Options for opposing Connecticut Avenue changes?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A constructive counterproposal, which I haven't seen anyone advance yet, would be radically improving bus service on Connecticut and Wisconsin. It could be so much better than it is right now, especially for commuters. If the goal is to get people out of cars in Ward 3, I could see that getting buy-in from both sides of the Connecticut tussle.

In other words, if we don't agree on shifting toward biking infrastructure, but we do agree on shifting toward bus infrastructure, why don't we start by accomplishing that?

I think you are the voice of reason and I hope we end up here. I think neighbors can all agree that traffic calming (HAWKS, speed cameras, and actual enforcement) is necessary on Connecticut and improved bus/transit service would be great. We can probably agree on 80% of improvements, yet we are spending 100% of our time arguing about the bike lanes which is clearly a divisive issue. We need to find the common ground and start there.

Sure, but for people who want to bike, what you are telling them that your ability to get somewhere 25 seconds faster in a car is more important than their ability to have a safe space to ride.

Yes, exactly. It’s an ugly truth, but as long as vehicle occupants vastly outnumber bicyclists and traffic is congested, most drivers would like to discourage bicyclists from being on the road. Planners are creating bike lanes anyway because we should be encouraging bicycling, but people who do not and will not ride bikes don’t want that.

People don't want to bike. Look at the numbers. The number of people riding bikes in this city is pathetically small. People have voted with their feet. Transportation resources should be used to move people around as efficiently as possible, not because people want to make a political statement about bikes.

Yes they do want to bike. The number of people biking/scootering in my neighborhood has increased exponentially since the installation of bike lanes and the wider availability of ebikes, cargo bikes, and scooters.

But sure, we should spend our transportation resources on the most efficient modes - that is, buses and metro. single occupancy vehicles are the least efficient.

Seems a little inefficient to spend billions of dollars and all this space on a mode of transportation that barely two percent of people in D.C. (per the Census Bureau) actually use. Meanwhile, there are more cars in D.C. than households.

Where are you getting billions? Bowser's budget proposal from April, for instance, would spend $6 million per year for six years to install 10 miles of protected bike lanes per year. If it's $600,000 per mile of protected bike lanes, which are by far the most expensive form of bike infrastructure, and we'd spent even as much as $1 billion on bike lanes, we'd already have more than 1,600 miles of protected bike lanes in D.C., and this debate would look very different.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A constructive counterproposal, which I haven't seen anyone advance yet, would be radically improving bus service on Connecticut and Wisconsin. It could be so much better than it is right now, especially for commuters. If the goal is to get people out of cars in Ward 3, I could see that getting buy-in from both sides of the Connecticut tussle.

In other words, if we don't agree on shifting toward biking infrastructure, but we do agree on shifting toward bus infrastructure, why don't we start by accomplishing that?

I think you are the voice of reason and I hope we end up here. I think neighbors can all agree that traffic calming (HAWKS, speed cameras, and actual enforcement) is necessary on Connecticut and improved bus/transit service would be great. We can probably agree on 80% of improvements, yet we are spending 100% of our time arguing about the bike lanes which is clearly a divisive issue. We need to find the common ground and start there.

I agree with the idea to develop more transit. The challenge, however, is what type of transit to go with. You're not going to lure more commuters from that area with buses. Buses remain stigmatized for better or for worse. Trackless trolleys or light rail, while more expensive, might prove to be more attractive.

Bring back the Connecticut Avenue Streetcar! The turnaround at Chevy Chase is still there. Make it happen!

Light rail or BRT on Wisconsin would be genius, linking all the new development up by Tenleytown with Dupont Circle and Georgetown. That would benefit so many neighborhoods, commuters, and businesses, and it would unlock even more development in that area. Light rail can also really enhance a neighborhood’s charm when implemented well. WMATA already has a bus facility at the north end that could do double duty as a light rail facility.

Connecticut is a tougher sell for light rail, because it already has the Red Line. BRT or just faster and more frequent buses would still make lots of sense.

I agree with PPs that I’d much rather the ANC and the city spend time on these promising directions than bickering over bike lanes.

