Options for opposing Connecticut Avenue changes?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes that’s right - the only way to fight crime is to make the roads as unpleasant for bikes, pedestrians and bus riders as possible. Woo hoo!

It takes a lot of money to fight crime. You need a tax base in order to get a lot of money. You lose your tax base when you make it painful for commuters to get down town.

I live in upper NW D.C. and pay high property and income taxes, and the most painful way to get downtown I could think of is to drive my car to my office. I take Metro about 2/3 of the time and bike 1/3 of the time. Have driven from here to work maybe five times in the six years I've lived in this neighborhood and cannot imagine why anyone would want to do it every day.

Let’s see. Hospitalizations. Traumatic brain injuries and deaths. And that’s just the people I know or knew of biking regularly on bike lines in traffic.

Raise them onto the sidewalks or completely separate and leave the streets alone.

So, in other words, there should be safe, protected bike lanes - which also make the streets safer for everyone else.

There's no such thing as "leaving the streets alone" because the streets are for everyone - people on foot, people in strollers, people on bikes, people in wheelchairs, people on scooters, people going to or from buses, etc. etc. etc. Not just people in cars.

Nope and this is a prime example of why people will never support you. You purposely misunderstand the argument, restate it differently and then argue with yourself.

Geneva style, bike lanes on the sidewalks. Plenty of sidewalk on Connecticut, but guess what, now you’re getting a big fat instead

Your argument was that there is currently no safe bike infrastructure, which endangers bicyclists. I agree with you. Also, we live in the US, where there are plenty of existing design guidelines for safe bike infrastructure that don't require taking sidewalk space away from pedestrians.

https://highways.dot.gov/safety/proven-safety-countermeasures/bicycle-lanes

There you go again

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes that’s right - the only way to fight crime is to make the roads as unpleasant for bikes, pedestrians and bus riders as possible. Woo hoo!

It takes a lot of money to fight crime. You need a tax base in order to get a lot of money. You lose your tax base when you make it painful for commuters to get down town.

I live in upper NW D.C. and pay high property and income taxes, and the most painful way to get downtown I could think of is to drive my car to my office. I take Metro about 2/3 of the time and bike 1/3 of the time. Have driven from here to work maybe five times in the six years I've lived in this neighborhood and cannot imagine why anyone would want to do it every day.

Let’s see. Hospitalizations. Traumatic brain injuries and deaths. And that’s just the people I know or knew of biking regularly on bike lines in traffic.

Raise them onto the sidewalks or completely separate and leave the streets alone.

So, in other words, there should be safe, protected bike lanes - which also make the streets safer for everyone else.

There's no such thing as "leaving the streets alone" because the streets are for everyone - people on foot, people in strollers, people on bikes, people in wheelchairs, people on scooters, people going to or from buses, etc. etc. etc. Not just people in cars.

There can be no “protected” bike lanes on a street like Connecticut Avenue which would require cars to cross over the lanes at literally hundreds of points to turn on to side streets, alleys, apartment turnarounds, businesses, etc. If this project were built and with the projected 3000 daily users there would be multiple collisions every day. It’s both completely foreseeable and completely unavoidable for this type of road. And, yes, we need greater speed enforcement.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes that’s right - the only way to fight crime is to make the roads as unpleasant for bikes, pedestrians and bus riders as possible. Woo hoo!

It takes a lot of money to fight crime. You need a tax base in order to get a lot of money. You lose your tax base when you make it painful for commuters to get down town.

I live in upper NW D.C. and pay high property and income taxes, and the most painful way to get downtown I could think of is to drive my car to my office. I take Metro about 2/3 of the time and bike 1/3 of the time. Have driven from here to work maybe five times in the six years I've lived in this neighborhood and cannot imagine why anyone would want to do it every day.

Let’s see. Hospitalizations. Traumatic brain injuries and deaths. And that’s just the people I know or knew of biking regularly on bike lines in traffic.

Raise them onto the sidewalks or completely separate and leave the streets alone.

So, in other words, there should be safe, protected bike lanes - which also make the streets safer for everyone else.

There's no such thing as "leaving the streets alone" because the streets are for everyone - people on foot, people in strollers, people on bikes, people in wheelchairs, people on scooters, people going to or from buses, etc. etc. etc. Not just people in cars.

There can be no “protected” bike lanes on a street like Connecticut Avenue which would require cars to cross over the lanes at literally hundreds of points to turn on to side streets, alleys, apartment turnarounds, businesses, etc. If this project were built and with the projected 3000 daily users there would be multiple collisions every day. It’s both completely foreseeable and completely unavoidable for this type of road. And, yes, we need greater speed enforcement.

The experts say there can be. But you, anonymous rando on the internet, says there can't be. Whom should we believe?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes that’s right - the only way to fight crime is to make the roads as unpleasant for bikes, pedestrians and bus riders as possible. Woo hoo!

