Anonymous wrote:Anyone currently biking on Conn Ave today is not a typical cyclist. I've been biking nearly daily in DC for decades and am still terrified whenever I have to take Conn. The vast majority of cyclists are too scared to bike there. When there are bike lanes - which will apparently not be anytime soon - there will be many more people able to bike that way.
Bike lanes on Conn Ave are the ultimate in entitlement. Inconveniencing and slowing down traffic for tens of thousands for the benefit of a few hundred.
It's absolutely true that there are very few cyclists who use Connecticut - BECAUSE THERE ARE NO BIKE LANES! The only way to increase cycling is to make cycling safe. In the Netherlands, there is a great cycling infrastructure and cycling is widespread.
Of course, DC is not going to turn into the Netherlands, you say, because we're a car culture. True. As was Netherlands in 1971, when more than 400 children were killed in traffic accidents. It took a lot of work and many years to build safe cities there, as it will here. We should start now.
Then move to the Netherlands. And when you're too feeble to ride your bike anymore you can ask the government to euthanize you.
.
Or just move downtown where there are plenty of bike lanes and stop trying to screw up livable family neighborhoods.
What? I live in a “family neighborhood” (or at least that’s what I think you have in mind) and bike lanes are essential to protecting my children when they travel back and forth to school and activities. This is their only way to get around because they can’t drive, the bus network is pathetic, their parents are not privileged enough to have the time or the money to drive them around everywhere, and the notion of them taking rides when random strangers driving ride-shares doesn’t really appeal. How would you like them to get around? Or would you prefer them to just sit at home and pick up apart your obnoxiously idiotic claims?
They can walk.
It takes three times as long to walk as to bike, which would mean they could do very little in the way of activities.
Where do you live and where are these activities on Connecticut Avenue that they can't get to unless on a bike? How old are your kids?
Would you like a social security number as well?
The point is not hard to grasp, unless of course you know nothing about life in DC or are suffering from the cognitive dissonance associated with espousing policies that are deeply detrimental to the quality of life enjoyed by DC residents.
There is no way my kids would have been able to participate in the breadth of activities they’ve enjoyed across DC if they didn’t have bikes. We are somewhat cavalier perhaps in letting them ride on streets without protected bike lanes. But many other parents are not and I get that.
Guess you should get a car then. Your kids could do even more that way.
You do realize that most parents in this city work, do you not? How the kids supposed to get around when their parents are at work? Do you really want them out there jacking cars?
Yeah, carjacking kids would have stopped if only they had bikes to ride instead. On that note, carjackings are down this year in some wards by as much 80 percent.
But if you had kids, you would know how school commuting works. The kids are at school for most of the work day. In Ward 3, where you are targeting, kids either go to their local walkable neighborhood public school or they go to the private schools. In both instances, there are a bevy of extracurricular programs that last until the end of the school day so parents can pick them up after work if needed. And WFH has made it easier to have the flexibility to pick up kids immediately after school.
Bless you for having a predictable work schedule and/or WFH. Many of the rest of us don't enjoy such luxuries.
Moreover, the system you describe is nuts. It adds tens of thousands of cars to DC's streets, creating further congestion, pollution, and injuries, and all for what?
if the city provides a safe alternative to driving, more people will use it, freeing up road space for the cars whose drivers need to drive. this is really not a hard equation to understand and somehow, around the world, other cities have done this with great success.
Bike lanes are useful and desirable, but it's also important to remember that Connecticut Ave is a major artery between Montgomery County and Upper Northwest and downtown Washington DC. Constraining it will force Waze-crazed drivers to divert to other roads, including neighborhood streets. Washington DC already has miles or bike lanes and trails, but it seems that's not enough for the WABA lobbyists, because for example the Rock Creek Park trail doesn't have bars and cafes along it.
So you were not ok with one lane being taken for bike lanes, but you are ok with two lanes being taken for restriction-less (ie during Rush Hour as well) parking.
Please explain to me like I am five, why the former is not ok, but the latter is, and how the waze-crazed traffic you feared when one lane was being taken for bike lanes was a problem, but two lanes being taken for parking is not.
It's not. It's still a bad idea but at least it's cheaper.
They are still going to spend 9 million dollars.
There will still be the neighborhood traffic nightmare proffered by the opposition.
There will still be Connecticut Avenue and "evacuation route" issues proffered by the opposition.
Now add, cyclists will be riding in the middle of the center lane, far enough from the right side to avoid being "doored" by anyone accessing one of the parked cars up and down Connecticut Avenue.
There’s a parallel bike path in Rock Creek Park. So sorry that it doesn’t pass by Nanny’s.
Anonymous wrote:Anyone currently biking on Conn Ave today is not a typical cyclist. I've been biking nearly daily in DC for decades and am still terrified whenever I have to take Conn. The vast majority of cyclists are too scared to bike there. When there are bike lanes - which will apparently not be anytime soon - there will be many more people able to bike that way.
Bike lanes on Conn Ave are the ultimate in entitlement. Inconveniencing and slowing down traffic for tens of thousands for the benefit of a few hundred.
It's absolutely true that there are very few cyclists who use Connecticut - BECAUSE THERE ARE NO BIKE LANES! The only way to increase cycling is to make cycling safe. In the Netherlands, there is a great cycling infrastructure and cycling is widespread.
Of course, DC is not going to turn into the Netherlands, you say, because we're a car culture. True. As was Netherlands in 1971, when more than 400 children were killed in traffic accidents. It took a lot of work and many years to build safe cities there, as it will here. We should start now.
Then move to the Netherlands. And when you're too feeble to ride your bike anymore you can ask the government to euthanize you.
.
Or just move downtown where there are plenty of bike lanes and stop trying to screw up livable family neighborhoods.
What? I live in a “family neighborhood” (or at least that’s what I think you have in mind) and bike lanes are essential to protecting my children when they travel back and forth to school and activities. This is their only way to get around because they can’t drive, the bus network is pathetic, their parents are not privileged enough to have the time or the money to drive them around everywhere, and the notion of them taking rides when random strangers driving ride-shares doesn’t really appeal. How would you like them to get around? Or would you prefer them to just sit at home and pick up apart your obnoxiously idiotic claims?
They can walk.
It takes three times as long to walk as to bike, which would mean they could do very little in the way of activities.
Where do you live and where are these activities on Connecticut Avenue that they can't get to unless on a bike? How old are your kids?
Would you like a social security number as well?
The point is not hard to grasp, unless of course you know nothing about life in DC or are suffering from the cognitive dissonance associated with espousing policies that are deeply detrimental to the quality of life enjoyed by DC residents.
There is no way my kids would have been able to participate in the breadth of activities they’ve enjoyed across DC if they didn’t have bikes. We are somewhat cavalier perhaps in letting them ride on streets without protected bike lanes. But many other parents are not and I get that.
Guess you should get a car then. Your kids could do even more that way.
You do realize that most parents in this city work, do you not? How the kids supposed to get around when their parents are at work? Do you really want them out there jacking cars?
Yeah, carjacking kids would have stopped if only they had bikes to ride instead. On that note, carjackings are down this year in some wards by as much 80 percent.
