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:

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: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.

The drawbacks of a safer street with fewer crashes that cause injuries. Horrible!

If that’s the only thing you can comprehend about why the vast majority of commuters don’t like bike lanes, you will never succeed in getting the bike lines you want. If you can’t even understand the other side’s argument, you will fail.

Please stop using commuter as a synonym for driver. Lots of commuters aren't driving. Lots of drivers aren't commuting.

I didn’t say drivers. But the vast majority of commuters in this area drive. And the people taking the bus aren’t always thrilled about the bike lanes either.

This area being the 11 county metro area. In DC, which is where the entirety of the study area is located, driving commutes are in the minority (42%). Walkers and bikers also report being happier with their commutes than drivers. This is per your favorite study from 2022.

Okay, but the commuters come from all over, not just DC. And the argument isn’t about who is happiest in their commute, but you’ve clearly lost the plot.

Of course it's about who's happiest! That's the whole basis of the Everyone Is Trying To Force People Out Of Their Cars By Making Driving Miserable conspiracy fiction. But then it turns out that if the drivers forced themselves out of their cars and switched to non-driving, they'd actually be happier.

So you’re agreeing that people choose to drive if left to their own devices (your “false” assumption 1), since they could apparently easily be happier but are choosing not to be. Great.

Interesting too that there are complaints about not calling drivers “commuters,” since there are other groups, but you ignore that the metro and bus riders are not really any more satisfied than the drivers (my original point). I guess The Only Alternative Mode of transportation is biking.

Metro and bus riders are less stressed than drivers.

I don't agree that people choose to drive, actually. I think that people are forced to drive.

I prefer to drive, and will continue to drive. There is all this discussion about traffic. DC, in fact, still has fewer residents than in the 1960s and 70s, when DC's population was 750-800K. Today, it is about 680K.

Ok? Nobody is forcing you out of your car. To drive or not to drive, that's your choice. But DC does not have to configure DC streets for maximum convenience for your choice to drive.

But the same exact argument could be made towards cyclists as well. No is forced to ride a bike it is also a choice. Why should tax payer $ be used to configure DC streets for cyclists convenience especially when the cyclists are in the minority? And have lots of options just not all and everything they want. That is not how life works. It’s not all about cyclists either (except in their minds).

If we're talking just DC taxpayers, as in the people that actually fund the infrastructure on Connecticut, then drivers are also a minority. The reality is that for DC, we allocate way more space and funding to cars than their proportion would dictate. Drivers want to keep it that way.

I love how you just make things up.

DC has one registered car per household.
Car registrations: 298,400 (2021)
Households: 326,970 (2022)

Every household in DC, on average, has a car. Every adult is a driver.

I can’t believe someone wrote this. I’d advise you to take a remedial statistics class, but I’m not sure even that would help.

You’re critiquing other people’s analytical reasoning and use of data? That’s funny as hell.

I doubt you can even point out the logical fallacy in the referenced post. I used to think those opposed bike lanes were just being disingenuous in bringing arguments to bear that were based on misrepresentations or misunderstandings, but the discussion on this forum has led me to the conclusion that they really just don’t know any better as they lack critical reasoning skills that are otherwise common among educated populations.

Do you know what the word “average” means? Apparently not. Crazy.

Here are some more numbers for you because what you previously wrote is a lie. 65% of DC households have at least one car and in Ward 3 that number rises to 78%.

You’re dumb.

According to your numbers, 35% of DC households have zero cars, and 22% of Ward 3 households have zero cars. You can drive a car you have (if you can drive a car), but you can't drive a car you have on average.

Must be fun to actually believe that words are meaningless. You’re absolute nihilists who don’t believe in anything but satisfying your selfish wants and desires.

brb, off to drive someone else's car that's mine on average

You’re really trying to deny what an average is. Wow.

I have to keep reminding myself that these are objectively dumb people.

[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:

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.

The drawbacks of a safer street with fewer crashes that cause injuries. Horrible!

If that’s the only thing you can comprehend about why the vast majority of commuters don’t like bike lanes, you will never succeed in getting the bike lines you want. If you can’t even understand the other side’s argument, you will fail.

Please stop using commuter as a synonym for driver. Lots of commuters aren't driving. Lots of drivers aren't commuting.

I didn’t say drivers. But the vast majority of commuters in this area drive. And the people taking the bus aren’t always thrilled about the bike lanes either.

This area being the 11 county metro area. In DC, which is where the entirety of the study area is located, driving commutes are in the minority (42%). Walkers and bikers also report being happier with their commutes than drivers. This is per your favorite study from 2022.

Okay, but the commuters come from all over, not just DC. And the argument isn’t about who is happiest in their commute, but you’ve clearly lost the plot.

Of course it's about who's happiest! That's the whole basis of the Everyone Is Trying To Force People Out Of Their Cars By Making Driving Miserable conspiracy fiction. But then it turns out that if the drivers forced themselves out of their cars and switched to non-driving, they'd actually be happier.

So you’re agreeing that people choose to drive if left to their own devices (your “false” assumption 1), since they could apparently easily be happier but are choosing not to be. Great.

Interesting too that there are complaints about not calling drivers “commuters,” since there are other groups, but you ignore that the metro and bus riders are not really any more satisfied than the drivers (my original point). I guess The Only Alternative Mode of transportation is biking.

Metro and bus riders are less stressed than drivers.

I don't agree that people choose to drive, actually. I think that people are forced to drive.

I prefer to drive, and will continue to drive. There is all this discussion about traffic. DC, in fact, still has fewer residents than in the 1960s and 70s, when DC's population was 750-800K. Today, it is about 680K.

Ok? Nobody is forcing you out of your car. To drive or not to drive, that's your choice. But DC does not have to configure DC streets for maximum convenience for your choice to drive.

