Options for opposing Connecticut Avenue changes?

[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:

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.

Those are also the most dangerous places for pedestrians and cars. So we should just ban cars because the cars are the things that cause the most damage. Short of banning cars, we should have a place for each mode so that everyone knows where everyone else is, and can access the businesses as safely as possible.

The bike lane mafia is asking the city to spend untold millions of dollars to build bike lanes that will increase bike injuries/fatalities from the current ZERO to likely dozens per year. Not to mention all the businesses that will be impacted. Honestly, this is the same bizarre progressive logic that has brought San Francisco and Portland to the brink of the abyss. There is no reasoning with these people. They destroy every city they latch on to. It’s like watching a slow motion bike wreck.

That assumes that there will be an exponentional increase in bicycling on the order of thousands of percent. The odds of that are extremely low. We can already see, based on Capital Bikeshare data, that bicycle usage peaked in 2017 and that bike lanes do nothing.

In sane cities, they make corridors that favor one transportation mode at a time, rather then dump all travelers on the same road. They have different speeds and different needs.

Doing these roads piecemeal is the real problem. Everyone fights over the same space. The city needs a better master plan where all the users are considered somewhere. Turn Connecticut over to cars, but make Reno/Beach bike only for instance. That reduces the conflict zone between dissimilar transportation types. Makes for better neighborhoods, businesses, and parks too.

[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:

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.

Those are also the most dangerous places for pedestrians and cars. So we should just ban cars because the cars are the things that cause the most damage. Short of banning cars, we should have a place for each mode so that everyone knows where everyone else is, and can access the businesses as safely as possible.

The bike lane mafia is asking the city to spend untold millions of dollars to build bike lanes that will increase bike injuries/fatalities from the current ZERO to likely dozens per year. Not to mention all the businesses that will be impacted. Honestly, this is the same bizarre progressive logic that has brought San Francisco and Portland to the brink of the abyss. There is no reasoning with these people. They destroy every city they latch on to. It’s like watching a slow motion bike wreck.

That assumes that there will be an exponentional increase in bicycling on the order of thousands of percent. The odds of that are extremely low. We can already see, based on Capital Bikeshare data, that bicycle usage peaked in 2017 and that bike lanes do nothing.

In sane cities, they make corridors that favor one transportation mode at a time, rather then dump all travelers on the same road. They have different speeds and different needs.

Doing these roads piecemeal is the real problem. Everyone fights over the same space. The city needs a better master plan where all the users are considered somewhere. Turn Connecticut over to cars, but make Reno/Beach bike only for instance. That reduces the conflict zone between dissimilar transportation types. Makes for better neighborhoods, businesses, and parks too.

That's going to make it really hard for people to reach the businesses on Connecticut. Are they all going to convert to drive-thru?

[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:

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.

Those are also the most dangerous places for pedestrians and cars. So we should just ban cars because the cars are the things that cause the most damage. Short of banning cars, we should have a place for each mode so that everyone knows where everyone else is, and can access the businesses as safely as possible.

The bike lane mafia is asking the city to spend untold millions of dollars to build bike lanes that will increase bike injuries/fatalities from the current ZERO to likely dozens per year. Not to mention all the businesses that will be impacted. Honestly, this is the same bizarre progressive logic that has brought San Francisco and Portland to the brink of the abyss. There is no reasoning with these people. They destroy every city they latch on to. It’s like watching a slow motion bike wreck.

Bike lanes don't cause injuries or fatalities. I don't know where you got this Koch Brother tripe from but it doesn't even make logical sense.

The impact on business you assert is totally false. Study after study shows a neutral to positive impact. None show negative impact.

https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1061&context=arch_crp_theses

117% increase in crashes from protected bike lanes versus shared road

Over 400% increase from cycle tracks

It's weird how more drivers hit bicyclists on roads where there are bicyclists, vs. on roads where there aren't bicyclists. I wonder why that might be. I also wonder how many drivers hit bicyclists on roads where there aren't drivers, vs. on roads where there are drivers.

