Options for opposing Connecticut Avenue changes?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

So some dude from the bike lobby is on here just posting to mansplain all of us about how we've got it wrong and how this is the most important issue facing DC today. #privilege

[Anonymous]

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

such a stupid article. get out of your car and take the metro dude.

[Anonymous]

After seeing the teen in a stolen car deliberately hit and kill a retiree riding a bike in Las Vegas, filming the hit and posting it on social media, I can't imagine having kids ride in the road. The delusion and propoganda that paint is protective does not make is so. There have been almost 7,000 cars stolen or carjacked just in DC this year, many by juveniles well under the driving age. This is not a safe place for children to ride.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:After seeing the teen in a stolen car deliberately hit and kill a retiree riding a bike in Las Vegas, filming the hit and posting it on social media, I can't imagine having kids ride in the road. The delusion and propoganda that paint is protective does not make is so. There have been almost 7,000 cars stolen or carjacked just in DC this year, many by juveniles well under the driving age. This is not a safe place for children to ride.

Yes, you're right, paint is not protection! Fortunately, the plan for Connecticut Avenue is for protected 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.

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.

When the shops are in Rock Creek Park or on Reno Road, I will use them. However, the shop are on Connecticut Avenue, so I will use 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.

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.

"bike lobby" = some rando posting on DCUM.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

More would commute if it were safer to do so.

Also, the denominator there is the entire region of 2.5 million people. We could focus just on the people who would use CT Ave and the number would be a lot higher, of course, but for the author to try to make his point, he had to use the most extreme statistics possible. Well, of course the person who live in Prince William County and drives to Springfield for work is not going to bike, much less bike on CT Ave, so why are these included in the author's stats?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:After seeing the teen in a stolen car deliberately hit and kill a retiree riding a bike in Las Vegas, filming the hit and posting it on social media, I can't imagine having kids ride in the road. The delusion and propoganda that paint is protective does not make is so. There have been almost 7,000 cars stolen or carjacked just in DC this year, many by juveniles well under the driving age. This is not a safe place for children to ride.

So people who want to bike should be penalized because of car jackings? Wow, there is some misplaced resolutuions.

[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.

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.

When the shops are in Rock Creek Park or on Reno Road, I will use them. However, the shop are on Connecticut Avenue, so I will use it.

It's interesting, though. The people who say "Use Rock Creek Park" or "Use Reno Rd." are assuming that you're just using Connecticut Avenue to go from Point A to Point B. Presumably that's what they do while driving. Which is exactly why it's BAD for Connecticut Avenue businesses when DC designs Connecticut Avenue for Maryland car commuters, and why it will be GOOD for Connecticut Avenue businesses when DC redesigns Connecticut Avenue for everyone (including bicyclists). Maryland car commuters don't spend money at Connecticut Avenue businesses. Bicyclists going to Connecticut Avenue businesses do.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

More would commute if it were safer to do so.

Also, the denominator there is the entire region of 2.5 million people. We could focus just on the people who would use CT Ave and the number would be a lot higher, of course, but for the author to try to make his point, he had to use the most extreme statistics possible. Well, of course the person who live in Prince William County and drives to Springfield for work is not going to bike, much less bike on CT Ave, so why are these included in the author's stats?

The parallels between the bike lanes debate and the police “reform” debate from a few years ago are striking. During the BLM/defund/reform movement there were many who were urging leaders to pump the breaks and warned what would happen in cities. They were shouted down. It’s the same thing with the bike lanes Over 100 businesses along Connecticut and leaders in downtown CRE are warning that these lanes are a very bad idea. But, a handful of activists could care less and want to move full steam ahead. It’s amazing to watch.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

More would commute if it were safer to do so.

Also, the denominator there is the entire region of 2.5 million people. We could focus just on the people who would use CT Ave and the number would be a lot higher, of course, but for the author to try to make his point, he had to use the most extreme statistics possible. Well, of course the person who live in Prince William County and drives to Springfield for work is not going to bike, much less bike on CT Ave, so why are these included in the author's stats?

The parallels between the bike lanes debate and the police “reform” debate from a few years ago are striking. During the BLM/defund/reform movement there were many who were urging leaders to pump the breaks and warned what would happen in cities. They were shouted down. It’s the same thing with the bike lanes Over 100 businesses along Connecticut and leaders in downtown CRE are warning that these lanes are a very bad idea. But, a handful of activists could care less and want to move full steam ahead. It’s amazing to watch.

Yeah, they always do. And then the bike lanes go in, and then they figure out that it was actually a very good idea. Bike lanes are good for local businesses, not bad.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

More would commute if it were safer to do so.

Also, the denominator there is the entire region of 2.5 million people. We could focus just on the people who would use CT Ave and the number would be a lot higher, of course, but for the author to try to make his point, he had to use the most extreme statistics possible. Well, of course the person who live in Prince William County and drives to Springfield for work is not going to bike, much less bike on CT Ave, so why are these included in the author's stats?

The parallels between the bike lanes debate and the police “reform” debate from a few years ago are striking. During the BLM/defund/reform movement there were many who were urging leaders to pump the breaks and warned what would happen in cities. They were shouted down. It’s the same thing with the bike lanes Over 100 businesses along Connecticut and leaders in downtown CRE are warning that these lanes are a very bad idea. But, a handful of activists could care less and want to move full steam ahead. It’s amazing to watch.

oh lordy

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

More would commute if it were safer to do so.

Also, the denominator there is the entire region of 2.5 million people. We could focus just on the people who would use CT Ave and the number would be a lot higher, of course, but for the author to try to make his point, he had to use the most extreme statistics possible. Well, of course the person who live in Prince William County and drives to Springfield for work is not going to bike, much less bike on CT Ave, so why are these included in the author's stats?

The parallels between the bike lanes debate and the police “reform” debate from a few years ago are striking. During the BLM/defund/reform movement there were many who were urging leaders to pump the breaks and warned what would happen in cities. They were shouted down. It’s the same thing with the bike lanes Over 100 businesses along Connecticut and leaders in downtown CRE are warning that these lanes are a very bad idea. But, a handful of activists could care less and want to move full steam ahead. It’s amazing to watch.

Yet another poster who thinks they have a brilliant original thought that hasn't been debunked tens of times in this year long thread

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

More would commute if it were safer to do so.

Also, the denominator there is the entire region of 2.5 million people. We could focus just on the people who would use CT Ave and the number would be a lot higher, of course, but for the author to try to make his point, he had to use the most extreme statistics possible. Well, of course the person who live in Prince William County and drives to Springfield for work is not going to bike, much less bike on CT Ave, so why are these included in the author's stats?

The parallels between the bike lanes debate and the police “reform” debate from a few years ago are striking. During the BLM/defund/reform movement there were many who were urging leaders to pump the breaks and warned what would happen in cities. They were shouted down. It’s the same thing with the bike lanes Over 100 businesses along Connecticut and leaders in downtown CRE are warning that these lanes are a very bad idea. But, a handful of activists could care less and want to move full steam ahead. It’s amazing to watch.

Yeah, they always do. And then the bike lanes go in, and then they figure out that it was actually a very good idea. Bike lanes are good for local businesses, not bad.

I don’t know which side to believe. But, in this case I kinda, sorta believe the business owners on issues involving how to stay in business. I’m much less likely to believe a government or non profit worker who has zero experience in the private sector.