The Bike Lobby is too powerful in DC...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If bike lanes weren't dead already, they're gone with the wind now - or at least gone with the Wizards and the Caps. People have finally had it up to here with all of Bowser's bad agenda: not just bike lanes that create traffic jams, out of control crime that has spread to formerly safe neighborhoods; allowing the police department to become hollowed out; a misguided voucher program that works only to enrich glorified slumlords while spreading the aforesaid crime around; truancy and further declining DC public schools (if that's possible); selling out the DC government to real estate developers; poor quality appointed officials; and "urban vibrancy" that has become code for a declining quality of life in many areas. The list goes on.

If anything, the reduced demand for going downtown undermines the downtown business lobby's arguments.

Your policies destroy the city and now you want a prize?

The bike lanes are not the reason the Wizards and Caps are leaving, and just because Bowser supports the bike lanes doesn't mean everyone else who does supports Bowser.

The people who support the bike lanes are the reason the Caps are leaving. Because those same people keep electing pro crime and anti business elected officials.

Just stop, please. Biking is politically neutral. Safe streets are neutral. Public transport is neutral.

It is neutral and there is nothing wrong or partisan with opposing this vision of intentional congestion.

There is nothing wrong with wanting traffic on the main roads and not the side streets. We like that our kids are bicycling up and down the sides streets and want to keep them free of spillover traffic.

There is nothing wrong about wanting to be part of a region and not just a village. The DMV is a fantastic region and one of the most diverse racially, ethnically, and culturally in the country but it's spread around. It's ok to want to get around without a big hassle.

There is nothing wrong with being concerned for the local businesses that have been around for decades and don't have a parking lot. Just as we want to go to other parts of the city and region we also want them to come to ours. Our businesses need a variety of customers.

That's the distinction.

100%

This is the “plan.” This is intentional. These folks hate your kids, your single family home and private car ownership. Every little change is an attempt to get you to move. Drip, drip drip….

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

It is neutral and there is nothing wrong or partisan with opposing this vision of intentional congestion.

There is nothing wrong with wanting traffic on the main roads and not the side streets. We like that our kids are bicycling up and down the sides streets and want to keep them free of spillover traffic.

There is nothing wrong about wanting to be part of a region and not just a village. The DMV is a fantastic region and one of the most diverse racially, ethnically, and culturally in the country but it's spread around. It's ok to want to get around without a big hassle.

There is nothing wrong with being concerned for the local businesses that have been around for decades and don't have a parking lot. Just as we want to go to other parts of the city and region we also want them to come to ours. Our businesses need a variety of customers.

That's the distinction.

What about the kids on the main roads? Do "we" not care about them? Are they not "our kids"?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

It is neutral and there is nothing wrong or partisan with opposing this vision of intentional congestion.

There is nothing wrong with wanting traffic on the main roads and not the side streets. We like that our kids are bicycling up and down the sides streets and want to keep them free of spillover traffic.

There is nothing wrong about wanting to be part of a region and not just a village. The DMV is a fantastic region and one of the most diverse racially, ethnically, and culturally in the country but it's spread around. It's ok to want to get around without a big hassle.

There is nothing wrong with being concerned for the local businesses that have been around for decades and don't have a parking lot. Just as we want to go to other parts of the city and region we also want them to come to ours. Our businesses need a variety of customers.

That's the distinction.

What about the kids on the main roads? Do "we" not care about them? Are they not "our kids"?

Why would you want kids playing in the main roads?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If bike lanes weren't dead already, they're gone with the wind now - or at least gone with the Wizards and the Caps. People have finally had it up to here with all of Bowser's bad agenda: not just bike lanes that create traffic jams, out of control crime that has spread to formerly safe neighborhoods; allowing the police department to become hollowed out; a misguided voucher program that works only to enrich glorified slumlords while spreading the aforesaid crime around; truancy and further declining DC public schools (if that's possible); selling out the DC government to real estate developers; poor quality appointed officials; and "urban vibrancy" that has become code for a declining quality of life in many areas. The list goes on.

If anything, the reduced demand for going downtown undermines the downtown business lobby's arguments.

Your policies destroy the city and now you want a prize?

The bike lanes are not the reason the Wizards and Caps are leaving, and just because Bowser supports the bike lanes doesn't mean everyone else who does supports Bowser.

The people who support the bike lanes are the reason the Caps are leaving. Because those same people keep electing pro crime and anti business elected officials.

Just stop, please. Biking is politically neutral. Safe streets are neutral. Public transport is neutral.

It is neutral and there is nothing wrong or partisan with opposing this vision of intentional congestion.

There is nothing wrong with wanting traffic on the main roads and not the side streets. We like that our kids are bicycling up and down the sides streets and want to keep them free of spillover traffic.

There is nothing wrong about wanting to be part of a region and not just a village. The DMV is a fantastic region and one of the most diverse racially, ethnically, and culturally in the country but it's spread around. It's ok to want to get around without a big hassle.

