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:“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.

This is funny because I actually went to the zoo today (by car), and there was not a bike in sight. One couple on an e-scooter though. Down with bike lanes. Long live scooter lanes.

I'm wondering what kind of mobility lanes you're thinking of, where it would be ok for people ride e-scooters but it would not be ok for people to ride bicycles.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Lots of people can't/don't drive ---> Nonetheless, we should continue to prioritize cars!

Lots of people can't/don't bike ---> NO BIKE LANES, BIKES ARE THE WORST, EVERYONE HATES THEM, CARS 4 EVAH.

Those two numbers are not even in the same galaxy.

You're right, they're not. One third of people in the US don't have a driver's license. I don't have a good source of data on this, but I seriously doubt that one third of people in the US can't ride a bike and/or can't afford a bike.

If that’s your understanding of the difference in the numbers between people who don’t drive and people who don’t bike in this area, you don’t belong anywhere near this conversation.

If you're interested in the ability of people to go where they want or need to go, then you need to take into account the fact that one third of people in the US can't drive.

If you're only interested in the ability of drivers to go where they want or need to go, then you can ignore the reality that one third of people in the US can't drive.

[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:“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.

Lots of people can't/don't drive ---> Nonetheless, we should continue to prioritize cars!

Lots of people can't/don't bike ---> NO BIKE LANES, BIKES ARE THE WORST, EVERYONE HATES THEM, CARS 4 EVAH.

Those two numbers are not even in the same galaxy.

You're right, they're not. One third of people in the US don't have a driver's license. I don't have a good source of data on this, but I seriously doubt that one third of people in the US can't ride a bike and/or can't afford a bike.

If that’s your understanding of the difference in the numbers between people who don’t drive and people who don’t bike in this area, you don’t belong anywhere near this conversation.

If you're interested in the ability of people to go where they want or need to go, then you need to take into account the fact that one third of people in the US can't drive.

If you're only interested in the ability of drivers to go where they want or need to go, then you can ignore the reality that one third of people in the US can't drive.

What we really cannot ignore is the reality of how people use the road. Taking absolutely everyone into account, 99.9999% of people using Connecticut don't bike on it.

[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:“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.

Lots of people can't/don't drive ---> Nonetheless, we should continue to prioritize cars!

Lots of people can't/don't bike ---> NO BIKE LANES, BIKES ARE THE WORST, EVERYONE HATES THEM, CARS 4 EVAH.

Those two numbers are not even in the same galaxy.

You're right, they're not. One third of people in the US don't have a driver's license. I don't have a good source of data on this, but I seriously doubt that one third of people in the US can't ride a bike and/or can't afford a bike.

If that’s your understanding of the difference in the numbers between people who don’t drive and people who don’t bike in this area, you don’t belong anywhere near this conversation.

If you're interested in the ability of people to go where they want or need to go, then you need to take into account the fact that one third of people in the US can't drive.

If you're only interested in the ability of drivers to go where they want or need to go, then you can ignore the reality that one third of people in the US can't drive.

What we really cannot ignore is the reality of how people use the road. Taking absolutely everyone into account, 99.9999% of people using Connecticut don't bike on it.

Assuming for the sake of argument that your estimate is correct, there are at least two possible takes.

First take (yours): Connecticut Avenue should stay the way it is right now, forever and ever, amen.
Second take (D.C. law): streets are designed, operated, and maintained to accommodate safe and convenient access and mobility for all users of the District's transportation system, including pedestrians, bicyclists, users of mass transit, motorists, emergency responders, and persons of all ages and abilities.

[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:“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.

Lots of people can't/don't drive ---> Nonetheless, we should continue to prioritize cars!

Lots of people can't/don't bike ---> NO BIKE LANES, BIKES ARE THE WORST, EVERYONE HATES THEM, CARS 4 EVAH.

Those two numbers are not even in the same galaxy.

You're right, they're not. One third of people in the US don't have a driver's license. I don't have a good source of data on this, but I seriously doubt that one third of people in the US can't ride a bike and/or can't afford a bike.