But if you had kids, you would know how school commuting works. The kids are at school for most of the work day. In Ward 3, where you are targeting, kids either go to their local walkable neighborhood public school or they go to the private schools. In both instances, there are a bevy of extracurricular programs that last until the end of the school day so parents can pick them up after work if needed. And WFH has made it easier to have the flexibility to pick up kids immediately after school.
Bless you for having a predictable work schedule and/or WFH. Many of the rest of us don't enjoy such luxuries.
Moreover, the system you describe is nuts. It adds tens of thousands of cars to DC's streets, creating further congestion, pollution, and injuries, and all for what?
if the city provides a safe alternative to driving, more people will use it, freeing up road space for the cars whose drivers need to drive. this is really not a hard equation to understand and somehow, around the world, other cities have done this with great success.
Bike lanes are useful and desirable, but it's also important to remember that Connecticut Ave is a major artery between Montgomery County and Upper Northwest and downtown Washington DC. Constraining it will force Waze-crazed drivers to divert to other roads, including neighborhood streets. Washington DC already has miles or bike lanes and trails, but it seems that's not enough for the WABA lobbyists, because for example the Rock Creek Park trail doesn't have bars and cafes along it.
So you were not ok with one lane being taken for bike lanes, but you are ok with two lanes being taken for restriction-less (ie during Rush Hour as well) parking.
Please explain to me like I am five, why the former is not ok, but the latter is, and how the waze-crazed traffic you feared when one lane was being taken for bike lanes was a problem, but two lanes being taken for parking is not.
It's not. It's still a bad idea but at least it's cheaper.
They are still going to spend 9 million dollars.
There will still be the neighborhood traffic nightmare proffered by the opposition.
There will still be Connecticut Avenue and "evacuation route" issues proffered by the opposition.
Now add, cyclists will be riding in the middle of the center lane, far enough from the right side to avoid being "doored" by anyone accessing one of the parked cars up and down Connecticut Avenue.
There’s a parallel bike path in Rock Creek Park. So sorry that it doesn’t pass by Nanny’s.
So in your world, a cyclist carrying a load of groceries should have to ride up Tilden on the way north from shopping at Streets in Cleveland Park?
Anonymous wrote:Anyone currently biking on Conn Ave today is not a typical cyclist. I've been biking nearly daily in DC for decades and am still terrified whenever I have to take Conn. The vast majority of cyclists are too scared to bike there. When there are bike lanes - which will apparently not be anytime soon - there will be many more people able to bike that way.
Bike lanes on Conn Ave are the ultimate in entitlement. Inconveniencing and slowing down traffic for tens of thousands for the benefit of a few hundred.
It's absolutely true that there are very few cyclists who use Connecticut - BECAUSE THERE ARE NO BIKE LANES! The only way to increase cycling is to make cycling safe. In the Netherlands, there is a great cycling infrastructure and cycling is widespread.
Of course, DC is not going to turn into the Netherlands, you say, because we're a car culture. True. As was Netherlands in 1971, when more than 400 children were killed in traffic accidents. It took a lot of work and many years to build safe cities there, as it will here. We should start now.
Then move to the Netherlands. And when you're too feeble to ride your bike anymore you can ask the government to euthanize you.
.
Or just move downtown where there are plenty of bike lanes and stop trying to screw up livable family neighborhoods.
What? I live in a “family neighborhood” (or at least that’s what I think you have in mind) and bike lanes are essential to protecting my children when they travel back and forth to school and activities. This is their only way to get around because they can’t drive, the bus network is pathetic, their parents are not privileged enough to have the time or the money to drive them around everywhere, and the notion of them taking rides when random strangers driving ride-shares doesn’t really appeal. How would you like them to get around? Or would you prefer them to just sit at home and pick up apart your obnoxiously idiotic claims?
They can walk.
It takes three times as long to walk as to bike, which would mean they could do very little in the way of activities.
Where do you live and where are these activities on Connecticut Avenue that they can't get to unless on a bike? How old are your kids?
Would you like a social security number as well?
The point is not hard to grasp, unless of course you know nothing about life in DC or are suffering from the cognitive dissonance associated with espousing policies that are deeply detrimental to the quality of life enjoyed by DC residents.
There is no way my kids would have been able to participate in the breadth of activities they’ve enjoyed across DC if they didn’t have bikes. We are somewhat cavalier perhaps in letting them ride on streets without protected bike lanes. But many other parents are not and I get that.
Guess you should get a car then. Your kids could do even more that way.
You do realize that most parents in this city work, do you not? How the kids supposed to get around when their parents are at work? Do you really want them out there jacking cars?
Yeah, carjacking kids would have stopped if only they had bikes to ride instead. On that note, carjackings are down this year in some wards by as much 80 percent.
But if you had kids, you would know how school commuting works. The kids are at school for most of the work day. In Ward 3, where you are targeting, kids either go to their local walkable neighborhood public school or they go to the private schools. In both instances, there are a bevy of extracurricular programs that last until the end of the school day so parents can pick them up after work if needed. And WFH has made it easier to have the flexibility to pick up kids immediately after school.
Bless you for having a predictable work schedule and/or WFH. Many of the rest of us don't enjoy such luxuries.
Moreover, the system you describe is nuts. It adds tens of thousands of cars to DC's streets, creating further congestion, pollution, and injuries, and all for what?
if the city provides a safe alternative to driving, more people will use it, freeing up road space for the cars whose drivers need to drive. this is really not a hard equation to understand and somehow, around the world, other cities have done this with great success.
Bike lanes are useful and desirable, but it's also important to remember that Connecticut Ave is a major artery between Montgomery County and Upper Northwest and downtown Washington DC. Constraining it will force Waze-crazed drivers to divert to other roads, including neighborhood streets. Washington DC already has miles or bike lanes and trails, but it seems that's not enough for the WABA lobbyists, because for example the Rock Creek Park trail doesn't have bars and cafes along it.
So you were not ok with one lane being taken for bike lanes, but you are ok with two lanes being taken for restriction-less (ie during Rush Hour as well) parking.
Please explain to me like I am five, why the former is not ok, but the latter is, and how the waze-crazed traffic you feared when one lane was being taken for bike lanes was a problem, but two lanes being taken for parking is not.
It's not. It's still a bad idea but at least it's cheaper.
They are still going to spend 9 million dollars.
There will still be the neighborhood traffic nightmare proffered by the opposition.
There will still be Connecticut Avenue and "evacuation route" issues proffered by the opposition.
Now add, cyclists will be riding in the middle of the center lane, far enough from the right side to avoid being "doored" by anyone accessing one of the parked cars up and down Connecticut Avenue.
There’s a parallel bike path in Rock Creek Park. So sorry that it doesn’t pass by Nanny’s.
So in your world, a cyclist carrying a load of groceries should have to ride up Tilden on the way north from shopping at Streets in Cleveland Park?
In their world, bikes are “toys”, not a means of transportation.
Anonymous wrote:Anyone currently biking on Conn Ave today is not a typical cyclist. I've been biking nearly daily in DC for decades and am still terrified whenever I have to take Conn. The vast majority of cyclists are too scared to bike there. When there are bike lanes - which will apparently not be anytime soon - there will be many more people able to bike that way.
