Options for opposing Connecticut Avenue changes?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Civic-minded local volunteers for more speeding Maryland drivers on Connecticut Ave!!!!

(Gotta watch out for those sneaky outside agitators, especially the ones dressed up in mascot costumes.)

^^^It's even more civic-minded when you hold your demonstration on pedestrian space whose creation you opposed because it removed parking!!!!

You think this is a “gotcha” argument, but it’s not. If the lane were open to traffic, they would be standing on the sidewalk and in the buffer strip bw the lane and the street. The lane now being closed did nothing to facilitate their protest, but makes you look ridiculous for trumpeting it all over X and now here. Also, not every person who opposes the bike lanes opposed closing the service lane. I know lots of people who oppose or are skeptical about the bike lanes, but supported the service lane closure.

No, I don't think it's a "gotcha" argument. I just think it makes the protesters look even more foolish. Especially because these protesters opposed the new pedestrian space.

If there were still a service lane for cars, the options for protesting would have been:

balancing on the narrow strip between the service lane and the main road (not an option for the protester who uses a wheelchair);
blocking the crossing area;
blocking the service lane;
blocking the sidewalk next to the stores (not effective if you want drivers to honk in support of opposition to bike lanes)
blocking the main road.

The reality is that spaces for pedestrians and bicyclists are great for holding protests against spaces for pedestrians and bicyclists.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Civic-minded local volunteers for more speeding Maryland drivers on Connecticut Ave!!!!

(Gotta watch out for those sneaky outside agitators, especially the ones dressed up in mascot costumes.)

^^^It's even more civic-minded when you hold your demonstration on pedestrian space whose creation you opposed because it removed parking!!!!

You think this is a “gotcha” argument, but it’s not. If the lane were open to traffic, they would be standing on the sidewalk and in the buffer strip bw the lane and the street. The lane now being closed did nothing to facilitate their protest, but makes you look ridiculous for trumpeting it all over X and now here. Also, not every person who opposes the bike lanes opposed closing the service lane. I know lots of people who oppose or are skeptical about the bike lanes, but supported the service lane closure.

No, I don't think it's a "gotcha" argument. I just think it makes the protesters look even more foolish. Especially because these protesters opposed the new pedestrian space.

If there were still a service lane for cars, the options for protesting would have been:

balancing on the narrow strip between the service lane and the main road (not an option for the protester who uses a wheelchair);
blocking the crossing area;
blocking the service lane;
blocking the sidewalk next to the stores (not effective if you want drivers to honk in support of opposition to bike lanes)
blocking the main road.

The reality is that spaces for pedestrians and bicyclists are great for holding protests against spaces for pedestrians and bicyclists.

Maybe they should have been holding signs out the windows of their cars as they drive around the area at 40 MPH?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Civic-minded local volunteers for more speeding Maryland drivers on Connecticut Ave!!!!

(Gotta watch out for those sneaky outside agitators, especially the ones dressed up in mascot costumes.)

^^^It's even more civic-minded when you hold your demonstration on pedestrian space whose creation you opposed because it removed parking!!!!

You think this is a “gotcha” argument, but it’s not. If the lane were open to traffic, they would be standing on the sidewalk and in the buffer strip bw the lane and the street. The lane now being closed did nothing to facilitate their protest, but makes you look ridiculous for trumpeting it all over X and now here. Also, not every person who opposes the bike lanes opposed closing the service lane. I know lots of people who oppose or are skeptical about the bike lanes, but supported the service lane closure.

No, I don't think it's a "gotcha" argument. I just think it makes the protesters look even more foolish. Especially because these protesters opposed the new pedestrian space.

If there were still a service lane for cars, the options for protesting would have been:

balancing on the narrow strip between the service lane and the main road (not an option for the protester who uses a wheelchair);
blocking the crossing area;
blocking the service lane;
blocking the sidewalk next to the stores (not effective if you want drivers to honk in support of opposition to bike lanes)
blocking the main road.

The reality is that spaces for pedestrians and bicyclists are great for holding protests against spaces for pedestrians and bicyclists.

Or they could just cross the street and hold the protest on the other side of Connecticut. Plenty of room over there to protest without blocking the sidewalk for passersby. Protests happen regularly across the city outside of the closed service lane. I'm sure the group could have figured something out. If the best response you can muster against the protest is to mock its location, your campaign isn't going well.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Civic-minded local volunteers for more speeding Maryland drivers on Connecticut Ave!!!!

