Connecticut Avenue bike lane officially dead

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Though it does appear to be a pyrrhic victory for commuters - both sides of Connecticut will be available for parking 24/7, with bump outs for traffic calming, meaning the right lane on each side will be unavailable to drivers.

Can't Reno Road carry more of the traffic? Share the burden all around.

That is a residential street with many with schools and daycares where kids walk to school. But the parking on Connecticut is good for mobility impaired community.

Under the "bike lane plan" there was 24/7 parking on one side of the street, which is more than there is today. Plenty of space for dedicated accessibility parking. Now, it will just be all parking to satisfy the whiny, entitled Ward 3 and Ward 4 boomer drivers.

Parking "winning" this is the worst thing about this whole debacle. You're going to dedicate 1/3rd of the space to car storage, and still have delivery vehicles parking in the travel lanes and buses getting all jammed up.

Yes, and then with all the people making left turns, it basically becomes an obstacle course of constantly switching lanes to find one that is actually moving. Great progress.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The bike lane plan was brought to us by the supporters of the Defund the Police movement and the Connecticut Ave housing voucher fan boys. Times up, we've seen your prior work and are not fans.

Actually, it was a result of over 50 public meetings and engineering experts at DDOT with the support of the ANCs and the current and former Councilmembers.

We cannot keep doing the same thing we have been doing for the past 80 years. There isn't space on our streets, there isn't time with respect to climate change so we need to do something else that is more accommodating for the 21st Century.

I do not understand why bike-lane supporters think "well, the majority of ANC commissioners supported this" is such a cogent reason for everyone to support it. Most of those commissioners -- who, for the millionth time, have no actual power -- were elected thanks to like 300 people who came out to actually vote, hardly a mandate. It's such a dumb argument, yet they trot it out over and over. No wonder Bowser ignored them.

It is generally cited because:

1) in the contested races, this issue was the centerpiece and in every case but one (the race that covered the Wisconsin Avenue part of 3C) the pro-bike lane candidate won.
2) in precincts closest to Connecticut Avenue in the general election, Matt Frumin out polled the other priecincts across the ward against his republican, anti-bike lane, opponent.

Both of these metrics tell us that were it mattered most, the pro-bike lane voters supported the pro-bike lane candidates.

It is really easy for people who live in single family homes to say "everyone I know thinks the way I do" without considering that 80% of the people in ANC 3C, 3F and 3G live ON Connectictut Avenue and 20% of the people in those ANC's live in single family homes.

Those who actually live on buildings on Connecticut Avenue STRONGLY support the Concept C measures to make the road more livable and safer.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The bike lane plan was brought to us by the supporters of the Defund the Police movement and the Connecticut Ave housing voucher fan boys. Times up, we've seen your prior work and are not fans.

Actually, it was a result of over 50 public meetings and engineering experts at DDOT with the support of the ANCs and the current and former Councilmembers.

We cannot keep doing the same thing we have been doing for the past 80 years. There isn't space on our streets, there isn't time with respect to climate change so we need to do something else that is more accommodating for the 21st Century.

I do not understand why bike-lane supporters think "well, the majority of ANC commissioners supported this" is such a cogent reason for everyone to support it. Most of those commissioners -- who, for the millionth time, have no actual power -- were elected thanks to like 300 people who came out to actually vote, hardly a mandate. It's such a dumb argument, yet they trot it out over and over. No wonder Bowser ignored them.

You should have just written: “It’s perfectly reasonable to contradict preferences unambiguously articulated by the local electorate and subvert established democratic processes when I disagree with electoral outcomes.”

ANCs exist almost entirely to solicit and articulate the views of the community on projects like this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Common sense prevails.

Riders can continue sharing the road like they do now, and disregarding all traffic laws.

Run 'em over!
VROOM!!!

[Anonymous]

Not sure your numbers are correct. A quick Google search shows that in the 20015 zip code 22 percent are renters--and only 20 percent live in apartments, the rest in single family homes.
https://www.city-data.com/zips/20015.html#google_vignette

In the 20008 zip code, 64 percent are renters and about 60 percent live in apartments.
https://www.city-data.com/zips/20008.html

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Anyone currently biking on Conn Ave today is not a typical cyclist. I've been biking nearly daily in DC for decades and am still terrified whenever I have to take Conn. The vast majority of cyclists are too scared to bike there. When there are bike lanes - which will apparently not be anytime soon - there will be many more people able to bike that way.

Bike lanes on Conn Ave are the ultimate in entitlement. Inconveniencing and slowing down traffic for tens of thousands for the benefit of a few hundred.