But the same exact argument could be made towards cyclists as well. No is forced to ride a bike it is also a choice. Why should tax payer $ be used to configure DC streets for cyclists convenience especially when the cyclists are in the minority? And have lots of options just not all and everything they want. That is not how life works. It’s not all about cyclists either (except in their minds).

If we're talking just DC taxpayers, as in the people that actually fund the infrastructure on Connecticut, then drivers are also a minority. The reality is that for DC, we allocate way more space and funding to cars than their proportion would dictate. Drivers want to keep it that way.

I love how you just make things up.

DC has one registered car per household.
Car registrations: 298,400 (2021)
Households: 326,970 (2022)

Every household in DC, on average, has a car. Every adult is a driver.

I can’t believe someone wrote this. I’d advise you to take a remedial statistics class, but I’m not sure even that would help.

You’re critiquing other people’s analytical reasoning and use of data? That’s funny as hell.

I doubt you can even point out the logical fallacy in the referenced post. I used to think those opposed bike lanes were just being disingenuous in bringing arguments to bear that were based on misrepresentations or misunderstandings, but the discussion on this forum has led me to the conclusion that they really just don’t know any better as they lack critical reasoning skills that are otherwise common among educated populations.

Do you know what the word “average” means? Apparently not. Crazy.

Here are some more numbers for you because what you previously wrote is a lie. 65% of DC households have at least one car and in Ward 3 that number rises to 78%.

You’re dumb.

According to your numbers, 35% of DC households have zero cars, and 22% of Ward 3 households have zero cars. You can drive a car you have (if you can drive a car), but you can't drive a car you have on average.

Must be fun to actually believe that words are meaningless. You’re absolute nihilists who don’t believe in anything but satisfying your selfish wants and desires.

brb, off to drive someone else's car that's mine on average

You’re really trying to deny what an average is. Wow.

Why are you focusing on the average number of cars per household? Jay Leno supposedly owns more than 180 cars. If you take 99 people who own 0 cars and Jay Leno, you get an average car ownership per person of 1.8+ cars. How many of Jay Leno's over 180 cars do those 99 people who own 0 cars own? The actually meaningful measure is percent of households with zero cars. And according to you, that's 35% in DC and 22% in Ward 3. That's a lot of people in households with zero cars.

I’m not focusing on it, I’m a different poster. I just showed up and saw you trying to deny what an average is.

[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:

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.

The drawbacks of a safer street with fewer crashes that cause injuries. Horrible!

If that’s the only thing you can comprehend about why the vast majority of commuters don’t like bike lanes, you will never succeed in getting the bike lines you want. If you can’t even understand the other side’s argument, you will fail.

Please stop using commuter as a synonym for driver. Lots of commuters aren't driving. Lots of drivers aren't commuting.

I didn’t say drivers. But the vast majority of commuters in this area drive. And the people taking the bus aren’t always thrilled about the bike lanes either.

This area being the 11 county metro area. In DC, which is where the entirety of the study area is located, driving commutes are in the minority (42%). Walkers and bikers also report being happier with their commutes than drivers. This is per your favorite study from 2022.

Okay, but the commuters come from all over, not just DC. And the argument isn’t about who is happiest in their commute, but you’ve clearly lost the plot.

Of course it's about who's happiest! That's the whole basis of the Everyone Is Trying To Force People Out Of Their Cars By Making Driving Miserable conspiracy fiction. But then it turns out that if the drivers forced themselves out of their cars and switched to non-driving, they'd actually be happier.

So you’re agreeing that people choose to drive if left to their own devices (your “false” assumption 1), since they could apparently easily be happier but are choosing not to be. Great.

Interesting too that there are complaints about not calling drivers “commuters,” since there are other groups, but you ignore that the metro and bus riders are not really any more satisfied than the drivers (my original point). I guess The Only Alternative Mode of transportation is biking.

Metro and bus riders are less stressed than drivers.

I don't agree that people choose to drive, actually. I think that people are forced to drive.

I prefer to drive, and will continue to drive. There is all this discussion about traffic. DC, in fact, still has fewer residents than in the 1960s and 70s, when DC's population was 750-800K. Today, it is about 680K.

Ok? Nobody is forcing you out of your car. To drive or not to drive, that's your choice. But DC does not have to configure DC streets for maximum convenience for your choice to drive.

But the same exact argument could be made towards cyclists as well. No is forced to ride a bike it is also a choice. Why should tax payer $ be used to configure DC streets for cyclists convenience especially when the cyclists are in the minority? And have lots of options just not all and everything they want. That is not how life works. It’s not all about cyclists either (except in their minds).

If we're talking just DC taxpayers, as in the people that actually fund the infrastructure on Connecticut, then drivers are also a minority. The reality is that for DC, we allocate way more space and funding to cars than their proportion would dictate. Drivers want to keep it that way.

I love how you just make things up.

DC has one registered car per household.
Car registrations: 298,400 (2021)
Households: 326,970 (2022)

Every household in DC, on average, has a car. Every adult is a driver.

I can’t believe someone wrote this. I’d advise you to take a remedial statistics class, but I’m not sure even that would help.

You’re critiquing other people’s analytical reasoning and use of data? That’s funny as hell.

I doubt you can even point out the logical fallacy in the referenced post. I used to think those opposed bike lanes were just being disingenuous in bringing arguments to bear that were based on misrepresentations or misunderstandings, but the discussion on this forum has led me to the conclusion that they really just don’t know any better as they lack critical reasoning skills that are otherwise common among educated populations.

Do you know what the word “average” means? Apparently not. Crazy.

Here are some more numbers for you because what you previously wrote is a lie. 65% of DC households have at least one car and in Ward 3 that number rises to 78%.

You’re dumb.