That's not what the study says.

Protected bike lanes increase bike accidents. While that mean seem counter-intuitive it is not. The reason is that protected bike lanes engender a false sense of invulnerability and separation which results in greater risk taking and a lack of attention when crossing driveways and intersections.

That is exactly what the study (actually, someone's master's thesis) says. More crashes in bike facilities that bicyclists use; fewer crashes in bike facilities that bicyclists don't use. That's it. No rate data (number of crashes per number of bicyclists), no time data (change in number of crashes before/after installation of the bike facilities). Just number of crashes. It's like concluding that hospitals with trauma centers are more dangerous than hospitals without trauma centers, because hospitals with trauma centers have more trauma deaths.

[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:

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.

Those are also the most dangerous places for pedestrians and cars. So we should just ban cars because the cars are the things that cause the most damage. Short of banning cars, we should have a place for each mode so that everyone knows where everyone else is, and can access the businesses as safely as possible.

The bike lane mafia is asking the city to spend untold millions of dollars to build bike lanes that will increase bike injuries/fatalities from the current ZERO to likely dozens per year. Not to mention all the businesses that will be impacted. Honestly, this is the same bizarre progressive logic that has brought San Francisco and Portland to the brink of the abyss. There is no reasoning with these people. They destroy every city they latch on to. It’s like watching a slow motion bike wreck.

Bike lanes don't cause injuries or fatalities. I don't know where you got this Koch Brother tripe from but it doesn't even make logical sense.

The impact on business you assert is totally false. Study after study shows a neutral to positive impact. None show negative impact.

https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1061&context=arch_crp_theses

117% increase in crashes from protected bike lanes versus shared road

Over 400% increase from cycle tracks

Do you know what would prevent bike injuries or fatalities? No bikes. That is clearly your goal. We get it. But bikes were here before cars, they are cheaper to own and operate and they don't cause emissions or other environmental externalities, so, they aren't going anywhere, no matter how much you want to beg that they do. As such, a protected bike lanes is safer than no bike lane, and that is the path the mayor has chosen and there is near political unanimity around that decision.

That's not my goal. There's nothing wrong with bikes or bicyclists in general. It's the plan to intentionally increase congestion and waste ten of millions of dollars on a barely used amenity that I don't like.

Well, whether you like them or not, bikes are not going anywhere, and the trend for younger Americans is away from cars and car ownership. So why shouldn't we be building for the better future where more people are biking and walking rather than driving?

[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:

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.

Those are also the most dangerous places for pedestrians and cars. So we should just ban cars because the cars are the things that cause the most damage. Short of banning cars, we should have a place for each mode so that everyone knows where everyone else is, and can access the businesses as safely as possible.

The bike lane mafia is asking the city to spend untold millions of dollars to build bike lanes that will increase bike injuries/fatalities from the current ZERO to likely dozens per year. Not to mention all the businesses that will be impacted. Honestly, this is the same bizarre progressive logic that has brought San Francisco and Portland to the brink of the abyss. There is no reasoning with these people. They destroy every city they latch on to. It’s like watching a slow motion bike wreck.

That assumes that there will be an exponentional increase in bicycling on the order of thousands of percent. The odds of that are extremely low. We can already see, based on Capital Bikeshare data, that bicycle usage peaked in 2017 and that bike lanes do nothing.

In sane cities, they make corridors that favor one transportation mode at a time, rather then dump all travelers on the same road. They have different speeds and different needs.

Doing these roads piecemeal is the real problem. Everyone fights over the same space. The city needs a better master plan where all the users are considered somewhere. Turn Connecticut over to cars, but make Reno/Beach bike only for instance. That reduces the conflict zone between dissimilar transportation types. Makes for better neighborhoods, businesses, and parks too.

There are master plans, and they call for bikes on Connecticut Avenue, because, that is where the business are and the tens of thousands of residents who walk and bike to those businesses need a safer experience than the current one.

