Options for opposing Connecticut Avenue changes?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No, they haven't. These same people post on the local neighborhood email groups, and proponents have shared similar studies time and time again, and the email group owners, who are generally NIMBYs, allow the BS to be posted repeatedly and then censor two-sided discussion, favoring opponents.

+1,000 we have a winner!

And if you're curious as to whether the CP listserv is run by a NIMBY, look no further than her book, available on Amazon, on how to NIMBY harder.

https://www.amazon.com/Saving-Neighborhood-You-Fight-Developers/dp/0471144207/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No, they haven't. These same people post on the local neighborhood email groups, and proponents have shared similar studies time and time again, and the email group owners, who are generally NIMBYs, allow the BS to be posted repeatedly and then censor two-sided discussion, favoring opponents.

+1,000 we have a winner!

And if you're curious as to whether the CP listserv is run by a NIMBY, look no further than her book, available on Amazon, on how to NIMBY harder.

https://www.amazon.com/Saving-Neighborhood-You-Fight-Developers/dp/0471144207/

The moderator decidedly is not a "NIMBY."

But better a NIMBY than a local CP Trump operative who is trying to masquerade as a "progressive." Doesn't DC already have enough GOP fabulists who are trying to reinvent their past?!

[Anonymous]

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

This actually illustrates one of the challenges with the Connecticut Ave Option C bike lane plan. There will be only two lanes for vehicle traffic in each direction (including for vehicles making stops). There will be no dedicated bus lane, despite the fact that Connecticut is considered a major bus transit corridor. Bus passengers, many of whom are older, will have to cross the bike lane to get from the bus stop shelters to their buses and vice versa. A lot of cyclists ride right through stop signs and red lights, so what are the chances that they will yield and stop for a passenger trying to navigate between the curb and a bus mid-block?

[Anonymous]

This actually illustrates one of the challenges with the Connecticut Ave Option C bike lane plan. There will be only two lanes for vehicle traffic in each direction (including for vehicles making stops). There will be no dedicated bus lane, despite the fact that Connecticut is considered a major bus transit corridor. Bus passengers, many of whom are older, will have to cross the bike lane to get from the bus stop shelters to their buses and vice versa. A lot of cyclists ride right through stop signs and red lights, so what are the chances that they will yield and stop for a passenger trying to navigate between the curb and a bus mid-block?

A lot of drivers drive right through stop signs and red lights. Have you expressed concern about drivers failing to yield and stop for passengers at bus stops? Especially since that's far more likely to result in injury, serious injury, or death?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

This is why we need to shift the focus from bike lanes to dedicated bus service with buses coming every 10 minutes (max). It moves far more people, increases safety, and protects pedestrians. Let’s put the energy into a Circulator system that goes up and down Connecticut frequently and reliably.

[Anonymous]

This is why we need to shift the focus from bike lanes to dedicated bus service with buses coming every 10 minutes (max). It moves far more people, increases safety, and protects pedestrians. Let’s put the energy into a Circulator system that goes up and down Connecticut frequently and reliably.

Even better, let's have both! Bike lanes AND frequent buses in dedicated bus lanes! Yippee!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

This is why we need to shift the focus from bike lanes to dedicated bus service with buses coming every 10 minutes (max). It moves far more people, increases safety, and protects pedestrians. Let’s put the energy into a Circulator system that goes up and down Connecticut frequently and reliably.

Even better, let's have both! Bike lanes AND frequent buses in dedicated bus lanes! Yippee!

This.

And to the previous poster lamenting the cartoon, there will be two through lanes AND a turn lane on Conn Ave, so your math is wrong. The bike lanes take an aggregate of one lane total of the space.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

This is why we need to shift the focus from bike lanes to dedicated bus service with buses coming every 10 minutes (max). It moves far more people, increases safety, and protects pedestrians. Let’s put the energy into a Circulator system that goes up and down Connecticut frequently and reliably.

Even better, let's have both! Bike lanes AND frequent buses in dedicated bus lanes! Yippee!

YUP. We do not need to "shift the focus" from bike to bus, we can have both; what we really need to shift away from is "people driving single occupancy vehicles that take up enormous amounts of space." Take another lane away from drivers if you need to.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

This actually illustrates one of the challenges with the Connecticut Ave Option C bike lane plan. There will be only two lanes for vehicle traffic in each direction (including for vehicles making stops). There will be no dedicated bus lane, despite the fact that Connecticut is considered a major bus transit corridor. Bus passengers, many of whom are older, will have to cross the bike lane to get from the bus stop shelters to their buses and vice versa. A lot of cyclists ride right through stop signs and red lights, so what are the chances that they will yield and stop for a passenger trying to navigate between the curb and a bus mid-block?

A lot of drivers drive right through stop signs and red lights. Have you expressed concern about drivers failing to yield and stop for passengers at bus stops? Especially since that's far more likely to result in injury, serious injury, or death?

Drivers don't drive between bus stops and pulled-over buses because there's no room to do so, so the situation you describe never happens.

But under the proposed changes, there will be a bike lane separating bus stops and buses, and if you think cyclists will slow down as they approach these stops, you clearly have never observed a DC cyclist.

I give this plan 3 days tops before a cyclist hits a bus passenger (followed by the bike crowd blaming the bus passenger for being in the bike lane).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

This actually illustrates one of the challenges with the Connecticut Ave Option C bike lane plan. There will be only two lanes for vehicle traffic in each direction (including for vehicles making stops). There will be no dedicated bus lane, despite the fact that Connecticut is considered a major bus transit corridor. Bus passengers, many of whom are older, will have to cross the bike lane to get from the bus stop shelters to their buses and vice versa. A lot of cyclists ride right through stop signs and red lights, so what are the chances that they will yield and stop for a passenger trying to navigate between the curb and a bus mid-block?

