The Bike Lobby is too powerful in DC...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:That's what's so wrong about these efforts. Upper Connecticut will never be cool or hip. That's because it is the part of town that people move to when they start families and stop being cool or hip. It's a land of mom jeans and power walks. Conversations about schools and youth sports. Kid friendly restaurants and gardening. It's where Gen Z and Zoomers live at home with their parents. It's where Gen X moved when they had kids, just like the Boomers before them, and Millennials now.

To put it simply, there are too many kids and fuddy duddies to ever attract the trendy and childless.

It's the first I've ever heard that walking and riding a bike are things only done by the trendy and childless. I've been walking since I was 1, and riding a bike since I was 4, so this comes as quite a surprise.

That's why I want our neighborhood streets to be safe so that my kids can ride bikes there as they do now. More cars and trucks diverted from gridlocked Connecticut Avenue onto these streets will make them less safe.

They won't be any more, or less diverted than they are now. I am not sure why this is hard to "get"

Because it is a straight up bald faced lie. Even your precious DDOT study admits that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here's one problem. DC and the mayor are lamenting the decrease in inhabited office space downtown and support for small businesses downtown. They are trying to encourage businesses to RTO and to bring employees back to the downtown area to revitalize the patronage of the many businesses downtown that rely upon the workday workforce population, like restaurants. If they want to do this, then they need to make the commute downtown more commuter friendly to incentivize having offices in the downtown area.

Conversely they are trying to encourage urban mixed use, like transit, biking and pedestrian friendly thoroughfares. But those mixed use thoroughfares make it harder for workers who live outside the district to commute in to work. Plus the real estate costs downtown, whether purchased or rented, are more expensive. So, why would businesses want to move their business back downtown when it is more expensive and less convenient to get their workforce to work?

The district needs to come up with a plan that supports incentivizing businesses to return to the downtown area. And the current Conn Ave plan is not it. This type of change is discouraging businesses that moved out of the downtown area during the pandemic from returning.

No, it doesn't. At worst, it makes it harder for workers who live outside the district to drive in their own cars to work. There would still be plenty of options for commuting, even if the entire length of Connecticut Avenue were turned into bus-bike-walk only.

Metro has gone down hill. People prefer driving. If downtown DC isn't drivable, there are job centers in Virginia and Maryland that are.

Metro could win back more riders by arresting muggers, fare thieves, vandals, and pot smokers on the trains. Metro used to set the gold standard. Now there are Third World transit systems that are cleaner and safer.

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here's one problem. DC and the mayor are lamenting the decrease in inhabited office space downtown and support for small businesses downtown. They are trying to encourage businesses to RTO and to bring employees back to the downtown area to revitalize the patronage of the many businesses downtown that rely upon the workday workforce population, like restaurants. If they want to do this, then they need to make the commute downtown more commuter friendly to incentivize having offices in the downtown area.

Conversely they are trying to encourage urban mixed use, like transit, biking and pedestrian friendly thoroughfares. But those mixed use thoroughfares make it harder for workers who live outside the district to commute in to work. Plus the real estate costs downtown, whether purchased or rented, are more expensive. So, why would businesses want to move their business back downtown when it is more expensive and less convenient to get their workforce to work?

The district needs to come up with a plan that supports incentivizing businesses to return to the downtown area. And the current Conn Ave plan is not it. This type of change is discouraging businesses that moved out of the downtown area during the pandemic from returning.

No, it doesn't. At worst, it makes it harder for workers who live outside the district to drive in their own cars to work. There would still be plenty of options for commuting, even if the entire length of Connecticut Avenue were turned into bus-bike-walk only.

Metro has gone down hill. People prefer driving. If downtown DC isn't drivable, there are job centers in Virginia and Maryland that are.

Speak for yourself. I would sooner quit my job and look for one that's remote-only than drive to work downtown every day, and I only live six miles from my office.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:That's what's so wrong about these efforts. Upper Connecticut will never be cool or hip. That's because it is the part of town that people move to when they start families and stop being cool or hip. It's a land of mom jeans and power walks. Conversations about schools and youth sports. Kid friendly restaurants and gardening. It's where Gen Z and Zoomers live at home with their parents. It's where Gen X moved when they had kids, just like the Boomers before them, and Millennials now.

