Options for opposing Connecticut Avenue changes?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If I read this correctly, it appears that $1047222
of the approximately $1.6 million in contributions received during the filing period came from only 6 people (with one donor providing $700000). Six people!!! This is a tiny special interest group posing as some populist movement.


https://waba.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/WABA-FY21-PD.pdf

Who cares? Most of us are perfectly capable of voicing our own views without paying WABA to do it for us.

Indeed. I've never paid a cent to WABA. Not even membership dues, let alone an additional contribution. But I have the t-shirt to prove I'm a member of the bicycle lobby.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If I read this correctly, it appears that $1047222
of the approximately $1.6 million in contributions received during the filing period came from only 6 people (with one donor providing $700000). Six people!!! This is a tiny special interest group posing as some populist movement.


https://waba.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/WABA-FY21-PD.pdf

Who cares? Most of us are perfectly capable of voicing our own views without paying WABA to do it for us.

Indeed. I've never paid a cent to WABA. Not even membership dues, let alone an additional contribution. But I have the t-shirt to prove I'm a member of the bicycle lobby.

Another fan of bikes and lanes who is not paid for nor has ever paid WABA for lobbying

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If I read this correctly, it appears that $1047222
of the approximately $1.6 million in contributions received during the filing period came from only 6 people (with one donor providing $700000). Six people!!! This is a tiny special interest group posing as some populist movement.


https://waba.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/WABA-FY21-PD.pdf

It's really only the opponents of the bike lanes who are talking about WABA as the main indicator of support for them. I donate $35 or whatever to them every year because I like the idea of there being some public advocacy for bike infrastructure, but I support bike infrastructure because it's a good idea and because I already use the existing lanes, not because there's a group asking for it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My guess is that the CT Avenue bike lanes have proven to be complicated and the city does not have the resources to get it done in the next couple years. The city's finances are a mess and they are now bleeding taxpayers. It will get done, but probably not until 2028.

The smart thing to do here is to build out bike infrastructure on more local roads. You can get a lot more done with the same money and political capital. Build out the Reno lanes, make some good East-West routes. When 2028 comes around, then CT Ave. seems like a no brainer because it completes the local network.

Classic NIMBY tripe....build it somewhere, just not here.

Fact: Reno Road doesn't have shops and services on it, so other than as a through road, there is no utility to having bike lanes on it.
Also Fact: You would need to remove more than a full lane of three on Reno, to implement a fully protected bike infrastructure on that public space. Not worth the money.

You missed the part about East-West routes. You could do Fessenden, Albermarle and Van Ness and with just those plus Reno, you have access to Murch, Deal, Jackson-Reed, UDC, Two metros, and connect to businesses on Wisconsin and Connecticut. That's a lot of local traffic that can be replaced with bike trips.

Reno can afford to lose its left turn lanes. Bike lanes and no left turn lanes would slow Reno down and make it less attractive as a cut-through road while making it more useful to locals.

AND Connecticut.

Right. Someone gas been looking at the bike master plan.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My guess is that the CT Avenue bike lanes have proven to be complicated and the city does not have the resources to get it done in the next couple years. The city's finances are a mess and they are now bleeding taxpayers. It will get done, but probably not until 2028.

The smart thing to do here is to build out bike infrastructure on more local roads. You can get a lot more done with the same money and political capital. Build out the Reno lanes, make some good East-West routes. When 2028 comes around, then CT Ave. seems like a no brainer because it completes the local network.

Classic NIMBY tripe....build it somewhere, just not here.

Fact: Reno Road doesn't have shops and services on it, so other than as a through road, there is no utility to having bike lanes on it.
Also Fact: You would need to remove more than a full lane of three on Reno, to implement a fully protected bike infrastructure on that public space. Not worth the money.

You missed the part about East-West routes. You could do Fessenden, Albermarle and Van Ness and with just those plus Reno, you have access to Murch, Deal, Jackson-Reed, UDC, Two metros, and connect to businesses on Wisconsin and Connecticut. That's a lot of local traffic that can be replaced with bike trips.