If that’s your understanding of the difference in the numbers between people who don’t drive and people who don’t bike in this area, you don’t belong anywhere near this conversation.

If you're interested in the ability of people to go where they want or need to go, then you need to take into account the fact that one third of people in the US can't drive.

If you're only interested in the ability of drivers to go where they want or need to go, then you can ignore the reality that one third of people in the US can't drive.

What we really cannot ignore is the reality of how people use the road. Taking absolutely everyone into account, 99.9999% of people using Connecticut don't bike on it.

Assuming for the sake of argument that your estimate is correct, there are at least two possible takes.

First take (yours): Connecticut Avenue should stay the way it is right now, forever and ever, amen.
Second take (D.C. law): streets are designed, operated, and maintained to accommodate safe and convenient access and mobility for all users of the District's transportation system, including pedestrians, bicyclists, users of mass transit, motorists, emergency responders, and persons of all ages and abilities.

Indeed, which is why it makes no sense to cater to the 0.0001%

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

There are a lot of reasons why people can't drive, besides being "too frail".

Also the All Powerful Bike Lobby doesn't oppose curb bump-outs.

But yes, people do need to be able to cross a street safely. One thing that really helps with that, as you point out, is fewer car lanes to have to cross.

^^^Here's one example of designs for protected bike lanes that also improve access and safety for pedestrians with disabilities: https://walksf.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/getting-to-the-curb-report-final-walk-sf-2019.pdf

Here's a design guide from the FHWA: https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/bicycle_pedestrian/publications/separated_bikelane_pdg/page11.cfm

Here's a project with protected bike lanes and curb extensions in Chicago: https://chi.streetsblog.org/2024/05/17/cdot-is-extending-avondales-popular-belmont-protected-bike-lanes-west-to-milwaukee

Thank you for these resources, its just a shame it was buried in pages of pedantic argument.

If you were going to put lanes on Connecticut, then the bend-out options seem ideal. Good to see that the technical part of the problem has already been solved and just needs to be drag and dropped here.

Interesting info-graph from the Chicago link:

Explosive growth in shopping/dining and almost no growth in commuting. Reinforces what many have been saying.

[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:“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.

Lots of people can't/don't drive ---> Nonetheless, we should continue to prioritize cars!

Lots of people can't/don't bike ---> NO BIKE LANES, BIKES ARE THE WORST, EVERYONE HATES THEM, CARS 4 EVAH.

Those two numbers are not even in the same galaxy.

You're right, they're not. One third of people in the US don't have a driver's license. I don't have a good source of data on this, but I seriously doubt that one third of people in the US can't ride a bike and/or can't afford a bike.

If that’s your understanding of the difference in the numbers between people who don’t drive and people who don’t bike in this area, you don’t belong anywhere near this conversation.

If you're interested in the ability of people to go where they want or need to go, then you need to take into account the fact that one third of people in the US can't drive.

If you're only interested in the ability of drivers to go where they want or need to go, then you can ignore the reality that one third of people in the US can't drive.

What we really cannot ignore is the reality of how people use the road. Taking absolutely everyone into account, 99.9999% of people using Connecticut don't bike on it.

Assuming for the sake of argument that your estimate is correct, there are at least two possible takes.

First take (yours): Connecticut Avenue should stay the way it is right now, forever and ever, amen.
Second take (D.C. law): streets are designed, operated, and maintained to accommodate safe and convenient access and mobility for all users of the District's transportation system, including pedestrians, bicyclists, users of mass transit, motorists, emergency responders, and persons of all ages and abilities.

Wouldn’t the most sensible approach — and and to balance various interests — be to route new bike lanes on streets that are parallel to Connecticut Avenue or on side street? Those would be a lot safer for bikers than Connecticut Avenue and that would ensure that Connecticut Avenue will continue to be a principal route for through traffic between Upper Northwest and Maryland and downtown Washington. Some bike bros may be disappointed with no bike lane passing Nanny O’Briens, but that’s the nature of compromise and maximizing the various aspects interests of the greatest number of people.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Remember that there is an established bike lane that goes right past the zoo’s east entrance.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Lots of people can't/don't drive ---> Nonetheless, we should continue to prioritize cars!

