upzoning: what will it really change?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How does snow removal work with these protected bike lanes? Do plows launch the snow 15’ over the bike lane onto the sidewalk? That doesn’t seem possible or safe. So it seems like we’d be down to one lane in each direction during snow events. What does this mean for first responders? Has anyone thought about this?

First responders are absolutely consulted on new street designs such as bike lanes. There are many experts who provide input into these things- firemen (they have distinct requirement s because of size and turning radius of trucks); traffic engineers, etc. The reason these things take so long is because they are being studied and analyzed before being put in

Are they? Let's see their report then. How much will response time increase due to the increased congestion on both Connecticut and the side streets?

If you really cared about first responder response time you'd ban rush hour traffic.

This has to be the dumbest comment yet.

It's a simple question. You, or one of your WABA buddies, have stated that Fire/EMS/Police have studied the impact of closing 1/3 of Connecticut Ave on their ability to provide essential services and implied that they have approved it. If so, what is the estimated impact on response times of deliberately increasing congestion by 33% on their main route and exponentially increasing it on the side streets?

This impacts everyone negatively. I don't think a 10 minute increase in response times for seizures, heart attacks, strokes, burglary, and fires is worth the trade off. You seem to think it is. So let's see the numbers. What size decrease in the effectiveness of emergency response is worth it to you?


The truth is that emergency services aren't actually asked for impact assesments. They're only asked if fire trucks still fit. None of the manifest and obvious negative impacts were taken into account before making a decision.

You've made up and repeated so many "facts" that are blatantly ridiculous that I don't trust a word out of your keyboard. You are a joke, the least funny kind. And no one respects you.

Wow, are you having a mental breakdown? This isn't complicated, controversial or even disputed.

Is the purple line the biggest mass transit project in the region right now?
Is a purple line stop being built on Connecticut?
Would people that live along Connecticut Ave use Connecticut Ave to get to the purple line stop on Connecticut Ave?

What facts are wrong? Please do share. There's no need to be silent just as there is no need to think closing two lanes of Connecticut Avenue is a good idea just because you enjoy lycra.

I'm still laughing at your BS about 300 bicyclists in DC and billions of dollars spent on bike lanes. If you said the sky was blue I'd still face check you. Face it, you're a crank. Not even a good one.

You'll "face check" me really? Ok, I believe you aggro lycra man. Come try me. It'll be the best police report ever. Officer I don't know what to see, this crazy short white guy with a man bun assaulted me because I think eliminating two lanes of Connecticut Ave is a bad idea. I think he hates someone named Nick and is mentally unstable.

How many bicyclists use Connecticut Avenue?
How many millions is being spent on a plan that nobody wants and harms everyone?

Cargo bike mom here. Ahh STFU man.
OP's upzoning trollery is irritating, but your anti-bike trollery is so much worse.
The bike infrastructure efforts are not driven by "social media influencers" or catering to "lycra white men"; that's kind of the dumbest Fox-est narrow-minded stupid sh*t I've read on this thread. The efforts are driven by a recognition of the long-term absolute need to reduce carbon emissions, and a global movement around the world to make large cities safer for people.
The way bike infrastructure has worked everywhere else has been, if you build enough of it to make many full commutes mostly safe, the infrastructure will be quickly flooded with users. We're on the cusp of that here. Downtown bike infrastructure is already packed now.

Urban restaurants and businesses get more customer visits if they are located somewhere easily accessible by public transit and safely accessible by bike than they do with a couple parking spaces by the storefront. Vast majority of urban businesses don't have 15-car parking lots anyway so customer volumes come from people metroing, bussing, walking, and biking. Protected bike lanes mean more people and more customers, not fewer.

These bike lanes will HURT transit. WMATA is a unique system that is almost entirely dependent on the fare box for operating revenue. It has no dedicated funding source. Their ridership is only at 50% pre COVID levels. Increasing biking will cannibalize additional riders and bring it closer to insolvency. Stations will close and train/buses will run less frequently. You know what this will lead to? Yup, more cars on the road. Please think this through some more.

WMATA is reducing service on its highest ridership line right now because of staffing concerns, and because the interval between busses on its other lines is already unacceptable. It has no dedicated bus lanes. It's absolutely ludicrous - or hilarious - to claim that increasing the number of cyclists will all-cap hurt transit. Grasping at straws. WMATA needs fewer cars on the road so it can serve its ridership. WMATA needs drivers to leave the cars at home and ride the bus or bike.

I drive downtown to the office. If that becomes too time consuming or difficult, I will not go downtown. Very simple. Not interested in WMATA or bikes. BTW, DC still has a smaller population than it did in the 1950s. And DC's population has actually declined over the last several years.

You're getting dangerously close to making OP's original point for him. DC's population declined, even though everyone wants to live here, but can't afford it - build build build everywhere, on every row house and every triangle park! Pile up the luxury one-bedrooms, pile em up high!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How does snow removal work with these protected bike lanes? Do plows launch the snow 15’ over the bike lane onto the sidewalk? That doesn’t seem possible or safe. So it seems like we’d be down to one lane in each direction during snow events. What does this mean for first responders? Has anyone thought about this?

