Connecticut Ave bike lanes are back!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:More grist for the mills: https://ggwash.org/view/93696/bikeshare-beat-ridership-surges-in-april-2024
CaBi rides were up 26% YoY in April.
And this image must have been made just to needle certain posters here:

Surprise surprise, most of those Connecticut Ave stations and almost all their users are located south of the Taft Bridge.

So you are saying that if it were safe to ride on Connecticut Avenue north of Taft Bridge, more people would ride there. I think you are probably right.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:More grist for the mills: https://ggwash.org/view/93696/bikeshare-beat-ridership-surges-in-april-2024
CaBi rides were up 26% YoY in April.
And this image must have been made just to needle certain posters here:

Notably, in April, 18,259 trips ended at the 20 CaBi stations on or within one block of Connecticut Avenue NW, a hint that the street serves as more than just an auto-artery into the District.[i]

That seems like more than "20 people" riding bikes on Connecticut Avenue.

Dig into the numbers yourself, almost everything they cite is Dupont and Midtown the traditional heart of DC cycling.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20240517-vision-zero-how-europe-cut-the-number-of-people-dying-on-its-roads

Interesting article about the origins of Vision Zero. It is very different than what it has transmogrified into. For instance, the very first project was removing concrete barriers. One of the other differences is that roads are defined according to their main use.

In short, the Connectict Ave plan goes against the very ideas it is supposed to represent.

Exactly. Under the classification system, Connecticut Avenue has the highest use classification (major arterial) short of limited access highways in DC. The problem is that by constraining Connecticut, DDOT would divert and squeeze more thru traffic, including trucks, into narrower collector streets and m very narrow “local” (lowest classification) streets in adjoining neighborhoods.

That’s definitely not Vision Zero but it might reflect zero vision.

There is no planet where Connecticut Avenue in DC is anything close to a "limited access highway" - you are doing a lot of work there conflating classifications.

No conflating anything. Connecticut has the highest functional classification in upper Northwest, "major arterial," aside from the Whitehurst and short I-66. Outside of these highways, Connecticut and the other major arterials are the roads that are supposed to carry the major thru traffic between Maryland, uptown Northwest and the western part of downtown Washington. Constraining Connecticut's capacity will divert a lot of cars and vehicles on to streets that were not planned or build for such traffic loads. Recall an experiment about 10 years ago to constrain Wisconsin Ave between Massachusetts Ave and Burleith. It did not end well but because the construction involved flexible pylons, it was relatively easy to address the resulting gridlock and diversion by reversing and removing the new road configuration. Connecticut bike lanes would be constructed for permanence, making them more difficult and far more costly to fix.

This is not what the DDOT study said. What the DDOT study said is that MD commuters would use OTHER ARTERIALS and Metro instead of Connecticut Avenue. And this has been pointed out repeatedly and yet opponents of the bike lanes CONTINUE to repeat this lie again and again.

One of the other major arterials that DDOT said would absorb the traffic was Beach Dr. Then the cycling advocates succeeded in keeping Beach Dr closed and as a result the DDOT study, as flawed as it was, became worthless.

The changes that DDOT have already made to remove the reversible lane and remove the rush hour parking restrictions have increased travel times along Connecticut significantly. It can now commonly take over 1 hour to go from Military to Dupont. This is the exact opposite of what transportation planning should be doing, which is improving safety and efficiency. Add the bike lanes and Connecticut becomes worthless.

This won’t encourage people to bike, but it will encourage people to move to places that are more convenient.

It wasn't the cycling advocates, though they supported it. At the end of the day, the National Park Service and Department of Interior's mission is to the parks, not commuters. The changes in Rock Creek were supported by the Sierra Club, the Rock Creek Conservancy and other environmental groups.

I still don't understand why they just don't encourage using Beach Drive/RCP instead of making bike lanes. Keep it closed from the MD border to Broad Branch then bikers can use the path along the road. Isn't that what the path is for???

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20240517-vision-zero-how-europe-cut-the-number-of-people-dying-on-its-roads

Interesting article about the origins of Vision Zero. It is very different than what it has transmogrified into. For instance, the very first project was removing concrete barriers. One of the other differences is that roads are defined according to their main use.

In short, the Connectict Ave plan goes against the very ideas it is supposed to represent.