According to your numbers, 35% of DC households have zero cars, and 22% of Ward 3 households have zero cars. You can drive a car you have (if you can drive a car), but you can't drive a car you have on average.

Must be fun to actually believe that words are meaningless. You’re absolute nihilists who don’t believe in anything but satisfying your selfish wants and desires.

brb, off to drive someone else's car that's mine on average

You’re really trying to deny what an average is. Wow.

Why are you focusing on the average number of cars per household? Jay Leno supposedly owns more than 180 cars. If you take 99 people who own 0 cars and Jay Leno, you get an average car ownership per person of 1.8+ cars. How many of Jay Leno's over 180 cars do those 99 people who own 0 cars own? The actually meaningful measure is percent of households with zero cars. And according to you, that's 35% in DC and 22% in Ward 3. That's a lot of people in households with zero cars.

The average household in DC has a car. The median household in DC has 1 car. The modal household in DC has one car.

Anyway you want to slice it, carless households are a minority in DC and an even bigger minority in Ward 3.

You have posted, and I quote, “drivers are also a minority”. This is factually false and it’s funny as hell that you are trying to defend it by denying what averages are while sneering about people needing to take “remedial statistics”. If you ever took statistics in your life you clearly never learned anything.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Plenty of posters on this thread and similar threads hate written that if the bike lanes lead to more traffic congestion and gridlock on Connecticut Ave, that’s a good thing. They’ve even argued that choking side streets with diverted traffic will make them “safer.”

The fact is, the city is going to out Connecticut Avenue on a road diet.

The narrowed solution will either be with parking lanes 24/7 on each side of the street, with two lanes for cars, or, it will have 5 lanes for cars and one, split each way, for bikes.

And of those are the only two choices then I vote for parking.

It will benefit more people, be better for businesses along the corridor, provide more future flexibility, increase safety, and reduce the harm inflicted on the surrounding neighborhoods.

It will also really piss the bikebros off which is something I am now wholeheartedly in favor of because of all of you posters lying all the freaking time.

[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:

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.

The drawbacks of a safer street with fewer crashes that cause injuries. Horrible!

If that’s the only thing you can comprehend about why the vast majority of commuters don’t like bike lanes, you will never succeed in getting the bike lines you want. If you can’t even understand the other side’s argument, you will fail.

Please stop using commuter as a synonym for driver. Lots of commuters aren't driving. Lots of drivers aren't commuting.

I didn’t say drivers. But the vast majority of commuters in this area drive. And the people taking the bus aren’t always thrilled about the bike lanes either.

This area being the 11 county metro area. In DC, which is where the entirety of the study area is located, driving commutes are in the minority (42%). Walkers and bikers also report being happier with their commutes than drivers. This is per your favorite study from 2022.

Okay, but the commuters come from all over, not just DC. And the argument isn’t about who is happiest in their commute, but you’ve clearly lost the plot.

Of course it's about who's happiest! That's the whole basis of the Everyone Is Trying To Force People Out Of Their Cars By Making Driving Miserable conspiracy fiction. But then it turns out that if the drivers forced themselves out of their cars and switched to non-driving, they'd actually be happier.

How is it "conspiracy fiction" when it's said repeatedly, clearly, and openly.

Could you please provide two examples of this (i.e., the point of bike lanes etc. is to force people out of their cars by making driving miserable), including who said it, and when and where they said it? Real life examples, by people who actually affect policy decisions. Random anonymous posters on DCUM do not count.

"induced demand"

Induced demand? Yeah, no. That's not Everyone Is Trying To Force People Out Of Their Cars By Making Driving Miserable. That's the idea that if you make driving less miserable, there will be more driving, and as a result driving will quickly return to its previous state of miserableness.

Induced demand isn't even about misery, it's just about availability -- if you add more lanes or available driving space, with the goal of relieving congestion, the congestion quickly expands to fill the available space. It isn't a theory of how to make driving more or less pleasant, it's an observation about why adding road space doesn't actually achieve the intended goals.

That just means you need yet more road space to meet the demand, not that additional road space doesn’t improve congestion.

This also confirms the “miserable” point. Make driving too good and more people will drive. Make it suck and fewer people will do it.

Yes, people generally do want more of things they like and less of things they don't like. That is not news.

But the point of bike lanes really is not to make you, the driver, unhappy. People are not wanting bike lanes or bus lanes or crosswalks AT you, the driver. The point of bike lanes is to make bicycling safe, comfortable, and convenient for people on bikes. Similarly, the point of bus lanes is to make bus service faster and more reliable, and the point of crosswalks is to make the street safe, comfortable, and convenient for pedestrians to cross. It really, really is not all about you, the driver.

Unless you believe it's zero-sum, and anything that makes the street better for bicyclists, bus riders, or pedestrians necessarily makes it worse for drivers? If so

1. that's a factually incorrect belief
2. even if it were factually correct, which it isn't, it still wouldn't be a reason not to have bike lanes and bus lanes and crosswalks
3. even if it were factually correct, which it isn't, it would still be a byproduct of the bike lanes and bus lanes and crosswalks, not the primary goal of the bike lanes and bus lanes and crosswalks

That's a nice line but it's utter bs. If the goal was peaceful coexistence then the metric would be demonstrated demand and it would be location agnostic.

What? The demonstrated demand is: people want bike lanes in places that they go, so that they can go there. And it can't be location agnostic, because it's about going places. If I'm going to the grocery store, a bike lane that goes to the library doesn't help, and vice versa - unless the grocery store and library are next to each other.

People want bike lanes SO THAT THEY CAN BIKE IN THEM. Capitol letters for emphasis.

It's not about you, stop making it about you.

You're so full of it. Both Reno and Beach get you to the same places. Heck, Reno actually opens up Wisconsin as well.

