Options for opposing Connecticut Avenue changes?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So you are pinning all your hope on the “If you build it, they will come” fairytale?

Lol.

Good luck with that.

If these lanes are ever built, they will rarely be used.

Know your audience: the fine citizens of upper NW who live on or near CT Ave tend to work from home most days. And those that venture downtown take the bus or drive their Audis or Teslas.

Well, since this entire debate is comprised of argument by anecdote: I live in upper NW, work from the office at least 60 percent of the time, don't own an Audi or a Tesla, and basically never take the buses on Connecticut. I do, however, bike to work once or twice a week, when I'm not riding Metro. (I also frequently bike around upper NW to do errands, or to take my kids to school, but since we've been assured that no one bikes to do errands or bikes once they have kids, I guess that's not relevant here.)

I don't live that near Connecticut Avenue, but when I bike downtown, I still take that, because it's the straightest route for me to get from upper Wisconsin Avenue to near Metro Center. Every single time I bike to or from work, I see more cyclists on Connecticut than the counts that drivers claim they're making, which either means the drivers don't see the others or I'm just riding in during ... bike hour? or something.

It seems ridiculous to assert that a major road that already has people bicycling on it would have LESS bike usage if protected bike lanes were installed, but if that's the position you want to take here, I guess go ahead!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I saw 4 bicyclists on my evening commute along CT Ave between DuPont Circle and the MoCo border: 2 northbound, 2 southbound…all 4 pedaling slowly on the sidewalk. These people didn’t look like they wanted to speed along the street.

I also saw a young woman carrying a huge Chucky doll, but that’s a different issue.

Taking your count as accurate, the fact that they were riding on the sidewalk is exactly why people support the bike lanes. Bikes don’t belong on the sidewalk, but that street is daunting to bike on in traffic. (I routinely ride on it for more than a mile each way when I commute by bike, and it’s not relaxing.)

I disagree.

They don’t look like long-haul commuters. All 4 were using bike-share bikes.

Plus, there were 4. Why on earth would we invest in bike lanes and risk creating traffic for what must be a very small group of people?

You know, this hasn't been brought up in the first 348 pages. Thank you for this deep and thoughtful question that hasn't been answered ad nauseam.

I encourage everyone to take an honest count of how many bikers they see each day along CT Ave.

Take note of whether they are going a short or long distance. Are they pedaling quickly? Dressed for a long ride?

I only saw one bicyclist on their own bike today. The other few were using bike-share bikes and they were riding on the sidewalk.

How are we supposed to know if they're going a long or short distance? If we try to stop them and ask them, what happens if they pedal more quickly to get away from us? Wouldn't that invalidate our observations of their pedal speed?

Also, as it happens, there's no distance limit on the bike-share bikes, so it's actually possible to ride one of those the length of Connecticut Avenue.

But they also conveniently post all the data so we can tell how common or rate it is

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So you are pinning all your hope on the “If you build it, they will come” fairytale?

Lol.

Good luck with that.

If these lanes are ever built, they will rarely be used.

Know your audience: the fine citizens of upper NW who live on or near CT Ave tend to work from home most days. And those that venture downtown take the bus or drive their Audis or Teslas.

Well, since this entire debate is comprised of argument by anecdote: I live in upper NW, work from the office at least 60 percent of the time, don't own an Audi or a Tesla, and basically never take the buses on Connecticut. I do, however, bike to work once or twice a week, when I'm not riding Metro. (I also frequently bike around upper NW to do errands, or to take my kids to school, but since we've been assured that no one bikes to do errands or bikes once they have kids, I guess that's not relevant here.)

I don't live that near Connecticut Avenue, but when I bike downtown, I still take that, because it's the straightest route for me to get from upper Wisconsin Avenue to near Metro Center. Every single time I bike to or from work, I see more cyclists on Connecticut than the counts that drivers claim they're making, which either means the drivers don't see the others or I'm just riding in during ... bike hour? or something.

It seems ridiculous to assert that a major road that already has people bicycling on it would have LESS bike usage if protected bike lanes were installed, but if that's the position you want to take here, I guess go ahead!

That would be ridiculous if that's what they said. But they didn't say that. They said they will be hardly used. Even DDOT says that less than 100 use them per day compared to 30,000 cars. That's 1/3 of 1%.

[Anonymous]

You're traveling in the same direction as the bulk of traffic, and so are the bike commuters. Have you considered that maybe you don't see many bikes because they're just traveling the same way at a similar speed?

