Connecticut Ave bike lanes are back!

[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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I may have missed it as I didn’t read the 43 pages of comments, but is there any data or info on how many bikers would be expected on this route?

You can look at things like use of Capital Bike share stations and the increasing sales of bikes in DC and the region as two metrics in terms of demand.

The most authoritative analysis is by the Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments. They have cycling (as well as bus riding and subways, etc). all way down, even when adjusting for work from home. Driving is the only mode of transportation that's getting more popular, which is surprising and not surprising.

https://www.mwcog.org/documents/2023/08/14/state-of-the-commute-survey-report--carsharing-state-of-the-commute-telework-travel-surveys/

Anyone who uses data from a small sample to discount population data either has no grasp of statistics and/or is not interested in a meaningful discussion.

Can you please point to the population data that shows driving has not increased and that bikes and other forms of transit have? Genuinely asking as I am looking for data on this.

They have no data but sure have a lot of excuses for why people should not pay attention to the most trusted data sources, MWCOG and ACS.

+1000

The CaBi data is all over this thread. It clearly shows an increase in bike usage. This poster has chosen to continue to post the same DMV wide survey over and over again as if the habits of people in Gaithersburg are related to those in Cleveland Park

What do you think the CaBi data is telling you?

You're welcome to go back and read what was posted about it. Pages 28/29 have a lot of easy to understand infographics if you are still having trouble interpreting the increase in ridership.

Unlike you, I don’t dispute the voracity of officially reported data. Instead, what I am asking is what you think increased utilization of CaBi bikes means. What does that information, in isolation, tell us.

You are trying to draw broad inferences from a very limited set of data and then purposefully rejecting other official data to come to a conclusion that miraculously supports your priors.

This is the same level of anti-intellectualsm that is common among the scientific creationism crowd.

More people are using bikes = bike usage is more popular. I don't need to use as many big words to make a clear inference

B doesn’t follow A. Not sure why this is so complicated.

You're welcome to continue to try this awful argument on others, but I'm done engaging

DP. Good effort. Will meet you at Vace to bike to Politics & Prose holding a slice of pizza. (The anti-bike obsessive is something else.)

lol it's really incredible - i think it's because their mode of transit is so miserable that they're angry about other options. I had to drive for an errand yesterday that involved me going up and down N. Cap and after going 8 miles in 90 mins I felt like the cranks on here!

I feel you. The changes that have been made to North Cap, 16th and Georgia are horrendously bad. I refuse to use them anymore. Why anyone would desire the same thing on Connecticut is beyond me.

What changes have been made to North Capitol? I (a Maryland driver) was driving on North Capitol recently, and it really struck me how completely inappropriate North Capitol is for a street in a city. DDOT should design the street for the people who live in DC, not for me.

This North Capitol stuff remains a mystery. What changes have been made to it to make it so much worse for traffic? When was North Cap ever a traffic paradise? If anything, North Cap is a model of what Connecticut should be in the eyes of the car commuters.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm very upset about the traffic that bicyclists are causing on the beltway at rush hour

Ha! But I did see some idiot riding his bicycle on Rock Creek Parkway at the height of morning rush hour when there's a dedicated path for bike use alongside the road.

[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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I may have missed it as I didn’t read the 43 pages of comments, but is there any data or info on how many bikers would be expected on this route?

You can look at things like use of Capital Bike share stations and the increasing sales of bikes in DC and the region as two metrics in terms of demand.

The most authoritative analysis is by the Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments. They have cycling (as well as bus riding and subways, etc). all way down, even when adjusting for work from home. Driving is the only mode of transportation that's getting more popular, which is surprising and not surprising.

https://www.mwcog.org/documents/2023/08/14/state-of-the-commute-survey-report--carsharing-state-of-the-commute-telework-travel-surveys/

Anyone who uses data from a small sample to discount population data either has no grasp of statistics and/or is not interested in a meaningful discussion.

Can you please point to the population data that shows driving has not increased and that bikes and other forms of transit have? Genuinely asking as I am looking for data on this.

