Connecticut Ave bike lanes are back!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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!

You do not frighten us. Go boil your bottoms you sons of a silly person. I blow my nose at you

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

You say that like it’s a bad thing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Not a Bowser fan, but if we want to revitalize downtown Washington she had better listen to business.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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!

You do not frighten us. Go boil your bottoms you sons of a silly person. I blow my nose at you

Then I have no choice but to fart in your general direction wherever that may be you hipster doofus.

[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.

Many of us aren't riding downtown at all and don't "need" a path in RCP. What we want is to be able to run errands in our neighborhood, of which Connecticut Avenue is our main street.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Many of us aren't riding downtown at all and don't "need" a path in RCP. What we want is to be able to run errands in our neighborhood, of which Connecticut Avenue is our main street.

Thanks for not calling Connecticut your “corridor.”

[Anonymous]

Even if you eliminated the turn lane from Reno (which would be an insane nightmare for traffic), the road is still too narrow to make a safe bike lane. People’s huge SUVs already half use that turn lane. Any bike lane there would need to be seriously barricaded from traffic for it to be remotely usable and that ain’t gonna happen.

I don’t understand why everyone’s panties are in a wad about Conn Ave anyway. Everyone pretends like it’s a 6 lane road when in fact the 2 outer lanes are always parking or delivery trucks or someone idling. There is no great loss of parking along the red line there. If you want to be upset about something, get upset that metro doesn’t have dedicated funding that would completely fix this problem.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Even if you eliminated the turn lane from Reno (which would be an insane nightmare for traffic), the road is still too narrow to make a safe bike lane. People’s huge SUVs already half use that turn lane. Any bike lane there would need to be seriously barricaded from traffic for it to be remotely usable and that ain’t gonna happen.

I don’t understand why everyone’s panties are in a wad about Conn Ave anyway. Everyone pretends like it’s a 6 lane road when in fact the 2 outer lanes are always parking or delivery trucks or someone idling. There is no great loss of parking along the red line there. If you want to be upset about something, get upset that metro doesn’t have dedicated funding that would completely fix this problem.

“it’s a 6 lane road when in fact the 2 outer lanes are always parking or delivery trucks or someone idling”

If this is the case, what happens when Connecticut Ave is narrowed? The problem moves to the next lanes and congestion and gridlock on Connecticut become even worse.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Many of us aren't riding downtown at all and don't "need" a path in RCP. What we want is to be able to run errands in our neighborhood, of which Connecticut Avenue is our main street.

It is also a main street for a vastly larger number of drivers who don’t need all of the drawbacks that come with adding a bike lane there.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Even if you eliminated the turn lane from Reno (which would be an insane nightmare for traffic), the road is still too narrow to make a safe bike lane. People’s huge SUVs already half use that turn lane. Any bike lane there would need to be seriously barricaded from traffic for it to be remotely usable and that ain’t gonna happen.

I don’t understand why everyone’s panties are in a wad about Conn Ave anyway. Everyone pretends like it’s a 6 lane road when in fact the 2 outer lanes are always parking or delivery trucks or someone idling. There is no great loss of parking along the red line there. If you want to be upset about something, get upset that metro doesn’t have dedicated funding that would completely fix this problem.

Reno is far more of a local road than Connecticut will ever be. There really shouldn't be much thru-traffic on Reno, and there only is because of back ups on Connecticut/Wisconsin. Its ok to slow up the people using Waze and such, and herd them back onto the other routes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Many of us aren't riding downtown at all and don't "need" a path in RCP. What we want is to be able to run errands in our neighborhood, of which Connecticut Avenue is our main street.

Then you may have to figure out a different more safe mode of transportation as cyclists often suggest to drivers.

[Anonymous]

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

How about we build a series of connected underground tunnels for drivers? Except instead of them driving their own cars in the tunnels (very inefficient), there are big cars for multiple people to use at the same time, with people whose job is driving them. Maybe those big cars could even be connected to each other, in a series? And if they could run on rails, that would be good too.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Many of us aren't riding downtown at all and don't "need" a path in RCP. What we want is to be able to run errands in our neighborhood, of which Connecticut Avenue is our main street.

Since very few are riding downtown how many people are doing this and why should this be a city priority?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

How about we build a series of connected underground tunnels for drivers? Except instead of them driving their own cars in the tunnels (very inefficient), there are big cars for multiple people to use at the same time, with people whose job is driving them. Maybe those big cars could even be connected to each other, in a series? And if they could run on rails, that would be good too.

How about we close all streets in DC to all vehicles except for bikes and walking. All deliveries will be on cargo bikes like in everywhere in Europe.

[Anonymous]

I think everyone is losing sight of what are the two options:

1. Some bike lanes or
2. Parking 24/7 on CT Avenue with no restrictions vs. rush hour restrictions right now.

In both options, you will have the same traffic problems with delivery trucks now idling in one of the 4 lanes of traffic.

Yes, in option #2 you may have traffic issues only 80% of the time vs. Option #1...but they both stink.

BTW...both of these options are designed to make your car commute miserable so that perhaps you won't make it at all or take metro or something. That is the goal.