Options for opposing Connecticut Avenue changes?

[Anonymous]

Look at the title of the thread - "options for opposing Connecticut Avenue changes" - the point is, there are no options. The changes are coming because the Mayor and the ANCs want them to. It is in the public's interest despite lies put out by opponents to try to change opinions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Look at the title of the thread - "options for opposing Connecticut Avenue changes" - the point is, there are no options. The changes are coming because the Mayor and the ANCs want them to. It is in the public's interest despite lies put out by opponents to try to change opinions.

If you are so sure that they are going to happen, then why do you keep harping about it? Serious question.

[Anonymous]

I am not the one who made this thread 200 pages long.

Maybe ask the people opposed why they keep posting lies that others feel need to be rebutted?

[Anonymous]

A lane of CT Ave is closed for construction and yet...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:A lane of CT Ave is closed for construction and yet...

Where are the 3000 bikers? Where is the 1 biker?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:A lane of CT Ave is closed for construction and yet...

LOL. The 4 PM shot shows a huge amount of cars going northbound, which makes sense because it’s afternoon rush. Pretty dumb to post this. But what these types of posts continually prove to me is that the middle finger crew are deeply insecure because they also know that these bike lanes have a low probability of actually happening.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A lane of CT Ave is closed for construction and yet...

Where are the 3000 bikers? Where is the 1 biker?

They are waiting for bike lanes so it'll be safe to ride.

[Anonymous]

I will never read this ridiculous thread because I value my time too much. But, if you make it look/work like Amsterdam or Berlin, it’s ok with me and I don’t bike. Knowing DC.gov, good luck!

[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.

And why can't bikers use the sidewalk or ride through the Rock Creek path? Both are already in place.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A lane of CT Ave is closed for construction and yet...

Where are the 3000 bikers? Where is the 1 biker?

They are waiting for bike lanes so it'll be safe to ride.

Yes, "Field of Dreams" was a great movie. But it was not above reality.

[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?

It is actually illegal. But lets encourage the NPS to upgrade these paths or even widen them where applicable. Simple solution. Cheaper. Safer and more enjoyable for riders. And does divert Conn Ave traffic into residential areas.

[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...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?

It is actually illegal. But lets encourage the NPS to upgrade these paths or even widen them where applicable. Simple solution. Cheaper. Safer and more enjoyable for riders. And does divert Conn Ave traffic into residential areas.

No it is not - you (or someone else) made this statement elsewhere and then shared a URL that stated bikes can't use the GW Parkway or Clara Barton. There is no restriction on bikes using any of the roads in Rock Creek Park.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A lane of CT Ave is closed for construction and yet...

LOL. The 4 PM shot shows a huge amount of cars going northbound, which makes sense because it’s afternoon rush. Pretty dumb to post this. But what these types of posts continually prove to me is that the middle finger crew are deeply insecure because they also know that these bike lanes have a low probability of actually happening.

There are literally seven cars (so probably seven people) stopped at the light. That is not a huge number of cars. It looks like there are more cars further back but they aren't backed up- meaning the road can handle the volume as it is.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

And why can't bikers use the sidewalk or ride through the Rock Creek path? Both are already in place.

How many shops are in Rock Creek Park?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

And why can't bikers use the sidewalk or ride through the Rock Creek path? Both are already in place.

Bikes can, but then the pedestrians complain. So they moved to the street, where they got hit and killed and car drivers complained. Hence the need for bike lanes.