Oh yeah, installing a new light rail system with a terminus in a wealthy residential neighborhood definitely won't stir up any political controversy at all.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A constructive counterproposal, which I haven't seen anyone advance yet, would be radically improving bus service on Connecticut and Wisconsin. It could be so much better than it is right now, especially for commuters. If the goal is to get people out of cars in Ward 3, I could see that getting buy-in from both sides of the Connecticut tussle.

In other words, if we don't agree on shifting toward biking infrastructure, but we do agree on shifting toward bus infrastructure, why don't we start by accomplishing that?

I think you are the voice of reason and I hope we end up here. I think neighbors can all agree that traffic calming (HAWKS, speed cameras, and actual enforcement) is necessary on Connecticut and improved bus/transit service would be great. We can probably agree on 80% of improvements, yet we are spending 100% of our time arguing about the bike lanes which is clearly a divisive issue. We need to find the common ground and start there.

I agree with the idea to develop more transit. The challenge, however, is what type of transit to go with. You're not going to lure more commuters from that area with buses. Buses remain stigmatized for better or for worse. Trackless trolleys or light rail, while more expensive, might prove to be more attractive.

Bring back the Connecticut Avenue Streetcar! The turnaround at Chevy Chase is still there. Make it happen!

Light rail or BRT on Wisconsin would be genius, linking all the new development up by Tenleytown with Dupont Circle and Georgetown. That would benefit so many neighborhoods, commuters, and businesses, and it would unlock even more development in that area. Light rail can also really enhance a neighborhood’s charm when implemented well. WMATA already has a bus facility at the north end that could do double duty as a light rail facility.

Connecticut is a tougher sell for light rail, because it already has the Red Line. BRT or just faster and more frequent buses would still make lots of sense.

I agree with PPs that I’d much rather the ANC and the city spend time on these promising directions than bickering over bike lanes.

This - or something close to it - was what was supposed to happen with the DC Streetcar. Unfortunately, the city bungled the first mile so badly that the prospects of any further development of light rail in DC over the next generation have been effectively scuttled. Even relatively inexpensive and uncomplicated extensions to the existing H St line - either east over the Anacostia or west to K Street - are failing to garner the necessary Council support.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A constructive counterproposal, which I haven't seen anyone advance yet, would be radically improving bus service on Connecticut and Wisconsin. It could be so much better than it is right now, especially for commuters. If the goal is to get people out of cars in Ward 3, I could see that getting buy-in from both sides of the Connecticut tussle.

In other words, if we don't agree on shifting toward biking infrastructure, but we do agree on shifting toward bus infrastructure, why don't we start by accomplishing that?

I think you are the voice of reason and I hope we end up here. I think neighbors can all agree that traffic calming (HAWKS, speed cameras, and actual enforcement) is necessary on Connecticut and improved bus/transit service would be great. We can probably agree on 80% of improvements, yet we are spending 100% of our time arguing about the bike lanes which is clearly a divisive issue. We need to find the common ground and start there.

I agree with the idea to develop more transit. The challenge, however, is what type of transit to go with. You're not going to lure more commuters from that area with buses. Buses remain stigmatized for better or for worse. Trackless trolleys or light rail, while more expensive, might prove to be more attractive.

Bring back the Connecticut Avenue Streetcar! The turnaround at Chevy Chase is still there. Make it happen!

Light rail or BRT on Wisconsin would be genius, linking all the new development up by Tenleytown with Dupont Circle and Georgetown. That would benefit so many neighborhoods, commuters, and businesses, and it would unlock even more development in that area. Light rail can also really enhance a neighborhood’s charm when implemented well. WMATA already has a bus facility at the north end that could do double duty as a light rail facility.

Connecticut is a tougher sell for light rail, because it already has the Red Line. BRT or just faster and more frequent buses would still make lots of sense.

I agree with PPs that I’d much rather the ANC and the city spend time on these promising directions than bickering over bike lanes.

Oh yeah, installing a new light rail system with a terminus in a wealthy residential neighborhood definitely won't stir up any political controversy at all.

The suggestion is to use WMATA’s existing Western Bus Division facility, which is located on Wisconsin right near the Tenleytown Metro stop. And if siting a stop on Dupont is difficult (I don’t think it would be), there is actually already an unused streetcar tunnel underneath.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A constructive counterproposal, which I haven't seen anyone advance yet, would be radically improving bus service on Connecticut and Wisconsin. It could be so much better than it is right now, especially for commuters. If the goal is to get people out of cars in Ward 3, I could see that getting buy-in from both sides of the Connecticut tussle.

