Connecticut Ave bike lanes are back!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:At the same time they are pushing to get rid of a significant amount of the bus service in the same area - re: the 96 and the L2. Buses are much more accessible to many people than the metro and bike lanes and should not be cut back

There is so much overlap with metrorail on this corridor that cutting the bus service actually makes sense.

Way to demonstrate your keen knowledge of the area. You must be local.

Van Ness -> Farragut/Dupont is all along CT ave. Not sure what that poster got incorrect.

The other half of the road.

Van Ness -> Chevy Chase Circle

Oh, so we're just being petty huh

No.. the project has always been from Calvert to chch circle. It has never been proposed across the bridge going south.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:At the same time they are pushing to get rid of a significant amount of the bus service in the same area - re: the 96 and the L2. Buses are much more accessible to many people than the metro and bike lanes and should not be cut back

There is so much overlap with metrorail on this corridor that cutting the bus service actually makes sense.

Way to demonstrate your keen knowledge of the area. You must be local.

Van Ness -> Farragut/Dupont is all along CT ave. Not sure what that poster got incorrect.

The other half of the road.

Van Ness -> Chevy Chase Circle

Its less than a third of the distance and stops if we're being generous and assume no one can walk. A quarter if we assume people can walk a few blocks.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:At the same time they are pushing to get rid of a significant amount of the bus service in the same area - re: the 96 and the L2. Buses are much more accessible to many people than the metro and bike lanes and should not be cut back

There is so much overlap with metrorail on this corridor that cutting the bus service actually makes sense.

Way to demonstrate your keen knowledge of the area. You must be local.

Van Ness -> Farragut/Dupont is all along CT ave. Not sure what that poster got incorrect.

The other half of the road.

Van Ness -> Chevy Chase Circle

Its less than a third of the distance and stops if we're being generous and assume no one can walk. A quarter if we assume people can walk a few blocks.

It's exactly half. It's 4 miles from Chevy Chase Circle to the Taft Bridge and Van Ness is the middle point.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What the f???

I thought this was done.

I thought the biker bros had lost.

We have been working on this project for like a decade. If you think we were like "ah well, lost the mayor to downtown commercial building pocketbook, guess we should just pack it up and accept our fates of becoming meat pancakes to a speeding MD commuter with paper plates" you were fooling yourself.

Do you not understand that DC is broke? You seem to be the only one fooling yourself. This is just locking in the status quo and every Councilmember not named Frumin are happy to take capital transportation projects from Ward 3.

Broke and about to pass out housing benefits to those SELF CERTIFYING income.

This Council is gunning for a control board 2.0.

I don’t believe that the DC Council is dumb. What I do believe is that they are mostly a bunch of cynical nihilists.

Just like the feel good electric bus mandate resulted in the end of the Circulator, they know that passing this measure will earn them momentary clout with the activists while also spelling the inevitable end of the voucher program.

I think some Councilmembers support the voucher program, know this and don’t care. I think other Councilmembers don’t support the voucher program and see this is a good way of getting rid of it without getting their hands dirty.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:At the same time they are pushing to get rid of a significant amount of the bus service in the same area - re: the 96 and the L2. Buses are much more accessible to many people than the metro and bike lanes and should not be cut back

There is so much overlap with metrorail on this corridor that cutting the bus service actually makes sense.

Way to demonstrate your keen knowledge of the area. You must be local.

Van Ness -> Farragut/Dupont is all along CT ave. Not sure what that poster got incorrect.

The other half of the road.

Van Ness -> Chevy Chase Circle

Oh, so we're just being petty huh

No.. the project has always been from Calvert to chch circle. It has never been proposed across the bridge going south.

That’s literally not true. The peoject was originally Calvert to Legation. Continuing to Chevy Chase Circle was added only in 2023 to the study area.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:At the same time they are pushing to get rid of a significant amount of the bus service in the same area - re: the 96 and the L2. Buses are much more accessible to many people than the metro and bike lanes and should not be cut back

There is so much overlap with metrorail on this corridor that cutting the bus service actually makes sense.

