Options for opposing Connecticut Avenue changes?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So let's close down all the roads to all cars and just have buses and bikes. Problem solved.

Except for that pesky need for supplies like food or anything any shops might sell.

peapod
walk
bike

plenty of options to get to a store within a short distance to get food or have it delivered

Peapod does not deliver by bike, so you're just trading one car for another.

That's like saying mail or package delivery by the USPS is just trading one car for another.

What’s the difference?

I order groceries every month or so, and I've never seen a peapod driver do more than three deliveries at a time. And those three deliveries are never in the same neighborhood, so the driver is moving all over the place. I really doubt it saves much in the way of fossil fuels compared with all three customers driving to the store. I do try to walk to the store for most of my shopping, but I like the convenience of delivery for heavy items.

Do you follow the delivery driver around? Do you drive to the warehouse to pick up your Amazon orders and to the post office to pick up your mail?

My app actually does show me how many orders are ahead of me and where the driver goes. So the answer is yes. No, I do not pick up Amazon orders or mail at the post office. I actually try to avoid Amazon and support local businesses as much as possible, usually on foot or a short car ride.

[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:So let's close down all the roads to all cars and just have buses and bikes. Problem solved.

Except for that pesky need for supplies like food or anything any shops might sell.

Maybe it's a weird concept for you suburban commuters, but in most cities you don't actually need a car to go to the store.

You do understand that 1) the stores need roads to get their goods and 2) upper NW is not urban

Upper NW DC is urban. Good grief.

Many NW neighborhoods have a distinctly suburban feel, although the smart growth development lobby is fixated on trying to change that.

DC does have suburbs, but they are not in DC. Next you'll tell us that NYC isn't urban.

What fun word games you play. Upper NW is suburban and has always been so.

Upper NW used to be farmland, and before that, it was forest.

Yes, and then it was settled as a suburb of weekend homes for downtown.

Some of these areas in question don't even have sidewalks!

It's high time they got sidewalks, then. They are in an urban area.

Sounds like a good place to start instead of bike lanes.

Why instead of? That's silly. They serve different purposes. Both are good.

[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:So let's close down all the roads to all cars and just have buses and bikes. Problem solved.

Except for that pesky need for supplies like food or anything any shops might sell.

Maybe it's a weird concept for you suburban commuters, but in most cities you don't actually need a car to go to the store.

You do understand that 1) the stores need roads to get their goods and 2) upper NW is not urban

Upper NW DC is urban. Good grief.

Many NW neighborhoods have a distinctly suburban feel, although the smart growth development lobby is fixated on trying to change that.

DC does have suburbs, but they are not in DC. Next you'll tell us that NYC isn't urban.

What fun word games you play. Upper NW is suburban and has always been so.

Upper NW used to be farmland, and before that, it was forest.

Yes, and then it was settled as a suburb of weekend homes for downtown.

Some of these areas in question don't even have sidewalks!

It's high time they got sidewalks, then. They are in an urban area.

Sounds like a good place to start instead of bike lanes.

Why instead of? That's silly. They serve different purposes. Both are good.

Do they? Better re-check your talking points. But you're right they do serve different purposes. One is useful and benefits everybody. The other is not useful and benefits a very small few.

[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:So let's close down all the roads to all cars and just have buses and bikes. Problem solved.

Except for that pesky need for supplies like food or anything any shops might sell.

Maybe it's a weird concept for you suburban commuters, but in most cities you don't actually need a car to go to the store.

You do understand that 1) the stores need roads to get their goods and 2) upper NW is not urban

Upper NW DC is urban. Good grief.

Many NW neighborhoods have a distinctly suburban feel, although the smart growth development lobby is fixated on trying to change that.

DC does have suburbs, but they are not in DC. Next you'll tell us that NYC isn't urban.

What fun word games you play. Upper NW is suburban and has always been so.

Upper NW used to be farmland, and before that, it was forest.

Yes, and then it was settled as a suburb of weekend homes for downtown.

Some of these areas in question don't even have sidewalks!

It's high time they got sidewalks, then. They are in an urban area.

Sounds like a good place to start instead of bike lanes.

Why instead of? That's silly. They serve different purposes. Both are good.

Do they? Better re-check your talking points. But you're right they do serve different purposes. One is useful and benefits everybody. The other is not useful and benefits a very small few.

