Connecticut Ave bike lanes are back!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Connecticut Ave needs 1 lane each way for cars, 1 lane each way for buses, and 1 lane each way for cyclists. Anything more than that creates the “traffic” that people hate

Um, there's only 2 dozen cyclists, 1 bus line that they want to cut, and 30,000 drivers.

It's laughable that you continue to assert 2 dozen cyclists as a fact

Do you have an alternative number? If so, what is it?

Capital bike share is reporting over 500,000 rides per month. That's either a lot more than 24 bikers, or perhaps you think that they're each going on ~22,000 trips/month.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/transportation/2023/06/20/dc-capital-bikeshare-scooters/

and that's just rented bikes. So I think we can safely agree that the numbers you used are misinformation and you're okay with me reporting it as such every time you post it going forward

On Connecticut not the entire city.

Ok Karen

I drive Connecticut Ave every single day. Two dozen cyclists seems very generous. On an average day driving in NW DC and the MD burbs, I see more ghost bikes than living cyclists.

If we had similar infrastructure as Holland, I still don't think Connecticut Ave would be a major commuting choice for cyclists. Holland is flat. Connecticut Avenue is deceptively hilly, which is fine for a 28 year old looking to get a workout in before work. But not great for 52 year olds in business attire that need to get to a 9 am meeting. And it's the nature of American life, even in cities, that grocery stores, schools, the doctor's office and all the other destinations that most people add to their work commutes are located far apart. Throw in the lack of dedicated bike lanes with their own traffic lights that are physically separate from car and bus lanes - like Holland does - and it's generally not safe for cyclists. It doesn't help that so many cyclists are obnoxious and reckless. Who wants to be identified with those a##holes?

It doesn't work. We would need to retrofit the infrastructure, the economy, schools, and even culture to make it worthwhile to really invest in cycling. Having an efficient, safe and affordable metro should be the priority. Taking out two lanes on Connecticut Avenue is nuts.

E-bikes are a game changer my friend.

You mean dangerous unlicensed electric motorscooters? Thankfully their popularity is on the wane.

[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:So the criminal lobby’s friend, Charles Allen, now wants to prevent DDOT from funding any safety improvements at all along Connecticut Ave. (like a raised crosswalk on Davenport and Connecticut so that Murch kids can walk more safely to school) UNLESS Allen gets his bike lanes.

Is Allen a bratty child or a public servant?!

Never mind, this is my favorite tantrum

And when pedestrians die will you consider that a tantrum too?

Your doomsaying doesn't work on me

Apparently only bike lives matter. You folks are exactly who you present yourselves. Pedestrian safety = scaremongering. Incredible.

Agree. What makes this move so outrageous is that the alternative they chase is safer for pedestrians than the alternative that Allen wants. He’s completely throwing pedestrians under the bus for the sake of cyclists.

More like under Option 3, pedestrians stepping off a bus will get whacked by speeding cyclists as they try to cross the bike lanes to get to the curb. You wouldn't want that to happen to someone's grandma.

Yep, this is the Connecticut Avenue that Charles Allen wants:

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-media-max-width="560"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">WARNING We've been filming the chaotic & downright dangerous situation at the Westminster Bridge floating bus stop at St Thomas' hospital. Clip includes a speeding cyclist crashing into an elderly person. These designs are not safe & they need to be urgently halted <a href="https://twitter.com/Mark_J_Harper?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@Mark_J_Harper</a> <a href="https://t.co/MrScNnWLs7">pic.twitter.com/MrScNnWLs7</a></p>— NFBUK (@NFBUK) <a href="https://twitter.com/NFBUK/status/1787211980027101194?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">May 5, 2024</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

Sorry:

https://twitter.com/NFBUK/status/1787211980027101194

Might one suggest that creating a dedicated bike pathway through RC park be safer for all concerned.

You (falsely) make the assumption that this is solely about commuting downtown, but it isn't. It is about providing a safe mode of transportation in a commercial corridor so people can access amenities in a safe manner, so kids can ride to school safely etc. Sure, some will also commute downtown, but it isn't only about commuting, which is why the people who continuously cite the MWCOG commuting study get it wrong every time.

The bikers who patron the local businesses can use the sidewalks, as they have been for decades. If you are concern is the safety of children biking to school, please explain how diverting traffic to side streets and past several schools increases the safety of children biking. It does not.

Well, yes, they CAN, but sidewalks are primarily for pedestrians. Bicycles on sidewalks don't work for pedestrians or bicyclists, they're only good for drivers who want bicyclists (and pedestrians) to be Somewhere Else, Over There, I Don't Really Care Where As Long As It's Out Of My Way. Sidewalks for pedestrians, bike lanes for people on bikes. This is basic.