Surely you realize that you also only see a small proportion of cars on the road for the exact same reason. Then again, you do seem more than a little obtuse.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I saw 4 bicyclists on my evening commute along CT Ave between DuPont Circle and the MoCo border: 2 northbound, 2 southbound…all 4 pedaling slowly on the sidewalk. These people didn’t look like they wanted to speed along the street.

I also saw a young woman carrying a huge Chucky doll, but that’s a different issue.

Taking your count as accurate, the fact that they were riding on the sidewalk is exactly why people support the bike lanes. Bikes don’t belong on the sidewalk, but that street is daunting to bike on in traffic. (I routinely ride on it for more than a mile each way when I commute by bike, and it’s not relaxing.)

I disagree.

They don’t look like long-haul commuters. All 4 were using bike-share bikes.

Plus, there were 4. Why on earth would we invest in bike lanes and risk creating traffic for what must be a very small group of people?

Good point we should also slow down the avenue.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:You're traveling in the same direction as the bulk of traffic, and so are the bike commuters. Have you considered that maybe you don't see many bikes because they're just traveling the same way at a similar speed?

Surely you realize that you also only see a small proportion of cars on the road for the exact same reason. Then again, you do seem more than a little obtuse.

I can't imagine why this PP doesn't see bicyclists using the bike lanes that don't exist yet.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I saw 4 bicyclists on my evening commute along CT Ave between DuPont Circle and the MoCo border: 2 northbound, 2 southbound…all 4 pedaling slowly on the sidewalk. These people didn’t look like they wanted to speed along the street.

I also saw a young woman carrying a huge Chucky doll, but that’s a different issue.

Taking your count as accurate, the fact that they were riding on the sidewalk is exactly why people support the bike lanes. Bikes don’t belong on the sidewalk, but that street is daunting to bike on in traffic. (I routinely ride on it for more than a mile each way when I commute by bike, and it’s not relaxing.)

I disagree.

They don’t look like long-haul commuters. All 4 were using bike-share bikes.

Plus, there were 4. Why on earth would we invest in bike lanes and risk creating traffic for what must be a very small group of people?

Who is this "we"? You live in Maryland. When the Maryland department of transportation decides to build bike lanes on Connecticut from the D.C. line to the Purple Line station, which they should but they won't, then you can complain about "us" building bike lanes on Connecticut.

-person who also lives in Maryland

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So you are pinning all your hope on the “If you build it, they will come” fairytale?

Lol.

Good luck with that.

If these lanes are ever built, they will rarely be used.

Know your audience: the fine citizens of upper NW who live on or near CT Ave tend to work from home most days. And those that venture downtown take the bus or drive their Audis or Teslas.

Well, since this entire debate is comprised of argument by anecdote: I live in upper NW, work from the office at least 60 percent of the time, don't own an Audi or a Tesla, and basically never take the buses on Connecticut. I do, however, bike to work once or twice a week, when I'm not riding Metro. (I also frequently bike around upper NW to do errands, or to take my kids to school, but since we've been assured that no one bikes to do errands or bikes once they have kids, I guess that's not relevant here.)

I don't live that near Connecticut Avenue, but when I bike downtown, I still take that, because it's the straightest route for me to get from upper Wisconsin Avenue to near Metro Center. Every single time I bike to or from work, I see more cyclists on Connecticut than the counts that drivers claim they're making, which either means the drivers don't see the others or I'm just riding in during ... bike hour? or something.

It seems ridiculous to assert that a major road that already has people bicycling on it would have LESS bike usage if protected bike lanes were installed, but if that's the position you want to take here, I guess go ahead!

That would be ridiculous if that's what they said. But they didn't say that. They said they will be hardly used. Even DDOT says that less than 100 use them per day compared to 30,000 cars. That's 1/3 of 1%.

No, you dummy. The 100 was the estimate of the number of cyclists using the corridor from the 2019 data. The estimate ddot provided after the bike lane installation is, just like with every other bike infrastructure project, many times higher at between 2k to 3k initially and growing over time as the network expands and more bikeshares are installed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So you are pinning all your hope on the “If you build it, they will come” fairytale?

Lol.

Good luck with that.

If these lanes are ever built, they will rarely be used.

Know your audience: the fine citizens of upper NW who live on or near CT Ave tend to work from home most days. And those that venture downtown take the bus or drive their Audis or Teslas.