It takes a lot of money to fight crime. You need a tax base in order to get a lot of money. You lose your tax base when you make it painful for commuters to get down town.

I live in upper NW D.C. and pay high property and income taxes, and the most painful way to get downtown I could think of is to drive my car to my office. I take Metro about 2/3 of the time and bike 1/3 of the time. Have driven from here to work maybe five times in the six years I've lived in this neighborhood and cannot imagine why anyone would want to do it every day.

Let’s see. Hospitalizations. Traumatic brain injuries and deaths. And that’s just the people I know or knew of biking regularly on bike lines in traffic.

Raise them onto the sidewalks or completely separate and leave the streets alone.

So, in other words, there should be safe, protected bike lanes - which also make the streets safer for everyone else.

There's no such thing as "leaving the streets alone" because the streets are for everyone - people on foot, people in strollers, people on bikes, people in wheelchairs, people on scooters, people going to or from buses, etc. etc. etc. Not just people in cars.

There can be no “protected” bike lanes on a street like Connecticut Avenue which would require cars to cross over the lanes at literally hundreds of points to turn on to side streets, alleys, apartment turnarounds, businesses, etc. If this project were built and with the projected 3000 daily users there would be multiple collisions every day. It’s both completely foreseeable and completely unavoidable for this type of road. And, yes, we need greater speed enforcement.

DDOT projected only 1000 daily users and estimates current daily usage at 100.

For comparison's sake they estimate current daily passenger vehicle usage at 25,000.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes that’s right - the only way to fight crime is to make the roads as unpleasant for bikes, pedestrians and bus riders as possible. Woo hoo!

It takes a lot of money to fight crime. You need a tax base in order to get a lot of money. You lose your tax base when you make it painful for commuters to get down town.

I live in upper NW D.C. and pay high property and income taxes, and the most painful way to get downtown I could think of is to drive my car to my office. I take Metro about 2/3 of the time and bike 1/3 of the time. Have driven from here to work maybe five times in the six years I've lived in this neighborhood and cannot imagine why anyone would want to do it every day.

Let’s see. Hospitalizations. Traumatic brain injuries and deaths. And that’s just the people I know or knew of biking regularly on bike lines in traffic.

Raise them onto the sidewalks or completely separate and leave the streets alone.

So, in other words, there should be safe, protected bike lanes - which also make the streets safer for everyone else.

There's no such thing as "leaving the streets alone" because the streets are for everyone - people on foot, people in strollers, people on bikes, people in wheelchairs, people on scooters, people going to or from buses, etc. etc. etc. Not just people in cars.

There can be no “protected” bike lanes on a street like Connecticut Avenue which would require cars to cross over the lanes at literally hundreds of points to turn on to side streets, alleys, apartment turnarounds, businesses, etc. If this project were built and with the projected 3000 daily users there would be multiple collisions every day. It’s both completely foreseeable and completely unavoidable for this type of road. And, yes, we need greater speed enforcement.

DDOT projected only 1000 daily users and estimates current daily usage at 100.

For comparison's sake they estimate current daily passenger vehicle usage at 25,000.

You have a very boring hobby.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes that’s right - the only way to fight crime is to make the roads as unpleasant for bikes, pedestrians and bus riders as possible. Woo hoo!

It takes a lot of money to fight crime. You need a tax base in order to get a lot of money. You lose your tax base when you make it painful for commuters to get down town.

I live in upper NW D.C. and pay high property and income taxes, and the most painful way to get downtown I could think of is to drive my car to my office. I take Metro about 2/3 of the time and bike 1/3 of the time. Have driven from here to work maybe five times in the six years I've lived in this neighborhood and cannot imagine why anyone would want to do it every day.

Let’s see. Hospitalizations. Traumatic brain injuries and deaths. And that’s just the people I know or knew of biking regularly on bike lines in traffic.

Raise them onto the sidewalks or completely separate and leave the streets alone.

So, in other words, there should be safe, protected bike lanes - which also make the streets safer for everyone else.

There's no such thing as "leaving the streets alone" because the streets are for everyone - people on foot, people in strollers, people on bikes, people in wheelchairs, people on scooters, people going to or from buses, etc. etc. etc. Not just people in cars.

There can be no “protected” bike lanes on a street like Connecticut Avenue which would require cars to cross over the lanes at literally hundreds of points to turn on to side streets, alleys, apartment turnarounds, businesses, etc. If this project were built and with the projected 3000 daily users there would be multiple collisions every day. It’s both completely foreseeable and completely unavoidable for this type of road. And, yes, we need greater speed enforcement.

DDOT projected only 1000 daily users and estimates current daily usage at 100.

For comparison's sake they estimate current daily passenger vehicle usage at 25,000.

You have a very boring hobby.