Bike lanes on Conn Ave are the ultimate in entitlement. Inconveniencing and slowing down traffic for tens of thousands for the benefit of a few hundred.
It's absolutely true that there are very few cyclists who use Connecticut - BECAUSE THERE ARE NO BIKE LANES! The only way to increase cycling is to make cycling safe. In the Netherlands, there is a great cycling infrastructure and cycling is widespread.
Of course, DC is not going to turn into the Netherlands, you say, because we're a car culture. True. As was Netherlands in 1971, when more than 400 children were killed in traffic accidents. It took a lot of work and many years to build safe cities there, as it will here. We should start now.
Then move to the Netherlands. And when you're too feeble to ride your bike anymore you can ask the government to euthanize you.
.
Or just move downtown where there are plenty of bike lanes and stop trying to screw up livable family neighborhoods.
What? I live in a “family neighborhood” (or at least that’s what I think you have in mind) and bike lanes are essential to protecting my children when they travel back and forth to school and activities. This is their only way to get around because they can’t drive, the bus network is pathetic, their parents are not privileged enough to have the time or the money to drive them around everywhere, and the notion of them taking rides when random strangers driving ride-shares doesn’t really appeal. How would you like them to get around? Or would you prefer them to just sit at home and pick up apart your obnoxiously idiotic claims?
They can walk.
It takes three times as long to walk as to bike, which would mean they could do very little in the way of activities.
Where do you live and where are these activities on Connecticut Avenue that they can't get to unless on a bike? How old are your kids?
Would you like a social security number as well?
The point is not hard to grasp, unless of course you know nothing about life in DC or are suffering from the cognitive dissonance associated with espousing policies that are deeply detrimental to the quality of life enjoyed by DC residents.
There is no way my kids would have been able to participate in the breadth of activities they’ve enjoyed across DC if they didn’t have bikes. We are somewhat cavalier perhaps in letting them ride on streets without protected bike lanes. But many other parents are not and I get that.
Guess you should get a car then. Your kids could do even more that way.
You do realize that most parents in this city work, do you not? How the kids supposed to get around when their parents are at work? Do you really want them out there jacking cars?
Yeah, carjacking kids would have stopped if only they had bikes to ride instead. On that note, carjackings are down this year in some wards by as much 80 percent.
But if you had kids, you would know how school commuting works. The kids are at school for most of the work day. In Ward 3, where you are targeting, kids either go to their local walkable neighborhood public school or they go to the private schools. In both instances, there are a bevy of extracurricular programs that last until the end of the school day so parents can pick them up after work if needed. And WFH has made it easier to have the flexibility to pick up kids immediately after school.
Bless you for having a predictable work schedule and/or WFH. Many of the rest of us don't enjoy such luxuries.
Moreover, the system you describe is nuts. It adds tens of thousands of cars to DC's streets, creating further congestion, pollution, and injuries, and all for what?
if the city provides a safe alternative to driving, more people will use it, freeing up road space for the cars whose drivers need to drive. this is really not a hard equation to understand and somehow, around the world, other cities have done this with great success.
Bike lanes are useful and desirable, but it's also important to remember that Connecticut Ave is a major artery between Montgomery County and Upper Northwest and downtown Washington DC. Constraining it will force Waze-crazed drivers to divert to other roads, including neighborhood streets. Washington DC already has miles or bike lanes and trails, but it seems that's not enough for the WABA lobbyists, because for example the Rock Creek Park trail doesn't have bars and cafes along it.
So you were not ok with one lane being taken for bike lanes, but you are ok with two lanes being taken for restriction-less (ie during Rush Hour as well) parking.
Please explain to me like I am five, why the former is not ok, but the latter is, and how the waze-crazed traffic you feared when one lane was being taken for bike lanes was a problem, but two lanes being taken for parking is not.
It's not. It's still a bad idea but at least it's cheaper.
They are still going to spend 9 million dollars.
There will still be the neighborhood traffic nightmare proffered by the opposition.
There will still be Connecticut Avenue and "evacuation route" issues proffered by the opposition.
Now add, cyclists will be riding in the middle of the center lane, far enough from the right side to avoid being "doored" by anyone accessing one of the parked cars up and down Connecticut Avenue.
There's barely any bicyclists so that's not a problem but the rest of what you said is true.
Anonymous wrote:Anyone currently biking on Conn Ave today is not a typical cyclist. I've been biking nearly daily in DC for decades and am still terrified whenever I have to take Conn. The vast majority of cyclists are too scared to bike there. When there are bike lanes - which will apparently not be anytime soon - there will be many more people able to bike that way.
Bike lanes on Conn Ave are the ultimate in entitlement. Inconveniencing and slowing down traffic for tens of thousands for the benefit of a few hundred.
It's absolutely true that there are very few cyclists who use Connecticut - BECAUSE THERE ARE NO BIKE LANES! The only way to increase cycling is to make cycling safe. In the Netherlands, there is a great cycling infrastructure and cycling is widespread.
Of course, DC is not going to turn into the Netherlands, you say, because we're a car culture. True. As was Netherlands in 1971, when more than 400 children were killed in traffic accidents. It took a lot of work and many years to build safe cities there, as it will here. We should start now.
Then move to the Netherlands. And when you're too feeble to ride your bike anymore you can ask the government to euthanize you.
.
Or just move downtown where there are plenty of bike lanes and stop trying to screw up livable family neighborhoods.
What? I live in a “family neighborhood” (or at least that’s what I think you have in mind) and bike lanes are essential to protecting my children when they travel back and forth to school and activities. This is their only way to get around because they can’t drive, the bus network is pathetic, their parents are not privileged enough to have the time or the money to drive them around everywhere, and the notion of them taking rides when random strangers driving ride-shares doesn’t really appeal. How would you like them to get around? Or would you prefer them to just sit at home and pick up apart your obnoxiously idiotic claims?
They can walk.
It takes three times as long to walk as to bike, which would mean they could do very little in the way of activities.
Where do you live and where are these activities on Connecticut Avenue that they can't get to unless on a bike? How old are your kids?
Would you like a social security number as well?
The point is not hard to grasp, unless of course you know nothing about life in DC or are suffering from the cognitive dissonance associated with espousing policies that are deeply detrimental to the quality of life enjoyed by DC residents.
There is no way my kids would have been able to participate in the breadth of activities they’ve enjoyed across DC if they didn’t have bikes. We are somewhat cavalier perhaps in letting them ride on streets without protected bike lanes. But many other parents are not and I get that.
Guess you should get a car then. Your kids could do even more that way.
You do realize that most parents in this city work, do you not? How the kids supposed to get around when their parents are at work? Do you really want them out there jacking cars?
Yeah, carjacking kids would have stopped if only they had bikes to ride instead. On that note, carjackings are down this year in some wards by as much 80 percent.
But if you had kids, you would know how school commuting works. The kids are at school for most of the work day. In Ward 3, where you are targeting, kids either go to their local walkable neighborhood public school or they go to the private schools. In both instances, there are a bevy of extracurricular programs that last until the end of the school day so parents can pick them up after work if needed. And WFH has made it easier to have the flexibility to pick up kids immediately after school.
