upzoning: what will it really change?

[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.

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.

Precipitously over 14 years? LOL.

[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.

This will never lead to fewer cars on the road. Lawyers and lobbyists that live in Montgomery County are not going to magically start riding a Cannondale the office. If you make it painful enough, they may stop coming in all together though. Which would be an economic disaster whether you want to admit it or not.

[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: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.

Precipitously over 14 years? LOL.

Between 2008 -2019 ridership was down significantly. If you think that’s a joke then you are not pro-transit.

COVID has been able to mask what has otherwise been a massive tragedy. Promoting transit policy that moves erstwhile transit riders onto bikes or micro mobility is anti-transit policy.

[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.

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.

This will never lead to fewer cars on the road. Lawyers and lobbyists that live in Montgomery County are not going to magically start riding a Cannondale the office. If you make it painful enough, they may stop coming in all together though. Which would be an economic disaster whether you want to admit it or not.

LOL at the silly threat that MoCo lawyers and lobbyists "may stop coming in all together."
Not even Falcicchio is worried about losing MoCo lawyers and lobbyists business downtown. They may start taking metro and commuter rail, though, nothing undignified about that, or they'll move to DC.

[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:

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.

Precipitously over 14 years? LOL.

Between 2008 -2019 ridership was down significantly. If you think that’s a joke then you are not pro-transit.

COVID has been able to mask what has otherwise been a massive tragedy. Promoting transit policy that moves erstwhile transit riders onto bikes or micro mobility is anti-transit policy.

Your use of dramatic words is just really clumsy, but I'm not laughing; we do need people to use public transit instead of drive, and a road diet would be great for that.

[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.

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.

This will never lead to fewer cars on the road. Lawyers and lobbyists that live in Montgomery County are not going to magically start riding a Cannondale the office. If you make it painful enough, they may stop coming in all together though. Which would be an economic disaster whether you want to admit it or not.

Montgomery County is doomed. Fairfax County is licking their lips about these changes. It’s like DC was a tech company that decided to swap out their computers for Pentiums with 14.4 modems. It’s anti-growth policies that will have a net negative impact on the city.

[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: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.

This will never lead to fewer cars on the road. Lawyers and lobbyists that live in Montgomery County are not going to magically start riding a Cannondale the office. If you make it painful enough, they may stop coming in all together though. Which would be an economic disaster whether you want to admit it or not.

LOL at the silly threat that MoCo lawyers and lobbyists "may stop coming in all together."
Not even Falcicchio is worried about losing MoCo lawyers and lobbyists business downtown. They may start taking metro and commuter rail, though, nothing undignified about that, or they'll move to DC.

Trust me, he is very worried about this. He, unlike you, understands the economics of this. One lobbyist dinner at a steakhouse is equivalent to what you spend in a year at the hot bar food trough lunch place.

[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:

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.

Precipitously over 14 years? LOL.

Between 2008 -2019 ridership was down significantly. If you think that’s a joke then you are not pro-transit.

COVID has been able to mask what has otherwise been a massive tragedy. Promoting transit policy that moves erstwhile transit riders onto bikes or micro mobility is anti-transit policy.

Your use of dramatic words is just really clumsy, but I'm not laughing; we do need people to use public transit instead of drive, and a road diet would be great for that.

You wrote “LOL” but you’re “not laughing”. There is no reason to take anything you say seriously.

[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:

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.

This will never lead to fewer cars on the road. Lawyers and lobbyists that live in Montgomery County are not going to magically start riding a Cannondale the office. If you make it painful enough, they may stop coming in all together though. Which would be an economic disaster whether you want to admit it or not.

LOL at the silly threat that MoCo lawyers and lobbyists "may stop coming in all together."
Not even Falcicchio is worried about losing MoCo lawyers and lobbyists business downtown. They may start taking metro and commuter rail, though, nothing undignified about that, or they'll move to DC.

Trust me, he is very worried about this. He, unlike you, understands the economics of this. One lobbyist dinner at a steakhouse is equivalent to what you spend in a year at the hot bar food trough lunch place.

Yes, and that lobbyist isn't going to telework into that steak dinner or drag their congressperson out to MoCo, so that steak dinner is a sure thing.

[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:

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.

Precipitously over 14 years? LOL.

Between 2008 -2019 ridership was down significantly. If you think that’s a joke then you are not pro-transit.

COVID has been able to mask what has otherwise been a massive tragedy. Promoting transit policy that moves erstwhile transit riders onto bikes or micro mobility is anti-transit policy.

