Chevy Chase Community Center Redevelopment

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There is zero evidence that protected bike lanes induce cycling.

DDOT has bike counters throughout the district that they have now stopped operating because the results do not should increased utilization over time. What the data shows is that cycling is highly seasonal and many of the lanes have daily users in the tens during January. Second, the utilization that occurs on the first day is constant throughout time. This last point is critically important because what the lanes apparently do is collect existing cyclists that may be using different routes, but do not induce cycling.

As more evidence that more bike lanes don’t induce more cycling, surveys by MWCOG, USDOT and the Census Bureau are all consistent that there are fewer bike commuters now, as a percentage of total commuters, than in 2015.

Apparently, 2015 was peak cycling for most cities in America, including famously Portland, where bike commuting has also declined. NYC is basically a national outlier.

Further evidence abounds all around DC. Just look at all the empty bike lanes. My favorite is in Germantown, near 355, where the narrow bike lane is sandwiched between three lanes of traffic on the left and a right turn lane on the right. Who in their right mind thought that was safe for bikes or cars?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And what about the door dash/uber eats drivers? I've never seen one park legally. I assume they'll double park as they do now and take up one of those lanes in the commercial areas.

What else are they supposed to do? Or do you want YOUR food delivery delayed by a driver circling around and around and around looking for a parking space that ends up being blocks away? Delivery drivers should have designated, 15 minute parking everywhere. They are parking for US not for themselves. We need them. We need to make their jobs as easy and cheap as possible, not hamper them with extra parking tickets.

This is why DDOT is changing most of Cleveland Park to 30 min limited parking. This is an innovative planning approach to be rolled out to other parts of DC, recognising that fewer people now drive to shop, eat and drink. Others rely on delivery services so scarce parking will re-orient to create more capacity for on-demand delivery and modern urban lifestyles. 30 minutes will ensure frequent parking turnover

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is zero evidence that protected bike lanes induce cycling.

DDOT has bike counters throughout the district that they have now stopped operating because the results do not should increased utilization over time. What the data shows is that cycling is highly seasonal and many of the lanes have daily users in the tens during January. Second, the utilization that occurs on the first day is constant throughout time. This last point is critically important because what the lanes apparently do is collect existing cyclists that may be using different routes, but do not induce cycling.

As more evidence that more bike lanes don’t induce more cycling, surveys by MWCOG, USDOT and the Census Bureau are all consistent that there are fewer bike commuters now, as a percentage of total commuters, than in 2015.

Apparently, 2015 was peak cycling for most cities in America, including famously Portland, where bike commuting has also declined. NYC is basically a national outlier.

Further evidence abounds all around DC. Just look at all the empty bike lanes. My favorite is in Germantown, near 355, where the narrow bike lane is sandwiched between three lanes of traffic on the left and a right turn lane on the right. Who in their right mind thought that was safe for bikes or cars?

I bike a lot in Germantown. I don't know which specific location you're talking about. But the answer is probably: nobody thinks it's safe for bicyclists. Including the State Highway Administration, which built it, but it meets the official minimum standards for a bike lane, so that's what they do. And including the bicyclists, who don't use it, but instead ride on the sidewalk. Maybe if every time you read "protected bike lane," you think "sidewalk," that will help you understand.

Now, as it happens, there actually are a lot of people getting around in Germantown on bikes, even though you probably don't see us, because we are mostly on the sidewalks. Which raises the question: if there are a lot of people getting around in Germantown on bikes, with almost zero good bike infrastructure, how many people would get around in Germantown on bikes if there were good bike infrastructure?

Also, it's very common for people to see me with my bike, like outside a store, and say, "Oh, I would love to bike to the store, but I'm afraid of the cars." or "Oh, I would love to bike to the store, but my husband say it isn't safe."

Nobody ever sees me with my car, outside a store, and says, "Oh, I would love to spend even more time driving and in parking lots!"

[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:Chevy Chase DC on Connecticut Avenue is almost the perfect village shopping district in the city. Its mixture of neighborhood-serving retail and dining options is quite nice, as is the pedestrian scale. I don’t understand the imperative of downtown DC planners to turn this attractive area in to Friendship Heights East. Is their planning goal that every Washington neighborhood should become a generic riff on the Navy Yard?

The city wants to take its own property and put it to better use for more people that includes housing, a new community center and new library. Why is this a bad thing?

Because people who live in the area don't want it. We like our neighborhood village feel and don't need some developer to come in and turn it into some generic soulless development that mainly benefits the developers themselves. The Connecticut Ave apartments are teeming with vacancies. There's not housing shortage in Ward 3. Turn those into affordable housing. More people equals a more polluted city. Residential buildings are the second largest contributor to greenhouse gases (after commercial buildings) in DC. Single family housing is greener for DC.

https://doee.dc.gov/service/greenhouse-gas-inventories

*some* people who live in the area don't want it

there are plenty of people who live in the area who do want it

More people does not equal a more polluted city, particularly if said people are walking, bikin or using mass transit to get to work

but nice coded racist language to assume that the "poors" who would be living there are "dirty" - that is a you problem.

