The Bike Lobby is too powerful in DC...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t care if the bike lobby raises money from its members. Bring it on. But I care a whole hell of a lot that the DC government is funnelling hard-earned taxpayer dollars to support the bike lobby so that they can turn around and agitate for something costly that will have negative consequences for many. Think of how the WABA subsidy and the bike lane construction money otherwise could be spent, for better DC schools, more cops, more timely 911 responsiveness

Positive consequences for many, you mean. Fewer car crashes, less noise, EMS/police resources freed up, better mobility for people not in a car, economic benefits for businesses in the Connecticut Ave corridor.

The Connecticut Ave corridor where the stabbing just occurred?

Are you saying that the planned bike lanes on Connecticut Avenue caused the stabbing?

No, but can we vote out elected officials (ANC and council) who apparently care more about bike lanes than focusing on rising crime along Connecticut Ave?!

Empirically, the answer is that no, you (whoever "we" even is) can not do this. The voters voted for elected officials who support the Connecticut Avenue bike lanes.

You'd be surprised how a couple of daytime shootings or stabbings can make voters sour on their elected candidates. And there are recall mechanisms. Bike bros will be destroyed by soccer moms.

Not a bike bro here, but most of the supporters of the bike lanes I know (I live off Connecticut Ave) ARE soccer moms. The only people I know against the bike lanes are some cranky old white guys.

The soccer moms I know on Porter and Reno are worried that the Connecticut Ave bike lanes will divert a lot more traffic to those streets, which will become less safe and cannot handle more thru traffic.

This is a valid fear. You want to keep as much of the car through traffic on Connecticut as possible.

The worst case scenario here is that building bike lanes on CT leads to spill-over traffic and parking on local roads, while the bike lanes are underutilized. That's a recipe for killing bike infrastructure citywide, the way the streetcar killed the idea of trams for a generation.

I'll keep beating this dead horse, but the place to put bike infrastructure is on Reno, not Connecticut. Who exactly is going to want to ride on Connecticut? People who don't mind riding next to 4+ lanes of stop-light drag racers, buses and trucks, with drivers turning through them every block, all 12 of them. No one is going to let their kids ride on these, and many parents won't even let their MS or HS kids ride there.

If you're going to build bike infrastructure, build it where its safe and pleasant to ride. If you can't picture kids riding in the lanes, then you are doing something wrong.

No, YOU want to keep car through traffic on Connecticut. Other people think it's time to prioritize DC residents, on all transportation modes, over the convenience of Maryland car commuters.

Yes, DC is going to build bike infrastructure - no "if" about it. Yes, DC should build safe bike infrastructure, that kids can ride in. Including on Connecticut Avenue.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t care if the bike lobby raises money from its members. Bring it on. But I care a whole hell of a lot that the DC government is funnelling hard-earned taxpayer dollars to support the bike lobby so that they can turn around and agitate for something costly that will have negative consequences for many. Think of how the WABA subsidy and the bike lane construction money otherwise could be spent, for better DC schools, more cops, more timely 911 responsiveness

Positive consequences for many, you mean. Fewer car crashes, less noise, EMS/police resources freed up, better mobility for people not in a car, economic benefits for businesses in the Connecticut Ave corridor.

The Connecticut Ave corridor where the stabbing just occurred?

Are you saying that the planned bike lanes on Connecticut Avenue caused the stabbing?

No, but can we vote out elected officials (ANC and council) who apparently care more about bike lanes than focusing on rising crime along Connecticut Ave?!

Empirically, the answer is that no, you (whoever "we" even is) can not do this. The voters voted for elected officials who support the Connecticut Avenue bike lanes.

You'd be surprised how a couple of daytime shootings or stabbings can make voters sour on their elected candidates. And there are recall mechanisms. Bike bros will be destroyed by soccer moms.

Not a bike bro here, but most of the supporters of the bike lanes I know (I live off Connecticut Ave) ARE soccer moms. The only people I know against the bike lanes are some cranky old white guys.

The soccer moms I know on Porter and Reno are worried that the Connecticut Ave bike lanes will divert a lot more traffic to those streets, which will become less safe and cannot handle more thru traffic.

This is a valid fear. You want to keep as much of the car through traffic on Connecticut as possible.