Bless you for having a predictable work schedule and/or WFH. Many of the rest of us don't enjoy such luxuries.
Moreover, the system you describe is nuts. It adds tens of thousands of cars to DC's streets, creating further congestion, pollution, and injuries, and all for what?
if the city provides a safe alternative to driving, more people will use it, freeing up road space for the cars whose drivers need to drive. this is really not a hard equation to understand and somehow, around the world, other cities have done this with great success.
Bike lanes are useful and desirable, but it's also important to remember that Connecticut Ave is a major artery between Montgomery County and Upper Northwest and downtown Washington DC. Constraining it will force Waze-crazed drivers to divert to other roads, including neighborhood streets. Washington DC already has miles or bike lanes and trails, but it seems that's not enough for the WABA lobbyists, because for example the Rock Creek Park trail doesn't have bars and cafes along it.
So you were not ok with one lane being taken for bike lanes, but you are ok with two lanes being taken for restriction-less (ie during Rush Hour as well) parking.
Please explain to me like I am five, why the former is not ok, but the latter is, and how the waze-crazed traffic you feared when one lane was being taken for bike lanes was a problem, but two lanes being taken for parking is not.
It's not. It's still a bad idea but at least it's cheaper.
They are still going to spend 9 million dollars.
There will still be the neighborhood traffic nightmare proffered by the opposition.
There will still be Connecticut Avenue and "evacuation route" issues proffered by the opposition.
Now add, cyclists will be riding in the middle of the center lane, far enough from the right side to avoid being "doored" by anyone accessing one of the parked cars up and down Connecticut Avenue.
There's barely any bicyclists so that's not a problem but the rest of what you said is true.
I am going to make a point of riding on CT Ave now, just to spike the people who killed the bike lanes.
Anonymous wrote:Anyone currently biking on Conn Ave today is not a typical cyclist. I've been biking nearly daily in DC for decades and am still terrified whenever I have to take Conn. The vast majority of cyclists are too scared to bike there. When there are bike lanes - which will apparently not be anytime soon - there will be many more people able to bike that way.
Bike lanes on Conn Ave are the ultimate in entitlement. Inconveniencing and slowing down traffic for tens of thousands for the benefit of a few hundred.
It's absolutely true that there are very few cyclists who use Connecticut - BECAUSE THERE ARE NO BIKE LANES! The only way to increase cycling is to make cycling safe. In the Netherlands, there is a great cycling infrastructure and cycling is widespread.
Of course, DC is not going to turn into the Netherlands, you say, because we're a car culture. True. As was Netherlands in 1971, when more than 400 children were killed in traffic accidents. It took a lot of work and many years to build safe cities there, as it will here. We should start now.
Then move to the Netherlands. And when you're too feeble to ride your bike anymore you can ask the government to euthanize you.
.
Or just move downtown where there are plenty of bike lanes and stop trying to screw up livable family neighborhoods.
What? I live in a “family neighborhood” (or at least that’s what I think you have in mind) and bike lanes are essential to protecting my children when they travel back and forth to school and activities. This is their only way to get around because they can’t drive, the bus network is pathetic, their parents are not privileged enough to have the time or the money to drive them around everywhere, and the notion of them taking rides when random strangers driving ride-shares doesn’t really appeal. How would you like them to get around? Or would you prefer them to just sit at home and pick up apart your obnoxiously idiotic claims?
They can walk.
It takes three times as long to walk as to bike, which would mean they could do very little in the way of activities.
Where do you live and where are these activities on Connecticut Avenue that they can't get to unless on a bike? How old are your kids?
Would you like a social security number as well?
The point is not hard to grasp, unless of course you know nothing about life in DC or are suffering from the cognitive dissonance associated with espousing policies that are deeply detrimental to the quality of life enjoyed by DC residents.
There is no way my kids would have been able to participate in the breadth of activities they’ve enjoyed across DC if they didn’t have bikes. We are somewhat cavalier perhaps in letting them ride on streets without protected bike lanes. But many other parents are not and I get that.
Guess you should get a car then. Your kids could do even more that way.
You do realize that most parents in this city work, do you not? How the kids supposed to get around when their parents are at work? Do you really want them out there jacking cars?
Yeah, carjacking kids would have stopped if only they had bikes to ride instead. On that note, carjackings are down this year in some wards by as much 80 percent.
But if you had kids, you would know how school commuting works. The kids are at school for most of the work day. In Ward 3, where you are targeting, kids either go to their local walkable neighborhood public school or they go to the private schools. In both instances, there are a bevy of extracurricular programs that last until the end of the school day so parents can pick them up after work if needed. And WFH has made it easier to have the flexibility to pick up kids immediately after school.
Bless you for having a predictable work schedule and/or WFH. Many of the rest of us don't enjoy such luxuries.
Moreover, the system you describe is nuts. It adds tens of thousands of cars to DC's streets, creating further congestion, pollution, and injuries, and all for what?
if the city provides a safe alternative to driving, more people will use it, freeing up road space for the cars whose drivers need to drive. this is really not a hard equation to understand and somehow, around the world, other cities have done this with great success.
Bike lanes are useful and desirable, but it's also important to remember that Connecticut Ave is a major artery between Montgomery County and Upper Northwest and downtown Washington DC. Constraining it will force Waze-crazed drivers to divert to other roads, including neighborhood streets. Washington DC already has miles or bike lanes and trails, but it seems that's not enough for the WABA lobbyists, because for example the Rock Creek Park trail doesn't have bars and cafes along it.
So you were not ok with one lane being taken for bike lanes, but you are ok with two lanes being taken for restriction-less (ie during Rush Hour as well) parking.
Please explain to me like I am five, why the former is not ok, but the latter is, and how the waze-crazed traffic you feared when one lane was being taken for bike lanes was a problem, but two lanes being taken for parking is not.
It's not. It's still a bad idea but at least it's cheaper.
They are still going to spend 9 million dollars.
There will still be the neighborhood traffic nightmare proffered by the opposition.
There will still be Connecticut Avenue and "evacuation route" issues proffered by the opposition.
Now add, cyclists will be riding in the middle of the center lane, far enough from the right side to avoid being "doored" by anyone accessing one of the parked cars up and down Connecticut Avenue.
There's barely any bicyclists so that's not a problem but the rest of what you said is true.
I am going to make a point of riding on CT Ave now, just to spike the people who killed the bike lanes.
You’re going to spike the people? I guess drivers aren’t the only ones with anger issues who use their vehicles to threaten people. Cyclists need to wrap their heads around the fact that they chose the solution that was the safest for the most vulnerable people in roadways: pedestrians. When you learn how to stop for me in a crosswalk, I’ll support your bike lanes.
Anonymous wrote:Anyone currently biking on Conn Ave today is not a typical cyclist. I've been biking nearly daily in DC for decades and am still terrified whenever I have to take Conn. The vast majority of cyclists are too scared to bike there. When there are bike lanes - which will apparently not be anytime soon - there will be many more people able to bike that way.
Bike lanes on Conn Ave are the ultimate in entitlement. Inconveniencing and slowing down traffic for tens of thousands for the benefit of a few hundred.