In other words, if we don't agree on shifting toward biking infrastructure, but we do agree on shifting toward bus infrastructure, why don't we start by accomplishing that?

I think you are the voice of reason and I hope we end up here. I think neighbors can all agree that traffic calming (HAWKS, speed cameras, and actual enforcement) is necessary on Connecticut and improved bus/transit service would be great. We can probably agree on 80% of improvements, yet we are spending 100% of our time arguing about the bike lanes which is clearly a divisive issue. We need to find the common ground and start there.

I agree with the idea to develop more transit. The challenge, however, is what type of transit to go with. You're not going to lure more commuters from that area with buses. Buses remain stigmatized for better or for worse. Trackless trolleys or light rail, while more expensive, might prove to be more attractive.

Bring back the Connecticut Avenue Streetcar! The turnaround at Chevy Chase is still there. Make it happen!

Light rail or BRT on Wisconsin would be genius, linking all the new development up by Tenleytown with Dupont Circle and Georgetown. That would benefit so many neighborhoods, commuters, and businesses, and it would unlock even more development in that area. Light rail can also really enhance a neighborhood’s charm when implemented well. WMATA already has a bus facility at the north end that could do double duty as a light rail facility.

Connecticut is a tougher sell for light rail, because it already has the Red Line. BRT or just faster and more frequent buses would still make lots of sense.

I agree with PPs that I’d much rather the ANC and the city spend time on these promising directions than bickering over bike lanes.

Oh yeah, installing a new light rail system with a terminus in a wealthy residential neighborhood definitely won't stir up any political controversy at all.

The suggestion is to use WMATA’s existing Western Bus Division facility, which is located on Wisconsin right near the Tenleytown Metro stop. And if siting a stop on Dupont is difficult (I don’t think it would be), there is actually already an unused streetcar tunnel underneath.

Yeah, I'm aware of where the facility is. I'm saying, if you think discussions of bike lanes are too divisive, or bike lanes too disruptive or expensive, a new light-rail system will be even worse. You think the people who live near the bus depot won't object at all to turning it into a new form of public transit terminal? You think streetcars won't mess up traffic flow or require extensive reconstruction on major roads?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A constructive counterproposal, which I haven't seen anyone advance yet, would be radically improving bus service on Connecticut and Wisconsin. It could be so much better than it is right now, especially for commuters. If the goal is to get people out of cars in Ward 3, I could see that getting buy-in from both sides of the Connecticut tussle.

In other words, if we don't agree on shifting toward biking infrastructure, but we do agree on shifting toward bus infrastructure, why don't we start by accomplishing that?

I think you are the voice of reason and I hope we end up here. I think neighbors can all agree that traffic calming (HAWKS, speed cameras, and actual enforcement) is necessary on Connecticut and improved bus/transit service would be great. We can probably agree on 80% of improvements, yet we are spending 100% of our time arguing about the bike lanes which is clearly a divisive issue. We need to find the common ground and start there.

Sure, but for people who want to bike, what you are telling them that your ability to get somewhere 25 seconds faster in a car is more important than their ability to have a safe space to ride.

Yes, exactly. It’s an ugly truth, but as long as vehicle occupants vastly outnumber bicyclists and traffic is congested, most drivers would like to discourage bicyclists from being on the road. Planners are creating bike lanes anyway because we should be encouraging bicycling, but people who do not and will not ride bikes don’t want that.

People don't want to bike. Look at the numbers. The number of people riding bikes in this city is pathetically small. People have voted with their feet. Transportation resources should be used to move people around as efficiently as possible, not because people want to make a political statement about bikes.

People aren't biking on CT Ave because it is unsafe. Make it safe, and more people will.

And I agree, transportation resources should be dedicated to efficient movement. Single occupancy cars is the LEAST efficient way to move people around. So how about we just ban single occupancy cars and have everyone bus and bike? Problem solved, right?