They have no data but sure have a lot of excuses for why people should not pay attention to the most trusted data sources, MWCOG and ACS.

+1000

The CaBi data is all over this thread. It clearly shows an increase in bike usage. This poster has chosen to continue to post the same DMV wide survey over and over again as if the habits of people in Gaithersburg are related to those in Cleveland Park

What do you think the CaBi data is telling you?

You're welcome to go back and read what was posted about it. Pages 28/29 have a lot of easy to understand infographics if you are still having trouble interpreting the increase in ridership.

Unlike you, I don’t dispute the voracity of officially reported data. Instead, what I am asking is what you think increased utilization of CaBi bikes means. What does that information, in isolation, tell us.

You are trying to draw broad inferences from a very limited set of data and then purposefully rejecting other official data to come to a conclusion that miraculously supports your priors.

This is the same level of anti-intellectualsm that is common among the scientific creationism crowd.

More people are using bikes = bike usage is more popular. I don't need to use as many big words to make a clear inference

B doesn’t follow A. Not sure why this is so complicated.

You're welcome to continue to try this awful argument on others, but I'm done engaging

DP. Good effort. Will meet you at Vace to bike to Politics & Prose holding a slice of pizza. (The anti-bike obsessive is something else.)

lol it's really incredible - i think it's because their mode of transit is so miserable that they're angry about other options. I had to drive for an errand yesterday that involved me going up and down N. Cap and after going 8 miles in 90 mins I felt like the cranks on here!

I feel you. The changes that have been made to North Cap, 16th and Georgia are horrendously bad. I refuse to use them anymore. Why anyone would desire the same thing on Connecticut is beyond me.

Right. Two lanes of traffic, one lane of parking, and red on maps as far as the eye can see. This is what the anti bike squad wants and I have no idea why.

Do you not realize that the changes to that road have made it far worse? That is what the bike bros explicitly want for Connecticut

I truly have no idea what you're are talking about. Explain what part of north cap is bikeable

It's the same damn shenanigans. I don't care whether they included protected bike lanes or not. The issue is intentionally making congestion worse.

Oh okay. Great point I'll keep that in mind. Just so I'm clear "bike bros" are making traffic on North Captiol, a road that has no bike lanes whatsoever, more congested by...asking for bike lanes on CT Ave?

Is that where we've landed?

I feel like we found the equivalent of "AI adding a sixth finger" to these bots messages.

Is that anything like the Woodley Park ANC's "middle finger" extended to bike lane opponents?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm very upset about the traffic that bicyclists are causing on the beltway at rush hour

Ha! But I did see some idiot riding his bicycle on Rock Creek Parkway at the height of morning rush hour when there's a dedicated path for bike use alongside the road.

I've biked that path and it's so bad that I'll normally prefer 14th Street over that. It's in really poor condition and way too narrow for parts of it. If I could maintain a 20-25mph pace I might take the road in Rock Creek Park also.

It could also have been someone confused following Google maps or something. Far better than when drivers get confused and try to drive on trails!

[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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I may have missed it as I didn’t read the 43 pages of comments, but is there any data or info on how many bikers would be expected on this route?

You can look at things like use of Capital Bike share stations and the increasing sales of bikes in DC and the region as two metrics in terms of demand.

The most authoritative analysis is by the Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments. They have cycling (as well as bus riding and subways, etc). all way down, even when adjusting for work from home. Driving is the only mode of transportation that's getting more popular, which is surprising and not surprising.

https://www.mwcog.org/documents/2023/08/14/state-of-the-commute-survey-report--carsharing-state-of-the-commute-telework-travel-surveys/

Anyone who uses data from a small sample to discount population data either has no grasp of statistics and/or is not interested in a meaningful discussion.

Can you please point to the population data that shows driving has not increased and that bikes and other forms of transit have? Genuinely asking as I am looking for data on this.

They have no data but sure have a lot of excuses for why people should not pay attention to the most trusted data sources, MWCOG and ACS.