[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:

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.

Those are also the most dangerous places for pedestrians and cars. So we should just ban cars because the cars are the things that cause the most damage. Short of banning cars, we should have a place for each mode so that everyone knows where everyone else is, and can access the businesses as safely as possible.

The bike lane mafia is asking the city to spend untold millions of dollars to build bike lanes that will increase bike injuries/fatalities from the current ZERO to likely dozens per year. Not to mention all the businesses that will be impacted. Honestly, this is the same bizarre progressive logic that has brought San Francisco and Portland to the brink of the abyss. There is no reasoning with these people. They destroy every city they latch on to. It’s like watching a slow motion bike wreck.

That assumes that there will be an exponentional increase in bicycling on the order of thousands of percent. The odds of that are extremely low. We can already see, based on Capital Bikeshare data, that bicycle usage peaked in 2017 and that bike lanes do nothing.

In sane cities, they make corridors that favor one transportation mode at a time, rather then dump all travelers on the same road. They have different speeds and different needs.

Doing these roads piecemeal is the real problem. Everyone fights over the same space. The city needs a better master plan where all the users are considered somewhere. Turn Connecticut over to cars, but make Reno/Beach bike only for instance. That reduces the conflict zone between dissimilar transportation types. Makes for better neighborhoods, businesses, and parks too.

There are master plans, and they call for bikes on Connecticut Avenue, because, that is where the business are and the tens of thousands of residents who walk and bike to those businesses need a safer experience than the current one.

I have seen no evidence that pedestrian accidents have increased in recent years. DC still has a smaller population than it did in the 1950s, and DC no doubt has fewer office workers than a decade ago.

[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:

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.

Those are also the most dangerous places for pedestrians and cars. So we should just ban cars because the cars are the things that cause the most damage. Short of banning cars, we should have a place for each mode so that everyone knows where everyone else is, and can access the businesses as safely as possible.

The bike lane mafia is asking the city to spend untold millions of dollars to build bike lanes that will increase bike injuries/fatalities from the current ZERO to likely dozens per year. Not to mention all the businesses that will be impacted. Honestly, this is the same bizarre progressive logic that has brought San Francisco and Portland to the brink of the abyss. There is no reasoning with these people. They destroy every city they latch on to. It’s like watching a slow motion bike wreck.

That assumes that there will be an exponentional increase in bicycling on the order of thousands of percent. The odds of that are extremely low. We can already see, based on Capital Bikeshare data, that bicycle usage peaked in 2017 and that bike lanes do nothing.

In sane cities, they make corridors that favor one transportation mode at a time, rather then dump all travelers on the same road. They have different speeds and different needs.

Doing these roads piecemeal is the real problem. Everyone fights over the same space. The city needs a better master plan where all the users are considered somewhere. Turn Connecticut over to cars, but make Reno/Beach bike only for instance. That reduces the conflict zone between dissimilar transportation types. Makes for better neighborhoods, businesses, and parks too.

There are master plans, and they call for bikes on Connecticut Avenue, because, that is where the business are and the tens of thousands of residents who walk and bike to those businesses need a safer experience than the current one.

I have seen no evidence that pedestrian accidents have increased in recent years. DC still has a smaller population than it did in the 1950s, and DC no doubt has fewer office workers than a decade ago.

[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:

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.

Those are also the most dangerous places for pedestrians and cars. So we should just ban cars because the cars are the things that cause the most damage. Short of banning cars, we should have a place for each mode so that everyone knows where everyone else is, and can access the businesses as safely as possible.

The bike lane mafia is asking the city to spend untold millions of dollars to build bike lanes that will increase bike injuries/fatalities from the current ZERO to likely dozens per year. Not to mention all the businesses that will be impacted. Honestly, this is the same bizarre progressive logic that has brought San Francisco and Portland to the brink of the abyss. There is no reasoning with these people. They destroy every city they latch on to. It’s like watching a slow motion bike wreck.