(Gotta watch out for those sneaky outside agitators, especially the ones dressed up in mascot costumes.)

^^^It's even more civic-minded when you hold your demonstration on pedestrian space whose creation you opposed because it removed parking!!!!

You think this is a “gotcha” argument, but it’s not. If the lane were open to traffic, they would be standing on the sidewalk and in the buffer strip bw the lane and the street. The lane now being closed did nothing to facilitate their protest, but makes you look ridiculous for trumpeting it all over X and now here. Also, not every person who opposes the bike lanes opposed closing the service lane. I know lots of people who oppose or are skeptical about the bike lanes, but supported the service lane closure.

No, I don't think it's a "gotcha" argument. I just think it makes the protesters look even more foolish. Especially because these protesters opposed the new pedestrian space.

If there were still a service lane for cars, the options for protesting would have been:

balancing on the narrow strip between the service lane and the main road (not an option for the protester who uses a wheelchair);
blocking the crossing area;
blocking the service lane;
blocking the sidewalk next to the stores (not effective if you want drivers to honk in support of opposition to bike lanes)
blocking the main road.

The reality is that spaces for pedestrians and bicyclists are great for holding protests against spaces for pedestrians and bicyclists.

Or they could just cross the street and hold the protest on the other side of Connecticut. Plenty of room over there to protest without blocking the sidewalk for passersby. Protests happen regularly across the city outside of the closed service lane. I'm sure the group could have figured something out. If the best response you can muster against the protest is to mock its location, your campaign isn't going well.

It's not the best response. It's just that the protesters' choice of location is very mockable.

If they had had to hold the protest on the other side of Connecticut, they would also have had to reschedule the protest for, like 7:30 am. Plus they would have blocked the sidewalk, if there had been enough of them to block the sidewalk, which there wasn't.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The sign that said Parking > People was put up by an employee of WABA who was disguised as a protester.

WABA is a sketchy, well funded organization and pulls off lots of sneaky tactics like this. They had several members of their paid staff mix in with the anti bike lane protesters—who are civic-minded volunteers—and hold up offensive signs.

LOL, no. Just own that the people opposing the safety improvements on Conn Ave are pro-car, can't see any other way of living, narrow minded people.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Studies in Cleveland Park specifically show that a very small number of customers actually drive to support these businesses.

What are those studies and the links to them?

Turns out most Cleveland Park businesses get 30-40% of their customers from parking. 7-11 even gets 42%. Businesses can afford to lose 15% of their customers—much less 30% or 40%.

There was a June meeting between CP business owners and Matt Frumin. There isn’t a single CP business that supports the bike lanes. The business owners and disabled CP residents were beyond furious and met a tone deaf response from Councilman Frumin.

WABA is a well funded organization that deploys sketchy tactics. None of their employees or funders even live or commute along the Connecticut Ave corridor.

I encourage anyone interested in this topic to visit saveconnecticutave.org to learn web

The bolded is false. I know of several. They are just afraid to speak up, because there are large anti-lane advocates who have literally bullied employees over this issue.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Car brain truly makes people stupid.

If only there were some alternatives in the Connecticut Avenue corridor to driving.

100%. NW DC already has excellent bike infrastructure. Reno Road is obviously a better alternative for bike lanes than Connecticut Ave. The reality is Connecticut Ave already has excellent alternatives to driving—we have the metro and bus. Also, anyone who bikes knows it’s actually.

Rock creek park is also just a block away.

Put plain and simple, there’s zero need for bike lanes on Connecticut Ave.

The Bike Lane lobby also forgets to mention that the Conn Ave bike lanes would push 7,000 cars daily onto already congested side streets.

The people who want the bike lanes don’t live alongside Conn Ave or commute through it. The proponents are well funded bicycle activists and real estate developers that pay shady pollsters. None of the residents or businesses want these bike lanes.

Until last week, Ward 3 had exactly 40 feet of "bike infrastructure"

The addition of the New Mexico Ave bike lanes brings that to about a quarter mile.

That is not "excellent bike infrastructure, and there is no planner or designer who would suggest painted sharrows as "excellent" or "safe" infrastructure. If you want to have a reasoned debate, that is fine, but lets at least start from a base line of facts.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Car brain truly makes people stupid.

If only there were some alternatives in the Connecticut Avenue corridor to driving.

100%. NW DC already has excellent bike infrastructure. Reno Road is obviously a better alternative for bike lanes than Connecticut Ave. The reality is Connecticut Ave already has excellent alternatives to driving—we have the metro and bus. Also, anyone who bikes knows it’s actually.

