Connecticut Avenue bike lane officially dead

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Yes, it's quite the tell that I was turned off by the bicyclists specious arguments.


There's less than 100 of them a day. I'm not worried about bicyclists at all. Removing those two lanes of traffic on the other hand is something I'm worried about.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

As a pedestrian, I think this is great. Lower speeds will decrease the likelihood of collisions and the severity when they occur. Like another poster said, this plan meets all of the objectives that the cyclists laid out.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Yes, it's quite the tell that I was turned off by the bicyclists specious arguments.


There's less than 100 of them a day. I'm not worried about bicyclists at all. Removing those two lanes of traffic on the other hand is something I'm worried about.

You say specious. I prefer mendacious.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Riding your bike on Connecticut Avenue seems like an excellent way of getting yourself killed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Riding your bike on Connecticut Avenue seems like an excellent way of getting yourself killed.

It’s perfectly safe. 100 people do every day just fine without needing a bike lane.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Riding your bike on Connecticut Avenue seems like an excellent way of getting yourself killed.

This thread is going to hit new levels of hilarity once the bike parties start goin up and down CT. The nimbys will be so thrown that BIPOC bike, and do so in normal clothes.

[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: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.

Riding your bike on Connecticut Avenue seems like an excellent way of getting yourself killed.

This thread is going to hit new levels of hilarity once the bike parties start goin up and down CT. The nimbys will be so thrown that BIPOC bike, and do so in normal clothes.

You’re very confusing. I have no idea what your point is but you sound pretty racist.

[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: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.

Riding your bike on Connecticut Avenue seems like an excellent way of getting yourself killed.

This thread is going to hit new levels of hilarity once the bike parties start goin up and down CT. The nimbys will be so thrown that BIPOC bike, and do so in normal clothes.

You’re very confusing. I have no idea what your point is but you sound pretty racist.

That's okay. The rest of your crew understands

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

As a pedestrian, I think this is great. Lower speeds will decrease the likelihood of collisions and the severity when they occur. Like another poster said, this plan meets all of the objectives that the cyclists laid out.

The cyclists talk about how the bike lanes were really about pedestrian safety was utter nonsense. Glad that DDOT made the same point and even recognized that some bike lanes in DC were a bad decision.

[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.

GGW and WABA engage in all manor of politics. They are very much a lobbying group.

[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.

GGW and WABA engage in all manor of politics. They are very much a lobbying group.

WABA is officially registered as a lobbying organization with the DC government. Cyclists know no bounds of mendacity.
https://efiler.bega.dc.gov/LRRSearch

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Riding your bike on Connecticut Avenue seems like an excellent way of getting yourself killed.

It shouldn't be. Thanks for making the argument for a bike lane.

[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: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.

How many cyclists have been killed while riding on CT in the last 5 years? Last 10 years?


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.

Riding your bike on Connecticut Avenue seems like an excellent way of getting yourself killed.

It shouldn't be. Thanks for making the argument for a bike lane.

[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: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.

How many cyclists have been killed while riding on CT in the last 5 years? Last 10 years?


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.

Riding your bike on Connecticut Avenue seems like an excellent way of getting yourself killed.

It shouldn't be. Thanks for making the argument for a bike lane.

How many cyclists have been killed in the last 5 years while riding down Connecticut between the Maryland border and Calvert? Last 10 years? Last 20 years? I'd like to see the data.

[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.

By "stacking meetings" you mean people showed up who were excited for a bike lane that they wanted to use. Cool.