Connecticut Ave bike lanes are back!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Yeah this is so politically toxic if they bring it back. Bike lanes that very very few people would use, as a utopian solution for cars, traffic, pedestrian deaths, the planet, equity, you name it. The whole "you are a bad, dumb person if you oppose this!" vibe was insufferable.

And normie District residents and businesses finally said this is silly, the emperor has no clothes.

Bike lanes can work great in the right places. But they are not a catch-all magical solution.

And in this case they would come with significant impacts and only fuzzy upsides. Longer commutes for workers and students, slower busses (!!!), problems for businesses, new dangers for pedestrians, more traffic on side streets. Any doubleparked CVS or FedEx truck (and they will double park!) moves from a minor inconvenience to a major traffic and safety headache.

Reminds me a bit of "pedstrianized streets" in the 70s. In the right places, they work great -- but in front of the MLK Library, for instance, they become the an open urinal. In other places (across from the press gallery?), they just killed street life. And they smartly got torn out.

The bike lanes that were proposed were not a catch all solution at all. They were just a piece of the puzzle in getting people to sometimes shift their modes of transit. The anti-bike lane people are so black and white in their thinking. The bike lanes work fine if some people use them some of the time for some trips. It doesn't have to be all or none.

There are six lanes of traffic dedicated to cars right now- giving a piece to bikers (just like a piece has been given to pedestrians in the form of sidewalks) is not the huge enormous traffic causing deal that people are making it out to be.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Nah. This time, we're awake. "We" being the overwhelming majority of affected persons who oppose any bike lanes whatsoever on Connecticut. And we will prevail, again, in shutting this shit down.

-- District resident, not a "Maryland commuter"

You calling yourself an “overwhelming majority” does not make you an overwhelming majority.

And those whose route from their house to Connecticut Avenue necessarily involves driving on a road in Maryland are, in fact, Maryland commuters.

Different poster. This insistence that anyone who opposes the bike lanes is a MD commuter is going to do you in. There is strong opposition within the neighborhoods along Connecticut. Stop with the fallacy that the opposition is Maryland commuter-based.

It is hard to know how much opposition there really is.

example:
-ANCs voted to support the bike lanes with one absention and one opposed across 3 commission
-All of the democrats running for ward 3 to replace Cheh supported the bike lanes
-The petition to support bike lanes (live for 2 weeks now) lapped the opposition petiition that it took 2+ years to gather.

Sure, there are people opposed to the bike lanes, but it is no where near the majority.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So the criminal lobby’s friend, Charles Allen, now wants to prevent DDOT from funding any safety improvements at all along Connecticut Ave. (like a raised crosswalk on Davenport and Connecticut so that Murch kids can walk more safely to school) UNLESS Allen gets his bike lanes.

Is Allen a bratty child or a public servant?!

If there isn't space for bikes, then it isn't a safety plan.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can we at least get a good design this time? Rather than the "inches from speeding trucks and buses" design that was Concept C?

No. Charles Allen is forbidding DDOT to spend money on the project unless they do what he wants. DDOT has already made their decision. So nothing will move forward. This means that the project will get shelved and if/when it ever gets resurrected it will have to start from scratch.

DDOT wanted the bike lanes. the Mayor overrode the experts.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So the criminal lobby’s friend, Charles Allen, now wants to prevent DDOT from funding any safety improvements at all along Connecticut Ave. (like a raised crosswalk on Davenport and Connecticut so that Murch kids can walk more safely to school) UNLESS Allen gets his bike lanes.

Is Allen a bratty child or a public servant?!

Never mind, this is my favorite tantrum

And when pedestrians die will you consider that a tantrum too?

Your doomsaying doesn't work on me

Apparently only bike lives matter. You folks are exactly who you present yourselves. Pedestrian safety = scaremongering. Incredible.

Agree. What makes this move so outrageous is that the alternative they chase is safer for pedestrians than the alternative that Allen wants. He’s completely throwing pedestrians under the bus for the sake of cyclists.

We haven't seen an alternative, and what the interim director suggested at the oversight hearing was not based on any modern transportation planning or engineering principles.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's time to make Connecticut avenue a grand boulevard that works for people living, working and being around it. Not the cars that drive through.

Right. More drive-through traffic can go on Porter Street or Reno Road.

DDOT proposed 24/7 parking on CT Ave. That would push more "cut through" traffic than Concept C.

