upzoning: what will it really change?

[Anonymous]

Still waiting on those face, I mean fact, checks.

Sockpuppeting your own comments doesn't make you look any better or more sane. Nobody wants your stupid plan which benefits noone and harms everyone.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Still waiting on those face, I mean fact, checks.

Sockpuppeting your own comments doesn't make you look any better or more sane. Nobody wants your stupid plan which benefits noone and harms everyone.

You're welcome to face check for sock puppets by asking the board moderator. You are, once again, wrong.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How does snow removal work with these protected bike lanes? Do plows launch the snow 15’ over the bike lane onto the sidewalk? That doesn’t seem possible or safe. So it seems like we’d be down to one lane in each direction during snow events. What does this mean for first responders? Has anyone thought about this?

First responders are absolutely consulted on new street designs such as bike lanes. There are many experts who provide input into these things- firemen (they have distinct requirement s because of size and turning radius of trucks); traffic engineers, etc. The reason these things take so long is because they are being studied and analyzed before being put in

Are they? Let's see their report then. How much will response time increase due to the increased congestion on both Connecticut and the side streets?

If you really cared about first responder response time you'd ban rush hour traffic.

This has to be the dumbest comment yet.

It's a simple question. You, or one of your WABA buddies, have stated that Fire/EMS/Police have studied the impact of closing 1/3 of Connecticut Ave on their ability to provide essential services and implied that they have approved it. If so, what is the estimated impact on response times of deliberately increasing congestion by 33% on their main route and exponentially increasing it on the side streets?

This impacts everyone negatively. I don't think a 10 minute increase in response times for seizures, heart attacks, strokes, burglary, and fires is worth the trade off. You seem to think it is. So let's see the numbers. What size decrease in the effectiveness of emergency response is worth it to you?


The truth is that emergency services aren't actually asked for impact assesments. They're only asked if fire trucks still fit. None of the manifest and obvious negative impacts were taken into account before making a decision.

You've made up and repeated so many "facts" that are blatantly ridiculous that I don't trust a word out of your keyboard. You are a joke, the least funny kind. And no one respects you.

Wow, are you having a mental breakdown? This isn't complicated, controversial or even disputed.

Is the purple line the biggest mass transit project in the region right now?
Is a purple line stop being built on Connecticut?
Would people that live along Connecticut Ave use Connecticut Ave to get to the purple line stop on Connecticut Ave?

What facts are wrong? Please do share. There's no need to be silent just as there is no need to think closing two lanes of Connecticut Avenue is a good idea just because you enjoy lycra.

I'm still laughing at your BS about 300 bicyclists in DC and billions of dollars spent on bike lanes. If you said the sky was blue I'd still face check you. Face it, you're a crank. Not even a good one.

You'll "face check" me really? Ok, I believe you aggro lycra man. Come try me. It'll be the best police report ever. Officer I don't know what to see, this crazy short white guy with a man bun assaulted me because I think eliminating two lanes of Connecticut Ave is a bad idea. I think he hates someone named Nick and is mentally unstable.

How many bicyclists use Connecticut Avenue?
How many millions is being spent on a plan that nobody wants and harms everyone?

Cargo bike mom here. Ahh STFU man.
OP's upzoning trollery is irritating, but your anti-bike trollery is so much worse.
The bike infrastructure efforts are not driven by "social media influencers" or catering to "lycra white men"; that's kind of the dumbest Fox-est narrow-minded stupid sh*t I've read on this thread. The efforts are driven by a recognition of the long-term absolute need to reduce carbon emissions, and a global movement around the world to make large cities safer for people.
The way bike infrastructure has worked everywhere else has been, if you build enough of it to make many full commutes mostly safe, the infrastructure will be quickly flooded with users. We're on the cusp of that here. Downtown bike infrastructure is already packed now.

Urban restaurants and businesses get more customer visits if they are located somewhere easily accessible by public transit and safely accessible by bike than they do with a couple parking spaces by the storefront. Vast majority of urban businesses don't have 15-car parking lots anyway so customer volumes come from people metroing, bussing, walking, and biking. Protected bike lanes mean more people and more customers, not fewer.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How does snow removal work with these protected bike lanes? Do plows launch the snow 15’ over the bike lane onto the sidewalk? That doesn’t seem possible or safe. So it seems like we’d be down to one lane in each direction during snow events. What does this mean for first responders? Has anyone thought about this?

First responders are absolutely consulted on new street designs such as bike lanes. There are many experts who provide input into these things- firemen (they have distinct requirement s because of size and turning radius of trucks); traffic engineers, etc. The reason these things take so long is because they are being studied and analyzed before being put in

Are they? Let's see their report then. How much will response time increase due to the increased congestion on both Connecticut and the side streets?

If you really cared about first responder response time you'd ban rush hour traffic.

This has to be the dumbest comment yet.

It's a simple question. You, or one of your WABA buddies, have stated that Fire/EMS/Police have studied the impact of closing 1/3 of Connecticut Ave on their ability to provide essential services and implied that they have approved it. If so, what is the estimated impact on response times of deliberately increasing congestion by 33% on their main route and exponentially increasing it on the side streets?

This impacts everyone negatively. I don't think a 10 minute increase in response times for seizures, heart attacks, strokes, burglary, and fires is worth the trade off. You seem to think it is. So let's see the numbers. What size decrease in the effectiveness of emergency response is worth it to you?


The truth is that emergency services aren't actually asked for impact assesments. They're only asked if fire trucks still fit. None of the manifest and obvious negative impacts were taken into account before making a decision.

You've made up and repeated so many "facts" that are blatantly ridiculous that I don't trust a word out of your keyboard. You are a joke, the least funny kind. And no one respects you.

Wow, are you having a mental breakdown? This isn't complicated, controversial or even disputed.

Is the purple line the biggest mass transit project in the region right now?
Is a purple line stop being built on Connecticut?
Would people that live along Connecticut Ave use Connecticut Ave to get to the purple line stop on Connecticut Ave?

What facts are wrong? Please do share. There's no need to be silent just as there is no need to think closing two lanes of Connecticut Avenue is a good idea just because you enjoy lycra.

I'm still laughing at your BS about 300 bicyclists in DC and billions of dollars spent on bike lanes. If you said the sky was blue I'd still face check you. Face it, you're a crank. Not even a good one.

You'll "face check" me really? Ok, I believe you aggro lycra man. Come try me. It'll be the best police report ever. Officer I don't know what to see, this crazy short white guy with a man bun assaulted me because I think eliminating two lanes of Connecticut Ave is a bad idea. I think he hates someone named Nick and is mentally unstable.