First responders are absolutely consulted on new street designs such as bike lanes. There are many experts who provide input into these things- firemen (they have distinct requirement s because of size and turning radius of trucks); traffic engineers, etc. The reason these things take so long is because they are being studied and analyzed before being put in

Are they? Let's see their report then. How much will response time increase due to the increased congestion on both Connecticut and the side streets?

If you really cared about first responder response time you'd ban rush hour traffic.

This has to be the dumbest comment yet.

It's a simple question. You, or one of your WABA buddies, have stated that Fire/EMS/Police have studied the impact of closing 1/3 of Connecticut Ave on their ability to provide essential services and implied that they have approved it. If so, what is the estimated impact on response times of deliberately increasing congestion by 33% on their main route and exponentially increasing it on the side streets?

This impacts everyone negatively. I don't think a 10 minute increase in response times for seizures, heart attacks, strokes, burglary, and fires is worth the trade off. You seem to think it is. So let's see the numbers. What size decrease in the effectiveness of emergency response is worth it to you?


The truth is that emergency services aren't actually asked for impact assesments. They're only asked if fire trucks still fit. None of the manifest and obvious negative impacts were taken into account before making a decision.

You've made up and repeated so many "facts" that are blatantly ridiculous that I don't trust a word out of your keyboard. You are a joke, the least funny kind. And no one respects you.

Wow, are you having a mental breakdown? This isn't complicated, controversial or even disputed.

Is the purple line the biggest mass transit project in the region right now?
Is a purple line stop being built on Connecticut?
Would people that live along Connecticut Ave use Connecticut Ave to get to the purple line stop on Connecticut Ave?

What facts are wrong? Please do share. There's no need to be silent just as there is no need to think closing two lanes of Connecticut Avenue is a good idea just because you enjoy lycra.

I'm still laughing at your BS about 300 bicyclists in DC and billions of dollars spent on bike lanes. If you said the sky was blue I'd still face check you. Face it, you're a crank. Not even a good one.

You'll "face check" me really? Ok, I believe you aggro lycra man. Come try me. It'll be the best police report ever. Officer I don't know what to see, this crazy short white guy with a man bun assaulted me because I think eliminating two lanes of Connecticut Ave is a bad idea. I think he hates someone named Nick and is mentally unstable.

How many bicyclists use Connecticut Avenue?
How many millions is being spent on a plan that nobody wants and harms everyone?

Cargo bike mom here. Ahh STFU man.
OP's upzoning trollery is irritating, but your anti-bike trollery is so much worse.
The bike infrastructure efforts are not driven by "social media influencers" or catering to "lycra white men"; that's kind of the dumbest Fox-est narrow-minded stupid sh*t I've read on this thread. The efforts are driven by a recognition of the long-term absolute need to reduce carbon emissions, and a global movement around the world to make large cities safer for people.
The way bike infrastructure has worked everywhere else has been, if you build enough of it to make many full commutes mostly safe, the infrastructure will be quickly flooded with users. We're on the cusp of that here. Downtown bike infrastructure is already packed now.

Urban restaurants and businesses get more customer visits if they are located somewhere easily accessible by public transit and safely accessible by bike than they do with a couple parking spaces by the storefront. Vast majority of urban businesses don't have 15-car parking lots anyway so customer volumes come from people metroing, bussing, walking, and biking. Protected bike lanes mean more people and more customers, not fewer.

These bike lanes will HURT transit. WMATA is a unique system that is almost entirely dependent on the fare box for operating revenue. It has no dedicated funding source. Their ridership is only at 50% pre COVID levels. Increasing biking will cannibalize additional riders and bring it closer to insolvency. Stations will close and train/buses will run less frequently. You know what this will lead to? Yup, more cars on the road. Please think this through some more.

WMATA is reducing service on its highest ridership line right now because of staffing concerns, and because the interval between busses on its other lines is already unacceptable. It has no dedicated bus lanes. It's absolutely ludicrous - or hilarious - to claim that increasing the number of cyclists will all-cap hurt transit. Grasping at straws. WMATA needs fewer cars on the road so it can serve its ridership. WMATA needs drivers to leave the cars at home and ride the bus or bike.

I drive downtown to the office. If that becomes too time consuming or difficult, I will not go downtown. Very simple. Not interested in WMATA or bikes. BTW, DC still has a smaller population than it did in the 1950s. And DC's population has actually declined over the last several years.

You're getting dangerously close to making OP's original point for him. DC's population declined, even though everyone wants to live here, but can't afford it - build build build everywhere, on every row house and every triangle park! Pile up the luxury one-bedrooms, pile em up high!

“everyone wants to live here”? I think you need to get out more.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How does snow removal work with these protected bike lanes? Do plows launch the snow 15’ over the bike lane onto the sidewalk? That doesn’t seem possible or safe. So it seems like we’d be down to one lane in each direction during snow events. What does this mean for first responders? Has anyone thought about this?

First responders are absolutely consulted on new street designs such as bike lanes. There are many experts who provide input into these things- firemen (they have distinct requirement s because of size and turning radius of trucks); traffic engineers, etc. The reason these things take so long is because they are being studied and analyzed before being put in

Are they? Let's see their report then. How much will response time increase due to the increased congestion on both Connecticut and the side streets?

If you really cared about first responder response time you'd ban rush hour traffic.

This has to be the dumbest comment yet.