Frumin is trying to avoid that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's time to make Connecticut avenue a grand boulevard that works for people living, working and being around it. Not the cars that drive through.

Right. More drive-through traffic can go on Porter Street or Reno Road.

DDOT proposed 24/7 parking on CT Ave. That would push more "cut through" traffic than Concept C.

Frumin is trying to avoid that.

Yeah, if your main objection to the bike lanes was that they would slow traffic on CT or force more cars off it to neighboring streets, you should not want parking, either. Bike lanes are a better choice from a driver's perspective than parking, because at least they also keep bikes out of the traffic lanes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So the criminal lobby’s friend, Charles Allen, now wants to prevent DDOT from funding any safety improvements at all along Connecticut Ave. (like a raised crosswalk on Davenport and Connecticut so that Murch kids can walk more safely to school) UNLESS Allen gets his bike lanes.

Is Allen a bratty child or a public servant?!

Never mind, this is my favorite tantrum

And when pedestrians die will you consider that a tantrum too?

Your doomsaying doesn't work on me

Apparently only bike lives matter. You folks are exactly who you present yourselves. Pedestrian safety = scaremongering. Incredible.

Agree. What makes this move so outrageous is that the alternative they chase is safer for pedestrians than the alternative that Allen wants. He’s completely throwing pedestrians under the bus for the sake of cyclists.

More like under Option 3, pedestrians stepping off a bus will get whacked by speeding cyclists as they try to cross the bike lanes to get to the curb. You wouldn't want that to happen to someone's grandma.

Yep, this is the Connecticut Avenue that Charles Allen wants:

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-media-max-width="560"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">WARNING We've been filming the chaotic & downright dangerous situation at the Westminster Bridge floating bus stop at St Thomas' hospital. Clip includes a speeding cyclist crashing into an elderly person. These designs are not safe & they need to be urgently halted <a href="https://twitter.com/Mark_J_Harper?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@Mark_J_Harper</a> <a href="https://t.co/MrScNnWLs7">pic.twitter.com/MrScNnWLs7</a></p>— NFBUK (@NFBUK) <a href="https://twitter.com/NFBUK/status/1787211980027101194?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">May 5, 2024</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

These have existed on Pennsylvania ave now for at least a few months and I haven't heard of a single incident of a cyclist clipping someone getting off a bus. We know how to look up when we ride.

Sorry I don’t trust you because the only reason I haven’t been hit in a crosswalk is because I moved quickly after you ran a red light. These configurations are all accidents waiting to happen. No thanks.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So the criminal lobby’s friend, Charles Allen, now wants to prevent DDOT from funding any safety improvements at all along Connecticut Ave. (like a raised crosswalk on Davenport and Connecticut so that Murch kids can walk more safely to school) UNLESS Allen gets his bike lanes.

Is Allen a bratty child or a public servant?!

Never mind, this is my favorite tantrum

And when pedestrians die will you consider that a tantrum too?

Your doomsaying doesn't work on me

Apparently only bike lives matter. You folks are exactly who you present yourselves. Pedestrian safety = scaremongering. Incredible.

Agree. What makes this move so outrageous is that the alternative they chase is safer for pedestrians than the alternative that Allen wants. He’s completely throwing pedestrians under the bus for the sake of cyclists.

More like under Option 3, pedestrians stepping off a bus will get whacked by speeding cyclists as they try to cross the bike lanes to get to the curb. You wouldn't want that to happen to someone's grandma.

Yep, this is the Connecticut Avenue that Charles Allen wants:

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-media-max-width="560"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">WARNING We've been filming the chaotic & downright dangerous situation at the Westminster Bridge floating bus stop at St Thomas' hospital. Clip includes a speeding cyclist crashing into an elderly person. These designs are not safe & they need to be urgently halted <a href="https://twitter.com/Mark_J_Harper?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@Mark_J_Harper</a> <a href="https://t.co/MrScNnWLs7">pic.twitter.com/MrScNnWLs7</a></p>— NFBUK (@NFBUK) <a href="https://twitter.com/NFBUK/status/1787211980027101194?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">May 5, 2024</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

Sorry:

https://twitter.com/NFBUK/status/1787211980027101194

Yes, this is what you get with "complete streets." Just jam pedestrians, buses, bikes and cars all into one road and hope for the best. There are simply too many conflict points with this sort of design.

