Options for opposing Connecticut Avenue changes?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Can't more of the Connecticut car traffic be switched to Reno Rd? It's fairly parallel to Connecticut and can serve as the reliever route as Connecticut becomes a more vibrant urban boulevard.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I support bike lanes and I also support bus lanes, and I would totally be in favor of that plan.

[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.

This morning some moron was riding a bicycle southbound during rush hour on Rock Creek Parkway while there is a perfectly good bike lane 6 feet away.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

Duh.

This morning some moron was riding a bicycle southbound during rush hour on Rock Creek Parkway while there is a perfectly good bike lane 6 feet away.

That’s illegal.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

Duh.

This morning some moron was riding a bicycle southbound during rush hour on Rock Creek Parkway while there is a perfectly good bike lane 6 feet away.

That’s illegal.

It's not particularly considerate behavior, but cyclists have every right to ride on DC streets.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

Duh.

This morning some moron was riding a bicycle southbound during rush hour on Rock Creek Parkway while there is a perfectly good bike lane 6 feet away.

That’s illegal.

It's not particularly considerate behavior, but cyclists have every right to ride on DC streets.

The parkway is not a “DC street” and it’s prohibited to ride bicycles in all parkways in the area.

This is the problem, a lot of cyclists don’t know the law. Including currently thinking that they don’t need to stop on red and only proceed when it turns green. WABA is not doing a good enough job on education to keep cyclists safe from themselves.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

Duh.

This morning some moron was riding a bicycle southbound during rush hour on Rock Creek Parkway while there is a perfectly good bike lane 6 feet away.

That’s illegal.

It's not particularly considerate behavior, but cyclists have every right to ride on DC streets.

The parkway is not a “DC street” and it’s prohibited to ride bicycles in all parkways in the area.

This is the problem, a lot of cyclists don’t know the law. Including currently thinking that they don’t need to stop on red and only proceed when it turns green. WABA is not doing a good enough job on education to keep cyclists safe from themselves.

Imagine if you spent the time and energy you spend complaining about bikers on productive things. You'd do amazing things!

[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!

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.

How many cars crossed the Potomac river every day before bridges were built?

Same thing with cyclists and Conn Ave without bike lanes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

Duh.

This morning some moron was riding a bicycle southbound during rush hour on Rock Creek Parkway while there is a perfectly good bike lane 6 feet away.

That...isn't a perfeclly good bike lane. It is a multi use trail that is bumpy, muddy and has lots of joggers and walkers on it. The cyclist was perfectly within their rights to use the Parkway. What is it to you?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

Duh.

This morning some moron was riding a bicycle southbound during rush hour on Rock Creek Parkway while there is a perfectly good bike lane 6 feet away.

That’s illegal.

No...it's not

https://www.nps.gov/rocr/biking-in-rock-creek-park.htm

All roads and paved trails in Rock Creek Park are open to bicyclists.

Gee, it would be nice if people who drove cars knew the laws and followed the rules of the road.

Gosh hoisted by your own petard much?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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!

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.

How many cars crossed the Potomac river every day before bridges were built?

Same thing with cyclists and Conn Ave without bike lanes.

NICE!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

Duh.

This morning some moron was riding a bicycle southbound during rush hour on Rock Creek Parkway while there is a perfectly good bike lane 6 feet away.

That’s illegal.

No...it's not

https://www.nps.gov/rocr/biking-in-rock-creek-park.htm

All roads and paved trails in Rock Creek Park are open to bicyclists.

Gee, it would be nice if people who drove cars knew the laws and followed the rules of the road.

Gosh hoisted by your own petard much?

https://www.nps.gov/gwmp/learn/management/record-of-determination-reconfirming-and-restating-bicycles-are-not-allowed-on-the-roadways-of-the-clara-barton-and-george-washington-memorial-parkways.htm

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

Duh.

This morning some moron was riding a bicycle southbound during rush hour on Rock Creek Parkway while there is a perfectly good bike lane 6 feet away.

That’s illegal.

It's not particularly considerate behavior, but cyclists have every right to ride on DC streets.

The parkway is not a “DC street” and it’s prohibited to ride bicycles in all parkways in the area.

This is the problem, a lot of cyclists don’t know the law. Including currently thinking that they don’t need to stop on red and only proceed when it turns green. WABA is not doing a good enough job on education to keep cyclists safe from themselves.

Imagine if you spent the time and energy you spend complaining about bikers on productive things. You'd do amazing things!

DP. I see a lot of avid cyclists spending a lot of time here and on social media and always think two things, first, why is it so important to share for the world that you biked to Trader Joe’s? And second, how the hell do you and so many others like you have so much time on your hands. Like really. Can spend hours cycling places and then the rest of your time posting about it on the internet?

[Anonymous]

There are a lot of cyclists. Many/most of them are just regular people who want a safe alternative to a car for short errands. We don't ride a $5,000 bike or wear lycra.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

Duh.

This morning some moron was riding a bicycle southbound during rush hour on Rock Creek Parkway while there is a perfectly good bike lane 6 feet away.

That’s illegal.

No...it's not

https://www.nps.gov/rocr/biking-in-rock-creek-park.htm

All roads and paved trails in Rock Creek Park are open to bicyclists.

Gee, it would be nice if people who drove cars knew the laws and followed the rules of the road.

Gosh hoisted by your own petard much?

https://www.nps.gov/gwmp/learn/management/record-of-determination-reconfirming-and-restating-bicycles-are-not-allowed-on-the-roadways-of-the-clara-barton-and-george-washington-memorial-parkways.htm

Yeah wow - good job reading what you posted!

Your link states that bikes aren't allowed on the GW or Clara Barton Parkways - it says nothing about Beach Drive or any other roads in Rock Creek Park.