It's a simple question. You, or one of your WABA buddies, have stated that Fire/EMS/Police have studied the impact of closing 1/3 of Connecticut Ave on their ability to provide essential services and implied that they have approved it. If so, what is the estimated impact on response times of deliberately increasing congestion by 33% on their main route and exponentially increasing it on the side streets?

This impacts everyone negatively. I don't think a 10 minute increase in response times for seizures, heart attacks, strokes, burglary, and fires is worth the trade off. You seem to think it is. So let's see the numbers. What size decrease in the effectiveness of emergency response is worth it to you?


The truth is that emergency services aren't actually asked for impact assesments. They're only asked if fire trucks still fit. None of the manifest and obvious negative impacts were taken into account before making a decision.

You've made up and repeated so many "facts" that are blatantly ridiculous that I don't trust a word out of your keyboard. You are a joke, the least funny kind. And no one respects you.

Wow, are you having a mental breakdown? This isn't complicated, controversial or even disputed.

Is the purple line the biggest mass transit project in the region right now?
Is a purple line stop being built on Connecticut?
Would people that live along Connecticut Ave use Connecticut Ave to get to the purple line stop on Connecticut Ave?

What facts are wrong? Please do share. There's no need to be silent just as there is no need to think closing two lanes of Connecticut Avenue is a good idea just because you enjoy lycra.

I'm still laughing at your BS about 300 bicyclists in DC and billions of dollars spent on bike lanes. If you said the sky was blue I'd still face check you. Face it, you're a crank. Not even a good one.

You'll "face check" me really? Ok, I believe you aggro lycra man. Come try me. It'll be the best police report ever. Officer I don't know what to see, this crazy short white guy with a man bun assaulted me because I think eliminating two lanes of Connecticut Ave is a bad idea. I think he hates someone named Nick and is mentally unstable.

How many bicyclists use Connecticut Avenue?
How many millions is being spent on a plan that nobody wants and harms everyone?

Cargo bike mom here. Ahh STFU man.
OP's upzoning trollery is irritating, but your anti-bike trollery is so much worse.
The bike infrastructure efforts are not driven by "social media influencers" or catering to "lycra white men"; that's kind of the dumbest Fox-est narrow-minded stupid sh*t I've read on this thread. The efforts are driven by a recognition of the long-term absolute need to reduce carbon emissions, and a global movement around the world to make large cities safer for people.
The way bike infrastructure has worked everywhere else has been, if you build enough of it to make many full commutes mostly safe, the infrastructure will be quickly flooded with users. We're on the cusp of that here. Downtown bike infrastructure is already packed now.

Urban restaurants and businesses get more customer visits if they are located somewhere easily accessible by public transit and safely accessible by bike than they do with a couple parking spaces by the storefront. Vast majority of urban businesses don't have 15-car parking lots anyway so customer volumes come from people metroing, bussing, walking, and biking. Protected bike lanes mean more people and more customers, not fewer.

These bike lanes will HURT transit. WMATA is a unique system that is almost entirely dependent on the fare box for operating revenue. It has no dedicated funding source. Their ridership is only at 50% pre COVID levels. Increasing biking will cannibalize additional riders and bring it closer to insolvency. Stations will close and train/buses will run less frequently. You know what this will lead to? Yup, more cars on the road. Please think this through some more.

WMATA is reducing service on its highest ridership line right now because of staffing concerns, and because the interval between busses on its other lines is already unacceptable. It has no dedicated bus lanes. It's absolutely ludicrous - or hilarious - to claim that increasing the number of cyclists will all-cap hurt transit. Grasping at straws. WMATA needs fewer cars on the road so it can serve its ridership. WMATA needs drivers to leave the cars at home and ride the bus or bike.

I drive downtown to the office. If that becomes too time consuming or difficult, I will not go downtown. Very simple. Not interested in WMATA or bikes. BTW, DC still has a smaller population than it did in the 1950s. And DC's population has actually declined over the last several years.

You're getting dangerously close to making OP's original point for him. DC's population declined, even though everyone wants to live here, but can't afford it - build build build everywhere, on every row house and every triangle park! Pile up the luxury one-bedrooms, pile em up high!

“everyone wants to live here”? I think you need to get out more.

For those following from home, this is best read at the same time as the thread about opposing Connecticut Ave's bike lane, where a poster, likely this guy, just announced that all cities are crime-infected hell-holes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There is no rational argument against upzoning. Everything comes down to selfishness, entitlement, classism, and racism.

No matter what dog whistles or code words they use, there is not a single argument that is not ultimately based on keeping less wealthy people and minorities out of their neighborhoods, gatekeeping who can live/drive/walk in their neighborhood, or the most asinine of all, seriously believing that they should be allowed to tell people what they can or can't do with their property because they don't like having to look at it.

Hey, you should move to San Francisco and say that aloud!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How does snow removal work with these protected bike lanes? Do plows launch the snow 15’ over the bike lane onto the sidewalk? That doesn’t seem possible or safe. So it seems like we’d be down to one lane in each direction during snow events. What does this mean for first responders? Has anyone thought about this?

First responders are absolutely consulted on new street designs such as bike lanes. There are many experts who provide input into these things- firemen (they have distinct requirement s because of size and turning radius of trucks); traffic engineers, etc. The reason these things take so long is because they are being studied and analyzed before being put in

Are they? Let's see their report then. How much will response time increase due to the increased congestion on both Connecticut and the side streets?

