Connecticut Ave bike lanes are back!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“Not to mention that bike lanes on Connecticut Avenue would INCREASE the carrying capacity of Connecticut Avenue.“

This is mendacious spin at a truly Trumpy tier.

Single occupancy vehicles are the least efficient method of getting people from one place to another. Mass transit and bikes are many times more efficient. So if planners and engineers redesign roads to priorities mass transit and bikes over cars, then by definition, the carrying capacity will increase.

Denying that is actually Trumpian.

Except very few people actually bike. And cars are incredibly efficient at getting people from A to B quickly.

Not if everyone drives cars! Biking or metro/transit in DC is often faster than driving.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“Not to mention that bike lanes on Connecticut Avenue would INCREASE the carrying capacity of Connecticut Avenue.“

This is mendacious spin at a truly Trumpy tier.

Single occupancy vehicles are the least efficient method of getting people from one place to another. Mass transit and bikes are many times more efficient. So if planners and engineers redesign roads to priorities mass transit and bikes over cars, then by definition, the carrying capacity will increase.

Denying that is actually Trumpian.

Except very few people actually bike. And cars are incredibly efficient at getting people from A to B quickly.

Yes, places like Montana, cars are incredibly efficient at getting people from A to B quickly. In dense cities, like DC, they are not efficient.

Also, lots of people actually bike, and even more would bike if they had safe, comfortable, connected, convenient routes to get where they're going.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“Not to mention that bike lanes on Connecticut Avenue would INCREASE the carrying capacity of Connecticut Avenue.“

This is mendacious spin at a truly Trumpy tier.

Single occupancy vehicles are the least efficient method of getting people from one place to another. Mass transit and bikes are many times more efficient. So if planners and engineers redesign roads to priorities mass transit and bikes over cars, then by definition, the carrying capacity will increase.

Denying that is actually Trumpian.

Except very few people actually bike. And cars are incredibly efficient at getting people from A to B quickly.

Not if everyone drives cars! Biking or metro/transit in DC is often faster than driving.

Right? PP should actually be encouraging everyone else to bike or take transit.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“Not to mention that bike lanes on Connecticut Avenue would INCREASE the carrying capacity of Connecticut Avenue.“

This is mendacious spin at a truly Trumpy tier.

Single occupancy vehicles are the least efficient method of getting people from one place to another. Mass transit and bikes are many times more efficient. So if planners and engineers redesign roads to priorities mass transit and bikes over cars, then by definition, the carrying capacity will increase.

Denying that is actually Trumpian.

Except very few people actually bike. And cars are incredibly efficient at getting people from A to B quickly.

Yes, places like Montana, cars are incredibly efficient at getting people from A to B quickly. In dense cities, like DC, they are not efficient.

Also, lots of people actually bike, and even more would bike if they had safe, comfortable, connected, convenient routes to get where they're going.

Both statements are false. On the first, it could be true if DC actually had good public transit, but metro sucks and the bus network is meh. On the second, we’ve been through this already on this thread, all evidence points to bikers as a single digit percentage of commuters and possibly as low as 3 percent. Not “lots of people.”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“Not to mention that bike lanes on Connecticut Avenue would INCREASE the carrying capacity of Connecticut Avenue.“

This is mendacious spin at a truly Trumpy tier.

Single occupancy vehicles are the least efficient method of getting people from one place to another. Mass transit and bikes are many times more efficient. So if planners and engineers redesign roads to priorities mass transit and bikes over cars, then by definition, the carrying capacity will increase.

Denying that is actually Trumpian.

Except very few people actually bike. And cars are incredibly efficient at getting people from A to B quickly.

Not if everyone drives cars! Biking or metro/transit in DC is often faster than driving.

It’s really often not though. It should be. But it isn’t.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“Not to mention that bike lanes on Connecticut Avenue would INCREASE the carrying capacity of Connecticut Avenue.“

This is mendacious spin at a truly Trumpy tier.

Single occupancy vehicles are the least efficient method of getting people from one place to another. Mass transit and bikes are many times more efficient. So if planners and engineers redesign roads to priorities mass transit and bikes over cars, then by definition, the carrying capacity will increase.

Denying that is actually Trumpian.

Bicycles are literally single occupancy vehicles

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“Not to mention that bike lanes on Connecticut Avenue would INCREASE the carrying capacity of Connecticut Avenue.“

This is mendacious spin at a truly Trumpy tier.

Single occupancy vehicles are the least efficient method of getting people from one place to another. Mass transit and bikes are many times more efficient. So if planners and engineers redesign roads to priorities mass transit and bikes over cars, then by definition, the carrying capacity will increase.

Denying that is actually Trumpian.

Bicycles are literally single occupancy vehicles

And slow ones at that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“Not to mention that bike lanes on Connecticut Avenue would INCREASE the carrying capacity of Connecticut Avenue.“

This is mendacious spin at a truly Trumpy tier.

Single occupancy vehicles are the least efficient method of getting people from one place to another. Mass transit and bikes are many times more efficient. So if planners and engineers redesign roads to priorities mass transit and bikes over cars, then by definition, the carrying capacity will increase.

Denying that is actually Trumpian.

Bicycles are literally single occupancy vehicles

And slow ones at that.

