Connecticut Avenue bike lane officially dead

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think the bike lobby lost the room early on when they used what was originally called the “Connecticut Avenue NW Reversible Lane Safety and Operations Study” as a Trojan horse to turn this into primarily a bike lane project. During COVID they stacked meetings with WABA members, many from outside Ward 3, to give the appearance of a public process. Many neighbors were not paying attention and struggling to educate their kids remotely.

I don't know about the "bike lobby" trope, but what I do know is that people like me are your friends and neighbors who simply want a safer way to get up and down the corridor. Referring to people like me as a"lobby" is really dehumanizing and insulating, though I guess that is why you do it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the bike lobby lost the room early on when they used what was originally called the “Connecticut Avenue NW Reversible Lane Safety and Operations Study” as a Trojan horse to turn this into primarily a bike lane project. During COVID they stacked meetings with WABA members, many from outside Ward 3, to give the appearance of a public process. Many neighbors were not paying attention and struggling to educate their kids remotely.

Bike lanes were but one part of a comprehensive plan to make the street safer for all users. Now, instead, we will get something that makes it easier for some people to park their cars and nothing else.

Wrong. We get more pedestrian safety too. That was always one of WABA’s selling points for bike lanes. This plan is unquestionably safer for pedestrians because they’ll only have to cross four lanes of traffic instead of six. Nobody thought the cyclists actually cared about pedestrian safety, and here you are proving them right.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the bike lobby lost the room early on when they used what was originally called the “Connecticut Avenue NW Reversible Lane Safety and Operations Study” as a Trojan horse to turn this into primarily a bike lane project. During COVID they stacked meetings with WABA members, many from outside Ward 3, to give the appearance of a public process. Many neighbors were not paying attention and struggling to educate their kids remotely.

Bike lanes were but one part of a comprehensive plan to make the street safer for all users. Now, instead, we will get something that makes it easier for some people to park their cars and nothing else.

Wrong. We get more pedestrian safety too. That was always one of WABA’s selling points for bike lanes. This plan is unquestionably safer for pedestrians because they’ll only have to cross four lanes of traffic instead of six. Nobody thought the cyclists actually cared about pedestrian safety, and here you are proving them right.

With two of the lanes taken up by blocked sightlines via parked cars.

[Anonymous]

Who are the entitled rich, white males?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the bike lobby lost the room early on when they used what was originally called the “Connecticut Avenue NW Reversible Lane Safety and Operations Study” as a Trojan horse to turn this into primarily a bike lane project. During COVID they stacked meetings with WABA members, many from outside Ward 3, to give the appearance of a public process. Many neighbors were not paying attention and struggling to educate their kids remotely.

Bike lanes were but one part of a comprehensive plan to make the street safer for all users. Now, instead, we will get something that makes it easier for some people to park their cars and nothing else.

Wrong. We get more pedestrian safety too. That was always one of WABA’s selling points for bike lanes. This plan is unquestionably safer for pedestrians because they’ll only have to cross four lanes of traffic instead of six. Nobody thought the cyclists actually cared about pedestrian safety, and here you are proving them right.

With two of the lanes taken up by blocked sightlines via parked cars.

I thought you wanted jersey barriers which would have even less visibility?

Heck, didn't y'all also say that sightlines were unimportant in terms of safety?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the bike lobby lost the room early on when they used what was originally called the “Connecticut Avenue NW Reversible Lane Safety and Operations Study” as a Trojan horse to turn this into primarily a bike lane project. During COVID they stacked meetings with WABA members, many from outside Ward 3, to give the appearance of a public process. Many neighbors were not paying attention and struggling to educate their kids remotely.

Bike lanes were but one part of a comprehensive plan to make the street safer for all users. Now, instead, we will get something that makes it easier for some people to park their cars and nothing else.

Wrong. We get more pedestrian safety too. That was always one of WABA’s selling points for bike lanes. This plan is unquestionably safer for pedestrians because they’ll only have to cross four lanes of traffic instead of six. Nobody thought the cyclists actually cared about pedestrian safety, and here you are proving them right.

With two of the lanes taken up by blocked sightlines via parked cars.

