Options for opposing Connecticut Avenue changes?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I guess what I don’t understand is that if you scroll through the Twitter feeds of the pro bike lane crowd it’s filled with hysterical, border line self congratulatory “gotcha” tweets filled with pics cars, contractors, construction workers, first responders, etc. parked illegally in bike lanes all over the city. Along with pictures of broken and blighted bike lane infrastructure and desperate calls for 311 to fix things. But you somehow think CT will be any different? Thanks to your good reporting we already know how this will go. No thank you.

What it proves is that curb access is actually very important to economic activity in the city and taking this important public resource and giving it over to a small handful of cyclists doesn’t seem very wise.

There will be 24/7 curb access on one side of the street, something that doesn't exist today.

Almost all of the business have some form of alley or rear access, if needed. These days, those are barely used.

Both statements are ridiculous. Curb access currently exists on both sides of the street and will be removed. Additionally, “almost all” is a joke of a statement for business and also does not address deliveries to apartments or god forbid, emergency vehicle access.

So you are saying you know better than traffic engineers worldwide who have cracked the code of how to solve for these questions?

Traffic engineers have not cracked the code. That's a ludicrous statement. And in this case it is clear that they did not take the entire consequences into account. For god's sake the only firehouse serving upper NW is on Connecticut.

There are TWO fired houses on CT and one on Wisc. They are fine and it won't be an issue. There is already traffic on CT Ave, much of it backed up at Military, Nebraska, Van Ness, Porter and in all of Woodley Park. It is already bad. This won't make it worse, and more likely, more people will feel safe to ride a bike in the new lanes and use their cars a little less. That would be a good result, right? Less pollution, more exercise and best of all, fewer cars means more people who are old and have to drive, will have more open lanes and more opportunity to park closer to where they are going.

Win-win.

It is clear that the planning mode of the last century doesn't work unless we invest in putting double decks on our avenues. That isn't feasible, so we need to think about other ways of getting people around.

How in any seblence of truth can you claim that cutting the amount of rush hour lanes in half won't increase congestion on both Connecticut amd those side streets?

You analysis is delusional. Traffic will be magically reduced?

Because this is what happens everywhere mode changes are installed. Fact matter. Just because you don't or can't believe it, doesn't make it so. What happened to the traffic that used the Embarcadero in San Francisco? What happened to the traffic that was replaced with BRT in Curitiba, Columbia? What happened to the traffic in downtown Paris?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Study after study of grid-connected cycling tracks and traffic calming suggests that this infrastructure is positive to businesses.

In NYC streets with bike lanes saw 24% higher retail sales growth than those without (http://www.nyc.gov/html/dot/downloads/pdf/2014-09-03-bicycle-path-data-analysis.pdf).

Salt Lake City experienced a 25% increase in sales tax revenue for areas with lanes vs those without (https://usa.streetsblog.org/2015/10/06/salt-lake-city-cuts-car-parking-adds-bike-lanes-sees-retail-boost/)

But sure, there are no studies.

You’re not doing yourself any favors by comparing central Manhattan to upper NW. There are almost zero single family homes in NYC and very few families as compared to Ward 3. Bike lanes are great if your young, childless, and live in a high rise.

What difference does it make whether a family lives in a single family house versus a high rise? (and guess what, there are SFH in NYC and magnitudes more families in NYC than DC)

That would be the fundental difference between an urban and a suburban area.

Uh, last time I checked, DC was a city and urban. Please explain.

Really?

Yes, DC is a city. We want grown up transportation options, not the one-size-fits-all suburban, auto-centric BS from 1950.

[Anonymous]

This is what the people opposed to the bike lanes want:

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Study after study of grid-connected cycling tracks and traffic calming suggests that this infrastructure is positive to businesses.

In NYC streets with bike lanes saw 24% higher retail sales growth than those without (http://www.nyc.gov/html/dot/downloads/pdf/2014-09-03-bicycle-path-data-analysis.pdf).

