Options for opposing Connecticut Avenue changes?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The roads are a scarce resource - at any given time on any given block the ratio of non-bikers to other people in vehicles including public transportation or walking is huge - yet so many resources money and space are dedicated to bikes - which seems like a giant waste. It is delusional to think that adding more bike lanes will change that ratio in any material way.

Except this is exactly what happens when new bike facilities are implemented in public spaces. google it. Facts matter.

Just because YOU wouldn't bike, doesn't mean there aren't scores of others who would.

We've had protected bike lanes in D.C. for almost 15 years. Why are there still so few people here who ride bikes? I mean, it's pathetic how few people use the bike lanes.

Because bikes are completely impractical for the vast majority of people?

Because there aren't enough bike lanes that connect up that could get people where they need to go. The fact that there is a protected bike lane on M Street doesn't help me if there's no way to get there other than, say, Connecticut Avenue. Like streets, bike lanes work best if there is an actual network that allows you to safely get to your destination. I strongly considered biking to work, but half my commute is CT and I didn't feel safe. A dedicated bike lane would change that equation.

No, impractical because it takes longer, you are exposed to the elements when you likely need to look presentable when you finally arrive at your destination (and not smell), and most destinations do not have showers available -- plus that means even more time added - and them most people are rushing out of work to go pick up their kids from school and grab dinner for the family on the way. Chugging up hill along Connecticut with your litigation bag, box of documents, dinner, etc., and you are going to be one sweaty, smelly, cranky, late mom for school pick up -- and guaranteed that will be the day your kid is bringing home some giant art project. Not a practical mode of transportation.

Ha ha. I actually have been that mom chugging uphill and my mood is MUCH better on those days. Also you can get an ebike. Biking is a huge mood boost. Obviously not always practical, but what people don't realize is that it is FUN and so much nicer to get around on a bike if you can make it work.

Again, you are suggesting that everyone is JUST like you. You love it it energizes you, so it will be the same for everyone. You are wrong. Some people can't bike. It isn't fun for everyone.

Stop with the strawman. No one is suggesting that 'everyone' has to bike. As has already been stated multiple times, the idea is that if you make it safe and convenient for enough people, it will free up lane and parking capacity for those who HAVE to drive or have no alternative.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I thought Mary Cheh was retiring. The bikers are in her back pocket. Hopefully that will be over soon. Bikes and cars don't belong together. It's a stupid dangerous combination.

Which is why we need a bike lane!

Thanks for making the argument.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If this thread proves anything it proves that the plan to eliminate 1/3rd of Connecticut Avenue is extremely controversial and no where near popular enough for such a radical idea.

So extremely controversial that every elected official in the area backs it ...

Name them. None of them are putting their names to this cockamanie plan to close 1/3rd of Connecticut Avenue.

Every single ANC voted to support it along CT, the Mayor.

Do any of these commissioners have kids and own a single family home on the side streets that will be impacted? I bet the answer is zero or close to it. They all seem nice enough but don’t exactly have a lot of life experience.

Yes, a lot of them do. And believe it or not, I live in a single family house, with kids, one block off CT Ave. I fully expect more people will park in front of my house, but I am okay with that because...we live in a city.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The roads are a scarce resource - at any given time on any given block the ratio of non-bikers to other people in vehicles including public transportation or walking is huge - yet so many resources money and space are dedicated to bikes - which seems like a giant waste. It is delusional to think that adding more bike lanes will change that ratio in any material way.

Except this is exactly what happens when new bike facilities are implemented in public spaces. google it. Facts matter.

Just because YOU wouldn't bike, doesn't mean there aren't scores of others who would.

We've had protected bike lanes in D.C. for almost 15 years. Why are there still so few people here who ride bikes? I mean, it's pathetic how few people use the bike lanes.

Because bikes are completely impractical for the vast majority of people?

Because there aren't enough bike lanes that connect up that could get people where they need to go. The fact that there is a protected bike lane on M Street doesn't help me if there's no way to get there other than, say, Connecticut Avenue. Like streets, bike lanes work best if there is an actual network that allows you to safely get to your destination. I strongly considered biking to work, but half my commute is CT and I didn't feel safe. A dedicated bike lane would change that equation.