Ah, yes, if the facts are against you, pound the table and yell like hell. And your implicit assumption about my race is off the mark too.

Since you can't deal with the evidence-based link that actually shows that commercial and residential buildings are the biggest contributors to greenhouse gas emissions in the district (by far outstripping that produced by passenger vehicles for those reading along), you tried to throw in some sort of misguided race card because you have no facts on which to hang your argument.

On your comment about "many" wanting bike lanes. It seems that those who don't want the bike lanes outstrip those who do, given the plan to go back to the drawing board on the lanes. The is little to no bike traffic on Connecticut Ave NW at any given time, suggesting the demand for the bike lanes is largely rooted in the figments of the bike lobby members' imaginations (and let's add the GGW ANC members for good measure).


I won't even address your malicious attempt to twist words, so let's again stick to facts. The biggest greenhouse gas emitters in DC are commercial and residential buildings. So yeah, more people does equal to more pollution. And I don't think the Chevy Chase Library site is a realistic site for people to walk to work, as you suggest.

Since when does affordable housing = "poors?" Affordable housing differs from low-income housing, which is apparently what you were referring to in very pejorative terms. Since when does "poors" = race? Your assumptions say so much about your own twisted biases. But again, when the facts don't o your way, pound the table and yell like hell.

There is little bike traffic on CT Ave because it is a dangerous as EFF road to ride on.

There is also little bike traffic because there is little bike traffic.

If people felt safe to rid on it, they would. It isn't safe, ergo...

Serious question, if it’s as unsafe as you claim (BTW, zero recorded deaths along the project area) would a six inch piece of concrete make it materially safer?

4 people have died north of calvert in the last two years. one of them was in a car at the zoo, the other 3 were not - one walking across the road in a cross walk and the other two eating lunch at a greek restaurant.

Here's a video for you on the high speed road bollards that the PP above is referring to.

So ZERO cynical deaths. Thank you for that.

It's already been mentioned in this thread. Cyclist use of Conn Ave is seriously suppressed, because of legitimate safety concerns. There have been 6 crashes involving automobiles and bikes with injuries that were reported by the cyclists in that same time period.

Do we have pay for a cycle lane with the blood of a dead cyclist now?

Wouldn't it be smarter -- and safer -- to move the bike lanes (and cyclists) to Reno Road, instead of diverting Connecticut Avenue to Reno?

This has been suggested a million times. Please see the multi-hundred page thread on the topic:

https://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/1081657.page

The answer to your question is in there about 50 times.

The Smart Growth Urbanists apparently don't like the idea.

It isn't about smart growth urbanists. the retail is on the Avenue. That is where people want to go. Diverting cyclists to go up and down the hills in Cleveland Park to get from one commercial area to another is plain stupid. Add to it, are you taking 1.5 lanes from Reno to do this? How will that work?

It would be better for pedestrian safety in the neighborhood for cyclists to go up and down the (modest) hills in Cleveland Park than to divert a lot of car and truck traffic up and down the side streets and Reno Rd, because Connecticut Ave traffic is gridlocked.

Why would the CT Ave be gridlocked? There would be two dedicated lanes throughout in both directions. Currently, the left lane has turning vehicles and the right lane has cars parked on it. That won't be the case given turn lanes and Pick-up/drop off areas in the new configuration.

Because one lane in each direction will constantly be taken up by delivery vehicles of all sorts, ride shares, and normal lazy people. Until the City gets serious about enforcement of any law, traffic or criminal, the bike lane project is just a pipe dream. I think most anti-bike lane people are pro traffic enforcement. This is an area where both sides could work together on. Imagine the crazy purple haired bike riders and the goofy yellow shirts joining forces. Us normal people could even help!

Currently there is a parking lane and then a lane taken by deliveries. And add to that the left turning cars. The proposed plan addresses a lot of this with turn lanes and pick-up/drop-off areas. Car traffic will flow better and with bike lanes, more people will be able to use biking rather than driving for short errands.

Seems like a win-win.

Except that's not really true and it conflicts with the stated purpose of increasing congestion for safety.

Does increasing congestion for safety always work? Sometimes drivers drive erratically and take more chances when they are trying to extricate themselves from traffic jams.

Yes. The biggest danger is speed. That's physics. F=ma.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Chevy Chase DC on Connecticut Avenue is almost the perfect village shopping district in the city. Its mixture of neighborhood-serving retail and dining options is quite nice, as is the pedestrian scale. I don’t understand the imperative of downtown DC planners to turn this attractive area in to Friendship Heights East. Is their planning goal that every Washington neighborhood should become a generic riff on the Navy Yard?