Everyone needs a hobby, and hating on bike lanes is yours.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am surprised Ward 4 resident Lee Mayer who is leading the charge against the Conn Ave bike lanes associates himself with someone like Mark Rosenman, given Rosenman's history of bullying, specifically the CPCA meeting where Rosenman, during his speech while running for office, challenged an audience member about half his size to "step outside." Absolutely atrocious behavior. I don't trust any survey Rosenman has taken given his publicly shown willingness to intimidate those he disagrees with. I believe then-head of CPCA Ruth Caplan issued an apology at the time. The video was memoryholed by CPCA, indicating how ashamed the group was of Rosenman's actions.

Who is Mr Rosenman and what elected political office did he run for?

He ran for office within the Cleveland Park Citizens Association, which has recently and belatedly amended its name to the Cleveland Park Community Association. After his speech where he challenged a fellow member to "step outside" during his stump speech, he won election.

That's not exactly standing as a candidate for a political office. That said, why the snark about the CP Community Association, which according to the website has been operating as a civic group for over 100 years? The website also shows it is organized as a nonprofit with an elected board of directors. The website has the articles of incorporation and bylaws prominently posted, and indicates that the organization is funded from member dues of $30/year. This is quite the contrast with another area group, CP Smart Growth, which doesn't seem to have any articles or bylaws on the web. This group pumps out a lot of pro-smart growth content and seems to be constantly lobbying for more development, but its source of funding (like its governance) is opaque.

Your whataboutism is showing.

[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:So let's close down all the roads to all cars and just have buses and bikes. Problem solved.

Except for that pesky need for supplies like food or anything any shops might sell.

Maybe it's a weird concept for you suburban commuters, but in most cities you don't actually need a car to go to the store.

You do understand that 1) the stores need roads to get their goods and 2) upper NW is not urban

Upper NW DC is urban. Good grief.

Many NW neighborhoods have a distinctly suburban feel, although the smart growth development lobby is fixated on trying to change that.

DC does have suburbs, but they are not in DC. Next you'll tell us that NYC isn't urban.

What fun word games you play. Upper NW is suburban and has always been so.

Upper NW used to be farmland, and before that, it was forest.

Yes, and then it was settled as a suburb of weekend homes for downtown.

Some of these areas in question don't even have sidewalks!

It's high time they got sidewalks, then. They are in an urban area.

Sounds like a good place to start instead of bike lanes.

Why instead of? That's silly. They serve different purposes. Both are good.

Do they? Better re-check your talking points. But you're right they do serve different purposes. One is useful and benefits everybody. The other is not useful and benefits a very small few.

Actually, bike lanes benefit both pedestrians and drivers by putting bikes in a different place making it safer for everyone.

[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:

Anonymous wrote:So let's close down all the roads to all cars and just have buses and bikes. Problem solved.

Except for that pesky need for supplies like food or anything any shops might sell.

Maybe it's a weird concept for you suburban commuters, but in most cities you don't actually need a car to go to the store.

You do understand that 1) the stores need roads to get their goods and 2) upper NW is not urban

Upper NW DC is urban. Good grief.

Many NW neighborhoods have a distinctly suburban feel, although the smart growth development lobby is fixated on trying to change that.

DC does have suburbs, but they are not in DC. Next you'll tell us that NYC isn't urban.

What fun word games you play. Upper NW is suburban and has always been so.

Upper NW used to be farmland, and before that, it was forest.

Yes, and then it was settled as a suburb of weekend homes for downtown.

Some of these areas in question don't even have sidewalks!

It's high time they got sidewalks, then. They are in an urban area.

Sounds like a good place to start instead of bike lanes.

Why instead of? That's silly. They serve different purposes. Both are good.

Do they? Better re-check your talking points. But you're right they do serve different purposes. One is useful and benefits everybody. The other is not useful and benefits a very small few.

Actually, bike lanes benefit both pedestrians and drivers by putting bikes in a different place making it safer for everyone.

+1. Also general purpose driving lanes that allow any type of vehicle don't benefit everyone, they benefit drivers. Connecticut Ave currently has six lanes dedicated to vehicles and they wouldn't need so many if private cars were not allowed on the street. Sure, most people benefit from delivery drivers but if the only vehicles on the street were delivery trucks you could have a widely pared down street.

[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:

Anonymous wrote:So let's close down all the roads to all cars and just have buses and bikes. Problem solved.

Except for that pesky need for supplies like food or anything any shops might sell.

Maybe it's a weird concept for you suburban commuters, but in most cities you don't actually need a car to go to the store.