How many bicyclists use Connecticut Avenue?
How many millions is being spent on a plan that nobody wants and harms everyone?

\

Agree but you forgot his micro-penis in your description.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How does snow removal work with these protected bike lanes? Do plows launch the snow 15’ over the bike lane onto the sidewalk? That doesn’t seem possible or safe. So it seems like we’d be down to one lane in each direction during snow events. What does this mean for first responders? Has anyone thought about this?

First responders are absolutely consulted on new street designs such as bike lanes. There are many experts who provide input into these things- firemen (they have distinct requirement s because of size and turning radius of trucks); traffic engineers, etc. The reason these things take so long is because they are being studied and analyzed before being put in

Are they? Let's see their report then. How much will response time increase due to the increased congestion on both Connecticut and the side streets?

If you really cared about first responder response time you'd ban rush hour traffic.

This has to be the dumbest comment yet.

It's a simple question. You, or one of your WABA buddies, have stated that Fire/EMS/Police have studied the impact of closing 1/3 of Connecticut Ave on their ability to provide essential services and implied that they have approved it. If so, what is the estimated impact on response times of deliberately increasing congestion by 33% on their main route and exponentially increasing it on the side streets?

This impacts everyone negatively. I don't think a 10 minute increase in response times for seizures, heart attacks, strokes, burglary, and fires is worth the trade off. You seem to think it is. So let's see the numbers. What size decrease in the effectiveness of emergency response is worth it to you?


The truth is that emergency services aren't actually asked for impact assesments. They're only asked if fire trucks still fit. None of the manifest and obvious negative impacts were taken into account before making a decision.

You've made up and repeated so many "facts" that are blatantly ridiculous that I don't trust a word out of your keyboard. You are a joke, the least funny kind. And no one respects you.

Wow, are you having a mental breakdown? This isn't complicated, controversial or even disputed.

Is the purple line the biggest mass transit project in the region right now?
Is a purple line stop being built on Connecticut?
Would people that live along Connecticut Ave use Connecticut Ave to get to the purple line stop on Connecticut Ave?

What facts are wrong? Please do share. There's no need to be silent just as there is no need to think closing two lanes of Connecticut Avenue is a good idea just because you enjoy lycra.

I'm still laughing at your BS about 300 bicyclists in DC and billions of dollars spent on bike lanes. If you said the sky was blue I'd still face check you. Face it, you're a crank. Not even a good one.

You'll "face check" me really? Ok, I believe you aggro lycra man. Come try me. It'll be the best police report ever. Officer I don't know what to see, this crazy short white guy with a man bun assaulted me because I think eliminating two lanes of Connecticut Ave is a bad idea. I think he hates someone named Nick and is mentally unstable.

How many bicyclists use Connecticut Avenue?
How many millions is being spent on a plan that nobody wants and harms everyone?

This is priceless. Thank you.

If by priceless you mean word salad, then yes.

Oh "word salad" person go away and hook up with Flip Driscoll. She'll give you some ranch to put on your protestations of word salad.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How does snow removal work with these protected bike lanes? Do plows launch the snow 15’ over the bike lane onto the sidewalk? That doesn’t seem possible or safe. So it seems like we’d be down to one lane in each direction during snow events. What does this mean for first responders? Has anyone thought about this?

First responders are absolutely consulted on new street designs such as bike lanes. There are many experts who provide input into these things- firemen (they have distinct requirement s because of size and turning radius of trucks); traffic engineers, etc. The reason these things take so long is because they are being studied and analyzed before being put in

Are they? Let's see their report then. How much will response time increase due to the increased congestion on both Connecticut and the side streets?

If you really cared about first responder response time you'd ban rush hour traffic.

This has to be the dumbest comment yet.

It's a simple question. You, or one of your WABA buddies, have stated that Fire/EMS/Police have studied the impact of closing 1/3 of Connecticut Ave on their ability to provide essential services and implied that they have approved it. If so, what is the estimated impact on response times of deliberately increasing congestion by 33% on their main route and exponentially increasing it on the side streets?

This impacts everyone negatively. I don't think a 10 minute increase in response times for seizures, heart attacks, strokes, burglary, and fires is worth the trade off. You seem to think it is. So let's see the numbers. What size decrease in the effectiveness of emergency response is worth it to you?


The truth is that emergency services aren't actually asked for impact assesments. They're only asked if fire trucks still fit. None of the manifest and obvious negative impacts were taken into account before making a decision.

You've made up and repeated so many "facts" that are blatantly ridiculous that I don't trust a word out of your keyboard. You are a joke, the least funny kind. And no one respects you.

Wow, are you having a mental breakdown? This isn't complicated, controversial or even disputed.

Is the purple line the biggest mass transit project in the region right now?
Is a purple line stop being built on Connecticut?
Would people that live along Connecticut Ave use Connecticut Ave to get to the purple line stop on Connecticut Ave?

What facts are wrong? Please do share. There's no need to be silent just as there is no need to think closing two lanes of Connecticut Avenue is a good idea just because you enjoy lycra.

I'm still laughing at your BS about 300 bicyclists in DC and billions of dollars spent on bike lanes. If you said the sky was blue I'd still face check you. Face it, you're a crank. Not even a good one.

You'll "face check" me really? Ok, I believe you aggro lycra man. Come try me. It'll be the best police report ever. Officer I don't know what to see, this crazy short white guy with a man bun assaulted me because I think eliminating two lanes of Connecticut Ave is a bad idea. I think he hates someone named Nick and is mentally unstable.

How many bicyclists use Connecticut Avenue?
How many millions is being spent on a plan that nobody wants and harms everyone?

Cargo bike mom here. Ahh STFU man.
OP's upzoning trollery is irritating, but your anti-bike trollery is so much worse.
The bike infrastructure efforts are not driven by "social media influencers" or catering to "lycra white men"; that's kind of the dumbest Fox-est narrow-minded stupid sh*t I've read on this thread. The efforts are driven by a recognition of the long-term absolute need to reduce carbon emissions, and a global movement around the world to make large cities safer for people.
The way bike infrastructure has worked everywhere else has been, if you build enough of it to make many full commutes mostly safe, the infrastructure will be quickly flooded with users. We're on the cusp of that here. Downtown bike infrastructure is already packed now.