The city wants to take its own property and put it to better use for more people that includes housing, a new community center and new library. Why is this a bad thing?

Because people who live in the area don't want it. We like our neighborhood village feel and don't need some developer to come in and turn it into some generic soulless development that mainly benefits the developers themselves. The Connecticut Ave apartments are teeming with vacancies. There's not housing shortage in Ward 3. Turn those into affordable housing. More people equals a more polluted city. Residential buildings are the second largest contributor to greenhouse gases (after commercial buildings) in DC. Single family housing is greener for DC.

https://doee.dc.gov/service/greenhouse-gas-inventories

*some* people who live in the area don't want it

there are plenty of people who live in the area who do want it

More people does not equal a more polluted city, particularly if said people are walking, bikin or using mass transit to get to work

but nice coded racist language to assume that the "poors" who would be living there are "dirty" - that is a you problem.

Ah, yes, if the facts are against you, pound the table and yell like hell. And your implicit assumption about my race is off the mark too.

Since you can't deal with the evidence-based link that actually shows that commercial and residential buildings are the biggest contributors to greenhouse gas emissions in the district (by far outstripping that produced by passenger vehicles for those reading along), you tried to throw in some sort of misguided race card because you have no facts on which to hang your argument.

On your comment about "many" wanting bike lanes. It seems that those who don't want the bike lanes outstrip those who do, given the plan to go back to the drawing board on the lanes. The is little to no bike traffic on Connecticut Ave NW at any given time, suggesting the demand for the bike lanes is largely rooted in the figments of the bike lobby members' imaginations (and let's add the GGW ANC members for good measure).


I won't even address your malicious attempt to twist words, so let's again stick to facts. The biggest greenhouse gas emitters in DC are commercial and residential buildings. So yeah, more people does equal to more pollution. And I don't think the Chevy Chase Library site is a realistic site for people to walk to work, as you suggest.

Since when does affordable housing = "poors?" Affordable housing differs from low-income housing, which is apparently what you were referring to in very pejorative terms. Since when does "poors" = race? Your assumptions say so much about your own twisted biases. But again, when the facts don't o your way, pound the table and yell like hell.

There is little bike traffic on CT Ave because it is a dangerous as EFF road to ride on.

There is also little bike traffic because there is little bike traffic.

If people felt safe to rid on it, they would. It isn't safe, ergo...

Serious question, if it’s as unsafe as you claim (BTW, zero recorded deaths along the project area) would a six inch piece of concrete make it materially safer?

Yes? Each concrete bollard is about 1,250 lbs. They are 8 inches tall and between 10 to 12 inches wide. And there is also the 1.5 ft of buffer space that these go into.

Most accidents occur when a vehicle is turning at an intersection, into a driveway, an alley, etc. The concrete bollards are not of use there.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is a difference between the voucher apartments like at Tilden and CT and what is being proposed at the Chevy Chase core area. Please don't make false inferences.

Every rental property is a potential voucher property, because it’s illegal for any rental property to turn down a housing voucher applicant. Don’t believe me? Here’s our attorney general: “It is illegal for landlords to discriminate against tenants for using housing vouchers. It is also illegal to discriminate against a voucher holder based on rental payment history prior to receiving the voucher. “

https://oag.dc.gov/release/ag-schwalb-files-first-lawsuit-enforcing-new-anti

D.C. gives the vouchers to people. The people pick the property they want to rent, and it’s illegal for any apartment complex to turn them down.

This is all true. Every rental property is a potential voucher property (well, below a certain rental level - so I guess every "normally" constructed rental property is - the penthouse apt in Georgetown isn't gonna get knocked down enough for a voucher holder to afford). So the solution is either to build way more expensive apartments (no studios, all 2 bedrooms with fancy finishings and a high rent) - or, perhaps, we could fix the voucher program.

It's not that voucher holders are bad people. It's not that the voucher program only produces bad results. I mean, we hardly ever hear about the voucher holder who lives quietly in a well-heeled Ward 3 building and whose kids are going to one of the local schools and they are doing well for themselves compared to where they would be if that didn't happen. But that is actually the rule. What we hear about instead is the exception - the small number of voucher holders who are trouble makers and who act in ways that are provocative or who engage in crime. Those are the exceptions.

We shouldn't throw out the whole program - which does do a lot of good for a lot of people - just because of some small proportion of bad actors. We should try to and push for reforms that address the bad actors. Some type of penalty to suspend or remove the voucher if something bad occurs because of their behavior.

Can’t DC then focus on the bad troublemakers among the voucher holders and evict them? Perhaps there’s free DC-provided housing for them that is more appropriate: it’s called prison!

