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: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.

I am downtown every day. It's as busy now as it was pre-pandemic.

[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.

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.

The 4% (or whatever) number is from the same Census Bureau survey conducted prior to the pandemic. 2019 is not 2022. But 2021 is not 2022 either. It's debatable whether 2022 is closer to 2019 or 2021.

[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.

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.

Lots of people want to use them and will use them. Many people are too scared to bike because they don't like being in the road without being separated from manic drivers. Once the protected bike lanes are installed, cycling will be practical for a lot more people than it currently is.

[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.

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.

DP but as people have said before, the streets can be both (a) way more dangerous than they need to be or should be but still (b) not so dangerous that you can't possibly take kids on them. The idea is to make them less dangerous than they are, not to eliminate all risk entirely.

[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.

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.

Oh, and that's definitely because of the bike lanes, not because the federal government is still allowing people to work remotely.

[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.

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.

DP but as people have said before, the streets can be both (a) way more dangerous than they need to be or should be but still (b) not so dangerous that you can't possibly take kids on them. The idea is to make them less dangerous than they are, not to eliminate all risk entirely.

Yep. I bike daily on DC streets. There is a risk and drivers regularly do stupid impatient things that scare the bejesus out of me, but that’s a cost I’m willing to bear in order to avoid being stuck in traffic in a car getting annoyed. Many people who would like to bike don’t do so because they view the risk as being too high or because a scary encounter with a car has turned them off it. Protected bike lanes allow a lot of people who would otherwise be too scared to bike regularly to do so. That takes cars off the road. If I were a driver, I’d be happy about that.

[Anonymous]

$51. Keep it coming.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:$51. Keep it coming.

Please do. Maybe it can become self-funding so the rest of us don't have to subsidize it anymore.

[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.

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.

Lots of people want to use them and will use them. Many people are too scared to bike because they don't like being in the road without being separated from manic drivers. Once the protected bike lanes are installed, cycling will be practical for a lot more people than it currently is.

I like Fueld of Dreams as much as the next person but you're not just building them you're also destroying 1/3 of the most heavily travelled north south route in the city. If there isn't a 2000+% increase in use then you have created an expensive cluster of epic proportions.

You all are relying entirely on faith. You've gotten high off your own supply.

[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.

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.

Lots of people want to use them and will use them. Many people are too scared to bike because they don't like being in the road without being separated from manic drivers. Once the protected bike lanes are installed, cycling will be practical for a lot more people than it currently is.

This is just delusional. People who aren't into bikes have no idea what a protected bike lane even is. The idea that they're waiting around for them to be built is laughable. People don't want to bike because it is completely impractical for a thousand reasons. Probably why polls consistently showing biking is the least popular mode of transportation in the city despite relentless promotion by 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:

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.

Lots of people want to use them and will use them. Many people are too scared to bike because they don't like being in the road without being separated from manic drivers. Once the protected bike lanes are installed, cycling will be practical for a lot more people than it currently is.

This is just delusional. People who aren't into bikes have no idea what a protected bike lane even is. The idea that they're waiting around for them to be built is laughable. People don't want to bike because it is completely impractical for a thousand reasons. Probably why polls consistently showing biking is the least popular mode of transportation in the city despite relentless promotion by the city.

It is not delusional. I won't ride on Connecticut Ave without the bike lanes. Pedestrians get mad if I use the sidewalk (legally) and drivers get mad if I am in the street. There are a lot of people like me.

[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.

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.

Lots of people want to use them and will use them. Many people are too scared to bike because they don't like being in the road without being separated from manic drivers. Once the protected bike lanes are installed, cycling will be practical for a lot more people than it currently is.

This is just delusional. People who aren't into bikes have no idea what a protected bike lane even is. The idea that they're waiting around for them to be built is laughable. People don't want to bike because it is completely impractical for a thousand reasons. Probably why polls consistently showing biking is the least popular mode of transportation in the city despite relentless promotion by the city.

It is not delusional. I won't ride on Connecticut Ave without the bike lanes. Pedestrians get mad if I use the sidewalk (legally) and drivers get mad if I am in the street. There are a lot of people like me.

Riding a bike in a city like Washington will never ever be safe. That's like saying you're going to make boxing or football safe.

[Anonymous]

I want the new bike lanes. I will use them, like others posting here. These anecdotes are real. Safety for bicyclists will improve.

But I also agree with PPs that the DDOT "analysis" is trash. Implausible numbers for bike lane usage and traffic diversion, with pretty much no substantiation other than DDOT's say-so. Let's be honest that this is going to be more convenient for people on bikes (like me) and a pain for everyone else.

[Anonymous]

I probably bike upwards of 200 days a year. I’m as comfortable on my bike as am on my feet. But I will go way the hell out of my way, adding significant time to my route, to follow take the protected bike lanes and avoid the blood-curdling stress that is associated with mixing it up with some of the worst drivers in the western world. The difference between riding on the road and riding on a protected bike lane is the difference between being a shark cage off the coast of Durban and a day lounging at the spa. Anyone who thinks that protected bike lanes don’t make a difference in whether people bike or not almost certainly has never rode a bike and/or has no familiarity whatsoever with how people drive on DC streets.

I wish the protected bike lanes weren’t necessary on account of drivers obeying the speed limit (not the limit +10mph), not running stale yellow and red lights, actually stopping at stop signs, not rage accelerating passed anyone who prevents them from getting to the next red light one second earlier, and observing the mandated 3 feet when passing cyclists. But that’s Singapore, not the DMV. Our streets are populated by raging maniacs who employ their vehicles like Saddam Hussein employed Scud missiles. Given that state of affairs, we’ll take the protected bike lanes thank you very much.

[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.

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.

Lots of people want to use them and will use them. Many people are too scared to bike because they don't like being in the road without being separated from manic drivers. Once the protected bike lanes are installed, cycling will be practical for a lot more people than it currently is.

This is just delusional. People who aren't into bikes have no idea what a protected bike lane even is. The idea that they're waiting around for them to be built is laughable. People don't want to bike because it is completely impractical for a thousand reasons. Probably why polls consistently showing biking is the least popular mode of transportation in the city despite relentless promotion by the city.

You obviously have an ax to grind and I very much doubt you’re interested in reality. But, yes, there are a great many people that a) value their safety and b) would like a cheaper, faster, healthier, less environmentally and socially destructive way to get to work and go about their errands. Just because you may not fall into one or both of those categories does not mean that you get to deny their existence. And the nonsense about biking not being popular has been debunked on virtually every page on this thread. But by all means keep repeating it. WABA is making out very nicely out of your aggressive ignorance.