Options for opposing Connecticut Avenue changes?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I have to take my hat off to the bike mafia. I drive to downtown dc everyday. I see maybe 2-3-4 bikers a day on these lanes. And yet the driving patterns and street infrastructure has been completely transformed to make way for these unused bike lines. How was a group able to get something passed that inconveniences hundreds of thousands of people on a daily basis and conveniences so relatively few people. It’s a fundamental breakdown of our government — not political like democrats versus republicans, left v right. If this came up for a popular vote in DC, it would lose 90-10.

They are young, childless, or both. Most live in apartments They have all the time in the world to badger public officials and sit through endless public meetings. They are generally the aggrieved in life and this is a religious issue for them. This gives them a huge organizing advantage over rational couples with kids and houses to tend to.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have to take my hat off to the bike mafia. I drive to downtown dc everyday. I see maybe 2-3-4 bikers a day on these lanes. And yet the driving patterns and street infrastructure has been completely transformed to make way for these unused bike lines. How was a group able to get something passed that inconveniences hundreds of thousands of people on a daily basis and conveniences so relatively few people. It’s a fundamental breakdown of our government — not political like democrats versus republicans, left v right. If this came up for a popular vote in DC, it would lose 90-10.

They are young, childless, or both. Most live in apartments They have all the time in the world to badger public officials and sit through endless public meetings. They are generally the aggrieved in life and this is a religious issue for them. This gives them a huge organizing advantage over rational couples with kids and houses to tend to.

Yes, everyone knows municipal governments traditionally do what the childless renters do, especially when homeowners who have lived here for a long time oppose it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have to take my hat off to the bike mafia. I drive to downtown dc everyday. I see maybe 2-3-4 bikers a day on these lanes. And yet the driving patterns and street infrastructure has been completely transformed to make way for these unused bike lines. How was a group able to get something passed that inconveniences hundreds of thousands of people on a daily basis and conveniences so relatively few people. It’s a fundamental breakdown of our government — not political like democrats versus republicans, left v right. If this came up for a popular vote in DC, it would lose 90-10.

They are young, childless, or both. Most live in apartments They have all the time in the world to badger public officials and sit through endless public meetings. They are generally the aggrieved in life and this is a religious issue for them. This gives them a huge organizing advantage over rational couples with kids and houses to tend to.

Also Twitter. It's a social media feedback loop.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't think anyone was under any illusions about Muriel Bower's non-support of safe streets actions, including the people who decide the endorsements at GGW. Even I was well aware of it, and I'm not plugged in at all and don't even live in DC. It's highly regrettable, both because it's a huge missed opportunity for the future, and because more people will be killed. Whatever the future will be in DC, it won't be prioritizing cars and parking over transit, walking, biking, and housing. However, for endorsements, you're stuck with the candidates who are actually on the ballot, and so here we are.

How many cyclists have been killed on that stretch of Connecticut Avenue?

Muriel Bowser is mayor of all of DC, not just one stretch of Connecticut Avenue.

Narrators voice: “It turned out no cyclists were killed on that stretch of Connecticut Avenue.”

Why does the narrator only care about that stretch of Connecticut Avenue? Muriel Bowser has demonstrated that safe streets are not a priority in her administration, anywhere in DC.

Wait. Seriously. So there have literally been no cyclists killed or hurt on Connecticut Ave? From the rhetoric I thought there had sadly been many cyclists killed

Yes, definitely, we only should install bike infrastructure in places where cyclists have already been killed. Why make anything safer than it already is if it isn't already killing people?

If protecting cyclists is what you're trying to do then perhaps these efforts should be focused on the roads cyxlists use

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have to take my hat off to the bike mafia. I drive to downtown dc everyday. I see maybe 2-3-4 bikers a day on these lanes. And yet the driving patterns and street infrastructure has been completely transformed to make way for these unused bike lines. How was a group able to get something passed that inconveniences hundreds of thousands of people on a daily basis and conveniences so relatively few people. It’s a fundamental breakdown of our government — not political like democrats versus republicans, left v right. If this came up for a popular vote in DC, it would lose 90-10.