Luckily, there aren't enough bicyclists on either Connecticut or its sidewalks for this to have any relevance.

This is true. It’s also true that cyclists can just also ride with concern for the safety of pedestrians when they are on sidewalks.

You mean the same way motorists do when cyclists are on the road?

I am not sure why it’s so hard for cyclists to be considerate of pedestrians the same way that cyclists demand that motorists drive with safety and consideration of cyclists or else face legal consequences.

When a cyclist has to ride on a sidewalk, they have to go very slowly, to the point that the efficiency of being on wheels is lost.

Wow, that’s really just too bad. Now you know what it’s like being in one of the 30 vehicles trapped behind a single cyclist as they plod along at 9 mph on a street posted for 25 or 30 mph.

Which is when you get really frustrated and pass illegally or too close, or god forbid, clip the cyclist.

[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:So the criminal lobby’s friend, Charles Allen, now wants to prevent DDOT from funding any safety improvements at all along Connecticut Ave. (like a raised crosswalk on Davenport and Connecticut so that Murch kids can walk more safely to school) UNLESS Allen gets his bike lanes.

Is Allen a bratty child or a public servant?!

Never mind, this is my favorite tantrum

And when pedestrians die will you consider that a tantrum too?

Your doomsaying doesn't work on me

Apparently only bike lives matter. You folks are exactly who you present yourselves. Pedestrian safety = scaremongering. Incredible.

Agree. What makes this move so outrageous is that the alternative they chase is safer for pedestrians than the alternative that Allen wants. He’s completely throwing pedestrians under the bus for the sake of cyclists.

More like under Option 3, pedestrians stepping off a bus will get whacked by speeding cyclists as they try to cross the bike lanes to get to the curb. You wouldn't want that to happen to someone's grandma.

Yep, this is the Connecticut Avenue that Charles Allen wants:

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-media-max-width="560"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">WARNING We've been filming the chaotic & downright dangerous situation at the Westminster Bridge floating bus stop at St Thomas' hospital. Clip includes a speeding cyclist crashing into an elderly person. These designs are not safe & they need to be urgently halted <a href="https://twitter.com/Mark_J_Harper?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@Mark_J_Harper</a> <a href="https://t.co/MrScNnWLs7">pic.twitter.com/MrScNnWLs7</a></p>— NFBUK (@NFBUK) <a href="https://twitter.com/NFBUK/status/1787211980027101194?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">May 5, 2024</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

Sorry:

https://twitter.com/NFBUK/status/1787211980027101194

Might one suggest that creating a dedicated bike pathway through RC park be safer for all concerned.

You (falsely) make the assumption that this is solely about commuting downtown, but it isn't. It is about providing a safe mode of transportation in a commercial corridor so people can access amenities in a safe manner, so kids can ride to school safely etc. Sure, some will also commute downtown, but it isn't only about commuting, which is why the people who continuously cite the MWCOG commuting study get it wrong every time.

The bikers who patron the local businesses can use the sidewalks, as they have been for decades. If you are concern is the safety of children biking to school, please explain how diverting traffic to side streets and past several schools increases the safety of children biking. It does not.

Well, yes, they CAN, but sidewalks are primarily for pedestrians. Bicycles on sidewalks don't work for pedestrians or bicyclists, they're only good for drivers who want bicyclists (and pedestrians) to be Somewhere Else, Over There, I Don't Really Care Where As Long As It's Out Of My Way. Sidewalks for pedestrians, bike lanes for people on bikes. This is basic.

Luckily, there aren't enough bicyclists on either Connecticut or its sidewalks for this to have any relevance.

This is true. It’s also true that cyclists can just also ride with concern for the safety of pedestrians when they are on sidewalks.

You mean the same way motorists do when cyclists are on the road?

I am not sure why it’s so hard for cyclists to be considerate of pedestrians the same way that cyclists demand that motorists drive with safety and consideration of cyclists or else face legal consequences.

When a cyclist has to ride on a sidewalk, they have to go very slowly, to the point that the efficiency of being on wheels is lost.

Wow, that’s really just too bad. Now you know what it’s like being in one of the 30 vehicles trapped behind a single cyclist as they plod along at 9 mph on a street posted for 25 or 30 mph.

Imagine how much better your driving experience would be if we had a separate lane for bikes

There's only 2 dozen cyclists per day on Connecticut. It makes absolutely no difference.

Keeping the falsehood on auto-post doesn't make it true.

[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:So the criminal lobby’s friend, Charles Allen, now wants to prevent DDOT from funding any safety improvements at all along Connecticut Ave. (like a raised crosswalk on Davenport and Connecticut so that Murch kids can walk more safely to school) UNLESS Allen gets his bike lanes.

Is Allen a bratty child or a public servant?!