It's absolutely true that there are very few cyclists who use Connecticut - BECAUSE THERE ARE NO BIKE LANES! The only way to increase cycling is to make cycling safe. In the Netherlands, there is a great cycling infrastructure and cycling is widespread.
Of course, DC is not going to turn into the Netherlands, you say, because we're a car culture. True. As was Netherlands in 1971, when more than 400 children were killed in traffic accidents. It took a lot of work and many years to build safe cities there, as it will here. We should start now.
Then move to the Netherlands. And when you're too feeble to ride your bike anymore you can ask the government to euthanize you.
.
Or just move downtown where there are plenty of bike lanes and stop trying to screw up livable family neighborhoods.
What? I live in a “family neighborhood” (or at least that’s what I think you have in mind) and bike lanes are essential to protecting my children when they travel back and forth to school and activities. This is their only way to get around because they can’t drive, the bus network is pathetic, their parents are not privileged enough to have the time or the money to drive them around everywhere, and the notion of them taking rides when random strangers driving ride-shares doesn’t really appeal. How would you like them to get around? Or would you prefer them to just sit at home and pick up apart your obnoxiously idiotic claims?
They can walk.
It takes three times as long to walk as to bike, which would mean they could do very little in the way of activities.
Where do you live and where are these activities on Connecticut Avenue that they can't get to unless on a bike? How old are your kids?
Would you like a social security number as well?
The point is not hard to grasp, unless of course you know nothing about life in DC or are suffering from the cognitive dissonance associated with espousing policies that are deeply detrimental to the quality of life enjoyed by DC residents.
There is no way my kids would have been able to participate in the breadth of activities they’ve enjoyed across DC if they didn’t have bikes. We are somewhat cavalier perhaps in letting them ride on streets without protected bike lanes. But many other parents are not and I get that.
Guess you should get a car then. Your kids could do even more that way.
You do realize that most parents in this city work, do you not? How the kids supposed to get around when their parents are at work? Do you really want them out there jacking cars?
Yeah, carjacking kids would have stopped if only they had bikes to ride instead. On that note, carjackings are down this year in some wards by as much 80 percent.
But if you had kids, you would know how school commuting works. The kids are at school for most of the work day. In Ward 3, where you are targeting, kids either go to their local walkable neighborhood public school or they go to the private schools. In both instances, there are a bevy of extracurricular programs that last until the end of the school day so parents can pick them up after work if needed. And WFH has made it easier to have the flexibility to pick up kids immediately after school.
Bless you for having a predictable work schedule and/or WFH. Many of the rest of us don't enjoy such luxuries.
Moreover, the system you describe is nuts. It adds tens of thousands of cars to DC's streets, creating further congestion, pollution, and injuries, and all for what?
if the city provides a safe alternative to driving, more people will use it, freeing up road space for the cars whose drivers need to drive. this is really not a hard equation to understand and somehow, around the world, other cities have done this with great success.
Bike lanes are useful and desirable, but it's also important to remember that Connecticut Ave is a major artery between Montgomery County and Upper Northwest and downtown Washington DC. Constraining it will force Waze-crazed drivers to divert to other roads, including neighborhood streets. Washington DC already has miles or bike lanes and trails, but it seems that's not enough for the WABA lobbyists, because for example the Rock Creek Park trail doesn't have bars and cafes along it.
So you were not ok with one lane being taken for bike lanes, but you are ok with two lanes being taken for restriction-less (ie during Rush Hour as well) parking.
Please explain to me like I am five, why the former is not ok, but the latter is, and how the waze-crazed traffic you feared when one lane was being taken for bike lanes was a problem, but two lanes being taken for parking is not.
It's not. It's still a bad idea but at least it's cheaper.
They are still going to spend 9 million dollars.
There will still be the neighborhood traffic nightmare proffered by the opposition.
There will still be Connecticut Avenue and "evacuation route" issues proffered by the opposition.
Now add, cyclists will be riding in the middle of the center lane, far enough from the right side to avoid being "doored" by anyone accessing one of the parked cars up and down Connecticut Avenue.
There's barely any bicyclists so that's not a problem but the rest of what you said is true.
I am going to make a point of riding on CT Ave now, just to spike the people who killed the bike lanes.
Anonymous wrote:Anyone currently biking on Conn Ave today is not a typical cyclist. I've been biking nearly daily in DC for decades and am still terrified whenever I have to take Conn. The vast majority of cyclists are too scared to bike there. When there are bike lanes - which will apparently not be anytime soon - there will be many more people able to bike that way.
Bike lanes on Conn Ave are the ultimate in entitlement. Inconveniencing and slowing down traffic for tens of thousands for the benefit of a few hundred.
It's absolutely true that there are very few cyclists who use Connecticut - BECAUSE THERE ARE NO BIKE LANES! The only way to increase cycling is to make cycling safe. In the Netherlands, there is a great cycling infrastructure and cycling is widespread.
Of course, DC is not going to turn into the Netherlands, you say, because we're a car culture. True. As was Netherlands in 1971, when more than 400 children were killed in traffic accidents. It took a lot of work and many years to build safe cities there, as it will here. We should start now.
Then move to the Netherlands. And when you're too feeble to ride your bike anymore you can ask the government to euthanize you.
.
Or just move downtown where there are plenty of bike lanes and stop trying to screw up livable family neighborhoods.
What? I live in a “family neighborhood” (or at least that’s what I think you have in mind) and bike lanes are essential to protecting my children when they travel back and forth to school and activities. This is their only way to get around because they can’t drive, the bus network is pathetic, their parents are not privileged enough to have the time or the money to drive them around everywhere, and the notion of them taking rides when random strangers driving ride-shares doesn’t really appeal. How would you like them to get around? Or would you prefer them to just sit at home and pick up apart your obnoxiously idiotic claims?
They can walk.
It takes three times as long to walk as to bike, which would mean they could do very little in the way of activities.
Where do you live and where are these activities on Connecticut Avenue that they can't get to unless on a bike? How old are your kids?
Would you like a social security number as well?
The point is not hard to grasp, unless of course you know nothing about life in DC or are suffering from the cognitive dissonance associated with espousing policies that are deeply detrimental to the quality of life enjoyed by DC residents.
There is no way my kids would have been able to participate in the breadth of activities they’ve enjoyed across DC if they didn’t have bikes. We are somewhat cavalier perhaps in letting them ride on streets without protected bike lanes. But many other parents are not and I get that.
Guess you should get a car then. Your kids could do even more that way.
You do realize that most parents in this city work, do you not? How the kids supposed to get around when their parents are at work? Do you really want them out there jacking cars?
Yeah, carjacking kids would have stopped if only they had bikes to ride instead. On that note, carjackings are down this year in some wards by as much 80 percent.
But if you had kids, you would know how school commuting works. The kids are at school for most of the work day. In Ward 3, where you are targeting, kids either go to their local walkable neighborhood public school or they go to the private schools. In both instances, there are a bevy of extracurricular programs that last until the end of the school day so parents can pick them up after work if needed. And WFH has made it easier to have the flexibility to pick up kids immediately after school.