If you really cared about first responder response time you'd ban rush hour traffic.

This has to be the dumbest comment yet.

It's a simple question. You, or one of your WABA buddies, have stated that Fire/EMS/Police have studied the impact of closing 1/3 of Connecticut Ave on their ability to provide essential services and implied that they have approved it. If so, what is the estimated impact on response times of deliberately increasing congestion by 33% on their main route and exponentially increasing it on the side streets?

This impacts everyone negatively. I don't think a 10 minute increase in response times for seizures, heart attacks, strokes, burglary, and fires is worth the trade off. You seem to think it is. So let's see the numbers. What size decrease in the effectiveness of emergency response is worth it to you?


The truth is that emergency services aren't actually asked for impact assesments. They're only asked if fire trucks still fit. None of the manifest and obvious negative impacts were taken into account before making a decision.

You've made up and repeated so many "facts" that are blatantly ridiculous that I don't trust a word out of your keyboard. You are a joke, the least funny kind. And no one respects you.

Wow, are you having a mental breakdown? This isn't complicated, controversial or even disputed.

Is the purple line the biggest mass transit project in the region right now?
Is a purple line stop being built on Connecticut?
Would people that live along Connecticut Ave use Connecticut Ave to get to the purple line stop on Connecticut Ave?

What facts are wrong? Please do share. There's no need to be silent just as there is no need to think closing two lanes of Connecticut Avenue is a good idea just because you enjoy lycra.

I'm still laughing at your BS about 300 bicyclists in DC and billions of dollars spent on bike lanes. If you said the sky was blue I'd still face check you. Face it, you're a crank. Not even a good one.

You'll "face check" me really? Ok, I believe you aggro lycra man. Come try me. It'll be the best police report ever. Officer I don't know what to see, this crazy short white guy with a man bun assaulted me because I think eliminating two lanes of Connecticut Ave is a bad idea. I think he hates someone named Nick and is mentally unstable.

How many bicyclists use Connecticut Avenue?
How many millions is being spent on a plan that nobody wants and harms everyone?

Cargo bike mom here. Ahh STFU man.
OP's upzoning trollery is irritating, but your anti-bike trollery is so much worse.
The bike infrastructure efforts are not driven by "social media influencers" or catering to "lycra white men"; that's kind of the dumbest Fox-est narrow-minded stupid sh*t I've read on this thread. The efforts are driven by a recognition of the long-term absolute need to reduce carbon emissions, and a global movement around the world to make large cities safer for people.
The way bike infrastructure has worked everywhere else has been, if you build enough of it to make many full commutes mostly safe, the infrastructure will be quickly flooded with users. We're on the cusp of that here. Downtown bike infrastructure is already packed now.

Urban restaurants and businesses get more customer visits if they are located somewhere easily accessible by public transit and safely accessible by bike than they do with a couple parking spaces by the storefront. Vast majority of urban businesses don't have 15-car parking lots anyway so customer volumes come from people metroing, bussing, walking, and biking. Protected bike lanes mean more people and more customers, not fewer.

Then you should know that the area under diacussion is not urban, does have 15 car parking lots, and there is already a popular bike route for commutes. You should also know that Connecticut Avenue is one the most widely used roads in the region and has has difficult topogrpaphy for bicylcing.

You all keep arguing about bike lanes in general. This is not about bike lanes in general. It is about a very specific plan to cut road capacity on a very important road used by 30,000 people a day. Even the bicylists in that specifc area know it's a bad idea.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How does snow removal work with these protected bike lanes? Do plows launch the snow 15’ over the bike lane onto the sidewalk? That doesn’t seem possible or safe. So it seems like we’d be down to one lane in each direction during snow events. What does this mean for first responders? Has anyone thought about this?

First responders are absolutely consulted on new street designs such as bike lanes. There are many experts who provide input into these things- firemen (they have distinct requirement s because of size and turning radius of trucks); traffic engineers, etc. The reason these things take so long is because they are being studied and analyzed before being put in

Are they? Let's see their report then. How much will response time increase due to the increased congestion on both Connecticut and the side streets?

If you really cared about first responder response time you'd ban rush hour traffic.

This has to be the dumbest comment yet.

It's a simple question. You, or one of your WABA buddies, have stated that Fire/EMS/Police have studied the impact of closing 1/3 of Connecticut Ave on their ability to provide essential services and implied that they have approved it. If so, what is the estimated impact on response times of deliberately increasing congestion by 33% on their main route and exponentially increasing it on the side streets?

This impacts everyone negatively. I don't think a 10 minute increase in response times for seizures, heart attacks, strokes, burglary, and fires is worth the trade off. You seem to think it is. So let's see the numbers. What size decrease in the effectiveness of emergency response is worth it to you?


The truth is that emergency services aren't actually asked for impact assesments. They're only asked if fire trucks still fit. None of the manifest and obvious negative impacts were taken into account before making a decision.

You've made up and repeated so many "facts" that are blatantly ridiculous that I don't trust a word out of your keyboard. You are a joke, the least funny kind. And no one respects you.

Wow, are you having a mental breakdown? This isn't complicated, controversial or even disputed.

Is the purple line the biggest mass transit project in the region right now?
Is a purple line stop being built on Connecticut?
Would people that live along Connecticut Ave use Connecticut Ave to get to the purple line stop on Connecticut Ave?