They are young, childless, or both. Most live in apartments They have all the time in the world to badger public officials and sit through endless public meetings. They are generally the aggrieved in life and this is a religious issue for them. This gives them a huge organizing advantage over rational couples with kids and houses to tend to.

40 something mom here, homeowner, rational person, who would bike downtown to work if there were a better e-w protected lane.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have to take my hat off to the bike mafia. I drive to downtown dc everyday. I see maybe 2-3-4 bikers a day on these lanes. And yet the driving patterns and street infrastructure has been completely transformed to make way for these unused bike lines. How was a group able to get something passed that inconveniences hundreds of thousands of people on a daily basis and conveniences so relatively few people. It’s a fundamental breakdown of our government — not political like democrats versus republicans, left v right. If this came up for a popular vote in DC, it would lose 90-10.

They are young, childless, or both. Most live in apartments They have all the time in the world to badger public officials and sit through endless public meetings. They are generally the aggrieved in life and this is a religious issue for them. This gives them a huge organizing advantage over rational couples with kids and houses to tend to.

Honestly, can you hear yourself? You’re tilting at windmills. Biking is a form of transport. That’s it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't think anyone was under any illusions about Muriel Bower's non-support of safe streets actions, including the people who decide the endorsements at GGW. Even I was well aware of it, and I'm not plugged in at all and don't even live in DC. It's highly regrettable, both because it's a huge missed opportunity for the future, and because more people will be killed. Whatever the future will be in DC, it won't be prioritizing cars and parking over transit, walking, biking, and housing. However, for endorsements, you're stuck with the candidates who are actually on the ballot, and so here we are.

How many cyclists have been killed on that stretch of Connecticut Avenue?

Muriel Bowser is mayor of all of DC, not just one stretch of Connecticut Avenue.

Narrators voice: “It turned out no cyclists were killed on that stretch of Connecticut Avenue.”

Why does the narrator only care about that stretch of Connecticut Avenue? Muriel Bowser has demonstrated that safe streets are not a priority in her administration, anywhere in DC.

Wait. Seriously. So there have literally been no cyclists killed or hurt on Connecticut Ave? From the rhetoric I thought there had sadly been many cyclists killed

Yes, definitely, we only should install bike infrastructure in places where cyclists have already been killed. Why make anything safer than it already is if it isn't already killing people?

If protecting cyclists is what you're trying to do then perhaps these efforts should be focused on the roads cyxlists use

Everyone uses Connecticut Avenue, and protected bike lanes make roads safer for everyone.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have to take my hat off to the bike mafia. I drive to downtown dc everyday. I see maybe 2-3-4 bikers a day on these lanes. And yet the driving patterns and street infrastructure has been completely transformed to make way for these unused bike lines. How was a group able to get something passed that inconveniences hundreds of thousands of people on a daily basis and conveniences so relatively few people. It’s a fundamental breakdown of our government — not political like democrats versus republicans, left v right. If this came up for a popular vote in DC, it would lose 90-10.

They are young, childless, or both. Most live in apartments They have all the time in the world to badger public officials and sit through endless public meetings. They are generally the aggrieved in life and this is a religious issue for them. This gives them a huge organizing advantage over rational couples with kids and houses to tend to.

I am neither young, nor childless. I won't ride on Conn Ave because it is forking dangerous. I would LOVE for there to be bike lanes so I can ride safely to do my errands. It would remove more than half the driving I currently have to do.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't think anyone was under any illusions about Muriel Bower's non-support of safe streets actions, including the people who decide the endorsements at GGW. Even I was well aware of it, and I'm not plugged in at all and don't even live in DC. It's highly regrettable, both because it's a huge missed opportunity for the future, and because more people will be killed. Whatever the future will be in DC, it won't be prioritizing cars and parking over transit, walking, biking, and housing. However, for endorsements, you're stuck with the candidates who are actually on the ballot, and so here we are.

How many cyclists have been killed on that stretch of Connecticut Avenue?

Muriel Bowser is mayor of all of DC, not just one stretch of Connecticut Avenue.

Narrators voice: “It turned out no cyclists were killed on that stretch of Connecticut Avenue.”

