Options for opposing Connecticut Avenue changes?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Thanks for leaving your IP address with this comment. It will surely help the MPD investigation.

[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: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.

Thanks for leaving your IP address with this comment. It will surely help the MPD investigation.

D.C. has the same poverty rate at West Virginia. You know how you end poverty? Give people money. Instead we spend our money providing concierge service for cyclists.

[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: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.

Thanks for leaving your IP address with this comment. It will surely help the MPD investigation.

Yes, because observing NBC4 had a story on this other day is now a crime....

https://www.nbcwashington.com/news/local/nails-repeatedly-found-in-ne-dc-bike-lane/3177240/

[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.

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

So about 4% of DC residents who actually went into work commuted by bike. This is a quadrupling of the proportion in 2007-08 and a 60 percent increase over 2017-18. Name any other mode of transport that has that rate of increase.

Of course, bike lanes aren’t just for bikes, but for scooters, one-wheels, and personal mobility devices - including electric wheelchairs. If you want to tell us that these have not also increased in popularity, go ahead but be forewarned that you will being telling us a lot more about yourself than about the subject you are opining on.

And before you say that 4% is a tiny number, I beg you to calculate the proportion of road space and the city’s transportation budget that are dedicated to bikes and other personal mobility devices. I think you’ll find that both numbers are a good order of magnitude less than 4%.

[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.

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.

The streetcar is a boondoggle as implemented. One car parked too far from a curb brings the system to a standstill. And forget about situations involving fire or other emergency response. The DC Circulator is a perfectly suitable and more flexible and cost effective alternative to supplementing Metrobus over shorter distances within our lass than sprawling city.

[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: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.

Thanks for leaving your IP address with this comment. It will surely help the MPD investigation.

D.C. has the same poverty rate at West Virginia. You know how you end poverty? Give people money. Instead we spend our money providing concierge service for cyclists.

You may also want to calculate the annual costs of operating a vehicle and the annual costs of operating a bike and then think about how giving people a viable means to do more of the latter and less of the former might help people - even poor people - save money. Or are you saying that there is no way that poor people can ride bikes. In any case, your line of argument isn’t very clear.

[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.

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.

The streetcar is a boondoggle as implemented. One car parked too far from a curb brings the system to a standstill. And forget about situations involving fire or other emergency response. The DC Circulator is a perfectly suitable and more flexible and cost effective alternative to supplementing Metrobus over shorter distances within our lass than sprawling city.

It’s a boondoggle because it was woefully mismanaged. It didn’t have to be this way.

[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?

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?

Hell yeah! I hate driving.

[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: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.

Thanks for leaving your IP address with this comment. It will surely help the MPD investigation.

D.C. has the same poverty rate at West Virginia. You know how you end poverty? Give people money. Instead we spend our money providing concierge service for cyclists.

You may also want to calculate the annual costs of operating a vehicle and the annual costs of operating a bike and then think about how giving people a viable means to do more of the latter and less of the former might help people - even poor people - save money. Or are you saying that there is no way that poor people can ride bikes. In any case, your line of argument isn’t very clear.

Pretty much every single study shows bikers in D.C. are mostly white, high income, males between 25 and 45. You'd think a city with 16 percent poverty would have better things to spend its money on than subsidizing the hobby of white dudes from Ward 3.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

The streetcar is a boondoggle as implemented. One car parked too far from a curb brings the system to a standstill. And forget about situations involving fire or other emergency response. The DC Circulator is a perfectly suitable and more flexible and cost effective alternative to supplementing Metrobus over shorter distances within our lass than sprawling city.

It’s a boondoggle because it was woefully mismanaged. It didn’t have to be this way.

Exactly. There are countless cities that have made light rail work. The design and execution of the H St line were uniquely atrocious.

Seattle took the right approach here: start with low-cost BRT to prove demand and fine-tune routes, dedicated lanes, priority, etc. Then make the big investment in upgrading to light rail, with the community’s support.

I would so much rather that the ANC spent time on this.

[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: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.

The streetcar is a boondoggle as implemented. One car parked too far from a curb brings the system to a standstill. And forget about situations involving fire or other emergency response. The DC Circulator is a perfectly suitable and more flexible and cost effective alternative to supplementing Metrobus over shorter distances within our lass than sprawling city.

It’s a boondoggle because it was woefully mismanaged. It didn’t have to be this way.

Exactly. There are countless cities that have made light rail work. The design and execution of the H St line were uniquely atrocious.

Seattle took the right approach here: start with low-cost BRT to prove demand and fine-tune routes, dedicated lanes, priority, etc. Then make the big investment in upgrading to light rail, with the community’s support.

I would so much rather that the ANC spent time on this.

Have you attended an ANC meeting and raised this option?

[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.

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

So about 4% of DC residents who actually went into work commuted by bike. This is a quadrupling of the proportion in 2007-08 and a 60 percent increase over 2017-18. Name any other mode of transport that has that rate of increase.

Of course, bike lanes aren’t just for bikes, but for scooters, one-wheels, and personal mobility devices - including electric wheelchairs. If you want to tell us that these have not also increased in popularity, go ahead but be forewarned that you will being telling us a lot more about yourself than about the subject you are opining on.

And before you say that 4% is a tiny number, I beg you to calculate the proportion of road space and the city’s transportation budget that are dedicated to bikes and other personal mobility devices. I think you’ll find that both numbers are a good order of magnitude less than 4%.

The smaller something is to begin with, the more a minuscule increase in raw numbers will translate to a significant rate increase. If only one person had covid on Friday, but 3 more people have it by today, the number of active cases will have quadrupled in that time frame, but that wouldn’t mean that covid was running rampant in a population of a million people.

If more than a quarter of commuters were already driving in 2007-2008, you literally could not have quadrupled the proportion of drivers since then.

[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.

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

That's commuting for work, not all trips.

[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: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.

Thanks for leaving your IP address with this comment. It will surely help the MPD investigation.

D.C. has the same poverty rate at West Virginia. You know how you end poverty? Give people money. Instead we spend our money providing concierge service for cyclists.

You may also want to calculate the annual costs of operating a vehicle and the annual costs of operating a bike and then think about how giving people a viable means to do more of the latter and less of the former might help people - even poor people - save money. Or are you saying that there is no way that poor people can ride bikes. In any case, your line of argument isn’t very clear.

Of course it's clear. It's bad-faith argument #1,000,0001. "Bike lanes don't serve to decrease poverty like cash transfers, so it is impossible to justify bike lanes."

[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: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.

Thanks for leaving your IP address with this comment. It will surely help the MPD investigation.

D.C. has the same poverty rate at West Virginia. You know how you end poverty? Give people money. Instead we spend our money providing concierge service for cyclists.

You may also want to calculate the annual costs of operating a vehicle and the annual costs of operating a bike and then think about how giving people a viable means to do more of the latter and less of the former might help people - even poor people - save money. Or are you saying that there is no way that poor people can ride bikes. In any case, your line of argument isn’t very clear.

Pretty much every single study shows bikers in D.C. are mostly white, high income, males between 25 and 45. You'd think a city with 16 percent poverty would have better things to spend its money on than subsidizing the hobby of white dudes from Ward 3.

Yeah, the last thing a city should do is facilitate making a cheap, healthy and fun form transporation more accessible to all!

https://travelnoire.com/therapy-black-bike-groups