There is no demonstrated demand we can all see that very clearly. Release the DDOT numbers! Why have they been hidden? What are you all afraid of?

You're right, it's not about me and it for damn sure is not about you. 30,000:30 a 1,000 to 1 ratio. That's what it's about.

Please tell me how many shops, libraries and grocery stores are on Reno Road.

Park and walk. I am sorry that you are too lazy to walk, people that drive walk yet somehow you can'y, but that is not my problem.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

Option 2 provides more parking for residents. Not sure why the priority should be to inconvenience residents so that non-resident cyclists can get through their neighborhood faster.

It isn't the government's job to facilitate people storing their cars in public space. If people own cars, they should pay to store them, or actually use their driveways and garages.

Only density bros and bike bros call parking “car storage.”

Regardless of what you want to call it, car parking objectively is car storage. Your car has to be somewhere while you're not driving it. Whose responsibility is it to figure out where your car will be while you're not driving it? And when is it appropriate to leave your private stuff on public property?

Those scooter and e-bike companies “store” their equipment on public property all the time. And not just on streets, but by blocking sidewalks and handicapped ramps, crushing tree roots and plants in tree boxes, etc.

They pay the city for the right.

The city literally subsidizes all of them. STFU

[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:

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.

The drawbacks of a safer street with fewer crashes that cause injuries. Horrible!

If that’s the only thing you can comprehend about why the vast majority of commuters don’t like bike lanes, you will never succeed in getting the bike lines you want. If you can’t even understand the other side’s argument, you will fail.

Please stop using commuter as a synonym for driver. Lots of commuters aren't driving. Lots of drivers aren't commuting.

I didn’t say drivers. But the vast majority of commuters in this area drive. And the people taking the bus aren’t always thrilled about the bike lanes either.

This area being the 11 county metro area. In DC, which is where the entirety of the study area is located, driving commutes are in the minority (42%). Walkers and bikers also report being happier with their commutes than drivers. This is per your favorite study from 2022.

Okay, but the commuters come from all over, not just DC. And the argument isn’t about who is happiest in their commute, but you’ve clearly lost the plot.

Of course it's about who's happiest! That's the whole basis of the Everyone Is Trying To Force People Out Of Their Cars By Making Driving Miserable conspiracy fiction. But then it turns out that if the drivers forced themselves out of their cars and switched to non-driving, they'd actually be happier.

So you’re agreeing that people choose to drive if left to their own devices (your “false” assumption 1), since they could apparently easily be happier but are choosing not to be. Great.

Interesting too that there are complaints about not calling drivers “commuters,” since there are other groups, but you ignore that the metro and bus riders are not really any more satisfied than the drivers (my original point). I guess The Only Alternative Mode of transportation is biking.

Metro and bus riders are less stressed than drivers.

I don't agree that people choose to drive, actually. I think that people are forced to drive.

I prefer to drive, and will continue to drive. There is all this discussion about traffic. DC, in fact, still has fewer residents than in the 1960s and 70s, when DC's population was 750-800K. Today, it is about 680K.

Ok? Nobody is forcing you out of your car. To drive or not to drive, that's your choice. But DC does not have to configure DC streets for maximum convenience for your choice to drive.

But the same exact argument could be made towards cyclists as well. No is forced to ride a bike it is also a choice. Why should tax payer $ be used to configure DC streets for cyclists convenience especially when the cyclists are in the minority? And have lots of options just not all and everything they want. That is not how life works. It’s not all about cyclists either (except in their minds).

If we're talking just DC taxpayers, as in the people that actually fund the infrastructure on Connecticut, then drivers are also a minority. The reality is that for DC, we allocate way more space and funding to cars than their proportion would dictate. Drivers want to keep it that way.

I love how you just make things up.

DC has one registered car per household.
Car registrations: 298,400 (2021)
Households: 326,970 (2022)

Every household in DC, on average, has a car. Every adult is a driver.

I can’t believe someone wrote this. I’d advise you to take a remedial statistics class, but I’m not sure even that would help.

You’re critiquing other people’s analytical reasoning and use of data? That’s funny as hell.

I doubt you can even point out the logical fallacy in the referenced post. I used to think those opposed bike lanes were just being disingenuous in bringing arguments to bear that were based on misrepresentations or misunderstandings, but the discussion on this forum has led me to the conclusion that they really just don’t know any better as they lack critical reasoning skills that are otherwise common among educated populations.

Do you know what the word “average” means? Apparently not. Crazy.

Here are some more numbers for you because what you previously wrote is a lie. 65% of DC households have at least one car and in Ward 3 that number rises to 78%.

You’re dumb.

According to your numbers, 35% of DC households have zero cars, and 22% of Ward 3 households have zero cars. You can drive a car you have (if you can drive a car), but you can't drive a car you have on average.

Must be fun to actually believe that words are meaningless. You’re absolute nihilists who don’t believe in anything but satisfying your selfish wants and desires.

brb, off to drive someone else's car that's mine on average

You’re really trying to deny what an average is. Wow.

Why are you focusing on the average number of cars per household? Jay Leno supposedly owns more than 180 cars. If you take 99 people who own 0 cars and Jay Leno, you get an average car ownership per person of 1.8+ cars. How many of Jay Leno's over 180 cars do those 99 people who own 0 cars own? The actually meaningful measure is percent of households with zero cars. And according to you, that's 35% in DC and 22% in Ward 3. That's a lot of people in households with zero cars.

The average household in DC has a car. The median household in DC has 1 car. The modal household in DC has one car.

Anyway you want to slice it, carless households are a minority in DC and an even bigger minority in Ward 3.

You have posted, and I quote, “drivers are also a minority”. This is factually false and it’s funny as hell that you are trying to defend it by denying what averages are while sneering about people needing to take “remedial statistics”. If you ever took statistics in your life you clearly never learned anything.