You do understand that 1) the stores need roads to get their goods and 2) upper NW is not urban

Upper NW DC is urban. Good grief.

Many NW neighborhoods have a distinctly suburban feel, although the smart growth development lobby is fixated on trying to change that.

DC does have suburbs, but they are not in DC. Next you'll tell us that NYC isn't urban.

What fun word games you play. Upper NW is suburban and has always been so.

Upper NW used to be farmland, and before that, it was forest.

Yes, and then it was settled as a suburb of weekend homes for downtown.

Some of these areas in question don't even have sidewalks!

It's high time they got sidewalks, then. They are in an urban area.

Sounds like a good place to start instead of bike lanes.

Why instead of? That's silly. They serve different purposes. Both are good.

Do they? Better re-check your talking points. But you're right they do serve different purposes. One is useful and benefits everybody. The other is not useful and benefits a very small few.

Actually, bike lanes benefit both pedestrians and drivers by putting bikes in a different place making it safer for everyone.

This point keeps getting made repeatedly in this thread by seemingly multiple people. The most factual posts have the fewest replies.

[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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So let's close down all the roads to all cars and just have buses and bikes. Problem solved.

Except for that pesky need for supplies like food or anything any shops might sell.

Maybe it's a weird concept for you suburban commuters, but in most cities you don't actually need a car to go to the store.

You do understand that 1) the stores need roads to get their goods and 2) upper NW is not urban

Upper NW DC is urban. Good grief.

Many NW neighborhoods have a distinctly suburban feel, although the smart growth development lobby is fixated on trying to change that.

DC does have suburbs, but they are not in DC. Next you'll tell us that NYC isn't urban.

What fun word games you play. Upper NW is suburban and has always been so.

Upper NW used to be farmland, and before that, it was forest.

Yes, and then it was settled as a suburb of weekend homes for downtown.

Some of these areas in question don't even have sidewalks!

It's high time they got sidewalks, then. They are in an urban area.

Sounds like a good place to start instead of bike lanes.

Why instead of? That's silly. They serve different purposes. Both are good.

Do they? Better re-check your talking points. But you're right they do serve different purposes. One is useful and benefits everybody. The other is not useful and benefits a very small few.

Actually, bike lanes benefit both pedestrians and drivers by putting bikes in a different place making it safer for everyone.

+1. Also general purpose driving lanes that allow any type of vehicle don't benefit everyone, they benefit drivers. Connecticut Ave currently has six lanes dedicated to vehicles and they wouldn't need so many if private cars were not allowed on the street. Sure, most people benefit from delivery drivers but if the only vehicles on the street were delivery trucks you could have a widely pared down street.

Wait a second-are you advocating for shutting down roads to "private" cars and you want bike lanes???? Explain to me how this is sharing the road? PS-it ain't going to happen but keep whistlin Dixie if it makes you feel better.

[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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So let's close down all the roads to all cars and just have buses and bikes. Problem solved.

Except for that pesky need for supplies like food or anything any shops might sell.

Maybe it's a weird concept for you suburban commuters, but in most cities you don't actually need a car to go to the store.

You do understand that 1) the stores need roads to get their goods and 2) upper NW is not urban

Upper NW DC is urban. Good grief.

Many NW neighborhoods have a distinctly suburban feel, although the smart growth development lobby is fixated on trying to change that.

DC does have suburbs, but they are not in DC. Next you'll tell us that NYC isn't urban.

What fun word games you play. Upper NW is suburban and has always been so.

Upper NW used to be farmland, and before that, it was forest.

Yes, and then it was settled as a suburb of weekend homes for downtown.

Some of these areas in question don't even have sidewalks!

It's high time they got sidewalks, then. They are in an urban area.

Sounds like a good place to start instead of bike lanes.

Why instead of? That's silly. They serve different purposes. Both are good.

Do they? Better re-check your talking points. But you're right they do serve different purposes. One is useful and benefits everybody. The other is not useful and benefits a very small few.

Actually, bike lanes benefit both pedestrians and drivers by putting bikes in a different place making it safer for everyone.

This point keeps getting made repeatedly in this thread by seemingly multiple people. The most factual posts have the fewest replies.

The most dangerous place for bikes is when cars need to cross over. Those 200+ cross overs aren’t going away under this projects. Any safety benefits will be dwarfed by the increased induced demand.

[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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So let's close down all the roads to all cars and just have buses and bikes. Problem solved.