You mean like... calling for courts to actually process people who are voucher holders and present a threat? Oh wait.. Frumin is doing that!
https://x.com/CMFrumin/status/1727355427019686017?s=20

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Chevy Chase DC on Connecticut Avenue is almost the perfect village shopping district in the city. Its mixture of neighborhood-serving retail and dining options is quite nice, as is the pedestrian scale. I don’t understand the imperative of downtown DC planners to turn this attractive area in to Friendship Heights East. Is their planning goal that every Washington neighborhood should become a generic riff on the Navy Yard?

The city wants to take its own property and put it to better use for more people that includes housing, a new community center and new library. Why is this a bad thing?

Because people who live in the area don't want it. We like our neighborhood village feel and don't need some developer to come in and turn it into some generic soulless development that mainly benefits the developers themselves. The Connecticut Ave apartments are teeming with vacancies. There's not housing shortage in Ward 3. Turn those into affordable housing. More people equals a more polluted city. Residential buildings are the second largest contributor to greenhouse gases (after commercial buildings) in DC. Single family housing is greener for DC.

https://doee.dc.gov/service/greenhouse-gas-inventories

*some* people who live in the area don't want it

there are plenty of people who live in the area who do want it

More people does not equal a more polluted city, particularly if said people are walking, bikin or using mass transit to get to work

but nice coded racist language to assume that the "poors" who would be living there are "dirty" - that is a you problem.

Ah, yes, if the facts are against you, pound the table and yell like hell. And your implicit assumption about my race is off the mark too.

Since you can't deal with the evidence-based link that actually shows that commercial and residential buildings are the biggest contributors to greenhouse gas emissions in the district (by far outstripping that produced by passenger vehicles for those reading along), you tried to throw in some sort of misguided race card because you have no facts on which to hang your argument.

On your comment about "many" wanting bike lanes. It seems that those who don't want the bike lanes outstrip those who do, given the plan to go back to the drawing board on the lanes. The is little to no bike traffic on Connecticut Ave NW at any given time, suggesting the demand for the bike lanes is largely rooted in the figments of the bike lobby members' imaginations (and let's add the GGW ANC members for good measure).


I won't even address your malicious attempt to twist words, so let's again stick to facts. The biggest greenhouse gas emitters in DC are commercial and residential buildings. So yeah, more people does equal to more pollution. And I don't think the Chevy Chase Library site is a realistic site for people to walk to work, as you suggest.

Since when does affordable housing = "poors?" Affordable housing differs from low-income housing, which is apparently what you were referring to in very pejorative terms. Since when does "poors" = race? Your assumptions say so much about your own twisted biases. But again, when the facts don't o your way, pound the table and yell like hell.

There is little bike traffic on CT Ave because it is a dangerous as EFF road to ride on.

There is also little bike traffic because there is little bike traffic.

If people felt safe to rid on it, they would. It isn't safe, ergo...

Serious question, if it’s as unsafe as you claim (BTW, zero recorded deaths along the project area) would a six inch piece of concrete make it materially safer?

Yes? Each concrete bollard is about 1,250 lbs. They are 8 inches tall and between 10 to 12 inches wide. And there is also the 1.5 ft of buffer space that these go into.

Most accidents occur when a vehicle is turning at an intersection, into a driveway, an alley, etc. The concrete bollards are not of use there.

No, but they stop someone from merging into you while moving at speed. While many CRASHES occur at intersections, many CRASHES also occur on the roadway. PBL's mitigate the latter. Protected intersections, no right hand turn on red help to mitigate the former.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is a difference between the voucher apartments like at Tilden and CT and what is being proposed at the Chevy Chase core area. Please don't make false inferences.

Every rental property is a potential voucher property, because it’s illegal for any rental property to turn down a housing voucher applicant. Don’t believe me? Here’s our attorney general: “It is illegal for landlords to discriminate against tenants for using housing vouchers. It is also illegal to discriminate against a voucher holder based on rental payment history prior to receiving the voucher. “

https://oag.dc.gov/release/ag-schwalb-files-first-lawsuit-enforcing-new-anti

D.C. gives the vouchers to people. The people pick the property they want to rent, and it’s illegal for any apartment complex to turn them down.

This is all true. Every rental property is a potential voucher property (well, below a certain rental level - so I guess every "normally" constructed rental property is - the penthouse apt in Georgetown isn't gonna get knocked down enough for a voucher holder to afford). So the solution is either to build way more expensive apartments (no studios, all 2 bedrooms with fancy finishings and a high rent) - or, perhaps, we could fix the voucher program.

