Options for opposing Connecticut Avenue changes?

[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 reason the bike mafia tweets pics of running errands on a bike is that it is so uncommon. Like look “you CAN shop for groceries on a bike.” But if bikes were actually common there would be no need for the picture, we’d see it every day. But we rarely see it.

… because the safe biking infrastructure isn’t there.

So you can actually do it now. But you can’t actually do it now. Got it.

You can do it now. But more people would do it, if it were safer, more comfortable, more convenient. That's just not a complicated idea.

People don’t want to bike because biking fcking sucks. I’m sorry.

"I don't like bicycling."

-you

Which is fine, you don't have to like bicycling. Fortunately, bike lanes will not force you to bicycle.

Look around. We’ve had bike lanes for 15 years and yet they’re empty of any people nearly 100 percent of the time. This has been a failed experiment.

I do look around. I see bicyclists. It's very disturbing that you are unable to see bicyclists. I hope you're not driving.

Bicycling is becoming *less* popular. Even after adjusting for the rise of work-from-home, surveys show fewer people are cycling despite the absurd amount of money the government continues to pour into biking infrastructure.

The DDOT testimony for tomorrow claims that 22% of all trips made in DC are by bike.

You are wrong. Terribly wrong. Horribly wrong.

So you're telling that the government agency that spends billions of dollars on bike stuff that no one asked for and virtually no one uses is producing numbers attempting to show that it's decisions were not stupid? Wow, I can't believe it.

You could just look at more independent analyses like the one put together by the Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments. They show cycling (and buses and subway) is losing a ton of market share to drivers.

If you say that DDOT spends *b*illons (rather than the actual, maybe double digit *m*illions), all your creditability goes directly into the toilet.

You could actually look at the city's budget. It routinely spends $250 million a year on bike stuff and has been doing so for many, many years. So, yes, billions.

[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:The reason the bike mafia tweets pics of running errands on a bike is that it is so uncommon. Like look “you CAN shop for groceries on a bike.” But if bikes were actually common there would be no need for the picture, we’d see it every day. But we rarely see it.

… because the safe biking infrastructure isn’t there.

So you can actually do it now. But you can’t actually do it now. Got it.

You can do it now. But more people would do it, if it were safer, more comfortable, more convenient. That's just not a complicated idea.

People don’t want to bike because biking fcking sucks. I’m sorry.

"I don't like bicycling."

-you

Which is fine, you don't have to like bicycling. Fortunately, bike lanes will not force you to bicycle.

Look around. We’ve had bike lanes for 15 years and yet they’re empty of any people nearly 100 percent of the time. This has been a failed experiment.

I do look around. I see bicyclists. It's very disturbing that you are unable to see bicyclists. I hope you're not driving.

Bicycling is becoming *less* popular. Even after adjusting for the rise of work-from-home, surveys show fewer people are cycling despite the absurd amount of money the government continues to pour into biking infrastructure.

The DDOT testimony for tomorrow claims that 22% of all trips made in DC are by bike.

You are wrong. Terribly wrong. Horribly wrong.

So you're telling that the government agency that spends billions of dollars on bike stuff that no one asked for and virtually no one uses is producing numbers attempting to show that it's decisions were not stupid? Wow, I can't believe it.

You could just look at more independent analyses like the one put together by the Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments. They show cycling (and buses and subway) is losing a ton of market share to drivers.

If you say that DDOT spends *b*illons (rather than the actual, maybe double digit *m*illions), all your creditability goes directly into the toilet.

You could actually look at the city's budget. It routinely spends $250 million a year on bike stuff and has been doing so for many, many years. So, yes, billions.

Yes, and I'm a millionaire (if you add up my annual income over many years).

[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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The reason the bike mafia tweets pics of running errands on a bike is that it is so uncommon. Like look “you CAN shop for groceries on a bike.” But if bikes were actually common there would be no need for the picture, we’d see it every day. But we rarely see it.

… because the safe biking infrastructure isn’t there.

So you can actually do it now. But you can’t actually do it now. Got it.

You can do it now. But more people would do it, if it were safer, more comfortable, more convenient. That's just not a complicated idea.

People don’t want to bike because biking fcking sucks. I’m sorry.

"I don't like bicycling."

-you

Which is fine, you don't have to like bicycling. Fortunately, bike lanes will not force you to bicycle.

Look around. We’ve had bike lanes for 15 years and yet they’re empty of any people nearly 100 percent of the time. This has been a failed experiment.

I do look around. I see bicyclists. It's very disturbing that you are unable to see bicyclists. I hope you're not driving.

Bicycling is becoming *less* popular. Even after adjusting for the rise of work-from-home, surveys show fewer people are cycling despite the absurd amount of money the government continues to pour into biking infrastructure.

The DDOT testimony for tomorrow claims that 22% of all trips made in DC are by bike.

You are wrong. Terribly wrong. Horribly wrong.

So you're telling that the government agency that spends billions of dollars on bike stuff that no one asked for and virtually no one uses is producing numbers attempting to show that it's decisions were not stupid? Wow, I can't believe it.

You could just look at more independent analyses like the one put together by the Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments. They show cycling (and buses and subway) is losing a ton of market share to drivers.

Census data shows cycling is becoming less popular nationwide. It's slightly more popular in DC than it was 10 years ago, but the increase is very small given the amount of money the city has poured into it.

https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2023-09-27/biking-to-work-isn-t-gaining-any-ground-in-the-us

That the numbers are very low across the board suggests the total addressable market for cycling is quite low. Which is to say: cycling appeals to a small segment of white Bernie bros and not many other people

What critics don't understand is that bike lanes along Connecticut Avenue will help to catalyze the area's transformation to a great vibrant urban corridor. Think thousands of new units, many affordable, that will attract climate conscious residents looking for a car-free lifestyle. And yes, they will use the bike lanes. Add in the Red Line, lots of new cool restaurants, speakeasy, and coffee shops and Connecticut could be as fun and lively as the Wharf, Navy Yard and U Street!