Urban restaurants and businesses get more customer visits if they are located somewhere easily accessible by public transit and safely accessible by bike than they do with a couple parking spaces by the storefront. Vast majority of urban businesses don't have 15-car parking lots anyway so customer volumes come from people metroing, bussing, walking, and biking. Protected bike lanes mean more people and more customers, not fewer.

Hey, cargo bike mom, have you bought extra burial insurance for your kids when they fall out of your cargo bike and smash their heads like pumpkins?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How does snow removal work with these protected bike lanes? Do plows launch the snow 15’ over the bike lane onto the sidewalk? That doesn’t seem possible or safe. So it seems like we’d be down to one lane in each direction during snow events. What does this mean for first responders? Has anyone thought about this?

First responders are absolutely consulted on new street designs such as bike lanes. There are many experts who provide input into these things- firemen (they have distinct requirement s because of size and turning radius of trucks); traffic engineers, etc. The reason these things take so long is because they are being studied and analyzed before being put in

Are they? Let's see their report then. How much will response time increase due to the increased congestion on both Connecticut and the side streets?

If you really cared about first responder response time you'd ban rush hour traffic.

This has to be the dumbest comment yet.

It's a simple question. You, or one of your WABA buddies, have stated that Fire/EMS/Police have studied the impact of closing 1/3 of Connecticut Ave on their ability to provide essential services and implied that they have approved it. If so, what is the estimated impact on response times of deliberately increasing congestion by 33% on their main route and exponentially increasing it on the side streets?

This impacts everyone negatively. I don't think a 10 minute increase in response times for seizures, heart attacks, strokes, burglary, and fires is worth the trade off. You seem to think it is. So let's see the numbers. What size decrease in the effectiveness of emergency response is worth it to you?


The truth is that emergency services aren't actually asked for impact assesments. They're only asked if fire trucks still fit. None of the manifest and obvious negative impacts were taken into account before making a decision.

You've made up and repeated so many "facts" that are blatantly ridiculous that I don't trust a word out of your keyboard. You are a joke, the least funny kind. And no one respects you.

Wow, are you having a mental breakdown? This isn't complicated, controversial or even disputed.

Is the purple line the biggest mass transit project in the region right now?
Is a purple line stop being built on Connecticut?
Would people that live along Connecticut Ave use Connecticut Ave to get to the purple line stop on Connecticut Ave?

What facts are wrong? Please do share. There's no need to be silent just as there is no need to think closing two lanes of Connecticut Avenue is a good idea just because you enjoy lycra.

I'm still laughing at your BS about 300 bicyclists in DC and billions of dollars spent on bike lanes. If you said the sky was blue I'd still face check you. Face it, you're a crank. Not even a good one.

You'll "face check" me really? Ok, I believe you aggro lycra man. Come try me. It'll be the best police report ever. Officer I don't know what to see, this crazy short white guy with a man bun assaulted me because I think eliminating two lanes of Connecticut Ave is a bad idea. I think he hates someone named Nick and is mentally unstable.

How many bicyclists use Connecticut Avenue?
How many millions is being spent on a plan that nobody wants and harms everyone?

Cargo bike mom here. Ahh STFU man.
OP's upzoning trollery is irritating, but your anti-bike trollery is so much worse.
The bike infrastructure efforts are not driven by "social media influencers" or catering to "lycra white men"; that's kind of the dumbest Fox-est narrow-minded stupid sh*t I've read on this thread. The efforts are driven by a recognition of the long-term absolute need to reduce carbon emissions, and a global movement around the world to make large cities safer for people.
The way bike infrastructure has worked everywhere else has been, if you build enough of it to make many full commutes mostly safe, the infrastructure will be quickly flooded with users. We're on the cusp of that here. Downtown bike infrastructure is already packed now.

Urban restaurants and businesses get more customer visits if they are located somewhere easily accessible by public transit and safely accessible by bike than they do with a couple parking spaces by the storefront. Vast majority of urban businesses don't have 15-car parking lots anyway so customer volumes come from people metroing, bussing, walking, and biking. Protected bike lanes mean more people and more customers, not fewer.

It’s weird to me that you make owning a cargo bike such a fundamental part of your identity. Especially since, just like that ErgoBaby, you’ll only use it for a couple years and then your kids will grow out of it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How does snow removal work with these protected bike lanes? Do plows launch the snow 15’ over the bike lane onto the sidewalk? That doesn’t seem possible or safe. So it seems like we’d be down to one lane in each direction during snow events. What does this mean for first responders? Has anyone thought about this?

First responders are absolutely consulted on new street designs such as bike lanes. There are many experts who provide input into these things- firemen (they have distinct requirement s because of size and turning radius of trucks); traffic engineers, etc. The reason these things take so long is because they are being studied and analyzed before being put in

Are they? Let's see their report then. How much will response time increase due to the increased congestion on both Connecticut and the side streets?

If you really cared about first responder response time you'd ban rush hour traffic.

This has to be the dumbest comment yet.

It's a simple question. You, or one of your WABA buddies, have stated that Fire/EMS/Police have studied the impact of closing 1/3 of Connecticut Ave on their ability to provide essential services and implied that they have approved it. If so, what is the estimated impact on response times of deliberately increasing congestion by 33% on their main route and exponentially increasing it on the side streets?

This impacts everyone negatively. I don't think a 10 minute increase in response times for seizures, heart attacks, strokes, burglary, and fires is worth the trade off. You seem to think it is. So let's see the numbers. What size decrease in the effectiveness of emergency response is worth it to you?


The truth is that emergency services aren't actually asked for impact assesments. They're only asked if fire trucks still fit. None of the manifest and obvious negative impacts were taken into account before making a decision.

You've made up and repeated so many "facts" that are blatantly ridiculous that I don't trust a word out of your keyboard. You are a joke, the least funny kind. And no one respects you.

Wow, are you having a mental breakdown? This isn't complicated, controversial or even disputed.

Is the purple line the biggest mass transit project in the region right now?
Is a purple line stop being built on Connecticut?
Would people that live along Connecticut Ave use Connecticut Ave to get to the purple line stop on Connecticut Ave?

What facts are wrong? Please do share. There's no need to be silent just as there is no need to think closing two lanes of Connecticut Avenue is a good idea just because you enjoy lycra.

I'm still laughing at your BS about 300 bicyclists in DC and billions of dollars spent on bike lanes. If you said the sky was blue I'd still face check you. Face it, you're a crank. Not even a good one.