Exactly. Under the classification system, Connecticut Avenue has the highest use classification (major arterial) short of limited access highways in DC. The problem is that by constraining Connecticut, DDOT would divert and squeeze more thru traffic, including trucks, into narrower collector streets and m very narrow “local” (lowest classification) streets in adjoining neighborhoods.

That’s definitely not Vision Zero but it might reflect zero vision.

There is no planet where Connecticut Avenue in DC is anything close to a "limited access highway" - you are doing a lot of work there conflating classifications.

No conflating anything. Connecticut has the highest functional classification in upper Northwest, "major arterial," aside from the Whitehurst and short I-66. Outside of these highways, Connecticut and the other major arterials are the roads that are supposed to carry the major thru traffic between Maryland, uptown Northwest and the western part of downtown Washington. Constraining Connecticut's capacity will divert a lot of cars and vehicles on to streets that were not planned or build for such traffic loads. Recall an experiment about 10 years ago to constrain Wisconsin Ave between Massachusetts Ave and Burleith. It did not end well but because the construction involved flexible pylons, it was relatively easy to address the resulting gridlock and diversion by reversing and removing the new road configuration. Connecticut bike lanes would be constructed for permanence, making them more difficult and far more costly to fix.

This is not what the DDOT study said. What the DDOT study said is that MD commuters would use OTHER ARTERIALS and Metro instead of Connecticut Avenue. And this has been pointed out repeatedly and yet opponents of the bike lanes CONTINUE to repeat this lie again and again.

One of the other major arterials that DDOT said would absorb the traffic was Beach Dr. Then the cycling advocates succeeded in keeping Beach Dr closed and as a result the DDOT study, as flawed as it was, became worthless.

The changes that DDOT have already made to remove the reversible lane and remove the rush hour parking restrictions have increased travel times along Connecticut significantly. It can now commonly take over 1 hour to go from Military to Dupont. This is the exact opposite of what transportation planning should be doing, which is improving safety and efficiency. Add the bike lanes and Connecticut becomes worthless.

This won’t encourage people to bike, but it will encourage people to move to places that are more convenient.

Over an hour, to drive four miles? That's terrible! I hate how slow and inconvenient driving is. No wonder nobody wants to drive. Have people considered transportation modes that would be faster and more efficient than driving? For example, Metro. Or buses in bus lanes. Or bicycling in bike lanes! Or walking.

It’s interesting that by making traffic miserable that you think it will convince people to ride a bike rather than just moving to a different location where the government is not doing it’s best to make your life as inconvenient as possible.

You can see this reflected in the stagnant home prices in CCDC and Barnaby Woods versus what’s happening across Western Avenue.

A flip just sold for 3.5M ON Nebraska Avenue in less than a week. I hardly think that constitutes a lack of demand in CCDC.

Prices in CCDC took a big jump early in COVID and have been flat since. Across Western Avenue it has been steady and increasing gains. The momentum has been taken out of the CCDC market. As a result, supply has disappeared.

You are just making stuff up. You have to look at price per square foot to make any useful comparison.

There has been literally no difference in price appreciation between 20815 zip code (CC MD) vs. 20015 zip code (CC DC zip code). If all we are doing is relying on anecdotes, I would say there are more price reductions for homes selling in 20815 vs. 20015...but both are increasing at roughly the same rates.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20240517-vision-zero-how-europe-cut-the-number-of-people-dying-on-its-roads

Interesting article about the origins of Vision Zero. It is very different than what it has transmogrified into. For instance, the very first project was removing concrete barriers. One of the other differences is that roads are defined according to their main use.

In short, the Connectict Ave plan goes against the very ideas it is supposed to represent.

Exactly. Under the classification system, Connecticut Avenue has the highest use classification (major arterial) short of limited access highways in DC. The problem is that by constraining Connecticut, DDOT would divert and squeeze more thru traffic, including trucks, into narrower collector streets and m very narrow “local” (lowest classification) streets in adjoining neighborhoods.

That’s definitely not Vision Zero but it might reflect zero vision.

There is no planet where Connecticut Avenue in DC is anything close to a "limited access highway" - you are doing a lot of work there conflating classifications.

