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.
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?
For something, more drivers are driving around drunk or smoking weed than before the pandemic. And thanks to DC’s criminal justice “reforms” MPD basically doesn’t do traffic stops anymore.
There is no such thing as safe speeding. If drivers obey speed limits, crashes don't result in people being killed or seriously injured. Intoxication may explain why people speeding and driving erratically, but these efforts to deflect from the fact that speeding is generally a necessary condition in fatal or otherwise serious accidents are both silly and tiresome.
Obviously, you're *completely* full of shit.
Here's the data, from the police department:
In 2021, there were 40 traffic deaths
12 were because of speeding
10 were because the driver was drunk or stoned
6 were pedestrian error
5 were hit and run / unknown
3 were driver error
2 were medical emergencies
1 was bicyclist error
1 was scooter/motorcycle/atv error
the point is that lower speed would have meant many of those were injuries and not fatalities. also I’m not sure I buy the police dept’s determination of cause.
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.
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?
For something, more drivers are driving around drunk or smoking weed than before the pandemic. And thanks to DC’s criminal justice “reforms” MPD basically doesn’t do traffic stops anymore.
All the more reason for cyclists and pedestrians to have a physical buffer from people driving 2000+ lb vehicles.
So put painted bike lanes on part of the wide sidewalk like in Europe.
Why do you think it's appropriate to take space away from pedestrians?
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.
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?
For something, more drivers are driving around drunk or smoking weed than before the pandemic. And thanks to DC’s criminal justice “reforms” MPD basically doesn’t do traffic stops anymore.
There is no such thing as safe speeding. If drivers obey speed limits, crashes don't result in people being killed or seriously injured. Intoxication may explain why people speeding and driving erratically, but these efforts to deflect from the fact that speeding is generally a necessary condition in fatal or otherwise serious accidents are both silly and tiresome.
Obviously, you're *completely* full of shit.
Here's the data, from the police department:
In 2021, there were 40 traffic deaths
12 were because of speeding
10 were because the driver was drunk or stoned
6 were pedestrian error
5 were hit and run / unknown
3 were driver error
2 were medical emergencies
1 was bicyclist error
1 was scooter/motorcycle/atv error
the point is that lower speed would have meant many of those were injuries and not fatalities. also I’m not sure I buy the police dept’s determination of cause.
because the police investigate what actually happened? instead of making dumb assumptions (as you do) that are based on nothing at all?
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.
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?
For something, more drivers are driving around drunk or smoking weed than before the pandemic. And thanks to DC’s criminal justice “reforms” MPD basically doesn’t do traffic stops anymore.
There is no such thing as safe speeding. If drivers obey speed limits, crashes don't result in people being killed or seriously injured. Intoxication may explain why people speeding and driving erratically, but these efforts to deflect from the fact that speeding is generally a necessary condition in fatal or otherwise serious accidents are both silly and tiresome.
Obviously, you're *completely* full of shit.
Here's the data, from the police department:
In 2021, there were 40 traffic deaths
12 were because of speeding
10 were because the driver was drunk or stoned
6 were pedestrian error
5 were hit and run / unknown
3 were driver error
2 were medical emergencies
1 was bicyclist error
1 was scooter/motorcycle/atv error
Reminder: This is out of billions of trips taken.
If cyclists actually though the streets were dangerous, they wouldn't put three year olds on bikes.
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.
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?
For something, more drivers are driving around drunk or smoking weed than before the pandemic. And thanks to DC’s criminal justice “reforms” MPD basically doesn’t do traffic stops anymore.
There is no such thing as safe speeding. If drivers obey speed limits, crashes don't result in people being killed or seriously injured. Intoxication may explain why people speeding and driving erratically, but these efforts to deflect from the fact that speeding is generally a necessary condition in fatal or otherwise serious accidents are both silly and tiresome.
Obviously, you're *completely* full of shit.
Here's the data, from the police department:
In 2021, there were 40 traffic deaths
12 were because of speeding
10 were because the driver was drunk or stoned
6 were pedestrian error
5 were hit and run / unknown
3 were driver error
2 were medical emergencies
1 was bicyclist error
1 was scooter/motorcycle/atv error
You have an absolutely appalling understanding of physics, crash investigations, and basic logic. A car traveling at 25mph or less will very rarely kill someone (feel free to look up the research on this). Cars don't have black boxes and so there is no record of how the fast a car was actually traveling when the crash occurred. And there is almost never just a single cause for any accident. This is basic stuff. Please return to elementary school for remedial education.
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.
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?
For something, more drivers are driving around drunk or smoking weed than before the pandemic. And thanks to DC’s criminal justice “reforms” MPD basically doesn’t do traffic stops anymore.