Why does the narrator only care about that stretch of Connecticut Avenue? Muriel Bowser has demonstrated that safe streets are not a priority in her administration, anywhere in DC.

Wait. Seriously. So there have literally been no cyclists killed or hurt on Connecticut Ave? From the rhetoric I thought there had sadly been many cyclists killed

Yes, definitely, we only should install bike infrastructure in places where cyclists have already been killed. Why make anything safer than it already is if it isn't already killing people?

If protecting cyclists is what you're trying to do then perhaps these efforts should be focused on the roads cyxlists use

Cyclists do use Connecticut Avenue. (Source: Whenever I bike to work instead of taking Metro, I ride on Connecticut Avenue.)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't think anyone was under any illusions about Muriel Bower's non-support of safe streets actions, including the people who decide the endorsements at GGW. Even I was well aware of it, and I'm not plugged in at all and don't even live in DC. It's highly regrettable, both because it's a huge missed opportunity for the future, and because more people will be killed. Whatever the future will be in DC, it won't be prioritizing cars and parking over transit, walking, biking, and housing. However, for endorsements, you're stuck with the candidates who are actually on the ballot, and so here we are.

How many cyclists have been killed on that stretch of Connecticut Avenue?

Muriel Bowser is mayor of all of DC, not just one stretch of Connecticut Avenue.

Narrators voice: “It turned out no cyclists were killed on that stretch of Connecticut Avenue.”

Why does the narrator only care about that stretch of Connecticut Avenue? Muriel Bowser has demonstrated that safe streets are not a priority in her administration, anywhere in DC.

Wait. Seriously. So there have literally been no cyclists killed or hurt on Connecticut Ave? From the rhetoric I thought there had sadly been many cyclists killed

Yes, definitely, we only should install bike infrastructure in places where cyclists have already been killed. Why make anything safer than it already is if it isn't already killing people?

If protecting cyclists is what you're trying to do then perhaps these efforts should be focused on the roads cyxlists use

It is more about where the cyclists want or need to go. No reason to build a bridge over a river until 1000 people a day are swimming across in that spot, right?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have to take my hat off to the bike mafia. I drive to downtown dc everyday. I see maybe 2-3-4 bikers a day on these lanes. And yet the driving patterns and street infrastructure has been completely transformed to make way for these unused bike lines. How was a group able to get something passed that inconveniences hundreds of thousands of people on a daily basis and conveniences so relatively few people. It’s a fundamental breakdown of our government — not political like democrats versus republicans, left v right. If this came up for a popular vote in DC, it would lose 90-10.

They are young, childless, or both. Most live in apartments They have all the time in the world to badger public officials and sit through endless public meetings. They are generally the aggrieved in life and this is a religious issue for them. This gives them a huge organizing advantage over rational couples with kids and houses to tend to.

I am neither young, nor childless. I won't ride on Conn Ave because it is forking dangerous. I would LOVE for there to be bike lanes so I can ride safely to do my errands. It would remove more than half the driving I currently have to do.

If they build the bike lanes you won’t be able to run errands on Connecticut Avenue because there will be no stores. This is evidenced by the 100+businesses that were brave enough to sign their names against the plan and that speak for many more who don’t want the bike mafia trying to cancel them. You will have to get in your car and drive to the, gasp, suburbs!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have to take my hat off to the bike mafia. I drive to downtown dc everyday. I see maybe 2-3-4 bikers a day on these lanes. And yet the driving patterns and street infrastructure has been completely transformed to make way for these unused bike lines. How was a group able to get something passed that inconveniences hundreds of thousands of people on a daily basis and conveniences so relatively few people. It’s a fundamental breakdown of our government — not political like democrats versus republicans, left v right. If this came up for a popular vote in DC, it would lose 90-10.

They are young, childless, or both. Most live in apartments They have all the time in the world to badger public officials and sit through endless public meetings. They are generally the aggrieved in life and this is a religious issue for them. This gives them a huge organizing advantage over rational couples with kids and houses to tend to.

I am neither young, nor childless. I won't ride on Conn Ave because it is forking dangerous. I would LOVE for there to be bike lanes so I can ride safely to do my errands. It would remove more than half the driving I currently have to do.

