The Bike Lobby is too powerful in DC...

[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.

Seems like it would be better if we started removing bike lanes. It's a lot of space for reserved for a very, very, very small number of people. They're almost always empty.

If you look at the data, cycling is becoming LESS popular, even after controlling for rise of remote work. Driving is grabbing more market share.

[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.

Seems like it would be better if we started removing bike lanes. It's a lot of space for reserved for a very, very, very small number of people. They're almost always empty.

If you look at the data, cycling is becoming LESS popular, even after controlling for rise of remote work. Driving is grabbing more market share.

I'd love to look at this data you speak of

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Seems like it would be better if we started removing bike lanes. It's a lot of space for reserved for a very, very, very small number of people. They're almost always empty.

If you look at the data, cycling is becoming LESS popular, even after controlling for rise of remote work. Driving is grabbing more market share.

I'd love to look at this data you speak of

https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2023/09/27/biking-to-work-isn-t-gaining-any-ground-in-the-us/67b4a9e2-5d32-11ee-b961-94e18b27be28_story.html

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Seems like it would be better if we started removing bike lanes. It's a lot of space for reserved for a very, very, very small number of people. They're almost always empty.

If you look at the data, cycling is becoming LESS popular, even after controlling for rise of remote work. Driving is grabbing more market share.

I'd love to look at this data you speak of

https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2023/09/27/biking-to-work-isn-t-gaining-any-ground-in-the-us/67b4a9e2-5d32-11ee-b961-94e18b27be28_story.html

This article? Which is based on answers to the question "How did you usually get to work LAST WEEK?"? (Because obviously the only place anybody ever goes, by any transportation mode, is their place of paid employment.)

New York City has greatly improved its bicycling infrastructure over the past two decades, and tens of thousands of New Yorkers — 2% of those who commuted in 2022 — have responded by cycling to work (myself included most days). Put another way, 9% of US bike commuters in 2022 were New York City residents, who made up just more than 2% of US commuters overall. The city’s bike transformation does feel as if it’s at something of a turning point this year, with high-powered electric and gasoline two-wheelers posing new risks for pedestrians and other riders. But through 2022, the commuting statistics show it has clearly been a success.

Many other cities seem to be stuck in an uncomfortable middle ground where biking to work is more plausible than it was 20 years ago but still not pleasant and safe enough to be many people’s first choice. Given how small the public investment in biking has been so far, with a little more than 2% of federal transportation spending going to bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure in recent years and the bike/pedestrian share of the much-larger state and local transportation spending pie harder to estimate but probably less than 1%, my natural impulse as a bike commuter is to argue for more such investment.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Link?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Link?

Part of the base maps from 2022. As an example. https://ddot.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/ddot/Map%204%20-%20Macomb%20St%20to%20Porter%20St.pdf

[Anonymous]

It’s over. The project isn’t happening. The businesses are against it. The police are against it. Thousands of neighbors are against it. The mayor gets it now.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

Link?

Part of the base maps from 2022. As an example. https://ddot.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/ddot/Map%204%20-%20Macomb%20St%20to%20Porter%20St.pdf

Is this the as-approved Option C plan?

[Anonymous]

The 2022 plans have no bearing on what will be presented because DDOT and neighbors did block by block walk-throughs which will result in refinements to those base maps.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The 2022 plans have no bearing on what will be presented because DDOT and neighbors did block by block walk-throughs which will result in refinements to those base maps.

Which will... add back parking, but not take away the freaking turn lane?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It’s over. The project isn’t happening. The businesses are against it. The police are against it. Thousands of neighbors are against it. The mayor gets it now.

*Thousands of MD residents who enjoy speeding on Conn Ave without any repercussions are against it.

FIFY

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The 2022 plans have no bearing on what will be presented because DDOT and neighbors did block by block walk-throughs which will result in refinements to those base maps.

Which will... add back parking, but not take away the freaking turn lane?

Much of the assumed parking (shown in green) in the Cleveland Park historic district commercial area has already been removed. The service lane, which was rebuilt as a shared space for pedestrians and parking has been closed to vehicles on basically a permanent basis. So the available parking will be less than shown in the diagram, which is additional blow to the businesses.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The 2022 plans have no bearing on what will be presented because DDOT and neighbors did block by block walk-throughs which will result in refinements to those base maps.

Which will... add back parking, but not take away the freaking turn lane?

Much of the assumed parking (shown in green) in the Cleveland Park historic district commercial area has already been removed. The service lane, which was rebuilt as a shared space for pedestrians and parking has been closed to vehicles on basically a permanent basis. So the available parking will be less than shown in the diagram, which is additional blow to the businesses.

...whose patrons by and large don't even drive to their doors. They walk. So a promenade makes way more sense than a service lane (esp. since there is an alley).

[Anonymous]

Another key assumption by DDOT was that Beach Drive woukd remain open to cars and therefore would be a substitute route for some Connecticut Ave traffic. But Beach Drive subsequently was closed to cars. This is yet another flawed assumption that that undermines DDOT’s bike lan plan

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The 2022 plans have no bearing on what will be presented because DDOT and neighbors did block by block walk-throughs which will result in refinements to those base maps.

Which will... add back parking, but not take away the freaking turn lane?

Much of the assumed parking (shown in green) in the Cleveland Park historic district commercial area has already been removed. The service lane, which was rebuilt as a shared space for pedestrians and parking has been closed to vehicles on basically a permanent basis. So the available parking will be less than shown in the diagram, which is additional blow to the businesses.

...whose patrons by and large don't even drive to their doors. They walk. So a promenade makes way more sense than a service lane (esp. since there is an alley).

The “promenade” will be given over to streeeteries at bargain-basement prices. Essentially it is public space that is being privatised. Maybe a bar and a couple of restaurants may benefit from this arrangement but most of the other businesses will suffer.

As far as the bike lane is concerned, the Ward 3 council member has said that if the service lane parking were lost then parking cannot also be removed on the east side of Connecticut. So that means a shared bike lane on the west side of Conn only, if at all.