Connecticut Ave bike lanes are back!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yeah, I'm at least as pro-bike lane as the next person who bikes downtown a lot, but it's silly to pretend the elections (at any level, ANC through ward Council member) were referenda on bike lanes. No one specifically campaigned against them in any race I can remember, so the fact that the people who won supported them doesn't exactly prove that everyone who voted for them also wanted the project.

Not true.

David Krucoff campaigned against them and in the Connecticut Avenue precincts, he did worse against Frumin than he did elsewhere across the Ward.
There were several ANC races in Ward 3 where the bike lanes were THE defining issue, and in each case, the pro-bile lane candidate won.

Not entirely so. There were ANC candidates who had concerns about bike lanes and won.

[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:For me, the one thing that makes Connecticut Ave such a bad idea for bikes lanes is that it is the gateway for millions of tourists each year. Most of whom are not familiar with DC roads nor used to driving in any city. So to mix those tens of thousands of tourist cars each year with a project that will induce thousands of new cyclists each day seems like a total death wish. For that reason Connecticut Ave is fairly unique as compared to other roads where this has been attempted. It’s just a really bad idea.

Think of how much better it would be if the tourists were not driving cars but on other modes of transportation? You are making the argument FOR bike lanes, thank you.

The people who drive to the zoo are most definitely not interested in participating in transit lifestyle you covet.

That's silly. Transit isn't a lifestyle, it's transportation. Would you say you participate in car lifestyle?

Yes.

You participate in a car lifestyle?! I'm so sorry.

Appreciate your concern, but I enjoy my car lifestyle!!

I used to enjoy my smoking inside at restaurants lifestyle, but the government doesn't have an obligation to legislate around things that are bad for people

Not having a tax base is bad for people.

Governments once made a lot of revenue from tobacco taxes. Thankfully that didn’t dissuade legislators from putting in place the measures that have enabled people to live healthier lifestyles.

Those measures were to both increase tobacco taxes and to require tobacco companies to effectively pay an annual dividend to states like they were shareholders.

It all comes together though because you’re spending your life arguing about some fantasy. DDOT listening to these very same arguments for a decade about Connecticut Ave and said no. I’m not sure why you are wasting your time arguing to death about something that is not going to happen in the foreseeable future but it’s both kind of sad and kind of funny.

DDOT didn't say no.

The Mayor said no, because she listened to a lot of BS and lies from a bunch of entitled old white people who cannot envision a life without cars.

The majority of the people want the bike lanes, and the science and economics back them up.

You’re disconnected from objective reality.

The DDOT director testified before the Council and stated the position of the agency. She explained and explicitly said that this was never supposed to be a bike lane project. DDOT works for the mayor. So the decisions of DDOT reflect the decision of the mayor. As for the opinion of the “majority” of the people, they overwhelmingly voted for the mayor.

What are you doing arguing to death for days on end about something that’s over? Do you not understand how crazy that is?

You mean the interim Director who has no experience or knowledge of transportation engineering or transportation planning, who clearly had no knowledge of MoveDC or any of the other plans and stakeholder engagement that has taken place across this and other projects across the city? Ya, we don't need another ignorant mayoral lackey in this position. She had no idea what she was talking about and was completely out of her elements.

In terms of the "majority" of the people, yes, the Mayor ran on a platform of VisionZero and SutainableDC2.0, which both call for sustainable transportation practices including bike lanes. She also ran on the MoveDC plan, which her DDOT spent millions to commission and produce.

Meanwhile, the opponent petition gathered around 3600 supporters over 2 years while the proponent petition has gathered over 4500 signatures in just a few weeks. The Councilmember ran on the bike lanes and won, and not only did he win, but in the precincts where bike lanes on Connecitcut Avenue were the primary issue - in contested ANC races as well - he outpollled the republican opponent as compared to other precincts across the ward by several points. You can look it up.

More people want the bike lanes, they promote safety in transportation, better health outcomes, more pedestrian safety and are a boon to local businesses.