Facts matter

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes that’s right - the only way to fight crime is to make the roads as unpleasant for bikes, pedestrians and bus riders as possible. Woo hoo!

It takes a lot of money to fight crime. You need a tax base in order to get a lot of money. You lose your tax base when you make it painful for commuters to get down town.

I live in upper NW D.C. and pay high property and income taxes, and the most painful way to get downtown I could think of is to drive my car to my office. I take Metro about 2/3 of the time and bike 1/3 of the time. Have driven from here to work maybe five times in the six years I've lived in this neighborhood and cannot imagine why anyone would want to do it every day.

Let’s see. Hospitalizations. Traumatic brain injuries and deaths. And that’s just the people I know or knew of biking regularly on bike lines in traffic.

Raise them onto the sidewalks or completely separate and leave the streets alone.

So, in other words, there should be safe, protected bike lanes - which also make the streets safer for everyone else.

There's no such thing as "leaving the streets alone" because the streets are for everyone - people on foot, people in strollers, people on bikes, people in wheelchairs, people on scooters, people going to or from buses, etc. etc. etc. Not just people in cars.

Nope and this is a prime example of why people will never support you. You purposely misunderstand the argument, restate it differently and then argue with yourself.

Geneva style, bike lanes on the sidewalks. Plenty of sidewalk on Connecticut, but guess what, now you’re getting a big fat instead

Your argument was that there is currently no safe bike infrastructure, which endangers bicyclists. I agree with you. Also, we live in the US, where there are plenty of existing design guidelines for safe bike infrastructure that don't require taking sidewalk space away from pedestrians.

https://highways.dot.gov/safety/proven-safety-countermeasures/bicycle-lanes

Can’t hear you from the deafening silence of your dead bike lane project

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes that’s right - the only way to fight crime is to make the roads as unpleasant for bikes, pedestrians and bus riders as possible. Woo hoo!

It takes a lot of money to fight crime. You need a tax base in order to get a lot of money. You lose your tax base when you make it painful for commuters to get down town.

I live in upper NW D.C. and pay high property and income taxes, and the most painful way to get downtown I could think of is to drive my car to my office. I take Metro about 2/3 of the time and bike 1/3 of the time. Have driven from here to work maybe five times in the six years I've lived in this neighborhood and cannot imagine why anyone would want to do it every day.

Let’s see. Hospitalizations. Traumatic brain injuries and deaths. And that’s just the people I know or knew of biking regularly on bike lines in traffic.

Raise them onto the sidewalks or completely separate and leave the streets alone.

So, in other words, there should be safe, protected bike lanes - which also make the streets safer for everyone else.

There's no such thing as "leaving the streets alone" because the streets are for everyone - people on foot, people in strollers, people on bikes, people in wheelchairs, people on scooters, people going to or from buses, etc. etc. etc. Not just people in cars.

There can be no “protected” bike lanes on a street like Connecticut Avenue which would require cars to cross over the lanes at literally hundreds of points to turn on to side streets, alleys, apartment turnarounds, businesses, etc. If this project were built and with the projected 3000 daily users there would be multiple collisions every day. It’s both completely foreseeable and completely unavoidable for this type of road. And, yes, we need greater speed enforcement.

So how do they do it in every other city in the US and around the world? THEY ALL HAVE INTERSECTIONS WHERE CARS CROSS AT HUNDREDS OR THOUSANDS OF POINTS.

I guess DC is just too unique in needing to dedicate its public space to out of state commuters who contribute nothing but exhaust fumes because wheeeeee!

[Anonymous]

In bicycle advocacy, we often talk about “bike trips not taken” because of infrastructure. Could be gaps in the bike lane network, busy intersections to cross, or other pain points that keep someone from using a bicycle for short trips.

There’s a similar issue w/ public transportation that urbanists & city planners seem afraid to talk about. If people feel unsafe using the subway or local bus, they’ll find another way to get around, probably drive themselves.

The “it feels dangerous” might come from witnessing violence on the subway, or just from knowing the local government has decriminalized shoplifting. If a city isn’t going to enforce petty crimes in stores, then how much worse might things get on public transportation?

There’s no easy answer to this stuff. “There are no solutions, only trade-offs,” as Thomas Sowell said. But it doesn’t help urbanists to pretend like perceived safety is no big deal. Or worse, to act like these fears are just part of some kind of right-wing conspiracy against city living.

A safe systems approach to transportation involves enforcement, and that makes a lot of decision-makers uncomfortable post-2020.

The sooner we talk openly about this stuff, the better. The worst thing to do is downplay it out of fear that people might start sharing stories about perceived safety and crime.

Do you want more people to take the bus? Use the subway? Share rides with strangers? Then ask people who drive everywhere about “transit trips not taken” and take lots of notes.

https://twitter.com/Boenau/status/1751748117601366251

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes that’s right - the only way to fight crime is to make the roads as unpleasant for bikes, pedestrians and bus riders as possible. Woo hoo!

