Options for opposing Connecticut Avenue changes?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Maybe not infinite, but you can see how a lot of people don't have cars either by finances or choice. On the other hand, there is a lot of room to grow in terms of housing.

Doesn't it make sense as housing options are expanded, to ensure people who live here can get what they need without a car?

Also, doesn't Amazon and the various food delivery services make that easier as well?

There are more cars registered with the city than there are households.

Yes, but 35 percent of households don't have any cars.

My single neighbor has at least 5.

Ha, I think you are talking about me. Divorced woman with 4 cars , 2 short blocks from Conn Ave.

What can I say, I love classic cars ....


And for the record, I predict that the bottleneck bike lanes get removed within 2 years when the area between the Circle and the Zoo becomes an unmitigated clusterfuk.

Exactly like the idiotic project to narrow Wisconsin to a single travel lane a few years ago, in Glover Park

Thanks for painting a very vivid image of the kind of people who are opposing measures to improve the safety of cyclists in DC.

Cyclists would be wise to understand two realities:
1) You’re a small group of people in a much larger city.
2) The world doesn’t revolve around you.

And you don't seem to understand that dedicating so much space and transportation real estate to single occupancy vehicles is past the 'not sustainable' phase and we need to do something different. Status quo is not an option, what do you propose?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Maybe not infinite, but you can see how a lot of people don't have cars either by finances or choice. On the other hand, there is a lot of room to grow in terms of housing.

Doesn't it make sense as housing options are expanded, to ensure people who live here can get what they need without a car?

Also, doesn't Amazon and the various food delivery services make that easier as well?

There are more cars registered with the city than there are households.

Yes, but 35 percent of households don't have any cars.

My single neighbor has at least 5.

Ha, I think you are talking about me. Divorced woman with 4 cars , 2 short blocks from Conn Ave.

What can I say, I love classic cars ....


And for the record, I predict that the bottleneck bike lanes get removed within 2 years when the area between the Circle and the Zoo becomes an unmitigated clusterfuk.

Exactly like the idiotic project to narrow Wisconsin to a single travel lane a few years ago, in Glover Park

Thanks for painting a very vivid image of the kind of people who are opposing measures to improve the safety of cyclists in DC.

Cyclists would be wise to understand two realities:
1) You’re a small group of people in a much larger city.
2) The world doesn’t revolve around you.

Do you ever consider what a better city / world we would live in if it didn't revolve around cars? If not, you should.

Have you considered what a better city we would live in if we got rid of all the bike lanes? If not, you should.

I lived it between 1985 and 2008. It wasn't pretty.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It is just so odd that some people think that intentionally creating more congestion is a good idea.

Ok, but some people really do need help getting around so you shouldn't criticize all drivers like that. I do agree that people who choose to add to congestion because they're too lazy or picky to take public transportation are the problem.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Maybe not infinite, but you can see how a lot of people don't have cars either by finances or choice. On the other hand, there is a lot of room to grow in terms of housing.

Doesn't it make sense as housing options are expanded, to ensure people who live here can get what they need without a car?

Also, doesn't Amazon and the various food delivery services make that easier as well?

There are more cars registered with the city than there are households.

Yes, but 35 percent of households don't have any cars.

My single neighbor has at least 5.

Ha, I think you are talking about me. Divorced woman with 4 cars , 2 short blocks from Conn Ave.

What can I say, I love classic cars ....


And for the record, I predict that the bottleneck bike lanes get removed within 2 years when the area between the Circle and the Zoo becomes an unmitigated clusterfuk.

Exactly like the idiotic project to narrow Wisconsin to a single travel lane a few years ago, in Glover Park

Thanks for painting a very vivid image of the kind of people who are opposing measures to improve the safety of cyclists in DC.

Cyclists would be wise to understand two realities:
1) You’re a small group of people in a much larger city.
2) The world doesn’t revolve around you.

So would people who own four cars for their own use.

Perhaps the only group in Washington D.C. that's smaller than bicyclists is the number of people who own four cars.

+1 Exactly.

And so what if a single person owns 5 cars? Can they drive all 5 at the same time? No. Are they somehow polluting more if the have 5 cars or crowding the streets more? No.