Bikes aren’t an efficient way to transport the masses, so we should do away with those too.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A constructive counterproposal, which I haven't seen anyone advance yet, would be radically improving bus service on Connecticut and Wisconsin. It could be so much better than it is right now, especially for commuters. If the goal is to get people out of cars in Ward 3, I could see that getting buy-in from both sides of the Connecticut tussle.

In other words, if we don't agree on shifting toward biking infrastructure, but we do agree on shifting toward bus infrastructure, why don't we start by accomplishing that?

I think you are the voice of reason and I hope we end up here. I think neighbors can all agree that traffic calming (HAWKS, speed cameras, and actual enforcement) is necessary on Connecticut and improved bus/transit service would be great. We can probably agree on 80% of improvements, yet we are spending 100% of our time arguing about the bike lanes which is clearly a divisive issue. We need to find the common ground and start there.

Sure, but for people who want to bike, what you are telling them that your ability to get somewhere 25 seconds faster in a car is more important than their ability to have a safe space to ride.

Yes, exactly. It’s an ugly truth, but as long as vehicle occupants vastly outnumber bicyclists and traffic is congested, most drivers would like to discourage bicyclists from being on the road. Planners are creating bike lanes anyway because we should be encouraging bicycling, but people who do not and will not ride bikes don’t want that.

People don't want to bike. Look at the numbers. The number of people riding bikes in this city is pathetically small. People have voted with their feet. Transportation resources should be used to move people around as efficiently as possible, not because people want to make a political statement about bikes.

People aren't biking on CT Ave because it is unsafe. Make it safe, and more people will.

And I agree, transportation resources should be dedicated to efficient movement. Single occupancy cars is the LEAST efficient way to move people around. So how about we just ban single occupancy cars and have everyone bus and bike? Problem solved, right?

We've had bike lanes in this city for 15 years. If biking was going to become popular, it would have by now. If anything, it's becoming less popular. I'm sorry but people simply aren't interested for a long list of reasons.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A constructive counterproposal, which I haven't seen anyone advance yet, would be radically improving bus service on Connecticut and Wisconsin. It could be so much better than it is right now, especially for commuters. If the goal is to get people out of cars in Ward 3, I could see that getting buy-in from both sides of the Connecticut tussle.

In other words, if we don't agree on shifting toward biking infrastructure, but we do agree on shifting toward bus infrastructure, why don't we start by accomplishing that?

I think you are the voice of reason and I hope we end up here. I think neighbors can all agree that traffic calming (HAWKS, speed cameras, and actual enforcement) is necessary on Connecticut and improved bus/transit service would be great. We can probably agree on 80% of improvements, yet we are spending 100% of our time arguing about the bike lanes which is clearly a divisive issue. We need to find the common ground and start there.

Sure, but for people who want to bike, what you are telling them that your ability to get somewhere 25 seconds faster in a car is more important than their ability to have a safe space to ride.

Yes, exactly. It’s an ugly truth, but as long as vehicle occupants vastly outnumber bicyclists and traffic is congested, most drivers would like to discourage bicyclists from being on the road. Planners are creating bike lanes anyway because we should be encouraging bicycling, but people who do not and will not ride bikes don’t want that.

People don't want to bike. Look at the numbers. The number of people riding bikes in this city is pathetically small. People have voted with their feet. Transportation resources should be used to move people around as efficiently as possible, not because people want to make a political statement about bikes.

Yes they do want to bike. The number of people biking/scootering in my neighborhood has increased exponentially since the installation of bike lanes and the wider availability of ebikes, cargo bikes, and scooters.

But sure, we should spend our transportation resources on the most efficient modes - that is, buses and metro. single occupancy vehicles are the least efficient.

Seems a little inefficient to spend billions of dollars and all this space on a mode of transportation that barely two percent of people in D.C. (per the Census Bureau) actually use. Meanwhile, there are more cars in D.C. than households.

Where are you getting billions? Bowser's budget proposal from April, for instance, would spend $6 million per year for six years to install 10 miles of protected bike lanes per year. If it's $600,000 per mile of protected bike lanes, which are by far the most expensive form of bike infrastructure, and we'd spent even as much as $1 billion on bike lanes, we'd already have more than 1,600 miles of protected bike lanes in D.C., and this debate would look very different.