Way to demonstrate your keen knowledge of the area. You must be local.

Van Ness -> Farragut/Dupont is all along CT ave. Not sure what that poster got incorrect.

The other half of the road.

Van Ness -> Chevy Chase Circle

Its less than a third of the distance and stops if we're being generous and assume no one can walk. A quarter if we assume people can walk a few blocks.

It's exactly half. It's 4 miles from Chevy Chase Circle to the Taft Bridge and Van Ness is the middle point.

The L2 doesn't stop at the Taft Bridge. The L2 is a route to downtown, just like the red line which it parallels for 2/3 to 3/4 of its route.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So the criminal lobby’s friend, Charles Allen, now wants to prevent DDOT from funding any safety improvements at all along Connecticut Ave. (like a raised crosswalk on Davenport and Connecticut so that Murch kids can walk more safely to school) UNLESS Allen gets his bike lanes.

Is Allen a bratty child or a public servant?!

Never mind, this is my favorite tantrum

And when pedestrians die will you consider that a tantrum too?

The likelihood that DC or any other city will eliminate all pedestrian deaths is NIL. Pedestrians themselves are sometimes (but obviously not always) at fault. Accidents happen. It's called life.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:At the same time they are pushing to get rid of a significant amount of the bus service in the same area - re: the 96 and the L2. Buses are much more accessible to many people than the metro and bike lanes and should not be cut back

There is so much overlap with metrorail on this corridor that cutting the bus service actually makes sense.

Way to demonstrate your keen knowledge of the area. You must be local.

Van Ness -> Farragut/Dupont is all along CT ave. Not sure what that poster got incorrect.

The other half of the road.

Van Ness -> Chevy Chase Circle

Oh, so we're just being petty huh

No.. the project has always been from Calvert to chch circle. It has never been proposed across the bridge going south.

That’s literally not true. The peoject was originally Calvert to Legation. Continuing to Chevy Chase Circle was added only in 2023 to the study area.

It's so the bike lanes will connect the planned vibrant Chevy Chase Civic Core to the rest of the urban corridor.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's time to make Connecticut avenue a grand boulevard that works for people living, working and being around it. Not the cars that drive through.

Right. More drive-through traffic can go on Porter Street or Reno Road.

And diverting traffic into the side roads is no doubt safer. NOT.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So the criminal lobby’s friend, Charles Allen, now wants to prevent DDOT from funding any safety improvements at all along Connecticut Ave. (like a raised crosswalk on Davenport and Connecticut so that Murch kids can walk more safely to school) UNLESS Allen gets his bike lanes.

Is Allen a bratty child or a public servant?!

Never mind, this is my favorite tantrum

And when pedestrians die will you consider that a tantrum too?

The likelihood that DC or any other city will eliminate all pedestrian deaths is NIL. Pedestrians themselves are sometimes (but obviously not always) at fault. Accidents happen. It's called life.

Pedestrians are at fault the vast majority of the time.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So the criminal lobby’s friend, Charles Allen, now wants to prevent DDOT from funding any safety improvements at all along Connecticut Ave. (like a raised crosswalk on Davenport and Connecticut so that Murch kids can walk more safely to school) UNLESS Allen gets his bike lanes.

Is Allen a bratty child or a public servant?!

Never mind, this is my favorite tantrum

And when pedestrians die will you consider that a tantrum too?

Your doomsaying doesn't work on me

Apparently only bike lives matter. You folks are exactly who you present yourselves. Pedestrian safety = scaremongering. Incredible.

Agree. What makes this move so outrageous is that the alternative they chase is safer for pedestrians than the alternative that Allen wants. He’s completely throwing pedestrians under the bus for the sake of cyclists.

More like under Option 3, pedestrians stepping off a bus will get whacked by speeding cyclists as they try to cross the bike lanes to get to the curb. You wouldn't want that to happen to someone's grandma.