No, impractical because it takes longer, you are exposed to the elements when you likely need to look presentable when you finally arrive at your destination (and not smell), and most destinations do not have showers available -- plus that means even more time added - and them most people are rushing out of work to go pick up their kids from school and grab dinner for the family on the way. Chugging up hill along Connecticut with your litigation bag, box of documents, dinner, etc., and you are going to be one sweaty, smelly, cranky, late mom for school pick up -- and guaranteed that will be the day your kid is bringing home some giant art project. Not a practical mode of transportation.

Ha ha. I actually have been that mom chugging uphill and my mood is MUCH better on those days. Also you can get an ebike. Biking is a huge mood boost. Obviously not always practical, but what people don't realize is that it is FUN and so much nicer to get around on a bike if you can make it work.

Again, you are suggesting that everyone is JUST like you. You love it it energizes you, so it will be the same for everyone. You are wrong. Some people can't bike. It isn't fun for everyone.

Stop with the strawman. No one is suggesting that 'everyone' has to bike. As has already been stated multiple times, the idea is that if you make it safe and convenient for enough people, it will free up lane and parking capacity for those who HAVE to drive or have no alternative.

What you are telling people who either cannot or choose not to bike is that their needs are not prioritized. Which is fine, except for the fact that so few people actually use bicycles and no matter how much money the city throws at it, DC will never be Amsterdam.

[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:

Anonymous wrote:I guess what I don’t understand is that if you scroll through the Twitter feeds of the pro bike lane crowd it’s filled with hysterical, border line self congratulatory “gotcha” tweets filled with pics cars, contractors, construction workers, first responders, etc. parked illegally in bike lanes all over the city. Along with pictures of broken and blighted bike lane infrastructure and desperate calls for 311 to fix things. But you somehow think CT will be any different? Thanks to your good reporting we already know how this will go. No thank you.

What it proves is that curb access is actually very important to economic activity in the city and taking this important public resource and giving it over to a small handful of cyclists doesn’t seem very wise.

There will be 24/7 curb access on one side of the street, something that doesn't exist today.

Almost all of the business have some form of alley or rear access, if needed. These days, those are barely used.

Both statements are ridiculous. Curb access currently exists on both sides of the street and will be removed. Additionally, “almost all” is a joke of a statement for business and also does not address deliveries to apartments or god forbid, emergency vehicle access.

So you are saying you know better than traffic engineers worldwide who have cracked the code of how to solve for these questions?

Traffic engineers have not cracked the code. That's a ludicrous statement. And in this case it is clear that they did not take the entire consequences into account. For god's sake the only firehouse serving upper NW is on Connecticut.

There are TWO fired houses on CT and one on Wisc. They are fine and it won't be an issue. There is already traffic on CT Ave, much of it backed up at Military, Nebraska, Van Ness, Porter and in all of Woodley Park. It is already bad. This won't make it worse, and more likely, more people will feel safe to ride a bike in the new lanes and use their cars a little less. That would be a good result, right? Less pollution, more exercise and best of all, fewer cars means more people who are old and have to drive, will have more open lanes and more opportunity to park closer to where they are going.

Win-win.

It is clear that the planning mode of the last century doesn't work unless we invest in putting double decks on our avenues. That isn't feasible, so we need to think about other ways of getting people around.

I think it is hilarious that some people believe there is a great number of people in DC hoping to commute by bike in heels and suits in the soupy DC humidity, or carry their groceries for a family of 5 on a bicycle along with their babies and toddlers; or dress up to go out to a fancy dinner and tuck their silk dresses up and away from bicycle gears as their nicely coiffed hair gets destroyed by the wind and humidity or rain on the way to the fancy restaurant, or drag their elderly mobility impaired family members along in a wagon attached to the end of the bike. So many people jones for that bike commute!

DC weather is great for bikes as a daily commuter vehicle. Not.

This is funny because I’ve actually done most of these things (including bike commuting to work [not in a suit as I change at the office] and carrying groceries for a family of 5 on my back). The humidity is great for shedding pounds in the process. My only frustration about biking in DC is that it took me so long to make the switch.

It's not funny. Most people can't do these things and certainly can't "change at the office."

What? Why can’t they change?

But it’s also beside the point. Biking is not for everyone and no one is suggesting that everyone has to bike. But the creation of a protected bike lane network encourages those who can to make the shift. This reduces competition for road and parking space for those who really must drive.

