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:

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.

Do you think the city only stretches in one direction? Bc this is just silly.

[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.

It's not just that bikes are single occupancy. It's also that there a very few bikes. This is a lot of space to dedicate to a miniscule number of people.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

Do you think the city only stretches in one direction? Bc this is just silly.

Geography is clearly not your strength. But I 3xpect nothing less from the people that want to intentionally increase congestion and traffic while descreasing safety.

[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.

I am going to start riding in the middle of the lane just to piss people like you off, since I have the legal right to do it.

[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.

1) cargo bikes and bikes made for two are, in fact, not single occupancy
2) most people using cars in DC are, in fact, using them as single occupancy vehicles.

[Anonymous]

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.

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!

Are you the crazy lady who posted the pictures on the Chevy Chase group of the dad riding with two kids on a cargo bike in a completely safe manner? I don't think that thread when the way you were anticipating.

[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.

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!

Are you the crazy lady who posted the pictures on the Chevy Chase group of the dad riding with two kids on a cargo bike in a completely safe manner? I don't think that thread when the way you were anticipating.

I thought you said the streets are incredibly dangerous. Now you're saying they're so safe you can take children on them? Make up your mind.

[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.

I am going to start riding in the middle of the lane just to piss people like you off, since I have the legal right to do it.

Probably not very smart on your part. Road rage is a real thing and you never know how any individual driver will react. They might drive right over you.

[Anonymous]

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.

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.

It's not just that bikes are single occupancy. It's also that there a very few bikes. This is a lot of space to dedicate to a miniscule number of people.

Household surveys suggest that about 5% of commuters bike, which is about a tenth of the number who drive. The amount of road space and road funding dedicated to not just bikes but scooters and other personal mobility devices (including motorized wheelchairs) is much much lower than a tenth (or even 5%). The installation of bike lanes on Connecticut Avenue NW is not going to change that significantly.

Secondly, any city planner that designs projects that encourages people to commute in ways that are expensive, environmentally destructive, and inevitably produces congestion that destroys everyone's happiness and productivity is not very good at their job. Setting aside a miniscule fraction of road space to allow people to commute comfortably in ways that actually have positive externalities for society is basic common sense. I'm sorry if this rubs up against the ways in which you are set, but it is what it is.

[Anonymous]

Congrats folks. This thread has raised $50 for WABA. Can we get to $100?

[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.

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.

It's not just that bikes are single occupancy. It's also that there a very few bikes. This is a lot of space to dedicate to a miniscule number of people.

Household surveys suggest that about 5% of commuters bike, which is about a tenth of the number who drive. The amount of road space and road funding dedicated to not just bikes but scooters and other personal mobility devices (including motorized wheelchairs) is much much lower than a tenth (or even 5%). The installation of bike lanes on Connecticut Avenue NW is not going to change that significantly.

Secondly, any city planner that designs projects that encourages people to commute in ways that are expensive, environmentally destructive, and inevitably produces congestion that destroys everyone's happiness and productivity is not very good at their job. Setting aside a miniscule fraction of road space to allow people to commute comfortably in ways that actually have positive externalities for society is basic common sense. I'm sorry if this rubs up against the ways in which you are set, but it is what it is.

Actually barely two percent of commuters bike, per the Census Bureau. Even that seems high. The Census Bureau is just reporting what people told them, not confirming that what they said is true

https://data.census.gov/cedsci/table?q=Washington%...ommuting&tid=ACSST1Y2021.S0801.

[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: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.

It's not just that bikes are single occupancy. It's also that there a very few bikes. This is a lot of space to dedicate to a miniscule number of people.

Household surveys suggest that about 5% of commuters bike, which is about a tenth of the number who drive. The amount of road space and road funding dedicated to not just bikes but scooters and other personal mobility devices (including motorized wheelchairs) is much much lower than a tenth (or even 5%). The installation of bike lanes on Connecticut Avenue NW is not going to change that significantly.

Secondly, any city planner that designs projects that encourages people to commute in ways that are expensive, environmentally destructive, and inevitably produces congestion that destroys everyone's happiness and productivity is not very good at their job. Setting aside a miniscule fraction of road space to allow people to commute comfortably in ways that actually have positive externalities for society is basic common sense. I'm sorry if this rubs up against the ways in which you are set, but it is what it is.

Actually barely two percent of commuters bike, per the Census Bureau. Even that seems high. The Census Bureau is just reporting what people told them, not confirming that what they said is true

https://data.census.gov/cedsci/table?q=Washington%...ommuting&tid=ACSST1Y2021.S0801.