Salt Lake City experienced a 25% increase in sales tax revenue for areas with lanes vs those without (https://usa.streetsblog.org/2015/10/06/salt-lake-city-cuts-car-parking-adds-bike-lanes-sees-retail-boost/)

But sure, there are no studies.

You’re not doing yourself any favors by comparing central Manhattan to upper NW. There are almost zero single family homes in NYC and very few families as compared to Ward 3. Bike lanes are great if your young, childless, and live in a high rise.

What difference does it make whether a family lives in a single family house versus a high rise? (and guess what, there are SFH in NYC and magnitudes more families in NYC than DC)

That would be the fundental difference between an urban and a suburban area.

Uh, last time I checked, DC was a city and urban. Please explain.

Really?

Yes, DC is a city. We want grown up transportation options, not the one-size-fits-all suburban, auto-centric BS from 1950.

You're the one demanding a one size fits all solution

[Anonymous]

I live near CT Avenue and am thrilled with the addition of the bike lanes. I think it will be a great transformation of the Avenue and will make it more vibrant.

I continue to be floored by the consistent complaint by people saying "these businesses all will fail because I can't park in front of it". Sounds like you should go move to Gaithersburg or Potomac. Do you forget that you actually live in a city?? There is loads of public transportation, taxis, Uber.... If you can't bike or walk there will be plenty of options for you to get there. That is part of living in a vibrant city. And, may I remind you that many parts of the city have vibrant commercial areas that are patronized by people who do not drive there. Dupont Circle, Georgetown, H Street Corridor. People either drive, park several blocks away after searching for parking or they use another mode of transportation to get there. And its all just fine. Those businesses are fine. So please, your miniscule business will be replaced by much, much more business. This is going to be a great commercial improvement for these businesses.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

2/4 = 50%

In all practicality, is is 2 through lanes now and will be 2 through lanes in the future.

In all practicality it will be one functional lane in each direction. Because taxis, Ubers, buses, deliveries, etc will all need to stop somewhere and it will just be to stop in the street because there will be no other place.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Study after study of grid-connected cycling tracks and traffic calming suggests that this infrastructure is positive to businesses.

In NYC streets with bike lanes saw 24% higher retail sales growth than those without (http://www.nyc.gov/html/dot/downloads/pdf/2014-09-03-bicycle-path-data-analysis.pdf).

Salt Lake City experienced a 25% increase in sales tax revenue for areas with lanes vs those without (https://usa.streetsblog.org/2015/10/06/salt-lake-city-cuts-car-parking-adds-bike-lanes-sees-retail-boost/)

But sure, there are no studies.

You’re not doing yourself any favors by comparing central Manhattan to upper NW. There are almost zero single family homes in NYC and very few families as compared to Ward 3. Bike lanes are great if your young, childless, and live in a high rise.

What difference does it make whether a family lives in a single family house versus a high rise? (and guess what, there are SFH in NYC and magnitudes more families in NYC than DC)

That would be the fundental difference between an urban and a suburban area.

Uh, last time I checked, DC was a city and urban. Please explain.

Really?

Yes, DC is a city. We want grown up transportation options, not the one-size-fits-all suburban, auto-centric BS from 1950.

You're the one demanding a one size fits all solution

How so? I am supporting the ability to drive, bike or walk safely.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I live near CT Avenue and am thrilled with the addition of the bike lanes. I think it will be a great transformation of the Avenue and will make it more vibrant.

I continue to be floored by the consistent complaint by people saying "these businesses all will fail because I can't park in front of it". Sounds like you should go move to Gaithersburg or Potomac. Do you forget that you actually live in a city?? There is loads of public transportation, taxis, Uber.... If you can't bike or walk there will be plenty of options for you to get there. That is part of living in a vibrant city. And, may I remind you that many parts of the city have vibrant commercial areas that are patronized by people who do not drive there. Dupont Circle, Georgetown, H Street Corridor. People either drive, park several blocks away after searching for parking or they use another mode of transportation to get there. And its all just fine. Those businesses are fine. So please, your miniscule business will be replaced by much, much more business. This is going to be a great commercial improvement for these businesses.