The science and academic studies back it up.

Perhaps you havent noticed but no one asked for all these bike lanes and almost nobody uses them. Transportation surveys consistently show bicycling is among the least, if not *the least,* popular way of getting around.

"No one" in your mind is the single family homeowners. You seem to be forgetting the thousands of apartment and condo dwellers who you seem to never talk to.

Look at the data. The number of people riding bikes in DC is a rounding error. It’s pretty remarkable how few people ride given how much money the city has spent on bike infrastructure. It’s a small niche and nothing more.

It's not just DC. The number of people riding bike is down in cities across the country.

https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2023-09-27/biking-to-work-isn-t-gaining-any-ground-in-the-us?embedded-checkout=true

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yeah, I'm at least as pro-bike lane as the next person who bikes downtown a lot, but it's silly to pretend the elections (at any level, ANC through ward Council member) were referenda on bike lanes. No one specifically campaigned against them in any race I can remember, so the fact that the people who won supported them doesn't exactly prove that everyone who voted for them also wanted the project.

Not true.

David Krucoff campaigned against them and in the Connecticut Avenue precincts, he did worse against Frumin than he did elsewhere across the Ward.
There were several ANC races in Ward 3 where the bike lanes were THE defining issue, and in each case, the pro-bile lane candidate won.

Krucoff had an "R" next to his name, which means he had no chance of winning no matter his stance on anything.

Good lord, you can't possibly be so stupid to use that argument.

And, in the precincts where bike lanes were the main issue, Frumin outperformed Krucoff as compared to the rest of the ward. Maybe you aren't getting it, so I will explain.

If Frumin generally beat Krucoff 75-25 in Palisades and Spring Valley, in Woodley Park, Cleveland Park and Forest Hills, he beat Krucoff 80-20. Get it?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yeah, I'm at least as pro-bike lane as the next person who bikes downtown a lot, but it's silly to pretend the elections (at any level, ANC through ward Council member) were referenda on bike lanes. No one specifically campaigned against them in any race I can remember, so the fact that the people who won supported them doesn't exactly prove that everyone who voted for them also wanted the project.

Not true.

David Krucoff campaigned against them and in the Connecticut Avenue precincts, he did worse against Frumin than he did elsewhere across the Ward.
There were several ANC races in Ward 3 where the bike lanes were THE defining issue, and in each case, the pro-bile lane candidate won.

Krucoff had an "R" next to his name, which means he had no chance of winning no matter his stance on anything.

Good lord, you can't possibly be so stupid to use that argument.

And, in the precincts where bike lanes were the main issue, Frumin outperformed Krucoff as compared to the rest of the ward. Maybe you aren't getting it, so I will explain.

If Frumin generally beat Krucoff 75-25 in Palisades and Spring Valley, in Woodley Park, Cleveland Park and Forest Hills, he beat Krucoff 80-20. Get it?

DP, but nothing you’ve written excludes party affiliation as an explanation for voter preference. Maybe Woodley Park, Cleveland Park, Forest Hills voters have stronger partisan biases.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yeah, I'm at least as pro-bike lane as the next person who bikes downtown a lot, but it's silly to pretend the elections (at any level, ANC through ward Council member) were referenda on bike lanes. No one specifically campaigned against them in any race I can remember, so the fact that the people who won supported them doesn't exactly prove that everyone who voted for them also wanted the project.

Not true.

David Krucoff campaigned against them and in the Connecticut Avenue precincts, he did worse against Frumin than he did elsewhere across the Ward.
There were several ANC races in Ward 3 where the bike lanes were THE defining issue, and in each case, the pro-bile lane candidate won.

Krucoff had an "R" next to his name, which means he had no chance of winning no matter his stance on anything.

Good lord, you can't possibly be so stupid to use that argument.

And, in the precincts where bike lanes were the main issue, Frumin outperformed Krucoff as compared to the rest of the ward. Maybe you aren't getting it, so I will explain.