Except for that pesky need for supplies like food or anything any shops might sell.

Maybe it's a weird concept for you suburban commuters, but in most cities you don't actually need a car to go to the store.

You do understand that 1) the stores need roads to get their goods and 2) upper NW is not urban

Upper NW DC is urban. Good grief.

Many NW neighborhoods have a distinctly suburban feel, although the smart growth development lobby is fixated on trying to change that.

DC does have suburbs, but they are not in DC. Next you'll tell us that NYC isn't urban.

What fun word games you play. Upper NW is suburban and has always been so.

Upper NW used to be farmland, and before that, it was forest.

Yes, and then it was settled as a suburb of weekend homes for downtown.

Some of these areas in question don't even have sidewalks!

It's high time they got sidewalks, then. They are in an urban area.

Sounds like a good place to start instead of bike lanes.

Why instead of? That's silly. They serve different purposes. Both are good.

Do they? Better re-check your talking points. But you're right they do serve different purposes. One is useful and benefits everybody. The other is not useful and benefits a very small few.

Actually, bike lanes benefit both pedestrians and drivers by putting bikes in a different place making it safer for everyone.

+1. Also general purpose driving lanes that allow any type of vehicle don't benefit everyone, they benefit drivers. Connecticut Ave currently has six lanes dedicated to vehicles and they wouldn't need so many if private cars were not allowed on the street. Sure, most people benefit from delivery drivers but if the only vehicles on the street were delivery trucks you could have a widely pared down street.

Wait a second-are you advocating for shutting down roads to "private" cars and you want bike lanes???? Explain to me how this is sharing the road? PS-it ain't going to happen but keep whistlin Dixie if it makes you feel better.

The purpose of "share the road" signs was to tell drivers not to run bicyclists off the road. However, too many drivers wrongly assumed the purpose of "share the road" signs was to tell bicyclists to get out of the way of drivers. So now the departments of transportation use "bicyclist may use full lane" signs instead.

[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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So let's close down all the roads to all cars and just have buses and bikes. Problem solved.

Except for that pesky need for supplies like food or anything any shops might sell.

Maybe it's a weird concept for you suburban commuters, but in most cities you don't actually need a car to go to the store.

You do understand that 1) the stores need roads to get their goods and 2) upper NW is not urban

Upper NW DC is urban. Good grief.

Many NW neighborhoods have a distinctly suburban feel, although the smart growth development lobby is fixated on trying to change that.

DC does have suburbs, but they are not in DC. Next you'll tell us that NYC isn't urban.

What fun word games you play. Upper NW is suburban and has always been so.

Upper NW used to be farmland, and before that, it was forest.

Yes, and then it was settled as a suburb of weekend homes for downtown.

Some of these areas in question don't even have sidewalks!

It's high time they got sidewalks, then. They are in an urban area.

Sounds like a good place to start instead of bike lanes.

Why instead of? That's silly. They serve different purposes. Both are good.

Do they? Better re-check your talking points. But you're right they do serve different purposes. One is useful and benefits everybody. The other is not useful and benefits a very small few.

Actually, bike lanes benefit both pedestrians and drivers by putting bikes in a different place making it safer for everyone.

This point keeps getting made repeatedly in this thread by seemingly multiple people. The most factual posts have the fewest replies.

The most dangerous place for bikes is when cars need to cross over. Those 200+ cross overs aren’t going away under this projects. Any safety benefits will be dwarfed by the increased induced demand.

Bizarre but true: this is actually a Koch brothers talking point. It's also factually wrong.

[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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So let's close down all the roads to all cars and just have buses and bikes. Problem solved.

Except for that pesky need for supplies like food or anything any shops might sell.

Maybe it's a weird concept for you suburban commuters, but in most cities you don't actually need a car to go to the store.

You do understand that 1) the stores need roads to get their goods and 2) upper NW is not urban

Upper NW DC is urban. Good grief.

Many NW neighborhoods have a distinctly suburban feel, although the smart growth development lobby is fixated on trying to change that.

DC does have suburbs, but they are not in DC. Next you'll tell us that NYC isn't urban.

What fun word games you play. Upper NW is suburban and has always been so.

Upper NW used to be farmland, and before that, it was forest.

Yes, and then it was settled as a suburb of weekend homes for downtown.

Some of these areas in question don't even have sidewalks!

It's high time they got sidewalks, then. They are in an urban area.

Sounds like a good place to start instead of bike lanes.

