no idea of the demographic shift away from the Boomer-led car era.

Petworth is full of parents, and hardly anyone uses the bike lanes, fyi. Bikes are extremely impractical when you have children.

This is a reality for a lot of younger families.

If we had the proper infrastructure, more people would do this.

We have more than 150 miles of bike lanes. We've spent billions of dollars on biking infrastructure. Still, the number of people on bikes is microscopic. People don't ride bikes because they don't want to ride bikes, and it has nothing to do with whatever you think the infrastructure is still missing.

The bolded is a flat out lie, and a lot of the 150 miles of bike lanes you are citing is simply paint on the ground. That isn't infrastructure. Ergo, the false conclusion you are drawing is a result of the false premise and lies you start with.

Try again: if biking were safe, more people would be doing it. Despite the infrastructure, there are a lot of young families who are using cargo bikes and electric bikes as a replacement for a car or second car, and it works very well for them. Just imagine how many more would do this if they felt it was safe enough!

Look at the city's budget. DC spends $200 million on bike things every single year.

Also, if biking isn't safe, then *no one* should be allowed to put children on bikes.

Bowser's budget included a whole lot more than $200M this year. To quote from the 2024 budget:

"$257.2 million to improve safety and mobility, including $90.9 million to install traffic safety infrastructure
around schools+ $56.4 million for Vision Zero improvements, hardening, and asset preservation+ $39.1 million
for bicycle and pedestrian safety+ $32.0 million for roadway segments and intersections where users have safety
concerns+ $18.5 million for signs+ and $15.3 million for expansion of Capital Bikeshare and electrification of
the bikeshare fleet

• $236.5 million for new or rehabilitated trail segments, including $52.0 million for the Long Bridge pedestrian
and bicycle connection+ $45.9 million for the Shepherd Branch Trail+ $36.5 million for the Anacostia River
Trail+ $36.5 million for the Metropolitan Branch Trail+ and $25.4 million for the Suitland Parkway Trail"

not every penny just for cyclists but gives you a sense of scale of funding that's been provided

This is mostly federal funding and there is money for infrastructure repairs and improvements every year. This isn't BILLIONS for cyclists, but rather general improvements that in some cases, have some infrastructure for cycling. But go ahead with your "it is all going to that wasteful mode of cycling and nothing else" tripe that you keep trying to spread.

Pretty remarkable there's a half billion dollars in one year's budget. They're cutting teachers at my kid's school. They say they don't have enough money to pay them. There's way more kids at our school than they are cyclists in the entire DMV.

Capital budget for roads is different than operational budget for teachers and other salaries. This has already been explained up thread when you, or someone like you made the same complaint.

So what? Have you figured out how to spend the same dollar twice? Every dollar in a budget that goes for one thing is a dollar that can't go for another thing.

The fact remains: we spend billions of dollars subsidizing the hobby of a tiny number of white guys while cutting funding for schools that mostly serve black children.

The only way a person could think that going somewhere on a bike is "the hobby of a tiny number of white guys" is if they literally only see people on bikes if the people are white men in biking clothes on roads in affluent areas, and every other person on a bike, anywhere else, is literally invisible to them.

Clearly there is a myopia in Upper NW DC that causes this affliction.