Yep, this is the Connecticut Avenue that Charles Allen wants:

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-media-max-width="560"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">WARNING We've been filming the chaotic & downright dangerous situation at the Westminster Bridge floating bus stop at St Thomas' hospital. Clip includes a speeding cyclist crashing into an elderly person. These designs are not safe & they need to be urgently halted <a href="https://twitter.com/Mark_J_Harper?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@Mark_J_Harper</a> <a href="https://t.co/MrScNnWLs7">pic.twitter.com/MrScNnWLs7</a></p>— NFBUK (@NFBUK) <a href="https://twitter.com/NFBUK/status/1787211980027101194?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">May 5, 2024</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

Sorry:

https://twitter.com/NFBUK/status/1787211980027101194

Might one suggest that creating a dedicated bike pathway through RC park be safer for all concerned.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So the criminal lobby’s friend, Charles Allen, now wants to prevent DDOT from funding any safety improvements at all along Connecticut Ave. (like a raised crosswalk on Davenport and Connecticut so that Murch kids can walk more safely to school) UNLESS Allen gets his bike lanes.

Is Allen a bratty child or a public servant?!

Never mind, this is my favorite tantrum

And when pedestrians die will you consider that a tantrum too?

Your doomsaying doesn't work on me

Apparently only bike lives matter. You folks are exactly who you present yourselves. Pedestrian safety = scaremongering. Incredible.

Agree. What makes this move so outrageous is that the alternative they chase is safer for pedestrians than the alternative that Allen wants. He’s completely throwing pedestrians under the bus for the sake of cyclists.

Here he goes again. Defund Pedestrian Safety.

This is such a wild take. The DDOT advisory committee had a pedestrian advocate (Ellen or Eileen someone who is apparently a big deal) advising them throughout the development of the four options and she has come out in support of Concept C.

You are trying to make a point with what you think is a novel, unconsidered point of view. Instead you are beating a different part of the same dead horse.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's time to make Connecticut avenue a grand boulevard that works for people living, working and being around it. Not the cars that drive through.

Right. More drive-through traffic can go on Porter Street or Reno Road.

DDOT proposed 24/7 parking on CT Ave. That would push more "cut through" traffic than Concept C.

Frumin is trying to avoid that.

Yeah, if your main objection to the bike lanes was that they would slow traffic on CT or force more cars off it to neighboring streets, you should not want parking, either. Bike lanes are a better choice from a driver's perspective than parking, because at least they also keep bikes out of the traffic lanes.

There are only 2 dozen bikes a day on Connecticut.

These numbers are consistent with my observations.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's time to make Connecticut avenue a grand boulevard that works for people living, working and being around it. Not the cars that drive through.

Right. More drive-through traffic can go on Porter Street or Reno Road.

DDOT proposed 24/7 parking on CT Ave. That would push more "cut through" traffic than Concept C.

Frumin is trying to avoid that.

Yeah, if your main objection to the bike lanes was that they would slow traffic on CT or force more cars off it to neighboring streets, you should not want parking, either. Bike lanes are a better choice from a driver's perspective than parking, because at least they also keep bikes out of the traffic lanes.

There are only 2 dozen bikes a day on Connecticut.

Not sure how you could possibly know that, but either way, you're better off with a bike lane that only 24 people use than you are with 24-hour-a-day parking on both sides of the street, which takes up more space than the bike lane would.

And eliminating parking on Connecticut will hurt the businesses there, from dry cleaners to restaurants.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's time to make Connecticut avenue a grand boulevard that works for people living, working and being around it. Not the cars that drive through.

Right. More drive-through traffic can go on Porter Street or Reno Road.

And diverting traffic into the side roads is no doubt safer. NOT.

That would be a good way to harass and push out more single family homeowners in the neighborhoods near Connecticut, then up-zone and redevelop those areas. Along with bike lanes, that's another part of the DC Smart Growth Urbanist fantasy.