The worst case scenario here is that building bike lanes on CT leads to spill-over traffic and parking on local roads, while the bike lanes are underutilized. That's a recipe for killing bike infrastructure citywide, the way the streetcar killed the idea of trams for a generation.

I'll keep beating this dead horse, but the place to put bike infrastructure is on Reno, not Connecticut. Who exactly is going to want to ride on Connecticut? People who don't mind riding next to 4+ lanes of stop-light drag racers, buses and trucks, with drivers turning through them every block, all 12 of them. No one is going to let their kids ride on these, and many parents won't even let their MS or HS kids ride there.

If you're going to build bike infrastructure, build it where its safe and pleasant to ride. If you can't picture kids riding in the lanes, then you are doing something wrong.

Ah the reno road poster, who has been answered multiple times in multiple threads about why that's not a reasonable option. I feel bad for your horse.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t care if the bike lobby raises money from its members. Bring it on. But I care a whole hell of a lot that the DC government is funnelling hard-earned taxpayer dollars to support the bike lobby so that they can turn around and agitate for something costly that will have negative consequences for many. Think of how the WABA subsidy and the bike lane construction money otherwise could be spent, for better DC schools, more cops, more timely 911 responsiveness

Positive consequences for many, you mean. Fewer car crashes, less noise, EMS/police resources freed up, better mobility for people not in a car, economic benefits for businesses in the Connecticut Ave corridor.

The Connecticut Ave corridor where the stabbing just occurred?

Are you saying that the planned bike lanes on Connecticut Avenue caused the stabbing?

No, but can we vote out elected officials (ANC and council) who apparently care more about bike lanes than focusing on rising crime along Connecticut Ave?!

Empirically, the answer is that no, you (whoever "we" even is) can not do this. The voters voted for elected officials who support the Connecticut Avenue bike lanes.

You'd be surprised how a couple of daytime shootings or stabbings can make voters sour on their elected candidates. And there are recall mechanisms. Bike bros will be destroyed by soccer moms.

Not a bike bro here, but most of the supporters of the bike lanes I know (I live off Connecticut Ave) ARE soccer moms. The only people I know against the bike lanes are some cranky old white guys.

The soccer moms I know on Porter and Reno are worried that the Connecticut Ave bike lanes will divert a lot more traffic to those streets, which will become less safe and cannot handle more thru traffic.

This is a valid fear. You want to keep as much of the car through traffic on Connecticut as possible.

The worst case scenario here is that building bike lanes on CT leads to spill-over traffic and parking on local roads, while the bike lanes are underutilized. That's a recipe for killing bike infrastructure citywide, the way the streetcar killed the idea of trams for a generation.

I'll keep beating this dead horse, but the place to put bike infrastructure is on Reno, not Connecticut. Who exactly is going to want to ride on Connecticut? People who don't mind riding next to 4+ lanes of stop-light drag racers, buses and trucks, with drivers turning through them every block, all 12 of them. No one is going to let their kids ride on these, and many parents won't even let their MS or HS kids ride there.

If you're going to build bike infrastructure, build it where its safe and pleasant to ride. If you can't picture kids riding in the lanes, then you are doing something wrong.

No, YOU want to keep car through traffic on Connecticut. Other people think it's time to prioritize DC residents, on all transportation modes, over the convenience of Maryland car commuters.

Yes, DC is going to build bike infrastructure - no "if" about it. Yes, DC should build safe bike infrastructure, that kids can ride in. Including on Connecticut Avenue.

So where do you want through traffic to go?

Also, if you know of a 5 lane stroad with kids biking on it, please let us know. I'm willing to admit my assumptions on how safe/appealing the route will be may be biased. I'm operating from the Dutch perspective of reducing conflict points for different modes of transport, and to me CT feels like one gigantic conflict point.

[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:I don’t care if the bike lobby raises money from its members. Bring it on. But I care a whole hell of a lot that the DC government is funnelling hard-earned taxpayer dollars to support the bike lobby so that they can turn around and agitate for something costly that will have negative consequences for many. Think of how the WABA subsidy and the bike lane construction money otherwise could be spent, for better DC schools, more cops, more timely 911 responsiveness

Positive consequences for many, you mean. Fewer car crashes, less noise, EMS/police resources freed up, better mobility for people not in a car, economic benefits for businesses in the Connecticut Ave corridor.

The Connecticut Ave corridor where the stabbing just occurred?