With bump outs so the sightings won’t be blocked by the parked cars or by the cyclists in bike lanes who would have been blocking pedestrian sight lines in your option.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the bike lobby lost the room early on when they used what was originally called the “Connecticut Avenue NW Reversible Lane Safety and Operations Study” as a Trojan horse to turn this into primarily a bike lane project. During COVID they stacked meetings with WABA members, many from outside Ward 3, to give the appearance of a public process. Many neighbors were not paying attention and struggling to educate their kids remotely.

I don't know about the "bike lobby" trope, but what I do know is that people like me are your friends and neighbors who simply want a safer way to get up and down the corridor. Referring to people like me as a"lobby" is really dehumanizing and insulating, though I guess that is why you do it.

WABA literally gets money from the DC government to lobby for bike lanes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the bike lobby lost the room early on when they used what was originally called the “Connecticut Avenue NW Reversible Lane Safety and Operations Study” as a Trojan horse to turn this into primarily a bike lane project. During COVID they stacked meetings with WABA members, many from outside Ward 3, to give the appearance of a public process. Many neighbors were not paying attention and struggling to educate their kids remotely.

Bike lanes were but one part of a comprehensive plan to make the street safer for all users. Now, instead, we will get something that makes it easier for some people to park their cars and nothing else.

Wrong. We get more pedestrian safety too. That was always one of WABA’s selling points for bike lanes. This plan is unquestionably safer for pedestrians because they’ll only have to cross four lanes of traffic instead of six. Nobody thought the cyclists actually cared about pedestrian safety, and here you are proving them right.

With two of the lanes taken up by blocked sightlines via parked cars.

I thought you wanted jersey barriers which would have even less visibility?

Heck, didn't y'all also say that sightlines were unimportant in terms of safety?

Jersey barriers are 3 feet tall. Cars and SUVs are 5-7 feet tall. Kinds of a difference for sightlines, no?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the bike lobby lost the room early on when they used what was originally called the “Connecticut Avenue NW Reversible Lane Safety and Operations Study” as a Trojan horse to turn this into primarily a bike lane project. During COVID they stacked meetings with WABA members, many from outside Ward 3, to give the appearance of a public process. Many neighbors were not paying attention and struggling to educate their kids remotely.

I don't know about the "bike lobby" trope, but what I do know is that people like me are your friends and neighbors who simply want a safer way to get up and down the corridor. Referring to people like me as a"lobby" is really dehumanizing and insulating, though I guess that is why you do it.

WABA literally gets money from the DC government to lobby for bike lanes.

This has already been debunked on this thread. Why are you repeating this lie again?

WABA gets money for contractual work for DDOT, specifically teaching kids to ride bikes and to implement the trail maintenance program. This is no different than Bread for the City getting money via contract for food services while also advocating for human services. This is the model in 21st century governance. If you don't like it, run for office and pass a law prohibiting the practice. Until then, please stop repeating lies.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the bike lobby lost the room early on when they used what was originally called the “Connecticut Avenue NW Reversible Lane Safety and Operations Study” as a Trojan horse to turn this into primarily a bike lane project. During COVID they stacked meetings with WABA members, many from outside Ward 3, to give the appearance of a public process. Many neighbors were not paying attention and struggling to educate their kids remotely.

Bike lanes were but one part of a comprehensive plan to make the street safer for all users. Now, instead, we will get something that makes it easier for some people to park their cars and nothing else.

Wrong. We get more pedestrian safety too. That was always one of WABA’s selling points for bike lanes. This plan is unquestionably safer for pedestrians because they’ll only have to cross four lanes of traffic instead of six. Nobody thought the cyclists actually cared about pedestrian safety, and here you are proving them right.

With two of the lanes taken up by blocked sightlines via parked cars.

I thought you wanted jersey barriers which would have even less visibility?

Heck, didn't y'all also say that sightlines were unimportant in terms of safety?

Jersey barriers are 3 feet tall. Cars and SUVs are 5-7 feet tall. Kinds of a difference for sightlines, no?

But you told us that speed was the only thing that mattered and therefore the magic solution was congestion. You got exactly what you argued for.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the bike lobby lost the room early on when they used what was originally called the “Connecticut Avenue NW Reversible Lane Safety and Operations Study” as a Trojan horse to turn this into primarily a bike lane project. During COVID they stacked meetings with WABA members, many from outside Ward 3, to give the appearance of a public process. Many neighbors were not paying attention and struggling to educate their kids remotely.