+100

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

2/4 = 50%

In all practicality, is is 2 through lanes now and will be 2 through lanes in the future.

In all practicality it will be one functional lane in each direction. Because taxis, Ubers, buses, deliveries, etc will all need to stop somewhere and it will just be to stop in the street because there will be no other place.

So it will be one functional lane for cars. The other lanes will be used by all the users you mention, all of whom are part of the city and the economy

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Study after study of grid-connected cycling tracks and traffic calming suggests that this infrastructure is positive to businesses.

In NYC streets with bike lanes saw 24% higher retail sales growth than those without (http://www.nyc.gov/html/dot/downloads/pdf/2014-09-03-bicycle-path-data-analysis.pdf).

Salt Lake City experienced a 25% increase in sales tax revenue for areas with lanes vs those without (https://usa.streetsblog.org/2015/10/06/salt-lake-city-cuts-car-parking-adds-bike-lanes-sees-retail-boost/)

But sure, there are no studies.

You’re not doing yourself any favors by comparing central Manhattan to upper NW. There are almost zero single family homes in NYC and very few families as compared to Ward 3. Bike lanes are great if your young, childless, and live in a high rise.

What difference does it make whether a family lives in a single family house versus a high rise? (and guess what, there are SFH in NYC and magnitudes more families in NYC than DC)

That would be the fundental difference between an urban and a suburban area.

Uh, last time I checked, DC was a city and urban. Please explain.

Really?

Yes, DC is a city. We want grown up transportation options, not the one-size-fits-all suburban, auto-centric BS from 1950.

You're the one demanding a one size fits all solution

How so? I am supporting the ability to drive, bike or walk safely.

No, you're not. You're calling for a downtown urban plan for an uptown suburban area that will make driving, biking and walking less safe in the area.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I live near CT Avenue and am thrilled with the addition of the bike lanes. I think it will be a great transformation of the Avenue and will make it more vibrant.

I continue to be floored by the consistent complaint by people saying "these businesses all will fail because I can't park in front of it". Sounds like you should go move to Gaithersburg or Potomac. Do you forget that you actually live in a city?? There is loads of public transportation, taxis, Uber.... If you can't bike or walk there will be plenty of options for you to get there. That is part of living in a vibrant city. And, may I remind you that many parts of the city have vibrant commercial areas that are patronized by people who do not drive there. Dupont Circle, Georgetown, H Street Corridor. People either drive, park several blocks away after searching for parking or they use another mode of transportation to get there. And its all just fine. Those businesses are fine. So please, your miniscule business will be replaced by much, much more business. This is going to be a great commercial improvement for these businesses.

Same here. I live along CT Avenue and am pro-bike lanes. One reason I don't bike to work is that there's no way around biking down CT and I don't feel safe because there's no dedicated bike lane. I think more people would bike if it were safer. And I think pedestrians would be better off if there was a bike lane, so bikes weren't on the sidewalks, which are often narrow, so it's a win-win. And you already can't park along the street during rush hour, and people already figure out where else to park when they visit CT businesses on the weekends. Lots of people use public transportation in this area or to visit this area. It's really not the end of the world.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I guess what I don’t understand is that if you scroll through the Twitter feeds of the pro bike lane crowd it’s filled with hysterical, border line self congratulatory “gotcha” tweets filled with pics cars, contractors, construction workers, first responders, etc. parked illegally in bike lanes all over the city. Along with pictures of broken and blighted bike lane infrastructure and desperate calls for 311 to fix things. But you somehow think CT will be any different? Thanks to your good reporting we already know how this will go. No thank you.

What it proves is that curb access is actually very important to economic activity in the city and taking this important public resource and giving it over to a small handful of cyclists doesn’t seem very wise.

There will be 24/7 curb access on one side of the street, something that doesn't exist today.

