Options for opposing Connecticut Avenue changes?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Right - someone has to be in very good shape to ride a bike all the way up CT ave. Which is why so few people do v.s. the riders down in the center of town. You could commute down CT ave and then take a bus or metro with the bike back up the hill - not sure how likely that scenario is

E-bikes are a thing, and they have become quite popular. I would assume that most individuals who would be doing that commute on a regular basis will just use e-bikes to make the hill climb easier. Over here on the Hill, cargo e-bikes that are set up to transport children are very popular as well.

No parent would dream of putting a young child in a car without a car seat (and you'll be cited by the police if you don't). And yet these people who put young children on bikes and go toodling off into traffic are like "I'll just be careful!" I mean, what? And how is this even legal?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Right - someone has to be in very good shape to ride a bike all the way up CT ave. Which is why so few people do v.s. the riders down in the center of town. You could commute down CT ave and then take a bus or metro with the bike back up the hill - not sure how likely that scenario is

E-bikes are a thing, and they have become quite popular. I would assume that most individuals who would be doing that commute on a regular basis will just use e-bikes to make the hill climb easier. Over here on the Hill, cargo e-bikes that are set up to transport children are very popular as well.

No parent would dream of putting a young child in a car without a car seat (and you'll be cited by the police if you don't). And yet these people who put young children on bikes and go toodling off into traffic are like "I'll just be careful!" I mean, what? And how is this even legal?

Didn’t you already post this?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The city has had bike lanes for more than a decade, and the government has bent over backwards to promote them, and yet biking remains the least popular means of transportation.

Surveys show biking is less popular than driving, taking the subway, riding the bus, taking a cab/uber, walking, carpooling and commuter rail

It's surprising that the city has put so much effort into promoting bike lanes (they even pay teachers to bike), for so long, and still it hasn't really caught on.

I guess maybe it only appeals to a small segment of the population.

All this bandwidth dedicated to the least popular way of getting around in Washington D.C.

the “bandwith” taken up by bike lanes is 90% people freaking out about bikelanes because they represent change and are for some reason very triggering to people.

In this case, people could care less about the bike lane part. It's the closing down a third of Connecticut Avenue part that people hate. And for good reason, it's a stupendously stupid idea that will actively harm the local community. If you all had decided to cannibalize the sidewalk for your scheme, it'd still be a bad idea but not a stupendously bad idea and there wouldn't be any outrage.

It isn't closing down a third when you look at it realistically. As it is, the left lane is backed up because people make turns. That goes away. The right lane is backed up with streeteries and double parked cars...that goes away. Still two through lanes, a buffer for pedestrians and a safe lane for bikes.

That's just blatantly not true.

Agree. The map I looked at is only two car lanes and has potential for turning vehicles to stop traffic in both lanes, left and right, with no middle through lane at rush hour when normally parking would have been restricted (making it three lanes wide). Now it will always be two lanes, with no unblockable lanes. I'm also wondering, where are the business delivery trucks going to stop? Right now they block the curb lane, so I guess they will either be blocking the bike lane or one of the car lanes, reducing it to just one lane (and help us all if someone is trying to turn left from that lane).

Where does PP get the idea that left turns and deliveries are going away?

Right, and double parked cars? There will be more of those when 50% of the parking goes away. People are already notorious for putting their flashers on and blocking a lane while they "just" pick up their dry cleaning or carryout food.

And for that reason you would deny cyclists a safe commute?

God forbid you ask the city to enforce its traffic laws. We would welcome your help.

In all seriousness, I hope there is some industrious soul making a list of all the reasons that NIMBYs on this thread have trotted out to oppose safe infrastructure for cyclists. It would be an absolutely riot of a read.

Uh, what? Do you think you have some inalienable right to ride your bike in Washington DC? Do we have to create special lanes for people who like to travel by roller blade too? Take the bus or the subway or walk, ***hole.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Right - someone has to be in very good shape to ride a bike all the way up CT ave. Which is why so few people do v.s. the riders down in the center of town. You could commute down CT ave and then take a bus or metro with the bike back up the hill - not sure how likely that scenario is

E-bikes are a thing, and they have become quite popular. I would assume that most individuals who would be doing that commute on a regular basis will just use e-bikes to make the hill climb easier. Over here on the Hill, cargo e-bikes that are set up to transport children are very popular as well.

No parent would dream of putting a young child in a car without a car seat (and you'll be cited by the police if you don't). And yet these people who put young children on bikes and go toodling off into traffic are like "I'll just be careful!" I mean, what? And how is this even legal?

Didn’t you already post this?

