Connecticut Ave bike lanes are back!

[Anonymous]

The way you two flirt is very weird.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20240517-vision-zero-how-europe-cut-the-number-of-people-dying-on-its-roads

Interesting article about the origins of Vision Zero. It is very different than what it has transmogrified into. For instance, the very first project was removing concrete barriers. One of the other differences is that roads are defined according to their main use.

In short, the Connectict Ave plan goes against the very ideas it is supposed to represent.

Exactly. Under the classification system, Connecticut Avenue has the highest use classification (major arterial) short of limited access highways in DC. The problem is that by constraining Connecticut, DDOT would divert and squeeze more thru traffic, including trucks, into narrower collector streets and m very narrow “local” (lowest classification) streets in adjoining neighborhoods.

That’s definitely not Vision Zero but it might reflect zero vision.

There is no planet where Connecticut Avenue in DC is anything close to a "limited access highway" - you are doing a lot of work there conflating classifications.

No conflating anything. Connecticut has the highest functional classification in upper Northwest, "major arterial," aside from the Whitehurst and short I-66. Outside of these highways, Connecticut and the other major arterials are the roads that are supposed to carry the major thru traffic between Maryland, uptown Northwest and the western part of downtown Washington. Constraining Connecticut's capacity will divert a lot of cars and vehicles on to streets that were not planned or build for such traffic loads. Recall an experiment about 10 years ago to constrain Wisconsin Ave between Massachusetts Ave and Burleith. It did not end well but because the construction involved flexible pylons, it was relatively easy to address the resulting gridlock and diversion by reversing and removing the new road configuration. Connecticut bike lanes would be constructed for permanence, making them more difficult and far more costly to fix.

This is not what the DDOT study said. What the DDOT study said is that MD commuters would use OTHER ARTERIALS and Metro instead of Connecticut Avenue. And this has been pointed out repeatedly and yet opponents of the bike lanes CONTINUE to repeat this lie again and again.

One of the other major arterials that DDOT said would absorb the traffic was Beach Dr. Then the cycling advocates succeeded in keeping Beach Dr closed and as a result the DDOT study, as flawed as it was, became worthless.

The changes that DDOT have already made to remove the reversible lane and remove the rush hour parking restrictions have increased travel times along Connecticut significantly. It can now commonly take over 1 hour to go from Military to Dupont. This is the exact opposite of what transportation planning should be doing, which is improving safety and efficiency. Add the bike lanes and Connecticut becomes worthless.

This won’t encourage people to bike, but it will encourage people to move to places that are more convenient.

Over an hour, to drive four miles? That's terrible! I hate how slow and inconvenient driving is. No wonder nobody wants to drive. Have people considered transportation modes that would be faster and more efficient than driving? For example, Metro. Or buses in bus lanes. Or bicycling in bike lanes! Or walking.

I mean, as they say "Bikes run on fat and save you money, cars run on money and make you fat. "

I always wonder why cyclists are always so tubby. Riding a bike does not seem like a very effective way to get into shape.

It’s one of the best ways. Certainly much better than destroying your knees by running. The best part is that you can, by biking to work, you can get your exercise in while also saving time and money commuting. It’s a win-win, except for those like yourself you harbor an irrational hatred towards bicycles and those that ride them.

DC is not very big, so if you're riding as a means of transportation (and not as a hobby) you're probably not riding long enough or going fast enough to burn many calories or build much muscle.

Especially on e-bikes.

[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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20240517-vision-zero-how-europe-cut-the-number-of-people-dying-on-its-roads

Interesting article about the origins of Vision Zero. It is very different than what it has transmogrified into. For instance, the very first project was removing concrete barriers. One of the other differences is that roads are defined according to their main use.

In short, the Connectict Ave plan goes against the very ideas it is supposed to represent.

Exactly. Under the classification system, Connecticut Avenue has the highest use classification (major arterial) short of limited access highways in DC. The problem is that by constraining Connecticut, DDOT would divert and squeeze more thru traffic, including trucks, into narrower collector streets and m very narrow “local” (lowest classification) streets in adjoining neighborhoods.

That’s definitely not Vision Zero but it might reflect zero vision.

There is no planet where Connecticut Avenue in DC is anything close to a "limited access highway" - you are doing a lot of work there conflating classifications.