You'll "face check" me really? Ok, I believe you aggro lycra man. Come try me. It'll be the best police report ever. Officer I don't know what to see, this crazy short white guy with a man bun assaulted me because I think eliminating two lanes of Connecticut Ave is a bad idea. I think he hates someone named Nick and is mentally unstable.

How many bicyclists use Connecticut Avenue?
How many millions is being spent on a plan that nobody wants and harms everyone?

Cargo bike mom here. Ahh STFU man.
OP's upzoning trollery is irritating, but your anti-bike trollery is so much worse.
The bike infrastructure efforts are not driven by "social media influencers" or catering to "lycra white men"; that's kind of the dumbest Fox-est narrow-minded stupid sh*t I've read on this thread. The efforts are driven by a recognition of the long-term absolute need to reduce carbon emissions, and a global movement around the world to make large cities safer for people.
The way bike infrastructure has worked everywhere else has been, if you build enough of it to make many full commutes mostly safe, the infrastructure will be quickly flooded with users. We're on the cusp of that here. Downtown bike infrastructure is already packed now.

Urban restaurants and businesses get more customer visits if they are located somewhere easily accessible by public transit and safely accessible by bike than they do with a couple parking spaces by the storefront. Vast majority of urban businesses don't have 15-car parking lots anyway so customer volumes come from people metroing, bussing, walking, and biking. Protected bike lanes mean more people and more customers, not fewer.

Hey, cargo bike mom, have you bought extra burial insurance for your kids when they fall out of your cargo bike and smash their heads like pumpkins?

This is really contributing a lot to the discussion, thanks so much for your insight.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How does snow removal work with these protected bike lanes? Do plows launch the snow 15’ over the bike lane onto the sidewalk? That doesn’t seem possible or safe. So it seems like we’d be down to one lane in each direction during snow events. What does this mean for first responders? Has anyone thought about this?

First responders are absolutely consulted on new street designs such as bike lanes. There are many experts who provide input into these things- firemen (they have distinct requirement s because of size and turning radius of trucks); traffic engineers, etc. The reason these things take so long is because they are being studied and analyzed before being put in

Are they? Let's see their report then. How much will response time increase due to the increased congestion on both Connecticut and the side streets?

If you really cared about first responder response time you'd ban rush hour traffic.

This has to be the dumbest comment yet.

It's a simple question. You, or one of your WABA buddies, have stated that Fire/EMS/Police have studied the impact of closing 1/3 of Connecticut Ave on their ability to provide essential services and implied that they have approved it. If so, what is the estimated impact on response times of deliberately increasing congestion by 33% on their main route and exponentially increasing it on the side streets?

This impacts everyone negatively. I don't think a 10 minute increase in response times for seizures, heart attacks, strokes, burglary, and fires is worth the trade off. You seem to think it is. So let's see the numbers. What size decrease in the effectiveness of emergency response is worth it to you?


The truth is that emergency services aren't actually asked for impact assesments. They're only asked if fire trucks still fit. None of the manifest and obvious negative impacts were taken into account before making a decision.

You've made up and repeated so many "facts" that are blatantly ridiculous that I don't trust a word out of your keyboard. You are a joke, the least funny kind. And no one respects you.

Wow, are you having a mental breakdown? This isn't complicated, controversial or even disputed.

Is the purple line the biggest mass transit project in the region right now?
Is a purple line stop being built on Connecticut?
Would people that live along Connecticut Ave use Connecticut Ave to get to the purple line stop on Connecticut Ave?

What facts are wrong? Please do share. There's no need to be silent just as there is no need to think closing two lanes of Connecticut Avenue is a good idea just because you enjoy lycra.

I'm still laughing at your BS about 300 bicyclists in DC and billions of dollars spent on bike lanes. If you said the sky was blue I'd still face check you. Face it, you're a crank. Not even a good one.

You'll "face check" me really? Ok, I believe you aggro lycra man. Come try me. It'll be the best police report ever. Officer I don't know what to see, this crazy short white guy with a man bun assaulted me because I think eliminating two lanes of Connecticut Ave is a bad idea. I think he hates someone named Nick and is mentally unstable.

How many bicyclists use Connecticut Avenue?
How many millions is being spent on a plan that nobody wants and harms everyone?

Cargo bike mom here. Ahh STFU man.
OP's upzoning trollery is irritating, but your anti-bike trollery is so much worse.
The bike infrastructure efforts are not driven by "social media influencers" or catering to "lycra white men"; that's kind of the dumbest Fox-est narrow-minded stupid sh*t I've read on this thread. The efforts are driven by a recognition of the long-term absolute need to reduce carbon emissions, and a global movement around the world to make large cities safer for people.
The way bike infrastructure has worked everywhere else has been, if you build enough of it to make many full commutes mostly safe, the infrastructure will be quickly flooded with users. We're on the cusp of that here. Downtown bike infrastructure is already packed now.

Urban restaurants and businesses get more customer visits if they are located somewhere easily accessible by public transit and safely accessible by bike than they do with a couple parking spaces by the storefront. Vast majority of urban businesses don't have 15-car parking lots anyway so customer volumes come from people metroing, bussing, walking, and biking. Protected bike lanes mean more people and more customers, not fewer.

It’s weird to me that you make owning a cargo bike such a fundamental part of your identity. Especially since, just like that ErgoBaby, you’ll only use it for a couple years and then your kids will grow out of it.

I’m going to be curious what happens when these “cargo bike moms” need to get their ES kids to their oob/charter school in the morning and then soccer practice in the afternoon. That is, if they are still in the city then which is highly doubtful. They are trying to suburbanize the city in the name of “vibrant urbanism” or whatever and then will eventually leave for the suburbs anyway.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How does snow removal work with these protected bike lanes? Do plows launch the snow 15’ over the bike lane onto the sidewalk? That doesn’t seem possible or safe. So it seems like we’d be down to one lane in each direction during snow events. What does this mean for first responders? Has anyone thought about this?

First responders are absolutely consulted on new street designs such as bike lanes. There are many experts who provide input into these things- firemen (they have distinct requirement s because of size and turning radius of trucks); traffic engineers, etc. The reason these things take so long is because they are being studied and analyzed before being put in

Are they? Let's see their report then. How much will response time increase due to the increased congestion on both Connecticut and the side streets?

If you really cared about first responder response time you'd ban rush hour traffic.

This has to be the dumbest comment yet.