Critics do understand it, and they hate the idea.

This! Ward 3 is the least bike friendly ward in the city, and Connecticut Avenue is the least bike friendly corridor in Ward 3. Throwing all your financial and political capital into this project is a losing proposition. Ward 3 wants Connecticut Ave to be a traffic sewer. The city should focus its efforts on more fertile ground.

Ward 3 is definitely not the least bike-friendly ward in the city (try Ward 8 or Ward 7, where the streets are even more dangerous and/but bike infrastructure is less popular).

Ward 3 has a much higher proportion of detached SFH and car ownership. The ward is far more car dependent than anything east of the river. They also have way more time and resources to keep it that way.

Getting as Apples to Apples as we can, Pennsylvania Ave already has multiple sections of multi-use path. It would be a lot easier to extend and link those segments than to get anything on Connecticut.

[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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The reason the bike mafia tweets pics of running errands on a bike is that it is so uncommon. Like look “you CAN shop for groceries on a bike.” But if bikes were actually common there would be no need for the picture, we’d see it every day. But we rarely see it.

… because the safe biking infrastructure isn’t there.

So you can actually do it now. But you can’t actually do it now. Got it.

You can do it now. But more people would do it, if it were safer, more comfortable, more convenient. That's just not a complicated idea.

People don’t want to bike because biking fcking sucks. I’m sorry.

"I don't like bicycling."

-you

Which is fine, you don't have to like bicycling. Fortunately, bike lanes will not force you to bicycle.

Look around. We’ve had bike lanes for 15 years and yet they’re empty of any people nearly 100 percent of the time. This has been a failed experiment.

I do look around. I see bicyclists. It's very disturbing that you are unable to see bicyclists. I hope you're not driving.

Bicycling is becoming *less* popular. Even after adjusting for the rise of work-from-home, surveys show fewer people are cycling despite the absurd amount of money the government continues to pour into biking infrastructure.

The DDOT testimony for tomorrow claims that 22% of all trips made in DC are by bike.

You are wrong. Terribly wrong. Horribly wrong.

So you're telling that the government agency that spends billions of dollars on bike stuff that no one asked for and virtually no one uses is producing numbers attempting to show that it's decisions were not stupid? Wow, I can't believe it.

You could just look at more independent analyses like the one put together by the Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments. They show cycling (and buses and subway) is losing a ton of market share to drivers.

Census data shows cycling is becoming less popular nationwide. It's slightly more popular in DC than it was 10 years ago, but the increase is very small given the amount of money the city has poured into it.

https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2023-09-27/biking-to-work-isn-t-gaining-any-ground-in-the-us

That the numbers are very low across the board suggests the total addressable market for cycling is quite low. Which is to say: cycling appeals to a small segment of white Bernie bros and not many other people

What critics don't understand is that bike lanes along Connecticut Avenue will help to catalyze the area's transformation to a great vibrant urban corridor. Think thousands of new units, many affordable, that will attract climate conscious residents looking for a car-free lifestyle. And yes, they will use the bike lanes. Add in the Red Line, lots of new cool restaurants, speakeasy, and coffee shops and Connecticut could be as fun and lively as the Wharf, Navy Yard and U Street!

Critics do understand it, and they hate the idea.

This! Ward 3 is the least bike friendly ward in the city, and Connecticut Avenue is the least bike friendly corridor in Ward 3. Throwing all your financial and political capital into this project is a losing proposition. Ward 3 wants Connecticut Ave to be a traffic sewer. The city should focus its efforts on more fertile ground.

Ward 3 is definitely not the least bike-friendly ward in the city (try Ward 8 or Ward 7, where the streets are even more dangerous and/but bike infrastructure is less popular).

There are a number of streets with bike lanes in Ward 3. Moreover, the ward has ready access to Rock Creek Park, including the bike trail, the Klingle Valley bike trail (an entire roadway closed for a trail), the towpath, extension of Capital Crescent trail, etc

The best bike infrastructure in Ward 3 is on land that DC doesn't own, and therefore Ward 3 voters couldn't easily torpedo. This is balanced by the Anacostia River Trail and in theory the route along Suitland Parkway.

[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:The reason the bike mafia tweets pics of running errands on a bike is that it is so uncommon. Like look “you CAN shop for groceries on a bike.” But if bikes were actually common there would be no need for the picture, we’d see it every day. But we rarely see it.

… because the safe biking infrastructure isn’t there.

So you can actually do it now. But you can’t actually do it now. Got it.

You can do it now. But more people would do it, if it were safer, more comfortable, more convenient. That's just not a complicated idea.

People don’t want to bike because biking fcking sucks. I’m sorry.

"I don't like bicycling."

-you

Which is fine, you don't have to like bicycling. Fortunately, bike lanes will not force you to bicycle.

Look around. We’ve had bike lanes for 15 years and yet they’re empty of any people nearly 100 percent of the time. This has been a failed experiment.

I do look around. I see bicyclists. It's very disturbing that you are unable to see bicyclists. I hope you're not driving.

Bicycling is becoming *less* popular. Even after adjusting for the rise of work-from-home, surveys show fewer people are cycling despite the absurd amount of money the government continues to pour into biking infrastructure.

The DDOT testimony for tomorrow claims that 22% of all trips made in DC are by bike.

You are wrong. Terribly wrong. Horribly wrong.

So you're telling that the government agency that spends billions of dollars on bike stuff that no one asked for and virtually no one uses is producing numbers attempting to show that it's decisions were not stupid? Wow, I can't believe it.

You could just look at more independent analyses like the one put together by the Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments. They show cycling (and buses and subway) is losing a ton of market share to drivers.

If you say that DDOT spends *b*illons (rather than the actual, maybe double digit *m*illions), all your creditability goes directly into the toilet.

You could actually look at the city's budget. It routinely spends $250 million a year on bike stuff and has been doing so for many, many years. So, yes, billions.

Bike-related, but a lot of that money is for other road upgrades, pedestrian upgrades, etc. the actual $ for paint for bike lanes is pretty minimal.