To put it simply, there are too many kids and fuddy duddies to ever attract the trendy and childless.

It's the first I've ever heard that walking and riding a bike are things only done by the trendy and childless. I've been walking since I was 1, and riding a bike since I was 4, so this comes as quite a surprise.

That's why I want our neighborhood streets to be safe so that my kids can ride bikes there as they do now. More cars and trucks diverted from gridlocked Connecticut Avenue onto these streets will make them less safe.

Agreed! Neighborhood streets should be safe. All streets should be safe! Including Connecticut Avenue, which is also a neighborhood street and should also be safe.

How exactly will bike lanes make Connecticut Avenue safe, particularly when they squeeze capacity down? And Connecticut Avenue and the other major arterials are where the through traffic is supposed to go, because Upper Northwest Washington (Ward 3) lacks any of the radial freeways like in SE, SW, MoCo and Arlington.

Read the DDOT report and the thousands of studies available nationally about how to make streets safer. Don't take the word of rando's on a message board. Read the reports from traffic engineers who have had success in making city streets more multi-modal and safer.

Capacity isn't going to be squeezed down. There are three lanes each way now. The curb lanes are for parking. There is a through lane and the center lanes are through lanes that generally get caught with turning vehicles. So basically there is one through lane now, with opportunity for 1-2 more through lanes depending on conditions.

In the new configuration, there are pocket turn lanes, which means instead of 1-2 through lanes, there will be 2 through lanes. Hence little to no degradation of throughput, no "squeezing down"

The traffic doom being hypothesized by the project opponents is pure fantasy.

The other thing that bike lanes proponents don’t get is that the dedicated turn lanes are no panacea for the neighborhoods. In fact, residents on the side streets don’t want those at all because they will just invite Connecticut Avenue traffic to divert through those streets to get around avenue congestion.

They aren't putting turn lanes at every intersection (which would cause what you are saying). They are tactically putting turn lanes at place where PEOPLE ALREADY TURN. Like Military, Nebraska, Porter and Calvert. I think that's probably all of the streets that they were planning on for Left Hand Turn lanes.

Jesus... you're making stuff up to react to at this point.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The DC police union position against the Connecticut Avenue bike lane proposal apparently has prompted WABA to rush the release of a “Coalition Letter Regarding Connecticut Avenue Multimodal Project” in support of bike lanes. What’s noteworthy about the “coalition” should have seemed so obvious in hindsight, the active role of Greater Greater Washington and the various development lobby groups in the echo chamber in pushing the construction of the bike lanes. It’s clear that the Option C bike lane plan is not just about alternative transportation options, it’s a necessary ingredient, an enabling condition for the development lobby to realize its plans to redevelop all of Connecticut Avenue from the Taft Bridge up to Chevy Chase Circle as a much taller, denser, busier urban corridor. Maybe that’s even the primary reason driving bike lanes forward. One challenge that DC real estate developers and investors face is that Connecticut Ave and Ward 3 in general lack the “vibe” or coolness factor of U Street and other hot neighborhoods to attract the Millennial and Gen Z renters and purchasers that they desperately need. They believe that bike lanes will help to market the Connecticut corridor to this demographic. And just as bike lanes can help to support upzoned, upmarket development along the entire length of Connecticut, much more development is necessary to provide more bike riders to justify the cost and disruption and impact of Option C. That’s the real deal - bike lanes for greater, greater development.

No. That letter was already planned to go out at that time. The fact that the lying a-holes who are obsessed with using their vehicles for a 2 block trip released an article on their fake news website was serendipitous at best.

[Anonymous]

“Fake news” website?! Now who does that sound like?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:“Fake news” website?! Now who does that sound like?

People who remember what happened at Comet Ping Pong.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:“Fake news” website?! Now who does that sound like?

Oh for f'sake. There are these idiotic anti-bike lane groups in a few major cities. They get together and have these sad little sessions where they compare their bullshit and then they write articles that they publish on their websites, so that other ones can cite them like they are actual real publications.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“Fake news” website?! Now who does that sound like?

