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:I guess what I don’t understand is that if you scroll through the Twitter feeds of the pro bike lane crowd it’s filled with hysterical, border line self congratulatory “gotcha” tweets filled with pics cars, contractors, construction workers, first responders, etc. parked illegally in bike lanes all over the city. Along with pictures of broken and blighted bike lane infrastructure and desperate calls for 311 to fix things. But you somehow think CT will be any different? Thanks to your good reporting we already know how this will go. No thank you.

What it proves is that curb access is actually very important to economic activity in the city and taking this important public resource and giving it over to a small handful of cyclists doesn’t seem very wise.

There will be 24/7 curb access on one side of the street, something that doesn't exist today.

Almost all of the business have some form of alley or rear access, if needed. These days, those are barely used.

Both statements are ridiculous. Curb access currently exists on both sides of the street and will be removed. Additionally, “almost all” is a joke of a statement for business and also does not address deliveries to apartments or god forbid, emergency vehicle access.

So you are saying you know better than traffic engineers worldwide who have cracked the code of how to solve for these questions?

Traffic engineers have not cracked the code. That's a ludicrous statement. And in this case it is clear that they did not take the entire consequences into account. For god's sake the only firehouse serving upper NW is on Connecticut.

There are TWO fired houses on CT and one on Wisc. They are fine and it won't be an issue. There is already traffic on CT Ave, much of it backed up at Military, Nebraska, Van Ness, Porter and in all of Woodley Park. It is already bad. This won't make it worse, and more likely, more people will feel safe to ride a bike in the new lanes and use their cars a little less. That would be a good result, right? Less pollution, more exercise and best of all, fewer cars means more people who are old and have to drive, will have more open lanes and more opportunity to park closer to where they are going.

Win-win.

It is clear that the planning mode of the last century doesn't work unless we invest in putting double decks on our avenues. That isn't feasible, so we need to think about other ways of getting people around.

I think it is hilarious that some people believe there is a great number of people in DC hoping to commute by bike in heels and suits in the soupy DC humidity, or carry their groceries for a family of 5 on a bicycle along with their babies and toddlers; or dress up to go out to a fancy dinner and tuck their silk dresses up and away from bicycle gears as their nicely coiffed hair gets destroyed by the wind and humidity or rain on the way to the fancy restaurant, or drag their elderly mobility impaired family members along in a wagon attached to the end of the bike. So many people jones for that bike commute!

DC weather is great for bikes as a daily commuter vehicle. Not.

This is funny because I’ve actually done most of these things (including bike commuting to work [not in a suit as I change at the office] and carrying groceries for a family of 5 on my back). The humidity is great for shedding pounds in the process. My only frustration about biking in DC is that it took me so long to make the switch.

It's not funny. Most people can't do these things and certainly can't "change at the office."

Most people with office jobs can change at the office

You’re privileged is showing. Sure anyone can quickly “change” in the rest room, but many lack shower facilities required to be presentable after riding a bike for about 5 months of the year in DC.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Your desire to feel sanctimonious will result in a lot of money and natural resources going into reconstructing Connecticut Ave to benefit a handful of vocal bike commuters. It will inconvenience many and will not save the planet, sorry.

And in the long term, more people will bike which means less pollution and better health results for the residents who use the bike lanes, so a win all around.

There is not a single DC bike lane that has seen progressively increasing capacity utilization over time based on DDOT’s own bike counters. Which is probably why they turned most of them off.

I'm not sure about individual bike lane counters, but there was a very significant mode share increase in bikers over the decade when DDOT first started installing protected bike lanes. Obviously the pandemic will have changed the data but we'll see.

https://ggwash.org/view/80233/the-bike-boom-is-real-says-new-mode-share-data-regional-travel-survey

I beg you to get your information from unbiased sources. You are basically getting your information for a source that is intentionally trying to misinform you. Not too different than Fox News.

Here is a report of a pro-transit group using official government data.
https://www.centerforwashingtonareastudies.org/state_of_the_capital_region/2022/_book/Intro.html

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Your desire to feel sanctimonious will result in a lot of money and natural resources going into reconstructing Connecticut Ave to benefit a handful of vocal bike commuters. It will inconvenience many and will not save the planet, sorry.

And in the long term, more people will bike which means less pollution and better health results for the residents who use the bike lanes, so a win all around.

There is not a single DC bike lane that has seen progressively increasing capacity utilization over time based on DDOT’s own bike counters. Which is probably why they turned most of them off.

