Options for opposing Connecticut Avenue changes?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Nobody said anything about constant accidents, right?

But imho any fatality is a tragedy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

LOL I live right there. That intersection has been backed up at Rush Hour for decades and has nothing to do with the streetery.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Pretty sure communities that hyped up new bike lanes dealt with an influx of “people who had no business being on a bike” and the end result was accidents.

[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.

The two lanes AND a left turn lane which means there won't be cars stacked up behind a left turning vehicle, so the net throughput as it compares to today will be better than current configurations.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Pretty sure communities that hyped up new bike lanes dealt with an influx of “people who had no business being on a bike” and the end result was accidents.

This has not actually happened, but if you want to write fiction, you can do that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Pretty sure communities that hyped up new bike lanes dealt with an influx of “people who had no business being on a bike” and the end result was accidents.

What about all the people who have no business being behind the wheel of a car?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Nobody said anything about constant accidents, right?

But imho any fatality is a tragedy.

Then you should start supporting protected bike lanes, which make streets safer for everyone.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

LOL I live right there. That intersection has been backed up at Rush Hour for decades and has nothing to do with the streetery.

I’ve been driving that route since 2000 and I can report the traffic is markedly worse thanks to the third lane giving out for the restaurant’s tables in the street.

Remember: we are in the post-covid hybrid work world with less cars on CT Ave as people WFH. Yet traffic leading up to that unnecessary obstacle/merge has gotten worse.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Pretty sure communities that hyped up new bike lanes dealt with an influx of “people who had no business being on a bike” and the end result was accidents.

What about all the people who have no business being behind the wheel of a car?

They’ve always been with us, and drivers watch for them.

Practically speaking, drivers aren’t trained to look over their right shoulder to see if a cyclist is speeding down the protected bike lane before they make a right turn.

The government safety data underscores why this scenario is the real danger with protected lanes…because it results in serious accidents and sometimes fatalities.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Pretty sure communities that hyped up new bike lanes dealt with an influx of “people who had no business being on a bike” and the end result was accidents.

What about all the people who have no business being behind the wheel of a car?

They’ve always been with us, and drivers watch for them.

Practically speaking, drivers aren’t trained to look over their right shoulder to see if a cyclist is speeding down the protected bike lane before they make a right turn.

The government safety data underscores why this scenario is the real danger with protected lanes…because it results in serious accidents and sometimes fatalities.

You make drivers sound very incompetent, and incompetent people have no business being in charge of 3-ton machines moving at high speeds.

[Anonymous]

https://qz.com/257474/what-riding-my-bike-has-taught-me-about-white-privilege

This essay by an affluent white man attempting to compare what it must feel like to be a person of color by drawing from his own experience as a bicyclist who encounters aggression from drivers pretty much says it all (in terms of the bizarre audacity of (let’s face it) privileged white guys who like to bike).

In a word: wowza.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:https://qz.com/257474/what-riding-my-bike-has-taught-me-about-white-privilege

This essay by an affluent white man attempting to compare what it must feel like to be a person of color by drawing from his own experience as a bicyclist who encounters aggression from drivers pretty much says it all (in terms of the bizarre audacity of (let’s face it) privileged white guys who like to bike).

In a word: wowza.

Your focus on the bicyclists who are affluent white men pretty much says it all about you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://qz.com/257474/what-riding-my-bike-has-taught-me-about-white-privilege

This essay by an affluent white man attempting to compare what it must feel like to be a person of color by drawing from his own experience as a bicyclist who encounters aggression from drivers pretty much says it all (in terms of the bizarre audacity of (let’s face it) privileged white guys who like to bike).

In a word: wowza.

Your focus on the bicyclists who are affluent white men pretty much says it all about you.

I’m just following the data:

71% of American cyclists are men.

72% are white.

And all the major bicycling orgs have flagged the need for greater representation and resources (in terms of infrastructure) for cyclists of color.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://qz.com/257474/what-riding-my-bike-has-taught-me-about-white-privilege

This essay by an affluent white man attempting to compare what it must feel like to be a person of color by drawing from his own experience as a bicyclist who encounters aggression from drivers pretty much says it all (in terms of the bizarre audacity of (let’s face it) privileged white guys who like to bike).

In a word: wowza.

Your focus on the bicyclists who are affluent white men pretty much says it all about you.

I’m just following the data:

71% of American cyclists are men.

72% are white.

And all the major bicycling orgs have flagged the need for greater representation and resources (in terms of infrastructure) for cyclists of color.

And those are recreational riders who wear lycra and ride on empty country roads. The people who use bike lanes are the service workers, the moms toting a kid on the cargo bike, the aunt going to the book store and that sort of thing. People with 10,000 dollar bikes and spandex don't ride in bike lanes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://qz.com/257474/what-riding-my-bike-has-taught-me-about-white-privilege

This essay by an affluent white man attempting to compare what it must feel like to be a person of color by drawing from his own experience as a bicyclist who encounters aggression from drivers pretty much says it all (in terms of the bizarre audacity of (let’s face it) privileged white guys who like to bike).

In a word: wowza.

Your focus on the bicyclists who are affluent white men pretty much says it all about you.

I’m just following the data:

71% of American cyclists are men.

72% are white.

And all the major bicycling orgs have flagged the need for greater representation and resources (in terms of infrastructure) for cyclists of color.

And those are recreational riders who wear lycra and ride on empty country roads. The people who use bike lanes are the service workers, the moms toting a kid on the cargo bike, the aunt going to the book store and that sort of thing. People with 10,000 dollar bikes and spandex don't ride in bike lanes.

Then why are the bicycle orgs calling for “pedaling for equity” and pointing to new immigrants, etc. biking to work, shopping, etc.?

You know who I see biking down CT Ave? White men.

Why? Because that’s who lives along CT Ave NW…and they work in Big Law, on K Street, and elsewhere downtown.

Don’t pretend like this effort is serving low-income people of color. They don’t live along CT Ave NW in any measurable number.