That assumes that there will be an exponentional increase in bicycling on the order of thousands of percent. The odds of that are extremely low. We can already see, based on Capital Bikeshare data, that bicycle usage peaked in 2017 and that bike lanes do nothing.

In sane cities, they make corridors that favor one transportation mode at a time, rather then dump all travelers on the same road. They have different speeds and different needs.

Doing these roads piecemeal is the real problem. Everyone fights over the same space. The city needs a better master plan where all the users are considered somewhere. Turn Connecticut over to cars, but make Reno/Beach bike only for instance. That reduces the conflict zone between dissimilar transportation types. Makes for better neighborhoods, businesses, and parks too.

There are master plans, and they call for bikes on Connecticut Avenue, because, that is where the business are and the tens of thousands of residents who walk and bike to those businesses need a safer experience than the current one.

I have seen no evidence that pedestrian accidents have increased in recent years. DC still has a smaller population than it did in the 1950s, and DC no doubt has fewer office workers than a decade ago.

Here's some data for you.

Injuries in 2019: 4900 drivers, 2100 passengers, 931 pedestrians, 492 bicyclists
Major injuries in 2019: 224 drivers, 46 passengers, 123 pedestrians, 52 bicyclists
Deaths in 2019: 7 drivers, 3 passengers, 12 pedestrians, 2 bicyclists, 3 motorcyclists

Injuries in 2022: 3400 drivers, 1400 passengers, 507 pedestrians, 269 bicyclists, 184 other
Major injuries in 2022: 158 drivers, 43 passengers, 93 pedestrians, 26 bicyclists
Deaths in 2022: 6 drivers, 3 passengers, 19 pedestrians, 3 bicyclists, 4 motorcyclists

https://www.arcgis.com/apps/dashboards/a2f1cca5159e4c6eae197895d2e08336

[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:

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.

Those are also the most dangerous places for pedestrians and cars. So we should just ban cars because the cars are the things that cause the most damage. Short of banning cars, we should have a place for each mode so that everyone knows where everyone else is, and can access the businesses as safely as possible.

The bike lane mafia is asking the city to spend untold millions of dollars to build bike lanes that will increase bike injuries/fatalities from the current ZERO to likely dozens per year. Not to mention all the businesses that will be impacted. Honestly, this is the same bizarre progressive logic that has brought San Francisco and Portland to the brink of the abyss. There is no reasoning with these people. They destroy every city they latch on to. It’s like watching a slow motion bike wreck.

That assumes that there will be an exponentional increase in bicycling on the order of thousands of percent. The odds of that are extremely low. We can already see, based on Capital Bikeshare data, that bicycle usage peaked in 2017 and that bike lanes do nothing.

In sane cities, they make corridors that favor one transportation mode at a time, rather then dump all travelers on the same road. They have different speeds and different needs.

Doing these roads piecemeal is the real problem. Everyone fights over the same space. The city needs a better master plan where all the users are considered somewhere. Turn Connecticut over to cars, but make Reno/Beach bike only for instance. That reduces the conflict zone between dissimilar transportation types. Makes for better neighborhoods, businesses, and parks too.

There are master plans, and they call for bikes on Connecticut Avenue, because, that is where the business are and the tens of thousands of residents who walk and bike to those businesses need a safer experience than the current one.

Bicyclists and pedestrians are not the same. Tens of thousands of pedestrians exist. Tens of thousands of bicyclists do not.

If this plan cared about either pedestrians or businesses it would be focused on lighting and trees, ie shade.

Creating a transportation plan centered around the desires of a few dozen to have a status symbol while punishing tens of thousands and ignoring the needs of businesses is pure folly and bad policy.

There are more dogs than bicyclists in the area. A single fenced in dog park would create infinitely more public benefit than bike lanes on Connecticut for a fraction of the cost.

[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:

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.