+1
No one is saying that everyone should bike. But more people should be able to safely bike, and reduce the number of cars on the road.

Then why are we wasting money on Connecticut Avenue? It won't do any of those things. Instead it will make biking less safe in the area it is most popular because it vastly increases the amount of cars on the side roads.

You're just making that up. It will slow traffic on Ct and make it safer for *everyone.*

I do get tired of the contradictions. Now congestion is good? Make up your minds.

Where did anyone say in this entire conversation that slower traffic (aka congestion, if you like) is bad? If you had bothered to go to one of the FIFTY public meetings, you would have heard DDOT explain that narrowing streets by adding bike lanes is a traffic calming (aka make slower aka "congestion") tactic.

This all just seems like such crazy BS. Like, so much wishful thinking. If you make traffic slower on Connecticut, people will just move onto side streets and they will drive faster on them to make up for the time they lost on Connecticut Avenue. People are not going to just accept having a much longer commute (and they definitely won't switch to bikes -- that seems obvious). They'll make up the time by going faster on some other streets, probably ones that were never designed for such traffic.

+1

[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:

Anonymous wrote:I guess what I don’t understand is that if you scroll through the Twitter feeds of the pro bike lane crowd it’s filled with hysterical, border line self congratulatory “gotcha” tweets filled with pics cars, contractors, construction workers, first responders, etc. parked illegally in bike lanes all over the city. Along with pictures of broken and blighted bike lane infrastructure and desperate calls for 311 to fix things. But you somehow think CT will be any different? Thanks to your good reporting we already know how this will go. No thank you.

What it proves is that curb access is actually very important to economic activity in the city and taking this important public resource and giving it over to a small handful of cyclists doesn’t seem very wise.

There will be 24/7 curb access on one side of the street, something that doesn't exist today.

Almost all of the business have some form of alley or rear access, if needed. These days, those are barely used.

Both statements are ridiculous. Curb access currently exists on both sides of the street and will be removed. Additionally, “almost all” is a joke of a statement for business and also does not address deliveries to apartments or god forbid, emergency vehicle access.

So you are saying you know better than traffic engineers worldwide who have cracked the code of how to solve for these questions?

Traffic engineers have not cracked the code. That's a ludicrous statement. And in this case it is clear that they did not take the entire consequences into account. For god's sake the only firehouse serving upper NW is on Connecticut.

There are TWO fired houses on CT and one on Wisc. They are fine and it won't be an issue. There is already traffic on CT Ave, much of it backed up at Military, Nebraska, Van Ness, Porter and in all of Woodley Park. It is already bad. This won't make it worse, and more likely, more people will feel safe to ride a bike in the new lanes and use their cars a little less. That would be a good result, right? Less pollution, more exercise and best of all, fewer cars means more people who are old and have to drive, will have more open lanes and more opportunity to park closer to where they are going.

Win-win.

It is clear that the planning mode of the last century doesn't work unless we invest in putting double decks on our avenues. That isn't feasible, so we need to think about other ways of getting people around.

I think it is hilarious that some people believe there is a great number of people in DC hoping to commute by bike in heels and suits in the soupy DC humidity, or carry their groceries for a family of 5 on a bicycle along with their babies and toddlers; or dress up to go out to a fancy dinner and tuck their silk dresses up and away from bicycle gears as their nicely coiffed hair gets destroyed by the wind and humidity or rain on the way to the fancy restaurant, or drag their elderly mobility impaired family members along in a wagon attached to the end of the bike. So many people jones for that bike commute!

DC weather is great for bikes as a daily commuter vehicle. Not.

This is funny because I’ve actually done most of these things (including bike commuting to work [not in a suit as I change at the office] and carrying groceries for a family of 5 on my back). The humidity is great for shedding pounds in the process. My only frustration about biking in DC is that it took me so long to make the switch.

It's not funny. Most people can't do these things and certainly can't "change at the office."

What? Why can’t they change?

But it’s also beside the point. Biking is not for everyone and no one is suggesting that everyone has to bike. But the creation of a protected bike lane network encourages those who can to make the shift. This reduces competition for road and parking space for those who really must drive.

+1
No one is saying that everyone should bike. But more people should be able to safely bike, and reduce the number of cars on the road.

Then why are we wasting money on Connecticut Avenue? It won't do any of those things. Instead it will make biking less safe in the area it is most popular because it vastly increases the amount of cars on the side roads.