Why instead of? That's silly. They serve different purposes. Both are good.

Do they? Better re-check your talking points. But you're right they do serve different purposes. One is useful and benefits everybody. The other is not useful and benefits a very small few.

Actually, bike lanes benefit both pedestrians and drivers by putting bikes in a different place making it safer for everyone.

This point keeps getting made repeatedly in this thread by seemingly multiple people. The most factual posts have the fewest replies.

The most dangerous place for bikes is when cars need to cross over. Those 200+ cross overs aren’t going away under this projects. Any safety benefits will be dwarfed by the increased induced demand.

I don't think you need to worry about that. There's no chance that bicycle use of Connecticut will come close to reaching the numbers suggested.

[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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So let's close down all the roads to all cars and just have buses and bikes. Problem solved.

Except for that pesky need for supplies like food or anything any shops might sell.

Maybe it's a weird concept for you suburban commuters, but in most cities you don't actually need a car to go to the store.

You do understand that 1) the stores need roads to get their goods and 2) upper NW is not urban

Upper NW DC is urban. Good grief.

Many NW neighborhoods have a distinctly suburban feel, although the smart growth development lobby is fixated on trying to change that.

DC does have suburbs, but they are not in DC. Next you'll tell us that NYC isn't urban.

What fun word games you play. Upper NW is suburban and has always been so.

Upper NW used to be farmland, and before that, it was forest.

Yes, and then it was settled as a suburb of weekend homes for downtown.

Some of these areas in question don't even have sidewalks!

It's high time they got sidewalks, then. They are in an urban area.

Sounds like a good place to start instead of bike lanes.

Why instead of? That's silly. They serve different purposes. Both are good.

Do they? Better re-check your talking points. But you're right they do serve different purposes. One is useful and benefits everybody. The other is not useful and benefits a very small few.

Actually, bike lanes benefit both pedestrians and drivers by putting bikes in a different place making it safer for everyone.

+1. Also general purpose driving lanes that allow any type of vehicle don't benefit everyone, they benefit drivers. Connecticut Ave currently has six lanes dedicated to vehicles and they wouldn't need so many if private cars were not allowed on the street. Sure, most people benefit from delivery drivers but if the only vehicles on the street were delivery trucks you could have a widely pared down street.

Wait a second-are you advocating for shutting down roads to "private" cars and you want bike lanes???? Explain to me how this is sharing the road? PS-it ain't going to happen but keep whistlin Dixie if it makes you feel better.

Not only that. They're also demanding that we all increase our individual essential goods costs 30% or more by having everything delivered.

[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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So let's close down all the roads to all cars and just have buses and bikes. Problem solved.

Except for that pesky need for supplies like food or anything any shops might sell.

Maybe it's a weird concept for you suburban commuters, but in most cities you don't actually need a car to go to the store.

You do understand that 1) the stores need roads to get their goods and 2) upper NW is not urban

Upper NW DC is urban. Good grief.

Many NW neighborhoods have a distinctly suburban feel, although the smart growth development lobby is fixated on trying to change that.

DC does have suburbs, but they are not in DC. Next you'll tell us that NYC isn't urban.

What fun word games you play. Upper NW is suburban and has always been so.

Upper NW used to be farmland, and before that, it was forest.

Yes, and then it was settled as a suburb of weekend homes for downtown.

Some of these areas in question don't even have sidewalks!

It's high time they got sidewalks, then. They are in an urban area.

Sounds like a good place to start instead of bike lanes.

Why instead of? That's silly. They serve different purposes. Both are good.

Do they? Better re-check your talking points. But you're right they do serve different purposes. One is useful and benefits everybody. The other is not useful and benefits a very small few.

Actually, bike lanes benefit both pedestrians and drivers by putting bikes in a different place making it safer for everyone.

+1. Also general purpose driving lanes that allow any type of vehicle don't benefit everyone, they benefit drivers. Connecticut Ave currently has six lanes dedicated to vehicles and they wouldn't need so many if private cars were not allowed on the street. Sure, most people benefit from delivery drivers but if the only vehicles on the street were delivery trucks you could have a widely pared down street.

Wait a second-are you advocating for shutting down roads to "private" cars and you want bike lanes???? Explain to me how this is sharing the road? PS-it ain't going to happen but keep whistlin Dixie if it makes you feel better.

Not only that. They're also demanding that we all increase our individual essential goods costs 30% or more by having everything delivered.

I can make up numbers too!