It's absolutely true that there are very few cyclists who use Connecticut - BECAUSE THERE ARE NO BIKE LANES! The only way to increase cycling is to make cycling safe. In the Netherlands, there is a great cycling infrastructure and cycling is widespread.

Of course, DC is not going to turn into the Netherlands, you say, because we're a car culture. True. As was Netherlands in 1971, when more than 400 children were killed in traffic accidents. It took a lot of work and many years to build safe cities there, as it will here. We should start now.

https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2015/may/05/amsterdam-bicycle-capital-world-transport-cycling-kindermoord

We have cyclists on this very forum who have assured us during the whole discussion about bike lanes that they have absolutely ZERO intention to use bike lanes created for the exclusive use of bikes, and instead will ride in the car lanes - because it is their right to do so.

So motorists and users of buses would still be trapped behind cyclists, riding in the car lane, right next to a bike lane that they’re not using. Out of sheer spite and contempt for drivers.

I believe DDOT heard the sentiments of these militant cyclists and decided to not to accommodate them at all.

Good for DDOT

Who exactly has said that? It's true that cyclists are legally allowed to ride in car lanes even if there are bike lanes, but no one would choose to ride in a car lane on Connecticut if there were a bike lane. Even if it were an unprotected bike lane, that'd be an improvement. It's extremely unpleasant to bike on now.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Common sense prevails.

Riders can continue sharing the road like they do now, and disregarding all traffic laws.

Run 'em over!
VROOM!!!

The least car-brained, least lead-exposed boomer on DCUM

[Anonymous]

Only two of the ANC 3C races were contested on the bike lane issue. Most commissioner candidates were unopposed and in one case, both candidates favored bike lanes. Of the two contested races, it was an even split. ANCs think they have so much power, but they really don't. I don't really care about bike lanes either way, but I'm happy to see the ANCs get a dose of reality.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The bike lane plan was brought to us by the supporters of the Defund the Police movement and the Connecticut Ave housing voucher fan boys. Times up, we've seen your prior work and are not fans.

Actually, it was a result of over 50 public meetings and engineering experts at DDOT with the support of the ANCs and the current and former Councilmembers.

We cannot keep doing the same thing we have been doing for the past 80 years. There isn't space on our streets, there isn't time with respect to climate change so we need to do something else that is more accommodating for the 21st Century.

I do not understand why bike-lane supporters think "well, the majority of ANC commissioners supported this" is such a cogent reason for everyone to support it. Most of those commissioners -- who, for the millionth time, have no actual power -- were elected thanks to like 300 people who came out to actually vote, hardly a mandate. It's such a dumb argument, yet they trot it out over and over. No wonder Bowser ignored them.

It is generally cited because:

1) in the contested races, this issue was the centerpiece and in every case but one (the race that covered the Wisconsin Avenue part of 3C) the pro-bike lane candidate won.
2) in precincts closest to Connecticut Avenue in the general election, Matt Frumin out polled the other priecincts across the ward against his republican, anti-bike lane, opponent.

Both of these metrics tell us that were it mattered most, the pro-bike lane voters supported the pro-bike lane candidates.

It is really easy for people who live in single family homes to say "everyone I know thinks the way I do" without considering that 80% of the people in ANC 3C, 3F and 3G live ON Connectictut Avenue and 20% of the people in those ANC's live in single family homes.

Those who actually live on buildings on Connecticut Avenue STRONGLY support the Concept C measures to make the road more livable and safer.

Connecticut Ave is home to thousands of housing voucher residents. Frumin’s opponent was strongly against the voucher program, with good reason. Of course Frumin did will in this area. Duh.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The bike lane plan was brought to us by the supporters of the Defund the Police movement and the Connecticut Ave housing voucher fan boys. Times up, we've seen your prior work and are not fans.

Actually, it was a result of over 50 public meetings and engineering experts at DDOT with the support of the ANCs and the current and former Councilmembers.

We cannot keep doing the same thing we have been doing for the past 80 years. There isn't space on our streets, there isn't time with respect to climate change so we need to do something else that is more accommodating for the 21st Century.

I do not understand why bike-lane supporters think "well, the majority of ANC commissioners supported this" is such a cogent reason for everyone to support it. Most of those commissioners -- who, for the millionth time, have no actual power -- were elected thanks to like 300 people who came out to actually vote, hardly a mandate. It's such a dumb argument, yet they trot it out over and over. No wonder Bowser ignored them.