Well, since this entire debate is comprised of argument by anecdote: I live in upper NW, work from the office at least 60 percent of the time, don't own an Audi or a Tesla, and basically never take the buses on Connecticut. I do, however, bike to work once or twice a week, when I'm not riding Metro. (I also frequently bike around upper NW to do errands, or to take my kids to school, but since we've been assured that no one bikes to do errands or bikes once they have kids, I guess that's not relevant here.)

I don't live that near Connecticut Avenue, but when I bike downtown, I still take that, because it's the straightest route for me to get from upper Wisconsin Avenue to near Metro Center. Every single time I bike to or from work, I see more cyclists on Connecticut than the counts that drivers claim they're making, which either means the drivers don't see the others or I'm just riding in during ... bike hour? or something.

It seems ridiculous to assert that a major road that already has people bicycling on it would have LESS bike usage if protected bike lanes were installed, but if that's the position you want to take here, I guess go ahead!

That would be ridiculous if that's what they said. But they didn't say that. They said they will be hardly used. Even DDOT says that less than 100 use them per day compared to 30,000 cars. That's 1/3 of 1%.

No, you dummy. The 100 was the estimate of the number of cyclists using the corridor from the 2019 data. The estimate ddot provided after the bike lane installation is, just like with every other bike infrastructure project, many times higher at between 2k to 3k initially and growing over time as the network expands and more bikeshares are installed.

tually the estimate they gave eith bike lanes was eventually 1000 over 20 years. That's still a miniscule amount. And by all accounts that was an extremely optimistic estimate. Facts are facts, the numbers do not add up.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So you are pinning all your hope on the “If you build it, they will come” fairytale?

Lol.

Good luck with that.

If these lanes are ever built, they will rarely be used.

Know your audience: the fine citizens of upper NW who live on or near CT Ave tend to work from home most days. And those that venture downtown take the bus or drive their Audis or Teslas.

Well, since this entire debate is comprised of argument by anecdote: I live in upper NW, work from the office at least 60 percent of the time, don't own an Audi or a Tesla, and basically never take the buses on Connecticut. I do, however, bike to work once or twice a week, when I'm not riding Metro. (I also frequently bike around upper NW to do errands, or to take my kids to school, but since we've been assured that no one bikes to do errands or bikes once they have kids, I guess that's not relevant here.)

I don't live that near Connecticut Avenue, but when I bike downtown, I still take that, because it's the straightest route for me to get from upper Wisconsin Avenue to near Metro Center. Every single time I bike to or from work, I see more cyclists on Connecticut than the counts that drivers claim they're making, which either means the drivers don't see the others or I'm just riding in during ... bike hour? or something.

It seems ridiculous to assert that a major road that already has people bicycling on it would have LESS bike usage if protected bike lanes were installed, but if that's the position you want to take here, I guess go ahead!

That would be ridiculous if that's what they said. But they didn't say that. They said they will be hardly used. Even DDOT says that less than 100 use them per day compared to 30,000 cars. That's 1/3 of 1%.

No, you dummy. The 100 was the estimate of the number of cyclists using the corridor from the 2019 data. The estimate ddot provided after the bike lane installation is, just like with every other bike infrastructure project, many times higher at between 2k to 3k initially and growing over time as the network expands and more bikeshares are installed.

tually the estimate they gave eith bike lanes was eventually 1000 over 20 years. That's still a miniscule amount. And by all accounts that was an extremely optimistic estimate. Facts are facts, the numbers do not add up.

Projections are not facts. Opinions are also not facts.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So you are pinning all your hope on the “If you build it, they will come” fairytale?

Lol.

Good luck with that.

If these lanes are ever built, they will rarely be used.

Know your audience: the fine citizens of upper NW who live on or near CT Ave tend to work from home most days. And those that venture downtown take the bus or drive their Audis or Teslas.

Well, since this entire debate is comprised of argument by anecdote: I live in upper NW, work from the office at least 60 percent of the time, don't own an Audi or a Tesla, and basically never take the buses on Connecticut. I do, however, bike to work once or twice a week, when I'm not riding Metro. (I also frequently bike around upper NW to do errands, or to take my kids to school, but since we've been assured that no one bikes to do errands or bikes once they have kids, I guess that's not relevant here.)