Reno can afford to lose its left turn lanes. Bike lanes and no left turn lanes would slow Reno down and make it less attractive as a cut-through road while making it more useful to locals.

AND Connecticut.

Right. Someone gas been looking at the bike master plan.

Do we really expect people on their bikes to be stopping by the stores on Connecticut? That's the argument? So the fifty to one hundred cyclists a day can stop to grab a bagel on their way to work? Instead of the thousands of cars? Sure, let's spend millions of dollars on this genius revenue-generating plan. All because those other available routes aren't on commercial thoroughfares. This has jumped the shark.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My guess is that the CT Avenue bike lanes have proven to be complicated and the city does not have the resources to get it done in the next couple years. The city's finances are a mess and they are now bleeding taxpayers. It will get done, but probably not until 2028.

The smart thing to do here is to build out bike infrastructure on more local roads. You can get a lot more done with the same money and political capital. Build out the Reno lanes, make some good East-West routes. When 2028 comes around, then CT Ave. seems like a no brainer because it completes the local network.

Classic NIMBY tripe....build it somewhere, just not here.

Fact: Reno Road doesn't have shops and services on it, so other than as a through road, there is no utility to having bike lanes on it.
Also Fact: You would need to remove more than a full lane of three on Reno, to implement a fully protected bike infrastructure on that public space. Not worth the money.

You missed the part about East-West routes. You could do Fessenden, Albermarle and Van Ness and with just those plus Reno, you have access to Murch, Deal, Jackson-Reed, UDC, Two metros, and connect to businesses on Wisconsin and Connecticut. That's a lot of local traffic that can be replaced with bike trips.

Reno can afford to lose its left turn lanes. Bike lanes and no left turn lanes would slow Reno down and make it less attractive as a cut-through road while making it more useful to locals.

AND Connecticut.

Right. Someone gas been looking at the bike master plan.

Do we really expect people on their bikes to be stopping by the stores on Connecticut? That's the argument? So the fifty to one hundred cyclists a day can stop to grab a bagel on their way to work? Instead of the thousands of cars? Sure, let's spend millions of dollars on this genius revenue-generating plan. All because those other available routes aren't on commercial thoroughfares. This has jumped the shark.

Instead of the thousands of Maryland drivers who are driving right by the stores on Connecticut and never stopping? Yes, we do expect people on bikes to shop on Connecticut, you know why? Because they're already doing it now.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My guess is that the CT Avenue bike lanes have proven to be complicated and the city does not have the resources to get it done in the next couple years. The city's finances are a mess and they are now bleeding taxpayers. It will get done, but probably not until 2028.

The smart thing to do here is to build out bike infrastructure on more local roads. You can get a lot more done with the same money and political capital. Build out the Reno lanes, make some good East-West routes. When 2028 comes around, then CT Ave. seems like a no brainer because it completes the local network.

Classic NIMBY tripe....build it somewhere, just not here.

Fact: Reno Road doesn't have shops and services on it, so other than as a through road, there is no utility to having bike lanes on it.
Also Fact: You would need to remove more than a full lane of three on Reno, to implement a fully protected bike infrastructure on that public space. Not worth the money.

You missed the part about East-West routes. You could do Fessenden, Albermarle and Van Ness and with just those plus Reno, you have access to Murch, Deal, Jackson-Reed, UDC, Two metros, and connect to businesses on Wisconsin and Connecticut. That's a lot of local traffic that can be replaced with bike trips.

Reno can afford to lose its left turn lanes. Bike lanes and no left turn lanes would slow Reno down and make it less attractive as a cut-through road while making it more useful to locals.

AND Connecticut.

Right. Someone gas been looking at the bike master plan.

Do we really expect people on their bikes to be stopping by the stores on Connecticut? That's the argument? So the fifty to one hundred cyclists a day can stop to grab a bagel on their way to work? Instead of the thousands of cars? Sure, let's spend millions of dollars on this genius revenue-generating plan. All because those other available routes aren't on commercial thoroughfares. This has jumped the shark.