It's a simple question. You, or one of your WABA buddies, have stated that Fire/EMS/Police have studied the impact of closing 1/3 of Connecticut Ave on their ability to provide essential services and implied that they have approved it. If so, what is the estimated impact on response times of deliberately increasing congestion by 33% on their main route and exponentially increasing it on the side streets?

This impacts everyone negatively. I don't think a 10 minute increase in response times for seizures, heart attacks, strokes, burglary, and fires is worth the trade off. You seem to think it is. So let's see the numbers. What size decrease in the effectiveness of emergency response is worth it to you?


The truth is that emergency services aren't actually asked for impact assesments. They're only asked if fire trucks still fit. None of the manifest and obvious negative impacts were taken into account before making a decision.

You've made up and repeated so many "facts" that are blatantly ridiculous that I don't trust a word out of your keyboard. You are a joke, the least funny kind. And no one respects you.

Wow, are you having a mental breakdown? This isn't complicated, controversial or even disputed.

Is the purple line the biggest mass transit project in the region right now?
Is a purple line stop being built on Connecticut?
Would people that live along Connecticut Ave use Connecticut Ave to get to the purple line stop on Connecticut Ave?

What facts are wrong? Please do share. There's no need to be silent just as there is no need to think closing two lanes of Connecticut Avenue is a good idea just because you enjoy lycra.

I'm still laughing at your BS about 300 bicyclists in DC and billions of dollars spent on bike lanes. If you said the sky was blue I'd still face check you. Face it, you're a crank. Not even a good one.

You'll "face check" me really? Ok, I believe you aggro lycra man. Come try me. It'll be the best police report ever. Officer I don't know what to see, this crazy short white guy with a man bun assaulted me because I think eliminating two lanes of Connecticut Ave is a bad idea. I think he hates someone named Nick and is mentally unstable.

How many bicyclists use Connecticut Avenue?
How many millions is being spent on a plan that nobody wants and harms everyone?

Cargo bike mom here. Ahh STFU man.
OP's upzoning trollery is irritating, but your anti-bike trollery is so much worse.
The bike infrastructure efforts are not driven by "social media influencers" or catering to "lycra white men"; that's kind of the dumbest Fox-est narrow-minded stupid sh*t I've read on this thread. The efforts are driven by a recognition of the long-term absolute need to reduce carbon emissions, and a global movement around the world to make large cities safer for people.
The way bike infrastructure has worked everywhere else has been, if you build enough of it to make many full commutes mostly safe, the infrastructure will be quickly flooded with users. We're on the cusp of that here. Downtown bike infrastructure is already packed now.

Urban restaurants and businesses get more customer visits if they are located somewhere easily accessible by public transit and safely accessible by bike than they do with a couple parking spaces by the storefront. Vast majority of urban businesses don't have 15-car parking lots anyway so customer volumes come from people metroing, bussing, walking, and biking. Protected bike lanes mean more people and more customers, not fewer.

These bike lanes will HURT transit. WMATA is a unique system that is almost entirely dependent on the fare box for operating revenue. It has no dedicated funding source. Their ridership is only at 50% pre COVID levels. Increasing biking will cannibalize additional riders and bring it closer to insolvency. Stations will close and train/buses will run less frequently. You know what this will lead to? Yup, more cars on the road. Please think this through some more.

[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:How does snow removal work with these protected bike lanes? Do plows launch the snow 15’ over the bike lane onto the sidewalk? That doesn’t seem possible or safe. So it seems like we’d be down to one lane in each direction during snow events. What does this mean for first responders? Has anyone thought about this?

First responders are absolutely consulted on new street designs such as bike lanes. There are many experts who provide input into these things- firemen (they have distinct requirement s because of size and turning radius of trucks); traffic engineers, etc. The reason these things take so long is because they are being studied and analyzed before being put in

Are they? Let's see their report then. How much will response time increase due to the increased congestion on both Connecticut and the side streets?

If you really cared about first responder response time you'd ban rush hour traffic.

This has to be the dumbest comment yet.

It's a simple question. You, or one of your WABA buddies, have stated that Fire/EMS/Police have studied the impact of closing 1/3 of Connecticut Ave on their ability to provide essential services and implied that they have approved it. If so, what is the estimated impact on response times of deliberately increasing congestion by 33% on their main route and exponentially increasing it on the side streets?

This impacts everyone negatively. I don't think a 10 minute increase in response times for seizures, heart attacks, strokes, burglary, and fires is worth the trade off. You seem to think it is. So let's see the numbers. What size decrease in the effectiveness of emergency response is worth it to you?


The truth is that emergency services aren't actually asked for impact assesments. They're only asked if fire trucks still fit. None of the manifest and obvious negative impacts were taken into account before making a decision.

You've made up and repeated so many "facts" that are blatantly ridiculous that I don't trust a word out of your keyboard. You are a joke, the least funny kind. And no one respects you.

Wow, are you having a mental breakdown? This isn't complicated, controversial or even disputed.

Is the purple line the biggest mass transit project in the region right now?
Is a purple line stop being built on Connecticut?
Would people that live along Connecticut Ave use Connecticut Ave to get to the purple line stop on Connecticut Ave?

What facts are wrong? Please do share. There's no need to be silent just as there is no need to think closing two lanes of Connecticut Avenue is a good idea just because you enjoy lycra.

I'm still laughing at your BS about 300 bicyclists in DC and billions of dollars spent on bike lanes. If you said the sky was blue I'd still face check you. Face it, you're a crank. Not even a good one.

You'll "face check" me really? Ok, I believe you aggro lycra man. Come try me. It'll be the best police report ever. Officer I don't know what to see, this crazy short white guy with a man bun assaulted me because I think eliminating two lanes of Connecticut Ave is a bad idea. I think he hates someone named Nick and is mentally unstable.

How many bicyclists use Connecticut Avenue?
How many millions is being spent on a plan that nobody wants and harms everyone?

Cargo bike mom here. Ahh STFU man.
OP's upzoning trollery is irritating, but your anti-bike trollery is so much worse.
The bike infrastructure efforts are not driven by "social media influencers" or catering to "lycra white men"; that's kind of the dumbest Fox-est narrow-minded stupid sh*t I've read on this thread. The efforts are driven by a recognition of the long-term absolute need to reduce carbon emissions, and a global movement around the world to make large cities safer for people.
The way bike infrastructure has worked everywhere else has been, if you build enough of it to make many full commutes mostly safe, the infrastructure will be quickly flooded with users. We're on the cusp of that here. Downtown bike infrastructure is already packed now.