Your use of dramatic words is just really clumsy, but I'm not laughing; we do need people to use public transit instead of drive, and a road diet would be great for that.

You wrote “LOL” but you’re “not laughing”. There is no reason to take anything you say seriously.

Aww, you got me suppressing my giggles and your man feelings are hurt.

[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:

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.

Precipitously over 14 years? LOL.

Between 2008 -2019 ridership was down significantly. If you think that’s a joke then you are not pro-transit.

COVID has been able to mask what has otherwise been a massive tragedy. Promoting transit policy that moves erstwhile transit riders onto bikes or micro mobility is anti-transit policy.

Your use of dramatic words is just really clumsy, but I'm not laughing; we do need people to use public transit instead of drive, and a road diet would be great for that.

You wrote “LOL” but you’re “not laughing”. There is no reason to take anything you say seriously.

Aww, you got me suppressing my giggles and your man feelings are hurt.

It’s fascinating how childish and immature you are and yet you think you should be taken seriously in important matters around economic development policy.

[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:

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.

Precipitously over 14 years? LOL.

Between 2008 -2019 ridership was down significantly. If you think that’s a joke then you are not pro-transit.

COVID has been able to mask what has otherwise been a massive tragedy. Promoting transit policy that moves erstwhile transit riders onto bikes or micro mobility is anti-transit policy.

Your use of dramatic words is just really clumsy, but I'm not laughing; we do need people to use public transit instead of drive, and a road diet would be great for that.

You wrote “LOL” but you’re “not laughing”. There is no reason to take anything you say seriously.

Aww, you got me suppressing my giggles and your man feelings are hurt.

It’s fascinating how childish and immature you are and yet you think you should be taken seriously in important matters around economic development policy.

Ad hominem of course, because you are not going to 'win' this discussion.

[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.

I drive downtown to the office. If that becomes too time consuming or difficult, I will not go downtown. Very simple. Not interested in WMATA or bikes. BTW, DC still has a smaller population than it did in the 1950s. And DC's population has actually declined over the last several years.

[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:

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.

This will never lead to fewer cars on the road. Lawyers and lobbyists that live in Montgomery County are not going to magically start riding a Cannondale the office. If you make it painful enough, they may stop coming in all together though. Which would be an economic disaster whether you want to admit it or not.

LOL at the silly threat that MoCo lawyers and lobbyists "may stop coming in all together."
Not even Falcicchio is worried about losing MoCo lawyers and lobbyists business downtown. They may start taking metro and commuter rail, though, nothing undignified about that, or they'll move to DC.

Trust me, he is very worried about this. He, unlike you, understands the economics of this. One lobbyist dinner at a steakhouse is equivalent to what you spend in a year at the hot bar food trough lunch place.

Yes, and that lobbyist isn't going to telework into that steak dinner or drag their congressperson out to MoCo, so that steak dinner is a sure thing.

This is a wondrous display of arrogance coupled with ignorance. You don’t understand anything, starting with the basic fact that Congress cannot accept “steak dinners” from lobbyists.

[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:

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.

This will never lead to fewer cars on the road. Lawyers and lobbyists that live in Montgomery County are not going to magically start riding a Cannondale the office. If you make it painful enough, they may stop coming in all together though. Which would be an economic disaster whether you want to admit it or not.

LOL at the silly threat that MoCo lawyers and lobbyists "may stop coming in all together."
Not even Falcicchio is worried about losing MoCo lawyers and lobbyists business downtown. They may start taking metro and commuter rail, though, nothing undignified about that, or they'll move to DC.

Trust me, he is very worried about this. He, unlike you, understands the economics of this. One lobbyist dinner at a steakhouse is equivalent to what you spend in a year at the hot bar food trough lunch place.

Yes, and that lobbyist isn't going to telework into that steak dinner or drag their congressperson out to MoCo, so that steak dinner is a sure thing.

This is a wondrous display of arrogance coupled with ignorance. You don’t understand anything, starting with the basic fact that Congress cannot accept “steak dinners” from lobbyists.

Touche, the steakhouse dinner paid by the lobbyist isn't with the congressperson. OK.
Does that mean it's so transportable, and lobbyist will just move his steak dinner outside of DC, right off an exit from an 8-lane freeway unless we keep killing pedestrians and cyclists, keep everyone in cars, cram everyone's cars on every DC street and ignore climate change? I see that 'wondrous display of arrogance' right there.