If Frumin generally beat Krucoff 75-25 in Palisades and Spring Valley, in Woodley Park, Cleveland Park and Forest Hills, he beat Krucoff 80-20. Get it?

Or….maybe all the thousands of voucher residents voted for Frumin because Krukoff justifiably wanted to pause the program. Get it?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yeah, I'm at least as pro-bike lane as the next person who bikes downtown a lot, but it's silly to pretend the elections (at any level, ANC through ward Council member) were referenda on bike lanes. No one specifically campaigned against them in any race I can remember, so the fact that the people who won supported them doesn't exactly prove that everyone who voted for them also wanted the project.

Not true.

David Krucoff campaigned against them and in the Connecticut Avenue precincts, he did worse against Frumin than he did elsewhere across the Ward.
There were several ANC races in Ward 3 where the bike lanes were THE defining issue, and in each case, the pro-bile lane candidate won.

Krucoff had an "R" next to his name, which means he had no chance of winning no matter his stance on anything.

Good lord, you can't possibly be so stupid to use that argument.

And, in the precincts where bike lanes were the main issue, Frumin outperformed Krucoff as compared to the rest of the ward. Maybe you aren't getting it, so I will explain.

If Frumin generally beat Krucoff 75-25 in Palisades and Spring Valley, in Woodley Park, Cleveland Park and Forest Hills, he beat Krucoff 80-20. Get it?

DP, but nothing you’ve written excludes party affiliation as an explanation for voter preference. Maybe Woodley Park, Cleveland Park, Forest Hills voters have stronger partisan biases.

Which would mean more people in those areas support progressive issues like...bike lanes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yeah, I'm at least as pro-bike lane as the next person who bikes downtown a lot, but it's silly to pretend the elections (at any level, ANC through ward Council member) were referenda on bike lanes. No one specifically campaigned against them in any race I can remember, so the fact that the people who won supported them doesn't exactly prove that everyone who voted for them also wanted the project.

Not true.

David Krucoff campaigned against them and in the Connecticut Avenue precincts, he did worse against Frumin than he did elsewhere across the Ward.
There were several ANC races in Ward 3 where the bike lanes were THE defining issue, and in each case, the pro-bile lane candidate won.

Krucoff had an "R" next to his name, which means he had no chance of winning no matter his stance on anything.

Good lord, you can't possibly be so stupid to use that argument.

And, in the precincts where bike lanes were the main issue, Frumin outperformed Krucoff as compared to the rest of the ward. Maybe you aren't getting it, so I will explain.

If Frumin generally beat Krucoff 75-25 in Palisades and Spring Valley, in Woodley Park, Cleveland Park and Forest Hills, he beat Krucoff 80-20. Get it?

DP, but nothing you’ve written excludes party affiliation as an explanation for voter preference. Maybe Woodley Park, Cleveland Park, Forest Hills voters have stronger partisan biases.

Which would mean more people in those areas support progressive issues like...bike lanes.

They also voted overwhelmingly for Bowser. Is there anything you believe that makes consistent sense?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:At the same time they are pushing to get rid of a significant amount of the bus service in the same area - re: the 96 and the L2. Buses are much more accessible to many people than the metro and bike lanes and should not be cut back

There is so much overlap with metrorail on this corridor that cutting the bus service actually makes sense.

So bikes can't ride on side streets and then double back on to CT Ave to do their shopping (there are tons of posts about how bikes must have a straight shot and bike lanes all the way along their preferred routes), but old people, disabled, people with little kids etc.. need to get themselves multiple blocks to the metro stops and up and down the escalators v.s the bus stops which are much more frequent and user friendly for groups that arent' fleet footed.

I'm pro-bike lane but agree with you that cutting bus service would be a mistake. However, to be clear, the posts don't say bikes "must have a straight shot"; they typically say riding in Rock Creek Park is a bad alternative to riding on Connecticut. If you wanted to put protected bike lanes on, say, Porter instead of CT, I'd be all for it, going a couple of blocks out of the way is nothing like going half a mile downhill out of the way (and then ending up in Georgetown instead of downtown).