What facts are wrong? Please do share. There's no need to be silent just as there is no need to think closing two lanes of Connecticut Avenue is a good idea just because you enjoy lycra.

I'm still laughing at your BS about 300 bicyclists in DC and billions of dollars spent on bike lanes. If you said the sky was blue I'd still face check you. Face it, you're a crank. Not even a good one.

You'll "face check" me really? Ok, I believe you aggro lycra man. Come try me. It'll be the best police report ever. Officer I don't know what to see, this crazy short white guy with a man bun assaulted me because I think eliminating two lanes of Connecticut Ave is a bad idea. I think he hates someone named Nick and is mentally unstable.

How many bicyclists use Connecticut Avenue?
How many millions is being spent on a plan that nobody wants and harms everyone?

Cargo bike mom here. Ahh STFU man.
OP's upzoning trollery is irritating, but your anti-bike trollery is so much worse.
The bike infrastructure efforts are not driven by "social media influencers" or catering to "lycra white men"; that's kind of the dumbest Fox-est narrow-minded stupid sh*t I've read on this thread. The efforts are driven by a recognition of the long-term absolute need to reduce carbon emissions, and a global movement around the world to make large cities safer for people.
The way bike infrastructure has worked everywhere else has been, if you build enough of it to make many full commutes mostly safe, the infrastructure will be quickly flooded with users. We're on the cusp of that here. Downtown bike infrastructure is already packed now.

Urban restaurants and businesses get more customer visits if they are located somewhere easily accessible by public transit and safely accessible by bike than they do with a couple parking spaces by the storefront. Vast majority of urban businesses don't have 15-car parking lots anyway so customer volumes come from people metroing, bussing, walking, and biking. Protected bike lanes mean more people and more customers, not fewer.

Then you should know that the area under diacussion is not urban, does have 15 car parking lots, and there is already a popular bike route for commutes. You should also know that Connecticut Avenue is one the most widely used roads in the region and has has difficult topogrpaphy for bicylcing.

You all keep arguing about bike lanes in general. This is not about bike lanes in general. It is about a very specific plan to cut road capacity on a very important road used by 30,000 people a day. Even the bicylists in that specifc area know it's a bad idea.

The plan is not to cut capacity by 30,000 people per day. The plan is to reduce lanes that are solely dedicated to cars, which take up tons of room and often only hold one person. The DDOT has an entire prospect page dedicated to this here:

https://ddot.dc.gov/page/connecticut-avenue-nw-reversible-lane-safety-and-operations-study

In the FAQ they note all of the objections by drivers that are being made by the posters on this thread and the other thread and make it clear that the desire is to move towards a multi-modal transportation system on the corridor instead of catering solely to car drivers.

https://ddot.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/ddot/page_content/attachments/QA_v.F_Conn%20Ave%20Public%20Meeting%20No.%201_06102021.pdf

It is fine if people don’t like this but the fact of the matter is that there are people in the world who are not commuters from MD and they have different opinions and wants than those that drive solo. Yes there are trade offs to this plan but there are trade offs to the stay quo. DC is not required to keep four lanes of traffic running through a residential area just because some PP has been used to that for 20 years.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How does snow removal work with these protected bike lanes? Do plows launch the snow 15’ over the bike lane onto the sidewalk? That doesn’t seem possible or safe. So it seems like we’d be down to one lane in each direction during snow events. What does this mean for first responders? Has anyone thought about this?

First responders are absolutely consulted on new street designs such as bike lanes. There are many experts who provide input into these things- firemen (they have distinct requirement s because of size and turning radius of trucks); traffic engineers, etc. The reason these things take so long is because they are being studied and analyzed before being put in

Are they? Let's see their report then. How much will response time increase due to the increased congestion on both Connecticut and the side streets?

If you really cared about first responder response time you'd ban rush hour traffic.

This has to be the dumbest comment yet.

It's a simple question. You, or one of your WABA buddies, have stated that Fire/EMS/Police have studied the impact of closing 1/3 of Connecticut Ave on their ability to provide essential services and implied that they have approved it. If so, what is the estimated impact on response times of deliberately increasing congestion by 33% on their main route and exponentially increasing it on the side streets?

This impacts everyone negatively. I don't think a 10 minute increase in response times for seizures, heart attacks, strokes, burglary, and fires is worth the trade off. You seem to think it is. So let's see the numbers. What size decrease in the effectiveness of emergency response is worth it to you?


The truth is that emergency services aren't actually asked for impact assesments. They're only asked if fire trucks still fit. None of the manifest and obvious negative impacts were taken into account before making a decision.

You've made up and repeated so many "facts" that are blatantly ridiculous that I don't trust a word out of your keyboard. You are a joke, the least funny kind. And no one respects you.

Wow, are you having a mental breakdown? This isn't complicated, controversial or even disputed.

Is the purple line the biggest mass transit project in the region right now?
Is a purple line stop being built on Connecticut?
Would people that live along Connecticut Ave use Connecticut Ave to get to the purple line stop on Connecticut Ave?

What facts are wrong? Please do share. There's no need to be silent just as there is no need to think closing two lanes of Connecticut Avenue is a good idea just because you enjoy lycra.

I'm still laughing at your BS about 300 bicyclists in DC and billions of dollars spent on bike lanes. If you said the sky was blue I'd still face check you. Face it, you're a crank. Not even a good one.