No conflating anything. Connecticut has the highest functional classification in upper Northwest, "major arterial," aside from the Whitehurst and short I-66. Outside of these highways, Connecticut and the other major arterials are the roads that are supposed to carry the major thru traffic between Maryland, uptown Northwest and the western part of downtown Washington. Constraining Connecticut's capacity will divert a lot of cars and vehicles on to streets that were not planned or build for such traffic loads. Recall an experiment about 10 years ago to constrain Wisconsin Ave between Massachusetts Ave and Burleith. It did not end well but because the construction involved flexible pylons, it was relatively easy to address the resulting gridlock and diversion by reversing and removing the new road configuration. Connecticut bike lanes would be constructed for permanence, making them more difficult and far more costly to fix.

This is not what the DDOT study said. What the DDOT study said is that MD commuters would use OTHER ARTERIALS and Metro instead of Connecticut Avenue. And this has been pointed out repeatedly and yet opponents of the bike lanes CONTINUE to repeat this lie again and again.

One of the other major arterials that DDOT said would absorb the traffic was Beach Dr. Then the cycling advocates succeeded in keeping Beach Dr closed and as a result the DDOT study, as flawed as it was, became worthless.

The changes that DDOT have already made to remove the reversible lane and remove the rush hour parking restrictions have increased travel times along Connecticut significantly. It can now commonly take over 1 hour to go from Military to Dupont. This is the exact opposite of what transportation planning should be doing, which is improving safety and efficiency. Add the bike lanes and Connecticut becomes worthless.

This won’t encourage people to bike, but it will encourage people to move to places that are more convenient.

Over an hour, to drive four miles? That's terrible! I hate how slow and inconvenient driving is. No wonder nobody wants to drive. Have people considered transportation modes that would be faster and more efficient than driving? For example, Metro. Or buses in bus lanes. Or bicycling in bike lanes! Or walking.

It’s interesting that by making traffic miserable that you think it will convince people to ride a bike rather than just moving to a different location where the government is not doing it’s best to make your life as inconvenient as possible.

You can see this reflected in the stagnant home prices in CCDC and Barnaby Woods versus what’s happening across Western Avenue.

How would moving across Western Avenue from CCDC to Chevy Chase, Md., do anything to improve your commute, though, even if you think Montgomery County is less hostile to driving than D.C. is? You're still stuck driving on Connecticut Avenue. Doesn't seem likely that any home price differences have much to do with commute times here.

You may not understand this, but people that live in CCDC don’t all work in downtown DC.

Still doesn't explain why someone that may live only 1/2 mile away has some noticeably different commute whether you commute downtown or commute to the suburbs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:More grist for the mills: https://ggwash.org/view/93696/bikeshare-beat-ridership-surges-in-april-2024
CaBi rides were up 26% YoY in April.
And this image must have been made just to needle certain posters here:

Surprise surprise, most of those Connecticut Ave stations and almost all their users are located south of the Taft Bridge.

So you are saying that if it were safe to ride on Connecticut Avenue north of Taft Bridge, more people would ride there. I think you are probably right.

There are no bike lanes on Connecticut there either. Nor any plan to install them there. Interesting that you focus on bike lanes where there is limited demand and not bike lanes where there is more demand.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20240517-vision-zero-how-europe-cut-the-number-of-people-dying-on-its-roads

Interesting article about the origins of Vision Zero. It is very different than what it has transmogrified into. For instance, the very first project was removing concrete barriers. One of the other differences is that roads are defined according to their main use.

In short, the Connectict Ave plan goes against the very ideas it is supposed to represent.

Exactly. Under the classification system, Connecticut Avenue has the highest use classification (major arterial) short of limited access highways in DC. The problem is that by constraining Connecticut, DDOT would divert and squeeze more thru traffic, including trucks, into narrower collector streets and m very narrow “local” (lowest classification) streets in adjoining neighborhoods.

That’s definitely not Vision Zero but it might reflect zero vision.

There is no planet where Connecticut Avenue in DC is anything close to a "limited access highway" - you are doing a lot of work there conflating classifications.