No conflating anything. Connecticut has the highest functional classification in upper Northwest, "major arterial," aside from the Whitehurst and short I-66. Outside of these highways, Connecticut and the other major arterials are the roads that are supposed to carry the major thru traffic between Maryland, uptown Northwest and the western part of downtown Washington. Constraining Connecticut's capacity will divert a lot of cars and vehicles on to streets that were not planned or build for such traffic loads. Recall an experiment about 10 years ago to constrain Wisconsin Ave between Massachusetts Ave and Burleith. It did not end well but because the construction involved flexible pylons, it was relatively easy to address the resulting gridlock and diversion by reversing and removing the new road configuration. Connecticut bike lanes would be constructed for permanence, making them more difficult and far more costly to fix.

This is not what the DDOT study said. What the DDOT study said is that MD commuters would use OTHER ARTERIALS and Metro instead of Connecticut Avenue. And this has been pointed out repeatedly and yet opponents of the bike lanes CONTINUE to repeat this lie again and again.

One of the other major arterials that DDOT said would absorb the traffic was Beach Dr. Then the cycling advocates succeeded in keeping Beach Dr closed and as a result the DDOT study, as flawed as it was, became worthless.

The changes that DDOT have already made to remove the reversible lane and remove the rush hour parking restrictions have increased travel times along Connecticut significantly. It can now commonly take over 1 hour to go from Military to Dupont. This is the exact opposite of what transportation planning should be doing, which is improving safety and efficiency. Add the bike lanes and Connecticut becomes worthless.

This won’t encourage people to bike, but it will encourage people to move to places that are more convenient.

Over an hour, to drive four miles? That's terrible! I hate how slow and inconvenient driving is. No wonder nobody wants to drive. Have people considered transportation modes that would be faster and more efficient than driving? For example, Metro. Or buses in bus lanes. Or bicycling in bike lanes! Or walking.

I mean, as they say "Bikes run on fat and save you money, cars run on money and make you fat. "

I always wonder why cyclists are always so tubby. Riding a bike does not seem like a very effective way to get into shape.

It’s one of the best ways. Certainly much better than destroying your knees by running. The best part is that you can, by biking to work, you can get your exercise in while also saving time and money commuting. It’s a win-win, except for those like yourself you harbor an irrational hatred towards bicycles and those that ride them.

DC is not very big, so if you're riding as a means of transportation (and not as a hobby) you're probably not riding long enough or going fast enough to burn many calories or build much muscle.

That depends on how hard you’re riding and the topography of the route. In any case, though, the cyclist is burning more calories during their ride than someone who spends that time sitting in a vehicle.

Starting from a dead stop is what really builds muscle and burns calories, but a lot of cyclists miss out on this because they don’t stop for stop signs, red lights, or pedestrians in crosswalks. If you really want to get in shape, obey traffic laws. If you’re having a hard time with starting from a dead stop, hit the gym for legs day.

In the bicycle nirvanas of Denmark, Netherlands, Sweden cyclists are punctilious in obeying traffic laws and rules. Rights come with obligations and responsibilities, folks.

Lol, no they aren't. I've been there and biked around. I was one of few who stopped at stop signs religiously. They weren't reckless, not so different from most bicyclists in DC.

This isn’t true. Denmark vigorously enforces traffic rules for cyclists.
https://cphpost.dk/2023-04-03/news/red-light-rats-danish-police-fine-scores-of-cyclists-thanks-to-tip-offs-from-the-public/

[Anonymous]

Actually I would think that bike lane advocates would welcome strict enforcement of cycling regulations and establishing new ones that take into consideration all commuters not just cyclists. After all safety is what’s important here right?

[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:https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20240517-vision-zero-how-europe-cut-the-number-of-people-dying-on-its-roads

Interesting article about the origins of Vision Zero. It is very different than what it has transmogrified into. For instance, the very first project was removing concrete barriers. One of the other differences is that roads are defined according to their main use.

In short, the Connectict Ave plan goes against the very ideas it is supposed to represent.

Exactly. Under the classification system, Connecticut Avenue has the highest use classification (major arterial) short of limited access highways in DC. The problem is that by constraining Connecticut, DDOT would divert and squeeze more thru traffic, including trucks, into narrower collector streets and m very narrow “local” (lowest classification) streets in adjoining neighborhoods.

That’s definitely not Vision Zero but it might reflect zero vision.

There is no planet where Connecticut Avenue in DC is anything close to a "limited access highway" - you are doing a lot of work there conflating classifications.

No conflating anything. Connecticut has the highest functional classification in upper Northwest, "major arterial," aside from the Whitehurst and short I-66. Outside of these highways, Connecticut and the other major arterials are the roads that are supposed to carry the major thru traffic between Maryland, uptown Northwest and the western part of downtown Washington. Constraining Connecticut's capacity will divert a lot of cars and vehicles on to streets that were not planned or build for such traffic loads. Recall an experiment about 10 years ago to constrain Wisconsin Ave between Massachusetts Ave and Burleith. It did not end well but because the construction involved flexible pylons, it was relatively easy to address the resulting gridlock and diversion by reversing and removing the new road configuration. Connecticut bike lanes would be constructed for permanence, making them more difficult and far more costly to fix.