You'll "face check" me really? Ok, I believe you aggro lycra man. Come try me. It'll be the best police report ever. Officer I don't know what to see, this crazy short white guy with a man bun assaulted me because I think eliminating two lanes of Connecticut Ave is a bad idea. I think he hates someone named Nick and is mentally unstable.

How many bicyclists use Connecticut Avenue?
How many millions is being spent on a plan that nobody wants and harms everyone?

Cargo bike mom here. Ahh STFU man.
OP's upzoning trollery is irritating, but your anti-bike trollery is so much worse.
The bike infrastructure efforts are not driven by "social media influencers" or catering to "lycra white men"; that's kind of the dumbest Fox-est narrow-minded stupid sh*t I've read on this thread. The efforts are driven by a recognition of the long-term absolute need to reduce carbon emissions, and a global movement around the world to make large cities safer for people.
The way bike infrastructure has worked everywhere else has been, if you build enough of it to make many full commutes mostly safe, the infrastructure will be quickly flooded with users. We're on the cusp of that here. Downtown bike infrastructure is already packed now.

Urban restaurants and businesses get more customer visits if they are located somewhere easily accessible by public transit and safely accessible by bike than they do with a couple parking spaces by the storefront. Vast majority of urban businesses don't have 15-car parking lots anyway so customer volumes come from people metroing, bussing, walking, and biking. Protected bike lanes mean more people and more customers, not fewer.

Then you should know that the area under diacussion is not urban, does have 15 car parking lots, and there is already a popular bike route for commutes. You should also know that Connecticut Avenue is one the most widely used roads in the region and has has difficult topogrpaphy for bicylcing.

You all keep arguing about bike lanes in general. This is not about bike lanes in general. It is about a very specific plan to cut road capacity on a very important road used by 30,000 people a day. Even the bicylists in that specifc area know it's a bad idea.

The plan is not to cut capacity by 30,000 people per day. The plan is to reduce lanes that are solely dedicated to cars, which take up tons of room and often only hold one person. The DDOT has an entire prospect page dedicated to this here:

https://ddot.dc.gov/page/connecticut-avenue-nw-reversible-lane-safety-and-operations-study

In the FAQ they note all of the objections by drivers that are being made by the posters on this thread and the other thread and make it clear that the desire is to move towards a multi-modal transportation system on the corridor instead of catering solely to car drivers.

https://ddot.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/ddot/page_content/attachments/QA_v.F_Conn%20Ave%20Public%20Meeting%20No.%201_06102021.pdf

It is fine if people don’t like this but the fact of the matter is that there are people in the world who are not commuters from MD and they have different opinions and wants than those that drive solo. Yes there are trade offs to this plan but there are trade offs to the stay quo. DC is not required to keep four lanes of traffic running through a residential area just because some PP has been used to that for 20 years.

You think answers like this give any comfort?

“Question 6. The retailers in Woodley Park have nearly unanimously opposed the loss of parking and loading.

Comment noted.”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How does snow removal work with these protected bike lanes? Do plows launch the snow 15’ over the bike lane onto the sidewalk? That doesn’t seem possible or safe. So it seems like we’d be down to one lane in each direction during snow events. What does this mean for first responders? Has anyone thought about this?

First responders are absolutely consulted on new street designs such as bike lanes. There are many experts who provide input into these things- firemen (they have distinct requirement s because of size and turning radius of trucks); traffic engineers, etc. The reason these things take so long is because they are being studied and analyzed before being put in

Are they? Let's see their report then. How much will response time increase due to the increased congestion on both Connecticut and the side streets?

If you really cared about first responder response time you'd ban rush hour traffic.

This has to be the dumbest comment yet.

It's a simple question. You, or one of your WABA buddies, have stated that Fire/EMS/Police have studied the impact of closing 1/3 of Connecticut Ave on their ability to provide essential services and implied that they have approved it. If so, what is the estimated impact on response times of deliberately increasing congestion by 33% on their main route and exponentially increasing it on the side streets?

This impacts everyone negatively. I don't think a 10 minute increase in response times for seizures, heart attacks, strokes, burglary, and fires is worth the trade off. You seem to think it is. So let's see the numbers. What size decrease in the effectiveness of emergency response is worth it to you?


The truth is that emergency services aren't actually asked for impact assesments. They're only asked if fire trucks still fit. None of the manifest and obvious negative impacts were taken into account before making a decision.

You've made up and repeated so many "facts" that are blatantly ridiculous that I don't trust a word out of your keyboard. You are a joke, the least funny kind. And no one respects you.

Wow, are you having a mental breakdown? This isn't complicated, controversial or even disputed.

Is the purple line the biggest mass transit project in the region right now?
Is a purple line stop being built on Connecticut?
Would people that live along Connecticut Ave use Connecticut Ave to get to the purple line stop on Connecticut Ave?

What facts are wrong? Please do share. There's no need to be silent just as there is no need to think closing two lanes of Connecticut Avenue is a good idea just because you enjoy lycra.

I'm still laughing at your BS about 300 bicyclists in DC and billions of dollars spent on bike lanes. If you said the sky was blue I'd still face check you. Face it, you're a crank. Not even a good one.

