Question for the anti-bike / anti-bus people

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I've *never* seen anyone, not a single person, ever, use a bike lane near my house.

Then either it's a bad bike lane that people don't feel safe riding in, or it's a bike lane that doesn't connect to anything, or both. You should advocate for a connected network of good bike lanes.

There's quite a few bike lanes that no one appears to use. I don't think biking is very popular.

Ok Nick

Oh, Bob. Isn't Mar-a-Lago calling?

Are you suggesting that progressive bike activists are Trumpy?

Ok Nick

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I've *never* seen anyone, not a single person, ever, use a bike lane near my house.

Then either it's a bad bike lane that people don't feel safe riding in, or it's a bike lane that doesn't connect to anything, or both. You should advocate for a connected network of good bike lanes.

There's quite a few bike lanes that no one appears to use. I don't think biking is very popular.

Aside from scooters, polls show biking is the least popular mode of transportation in Washington D.C. It would be better if we focused on modes of transportation people actually want to use.

How do you know that's what people want to use?

Personally, I want to teleport places, but that doesn't show up at all on surveys of how people move.

We've had bike lanes for 15 years. The government has promoted them relentless. It will even buy people bikes. Yet the percentage of people who bike even today can still be rounded down to zero percent. People have voted with their feet.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:LOL. PP is so unhinged about bicycles that they posted twice revealing their inability to read.

“it is used incredibly frequently” means that it is used a lot, not a little.

Perhaps there is something about bicycles that makes people lose brain cells?

Read fine to me. PP and PP above that were agreeing with PP that each were quoting. Which was calling the person out who said billions are spent on bike lanes. Because that's just stupid. Like, intensely stupid. Most of the ~100 miles of bike lanes in the city are just paint. Paint is pretty damn cheap last I checked and the labor to repaint a road takes all of a day or so.

I 'd wager good money that the city has spent more on the Mass Ave resurfacing & road bed project in the last year than it's spent on ALL bike related infrastructure ever.

And you would lose all your money. The Mass Ave Rehabilitation budget was $40 million. DC just passed a capital budget commitment of $36 million over the next six years for bike lanes, $125 million to improve trails and $15 million for Capital Bikeshare.

I’m not even going to bother looking up how much has been spent over the past decade.

This is just silly. Those commitments are all over six years. The $125m is for trails in Ward 8 and has nothing to do with bike lanes (which the sitting CM won’t allow).

Do you happen to have a figure for annual expenditure on DC road maintenance?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The assumption in this post is flawed: that people are anti-bike and anti-bus. First, few people are "anti-bike." They just don't think putting two bike lanes down Connecticut Avenue is the best use of resources given the other competing needs in a finite space. That leads to the second point. If Connecticut is to be redesigned, it would be a far better tradeoff to have dedicated bus lanes than bike lanes. Frequent, fast bus service is a more efficient user of a scarce resource -- lane capacity -- than bike lanes. It is the only option that has the potential to meaningfully reduce private car trips. And bus lanes would enhance a transit option that is inclusive: for senior citizens, the less-mobile, people on fixed incomes who don't have a car, etc.

CT Ave remains 4 lanes wide with the addition of the bike lanes. The city would be well within its rights to reserve two of those lanes for buses. But the issue with the buses is WMATA. They are cutting service, not adding it.

The proposal is not 4 travel lanes. It’s one travel lane and a left turn lane.

No one who lives on the intersecting side streets wants dedicated turn lanes on Connecticut Avenue. They will become inviting off ramps for frustrated commuters in gridlocked traffic con Connecticut Avenue. The volume and speed on vehicles on the the side streets will increase substantially. Why make it easy for through traffic to divert to narrower streets?!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I've *never* seen anyone, not a single person, ever, use a bike lane near my house.

Then either it's a bad bike lane that people don't feel safe riding in, or it's a bike lane that doesn't connect to anything, or both. You should advocate for a connected network of good bike lanes.

There's quite a few bike lanes that no one appears to use. I don't think biking is very popular.

Aside from scooters, polls show biking is the least popular mode of transportation in Washington D.C. It would be better if we focused on modes of transportation people actually want to use.

How do you know that's what people want to use?

Personally, I want to teleport places, but that doesn't show up at all on surveys of how people move.

We've had bike lanes for 15 years. The government has promoted them relentless. It will even buy people bikes. Yet the percentage of people who bike even today can still be rounded down to zero percent. People have voted with their feet.

Please stop spreading lies.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:LOL. PP is so unhinged about bicycles that they posted twice revealing their inability to read.

“it is used incredibly frequently” means that it is used a lot, not a little.

Perhaps there is something about bicycles that makes people lose brain cells?

Read fine to me. PP and PP above that were agreeing with PP that each were quoting. Which was calling the person out who said billions are spent on bike lanes. Because that's just stupid. Like, intensely stupid. Most of the ~100 miles of bike lanes in the city are just paint. Paint is pretty damn cheap last I checked and the labor to repaint a road takes all of a day or so.

I 'd wager good money that the city has spent more on the Mass Ave resurfacing & road bed project in the last year than it's spent on ALL bike related infrastructure ever.