Also, if you want to keep it apples to apples then we're spending trillions on car infrastructure that's choking the planet and hurting people. Why does that seem smart to you?

[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:The reason the bike mafia tweets pics of running errands on a bike is that it is so uncommon. Like look “you CAN shop for groceries on a bike.” But if bikes were actually common there would be no need for the picture, we’d see it every day. But we rarely see it.

… because the safe biking infrastructure isn’t there.

So you can actually do it now. But you can’t actually do it now. Got it.

You can do it now. But more people would do it, if it were safer, more comfortable, more convenient. That's just not a complicated idea.

People don’t want to bike because biking fcking sucks. I’m sorry.

"I don't like bicycling."

-you

Which is fine, you don't have to like bicycling. Fortunately, bike lanes will not force you to bicycle.

Look around. We’ve had bike lanes for 15 years and yet they’re empty of any people nearly 100 percent of the time. This has been a failed experiment.

I do look around. I see bicyclists. It's very disturbing that you are unable to see bicyclists. I hope you're not driving.

Bicycling is becoming *less* popular. Even after adjusting for the rise of work-from-home, surveys show fewer people are cycling despite the absurd amount of money the government continues to pour into biking infrastructure.

The DDOT testimony for tomorrow claims that 22% of all trips made in DC are by bike.

You are wrong. Terribly wrong. Horribly wrong.

So you're telling that the government agency that spends billions of dollars on bike stuff that no one asked for and virtually no one uses is producing numbers attempting to show that it's decisions were not stupid? Wow, I can't believe it.

You could just look at more independent analyses like the one put together by the Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments. They show cycling (and buses and subway) is losing a ton of market share to drivers.

If you say that DDOT spends *b*illons (rather than the actual, maybe double digit *m*illions), all your creditability goes directly into the toilet.

You could actually look at the city's budget. It routinely spends $250 million a year on bike stuff and has been doing so for many, many years. So, yes, billions.

Yes, and I'm a millionaire (if you add up my annual income over many years).

Cool non sequitur.

The question is whether the city has spend billions on bike stuff and the answer is yes.

What's crazy is, despite all those billions, the number of cyclists here is only slightly less tiny than it was 10 years ago.

[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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The reason the bike mafia tweets pics of running errands on a bike is that it is so uncommon. Like look “you CAN shop for groceries on a bike.” But if bikes were actually common there would be no need for the picture, we’d see it every day. But we rarely see it.

… because the safe biking infrastructure isn’t there.

So you can actually do it now. But you can’t actually do it now. Got it.

You can do it now. But more people would do it, if it were safer, more comfortable, more convenient. That's just not a complicated idea.

People don’t want to bike because biking fcking sucks. I’m sorry.

"I don't like bicycling."

-you

Which is fine, you don't have to like bicycling. Fortunately, bike lanes will not force you to bicycle.

Look around. We’ve had bike lanes for 15 years and yet they’re empty of any people nearly 100 percent of the time. This has been a failed experiment.

I do look around. I see bicyclists. It's very disturbing that you are unable to see bicyclists. I hope you're not driving.

Bicycling is becoming *less* popular. Even after adjusting for the rise of work-from-home, surveys show fewer people are cycling despite the absurd amount of money the government continues to pour into biking infrastructure.

The DDOT testimony for tomorrow claims that 22% of all trips made in DC are by bike.

You are wrong. Terribly wrong. Horribly wrong.

So you're telling that the government agency that spends billions of dollars on bike stuff that no one asked for and virtually no one uses is producing numbers attempting to show that it's decisions were not stupid? Wow, I can't believe it.

You could just look at more independent analyses like the one put together by the Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments. They show cycling (and buses and subway) is losing a ton of market share to drivers.

Census data shows cycling is becoming less popular nationwide. It's slightly more popular in DC than it was 10 years ago, but the increase is very small given the amount of money the city has poured into it.

https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2023-09-27/biking-to-work-isn-t-gaining-any-ground-in-the-us

That the numbers are very low across the board suggests the total addressable market for cycling is quite low. Which is to say: cycling appeals to a small segment of white Bernie bros and not many other people

What critics don't understand is that bike lanes along Connecticut Avenue will help to catalyze the area's transformation to a great vibrant urban corridor. Think thousands of new units, many affordable, that will attract climate conscious residents looking for a car-free lifestyle. And yes, they will use the bike lanes. Add in the Red Line, lots of new cool restaurants, speakeasy, and coffee shops and Connecticut could be as fun and lively as the Wharf, Navy Yard and U Street!

Critics do understand it, and they hate the idea.

This! Ward 3 is the least bike friendly ward in the city, and Connecticut Avenue is the least bike friendly corridor in Ward 3. Throwing all your financial and political capital into this project is a losing proposition. Ward 3 wants Connecticut Ave to be a traffic sewer. The city should focus its efforts on more fertile ground.

Ward 3 is definitely not the least bike-friendly ward in the city (try Ward 8 or Ward 7, where the streets are even more dangerous and/but bike infrastructure is less popular).

There are a number of streets with bike lanes in Ward 3. Moreover, the ward has ready access to Rock Creek Park, including the bike trail, the Klingle Valley bike trail (an entire roadway closed for a trail), the towpath, extension of Capital Crescent trail, etc

The best bike infrastructure in Ward 3 is on land that DC doesn't own, and therefore Ward 3 voters couldn't easily torpedo. This is balanced by the Anacostia River Trail and in theory the route along Suitland Parkway.

What does it matter that some of the paths (for example, Rock Creek Park) are on land that DC doesn't own? Ward 3 residents and others get to enjoy them, and the point is that there is bike infrastructure in upper Northwest, including paths that connect directly to a regional network of trails. That's why the "need" to take away two travel lanes on Connecticut Avenue for more bike lanes is a big head-scratcher.

[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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The reason the bike mafia tweets pics of running errands on a bike is that it is so uncommon. Like look “you CAN shop for groceries on a bike.” But if bikes were actually common there would be no need for the picture, we’d see it every day. But we rarely see it.