You'll "face check" me really? Ok, I believe you aggro lycra man. Come try me. It'll be the best police report ever. Officer I don't know what to see, this crazy short white guy with a man bun assaulted me because I think eliminating two lanes of Connecticut Ave is a bad idea. I think he hates someone named Nick and is mentally unstable.

How many bicyclists use Connecticut Avenue?
How many millions is being spent on a plan that nobody wants and harms everyone?

Cargo bike mom here. Ahh STFU man.
OP's upzoning trollery is irritating, but your anti-bike trollery is so much worse.
The bike infrastructure efforts are not driven by "social media influencers" or catering to "lycra white men"; that's kind of the dumbest Fox-est narrow-minded stupid sh*t I've read on this thread. The efforts are driven by a recognition of the long-term absolute need to reduce carbon emissions, and a global movement around the world to make large cities safer for people.
The way bike infrastructure has worked everywhere else has been, if you build enough of it to make many full commutes mostly safe, the infrastructure will be quickly flooded with users. We're on the cusp of that here. Downtown bike infrastructure is already packed now.

Urban restaurants and businesses get more customer visits if they are located somewhere easily accessible by public transit and safely accessible by bike than they do with a couple parking spaces by the storefront. Vast majority of urban businesses don't have 15-car parking lots anyway so customer volumes come from people metroing, bussing, walking, and biking. Protected bike lanes mean more people and more customers, not fewer.

These bike lanes will HURT transit. WMATA is a unique system that is almost entirely dependent on the fare box for operating revenue. It has no dedicated funding source. Their ridership is only at 50% pre COVID levels. Increasing biking will cannibalize additional riders and bring it closer to insolvency. Stations will close and train/buses will run less frequently. You know what this will lead to? Yup, more cars on the road. Please think this through some more.

WMATA is reducing service on its highest ridership line right now because of staffing concerns, and because the interval between busses on its other lines is already unacceptable. It has no dedicated bus lanes. It's absolutely ludicrous - or hilarious - to claim that increasing the number of cyclists will all-cap hurt transit. Grasping at straws. WMATA needs fewer cars on the road so it can serve its ridership. WMATA needs drivers to leave the cars at home and ride the bus or bike.

I drive downtown to the office. If that becomes too time consuming or difficult, I will not go downtown. Very simple. Not interested in WMATA or bikes. BTW, DC still has a smaller population than it did in the 1950s. And DC's population has actually declined over the last several years.

You're getting dangerously close to making OP's original point for him. DC's population declined, even though everyone wants to live here, but can't afford it - build build build everywhere, on every row house and every triangle park! Pile up the luxury one-bedrooms, pile em up high!

“everyone wants to live here”? I think you need to get out more.

For those following from home, this is best read at the same time as the thread about opposing Connecticut Ave's bike lane, where a poster, likely this guy, just announced that all cities are crime-infected hell-holes.

And now it looks like that comment was flagged and deleted, but it gave a good sense of how at least one of the rageful anti-bike lanes posters really feel.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes, just pave over everything. Then we'll be in paradise.

What a very odd comment. It's almost like you're intentionally completely ignoring the plan that's being discussed.

Kind of like the 300 white bicyclists and billions of dollars on bike lanes guy? Yeah, why would I engage at this point?

Because 10,000 extra vehicles on residential side streets packed with schools, seniors and children, the destruction of small businesses, and the impending traffic nightmare impact you as well, assuming you're actually local that is.

Don't cut off your nose to spite someone because they make fun of lyrca.

Every time I see one of the lycra sadsacks, I hold my hand out the car window with by thumb and finger about 3 inches apart and ask "is it only this big?"

How often do you get to do this, though? DC cyclists are not lycra dudes, they're parents on cargo bikes, and millennials on bikeshare bikes. Lycra cyclists don't give a rip about protected bike lanes - they want to take a full lane of car traffic, or shove leisure cyclists off the trails, while going very fast with their heads down.

LOL no. You have a creative imagination. We all see the MAMILs (Middle Aged Men In Lycra) and unfortunately have had to deal with them regularly. The “parents on cargo bikes” is one of those funny things that you think is common because you notice them, but you only notice them because they are so rare. The MAMILs on the other hand are the majority of the small number of cyclists and as a result apparently unremarkable to you.

I took time today on my own commute to examine who was biking. I mostly saw people going to work not wearing lycra. I saw a good proportion of them riding cargo bikes, over half of those cargo bikes sans kids in the back. I barely saw any lycra dudes. Just as I thought, they keep that for the weekend, and the roads, not the protected bike lanes during commuter hours.

I don't think you're lying, though. I think you're just recycling old rage and old visions and you don't realize how quickly people's commuting behavior change and have changed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How does snow removal work with these protected bike lanes? Do plows launch the snow 15’ over the bike lane onto the sidewalk? That doesn’t seem possible or safe. So it seems like we’d be down to one lane in each direction during snow events. What does this mean for first responders? Has anyone thought about this?

First responders are absolutely consulted on new street designs such as bike lanes. There are many experts who provide input into these things- firemen (they have distinct requirement s because of size and turning radius of trucks); traffic engineers, etc. The reason these things take so long is because they are being studied and analyzed before being put in

Are they? Let's see their report then. How much will response time increase due to the increased congestion on both Connecticut and the side streets?

If you really cared about first responder response time you'd ban rush hour traffic.