Cars have to go out of the way ALL THE TIME (one way streets, roundabouts, etc). This is a function of travel by car. You can't get directly where you want to go in DC without having to make some loops and turnarounds because of the traffic flow. Pedestrians are the only ones not limited in this way. I don't understand why bikers believe that this should not be the case for them as well. Their traffic patterns need to be managed and diverted for the greater good just like vehicle traffic.

Yes, cars go a block or two out of the way all the time. But going through the park instead of on Connecticut from, say, my house, would add three-quarters of a mile and nearly double the amount of vertical feet involved in the trip (and if I wanted to stay in the park all the way to where the trail ends, it would add even more, but that distance is for if I were to exit it in Woodley Park instead). I don't think that's really comparable to having to drive through a roundabout.

I'm often happy to go out of my way to get to a protected bike lane (I head to 15th Street as soon as possible when commuting through downtown). My point, though, is that suggesting Rock Creek Park is a fine alternative to bike lanes on Connecticut means making it FAR less convenient for bikes than for any other mode of transportation. Which maybe makes sense if you just think anyone who rides a bike anywhere is an idiot who must be punished, but from a planning standpoint, it's probably not ideal.

I need to get to work *DOWNTOWN*. I am not gonna ride through RCP for that and then go all the way from the damn Mall over and up again. I'm just gonna ride down Conn Ave to Calvert and through AdMo. Yeah, it sucks. But its like half the freaking time if not less than going through RCP and the trails.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yeah, I'm at least as pro-bike lane as the next person who bikes downtown a lot, but it's silly to pretend the elections (at any level, ANC through ward Council member) were referenda on bike lanes. No one specifically campaigned against them in any race I can remember, so the fact that the people who won supported them doesn't exactly prove that everyone who voted for them also wanted the project.

Not true.

David Krucoff campaigned against them and in the Connecticut Avenue precincts, he did worse against Frumin than he did elsewhere across the Ward.
There were several ANC races in Ward 3 where the bike lanes were THE defining issue, and in each case, the pro-bile lane candidate won.

Krucoff had an "R" next to his name, which means he had no chance of winning no matter his stance on anything.

Good lord, you can't possibly be so stupid to use that argument.

And, in the precincts where bike lanes were the main issue, Frumin outperformed Krucoff as compared to the rest of the ward. Maybe you aren't getting it, so I will explain.

If Frumin generally beat Krucoff 75-25 in Palisades and Spring Valley, in Woodley Park, Cleveland Park and Forest Hills, he beat Krucoff 80-20. Get it?

DP, but nothing you’ve written excludes party affiliation as an explanation for voter preference. Maybe Woodley Park, Cleveland Park, Forest Hills voters have stronger partisan biases.

Which would mean more people in those areas support progressive issues like...bike lanes.

They also voted overwhelmingly for Bowser. Is there anything you believe that makes consistent sense?

At the time, Bowser supported Concept C.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yeah, I'm at least as pro-bike lane as the next person who bikes downtown a lot, but it's silly to pretend the elections (at any level, ANC through ward Council member) were referenda on bike lanes. No one specifically campaigned against them in any race I can remember, so the fact that the people who won supported them doesn't exactly prove that everyone who voted for them also wanted the project.

Not true.

David Krucoff campaigned against them and in the Connecticut Avenue precincts, he did worse against Frumin than he did elsewhere across the Ward.
There were several ANC races in Ward 3 where the bike lanes were THE defining issue, and in each case, the pro-bile lane candidate won.

Krucoff had an "R" next to his name, which means he had no chance of winning no matter his stance on anything.

Good lord, you can't possibly be so stupid to use that argument.

And, in the precincts where bike lanes were the main issue, Frumin outperformed Krucoff as compared to the rest of the ward. Maybe you aren't getting it, so I will explain.

If Frumin generally beat Krucoff 75-25 in Palisades and Spring Valley, in Woodley Park, Cleveland Park and Forest Hills, he beat Krucoff 80-20. Get it?