And you would lose all your money. The Mass Ave Rehabilitation budget was $40 million. DC just passed a capital budget commitment of $36 million over the next six years for bike lanes, $125 million to improve trails and $15 million for Capital Bikeshare.

I’m not even going to bother looking up how much has been spent over the past decade.

This is just silly. Those commitments are all over six years. The $125m is for trails in Ward 8 and has nothing to do with bike lanes (which the sitting CM won’t allow).

Do you happen to have a figure for annual expenditure on DC road maintenance?

I think the objection is that, over the years, the city has spent billions of dollars on bike lanes, and only a tiny number of people use them. The cost per user is astronomical. It would be cheaper to pay every cyclist in the city $100,000 to ride the bus or take the subway.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:LOL. PP is so unhinged about bicycles that they posted twice revealing their inability to read.

“it is used incredibly frequently” means that it is used a lot, not a little.

Perhaps there is something about bicycles that makes people lose brain cells?

I am the person who posted that and am not the person arguing against bike lanes. I was refuting the person who said that he observes that bike lanes are used infrequently with my anecdote that I see the opposite.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I've *never* seen anyone, not a single person, ever, use a bike lane near my house.

Then either it's a bad bike lane that people don't feel safe riding in, or it's a bike lane that doesn't connect to anything, or both. You should advocate for a connected network of good bike lanes.

There's quite a few bike lanes that no one appears to use. I don't think biking is very popular.

Ok Nick

Oh, Bob. Isn't Mar-a-Lago calling?

Are you suggesting that progressive bike activists are Trumpy?

Ok Nick

The "progressive" bike activitsts and their Smart Growth fellow travelers work with a Trumpy operative who runs several Astroturf group platforms, including "Safer Connecticut Avenue," "Cleveland Park Smart Growth", Uptown Urbanist, CP Boomer, and others.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I've *never* seen anyone, not a single person, ever, use a bike lane near my house.

Then either it's a bad bike lane that people don't feel safe riding in, or it's a bike lane that doesn't connect to anything, or both. You should advocate for a connected network of good bike lanes.

There's quite a few bike lanes that no one appears to use. I don't think biking is very popular.

Aside from scooters, polls show biking is the least popular mode of transportation in Washington D.C. It would be better if we focused on modes of transportation people actually want to use.

How do you know that's what people want to use?

Personally, I want to teleport places, but that doesn't show up at all on surveys of how people move.

We've had bike lanes for 15 years. The government has promoted them relentless. It will even buy people bikes. Yet the percentage of people who bike even today can still be rounded down to zero percent. People have voted with their feet.

If anything, cycling is becoming less popular. Maybe the novelty is wearing off.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I've *never* seen anyone, not a single person, ever, use a bike lane near my house.

Then either it's a bad bike lane that people don't feel safe riding in, or it's a bike lane that doesn't connect to anything, or both. You should advocate for a connected network of good bike lanes.

There's quite a few bike lanes that no one appears to use. I don't think biking is very popular.

Ok Nick

Oh, Bob. Isn't Mar-a-Lago calling?

Are you suggesting that progressive bike activists are Trumpy?

Ok Nick

The "progressive" bike activitsts and their Smart Growth fellow travelers work with a Trumpy operative who runs several Astroturf group platforms, including "Safer Connecticut Avenue," "Cleveland Park Smart Growth", Uptown Urbanist, CP Boomer, and others.

I want bike lanes and have no idea who any of these groups are, nor do I care. There are plenty of everyday citizens who are not involved in advocacy who just want to get around the city safely.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I've *never* seen anyone, not a single person, ever, use a bike lane near my house.

Then either it's a bad bike lane that people don't feel safe riding in, or it's a bike lane that doesn't connect to anything, or both. You should advocate for a connected network of good bike lanes.

There's quite a few bike lanes that no one appears to use. I don't think biking is very popular.

Ok Nick

Oh, Bob. Isn't Mar-a-Lago calling?

Are you suggesting that progressive bike activists are Trumpy?

Ok Nick

The "progressive" bike activitsts and their Smart Growth fellow travelers work with a Trumpy operative who runs several Astroturf group platforms, including "Safer Connecticut Avenue," "Cleveland Park Smart Growth", Uptown Urbanist, CP Boomer, and others.

Wait - who is that?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:LOL. PP is so unhinged about bicycles that they posted twice revealing their inability to read.

“it is used incredibly frequently” means that it is used a lot, not a little.

Perhaps there is something about bicycles that makes people lose brain cells?

Read fine to me. PP and PP above that were agreeing with PP that each were quoting. Which was calling the person out who said billions are spent on bike lanes. Because that's just stupid. Like, intensely stupid. Most of the ~100 miles of bike lanes in the city are just paint. Paint is pretty damn cheap last I checked and the labor to repaint a road takes all of a day or so.

I 'd wager good money that the city has spent more on the Mass Ave resurfacing & road bed project in the last year than it's spent on ALL bike related infrastructure ever.

