Connecticut Ave bike lanes are back!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is hilarious.

Is there 14,000 cyclists in all of North America? I doubt it.

“Replacing vehicular lanes with bicycle lanes ultimately increases the maximum capacity of the overall right of way, as an average car lane moves up to around 2,000 people per hour per direction, while an average bike lane using the same space can move up to around 14,000 people per hour per direction,” the report said.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2024/05/15/connecticut-avenue-bike-lane-revived/

It's one of those meaningless statistics because one could also say that 28,000 Segways (half the size of a bike but the same speed) per hour or even more smart cars (smaller length, larger width but faster speed).

There is one simple fact that matters. Right now, 30,000 cars per day use Connecticut while bicycle use per day is in the low double digits. The demand is simply not there.

As usual, the bicyclists overreached. If they had waited until at least 500 people on average per day over a calendar year were using it then they might have had a point.

People not wanting to risk their lives riding a bike on Connecticut Avenue is not indicative of a lack of demand. Count me and three additional members of my family who would replace countless car trips if it were safe to do so.

A protected gutter lane on a major avenue will never induce usage from anyone who is concerned about safety.

Of course it will — it would be far, far safer than the way you ride on that street now, i.e., just in traffic.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Hypothetical: if you flip it around, and the R supported bike lanes and the D opposed them, who do you think would have won? If you think the R would have won, then you have won the argument.

If an R were running and supported the bike lanes, then the southern strategy and follow on political shift between the parties never would have happened, so, sure.

What are you talking about? The southern strategy was implemented decades ago. We’re talking about today. R candidate supports bike lanes. D candidate opposes. Who wins?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Hypothetical: if you flip it around, and the R supported bike lanes and the D opposed them, who do you think would have won? If you think the R would have won, then you have won the argument.

If an R were running and supported the bike lanes, then the southern strategy and follow on political shift between the parties never would have happened, so, sure.

What are you talking about? The southern strategy was implemented decades ago. We’re talking about today. R candidate supports bike lanes. D candidate opposes. Who wins?

You missed the point. There is no planet where the MAGA infested GOP would have a candidate that supports bike lanes, so it is really a silly strawman question.

[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: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.

Hypothetical: if you flip it around, and the R supported bike lanes and the D opposed them, who do you think would have won? If you think the R would have won, then you have won the argument.

If an R were running and supported the bike lanes, then the southern strategy and follow on political shift between the parties never would have happened, so, sure.

What are you talking about? The southern strategy was implemented decades ago. We’re talking about today. R candidate supports bike lanes. D candidate opposes. Who wins?

You missed the point. There is no planet where the MAGA infested GOP would have a candidate that supports bike lanes, so it is really a silly strawman question.

It’s no sillier than your assertion that a Democrat beat a Republican in DC because the Democrat supported bike lanes.

[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: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.

Hypothetical: if you flip it around, and the R supported bike lanes and the D opposed them, who do you think would have won? If you think the R would have won, then you have won the argument.

If an R were running and supported the bike lanes, then the southern strategy and follow on political shift between the parties never would have happened, so, sure.

What are you talking about? The southern strategy was implemented decades ago. We’re talking about today. R candidate supports bike lanes. D candidate opposes. Who wins?

You missed the point. There is no planet where the MAGA infested GOP would have a candidate that supports bike lanes, so it is really a silly strawman question.

It’s no sillier than your assertion that a Democrat beat a Republican in DC because the Democrat supported bike lanes.

That wasn't the assertion. Once again...the assertion was that the candidate OUTPERFORMED his results from the rest of the Ward in the precincts around Connecticut Avenue because in those areas, which were the R candidate's home base, the bike lanes were a central and important/motivating issue.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

Hypothetical: if you flip it around, and the R supported bike lanes and the D opposed them, who do you think would have won? If you think the R would have won, then you have won the argument.

If an R were running and supported the bike lanes, then the southern strategy and follow on political shift between the parties never would have happened, so, sure.

What are you talking about? The southern strategy was implemented decades ago. We’re talking about today. R candidate supports bike lanes. D candidate opposes. Who wins?

You missed the point. There is no planet where the MAGA infested GOP would have a candidate that supports bike lanes, so it is really a silly strawman question.

It’s no sillier than your assertion that a Democrat beat a Republican in DC because the Democrat supported bike lanes.