Oh for f'sake. There are these idiotic anti-bike lane groups in a few major cities. They get together and have these sad little sessions where they compare their bullshit and then they write articles that they publish on their websites, so that other ones can cite them like they are actual real publications.

Just like Greater Greater Washington.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“Fake news” website?! Now who does that sound like?

Oh for f'sake. There are these idiotic anti-bike lane groups in a few major cities. They get together and have these sad little sessions where they compare their bullshit and then they write articles that they publish on their websites, so that other ones can cite them like they are actual real publications.

Just like Greater Greater Washington.

No. GGW differentiates things between Opinion pieces and reporting pieces.

[Anonymous]

If you want to see a REAL $hit $how take a look at New Mexico Avenue. TERRIBLE.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If you want to see a REAL $hit $how take a look at New Mexico Avenue. TERRIBLE.

BeCaUsE OF tHe BiKe LaNE!!!! ERMHAGHAD

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The DC police union position against the Connecticut Avenue bike lane proposal apparently has prompted WABA to rush the release of a “Coalition Letter Regarding Connecticut Avenue Multimodal Project” in support of bike lanes. What’s noteworthy about the “coalition” should have seemed so obvious in hindsight, the active role of Greater Greater Washington and the various development lobby groups in the echo chamber in pushing the construction of the bike lanes. It’s clear that the Option C bike lane plan is not just about alternative transportation options, it’s a necessary ingredient, an enabling condition for the development lobby to realize its plans to redevelop all of Connecticut Avenue from the Taft Bridge up to Chevy Chase Circle as a much taller, denser, busier urban corridor. Maybe that’s even the primary reason driving bike lanes forward. One challenge that DC real estate developers and investors face is that Connecticut Ave and Ward 3 in general lack the “vibe” or coolness factor of U Street and other hot neighborhoods to attract the Millennial and Gen Z renters and purchasers that they desperately need. They believe that bike lanes will help to market the Connecticut corridor to this demographic. And just as bike lanes can help to support upzoned, upmarket development along the entire length of Connecticut, much more development is necessary to provide more bike riders to justify the cost and disruption and impact of Option C. That’s the real deal - bike lanes for greater, greater development.

Woodley Park and Cleveland Park are already historic districts, they aren't going to be significantly 're-made"
Van Ness is already dense.

I am a neighbor. I am not part of a "developer lobby" or a "bike lobby" but I support Option C because Connecticut Avenue is woefully unsafe. So, sure, call me part of some cabal. It makes me, and people like me, resent you even more, because not only are you trying to belittle MY voice in the community, but you want to maintain a status quo that is dangerous for people like me, your neighbor, in getting around to the shops and businesses I would like to support.

You haven’t been paying attention. The Connecticut Ave Development Guidelines from the D.C. government, which likely will be buttressed by upzoning, more than double the allowable height in the Cleveland Park historic district on Connecticut Avenue. So a district of one and two floor historic buildings could be topped by infill construction up to 90 feet in total - nine floors. That’s a rather significant remaking.

So you are ignoring all the 7-10 story buildings that already line the avenue. How convenient.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:That's what's so wrong about these efforts. Upper Connecticut will never be cool or hip. That's because it is the part of town that people move to when they start families and stop being cool or hip. It's a land of mom jeans and power walks. Conversations about schools and youth sports. Kid friendly restaurants and gardening. It's where Gen Z and Zoomers live at home with their parents. It's where Gen X moved when they had kids, just like the Boomers before them, and Millennials now.

To put it simply, there are too many kids and fuddy duddies to ever attract the trendy and childless.

It's the first I've ever heard that walking and riding a bike are things only done by the trendy and childless. I've been walking since I was 1, and riding a bike since I was 4, so this comes as quite a surprise.

That's why I want our neighborhood streets to be safe so that my kids can ride bikes there as they do now. More cars and trucks diverted from gridlocked Connecticut Avenue onto these streets will make them less safe.

Agreed! Neighborhood streets should be safe. All streets should be safe! Including Connecticut Avenue, which is also a neighborhood street and should also be safe.