Households having cars shouldn't be what people are focusing on. We moved to ward 3 and bought a car because we have off street parking. We previously lived for 10 years in DC with no car. Quite happily. Now we travel to visit family more so we have a car... BUT... neither adults in our household commute by car and we will do everything in our power not to. And our children commute to school not by car. And when our kids are old enough to commute alone, they also will not take a car. Just because a household has a car, doesn't mean they want to use it to commute. Most don't.

[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:

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.

The drawbacks of a safer street with fewer crashes that cause injuries. Horrible!

If that’s the only thing you can comprehend about why the vast majority of commuters don’t like bike lanes, you will never succeed in getting the bike lines you want. If you can’t even understand the other side’s argument, you will fail.

Please stop using commuter as a synonym for driver. Lots of commuters aren't driving. Lots of drivers aren't commuting.

I didn’t say drivers. But the vast majority of commuters in this area drive. And the people taking the bus aren’t always thrilled about the bike lanes either.

This area being the 11 county metro area. In DC, which is where the entirety of the study area is located, driving commutes are in the minority (42%). Walkers and bikers also report being happier with their commutes than drivers. This is per your favorite study from 2022.

Okay, but the commuters come from all over, not just DC. And the argument isn’t about who is happiest in their commute, but you’ve clearly lost the plot.

Of course it's about who's happiest! That's the whole basis of the Everyone Is Trying To Force People Out Of Their Cars By Making Driving Miserable conspiracy fiction. But then it turns out that if the drivers forced themselves out of their cars and switched to non-driving, they'd actually be happier.

So you’re agreeing that people choose to drive if left to their own devices (your “false” assumption 1), since they could apparently easily be happier but are choosing not to be. Great.

Interesting too that there are complaints about not calling drivers “commuters,” since there are other groups, but you ignore that the metro and bus riders are not really any more satisfied than the drivers (my original point). I guess The Only Alternative Mode of transportation is biking.

Metro and bus riders are less stressed than drivers.

I don't agree that people choose to drive, actually. I think that people are forced to drive.

I prefer to drive, and will continue to drive. There is all this discussion about traffic. DC, in fact, still has fewer residents than in the 1960s and 70s, when DC's population was 750-800K. Today, it is about 680K.

Ok? Nobody is forcing you out of your car. To drive or not to drive, that's your choice. But DC does not have to configure DC streets for maximum convenience for your choice to drive.

But the same exact argument could be made towards cyclists as well. No is forced to ride a bike it is also a choice. Why should tax payer $ be used to configure DC streets for cyclists convenience especially when the cyclists are in the minority? And have lots of options just not all and everything they want. That is not how life works. It’s not all about cyclists either (except in their minds).

If we're talking just DC taxpayers, as in the people that actually fund the infrastructure on Connecticut, then drivers are also a minority. The reality is that for DC, we allocate way more space and funding to cars than their proportion would dictate. Drivers want to keep it that way.

I love how you just make things up.

DC has one registered car per household.
Car registrations: 298,400 (2021)
Households: 326,970 (2022)

Every household in DC, on average, has a car. Every adult is a driver.

I can’t believe someone wrote this. I’d advise you to take a remedial statistics class, but I’m not sure even that would help.

You’re critiquing other people’s analytical reasoning and use of data? That’s funny as hell.

I doubt you can even point out the logical fallacy in the referenced post. I used to think those opposed bike lanes were just being disingenuous in bringing arguments to bear that were based on misrepresentations or misunderstandings, but the discussion on this forum has led me to the conclusion that they really just don’t know any better as they lack critical reasoning skills that are otherwise common among educated populations.

Do you know what the word “average” means? Apparently not. Crazy.

Here are some more numbers for you because what you previously wrote is a lie. 65% of DC households have at least one car and in Ward 3 that number rises to 78%.

You’re dumb.

According to your numbers, 35% of DC households have zero cars, and 22% of Ward 3 households have zero cars. You can drive a car you have (if you can drive a car), but you can't drive a car you have on average.

Must be fun to actually believe that words are meaningless. You’re absolute nihilists who don’t believe in anything but satisfying your selfish wants and desires.

brb, off to drive someone else's car that's mine on average

You’re really trying to deny what an average is. Wow.

Why are you focusing on the average number of cars per household? Jay Leno supposedly owns more than 180 cars. If you take 99 people who own 0 cars and Jay Leno, you get an average car ownership per person of 1.8+ cars. How many of Jay Leno's over 180 cars do those 99 people who own 0 cars own? The actually meaningful measure is percent of households with zero cars. And according to you, that's 35% in DC and 22% in Ward 3. That's a lot of people in households with zero cars.

The average household in DC has a car. The median household in DC has 1 car. The modal household in DC has one car.

Anyway you want to slice it, carless households are a minority in DC and an even bigger minority in Ward 3.

You have posted, and I quote, “drivers are also a minority”. This is factually false and it’s funny as hell that you are trying to defend it by denying what averages are while sneering about people needing to take “remedial statistics”. If you ever took statistics in your life you clearly never learned anything.

So what? Do we only provide transportation facilities for the majority? That's not how it worked 100 years ago when the decisions were made to shift from streets for everyone to streets for the small minority of car owners. There are a lot of people in DC who do not own a car and/or do not drive.

What the other poster (who was not me) said is that drivers are a minority in DC for the work commute. Which is true. According to the Bureau of Transportation Statistics based on data from the American Community Survey (US Census), in 2022, 28% of DC residents commuted to work by driving alone. 34% worked at home, 10% walked, 4% carpooled, 3% bicycled, 19% used public transportation, and 3% used a taxi, motorcycle, or other.

