Options for opposing Connecticut Avenue changes?

[Anonymous]

Even if there were solely dedicated bike lanes they would not be safe for older people and little kids. I took my kids to bike down along the river and had to stop after 10 minutes due to all of the grown men speeding by as fast as possible screaming on your left to a 4 year old in training wheels. If one of those people hit my child it could have severely injured or killed them - the same would happen to older people and kids on dedicated bike lanes. People on blood thinners, people with injuries - many people can't bike. Nor should they be forced to by people who like to bike

[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.

Bike lanes are often used as part of an overall traffic-calming project, so they have multiple functions. And, the amount of money is likely very low proportionate to use. Bike lanes are CHEAP to install. Literally paint in most cases. Honestly what takes the disproportionate share of resources is cranks going to extreme lengths to oppose them and require 50 public meetings (and then of course claim that the process "shut out the public" and was "not transparent.")

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Do you ever wonder how they make bike lane surfaces and what the material is made of?

[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.

Scooters are less popular.

[Anonymous]

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

Because they demand that everyone sees them being self-satisfied. It is why they all take pictures of themselves achieving basic errands or taking a bus. They demand our attention and this is their very expensive and ridiculous way of achieving that end.

[Anonymous]

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."

What? Why can’t they change?

But it’s also beside the point. Biking is not for everyone and no one is suggesting that everyone has to bike. But the creation of a protected bike lane network encourages those who can to make the shift. This reduces competition for road and parking space for those who really must drive.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The roads are a scarce resource - at any given time on any given block the ratio of non-bikers to other people in vehicles including public transportation or walking is huge - yet so many resources money and space are dedicated to bikes - which seems like a giant waste. It is delusional to think that adding more bike lanes will change that ratio in any material way.

Except this is exactly what happens when new bike facilities are implemented in public spaces. google it. Facts matter.

Just because YOU wouldn't bike, doesn't mean there aren't scores of others who would.

We've had protected bike lanes in D.C. for almost 15 years. Why are there still so few people here who ride bikes? I mean, it's pathetic how few people use the bike lanes.

Because bikes are completely impractical for the vast majority of people?

Because there aren't enough bike lanes that connect up that could get people where they need to go. The fact that there is a protected bike lane on M Street doesn't help me if there's no way to get there other than, say, Connecticut Avenue. Like streets, bike lanes work best if there is an actual network that allows you to safely get to your destination. I strongly considered biking to work, but half my commute is CT and I didn't feel safe. A dedicated bike lane would change that equation.

[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.

Scooters are less popular.

And yet, I see more people with scooters using the bike lanes downtown than actual cyclists.

[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."

What? Why can’t they change?

But it’s also beside the point. Biking is not for everyone and no one is suggesting that everyone has to bike. But the creation of a protected bike lane network encourages those who can to make the shift. This reduces competition for road and parking space for those who really must drive.

+1
No one is saying that everyone should bike. But more people should be able to safely bike, and reduce the number of cars on the road.

[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.

Bike lanes are often used as part of an overall traffic-calming project, so they have multiple functions. And, the amount of money is likely very low proportionate to use. Bike lanes are CHEAP to install. Literally paint in most cases. Honestly what takes the disproportionate share of resources is cranks going to extreme lengths to oppose them and require 50 public meetings (and then of course claim that the process "shut out the public" and was "not transparent.")

The city has spent billions on our biking infrastructure. Bowser wants to spend north of $100 million on it this year alone. How many people even use bike lanes? Maybe 500 people? This is the least cost effective means of transportation imaginable.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Bike lanes are often used as part of an overall traffic-calming project, so they have multiple functions. And, the amount of money is likely very low proportionate to use. Bike lanes are CHEAP to install. Literally paint in most cases. Honestly what takes the disproportionate share of resources is cranks going to extreme lengths to oppose them and require 50 public meetings (and then of course claim that the process "shut out the public" and was "not transparent.")

The city has spent billions on our biking infrastructure. Bowser wants to spend north of $100 million on it this year alone. How many people even use bike lanes? Maybe 500 people? This is the least cost effective means of transportation imaginable.

Billions?

[Anonymous]

If this thread proves anything it proves that the plan to eliminate 1/3rd of Connecticut Avenue is extremely controversial and no where near popular enough for such a radical idea.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The roads are a scarce resource - at any given time on any given block the ratio of non-bikers to other people in vehicles including public transportation or walking is huge - yet so many resources money and space are dedicated to bikes - which seems like a giant waste. It is delusional to think that adding more bike lanes will change that ratio in any material way.

Except this is exactly what happens when new bike facilities are implemented in public spaces. google it. Facts matter.

Just because YOU wouldn't bike, doesn't mean there aren't scores of others who would.

We've had protected bike lanes in D.C. for almost 15 years. Why are there still so few people here who ride bikes? I mean, it's pathetic how few people use the bike lanes.

Because bikes are completely impractical for the vast majority of people?

Because there aren't enough bike lanes that connect up that could get people where they need to go. The fact that there is a protected bike lane on M Street doesn't help me if there's no way to get there other than, say, Connecticut Avenue. Like streets, bike lanes work best if there is an actual network that allows you to safely get to your destination. I strongly considered biking to work, but half my commute is CT and I didn't feel safe. A dedicated bike lane would change that equation.

There is always another excuse and another excuse. It’s like hearing the communists defend communism by saying “real” communism has never been tried.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If this thread proves anything it proves that the plan to eliminate 1/3rd of Connecticut Avenue is extremely controversial and no where near popular enough for such a radical idea.

So extremely controversial that every elected official in the area backs it ...

[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: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."

What? Why can’t they change?

But it’s also beside the point. Biking is not for everyone and no one is suggesting that everyone has to bike. But the creation of a protected bike lane network encourages those who can to make the shift. This reduces competition for road and parking space for those who really must drive.

+1
No one is saying that everyone should bike. But more people should be able to safely bike, and reduce the number of cars on the road.

Then why are we wasting money on Connecticut Avenue? It won't do any of those things. Instead it will make biking less safe in the area it is most popular because it vastly increases the amount of cars on the side roads.