Those are also the most dangerous places for pedestrians and cars. So we should just ban cars because the cars are the things that cause the most damage. Short of banning cars, we should have a place for each mode so that everyone knows where everyone else is, and can access the businesses as safely as possible.

The bike lane mafia is asking the city to spend untold millions of dollars to build bike lanes that will increase bike injuries/fatalities from the current ZERO to likely dozens per year. Not to mention all the businesses that will be impacted. Honestly, this is the same bizarre progressive logic that has brought San Francisco and Portland to the brink of the abyss. There is no reasoning with these people. They destroy every city they latch on to. It’s like watching a slow motion bike wreck.

Bike lanes don't cause injuries or fatalities. I don't know where you got this Koch Brother tripe from but it doesn't even make logical sense.

The impact on business you assert is totally false. Study after study shows a neutral to positive impact. None show negative impact.

https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1061&context=arch_crp_theses

117% increase in crashes from protected bike lanes versus shared road

Over 400% increase from cycle tracks

Do you know what would prevent bike injuries or fatalities? No bikes. That is clearly your goal. We get it. But bikes were here before cars, they are cheaper to own and operate and they don't cause emissions or other environmental externalities, so, they aren't going anywhere, no matter how much you want to beg that they do. As such, a protected bike lanes is safer than no bike lane, and that is the path the mayor has chosen and there is near political unanimity around that decision.

That's not my goal. There's nothing wrong with bikes or bicyclists in general. It's the plan to intentionally increase congestion and waste ten of millions of dollars on a barely used amenity that I don't like.

Well, whether you like them or not, bikes are not going anywhere, and the trend for younger Americans is away from cars and car ownership. So why shouldn't we be building for the better future where more people are biking and walking rather than driving?

According to the bike share data, which is amazing by the way, bike use has been decreasing since 2017.

[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:

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.

Those are also the most dangerous places for pedestrians and cars. So we should just ban cars because the cars are the things that cause the most damage. Short of banning cars, we should have a place for each mode so that everyone knows where everyone else is, and can access the businesses as safely as possible.

The bike lane mafia is asking the city to spend untold millions of dollars to build bike lanes that will increase bike injuries/fatalities from the current ZERO to likely dozens per year. Not to mention all the businesses that will be impacted. Honestly, this is the same bizarre progressive logic that has brought San Francisco and Portland to the brink of the abyss. There is no reasoning with these people. They destroy every city they latch on to. It’s like watching a slow motion bike wreck.

That assumes that there will be an exponentional increase in bicycling on the order of thousands of percent. The odds of that are extremely low. We can already see, based on Capital Bikeshare data, that bicycle usage peaked in 2017 and that bike lanes do nothing.

In sane cities, they make corridors that favor one transportation mode at a time, rather then dump all travelers on the same road. They have different speeds and different needs.

Doing these roads piecemeal is the real problem. Everyone fights over the same space. The city needs a better master plan where all the users are considered somewhere. Turn Connecticut over to cars, but make Reno/Beach bike only for instance. That reduces the conflict zone between dissimilar transportation types. Makes for better neighborhoods, businesses, and parks too.

That's going to make it really hard for people to reach the businesses on Connecticut. Are they all going to convert to drive-thru?

Considering that less than one hundred people bike on Connecticut it wouldn't even be a rounding error.

[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:

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.

Those are also the most dangerous places for pedestrians and cars. So we should just ban cars because the cars are the things that cause the most damage. Short of banning cars, we should have a place for each mode so that everyone knows where everyone else is, and can access the businesses as safely as possible.

The bike lane mafia is asking the city to spend untold millions of dollars to build bike lanes that will increase bike injuries/fatalities from the current ZERO to likely dozens per year. Not to mention all the businesses that will be impacted. Honestly, this is the same bizarre progressive logic that has brought San Francisco and Portland to the brink of the abyss. There is no reasoning with these people. They destroy every city they latch on to. It’s like watching a slow motion bike wreck.

