Options for opposing Connecticut Avenue changes?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://rhllaw.com/dc-bike-lane-dangers/

I’ll just leave this here.

Protected lanes only work in certain scenarios.

Per the government data, CT Ave doesn’t fall into the category where protected lanes are better…because of the driveways and turns.

You're citing a personal-injury law firm as an authority on bike lane design?

Of course. If they had to cite traffic engineers or urban planners, they wouldn't find any sources.

ICYMI:

There are significant federal dollars that everyone is chasing after for these bike lanes.

Why?

Because they’ll get a big bucket of money to pay existing staff and use the rest for actual implementation of the bike lanes.

DC is doing this to help their own budget situation (read: covering existing city staffers), not for safety reasons.

Of course their planners—and their counterparts in other communities chasing the federal dollars—cherry pick research and stats when making their case.

You ignore the other benefits, more people biking means more space for the people who have to drive on the road and to park, the more people who bike the better the macro health benefits, the more people who bike, the better the macro environmental benefits, the more people who bike, the better the impact on carbon and climate change.

Will you please admit that you would need a heckuva lot of people to abandon their cars for bikes to make any impact of the positive aspects you just listed???

So, how many new cyclists will it take? 12? 1,200?

It’s likely closer to 1,200 and I suspect everyone would agree that’s not feasible.

Plus, the new bike lanes can’t actually accommodate the necessary influx to make any sort of impact like the ones you described.

[Anonymous]

We can't have bike lanes because in order for "enough" people to bike, we would need to have even more bike lanes!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:We can't have bike lanes because in order for "enough" people to bike, we would need to have even more bike lanes!

That’s not quite what the pp said.

Seems like the point is none of the positive impact listed in the counter-argument will ever come to pass unless many hundreds/thousands dump their cars.

In short: their entire premise is an exercise in futility or simply made-up fairytale.

The bike lanes will happen. A smattering of people will use them. None of the positive impacts will happen.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We can't have bike lanes because in order for "enough" people to bike, we would need to have even more bike lanes!

That’s not quite what the pp said.

Seems like the point is none of the positive impact listed in the counter-argument will ever come to pass unless many hundreds/thousands dump their cars.

In short: their entire premise is an exercise in futility or simply made-up fairytale.

The bike lanes will happen. A smattering of people will use them. None of the positive impacts will happen.

Good. That's what matters.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We can't have bike lanes because in order for "enough" people to bike, we would need to have even more bike lanes!

That’s not quite what the pp said.

Seems like the point is none of the positive impact listed in the counter-argument will ever come to pass unless many hundreds/thousands dump their cars.

In short: their entire premise is an exercise in futility or simply made-up fairytale.

The bike lanes will happen. A smattering of people will use them. None of the positive impacts will happen.

Good. That's what matters.

…said the bike store owner

…said the bike lobby

…said the DC City staffer responsible for securing the federal dollars to help keep the lights on

Fingers crossed we don’t have gridlock and we don’t see an increase in accidents.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We can't have bike lanes because in order for "enough" people to bike, we would need to have even more bike lanes!

That’s not quite what the pp said.

Seems like the point is none of the positive impact listed in the counter-argument will ever come to pass unless many hundreds/thousands dump their cars.

In short: their entire premise is an exercise in futility or simply made-up fairytale.

The bike lanes will happen. A smattering of people will use them. None of the positive impacts will happen.

Good. That's what matters.

…said the bike store owner

…said the bike lobby

…said the DC City staffer responsible for securing the federal dollars to help keep the lights on

Fingers crossed we don’t have gridlock and we don’t see an increase in accidents.

https://ggwash.org/view/90503/data-suggests-fears-of-old-georgetown-road-bike-lanes-causing-vehicle-traffic-nightmare-are-unfounded

[Anonymous]

Question:

Will the new bike lanes be one-way or two-way?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We can't have bike lanes because in order for "enough" people to bike, we would need to have even more bike lanes!

That’s not quite what the pp said.

Seems like the point is none of the positive impact listed in the counter-argument will ever come to pass unless many hundreds/thousands dump their cars.

In short: their entire premise is an exercise in futility or simply made-up fairytale.

The bike lanes will happen. A smattering of people will use them. None of the positive impacts will happen.

