Options for opposing Connecticut Avenue changes?

[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.

That is pretty laughable, but sure, I guess the CCT portion that ducks through Palisades is in Ward 3, but given the complaints from the dag walkers, walkers and joggers about cyclists using it, most people I know, avoid it.

[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 mean like in Glover Park. Compared to W6/7 on Capitol Hill, it’s just pitiful.

[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.

Why would real estate developers want bike lanes?

[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.

Why would real estate developers want bike lanes?

Because residents and businesses want bike lanes.

[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.

Why would real estate developers want bike lanes?

Because residents and businesses want bike lanes.

SOME residents and SOME businesses want bike lanes.

[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.

Why would real estate developers want bike lanes?

Because residents and businesses want bike lanes.

SOME residents and SOME businesses want bike lanes.

Why would real estate developers want bike lanes? Because some residents and some businesses want bike lanes.

I'm ok with that. Are you ok with that?

[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.

Why would real estate developers want bike lanes?

Because residents and businesses want bike lanes.

SOME residents and SOME businesses want bike lanes.

And yet, the people who lost elections over this and who are fighting a decision that has already been made, are causing more divisiveness by not just moving on.

[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.

Why would real estate developers want bike lanes?

Because residents and businesses want bike lanes.

MOST residents and SOME businesses want bike lanes.

FIFY

[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..

[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

Not a *single* donor lives on Conn Ave? You sure about that one bud? Not a single donor on a street with almost 16,000 people living on it? you lying sons of b@##$@s

[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.

Ahh, everything makes sense now. This whole 350-odd page thread is really just one 4chan edgelord angrily tweeting, posting on mommy forums, and writing the occasional nutty blog post on medium.

[Anonymous]

white males
lycra

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Why would real estate developers want bike lanes?

Because residents and businesses want bike lanes.

SOME residents and SOME businesses want bike lanes.

And yet, the people who lost elections over this and who are fighting a decision that has already been made, are causing more divisiveness by not just moving on.

Go over to the Connecticut shooting thread and you'll see people lamenting who they elected.

[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!

There's Rock Creek Park. Use it. There's Reno Rd. Use it. But stop trying to say there's some great need when there clearly isn't. The demand isn't there. Move on.

[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.

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.

Appears the bike lobby monitors this board and tries to refute point by point.