Are you saying that the planned bike lanes on Connecticut Avenue caused the stabbing?

No, but can we vote out elected officials (ANC and council) who apparently care more about bike lanes than focusing on rising crime along Connecticut Ave?!

Empirically, the answer is that no, you (whoever "we" even is) can not do this. The voters voted for elected officials who support the Connecticut Avenue bike lanes.

You'd be surprised how a couple of daytime shootings or stabbings can make voters sour on their elected candidates. And there are recall mechanisms. Bike bros will be destroyed by soccer moms.

Not a bike bro here, but most of the supporters of the bike lanes I know (I live off Connecticut Ave) ARE soccer moms. The only people I know against the bike lanes are some cranky old white guys.

The soccer moms I know on Porter and Reno are worried that the Connecticut Ave bike lanes will divert a lot more traffic to those streets, which will become less safe and cannot handle more thru traffic.

This is a valid fear. You want to keep as much of the car through traffic on Connecticut as possible.

The worst case scenario here is that building bike lanes on CT leads to spill-over traffic and parking on local roads, while the bike lanes are underutilized. That's a recipe for killing bike infrastructure citywide, the way the streetcar killed the idea of trams for a generation.

I'll keep beating this dead horse, but the place to put bike infrastructure is on Reno, not Connecticut. Who exactly is going to want to ride on Connecticut? People who don't mind riding next to 4+ lanes of stop-light drag racers, buses and trucks, with drivers turning through them every block, all 12 of them. No one is going to let their kids ride on these, and many parents won't even let their MS or HS kids ride there.

If you're going to build bike infrastructure, build it where its safe and pleasant to ride. If you can't picture kids riding in the lanes, then you are doing something wrong.

No, YOU want to keep car through traffic on Connecticut. Other people think it's time to prioritize DC residents, on all transportation modes, over the convenience of Maryland car commuters.

Yes, DC is going to build bike infrastructure - no "if" about it. Yes, DC should build safe bike infrastructure, that kids can ride in. Including on Connecticut Avenue.

So where do you want through traffic to go?

Also, if you know of a 5 lane stroad with kids biking on it, please let us know. I'm willing to admit my assumptions on how safe/appealing the route will be may be biased. I'm operating from the Dutch perspective of reducing conflict points for different modes of transport, and to me CT feels like one gigantic conflict point.

"Through traffic" is not a constant. And the whole point is to de-stroad-ify Connecticut Ave.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t care if the bike lobby raises money from its members. Bring it on. But I care a whole hell of a lot that the DC government is funnelling hard-earned taxpayer dollars to support the bike lobby so that they can turn around and agitate for something costly that will have negative consequences for many. Think of how the WABA subsidy and the bike lane construction money otherwise could be spent, for better DC schools, more cops, more timely 911 responsiveness

Positive consequences for many, you mean. Fewer car crashes, less noise, EMS/police resources freed up, better mobility for people not in a car, economic benefits for businesses in the Connecticut Ave corridor.

The Connecticut Ave corridor where the stabbing just occurred?

Are you saying that the planned bike lanes on Connecticut Avenue caused the stabbing?

No, but can we vote out elected officials (ANC and council) who apparently care more about bike lanes than focusing on rising crime along Connecticut Ave?!

Empirically, the answer is that no, you (whoever "we" even is) can not do this. The voters voted for elected officials who support the Connecticut Avenue bike lanes.

You'd be surprised how a couple of daytime shootings or stabbings can make voters sour on their elected candidates. And there are recall mechanisms. Bike bros will be destroyed by soccer moms.

Not a bike bro here, but most of the supporters of the bike lanes I know (I live off Connecticut Ave) ARE soccer moms. The only people I know against the bike lanes are some cranky old white guys.

The soccer moms I know on Porter and Reno are worried that the Connecticut Ave bike lanes will divert a lot more traffic to those streets, which will become less safe and cannot handle more thru traffic.

This is a valid fear. You want to keep as much of the car through traffic on Connecticut as possible.

The worst case scenario here is that building bike lanes on CT leads to spill-over traffic and parking on local roads, while the bike lanes are underutilized. That's a recipe for killing bike infrastructure citywide, the way the streetcar killed the idea of trams for a generation.