There is nothing wrong with being concerned for the local businesses that have been around for decades and don't have a parking lot. Just as we want to go to other parts of the city and region we also want them to come to ours. Our businesses need a variety of customers.

That's the distinction.

100%

This is the “plan.” This is intentional. These folks hate your kids, your single family home and private car ownership. Every little change is an attempt to get you to move. Drip, drip drip….

You realize you sound mentally deranged when you write that?

So now the only accepted conservative world is where there is somehow simultaneously no traffic on your “side street,” high speed freeways all through the city, giant parking lots everywhere, no public transportation, no concern for cars hitting pedestrians?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

It is neutral and there is nothing wrong or partisan with opposing this vision of intentional congestion.

There is nothing wrong with wanting traffic on the main roads and not the side streets. We like that our kids are bicycling up and down the sides streets and want to keep them free of spillover traffic.

There is nothing wrong about wanting to be part of a region and not just a village. The DMV is a fantastic region and one of the most diverse racially, ethnically, and culturally in the country but it's spread around. It's ok to want to get around without a big hassle.

There is nothing wrong with being concerned for the local businesses that have been around for decades and don't have a parking lot. Just as we want to go to other parts of the city and region we also want them to come to ours. Our businesses need a variety of customers.

That's the distinction.

What about the kids on the main roads? Do "we" not care about them? Are they not "our kids"?

Why would you want kids playing in the main roads?

Because they live there. Why would you want main roads that are too dangerous for kids?

[Anonymous]

Some proponents of the Connecticut bike lane plan have admitted that a feature — not a bug — of the plan is to create more vehicle congestion and that resulting trafficdiversion to other, lesser capacity streets is a good thing. They talk about traffic “equity” and taking traffic and spreading it through the street grid. They view as unfair and inequitable that boulevards intended as the major radial arterials for through traffic serve that purpose and and that it’s somehow progressive to burden more streets (especially with more single family homes) with diverted traffic.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Some proponents of the Connecticut bike lane plan have admitted that a feature — not a bug — of the plan is to create more vehicle congestion and that resulting trafficdiversion to other, lesser capacity streets is a good thing. They talk about traffic “equity” and taking traffic and spreading it through the street grid. They view as unfair and inequitable that boulevards intended as the major radial arterials for through traffic serve that purpose and and that it’s somehow progressive to burden more streets (especially with more single family homes) with diverted traffic.

Nobody has said this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Some proponents of the Connecticut bike lane plan have admitted that a feature — not a bug — of the plan is to create more vehicle congestion and that resulting trafficdiversion to other, lesser capacity streets is a good thing. They talk about traffic “equity” and taking traffic and spreading it through the street grid. They view as unfair and inequitable that boulevards intended as the major radial arterials for through traffic serve that purpose and and that it’s somehow progressive to burden more streets (especially with more single family homes) with diverted traffic.

Nobody has said this.

Yes they have. There's even a post on this page that does that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Some proponents of the Connecticut bike lane plan have admitted that a feature — not a bug — of the plan is to create more vehicle congestion and that resulting trafficdiversion to other, lesser capacity streets is a good thing. They talk about traffic “equity” and taking traffic and spreading it through the street grid. They view as unfair and inequitable that boulevards intended as the major radial arterials for through traffic serve that purpose and and that it’s somehow progressive to burden more streets (especially with more single family homes) with diverted traffic.

It's not just about Connecticit. These same conversations are happening throughout the city.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Some proponents of the Connecticut bike lane plan have admitted that a feature — not a bug — of the plan is to create more vehicle congestion and that resulting trafficdiversion to other, lesser capacity streets is a good thing. They talk about traffic “equity” and taking traffic and spreading it through the street grid. They view as unfair and inequitable that boulevards intended as the major radial arterials for through traffic serve that purpose and and that it’s somehow progressive to burden more streets (especially with more single family homes) with diverted traffic.

Nobody has said this.

Yes they have. There's even a post on this page that does that.

Cite, please.

Also, on the Internet, nobody knows you're a dog, or a sock puppet.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Some proponents of the Connecticut bike lane plan have admitted that a feature — not a bug — of the plan is to create more vehicle congestion and that resulting trafficdiversion to other, lesser capacity streets is a good thing. They talk about traffic “equity” and taking traffic and spreading it through the street grid. They view as unfair and inequitable that boulevards intended as the major radial arterials for through traffic serve that purpose and and that it’s somehow progressive to burden more streets (especially with more single family homes) with diverted traffic.

It's not just about Connecticit. These same conversations are happening throughout the city.

The same conversations about big streets also needing to be safe, including for kids? Yes. Long overdue.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If bike lanes weren't dead already, they're gone with the wind now - or at least gone with the Wizards and the Caps. People have finally had it up to here with all of Bowser's bad agenda: not just bike lanes that create traffic jams, out of control crime that has spread to formerly safe neighborhoods; allowing the police department to become hollowed out; a misguided voucher program that works only to enrich glorified slumlords while spreading the aforesaid crime around; truancy and further declining DC public schools (if that's possible); selling out the DC government to real estate developers; poor quality appointed officials; and "urban vibrancy" that has become code for a declining quality of life in many areas. The list goes on.