You're just making that up. It will slow traffic on Ct and make it safer for *everyone.*

I do get tired of the contradictions. Now congestion is good? Make up your minds.

Where did anyone say in this entire conversation that slower traffic (aka congestion, if you like) is bad? If you had bothered to go to one of the FIFTY public meetings, you would have heard DDOT explain that narrowing streets by adding bike lanes is a traffic calming (aka make slower aka "congestion") tactic.

This all just seems like such crazy BS. Like, so much wishful thinking. If you make traffic slower on Connecticut, people will just move onto side streets and they will drive faster on them to make up for the time they lost on Connecticut Avenue. People are not going to just accept having a much longer commute (and they definitely won't switch to bikes -- that seems obvious). They'll make up the time by going faster on some other streets, probably ones that were never designed for such traffic.

psst, guess what, traffic is already slow on Connecticut Avenue, and when that happens, people drive on to side streets. The bike lanes won't change that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If this thread proves anything it proves that the plan to eliminate 1/3rd of Connecticut Avenue is extremely controversial and no where near popular enough for such a radical idea.

So extremely controversial that every elected official in the area backs it ...

Name them. None of them are putting their names to this cockamanie plan to close 1/3rd of Connecticut Avenue.

Every single ANC voted to support it along CT, the Mayor.

Do any of these commissioners have kids and own a single family home on the side streets that will be impacted? I bet the answer is zero or close to it. They all seem nice enough but don’t exactly have a lot of life experience.

Yes, a lot of them do. And believe it or not, I live in a single family house, with kids, one block off CT Ave. I fully expect more people will park in front of my house, but I am okay with that because...we live in a city.

Name one. Just one.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If this thread proves anything it proves that the plan to eliminate 1/3rd of Connecticut Avenue is extremely controversial and no where near popular enough for such a radical idea.

So extremely controversial that every elected official in the area backs it ...

Name them. None of them are putting their names to this cockamanie plan to close 1/3rd of Connecticut Avenue.

Every single ANC voted to support it along CT, the Mayor.

Do any of these commissioners have kids and own a single family home on the side streets that will be impacted? I bet the answer is zero or close to it. They all seem nice enough but don’t exactly have a lot of life experience.

Yes, a lot of them do. And believe it or not, I live in a single family house, with kids, one block off CT Ave. I fully expect more people will park in front of my house, but I am okay with that because...we live in a city.

Do you “own” that single family house?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Is there any mode of transportation that is *less* popular in Washington D.C. than biking?

People are more likely to drive or take the metro or take the bus or walk or carpool or take commuter rail or take a cab than they are to ride a bike.

And yet it's biking, the city's least popular way of getting around, that sponges up such a massive share of our transportation resources. It's bizarre.

Consider maybe that it’s not popular because it only has a tiny fraction of the infrastructure dedicated to cars and pedestrians?

The notion that DC is spending billions building bike lanes is absurd. The figure probably doesn’t exceed a few million annually, most of which is accounted for by hopeless community consultations in which crusty NIMBYs roll out fantastical nonsense to safeguard a selfish way of life that is doing immense damage to future generations.

If you want to talk about billions in subsidies, check out everything related to building and maintaining automotive infrastructure that gas taxes and car registrations don’t cover. Drivers are some of the biggest welfare queens around.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is there any mode of transportation that is *less* popular in Washington D.C. than biking?

People are more likely to drive or take the metro or take the bus or walk or carpool or take commuter rail or take a cab than they are to ride a bike.

And yet it's biking, the city's least popular way of getting around, that sponges up such a massive share of our transportation resources. It's bizarre.

Consider maybe that it’s not popular because it only has a tiny fraction of the infrastructure dedicated to cars and pedestrians?

The notion that DC is spending billions building bike lanes is absurd. The figure probably doesn’t exceed a few million annually, most of which is accounted for by hopeless community consultations in which crusty NIMBYs roll out fantastical nonsense to safeguard a selfish way of life that is doing immense damage to future generations.

If you want to talk about billions in subsidies, check out everything related to building and maintaining automotive infrastructure that gas taxes and car registrations don’t cover. Drivers are some of the biggest welfare queens around.