That assumes that there will be an exponentional increase in bicycling on the order of thousands of percent. The odds of that are extremely low. We can already see, based on Capital Bikeshare data, that bicycle usage peaked in 2017 and that bike lanes do nothing.

In sane cities, they make corridors that favor one transportation mode at a time, rather then dump all travelers on the same road. They have different speeds and different needs.

Doing these roads piecemeal is the real problem. Everyone fights over the same space. The city needs a better master plan where all the users are considered somewhere. Turn Connecticut over to cars, but make Reno/Beach bike only for instance. That reduces the conflict zone between dissimilar transportation types. Makes for better neighborhoods, businesses, and parks too.

There are master plans, and they call for bikes on Connecticut Avenue, because, that is where the business are and the tens of thousands of residents who walk and bike to those businesses need a safer experience than the current one.

Bicyclists and pedestrians are not the same. Tens of thousands of pedestrians exist. Tens of thousands of bicyclists do not.

If this plan cared about either pedestrians or businesses it would be focused on lighting and trees, ie shade.

Creating a transportation plan centered around the desires of a few dozen to have a status symbol while punishing tens of thousands and ignoring the needs of businesses is pure folly and bad policy.

There are more dogs than bicyclists in the area. A single fenced in dog park would create infinitely more public benefit than bike lanes on Connecticut for a fraction of the cost.

Tens of thousands of bicyclists do exist. How do we know? Because drivers hit them.

I'm sorry you feel like bike lanes punish you. Objectively, it's not true; bike lanes do not care about you one way or the other. But people's feelings are people's feelings.

[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:

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.

Those are also the most dangerous places for pedestrians and cars. So we should just ban cars because the cars are the things that cause the most damage. Short of banning cars, we should have a place for each mode so that everyone knows where everyone else is, and can access the businesses as safely as possible.

The bike lane mafia is asking the city to spend untold millions of dollars to build bike lanes that will increase bike injuries/fatalities from the current ZERO to likely dozens per year. Not to mention all the businesses that will be impacted. Honestly, this is the same bizarre progressive logic that has brought San Francisco and Portland to the brink of the abyss. There is no reasoning with these people. They destroy every city they latch on to. It’s like watching a slow motion bike wreck.

That assumes that there will be an exponentional increase in bicycling on the order of thousands of percent. The odds of that are extremely low. We can already see, based on Capital Bikeshare data, that bicycle usage peaked in 2017 and that bike lanes do nothing.

In sane cities, they make corridors that favor one transportation mode at a time, rather then dump all travelers on the same road. They have different speeds and different needs.

Doing these roads piecemeal is the real problem. Everyone fights over the same space. The city needs a better master plan where all the users are considered somewhere. Turn Connecticut over to cars, but make Reno/Beach bike only for instance. That reduces the conflict zone between dissimilar transportation types. Makes for better neighborhoods, businesses, and parks too.

That's going to make it really hard for people to reach the businesses on Connecticut. Are they all going to convert to drive-thru?

Considering that less than one hundred people bike on Connecticut it wouldn't even be a rounding error.

If Connecticut has been turned over to cars, how will ANYBODY reach the businesses, aside from drive-thrus?

[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:

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.

Those are also the most dangerous places for pedestrians and cars. So we should just ban cars because the cars are the things that cause the most damage. Short of banning cars, we should have a place for each mode so that everyone knows where everyone else is, and can access the businesses as safely as possible.

The bike lane mafia is asking the city to spend untold millions of dollars to build bike lanes that will increase bike injuries/fatalities from the current ZERO to likely dozens per year. Not to mention all the businesses that will be impacted. Honestly, this is the same bizarre progressive logic that has brought San Francisco and Portland to the brink of the abyss. There is no reasoning with these people. They destroy every city they latch on to. It’s like watching a slow motion bike wreck.

That assumes that there will be an exponentional increase in bicycling on the order of thousands of percent. The odds of that are extremely low. We can already see, based on Capital Bikeshare data, that bicycle usage peaked in 2017 and that bike lanes do nothing.

