Options for opposing Connecticut Avenue changes?

[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.

Bridges across the Potomac predated automobiles by almost a century.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

You probably do wear Lycra. For example, all of my jeans have Lycra in them. Even many of my dress shirts have Lycra. I will never, never, never understand how "Lycra" became a metonym for "middle aged white men riding expensive bicycles whom everyone hates, amirite?". Maybe the bike critics have a fragile sense of masculinity that is threatened by men wearing leggings?

[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...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?

DP. But the person on the bicycle was inconveniencing a person in a car! We can't have that. It's perfectly fine for other people in cars to inconvenience people in cars (we call that "traffic"), but it's intolerable for people on bicycles to inconvenience people in cars.

Or, anyway, that seems to be the belief.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Bridges across the Potomac predated automobiles by almost a century.

And?

How many pedestrians crossed the river before there were bridges? The point is, you cannot assume that because no one rides bikes on CT Ave now, that no one will when there are bike lanes. Quite the opposite, actually.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

No! That's exactly the issue. Reno/34th Street is a narrow road that is already clogged with traffic and bounded with narrow sidewalks that are right next to the road in many cases. Quite a hazard for kids walking (hopefully) to school. Traffic is better suited to Connecticut Avenue, a major arterial. I do not oppose some form of bike lane, but let's not put even more traffic on Reno/34th.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Bridges across the Potomac predated automobiles by almost a century.

And?

How many pedestrians crossed the river before there were bridges? The point is, you cannot assume that because no one rides bikes on CT Ave now, that no one will when there are bike lanes. Quite the opposite, actually.

Many pedestrians crossed before there were bridges because there were ferried.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Bridges across the Potomac predated automobiles by almost a century.

And?

How many pedestrians crossed the river before there were bridges? The point is, you cannot assume that because no one rides bikes on CT Ave now, that no one will when there are bike lanes. Quite the opposite, actually.

Many pedestrians crossed before there were bridges because there were ferried.

Many more pedestrians crossed once there were bridges. Zero drivers crossed because there weren't cars.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Bridges across the Potomac predated automobiles by almost a century.

And?

How many pedestrians crossed the river before there were bridges? The point is, you cannot assume that because no one rides bikes on CT Ave now, that no one will when there are bike lanes. Quite the opposite, actually.

Many pedestrians crossed before there were bridges because there were ferried.

Exactly, so using the logic, you didn't have many pedestrians or cars crossing the river because there wasn't a safe and easy way to do it. With bridges, there is. and now, there are lots of cars and pedestrians and bikers who use those bridges. Thanks for helping make my point.

[Anonymous]

sO mAnY cArS

I would note that another twitter feed identified all of the open parking spots up and down the Avenue last night. The idea there is too much demand for road space for cars that we cannot accomodate bikes is just stupid.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Bridges across the Potomac predated automobiles by almost a century.

And?

How many pedestrians crossed the river before there were bridges? The point is, you cannot assume that because no one rides bikes on CT Ave now, that no one will when there are bike lanes. Quite the opposite, actually.

Many pedestrians crossed before there were bridges because there were ferried.

Exactly, so using the logic, you didn't have many pedestrians or cars crossing the river because there wasn't a safe and easy way to do it. With bridges, there is. and now, there are lots of cars and pedestrians and bikers who use those bridges. Thanks for helping make my point.

No. “Using the logic” there was pre-established latent demand. They were not building and hoping.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:sO mAnY cArS

I would note that another twitter feed identified all of the open parking spots up and down the Avenue last night. The idea there is too much demand for road space for cars that we cannot accomodate bikes is just stupid.

I’m confused. So Induced Demand is not real anymore?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
I’m confused. So Induced Demand is not real anymore?

Induced demand doesn't mean that people will materialize out of nowhere to park their cars on Connecticut Avenue if the supply of parking spaces on Connecticut Avenue is increased. Just like a highway widening on an empty highway in the middle of nowhere won't magically cause the highway to become un-empty.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:sO mAnY cArS

I would note that another twitter feed identified all of the open parking spots up and down the Avenue last night. The idea there is too much demand for road space for cars that we cannot accomodate bikes is just stupid.

Seems to be a lot of anxiety from the middle finger brigade that these bike lanes won’t happen after all.

[Anonymous]

Huh?

How is illustrating that traffic is not an issue and shouldn't be a major factor in implementing bike lanes a signal or worry that they won't happen?

They are happening. The Mayor and the Councilmember, along with all of the ANCs, voted virtually unanimously for it. DDOT is making the plans and will soon be able to start implementation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Huh?

How is illustrating that traffic is not an issue and shouldn't be a major factor in implementing bike lanes a signal or worry that they won't happen?

They are happening. The Mayor and the Councilmember, along with all of the ANCs, voted virtually unanimously for it. DDOT is making the plans and will soon be able to start implementation.

Why is it necessary or important to make this point?