Options for opposing Connecticut Avenue changes?

[Anonymous]

They are going in. There is no political will to do the opposite, no matter how much the one or two opponents in this thread claim.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:They are going in. There is no political will to do the opposite, no matter how much the one or two opponents in this thread claim.

I have no idea what this means? What’s the opposite of a bike lane? Building an interstate highway?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They are going in. There is no political will to do the opposite, no matter how much the one or two opponents in this thread claim.

I have no idea what this means? What’s the opposite of a bike lane? Building an interstate highway?

The opposite would be no bike lanes, ie status quo along with the myriad other improvements that go along with this project.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They are going in. There is no political will to do the opposite, no matter how much the one or two opponents in this thread claim.

I have no idea what this means? What’s the opposite of a bike lane? Building an interstate highway?

The opposite would be no bike lanes, ie status quo along with the myriad other improvements that go along with this project.

Maintaining the status quo is not the opposite of installing bike lanes. What a weird thing to say.

[Anonymous]

My guess is that they will go in but with enough compromises to prevent non-avid cyclists from truly feeling comfortable (e.g., too narrow, not fully protected, not extending to Calvert). So, use won't be what it would be if DDOT and Frumin didn't give the naysayers a say. They naysayers won't be happy, though, but with ridership lower than expected (based on my prediction), I expect a whole lot of "I told you so" from them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:My guess is that they will go in but with enough compromises to prevent non-avid cyclists from truly feeling comfortable (e.g., too narrow, not fully protected, not extending to Calvert). So, use won't be what it would be if DDOT and Frumin didn't give the naysayers a say. They naysayers won't be happy, though, but with ridership lower than expected (based on my prediction), I expect a whole lot of "I told you so" from them.

Excuses coming in early for why no one will use them. Love it!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My guess is that they will go in but with enough compromises to prevent non-avid cyclists from truly feeling comfortable (e.g., too narrow, not fully protected, not extending to Calvert). So, use won't be what it would be if DDOT and Frumin didn't give the naysayers a say. They naysayers won't be happy, though, but with ridership lower than expected (based on my prediction), I expect a whole lot of "I told you so" from them.

Excuses coming in early for why no one will use them. Love it!

If you build them properly, people will use them. If they are not wide enough for someone in a wheelchair to safely pass a cyclist under their own power, that is a problem.

[Anonymous]

Thank you to the pps who gave an update on the status of the project.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My guess is that they will go in but with enough compromises to prevent non-avid cyclists from truly feeling comfortable (e.g., too narrow, not fully protected, not extending to Calvert). So, use won't be what it would be if DDOT and Frumin didn't give the naysayers a say. They naysayers won't be happy, though, but with ridership lower than expected (based on my prediction), I expect a whole lot of "I told you so" from them.

Excuses coming in early for why no one will use them. Love it!

If you build them properly, people will use them. If they are not wide enough for someone in a wheelchair to safely pass a cyclist under their own power, that is a problem.

Bike lanes can never fail, they can only be failed. LOL.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My guess is that they will go in but with enough compromises to prevent non-avid cyclists from truly feeling comfortable (e.g., too narrow, not fully protected, not extending to Calvert). So, use won't be what it would be if DDOT and Frumin didn't give the naysayers a say. They naysayers won't be happy, though, but with ridership lower than expected (based on my prediction), I expect a whole lot of "I told you so" from them.

Excuses coming in early for why no one will use them. Love it!

Lol.

I like to bike, but not in the lanes.

I live off Connecticut and work downtown. I do not see a lot of ridership at present, remains to be seen if that changes.

[Anonymous]

There is not a lot of ridership because riding on CT Ave is a deathwish. Hence the need for the lanes.

Duh.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There is not a lot of ridership because riding on CT Ave is a deathwish. Hence the need for the lanes.

Duh.

I was on it today, doing about 22-23 mph (I had my garmin on) on the downhill btwn Yuma and Albermarle in the 2nd from right lane (parked cars in rightmost) and some car in front of me in left lane started turning left, MD driver guns it to go between that car and me, cutting close AND talking the time to yell out his window for me to get the f off the road (I was on a bike).

Jeez, I wonder why your average mother with a kid wouldn't feel safe riding down Conn Ave on a bike?

[Anonymous]

https://www.foresthillsconnection.com/news/ddot-considers-narrower-bike-lanes-more-parking-and-dropoff-spaces-for-next-connecticut-ave-safety-study-concept/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:https://www.foresthillsconnection.com/news/ddot-considers-narrower-bike-lanes-more-parking-and-dropoff-spaces-for-next-connecticut-ave-safety-study-concept/

There’s an interesting juxtaposition in there between DDOT refusing to make Connecticut a transit corridor due to lack of current demand/ridership and the proponents rationale for the protected bike lanes inducing utilization despite limited current utilization. No, not inconsistent at all.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://www.foresthillsconnection.com/news/ddot-considers-narrower-bike-lanes-more-parking-and-dropoff-spaces-for-next-connecticut-ave-safety-study-concept/

There’s an interesting juxtaposition in there between DDOT refusing to make Connecticut a transit corridor due to lack of current demand/ridership and the proponents rationale for the protected bike lanes inducing utilization despite limited current utilization. No, not inconsistent at all.

From having followed urbanists and other who tend to be in favor of bike lanes, most of those in favor of bike lanes are also in favor of increasing transport. There are six lanes right now on Connecticut Avenue dedicated to cars, I am sure most bike lane supporters would be in favor of two of those going to bikes, two going to buses and two staying with cars.