It's not that voucher holders are bad people. It's not that the voucher program only produces bad results. I mean, we hardly ever hear about the voucher holder who lives quietly in a well-heeled Ward 3 building and whose kids are going to one of the local schools and they are doing well for themselves compared to where they would be if that didn't happen. But that is actually the rule. What we hear about instead is the exception - the small number of voucher holders who are trouble makers and who act in ways that are provocative or who engage in crime. Those are the exceptions.

We shouldn't throw out the whole program - which does do a lot of good for a lot of people - just because of some small proportion of bad actors. We should try to and push for reforms that address the bad actors. Some type of penalty to suspend or remove the voucher if something bad occurs because of their behavior.

I think you are ill informed. The voucher program pays well OVER market rate, in fact in 2023 it was 187% of market rate in many neighborhoods. It also applies to condo units that are rented out.

In practice, this means the agency can pay landlords up to $2,930 for a one-bedroom unit anywhere in the city.

https://thedcline.org/2022/10/20/thousands-of-people-in-dc-use-housing-vouchers-how-much-should-they-be-worth/

The prices for larger units in NW are so significant that some bought units in CP and FH as investment properties to tap the voucher stream. These are NOT low value Section 8 vouchers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Chevy Chase DC on Connecticut Avenue is almost the perfect village shopping district in the city. Its mixture of neighborhood-serving retail and dining options is quite nice, as is the pedestrian scale. I don’t understand the imperative of downtown DC planners to turn this attractive area in to Friendship Heights East. Is their planning goal that every Washington neighborhood should become a generic riff on the Navy Yard?

The city wants to take its own property and put it to better use for more people that includes housing, a new community center and new library. Why is this a bad thing?

Because people who live in the area don't want it. We like our neighborhood village feel and don't need some developer to come in and turn it into some generic soulless development that mainly benefits the developers themselves. The Connecticut Ave apartments are teeming with vacancies. There's not housing shortage in Ward 3. Turn those into affordable housing. More people equals a more polluted city. Residential buildings are the second largest contributor to greenhouse gases (after commercial buildings) in DC. Single family housing is greener for DC.

https://doee.dc.gov/service/greenhouse-gas-inventories

*some* people who live in the area don't want it

there are plenty of people who live in the area who do want it

More people does not equal a more polluted city, particularly if said people are walking, bikin or using mass transit to get to work

but nice coded racist language to assume that the "poors" who would be living there are "dirty" - that is a you problem.

Ah, yes, if the facts are against you, pound the table and yell like hell. And your implicit assumption about my race is off the mark too.

Since you can't deal with the evidence-based link that actually shows that commercial and residential buildings are the biggest contributors to greenhouse gas emissions in the district (by far outstripping that produced by passenger vehicles for those reading along), you tried to throw in some sort of misguided race card because you have no facts on which to hang your argument.

On your comment about "many" wanting bike lanes. It seems that those who don't want the bike lanes outstrip those who do, given the plan to go back to the drawing board on the lanes. The is little to no bike traffic on Connecticut Ave NW at any given time, suggesting the demand for the bike lanes is largely rooted in the figments of the bike lobby members' imaginations (and let's add the GGW ANC members for good measure).


I won't even address your malicious attempt to twist words, so let's again stick to facts. The biggest greenhouse gas emitters in DC are commercial and residential buildings. So yeah, more people does equal to more pollution. And I don't think the Chevy Chase Library site is a realistic site for people to walk to work, as you suggest.

Since when does affordable housing = "poors?" Affordable housing differs from low-income housing, which is apparently what you were referring to in very pejorative terms. Since when does "poors" = race? Your assumptions say so much about your own twisted biases. But again, when the facts don't o your way, pound the table and yell like hell.

There is little bike traffic on CT Ave because it is a dangerous as EFF road to ride on.

There is also little bike traffic because there is little bike traffic.

If people felt safe to rid on it, they would. It isn't safe, ergo...

Serious question, if it’s as unsafe as you claim (BTW, zero recorded deaths along the project area) would a six inch piece of concrete make it materially safer?

Yes? Each concrete bollard is about 1,250 lbs. They are 8 inches tall and between 10 to 12 inches wide. And there is also the 1.5 ft of buffer space that these go into.

Most accidents occur when a vehicle is turning at an intersection, into a driveway, an alley, etc. The concrete bollards are not of use there.

Definitely. That's why nobody ever bothers putting bollards around gas meters, utility boxes, etc. They're not at intersections, after all!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is zero evidence that protected bike lanes induce cycling.

DDOT has bike counters throughout the district that they have now stopped operating because the results do not should increased utilization over time. What the data shows is that cycling is highly seasonal and many of the lanes have daily users in the tens during January. Second, the utilization that occurs on the first day is constant throughout time. This last point is critically important because what the lanes apparently do is collect existing cyclists that may be using different routes, but do not induce cycling.