DP, but nothing you’ve written excludes party affiliation as an explanation for voter preference. Maybe Woodley Park, Cleveland Park, Forest Hills voters have stronger partisan biases.

Which would mean more people in those areas support progressive issues like...bike lanes.

Not all progressives think bike lanes on Connecticut Avenue are a good idea, but even if they did, you still haven’t excluded partisan identification as the primary driver of voter preference. The only information on the ballot were the candidates’ names and party affiliation. You would have a stronger case if bike lane positions were on the ballot or if party identification had a weaker relationship with candidate preference in recent elections.

[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:

Anonymous wrote:For me, the one thing that makes Connecticut Ave such a bad idea for bikes lanes is that it is the gateway for millions of tourists each year. Most of whom are not familiar with DC roads nor used to driving in any city. So to mix those tens of thousands of tourist cars each year with a project that will induce thousands of new cyclists each day seems like a total death wish. For that reason Connecticut Ave is fairly unique as compared to other roads where this has been attempted. It’s just a really bad idea.

Think of how much better it would be if the tourists were not driving cars but on other modes of transportation? You are making the argument FOR bike lanes, thank you.

The people who drive to the zoo are most definitely not interested in participating in transit lifestyle you covet.

That's silly. Transit isn't a lifestyle, it's transportation. Would you say you participate in car lifestyle?

Yes.

You participate in a car lifestyle?! I'm so sorry.

Appreciate your concern, but I enjoy my car lifestyle!!

I used to enjoy my smoking inside at restaurants lifestyle, but the government doesn't have an obligation to legislate around things that are bad for people

Not having a tax base is bad for people.

Governments once made a lot of revenue from tobacco taxes. Thankfully that didn’t dissuade legislators from putting in place the measures that have enabled people to live healthier lifestyles.

Those measures were to both increase tobacco taxes and to require tobacco companies to effectively pay an annual dividend to states like they were shareholders.

It all comes together though because you’re spending your life arguing about some fantasy. DDOT listening to these very same arguments for a decade about Connecticut Ave and said no. I’m not sure why you are wasting your time arguing to death about something that is not going to happen in the foreseeable future but it’s both kind of sad and kind of funny.

DDOT didn't say no.

The Mayor said no, because she listened to a lot of BS and lies from a bunch of entitled old white people who cannot envision a life without cars.

The majority of the people want the bike lanes, and the science and economics back them up.

You’re disconnected from objective reality.

The DDOT director testified before the Council and stated the position of the agency. She explained and explicitly said that this was never supposed to be a bike lane project. DDOT works for the mayor. So the decisions of DDOT reflect the decision of the mayor. As for the opinion of the “majority” of the people, they overwhelmingly voted for the mayor.

What are you doing arguing to death for days on end about something that’s over? Do you not understand how crazy that is?

You mean the interim Director who has no experience or knowledge of transportation engineering or transportation planning, who clearly had no knowledge of MoveDC or any of the other plans and stakeholder engagement that has taken place across this and other projects across the city? Ya, we don't need another ignorant mayoral lackey in this position. She had no idea what she was talking about and was completely out of her elements.

In terms of the "majority" of the people, yes, the Mayor ran on a platform of VisionZero and SutainableDC2.0, which both call for sustainable transportation practices including bike lanes. She also ran on the MoveDC plan, which her DDOT spent millions to commission and produce.

Meanwhile, the opponent petition gathered around 3600 supporters over 2 years while the proponent petition has gathered over 4500 signatures in just a few weeks. The Councilmember ran on the bike lanes and won, and not only did he win, but in the precincts where bike lanes on Connecitcut Avenue were the primary issue - in contested ANC races as well - he outpollled the republican opponent as compared to other precincts across the ward by several points. You can look it up.

More people want the bike lanes, they promote safety in transportation, better health outcomes, more pedestrian safety and are a boon to local businesses.

The science and academic studies back it up.