… because the safe biking infrastructure isn’t there.

So you can actually do it now. But you can’t actually do it now. Got it.

You can do it now. But more people would do it, if it were safer, more comfortable, more convenient. That's just not a complicated idea.

People don’t want to bike because biking fcking sucks. I’m sorry.

"I don't like bicycling."

-you

Which is fine, you don't have to like bicycling. Fortunately, bike lanes will not force you to bicycle.

Look around. We’ve had bike lanes for 15 years and yet they’re empty of any people nearly 100 percent of the time. This has been a failed experiment.

I do look around. I see bicyclists. It's very disturbing that you are unable to see bicyclists. I hope you're not driving.

Bicycling is becoming *less* popular. Even after adjusting for the rise of work-from-home, surveys show fewer people are cycling despite the absurd amount of money the government continues to pour into biking infrastructure.

The DDOT testimony for tomorrow claims that 22% of all trips made in DC are by bike.

You are wrong. Terribly wrong. Horribly wrong.

So you're telling that the government agency that spends billions of dollars on bike stuff that no one asked for and virtually no one uses is producing numbers attempting to show that it's decisions were not stupid? Wow, I can't believe it.

You could just look at more independent analyses like the one put together by the Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments. They show cycling (and buses and subway) is losing a ton of market share to drivers.

Census data shows cycling is becoming less popular nationwide. It's slightly more popular in DC than it was 10 years ago, but the increase is very small given the amount of money the city has poured into it.

https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2023-09-27/biking-to-work-isn-t-gaining-any-ground-in-the-us

That the numbers are very low across the board suggests the total addressable market for cycling is quite low. Which is to say: cycling appeals to a small segment of white Bernie bros and not many other people

What critics don't understand is that bike lanes along Connecticut Avenue will help to catalyze the area's transformation to a great vibrant urban corridor. Think thousands of new units, many affordable, that will attract climate conscious residents looking for a car-free lifestyle. And yes, they will use the bike lanes. Add in the Red Line, lots of new cool restaurants, speakeasy, and coffee shops and Connecticut could be as fun and lively as the Wharf, Navy Yard and U Street!

Critics do understand it, and they hate the idea.

This! Ward 3 is the least bike friendly ward in the city, and Connecticut Avenue is the least bike friendly corridor in Ward 3. Throwing all your financial and political capital into this project is a losing proposition. Ward 3 wants Connecticut Ave to be a traffic sewer. The city should focus its efforts on more fertile ground.

Ward 3 is definitely not the least bike-friendly ward in the city (try Ward 8 or Ward 7, where the streets are even more dangerous and/but bike infrastructure is less popular).

There are a number of streets with bike lanes in Ward 3. Moreover, the ward has ready access to Rock Creek Park, including the bike trail, the Klingle Valley bike trail (an entire roadway closed for a trail), the towpath, extension of Capital Crescent trail, etc

The best bike infrastructure in Ward 3 is on land that DC doesn't own, and therefore Ward 3 voters couldn't easily torpedo. This is balanced by the Anacostia River Trail and in theory the route along Suitland Parkway.

What does it matter that some of the paths (for example, Rock Creek Park) are on land that DC doesn't own? Ward 3 residents and others get to enjoy them, and the point is that there is bike infrastructure in upper Northwest, including paths that connect directly to a regional network of trails. That's why the "need" to take away two travel lanes on Connecticut Avenue for more bike lanes is a big head-scratcher.

There is a lot of road infrastructure in upper Northwest, including roads that connect directly to a regional network of roads. That's why the "need" to maintain these two specific car lanes on this one specific road is a big head-scratcher.

[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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The reason the bike mafia tweets pics of running errands on a bike is that it is so uncommon. Like look “you CAN shop for groceries on a bike.” But if bikes were actually common there would be no need for the picture, we’d see it every day. But we rarely see it.

… because the safe biking infrastructure isn’t there.

So you can actually do it now. But you can’t actually do it now. Got it.

You can do it now. But more people would do it, if it were safer, more comfortable, more convenient. That's just not a complicated idea.

People don’t want to bike because biking fcking sucks. I’m sorry.

"I don't like bicycling."

-you

Which is fine, you don't have to like bicycling. Fortunately, bike lanes will not force you to bicycle.

Look around. We’ve had bike lanes for 15 years and yet they’re empty of any people nearly 100 percent of the time. This has been a failed experiment.

I do look around. I see bicyclists. It's very disturbing that you are unable to see bicyclists. I hope you're not driving.

Bicycling is becoming *less* popular. Even after adjusting for the rise of work-from-home, surveys show fewer people are cycling despite the absurd amount of money the government continues to pour into biking infrastructure.

The DDOT testimony for tomorrow claims that 22% of all trips made in DC are by bike.

You are wrong. Terribly wrong. Horribly wrong.

So you're telling that the government agency that spends billions of dollars on bike stuff that no one asked for and virtually no one uses is producing numbers attempting to show that it's decisions were not stupid? Wow, I can't believe it.

You could just look at more independent analyses like the one put together by the Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments. They show cycling (and buses and subway) is losing a ton of market share to drivers.

Census data shows cycling is becoming less popular nationwide. It's slightly more popular in DC than it was 10 years ago, but the increase is very small given the amount of money the city has poured into it.

https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2023-09-27/biking-to-work-isn-t-gaining-any-ground-in-the-us

That the numbers are very low across the board suggests the total addressable market for cycling is quite low. Which is to say: cycling appeals to a small segment of white Bernie bros and not many other people

What critics don't understand is that bike lanes along Connecticut Avenue will help to catalyze the area's transformation to a great vibrant urban corridor. Think thousands of new units, many affordable, that will attract climate conscious residents looking for a car-free lifestyle. And yes, they will use the bike lanes. Add in the Red Line, lots of new cool restaurants, speakeasy, and coffee shops and Connecticut could be as fun and lively as the Wharf, Navy Yard and U Street!