The question is "How did this person usually get to work LAST WEEK? Mark ONE box for the method of transportation used for most of the distance."

If I were surveyed, to answer this question, I would mark public transportation, so I wouldn't count as a bicycle commuter. However, in reality, I am a bicycle commuter, because I bike to Metro. Similarly, people who walk to public transportation, like the bus or Metro, don't count as walking commuters, but in reality they are walking commuters as well as public transportation commuters.

[Anonymous]

Also, as for "drivers are a minority" - a lot of people can't drive. A third of people in the US don't have a driver's license. The majority of them are are disabled, lower income, unhoused, formerly incarcerated, undocumented immigrants, kids, young people, and the elderly.

(Plus people like my parents, who are elderly, and do have a driver's license, but don't drive.)

I don't know what the specific fraction is of DC residents who don't have a driver's license.

[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:

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.

The drawbacks of a safer street with fewer crashes that cause injuries. Horrible!

If that’s the only thing you can comprehend about why the vast majority of commuters don’t like bike lanes, you will never succeed in getting the bike lines you want. If you can’t even understand the other side’s argument, you will fail.

Please stop using commuter as a synonym for driver. Lots of commuters aren't driving. Lots of drivers aren't commuting.

I didn’t say drivers. But the vast majority of commuters in this area drive. And the people taking the bus aren’t always thrilled about the bike lanes either.

This area being the 11 county metro area. In DC, which is where the entirety of the study area is located, driving commutes are in the minority (42%). Walkers and bikers also report being happier with their commutes than drivers. This is per your favorite study from 2022.

Okay, but the commuters come from all over, not just DC. And the argument isn’t about who is happiest in their commute, but you’ve clearly lost the plot.

Of course it's about who's happiest! That's the whole basis of the Everyone Is Trying To Force People Out Of Their Cars By Making Driving Miserable conspiracy fiction. But then it turns out that if the drivers forced themselves out of their cars and switched to non-driving, they'd actually be happier.

So you’re agreeing that people choose to drive if left to their own devices (your “false” assumption 1), since they could apparently easily be happier but are choosing not to be. Great.

Interesting too that there are complaints about not calling drivers “commuters,” since there are other groups, but you ignore that the metro and bus riders are not really any more satisfied than the drivers (my original point). I guess The Only Alternative Mode of transportation is biking.

Metro and bus riders are less stressed than drivers.

I don't agree that people choose to drive, actually. I think that people are forced to drive.

I prefer to drive, and will continue to drive. There is all this discussion about traffic. DC, in fact, still has fewer residents than in the 1960s and 70s, when DC's population was 750-800K. Today, it is about 680K.

Ok? Nobody is forcing you out of your car. To drive or not to drive, that's your choice. But DC does not have to configure DC streets for maximum convenience for your choice to drive.

But the same exact argument could be made towards cyclists as well. No is forced to ride a bike it is also a choice. Why should tax payer $ be used to configure DC streets for cyclists convenience especially when the cyclists are in the minority? And have lots of options just not all and everything they want. That is not how life works. It’s not all about cyclists either (except in their minds).

If we're talking just DC taxpayers, as in the people that actually fund the infrastructure on Connecticut, then drivers are also a minority. The reality is that for DC, we allocate way more space and funding to cars than their proportion would dictate. Drivers want to keep it that way.

I love how you just make things up.

DC has one registered car per household.
Car registrations: 298,400 (2021)
Households: 326,970 (2022)

Every household in DC, on average, has a car. Every adult is a driver.

I can’t believe someone wrote this. I’d advise you to take a remedial statistics class, but I’m not sure even that would help.

You’re critiquing other people’s analytical reasoning and use of data? That’s funny as hell.

I doubt you can even point out the logical fallacy in the referenced post. I used to think those opposed bike lanes were just being disingenuous in bringing arguments to bear that were based on misrepresentations or misunderstandings, but the discussion on this forum has led me to the conclusion that they really just don’t know any better as they lack critical reasoning skills that are otherwise common among educated populations.

Do you know what the word “average” means? Apparently not. Crazy.

Here are some more numbers for you because what you previously wrote is a lie. 65% of DC households have at least one car and in Ward 3 that number rises to 78%.

You’re dumb.

According to your numbers, 35% of DC households have zero cars, and 22% of Ward 3 households have zero cars. You can drive a car you have (if you can drive a car), but you can't drive a car you have on average.

Must be fun to actually believe that words are meaningless. You’re absolute nihilists who don’t believe in anything but satisfying your selfish wants and desires.

brb, off to drive someone else's car that's mine on average

You’re really trying to deny what an average is. Wow.

Why are you focusing on the average number of cars per household? Jay Leno supposedly owns more than 180 cars. If you take 99 people who own 0 cars and Jay Leno, you get an average car ownership per person of 1.8+ cars. How many of Jay Leno's over 180 cars do those 99 people who own 0 cars own? The actually meaningful measure is percent of households with zero cars. And according to you, that's 35% in DC and 22% in Ward 3. That's a lot of people in households with zero cars.

The average household in DC has a car. The median household in DC has 1 car. The modal household in DC has one car.

Anyway you want to slice it, carless households are a minority in DC and an even bigger minority in Ward 3.

You have posted, and I quote, “drivers are also a minority”. This is factually false and it’s funny as hell that you are trying to defend it by denying what averages are while sneering about people needing to take “remedial statistics”. If you ever took statistics in your life you clearly never learned anything.

Average is meaningless in this context. The median and modal households have a car but commute by transit (or work from home, depending on the year).

[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:

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.

The drawbacks of a safer street with fewer crashes that cause injuries. Horrible!

If that’s the only thing you can comprehend about why the vast majority of commuters don’t like bike lanes, you will never succeed in getting the bike lines you want. If you can’t even understand the other side’s argument, you will fail.

