Connecticut Ave bike lanes are back!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So new problem. The bikers are not using the new bike lanes. They refuse to use the bike lanes and ride in the street. This cause traffic to back up because the street is now narrower or has lost a lane of the unused bike lane.

I never use dedicated bike lanes if I have the option of riding in the street. I’ll ride right next to the bike lane.

Why? Because F’ you, that’s why. Because I know it makes people in cars absolutely insane with anger, and I delight in knowing that.


That’s why I - we - do it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So new problem. The bikers are not using the new bike lanes. They refuse to use the bike lanes and ride in the street. This cause traffic to back up because the street is now narrower or has lost a lane of the unused bike lane.

Some people will use them, others won't. We all pay taxes and have the right to public space. What is the problem?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So new problem. The bikers are not using the new bike lanes. They refuse to use the bike lanes and ride in the street. This cause traffic to back up because the street is now narrower or has lost a lane of the unused bike lane.

Some people will use them, others won't. We all pay taxes and have the right to public space. What is the problem?

Y'know you're right. How bout I sit in the middle of the bike path and crochet?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So new problem. The bikers are not using the new bike lanes. They refuse to use the bike lanes and ride in the street. This cause traffic to back up because the street is now narrower or has lost a lane of the unused bike lane.

Some people will use them, others won't. We all pay taxes and have the right to public space. What is the problem?

Y'know you're right. How bout I sit in the middle of the bike path and crochet?

And you’ll get run over and we’ll all have a good laugh.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So new problem. The bikers are not using the new bike lanes. They refuse to use the bike lanes and ride in the street. This cause traffic to back up because the street is now narrower or has lost a lane of the unused bike lane.

Some people will use them, others won't. We all pay taxes and have the right to public space. What is the problem?

Y'know you're right. How bout I sit in the middle of the bike path and crochet?

And you’ll get run over and we’ll all have a good laugh.

Just like with those derided as the “olds” — DC’s seniors who have to traverse the bike lane from concrete bus islets to the curb. Thwack! And someone falls and breaks a hip. The Urbanist/Bike Bro dismissive response is like “Boomer, just get out of the way and just move to Leisure World already!” So ageist.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So new problem. The bikers are not using the new bike lanes. They refuse to use the bike lanes and ride in the street. This cause traffic to back up because the street is now narrower or has lost a lane of the unused bike lane.

Some people will use them, others won't. We all pay taxes and have the right to public space. What is the problem?

Y'know you're right. How bout I sit in the middle of the bike path and crochet?

And you’ll get run over and we’ll all have a good laugh.

Just like with those derided as the “olds” — DC’s seniors who have to traverse the bike lane from concrete bus islets to the curb. Thwack! And someone falls and breaks a hip. The Urbanist/Bike Bro dismissive response is like “Boomer, just get out of the way and just move to Leisure World already!” So ageist.

Are they wrong?

Nope.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So new problem. The bikers are not using the new bike lanes. They refuse to use the bike lanes and ride in the street. This cause traffic to back up because the street is now narrower or has lost a lane of the unused bike lane.

Some people will use them, others won't. We all pay taxes and have the right to public space. What is the problem?

Y'know you're right. How bout I sit in the middle of the bike path and crochet?

And you’ll get run over and we’ll all have a good laugh.

Just like with those derided as the “olds” — DC’s seniors who have to traverse the bike lane from concrete bus islets to the curb. Thwack! And someone falls and breaks a hip. The Urbanist/Bike Bro dismissive response is like “Boomer, just get out of the way and just move to Leisure World already!” So ageist.

Are they wrong?

Nope.

Bike Bros and their Density Bro pals are really pathetic.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So new problem. The bikers are not using the new bike lanes. They refuse to use the bike lanes and ride in the street. This cause traffic to back up because the street is now narrower or has lost a lane of the unused bike lane.

Some people will use them, others won't. We all pay taxes and have the right to public space. What is the problem?

Y'know you're right. How bout I sit in the middle of the bike path and crochet?

And you’ll get run over and we’ll all have a good laugh.

Just like with those derided as the “olds” — DC’s seniors who have to traverse the bike lane from concrete bus islets to the curb. Thwack! And someone falls and breaks a hip. The Urbanist/Bike Bro dismissive response is like “Boomer, just get out of the way and just move to Leisure World already!” So ageist.

Are they wrong?

Nope.