There's almost $200 million in the budget this year for bikes. They've been spending like this for more than a decade.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A constructive counterproposal, which I haven't seen anyone advance yet, would be radically improving bus service on Connecticut and Wisconsin. It could be so much better than it is right now, especially for commuters. If the goal is to get people out of cars in Ward 3, I could see that getting buy-in from both sides of the Connecticut tussle.

In other words, if we don't agree on shifting toward biking infrastructure, but we do agree on shifting toward bus infrastructure, why don't we start by accomplishing that?

I think you are the voice of reason and I hope we end up here. I think neighbors can all agree that traffic calming (HAWKS, speed cameras, and actual enforcement) is necessary on Connecticut and improved bus/transit service would be great. We can probably agree on 80% of improvements, yet we are spending 100% of our time arguing about the bike lanes which is clearly a divisive issue. We need to find the common ground and start there.

Sure, but for people who want to bike, what you are telling them that your ability to get somewhere 25 seconds faster in a car is more important than their ability to have a safe space to ride.

Yes, exactly. It’s an ugly truth, but as long as vehicle occupants vastly outnumber bicyclists and traffic is congested, most drivers would like to discourage bicyclists from being on the road. Planners are creating bike lanes anyway because we should be encouraging bicycling, but people who do not and will not ride bikes don’t want that.

People don't want to bike. Look at the numbers. The number of people riding bikes in this city is pathetically small. People have voted with their feet. Transportation resources should be used to move people around as efficiently as possible, not because people want to make a political statement about bikes.

People aren't biking on CT Ave because it is unsafe. Make it safe, and more people will.

And I agree, transportation resources should be dedicated to efficient movement. Single occupancy cars is the LEAST efficient way to move people around. So how about we just ban single occupancy cars and have everyone bus and bike? Problem solved, right?

Bikes aren’t an efficient way to transport the masses, so we should do away with those too.

Great idea! Everyone on a bus or train. I am in. Are you?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A constructive counterproposal, which I haven't seen anyone advance yet, would be radically improving bus service on Connecticut and Wisconsin. It could be so much better than it is right now, especially for commuters. If the goal is to get people out of cars in Ward 3, I could see that getting buy-in from both sides of the Connecticut tussle.

In other words, if we don't agree on shifting toward biking infrastructure, but we do agree on shifting toward bus infrastructure, why don't we start by accomplishing that?

I think you are the voice of reason and I hope we end up here. I think neighbors can all agree that traffic calming (HAWKS, speed cameras, and actual enforcement) is necessary on Connecticut and improved bus/transit service would be great. We can probably agree on 80% of improvements, yet we are spending 100% of our time arguing about the bike lanes which is clearly a divisive issue. We need to find the common ground and start there.

Sure, but for people who want to bike, what you are telling them that your ability to get somewhere 25 seconds faster in a car is more important than their ability to have a safe space to ride.

Yes, exactly. It’s an ugly truth, but as long as vehicle occupants vastly outnumber bicyclists and traffic is congested, most drivers would like to discourage bicyclists from being on the road. Planners are creating bike lanes anyway because we should be encouraging bicycling, but people who do not and will not ride bikes don’t want that.

People don't want to bike. Look at the numbers. The number of people riding bikes in this city is pathetically small. People have voted with their feet. Transportation resources should be used to move people around as efficiently as possible, not because people want to make a political statement about bikes.

People aren't biking on CT Ave because it is unsafe. Make it safe, and more people will.

And I agree, transportation resources should be dedicated to efficient movement. Single occupancy cars is the LEAST efficient way to move people around. So how about we just ban single occupancy cars and have everyone bus and bike? Problem solved, right?

We've had bike lanes in this city for 15 years. If biking was going to become popular, it would have by now. If anything, it's becoming less popular. I'm sorry but people simply aren't interested for a long list of reasons.

False. Again.

I have posted this multiple times in this thread, but here we go again. Biking in core DC has grown considerably since 2007 when DC started focusing on bike infrastructure. It's likely even higher now (this data was from 2017): https://ggwash.org/view/80233/the-bike-boom-is-real-says-new-mode-share-data-regional-travel-survey

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A constructive counterproposal, which I haven't seen anyone advance yet, would be radically improving bus service on Connecticut and Wisconsin. It could be so much better than it is right now, especially for commuters. If the goal is to get people out of cars in Ward 3, I could see that getting buy-in from both sides of the Connecticut tussle.