Please stop using commuter as a synonym for driver. Lots of commuters aren't driving. Lots of drivers aren't commuting.

I didn’t say drivers. But the vast majority of commuters in this area drive. And the people taking the bus aren’t always thrilled about the bike lanes either.

This area being the 11 county metro area. In DC, which is where the entirety of the study area is located, driving commutes are in the minority (42%). Walkers and bikers also report being happier with their commutes than drivers. This is per your favorite study from 2022.

Okay, but the commuters come from all over, not just DC. And the argument isn’t about who is happiest in their commute, but you’ve clearly lost the plot.

Of course it's about who's happiest! That's the whole basis of the Everyone Is Trying To Force People Out Of Their Cars By Making Driving Miserable conspiracy fiction. But then it turns out that if the drivers forced themselves out of their cars and switched to non-driving, they'd actually be happier.

So you’re agreeing that people choose to drive if left to their own devices (your “false” assumption 1), since they could apparently easily be happier but are choosing not to be. Great.

Interesting too that there are complaints about not calling drivers “commuters,” since there are other groups, but you ignore that the metro and bus riders are not really any more satisfied than the drivers (my original point). I guess The Only Alternative Mode of transportation is biking.

Metro and bus riders are less stressed than drivers.

I don't agree that people choose to drive, actually. I think that people are forced to drive.

I prefer to drive, and will continue to drive. There is all this discussion about traffic. DC, in fact, still has fewer residents than in the 1960s and 70s, when DC's population was 750-800K. Today, it is about 680K.

Ok? Nobody is forcing you out of your car. To drive or not to drive, that's your choice. But DC does not have to configure DC streets for maximum convenience for your choice to drive.

But the same exact argument could be made towards cyclists as well. No is forced to ride a bike it is also a choice. Why should tax payer $ be used to configure DC streets for cyclists convenience especially when the cyclists are in the minority? And have lots of options just not all and everything they want. That is not how life works. It’s not all about cyclists either (except in their minds).

If we're talking just DC taxpayers, as in the people that actually fund the infrastructure on Connecticut, then drivers are also a minority. The reality is that for DC, we allocate way more space and funding to cars than their proportion would dictate. Drivers want to keep it that way.

I love how you just make things up.

DC has one registered car per household.
Car registrations: 298,400 (2021)
Households: 326,970 (2022)

Every household in DC, on average, has a car. Every adult is a driver.

I can’t believe someone wrote this. I’d advise you to take a remedial statistics class, but I’m not sure even that would help.

You’re critiquing other people’s analytical reasoning and use of data? That’s funny as hell.

I doubt you can even point out the logical fallacy in the referenced post. I used to think those opposed bike lanes were just being disingenuous in bringing arguments to bear that were based on misrepresentations or misunderstandings, but the discussion on this forum has led me to the conclusion that they really just don’t know any better as they lack critical reasoning skills that are otherwise common among educated populations.

Do you know what the word “average” means? Apparently not. Crazy.

Here are some more numbers for you because what you previously wrote is a lie. 65% of DC households have at least one car and in Ward 3 that number rises to 78%.

You’re dumb.

There are about 370 million guns in circulation in the US among a population of 330 million. Does the average American own at least one gun?

Yes. That is exactly what average means. Does the median American own a gun? That’s a different question. You talk about statistical illiteracy but dear god go and educate yourself.

Please consult a dictionary. What it will tell you is that “average” encompasses measures of median, mode, or mean. And anyone who, like you, argues that the mean is applicable in this context is a total clown.

[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:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

The drawbacks of a safer street with fewer crashes that cause injuries. Horrible!

If that’s the only thing you can comprehend about why the vast majority of commuters don’t like bike lanes, you will never succeed in getting the bike lines you want. If you can’t even understand the other side’s argument, you will fail.

Please stop using commuter as a synonym for driver. Lots of commuters aren't driving. Lots of drivers aren't commuting.

I didn’t say drivers. But the vast majority of commuters in this area drive. And the people taking the bus aren’t always thrilled about the bike lanes either.

This area being the 11 county metro area. In DC, which is where the entirety of the study area is located, driving commutes are in the minority (42%). Walkers and bikers also report being happier with their commutes than drivers. This is per your favorite study from 2022.

Okay, but the commuters come from all over, not just DC. And the argument isn’t about who is happiest in their commute, but you’ve clearly lost the plot.

Of course it's about who's happiest! That's the whole basis of the Everyone Is Trying To Force People Out Of Their Cars By Making Driving Miserable conspiracy fiction. But then it turns out that if the drivers forced themselves out of their cars and switched to non-driving, they'd actually be happier.

So you’re agreeing that people choose to drive if left to their own devices (your “false” assumption 1), since they could apparently easily be happier but are choosing not to be. Great.

Interesting too that there are complaints about not calling drivers “commuters,” since there are other groups, but you ignore that the metro and bus riders are not really any more satisfied than the drivers (my original point). I guess The Only Alternative Mode of transportation is biking.

Metro and bus riders are less stressed than drivers.

I don't agree that people choose to drive, actually. I think that people are forced to drive.

I prefer to drive, and will continue to drive. There is all this discussion about traffic. DC, in fact, still has fewer residents than in the 1960s and 70s, when DC's population was 750-800K. Today, it is about 680K.

Ok? Nobody is forcing you out of your car. To drive or not to drive, that's your choice. But DC does not have to configure DC streets for maximum convenience for your choice to drive.

But the same exact argument could be made towards cyclists as well. No is forced to ride a bike it is also a choice. Why should tax payer $ be used to configure DC streets for cyclists convenience especially when the cyclists are in the minority? And have lots of options just not all and everything they want. That is not how life works. It’s not all about cyclists either (except in their minds).