Perhaps you havent noticed but no one asked for all these bike lanes and almost nobody uses them. Transportation surveys consistently show bicycling is among the least, if not *the least,* popular way of getting around.

"No one" in your mind is the single family homeowners. You seem to be forgetting the thousands of apartment and condo dwellers who you seem to never talk to.

Look at the data. The number of people riding bikes in DC is a rounding error. It’s pretty remarkable how few people ride given how much money the city has spent on bike infrastructure. It’s a small niche and nothing more.

It's not just DC. The number of people riding bike is down in cities across the country.

https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2023-09-27/biking-to-work-isn-t-gaining-any-ground-in-the-us?embedded-checkout=true

Once again you are talking about commuting only. Commuting makes up about 20% of trips, and is not representative of the other 80%. This article is even worse than the MWCOG survey because it doesn't account for the rise in telework during the pandemic. All commutes are down in absolute terms, but recovering slowly because of "butts in seats" policies to save CRE. People got used to not driving in to work so much, and figured out they liked it. Not having to drive has become a large quality of life factor.

[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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For me, the one thing that makes Connecticut Ave such a bad idea for bikes lanes is that it is the gateway for millions of tourists each year. Most of whom are not familiar with DC roads nor used to driving in any city. So to mix those tens of thousands of tourist cars each year with a project that will induce thousands of new cyclists each day seems like a total death wish. For that reason Connecticut Ave is fairly unique as compared to other roads where this has been attempted. It’s just a really bad idea.

Think of how much better it would be if the tourists were not driving cars but on other modes of transportation? You are making the argument FOR bike lanes, thank you.

The people who drive to the zoo are most definitely not interested in participating in transit lifestyle you covet.

That's silly. Transit isn't a lifestyle, it's transportation. Would you say you participate in car lifestyle?

Yes.

You participate in a car lifestyle?! I'm so sorry.

Appreciate your concern, but I enjoy my car lifestyle!!

I used to enjoy my smoking inside at restaurants lifestyle, but the government doesn't have an obligation to legislate around things that are bad for people

Not having a tax base is bad for people.

Governments once made a lot of revenue from tobacco taxes. Thankfully that didn’t dissuade legislators from putting in place the measures that have enabled people to live healthier lifestyles.

Those measures were to both increase tobacco taxes and to require tobacco companies to effectively pay an annual dividend to states like they were shareholders.

It all comes together though because you’re spending your life arguing about some fantasy. DDOT listening to these very same arguments for a decade about Connecticut Ave and said no. I’m not sure why you are wasting your time arguing to death about something that is not going to happen in the foreseeable future but it’s both kind of sad and kind of funny.

DDOT didn't say no.

The Mayor said no, because she listened to a lot of BS and lies from a bunch of entitled old white people who cannot envision a life without cars.

The majority of the people want the bike lanes, and the science and economics back them up.

You’re disconnected from objective reality.

The DDOT director testified before the Council and stated the position of the agency. She explained and explicitly said that this was never supposed to be a bike lane project. DDOT works for the mayor. So the decisions of DDOT reflect the decision of the mayor. As for the opinion of the “majority” of the people, they overwhelmingly voted for the mayor.

What are you doing arguing to death for days on end about something that’s over? Do you not understand how crazy that is?

You mean the interim Director who has no experience or knowledge of transportation engineering or transportation planning, who clearly had no knowledge of MoveDC or any of the other plans and stakeholder engagement that has taken place across this and other projects across the city? Ya, we don't need another ignorant mayoral lackey in this position. She had no idea what she was talking about and was completely out of her elements.

In terms of the "majority" of the people, yes, the Mayor ran on a platform of VisionZero and SutainableDC2.0, which both call for sustainable transportation practices including bike lanes. She also ran on the MoveDC plan, which her DDOT spent millions to commission and produce.