That was in the middle of the pandemic. Something like 25% of commuters were driving and 50% were working from home. We've discussed this before, but I'm happy to repeat it in order to raise more money for WABA.

If you want to hire people to stand on every street, sidewalk, bike lane, bike path, bridge, and other conveyance in DC so that you can confirm the Census Bureau numbers, be my guest. In the absence of that, I'll take the Census Bureau estimates over numbers pulled from thin air.

[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.

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.

It's not just that bikes are single occupancy. It's also that there a very few bikes. This is a lot of space to dedicate to a miniscule number of people.

Household surveys suggest that about 5% of commuters bike, which is about a tenth of the number who drive. The amount of road space and road funding dedicated to not just bikes but scooters and other personal mobility devices (including motorized wheelchairs) is much much lower than a tenth (or even 5%). The installation of bike lanes on Connecticut Avenue NW is not going to change that significantly.

Secondly, any city planner that designs projects that encourages people to commute in ways that are expensive, environmentally destructive, and inevitably produces congestion that destroys everyone's happiness and productivity is not very good at their job. Setting aside a miniscule fraction of road space to allow people to commute comfortably in ways that actually have positive externalities for society is basic common sense. I'm sorry if this rubs up against the ways in which you are set, but it is what it is.

Actually barely two percent of commuters bike, per the Census Bureau. Even that seems high. The Census Bureau is just reporting what people told them, not confirming that what they said is true

https://data.census.gov/cedsci/table?q=Washington%...ommuting&tid=ACSST1Y2021.S0801.

That was in the middle of the pandemic. Something like 25% of commuters were driving and 50% were working from home. We've discussed this before, but I'm happy to repeat it in order to raise more money for WABA.

If you want to hire people to stand on every street, sidewalk, bike lane, bike path, bridge, and other conveyance in DC so that you can confirm the Census Bureau numbers, be my guest. In the absence of that, I'll take the Census Bureau estimates over numbers pulled from thin air.

Have you been downtown? There's practically tumbleweeds.

[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.

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.

It's not just that bikes are single occupancy. It's also that there a very few bikes. This is a lot of space to dedicate to a miniscule number of people.

Household surveys suggest that about 5% of commuters bike, which is about a tenth of the number who drive. The amount of road space and road funding dedicated to not just bikes but scooters and other personal mobility devices (including motorized wheelchairs) is much much lower than a tenth (or even 5%). The installation of bike lanes on Connecticut Avenue NW is not going to change that significantly.

Secondly, any city planner that designs projects that encourages people to commute in ways that are expensive, environmentally destructive, and inevitably produces congestion that destroys everyone's happiness and productivity is not very good at their job. Setting aside a miniscule fraction of road space to allow people to commute comfortably in ways that actually have positive externalities for society is basic common sense. I'm sorry if this rubs up against the ways in which you are set, but it is what it is.

I think the issue is that you're like a religious zealot and you're going to build all these bike lanes regardless of whether anyone wants them or uses them.

[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.

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.

It's not just that bikes are single occupancy. It's also that there a very few bikes. This is a lot of space to dedicate to a miniscule number of people.

Household surveys suggest that about 5% of commuters bike, which is about a tenth of the number who drive. The amount of road space and road funding dedicated to not just bikes but scooters and other personal mobility devices (including motorized wheelchairs) is much much lower than a tenth (or even 5%). The installation of bike lanes on Connecticut Avenue NW is not going to change that significantly.

Secondly, any city planner that designs projects that encourages people to commute in ways that are expensive, environmentally destructive, and inevitably produces congestion that destroys everyone's happiness and productivity is not very good at their job. Setting aside a miniscule fraction of road space to allow people to commute comfortably in ways that actually have positive externalities for society is basic common sense. I'm sorry if this rubs up against the ways in which you are set, but it is what it is.

Actually barely two percent of commuters bike, per the Census Bureau. Even that seems high. The Census Bureau is just reporting what people told them, not confirming that what they said is true

https://data.census.gov/cedsci/table?q=Washington%...ommuting&tid=ACSST1Y2021.S0801.

That was in the middle of the pandemic. Something like 25% of commuters were driving and 50% were working from home. We've discussed this before, but I'm happy to repeat it in order to raise more money for WABA.

If you want to hire people to stand on every street, sidewalk, bike lane, bike path, bridge, and other conveyance in DC so that you can confirm the Census Bureau numbers, be my guest. In the absence of that, I'll take the Census Bureau estimates over numbers pulled from thin air.

The pandemic effect made biking more popular not less. Should we adjust the 2% number down then?

Both of you are quoting from Census data. The 2% is more recent and from a more accurate data set. The 4%, not 5%, is from a less rigorous survey and is well out of date by now.