Rock creek park is also just a block away.

Put plain and simple, there’s zero need for bike lanes on Connecticut Ave.

The Bike Lane lobby also forgets to mention that the Conn Ave bike lanes would push 7,000 cars daily onto already congested side streets.

The people who want the bike lanes don’t live alongside Conn Ave or commute through it. The proponents are well funded bicycle activists and real estate developers that pay shady pollsters. None of the residents or businesses want these bike lanes.

Except for parts of Van Ness or Woodley Park, there is no touch of Rock Creek Park to Conn Ave that is a block away, and even the consideration of Soapstone as "rock creek park" is tenuous at best. That said, what difference does it make how close or far Rock Creek is from Conn Ave? Conn Ave is where the shops are that people need to access safely. Rock Creek has NOTHING to do with that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Car brain truly makes people stupid.

If only there were some alternatives in the Connecticut Avenue corridor to driving.

100%. NW DC already has excellent bike infrastructure. Reno Road is obviously a better alternative for bike lanes than Connecticut Ave. The reality is Connecticut Ave already has excellent alternatives to driving—we have the metro and bus. Also, anyone who bikes knows it’s actually.

Rock creek park is also just a block away.

Put plain and simple, there’s zero need for bike lanes on Connecticut Ave.

The Bike Lane lobby also forgets to mention that the Conn Ave bike lanes would push 7,000 cars daily onto already congested side streets.

The people who want the bike lanes don’t live alongside Conn Ave or commute through it. The proponents are well funded bicycle activists and real estate developers that pay shady pollsters. None of the residents or businesses want these bike lanes.

Raises hand, hence false statement. I would submit that 80 percent of the residents along Connecticut Avenue who take up 20% of the land are much more likely to bike or walk to the shops along the Avenue than the 20% of the people in single family homes (who are the ones fighting this) who want or need to drive everywhere to do their shopping.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Car brain truly makes people stupid.

If only there were some alternatives in the Connecticut Avenue corridor to driving.

100%. NW DC already has excellent bike infrastructure. Reno Road is obviously a better alternative for bike lanes than Connecticut Ave. The reality is Connecticut Ave already has excellent alternatives to driving—we have the metro and bus. Also, anyone who bikes knows it’s actually.

Rock creek park is also just a block away.

Put plain and simple, there’s zero need for bike lanes on Connecticut Ave.

The Bike Lane lobby also forgets to mention that the Conn Ave bike lanes would push 7,000 cars daily onto already congested side streets.

The people who want the bike lanes don’t live alongside Conn Ave or commute through it. The proponents are well funded bicycle activists and real estate developers that pay shady pollsters. None of the residents or businesses want these bike lanes.

That's great! Then there's absolutely no reason to prioritize cars or parking on Connecticut Ave! After all, as you say, Connecticut Ave has excellent alternatives to driving!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Car brain truly makes people stupid.

If only there were some alternatives in the Connecticut Avenue corridor to driving.

100%. NW DC already has excellent bike infrastructure. Reno Road is obviously a better alternative for bike lanes than Connecticut Ave. The reality is Connecticut Ave already has excellent alternatives to driving—we have the metro and bus. Also, anyone who bikes knows it’s actually.

Rock creek park is also just a block away.

Put plain and simple, there’s zero need for bike lanes on Connecticut Ave.

The Bike Lane lobby also forgets to mention that the Conn Ave bike lanes would push 7,000 cars daily onto already congested side streets.
The people who want the bike lanes don’t live alongside Conn Ave or commute through it.
The proponents are well funded bicycle activists and real estate developers that pay shady pollsters. None of the residents or businesses want these bike lanes.

Many of the people organizing the fight on this don't even live in Ward 3, much less along the Conn Ave corridor. Most of the people who signed the petititon against this don't even live in DC.

How about we let the people who actually live on the corridor and vote in the city manage our own affairs? We spoke at the ballot box for Mayor, Council and ANC. Let's move on.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Civic-minded local volunteers for more speeding Maryland drivers on Connecticut Ave!!!!

(Gotta watch out for those sneaky outside agitators, especially the ones dressed up in mascot costumes.)

^^^It's even more civic-minded when you hold your demonstration on pedestrian space whose creation you opposed because it removed parking!!!!

