Options for opposing Connecticut Avenue changes?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

it reads to me like mostly very young sounding bicyclists with a proclivity for declaring anyone who isn't super in bikes as "fascists."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

Or a protected bike lane.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

As a parent it's upsetting because the children didn't get a choice in being put in a really dangerous situation. They are victims of their parent's poor judgment.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

As a parent it's upsetting because the children didn't get a choice in being put in a really dangerous situation. They are victims of their parent's poor judgment.

Good thing the bike lines will be both protected and isolated from traffic!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

Or a protected bike lane.

Little kids most definitely do not belong on a "protected" bike lane on any major road.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

it reads to me like mostly very young sounding bicyclists with a proclivity for declaring anyone who isn't super in bikes as "fascists."

If you're not really into bicycling, or just have some basic questions about the city's hare-brained policies, you may also be a "murderous psychopath."

[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.

Hilarious. You actually have the right to bike wherever you want unless it's specifically prohibited.

Driving is a privilege that you need to be specific licensed for.

Try again?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I guess what I don’t understand is that if you scroll through the Twitter feeds of the pro bike lane crowd it’s filled with hysterical, border line self congratulatory “gotcha” tweets filled with pics cars, contractors, construction workers, first responders, etc. parked illegally in bike lanes all over the city. Along with pictures of broken and blighted bike lane infrastructure and desperate calls for 311 to fix things. But you somehow think CT will be any different? Thanks to your good reporting we already know how this will go. No thank you.

What it proves is that curb access is actually very important to economic activity in the city and taking this important public resource and giving it over to a small handful of cyclists doesn’t seem very wise.

There will be 24/7 curb access on one side of the street, something that doesn't exist today.

Almost all of the business have some form of alley or rear access, if needed. These days, those are barely used.

So disabled individuals have to use the rear alley entrance now?

I'm all for biking for those who can. I am concerned that this plan does not discuss our residents with disabilities and mobility impaired elderly or their needs and concerns. Is there an ADA compliance study with this plan. I can't find one. Does this account for accessible passenger loading zones from the street?

https://ada-update.com/2020/08/19/bike-lanes-can-create-disability-barriers/

Of course there is no study. Today I passed two Metro Access vans dropping off disabled/elderly folks curbside on CT Ave. I guess those folks are out of luck if they live on the wrong side of the Avenue.

[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.

Yes. That you can’t read a couple of simple sentences is definitely an indictment of whatever education you were supposed to have.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

it reads to me like mostly very young sounding bicyclists with a proclivity for declaring anyone who isn't super in bikes as "fascists."

Yup. A lot of immaturity.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

it reads to me like mostly very young sounding bicyclists with a proclivity for declaring anyone who isn't super in bikes as "fascists."

I thinks it's mostly one guy that's super into bikes and on a manic bender versus at least a dozen pissed off locals. Although occasionally some reasonable more casual biking enthusiasts chime in.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I guess what I don’t understand is that if you scroll through the Twitter feeds of the pro bike lane crowd it’s filled with hysterical, border line self congratulatory “gotcha” tweets filled with pics cars, contractors, construction workers, first responders, etc. parked illegally in bike lanes all over the city. Along with pictures of broken and blighted bike lane infrastructure and desperate calls for 311 to fix things. But you somehow think CT will be any different? Thanks to your good reporting we already know how this will go. No thank you.

What it proves is that curb access is actually very important to economic activity in the city and taking this important public resource and giving it over to a small handful of cyclists doesn’t seem very wise.

There will be 24/7 curb access on one side of the street, something that doesn't exist today.

Almost all of the business have some form of alley or rear access, if needed. These days, those are barely used.

So disabled individuals have to use the rear alley entrance now?

I'm all for biking for those who can. I am concerned that this plan does not discuss our residents with disabilities and mobility impaired elderly or their needs and concerns. Is there an ADA compliance study with this plan. I can't find one. Does this account for accessible passenger loading zones from the street?

https://ada-update.com/2020/08/19/bike-lanes-can-create-disability-barriers/

there weren’t ada spaces before when there was no parking during rush hour.

This literally makes no sense. Do you not understand that parking is not allowed during rush hour depending on direction which means that that without parked cars there is full curb access. In additional, parking is not allowed in front of all buildings for loading zones when it is not rush hour. How can you not know this? Where do you live exactly? Are you the same person claiming to live in CCDC walking distance to the metro?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

it reads to me like mostly very young sounding bicyclists with a proclivity for declaring anyone who isn't super in bikes as "fascists."

Yup. A lot of immaturity.

Shows the amount and quality of thought that has gone into all of this. They don't have any substantive responses to people's questions. They can't even stand the fact that people ask questions. Their only response is name calling, and not even good name calling.

Note to bicyclists: Calling people "fascists" for reasons related to biking, of all things, makes you sound like a petulant 15-year old.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Where are the bikes coming from to come down CT ave to go downtown? Is this recreational use or commuting? When the studies or plans were done what was the data showing who would use this? That would be helpful information.

Just a philosophical feeling that bikes are great and environmental does not sway me. If there really were significant numbers of residents of upperNW around CT ave who would bike in (and back up the giant 4 mile hill) that would be more persuasive

There are no studies. This is more progressive wishful thinking. This is Defund the Police for transportation.

Honestly made me laugh.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Where are the bikes coming from to come down CT ave to go downtown? Is this recreational use or commuting? When the studies or plans were done what was the data showing who would use this? That would be helpful information.

Just a philosophical feeling that bikes are great and environmental does not sway me. If there really were significant numbers of residents of upperNW around CT ave who would bike in (and back up the giant 4 mile hill) that would be more persuasive

There are no studies. This is more progressive wishful thinking. This is Defund the Police for transportation.

Honestly made me laugh.

Seriously. A+