You need to give different modes priority on separate corridors if you want safety and efficiency.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So the criminal lobby’s friend, Charles Allen, now wants to prevent DDOT from funding any safety improvements at all along Connecticut Ave. (like a raised crosswalk on Davenport and Connecticut so that Murch kids can walk more safely to school) UNLESS Allen gets his bike lanes.

Is Allen a bratty child or a public servant?!

Never mind, this is my favorite tantrum

And when pedestrians die will you consider that a tantrum too?

Your doomsaying doesn't work on me

Apparently only bike lives matter. You folks are exactly who you present yourselves. Pedestrian safety = scaremongering. Incredible.

Agree. What makes this move so outrageous is that the alternative they chase is safer for pedestrians than the alternative that Allen wants. He’s completely throwing pedestrians under the bus for the sake of cyclists.

More like under Option 3, pedestrians stepping off a bus will get whacked by speeding cyclists as they try to cross the bike lanes to get to the curb. You wouldn't want that to happen to someone's grandma.

Yep, this is the Connecticut Avenue that Charles Allen wants:

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-media-max-width="560"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">WARNING We've been filming the chaotic & downright dangerous situation at the Westminster Bridge floating bus stop at St Thomas' hospital. Clip includes a speeding cyclist crashing into an elderly person. These designs are not safe & they need to be urgently halted <a href="https://twitter.com/Mark_J_Harper?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@Mark_J_Harper</a> <a href="https://t.co/MrScNnWLs7">pic.twitter.com/MrScNnWLs7</a></p>— NFBUK (@NFBUK) <a href="https://twitter.com/NFBUK/status/1787211980027101194?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">May 5, 2024</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

These have existed on Pennsylvania ave now for at least a few months and I haven't heard of a single incident of a cyclist clipping someone getting off a bus. We know how to look up when we ride.

Sorry I don’t trust you because the only reason I haven’t been hit in a crosswalk is because I moved quickly after you ran a red light. These configurations are all accidents waiting to happen. No thanks.

As the anti bike squad often need to be reminded, feelings and anecdotes don't make up data points.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's time to make Connecticut avenue a grand boulevard that works for people living, working and being around it. Not the cars that drive through.

Right. More drive-through traffic can go on Porter Street or Reno Road.

DDOT proposed 24/7 parking on CT Ave. That would push more "cut through" traffic than Concept C.

Frumin is trying to avoid that.

Yeah, if your main objection to the bike lanes was that they would slow traffic on CT or force more cars off it to neighboring streets, you should not want parking, either. Bike lanes are a better choice from a driver's perspective than parking, because at least they also keep bikes out of the traffic lanes.

There are only 2 dozen bikes a day on Connecticut.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Nah. This time, we're awake. "We" being the overwhelming majority of affected persons who oppose any bike lanes whatsoever on Connecticut. And we will prevail, again, in shutting this shit down.

-- District resident, not a "Maryland commuter"

You calling yourself an “overwhelming majority” does not make you an overwhelming majority.

And those whose route from their house to Connecticut Avenue necessarily involves driving on a road in Maryland are, in fact, Maryland commuters.

Different poster. This insistence that anyone who opposes the bike lanes is a MD commuter is going to do you in. There is strong opposition within the neighborhoods along Connecticut. Stop with the fallacy that the opposition is Maryland commuter-based.

It is hard to know how much opposition there really is.

example:
-ANCs voted to support the bike lanes with one absention and one opposed across 3 commission
-All of the democrats running for ward 3 to replace Cheh supported the bike lanes
-The petition to support bike lanes (live for 2 weeks now) lapped the opposition petiition that it took 2+ years to gather.

Sure, there are people opposed to the bike lanes, but it is no where near the majority.

"ANCs voted to support the bike lanes with one absention and one opposed across 3 commission"

This is always trotted out by bike-lane supporters, even though it's meaningless. Most ANC commissioners run unopposed, or are elected with only a few hundred votes. To say this is some sort of iron-clad mandate is profoundly dumb.

"All of the democrats running for ward 3 to replace Cheh supported the bike lanes"

An absolutely meaningless assertion, because only one person won, and there's no way Frumin is going to support Allen's amendment unless he plans on being a one-termer. Ward 3 voters already have noticed him getting bullied by the rest of the council, and now someone who doesn't live in Ward 3 is trying to dictate matters there? Frumin -- who has done exactly jack shit for his ward so far -- knows not standing up to him is a horrible look.

"The petition to support bike lanes (live for 2 weeks now) lapped the opposition petiition that it took 2+ years to gather."