This has to be the dumbest comment yet.

It's a simple question. You, or one of your WABA buddies, have stated that Fire/EMS/Police have studied the impact of closing 1/3 of Connecticut Ave on their ability to provide essential services and implied that they have approved it. If so, what is the estimated impact on response times of deliberately increasing congestion by 33% on their main route and exponentially increasing it on the side streets?

This impacts everyone negatively. I don't think a 10 minute increase in response times for seizures, heart attacks, strokes, burglary, and fires is worth the trade off. You seem to think it is. So let's see the numbers. What size decrease in the effectiveness of emergency response is worth it to you?


The truth is that emergency services aren't actually asked for impact assesments. They're only asked if fire trucks still fit. None of the manifest and obvious negative impacts were taken into account before making a decision.

You've made up and repeated so many "facts" that are blatantly ridiculous that I don't trust a word out of your keyboard. You are a joke, the least funny kind. And no one respects you.

Wow, are you having a mental breakdown? This isn't complicated, controversial or even disputed.

Is the purple line the biggest mass transit project in the region right now?
Is a purple line stop being built on Connecticut?
Would people that live along Connecticut Ave use Connecticut Ave to get to the purple line stop on Connecticut Ave?

What facts are wrong? Please do share. There's no need to be silent just as there is no need to think closing two lanes of Connecticut Avenue is a good idea just because you enjoy lycra.

I'm still laughing at your BS about 300 bicyclists in DC and billions of dollars spent on bike lanes. If you said the sky was blue I'd still face check you. Face it, you're a crank. Not even a good one.

You'll "face check" me really? Ok, I believe you aggro lycra man. Come try me. It'll be the best police report ever. Officer I don't know what to see, this crazy short white guy with a man bun assaulted me because I think eliminating two lanes of Connecticut Ave is a bad idea. I think he hates someone named Nick and is mentally unstable.

How many bicyclists use Connecticut Avenue?
How many millions is being spent on a plan that nobody wants and harms everyone?

Cargo bike mom here. Ahh STFU man.
OP's upzoning trollery is irritating, but your anti-bike trollery is so much worse.
The bike infrastructure efforts are not driven by "social media influencers" or catering to "lycra white men"; that's kind of the dumbest Fox-est narrow-minded stupid sh*t I've read on this thread. The efforts are driven by a recognition of the long-term absolute need to reduce carbon emissions, and a global movement around the world to make large cities safer for people.
The way bike infrastructure has worked everywhere else has been, if you build enough of it to make many full commutes mostly safe, the infrastructure will be quickly flooded with users. We're on the cusp of that here. Downtown bike infrastructure is already packed now.

Urban restaurants and businesses get more customer visits if they are located somewhere easily accessible by public transit and safely accessible by bike than they do with a couple parking spaces by the storefront. Vast majority of urban businesses don't have 15-car parking lots anyway so customer volumes come from people metroing, bussing, walking, and biking. Protected bike lanes mean more people and more customers, not fewer.

Then you should know that the area under diacussion is not urban, does have 15 car parking lots, and there is already a popular bike route for commutes. You should also know that Connecticut Avenue is one the most widely used roads in the region and has has difficult topogrpaphy for bicylcing.

You all keep arguing about bike lanes in general. This is not about bike lanes in general. It is about a very specific plan to cut road capacity on a very important road used by 30,000 people a day. Even the bicylists in that specifc area know it's a bad idea.

Under that 'road', there is a very effective metro line, the red line. Above that metro line, there should not be a 'road', but a shared use avenue. Cars are an extremely inefficient use of transit space, a dangerously high contributor to carbon emissions, and just plain lethal to people in cities.

[Anonymous]

It seems insane that we spend billions of dollars on bike lanes that almost no one uses. At the same time, we allow a subway system that everyone used to use to fall into disrepair because we don't want to spend the money needed to maintain it. The subway *used* to move more people around every single day than all the people who use the bikes lane in five years.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It seems insane that we spend billions of dollars on bike lanes that almost no one uses. At the same time, we allow a subway system that everyone used to use to fall into disrepair because we don't want to spend the money needed to maintain it. The subway *used* to move more people around every single day than all the people who use the bikes lane in five years.

Your rantings have stopped making sense.
Metro is working on its system as we speak, and bike lanes are already full downtown, and filling up quickly as they get built in the rest of the city.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It seems insane that we spend billions of dollars on bike lanes that almost no one uses. At the same time, we allow a subway system that everyone used to use to fall into disrepair because we don't want to spend the money needed to maintain it. The subway *used* to move more people around every single day than all the people who use the bikes lane in five years.

Your rantings have stopped making sense.
Metro is working on its system as we speak, and bike lanes are already full downtown, and filling up quickly as they get built in the rest of the city.

I drive around a fair bit in the mornings and all the bike lanes I see are usually empty. Probably why the city stopped counting how many people were using them.

[Anonymous]

The city started building protected bike lanes in 2009. You'd think after almost 15 years and spending who knows how many billions of dollars, if biking was going to catch on, it would have caught on by now. It seems like a failed experiment.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The city started building protected bike lanes in 2009. You'd think after almost 15 years and spending who knows how many billions of dollars, if biking was going to catch on, it would have caught on by now. It seems like a failed experiment.

You keep saying this over and over, but bike ridership has exploded.