Urban restaurants and businesses get more customer visits if they are located somewhere easily accessible by public transit and safely accessible by bike than they do with a couple parking spaces by the storefront. Vast majority of urban businesses don't have 15-car parking lots anyway so customer volumes come from people metroing, bussing, walking, and biking. Protected bike lanes mean more people and more customers, not fewer.

It’s weird to me that you make owning a cargo bike such a fundamental part of your identity. Especially since, just like that ErgoBaby, you’ll only use it for a couple years and then your kids will grow out of it.

I’m going to be curious what happens when these “cargo bike moms” need to get their ES kids to their oob/charter school in the morning and then soccer practice in the afternoon. That is, if they are still in the city then which is highly doubtful. They are trying to suburbanize the city in the name of “vibrant urbanism” or whatever and then will eventually leave for the suburbs anyway.

I'll tell you what happens: they will cautiously bike single file with their (helmet-clad, duh) kids biking in front of them in our developing network of protected bike lanes; many will even include bikeability in their school and extracurriculars choices.

[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:How does snow removal work with these protected bike lanes? Do plows launch the snow 15’ over the bike lane onto the sidewalk? That doesn’t seem possible or safe. So it seems like we’d be down to one lane in each direction during snow events. What does this mean for first responders? Has anyone thought about this?

First responders are absolutely consulted on new street designs such as bike lanes. There are many experts who provide input into these things- firemen (they have distinct requirement s because of size and turning radius of trucks); traffic engineers, etc. The reason these things take so long is because they are being studied and analyzed before being put in

Are they? Let's see their report then. How much will response time increase due to the increased congestion on both Connecticut and the side streets?

If you really cared about first responder response time you'd ban rush hour traffic.

This has to be the dumbest comment yet.

It's a simple question. You, or one of your WABA buddies, have stated that Fire/EMS/Police have studied the impact of closing 1/3 of Connecticut Ave on their ability to provide essential services and implied that they have approved it. If so, what is the estimated impact on response times of deliberately increasing congestion by 33% on their main route and exponentially increasing it on the side streets?

This impacts everyone negatively. I don't think a 10 minute increase in response times for seizures, heart attacks, strokes, burglary, and fires is worth the trade off. You seem to think it is. So let's see the numbers. What size decrease in the effectiveness of emergency response is worth it to you?


The truth is that emergency services aren't actually asked for impact assesments. They're only asked if fire trucks still fit. None of the manifest and obvious negative impacts were taken into account before making a decision.

You've made up and repeated so many "facts" that are blatantly ridiculous that I don't trust a word out of your keyboard. You are a joke, the least funny kind. And no one respects you.

Wow, are you having a mental breakdown? This isn't complicated, controversial or even disputed.

Is the purple line the biggest mass transit project in the region right now?
Is a purple line stop being built on Connecticut?
Would people that live along Connecticut Ave use Connecticut Ave to get to the purple line stop on Connecticut Ave?

What facts are wrong? Please do share. There's no need to be silent just as there is no need to think closing two lanes of Connecticut Avenue is a good idea just because you enjoy lycra.

I'm still laughing at your BS about 300 bicyclists in DC and billions of dollars spent on bike lanes. If you said the sky was blue I'd still face check you. Face it, you're a crank. Not even a good one.

You'll "face check" me really? Ok, I believe you aggro lycra man. Come try me. It'll be the best police report ever. Officer I don't know what to see, this crazy short white guy with a man bun assaulted me because I think eliminating two lanes of Connecticut Ave is a bad idea. I think he hates someone named Nick and is mentally unstable.

How many bicyclists use Connecticut Avenue?
How many millions is being spent on a plan that nobody wants and harms everyone?

Cargo bike mom here. Ahh STFU man.
OP's upzoning trollery is irritating, but your anti-bike trollery is so much worse.
The bike infrastructure efforts are not driven by "social media influencers" or catering to "lycra white men"; that's kind of the dumbest Fox-est narrow-minded stupid sh*t I've read on this thread. The efforts are driven by a recognition of the long-term absolute need to reduce carbon emissions, and a global movement around the world to make large cities safer for people.
The way bike infrastructure has worked everywhere else has been, if you build enough of it to make many full commutes mostly safe, the infrastructure will be quickly flooded with users. We're on the cusp of that here. Downtown bike infrastructure is already packed now.

Urban restaurants and businesses get more customer visits if they are located somewhere easily accessible by public transit and safely accessible by bike than they do with a couple parking spaces by the storefront. Vast majority of urban businesses don't have 15-car parking lots anyway so customer volumes come from people metroing, bussing, walking, and biking. Protected bike lanes mean more people and more customers, not fewer.

It’s weird to me that you make owning a cargo bike such a fundamental part of your identity. Especially since, just like that ErgoBaby, you’ll only use it for a couple years and then your kids will grow out of it.

I’m going to be curious what happens when these “cargo bike moms” need to get their ES kids to their oob/charter school in the morning and then soccer practice in the afternoon. That is, if they are still in the city then which is highly doubtful. They are trying to suburbanize the city in the name of “vibrant urbanism” or whatever and then will eventually leave for the suburbs anyway.

I'll tell you what happens: they will cautiously bike single file with their (helmet-clad, duh) kids biking in front of them in our developing network of protected bike lanes; many will even include bikeability in their school and extracurriculars choices.

In January? Fat chance. Not even the obnoxious lycra dudes are out in January.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How does snow removal work with these protected bike lanes? Do plows launch the snow 15’ over the bike lane onto the sidewalk? That doesn’t seem possible or safe. So it seems like we’d be down to one lane in each direction during snow events. What does this mean for first responders? Has anyone thought about this?

First responders are absolutely consulted on new street designs such as bike lanes. There are many experts who provide input into these things- firemen (they have distinct requirement s because of size and turning radius of trucks); traffic engineers, etc. The reason these things take so long is because they are being studied and analyzed before being put in

Are they? Let's see their report then. How much will response time increase due to the increased congestion on both Connecticut and the side streets?

If you really cared about first responder response time you'd ban rush hour traffic.

This has to be the dumbest comment yet.

It's a simple question. You, or one of your WABA buddies, have stated that Fire/EMS/Police have studied the impact of closing 1/3 of Connecticut Ave on their ability to provide essential services and implied that they have approved it. If so, what is the estimated impact on response times of deliberately increasing congestion by 33% on their main route and exponentially increasing it on the side streets?