Bless you for having a predictable work schedule and/or WFH. Many of the rest of us don't enjoy such luxuries.
Moreover, the system you describe is nuts. It adds tens of thousands of cars to DC's streets, creating further congestion, pollution, and injuries, and all for what?
if the city provides a safe alternative to driving, more people will use it, freeing up road space for the cars whose drivers need to drive. this is really not a hard equation to understand and somehow, around the world, other cities have done this with great success.
Bike lanes are useful and desirable, but it's also important to remember that Connecticut Ave is a major artery between Montgomery County and Upper Northwest and downtown Washington DC. Constraining it will force Waze-crazed drivers to divert to other roads, including neighborhood streets. Washington DC already has miles or bike lanes and trails, but it seems that's not enough for the WABA lobbyists, because for example the Rock Creek Park trail doesn't have bars and cafes along it.
So you were not ok with one lane being taken for bike lanes, but you are ok with two lanes being taken for restriction-less (ie during Rush Hour as well) parking.
Please explain to me like I am five, why the former is not ok, but the latter is, and how the waze-crazed traffic you feared when one lane was being taken for bike lanes was a problem, but two lanes being taken for parking is not.
It's not. It's still a bad idea but at least it's cheaper.
They are still going to spend 9 million dollars.
There will still be the neighborhood traffic nightmare proffered by the opposition.
There will still be Connecticut Avenue and "evacuation route" issues proffered by the opposition.
Now add, cyclists will be riding in the middle of the center lane, far enough from the right side to avoid being "doored" by anyone accessing one of the parked cars up and down Connecticut Avenue.
There’s a parallel bike path in Rock Creek Park. So sorry that it doesn’t pass by Nanny’s.
So in your world, a cyclist carrying a load of groceries should have to ride up Tilden on the way north from shopping at Streets in Cleveland Park?
Does the so-called "Promenade" in Cleveland Park even have a bike rack? Of did DDOT simply run out of money to make it nice once they changed it from a road to a sidewalk that looks like a road?
Anonymous wrote:Anyone currently biking on Conn Ave today is not a typical cyclist. I've been biking nearly daily in DC for decades and am still terrified whenever I have to take Conn. The vast majority of cyclists are too scared to bike there. When there are bike lanes - which will apparently not be anytime soon - there will be many more people able to bike that way.
Bike lanes on Conn Ave are the ultimate in entitlement. Inconveniencing and slowing down traffic for tens of thousands for the benefit of a few hundred.
It's absolutely true that there are very few cyclists who use Connecticut - BECAUSE THERE ARE NO BIKE LANES! The only way to increase cycling is to make cycling safe. In the Netherlands, there is a great cycling infrastructure and cycling is widespread.
Of course, DC is not going to turn into the Netherlands, you say, because we're a car culture. True. As was Netherlands in 1971, when more than 400 children were killed in traffic accidents. It took a lot of work and many years to build safe cities there, as it will here. We should start now.
Then move to the Netherlands. And when you're too feeble to ride your bike anymore you can ask the government to euthanize you.
.
Or just move downtown where there are plenty of bike lanes and stop trying to screw up livable family neighborhoods.
What? I live in a “family neighborhood” (or at least that’s what I think you have in mind) and bike lanes are essential to protecting my children when they travel back and forth to school and activities. This is their only way to get around because they can’t drive, the bus network is pathetic, their parents are not privileged enough to have the time or the money to drive them around everywhere, and the notion of them taking rides when random strangers driving ride-shares doesn’t really appeal. How would you like them to get around? Or would you prefer them to just sit at home and pick up apart your obnoxiously idiotic claims?
They can walk.
It takes three times as long to walk as to bike, which would mean they could do very little in the way of activities.
Where do you live and where are these activities on Connecticut Avenue that they can't get to unless on a bike? How old are your kids?
Would you like a social security number as well?
The point is not hard to grasp, unless of course you know nothing about life in DC or are suffering from the cognitive dissonance associated with espousing policies that are deeply detrimental to the quality of life enjoyed by DC residents.
There is no way my kids would have been able to participate in the breadth of activities they’ve enjoyed across DC if they didn’t have bikes. We are somewhat cavalier perhaps in letting them ride on streets without protected bike lanes. But many other parents are not and I get that.
Guess you should get a car then. Your kids could do even more that way.
You do realize that most parents in this city work, do you not? How the kids supposed to get around when their parents are at work? Do you really want them out there jacking cars?
Yeah, carjacking kids would have stopped if only they had bikes to ride instead. On that note, carjackings are down this year in some wards by as much 80 percent.
But if you had kids, you would know how school commuting works. The kids are at school for most of the work day. In Ward 3, where you are targeting, kids either go to their local walkable neighborhood public school or they go to the private schools. In both instances, there are a bevy of extracurricular programs that last until the end of the school day so parents can pick them up after work if needed. And WFH has made it easier to have the flexibility to pick up kids immediately after school.
Bless you for having a predictable work schedule and/or WFH. Many of the rest of us don't enjoy such luxuries.
Moreover, the system you describe is nuts. It adds tens of thousands of cars to DC's streets, creating further congestion, pollution, and injuries, and all for what?
if the city provides a safe alternative to driving, more people will use it, freeing up road space for the cars whose drivers need to drive. this is really not a hard equation to understand and somehow, around the world, other cities have done this with great success.
Bike lanes are useful and desirable, but it's also important to remember that Connecticut Ave is a major artery between Montgomery County and Upper Northwest and downtown Washington DC. Constraining it will force Waze-crazed drivers to divert to other roads, including neighborhood streets. Washington DC already has miles or bike lanes and trails, but it seems that's not enough for the WABA lobbyists, because for example the Rock Creek Park trail doesn't have bars and cafes along it.
So you were not ok with one lane being taken for bike lanes, but you are ok with two lanes being taken for restriction-less (ie during Rush Hour as well) parking.
Please explain to me like I am five, why the former is not ok, but the latter is, and how the waze-crazed traffic you feared when one lane was being taken for bike lanes was a problem, but two lanes being taken for parking is not.
It's not. It's still a bad idea but at least it's cheaper.
They are still going to spend 9 million dollars.
There will still be the neighborhood traffic nightmare proffered by the opposition.
There will still be Connecticut Avenue and "evacuation route" issues proffered by the opposition.
Now add, cyclists will be riding in the middle of the center lane, far enough from the right side to avoid being "doored" by anyone accessing one of the parked cars up and down Connecticut Avenue.
There's barely any bicyclists so that's not a problem but the rest of what you said is true.
I am going to make a point of riding on CT Ave now, just to spike the people who killed the bike lanes.
You go, Lycra Bike Bro!
no lycra, not a bro...so when you see me on my gearless bike riding up CT in the center through lane, I will wave hello.
Anonymous wrote:Anyone currently biking on Conn Ave today is not a typical cyclist. I've been biking nearly daily in DC for decades and am still terrified whenever I have to take Conn. The vast majority of cyclists are too scared to bike there. When there are bike lanes - which will apparently not be anytime soon - there will be many more people able to bike that way.