If we're talking just DC taxpayers, as in the people that actually fund the infrastructure on Connecticut, then drivers are also a minority. The reality is that for DC, we allocate way more space and funding to cars than their proportion would dictate. Drivers want to keep it that way.

I love how you just make things up.

DC has one registered car per household.
Car registrations: 298,400 (2021)
Households: 326,970 (2022)

Every household in DC, on average, has a car. Every adult is a driver.

I can’t believe someone wrote this. I’d advise you to take a remedial statistics class, but I’m not sure even that would help.

You’re critiquing other people’s analytical reasoning and use of data? That’s funny as hell.

I doubt you can even point out the logical fallacy in the referenced post. I used to think those opposed bike lanes were just being disingenuous in bringing arguments to bear that were based on misrepresentations or misunderstandings, but the discussion on this forum has led me to the conclusion that they really just don’t know any better as they lack critical reasoning skills that are otherwise common among educated populations.

Do you know what the word “average” means? Apparently not. Crazy.

Here are some more numbers for you because what you previously wrote is a lie. 65% of DC households have at least one car and in Ward 3 that number rises to 78%.

You’re dumb.

According to your numbers, 35% of DC households have zero cars, and 22% of Ward 3 households have zero cars. You can drive a car you have (if you can drive a car), but you can't drive a car you have on average.

Must be fun to actually believe that words are meaningless. You’re absolute nihilists who don’t believe in anything but satisfying your selfish wants and desires.

brb, off to drive someone else's car that's mine on average

You’re really trying to deny what an average is. Wow.

Why are you focusing on the average number of cars per household? Jay Leno supposedly owns more than 180 cars. If you take 99 people who own 0 cars and Jay Leno, you get an average car ownership per person of 1.8+ cars. How many of Jay Leno's over 180 cars do those 99 people who own 0 cars own? The actually meaningful measure is percent of households with zero cars. And according to you, that's 35% in DC and 22% in Ward 3. That's a lot of people in households with zero cars.

The average household in DC has a car. The median household in DC has 1 car. The modal household in DC has one car.

Anyway you want to slice it, carless households are a minority in DC and an even bigger minority in Ward 3.

You have posted, and I quote, “drivers are also a minority”. This is factually false and it’s funny as hell that you are trying to defend it by denying what averages are while sneering about people needing to take “remedial statistics”. If you ever took statistics in your life you clearly never learned anything.

So what? Do we only provide transportation facilities for the majority? That's not how it worked 100 years ago when the decisions were made to shift from streets for everyone to streets for the small minority of car owners. There are a lot of people in DC who do not own a car and/or do not drive.

What the other poster (who was not me) said is that drivers are a minority in DC for the work commute. Which is true. According to the Bureau of Transportation Statistics based on data from the American Community Survey (US Census), in 2022, 28% of DC residents commuted to work by driving alone. 34% worked at home, 10% walked, 4% carpooled, 3% bicycled, 19% used public transportation, and 3% used a taxi, motorcycle, or other.

The question is "How did this person usually get to work LAST WEEK? Mark ONE box for the method of transportation used for most of the distance."

If I were surveyed, to answer this question, I would mark public transportation, so I wouldn't count as a bicycle commuter. However, in reality, I am a bicycle commuter, because I bike to Metro. Similarly, people who walk to public transportation, like the bus or Metro, don't count as walking commuters, but in reality they are walking commuters as well as public transportation commuters.

I wouldn’t put money that the median DC household owns a car. That was true 10 or so years ago but the proportion has been declining due the overwhelming number of new households that are car free. In any case, it’s really silly to claim that because the number of cars in DC more or less equals the number of DC households, the “average household” owns a car.

[Anonymous]

This question has nothing to do with Dubai, Houston or even Amsterdam. It shouldn’t even resolve around whether bike trails and lanes are good in Washington DC. I submit that they are … in the right location. The Capital Cresent Trail and Rick Creek trail are heavily used by recreational cyclists and commuters. Building the Klingle bike path (which connects Woodley &Cleveland Park to Mt Pleasant) instead of rebuilding the road was one of DC’s smarter decisions. But cutting carrying capacity in Connecticut Ave - one of the most important arteries in Northwest for bike paths doesn’t make sense. Bike paths there are not worth the consequences of gridlock, traffic diversion and loss of business parking.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This question has nothing to do with Dubai, Houston or even Amsterdam. It shouldn’t even resolve around whether bike trails and lanes are good in Washington DC. I submit that they are … in the right location. The Capital Cresent Trail and Rick Creek trail are heavily used by recreational cyclists and commuters. Building the Klingle bike path (which connects Woodley &Cleveland Park to Mt Pleasant) instead of rebuilding the road was one of DC’s smarter decisions. But cutting carrying capacity in Connecticut Ave - one of the most important arteries in Northwest for bike paths doesn’t make sense. Bike paths there are not worth the consequences of gridlock, traffic diversion and loss of business parking.

For example, Connecticut Avenue. And everywhere else in DC where people live, or work, or spend money.

Not to mention that bike lanes on Connecticut Avenue would INCREASE the carrying capacity of Connecticut Avenue. Bus lanes would, too.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Also, as for "drivers are a minority" - a lot of people can't drive. A third of people in the US don't have a driver's license. The majority of them are are disabled, lower income, unhoused, formerly incarcerated, undocumented immigrants, kids, young people, and the elderly.

(Plus people like my parents, who are elderly, and do have a driver's license, but don't drive.)

I don't know what the specific fraction is of DC residents who don't have a driver's license.

Of those people who are too frail to drive, how many of them can ride a bike? Probably not many. But they all need to be able to cross a street safely and that would be much easier with the curb bump outs that the bike lobby opposes.