Connecticut Ave bike lanes are back!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Nothing to do with the R next to his name? Just bike lanes. You’re so funny.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I live there and was a crime and voucher voter. Krukoff was light years better on those two issues. I couldn’t care less about bike lanes.

[Anonymous]

And yet, there are clearly hundreds/thousands, who do.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I live there and was a crime and voucher voter. Krukoff was light years better on those two issues. I couldn’t care less about bike lanes.

At the time, Krukoff was talking about rising crime. Frumin was talking about pickle ball courts.

[Anonymous]

It's adorable that there are people who actually believe Krucoff lost because he opposed bike lanes and not because he was a Republican running for election in Washington, DC.

You all need serious help.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It's adorable that there are people who actually believe Krucoff lost because he opposed bike lanes and not because he was a Republican running for election in Washington, DC.

You all need serious help.

That isn't the argument.

The argument is that he underperformed on his home turf as compared to the rest of the ward. It stands to reason that if people were voting on party lines, then the vote would be relatively consistent across the ward. However, Krucoff underperformed in his own neighborhood. Sure that may mean there are more progressives and liberals in the Connecticut Avenue precincts, but then it would stand to reason that being a democrat and supporting better health and better environmental outcomes would mean also supporting bike lanes, which, yes, were a core issue in the 2022 election cycle.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's adorable that there are people who actually believe Krucoff lost because he opposed bike lanes and not because he was a Republican running for election in Washington, DC.

You all need serious help.

That isn't the argument.

The argument is that he underperformed on his home turf as compared to the rest of the ward. It stands to reason that if people were voting on party lines, then the vote would be relatively consistent across the ward. However, Krucoff underperformed in his own neighborhood. Sure that may mean there are more progressives and liberals in the Connecticut Avenue precincts, but then it would stand to reason that being a democrat and supporting better health and better environmental outcomes would mean also supporting bike lanes, which, yes, were a core issue in the 2022 election cycle.

Very few residents, including apparently DDOT, understood that this was a bike lane project in 2022.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's adorable that there are people who actually believe Krucoff lost because he opposed bike lanes and not because he was a Republican running for election in Washington, DC.

You all need serious help.

That isn't the argument.

The argument is that he underperformed on his home turf as compared to the rest of the ward. It stands to reason that if people were voting on party lines, then the vote would be relatively consistent across the ward. However, Krucoff underperformed in his own neighborhood. Sure that may mean there are more progressives and liberals in the Connecticut Avenue precincts, but then it would stand to reason that being a democrat and supporting better health and better environmental outcomes would mean also supporting bike lanes, which, yes, were a core issue in the 2022 election cycle.

Very few residents, including apparently DDOT, understood that this was a bike lane project in 2022.

The first post of the 403-page "Options for opposing Connecticut Avenue changes?" thread is from September 11, 2022. Jeff finally locked it in February 2024.

https://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/1081657.page

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's adorable that there are people who actually believe Krucoff lost because he opposed bike lanes and not because he was a Republican running for election in Washington, DC.

You all need serious help.

That isn't the argument.

The argument is that he underperformed on his home turf as compared to the rest of the ward. It stands to reason that if people were voting on party lines, then the vote would be relatively consistent across the ward. However, Krucoff underperformed in his own neighborhood. Sure that may mean there are more progressives and liberals in the Connecticut Avenue precincts, but then it would stand to reason that being a democrat and supporting better health and better environmental outcomes would mean also supporting bike lanes, which, yes, were a core issue in the 2022 election cycle.

Very few residents, including apparently DDOT, understood that this was a bike lane project in 2022.

But it was called the Reversible Lanes Study. How could people not know?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's adorable that there are people who actually believe Krucoff lost because he opposed bike lanes and not because he was a Republican running for election in Washington, DC.

You all need serious help.

That isn't the argument.

The argument is that he underperformed on his home turf as compared to the rest of the ward. It stands to reason that if people were voting on party lines, then the vote would be relatively consistent across the ward. However, Krucoff underperformed in his own neighborhood. Sure that may mean there are more progressives and liberals in the Connecticut Avenue precincts, but then it would stand to reason that being a democrat and supporting better health and better environmental outcomes would mean also supporting bike lanes, which, yes, were a core issue in the 2022 election cycle.

I'm very pro-bike lane because I frequently commute by bike on Connecticut, I vote in every election, I'm a Ward 3 homeowner, and I had no idea that Krucoff (or Frumin, for that matter) had a position at all on bike lanes on Connecticut. Overall voter turnout in this election was 52 percent in the ward. I don't really think you're helping the pro-bike lane cause by trying to claim that the 2022 election tells us anything about what people think about that project.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's adorable that there are people who actually believe Krucoff lost because he opposed bike lanes and not because he was a Republican running for election in Washington, DC.

You all need serious help.

That isn't the argument.

The argument is that he underperformed on his home turf as compared to the rest of the ward. It stands to reason that if people were voting on party lines, then the vote would be relatively consistent across the ward. However, Krucoff underperformed in his own neighborhood. Sure that may mean there are more progressives and liberals in the Connecticut Avenue precincts, but then it would stand to reason that being a democrat and supporting better health and better environmental outcomes would mean also supporting bike lanes, which, yes, were a core issue in the 2022 election cycle.

Very few residents, including apparently DDOT, understood that this was a bike lane project in 2022.