Lots of people can't/don't bike ---> NO BIKE LANES, BIKES ARE THE WORST, EVERYONE HATES THEM, CARS 4 EVAH.

Those two numbers are not even in the same galaxy.

You're right, they're not. [/b]One third of people in the US don't have a driver's license.[b] I don't have a good source of data on this, but I seriously doubt that one third of people in the US can't ride a bike and/or can't afford a bike.

Let’s stipulate that few people under 16 have a drivers license.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Lots of people can't/don't drive ---> Nonetheless, we should continue to prioritize cars!

Lots of people can't/don't bike ---> NO BIKE LANES, BIKES ARE THE WORST, EVERYONE HATES THEM, CARS 4 EVAH.

Those two numbers are not even in the same galaxy.

You're right, they're not. [/b]One third of people in the US don't have a driver's license.[b] I don't have a good source of data on this, but I seriously doubt that one third of people in the US can't ride a bike and/or can't afford a bike.

Let’s stipulate that few people under 16 have a drivers license.

You don’t live in the area. Why are you posting about this hyper local issue?

[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:“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.

Lots of people can't/don't drive ---> Nonetheless, we should continue to prioritize cars!

Lots of people can't/don't bike ---> NO BIKE LANES, BIKES ARE THE WORST, EVERYONE HATES THEM, CARS 4 EVAH.

Those two numbers are not even in the same galaxy.

You're right, they're not. One third of people in the US don't have a driver's license. I don't have a good source of data on this, but I seriously doubt that one third of people in the US can't ride a bike and/or can't afford a bike.

If that’s your understanding of the difference in the numbers between people who don’t drive and people who don’t bike in this area, you don’t belong anywhere near this conversation.

If you're interested in the ability of people to go where they want or need to go, then you need to take into account the fact that one third of people in the US can't drive.

If you're only interested in the ability of drivers to go where they want or need to go, then you can ignore the reality that one third of people in the US can't drive.

What we really cannot ignore is the reality of how people use the road. Taking absolutely everyone into account, 99.9999% of people using Connecticut don't bike on it.

Assuming for the sake of argument that your estimate is correct, there are at least two possible takes.

First take (yours): Connecticut Avenue should stay the way it is right now, forever and ever, amen.
Second take (D.C. law): streets are designed, operated, and maintained to accommodate safe and convenient access and mobility for all users of the District's transportation system, including pedestrians, bicyclists, users of mass transit, motorists, emergency responders, and persons of all ages and abilities.

You have zero understanding of DC law.

[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:“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.

Lots of people can't/don't drive ---> Nonetheless, we should continue to prioritize cars!

Lots of people can't/don't bike ---> NO BIKE LANES, BIKES ARE THE WORST, EVERYONE HATES THEM, CARS 4 EVAH.

Those two numbers are not even in the same galaxy.

You're right, they're not. One third of people in the US don't have a driver's license. I don't have a good source of data on this, but I seriously doubt that one third of people in the US can't ride a bike and/or can't afford a bike.

If that’s your understanding of the difference in the numbers between people who don’t drive and people who don’t bike in this area, you don’t belong anywhere near this conversation.

If you're interested in the ability of people to go where they want or need to go, then you need to take into account the fact that one third of people in the US can't drive.

If you're only interested in the ability of drivers to go where they want or need to go, then you can ignore the reality that one third of people in the US can't drive.

What we really cannot ignore is the reality of how people use the road. Taking absolutely everyone into account, 99.9999% of people using Connecticut don't bike on it.

Assuming for the sake of argument that your estimate is correct, there are at least two possible takes.

First take (yours): Connecticut Avenue should stay the way it is right now, forever and ever, amen.
Second take (D.C. law): streets are designed, operated, and maintained to accommodate safe and convenient access and mobility for all users of the District's transportation system, including pedestrians, bicyclists, users of mass transit, motorists, emergency responders, and persons of all ages and abilities.