No. But I did see some people doing some insane stuff with their kids on bikes during rush hour. You'd think child protective services would have something to say about this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The city has had bike lanes for more than a decade, and the government has bent over backwards to promote them, and yet biking remains the least popular means of transportation.

Surveys show biking is less popular than driving, taking the subway, riding the bus, taking a cab/uber, walking, carpooling and commuter rail

It's surprising that the city has put so much effort into promoting bike lanes (they even pay teachers to bike), for so long, and still it hasn't really caught on.

I guess maybe it only appeals to a small segment of the population.

All this bandwidth dedicated to the least popular way of getting around in Washington D.C.

the “bandwith” taken up by bike lanes is 90% people freaking out about bikelanes because they represent change and are for some reason very triggering to people.

In this case, people could care less about the bike lane part. It's the closing down a third of Connecticut Avenue part that people hate. And for good reason, it's a stupendously stupid idea that will actively harm the local community. If you all had decided to cannibalize the sidewalk for your scheme, it'd still be a bad idea but not a stupendously bad idea and there wouldn't be any outrage.

It isn't closing down a third when you look at it realistically. As it is, the left lane is backed up because people make turns. That goes away. The right lane is backed up with streeteries and double parked cars...that goes away. Still two through lanes, a buffer for pedestrians and a safe lane for bikes.

That's just blatantly not true.

Agree. The map I looked at is only two car lanes and has potential for turning vehicles to stop traffic in both lanes, left and right, with no middle through lane at rush hour when normally parking would have been restricted (making it three lanes wide). Now it will always be two lanes, with no unblockable lanes. I'm also wondering, where are the business delivery trucks going to stop? Right now they block the curb lane, so I guess they will either be blocking the bike lane or one of the car lanes, reducing it to just one lane (and help us all if someone is trying to turn left from that lane).

Where does PP get the idea that left turns and deliveries are going away?

Right, and double parked cars? There will be more of those when 50% of the parking goes away. People are already notorious for putting their flashers on and blocking a lane while they "just" pick up their dry cleaning or carryout food.

And for that reason you would deny cyclists a safe commute?

God forbid you ask the city to enforce its traffic laws. We would welcome your help.

In all seriousness, I hope there is some industrious soul making a list of all the reasons that NIMBYs on this thread have trotted out to oppose safe infrastructure for cyclists. It would be an absolutely riot of a read.

Uh, what? Do you think you have some inalienable right to ride your bike in Washington DC? Do we have to create special lanes for people who like to travel by roller blade too? Take the bus or the subway or walk, ***hole.

It’s challenging to reason with murderous psychopaths so forgive me if I don’t try. Suffice to say that your mentality is the reason that bike paths are unfortunately needed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The city has had bike lanes for more than a decade, and the government has bent over backwards to promote them, and yet biking remains the least popular means of transportation.

Surveys show biking is less popular than driving, taking the subway, riding the bus, taking a cab/uber, walking, carpooling and commuter rail

It's surprising that the city has put so much effort into promoting bike lanes (they even pay teachers to bike), for so long, and still it hasn't really caught on.

I guess maybe it only appeals to a small segment of the population.

All this bandwidth dedicated to the least popular way of getting around in Washington D.C.

the “bandwith” taken up by bike lanes is 90% people freaking out about bikelanes because they represent change and are for some reason very triggering to people.

In this case, people could care less about the bike lane part. It's the closing down a third of Connecticut Avenue part that people hate. And for good reason, it's a stupendously stupid idea that will actively harm the local community. If you all had decided to cannibalize the sidewalk for your scheme, it'd still be a bad idea but not a stupendously bad idea and there wouldn't be any outrage.

It isn't closing down a third when you look at it realistically. As it is, the left lane is backed up because people make turns. That goes away. The right lane is backed up with streeteries and double parked cars...that goes away. Still two through lanes, a buffer for pedestrians and a safe lane for bikes.

That's just blatantly not true.

Agree. The map I looked at is only two car lanes and has potential for turning vehicles to stop traffic in both lanes, left and right, with no middle through lane at rush hour when normally parking would have been restricted (making it three lanes wide). Now it will always be two lanes, with no unblockable lanes. I'm also wondering, where are the business delivery trucks going to stop? Right now they block the curb lane, so I guess they will either be blocking the bike lane or one of the car lanes, reducing it to just one lane (and help us all if someone is trying to turn left from that lane).

Where does PP get the idea that left turns and deliveries are going away?

Right, and double parked cars? There will be more of those when 50% of the parking goes away. People are already notorious for putting their flashers on and blocking a lane while they "just" pick up their dry cleaning or carryout food.