It takes a lot of money to fight crime. You need a tax base in order to get a lot of money. You lose your tax base when you make it painful for commuters to get down town.

I live in upper NW D.C. and pay high property and income taxes, and the most painful way to get downtown I could think of is to drive my car to my office. I take Metro about 2/3 of the time and bike 1/3 of the time. Have driven from here to work maybe five times in the six years I've lived in this neighborhood and cannot imagine why anyone would want to do it every day.

Let’s see. Hospitalizations. Traumatic brain injuries and deaths. And that’s just the people I know or knew of biking regularly on bike lines in traffic.

Raise them onto the sidewalks or completely separate and leave the streets alone.

So, in other words, there should be safe, protected bike lanes - which also make the streets safer for everyone else.

There's no such thing as "leaving the streets alone" because the streets are for everyone - people on foot, people in strollers, people on bikes, people in wheelchairs, people on scooters, people going to or from buses, etc. etc. etc. Not just people in cars.

There can be no “protected” bike lanes on a street like Connecticut Avenue which would require cars to cross over the lanes at literally hundreds of points to turn on to side streets, alleys, apartment turnarounds, businesses, etc. If this project were built and with the projected 3000 daily users there would be multiple collisions every day. It’s both completely foreseeable and completely unavoidable for this type of road. And, yes, we need greater speed enforcement.

So how do they do it in every other city in the US and around the world? THEY ALL HAVE INTERSECTIONS WHERE CARS CROSS AT HUNDREDS OR THOUSANDS OF POINTS.

I guess DC is just too unique in needing to dedicate its public space to out of state commuters who contribute nothing but exhaust fumes because wheeeeee!

We just accept that a certain amount of collisions are going to happen. That's really the main difference. Other countries would use roundabouts, or limit side street access, or have crossings at bridges, etc.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes that’s right - the only way to fight crime is to make the roads as unpleasant for bikes, pedestrians and bus riders as possible. Woo hoo!

It takes a lot of money to fight crime. You need a tax base in order to get a lot of money. You lose your tax base when you make it painful for commuters to get down town.

I live in upper NW D.C. and pay high property and income taxes, and the most painful way to get downtown I could think of is to drive my car to my office. I take Metro about 2/3 of the time and bike 1/3 of the time. Have driven from here to work maybe five times in the six years I've lived in this neighborhood and cannot imagine why anyone would want to do it every day.

Let’s see. Hospitalizations. Traumatic brain injuries and deaths. And that’s just the people I know or knew of biking regularly on bike lines in traffic.

Raise them onto the sidewalks or completely separate and leave the streets alone.

So, in other words, there should be safe, protected bike lanes - which also make the streets safer for everyone else.

There's no such thing as "leaving the streets alone" because the streets are for everyone - people on foot, people in strollers, people on bikes, people in wheelchairs, people on scooters, people going to or from buses, etc. etc. etc. Not just people in cars.

There can be no “protected” bike lanes on a street like Connecticut Avenue which would require cars to cross over the lanes at literally hundreds of points to turn on to side streets, alleys, apartment turnarounds, businesses, etc. If this project were built and with the projected 3000 daily users there would be multiple collisions every day. It’s both completely foreseeable and completely unavoidable for this type of road. And, yes, we need greater speed enforcement.

So how do they do it in every other city in the US and around the world? THEY ALL HAVE INTERSECTIONS WHERE CARS CROSS AT HUNDREDS OR THOUSANDS OF POINTS.

I guess DC is just too unique in needing to dedicate its public space to out of state commuters who contribute nothing but exhaust fumes because wheeeeee!

We just accept that a certain amount of collisions are going to happen. That's really the main difference. Other countries would use roundabouts, or limit side street access, or have crossings at bridges, etc.

This isn't really true — I've recently ridden a bike around both London (much larger than D.C.) and Montreal (smaller) and their bike infrastructure is way better than ours, but without any of these other things you're discussing.

[Anonymous]

Roses are red
Conn bike lanes are dead
Continuing this thread is sad
And you biketard are a cad

Get a life!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Roses are red
Conn bike lanes are dead
Continuing this thread is sad
And you biketard are a cad

Get a life!

You can claim ownership of every pedestrian, bike and car collision that happens on the Avenue going forward. There have been over 300 since the Mayor announced her support for Option C.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Roses are red
Conn bike lanes are dead
Continuing this thread is sad
And you biketard are a cad

Get a life!

Yay for not reducing carbon emissions!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Roses are red
Conn bike lanes are dead
Continuing this thread is sad
And you biketard are a cad

Get a life!

You can claim ownership of every pedestrian, bike and car collision that happens on the Avenue going forward. There have been over 300 since the Mayor announced her support for Option C.

There’s also been 20,000,000+ car trips.