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:

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.

No it doesn't. You are absurd. The "$250 million a year" is the capital budget allocation to projects that involve predominately roadway redesign and paving, which often as a cherry on top, include a bike lane installation. Adding a freaking bike lane doesn't cost a lot of money, nearly ever. It's a bit of planning and a lot paint and a bit of concrete/rubber.

La la land.

[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:

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.

More like crawl on Connecticut Avenue. This means that a lot of traffic will divert to other routes, including neighborhood streets. That sucks for safety and quality of life.

[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: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.

No it doesn't. You're stupid. Dumb as a brick.

[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.

Thousands of new units with nowhere to educate thousands of new kids.

That’s the plan. It’s curious - or maybe not - that the “Smart Growth” development lobby has lobbied so loudly for the Connecticut Ave bike lanes.

"Cleveland Park Trumper" shills for both big buildings and bike lanes.

[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:

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.

More like crawl on Connecticut Avenue. This means that a lot of traffic will divert to other routes, including neighborhood streets. That sucks for safety and quality of life.

Nobody should be driving fast on Connecticut Avenue, or expect to be able to drive fast on Connecticut Avenue. And car traffic on Connecticut Avenue sucks for safety and quality of life, too. Connecticut Avenue is a neighborhood street. People live there.

[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:

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.

More like crawl on Connecticut Avenue. This means that a lot of traffic will divert to other routes, including neighborhood streets. That sucks for safety and quality of life.

Nobody should be driving fast on Connecticut Avenue, or expect to be able to drive fast on Connecticut Avenue. And car traffic on Connecticut Avenue sucks for safety and quality of life, too. Connecticut Avenue is a neighborhood street. People live there.

Like 10,000 people.

[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:

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.

More like crawl on Connecticut Avenue. This means that a lot of traffic will divert to other routes, including neighborhood streets. That sucks for safety and quality of life.

Nobody should be driving fast on Connecticut Avenue, or expect to be able to drive fast on Connecticut Avenue. And car traffic on Connecticut Avenue sucks for safety and quality of life, too. Connecticut Avenue is a neighborhood street. People live there.

Do you not understand that the traffic will back up further back? No one is driving fast. Not to mention all the speed cameras already there. The traffic backs up and will spill onto side streets.
Think please rather than react.

I’m living the Old Georgetown Road experience now.

[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:

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.

More like crawl on Connecticut Avenue. This means that a lot of traffic will divert to other routes, including neighborhood streets. That sucks for safety and quality of life.

Nobody should be driving fast on Connecticut Avenue, or expect to be able to drive fast on Connecticut Avenue. And car traffic on Connecticut Avenue sucks for safety and quality of life, too. Connecticut Avenue is a neighborhood street. People live there.

Do you not understand that the traffic will back up further back? No one is driving fast. Not to mention all the speed cameras already there. The traffic backs up and will spill onto side streets.
Think please rather than react.

I’m living the Old Georgetown Road experience now.

No one is driving fast now on Connecticut Avenue (a neighborhood street), but bike lanes would change this by making it so that people can't drive fast on Connecticut Avenue (a neighborhood street), which they already can't do now, and so then they would drive more on neighborhood streets that aren't Connecticut Avenue?

It's funny you should mention Old Georgetown Road, because what happened with Old Georgetown Road is that car travel time didn't get longer, and the road got safer. More of this, please.

[Anonymous]

Constraining travel lanes on Connecticut is like squeezing a balloon. The traffic bulge will shift to other streets.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Constraining travel lanes on Connecticut is like squeezing a balloon. The traffic bulge will shift to other streets.

Exactly.

Bowser has signaled this project is dead. DC is headed for a time of hard revenue trade offs, to put it mildly.

Why are you all posting here? Why can't you accept this is not going to happen any time in the near future?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Constraining travel lanes on Connecticut is like squeezing a balloon. The traffic bulge will shift to other streets.

Exactly.

Bowser has signaled this project is dead. DC is headed for a time of hard revenue trade offs, to put it mildly.

Why are you all posting here? Why can't you accept this is not going to happen any time in the near future?

A good question to ask the opponents of bike lanes on Connecticut Avenue, who repeatedly revive this thread.

[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:

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.

More like crawl on Connecticut Avenue. This means that a lot of traffic will divert to other routes, including neighborhood streets. That sucks for safety and quality of life.

Nobody should be driving fast on Connecticut Avenue, or expect to be able to drive fast on Connecticut Avenue. And car traffic on Connecticut Avenue sucks for safety and quality of life, too. Connecticut Avenue is a neighborhood street. People live there.

Like 10,000 people.

More than that. The corridor has at least 16 Single Member Districts with approximately 2,000 people in each. About 80% of those live on the Avenue and the balance in single family homes, so it is closer to 25,000 who live on the Avenue between Calvert and Livingston (because there aren't any residences on the Avenue north of Livingston)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Constraining travel lanes on Connecticut is like squeezing a balloon. The traffic bulge will shift to other streets.

Or metro Or scooters or 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:

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.

More like crawl on Connecticut Avenue. This means that a lot of traffic will divert to other routes, including neighborhood streets. That sucks for safety and quality of life.

Nobody should be driving fast on Connecticut Avenue, or expect to be able to drive fast on Connecticut Avenue. And car traffic on Connecticut Avenue sucks for safety and quality of life, too. Connecticut Avenue is a neighborhood street. People live there.

Do you not understand that the traffic will back up further back? No one is driving fast. Not to mention all the speed cameras already there. The traffic backs up and will spill onto side streets.
Think please rather than react.

I’m living the Old Georgetown Road experience now.

If people aren't driving fast then why are pedestrians and cyclists getting hurt? Why are cars crashing into each other?

[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:

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.

More like crawl on Connecticut Avenue. This means that a lot of traffic will divert to other routes, including neighborhood streets. That sucks for safety and quality of life.

People already divert to neighborhood side streets. There isn't enough road capacity to handle the demand, and as the region continues to grow, mostly with suburban single family communities, that demand will continue to rise without an increase in car capacity. That is why planners are trying to reconfigure roads to make it safer and encourage more pedestrian, bus and bike trips - so the space is used more efficiently than for single occupancy cars, which is the most inefficient use of space to move people.