They obviously can't drive all five at the same time, but their children, nannies, maids, gardeners, pool boys and so on can.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Maybe not infinite, but you can see how a lot of people don't have cars either by finances or choice. On the other hand, there is a lot of room to grow in terms of housing.

Doesn't it make sense as housing options are expanded, to ensure people who live here can get what they need without a car?

Also, doesn't Amazon and the various food delivery services make that easier as well?

There are more cars registered with the city than there are households.

Yes, but 35 percent of households don't have any cars.

My single neighbor has at least 5.

Ha, I think you are talking about me. Divorced woman with 4 cars , 2 short blocks from Conn Ave.

What can I say, I love classic cars ....


And for the record, I predict that the bottleneck bike lanes get removed within 2 years when the area between the Circle and the Zoo becomes an unmitigated clusterfuk.

Exactly like the idiotic project to narrow Wisconsin to a single travel lane a few years ago, in Glover Park

Thanks for painting a very vivid image of the kind of people who are opposing measures to improve the safety of cyclists in DC.

Cyclists would be wise to understand two realities:
1) You’re a small group of people in a much larger city.
2) The world doesn’t revolve around you.

So would people who own four cars for their own use.

Perhaps the only group in Washington D.C. that's smaller than bicyclists is the number of people who own four cars.

+1 Exactly.

And so what if a single person owns 5 cars? Can they drive all 5 at the same time? No. Are they somehow polluting more if the have 5 cars or crowding the streets more? No.

Read upthread, the point is, there are a significant majority of the population of the city that don't own cars. People can own as many as they want, that isn't the point.

[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:Maybe not infinite, but you can see how a lot of people don't have cars either by finances or choice. On the other hand, there is a lot of room to grow in terms of housing.

Doesn't it make sense as housing options are expanded, to ensure people who live here can get what they need without a car?

Also, doesn't Amazon and the various food delivery services make that easier as well?

There are more cars registered with the city than there are households.

Yes, but 35 percent of households don't have any cars.

My single neighbor has at least 5.

Ha, I think you are talking about me. Divorced woman with 4 cars , 2 short blocks from Conn Ave.

What can I say, I love classic cars ....


And for the record, I predict that the bottleneck bike lanes get removed within 2 years when the area between the Circle and the Zoo becomes an unmitigated clusterfuk.

Exactly like the idiotic project to narrow Wisconsin to a single travel lane a few years ago, in Glover Park

Thanks for painting a very vivid image of the kind of people who are opposing measures to improve the safety of cyclists in DC.

Cyclists would be wise to understand two realities:
1) You’re a small group of people in a much larger city.
2) The world doesn’t revolve around you.

Do you ever consider what a better city / world we would live in if it didn't revolve around cars? If not, you should.

Have you considered what a better city we would live in if we got rid of all the bike lanes? If not, you should.

The bike lanes that have been installed improve the quality of life immeasurably for those who use them and, by taking cars off the road, for drivers as well.

If you are able to do so, you really should invest in a bike and, if need be, some bike riding lessons. I think you would find that a ride on a protected bike lane on a morning such as this would put you in a much better mood.

I'd rather the city focus on easing traffic congestion. That would provide the most benefit to the most people. Bike lanes are just a special interest giveaway. No one uses them except a tiny group of bicycling enthusiasts.

They are not a "special interest giveaway" if the benefits they create can be experienced by almost the entire population - that is anyone who knows how to ride a bike, scooter, or any form of personal mobility device. They are also not a "special interest giveaway" if building them helps improve the quality of life for the general population, which they do by reducing pollution, injuries and death, obesity, and so on.

What if we created special lanes for people who only want to travel on stilts? Would you say that benefits the entire population? Would you say that reduces pollution and obesity? Would you say that reduces injuries and deaths? Would you say that is improving the qualify of life in the city?

No, you wouldn't. You call that an absurd special interest giveaway.

Same deal with bike lanes.

I understand you're just picking an absurd example, but: People can travel on stilts on the sidewalk safely, though. I suspect you wouldn't be all that happy if everyone who rides a bike in D.C. rode on the sidewalk, even if they only did it in the areas where it's currently legal.

We already know they don't want cyclists on the sidewalks.

[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:Maybe not infinite, but you can see how a lot of people don't have cars either by finances or choice. On the other hand, there is a lot of room to grow in terms of housing.