The popularity of cycling has not increased in any measurable way as a mode share of commuters since 1970. There is literally zero evidence that bicycle infrastructure induces more bicycling as a mode of transportation for commuting to work.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The roads are a scarce resource - at any given time on any given block the ratio of non-bikers to other people in vehicles including public transportation or walking is huge - yet so many resources money and space are dedicated to bikes - which seems like a giant waste. It is delusional to think that adding more bike lanes will change that ratio in any material way.

Except this is exactly what happens when new bike facilities are implemented in public spaces. google it. Facts matter.

Just because YOU wouldn't bike, doesn't mean there aren't scores of others who would.

We've had protected bike lanes in D.C. for almost 15 years. Why are there still so few people here who ride bikes? I mean, it's pathetic how few people use the bike lanes.

Because bikes are completely impractical for the vast majority of people?

Because there aren't enough bike lanes that connect up that could get people where they need to go. The fact that there is a protected bike lane on M Street doesn't help me if there's no way to get there other than, say, Connecticut Avenue. Like streets, bike lanes work best if there is an actual network that allows you to safely get to your destination. I strongly considered biking to work, but half my commute is CT and I didn't feel safe. A dedicated bike lane would change that equation.

No, impractical because it takes longer, you are exposed to the elements when you likely need to look presentable when you finally arrive at your destination (and not smell), and most destinations do not have showers available -- plus that means even more time added - and them most people are rushing out of work to go pick up their kids from school and grab dinner for the family on the way. Chugging up hill along Connecticut with your litigation bag, box of documents, dinner, etc., and you are going to be one sweaty, smelly, cranky, late mom for school pick up -- and guaranteed that will be the day your kid is bringing home some giant art project. Not a practical mode of transportation.

Ha ha. I actually have been that mom chugging uphill and my mood is MUCH better on those days. Also you can get an ebike. Biking is a huge mood boost. Obviously not always practical, but what people don't realize is that it is FUN and so much nicer to get around on a bike if you can make it work.

Again, you are suggesting that everyone is JUST like you. You love it it energizes you, so it will be the same for everyone. You are wrong. Some people can't bike. It isn't fun for everyone.

Stop with the strawman. No one is suggesting that 'everyone' has to bike. As has already been stated multiple times, the idea is that if you make it safe and convenient for enough people, it will free up lane and parking capacity for those who HAVE to drive or have no alternative.

What you are telling people who either cannot or choose not to bike is that their needs are not prioritized. Which is fine, except for the fact that so few people actually use bicycles and no matter how much money the city throws at it, DC will never be Amsterdam.

God da*n this is some nutty sh*t. Car drivers not being prioritized? Where did all the roads go? What hallucinogenics are you on?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is there any mode of transportation that is *less* popular in Washington D.C. than biking?

People are more likely to drive or take the metro or take the bus or walk or carpool or take commuter rail or take a cab than they are to ride a bike.

And yet it's biking, the city's least popular way of getting around, that sponges up such a massive share of our transportation resources. It's bizarre.

Consider maybe that it’s not popular because it only has a tiny fraction of the infrastructure dedicated to cars and pedestrians?

The notion that DC is spending billions building bike lanes is absurd. The figure probably doesn’t exceed a few million annually, most of which is accounted for by hopeless community consultations in which crusty NIMBYs roll out fantastical nonsense to safeguard a selfish way of life that is doing immense damage to future generations.

If you want to talk about billions in subsidies, check out everything related to building and maintaining automotive infrastructure that gas taxes and car registrations don’t cover. Drivers are some of the biggest welfare queens around.

The popularity of cycling has not increased in any measurable way as a mode share of commuters since 1970. There is literally zero evidence that bicycle infrastructure induces more bicycling as a mode of transportation for commuting to work.

Great. Here is but one study that proves you are wrong: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0001457517301021. Will you please shut up now?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The roads are a scarce resource - at any given time on any given block the ratio of non-bikers to other people in vehicles including public transportation or walking is huge - yet so many resources money and space are dedicated to bikes - which seems like a giant waste. It is delusional to think that adding more bike lanes will change that ratio in any material way.

Except this is exactly what happens when new bike facilities are implemented in public spaces. google it. Facts matter.

Just because YOU wouldn't bike, doesn't mean there aren't scores of others who would.

We've had protected bike lanes in D.C. for almost 15 years. Why are there still so few people here who ride bikes? I mean, it's pathetic how few people use the bike lanes.