I don't live that near Connecticut Avenue, but when I bike downtown, I still take that, because it's the straightest route for me to get from upper Wisconsin Avenue to near Metro Center. Every single time I bike to or from work, I see more cyclists on Connecticut than the counts that drivers claim they're making, which either means the drivers don't see the others or I'm just riding in during ... bike hour? or something.

It seems ridiculous to assert that a major road that already has people bicycling on it would have LESS bike usage if protected bike lanes were installed, but if that's the position you want to take here, I guess go ahead!

That would be ridiculous if that's what they said. But they didn't say that. They said they will be hardly used. Even DDOT says that less than 100 use them per day compared to 30,000 cars. That's 1/3 of 1%.

No, you dummy. The 100 was the estimate of the number of cyclists using the corridor from the 2019 data. The estimate ddot provided after the bike lane installation is, just like with every other bike infrastructure project, many times higher at between 2k to 3k initially and growing over time as the network expands and more bikeshares are installed.

Exactly. And the fact is there are well more than 100 people cycling on CT Ave on a daily basis as is. I mean, even just the Capital Bikeshare Data shows that kind of usage before you get to cyclists with their own bikes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Reno Rd would be a perfect spot for dedicated bike lanes. Get rid of the center turn lane and there's room to put bike lanes on the sides. Cylists can then take east-west streets to easily reach destinations in Tenleytown, Cleveland Park, Cathedral Heights, etc.

It is hillier than Conn Ave, there are no stores on it, so people trying to go shopping would still need to ride to CT Ave, and not having left turn lanes will turn Reno into a parking lot for cars.

Reno doesn't have turn lanes north of Murch or south of the Cathedral. In any case, DC needs to focus on moving vehicle traffic off of Reno. It's lined with houses and schools very close to the roadway, and is not well-suited to be an arterial road.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Reno Rd would be a perfect spot for dedicated bike lanes. Get rid of the center turn lane and there's room to put bike lanes on the sides. Cylists can then take east-west streets to easily reach destinations in Tenleytown, Cleveland Park, Cathedral Heights, etc.

It is hillier than Conn Ave, there are no stores on it, so people trying to go shopping would still need to ride to CT Ave, and not having left turn lanes will turn Reno into a parking lot for cars.

Reno doesn't have turn lanes north of Murch or south of the Cathedral. In any case, DC needs to focus on moving vehicle traffic off of Reno. It's lined with houses and schools very close to the roadway, and is not well-suited to be an arterial road.

True - I forgot that no one lives on Connecticut Avenue.

People who live in houses in car dependent neighborhoods shouldn't have any traffic on their streets - it is the folks who live in walkable transit anchored neighborhoods that should have to live with all the traffic from the people who choose to drive everywhere.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Reno Rd would be a perfect spot for dedicated bike lanes. Get rid of the center turn lane and there's room to put bike lanes on the sides. Cylists can then take east-west streets to easily reach destinations in Tenleytown, Cleveland Park, Cathedral Heights, etc.

It is hillier than Conn Ave, there are no stores on it, so people trying to go shopping would still need to ride to CT Ave, and not having left turn lanes will turn Reno into a parking lot for cars.

Reno doesn't have turn lanes north of Murch or south of the Cathedral. In any case, DC needs to focus on moving vehicle traffic off of Reno. It's lined with houses and schools very close to the roadway, and is not well-suited to be an arterial road.

So is Connecticut Avenue. Homes, schools, stores, libraries, the zoo, Metro stations... Connecticut Avenue is really not well-suited to be an arterial road.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Reno Rd would be a perfect spot for dedicated bike lanes. Get rid of the center turn lane and there's room to put bike lanes on the sides. Cylists can then take east-west streets to easily reach destinations in Tenleytown, Cleveland Park, Cathedral Heights, etc.

It is hillier than Conn Ave, there are no stores on it, so people trying to go shopping would still need to ride to CT Ave, and not having left turn lanes will turn Reno into a parking lot for cars.

Reno doesn't have turn lanes north of Murch or south of the Cathedral. In any case, DC needs to focus on moving vehicle traffic off of Reno. It's lined with houses and schools very close to the roadway, and is not well-suited to be an arterial road.

So is Connecticut Avenue. Homes, schools, stores, libraries, the zoo, Metro stations... Connecticut Avenue is really not well-suited to be an arterial road.

Then is it time to build an inside the Beltway interstate from 270 to downtown through Upper Northwest Washington? If traffic is pushed off Connecticut and Wisconsin Aves, what is the alternative?