Options for opposing Connecticut Avenue changes?

[Anonymous]

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.

It would appeal to more if there were a concerted and connected network. That is why Connecticut Avenue is so important. It provides the straightest and flatest path from uptown, through the several commercial areas, to downtown. It connects residents with business and schools.

Flattest?!?!?!

Flat enough to have been viable for the streetcar that prompted its construction, so yes. It is a relatively flat road.

Connecticut Ave. goes from below the fall line up to just below the highest point in DC: from sea level to just under 5000 feet above sea level. Have you ever been to DC?

I have a strong suspicion that the person posting in favor is a troll that lives in California or something. There is a lot of evidence.
- Don’t understand elevation of city
- Claims there is a metro station in Chevy Chase DC on CT
- Doesn’t know about loading zones in front of apartments on CT

Etc, etc.

[Anonymous]

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.

It would appeal to more if there were a concerted and connected network. That is why Connecticut Avenue is so important. It provides the straightest and flatest path from uptown, through the several commercial areas, to downtown. It connects residents with business and schools.

Flattest?!?!?!

Except the 5k feet poster was arguing against the bike lanes.

Flat enough to have been viable for the streetcar that prompted its construction, so yes. It is a relatively flat road.

Connecticut Ave. goes from below the fall line up to just below the highest point in DC: from sea level to just under 5000 feet above sea level. Have you ever been to DC?

I have a strong suspicion that the person posting in favor is a troll that lives in California or something. There is a lot of evidence.
- Don’t understand elevation of city
- Claims there is a metro station in Chevy Chase DC on CT
- Doesn’t know about loading zones in front of apartments on CT

Etc, etc.

[Anonymous]

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.

It would appeal to more if there were a concerted and connected network. That is why Connecticut Avenue is so important. It provides the straightest and flatest path from uptown, through the several commercial areas, to downtown. It connects residents with business and schools.

Flattest?!?!?!

Flat enough to have been viable for the streetcar that prompted its construction, so yes. It is a relatively flat road.

Connecticut Ave. goes from below the fall line up to just below the highest point in DC: from sea level to just under 5000 feet above sea level. Have you ever been to DC?

I have a strong suspicion that the person posting in favor is a troll that lives in California or something. There is a lot of evidence.
- Don’t understand elevation of city
- Claims there is a metro station in Chevy Chase DC on CT
- Doesn’t know about loading zones in front of apartments on CT

Etc, etc.

Except the 5k ft poster was arguing against the bike lanes.

Quite ineffectively.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Was it the advocates of the bike lanes that were fat shaming cyclists? That kind of behavior is not acceptable among “petulant 15 year olds”, but appears to be par for the course for NIMBY cranks who have no real argument and no real evidence to validate their irrational hatred of those who aren’t as addicted to their cars as they are.

Fascism doesn’t have much to do with bike lanes. But a key principle of fascism is the tyranny of the majority and the destruction of minority rights. The argument that cyclists don’t deserve to be protected from death by cars merely because they are a (rapidly growing) minority among road users - notwithstanding the shocking accidents they suffer at the hands of bad drivers - echoes fascist principles. I’m sorry if you don’t like the company that puts you in.

[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.

This is a perfect analogy. The DC government is all about making a political statement that they really like bikes, and they give no **cks about the consequences of their insane policies.

[Anonymous]

No studies? Here’s your evening reading, folks: https://www.peopleforbikes.org/statistics/economic-benefits

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:No studies? Here’s your evening reading, folks: https://www.peopleforbikes.org/statistics/economic-benefits

“The PeopleForBikes Coalition and Foundation boards of directors as well as the BPSA Trade Association Committee members [b]include executives from leading companies in the U.S. bicycle industry.”[b]

Oh, really.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No studies? Here’s your evening reading, folks: https://www.peopleforbikes.org/statistics/economic-benefits

“The PeopleForBikes Coalition and Foundation boards of directors as well as the BPSA Trade Association Committee members [b]include executives from leading companies in the U.S. bicycle industry.”[b]

Oh, really.

Ha! What a joke.

[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.

E-bikes are a thing for rich people. The pool of people who will use these lanes is narrow: young, able-bodied, rich enough to buy an ebike, and with uncomplicated lives (ie, they’re not transporting kids to sports practice after work or picking up the family groceries.)

[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.

E-bikes are a thing for rich people. The pool of people who will use these lanes is narrow: young, able-bodied, rich enough to buy an ebike, and with uncomplicated lives (ie, they’re not transporting kids to sports practice after work or picking up the family groceries.)

The entire debate is about the lifestyles of the Young, White and Childless.

Also, when did we decide to rebrand mopeds as "e-bikes"?

[Anonymous]

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

You don’t need to be in that good shape to ride up CT. I know because I ride from Calvert Street to Fessenden Street several times a week and am not in particularly good shape.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No studies? Here’s your evening reading, folks: https://www.peopleforbikes.org/statistics/economic-benefits

“The PeopleForBikes Coalition and Foundation boards of directors as well as the BPSA Trade Association Committee members [b]include executives from leading companies in the U.S. bicycle industry.”[b]

Oh, really.

Well that just invalidates the findings of all of the peer-reviewed studies listed in the bibliography, doesn’t it?

Nothing quite as reliable as the intellectual dishonesty of NIMBY cranks.

[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

There are a bunch of people who do this, every day, many who are your neighbors. Just stop.

[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.

We have such facilities for cars. Why not bikes? Bikes are clean, health oriented and don't take up much space. Cars pollute, promote obesity and take up a lot of space. Which is better in an urban environment?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Was it the advocates of the bike lanes that were fat shaming cyclists? That kind of behavior is not acceptable among “petulant 15 year olds”, but appears to be par for the course for NIMBY cranks who have no real argument and no real evidence to validate their irrational hatred of those who aren’t as addicted to their cars as they are.

Fascism doesn’t have much to do with bike lanes. But a key principle of fascism is the tyranny of the majority and the destruction of minority rights. The argument that cyclists don’t deserve to be protected from death by cars merely because they are a (rapidly growing) minority among road users - notwithstanding the shocking accidents they suffer at the hands of bad drivers - echoes fascist principles. I’m sorry if you don’t like the company that puts you in.

You havent been paying attention. Critics of all this have raised a thousand substantive questions and have gotten nothing in response except dumb name calling. If you have any real answers to their questions -- please, we're waiting.

Also, fat people in spandex are funny. Fat people in spandex who think they are working so hard (going ten miles an hour) that they need to think about wind resistance are really funny. I'm sorry. I don't make the rules.