Critics do understand it, and they hate the idea.

This! Ward 3 is the least bike friendly ward in the city, and Connecticut Avenue is the least bike friendly corridor in Ward 3. Throwing all your financial and political capital into this project is a losing proposition. Ward 3 wants Connecticut Ave to be a traffic sewer. The city should focus its efforts on more fertile ground.

Ward 3 is definitely not the least bike-friendly ward in the city (try Ward 8 or Ward 7, where the streets are even more dangerous and/but bike infrastructure is less popular).

There are a number of streets with bike lanes in Ward 3. Moreover, the ward has ready access to Rock Creek Park, including the bike trail, the Klingle Valley bike trail (an entire roadway closed for a trail), the towpath, extension of Capital Crescent trail, etc

The best bike infrastructure in Ward 3 is on land that DC doesn't own, and therefore Ward 3 voters couldn't easily torpedo. This is balanced by the Anacostia River Trail and in theory the route along Suitland Parkway.

What does it matter that some of the paths (for example, Rock Creek Park) are on land that DC doesn't own? Ward 3 residents and others get to enjoy them, and the point is that there is bike infrastructure in upper Northwest, including paths that connect directly to a regional network of trails. That's why the "need" to take away two travel lanes on Connecticut Avenue for more bike lanes is a big head-scratcher.

There is a lot of road infrastructure in upper Northwest, including roads that connect directly to a regional network of roads. That's why the "need" to maintain these two specific car lanes on this one specific road is a big head-scratcher.

Reno Rd, Wisconsin Ave, etc. are already backed up with traffic. Where do you suggest the traffic divert to? 35th St? Idaho Ave?

[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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The reason the bike mafia tweets pics of running errands on a bike is that it is so uncommon. Like look “you CAN shop for groceries on a bike.” But if bikes were actually common there would be no need for the picture, we’d see it every day. But we rarely see it.

… because the safe biking infrastructure isn’t there.

So you can actually do it now. But you can’t actually do it now. Got it.

You can do it now. But more people would do it, if it were safer, more comfortable, more convenient. That's just not a complicated idea.

People don’t want to bike because biking fcking sucks. I’m sorry.

"I don't like bicycling."

-you

Which is fine, you don't have to like bicycling. Fortunately, bike lanes will not force you to bicycle.

Look around. We’ve had bike lanes for 15 years and yet they’re empty of any people nearly 100 percent of the time. This has been a failed experiment.

I do look around. I see bicyclists. It's very disturbing that you are unable to see bicyclists. I hope you're not driving.

Bicycling is becoming *less* popular. Even after adjusting for the rise of work-from-home, surveys show fewer people are cycling despite the absurd amount of money the government continues to pour into biking infrastructure.

The DDOT testimony for tomorrow claims that 22% of all trips made in DC are by bike.

You are wrong. Terribly wrong. Horribly wrong.

So you're telling that the government agency that spends billions of dollars on bike stuff that no one asked for and virtually no one uses is producing numbers attempting to show that it's decisions were not stupid? Wow, I can't believe it.

You could just look at more independent analyses like the one put together by the Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments. They show cycling (and buses and subway) is losing a ton of market share to drivers.

Census data shows cycling is becoming less popular nationwide. It's slightly more popular in DC than it was 10 years ago, but the increase is very small given the amount of money the city has poured into it.

https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2023-09-27/biking-to-work-isn-t-gaining-any-ground-in-the-us

That the numbers are very low across the board suggests the total addressable market for cycling is quite low. Which is to say: cycling appeals to a small segment of white Bernie bros and not many other people

What critics don't understand is that bike lanes along Connecticut Avenue will help to catalyze the area's transformation to a great vibrant urban corridor. Think thousands of new units, many affordable, that will attract climate conscious residents looking for a car-free lifestyle. And yes, they will use the bike lanes. Add in the Red Line, lots of new cool restaurants, speakeasy, and coffee shops and Connecticut could be as fun and lively as the Wharf, Navy Yard and U Street!

Critics do understand it, and they hate the idea.

This! Ward 3 is the least bike friendly ward in the city, and Connecticut Avenue is the least bike friendly corridor in Ward 3. Throwing all your financial and political capital into this project is a losing proposition. Ward 3 wants Connecticut Ave to be a traffic sewer. The city should focus its efforts on more fertile ground.

Ward 3 is definitely not the least bike-friendly ward in the city (try Ward 8 or Ward 7, where the streets are even more dangerous and/but bike infrastructure is less popular).

There are a number of streets with bike lanes in Ward 3. Moreover, the ward has ready access to Rock Creek Park, including the bike trail, the Klingle Valley bike trail (an entire roadway closed for a trail), the towpath, extension of Capital Crescent trail, etc

The best bike infrastructure in Ward 3 is on land that DC doesn't own, and therefore Ward 3 voters couldn't easily torpedo. This is balanced by the Anacostia River Trail and in theory the route along Suitland Parkway.

What does it matter that some of the paths (for example, Rock Creek Park) are on land that DC doesn't own? Ward 3 residents and others get to enjoy them, and the point is that there is bike infrastructure in upper Northwest, including paths that connect directly to a regional network of trails. That's why the "need" to take away two travel lanes on Connecticut Avenue for more bike lanes is a big head-scratcher.

There is a lot of road infrastructure in upper Northwest, including roads that connect directly to a regional network of roads. That's why the "need" to maintain these two specific car lanes on this one specific road is a big head-scratcher.

Reno Rd, Wisconsin Ave, etc. are already backed up with traffic. Where do you suggest the traffic divert to? 35th St? Idaho Ave?

I suggest that people who don't like sitting in car traffic consider using different modes of transportation that will enable them to avoid sitting in car traffic.

[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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The reason the bike mafia tweets pics of running errands on a bike is that it is so uncommon. Like look “you CAN shop for groceries on a bike.” But if bikes were actually common there would be no need for the picture, we’d see it every day. But we rarely see it.

… because the safe biking infrastructure isn’t there.