That wasn't the assertion. Once again...the assertion was that the candidate OUTPERFORMED his results from the rest of the Ward in the precincts around Connecticut Avenue because in those areas, which were the R candidate's home base, the bike lanes were a central and important/motivating issue.

You’ve gone really far down a rabbit hole. Why don’t you go a little further and double check party registration for those precincts and then report back. Thanks!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is hilarious.

Is there 14,000 cyclists in all of North America? I doubt it.

“Replacing vehicular lanes with bicycle lanes ultimately increases the maximum capacity of the overall right of way, as an average car lane moves up to around 2,000 people per hour per direction, while an average bike lane using the same space can move up to around 14,000 people per hour per direction,” the report said.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2024/05/15/connecticut-avenue-bike-lane-revived/

It's one of those meaningless statistics because one could also say that 28,000 Segways (half the size of a bike but the same speed) per hour or even more smart cars (smaller length, larger width but faster speed).

There is one simple fact that matters. Right now, 30,000 cars per day use Connecticut while bicycle use per day is in the low double digits. The demand is simply not there.

As usual, the bicyclists overreached. If they had waited until at least 500 people on average per day over a calendar year were using it then they might have had a point.

People not wanting to risk their lives riding a bike on Connecticut Avenue is not indicative of a lack of demand. Count me and three additional members of my family who would replace countless car trips if it were safe to do so.

A protected gutter lane on a major avenue will never induce usage from anyone who is concerned about safety.

Of course it will — it would be far, far safer than the way you ride on that street now, i.e., just in traffic.

You forget the fact that nothing is stopping these people from riding on the sidewalk today. But yes, let’s imagine this magical group of people too worried about their own safety to ride on Connecticut Ave today but also not willing to use a really safe alternative option currently available would start riding their bicycle because there was a plastic bollard protecting them from a car 3 feet away while they had to ride through broken glass and trash. Make this make sense.

You’re telling me that there are thousands of people who don’t ride bikes on Connecticut Avenue today would because they are worried about personal safety

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is hilarious.

Is there 14,000 cyclists in all of North America? I doubt it.

“Replacing vehicular lanes with bicycle lanes ultimately increases the maximum capacity of the overall right of way, as an average car lane moves up to around 2,000 people per hour per direction, while an average bike lane using the same space can move up to around 14,000 people per hour per direction,” the report said.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2024/05/15/connecticut-avenue-bike-lane-revived/

It's one of those meaningless statistics because one could also say that 28,000 Segways (half the size of a bike but the same speed) per hour or even more smart cars (smaller length, larger width but faster speed).

There is one simple fact that matters. Right now, 30,000 cars per day use Connecticut while bicycle use per day is in the low double digits. The demand is simply not there.

As usual, the bicyclists overreached. If they had waited until at least 500 people on average per day over a calendar year were using it then they might have had a point.

People not wanting to risk their lives riding a bike on Connecticut Avenue is not indicative of a lack of demand. Count me and three additional members of my family who would replace countless car trips if it were safe to do so.

A protected gutter lane on a major avenue will never induce usage from anyone who is concerned about safety.

Of course it will — it would be far, far safer than the way you ride on that street now, i.e., just in traffic.

You forget the fact that nothing is stopping these people from riding on the sidewalk today. But yes, let’s imagine this magical group of people too worried about their own safety to ride on Connecticut Ave today but also not willing to use a really safe alternative option currently available would start riding their bicycle because there was a plastic bollard protecting them from a car 3 feet away while they had to ride through broken glass and trash. Make this make sense.

You’re telling me that there are thousands of people who don’t ride bikes on Connecticut Avenue today would because they are worried about personal safety

Yes, and many do. And pedestrians complain, so they feel compelled to ride in the street, and motorists complain. The safe option, the one that major cities around the country and world use around the world, are protected bike lanes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

Hypothetical: if you flip it around, and the R supported bike lanes and the D opposed them, who do you think would have won? If you think the R would have won, then you have won the argument.

If an R were running and supported the bike lanes, then the southern strategy and follow on political shift between the parties never would have happened, so, sure.

What are you talking about? The southern strategy was implemented decades ago. We’re talking about today. R candidate supports bike lanes. D candidate opposes. Who wins?

You missed the point. There is no planet where the MAGA infested GOP would have a candidate that supports bike lanes, so it is really a silly strawman question.

It’s no sillier than your assertion that a Democrat beat a Republican in DC because the Democrat supported bike lanes.