Meanwhile, the opponent petition gathered around 3600 supporters over 2 years while the proponent petition has gathered over 4500 signatures in just a few weeks. The Councilmember ran on the bike lanes and won, and not only did he win, but in the precincts where bike lanes on Connecitcut Avenue were the primary issue - in contested ANC races as well - he outpollled the republican opponent as compared to other precincts across the ward by several points. You can look it up.

More people want the bike lanes, they promote safety in transportation, better health outcomes, more pedestrian safety and are a boon to local businesses.

The science and academic studies back it up.

Perhaps you havent noticed but no one asked for all these bike lanes and almost nobody uses them. Transportation surveys consistently show bicycling is among the least, if not *the least,* popular way of getting around.

"No one" in your mind is the single family homeowners. You seem to be forgetting the thousands of apartment and condo dwellers who you seem to never talk to.

Look at the data. The number of people riding bikes in DC is a rounding error. It’s pretty remarkable how few people ride given how much money the city has spent on bike infrastructure. It’s a small niche and nothing more.

It's not just DC. The number of people riding bike is down in cities across the country.

https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2023-09-27/biking-to-work-isn-t-gaining-any-ground-in-the-us?embedded-checkout=true

Once again you are talking about commuting only. Commuting makes up about 20% of trips, and is not representative of the other 80%. This article is even worse than the MWCOG survey because it doesn't account for the rise in telework during the pandemic. All commutes are down in absolute terms, but recovering slowly because of "butts in seats" policies to save CRE. People got used to not driving in to work so much, and figured out they liked it. Not having to drive has become a large quality of life factor.

It's almost as though people would rather not have to drive to work than have to drive to work! And, of course, multiple studies have found that people who bike or walk to work are the happiest, and people who drive their cars to work are the least happy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:At the same time they are pushing to get rid of a significant amount of the bus service in the same area - re: the 96 and the L2. Buses are much more accessible to many people than the metro and bike lanes and should not be cut back

There is so much overlap with metrorail on this corridor that cutting the bus service actually makes sense.

So bikes can't ride on side streets and then double back on to CT Ave to do their shopping (there are tons of posts about how bikes must have a straight shot and bike lanes all the way along their preferred routes), but old people, disabled, people with little kids etc.. need to get themselves multiple blocks to the metro stops and up and down the escalators v.s the bus stops which are much more frequent and user friendly for groups that arent' fleet footed.

I'm pro-bike lane but agree with you that cutting bus service would be a mistake. However, to be clear, the posts don't say bikes "must have a straight shot"; they typically say riding in Rock Creek Park is a bad alternative to riding on Connecticut. If you wanted to put protected bike lanes on, say, Porter instead of CT, I'd be all for it, going a couple of blocks out of the way is nothing like going half a mile downhill out of the way (and then ending up in Georgetown instead of downtown).

Cars have to go out of the way ALL THE TIME (one way streets, roundabouts, etc). This is a function of travel by car. You can't get directly where you want to go in DC without having to make some loops and turnarounds because of the traffic flow. Pedestrians are the only ones not limited in this way. I don't understand why bikers believe that this should not be the case for them as well. Their traffic patterns need to be managed and diverted for the greater good just like vehicle traffic.

Yes, cars go a block or two out of the way all the time. But going through the park instead of on Connecticut from, say, my house, would add three-quarters of a mile and nearly double the amount of vertical feet involved in the trip (and if I wanted to stay in the park all the way to where the trail ends, it would add even more, but that distance is for if I were to exit it in Woodley Park instead). I don't think that's really comparable to having to drive through a roundabout.

I'm often happy to go out of my way to get to a protected bike lane (I head to 15th Street as soon as possible when commuting through downtown). My point, though, is that suggesting Rock Creek Park is a fine alternative to bike lanes on Connecticut means making it FAR less convenient for bikes than for any other mode of transportation. Which maybe makes sense if you just think anyone who rides a bike anywhere is an idiot who must be punished, but from a planning standpoint, it's probably not ideal.

I need to get to work *DOWNTOWN*. I am not gonna ride through RCP for that and then go all the way from the damn Mall over and up again. I'm just gonna ride down Conn Ave to Calvert and through AdMo. Yeah, it sucks. But its like half the freaking time if not less than going through RCP and the trails.