In other words, if we don't agree on shifting toward biking infrastructure, but we do agree on shifting toward bus infrastructure, why don't we start by accomplishing that?

I think you are the voice of reason and I hope we end up here. I think neighbors can all agree that traffic calming (HAWKS, speed cameras, and actual enforcement) is necessary on Connecticut and improved bus/transit service would be great. We can probably agree on 80% of improvements, yet we are spending 100% of our time arguing about the bike lanes which is clearly a divisive issue. We need to find the common ground and start there.

I agree with the idea to develop more transit. The challenge, however, is what type of transit to go with. You're not going to lure more commuters from that area with buses. Buses remain stigmatized for better or for worse. Trackless trolleys or light rail, while more expensive, might prove to be more attractive.

Bring back the Connecticut Avenue Streetcar! The turnaround at Chevy Chase is still there. Make it happen!

Light rail or BRT on Wisconsin would be genius, linking all the new development up by Tenleytown with Dupont Circle and Georgetown. That would benefit so many neighborhoods, commuters, and businesses, and it would unlock even more development in that area. Light rail can also really enhance a neighborhood’s charm when implemented well. WMATA already has a bus facility at the north end that could do double duty as a light rail facility.

Connecticut is a tougher sell for light rail, because it already has the Red Line. BRT or just faster and more frequent buses would still make lots of sense.

I agree with PPs that I’d much rather the ANC and the city spend time on these promising directions than bickering over bike lanes.

Oh yeah, installing a new light rail system with a terminus in a wealthy residential neighborhood definitely won't stir up any political controversy at all.

The suggestion is to use WMATA’s existing Western Bus Division facility, which is located on Wisconsin right near the Tenleytown Metro stop. And if siting a stop on Dupont is difficult (I don’t think it would be), there is actually already an unused streetcar tunnel underneath.

Yeah, I'm aware of where the facility is. I'm saying, if you think discussions of bike lanes are too divisive, or bike lanes too disruptive or expensive, a new light-rail system will be even worse. You think the people who live near the bus depot won't object at all to turning it into a new form of public transit terminal? You think streetcars won't mess up traffic flow or require extensive reconstruction on major roads?

The politics surrounding building out the streetcar network are indeed toxic. To do it would take a mayor who was willing to stake their political career on it. Bowser has made it very clear that she has no interest in being that mayor. Realistically, the only thing that is likely to happen over the next 10-20 years is an extension of the existing line to the Benning St Metro. That makes me sad but it is what it is.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A constructive counterproposal, which I haven't seen anyone advance yet, would be radically improving bus service on Connecticut and Wisconsin. It could be so much better than it is right now, especially for commuters. If the goal is to get people out of cars in Ward 3, I could see that getting buy-in from both sides of the Connecticut tussle.

In other words, if we don't agree on shifting toward biking infrastructure, but we do agree on shifting toward bus infrastructure, why don't we start by accomplishing that?

I think you are the voice of reason and I hope we end up here. I think neighbors can all agree that traffic calming (HAWKS, speed cameras, and actual enforcement) is necessary on Connecticut and improved bus/transit service would be great. We can probably agree on 80% of improvements, yet we are spending 100% of our time arguing about the bike lanes which is clearly a divisive issue. We need to find the common ground and start there.

Sure, but for people who want to bike, what you are telling them that your ability to get somewhere 25 seconds faster in a car is more important than their ability to have a safe space to ride.

Yes, exactly. It’s an ugly truth, but as long as vehicle occupants vastly outnumber bicyclists and traffic is congested, most drivers would like to discourage bicyclists from being on the road. Planners are creating bike lanes anyway because we should be encouraging bicycling, but people who do not and will not ride bikes don’t want that.

People don't want to bike. Look at the numbers. The number of people riding bikes in this city is pathetically small. People have voted with their feet. Transportation resources should be used to move people around as efficiently as possible, not because people want to make a political statement about bikes.

Yes they do want to bike. The number of people biking/scootering in my neighborhood has increased exponentially since the installation of bike lanes and the wider availability of ebikes, cargo bikes, and scooters.

But sure, we should spend our transportation resources on the most efficient modes - that is, buses and metro. single occupancy vehicles are the least efficient.

