Connecticut Avenue bike lane officially dead

[Anonymous]

So from GGW's Web site, it looks like that from between 1971 and 2014, one dude on a bike in 1971 ran a red light and died on the CT Ave NW 2.7 mile strip in question. No other incidents documented uring that period on that strip of road. Don't know about the 2014-2024 period.

[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?

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.

Even a fat guy on a bike isn't gonna block line of sight like an SUV.

Bump outs really depend on how much of a bump out - if it's just a bit of a bulb at the curb.. no a driver will likely still parallel part too close to the corner blocking line of sight. If they use sticks and not concrete for it, eventually those sticks will be worn down by people driving into/over them. Just look at the corner of Livingston and Conn Ave where they put sticks to stop Starbucks patrons from parking "just for a minute" at the corner and blocking line of sight and turning traffic.

a bike lane on both sides of the road would provide - at the least - 4.5 ft of open clear line of sight (with the briefest moment of blocked vision when the fat guy rides by on his giant bike).

[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.

Um.. pointing out your hypocrisy as you all cheer a plan that *puts more traffic on side streets than the freaking bike lane would have* is the point. You idiots lobbied to remove the bike lane because you never actual gave a rats ass about the whole emergency vehicles, or side street traffic, or whatever whataboutism you threw up. You just wanted to stick it to the cyclists the whole time. Frauds.

[Anonymous]

When are the bike zealots going to stop fighting the last war? It’s like watching Japanese soldiers stranded on Pacific islands at the end of WWII. Give it a rest already.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:When are the bike zealots going to stop fighting the last war? It’s like watching Japanese soldiers stranded on Pacific islands at the end of WWII. Give it a rest already.

That's rich coming from the people who lied their way through the last 2.5 years with obstructionism of the agency in charge of the project at their main MO.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:When are the bike zealots going to stop fighting the last war? It’s like watching Japanese soldiers stranded on Pacific islands at the end of WWII. Give it a rest already.

That's rich coming from the people who lied their way through the last 2.5 years with obstructionism of the agency in charge of the project at their main MO.

You’ve now made 26 pages of calling people names over a decision that has been made.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:When are the bike zealots going to stop fighting the last war? It’s like watching Japanese soldiers stranded on Pacific islands at the end of WWII. Give it a rest already.

That's rich coming from the people who lied their way through the last 2.5 years with obstructionism of the agency in charge of the project at their main MO.

You’ve now made 26 pages of calling people names over a decision that has been made.

Plenty of people here on both the anti bike and pro bike sides, but I guess you can't even let that basic fact come though.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:When are the bike zealots going to stop fighting the last war? It’s like watching Japanese soldiers stranded on Pacific islands at the end of WWII. Give it a rest already.

That's rich coming from the people who lied their way through the last 2.5 years with obstructionism of the agency in charge of the project at their main MO.

You’ve now made 26 pages of calling people names over a decision that has been made.

Plenty of people here on both the anti bike and pro bike sides, but I guess you can't even let that basic fact come though.

Get help

[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.

The worst is, they are lobbying groups that get DC taxpayer subsidies to push their special interest agendas.

[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.

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.

The worst is, they are lobbying groups that get DC taxpayer subsidies to push their special interest agendas.

These are the “takers” of society. They’re generally unhappy at their lot in life. Their expensive Urban Planning degrees have led to low paying jobs in government and nonprofits and they rage at single family homeowners along Connecticut Ave.

[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?

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.

Even a fat guy on a bike isn't gonna block line of sight like an SUV.

Bump outs really depend on how much of a bump out - if it's just a bit of a bulb at the curb.. no a driver will likely still parallel part too close to the corner blocking line of sight. If they use sticks and not concrete for it, eventually those sticks will be worn down by people driving into/over them. Just look at the corner of Livingston and Conn Ave where they put sticks to stop Starbucks patrons from parking "just for a minute" at the corner and blocking line of sight and turning traffic.

a bike lane on both sides of the road would provide - at the least - 4.5 ft of open clear line of sight (with the briefest moment of blocked vision when the fat guy rides by on his giant bike).

I hope that DC does the bump outs well, but if they don’t then they probably wouldn’t have done the bike lanes well either, so there would have been flex posts screening pedestrians from cars in addition to the cyclists.

The best part about the new plan is that pedestrians won’t have cars on one side of them and people like you the other. The cars are enough to contend with already, and this plan reduces the lanes of moving cars by a third without adding a lane of self-obsessed cyclists.

[Anonymous]

I think the bulb outs will be great and they will make Connecticut Avenue safer for everyone who uses it, not just bikers.

[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?

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.

Even a fat guy on a bike isn't gonna block line of sight like an SUV.

Bump outs really depend on how much of a bump out - if it's just a bit of a bulb at the curb.. no a driver will likely still parallel part too close to the corner blocking line of sight. If they use sticks and not concrete for it, eventually those sticks will be worn down by people driving into/over them. Just look at the corner of Livingston and Conn Ave where they put sticks to stop Starbucks patrons from parking "just for a minute" at the corner and blocking line of sight and turning traffic.

a bike lane on both sides of the road would provide - at the least - 4.5 ft of open clear line of sight (with the briefest moment of blocked vision when the fat guy rides by on his giant bike).

I hope that DC does the bump outs well, but if they don’t then they probably wouldn’t have done the bike lanes well either, so there would have been flex posts screening pedestrians from cars in addition to the cyclists.

The best part about the new plan is that pedestrians won’t have cars on one side of them and people like you the other. The cars are enough to contend with already, and this plan reduces the lanes of moving cars by a third without adding a lane of self-obsessed cyclists.

People's hate for bikers is honestly ridiculous. Replace the word cyclist in this thread with actual slurs and I don't think I would've even noticed the difference in rhetoric. It makes me really sad that people hold this much hate over an alternative mode of transportation.

And, to add, this plan is going to lead ton more hate of people on bikes, either by pedestrians who have to share the already busy and narrow sidewalks or by drivers who are now going to have to wait behind them while sharing lanes.

[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.

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.

The worst is, they are lobbying groups that get DC taxpayer subsidies to push their special interest agendas.

The special interest in this case is cleaning up bike paths and teaching children how to ride bikes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:When are the bike zealots going to stop fighting the last war? It’s like watching Japanese soldiers stranded on Pacific islands at the end of WWII. Give it a rest already.

Given the resistance on this project and K-Street, and the general budget situation, its time to step back from "prestige" routes, and focus efforts on more local efforts. Build out routes to schools and parks, and other amenities and build your user base.

Focus on quality of the routes over quantity. Create separated routes that people will actually want to ride on. There is only so much demand for a route that's inches from speeding trucks and buses.