Doesn't it make sense as housing options are expanded, to ensure people who live here can get what they need without a car?

Also, doesn't Amazon and the various food delivery services make that easier as well?

There are more cars registered with the city than there are households.

Yes, but 35 percent of households don't have any cars.

My single neighbor has at least 5.

Ha, I think you are talking about me. Divorced woman with 4 cars , 2 short blocks from Conn Ave.

What can I say, I love classic cars ....


And for the record, I predict that the bottleneck bike lanes get removed within 2 years when the area between the Circle and the Zoo becomes an unmitigated clusterfuk.

Exactly like the idiotic project to narrow Wisconsin to a single travel lane a few years ago, in Glover Park

Thanks for painting a very vivid image of the kind of people who are opposing measures to improve the safety of cyclists in DC.

Cyclists would be wise to understand two realities:
1) You’re a small group of people in a much larger city.
2) The world doesn’t revolve around you.

Do you ever consider what a better city / world we would live in if it didn't revolve around cars? If not, you should.

Have you considered what a better city we would live in if we got rid of all the bike lanes? If not, you should.

The bike lanes that have been installed improve the quality of life immeasurably for those who use them and, by taking cars off the road, for drivers as well.

If you are able to do so, you really should invest in a bike and, if need be, some bike riding lessons. I think you would find that a ride on a protected bike lane on a morning such as this would put you in a much better mood.

I'd rather the city focus on easing traffic congestion. That would provide the most benefit to the most people. Bike lanes are just a special interest giveaway. No one uses them except a tiny group of bicycling enthusiasts.

They are not a "special interest giveaway" if the benefits they create can be experienced by almost the entire population - that is anyone who knows how to ride a bike, scooter, or any form of personal mobility device. They are also not a "special interest giveaway" if building them helps improve the quality of life for the general population, which they do by reducing pollution, injuries and death, obesity, and so on.

What if we created special lanes for people who only want to travel on stilts? Would you say that benefits the entire population? Would you say that reduces pollution and obesity? Would you say that reduces injuries and deaths? Would you say that is improving the qualify of life in the city?

No, you wouldn't. You call that an absurd special interest giveaway.

Same deal with bike lanes.

Cyclists should swap in "people on stilts" for every time they refer to people on bikes to see how ridiculous their arguments are.

[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:Maybe not infinite, but you can see how a lot of people don't have cars either by finances or choice. On the other hand, there is a lot of room to grow in terms of housing.

Doesn't it make sense as housing options are expanded, to ensure people who live here can get what they need without a car?

Also, doesn't Amazon and the various food delivery services make that easier as well?

There are more cars registered with the city than there are households.

Yes, but 35 percent of households don't have any cars.

My single neighbor has at least 5.

Ha, I think you are talking about me. Divorced woman with 4 cars , 2 short blocks from Conn Ave.

What can I say, I love classic cars ....


And for the record, I predict that the bottleneck bike lanes get removed within 2 years when the area between the Circle and the Zoo becomes an unmitigated clusterfuk.

Exactly like the idiotic project to narrow Wisconsin to a single travel lane a few years ago, in Glover Park

Thanks for painting a very vivid image of the kind of people who are opposing measures to improve the safety of cyclists in DC.

Cyclists would be wise to understand two realities:
1) You’re a small group of people in a much larger city.
2) The world doesn’t revolve around you.

Do you ever consider what a better city / world we would live in if it didn't revolve around cars? If not, you should.

Have you considered what a better city we would live in if we got rid of all the bike lanes? If not, you should.

The bike lanes that have been installed improve the quality of life immeasurably for those who use them and, by taking cars off the road, for drivers as well.

If you are able to do so, you really should invest in a bike and, if need be, some bike riding lessons. I think you would find that a ride on a protected bike lane on a morning such as this would put you in a much better mood.

I'd rather the city focus on easing traffic congestion. That would provide the most benefit to the most people. Bike lanes are just a special interest giveaway. No one uses them except a tiny group of bicycling enthusiasts.

They are not a "special interest giveaway" if the benefits they create can be experienced by almost the entire population - that is anyone who knows how to ride a bike, scooter, or any form of personal mobility device. They are also not a "special interest giveaway" if building them helps improve the quality of life for the general population, which they do by reducing pollution, injuries and death, obesity, and so on.