So you can actually do it now. But you can’t actually do it now. Got it.

You can do it now. But more people would do it, if it were safer, more comfortable, more convenient. That's just not a complicated idea.

People don’t want to bike because biking fcking sucks. I’m sorry.

"I don't like bicycling."

-you

Which is fine, you don't have to like bicycling. Fortunately, bike lanes will not force you to bicycle.

Look around. We’ve had bike lanes for 15 years and yet they’re empty of any people nearly 100 percent of the time. This has been a failed experiment.

I do look around. I see bicyclists. It's very disturbing that you are unable to see bicyclists. I hope you're not driving.

Bicycling is becoming *less* popular. Even after adjusting for the rise of work-from-home, surveys show fewer people are cycling despite the absurd amount of money the government continues to pour into biking infrastructure.

The DDOT testimony for tomorrow claims that 22% of all trips made in DC are by bike.

You are wrong. Terribly wrong. Horribly wrong.

So you're telling that the government agency that spends billions of dollars on bike stuff that no one asked for and virtually no one uses is producing numbers attempting to show that it's decisions were not stupid? Wow, I can't believe it.

You could just look at more independent analyses like the one put together by the Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments. They show cycling (and buses and subway) is losing a ton of market share to drivers.

Census data shows cycling is becoming less popular nationwide. It's slightly more popular in DC than it was 10 years ago, but the increase is very small given the amount of money the city has poured into it.

https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2023-09-27/biking-to-work-isn-t-gaining-any-ground-in-the-us

That the numbers are very low across the board suggests the total addressable market for cycling is quite low. Which is to say: cycling appeals to a small segment of white Bernie bros and not many other people

What critics don't understand is that bike lanes along Connecticut Avenue will help to catalyze the area's transformation to a great vibrant urban corridor. Think thousands of new units, many affordable, that will attract climate conscious residents looking for a car-free lifestyle. And yes, they will use the bike lanes. Add in the Red Line, lots of new cool restaurants, speakeasy, and coffee shops and Connecticut could be as fun and lively as the Wharf, Navy Yard and U Street!

Critics do understand it, and they hate the idea.

This! Ward 3 is the least bike friendly ward in the city, and Connecticut Avenue is the least bike friendly corridor in Ward 3. Throwing all your financial and political capital into this project is a losing proposition. Ward 3 wants Connecticut Ave to be a traffic sewer. The city should focus its efforts on more fertile ground.

Ward 3 is definitely not the least bike-friendly ward in the city (try Ward 8 or Ward 7, where the streets are even more dangerous and/but bike infrastructure is less popular).

There are a number of streets with bike lanes in Ward 3. Moreover, the ward has ready access to Rock Creek Park, including the bike trail, the Klingle Valley bike trail (an entire roadway closed for a trail), the towpath, extension of Capital Crescent trail, etc

The best bike infrastructure in Ward 3 is on land that DC doesn't own, and therefore Ward 3 voters couldn't easily torpedo. This is balanced by the Anacostia River Trail and in theory the route along Suitland Parkway.

What does it matter that some of the paths (for example, Rock Creek Park) are on land that DC doesn't own? Ward 3 residents and others get to enjoy them, and the point is that there is bike infrastructure in upper Northwest, including paths that connect directly to a regional network of trails. That's why the "need" to take away two travel lanes on Connecticut Avenue for more bike lanes is a big head-scratcher.

There is a lot of road infrastructure in upper Northwest, including roads that connect directly to a regional network of roads. That's why the "need" to maintain these two specific car lanes on this one specific road is a big head-scratcher.

Reno Rd, Wisconsin Ave, etc. are already backed up with traffic. Where do you suggest the traffic divert to? 35th St? Idaho Ave?

I suggest that people who don't like sitting in car traffic consider using different modes of transportation that will enable them to avoid sitting in car traffic.

I suggest that people who don't like to ride bikes on Connecticut Ave find another mode of transportation.

[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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The reason the bike mafia tweets pics of running errands on a bike is that it is so uncommon. Like look “you CAN shop for groceries on a bike.” But if bikes were actually common there would be no need for the picture, we’d see it every day. But we rarely see it.

… because the safe biking infrastructure isn’t there.

So you can actually do it now. But you can’t actually do it now. Got it.

You can do it now. But more people would do it, if it were safer, more comfortable, more convenient. That's just not a complicated idea.

People don’t want to bike because biking fcking sucks. I’m sorry.

"I don't like bicycling."

-you

Which is fine, you don't have to like bicycling. Fortunately, bike lanes will not force you to bicycle.

Look around. We’ve had bike lanes for 15 years and yet they’re empty of any people nearly 100 percent of the time. This has been a failed experiment.

I do look around. I see bicyclists. It's very disturbing that you are unable to see bicyclists. I hope you're not driving.

Bicycling is becoming *less* popular. Even after adjusting for the rise of work-from-home, surveys show fewer people are cycling despite the absurd amount of money the government continues to pour into biking infrastructure.

The DDOT testimony for tomorrow claims that 22% of all trips made in DC are by bike.

You are wrong. Terribly wrong. Horribly wrong.

So you're telling that the government agency that spends billions of dollars on bike stuff that no one asked for and virtually no one uses is producing numbers attempting to show that it's decisions were not stupid? Wow, I can't believe it.

You could just look at more independent analyses like the one put together by the Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments. They show cycling (and buses and subway) is losing a ton of market share to drivers.

Census data shows cycling is becoming less popular nationwide. It's slightly more popular in DC than it was 10 years ago, but the increase is very small given the amount of money the city has poured into it.

https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2023-09-27/biking-to-work-isn-t-gaining-any-ground-in-the-us

That the numbers are very low across the board suggests the total addressable market for cycling is quite low. Which is to say: cycling appeals to a small segment of white Bernie bros and not many other people

What critics don't understand is that bike lanes along Connecticut Avenue will help to catalyze the area's transformation to a great vibrant urban corridor. Think thousands of new units, many affordable, that will attract climate conscious residents looking for a car-free lifestyle. And yes, they will use the bike lanes. Add in the Red Line, lots of new cool restaurants, speakeasy, and coffee shops and Connecticut could be as fun and lively as the Wharf, Navy Yard and U Street!