Please stop arguing with the "bikers can just take RCP" posters. They make this argument in every single bike lane thread, they get shot down by multiple people making the same argument as you and they never come back to explain what someone who wants to bike a few blocks on CT ave is supposed to do without doubling their commute time. They are not arguing in good faith; they just don't want to have to share a small slice of the road with people who are not like them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yeah, I'm at least as pro-bike lane as the next person who bikes downtown a lot, but it's silly to pretend the elections (at any level, ANC through ward Council member) were referenda on bike lanes. No one specifically campaigned against them in any race I can remember, so the fact that the people who won supported them doesn't exactly prove that everyone who voted for them also wanted the project.

Not true.

David Krucoff campaigned against them and in the Connecticut Avenue precincts, he did worse against Frumin than he did elsewhere across the Ward.
There were several ANC races in Ward 3 where the bike lanes were THE defining issue, and in each case, the pro-bile lane candidate won.

Krucoff had an "R" next to his name, which means he had no chance of winning no matter his stance on anything.

Good lord, you can't possibly be so stupid to use that argument.

And, in the precincts where bike lanes were the main issue, Frumin outperformed Krucoff as compared to the rest of the ward. Maybe you aren't getting it, so I will explain.

If Frumin generally beat Krucoff 75-25 in Palisades and Spring Valley, in Woodley Park, Cleveland Park and Forest Hills, he beat Krucoff 80-20. Get it?

DP, but nothing you’ve written excludes party affiliation as an explanation for voter preference. Maybe Woodley Park, Cleveland Park, Forest Hills voters have stronger partisan biases.

Which would mean more people in those areas support progressive issues like...bike lanes.

They also voted overwhelmingly for Bowser. Is there anything you believe that makes consistent sense?

At the time, Bowser supported the bike lanes. What is your point?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yeah, I'm at least as pro-bike lane as the next person who bikes downtown a lot, but it's silly to pretend the elections (at any level, ANC through ward Council member) were referenda on bike lanes. No one specifically campaigned against them in any race I can remember, so the fact that the people who won supported them doesn't exactly prove that everyone who voted for them also wanted the project.

Not true.

David Krucoff campaigned against them and in the Connecticut Avenue precincts, he did worse against Frumin than he did elsewhere across the Ward.
There were several ANC races in Ward 3 where the bike lanes were THE defining issue, and in each case, the pro-bile lane candidate won.

Krucoff had an "R" next to his name, which means he had no chance of winning no matter his stance on anything.

Good lord, you can't possibly be so stupid to use that argument.

And, in the precincts where bike lanes were the main issue, Frumin outperformed Krucoff as compared to the rest of the ward. Maybe you aren't getting it, so I will explain.

If Frumin generally beat Krucoff 75-25 in Palisades and Spring Valley, in Woodley Park, Cleveland Park and Forest Hills, he beat Krucoff 80-20. Get it?

DP, but nothing you’ve written excludes party affiliation as an explanation for voter preference. Maybe Woodley Park, Cleveland Park, Forest Hills voters have stronger partisan biases.

Which would mean more people in those areas support progressive issues like...bike lanes.

Not all progressives think bike lanes on Connecticut Avenue are a good idea, but even if they did, you still haven’t excluded partisan identification as the primary driver of voter preference. The only information on the ballot were the candidates’ names and party affiliation. You would have a stronger case if bike lane positions were on the ballot or if party identification had a weaker relationship with candidate preference in recent elections.

Anyone engaged with the Council race, particularly in the Connecticut Avenue corridor, had a lot of exposure to this issue, as other than party affiliation, was the only real difference between the candidates. The republican, in fact LIVES in Cleveland Park so it was his home turf, and he still underperformed. It is clear you don't live on the Conn Ave corridor and missed all of the signs, wheatpaste stickers, Nextdoor and Listserv posts on the race, which were solely focused on this one issue.