Almost all of the business have some form of alley or rear access, if needed. These days, those are barely used.

Both statements are ridiculous. Curb access currently exists on both sides of the street and will be removed. Additionally, “almost all” is a joke of a statement for business and also does not address deliveries to apartments or god forbid, emergency vehicle access.

So you are saying you know better than traffic engineers worldwide who have cracked the code of how to solve for these questions?

After the disastrous redesign of Wisconsin Avenue in Glover Park that had to be redone because it caused a traffic nightmare, I have little faith in DDOT’s ability to reconfigure streets.

It's not like traffic is already backed up past the border during rush hour. What could go wrong with a 50% reduction in traffic lanes.

What could go wrong? People might find alternative ways to commute - some of which may be more environmentally-friendly, economically productive, and safer for all other road users. And those who are so self-important as to insist on driving single occupancy vehicles from suburban MD into DC every day probably do the city a favor by staying home.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I guess what I don’t understand is that if you scroll through the Twitter feeds of the pro bike lane crowd it’s filled with hysterical, border line self congratulatory “gotcha” tweets filled with pics cars, contractors, construction workers, first responders, etc. parked illegally in bike lanes all over the city. Along with pictures of broken and blighted bike lane infrastructure and desperate calls for 311 to fix things. But you somehow think CT will be any different? Thanks to your good reporting we already know how this will go. No thank you.

What it proves is that curb access is actually very important to economic activity in the city and taking this important public resource and giving it over to a small handful of cyclists doesn’t seem very wise.

There will be 24/7 curb access on one side of the street, something that doesn't exist today.

Almost all of the business have some form of alley or rear access, if needed. These days, those are barely used.

Both statements are ridiculous. Curb access currently exists on both sides of the street and will be removed. Additionally, “almost all” is a joke of a statement for business and also does not address deliveries to apartments or god forbid, emergency vehicle access.

So you are saying you know better than traffic engineers worldwide who have cracked the code of how to solve for these questions?

Traffic engineers have not cracked the code. That's a ludicrous statement. And in this case it is clear that they did not take the entire consequences into account. For god's sake the only firehouse serving upper NW is on Connecticut.

There are TWO fired houses on CT and one on Wisc. They are fine and it won't be an issue. There is already traffic on CT Ave, much of it backed up at Military, Nebraska, Van Ness, Porter and in all of Woodley Park. It is already bad. This won't make it worse, and more likely, more people will feel safe to ride a bike in the new lanes and use their cars a little less. That would be a good result, right? Less pollution, more exercise and best of all, fewer cars means more people who are old and have to drive, will have more open lanes and more opportunity to park closer to where they are going.

Win-win.

It is clear that the planning mode of the last century doesn't work unless we invest in putting double decks on our avenues. That isn't feasible, so we need to think about other ways of getting people around.

How in any seblence of truth can you claim that cutting the amount of rush hour lanes in half won't increase congestion on both Connecticut amd those side streets?

You analysis is delusional. Traffic will be magically reduced?

Because this is what happens everywhere mode changes are installed. Fact matter. Just because you don't or can't believe it, doesn't make it so. What happened to the traffic that used the Embarcadero in San Francisco? What happened to the traffic that was replaced with BRT in Curitiba, Columbia? What happened to the traffic in downtown Paris?

Upper NW is not downtown Paris. Traffic does not magically disappear. It flows like water onto the surrounding streets. Surrounding streets that are in this case exclusively residential and filled with seniors and kids walking, biking, and scooting quite often in the middle of the street.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I guess what I don’t understand is that if you scroll through the Twitter feeds of the pro bike lane crowd it’s filled with hysterical, border line self congratulatory “gotcha” tweets filled with pics cars, contractors, construction workers, first responders, etc. parked illegally in bike lanes all over the city. Along with pictures of broken and blighted bike lane infrastructure and desperate calls for 311 to fix things. But you somehow think CT will be any different? Thanks to your good reporting we already know how this will go. No thank you.