If they build the bike lanes you won’t be able to run errands on Connecticut Avenue because there will be no stores. This is evidenced by the 100+businesses that were brave enough to sign their names against the plan and that speak for many more who don’t want the bike mafia trying to cancel them. You will have to get in your car and drive to the, gasp, suburbs!

The businesses didn't say they were going to leave. They just don't like the plan. They'll still be there and probably realize it was a mistake to oppose

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have to take my hat off to the bike mafia. I drive to downtown dc everyday. I see maybe 2-3-4 bikers a day on these lanes. And yet the driving patterns and street infrastructure has been completely transformed to make way for these unused bike lines. How was a group able to get something passed that inconveniences hundreds of thousands of people on a daily basis and conveniences so relatively few people. It’s a fundamental breakdown of our government — not political like democrats versus republicans, left v right. If this came up for a popular vote in DC, it would lose 90-10.

They are young, childless, or both. Most live in apartments They have all the time in the world to badger public officials and sit through endless public meetings. They are generally the aggrieved in life and this is a religious issue for them. This gives them a huge organizing advantage over rational couples with kids and houses to tend to.

I am neither young, nor childless. I won't ride on Conn Ave because it is forking dangerous. I would LOVE for there to be bike lanes so I can ride safely to do my errands. It would remove more than half the driving I currently have to do.

If they build the bike lanes you won’t be able to run errands on Connecticut Avenue because there will be no stores. This is evidenced by the 100+businesses that were brave enough to sign their names against the plan and that speak for many more who don’t want the bike mafia trying to cancel them. You will have to get in your car and drive to the, gasp, suburbs!

The businesses didn't say they were going to leave. They just don't like the plan. They'll still be there and probably realize it was a mistake to oppose

Tell me you’ve never run a business without telling me you’ve never run a business. There is no like or not like business.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have to take my hat off to the bike mafia. I drive to downtown dc everyday. I see maybe 2-3-4 bikers a day on these lanes. And yet the driving patterns and street infrastructure has been completely transformed to make way for these unused bike lines. How was a group able to get something passed that inconveniences hundreds of thousands of people on a daily basis and conveniences so relatively few people. It’s a fundamental breakdown of our government — not political like democrats versus republicans, left v right. If this came up for a popular vote in DC, it would lose 90-10.

They are young, childless, or both. Most live in apartments They have all the time in the world to badger public officials and sit through endless public meetings. They are generally the aggrieved in life and this is a religious issue for them. This gives them a huge organizing advantage over rational couples with kids and houses to tend to.

40 something mom here, homeowner, rational person, who would bike downtown to work if there were a better e-w protected lane.

There's a protected lane in Rock Creek Park.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have to take my hat off to the bike mafia. I drive to downtown dc everyday. I see maybe 2-3-4 bikers a day on these lanes. And yet the driving patterns and street infrastructure has been completely transformed to make way for these unused bike lines. How was a group able to get something passed that inconveniences hundreds of thousands of people on a daily basis and conveniences so relatively few people. It’s a fundamental breakdown of our government — not political like democrats versus republicans, left v right. If this came up for a popular vote in DC, it would lose 90-10.

They are young, childless, or both. Most live in apartments They have all the time in the world to badger public officials and sit through endless public meetings. They are generally the aggrieved in life and this is a religious issue for them. This gives them a huge organizing advantage over rational couples with kids and houses to tend to.

I am neither young, nor childless. I won't ride on Conn Ave because it is forking dangerous. I would LOVE for there to be bike lanes so I can ride safely to do my errands. It would remove more than half the driving I currently have to do.

If they build the bike lanes you won’t be able to run errands on Connecticut Avenue because there will be no stores. This is evidenced by the 100+businesses that were brave enough to sign their names against the plan and that speak for many more who don’t want the bike mafia trying to cancel them. You will have to get in your car and drive to the, gasp, suburbs!

Please provide data to suggest that bike lanes have caused businesses to suffer. Because in this very 250+ page there, there are scores of links that PROVE the opposite, that bike lanes do NOT cause harm to businesses and more likely are GOOD for businesses.

So unless or until you show your work on this, the assertion falls flat, no matter how many times you want to make the claim.