I'll keep beating this dead horse, but the place to put bike infrastructure is on Reno, not Connecticut. Who exactly is going to want to ride on Connecticut? People who don't mind riding next to 4+ lanes of stop-light drag racers, buses and trucks, with drivers turning through them every block, all 12 of them. No one is going to let their kids ride on these, and many parents won't even let their MS or HS kids ride there.

If you're going to build bike infrastructure, build it where its safe and pleasant to ride. If you can't picture kids riding in the lanes, then you are doing something wrong.

No, YOU want to keep car through traffic on Connecticut. Other people think it's time to prioritize DC residents, on all transportation modes, over the convenience of Maryland car commuters.

Yes, DC is going to build bike infrastructure - no "if" about it. Yes, DC should build safe bike infrastructure, that kids can ride in. Including on Connecticut Avenue.

Isn’t a major arterial road where through traffic, commuter traffic and truck traffic are supposed to go? Dispersing it to lower capacity roads is nuts from a safety perspective and spreads significant cut thru traffic to more streets and neighborhoods. Is this the intention?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t care if the bike lobby raises money from its members. Bring it on. But I care a whole hell of a lot that the DC government is funnelling hard-earned taxpayer dollars to support the bike lobby so that they can turn around and agitate for something costly that will have negative consequences for many. Think of how the WABA subsidy and the bike lane construction money otherwise could be spent, for better DC schools, more cops, more timely 911 responsiveness

Positive consequences for many, you mean. Fewer car crashes, less noise, EMS/police resources freed up, better mobility for people not in a car, economic benefits for businesses in the Connecticut Ave corridor.

The Connecticut Ave corridor where the stabbing just occurred?

Are you saying that the planned bike lanes on Connecticut Avenue caused the stabbing?

No, but can we vote out elected officials (ANC and council) who apparently care more about bike lanes than focusing on rising crime along Connecticut Ave?!

Empirically, the answer is that no, you (whoever "we" even is) can not do this. The voters voted for elected officials who support the Connecticut Avenue bike lanes.

You'd be surprised how a couple of daytime shootings or stabbings can make voters sour on their elected candidates. And there are recall mechanisms. Bike bros will be destroyed by soccer moms.

Not a bike bro here, but most of the supporters of the bike lanes I know (I live off Connecticut Ave) ARE soccer moms. The only people I know against the bike lanes are some cranky old white guys.

The soccer moms I know on Porter and Reno are worried that the Connecticut Ave bike lanes will divert a lot more traffic to those streets, which will become less safe and cannot handle more thru traffic.

This is a valid fear. You want to keep as much of the car through traffic on Connecticut as possible.

The worst case scenario here is that building bike lanes on CT leads to spill-over traffic and parking on local roads, while the bike lanes are underutilized. That's a recipe for killing bike infrastructure citywide, the way the streetcar killed the idea of trams for a generation.

I'll keep beating this dead horse, but the place to put bike infrastructure is on Reno, not Connecticut. Who exactly is going to want to ride on Connecticut? People who don't mind riding next to 4+ lanes of stop-light drag racers, buses and trucks, with drivers turning through them every block, all 12 of them. No one is going to let their kids ride on these, and many parents won't even let their MS or HS kids ride there.

If you're going to build bike infrastructure, build it where its safe and pleasant to ride. If you can't picture kids riding in the lanes, then you are doing something wrong.

Ah the reno road poster, who has been answered multiple times in multiple threads about why that's not a reasonable option. I feel bad for your horse.

Someone needs to call animal control on this person.

[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:I don’t care if the bike lobby raises money from its members. Bring it on. But I care a whole hell of a lot that the DC government is funnelling hard-earned taxpayer dollars to support the bike lobby so that they can turn around and agitate for something costly that will have negative consequences for many. Think of how the WABA subsidy and the bike lane construction money otherwise could be spent, for better DC schools, more cops, more timely 911 responsiveness

Positive consequences for many, you mean. Fewer car crashes, less noise, EMS/police resources freed up, better mobility for people not in a car, economic benefits for businesses in the Connecticut Ave corridor.

The Connecticut Ave corridor where the stabbing just occurred?

Are you saying that the planned bike lanes on Connecticut Avenue caused the stabbing?

No, but can we vote out elected officials (ANC and council) who apparently care more about bike lanes than focusing on rising crime along Connecticut Ave?!

Empirically, the answer is that no, you (whoever "we" even is) can not do this. The voters voted for elected officials who support the Connecticut Avenue bike lanes.