Seems a little inefficient to spend billions of dollars and all this space on a mode of transportation that barely two percent of people in D.C. (per the Census Bureau) actually use. Meanwhile, there are more cars in D.C. than households.

Where are you getting billions? Bowser's budget proposal from April, for instance, would spend $6 million per year for six years to install 10 miles of protected bike lanes per year. If it's $600,000 per mile of protected bike lanes, which are by far the most expensive form of bike infrastructure, and we'd spent even as much as $1 billion on bike lanes, we'd already have more than 1,600 miles of protected bike lanes in D.C., and this debate would look very different.

There's almost $200 million in the budget this year for bikes. They've been spending like this for more than a decade.

Total nonsense yet again. You posted the list of projects you thought were “for bikes” and it was pretty quickly established that the vast majority of the spending had nothing to do with bikes. That you’re coming at us again with these insane claims is just sad. Please find another hobby. You are not good at this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A constructive counterproposal, which I haven't seen anyone advance yet, would be radically improving bus service on Connecticut and Wisconsin. It could be so much better than it is right now, especially for commuters. If the goal is to get people out of cars in Ward 3, I could see that getting buy-in from both sides of the Connecticut tussle.

In other words, if we don't agree on shifting toward biking infrastructure, but we do agree on shifting toward bus infrastructure, why don't we start by accomplishing that?

I think you are the voice of reason and I hope we end up here. I think neighbors can all agree that traffic calming (HAWKS, speed cameras, and actual enforcement) is necessary on Connecticut and improved bus/transit service would be great. We can probably agree on 80% of improvements, yet we are spending 100% of our time arguing about the bike lanes which is clearly a divisive issue. We need to find the common ground and start there.

Sure, but for people who want to bike, what you are telling them that your ability to get somewhere 25 seconds faster in a car is more important than their ability to have a safe space to ride.

Yes, exactly. It’s an ugly truth, but as long as vehicle occupants vastly outnumber bicyclists and traffic is congested, most drivers would like to discourage bicyclists from being on the road. Planners are creating bike lanes anyway because we should be encouraging bicycling, but people who do not and will not ride bikes don’t want that.

People don't want to bike. Look at the numbers. The number of people riding bikes in this city is pathetically small. People have voted with their feet. Transportation resources should be used to move people around as efficiently as possible, not because people want to make a political statement about bikes.

People aren't biking on CT Ave because it is unsafe. Make it safe, and more people will.

And I agree, transportation resources should be dedicated to efficient movement. Single occupancy cars is the LEAST efficient way to move people around. So how about we just ban single occupancy cars and have everyone bus and bike? Problem solved, right?

We've had bike lanes in this city for 15 years. If biking was going to become popular, it would have by now. If anything, it's becoming less popular. I'm sorry but people simply aren't interested for a long list of reasons.

False. Again.

I have posted this multiple times in this thread, but here we go again. Biking in core DC has grown considerably since 2007 when DC started focusing on bike infrastructure. It's likely even higher now (this data was from 2017): https://ggwash.org/view/80233/the-bike-boom-is-real-says-new-mode-share-data-regional-travel-survey

we dont have to rely on such old data (especially since the pandemic scrambled the numbers). here's what the census said about commuting in dc in 2021:

drive -- 29 percent
public transportation -- 11.6 percent
walk -- 6.7 percent
cab, motorcycle, other -- 2.6 percent
bike -- 2.1 percent
work from home -- 48 percent

https://data.census.gov/cedsci/table?q=Washington%20city,%20District%20of%20Columbia&t=Commuting&tid=ACSST1Y2021.S0801

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A constructive counterproposal, which I haven't seen anyone advance yet, would be radically improving bus service on Connecticut and Wisconsin. It could be so much better than it is right now, especially for commuters. If the goal is to get people out of cars in Ward 3, I could see that getting buy-in from both sides of the Connecticut tussle.

In other words, if we don't agree on shifting toward biking infrastructure, but we do agree on shifting toward bus infrastructure, why don't we start by accomplishing that?