Good. That's what matters.

…said the bike store owner

…said the bike lobby

…said the DC City staffer responsible for securing the federal dollars to help keep the lights on

Fingers crossed we don’t have gridlock and we don’t see an increase in accidents.

https://ggwash.org/view/90503/data-suggests-fears-of-old-georgetown-road-bike-lanes-causing-vehicle-traffic-nightmare-are-unfounded

I rarely commute down Old G’town Road, but it’s never been known to be as congested as CT Ave.

I can report that losing the third lane thanks to Rosemary’s tables in the street does create a 20 minute bottle neck each morning.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We can't have bike lanes because in order for "enough" people to bike, we would need to have even more bike lanes!

That’s not quite what the pp said.

Seems like the point is none of the positive impact listed in the counter-argument will ever come to pass unless many hundreds/thousands dump their cars.

In short: their entire premise is an exercise in futility or simply made-up fairytale.

The bike lanes will happen. A smattering of people will use them. None of the positive impacts will happen.

Good. That's what matters.

…said the bike store owner

…said the bike lobby

…said the DC City staffer responsible for securing the federal dollars to help keep the lights on

Fingers crossed we don’t have gridlock and we don’t see an increase in accidents.

https://ggwash.org/view/90503/data-suggests-fears-of-old-georgetown-road-bike-lanes-causing-vehicle-traffic-nightmare-are-unfounded

I rarely commute down Old G’town Road, but it’s never been known to be as congested as CT Ave.

I can report that losing the third lane thanks to Rosemary’s tables in the street does create a 20 minute bottle neck each morning.

20 minutes! Wow! If I were you, I would look for a different way to get to work. Maybe Metro.

[Anonymous]

Two lanes plus a central pocket lane for left turns essentially leaves one lane for traffic flow since the right lane will have cars making right turns while trying not to hit a cyclist speeding through the intersection in the protected bike lane.

How could this not create more traffic?

CT Ave is very different from Old Gtown Rd since very few cars turn into the neighborhoods off of OGR while lots of cars make turns on CT during rush hour.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Two lanes plus a central pocket lane for left turns essentially leaves one lane for traffic flow since the right lane will have cars making right turns while trying not to hit a cyclist speeding through the intersection in the protected bike lane.

How could this not create more traffic?

CT Ave is very different from Old Gtown Rd since very few cars turn into the neighborhoods off of OGR while lots of cars make turns on CT during rush hour.

If it's faster to bike than to drive, maybe you should consider biking.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Question:

Will the new bike lanes be one-way or two-way?

Anyone know the answer?

Copenhagen actually ditched two-way lanes 10 years ago because they were confusing and ultimately dangerous.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Two lanes plus a central pocket lane for left turns essentially leaves one lane for traffic flow since the right lane will have cars making right turns while trying not to hit a cyclist speeding through the intersection in the protected bike lane.

How could this not create more traffic?

CT Ave is very different from Old Gtown Rd since very few cars turn into the neighborhoods off of OGR while lots of cars make turns on CT during rush hour.

If it's faster to bike than to drive, maybe you should consider biking.

Ultimately driving remains faster…cars catch up and pass by the lone cyclist chugging along. But won’t the people in the nice apartments kind the extra exhaust from the cars sitting in new gridlock along CT Ave?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Two lanes plus a central pocket lane for left turns essentially leaves one lane for traffic flow since the right lane will have cars making right turns while trying not to hit a cyclist speeding through the intersection in the protected bike lane.

How could this not create more traffic?

CT Ave is very different from Old Gtown Rd since very few cars turn into the neighborhoods off of OGR while lots of cars make turns on CT during rush hour.

If it's faster to bike than to drive, maybe you should consider biking.

Ultimately driving remains faster…cars catch up and pass by the lone cyclist chugging along. But won’t the people in the nice apartments kind the extra exhaust from the cars sitting in new gridlock along CT Ave?

Ok, so keep driving. I don't care. It does seem like a paradox, though. On the one hand, there won't be any bicyclists. On the other hand, drivers who are turning will constantly be hitting bicyclists. Even though there won't be any bicyclists. There will be constant collisions between drivers and non-existent bicyclists.

[Anonymous]

Where is James Corden when you need him?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fLP9mfLMmnc