No. The argument is that, in its current configuration, CT Ave is extremely dangerous for residents and commuters alike and provides an implicit subsidy for non-DC residents to adopt modes of commuting that are taxing to DC residents, destructive to the global environment, harmful to the city’s culture and livability, and completely at odds with all that we know about how to create better cities.

[Anonymous]

What? I buy bagels on my bike commute to work, and bring them home for the family. This is very doable. It's what the dorky bags on the sides are for.

[Anonymous]

this is the CT Ave the safety opponents want to preserve

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My guess is that the CT Avenue bike lanes have proven to be complicated and the city does not have the resources to get it done in the next couple years. The city's finances are a mess and they are now bleeding taxpayers. It will get done, but probably not until 2028.

The smart thing to do here is to build out bike infrastructure on more local roads. You can get a lot more done with the same money and political capital. Build out the Reno lanes, make some good East-West routes. When 2028 comes around, then CT Ave. seems like a no brainer because it completes the local network.

Classic NIMBY tripe....build it somewhere, just not here.

Fact: Reno Road doesn't have shops and services on it, so other than as a through road, there is no utility to having bike lanes on it.
Also Fact: You would need to remove more than a full lane of three on Reno, to implement a fully protected bike infrastructure on that public space. Not worth the money.

You missed the part about East-West routes. You could do Fessenden, Albermarle and Van Ness and with just those plus Reno, you have access to Murch, Deal, Jackson-Reed, UDC, Two metros, and connect to businesses on Wisconsin and Connecticut. That's a lot of local traffic that can be replaced with bike trips.

Reno can afford to lose its left turn lanes. Bike lanes and no left turn lanes would slow Reno down and make it less attractive as a cut-through road while making it more useful to locals.

AND Connecticut.

Right. Someone gas been looking at the bike master plan.

Do we really expect people on their bikes to be stopping by the stores on Connecticut? That's the argument? So the fifty to one hundred cyclists a day can stop to grab a bagel on their way to work? Instead of the thousands of cars? Sure, let's spend millions of dollars on this genius revenue-generating plan. All because those other available routes aren't on commercial thoroughfares. This has jumped the shark.

No, that already happens. We expect people who live in the area to use a bicycle to travel to a local business more often than they would otherwise do today because the average length of a car trip is 2 miles nationally and even shorter here and that is trivial for most of the population to do by bike if they weren't afraid of getting run over by cars.

[Anonymous]

Biking up 7% in the DC region between 2019-2022

https://www.axios.com/2023/10/12/biking-cities-bike-friendly-bicycle-us-map

So no, biking as an option is not receding.

[Anonymous]

Connecticut Ave has wide sidewalks. Just paint bike lanes on the outer edges like in Europe and keep road capacity for busses and other vehicles. Win-win.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Connecticut Ave has wide sidewalks. Just paint bike lanes on the outer edges like in Europe and keep road capacity for busses and other vehicles. Win-win.

Yes, that would be good. Wide sidewalks for pedestrians. Then the outer lanes turned into bike lanes. Then the remaining lanes for buses. Win-win.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Connecticut Ave has wide sidewalks. Just paint bike lanes on the outer edges like in Europe and keep road capacity for busses and other vehicles. Win-win.

You mean right over/into all those street trees? And take away the sidewalks from pedestrians rather than remove a single lane of 6 from a stroad? No thanks.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Connecticut Ave has wide sidewalks. Just paint bike lanes on the outer edges like in Europe and keep road capacity for busses and other vehicles. Win-win.

You mean right over/into all those street trees? And take away the sidewalks from pedestrians rather than remove a single lane of 6 from a stroad? No thanks.

Plant better trees, than paint 3-4-foot wide bike lanes on either side. The rest for pedestrian sidewalks. Maybe the streeteries will have to shrink but many cities are restricting them now anyway.