And for that reason you would deny cyclists a safe commute?

God forbid you ask the city to enforce its traffic laws. We would welcome your help.

In all seriousness, I hope there is some industrious soul making a list of all the reasons that NIMBYs on this thread have trotted out to oppose safe infrastructure for cyclists. It would be an absolutely riot of a read.

Uh, what? Do you think you have some inalienable right to ride your bike in Washington DC? Do we have to create special lanes for people who like to travel by roller blade too? Take the bus or the subway or walk, ***hole.

It’s challenging to reason with murderous psychopaths so forgive me if I don’t try. Suffice to say that your mentality is the reason that bike paths are unfortunately needed.

I have no idea what this word salad is supposed to mean, though it reads like an indictment of our educational system.

[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:The city has had bike lanes for more than a decade, and the government has bent over backwards to promote them, and yet biking remains the least popular means of transportation.

Surveys show biking is less popular than driving, taking the subway, riding the bus, taking a cab/uber, walking, carpooling and commuter rail

It's surprising that the city has put so much effort into promoting bike lanes (they even pay teachers to bike), for so long, and still it hasn't really caught on.

I guess maybe it only appeals to a small segment of the population.

All this bandwidth dedicated to the least popular way of getting around in Washington D.C.

the “bandwith” taken up by bike lanes is 90% people freaking out about bikelanes because they represent change and are for some reason very triggering to people.

In this case, people could care less about the bike lane part. It's the closing down a third of Connecticut Avenue part that people hate. And for good reason, it's a stupendously stupid idea that will actively harm the local community. If you all had decided to cannibalize the sidewalk for your scheme, it'd still be a bad idea but not a stupendously bad idea and there wouldn't be any outrage.

It isn't closing down a third when you look at it realistically. As it is, the left lane is backed up because people make turns. That goes away. The right lane is backed up with streeteries and double parked cars...that goes away. Still two through lanes, a buffer for pedestrians and a safe lane for bikes.

That's just blatantly not true.

Agree. The map I looked at is only two car lanes and has potential for turning vehicles to stop traffic in both lanes, left and right, with no middle through lane at rush hour when normally parking would have been restricted (making it three lanes wide). Now it will always be two lanes, with no unblockable lanes. I'm also wondering, where are the business delivery trucks going to stop? Right now they block the curb lane, so I guess they will either be blocking the bike lane or one of the car lanes, reducing it to just one lane (and help us all if someone is trying to turn left from that lane).

Where does PP get the idea that left turns and deliveries are going away?

Right, and double parked cars? There will be more of those when 50% of the parking goes away. People are already notorious for putting their flashers on and blocking a lane while they "just" pick up their dry cleaning or carryout food.

And for that reason you would deny cyclists a safe commute?

God forbid you ask the city to enforce its traffic laws. We would welcome your help.

In all seriousness, I hope there is some industrious soul making a list of all the reasons that NIMBYs on this thread have trotted out to oppose safe infrastructure for cyclists. It would be an absolutely riot of a read.

Uh, what? Do you think you have some inalienable right to ride your bike in Washington DC? Do we have to create special lanes for people who like to travel by roller blade too? Take the bus or the subway or walk, ***hole.

It’s challenging to reason with murderous psychopaths so forgive me if I don’t try. Suffice to say that your mentality is the reason that bike paths are unfortunately needed.

I have no idea what this word salad is supposed to mean, though it reads like an indictment of our educational system.

DP but I’ll sum it up. You’re whiny and very aggressive and none of it matters bc the lanes are coming so have a nice day.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The amount of people who will be willing to cart their kids to and from school on an e-bike cargo bike every day rain or shine through snow, 95 degree summer days, rain etc.. is very small. Where do you put your dog if you need to take them to the vet, where do you put all of your kids various sports stuff, This is totally impractical for most families

true

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The city has had bike lanes for more than a decade, and the government has bent over backwards to promote them, and yet biking remains the least popular means of transportation.

Surveys show biking is less popular than driving, taking the subway, riding the bus, taking a cab/uber, walking, carpooling and commuter rail

It's surprising that the city has put so much effort into promoting bike lanes (they even pay teachers to bike), for so long, and still it hasn't really caught on.

I guess maybe it only appeals to a small segment of the population.

That segment is fat guys in spandex who live in Friendship Heights.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Right - someone has to be in very good shape to ride a bike all the way up CT ave. Which is why so few people do v.s. the riders down in the center of town. You could commute down CT ave and then take a bus or metro with the bike back up the hill - not sure how likely that scenario is

E-bikes are a thing, and they have become quite popular. I would assume that most individuals who would be doing that commute on a regular basis will just use e-bikes to make the hill climb easier. Over here on the Hill, cargo e-bikes that are set up to transport children are very popular as well.