Wouldn’t the most sensible approach — and and to balance various interests — be to route new bike lanes on streets that are parallel to Connecticut Avenue or on side street? Those would be a lot safer for bikers than Connecticut Avenue and that would ensure that Connecticut Avenue will continue to be a principal route for through traffic between Upper Northwest and Maryland and downtown Washington. Some bike bros may be disappointed with no bike lane passing Nanny O’Briens, but that’s the nature of compromise and maximizing the various aspects interests of the greatest number of people.

Love this, brilliant!!!!! Everyone wins right?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

There are a lot of reasons why people can't drive, besides being "too frail".

Also the All Powerful Bike Lobby doesn't oppose curb bump-outs.

But yes, people do need to be able to cross a street safely. One thing that really helps with that, as you point out, is fewer car lanes to have to cross.

^^^Here's one example of designs for protected bike lanes that also improve access and safety for pedestrians with disabilities: https://walksf.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/getting-to-the-curb-report-final-walk-sf-2019.pdf

Here's a design guide from the FHWA: https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/bicycle_pedestrian/publications/separated_bikelane_pdg/page11.cfm

Here's a project with protected bike lanes and curb extensions in Chicago: https://chi.streetsblog.org/2024/05/17/cdot-is-extending-avondales-popular-belmont-protected-bike-lanes-west-to-milwaukee

Thank you for these resources, its just a shame it was buried in pages of pedantic argument.

If you were going to put lanes on Connecticut, then the bend-out options seem ideal. Good to see that the technical part of the problem has already been solved and just needs to be drag and dropped here.

Interesting info-graph from the Chicago link:

Explosive growth in shopping/dining and almost no growth in commuting. Reinforces what many have been saying.

What were the starting numbers? If there were 5 cyclists and now there are 10, it’s doubled, but there are still only 10. These percentages are meaningless without the underlying data.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Hardly anyone commutes by bike. Hardly anyone makes personal trips during the day by any mode of transportation. These are just facts.

Want to make the case for weekend recreation? Sure, that could make sense but then Connecticut Ave would not be the focus. Leafy and shaded Reno with less traffic would be much better and also provide access to Rock Creek Park trails via existing bike lanes on Tilden and Calvert.

You keep repeating the same nonsense, but the facts don’t support anything you say. Furthermore, if you’re the same PP who thinks people can just leave their cars for weeks in Connecticut with no issue, you obviously don’t live in the area either.

Not sure what your deal is but it’s getting 100% boring at this stage.

What planet are you on? I live right off Connecticut and plenty of people in my community bike to work, school, and elsewhere. We don’t bike to school because there aren’t bike lanes and we’re not as brave as some other families. I do scooter around town, often on Connecticut Ave — on the sidewalk because it’s suicidal to ride down Conn with no designated lanes. I would buy a bike immediately if there were bike lanes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Hardly anyone commutes by bike. Hardly anyone makes personal trips during the day by any mode of transportation. These are just facts.

Want to make the case for weekend recreation? Sure, that could make sense but then Connecticut Ave would not be the focus. Leafy and shaded Reno with less traffic would be much better and also provide access to Rock Creek Park trails via existing bike lanes on Tilden and Calvert.

You keep repeating the same nonsense, but the facts don’t support anything you say. Furthermore, if you’re the same PP who thinks people can just leave their cars for weeks in Connecticut with no issue, you obviously don’t live in the area either.

Not sure what your deal is but it’s getting 100% boring at this stage.

What planet are you on? I live right off Connecticut and plenty of people in my community bike to work, school, and elsewhere. We don’t bike to school because there aren’t bike lanes and we’re not as brave as some other families. I do scooter around town, often on Connecticut Ave — on the sidewalk because it’s suicidal to ride down Conn with no designated lanes. I would buy a bike immediately if there were bike lanes.

Nothing that you’ve posted is true. There’s no significant unmet demand for biking that would be met by the Connecticut Ave bike lanes. Barely anyone bikes there now and barely anyone would bike there if there were bike lanes. You probably don’t even live where you claim.