How many of the people who signed this petition actually live in Ward 3? How many actually live in DC?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So the criminal lobby’s friend, Charles Allen, now wants to prevent DDOT from funding any safety improvements at all along Connecticut Ave. (like a raised crosswalk on Davenport and Connecticut so that Murch kids can walk more safely to school) UNLESS Allen gets his bike lanes.

Is Allen a bratty child or a public servant?!

Never mind, this is my favorite tantrum

And when pedestrians die will you consider that a tantrum too?

Your doomsaying doesn't work on me

Apparently only bike lives matter. You folks are exactly who you present yourselves. Pedestrian safety = scaremongering. Incredible.

Agree. What makes this move so outrageous is that the alternative they chase is safer for pedestrians than the alternative that Allen wants. He’s completely throwing pedestrians under the bus for the sake of cyclists.

More like under Option 3, pedestrians stepping off a bus will get whacked by speeding cyclists as they try to cross the bike lanes to get to the curb. You wouldn't want that to happen to someone's grandma.

Yep, this is the Connecticut Avenue that Charles Allen wants:

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-media-max-width="560"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">WARNING We've been filming the chaotic & downright dangerous situation at the Westminster Bridge floating bus stop at St Thomas' hospital. Clip includes a speeding cyclist crashing into an elderly person. These designs are not safe & they need to be urgently halted <a href="https://twitter.com/Mark_J_Harper?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@Mark_J_Harper</a> <a href="https://t.co/MrScNnWLs7">pic.twitter.com/MrScNnWLs7</a></p>— NFBUK (@NFBUK) <a href="https://twitter.com/NFBUK/status/1787211980027101194?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">May 5, 2024</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

Sorry:

https://twitter.com/NFBUK/status/1787211980027101194

Yes, this is what you get with "complete streets." Just jam pedestrians, buses, bikes and cars all into one road and hope for the best. There are simply too many conflict points with this sort of design.

You need to give different modes priority on separate corridors if you want safety and efficiency.

Then get rid of the most wasteful and inefficient mode, which is cars.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Nah. This time, we're awake. "We" being the overwhelming majority of affected persons who oppose any bike lanes whatsoever on Connecticut. And we will prevail, again, in shutting this shit down.

-- District resident, not a "Maryland commuter"

You calling yourself an “overwhelming majority” does not make you an overwhelming majority.

And those whose route from their house to Connecticut Avenue necessarily involves driving on a road in Maryland are, in fact, Maryland commuters.

Different poster. This insistence that anyone who opposes the bike lanes is a MD commuter is going to do you in. There is strong opposition within the neighborhoods along Connecticut. Stop with the fallacy that the opposition is Maryland commuter-based.

It is hard to know how much opposition there really is.

example:
-ANCs voted to support the bike lanes with one absention and one opposed across 3 commission
-All of the democrats running for ward 3 to replace Cheh supported the bike lanes
-The petition to support bike lanes (live for 2 weeks now) lapped the opposition petiition that it took 2+ years to gather.

Sure, there are people opposed to the bike lanes, but it is no where near the majority.

"ANCs voted to support the bike lanes with one absention and one opposed across 3 commission"

This is always trotted out by bike-lane supporters, even though it's meaningless. Most ANC commissioners run unopposed, or are elected with only a few hundred votes. To say this is some sort of iron-clad mandate is profoundly dumb.

"All of the democrats running for ward 3 to replace Cheh supported the bike lanes"

An absolutely meaningless assertion, because only one person won, and there's no way Frumin is going to support Allen's amendment unless he plans on being a one-termer. Ward 3 voters already have noticed him getting bullied by the rest of the council, and now someone who doesn't live in Ward 3 is trying to dictate matters there? Frumin -- who has done exactly jack shit for his ward so far -- knows not standing up to him is a horrible look.

"The petition to support bike lanes (live for 2 weeks now) lapped the opposition petiition that it took 2+ years to gather."

How many of the people who signed this petition actually live in Ward 3? How many actually live in DC?

That is a good question. How many of the opposition petition are DC or Ward 3 residents? They can't tell you because they didn't track it, and they also did nothing to prohibit people from signing multiple times. They claim to have 3,600 signatures. What percentage are DC/Ward3 residents?

The pro-bike lane people have released their numbers on this front.

[Anonymous]

At the same time they are pushing to get rid of a significant amount of the bus service in the same area - re: the 96 and the L2. Buses are much more accessible to many people than the metro and bike lanes and should not be cut back