This is not what the DDOT study said. What the DDOT study said is that MD commuters would use OTHER ARTERIALS and Metro instead of Connecticut Avenue. And this has been pointed out repeatedly and yet opponents of the bike lanes CONTINUE to repeat this lie again and again.

One of the other major arterials that DDOT said would absorb the traffic was Beach Dr. Then the cycling advocates succeeded in keeping Beach Dr closed and as a result the DDOT study, as flawed as it was, became worthless.

The changes that DDOT have already made to remove the reversible lane and remove the rush hour parking restrictions have increased travel times along Connecticut significantly. It can now commonly take over 1 hour to go from Military to Dupont. This is the exact opposite of what transportation planning should be doing, which is improving safety and efficiency. Add the bike lanes and Connecticut becomes worthless.

This won’t encourage people to bike, but it will encourage people to move to places that are more convenient.

Over an hour, to drive four miles? That's terrible! I hate how slow and inconvenient driving is. No wonder nobody wants to drive. Have people considered transportation modes that would be faster and more efficient than driving? For example, Metro. Or buses in bus lanes. Or bicycling in bike lanes! Or walking.

I mean, as they say "Bikes run on fat and save you money, cars run on money and make you fat. "

I always wonder why cyclists are always so tubby. Riding a bike does not seem like a very effective way to get into shape.

It’s one of the best ways. Certainly much better than destroying your knees by running. The best part is that you can, by biking to work, you can get your exercise in while also saving time and money commuting. It’s a win-win, except for those like yourself you harbor an irrational hatred towards bicycles and those that ride them.

DC is not very big, so if you're riding as a means of transportation (and not as a hobby) you're probably not riding long enough or going fast enough to burn many calories or build much muscle.

Especially on e-bikes.

Great, but the idea behind bike lanes is not to get people to burn a certain number of calories. It's to enable safer transportation by bike (and to get bikes entirely out of the car lanes and off the sidewalks).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Actually I would think that bike lane advocates would welcome strict enforcement of cycling regulations and establishing new ones that take into consideration all commuters not just cyclists. After all safety is what’s important here right?

sure, you can enforce a bike rider harmlessly going through a red (often this is safer for the rider, but I digress) as soon as you give tickets to every single car rolling through stop signs. Cars literally never come to a full stop unless there is cross traffic.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Actually I would think that bike lane advocates would welcome strict enforcement of cycling regulations and establishing new ones that take into consideration all commuters not just cyclists. After all safety is what’s important here right?

sure, you can enforce a bike rider harmlessly going through a red (often this is safer for the rider, but I digress) as soon as you give tickets to every single car rolling through stop signs. Cars literally never come to a full stop unless there is cross traffic.

A bicyclist going through a stop sign at full speed is far more dangerous than a car that you think didn't technically, 100 percent completely stop at a stop sign. It's disingenuous to pretend they're the same thing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Actually I would think that bike lane advocates would welcome strict enforcement of cycling regulations and establishing new ones that take into consideration all commuters not just cyclists. After all safety is what’s important here right?

sure, you can enforce a bike rider harmlessly going through a red (often this is safer for the rider, but I digress) as soon as you give tickets to every single car rolling through stop signs. Cars literally never come to a full stop unless there is cross traffic.

A bicyclist going through a stop sign at full speed is far more dangerous than a car that you think didn't technically, 100 percent completely stop at a stop sign. It's disingenuous to pretend they're the same thing.

Sure, but there are also different gradations of bikes running a stop sign. Definitely, the most dangerous possible way to do it is more dangerous than the safest possible way for a car to run a stop sign. That doesn't mean that every violation of the law by a car is safer than every violation of the law by a bike.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Actually I would think that bike lane advocates would welcome strict enforcement of cycling regulations and establishing new ones that take into consideration all commuters not just cyclists. After all safety is what’s important here right?

sure, you can enforce a bike rider harmlessly going through a red (often this is safer for the rider, but I digress) as soon as you give tickets to every single car rolling through stop signs. Cars literally never come to a full stop unless there is cross traffic.