ANCs are the interns of city government. They are a glorified 311 service. No one cares what they think about anything, which is why so few people bother voting in ANC elections.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Not sure your numbers are correct. A quick Google search shows that in the 20015 zip code 22 percent are renters--and only 20 percent live in apartments, the rest in single family homes.
https://www.city-data.com/zips/20015.html#google_vignette

In the 20008 zip code, 64 percent are renters and about 60 percent live in apartments.
https://www.city-data.com/zips/20008.html

80% of the people live on 20% of the land on the CT Ave corridor.

There is no mention of renter versus owner. Condos are a thing on CT Ave as well.

The number is from a DDOT/OP document related to the zoning rewrite.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The bike lane plan was brought to us by the supporters of the Defund the Police movement and the Connecticut Ave housing voucher fan boys. Times up, we've seen your prior work and are not fans.

Actually, it was a result of over 50 public meetings and engineering experts at DDOT with the support of the ANCs and the current and former Councilmembers.

We cannot keep doing the same thing we have been doing for the past 80 years. There isn't space on our streets, there isn't time with respect to climate change so we need to do something else that is more accommodating for the 21st Century.

I do not understand why bike-lane supporters think "well, the majority of ANC commissioners supported this" is such a cogent reason for everyone to support it. Most of those commissioners -- who, for the millionth time, have no actual power -- were elected thanks to like 300 people who came out to actually vote, hardly a mandate. It's such a dumb argument, yet they trot it out over and over. No wonder Bowser ignored them.

It is generally cited because:

1) in the contested races, this issue was the centerpiece and in every case but one (the race that covered the Wisconsin Avenue part of 3C) the pro-bike lane candidate won.
2) in precincts closest to Connecticut Avenue in the general election, Matt Frumin out polled the other priecincts across the ward against his republican, anti-bike lane, opponent.

Both of these metrics tell us that were it mattered most, the pro-bike lane voters supported the pro-bike lane candidates.

It is really easy for people who live in single family homes to say "everyone I know thinks the way I do" without considering that 80% of the people in ANC 3C, 3F and 3G live ON Connectictut Avenue and 20% of the people in those ANC's live in single family homes.

Those who actually live on buildings on Connecticut Avenue STRONGLY support the Concept C measures to make the road more livable and safer.

Connecticut Ave is home to thousands of housing voucher residents. Frumin’s opponent was strongly against the voucher program, with good reason. Of course Frumin did will in this area. Duh.

He also did well in precincts that don't have housing voucher residents.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The bike lane plan was brought to us by the supporters of the Defund the Police movement and the Connecticut Ave housing voucher fan boys. Times up, we've seen your prior work and are not fans.

Actually, it was a result of over 50 public meetings and engineering experts at DDOT with the support of the ANCs and the current and former Councilmembers.

We cannot keep doing the same thing we have been doing for the past 80 years. There isn't space on our streets, there isn't time with respect to climate change so we need to do something else that is more accommodating for the 21st Century.

I do not understand why bike-lane supporters think "well, the majority of ANC commissioners supported this" is such a cogent reason for everyone to support it. Most of those commissioners -- who, for the millionth time, have no actual power -- were elected thanks to like 300 people who came out to actually vote, hardly a mandate. It's such a dumb argument, yet they trot it out over and over. No wonder Bowser ignored them.

It is generally cited because:

1) in the contested races, this issue was the centerpiece and in every case but one (the race that covered the Wisconsin Avenue part of 3C) the pro-bike lane candidate won.
2) in precincts closest to Connecticut Avenue in the general election, Matt Frumin out polled the other priecincts across the ward against his republican, anti-bike lane, opponent.

Both of these metrics tell us that were it mattered most, the pro-bike lane voters supported the pro-bike lane candidates.

It is really easy for people who live in single family homes to say "everyone I know thinks the way I do" without considering that 80% of the people in ANC 3C, 3F and 3G live ON Connectictut Avenue and 20% of the people in those ANC's live in single family homes.

Those who actually live on buildings on Connecticut Avenue STRONGLY support the Concept C measures to make the road more livable and safer.

Connecticut Ave is home to thousands of housing voucher residents. Frumin’s opponent was strongly against the voucher program, with good reason. Of course Frumin did will in this area. Duh.

He also did well in precincts that don't have housing voucher residents.

Frumin is a light weight who had to be dragged kicking and screaming into getting serious on crime. If he’s your champion you deserve to lose on bike lanes.

[Anonymous]

great news!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Only two of the ANC 3C races were contested on the bike lane issue. Most commissioner candidates were unopposed and in one case, both candidates favored bike lanes. Of the two contested races, it was an even split. ANCs think they have so much power, but they really don't. I don't really care about bike lanes either way, but I'm happy to see the ANCs get a dose of reality.

The exact mandate of ANCs is to provide feedback on projects like the CT Ave redesign.