This impacts everyone negatively. I don't think a 10 minute increase in response times for seizures, heart attacks, strokes, burglary, and fires is worth the trade off. You seem to think it is. So let's see the numbers. What size decrease in the effectiveness of emergency response is worth it to you?


The truth is that emergency services aren't actually asked for impact assesments. They're only asked if fire trucks still fit. None of the manifest and obvious negative impacts were taken into account before making a decision.

You've made up and repeated so many "facts" that are blatantly ridiculous that I don't trust a word out of your keyboard. You are a joke, the least funny kind. And no one respects you.

Wow, are you having a mental breakdown? This isn't complicated, controversial or even disputed.

Is the purple line the biggest mass transit project in the region right now?
Is a purple line stop being built on Connecticut?
Would people that live along Connecticut Ave use Connecticut Ave to get to the purple line stop on Connecticut Ave?

What facts are wrong? Please do share. There's no need to be silent just as there is no need to think closing two lanes of Connecticut Avenue is a good idea just because you enjoy lycra.

I'm still laughing at your BS about 300 bicyclists in DC and billions of dollars spent on bike lanes. If you said the sky was blue I'd still face check you. Face it, you're a crank. Not even a good one.

You'll "face check" me really? Ok, I believe you aggro lycra man. Come try me. It'll be the best police report ever. Officer I don't know what to see, this crazy short white guy with a man bun assaulted me because I think eliminating two lanes of Connecticut Ave is a bad idea. I think he hates someone named Nick and is mentally unstable.

How many bicyclists use Connecticut Avenue?
How many millions is being spent on a plan that nobody wants and harms everyone?

Cargo bike mom here. Ahh STFU man.
OP's upzoning trollery is irritating, but your anti-bike trollery is so much worse.
The bike infrastructure efforts are not driven by "social media influencers" or catering to "lycra white men"; that's kind of the dumbest Fox-est narrow-minded stupid sh*t I've read on this thread. The efforts are driven by a recognition of the long-term absolute need to reduce carbon emissions, and a global movement around the world to make large cities safer for people.
The way bike infrastructure has worked everywhere else has been, if you build enough of it to make many full commutes mostly safe, the infrastructure will be quickly flooded with users. We're on the cusp of that here. Downtown bike infrastructure is already packed now.

Urban restaurants and businesses get more customer visits if they are located somewhere easily accessible by public transit and safely accessible by bike than they do with a couple parking spaces by the storefront. Vast majority of urban businesses don't have 15-car parking lots anyway so customer volumes come from people metroing, bussing, walking, and biking. Protected bike lanes mean more people and more customers, not fewer.

These bike lanes will HURT transit. WMATA is a unique system that is almost entirely dependent on the fare box for operating revenue. It has no dedicated funding source. Their ridership is only at 50% pre COVID levels. Increasing biking will cannibalize additional riders and bring it closer to insolvency. Stations will close and train/buses will run less frequently. You know what this will lead to? Yup, more cars on the road. Please think this through some more.

WMATA is reducing service on its highest ridership line right now because of staffing concerns, and because the interval between busses on its other lines is already unacceptable. It has no dedicated bus lanes. It's absolutely ludicrous - or hilarious - to claim that increasing the number of cyclists will all-cap hurt transit. Grasping at straws. WMATA needs fewer cars on the road so it can serve its ridership. WMATA needs drivers to leave the cars at home and ride the bus or bike.

[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:How does snow removal work with these protected bike lanes? Do plows launch the snow 15’ over the bike lane onto the sidewalk? That doesn’t seem possible or safe. So it seems like we’d be down to one lane in each direction during snow events. What does this mean for first responders? Has anyone thought about this?

First responders are absolutely consulted on new street designs such as bike lanes. There are many experts who provide input into these things- firemen (they have distinct requirement s because of size and turning radius of trucks); traffic engineers, etc. The reason these things take so long is because they are being studied and analyzed before being put in

Are they? Let's see their report then. How much will response time increase due to the increased congestion on both Connecticut and the side streets?

If you really cared about first responder response time you'd ban rush hour traffic.

This has to be the dumbest comment yet.

It's a simple question. You, or one of your WABA buddies, have stated that Fire/EMS/Police have studied the impact of closing 1/3 of Connecticut Ave on their ability to provide essential services and implied that they have approved it. If so, what is the estimated impact on response times of deliberately increasing congestion by 33% on their main route and exponentially increasing it on the side streets?

This impacts everyone negatively. I don't think a 10 minute increase in response times for seizures, heart attacks, strokes, burglary, and fires is worth the trade off. You seem to think it is. So let's see the numbers. What size decrease in the effectiveness of emergency response is worth it to you?


The truth is that emergency services aren't actually asked for impact assesments. They're only asked if fire trucks still fit. None of the manifest and obvious negative impacts were taken into account before making a decision.

You've made up and repeated so many "facts" that are blatantly ridiculous that I don't trust a word out of your keyboard. You are a joke, the least funny kind. And no one respects you.

Wow, are you having a mental breakdown? This isn't complicated, controversial or even disputed.

Is the purple line the biggest mass transit project in the region right now?
Is a purple line stop being built on Connecticut?
Would people that live along Connecticut Ave use Connecticut Ave to get to the purple line stop on Connecticut Ave?

What facts are wrong? Please do share. There's no need to be silent just as there is no need to think closing two lanes of Connecticut Avenue is a good idea just because you enjoy lycra.

I'm still laughing at your BS about 300 bicyclists in DC and billions of dollars spent on bike lanes. If you said the sky was blue I'd still face check you. Face it, you're a crank. Not even a good one.

You'll "face check" me really? Ok, I believe you aggro lycra man. Come try me. It'll be the best police report ever. Officer I don't know what to see, this crazy short white guy with a man bun assaulted me because I think eliminating two lanes of Connecticut Ave is a bad idea. I think he hates someone named Nick and is mentally unstable.

How many bicyclists use Connecticut Avenue?
How many millions is being spent on a plan that nobody wants and harms everyone?

Cargo bike mom here. Ahh STFU man.
OP's upzoning trollery is irritating, but your anti-bike trollery is so much worse.
The bike infrastructure efforts are not driven by "social media influencers" or catering to "lycra white men"; that's kind of the dumbest Fox-est narrow-minded stupid sh*t I've read on this thread. The efforts are driven by a recognition of the long-term absolute need to reduce carbon emissions, and a global movement around the world to make large cities safer for people.
The way bike infrastructure has worked everywhere else has been, if you build enough of it to make many full commutes mostly safe, the infrastructure will be quickly flooded with users. We're on the cusp of that here. Downtown bike infrastructure is already packed now.