As more evidence that more bike lanes don’t induce more cycling, surveys by MWCOG, USDOT and the Census Bureau are all consistent that there are fewer bike commuters now, as a percentage of total commuters, than in 2015.

Apparently, 2015 was peak cycling for most cities in America, including famously Portland, where bike commuting has also declined. NYC is basically a national outlier.

Further evidence abounds all around DC. Just look at all the empty bike lanes. My favorite is in Germantown, near 355, where the narrow bike lane is sandwiched between three lanes of traffic on the left and a right turn lane on the right. Who in their right mind thought that was safe for bikes or cars?

I bike a lot in Germantown. I don't know which specific location you're talking about. But the answer is probably: nobody thinks it's safe for bicyclists. Including the State Highway Administration, which built it, but it meets the official minimum standards for a bike lane, so that's what they do. And including the bicyclists, who don't use it, but instead ride on the sidewalk. Maybe if every time you read "protected bike lane," you think "sidewalk," that will help you understand.

Now, as it happens, there actually are a lot of people getting around in Germantown on bikes, even though you probably don't see us, because we are mostly on the sidewalks. Which raises the question: if there are a lot of people getting around in Germantown on bikes, with almost zero good bike infrastructure, how many people would get around in Germantown on bikes if there were good bike infrastructure?

Also, it's very common for people to see me with my bike, like outside a store, and say, "Oh, I would love to bike to the store, but I'm afraid of the cars." or "Oh, I would love to bike to the store, but my husband say it isn't safe."

Nobody ever sees me with my car, outside a store, and says, "Oh, I would love to spend even more time driving and in parking lots!"

If a lot of people are already biking on sidewalks, then why do we need bike lanes?

The bike lane I was referring to is heading West crossing 355, right at that huge Patriot Urgent Care building.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is a difference between the voucher apartments like at Tilden and CT and what is being proposed at the Chevy Chase core area. Please don't make false inferences.

Every rental property is a potential voucher property, because it’s illegal for any rental property to turn down a housing voucher applicant. Don’t believe me? Here’s our attorney general: “It is illegal for landlords to discriminate against tenants for using housing vouchers. It is also illegal to discriminate against a voucher holder based on rental payment history prior to receiving the voucher. “

https://oag.dc.gov/release/ag-schwalb-files-first-lawsuit-enforcing-new-anti

D.C. gives the vouchers to people. The people pick the property they want to rent, and it’s illegal for any apartment complex to turn them down.

This is all true. Every rental property is a potential voucher property (well, below a certain rental level - so I guess every "normally" constructed rental property is - the penthouse apt in Georgetown isn't gonna get knocked down enough for a voucher holder to afford). So the solution is either to build way more expensive apartments (no studios, all 2 bedrooms with fancy finishings and a high rent) - or, perhaps, we could fix the voucher program.

It's not that voucher holders are bad people. It's not that the voucher program only produces bad results. I mean, we hardly ever hear about the voucher holder who lives quietly in a well-heeled Ward 3 building and whose kids are going to one of the local schools and they are doing well for themselves compared to where they would be if that didn't happen. But that is actually the rule. What we hear about instead is the exception - the small number of voucher holders who are trouble makers and who act in ways that are provocative or who engage in crime. Those are the exceptions.

We shouldn't throw out the whole program - which does do a lot of good for a lot of people - just because of some small proportion of bad actors. We should try to and push for reforms that address the bad actors. Some type of penalty to suspend or remove the voucher if something bad occurs because of their behavior.

Can’t DC then focus on the bad troublemakers among the voucher holders and evict them? Perhaps there’s free DC-provided housing for them that is more appropriate: it’s called prison!

You mean like... calling for courts to actually process people who are voucher holders and present a threat? Oh wait.. Frumin is doing that!
https://x.com/CMFrumin/status/1727355427019686017?s=20

In Forest Hills and CP, evicted voucher holders have simply moved to nearby buildings. The city does not seem to remove vouchers even for violent crimes, etc. committed on the premises, This was covered in a recent WP story as well as an older one re: Sedgewick Gardens. In that case, a voucher holder stabbed someone and created a SWAT standoff. While he was in DC Jail the other residents got a stay away order for the building. The property management company simply transferred his voucher up the street to The Brandywine for when he was released. This story is more recent.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2023/08/08/dc-paid-housing-chronic-homelessness/

Even when tenants are arrested, they’re quickly released and able to return to the building, Derosa said during the meeting, because neither the Housing Authority nor the District’s Department of Human Services will revoke their vouchers or otherwise hold them accountable.