In sane cities, they make corridors that favor one transportation mode at a time, rather then dump all travelers on the same road. They have different speeds and different needs.

Doing these roads piecemeal is the real problem. Everyone fights over the same space. The city needs a better master plan where all the users are considered somewhere. Turn Connecticut over to cars, but make Reno/Beach bike only for instance. That reduces the conflict zone between dissimilar transportation types. Makes for better neighborhoods, businesses, and parks too.

There are master plans, and they call for bikes on Connecticut Avenue, because, that is where the business are and the tens of thousands of residents who walk and bike to those businesses need a safer experience than the current one.

Bicyclists and pedestrians are not the same. Tens of thousands of pedestrians exist. Tens of thousands of bicyclists do not.

If this plan cared about either pedestrians or businesses it would be focused on lighting and trees, ie shade.

Creating a transportation plan centered around the desires of a few dozen to have a status symbol while punishing tens of thousands and ignoring the needs of businesses is pure folly and bad policy.

There are more dogs than bicyclists in the area. A single fenced in dog park would create infinitely more public benefit than bike lanes on Connecticut for a fraction of the cost.

Tens of thousands of bicyclists do exist. How do we know? Because drivers hit them.

I'm sorry you feel like bike lanes punish you. Objectively, it's not true; bike lanes do not care about you one way or the other. But people's feelings are people's feelings.

How many bicyclists have been hit along the proposed project corridor? Like actually documented cases.

[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:

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.

Those are also the most dangerous places for pedestrians and cars. So we should just ban cars because the cars are the things that cause the most damage. Short of banning cars, we should have a place for each mode so that everyone knows where everyone else is, and can access the businesses as safely as possible.

The bike lane mafia is asking the city to spend untold millions of dollars to build bike lanes that will increase bike injuries/fatalities from the current ZERO to likely dozens per year. Not to mention all the businesses that will be impacted. Honestly, this is the same bizarre progressive logic that has brought San Francisco and Portland to the brink of the abyss. There is no reasoning with these people. They destroy every city they latch on to. It’s like watching a slow motion bike wreck.

That assumes that there will be an exponentional increase in bicycling on the order of thousands of percent. The odds of that are extremely low. We can already see, based on Capital Bikeshare data, that bicycle usage peaked in 2017 and that bike lanes do nothing.

In sane cities, they make corridors that favor one transportation mode at a time, rather then dump all travelers on the same road. They have different speeds and different needs.

Doing these roads piecemeal is the real problem. Everyone fights over the same space. The city needs a better master plan where all the users are considered somewhere. Turn Connecticut over to cars, but make Reno/Beach bike only for instance. That reduces the conflict zone between dissimilar transportation types. Makes for better neighborhoods, businesses, and parks too.

There are master plans, and they call for bikes on Connecticut Avenue, because, that is where the business are and the tens of thousands of residents who walk and bike to those businesses need a safer experience than the current one.

Bicyclists and pedestrians are not the same. Tens of thousands of pedestrians exist. Tens of thousands of bicyclists do not.

If this plan cared about either pedestrians or businesses it would be focused on lighting and trees, ie shade.

Creating a transportation plan centered around the desires of a few dozen to have a status symbol while punishing tens of thousands and ignoring the needs of businesses is pure folly and bad policy.

There are more dogs than bicyclists in the area. A single fenced in dog park would create infinitely more public benefit than bike lanes on Connecticut for a fraction of the cost.

Tens of thousands of bicyclists do exist. How do we know? Because drivers hit them.

I'm sorry you feel like bike lanes punish you. Objectively, it's not true; bike lanes do not care about you one way or the other. But people's feelings are people's feelings.

How many bicyclists have been hit along the proposed project corridor? Like actually documented cases.

You can look it up for yourself.

https://www.arcgis.com/apps/dashboards/a2f1cca5159e4c6eae197895d2e08336