No conflating anything. Connecticut has the highest functional classification in upper Northwest, "major arterial," aside from the Whitehurst and short I-66. Outside of these highways, Connecticut and the other major arterials are the roads that are supposed to carry the major thru traffic between Maryland, uptown Northwest and the western part of downtown Washington. Constraining Connecticut's capacity will divert a lot of cars and vehicles on to streets that were not planned or build for such traffic loads. Recall an experiment about 10 years ago to constrain Wisconsin Ave between Massachusetts Ave and Burleith. It did not end well but because the construction involved flexible pylons, it was relatively easy to address the resulting gridlock and diversion by reversing and removing the new road configuration. Connecticut bike lanes would be constructed for permanence, making them more difficult and far more costly to fix.

This is not what the DDOT study said. What the DDOT study said is that MD commuters would use OTHER ARTERIALS and Metro instead of Connecticut Avenue. And this has been pointed out repeatedly and yet opponents of the bike lanes CONTINUE to repeat this lie again and again.

One of the other major arterials that DDOT said would absorb the traffic was Beach Dr. Then the cycling advocates succeeded in keeping Beach Dr closed and as a result the DDOT study, as flawed as it was, became worthless.

The changes that DDOT have already made to remove the reversible lane and remove the rush hour parking restrictions have increased travel times along Connecticut significantly. It can now commonly take over 1 hour to go from Military to Dupont. This is the exact opposite of what transportation planning should be doing, which is improving safety and efficiency. Add the bike lanes and Connecticut becomes worthless.

This won’t encourage people to bike, but it will encourage people to move to places that are more convenient.

It wasn't the cycling advocates, though they supported it. At the end of the day, the National Park Service and Department of Interior's mission is to the parks, not commuters. The changes in Rock Creek were supported by the Sierra Club, the Rock Creek Conservancy and other environmental groups.

I still don't understand why they just don't encourage using Beach Drive/RCP instead of making bike lanes. Keep it closed from the MD border to Broad Branch then bikers can use the path along the road. Isn't that what the path is for???

Because Beach Drive is great if you're going where it goes, but not helpful if you're going somewhere else. For example, if you're going to stuff on Connecticut Avenue.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20240517-vision-zero-how-europe-cut-the-number-of-people-dying-on-its-roads

Interesting article about the origins of Vision Zero. It is very different than what it has transmogrified into. For instance, the very first project was removing concrete barriers. One of the other differences is that roads are defined according to their main use.

In short, the Connectict Ave plan goes against the very ideas it is supposed to represent.

Exactly. Under the classification system, Connecticut Avenue has the highest use classification (major arterial) short of limited access highways in DC. The problem is that by constraining Connecticut, DDOT would divert and squeeze more thru traffic, including trucks, into narrower collector streets and m very narrow “local” (lowest classification) streets in adjoining neighborhoods.

That’s definitely not Vision Zero but it might reflect zero vision.

There is no planet where Connecticut Avenue in DC is anything close to a "limited access highway" - you are doing a lot of work there conflating classifications.

No conflating anything. Connecticut has the highest functional classification in upper Northwest, "major arterial," aside from the Whitehurst and short I-66. Outside of these highways, Connecticut and the other major arterials are the roads that are supposed to carry the major thru traffic between Maryland, uptown Northwest and the western part of downtown Washington. Constraining Connecticut's capacity will divert a lot of cars and vehicles on to streets that were not planned or build for such traffic loads. Recall an experiment about 10 years ago to constrain Wisconsin Ave between Massachusetts Ave and Burleith. It did not end well but because the construction involved flexible pylons, it was relatively easy to address the resulting gridlock and diversion by reversing and removing the new road configuration. Connecticut bike lanes would be constructed for permanence, making them more difficult and far more costly to fix.

This is not what the DDOT study said. What the DDOT study said is that MD commuters would use OTHER ARTERIALS and Metro instead of Connecticut Avenue. And this has been pointed out repeatedly and yet opponents of the bike lanes CONTINUE to repeat this lie again and again.

One of the other major arterials that DDOT said would absorb the traffic was Beach Dr. Then the cycling advocates succeeded in keeping Beach Dr closed and as a result the DDOT study, as flawed as it was, became worthless.

The changes that DDOT have already made to remove the reversible lane and remove the rush hour parking restrictions have increased travel times along Connecticut significantly. It can now commonly take over 1 hour to go from Military to Dupont. This is the exact opposite of what transportation planning should be doing, which is improving safety and efficiency. Add the bike lanes and Connecticut becomes worthless.

This won’t encourage people to bike, but it will encourage people to move to places that are more convenient.