[Anonymous]

The stupidest part of the affordable housing plan is the sheer entitled ignorance of the people in Chevy Chase clamoring for it. They have no idea what they're talking about. It's as if living in Chevy Chase were some kind of balm that will cure all ills. People live in affordable housing because they don't have enough money. They will be surrounded by expensive restaurants and stores. Even the gas is more expensive there. Or are we going to give them vouchers for all those things, too? Their kids will have no friends. Don't kid yourself that children are going to bond with someone they have nothing in common with. They won't have the huge tvs, the game rooms, the vacations, the nice cars, the right sneakers. It will get old fast. Again, ti's wishful thinking that all those things don't matter. They do.

They're better off living in affordable neighborhoods and getting a break on rent to live where they can otherwise afford to exist. Moving broke people to Chevy Chase is just plain stupid.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is zero evidence that protected bike lanes induce cycling.

DDOT has bike counters throughout the district that they have now stopped operating because the results do not should increased utilization over time. What the data shows is that cycling is highly seasonal and many of the lanes have daily users in the tens during January. Second, the utilization that occurs on the first day is constant throughout time. This last point is critically important because what the lanes apparently do is collect existing cyclists that may be using different routes, but do not induce cycling.

As more evidence that more bike lanes don’t induce more cycling, surveys by MWCOG, USDOT and the Census Bureau are all consistent that there are fewer bike commuters now, as a percentage of total commuters, than in 2015.

Apparently, 2015 was peak cycling for most cities in America, including famously Portland, where bike commuting has also declined. NYC is basically a national outlier.

Further evidence abounds all around DC. Just look at all the empty bike lanes. My favorite is in Germantown, near 355, where the narrow bike lane is sandwiched between three lanes of traffic on the left and a right turn lane on the right. Who in their right mind thought that was safe for bikes or cars?

I bike a lot in Germantown. I don't know which specific location you're talking about. But the answer is probably: nobody thinks it's safe for bicyclists. Including the State Highway Administration, which built it, but it meets the official minimum standards for a bike lane, so that's what they do. And including the bicyclists, who don't use it, but instead ride on the sidewalk. Maybe if every time you read "protected bike lane," you think "sidewalk," that will help you understand.

Now, as it happens, there actually are a lot of people getting around in Germantown on bikes, even though you probably don't see us, because we are mostly on the sidewalks. Which raises the question: if there are a lot of people getting around in Germantown on bikes, with almost zero good bike infrastructure, how many people would get around in Germantown on bikes if there were good bike infrastructure?

Also, it's very common for people to see me with my bike, like outside a store, and say, "Oh, I would love to bike to the store, but I'm afraid of the cars." or "Oh, I would love to bike to the store, but my husband say it isn't safe."

Nobody ever sees me with my car, outside a store, and says, "Oh, I would love to spend even more time driving and in parking lots!"

If a lot of people are already biking on sidewalks, then why do we need bike lanes?

The bike lane I was referring to is heading West crossing 355, right at that huge Patriot Urgent Care building.

Maybe you can ask some of your "bicyclists shouldn't be on the sidewalk" friends.

There are no bike lanes on Middlebrook east of 355, only west of 355. The speed limit on Middlebrook is 40 mph, and it's not surprising that nobody rides in a little strip of asphalt protected by a line of paint next to 3 lanes (each way) of cars going 45-55 mph. The main purpose of those bike lanes wasn't even bike lanes, it was to occupy the space when the county narrowed the driving lanes so that cars wouldn't go 60 mph, because Middlebrook had so many bad car crashes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is zero evidence that protected bike lanes induce cycling.

DDOT has bike counters throughout the district that they have now stopped operating because the results do not should increased utilization over time. What the data shows is that cycling is highly seasonal and many of the lanes have daily users in the tens during January. Second, the utilization that occurs on the first day is constant throughout time. This last point is critically important because what the lanes apparently do is collect existing cyclists that may be using different routes, but do not induce cycling.

As more evidence that more bike lanes don’t induce more cycling, surveys by MWCOG, USDOT and the Census Bureau are all consistent that there are fewer bike commuters now, as a percentage of total commuters, than in 2015.

Apparently, 2015 was peak cycling for most cities in America, including famously Portland, where bike commuting has also declined. NYC is basically a national outlier.

Further evidence abounds all around DC. Just look at all the empty bike lanes. My favorite is in Germantown, near 355, where the narrow bike lane is sandwiched between three lanes of traffic on the left and a right turn lane on the right. Who in their right mind thought that was safe for bikes or cars?

I bike a lot in Germantown. I don't know which specific location you're talking about. But the answer is probably: nobody thinks it's safe for bicyclists. Including the State Highway Administration, which built it, but it meets the official minimum standards for a bike lane, so that's what they do. And including the bicyclists, who don't use it, but instead ride on the sidewalk. Maybe if every time you read "protected bike lane," you think "sidewalk," that will help you understand.

Now, as it happens, there actually are a lot of people getting around in Germantown on bikes, even though you probably don't see us, because we are mostly on the sidewalks. Which raises the question: if there are a lot of people getting around in Germantown on bikes, with almost zero good bike infrastructure, how many people would get around in Germantown on bikes if there were good bike infrastructure?