Urban restaurants and businesses get more customer visits if they are located somewhere easily accessible by public transit and safely accessible by bike than they do with a couple parking spaces by the storefront. Vast majority of urban businesses don't have 15-car parking lots anyway so customer volumes come from people metroing, bussing, walking, and biking. Protected bike lanes mean more people and more customers, not fewer.

These bike lanes will HURT transit. WMATA is a unique system that is almost entirely dependent on the fare box for operating revenue. It has no dedicated funding source. Their ridership is only at 50% pre COVID levels. Increasing biking will cannibalize additional riders and bring it closer to insolvency. Stations will close and train/buses will run less frequently. You know what this will lead to? Yup, more cars on the road. Please think this through some more.

WMATA is reducing service on its highest ridership line right now because of staffing concerns, and because the interval between busses on its other lines is already unacceptable. It has no dedicated bus lanes. It's absolutely ludicrous - or hilarious - to claim that increasing the number of cyclists will all-cap hurt transit. Grasping at straws. WMATA needs fewer cars on the road so it can serve its ridership. WMATA needs drivers to leave the cars at home and ride the bus or bike.

Despite billions upon billions upon billions in public money spent over the last 3 decades on WMATA, the modal share of commuters that drive has stayed exactly the same since the 80s. Meanwhile, WMATA ridership peaked in 2008 and has subsequently declined precipitously since.

[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:How does snow removal work with these protected bike lanes? Do plows launch the snow 15’ over the bike lane onto the sidewalk? That doesn’t seem possible or safe. So it seems like we’d be down to one lane in each direction during snow events. What does this mean for first responders? Has anyone thought about this?

First responders are absolutely consulted on new street designs such as bike lanes. There are many experts who provide input into these things- firemen (they have distinct requirement s because of size and turning radius of trucks); traffic engineers, etc. The reason these things take so long is because they are being studied and analyzed before being put in

Are they? Let's see their report then. How much will response time increase due to the increased congestion on both Connecticut and the side streets?

If you really cared about first responder response time you'd ban rush hour traffic.

This has to be the dumbest comment yet.

It's a simple question. You, or one of your WABA buddies, have stated that Fire/EMS/Police have studied the impact of closing 1/3 of Connecticut Ave on their ability to provide essential services and implied that they have approved it. If so, what is the estimated impact on response times of deliberately increasing congestion by 33% on their main route and exponentially increasing it on the side streets?

This impacts everyone negatively. I don't think a 10 minute increase in response times for seizures, heart attacks, strokes, burglary, and fires is worth the trade off. You seem to think it is. So let's see the numbers. What size decrease in the effectiveness of emergency response is worth it to you?


The truth is that emergency services aren't actually asked for impact assesments. They're only asked if fire trucks still fit. None of the manifest and obvious negative impacts were taken into account before making a decision.

You've made up and repeated so many "facts" that are blatantly ridiculous that I don't trust a word out of your keyboard. You are a joke, the least funny kind. And no one respects you.

Wow, are you having a mental breakdown? This isn't complicated, controversial or even disputed.

Is the purple line the biggest mass transit project in the region right now?
Is a purple line stop being built on Connecticut?
Would people that live along Connecticut Ave use Connecticut Ave to get to the purple line stop on Connecticut Ave?

What facts are wrong? Please do share. There's no need to be silent just as there is no need to think closing two lanes of Connecticut Avenue is a good idea just because you enjoy lycra.

I'm still laughing at your BS about 300 bicyclists in DC and billions of dollars spent on bike lanes. If you said the sky was blue I'd still face check you. Face it, you're a crank. Not even a good one.

You'll "face check" me really? Ok, I believe you aggro lycra man. Come try me. It'll be the best police report ever. Officer I don't know what to see, this crazy short white guy with a man bun assaulted me because I think eliminating two lanes of Connecticut Ave is a bad idea. I think he hates someone named Nick and is mentally unstable.

How many bicyclists use Connecticut Avenue?
How many millions is being spent on a plan that nobody wants and harms everyone?

Cargo bike mom here. Ahh STFU man.
OP's upzoning trollery is irritating, but your anti-bike trollery is so much worse.
The bike infrastructure efforts are not driven by "social media influencers" or catering to "lycra white men"; that's kind of the dumbest Fox-est narrow-minded stupid sh*t I've read on this thread. The efforts are driven by a recognition of the long-term absolute need to reduce carbon emissions, and a global movement around the world to make large cities safer for people.
The way bike infrastructure has worked everywhere else has been, if you build enough of it to make many full commutes mostly safe, the infrastructure will be quickly flooded with users. We're on the cusp of that here. Downtown bike infrastructure is already packed now.

Urban restaurants and businesses get more customer visits if they are located somewhere easily accessible by public transit and safely accessible by bike than they do with a couple parking spaces by the storefront. Vast majority of urban businesses don't have 15-car parking lots anyway so customer volumes come from people metroing, bussing, walking, and biking. Protected bike lanes mean more people and more customers, not fewer.

These bike lanes will HURT transit. WMATA is a unique system that is almost entirely dependent on the fare box for operating revenue. It has no dedicated funding source. Their ridership is only at 50% pre COVID levels. Increasing biking will cannibalize additional riders and bring it closer to insolvency. Stations will close and train/buses will run less frequently. You know what this will lead to? Yup, more cars on the road. Please think this through some more.

WMATA is reducing service on its highest ridership line right now because of staffing concerns, and because the interval between busses on its other lines is already unacceptable. It has no dedicated bus lanes. It's absolutely ludicrous - or hilarious - to claim that increasing the number of cyclists will all-cap hurt transit. Grasping at straws. WMATA needs fewer cars on the road so it can serve its ridership. WMATA needs drivers to leave the cars at home and ride the bus or bike.

Adding sources to the staffing shortages and metro train shortages in WMATA, bus operator shortages in WMATA and across the US, unrelated to WMATA budget issues:
https://thesource.metro.net/2021/10/11/metro-experiencing-some-service-impacts-due-to-staff-shortages/
https://www.metro-magazine.com/10160823/wmata-launches-new-campaign-to-hire-bus-drivers
https://www.washingtonpost.com/transportation/2021/11/26/bus-driver-shortage-washington/
https://ggwash.org/view/86089/four-things-impacting-the-bus-operator-shortage-in-the-us
https://transitcenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/Bus-Operators-in-Crisis_RGB_Interactive.pdf