Over an hour, to drive four miles? That's terrible! I hate how slow and inconvenient driving is. No wonder nobody wants to drive. Have people considered transportation modes that would be faster and more efficient than driving? For example, Metro. Or buses in bus lanes. Or bicycling in bike lanes! Or walking.

It’s interesting that by making traffic miserable that you think it will convince people to ride a bike rather than just moving to a different location where the government is not doing it’s best to make your life as inconvenient as possible.

You can see this reflected in the stagnant home prices in CCDC and Barnaby Woods versus what’s happening across Western Avenue.

How would moving across Western Avenue from CCDC to Chevy Chase, Md., do anything to improve your commute, though, even if you think Montgomery County is less hostile to driving than D.C. is? You're still stuck driving on Connecticut Avenue. Doesn't seem likely that any home price differences have much to do with commute times here.

You may not understand this, but people that live in CCDC don’t all work in downtown DC.

Still doesn't explain why someone that may live only 1/2 mile away has some noticeably different commute whether you commute downtown or commute to the suburbs.

Imagine that the government tears up the street at the end of your driveway. Doesn't matter that it’s just a few feet. You’re not going anywhere.

[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:https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20240517-vision-zero-how-europe-cut-the-number-of-people-dying-on-its-roads

Interesting article about the origins of Vision Zero. It is very different than what it has transmogrified into. For instance, the very first project was removing concrete barriers. One of the other differences is that roads are defined according to their main use.

In short, the Connectict Ave plan goes against the very ideas it is supposed to represent.

Exactly. Under the classification system, Connecticut Avenue has the highest use classification (major arterial) short of limited access highways in DC. The problem is that by constraining Connecticut, DDOT would divert and squeeze more thru traffic, including trucks, into narrower collector streets and m very narrow “local” (lowest classification) streets in adjoining neighborhoods.

That’s definitely not Vision Zero but it might reflect zero vision.

There is no planet where Connecticut Avenue in DC is anything close to a "limited access highway" - you are doing a lot of work there conflating classifications.

No conflating anything. Connecticut has the highest functional classification in upper Northwest, "major arterial," aside from the Whitehurst and short I-66. Outside of these highways, Connecticut and the other major arterials are the roads that are supposed to carry the major thru traffic between Maryland, uptown Northwest and the western part of downtown Washington. Constraining Connecticut's capacity will divert a lot of cars and vehicles on to streets that were not planned or build for such traffic loads. Recall an experiment about 10 years ago to constrain Wisconsin Ave between Massachusetts Ave and Burleith. It did not end well but because the construction involved flexible pylons, it was relatively easy to address the resulting gridlock and diversion by reversing and removing the new road configuration. Connecticut bike lanes would be constructed for permanence, making them more difficult and far more costly to fix.

This is not what the DDOT study said. What the DDOT study said is that MD commuters would use OTHER ARTERIALS and Metro instead of Connecticut Avenue. And this has been pointed out repeatedly and yet opponents of the bike lanes CONTINUE to repeat this lie again and again.

One of the other major arterials that DDOT said would absorb the traffic was Beach Dr. Then the cycling advocates succeeded in keeping Beach Dr closed and as a result the DDOT study, as flawed as it was, became worthless.

The changes that DDOT have already made to remove the reversible lane and remove the rush hour parking restrictions have increased travel times along Connecticut significantly. It can now commonly take over 1 hour to go from Military to Dupont. This is the exact opposite of what transportation planning should be doing, which is improving safety and efficiency. Add the bike lanes and Connecticut becomes worthless.

This won’t encourage people to bike, but it will encourage people to move to places that are more convenient.

Over an hour, to drive four miles? That's terrible! I hate how slow and inconvenient driving is. No wonder nobody wants to drive. Have people considered transportation modes that would be faster and more efficient than driving? For example, Metro. Or buses in bus lanes. Or bicycling in bike lanes! Or walking.

It’s interesting that by making traffic miserable that you think it will convince people to ride a bike rather than just moving to a different location where the government is not doing it’s best to make your life as inconvenient as possible.

You can see this reflected in the stagnant home prices in CCDC and Barnaby Woods versus what’s happening across Western Avenue.