+1000

The CaBi data is all over this thread. It clearly shows an increase in bike usage. This poster has chosen to continue to post the same DMV wide survey over and over again as if the habits of people in Gaithersburg are related to those in Cleveland Park

What do you think the CaBi data is telling you?

You're welcome to go back and read what was posted about it. Pages 28/29 have a lot of easy to understand infographics if you are still having trouble interpreting the increase in ridership.

Unlike you, I don’t dispute the voracity of officially reported data. Instead, what I am asking is what you think increased utilization of CaBi bikes means. What does that information, in isolation, tell us.

You are trying to draw broad inferences from a very limited set of data and then purposefully rejecting other official data to come to a conclusion that miraculously supports your priors.

This is the same level of anti-intellectualsm that is common among the scientific creationism crowd.

More people are using bikes = bike usage is more popular. I don't need to use as many big words to make a clear inference

B doesn’t follow A. Not sure why this is so complicated.

You're welcome to continue to try this awful argument on others, but I'm done engaging

DP. Good effort. Will meet you at Vace to bike to Politics & Prose holding a slice of pizza. (The anti-bike obsessive is something else.)

lol it's really incredible - i think it's because their mode of transit is so miserable that they're angry about other options. I had to drive for an errand yesterday that involved me going up and down N. Cap and after going 8 miles in 90 mins I felt like the cranks on here!

I feel you. The changes that have been made to North Cap, 16th and Georgia are horrendously bad. I refuse to use them anymore. Why anyone would desire the same thing on Connecticut is beyond me.

Right. Two lanes of traffic, one lane of parking, and red on maps as far as the eye can see. This is what the anti bike squad wants and I have no idea why.

Do you not realize that the changes to that road have made it far worse? That is what the bike bros explicitly want for Connecticut

I truly have no idea what you're are talking about. Explain what part of north cap is bikeable

It's the same damn shenanigans. I don't care whether they included protected bike lanes or not. The issue is intentionally making congestion worse.

Oh okay. Great point I'll keep that in mind. Just so I'm clear "bike bros" are making traffic on North Captiol, a road that has no bike lanes whatsoever, more congested by...asking for bike lanes on CT Ave?

Is that where we've landed?

I feel like we found the equivalent of "AI adding a sixth finger" to these bots messages.

Is that anything like the Woodley Park ANC's "middle finger" extended to bike lane opponents?

Nope, but I see you connected the word finger, so good for you! Keep adding to the language model!

[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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I may have missed it as I didn’t read the 43 pages of comments, but is there any data or info on how many bikers would be expected on this route?

You can look at things like use of Capital Bike share stations and the increasing sales of bikes in DC and the region as two metrics in terms of demand.

The most authoritative analysis is by the Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments. They have cycling (as well as bus riding and subways, etc). all way down, even when adjusting for work from home. Driving is the only mode of transportation that's getting more popular, which is surprising and not surprising.

https://www.mwcog.org/documents/2023/08/14/state-of-the-commute-survey-report--carsharing-state-of-the-commute-telework-travel-surveys/

Anyone who uses data from a small sample to discount population data either has no grasp of statistics and/or is not interested in a meaningful discussion.

Can you please point to the population data that shows driving has not increased and that bikes and other forms of transit have? Genuinely asking as I am looking for data on this.

They have no data but sure have a lot of excuses for why people should not pay attention to the most trusted data sources, MWCOG and ACS.

+1000

The CaBi data is all over this thread. It clearly shows an increase in bike usage. This poster has chosen to continue to post the same DMV wide survey over and over again as if the habits of people in Gaithersburg are related to those in Cleveland Park

What do you think the CaBi data is telling you?

You're welcome to go back and read what was posted about it. Pages 28/29 have a lot of easy to understand infographics if you are still having trouble interpreting the increase in ridership.

Unlike you, I don’t dispute the voracity of officially reported data. Instead, what I am asking is what you think increased utilization of CaBi bikes means. What does that information, in isolation, tell us.