Bike Bros and their Density Bro pals are really pathetic.

They wonder why so few people have any sympathy for them. It's such a mystery.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I drove past the new Cleveland Park pedestrian zone last night at around 5:30. You know, the one that was supposed to revitalize that retail strip? It was a beautiful night. There were literally three people on it, and two of them were camped out outside the 7-11. There was no outdoor dining, there was no huge pedestrian presence, no one was patronizing any of the stores or restaurants. Completely desolate at 5:30 on a beautiful evening, and that's not the first time I've noticed how dead it is.

I'm absolutely surprised no one wants to do outdoor dining next to one of the busiest "stroads" in the city during rush hour. This is the fundamental problem of this strip that can't be fixed with a few bike lanes or parking tweaks. Its a fundamentally bad design, that has to compete with better designed places like the Wharf and Union Market. As more and better places for people are developed in the city and region, the worse things are going to get here.

This statement is 10000 percent untrue, and you know it. There is outdoor dining up and down Connecticut Avenue, but not on the newly pedestrianized stretch in Cleveland Park. Hell, there is outdoor dining *directly across the street* from the new pedestrian zone. So yes, despite sarcastic (and laughably untrue) claims from GGW sycophants, people are fine eating outside on Connecticut Avenue, but for some reason it is not happening in this one location that recently got a drastic alteration under the promise that it would encourage more streetside activity. In this regard, it's an absolute failure.

Are you arguing that the outdoor dining along CT is packed from 4-6PM on weekdays? It only ever seems "busy" outside of rush hour, wonder why that is?

Because dinner doesn't usually start at 4pm

You should walk around outside at Union Market or the Wharf at 4pm on a nice day, and tell us what you see.

I guess that’s because the Wharf and Union Market both have bike lanes?

You don't find it odd that two areas with worse free-parking situations, farther from metro and farther from the rich part of the city have thriving dining scenes while CT Ave struggles? Why do you think that is?

Vibrantdenseandtallmixeduseurbanistsmartgrowthbuzz?

Let me just drop this from the Rosemary's Bistro thread:
"It wasn’t that long ago that a car veered off the road into the bread and chocolate sidewalk cafe and killed someone. Just up the street from here. I agree - why would you choose to basically sit in the road and have a snack. Don’t get the appeal. . ."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So new problem. The bikers are not using the new bike lanes. They refuse to use the bike lanes and ride in the street. This cause traffic to back up because the street is now narrower or has lost a lane of the unused bike lane.

I never use dedicated bike lanes if I have the option of riding in the street. I’ll ride right next to the bike lane.

Why? Because F’ you, that’s why. Because I know it makes people in cars absolutely insane with anger, and I delight in knowing that.


That’s why I - we - do it.

It’s called therapy, look into it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I drove past the new Cleveland Park pedestrian zone last night at around 5:30. You know, the one that was supposed to revitalize that retail strip? It was a beautiful night. There were literally three people on it, and two of them were camped out outside the 7-11. There was no outdoor dining, there was no huge pedestrian presence, no one was patronizing any of the stores or restaurants. Completely desolate at 5:30 on a beautiful evening, and that's not the first time I've noticed how dead it is.

I'm absolutely surprised no one wants to do outdoor dining next to one of the busiest "stroads" in the city during rush hour. This is the fundamental problem of this strip that can't be fixed with a few bike lanes or parking tweaks. Its a fundamentally bad design, that has to compete with better designed places like the Wharf and Union Market. As more and better places for people are developed in the city and region, the worse things are going to get here.

This statement is 10000 percent untrue, and you know it. There is outdoor dining up and down Connecticut Avenue, but not on the newly pedestrianized stretch in Cleveland Park. Hell, there is outdoor dining *directly across the street* from the new pedestrian zone. So yes, despite sarcastic (and laughably untrue) claims from GGW sycophants, people are fine eating outside on Connecticut Avenue, but for some reason it is not happening in this one location that recently got a drastic alteration under the promise that it would encourage more streetside activity. In this regard, it's an absolute failure.

Are you arguing that the outdoor dining along CT is packed from 4-6PM on weekdays? It only ever seems "busy" outside of rush hour, wonder why that is?

Because dinner doesn't usually start at 4pm

You should walk around outside at Union Market or the Wharf at 4pm on a nice day, and tell us what you see.

I guess that’s because the Wharf and Union Market both have bike lanes?