How would moving across Western Avenue from CCDC to Chevy Chase, Md., do anything to improve your commute, though, even if you think Montgomery County is less hostile to driving than D.C. is? You're still stuck driving on Connecticut Avenue. Doesn't seem likely that any home price differences have much to do with commute times here.

You may not understand this, but people that live in CCDC don’t all work in downtown DC.

Still doesn't explain why someone that may live only 1/2 mile away has some noticeably different commute whether you commute downtown or commute to the suburbs.

Imagine that the government tears up the street at the end of your driveway. Doesn't matter that it’s just a few feet. You’re not going anywhere.

You're not going anywhere by car.

[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:https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20240517-vision-zero-how-europe-cut-the-number-of-people-dying-on-its-roads

Interesting article about the origins of Vision Zero. It is very different than what it has transmogrified into. For instance, the very first project was removing concrete barriers. One of the other differences is that roads are defined according to their main use.

In short, the Connectict Ave plan goes against the very ideas it is supposed to represent.

Exactly. Under the classification system, Connecticut Avenue has the highest use classification (major arterial) short of limited access highways in DC. The problem is that by constraining Connecticut, DDOT would divert and squeeze more thru traffic, including trucks, into narrower collector streets and m very narrow “local” (lowest classification) streets in adjoining neighborhoods.

That’s definitely not Vision Zero but it might reflect zero vision.

There is no planet where Connecticut Avenue in DC is anything close to a "limited access highway" - you are doing a lot of work there conflating classifications.

No conflating anything. Connecticut has the highest functional classification in upper Northwest, "major arterial," aside from the Whitehurst and short I-66. Outside of these highways, Connecticut and the other major arterials are the roads that are supposed to carry the major thru traffic between Maryland, uptown Northwest and the western part of downtown Washington. Constraining Connecticut's capacity will divert a lot of cars and vehicles on to streets that were not planned or build for such traffic loads. Recall an experiment about 10 years ago to constrain Wisconsin Ave between Massachusetts Ave and Burleith. It did not end well but because the construction involved flexible pylons, it was relatively easy to address the resulting gridlock and diversion by reversing and removing the new road configuration. Connecticut bike lanes would be constructed for permanence, making them more difficult and far more costly to fix.

This is not what the DDOT study said. What the DDOT study said is that MD commuters would use OTHER ARTERIALS and Metro instead of Connecticut Avenue. And this has been pointed out repeatedly and yet opponents of the bike lanes CONTINUE to repeat this lie again and again.

One of the other major arterials that DDOT said would absorb the traffic was Beach Dr. Then the cycling advocates succeeded in keeping Beach Dr closed and as a result the DDOT study, as flawed as it was, became worthless.

The changes that DDOT have already made to remove the reversible lane and remove the rush hour parking restrictions have increased travel times along Connecticut significantly. It can now commonly take over 1 hour to go from Military to Dupont. This is the exact opposite of what transportation planning should be doing, which is improving safety and efficiency. Add the bike lanes and Connecticut becomes worthless.

This won’t encourage people to bike, but it will encourage people to move to places that are more convenient.

Over an hour, to drive four miles? That's terrible! I hate how slow and inconvenient driving is. No wonder nobody wants to drive. Have people considered transportation modes that would be faster and more efficient than driving? For example, Metro. Or buses in bus lanes. Or bicycling in bike lanes! Or walking.

It’s interesting that by making traffic miserable that you think it will convince people to ride a bike rather than just moving to a different location where the government is not doing it’s best to make your life as inconvenient as possible.

You can see this reflected in the stagnant home prices in CCDC and Barnaby Woods versus what’s happening across Western Avenue.

How would moving across Western Avenue from CCDC to Chevy Chase, Md., do anything to improve your commute, though, even if you think Montgomery County is less hostile to driving than D.C. is? You're still stuck driving on Connecticut Avenue. Doesn't seem likely that any home price differences have much to do with commute times here.

You may not understand this, but people that live in CCDC don’t all work in downtown DC.

Still doesn't explain why someone that may live only 1/2 mile away has some noticeably different commute whether you commute downtown or commute to the suburbs.

Imagine that the government tears up the street at the end of your driveway. Doesn't matter that it’s just a few feet. You’re not going anywhere.

That's a ridiculous argument. What's the real world equivalent for CC DC vs. CC MD? This isn't an existential discussion here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People who can see people on bicycles know there are more people on bicycles, now.