No parent would dream of putting a young child in a car without a car seat (and you'll be cited by the police if you don't). And yet these people who put young children on bikes and go toodling off into traffic are like "I'll just be careful!" I mean, what? And how is this even legal?

Didn’t you already post this?

No. But I did see some people doing some insane stuff with their kids on bikes during rush hour. You'd think child protective services would have something to say about this.

You are late to the thread with this line of argument.

And if you cared about neighborhood kids on bikes, you would argue in favor of protected bikes lanes to - you know - protect them. And you would slow down and obey traffic laws.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Right - someone has to be in very good shape to ride a bike all the way up CT ave. Which is why so few people do v.s. the riders down in the center of town. You could commute down CT ave and then take a bus or metro with the bike back up the hill - not sure how likely that scenario is

E-bikes are a thing, and they have become quite popular. I would assume that most individuals who would be doing that commute on a regular basis will just use e-bikes to make the hill climb easier. Over here on the Hill, cargo e-bikes that are set up to transport children are very popular as well.

No parent would dream of putting a young child in a car without a car seat (and you'll be cited by the police if you don't). And yet these people who put young children on bikes and go toodling off into traffic are like "I'll just be careful!" I mean, what? And how is this even legal?

I saw someone with what looked like a three year old on her handle bars riding through Columbia Heights. Unbelievable.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Right - someone has to be in very good shape to ride a bike all the way up CT ave. Which is why so few people do v.s. the riders down in the center of town. You could commute down CT ave and then take a bus or metro with the bike back up the hill - not sure how likely that scenario is

E-bikes are a thing, and they have become quite popular. I would assume that most individuals who would be doing that commute on a regular basis will just use e-bikes to make the hill climb easier. Over here on the Hill, cargo e-bikes that are set up to transport children are very popular as well.

No parent would dream of putting a young child in a car without a car seat (and you'll be cited by the police if you don't). And yet these people who put young children on bikes and go toodling off into traffic are like "I'll just be careful!" I mean, what? And how is this even legal?

Didn’t you already post this?

No. But I did see some people doing some insane stuff with their kids on bikes during rush hour. You'd think child protective services would have something to say about this.

You are late to the thread with this line of argument.

And if you cared about neighborhood kids on bikes, you would argue in favor of protected bikes lanes to - you know - protect them. And you would slow down and obey traffic laws.

There's no one with less regard for traffic laws than people on bikes. I almost hit one the other day. I had to slam on the breaks to avoid him. If I had killed him, there's no way I would have been cited.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Right - someone has to be in very good shape to ride a bike all the way up CT ave. Which is why so few people do v.s. the riders down in the center of town. You could commute down CT ave and then take a bus or metro with the bike back up the hill - not sure how likely that scenario is

E-bikes are a thing, and they have become quite popular. I would assume that most individuals who would be doing that commute on a regular basis will just use e-bikes to make the hill climb easier. Over here on the Hill, cargo e-bikes that are set up to transport children are very popular as well.

No parent would dream of putting a young child in a car without a car seat (and you'll be cited by the police if you don't). And yet these people who put young children on bikes and go toodling off into traffic are like "I'll just be careful!" I mean, what? And how is this even legal?

Didn’t you already post this?

No. But I did see some people doing some insane stuff with their kids on bikes during rush hour. You'd think child protective services would have something to say about this.

You are late to the thread with this line of argument.

And if you cared about neighborhood kids on bikes, you would argue in favor of protected bikes lanes to - you know - protect them. And you would slow down and obey traffic laws.

Sorry I don't hang out on DCUM all day. You clearly have too much time on your hands.

[Anonymous]

Since this whole thread is clearly just 1-2 angry posters who are upset that they've already lost, can we take bets on how much more of their life they will waste with this thread? The strategy of throwing everything at the wall in the desperate hope that something sticks is really a sight to behold.

[Anonymous]

There are at least two posters posting about safety concerns with kids in traffic on bikes - I was one and not the other. Toodling around the hill on your cargo ebike is very different than riding down the 4 plus lane CT Ave - I don't see how that is safe for kids. What if they fall off and run into traffic. What if another bike hits you and the child goes flying - it is insanity and not necessary if you can afford a 2-3k bike you can afford a much safer bus pass. Little children don't belong in a big road unless they are in a vehicle of some kind. on bike paths or neighborhood streets sure.