That wasn't the assertion. Once again...the assertion was that the candidate OUTPERFORMED his results from the rest of the Ward in the precincts around Connecticut Avenue because in those areas, which were the R candidate's home base, the bike lanes were a central and important/motivating issue.

You had a terrible take. Instead of moving on, you doubled, tripled, and quadrupled down. It’s the same thing every time with the bike bros. We should basically never listen to you about anything.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is hilarious.

Is there 14,000 cyclists in all of North America? I doubt it.

“Replacing vehicular lanes with bicycle lanes ultimately increases the maximum capacity of the overall right of way, as an average car lane moves up to around 2,000 people per hour per direction, while an average bike lane using the same space can move up to around 14,000 people per hour per direction,” the report said.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2024/05/15/connecticut-avenue-bike-lane-revived/

It's one of those meaningless statistics because one could also say that 28,000 Segways (half the size of a bike but the same speed) per hour or even more smart cars (smaller length, larger width but faster speed).

There is one simple fact that matters. Right now, 30,000 cars per day use Connecticut while bicycle use per day is in the low double digits. The demand is simply not there.

As usual, the bicyclists overreached. If they had waited until at least 500 people on average per day over a calendar year were using it then they might have had a point.

People not wanting to risk their lives riding a bike on Connecticut Avenue is not indicative of a lack of demand. Count me and three additional members of my family who would replace countless car trips if it were safe to do so.

Congratulations. Adding you four, which I doubt but whatever, stills leaves it at way less than 100 people per day compared to 29,996.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is hilarious.

Is there 14,000 cyclists in all of North America? I doubt it.

“Replacing vehicular lanes with bicycle lanes ultimately increases the maximum capacity of the overall right of way, as an average car lane moves up to around 2,000 people per hour per direction, while an average bike lane using the same space can move up to around 14,000 people per hour per direction,” the report said.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2024/05/15/connecticut-avenue-bike-lane-revived/

It's one of those meaningless statistics because one could also say that 28,000 Segways (half the size of a bike but the same speed) per hour or even more smart cars (smaller length, larger width but faster speed).

There is one simple fact that matters. Right now, 30,000 cars per day use Connecticut while bicycle use per day is in the low double digits. The demand is simply not there.

As usual, the bicyclists overreached. If they had waited until at least 500 people on average per day over a calendar year were using it then they might have had a point.

People not wanting to risk their lives riding a bike on Connecticut Avenue is not indicative of a lack of demand. Count me and three additional members of my family who would replace countless car trips if it were safe to do so.

DC already has more than 150 miles of bike lanes, many of them protected, and the number of cyclists in this city is going down. If cyclists were a stock, you'd sell. It's already topped out.

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

DC already has more than 150 miles of bike lanes, many of them protected, and the number of cyclists in this city is going down. If cyclists were a stock, you'd sell. It's already topped out.

False statement. You continue to cite "commuter" which, with work from home, is down everywhere. Cycling in general is way up, so measure that way rather than taking faulty "commuter" stats.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

DC already has more than 150 miles of bike lanes, many of them protected, and the number of cyclists in this city is going down. If cyclists were a stock, you'd sell. It's already topped out.

False statement. You continue to cite "commuter" which, with work from home, is down everywhere. Cycling in general is way up, so measure that way rather than taking faulty "commuter" stats.

Every transportation survey I’ve seen shows the number of cyclists is not only very small but is getting smaller…

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

DC already has more than 150 miles of bike lanes, many of them protected, and the number of cyclists in this city is going down. If cyclists were a stock, you'd sell. It's already topped out.

False statement. You continue to cite "commuter" which, with work from home, is down everywhere. Cycling in general is way up, so measure that way rather than taking faulty "commuter" stats.

Every transportation survey I’ve seen shows the number of cyclists is not only very small but is getting smaller…

And yet, there are 15-20 million new bikes sold each year. Bikes can last a lifetime. Go figure.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

DC already has more than 150 miles of bike lanes, many of them protected, and the number of cyclists in this city is going down. If cyclists were a stock, you'd sell. It's already topped out.

False statement. You continue to cite "commuter" which, with work from home, is down everywhere. Cycling in general is way up, so measure that way rather than taking faulty "commuter" stats.

Every transportation survey I’ve seen shows the number of cyclists is not only very small but is getting smaller…

And yet, there are 15-20 million new bikes sold each year. Bikes can last a lifetime. Go figure.

I’ve had five bikes stolen in DC. So there’s part of the explanation. Go figure.