People who can't, don't.

People who can't see them certainly shouldn't be operating a motor vehicle.

Agreed. If you can't see people when they are on bikes, you should not be driving.

And what about cyclists killing each other? What’s the criteria and responsibility there? And shouldn’t the Vision Zero response be to make the bike lanes smaller to make the cyclists behave less recklessly so they don’t kill people?

Making bike lanes smaller just squeezes them into smaller spaces and would actually be less safe.

Bike lanes that take up less space will reduce cyclist speed, making things safer for everyone. Win-win.

It’s interesting that the rules of Vision Zero don’t apply the same after a cyclist kills another cyclist through recklessness. Even more interesting is that the cycling activists don’t seem to care about this dead cyclist at all. Haven’t said a word.

It’s fascinating how little the cycling activists want to talk about this. Want to cite traffic fatalities non-stop but don’t want to get into the causes.

Unfortunately there are two dead cyclists so far in DC in 2024. One was trying to cycle on 295 and the other who was riding a bike share e-bike without a helmet was killed from a collision with another cyclist riding a bike share e-bike. A helmet would probably have saved their life (but that’s too much common sense against the nonsense contrarian argument that helmets make cyclists less safe).

I think it’s time to start ignoring the bikebros.

This is not just a DC thing, but e-bikes are noticeably more dangerous than pedal bikes. Its not just the extra weight and size either, but the fact it lets novice riders move at speeds they really aren't ready for. They really do veer into moped territory and probably should be treated more like them.

Ironically though, the second cyclist died because he stopped at a light.

The cyclist died because they hit their head on the ground after a collision with another cyclist. You people are nuts.

Does anyone know when they will hold the candlelight vigil? Or is that only for cyclists not killed by other cyclists?

Was on Penn Ave today and didn’t see one of those ghost bike memorials. Looks like they are trying to memory hole this incident.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So the criminal lobby’s friend, Charles Allen, now wants to prevent DDOT from funding any safety improvements at all along Connecticut Ave. (like a raised crosswalk on Davenport and Connecticut so that Murch kids can walk more safely to school) UNLESS Allen gets his bike lanes.

Is Allen a bratty child or a public servant?!

Never mind, this is my favorite tantrum

And when pedestrians die will you consider that a tantrum too?

A cyclist nearly hit me walking across Utah Avenue in a crosswalk last week. He eyed me, thinking I would stop in the middle of the street for him and when I didn’t he swerved out of the way going probably 25 mph through the stop.

Cyclists are just as dangerous as cars in DC. They constantly run red lights on Connecticut.

How many pedestrians have died as a result of cyclists in DC in the past 100 years? Like 2 or 3?

Now do cars.

A cyclist just killed another cyclist. This is not a good talking point for you.

yawn

I wish cyclists would realize that acting like jerks does not exactly make other commuters feel very sympathetic to their demands.

I wish motorists would realize that acting like jerks by dismissing cycling as a "hobby" rather than a form of transportation and treating them like road chattel does not exactly make others feel very sympathetic to their demands.

If it’s not a hobby, why do cyclists where costumes?

I don’t have a special outfit I wear when I drive or take the subway.

Don’t get me wrong. I think it’s amusing when overweight middle aged cyclists going eight miles an hour for, like, 20 minutes dress up like they’re in the Tour de France (good job burning all 75 of those calories!).

It seems evident that cyclists think of it as a hobby too.

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20240517-vision-zero-how-europe-cut-the-number-of-people-dying-on-its-roads

Interesting article about the origins of Vision Zero. It is very different than what it has transmogrified into. For instance, the very first project was removing concrete barriers. One of the other differences is that roads are defined according to their main use.

In short, the Connectict Ave plan goes against the very ideas it is supposed to represent.

Exactly. Under the classification system, Connecticut Avenue has the highest use classification (major arterial) short of limited access highways in DC. The problem is that by constraining Connecticut, DDOT would divert and squeeze more thru traffic, including trucks, into narrower collector streets and m very narrow “local” (lowest classification) streets in adjoining neighborhoods.

That’s definitely not Vision Zero but it might reflect zero vision.

There is no planet where Connecticut Avenue in DC is anything close to a "limited access highway" - you are doing a lot of work there conflating classifications.