Never mind, this is my favorite tantrum

And when pedestrians die will you consider that a tantrum too?

Your doomsaying doesn't work on me

Apparently only bike lives matter. You folks are exactly who you present yourselves. Pedestrian safety = scaremongering. Incredible.

Agree. What makes this move so outrageous is that the alternative they chase is safer for pedestrians than the alternative that Allen wants. He’s completely throwing pedestrians under the bus for the sake of cyclists.

More like under Option 3, pedestrians stepping off a bus will get whacked by speeding cyclists as they try to cross the bike lanes to get to the curb. You wouldn't want that to happen to someone's grandma.

Yep, this is the Connecticut Avenue that Charles Allen wants:

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-media-max-width="560"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">WARNING We've been filming the chaotic & downright dangerous situation at the Westminster Bridge floating bus stop at St Thomas' hospital. Clip includes a speeding cyclist crashing into an elderly person. These designs are not safe & they need to be urgently halted <a href="https://twitter.com/Mark_J_Harper?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@Mark_J_Harper</a> <a href="https://t.co/MrScNnWLs7">pic.twitter.com/MrScNnWLs7</a></p>— NFBUK (@NFBUK) <a href="https://twitter.com/NFBUK/status/1787211980027101194?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">May 5, 2024</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

Sorry:

https://twitter.com/NFBUK/status/1787211980027101194

Might one suggest that creating a dedicated bike pathway through RC park be safer for all concerned.

You (falsely) make the assumption that this is solely about commuting downtown, but it isn't. It is about providing a safe mode of transportation in a commercial corridor so people can access amenities in a safe manner, so kids can ride to school safely etc. Sure, some will also commute downtown, but it isn't only about commuting, which is why the people who continuously cite the MWCOG commuting study get it wrong every time.

The bikers who patron the local businesses can use the sidewalks, as they have been for decades. If you are concern is the safety of children biking to school, please explain how diverting traffic to side streets and past several schools increases the safety of children biking. It does not.

Well, yes, they CAN, but sidewalks are primarily for pedestrians. Bicycles on sidewalks don't work for pedestrians or bicyclists, they're only good for drivers who want bicyclists (and pedestrians) to be Somewhere Else, Over There, I Don't Really Care Where As Long As It's Out Of My Way. Sidewalks for pedestrians, bike lanes for people on bikes. This is basic.

Luckily, there aren't enough bicyclists on either Connecticut or its sidewalks for this to have any relevance.

This is true. It’s also true that cyclists can just also ride with concern for the safety of pedestrians when they are on sidewalks.

You mean the same way motorists do when cyclists are on the road?

I am not sure why it’s so hard for cyclists to be considerate of pedestrians the same way that cyclists demand that motorists drive with safety and consideration of cyclists or else face legal consequences.

When a cyclist has to ride on a sidewalk, they have to go very slowly, to the point that the efficiency of being on wheels is lost.

Wow, that’s really just too bad. Now you know what it’s like being in one of the 30 vehicles trapped behind a single cyclist as they plod along at 9 mph on a street posted for 25 or 30 mph.

Which is when you get really frustrated and pass illegally or too close, or god forbid, clip the cyclist.

And hopefully you don’t do the same and injure a pedestrian.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Connecticut Ave needs 1 lane each way for cars, 1 lane each way for buses, and 1 lane each way for cyclists. Anything more than that creates the “traffic” that people hate

Um, there's only 2 dozen cyclists, 1 bus line that they want to cut, and 30,000 drivers.

It's laughable that you continue to assert 2 dozen cyclists as a fact

Do you have an alternative number? If so, what is it?

Capital bike share is reporting over 500,000 rides per month. That's either a lot more than 24 bikers, or perhaps you think that they're each going on ~22,000 trips/month.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/transportation/2023/06/20/dc-capital-bikeshare-scooters/

and that's just rented bikes. So I think we can safely agree that the numbers you used are misinformation and you're okay with me reporting it as such every time you post it going forward

On Connecticut not the entire city.

Ok Karen

I drive Connecticut Ave every single day. Two dozen cyclists seems very generous. On an average day driving in NW DC and the MD burbs, I see more ghost bikes than living cyclists.

If we had similar infrastructure as Holland, I still don't think Connecticut Ave would be a major commuting choice for cyclists. Holland is flat. Connecticut Avenue is deceptively hilly, which is fine for a 28 year old looking to get a workout in before work. But not great for 52 year olds in business attire that need to get to a 9 am meeting. And it's the nature of American life, even in cities, that grocery stores, schools, the doctor's office and all the other destinations that most people add to their work commutes are located far apart. Throw in the lack of dedicated bike lanes with their own traffic lights that are physically separate from car and bus lanes - like Holland does - and it's generally not safe for cyclists. It doesn't help that so many cyclists are obnoxious and reckless. Who wants to be identified with those a##holes?

