Connecticut Ave bike lanes are back!

[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.

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?

Why does PP keep mentioning that their car is a hybrid?

[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.”

You AGAIN repeat this, and yet ignore that the measure of "commuters" is for people who are going from a point "out there" to downtown and not a measure of people biking in general.

[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

Yes they are, generally, unless they have kid seats, or the little kid extensions or it is a bicycle built for two.

But, they also take up a fraction of the space, they don't cause environmental harm and they provide health benefits to the person riding it, which helps ease the broader impact on the healthcare system.

They are also, then, not competing for a parking spot or, if there are bike lanes, taking up space on the driving lanes.

[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.

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.

Bike commuting has been "a thing" for decades and, oh my, most of the newer buildings have showers and lockers so biking commuters can clean up before work. This has been a norm for years.

And, it doesn't need to be realistic for "most people" but if it realistic and safe FOR ENOUGH PEOPLE, then the overall impact on road space will be positively felt by the people who don't have the option. Motorists should be supporting safe bike infrastructure to make more room for themselves.

[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.

No one is telling you not to drive a car.

[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”?!

You don't know upper Connecticut Avenue very well if you have to ask this question.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I cannot remember the last time there was an actual street sweeper on upper Connecticut Avenue - certainly years before COVID. Everyone ignores those signs because it stopped happening a long time ago.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.”

You AGAIN repeat this, and yet ignore that the measure of "commuters" is for people who are going from a point "out there" to downtown and not a measure of people biking in general.

This is so dumb. Two-thirds of adults who work from home and commute take one or less personal trips per week during the day.

If there is a massive amount of cycling going on, the only place that would be possible is during weekends. And that would make sense because the Anacaostia River Trail is the most used - by a wide margin - bike infrastructure in DC.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I cannot remember the last time there was an actual street sweeper on upper Connecticut Avenue - certainly years before COVID. Everyone ignores those signs because it stopped happening a long time ago.

You don’t live in DC. If you did, you’d know that it doesn’t matter if the street sweeper comes or not, you’re still getting a ticket.

Let’s look how far you have now traveled to cover up for your trolling as someone who lives outside the area.

I’m not sure why you continue to post here but it’s really insane.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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”?!

You don't know upper Connecticut Avenue very well if you have to ask this question.

You think you have can leave your car for weeks on end in Connecticut Avenue without getting a huge amount of tickets? Where do you live? I’d really love to know what you’re doing posting here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

Bike commuting has been "a thing" for decades and, oh my, most of the newer buildings have showers and lockers so biking commuters can clean up before work. This has been a norm for years.

And, it doesn't need to be realistic for "most people" but if it realistic and safe FOR ENOUGH PEOPLE, then the overall impact on road space will be positively felt by the people who don't have the option. Motorists should be supporting safe bike infrastructure to make more room for themselves.

You refute yourself in your own post. It’s been a thing for decades. There has been a lot of investment in facilities and infrastructure. Yet hardly anyone does it. One more bike lane isn’t going to get people to commute on their bikes. Sorry.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I cannot remember the last time there was an actual street sweeper on upper Connecticut Avenue - certainly years before COVID. Everyone ignores those signs because it stopped happening a long time ago.

You don’t live in DC. If you did, you’d know that it doesn’t matter if the street sweeper comes or not, you’re still getting a ticket.

Let’s look how far you have now traveled to cover up for your trolling as someone who lives outside the area.

I’m not sure why you continue to post here but it’s really insane.

You are only getting a ticket if it is enforced.

It hasn't been for years.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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”?!

You don't know upper Connecticut Avenue very well if you have to ask this question.

You think you have can leave your car for weeks on end in Connecticut Avenue without getting a huge amount of tickets? Where do you live? I’d really love to know what you’re doing posting here.

The mayor's proposal is now for 24/7 parking on Connecticut Avenue. There are large portions in upper NW that are unzoned. That was the reference.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

Bike commuting has been "a thing" for decades and, oh my, most of the newer buildings have showers and lockers so biking commuters can clean up before work. This has been a norm for years.

And, it doesn't need to be realistic for "most people" but if it realistic and safe FOR ENOUGH PEOPLE, then the overall impact on road space will be positively felt by the people who don't have the option. Motorists should be supporting safe bike infrastructure to make more room for themselves.

You refute yourself in your own post. It’s been a thing for decades. There has been a lot of investment in facilities and infrastructure. Yet hardly anyone does it. One more bike lane isn’t going to get people to commute on their bikes. Sorry.

Before COVID, there were a lot of people doing it. Work from home kind of changed things a little.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

Bike commuting has been "a thing" for decades and, oh my, most of the newer buildings have showers and lockers so biking commuters can clean up before work. This has been a norm for years.

And, it doesn't need to be realistic for "most people" but if it realistic and safe FOR ENOUGH PEOPLE, then the overall impact on road space will be positively felt by the people who don't have the option. Motorists should be supporting safe bike infrastructure to make more room for themselves.

You refute yourself in your own post. It’s been a thing for decades. There has been a lot of investment in facilities and infrastructure. Yet hardly anyone does it. One more bike lane isn’t going to get people to commute on their bikes. Sorry.

The bike lanes would not be solely for commuters. It would be for your neighbors who would like to bike from your neighborhood to another for errands and vice verse for people from other neighborhoods to come to yours (and not take up any of your precious parking) - it would also be for tourists to go to the zoo and for kids to go to school.