I'm not sure about individual bike lane counters, but there was a very significant mode share increase in bikers over the decade when DDOT first started installing protected bike lanes. Obviously the pandemic will have changed the data but we'll see.

https://ggwash.org/view/80233/the-bike-boom-is-real-says-new-mode-share-data-regional-travel-survey

I beg you to get your information from unbiased sources. You are basically getting your information for a source that is intentionally trying to misinform you. Not too different than Fox News.

Here is a report of a pro-transit group using official government data.
https://www.centerforwashingtonareastudies.org/state_of_the_capital_region/2022/_book/Intro.html

The GGW article cites government data ... "Every 10 years, regional planners at the Transportation Planning Board survey people to find out how they get around. It’s called the Regional Travel Survey and it’s kind of like the Census for transportation planning. Planners use it to create traffic models, ridership estimates, and other data that goes into plans and forecasts all over the region."

[Anonymous]

Is there any mode of transportation that is *less* popular in Washington D.C. than biking?

People are more likely to drive or take the metro or take the bus or walk or carpool or take commuter rail or take a cab than they are to ride a bike.

And yet it's biking, the city's least popular way of getting around, that sponges up such a massive share of our transportation resources. It's bizarre.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Is there any mode of transportation that is *less* popular in Washington D.C. than biking?

People are more likely to drive or take the metro or take the bus or walk or carpool or take commuter rail or take a cab than they are to ride a bike.

And yet it's biking, the city's least popular way of getting around, that sponges up such a massive share of our transportation resources. It's bizarre.

the city often groups biking with other forms of transportation, like walking, in its statistics in order to hide how few people ride bikes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I would be happy if they replaced all the bike lanes with parking spaces. It just seems silly to dedicate so much space to something that hardly anyone uses. We should be using this space in a way that benefits the most people.

So 20 cars per hour can park instead of hundreds of people biking. Got it.

Hundreds of people are not and will not be biking. Please. Most people cannot commute by bike.

You don't need "most people" to, just enough to lighten the load on the crowded streets.

[Anonymous]

Why can't they just bike through the side streets?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you live along Conn Ave you are perfectly situated to take metro to work

Just take it, stop driving everywhere

This isn't about commuting to work. It is about getting from one neighborhood to another. It is about our kids being able to bike safely to school, etc.

Stop thinking about it solely as a "need to get downtown" thing.

I support the bike lanes. I'm saying that the ppl complaining about the impact on their drive downtown should take metro

I bike with my kids to the Zoo sometimes from Wakefield and we ride on the sidewalk bc there is no other safe option. It sucks

Maybe it's not a good idea to ride your bike in a major city? Maybe it's an especially bad idea to allow children to ride bicycles in a major city? It's not safe and it is never, ever, ever going to be safe.

When I lived in Capitol Hill we biked as a family all the time and felt very safe. Bc Cap Hill has good bike lanes. Nothing is perfectly safe (including DRIVING EVERYWHERE) and biking makes a ton of sense as a way to get around in a city. We should work to make it safer for everyone.

Here here. Whenever I go to NW I am very surprised by the lack of bike lanes compared to the Hill.

Upper NW is above the fall line; it's very hilly and has an older population.

electric bikes make the hills a non-issue. There are plenty of older people who bike. Many more would if it were safe. Hence the need for bike lanes, so people feel safe accessing the businesses.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

It is a lovely weekend recreational activity for the able bodied who have plenty of leisure time.

It is also a great way to simply get around. It is a lot more efficient to get from one place to another, within 7-10 miles, via bike than a car.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I guess what I don’t understand is that if you scroll through the Twitter feeds of the pro bike lane crowd it’s filled with hysterical, border line self congratulatory “gotcha” tweets filled with pics cars, contractors, construction workers, first responders, etc. parked illegally in bike lanes all over the city. Along with pictures of broken and blighted bike lane infrastructure and desperate calls for 311 to fix things. But you somehow think CT will be any different? Thanks to your good reporting we already know how this will go. No thank you.

What it proves is that curb access is actually very important to economic activity in the city and taking this important public resource and giving it over to a small handful of cyclists doesn’t seem very wise.

There will be 24/7 curb access on one side of the street, something that doesn't exist today.

Almost all of the business have some form of alley or rear access, if needed. These days, those are barely used.

Both statements are ridiculous. Curb access currently exists on both sides of the street and will be removed. Additionally, “almost all” is a joke of a statement for business and also does not address deliveries to apartments or god forbid, emergency vehicle access.

So you are saying you know better than traffic engineers worldwide who have cracked the code of how to solve for these questions?

Traffic engineers have not cracked the code. That's a ludicrous statement. And in this case it is clear that they did not take the entire consequences into account. For god's sake the only firehouse serving upper NW is on Connecticut.