There is no such thing as safe speeding. If drivers obey speed limits, crashes don't result in people being killed or seriously injured. Intoxication may explain why people speeding and driving erratically, but these efforts to deflect from the fact that speeding is generally a necessary condition in fatal or otherwise serious accidents are both silly and tiresome.
Obviously, you're *completely* full of shit.
Here's the data, from the police department:
In 2021, there were 40 traffic deaths
12 were because of speeding
10 were because the driver was drunk or stoned
6 were pedestrian error
5 were hit and run / unknown
3 were driver error
2 were medical emergencies
1 was bicyclist error
1 was scooter/motorcycle/atv error
Reminder: This is out of billions of trips taken.
If cyclists actually though the streets were dangerous, they wouldn't put three year olds on bikes.
There is no such thing as "cyclists". There are people who choose to go somewhere on a bicycle. Under different circumstances, different people will choose, or will not choose, to go somewhere on a bicycle. Why? Because different people are different. If Connecticut Avenue had safe bike infrastructure, more people would choose to go on Connecticut Avenue by bike. That is an established fact, notwithstanding your personal hatred of bicycles and the people who use them.
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.
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?
For something, more drivers are driving around drunk or smoking weed than before the pandemic. And thanks to DC’s criminal justice “reforms” MPD basically doesn’t do traffic stops anymore.
There is no such thing as safe speeding. If drivers obey speed limits, crashes don't result in people being killed or seriously injured. Intoxication may explain why people speeding and driving erratically, but these efforts to deflect from the fact that speeding is generally a necessary condition in fatal or otherwise serious accidents are both silly and tiresome.
Obviously, you're *completely* full of shit.
Here's the data, from the police department:
In 2021, there were 40 traffic deaths
12 were because of speeding
10 were because the driver was drunk or stoned
6 were pedestrian error
5 were hit and run / unknown
3 were driver error
2 were medical emergencies
1 was bicyclist error
1 was scooter/motorcycle/atv error
Reminder: This is out of billions of trips taken.
If cyclists actually though the streets were dangerous, they wouldn't put three year olds on bikes.
And trillions of miles were driven around DC by cars that were not carjacked. And trillions of steps were taken by people without being gunned down. And no one has spontaneously combusted yet due to climate change. What a wonderful mind you have. What cocktail of drugs inspires such magnificent logic?
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.
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?
For something, more drivers are driving around drunk or smoking weed than before the pandemic. And thanks to DC’s criminal justice “reforms” MPD basically doesn’t do traffic stops anymore.
All the more reason for cyclists and pedestrians to have a physical buffer from people driving 2000+ lb vehicles.
So put painted bike lanes on part of the wide sidewalk like in Europe.
Why do you think it's appropriate to take space away from pedestrians?
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.
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?
For something, more drivers are driving around drunk or smoking weed than before the pandemic. And thanks to DC’s criminal justice “reforms” MPD basically doesn’t do traffic stops anymore.
All the more reason for cyclists and pedestrians to have a physical buffer from people driving 2000+ lb vehicles.
So put painted bike lanes on part of the wide sidewalk like in Europe.
Why do you think it's appropriate to take space away from pedestrians?
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.
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?
For something, more drivers are driving around drunk or smoking weed than before the pandemic. And thanks to DC’s criminal justice “reforms” MPD basically doesn’t do traffic stops anymore.
All the more reason for cyclists and pedestrians to have a physical buffer from people driving 2000+ lb vehicles.
So put painted bike lanes on part of the wide sidewalk like in Europe.
Why do you think it's appropriate to take space away from pedestrians?
Sidewalk streeteries or bike lanes? If it's about "safety" the choice is pretty clear, no?
If it's about safety, then the choice is clear: protected bike lanes, which make the street safer for everyone.
Painted at the edge of the wide sidewalk on Connecticut, with the rest for pedestrians. Win-win, as Connecticut traffic capacity won't be and parking won't be cut further. We can give up a few sidewalk streeteries.
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.
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?
For something, more drivers are driving around drunk or smoking weed than before the pandemic. And thanks to DC’s criminal justice “reforms” MPD basically doesn’t do traffic stops anymore.
All the more reason for cyclists and pedestrians to have a physical buffer from people driving 2000+ lb vehicles.
So put painted bike lanes on part of the wide sidewalk like in Europe.
Why do you think it's appropriate to take space away from pedestrians?
Sidewalk streeteries or bike lanes? If it's about "safety" the choice is pretty clear, no?
If it's about safety, then the choice is clear: protected bike lanes, which make the street safer for everyone.
Painted at the edge of the wide sidewalk on Connecticut, with the rest for pedestrians. Win-win, as Connecticut traffic capacity won't be and parking won't be cut further. We can give up a few sidewalk streeteries.
No, those aren't protected bike lanes. That's putting bicyclists on the sidewalk. Why do you think it's ok to take space away from pedestrians?
Forum Index
»
Metropolitan DC Local Politics
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}