You'd be surprised how a couple of daytime shootings or stabbings can make voters sour on their elected candidates. And there are recall mechanisms. Bike bros will be destroyed by soccer moms.

Not a bike bro here, but most of the supporters of the bike lanes I know (I live off Connecticut Ave) ARE soccer moms. The only people I know against the bike lanes are some cranky old white guys.

The soccer moms I know on Porter and Reno are worried that the Connecticut Ave bike lanes will divert a lot more traffic to those streets, which will become less safe and cannot handle more thru traffic.

This is a valid fear. You want to keep as much of the car through traffic on Connecticut as possible.

The worst case scenario here is that building bike lanes on CT leads to spill-over traffic and parking on local roads, while the bike lanes are underutilized. That's a recipe for killing bike infrastructure citywide, the way the streetcar killed the idea of trams for a generation.

I'll keep beating this dead horse, but the place to put bike infrastructure is on Reno, not Connecticut. Who exactly is going to want to ride on Connecticut? People who don't mind riding next to 4+ lanes of stop-light drag racers, buses and trucks, with drivers turning through them every block, all 12 of them. No one is going to let their kids ride on these, and many parents won't even let their MS or HS kids ride there.

If you're going to build bike infrastructure, build it where its safe and pleasant to ride. If you can't picture kids riding in the lanes, then you are doing something wrong.

No, YOU want to keep car through traffic on Connecticut. Other people think it's time to prioritize DC residents, on all transportation modes, over the convenience of Maryland car commuters.

Yes, DC is going to build bike infrastructure - no "if" about it. Yes, DC should build safe bike infrastructure, that kids can ride in. Including on Connecticut Avenue.

Isn’t a major arterial road where through traffic, commuter traffic and truck traffic are supposed to go? Dispersing it to lower capacity roads is nuts from a safety perspective and spreads significant cut thru traffic to more streets and neighborhoods. Is this the intention?

It's a road over 10,000 people live right ON it. Nearly 20,000 live within a two block radius in either direction of it. A highway doesn't below in the middle of that.

Also its not like its capacity goes from current state to 0. It goes from current state to slightly less than current state. Because there are actually some throughput improvments in the plan too (turn lanes).

[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:I don’t care if the bike lobby raises money from its members. Bring it on. But I care a whole hell of a lot that the DC government is funnelling hard-earned taxpayer dollars to support the bike lobby so that they can turn around and agitate for something costly that will have negative consequences for many. Think of how the WABA subsidy and the bike lane construction money otherwise could be spent, for better DC schools, more cops, more timely 911 responsiveness

Positive consequences for many, you mean. Fewer car crashes, less noise, EMS/police resources freed up, better mobility for people not in a car, economic benefits for businesses in the Connecticut Ave corridor.

The Connecticut Ave corridor where the stabbing just occurred?

Are you saying that the planned bike lanes on Connecticut Avenue caused the stabbing?

No, but can we vote out elected officials (ANC and council) who apparently care more about bike lanes than focusing on rising crime along Connecticut Ave?!

Empirically, the answer is that no, you (whoever "we" even is) can not do this. The voters voted for elected officials who support the Connecticut Avenue bike lanes.

You'd be surprised how a couple of daytime shootings or stabbings can make voters sour on their elected candidates. And there are recall mechanisms. Bike bros will be destroyed by soccer moms.

Not a bike bro here, but most of the supporters of the bike lanes I know (I live off Connecticut Ave) ARE soccer moms. The only people I know against the bike lanes are some cranky old white guys.

The soccer moms I know on Porter and Reno are worried that the Connecticut Ave bike lanes will divert a lot more traffic to those streets, which will become less safe and cannot handle more thru traffic.

This is a valid fear. You want to keep as much of the car through traffic on Connecticut as possible.

The worst case scenario here is that building bike lanes on CT leads to spill-over traffic and parking on local roads, while the bike lanes are underutilized. That's a recipe for killing bike infrastructure citywide, the way the streetcar killed the idea of trams for a generation.

I'll keep beating this dead horse, but the place to put bike infrastructure is on Reno, not Connecticut. Who exactly is going to want to ride on Connecticut? People who don't mind riding next to 4+ lanes of stop-light drag racers, buses and trucks, with drivers turning through them every block, all 12 of them. No one is going to let their kids ride on these, and many parents won't even let their MS or HS kids ride there.