Bike lanes were but one part of a comprehensive plan to make the street safer for all users. Now, instead, we will get something that makes it easier for some people to park their cars and nothing else.

Wrong. We get more pedestrian safety too. That was always one of WABA’s selling points for bike lanes. This plan is unquestionably safer for pedestrians because they’ll only have to cross four lanes of traffic instead of six. Nobody thought the cyclists actually cared about pedestrian safety, and here you are proving them right.

With two of the lanes taken up by blocked sightlines via parked cars.

I thought you wanted jersey barriers which would have even less visibility?

Heck, didn't y'all also say that sightlines were unimportant in terms of safety?

Jersey barriers are 3 feet tall. Cars and SUVs are 5-7 feet tall. Kinds of a difference for sightlines, no?

But you told us that speed was the only thing that mattered and therefore the magic solution was congestion. You got exactly what you argued for.

I didn't tell you anything. What we get from the people opposed to the bike lanes is on the one hand, the proposed plan would tie up Connecticut Avenue forcing spillover traffic on to side streets whereas the new plan takes away two lanes instead of just one, hence even more spillover traffic than what was proposed and opposed.

To me, it is a protected space for cyclists/scooter/wheelchairs etc so as to not have cars so close without the protection of some sort. I believe it was DDOT that said there would be a "road diet" one way or another, and so they have chosen this plan, which even the people organizing the opposition to bike lanes have admitted is horrible. They wanted more parking and the city listened, and now they are complaining about that. Go figure.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the bike lobby lost the room early on when they used what was originally called the “Connecticut Avenue NW Reversible Lane Safety and Operations Study” as a Trojan horse to turn this into primarily a bike lane project. During COVID they stacked meetings with WABA members, many from outside Ward 3, to give the appearance of a public process. Many neighbors were not paying attention and struggling to educate their kids remotely.

Bike lanes were but one part of a comprehensive plan to make the street safer for all users. Now, instead, we will get something that makes it easier for some people to park their cars and nothing else.

Wrong. We get more pedestrian safety too. That was always one of WABA’s selling points for bike lanes. This plan is unquestionably safer for pedestrians because they’ll only have to cross four lanes of traffic instead of six. Nobody thought the cyclists actually cared about pedestrian safety, and here you are proving them right.

With two of the lanes taken up by blocked sightlines via parked cars.

I thought you wanted jersey barriers which would have even less visibility?

Heck, didn't y'all also say that sightlines were unimportant in terms of safety?

Jersey barriers are 3 feet tall. Cars and SUVs are 5-7 feet tall. Kinds of a difference for sightlines, no?

Cyclists on bikes are 5-7 feet tall. Bump outs elevate pedestrians so they’re better for sightlines and pedestrians are more visible. You ignore the bump outs because they’re inconvenient for your argument.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the bike lobby lost the room early on when they used what was originally called the “Connecticut Avenue NW Reversible Lane Safety and Operations Study” as a Trojan horse to turn this into primarily a bike lane project. During COVID they stacked meetings with WABA members, many from outside Ward 3, to give the appearance of a public process. Many neighbors were not paying attention and struggling to educate their kids remotely.

Bike lanes were but one part of a comprehensive plan to make the street safer for all users. Now, instead, we will get something that makes it easier for some people to park their cars and nothing else.

Wrong. We get more pedestrian safety too. That was always one of WABA’s selling points for bike lanes. This plan is unquestionably safer for pedestrians because they’ll only have to cross four lanes of traffic instead of six. Nobody thought the cyclists actually cared about pedestrian safety, and here you are proving them right.

With two of the lanes taken up by blocked sightlines via parked cars.

I thought you wanted jersey barriers which would have even less visibility?

Heck, didn't y'all also say that sightlines were unimportant in terms of safety?

Jersey barriers are 3 feet tall. Cars and SUVs are 5-7 feet tall. Kinds of a difference for sightlines, no?

But you told us that speed was the only thing that mattered and therefore the magic solution was congestion. You got exactly what you argued for.