Also, it's very common for people to see me with my bike, like outside a store, and say, "Oh, I would love to bike to the store, but I'm afraid of the cars." or "Oh, I would love to bike to the store, but my husband say it isn't safe."

Nobody ever sees me with my car, outside a store, and says, "Oh, I would love to spend even more time driving and in parking lots!"

If a lot of people are already biking on sidewalks, then why do we need bike lanes?

The bike lane I was referring to is heading West crossing 355, right at that huge Patriot Urgent Care building.

Maybe you can ask some of your "bicyclists shouldn't be on the sidewalk" friends.

There are no bike lanes on Middlebrook east of 355, only west of 355. The speed limit on Middlebrook is 40 mph, and it's not surprising that nobody rides in a little strip of asphalt protected by a line of paint next to 3 lanes (each way) of cars going 45-55 mph. The main purpose of those bike lanes wasn't even bike lanes, it was to occupy the space when the county narrowed the driving lanes so that cars wouldn't go 60 mph, because Middlebrook had so many bad car crashes.

Uh, the poster I responded to said they bike on the sidewalk. Not sure how they are doing that if there are no sidewalks. And you are mistaken -- there is a bike lane between the left three lanes of traffic and the right turn lane.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is zero evidence that protected bike lanes induce cycling.

DDOT has bike counters throughout the district that they have now stopped operating because the results do not should increased utilization over time. What the data shows is that cycling is highly seasonal and many of the lanes have daily users in the tens during January. Second, the utilization that occurs on the first day is constant throughout time. This last point is critically important because what the lanes apparently do is collect existing cyclists that may be using different routes, but do not induce cycling.

As more evidence that more bike lanes don’t induce more cycling, surveys by MWCOG, USDOT and the Census Bureau are all consistent that there are fewer bike commuters now, as a percentage of total commuters, than in 2015.

Apparently, 2015 was peak cycling for most cities in America, including famously Portland, where bike commuting has also declined. NYC is basically a national outlier.

Further evidence abounds all around DC. Just look at all the empty bike lanes. My favorite is in Germantown, near 355, where the narrow bike lane is sandwiched between three lanes of traffic on the left and a right turn lane on the right. Who in their right mind thought that was safe for bikes or cars?

I bike a lot in Germantown. I don't know which specific location you're talking about. But the answer is probably: nobody thinks it's safe for bicyclists. Including the State Highway Administration, which built it, but it meets the official minimum standards for a bike lane, so that's what they do. And including the bicyclists, who don't use it, but instead ride on the sidewalk. Maybe if every time you read "protected bike lane," you think "sidewalk," that will help you understand.

Now, as it happens, there actually are a lot of people getting around in Germantown on bikes, even though you probably don't see us, because we are mostly on the sidewalks. Which raises the question: if there are a lot of people getting around in Germantown on bikes, with almost zero good bike infrastructure, how many people would get around in Germantown on bikes if there were good bike infrastructure?

Also, it's very common for people to see me with my bike, like outside a store, and say, "Oh, I would love to bike to the store, but I'm afraid of the cars." or "Oh, I would love to bike to the store, but my husband say it isn't safe."

Nobody ever sees me with my car, outside a store, and says, "Oh, I would love to spend even more time driving and in parking lots!"

If a lot of people are already biking on sidewalks, then why do we need bike lanes?

The bike lane I was referring to is heading West crossing 355, right at that huge Patriot Urgent Care building.

Maybe you can ask some of your "bicyclists shouldn't be on the sidewalk" friends.

There are no bike lanes on Middlebrook east of 355, only west of 355. The speed limit on Middlebrook is 40 mph, and it's not surprising that nobody rides in a little strip of asphalt protected by a line of paint next to 3 lanes (each way) of cars going 45-55 mph. The main purpose of those bike lanes wasn't even bike lanes, it was to occupy the space when the county narrowed the driving lanes so that cars wouldn't go 60 mph, because Middlebrook had so many bad car crashes.

Uh, the poster I responded to said they bike on the sidewalk. Not sure how they are doing that if there are no sidewalks. And you are mistaken -- there is a bike lane between the left three lanes of traffic and the right turn lane.

Who said there aren't sidewalks? There definitely are sidewalks. I bike on them, and so does everybody else.

No, there are no bike lanes on Middlebrook east of 355. Only west of 355. The configuration you're talking about is west of 355. Patriot Urgent Care is east of 355. The bike lane on the west side of 355 is between the through lanes and the right-turn lane, because otherwise cars that are turning right would turn right across the path of bicyclists who are going straight. That is actually the good part of the bike lane design. The bad part of the bike lane design is everything else.