What it proves is that curb access is actually very important to economic activity in the city and taking this important public resource and giving it over to a small handful of cyclists doesn’t seem very wise.

There will be 24/7 curb access on one side of the street, something that doesn't exist today.

Almost all of the business have some form of alley or rear access, if needed. These days, those are barely used.

Both statements are ridiculous. Curb access currently exists on both sides of the street and will be removed. Additionally, “almost all” is a joke of a statement for business and also does not address deliveries to apartments or god forbid, emergency vehicle access.

So you are saying you know better than traffic engineers worldwide who have cracked the code of how to solve for these questions?

After the disastrous redesign of Wisconsin Avenue in Glover Park that had to be redone because it caused a traffic nightmare, I have little faith in DDOT’s ability to reconfigure streets.

It's not like traffic is already backed up past the border during rush hour. What could go wrong with a 50% reduction in traffic lanes.

What could go wrong? People might find alternative ways to commute - some of which may be more environmentally-friendly, economically productive, and safer for all other road users. And those who are so self-important as to insist on driving single occupancy vehicles from suburban MD into DC every day probably do the city a favor by staying home.

You do realize that people in DC also drive correct?

[Anonymous]

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]I guess what I don’t understand is that if you scroll through the Twitter feeds of the pro bike lane crowd it’s filled with hysterical, border line self congratulatory “gotcha” tweets filled with pics cars, contractors, construction workers, first responders, etc. parked illegally in bike lanes all over the city. Along with pictures of broken and blighted bike lane infrastructure and desperate calls for 311 to fix things. But you somehow think CT will be any different? Thanks to your good reporting we already know how this will go. No thank you. [/quote]
What it proves is that curb access is actually very important to economic activity in the city and taking this important public resource and giving it over to a small handful of cyclists doesn’t seem very wise. [/quote]

There will be 24/7 curb access on one side of the street, something that doesn't exist today.

Almost all of the business have some form of alley or rear access, if needed. These days, those are barely used.[/quote]
Both statements are ridiculous. Curb access currently exists on both sides of the street and will be removed. Additionally, “almost all” is a joke of a statement for business and also does not address deliveries to apartments or god forbid, emergency vehicle access.[/quote]

So you are saying you know better than traffic engineers worldwide who have cracked the code of how to solve for these questions? [/quote]

Traffic engineers have not cracked the code. That's a ludicrous statement. And in this case it is clear that they did not take the entire consequences into account. For god's sake the only firehouse serving upper NW is on Connecticut.[/quote]

There are TWO fired houses on CT and one on Wisc. They are fine and it won't be an issue. There is already traffic on CT Ave, much of it backed up at Military, Nebraska, Van Ness, Porter and in all of Woodley Park. It is already bad. This won't make it worse, and more likely, more people will feel safe to ride a bike in the new lanes and use their cars a little less. That would be a good result, right? Less pollution, more exercise and best of all, fewer cars means more people who are old and have to drive, will have more open lanes and more opportunity to park closer to where they are going.

Win-win.

It is clear that the planning mode of the last century doesn't work unless we invest in putting double decks on our avenues. That isn't feasible, so we need to think about other ways of getting people around.[/quote]

How in any seblence of truth can you claim that cutting the amount of rush hour lanes in half won't increase congestion on both Connecticut amd those side streets?

You analysis is delusional. Traffic will be magically reduced? [/quote]

Because this is what happens everywhere mode changes are installed. Fact matter. Just because you don't or can't believe it, doesn't make it so. What happened to the traffic that used the Embarcadero in San Francisco? What happened to the traffic that was replaced with BRT in Curitiba, Columbia? What happened to the traffic in downtown Paris?[/quote]

Upper NW is not downtown Paris. Traffic does not magically disappear. It flows like water onto the surrounding streets. Surrounding streets that are in this case exclusively residential and filled with seniors and kids walking, biking, and scooting quite often in the middle of the street.[/quote]

Induced demand is a thing. Look it up.