I didn't tell you anything. What we get from the people opposed to the bike lanes is on the one hand, the proposed plan would tie up Connecticut Avenue forcing spillover traffic on to side streets whereas the new plan takes away two lanes instead of just one, hence even more spillover traffic than what was proposed and opposed.

To me, it is a protected space for cyclists/scooter/wheelchairs etc so as to not have cars so close without the protection of some sort. I believe it was DDOT that said there would be a "road diet" one way or another, and so they have chosen this plan, which even the people organizing the opposition to bike lanes have admitted is horrible. They wanted more parking and the city listened, and now they are complaining about that. Go figure.

Nobody opposed to the bike lanes is happy about this plan. We do feel a bit of schadenfreude though, especially now that you all are complaining about instead of defending the flaws we pointed out.

It's a horrible plan but it has everything the bicyclists said was needed. A physical barrier between the sidewalk and the road. Check. Increased congestion. Check. Traffic equity. Check. I don't understand why you all are complaining. It's exactly what you all lobbied for.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the bike lobby lost the room early on when they used what was originally called the “Connecticut Avenue NW Reversible Lane Safety and Operations Study” as a Trojan horse to turn this into primarily a bike lane project. During COVID they stacked meetings with WABA members, many from outside Ward 3, to give the appearance of a public process. Many neighbors were not paying attention and struggling to educate their kids remotely.

I don't know about the "bike lobby" trope, but what I do know is that people like me are your friends and neighbors who simply want a safer way to get up and down the corridor. Referring to people like me as a"lobby" is really dehumanizing and insulating, though I guess that is why you do it.

WABA literally gets money from the DC government to lobby for bike lanes.

I also thought that WABA was registered as an official lobbying organization. I understand that not every bike activist is affiliated with WABA but this “dehumanizing” talk is just nutty.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the bike lobby lost the room early on when they used what was originally called the “Connecticut Avenue NW Reversible Lane Safety and Operations Study” as a Trojan horse to turn this into primarily a bike lane project. During COVID they stacked meetings with WABA members, many from outside Ward 3, to give the appearance of a public process. Many neighbors were not paying attention and struggling to educate their kids remotely.

Bike lanes were but one part of a comprehensive plan to make the street safer for all users. Now, instead, we will get something that makes it easier for some people to park their cars and nothing else.

Wrong. We get more pedestrian safety too. That was always one of WABA’s selling points for bike lanes. This plan is unquestionably safer for pedestrians because they’ll only have to cross four lanes of traffic instead of six. Nobody thought the cyclists actually cared about pedestrian safety, and here you are proving them right.

With two of the lanes taken up by blocked sightlines via parked cars.

I thought you wanted jersey barriers which would have even less visibility?

Heck, didn't y'all also say that sightlines were unimportant in terms of safety?

Jersey barriers are 3 feet tall. Cars and SUVs are 5-7 feet tall. Kinds of a difference for sightlines, no?

But you told us that speed was the only thing that mattered and therefore the magic solution was congestion. You got exactly what you argued for.

I didn't tell you anything. What we get from the people opposed to the bike lanes is on the one hand, the proposed plan would tie up Connecticut Avenue forcing spillover traffic on to side streets whereas the new plan takes away two lanes instead of just one, hence even more spillover traffic than what was proposed and opposed.

To me, it is a protected space for cyclists/scooter/wheelchairs etc so as to not have cars so close without the protection of some sort. I believe it was DDOT that said there would be a "road diet" one way or another, and so they have chosen this plan, which even the people organizing the opposition to bike lanes have admitted is horrible. They wanted more parking and the city listened, and now they are complaining about that. Go figure.

Nobody opposed to the bike lanes is happy about this plan. We do feel a bit of schadenfreude though, especially now that you all are complaining about instead of defending the flaws we pointed out.

It's a horrible plan but it has everything the bicyclists said was needed. A physical barrier between the sidewalk and the road. Check. Increased congestion. Check. Traffic equity. Check. I don't understand why you all are complaining. It's exactly what you all lobbied for.

No, it really isn't and the fact you would even try to make the equivalence is quite the tell.

But just expect cars to be slowed down even more with cyclists using the center and left lanes.