+1

And only car traffic. Motorists will still roll through stop signs even with pedestrians present.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Actually I would think that bike lane advocates would welcome strict enforcement of cycling regulations and establishing new ones that take into consideration all commuters not just cyclists. After all safety is what’s important here right?

sure, you can enforce a bike rider harmlessly going through a red (often this is safer for the rider, but I digress) as soon as you give tickets to every single car rolling through stop signs. Cars literally never come to a full stop unless there is cross traffic.

+1

And only car traffic. Motorists will still roll through stop signs even with pedestrians present.

Sometimes even while making eye contact, the psychopaths!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Actually I would think that bike lane advocates would welcome strict enforcement of cycling regulations and establishing new ones that take into consideration all commuters not just cyclists. After all safety is what’s important here right?

sure, you can enforce a bike rider harmlessly going through a red (often this is safer for the rider, but I digress) as soon as you give tickets to every single car rolling through stop signs. Cars literally never come to a full stop unless there is cross traffic.

A bicyclist going through a stop sign at full speed is far more dangerous than a car that you think didn't technically, 100 percent completely stop at a stop sign. It's disingenuous to pretend they're the same thing.

That why there are so many people killed by bicyclists and not people driving cars. Oh nevermind, the data says it's the opposite. Huh.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Actually I would think that bike lane advocates would welcome strict enforcement of cycling regulations and establishing new ones that take into consideration all commuters not just cyclists. After all safety is what’s important here right?

sure, you can enforce a bike rider harmlessly going through a red (often this is safer for the rider, but I digress) as soon as you give tickets to every single car rolling through stop signs. Cars literally never come to a full stop unless there is cross traffic.

A bicyclist going through a stop sign at full speed is far more dangerous than a car that you think didn't technically, 100 percent completely stop at a stop sign. It's disingenuous to pretend they're the same thing.

I am always a little shocked when I see a driver blow a stop sign, because it doesn’t actually happen that often.

I am also always a little shocked when I see a cyclist stop at a stop sign because that doesn’t happen very often either.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Actually I would think that bike lane advocates would welcome strict enforcement of cycling regulations and establishing new ones that take into consideration all commuters not just cyclists. After all safety is what’s important here right?

sure, you can enforce a bike rider harmlessly going through a red (often this is safer for the rider, but I digress) as soon as you give tickets to every single car rolling through stop signs. Cars literally never come to a full stop unless there is cross traffic.

A bicyclist going through a stop sign at full speed is far more dangerous than a car that you think didn't technically, 100 percent completely stop at a stop sign. It's disingenuous to pretend they're the same thing.

That why there are so many people killed by bicyclists and not people driving cars. Oh nevermind, the data says it's the opposite. Huh.

There would be many more if there were more cyclists, and the last cyclist killed in DC was killed by …. ANOTHER CYCLIST.

But, bro: drivers hate you, pedestrians hate you, and even other cyclists hate you. Maybe it’s time for you ask AITA?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Actually I would think that bike lane advocates would welcome strict enforcement of cycling regulations and establishing new ones that take into consideration all commuters not just cyclists. After all safety is what’s important here right?

sure, you can enforce a bike rider harmlessly going through a red (often this is safer for the rider, but I digress) as soon as you give tickets to every single car rolling through stop signs. Cars literally never come to a full stop unless there is cross traffic.

A bicyclist going through a stop sign at full speed is far more dangerous than a car that you think didn't technically, 100 percent completely stop at a stop sign. It's disingenuous to pretend they're the same thing.

I am always a little shocked when I see a driver blow a stop sign, because it doesn’t actually happen that often.

I am also always a little shocked when I see a cyclist stop at a stop sign because that doesn’t happen very often either.

drivers never ever come to a full stop at stop signs unless there is cross traffic.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Actually I would think that bike lane advocates would welcome strict enforcement of cycling regulations and establishing new ones that take into consideration all commuters not just cyclists. After all safety is what’s important here right?

sure, you can enforce a bike rider harmlessly going through a red (often this is safer for the rider, but I digress) as soon as you give tickets to every single car rolling through stop signs. Cars literally never come to a full stop unless there is cross traffic.

A bicyclist going through a stop sign at full speed is far more dangerous than a car that you think didn't technically, 100 percent completely stop at a stop sign. It's disingenuous to pretend they're the same thing.

That why there are so many people killed by bicyclists and not people driving cars. Oh nevermind, the data says it's the opposite. Huh.

There would be many more if there were more cyclists, and the last cyclist killed in DC was killed by …. ANOTHER CYCLIST.

But, bro: drivers hate you, pedestrians hate you, and even other cyclists hate you. Maybe it’s time for you ask AITA?

get a grip. I don’t know what kind of psychodrama the sight of a bike triggers in you, but it’s really weird.