If anything, the reduced demand for going downtown undermines the downtown business lobby's arguments.

Your policies destroy the city and now you want a prize?

The bike lanes are not the reason the Wizards and Caps are leaving, and just because Bowser supports the bike lanes doesn't mean everyone else who does supports Bowser.

The people who support the bike lanes are the reason the Caps are leaving. Because those same people keep electing pro crime and anti business elected officials.

Just stop, please. Biking is politically neutral. Safe streets are neutral. Public transport is neutral.

It is neutral and there is nothing wrong or partisan with opposing this vision of intentional congestion.

There is nothing wrong with wanting traffic on the main roads and not the side streets. We like that our kids are bicycling up and down the sides streets and want to keep them free of spillover traffic.

There is nothing wrong about wanting to be part of a region and not just a village. The DMV is a fantastic region and one of the most diverse racially, ethnically, and culturally in the country but it's spread around. It's ok to want to get around without a big hassle.

There is nothing wrong with being concerned for the local businesses that have been around for decades and don't have a parking lot. Just as we want to go to other parts of the city and region we also want them to come to ours. Our businesses need a variety of customers.

That's the distinction.

100%

This is the “plan.” This is intentional. These folks hate your kids, your single family home and private car ownership. Every little change is an attempt to get you to move. Drip, drip drip….

What are you talking about? I live in a single-family home with my kids and own two cars. And I bike downtown and back on Connecticut Avenue at least once a week and would love to be able to do it in a protected bike lane instead of in traffic. I don’t hate anyone’s kids or their homes or their cars, you just can’t believe anyone might not want things to be exactly the way you do.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Some proponents of the Connecticut bike lane plan have admitted that a feature — not a bug — of the plan is to create more vehicle congestion and that resulting trafficdiversion to other, lesser capacity streets is a good thing. They talk about traffic “equity” and taking traffic and spreading it through the street grid. They view as unfair and inequitable that boulevards intended as the major radial arterials for through traffic serve that purpose and and that it’s somehow progressive to burden more streets (especially with more single family homes) with diverted traffic.

It's not just about Connecticit. These same conversations are happening throughout the city.

The same conversations about big streets also needing to be safe, including for kids? Yes. Long overdue.

Building dedicated bike lanes with no signals and no enforcement will make things keas safe for pedestrians, especially the elderly, who have to cross them. The proliferation of fast, heavier e-bikes and cargo bikes makes potential bike-pedestrian collisions much worse. As someone pointed out, DC is not Amsterdam or Vienna with a culture of bike rider compliance

Traffic diversion from Connecticut on to streets like Reno, Woodley, Porter, etc. will make those streets much less safe for those of who live along, cross and ride on them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Some proponents of the Connecticut bike lane plan have admitted that a feature — not a bug — of the plan is to create more vehicle congestion and that resulting trafficdiversion to other, lesser capacity streets is a good thing. They talk about traffic “equity” and taking traffic and spreading it through the street grid. They view as unfair and inequitable that boulevards intended as the major radial arterials for through traffic serve that purpose and and that it’s somehow progressive to burden more streets (especially with more single family homes) with diverted traffic.

It's not just about Connecticit. These same conversations are happening throughout the city.

The same conversations about big streets also needing to be safe, including for kids? Yes. Long overdue.

Building dedicated bike lanes with no signals and no enforcement will make things keas safe for pedestrians, especially the elderly, who have to cross them. The proliferation of fast, heavier e-bikes and cargo bikes makes potential bike-pedestrian collisions much worse. As someone pointed out, DC is not Amsterdam or Vienna with a culture of bike rider compliance

Traffic diversion from Connecticut on to streets like Reno, Woodley, Porter, etc. will make those streets much less safe for those of who live along, cross and ride on them.

You all keep saying this, but none of this is based in fact. Just speculation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Some proponents of the Connecticut bike lane plan have admitted that a feature — not a bug — of the plan is to create more vehicle congestion and that resulting trafficdiversion to other, lesser capacity streets is a good thing. They talk about traffic “equity” and taking traffic and spreading it through the street grid. They view as unfair and inequitable that boulevards intended as the major radial arterials for through traffic serve that purpose and and that it’s somehow progressive to burden more streets (especially with more single family homes) with diverted traffic.

that is quite the distortion…

in fact part of the plan does involve diverting traffic to *other arterials* like Wisconsin. if you actually look at the DDOT materials (which you won’t but whatever) you can see the projections, which actually reduce volume on many side streets. I have been involved in these discussions for years and have heard stupid sh*t about equity (like not enforcing traffic laws) but I have literally never heard anyone say that “spreading traffic out” is an equity goal. Probably because it is a certifiably stupid assertion given the map. there’s no way to route say traffic on Alabama Ave through your Cleveland Park “side street” although that is a fun new iteration of your absurd claims.