There are TWO fired houses on CT and one on Wisc. They are fine and it won't be an issue. There is already traffic on CT Ave, much of it backed up at Military, Nebraska, Van Ness, Porter and in all of Woodley Park. It is already bad. This won't make it worse, and more likely, more people will feel safe to ride a bike in the new lanes and use their cars a little less. That would be a good result, right? Less pollution, more exercise and best of all, fewer cars means more people who are old and have to drive, will have more open lanes and more opportunity to park closer to where they are going.

Win-win.

It is clear that the planning mode of the last century doesn't work unless we invest in putting double decks on our avenues. That isn't feasible, so we need to think about other ways of getting people around.

I think it is hilarious that some people believe there is a great number of people in DC hoping to commute by bike in heels and suits in the soupy DC humidity, or carry their groceries for a family of 5 on a bicycle along with their babies and toddlers; or dress up to go out to a fancy dinner and tuck their silk dresses up and away from bicycle gears as their nicely coiffed hair gets destroyed by the wind and humidity or rain on the way to the fancy restaurant, or drag their elderly mobility impaired family members along in a wagon attached to the end of the bike. So many people jones for that bike commute!

DC weather is great for bikes as a daily commuter vehicle. Not.

This is funny because I’ve actually done most of these things (including bike commuting to work [not in a suit as I change at the office] and carrying groceries for a family of 5 on my back). The humidity is great for shedding pounds in the process. My only frustration about biking in DC is that it took me so long to make the switch.

It's not funny. Most people can't do these things and certainly can't "change at the office."

Most people with office jobs can change at the office

People still go into an office?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Is there any mode of transportation that is *less* popular in Washington D.C. than biking?

People are more likely to drive or take the metro or take the bus or walk or carpool or take commuter rail or take a cab than they are to ride a bike.

And yet it's biking, the city's least popular way of getting around, that sponges up such a massive share of our transportation resources. It's bizarre.

The cost per user for bike lanes must be astronomical.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why can't they just bike through the side streets?

Are the businesses on the side streets? No? Then that isn't where they want to bike.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why can't they just bike through the side streets?

Why can't you just drive on the side streets?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is there any mode of transportation that is *less* popular in Washington D.C. than biking?

People are more likely to drive or take the metro or take the bus or walk or carpool or take commuter rail or take a cab than they are to ride a bike.

And yet it's biking, the city's least popular way of getting around, that sponges up such a massive share of our transportation resources. It's bizarre.

The cost per user for bike lanes must be astronomical.

When you factor in the costs to pump and ship oil, the military costs associated with protecting oil states and the environmental and health costs associated with the pollution and carbon release, it is actually a lot cheaper.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Your desire to feel sanctimonious will result in a lot of money and natural resources going into reconstructing Connecticut Ave to benefit a handful of vocal bike commuters. It will inconvenience many and will not save the planet, sorry.

And in the long term, more people will bike which means less pollution and better health results for the residents who use the bike lanes, so a win all around.

There is not a single DC bike lane that has seen progressively increasing capacity utilization over time based on DDOT’s own bike counters. Which is probably why they turned most of them off.

I'm not sure about individual bike lane counters, but there was a very significant mode share increase in bikers over the decade when DDOT first started installing protected bike lanes. Obviously the pandemic will have changed the data but we'll see.

https://ggwash.org/view/80233/the-bike-boom-is-real-says-new-mode-share-data-regional-travel-survey

I beg you to get your information from unbiased sources. You are basically getting your information for a source that is intentionally trying to misinform you. Not too different than Fox News.

Here is a report of a pro-transit group using official government data.
https://www.centerforwashingtonareastudies.org/state_of_the_capital_region/2022/_book/Intro.html

The GGW article cites government data ... "Every 10 years, regional planners at the Transportation Planning Board survey people to find out how they get around. It’s called the Regional Travel Survey and it’s kind of like the Census for transportation planning. Planners use it to create traffic models, ridership estimates, and other data that goes into plans and forecasts all over the region."

GGW is intentionally conflating the data presented. The MWCOG survey is for ALL trips, not just commuting. What the data shows is people have not changed how they get to and from work since 1970. Despite the investment in bike infrastructure from zero to whatever we presently have, the number of people choosing to bicycle to work has not increased and is barely countable. The MWCOG survey asks about all trips and what it shows is that when people are not going to work, they are taking less trips overall in 2019 than they did 10 years prior and that a limited subset of people who live in the “core” were cycling more but not substantially more for non-work related purposes, eg leisure.