What if we created special lanes for people who only want to travel on stilts? Would you say that benefits the entire population? Would you say that reduces pollution and obesity? Would you say that reduces injuries and deaths? Would you say that is improving the qualify of life in the city?

No, you wouldn't. You call that an absurd special interest giveaway.

Same deal with bike lanes.

I understand you're just picking an absurd example, but: People can travel on stilts on the sidewalk safely, though. I suspect you wouldn't be all that happy if everyone who rides a bike in D.C. rode on the sidewalk, even if they only did it in the areas where it's currently legal.

We already know they don't want cyclists on the sidewalks.

It's a big city. If you want to ride your bike on the street, move to the suburbs. Maybe you can find a nice quiet cul de sac and ride to your heart's content.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Maybe not infinite, but you can see how a lot of people don't have cars either by finances or choice. On the other hand, there is a lot of room to grow in terms of housing.

Doesn't it make sense as housing options are expanded, to ensure people who live here can get what they need without a car?

Also, doesn't Amazon and the various food delivery services make that easier as well?

There are more cars registered with the city than there are households.

Yes, but 35 percent of households don't have any cars.

My single neighbor has at least 5.

Ha, I think you are talking about me. Divorced woman with 4 cars , 2 short blocks from Conn Ave.

What can I say, I love classic cars ....


And for the record, I predict that the bottleneck bike lanes get removed within 2 years when the area between the Circle and the Zoo becomes an unmitigated clusterfuk.

Exactly like the idiotic project to narrow Wisconsin to a single travel lane a few years ago, in Glover Park

Thanks for painting a very vivid image of the kind of people who are opposing measures to improve the safety of cyclists in DC.

Cyclists would be wise to understand two realities:
1) You’re a small group of people in a much larger city.
2) The world doesn’t revolve around you.

Do you ever consider what a better city / world we would live in if it didn't revolve around cars? If not, you should.

Have you considered what a better city we would live in if we got rid of all the bike lanes? If not, you should.

The bike lanes that have been installed improve the quality of life immeasurably for those who use them and, by taking cars off the road, for drivers as well.

If you are able to do so, you really should invest in a bike and, if need be, some bike riding lessons. I think you would find that a ride on a protected bike lane on a morning such as this would put you in a much better mood.

I'd rather the city focus on easing traffic congestion. That would provide the most benefit to the most people. Bike lanes are just a special interest giveaway. No one uses them except a tiny group of bicycling enthusiasts.

They are not a "special interest giveaway" if the benefits they create can be experienced by almost the entire population - that is anyone who knows how to ride a bike, scooter, or any form of personal mobility device. They are also not a "special interest giveaway" if building them helps improve the quality of life for the general population, which they do by reducing pollution, injuries and death, obesity, and so on.

What if we created special lanes for people who only want to travel on stilts? Would you say that benefits the entire population? Would you say that reduces pollution and obesity? Would you say that reduces injuries and deaths? Would you say that is improving the qualify of life in the city?

No, you wouldn't. You call that an absurd special interest giveaway.

Same deal with bike lanes.

I understand you're just picking an absurd example, but: People can travel on stilts on the sidewalk safely, though. I suspect you wouldn't be all that happy if everyone who rides a bike in D.C. rode on the sidewalk, even if they only did it in the areas where it's currently legal.

We already know they don't want cyclists on the sidewalks.

It's a big city. If you want to ride your bike on the street, move to the suburbs. Maybe you can find a nice quiet cul de sac and ride to your heart's content.

If you want to drive everywhere unobstructed and have plenty of ample parking in addition to your garage then you can move to the suburbs. No room for all that in the middle of the 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:Maybe not infinite, but you can see how a lot of people don't have cars either by finances or choice. On the other hand, there is a lot of room to grow in terms of housing.

Doesn't it make sense as housing options are expanded, to ensure people who live here can get what they need without a car?

Also, doesn't Amazon and the various food delivery services make that easier as well?

There are more cars registered with the city than there are households.

Yes, but 35 percent of households don't have any cars.

My single neighbor has at least 5.

Ha, I think you are talking about me. Divorced woman with 4 cars , 2 short blocks from Conn Ave.

What can I say, I love classic cars ....


And for the record, I predict that the bottleneck bike lanes get removed within 2 years when the area between the Circle and the Zoo becomes an unmitigated clusterfuk.