It doesn't work. We would need to retrofit the infrastructure, the economy, schools, and even culture to make it worthwhile to really invest in cycling. Having an efficient, safe and affordable metro should be the priority. Taking out two lanes on Connecticut Avenue is nuts.

E-bikes are a game changer my friend.

You mean dangerous unlicensed electric motorscooters? Thankfully their popularity is on the wane.

I think they meant eBikes - which are not the same

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Connecticut Ave needs 1 lane each way for cars, 1 lane each way for buses, and 1 lane each way for cyclists. Anything more than that creates the “traffic” that people hate

Um, there's only 2 dozen cyclists, 1 bus line that they want to cut, and 30,000 drivers.

It's laughable that you continue to assert 2 dozen cyclists as a fact

Do you have an alternative number? If so, what is it?

Capital bike share is reporting over 500,000 rides per month. That's either a lot more than 24 bikers, or perhaps you think that they're each going on ~22,000 trips/month.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/transportation/2023/06/20/dc-capital-bikeshare-scooters/

and that's just rented bikes. So I think we can safely agree that the numbers you used are misinformation and you're okay with me reporting it as such every time you post it going forward

On Connecticut not the entire city.

Ok Karen

I drive Connecticut Ave every single day. Two dozen cyclists seems very generous. On an average day driving in NW DC and the MD burbs, I see more ghost bikes than living cyclists.

If we had similar infrastructure as Holland, I still don't think Connecticut Ave would be a major commuting choice for cyclists. Holland is flat. Connecticut Avenue is deceptively hilly, which is fine for a 28 year old looking to get a workout in before work. But not great for 52 year olds in business attire that need to get to a 9 am meeting. And it's the nature of American life, even in cities, that grocery stores, schools, the doctor's office and all the other destinations that most people add to their work commutes are located far apart. Throw in the lack of dedicated bike lanes with their own traffic lights that are physically separate from car and bus lanes - like Holland does - and it's generally not safe for cyclists. It doesn't help that so many cyclists are obnoxious and reckless. Who wants to be identified with those a##holes?

It doesn't work. We would need to retrofit the infrastructure, the economy, schools, and even culture to make it worthwhile to really invest in cycling. Having an efficient, safe and affordable metro should be the priority. Taking out two lanes on Connecticut Avenue is nuts.

The 52-year-olds in business attire that need to get to a 9 a.m. meeting can leave earlier, so they have time to shower and change at the gym in their office (which their building likely has, at this point). At 48 years old, I'm much closer to the 52-year-old than the 28-year-old in this scenario, and I have no trouble at all biking to work and packing work clothes to put on when I get there. Also, I need the workout more now than I did when I was 28.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Connecticut Ave needs 1 lane each way for cars, 1 lane each way for buses, and 1 lane each way for cyclists. Anything more than that creates the “traffic” that people hate

And then where will all the truck and auto traffic go?

[Anonymous]

DC will electrify the local e-bike sector by giving everyone $2000 to buy an e-bike.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:DC will electrify the local e-bike sector by giving everyone $2000 to buy an e-bike.

The program is designed for low income residents. It has so far been wildly successful.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DC will electrify the local e-bike sector by giving everyone $2000 to buy an e-bike.

The program is designed for low income residents. It has so far been wildly successful.

BREAKING NEWS: People like free stuff.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DC will electrify the local e-bike sector by giving everyone $2000 to buy an e-bike.

The program is designed for low income residents. It has so far been wildly successful.

BREAKING NEWS: People like free stuff.

Like street parking!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DC will electrify the local e-bike sector by giving everyone $2000 to buy an e-bike.

The program is designed for low income residents. It has so far been wildly successful.

BREAKING NEWS: People like free stuff.

Like street parking!

Street parking is only free because the City lacks the political will to enforce parking laws.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DC will electrify the local e-bike sector by giving everyone $2000 to buy an e-bike.

The program is designed for low income residents. It has so far been wildly successful.

BREAKING NEWS: People like free stuff.

it's not free. It is subsidized.

Do you know what else is subsidized?

Gasoline.
Road maintenance.
Pollution mitigation.
Healthcare.

I can go on, but you get the idea.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
it's not free. It is subsidized.

Do you know what else is subsidized?

Gasoline.
Road maintenance.
Pollution mitigation.
Healthcare.

I can go on, but you get the idea.

Street parking
Motor vehicle registration

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Can we at least get a good design this time? Rather than the "inches from speeding trucks and buses" design that was Concept C?

Can we get a design that considers the needs of mobility impaired neighbors who want to go to restaurants?