If you're going to build bike infrastructure, build it where its safe and pleasant to ride. If you can't picture kids riding in the lanes, then you are doing something wrong.

No, YOU want to keep car through traffic on Connecticut. Other people think it's time to prioritize DC residents, on all transportation modes, over the convenience of Maryland car commuters.

Yes, DC is going to build bike infrastructure - no "if" about it. Yes, DC should build safe bike infrastructure, that kids can ride in. Including on Connecticut Avenue.

Isn’t a major arterial road where through traffic, commuter traffic and truck traffic are supposed to go? Dispersing it to lower capacity roads is nuts from a safety perspective and spreads significant cut thru traffic to more streets and neighborhoods. Is this the intention?

It's a road over 10,000 people live right ON it. Nearly 20,000 live within a two block radius in either direction of it. A highway doesn't below in the middle of that.

Also its not like its capacity goes from current state to 0. It goes from current state to slightly less than current state. Because there are actually some throughput improvments in the plan too (turn lanes).

The turn lanes are a definite turn off, not an improvement, for residents who live in the intersecting side streets. They will be inviting off ramps for drivers frustrated with Connecticut Ave gridlock to peel off and seek a faster way through the neighborhood streets. As for “through put” the turn channels will put more thru traffic through narrower, residential roads. The safety of the side streets will become worse.

[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:I don’t care if the bike lobby raises money from its members. Bring it on. But I care a whole hell of a lot that the DC government is funnelling hard-earned taxpayer dollars to support the bike lobby so that they can turn around and agitate for something costly that will have negative consequences for many. Think of how the WABA subsidy and the bike lane construction money otherwise could be spent, for better DC schools, more cops, more timely 911 responsiveness

Positive consequences for many, you mean. Fewer car crashes, less noise, EMS/police resources freed up, better mobility for people not in a car, economic benefits for businesses in the Connecticut Ave corridor.

The Connecticut Ave corridor where the stabbing just occurred?

Are you saying that the planned bike lanes on Connecticut Avenue caused the stabbing?

No, but can we vote out elected officials (ANC and council) who apparently care more about bike lanes than focusing on rising crime along Connecticut Ave?!

Empirically, the answer is that no, you (whoever "we" even is) can not do this. The voters voted for elected officials who support the Connecticut Avenue bike lanes.

You'd be surprised how a couple of daytime shootings or stabbings can make voters sour on their elected candidates. And there are recall mechanisms. Bike bros will be destroyed by soccer moms.

Not a bike bro here, but most of the supporters of the bike lanes I know (I live off Connecticut Ave) ARE soccer moms. The only people I know against the bike lanes are some cranky old white guys.

The soccer moms I know on Porter and Reno are worried that the Connecticut Ave bike lanes will divert a lot more traffic to those streets, which will become less safe and cannot handle more thru traffic.

This is a valid fear. You want to keep as much of the car through traffic on Connecticut as possible.

The worst case scenario here is that building bike lanes on CT leads to spill-over traffic and parking on local roads, while the bike lanes are underutilized. That's a recipe for killing bike infrastructure citywide, the way the streetcar killed the idea of trams for a generation.

I'll keep beating this dead horse, but the place to put bike infrastructure is on Reno, not Connecticut. Who exactly is going to want to ride on Connecticut? People who don't mind riding next to 4+ lanes of stop-light drag racers, buses and trucks, with drivers turning through them every block, all 12 of them. No one is going to let their kids ride on these, and many parents won't even let their MS or HS kids ride there.

If you're going to build bike infrastructure, build it where its safe and pleasant to ride. If you can't picture kids riding in the lanes, then you are doing something wrong.

No, YOU want to keep car through traffic on Connecticut. Other people think it's time to prioritize DC residents, on all transportation modes, over the convenience of Maryland car commuters.

Yes, DC is going to build bike infrastructure - no "if" about it. Yes, DC should build safe bike infrastructure, that kids can ride in. Including on Connecticut Avenue.

Isn’t a major arterial road where through traffic, commuter traffic and truck traffic are supposed to go? Dispersing it to lower capacity roads is nuts from a safety perspective and spreads significant cut thru traffic to more streets and neighborhoods. Is this the intention?

It's a road over 10,000 people live right ON it. Nearly 20,000 live within a two block radius in either direction of it. A highway doesn't below in the middle of that.