You think this is a “gotcha” argument, but it’s not. If the lane were open to traffic, they would be standing on the sidewalk and in the buffer strip bw the lane and the street. The lane now being closed did nothing to facilitate their protest, but makes you look ridiculous for trumpeting it all over X and now here. Also, not every person who opposes the bike lanes opposed closing the service lane. I know lots of people who oppose or are skeptical about the bike lanes, but supported the service lane closure.

That 2 foot wide strip of concrete and brick? It wouldn't have been ADA compliant for the protestor in a wheelchair. Glad we have the service lane closed now!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Car brain truly makes people stupid.

If only there were some alternatives in the Connecticut Avenue corridor to driving.

100%. NW DC already has excellent bike infrastructure. Reno Road is obviously a better alternative for bike lanes than Connecticut Ave. The reality is Connecticut Ave already has excellent alternatives to driving—we have the metro and bus. Also, anyone who bikes knows it’s actually.

Rock creek park is also just a block away.

Put plain and simple, there’s zero need for bike lanes on Connecticut Ave.

The Bike Lane lobby also forgets to mention that the Conn Ave bike lanes would push 7,000 cars daily onto already congested side streets.

The people who want the bike lanes don’t live alongside Conn Ave or commute through it. The proponents are well funded bicycle activists and real estate developers that pay shady pollsters. None of the residents or businesses want these bike lanes.

Until last week, Ward 3 had exactly 40 feet of "bike infrastructure"

The addition of the New Mexico Ave bike lanes brings that to about a quarter mile.

That is not "excellent bike infrastructure, and there is no planner or designer who would suggest painted sharrows as "excellent" or "safe" infrastructure. If you want to have a reasoned debate, that is fine, but lets at least start from a base line of facts.

honestly the lack of bike infrastructure in Ward 3 is pathetic. get with it!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Car brain truly makes people stupid.

If only there were some alternatives in the Connecticut Avenue corridor to driving.

100%. NW DC already has excellent bike infrastructure. Reno Road is obviously a better alternative for bike lanes than Connecticut Ave. The reality is Connecticut Ave already has excellent alternatives to driving—we have the metro and bus. Also, anyone who bikes knows it’s actually.

Rock creek park is also just a block away.

Put plain and simple, there’s zero need for bike lanes on Connecticut Ave.

The Bike Lane lobby also forgets to mention that the Conn Ave bike lanes would push 7,000 cars daily onto already congested side streets.

The people who want the bike lanes don’t live alongside Conn Ave or commute through it. The proponents are well funded bicycle activists and real estate developers that pay shady pollsters. None of the residents or businesses want these bike lanes.

Until last week, Ward 3 had exactly 40 feet of "bike infrastructure"

The addition of the New Mexico Ave bike lanes brings that to about a quarter mile.

That is not "excellent bike infrastructure, and there is no planner or designer who would suggest painted sharrows as "excellent" or "safe" infrastructure. If you want to have a reasoned debate, that is fine, but lets at least start from a base line of facts.

honestly the lack of bike infrastructure in Ward 3 is pathetic. get with it!

Hmmmm. Just rode in on the CCT this morning. Seems like bike infrastructure to me.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Car brain truly makes people stupid.

If only there were some alternatives in the Connecticut Avenue corridor to driving.

100%. NW DC already has excellent bike infrastructure. Reno Road is obviously a better alternative for bike lanes than Connecticut Ave. The reality is Connecticut Ave already has excellent alternatives to driving—we have the metro and bus. Also, anyone who bikes knows it’s actually.

Rock creek park is also just a block away.

Put plain and simple, there’s zero need for bike lanes on Connecticut Ave.

The Bike Lane lobby also forgets to mention that the Conn Ave bike lanes would push 7,000 cars daily onto already congested side streets.

The people who want the bike lanes don’t live alongside Conn Ave or commute through it. The proponents are well funded bicycle activists and real estate developers that pay shady pollsters. None of the residents or businesses want these bike lanes.

Until last week, Ward 3 had exactly 40 feet of "bike infrastructure"

The addition of the New Mexico Ave bike lanes brings that to about a quarter mile.

That is not "excellent bike infrastructure, and there is no planner or designer who would suggest painted sharrows as "excellent" or "safe" infrastructure. If you want to have a reasoned debate, that is fine, but lets at least start from a base line of facts.

honestly the lack of bike infrastructure in Ward 3 is pathetic. get with it!

Hmmmm. Just rode in on the CCT this morning. Seems like bike infrastructure to me.

I don't think the CCT is bike infrastructure. It's a shared-use path. Plus it's under National Park Service jurisdiction, not DDOT.