You are trying to draw broad inferences from a very limited set of data and then purposefully rejecting other official data to come to a conclusion that miraculously supports your priors.

This is the same level of anti-intellectualsm that is common among the scientific creationism crowd.

More people are using bikes = bike usage is more popular. I don't need to use as many big words to make a clear inference

B doesn’t follow A. Not sure why this is so complicated.

You're welcome to continue to try this awful argument on others, but I'm done engaging

DP. Good effort. Will meet you at Vace to bike to Politics & Prose holding a slice of pizza. (The anti-bike obsessive is something else.)

lol it's really incredible - i think it's because their mode of transit is so miserable that they're angry about other options. I had to drive for an errand yesterday that involved me going up and down N. Cap and after going 8 miles in 90 mins I felt like the cranks on here!

I feel you. The changes that have been made to North Cap, 16th and Georgia are horrendously bad. I refuse to use them anymore. Why anyone would desire the same thing on Connecticut is beyond me.

Right. Two lanes of traffic, one lane of parking, and red on maps as far as the eye can see. This is what the anti bike squad wants and I have no idea why.

Do you not realize that the changes to that road have made it far worse? That is what the bike bros explicitly want for Connecticut

I truly have no idea what you're are talking about. Explain what part of north cap is bikeable

It's the same damn shenanigans. I don't care whether they included protected bike lanes or not. The issue is intentionally making congestion worse.

Oh okay. Great point I'll keep that in mind. Just so I'm clear "bike bros" are making traffic on North Captiol, a road that has no bike lanes whatsoever, more congested by...asking for bike lanes on CT Ave?

Is that where we've landed?

I feel like we found the equivalent of "AI adding a sixth finger" to these bots messages.

Is that anything like the Woodley Park ANC's "middle finger" extended to bike lane opponents?

Nope, but I see you connected the word finger, so good for you! Keep adding to the language model!

You don’t wear a helmet I guess with that tossed word salad.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm very upset about the traffic that bicyclists are causing on the beltway at rush hour

Ha! But I did see some idiot riding his bicycle on Rock Creek Parkway at the height of morning rush hour when there's a dedicated path for bike use alongside the road.

I've biked that path and it's so bad that I'll normally prefer 14th Street over that. It's in really poor condition and way too narrow for parts of it. If I could maintain a 20-25mph pace I might take the road in Rock Creek Park also.

It could also have been someone confused following Google maps or something. Far better than when drivers get confused and try to drive on trails!

So let’s say we build some bike lanes and you don’t like those either?

[Anonymous]

Wait!!!!! I’ve got it! How about we build a series of connected underground tunnels for cyclists?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm very upset about the traffic that bicyclists are causing on the beltway at rush hour

Ha! But I did see some idiot riding his bicycle on Rock Creek Parkway at the height of morning rush hour when there's a dedicated path for bike use alongside the road.

I've biked that path and it's so bad that I'll normally prefer 14th Street over that. It's in really poor condition and way too narrow for parts of it. If I could maintain a 20-25mph pace I might take the road in Rock Creek Park also.

It could also have been someone confused following Google maps or something. Far better than when drivers get confused and try to drive on trails!

So let’s say we build some bike lanes and you don’t like those either?

I guess it would be like if the city built a really bad road and drivers didn't use it much. Not rocket science?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Wait!!!!! I’ve got it! How about we build a series of connected underground tunnels for cyclists?

How about you put the phone down while driving first

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:All traffic deaths are horrible and streets must be made safer for all users. That's why I find it so offensive that the bike lobby, led by Charles Allen, is seeking to include language in the budget that would deny any expenditure for safer streets that did not include bike lanes. It shows that for the bike lobby, it is about biking, not safe streets. Bike lanes are not going to happen for years because there is a cash crunch and issues to be worked out, so why not make Connecticut Avenue safer in the interim?

How would the street be made safer without consideration for cyclists? Sure, they can put in some bulbouts, but if cyclists are left competing with motorists in driving lanes, then it is unsafe for cyclists. If cyclists are left competing with pedestrians on sidewalks, then it is unsafe for pedestrians.