Also its not like its capacity goes from current state to 0. It goes from current state to slightly less than current state. Because there are actually some throughput improvments in the plan too (turn lanes).

The turn lanes are a definite turn off, not an improvement, for residents who live in the intersecting side streets. They will be inviting off ramps for drivers frustrated with Connecticut Ave gridlock to peel off and seek a faster way through the neighborhood streets. As for “through put” the turn channels will put more thru traffic through narrower, residential roads. The safety of the side streets will become worse.

Whatever, now you are just being obstinate. The turn lanes are at intersections where people already turn. They will just pull those people out of the two thru lanes so that traffic continues to move rather than backing up a lane full of honking idiots at porter and Conn or Nebraska and Conn like they do today.

[Anonymous]

This discussion is becoming theoretical. Bike lanes on Connecticut Avenue aren’t going to happen in this decade and maybe not ever. Months ago they became a low budgetary priority. More lately they have become a big political negative. I’m not even sure that Charles Allen would fight for them anymore. The window has effectively closed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This discussion is becoming theoretical. Bike lanes on Connecticut Avenue aren’t going to happen in this decade and maybe not ever. Months ago they became a low budgetary priority. More lately they have become a big political negative. I’m not even sure that Charles Allen would fight for them anymore. The window has effectively closed.

Then you can stop fighting against them and go home and find a different hobby. Hooray!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This discussion is becoming theoretical. Bike lanes on Connecticut Avenue aren’t going to happen in this decade and maybe not ever. Months ago they became a low budgetary priority. More lately they have become a big political negative. I’m not even sure that Charles Allen would fight for them anymore. The window has effectively closed.

The funding was already allocated. And if you think scrapping a safe streets plan to retain parking and traffic volume on highly populated street is a legacy any of our current DC politicians want to have in year where we've seen almost a 75% increase in traffic-related fatalities (some of which were on Conn Ave this year and the past year), then you're smoking some really good stuff before bed to fuel your anti-bike dreams.

[Anonymous]

Speaking of smoking some “good” stuff, when is MPD going to crack down on all of the people who are driving around while smoking pot?. I can smell it as a pedestrian, as a cyclist and as a driver wafting from vehicles. Police don’t tolerate drunk drivers or even those who drive with open containers while not over the limit. How much if the increase in DC traffic accidents on the last several years is because of impaired high vehicle operators?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This discussion is becoming theoretical. Bike lanes on Connecticut Avenue aren’t going to happen in this decade and maybe not ever. Months ago they became a low budgetary priority. More lately they have become a big political negative. I’m not even sure that Charles Allen would fight for them anymore. The window has effectively closed.

The funding was already allocated. And if you think scrapping a safe streets plan to retain parking and traffic volume on highly populated street is a legacy any of our current DC politicians want to have in year where we've seen almost a 75% increase in traffic-related fatalities (some of which were on Conn Ave this year and the past year), then you're smoking some really good stuff before bed to fuel your anti-bike dreams.

The Mayor and the Administration have both come down heavily on the "get your butts downtown anyway possible" side of the coin. In their mind, those deaths are an acceptable price to pay to keep downtown real estate interests from collapsing. Both Bowser and Biden won handily in NW and in DC, so this is literally what voters asked for. No one is going to be paying a political price for this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This discussion is becoming theoretical. Bike lanes on Connecticut Avenue aren’t going to happen in this decade and maybe not ever. Months ago they became a low budgetary priority. More lately they have become a big political negative. I’m not even sure that Charles Allen would fight for them anymore. The window has effectively closed.

The funding was already allocated. And if you think scrapping a safe streets plan to retain parking and traffic volume on highly populated street is a legacy any of our current DC politicians want to have in year where we've seen almost a 75% increase in traffic-related fatalities (some of which were on Conn Ave this year and the past year), then you're smoking some really good stuff before bed to fuel your anti-bike dreams.

The Mayor and the Administration have both come down heavily on the "get your butts downtown anyway possible" side of the coin. In their mind, those deaths are an acceptable price to pay to keep downtown real estate interests from collapsing. Both Bowser and Biden won handily in NW and in DC, so this is literally what voters asked for. No one is going to be paying a political price for this.

Why are you spending so much time on the Internet fighting against something that isn't going to happen (according to you)? What a waste of time on your part!