You don't find it odd that two areas with worse free-parking situations, farther from metro and farther from the rich part of the city have thriving dining scenes while CT Ave struggles? Why do you think that is?

Vibrantdenseandtallmixeduseurbanistsmartgrowthbuzz?

Let me just drop this from the Rosemary's Bistro thread:
"It wasn’t that long ago that a car veered off the road into the bread and chocolate sidewalk cafe and killed someone. Just up the street from here. I agree - why would you choose to basically sit in the road and have a snack. Don’t get the appeal. . ."

It was Parthenon not Bread and Chocolate and the guy driving had stroke while accelerating. That's neither something that can be planned against nor something that can be assumed to happen.

[Anonymous]

Like Jersey Mikes, perhaps a more fitting name for this barrier “bistro” should be Jersey Rose.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I drove past the new Cleveland Park pedestrian zone last night at around 5:30. You know, the one that was supposed to revitalize that retail strip? It was a beautiful night. There were literally three people on it, and two of them were camped out outside the 7-11. There was no outdoor dining, there was no huge pedestrian presence, no one was patronizing any of the stores or restaurants. Completely desolate at 5:30 on a beautiful evening, and that's not the first time I've noticed how dead it is.

I'm absolutely surprised no one wants to do outdoor dining next to one of the busiest "stroads" in the city during rush hour. This is the fundamental problem of this strip that can't be fixed with a few bike lanes or parking tweaks. Its a fundamentally bad design, that has to compete with better designed places like the Wharf and Union Market. As more and better places for people are developed in the city and region, the worse things are going to get here.

This statement is 10000 percent untrue, and you know it. There is outdoor dining up and down Connecticut Avenue, but not on the newly pedestrianized stretch in Cleveland Park. Hell, there is outdoor dining *directly across the street* from the new pedestrian zone. So yes, despite sarcastic (and laughably untrue) claims from GGW sycophants, people are fine eating outside on Connecticut Avenue, but for some reason it is not happening in this one location that recently got a drastic alteration under the promise that it would encourage more streetside activity. In this regard, it's an absolute failure.

Are you arguing that the outdoor dining along CT is packed from 4-6PM on weekdays? It only ever seems "busy" outside of rush hour, wonder why that is?

Because dinner doesn't usually start at 4pm

You should walk around outside at Union Market or the Wharf at 4pm on a nice day, and tell us what you see.

I guess that’s because the Wharf and Union Market both have bike lanes?

You don't find it odd that two areas with worse free-parking situations, farther from metro and farther from the rich part of the city have thriving dining scenes while CT Ave struggles? Why do you think that is?

Vibrantdenseandtallmixeduseurbanistsmartgrowthbuzz?

Let me just drop this from the Rosemary's Bistro thread:
"It wasn’t that long ago that a car veered off the road into the bread and chocolate sidewalk cafe and killed someone. Just up the street from here. I agree - why would you choose to basically sit in the road and have a snack. Don’t get the appeal. . ."

It was Parthenon not Bread and Chocolate and the guy driving had stroke while accelerating. That's neither something that can be planned against nor something that can be assumed to happen.

It actually can be planned against, its one of the functions of curbs after all. The guy went over the curb at a high speed because he was driving an SUV with greater ground clearance and larger wheels. Curbs were designed and standardized for lower vehicles with smaller wheels. We can either regulate away these "light trucks" being used as grocery getters or build curbs high enough to protect people from SUVs.

Lacking either of these solutions, then you need more physical separation from the road to protect people. Like what you see at the Wharf.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So new problem. The bikers are not using the new bike lanes. They refuse to use the bike lanes and ride in the street. This cause traffic to back up because the street is now narrower or has lost a lane of the unused bike lane.

I never use dedicated bike lanes if I have the option of riding in the street. I’ll ride right next to the bike lane.

Why? Because F’ you, that’s why. Because I know it makes people in cars absolutely insane with anger, and I delight in knowing that.


That’s why I - we - do it.

Worst effort at trolling in years.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So new problem. The bikers are not using the new bike lanes. They refuse to use the bike lanes and ride in the street. This cause traffic to back up because the street is now narrower or has lost a lane of the unused bike lane.

Some people will use them, others won't. We all pay taxes and have the right to public space. What is the problem?

Y'know you're right. How bout I sit in the middle of the bike path and crochet?

Perfectly normal response from a perfectly rational person.