The idea that biking 6-10 miles each way from NOW DC to downtown is a realistic option for many commuters is simply false. Between the need to carry stuff to and from work, the need to be dressed appropriately and clean at the office, the physical abilities required to bike those miles, the lack of flexibility in terms of pre and post work errands, appointments, and pick-ups, and the time commitment involved, biking is not a realistic commuter option for most people. Facts are facts.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“Not to mention that bike lanes on Connecticut Avenue would INCREASE the carrying capacity of Connecticut Avenue.“

This is mendacious spin at a truly Trumpy tier.

Single occupancy vehicles are the least efficient method of getting people from one place to another. Mass transit and bikes are many times more efficient. So if planners and engineers redesign roads to priorities mass transit and bikes over cars, then by definition, the carrying capacity will increase.

Denying that is actually Trumpian.

I prefer to drive my hybrid to work, and will continue to do so. Not interested in your suggestions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

First you don’t know what an average is and now apparently don’t know what a household is either.

Helpful hints: When a person says household, they're talking about households. When a person says driver, they're talking about individual people. When a person says resident, they're also talking about individual people.

Don't you have anything better to do on a Saturday afternoon then sling insults at anonymous people on the internet?

On a Saturday of a holiday weekend you have aggressively insulted people suggesting that they take “remedial statistics” and in the process embarrassed yourself by revealing that you don’t know what an average is. You then subsequently reveled that you have zero conception of the concept of a household. I’m not sure who you think you’re fooling with this routine but it’s getting old and stale.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“Not to mention that bike lanes on Connecticut Avenue would INCREASE the carrying capacity of Connecticut Avenue.“

This is mendacious spin at a truly Trumpy tier.

Single occupancy vehicles are the least efficient method of getting people from one place to another. Mass transit and bikes are many times more efficient. So if planners and engineers redesign roads to priorities mass transit and bikes over cars, then by definition, the carrying capacity will increase.

Denying that is actually Trumpian.

I prefer to drive my hybrid to work, and will continue to do so. Not interested in your suggestions.

Why do you keep mentioning that your car is a hybrid?

Nobody is stopping you from driving your car to work. Nobody is even proposing to stop you from driving your car to work, or anywhere else.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“Not to mention that bike lanes on Connecticut Avenue would INCREASE the carrying capacity of Connecticut Avenue.“

This is mendacious spin at a truly Trumpy tier.

Single occupancy vehicles are the least efficient method of getting people from one place to another. Mass transit and bikes are many times more efficient. So if planners and engineers redesign roads to priorities mass transit and bikes over cars, then by definition, the carrying capacity will increase.

Denying that is actually Trumpian.

Except very few people actually bike. And cars are incredibly efficient at getting people from A to B quickly.

Yes, places like Montana, cars are incredibly efficient at getting people from A to B quickly. In dense cities, like DC, they are not efficient.

Also, lots of people actually bike, and even more would bike if they had safe, comfortable, connected, convenient routes to get where they're going.

Both statements are false. On the first, it could be true if DC actually had good public transit, but metro sucks and the bus network is meh. On the second, we’ve been through this already on this thread, all evidence points to bikers as a single digit percentage of commuters and possibly as low as 3 percent. Not “lots of people.”

Are you the one who said "very few people actually bike"? Perhaps you should have clarified that you meant "Only 3% of employed DC residents use bicycles to cover the greatest distance of their commute to work, most of the time, according to the American Community Survey."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Unmetered, unzoned parking on long swaths of Connecticut Avenue benefits the people who will leave their cars for days and weeks on end with no benefit to the city or anyone else.

It also means cyclists will just take a full lane when the ride, because that is the law. Without turn lanes, that means people driving will be stuck behind a cyclist and left turing vehicles, while the right lanes have 24/7 parking.

That sounds like a winning solution.

Although I don’t think this is a bot, it’s clear that the poster is spinning rubbish without any actual knowledge of the local area. Where exactly is the “Unmetered, unzoned parking on long swaths of Connecticut Avenue” where people can “leave their cars for days and weeks on end”?!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“Not to mention that bike lanes on Connecticut Avenue would INCREASE the carrying capacity of Connecticut Avenue.“

This is mendacious spin at a truly Trumpy tier.

Single occupancy vehicles are the least efficient method of getting people from one place to another. Mass transit and bikes are many times more efficient. So if planners and engineers redesign roads to priorities mass transit and bikes over cars, then by definition, the carrying capacity will increase.

Denying that is actually Trumpian.

I prefer to drive my hybrid to work, and will continue to do so. Not interested in your suggestions.

Why do you keep mentioning that your car is a hybrid?

Nobody is stopping you from driving your car to work. Nobody is even proposing to stop you from driving your car to work, or anywhere else.

Why does PPs hybrid vehicle bother you?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Unmetered, unzoned parking on long swaths of Connecticut Avenue benefits the people who will leave their cars for days and weeks on end with no benefit to the city or anyone else.

It also means cyclists will just take a full lane when the ride, because that is the law. Without turn lanes, that means people driving will be stuck behind a cyclist and left turing vehicles, while the right lanes have 24/7 parking.

That sounds like a winning solution.

Although I don’t think this is a bot, it’s clear that the poster is spinning rubbish without any actual knowledge of the local area. Where exactly is the “Unmetered, unzoned parking on long swaths of Connecticut Avenue” where people can “leave their cars for days and weeks on end”?!

That PP is a troll that doesn’t live in the area. Otherwise they would know about street sweeping. Honestly sad for someone that doesn’t live in the area to spend their time trolling a website on this hyper local issue.