Options for opposing Connecticut Avenue changes?

[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.

We have more than 100 miles of bike lanes. Perhaps, you haven't noticed but DC is extremely small.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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 ...

Name them. None of them are putting their names to this cockamanie plan to close 1/3rd of Connecticut Avenue.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Pretty sure that 7000 cars idling on Reno Road 200 days/year isn’t going to be great for the environment.

[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.

Obamacare was very controversial. It should never have been tried out based ob your logic.

[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: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.

You're just making that up. It will slow traffic on Ct and make it safer for *everyone.*

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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 ...

Name them. None of them are putting their names to this cockamanie plan to close 1/3rd of Connecticut Avenue.

Every single ANC voted to support it along CT, the Mayor.

[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.

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Obamacare was very controversial. It should never have been tried out based ob your logic.

I can tell how this breaks down. Out of 100 people affected:

20 think it's a really good idea
30 think it's probably ok
40 don't really care, whatever, might be annoying but NBD, have better things to worry about
10 are absolutely fixated on the idea that nothing should change ever and scream and shout everywhere and become disproportionately fixated on being anti-bikelane

[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.

No, impractical because it takes longer, you are exposed to the elements when you likely need to look presentable when you finally arrive at your destination (and not smell), and most destinations do not have showers available -- plus that means even more time added - and them most people are rushing out of work to go pick up their kids from school and grab dinner for the family on the way. Chugging up hill along Connecticut with your litigation bag, box of documents, dinner, etc., and you are going to be one sweaty, smelly, cranky, late mom for school pick up -- and guaranteed that will be the day your kid is bringing home some giant art project. Not a practical mode of transportation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

No, impractical because it takes longer, you are exposed to the elements when you likely need to look presentable when you finally arrive at your destination (and not smell), and most destinations do not have showers available -- plus that means even more time added - and them most people are rushing out of work to go pick up their kids from school and grab dinner for the family on the way. Chugging up hill along Connecticut with your litigation bag, box of documents, dinner, etc., and you are going to be one sweaty, smelly, cranky, late mom for school pick up -- and guaranteed that will be the day your kid is bringing home some giant art project. Not a practical mode of transportation.

Ha ha. I actually have been that mom chugging uphill and my mood is MUCH better on those days. Also you can get an ebike. Biking is a huge mood boost. Obviously not always practical, but what people don't realize is that it is FUN and so much nicer to get around on a bike if you can make it work.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

You're just making that up. It will slow traffic on Ct and make it safer for *everyone.*

I do get tired of the contradictions. Now congestion is good? Make up your minds.

[Anonymous]

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

You must be new here. Any proposal to install serious bike infrastructure along side streets invited furious opposition from NIMBYs concerned about their loss of parking.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Obamacare was very controversial. It should never have been tried out based ob your logic.

I can tell how this breaks down. Out of 100 people affected:

20 think it's a really good idea
30 think it's probably ok
40 don't really care, whatever, might be annoying but NBD, have better things to worry about
10 are absolutely fixated on the idea that nothing should change ever and scream and shout everywhere and become disproportionately fixated on being anti-bikelane

Your own bias is showing in that imagined break down. It's like you are not even listening to the normal every day practical reasons people don't see this as a useful priority and know that your vision of thousands of people commuting by bike in DC is a fantasy.

Also, I'd really like to know what input DC has sought specifically from the disabled and elderly communities.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

You mean they prefer the view? Obviously they would be able to take another street over to a business on Connecticut Ave if that is their destination.

[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.

Another contradiction. Either induced demand is real or it is not. If you believed in induced demand you would not make this claim.