Bike lanes on Conn Ave are the ultimate in entitlement. Inconveniencing and slowing down traffic for tens of thousands for the benefit of a few hundred.
It's absolutely true that there are very few cyclists who use Connecticut - BECAUSE THERE ARE NO BIKE LANES! The only way to increase cycling is to make cycling safe. In the Netherlands, there is a great cycling infrastructure and cycling is widespread.
Of course, DC is not going to turn into the Netherlands, you say, because we're a car culture. True. As was Netherlands in 1971, when more than 400 children were killed in traffic accidents. It took a lot of work and many years to build safe cities there, as it will here. We should start now.
Then move to the Netherlands. And when you're too feeble to ride your bike anymore you can ask the government to euthanize you.
.
Or just move downtown where there are plenty of bike lanes and stop trying to screw up livable family neighborhoods.
What? I live in a “family neighborhood” (or at least that’s what I think you have in mind) and bike lanes are essential to protecting my children when they travel back and forth to school and activities. This is their only way to get around because they can’t drive, the bus network is pathetic, their parents are not privileged enough to have the time or the money to drive them around everywhere, and the notion of them taking rides when random strangers driving ride-shares doesn’t really appeal. How would you like them to get around? Or would you prefer them to just sit at home and pick up apart your obnoxiously idiotic claims?
They can walk.
It takes three times as long to walk as to bike, which would mean they could do very little in the way of activities.
Where do you live and where are these activities on Connecticut Avenue that they can't get to unless on a bike? How old are your kids?
Would you like a social security number as well?
The point is not hard to grasp, unless of course you know nothing about life in DC or are suffering from the cognitive dissonance associated with espousing policies that are deeply detrimental to the quality of life enjoyed by DC residents.
There is no way my kids would have been able to participate in the breadth of activities they’ve enjoyed across DC if they didn’t have bikes. We are somewhat cavalier perhaps in letting them ride on streets without protected bike lanes. But many other parents are not and I get that.
Guess you should get a car then. Your kids could do even more that way.
You do realize that most parents in this city work, do you not? How the kids supposed to get around when their parents are at work? Do you really want them out there jacking cars?
Yeah, carjacking kids would have stopped if only they had bikes to ride instead. On that note, carjackings are down this year in some wards by as much 80 percent.
But if you had kids, you would know how school commuting works. The kids are at school for most of the work day. In Ward 3, where you are targeting, kids either go to their local walkable neighborhood public school or they go to the private schools. In both instances, there are a bevy of extracurricular programs that last until the end of the school day so parents can pick them up after work if needed. And WFH has made it easier to have the flexibility to pick up kids immediately after school.
Bless you for having a predictable work schedule and/or WFH. Many of the rest of us don't enjoy such luxuries.
Moreover, the system you describe is nuts. It adds tens of thousands of cars to DC's streets, creating further congestion, pollution, and injuries, and all for what?
if the city provides a safe alternative to driving, more people will use it, freeing up road space for the cars whose drivers need to drive. this is really not a hard equation to understand and somehow, around the world, other cities have done this with great success.
Bike lanes are useful and desirable, but it's also important to remember that Connecticut Ave is a major artery between Montgomery County and Upper Northwest and downtown Washington DC. Constraining it will force Waze-crazed drivers to divert to other roads, including neighborhood streets. Washington DC already has miles or bike lanes and trails, but it seems that's not enough for the WABA lobbyists, because for example the Rock Creek Park trail doesn't have bars and cafes along it.
So you were not ok with one lane being taken for bike lanes, but you are ok with two lanes being taken for restriction-less (ie during Rush Hour as well) parking.
Please explain to me like I am five, why the former is not ok, but the latter is, and how the waze-crazed traffic you feared when one lane was being taken for bike lanes was a problem, but two lanes being taken for parking is not.
It's not. It's still a bad idea but at least it's cheaper.
They are still going to spend 9 million dollars.
There will still be the neighborhood traffic nightmare proffered by the opposition.
There will still be Connecticut Avenue and "evacuation route" issues proffered by the opposition.
Now add, cyclists will be riding in the middle of the center lane, far enough from the right side to avoid being "doored" by anyone accessing one of the parked cars up and down Connecticut Avenue.
There's barely any bicyclists so that's not a problem but the rest of what you said is true.
I am going to make a point of riding on CT Ave now, just to spike the people who killed the bike lanes.
You go, Lycra Bike Bro!
no lycra, not a bro...so when you see me on my gearless bike riding up CT in the center through lane, I will wave hello.
Just make sure you stop for pedestrians in crosswalks.
Anonymous wrote:Anyone currently biking on Conn Ave today is not a typical cyclist. I've been biking nearly daily in DC for decades and am still terrified whenever I have to take Conn. The vast majority of cyclists are too scared to bike there. When there are bike lanes - which will apparently not be anytime soon - there will be many more people able to bike that way.
Bike lanes on Conn Ave are the ultimate in entitlement. Inconveniencing and slowing down traffic for tens of thousands for the benefit of a few hundred.
It's absolutely true that there are very few cyclists who use Connecticut - BECAUSE THERE ARE NO BIKE LANES! The only way to increase cycling is to make cycling safe. In the Netherlands, there is a great cycling infrastructure and cycling is widespread.
Of course, DC is not going to turn into the Netherlands, you say, because we're a car culture. True. As was Netherlands in 1971, when more than 400 children were killed in traffic accidents. It took a lot of work and many years to build safe cities there, as it will here. We should start now.
Then move to the Netherlands. And when you're too feeble to ride your bike anymore you can ask the government to euthanize you.
.
Or just move downtown where there are plenty of bike lanes and stop trying to screw up livable family neighborhoods.
What? I live in a “family neighborhood” (or at least that’s what I think you have in mind) and bike lanes are essential to protecting my children when they travel back and forth to school and activities. This is their only way to get around because they can’t drive, the bus network is pathetic, their parents are not privileged enough to have the time or the money to drive them around everywhere, and the notion of them taking rides when random strangers driving ride-shares doesn’t really appeal. How would you like them to get around? Or would you prefer them to just sit at home and pick up apart your obnoxiously idiotic claims?
They can walk.
It takes three times as long to walk as to bike, which would mean they could do very little in the way of activities.
Where do you live and where are these activities on Connecticut Avenue that they can't get to unless on a bike? How old are your kids?
Would you like a social security number as well?
The point is not hard to grasp, unless of course you know nothing about life in DC or are suffering from the cognitive dissonance associated with espousing policies that are deeply detrimental to the quality of life enjoyed by DC residents.
There is no way my kids would have been able to participate in the breadth of activities they’ve enjoyed across DC if they didn’t have bikes. We are somewhat cavalier perhaps in letting them ride on streets without protected bike lanes. But many other parents are not and I get that.
Guess you should get a car then. Your kids could do even more that way.
You do realize that most parents in this city work, do you not? How the kids supposed to get around when their parents are at work? Do you really want them out there jacking cars?
Yeah, carjacking kids would have stopped if only they had bikes to ride instead. On that note, carjackings are down this year in some wards by as much 80 percent.