A lot of drivers drive right through stop signs and red lights. Have you expressed concern about drivers failing to yield and stop for passengers at bus stops? Especially since that's far more likely to result in injury, serious injury, or death?

Drivers don't drive between bus stops and pulled-over buses because there's no room to do so, so the situation you describe never happens.

But under the proposed changes, there will be a bike lane separating bus stops and buses, and if you think cyclists will slow down as they approach these stops, you clearly have never observed a DC cyclist.

I give this plan 3 days tops before a cyclist hits a bus passenger (followed by the bike crowd blaming the bus passenger for being in the bike lane).

Yet that hasn't happened elsewhere and DC has this design on several corridors now - if you haven't seen the stops they are raised tables and it is impossible to miss them as you go over them on a bike so anyone biking will know they are in a different zone.

In any case currently bikers are allowed to use the sidewalk and often do so under the status quo pedestrians and bikers are co-mingling everywhere - in the future they will only be co-mingled in these small and well marked zones for short periods of time so in net this is a big improvement for pedestrians and bikers.

Next.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

This actually illustrates one of the challenges with the Connecticut Ave Option C bike lane plan. There will be only two lanes for vehicle traffic in each direction (including for vehicles making stops). There will be no dedicated bus lane, despite the fact that Connecticut is considered a major bus transit corridor. Bus passengers, many of whom are older, will have to cross the bike lane to get from the bus stop shelters to their buses and vice versa. A lot of cyclists ride right through stop signs and red lights, so what are the chances that they will yield and stop for a passenger trying to navigate between the curb and a bus mid-block?

A lot of drivers drive right through stop signs and red lights. Have you expressed concern about drivers failing to yield and stop for passengers at bus stops? Especially since that's far more likely to result in injury, serious injury, or death?

Drivers don't drive between bus stops and pulled-over buses because there's no room to do so, so the situation you describe never happens.

But under the proposed changes, there will be a bike lane separating bus stops and buses, and if you think cyclists will slow down as they approach these stops, you clearly have never observed a DC cyclist.

I give this plan 3 days tops before a cyclist hits a bus passenger (followed by the bike crowd blaming the bus passenger for being in the bike lane).

Yet that hasn't happened elsewhere and DC has this design on several corridors now - if you haven't seen the stops they are raised tables and it is impossible to miss them as you go over them on a bike so anyone biking will know they are in a different zone.

In any case currently bikers are allowed to use the sidewalk and often do so under the status quo pedestrians and bikers are co-mingling everywhere - in the future they will only be co-mingled in these small and well marked zones for short periods of time so in net this is a big improvement for pedestrians and bikers.

Next.

I got hit by a cyclist boarding a bus via the curb extension at 5th and K. Didn't stop, didn't slow down, even with the bus there and me getting on. But tell me again how that hasn't happened elsewhere.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The editorial was absurd. It acknowledges that thousands of cars will be diverted to side streets. It implies that bikes will be used mostly during rush hour. It implies that current bike usage may not justify bike lanes. On Thursday, I drove downtown from CC Circle to K Street at roughly 9 am. I saw one bike, on the side walk, western side. I returned at roughly 1015 am. I saw one bike on the Avenue itself, eastern side near Uptown Theater. Thursday was a beautiful winter day. Yes, of course, I am aware that many were on vacation or out of town. Meanwhile, hundreds of cars were on the Avenue.

Funny, I saw hundreds of people out biking yesterday on and around CT Ave.

Yesterday, Sunday, I drove straight down the Avenue from the Avalon to below Dupont Circle at 12 noon, and returned at about 3 pm. I saw 2 bikes on the downtown trip, only one of which was on the Avenue. On the return trip, I saw 3 bikes on the sidewalk at Calvert, appearing to have come out of the RC Park. Yesterday had good weather.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The editorial was absurd. It acknowledges that thousands of cars will be diverted to side streets. It implies that bikes will be used mostly during rush hour. It implies that current bike usage may not justify bike lanes. On Thursday, I drove downtown from CC Circle to K Street at roughly 9 am. I saw one bike, on the side walk, western side. I returned at roughly 1015 am. I saw one bike on the Avenue itself, eastern side near Uptown Theater. Thursday was a beautiful winter day. Yes, of course, I am aware that many were on vacation or out of town. Meanwhile, hundreds of cars were on the Avenue.

I'm curious if you read the part of the editorial where the editors invoked various studies to explain how all of the objections trotted out to oppose the bike lanes are, for want of a better term, total horseshit. The comments section contains a lot of useful information too.

There is zero chance that diverting thousands of cars onto the side streets will not cause more accidents and unfortunate injuries and likely a death or two.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The editorial was absurd. It acknowledges that thousands of cars will be diverted to side streets. It implies that bikes will be used mostly during rush hour. It implies that current bike usage may not justify bike lanes. On Thursday, I drove downtown from CC Circle to K Street at roughly 9 am. I saw one bike, on the side walk, western side. I returned at roughly 1015 am. I saw one bike on the Avenue itself, eastern side near Uptown Theater. Thursday was a beautiful winter day. Yes, of course, I am aware that many were on vacation or out of town. Meanwhile, hundreds of cars were on the Avenue.

I'm curious if you read the part of the editorial where the editors invoked various studies to explain how all of the objections trotted out to oppose the bike lanes are, for want of a better term, total horseshit. The comments section contains a lot of useful information too.

There is zero chance that diverting thousands of cars onto the side streets will not cause more accidents and unfortunate injuries and likely a death or two.

If drivers can't be trusted to drive safely then they shouldn't be allowed to drive.