One solution is to shift a new north-south bike lane to Reno Rd. Maybe it won't be as convenient for some bikers to reach the Connecticut Ave bars, but a Reno bike lane would provide easy access to locations up and down Connecticut and much of Wisconsin Ave. Reno has a center turn lane that is underultized or unnecessary at all but the most busy intersections so space could be re-allocated to bike lanes on the side. Connecticut Ave. is a designated arterial and evaluation route and where the thru and commuter traffic should be encouraged to go, instead of diverting more of it to Reno.

Reno Road isn't wide enough to accommodate turn lanes, through lanes and bike lanes. DDOT already dismissed that option years ago.

In fact, it is. Eliminate the turn lane at all but the most major cross streets and the space on an entire lane could be repurposed as a dedicated bike lane, probably moved to one side or another. The bikes are likely to have to stop for the signals at the major cross streets, so having the lane become striped at those locations is quite standard and doable.

Maybe Reno doesn't have the same Urbanist cachet of re-visioning Connecticut Ave as a very dense high-rise, mixed-use corridor with bike lanes, but that's not the primary purpose of having the bike lane, is it?

I don't think the people who ride their bikes downtown from upper NW have any problem with putting bike lanes on Reno and changing the traffic patterns there, instead of on Connecticut. I know I don't. But DDOT doesn't seem to be into the idea.

The focus should be building a bike path thru RC Park. Faster and safer.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:All traffic deaths are horrible and streets must be made safer for all users. That's why I find it so offensive that the bike lobby, led by Charles Allen, is seeking to include language in the budget that would deny any expenditure for safer streets that did not include bike lanes. It shows that for the bike lobby, it is about biking, not safe streets. Bike lanes are not going to happen for years because there is a cash crunch and issues to be worked out, so why not make Connecticut Avenue safer in the interim?

How would the street be made safer without consideration for cyclists? Sure, they can put in some bulbouts, but if cyclists are left competing with motorists in driving lanes, then it is unsafe for cyclists. If cyclists are left competing with pedestrians on sidewalks, then it is unsafe for pedestrians.

One solution is to shift a new north-south bike lane to Reno Rd. Maybe it won't be as convenient for some bikers to reach the Connecticut Ave bars, but a Reno bike lane would provide easy access to locations up and down Connecticut and much of Wisconsin Ave. Reno has a center turn lane that is underultized or unnecessary at all but the most busy intersections so space could be re-allocated to bike lanes on the side. Connecticut Ave. is a designated arterial and evaluation route and where the thru and commuter traffic should be encouraged to go, instead of diverting more of it to Reno.

Reno Road isn't wide enough to accommodate turn lanes, through lanes and bike lanes. DDOT already dismissed that option years ago.

In fact, it is. Eliminate the turn lane at all but the most major cross streets and the space on an entire lane could be repurposed as a dedicated bike lane, probably moved to one side or another. The bikes are likely to have to stop for the signals at the major cross streets, so having the lane become striped at those locations is quite standard and doable.

Maybe Reno doesn't have the same Urbanist cachet of re-visioning Connecticut Ave as a very dense high-rise, mixed-use corridor with bike lanes, but that's not the primary purpose of having the bike lane, is it?

I don't think the people who ride their bikes downtown from upper NW have any problem with putting bike lanes on Reno and changing the traffic patterns there, instead of on Connecticut. I know I don't. But DDOT doesn't seem to be into the idea.

The focus should be building a bike path thru RC Park. Faster and safer.

Is making repetitive statements your kink?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wait!!!!! I’ve got it! How about we build a series of connected underground tunnels for cyclists?

How about you put the phone down while driving first

Im not in the car right now you ornamental cabbage!

[Anonymous]

The downtown business community has organized against the Connecticut Ave bike lane? Who do you think Bowser will listen to? The business community or the bike bros?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The downtown business community has organized against the Connecticut Ave bike lane? Who do you think Bowser will listen to? The business community or the bike bros?

Bow$er always listens to business.