But if you had kids, you would know how school commuting works. The kids are at school for most of the work day. In Ward 3, where you are targeting, kids either go to their local walkable neighborhood public school or they go to the private schools. In both instances, there are a bevy of extracurricular programs that last until the end of the school day so parents can pick them up after work if needed. And WFH has made it easier to have the flexibility to pick up kids immediately after school.
Bless you for having a predictable work schedule and/or WFH. Many of the rest of us don't enjoy such luxuries.
Moreover, the system you describe is nuts. It adds tens of thousands of cars to DC's streets, creating further congestion, pollution, and injuries, and all for what?
if the city provides a safe alternative to driving, more people will use it, freeing up road space for the cars whose drivers need to drive. this is really not a hard equation to understand and somehow, around the world, other cities have done this with great success.
Bike lanes are useful and desirable, but it's also important to remember that Connecticut Ave is a major artery between Montgomery County and Upper Northwest and downtown Washington DC. Constraining it will force Waze-crazed drivers to divert to other roads, including neighborhood streets. Washington DC already has miles or bike lanes and trails, but it seems that's not enough for the WABA lobbyists, because for example the Rock Creek Park trail doesn't have bars and cafes along it.
So you were not ok with one lane being taken for bike lanes, but you are ok with two lanes being taken for restriction-less (ie during Rush Hour as well) parking.
Please explain to me like I am five, why the former is not ok, but the latter is, and how the waze-crazed traffic you feared when one lane was being taken for bike lanes was a problem, but two lanes being taken for parking is not.
It's not. It's still a bad idea but at least it's cheaper.
They are still going to spend 9 million dollars.
There will still be the neighborhood traffic nightmare proffered by the opposition.
There will still be Connecticut Avenue and "evacuation route" issues proffered by the opposition.
Now add, cyclists will be riding in the middle of the center lane, far enough from the right side to avoid being "doored" by anyone accessing one of the parked cars up and down Connecticut Avenue.
There’s a parallel bike path in Rock Creek Park. So sorry that it doesn’t pass by Nanny’s.
So in your world, a cyclist carrying a load of groceries should have to ride up Tilden on the way north from shopping at Streets in Cleveland Park?
Why wouldn’t you just go to the Giant in Van Ness instead? Stop with all the belly aching.
Anonymous wrote:Anyone currently biking on Conn Ave today is not a typical cyclist. I've been biking nearly daily in DC for decades and am still terrified whenever I have to take Conn. The vast majority of cyclists are too scared to bike there. When there are bike lanes - which will apparently not be anytime soon - there will be many more people able to bike that way.
Bike lanes on Conn Ave are the ultimate in entitlement. Inconveniencing and slowing down traffic for tens of thousands for the benefit of a few hundred.
It's absolutely true that there are very few cyclists who use Connecticut - BECAUSE THERE ARE NO BIKE LANES! The only way to increase cycling is to make cycling safe. In the Netherlands, there is a great cycling infrastructure and cycling is widespread.
Of course, DC is not going to turn into the Netherlands, you say, because we're a car culture. True. As was Netherlands in 1971, when more than 400 children were killed in traffic accidents. It took a lot of work and many years to build safe cities there, as it will here. We should start now.
Then move to the Netherlands. And when you're too feeble to ride your bike anymore you can ask the government to euthanize you.
.
Or just move downtown where there are plenty of bike lanes and stop trying to screw up livable family neighborhoods.
What? I live in a “family neighborhood” (or at least that’s what I think you have in mind) and bike lanes are essential to protecting my children when they travel back and forth to school and activities. This is their only way to get around because they can’t drive, the bus network is pathetic, their parents are not privileged enough to have the time or the money to drive them around everywhere, and the notion of them taking rides when random strangers driving ride-shares doesn’t really appeal. How would you like them to get around? Or would you prefer them to just sit at home and pick up apart your obnoxiously idiotic claims?
They can walk.
It takes three times as long to walk as to bike, which would mean they could do very little in the way of activities.
Where do you live and where are these activities on Connecticut Avenue that they can't get to unless on a bike? How old are your kids?
Would you like a social security number as well?
The point is not hard to grasp, unless of course you know nothing about life in DC or are suffering from the cognitive dissonance associated with espousing policies that are deeply detrimental to the quality of life enjoyed by DC residents.
There is no way my kids would have been able to participate in the breadth of activities they’ve enjoyed across DC if they didn’t have bikes. We are somewhat cavalier perhaps in letting them ride on streets without protected bike lanes. But many other parents are not and I get that.
Guess you should get a car then. Your kids could do even more that way.
You do realize that most parents in this city work, do you not? How the kids supposed to get around when their parents are at work? Do you really want them out there jacking cars?
Yeah, carjacking kids would have stopped if only they had bikes to ride instead. On that note, carjackings are down this year in some wards by as much 80 percent.
But if you had kids, you would know how school commuting works. The kids are at school for most of the work day. In Ward 3, where you are targeting, kids either go to their local walkable neighborhood public school or they go to the private schools. In both instances, there are a bevy of extracurricular programs that last until the end of the school day so parents can pick them up after work if needed. And WFH has made it easier to have the flexibility to pick up kids immediately after school.
Bless you for having a predictable work schedule and/or WFH. Many of the rest of us don't enjoy such luxuries.
Moreover, the system you describe is nuts. It adds tens of thousands of cars to DC's streets, creating further congestion, pollution, and injuries, and all for what?
if the city provides a safe alternative to driving, more people will use it, freeing up road space for the cars whose drivers need to drive. this is really not a hard equation to understand and somehow, around the world, other cities have done this with great success.
Bike lanes are useful and desirable, but it's also important to remember that Connecticut Ave is a major artery between Montgomery County and Upper Northwest and downtown Washington DC. Constraining it will force Waze-crazed drivers to divert to other roads, including neighborhood streets. Washington DC already has miles or bike lanes and trails, but it seems that's not enough for the WABA lobbyists, because for example the Rock Creek Park trail doesn't have bars and cafes along it.
So you were not ok with one lane being taken for bike lanes, but you are ok with two lanes being taken for restriction-less (ie during Rush Hour as well) parking.
Please explain to me like I am five, why the former is not ok, but the latter is, and how the waze-crazed traffic you feared when one lane was being taken for bike lanes was a problem, but two lanes being taken for parking is not.
It's not. It's still a bad idea but at least it's cheaper.
They are still going to spend 9 million dollars.
There will still be the neighborhood traffic nightmare proffered by the opposition.
There will still be Connecticut Avenue and "evacuation route" issues proffered by the opposition.
Now add, cyclists will be riding in the middle of the center lane, far enough from the right side to avoid being "doored" by anyone accessing one of the parked cars up and down Connecticut Avenue.
There’s a parallel bike path in Rock Creek Park. So sorry that it doesn’t pass by Nanny’s.
So in your world, a cyclist carrying a load of groceries should have to ride up Tilden on the way north from shopping at Streets in Cleveland Park?
Why wouldn’t you just go to the Giant in Van Ness instead? Stop with all the belly aching.
There are items that are carried in specialty shop in Cleveland Park, particularly Vace, that are not available at Giant. Besides, I prefer to support local mom & pop shops, not big chains.
Forum Index
»
Metropolitan DC Local Politics
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}