How exactly will bike lanes make Connecticut Avenue safe, particularly when they squeeze capacity down? And Connecticut Avenue and the other major arterials are where the through traffic is supposed to go, because Upper Northwest Washington (Ward 3) lacks any of the radial freeways like in SE, SW, MoCo and Arlington.

Read the DDOT report and the thousands of studies available nationally about how to make streets safer. Don't take the word of rando's on a message board. Read the reports from traffic engineers who have had success in making city streets more multi-modal and safer.

Capacity isn't going to be squeezed down. There are three lanes each way now. The curb lanes are for parking. There is a through lane and the center lanes are through lanes that generally get caught with turning vehicles. So basically there is one through lane now, with opportunity for 1-2 more through lanes depending on conditions.

In the new configuration, there are pocket turn lanes, which means instead of 1-2 through lanes, there will be 2 through lanes. Hence little to no degradation of throughput, no "squeezing down"

The traffic doom being hypothesized by the project opponents is pure fantasy.

The other thing that bike lanes proponents don’t get is that the dedicated turn lanes are no panacea for the neighborhoods. In fact, residents on the side streets don’t want those at all because they will just invite Connecticut Avenue traffic to divert through those streets to get around avenue congestion.

They aren't putting turn lanes at every intersection (which would cause what you are saying). They are tactically putting turn lanes at place where PEOPLE ALREADY TURN. Like Military, Nebraska, Porter and Calvert. I think that's probably all of the streets that they were planning on for Left Hand Turn lanes.

Jesus... you're making stuff up to react to at this point.

So you've seen the latest plans? Do tell.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:That's what's so wrong about these efforts. Upper Connecticut will never be cool or hip. That's because it is the part of town that people move to when they start families and stop being cool or hip. It's a land of mom jeans and power walks. Conversations about schools and youth sports. Kid friendly restaurants and gardening. It's where Gen Z and Zoomers live at home with their parents. It's where Gen X moved when they had kids, just like the Boomers before them, and Millennials now.

To put it simply, there are too many kids and fuddy duddies to ever attract the trendy and childless.

It's the first I've ever heard that walking and riding a bike are things only done by the trendy and childless. I've been walking since I was 1, and riding a bike since I was 4, so this comes as quite a surprise.

That's why I want our neighborhood streets to be safe so that my kids can ride bikes there as they do now. More cars and trucks diverted from gridlocked Connecticut Avenue onto these streets will make them less safe.

Agreed! Neighborhood streets should be safe. All streets should be safe! Including Connecticut Avenue, which is also a neighborhood street and should also be safe.

How exactly will bike lanes make Connecticut Avenue safe, particularly when they squeeze capacity down? And Connecticut Avenue and the other major arterials are where the through traffic is supposed to go, because Upper Northwest Washington (Ward 3) lacks any of the radial freeways like in SE, SW, MoCo and Arlington.

Read the DDOT report and the thousands of studies available nationally about how to make streets safer. Don't take the word of rando's on a message board. Read the reports from traffic engineers who have had success in making city streets more multi-modal and safer.

Capacity isn't going to be squeezed down. There are three lanes each way now. The curb lanes are for parking. There is a through lane and the center lanes are through lanes that generally get caught with turning vehicles. So basically there is one through lane now, with opportunity for 1-2 more through lanes depending on conditions.

In the new configuration, there are pocket turn lanes, which means instead of 1-2 through lanes, there will be 2 through lanes. Hence little to no degradation of throughput, no "squeezing down"

The traffic doom being hypothesized by the project opponents is pure fantasy.

The other thing that bike lanes proponents don’t get is that the dedicated turn lanes are no panacea for the neighborhoods. In fact, residents on the side streets don’t want those at all because they will just invite Connecticut Avenue traffic to divert through those streets to get around avenue congestion.

They aren't putting turn lanes at every intersection (which would cause what you are saying). They are tactically putting turn lanes at place where PEOPLE ALREADY TURN. Like Military, Nebraska, Porter and Calvert. I think that's probably all of the streets that they were planning on for Left Hand Turn lanes.

Jesus... you're making stuff up to react to at this point.

So you've seen the latest plans? Do tell.

Those were in the July 2022 plans already, dunce.