I think you are the voice of reason and I hope we end up here. I think neighbors can all agree that traffic calming (HAWKS, speed cameras, and actual enforcement) is necessary on Connecticut and improved bus/transit service would be great. We can probably agree on 80% of improvements, yet we are spending 100% of our time arguing about the bike lanes which is clearly a divisive issue. We need to find the common ground and start there.

Sure, but for people who want to bike, what you are telling them that your ability to get somewhere 25 seconds faster in a car is more important than their ability to have a safe space to ride.

Yes, exactly. It’s an ugly truth, but as long as vehicle occupants vastly outnumber bicyclists and traffic is congested, most drivers would like to discourage bicyclists from being on the road. Planners are creating bike lanes anyway because we should be encouraging bicycling, but people who do not and will not ride bikes don’t want that.

People don't want to bike. Look at the numbers. The number of people riding bikes in this city is pathetically small. People have voted with their feet. Transportation resources should be used to move people around as efficiently as possible, not because people want to make a political statement about bikes.

Yes they do want to bike. The number of people biking/scootering in my neighborhood has increased exponentially since the installation of bike lanes and the wider availability of ebikes, cargo bikes, and scooters.

But sure, we should spend our transportation resources on the most efficient modes - that is, buses and metro. single occupancy vehicles are the least efficient.

Seems a little inefficient to spend billions of dollars and all this space on a mode of transportation that barely two percent of people in D.C. (per the Census Bureau) actually use. Meanwhile, there are more cars in D.C. than households.

Where are you getting billions? Bowser's budget proposal from April, for instance, would spend $6 million per year for six years to install 10 miles of protected bike lanes per year. If it's $600,000 per mile of protected bike lanes, which are by far the most expensive form of bike infrastructure, and we'd spent even as much as $1 billion on bike lanes, we'd already have more than 1,600 miles of protected bike lanes in D.C., and this debate would look very different.

There's almost $200 million in the budget this year for bikes. They've been spending like this for more than a decade.

Total nonsense yet again. You posted the list of projects you thought were “for bikes” and it was pretty quickly established that the vast majority of the spending had nothing to do with bikes. That you’re coming at us again with these insane claims is just sad. Please find another hobby. You are not good at this.

Oh right because that full time team of people the city wants to hire to clean bike lanes isn't really about bikes, right? Maybe people would stop throwing nails in bike lanes if bikers weren't such a-holes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A constructive counterproposal, which I haven't seen anyone advance yet, would be radically improving bus service on Connecticut and Wisconsin. It could be so much better than it is right now, especially for commuters. If the goal is to get people out of cars in Ward 3, I could see that getting buy-in from both sides of the Connecticut tussle.

In other words, if we don't agree on shifting toward biking infrastructure, but we do agree on shifting toward bus infrastructure, why don't we start by accomplishing that?

I think you are the voice of reason and I hope we end up here. I think neighbors can all agree that traffic calming (HAWKS, speed cameras, and actual enforcement) is necessary on Connecticut and improved bus/transit service would be great. We can probably agree on 80% of improvements, yet we are spending 100% of our time arguing about the bike lanes which is clearly a divisive issue. We need to find the common ground and start there.

Sure, but for people who want to bike, what you are telling them that your ability to get somewhere 25 seconds faster in a car is more important than their ability to have a safe space to ride.

Yes, exactly. It’s an ugly truth, but as long as vehicle occupants vastly outnumber bicyclists and traffic is congested, most drivers would like to discourage bicyclists from being on the road. Planners are creating bike lanes anyway because we should be encouraging bicycling, but people who do not and will not ride bikes don’t want that.

People don't want to bike. Look at the numbers. The number of people riding bikes in this city is pathetically small. People have voted with their feet. Transportation resources should be used to move people around as efficiently as possible, not because people want to make a political statement about bikes.

People aren't biking on CT Ave because it is unsafe. Make it safe, and more people will.

And I agree, transportation resources should be dedicated to efficient movement. Single occupancy cars is the LEAST efficient way to move people around. So how about we just ban single occupancy cars and have everyone bus and bike? Problem solved, right?

We've had bike lanes in this city for 15 years. If biking was going to become popular, it would have by now. If anything, it's becoming less popular. I'm sorry but people simply aren't interested for a long list of reasons.

I know you saw the statistics that debunked this false claim about a hundred pages ago. Please stop repeating things you know are wrong.