And you would lose all your money. The Mass Ave Rehabilitation budget was $40 million. DC just passed a capital budget commitment of $36 million over the next six years for bike lanes, $125 million to improve trails and $15 million for Capital Bikeshare.

I’m not even going to bother looking up how much has been spent over the past decade.

This is just silly. Those commitments are all over six years. The $125m is for trails in Ward 8 and has nothing to do with bike lanes (which the sitting CM won’t allow).

Do you happen to have a figure for annual expenditure on DC road maintenance?

I think the objection is that, over the years, the city has spent billions of dollars on bike lanes, and only a tiny number of people use them. The cost per user is astronomical. It would be cheaper to pay every cyclist in the city $100,000 to ride the bus or take the subway.

Again, stop spreading lies. What you present as fact is total fiction.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:LOL. PP is so unhinged about bicycles that they posted twice revealing their inability to read.

“it is used incredibly frequently” means that it is used a lot, not a little.

Perhaps there is something about bicycles that makes people lose brain cells?

Read fine to me. PP and PP above that were agreeing with PP that each were quoting. Which was calling the person out who said billions are spent on bike lanes. Because that's just stupid. Like, intensely stupid. Most of the ~100 miles of bike lanes in the city are just paint. Paint is pretty damn cheap last I checked and the labor to repaint a road takes all of a day or so.

I 'd wager good money that the city has spent more on the Mass Ave resurfacing & road bed project in the last year than it's spent on ALL bike related infrastructure ever.

And you would lose all your money. The Mass Ave Rehabilitation budget was $40 million. DC just passed a capital budget commitment of $36 million over the next six years for bike lanes, $125 million to improve trails and $15 million for Capital Bikeshare.

I’m not even going to bother looking up how much has been spent over the past decade.

This is just silly. Those commitments are all over six years. The $125m is for trails in Ward 8 and has nothing to do with bike lanes (which the sitting CM won’t allow).

Do you happen to have a figure for annual expenditure on DC road maintenance?

I think the objection is that, over the years, the city has spent billions of dollars on bike lanes, and only a tiny number of people use them. The cost per user is astronomical. It would be cheaper to pay every cyclist in the city $100,000 to ride the bus or take the subway.

Ha ha ha, no it hasn't.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The assumption in this post is flawed: that people are anti-bike and anti-bus. First, few people are "anti-bike." They just don't think putting two bike lanes down Connecticut Avenue is the best use of resources given the other competing needs in a finite space. That leads to the second point. If Connecticut is to be redesigned, it would be a far better tradeoff to have dedicated bus lanes than bike lanes. Frequent, fast bus service is a more efficient user of a scarce resource -- lane capacity -- than bike lanes. It is the only option that has the potential to meaningfully reduce private car trips. And bus lanes would enhance a transit option that is inclusive: for senior citizens, the less-mobile, people on fixed incomes who don't have a car, etc.

CT Ave remains 4 lanes wide with the addition of the bike lanes. The city would be well within its rights to reserve two of those lanes for buses. But the issue with the buses is WMATA. They are cutting service, not adding it.

The proposal is not 4 travel lanes. It’s one travel lane and a left turn lane.

No one who lives on the intersecting side streets wants dedicated turn lanes on Connecticut Avenue. They will become inviting off ramps for frustrated commuters in gridlocked traffic con Connecticut Avenue. The volume and speed on vehicles on the the side streets will increase substantially. Why make it easy for through traffic to divert to narrower streets?!

Uh, people are already turning left. This will just make it so they aren't blocking a lane at each intersection. IOW, it will allow CT Ave to flow better. But then, I can see why you would be against, that, because it undermines your argument about gridlock.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The assumption in this post is flawed: that people are anti-bike and anti-bus. First, few people are "anti-bike." They just don't think putting two bike lanes down Connecticut Avenue is the best use of resources given the other competing needs in a finite space. That leads to the second point. If Connecticut is to be redesigned, it would be a far better tradeoff to have dedicated bus lanes than bike lanes. Frequent, fast bus service is a more efficient user of a scarce resource -- lane capacity -- than bike lanes. It is the only option that has the potential to meaningfully reduce private car trips. And bus lanes would enhance a transit option that is inclusive: for senior citizens, the less-mobile, people on fixed incomes who don't have a car, etc.

CT Ave remains 4 lanes wide with the addition of the bike lanes. The city would be well within its rights to reserve two of those lanes for buses. But the issue with the buses is WMATA. They are cutting service, not adding it.

The proposal is not 4 travel lanes. It’s one travel lane and a left turn lane.

No one who lives on the intersecting side streets wants dedicated turn lanes on Connecticut Avenue. They will become inviting off ramps for frustrated commuters in gridlocked traffic con Connecticut Avenue. The volume and speed on vehicles on the the side streets will increase substantially. Why make it easy for through traffic to divert to narrower streets?!

Uh, people are already turning left. This will just make it so they aren't blocking a lane at each intersection. IOW, it will allow CT Ave to flow better. But then, I can see why you would be against, that, because it undermines your argument about gridlock.

Why does Nick want to create traffic on Connecticut Ave? Is it because he lives downtown and doesn't care?