Exactly like the idiotic project to narrow Wisconsin to a single travel lane a few years ago, in Glover Park

Thanks for painting a very vivid image of the kind of people who are opposing measures to improve the safety of cyclists in DC.

Cyclists would be wise to understand two realities:
1) You’re a small group of people in a much larger city.
2) The world doesn’t revolve around you.

Do you ever consider what a better city / world we would live in if it didn't revolve around cars? If not, you should.

Have you considered what a better city we would live in if we got rid of all the bike lanes? If not, you should.

The bike lanes that have been installed improve the quality of life immeasurably for those who use them and, by taking cars off the road, for drivers as well.

If you are able to do so, you really should invest in a bike and, if need be, some bike riding lessons. I think you would find that a ride on a protected bike lane on a morning such as this would put you in a much better mood.

I'd rather the city focus on easing traffic congestion. That would provide the most benefit to the most people. Bike lanes are just a special interest giveaway. No one uses them except a tiny group of bicycling enthusiasts.

They are not a "special interest giveaway" if the benefits they create can be experienced by almost the entire population - that is anyone who knows how to ride a bike, scooter, or any form of personal mobility device. They are also not a "special interest giveaway" if building them helps improve the quality of life for the general population, which they do by reducing pollution, injuries and death, obesity, and so on.

What if we created special lanes for people who only want to travel on stilts? Would you say that benefits the entire population? Would you say that reduces pollution and obesity? Would you say that reduces injuries and deaths? Would you say that is improving the qualify of life in the city?

No, you wouldn't. You call that an absurd special interest giveaway.

Same deal with bike lanes.

You mean a sidewalk? Because I'm super pro-sidewalks.

"Bike lanes" can and are used by people on scooters, various other electric one/two wheel things, electric wheelchairs, roller skates, skate boarders, etc.

[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:Maybe not infinite, but you can see how a lot of people don't have cars either by finances or choice. On the other hand, there is a lot of room to grow in terms of housing.

Doesn't it make sense as housing options are expanded, to ensure people who live here can get what they need without a car?

Also, doesn't Amazon and the various food delivery services make that easier as well?

There are more cars registered with the city than there are households.

Yes, but 35 percent of households don't have any cars.

My single neighbor has at least 5.

Ha, I think you are talking about me. Divorced woman with 4 cars , 2 short blocks from Conn Ave.

What can I say, I love classic cars ....


And for the record, I predict that the bottleneck bike lanes get removed within 2 years when the area between the Circle and the Zoo becomes an unmitigated clusterfuk.

Exactly like the idiotic project to narrow Wisconsin to a single travel lane a few years ago, in Glover Park

Thanks for painting a very vivid image of the kind of people who are opposing measures to improve the safety of cyclists in DC.

Cyclists would be wise to understand two realities:
1) You’re a small group of people in a much larger city.
2) The world doesn’t revolve around you.

Do you ever consider what a better city / world we would live in if it didn't revolve around cars? If not, you should.

Have you considered what a better city we would live in if we got rid of all the bike lanes? If not, you should.

The bike lanes that have been installed improve the quality of life immeasurably for those who use them and, by taking cars off the road, for drivers as well.

If you are able to do so, you really should invest in a bike and, if need be, some bike riding lessons. I think you would find that a ride on a protected bike lane on a morning such as this would put you in a much better mood.

I'd rather the city focus on easing traffic congestion. That would provide the most benefit to the most people. Bike lanes are just a special interest giveaway. No one uses them except a tiny group of bicycling enthusiasts.

They are not a "special interest giveaway" if the benefits they create can be experienced by almost the entire population - that is anyone who knows how to ride a bike, scooter, or any form of personal mobility device. They are also not a "special interest giveaway" if building them helps improve the quality of life for the general population, which they do by reducing pollution, injuries and death, obesity, and so on.

What if we created special lanes for people who only want to travel on stilts? Would you say that benefits the entire population? Would you say that reduces pollution and obesity? Would you say that reduces injuries and deaths? Would you say that is improving the qualify of life in the city?

No, you wouldn't. You call that an absurd special interest giveaway.

Same deal with bike lanes.

You could also just look at how much the city spends on bike lanes vs how many people use them. The cost per user is off the charts. It is orders of magnitude more expensive than other forms of transportation on a per user basis.