Critics do understand it, and they hate the idea.

This! Ward 3 is the least bike friendly ward in the city, and Connecticut Avenue is the least bike friendly corridor in Ward 3. Throwing all your financial and political capital into this project is a losing proposition. Ward 3 wants Connecticut Ave to be a traffic sewer. The city should focus its efforts on more fertile ground.

Ward 3 is definitely not the least bike-friendly ward in the city (try Ward 8 or Ward 7, where the streets are even more dangerous and/but bike infrastructure is less popular).

There are a number of streets with bike lanes in Ward 3. Moreover, the ward has ready access to Rock Creek Park, including the bike trail, the Klingle Valley bike trail (an entire roadway closed for a trail), the towpath, extension of Capital Crescent trail, etc

The best bike infrastructure in Ward 3 is on land that DC doesn't own, and therefore Ward 3 voters couldn't easily torpedo. This is balanced by the Anacostia River Trail and in theory the route along Suitland Parkway.

What does it matter that some of the paths (for example, Rock Creek Park) are on land that DC doesn't own? Ward 3 residents and others get to enjoy them, and the point is that there is bike infrastructure in upper Northwest, including paths that connect directly to a regional network of trails. That's why the "need" to take away two travel lanes on Connecticut Avenue for more bike lanes is a big head-scratcher.

There is a difference between recreational infrastructure in a park and urban infrastructure that connects neighborhoods and retail centers. Sorry you don't get that.

[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:The reason the bike mafia tweets pics of running errands on a bike is that it is so uncommon. Like look “you CAN shop for groceries on a bike.” But if bikes were actually common there would be no need for the picture, we’d see it every day. But we rarely see it.

… because the safe biking infrastructure isn’t there.

So you can actually do it now. But you can’t actually do it now. Got it.

You can do it now. But more people would do it, if it were safer, more comfortable, more convenient. That's just not a complicated idea.

People don’t want to bike because biking fcking sucks. I’m sorry.

"I don't like bicycling."

-you

Which is fine, you don't have to like bicycling. Fortunately, bike lanes will not force you to bicycle.

Look around. We’ve had bike lanes for 15 years and yet they’re empty of any people nearly 100 percent of the time. This has been a failed experiment.

I do look around. I see bicyclists. It's very disturbing that you are unable to see bicyclists. I hope you're not driving.

Bicycling is becoming *less* popular. Even after adjusting for the rise of work-from-home, surveys show fewer people are cycling despite the absurd amount of money the government continues to pour into biking infrastructure.

The DDOT testimony for tomorrow claims that 22% of all trips made in DC are by bike.

You are wrong. Terribly wrong. Horribly wrong.

So you're telling that the government agency that spends billions of dollars on bike stuff that no one asked for and virtually no one uses is producing numbers attempting to show that it's decisions were not stupid? Wow, I can't believe it.

You could just look at more independent analyses like the one put together by the Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments. They show cycling (and buses and subway) is losing a ton of market share to drivers.

If you say that DDOT spends *b*illons (rather than the actual, maybe double digit *m*illions), all your creditability goes directly into the toilet.

You could actually look at the city's budget. It routinely spends $250 million a year on bike stuff and has been doing so for many, many years. So, yes, billions.

This just isn't true. Bowser's been calling for spending $6 million a year for six years to build 10 miles of protected bike lanes per year. At that price, i.e., $1.6 million per mile, if the city had spent billions of dollars on "bike stuff," there would already be protected bike lanes on literally every road in town, and no one would be arguing about whether to install them on Connecticut.

[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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The reason the bike mafia tweets pics of running errands on a bike is that it is so uncommon. Like look “you CAN shop for groceries on a bike.” But if bikes were actually common there would be no need for the picture, we’d see it every day. But we rarely see it.

… because the safe biking infrastructure isn’t there.

So you can actually do it now. But you can’t actually do it now. Got it.

You can do it now. But more people would do it, if it were safer, more comfortable, more convenient. That's just not a complicated idea.

People don’t want to bike because biking fcking sucks. I’m sorry.

"I don't like bicycling."

-you

Which is fine, you don't have to like bicycling. Fortunately, bike lanes will not force you to bicycle.

Look around. We’ve had bike lanes for 15 years and yet they’re empty of any people nearly 100 percent of the time. This has been a failed experiment.

I do look around. I see bicyclists. It's very disturbing that you are unable to see bicyclists. I hope you're not driving.

Bicycling is becoming *less* popular. Even after adjusting for the rise of work-from-home, surveys show fewer people are cycling despite the absurd amount of money the government continues to pour into biking infrastructure.

The DDOT testimony for tomorrow claims that 22% of all trips made in DC are by bike.

You are wrong. Terribly wrong. Horribly wrong.

So you're telling that the government agency that spends billions of dollars on bike stuff that no one asked for and virtually no one uses is producing numbers attempting to show that it's decisions were not stupid? Wow, I can't believe it.

You could just look at more independent analyses like the one put together by the Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments. They show cycling (and buses and subway) is losing a ton of market share to drivers.

Census data shows cycling is becoming less popular nationwide. It's slightly more popular in DC than it was 10 years ago, but the increase is very small given the amount of money the city has poured into it.

https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2023-09-27/biking-to-work-isn-t-gaining-any-ground-in-the-us

That the numbers are very low across the board suggests the total addressable market for cycling is quite low. Which is to say: cycling appeals to a small segment of white Bernie bros and not many other people

What critics don't understand is that bike lanes along Connecticut Avenue will help to catalyze the area's transformation to a great vibrant urban corridor. Think thousands of new units, many affordable, that will attract climate conscious residents looking for a car-free lifestyle. And yes, they will use the bike lanes. Add in the Red Line, lots of new cool restaurants, speakeasy, and coffee shops and Connecticut could be as fun and lively as the Wharf, Navy Yard and U Street!