Because bikes are completely impractical for the vast majority of people?

Because there aren't enough bike lanes that connect up that could get people where they need to go. The fact that there is a protected bike lane on M Street doesn't help me if there's no way to get there other than, say, Connecticut Avenue. Like streets, bike lanes work best if there is an actual network that allows you to safely get to your destination. I strongly considered biking to work, but half my commute is CT and I didn't feel safe. A dedicated bike lane would change that equation.

No, impractical because it takes longer, you are exposed to the elements when you likely need to look presentable when you finally arrive at your destination (and not smell), and most destinations do not have showers available -- plus that means even more time added - and them most people are rushing out of work to go pick up their kids from school and grab dinner for the family on the way. Chugging up hill along Connecticut with your litigation bag, box of documents, dinner, etc., and you are going to be one sweaty, smelly, cranky, late mom for school pick up -- and guaranteed that will be the day your kid is bringing home some giant art project. Not a practical mode of transportation.

Ha ha. I actually have been that mom chugging uphill and my mood is MUCH better on those days. Also you can get an ebike. Biking is a huge mood boost. Obviously not always practical, but what people don't realize is that it is FUN and so much nicer to get around on a bike if you can make it work.

Again, you are suggesting that everyone is JUST like you. You love it it energizes you, so it will be the same for everyone. You are wrong. Some people can't bike. It isn't fun for everyone.

Stop with the strawman. No one is suggesting that 'everyone' has to bike. As has already been stated multiple times, the idea is that if you make it safe and convenient for enough people, it will free up lane and parking capacity for those who HAVE to drive or have no alternative.

What you are telling people who either cannot or choose not to bike is that their needs are not prioritized. Which is fine, except for the fact that so few people actually use bicycles and no matter how much money the city throws at it, DC will never be Amsterdam.

But you are telling people who don't drive that the drivers needs should be prioritized. How does that make things any different?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is there any mode of transportation that is *less* popular in Washington D.C. than biking?

People are more likely to drive or take the metro or take the bus or walk or carpool or take commuter rail or take a cab than they are to ride a bike.

And yet it's biking, the city's least popular way of getting around, that sponges up such a massive share of our transportation resources. It's bizarre.

Consider maybe that it’s not popular because it only has a tiny fraction of the infrastructure dedicated to cars and pedestrians?

The notion that DC is spending billions building bike lanes is absurd. The figure probably doesn’t exceed a few million annually, most of which is accounted for by hopeless community consultations in which crusty NIMBYs roll out fantastical nonsense to safeguard a selfish way of life that is doing immense damage to future generations.

If you want to talk about billions in subsidies, check out everything related to building and maintaining automotive infrastructure that gas taxes and car registrations don’t cover. Drivers are some of the biggest welfare queens around.

The popularity of cycling has not increased in any measurable way as a mode share of commuters since 1970. There is literally zero evidence that bicycle infrastructure induces more bicycling as a mode of transportation for commuting to work.

Great. Here is but one study that proves you are wrong: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0001457517301021. Will you please shut up now?

Seville grew its bike network from 7.5 miles of protected bike lanes in 2006 to 94 miles in 2013. During the same time period the number of bike trips grew 435 percent from 3 million in 2006 to more than 16 million in 2013.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is there any mode of transportation that is *less* popular in Washington D.C. than biking?

People are more likely to drive or take the metro or take the bus or walk or carpool or take commuter rail or take a cab than they are to ride a bike.

And yet it's biking, the city's least popular way of getting around, that sponges up such a massive share of our transportation resources. It's bizarre.

Consider maybe that it’s not popular because it only has a tiny fraction of the infrastructure dedicated to cars and pedestrians?

The notion that DC is spending billions building bike lanes is absurd. The figure probably doesn’t exceed a few million annually, most of which is accounted for by hopeless community consultations in which crusty NIMBYs roll out fantastical nonsense to safeguard a selfish way of life that is doing immense damage to future generations.

If you want to talk about billions in subsidies, check out everything related to building and maintaining automotive infrastructure that gas taxes and car registrations don’t cover. Drivers are some of the biggest welfare queens around.

The popularity of cycling has not increased in any measurable way as a mode share of commuters since 1970. There is literally zero evidence that bicycle infrastructure induces more bicycling as a mode of transportation for commuting to work.

This is demonstrably false.