[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:Maybe not infinite, but you can see how a lot of people don't have cars either by finances or choice. On the other hand, there is a lot of room to grow in terms of housing.

Doesn't it make sense as housing options are expanded, to ensure people who live here can get what they need without a car?

Also, doesn't Amazon and the various food delivery services make that easier as well?

There are more cars registered with the city than there are households.

Yes, but 35 percent of households don't have any cars.

My single neighbor has at least 5.

Ha, I think you are talking about me. Divorced woman with 4 cars , 2 short blocks from Conn Ave.

What can I say, I love classic cars ....


And for the record, I predict that the bottleneck bike lanes get removed within 2 years when the area between the Circle and the Zoo becomes an unmitigated clusterfuk.

Exactly like the idiotic project to narrow Wisconsin to a single travel lane a few years ago, in Glover Park

Thanks for painting a very vivid image of the kind of people who are opposing measures to improve the safety of cyclists in DC.

Cyclists would be wise to understand two realities:
1) You’re a small group of people in a much larger city.
2) The world doesn’t revolve around you.

Do you ever consider what a better city / world we would live in if it didn't revolve around cars? If not, you should.

Have you considered what a better city we would live in if we got rid of all the bike lanes? If not, you should.

The bike lanes that have been installed improve the quality of life immeasurably for those who use them and, by taking cars off the road, for drivers as well.

If you are able to do so, you really should invest in a bike and, if need be, some bike riding lessons. I think you would find that a ride on a protected bike lane on a morning such as this would put you in a much better mood.

I'd rather the city focus on easing traffic congestion. That would provide the most benefit to the most people. Bike lanes are just a special interest giveaway. No one uses them except a tiny group of bicycling enthusiasts.

They are not a "special interest giveaway" if the benefits they create can be experienced by almost the entire population - that is anyone who knows how to ride a bike, scooter, or any form of personal mobility device. They are also not a "special interest giveaway" if building them helps improve the quality of life for the general population, which they do by reducing pollution, injuries and death, obesity, and so on.

What if we created special lanes for people who only want to travel on stilts? Would you say that benefits the entire population? Would you say that reduces pollution and obesity? Would you say that reduces injuries and deaths? Would you say that is improving the qualify of life in the city?

No, you wouldn't. You call that an absurd special interest giveaway.

Same deal with bike lanes.

You could also just look at how much the city spends on bike lanes vs how many people use them. The cost per user is off the charts. It is orders of magnitude more expensive than other forms of transportation on a per user basis.

This is complete nonsense. If you have statistics, cite them. Otherwise stop making up complete horseshit to make you feel better about your silly prejudices.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Maybe not infinite, but you can see how a lot of people don't have cars either by finances or choice. On the other hand, there is a lot of room to grow in terms of housing.

Doesn't it make sense as housing options are expanded, to ensure people who live here can get what they need without a car?

Also, doesn't Amazon and the various food delivery services make that easier as well?

There are more cars registered with the city than there are households.

Yes, but 35 percent of households don't have any cars.

My single neighbor has at least 5.

Ha, I think you are talking about me. Divorced woman with 4 cars , 2 short blocks from Conn Ave.

What can I say, I love classic cars ....


And for the record, I predict that the bottleneck bike lanes get removed within 2 years when the area between the Circle and the Zoo becomes an unmitigated clusterfuk.

Exactly like the idiotic project to narrow Wisconsin to a single travel lane a few years ago, in Glover Park

Thanks for painting a very vivid image of the kind of people who are opposing measures to improve the safety of cyclists in DC.

Cyclists would be wise to understand two realities:
1) You’re a small group of people in a much larger city.
2) The world doesn’t revolve around you.

And you don't seem to understand that dedicating so much space and transportation real estate to single occupancy vehicles is past the 'not sustainable' phase and we need to do something different. Status quo is not an option, what do you propose?

By definition: Bicycles are single occupancy vehicles while cars and trucks are multi. Those are just facts. Status quo is always an option.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Maybe not infinite, but you can see how a lot of people don't have cars either by finances or choice. On the other hand, there is a lot of room to grow in terms of housing.

Doesn't it make sense as housing options are expanded, to ensure people who live here can get what they need without a car?