Critics do understand it, and they hate the idea.

This! Ward 3 is the least bike friendly ward in the city, and Connecticut Avenue is the least bike friendly corridor in Ward 3. Throwing all your financial and political capital into this project is a losing proposition. Ward 3 wants Connecticut Ave to be a traffic sewer. The city should focus its efforts on more fertile ground.

Ward 3 is definitely not the least bike-friendly ward in the city (try Ward 8 or Ward 7, where the streets are even more dangerous and/but bike infrastructure is less popular).

There are a number of streets with bike lanes in Ward 3. Moreover, the ward has ready access to Rock Creek Park, including the bike trail, the Klingle Valley bike trail (an entire roadway closed for a trail), the towpath, extension of Capital Crescent trail, etc

The best bike infrastructure in Ward 3 is on land that DC doesn't own, and therefore Ward 3 voters couldn't easily torpedo. This is balanced by the Anacostia River Trail and in theory the route along Suitland Parkway.

What does it matter that some of the paths (for example, Rock Creek Park) are on land that DC doesn't own? Ward 3 residents and others get to enjoy them, and the point is that there is bike infrastructure in upper Northwest, including paths that connect directly to a regional network of trails. That's why the "need" to take away two travel lanes on Connecticut Avenue for more bike lanes is a big head-scratcher.

There is a lot of road infrastructure in upper Northwest, including roads that connect directly to a regional network of roads. That's why the "need" to maintain these two specific car lanes on this one specific road is a big head-scratcher.

Reno Rd, Wisconsin Ave, etc. are already backed up with traffic. Where do you suggest the traffic divert to? 35th St? Idaho Ave?

I suggest that people who don't like sitting in car traffic consider using different modes of transportation that will enable them to avoid sitting in car traffic.

I suggest that people who don't like to ride bikes on Connecticut Ave find another mode of transportation.

That might be analogous if the bike lane plan were to convert Connecticut Avenue to bus/bike/walk only. But it's not. People would still be able to drive on Connecticut 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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The reason the bike mafia tweets pics of running errands on a bike is that it is so uncommon. Like look “you CAN shop for groceries on a bike.” But if bikes were actually common there would be no need for the picture, we’d see it every day. But we rarely see it.

… because the safe biking infrastructure isn’t there.

So you can actually do it now. But you can’t actually do it now. Got it.

You can do it now. But more people would do it, if it were safer, more comfortable, more convenient. That's just not a complicated idea.

People don’t want to bike because biking fcking sucks. I’m sorry.

"I don't like bicycling."

-you

Which is fine, you don't have to like bicycling. Fortunately, bike lanes will not force you to bicycle.

Look around. We’ve had bike lanes for 15 years and yet they’re empty of any people nearly 100 percent of the time. This has been a failed experiment.

I do look around. I see bicyclists. It's very disturbing that you are unable to see bicyclists. I hope you're not driving.

Bicycling is becoming *less* popular. Even after adjusting for the rise of work-from-home, surveys show fewer people are cycling despite the absurd amount of money the government continues to pour into biking infrastructure.

The DDOT testimony for tomorrow claims that 22% of all trips made in DC are by bike.

You are wrong. Terribly wrong. Horribly wrong.

So you're telling that the government agency that spends billions of dollars on bike stuff that no one asked for and virtually no one uses is producing numbers attempting to show that it's decisions were not stupid? Wow, I can't believe it.

You could just look at more independent analyses like the one put together by the Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments. They show cycling (and buses and subway) is losing a ton of market share to drivers.

Census data shows cycling is becoming less popular nationwide. It's slightly more popular in DC than it was 10 years ago, but the increase is very small given the amount of money the city has poured into it.

https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2023-09-27/biking-to-work-isn-t-gaining-any-ground-in-the-us

That the numbers are very low across the board suggests the total addressable market for cycling is quite low. Which is to say: cycling appeals to a small segment of white Bernie bros and not many other people

What critics don't understand is that bike lanes along Connecticut Avenue will help to catalyze the area's transformation to a great vibrant urban corridor. Think thousands of new units, many affordable, that will attract climate conscious residents looking for a car-free lifestyle. And yes, they will use the bike lanes. Add in the Red Line, lots of new cool restaurants, speakeasy, and coffee shops and Connecticut could be as fun and lively as the Wharf, Navy Yard and U Street!

Critics do understand it, and they hate the idea.

This! Ward 3 is the least bike friendly ward in the city, and Connecticut Avenue is the least bike friendly corridor in Ward 3. Throwing all your financial and political capital into this project is a losing proposition. Ward 3 wants Connecticut Ave to be a traffic sewer. The city should focus its efforts on more fertile ground.

Ward 3 is definitely not the least bike-friendly ward in the city (try Ward 8 or Ward 7, where the streets are even more dangerous and/but bike infrastructure is less popular).

There are a number of streets with bike lanes in Ward 3. Moreover, the ward has ready access to Rock Creek Park, including the bike trail, the Klingle Valley bike trail (an entire roadway closed for a trail), the towpath, extension of Capital Crescent trail, etc

The best bike infrastructure in Ward 3 is on land that DC doesn't own, and therefore Ward 3 voters couldn't easily torpedo. This is balanced by the Anacostia River Trail and in theory the route along Suitland Parkway.

What does it matter that some of the paths (for example, Rock Creek Park) are on land that DC doesn't own? Ward 3 residents and others get to enjoy them, and the point is that there is bike infrastructure in upper Northwest, including paths that connect directly to a regional network of trails. That's why the "need" to take away two travel lanes on Connecticut Avenue for more bike lanes is a big head-scratcher.

There is a difference between recreational infrastructure in a park and urban infrastructure that connects neighborhoods and retail centers. Sorry you don't get that.

"Retail centers"? How grand. The retail areas on Connecticut Ave -- Chevy Chase, the area around Politics & Prose, Cleveland Park -- are Mayberry-style neighborhood shopping strips. And people who shop there largely like them that way.