No conflating anything. Connecticut has the highest functional classification in upper Northwest, "major arterial," aside from the Whitehurst and short I-66. Outside of these highways, Connecticut and the other major arterials are the roads that are supposed to carry the major thru traffic between Maryland, uptown Northwest and the western part of downtown Washington. Constraining Connecticut's capacity will divert a lot of cars and vehicles on to streets that were not planned or build for such traffic loads. Recall an experiment about 10 years ago to constrain Wisconsin Ave between Massachusetts Ave and Burleith. It did not end well but because the construction involved flexible pylons, it was relatively easy to address the resulting gridlock and diversion by reversing and removing the new road configuration. Connecticut bike lanes would be constructed for permanence, making them more difficult and far more costly to fix.

This is not what the DDOT study said. What the DDOT study said is that MD commuters would use OTHER ARTERIALS and Metro instead of Connecticut Avenue. And this has been pointed out repeatedly and yet opponents of the bike lanes CONTINUE to repeat this lie again and again.

One of the other major arterials that DDOT said would absorb the traffic was Beach Dr. Then the cycling advocates succeeded in keeping Beach Dr closed and as a result the DDOT study, as flawed as it was, became worthless.

The changes that DDOT have already made to remove the reversible lane and remove the rush hour parking restrictions have increased travel times along Connecticut significantly. It can now commonly take over 1 hour to go from Military to Dupont. This is the exact opposite of what transportation planning should be doing, which is improving safety and efficiency. Add the bike lanes and Connecticut becomes worthless.

This won’t encourage people to bike, but it will encourage people to move to places that are more convenient.

It wasn't the cycling advocates, though they supported it. At the end of the day, the National Park Service and Department of Interior's mission is to the parks, not commuters. The changes in Rock Creek were supported by the Sierra Club, the Rock Creek Conservancy and other environmental groups.

I still don't understand why they just don't encourage using Beach Drive/RCP instead of making bike lanes. Keep it closed from the MD border to Broad Branch then bikers can use the path along the road. Isn't that what the path is for???

If you are talking about commuting downtown, then sure. But as explained previously, most urban bike trips are about running errands. So by your suggestion, someone wanting to go from Woodley Park to Forest Hills (Politcs and Prose, for example) would go via RCP rather than straight up Ct ave. How does that make any sense?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:More grist for the mills: https://ggwash.org/view/93696/bikeshare-beat-ridership-surges-in-april-2024
CaBi rides were up 26% YoY in April.
And this image must have been made just to needle certain posters here:

Surprise surprise, most of those Connecticut Ave stations and almost all their users are located south of the Taft Bridge.

So you are saying that if it were safe to ride on Connecticut Avenue north of Taft Bridge, more people would ride there. I think you are probably right.

There are no bike lanes on Connecticut there either. Nor any plan to install them there. Interesting that you focus on bike lanes where there is limited demand and not bike lanes where there is more demand.

There are plenty of parallel options for bike lanes one you get below the bridge. Look at the network, and see all the bike lanes there. Now look at a map north of Taft Bridge and try to explain where the parallel options for bike lanes could be located.

DDOT spent years on this and couldn't find once, hence Connecticut Avenue bike lanes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:More grist for the mills: https://ggwash.org/view/93696/bikeshare-beat-ridership-surges-in-april-2024
CaBi rides were up 26% YoY in April.
And this image must have been made just to needle certain posters here:

Surprise surprise, most of those Connecticut Ave stations and almost all their users are located south of the Taft Bridge.

So you are saying that if it were safe to ride on Connecticut Avenue north of Taft Bridge, more people would ride there. I think you are probably right.

There are no bike lanes on Connecticut there either. Nor any plan to install them there. Interesting that you focus on bike lanes where there is limited demand and not bike lanes where there is more demand.

There are plenty of parallel options for bike lanes one you get below the bridge. Look at the network, and see all the bike lanes there. Now look at a map north of Taft Bridge and try to explain where the parallel options for bike lanes could be located.

DDOT spent years on this and couldn't find once, hence Connecticut Avenue bike lanes.

How did you type “parallel options” without laughing at how ridiculous you sound. Unless you are posting from somewhere not DC. Because there are two exactly parallel options to Connecticut Avenue and people keep telling you about them.