Also, doesn't Amazon and the various food delivery services make that easier as well?

There are more cars registered with the city than there are households.

Yes, but 35 percent of households don't have any cars.

My single neighbor has at least 5.

Ha, I think you are talking about me. Divorced woman with 4 cars , 2 short blocks from Conn Ave.

What can I say, I love classic cars ....


And for the record, I predict that the bottleneck bike lanes get removed within 2 years when the area between the Circle and the Zoo becomes an unmitigated clusterfuk.

Exactly like the idiotic project to narrow Wisconsin to a single travel lane a few years ago, in Glover Park

Thanks for painting a very vivid image of the kind of people who are opposing measures to improve the safety of cyclists in DC.

Cyclists would be wise to understand two realities:
1) You’re a small group of people in a much larger city.
2) The world doesn’t revolve around you.

Do you ever consider what a better city / world we would live in if it didn't revolve around cars? If not, you should.

Have you considered what a better city we would live in if we got rid of all the bike lanes? If not, you should.

The bike lanes that have been installed improve the quality of life immeasurably for those who use them and, by taking cars off the road, for drivers as well.

If you are able to do so, you really should invest in a bike and, if need be, some bike riding lessons. I think you would find that a ride on a protected bike lane on a morning such as this would put you in a much better mood.

I'd rather the city focus on easing traffic congestion. That would provide the most benefit to the most people. Bike lanes are just a special interest giveaway. No one uses them except a tiny group of bicycling enthusiasts.

They are not a "special interest giveaway" if the benefits they create can be experienced by almost the entire population - that is anyone who knows how to ride a bike, scooter, or any form of personal mobility device. They are also not a "special interest giveaway" if building them helps improve the quality of life for the general population, which they do by reducing pollution, injuries and death, obesity, and so on.

What if we created special lanes for people who only want to travel on stilts? Would you say that benefits the entire population? Would you say that reduces pollution and obesity? Would you say that reduces injuries and deaths? Would you say that is improving the qualify of life in the city?

No, you wouldn't. You call that an absurd special interest giveaway.

Same deal with bike lanes.

I understand you're just picking an absurd example, but: People can travel on stilts on the sidewalk safely, though. I suspect you wouldn't be all that happy if everyone who rides a bike in D.C. rode on the sidewalk, even if they only did it in the areas where it's currently legal.

We already know they don't want cyclists on the sidewalks.

It's a big city. If you want to ride your bike on the street, move to the suburbs. Maybe you can find a nice quiet cul de sac and ride to your heart's content.

If you want to drive everywhere unobstructed and have plenty of ample parking in addition to your garage then you can move to the suburbs. No room for all that in the middle of the city.

Upper NW not the middle of the city. It is literally the furthest one can get from the middle of the city.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Maybe not infinite, but you can see how a lot of people don't have cars either by finances or choice. On the other hand, there is a lot of room to grow in terms of housing.

Doesn't it make sense as housing options are expanded, to ensure people who live here can get what they need without a car?

Also, doesn't Amazon and the various food delivery services make that easier as well?

There are more cars registered with the city than there are households.

Yes, but 35 percent of households don't have any cars.

My single neighbor has at least 5.

Ha, I think you are talking about me. Divorced woman with 4 cars , 2 short blocks from Conn Ave.

What can I say, I love classic cars ....


And for the record, I predict that the bottleneck bike lanes get removed within 2 years when the area between the Circle and the Zoo becomes an unmitigated clusterfuk.

Exactly like the idiotic project to narrow Wisconsin to a single travel lane a few years ago, in Glover Park

Thanks for painting a very vivid image of the kind of people who are opposing measures to improve the safety of cyclists in DC.

Cyclists would be wise to understand two realities:
1) You’re a small group of people in a much larger city.
2) The world doesn’t revolve around you.

And you don't seem to understand that dedicating so much space and transportation real estate to single occupancy vehicles is past the 'not sustainable' phase and we need to do something different. Status quo is not an option, what do you propose?

By definition: Bicycles are single occupancy vehicles while cars and trucks are multi. Those are just facts. Status quo is always an option.

They're not single occupancy vehicles when a parent has a three year old in her lap while riding her bike down a major thoroughfare in the middle of rush hour.

Extremely dangerous? Yes.

Completely irresponsible? Definitely.

But not single occupancy!