Every meeting was promoted on the neighborhood listservs, through public notice, through social media etc. Individual ANC Commisioners may email their constituents. It would be really hard to willfully ignore all of these messages to not know what was going on. And then COVID hit and guess what? Online platforms made it easier and more convenient for people to "attend" meetings and, they did. Instead of like 20 people at ANC meetings, now there were 70-100. And there were countless attendees to the 50-70 meetings where this issue was discussed and in the case of ANCs, voted on.

I am not sure what more you want to city to do, beyond engraved in gold invitations?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's adorable that there are people who actually believe Krucoff lost because he opposed bike lanes and not because he was a Republican running for election in Washington, DC.

You all need serious help.

That isn't the argument.

The argument is that he underperformed on his home turf as compared to the rest of the ward. It stands to reason that if people were voting on party lines, then the vote would be relatively consistent across the ward. However, Krucoff underperformed in his own neighborhood. Sure that may mean there are more progressives and liberals in the Connecticut Avenue precincts, but then it would stand to reason that being a democrat and supporting better health and better environmental outcomes would mean also supporting bike lanes, which, yes, were a core issue in the 2022 election cycle.

Very few residents, including apparently DDOT, understood that this was a bike lane project in 2022.

Every meeting was promoted on the neighborhood listservs, through public notice, through social media etc. Individual ANC Commisioners may email their constituents. It would be really hard to willfully ignore all of these messages to not know what was going on. And then COVID hit and guess what? Online platforms made it easier and more convenient for people to "attend" meetings and, they did. Instead of like 20 people at ANC meetings, now there were 70-100. And there were countless attendees to the 50-70 meetings where this issue was discussed and in the case of ANCs, voted on.

I am not sure what more you want to city to do, beyond engraved in gold invitations?

90 of those 100 participants were bike bros from Ward 1.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's adorable that there are people who actually believe Krucoff lost because he opposed bike lanes and not because he was a Republican running for election in Washington, DC.

You all need serious help.

That isn't the argument.

The argument is that he underperformed on his home turf as compared to the rest of the ward. It stands to reason that if people were voting on party lines, then the vote would be relatively consistent across the ward. However, Krucoff underperformed in his own neighborhood. Sure that may mean there are more progressives and liberals in the Connecticut Avenue precincts, but then it would stand to reason that being a democrat and supporting better health and better environmental outcomes would mean also supporting bike lanes, which, yes, were a core issue in the 2022 election cycle.

Very few residents, including apparently DDOT, understood that this was a bike lane project in 2022.

Every meeting was promoted on the neighborhood listservs, through public notice, through social media etc. Individual ANC Commisioners may email their constituents. It would be really hard to willfully ignore all of these messages to not know what was going on. And then COVID hit and guess what? Online platforms made it easier and more convenient for people to "attend" meetings and, they did. Instead of like 20 people at ANC meetings, now there were 70-100. And there were countless attendees to the 50-70 meetings where this issue was discussed and in the case of ANCs, voted on.

I am not sure what more you want to city to do, beyond engraved in gold invitations?

90 of those 100 participants were bike bros from Ward 1.

Who would like to become Ward 3 residents if Connecticut Ave had protected bike lanes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's adorable that there are people who actually believe Krucoff lost because he opposed bike lanes and not because he was a Republican running for election in Washington, DC.

You all need serious help.

That isn't the argument.

The argument is that he underperformed on his home turf as compared to the rest of the ward. It stands to reason that if people were voting on party lines, then the vote would be relatively consistent across the ward. However, Krucoff underperformed in his own neighborhood. Sure that may mean there are more progressives and liberals in the Connecticut Avenue precincts, but then it would stand to reason that being a democrat and supporting better health and better environmental outcomes would mean also supporting bike lanes, which, yes, were a core issue in the 2022 election cycle.

Very few residents, including apparently DDOT, understood that this was a bike lane project in 2022.

Every meeting was promoted on the neighborhood listservs, through public notice, through social media etc. Individual ANC Commisioners may email their constituents. It would be really hard to willfully ignore all of these messages to not know what was going on. And then COVID hit and guess what? Online platforms made it easier and more convenient for people to "attend" meetings and, they did. Instead of like 20 people at ANC meetings, now there were 70-100. And there were countless attendees to the 50-70 meetings where this issue was discussed and in the case of ANCs, voted on.

I am not sure what more you want to city to do, beyond engraved in gold invitations?

90 of those 100 participants were bike bros from Ward 1.

Why would anyone who lives in Ward 1 care if there are bike lanes on upper Connecticut Avenue? I'm sure they have no reason to come up here by bike, car, Metro, or whatever. Ward 1 bike bros want more bike lanes in places like ... Ward 1. And downtown.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's adorable that there are people who actually believe Krucoff lost because he opposed bike lanes and not because he was a Republican running for election in Washington, DC.

You all need serious help.

That isn't the argument.

The argument is that he underperformed on his home turf as compared to the rest of the ward. It stands to reason that if people were voting on party lines, then the vote would be relatively consistent across the ward. However, Krucoff underperformed in his own neighborhood. Sure that may mean there are more progressives and liberals in the Connecticut Avenue precincts, but then it would stand to reason that being a democrat and supporting better health and better environmental outcomes would mean also supporting bike lanes, which, yes, were a core issue in the 2022 election cycle.

Very few residents, including apparently DDOT, understood that this was a bike lane project in 2022.

The problem is that very few residents are aware of just about anything. The whole CC DC community center / library redevelopment is a major event in the neighborhood and I would wager 75% of the residents don't know any change is happening or really anything about the issue. They will continue to not care or be aware until the day the wrecking ball comes and knocks the buildings down and then will scream "Nobody told me about this!" even though it has been discussed for years.