Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I hardly ever drive on Connecticut and would almost certainly never bike there, bike lanes or not.

What annoys about this whole episode is that I’m noticing a pattern of behavior with Bowser where she will float controversial proposals, launch drawn-out batteries of community consultations which bitterly divide neighbors, allow these processes to run their course, create the illusion that the decision and concepts have been finalized on the basis of the input received through the official consultation processes and the input of ANCs and relevant councilmembers, and then at the 11th hour switcheroo at the behest of shadowy interests that can’t legitimately claim to represent anyone beyond themselves.

This of course describes the Connecticut bike lane saga to a T, but also is exactly how things went down with several other non-transportation projects in my part of the city.

Some like the end result and so are inclined to defend Bowser or take issue with certain specifics, but no one should be able to argue with a straight face that this is what good municipal governance looks like. She is sowing division and completely undermining faith in the integrity in established structures for participatory governance. Of course, if you do not live in the District and don’t give a damn about anything in the city beyond the ease of your commute, I can understand why this wouldn’t bother you in the slightest.

Hopefully the city can find itself a radically better mayor in a couple of years and take a turn to becoming a better place for people to live, even at the cost of not being the most pleasurable of door mats for suburban commuters.

Bowser wanted ANC support for her voucher plan and the Chevy Chase Library and Small Area Plan. She used bike lanes to get that support and then dropped them because they weren't popular leaving the ANCs holding the bag for everything. The bike lane fiasco sucked up all the backlash and she succeeded.

Nothing about this proposal was an example of good governance. Always remember that it started as a seemingly innocuous discussion on whether or not to keep reversible lanes at rush hour.

I see the anti-Bowser conspiracy theorist is back.

DP. I love would be able to see some logic behind Bowser’s approach - such as that by undermining participatory planning processes and ANCs so that she can get things done faster - but it’s hard to see what she is getting out of all this other than making people hate each other and eventually her too. I tended to give her the benefit of the doubt until she flip-flopped all over the map on school openings over COVID, pitting teachers against parents and endowing the city with a truancy and youth crime crisis. She’s not the worst mayor in DC’s history by a long stretch, but she’s not a leader, has no discernible vision for the city, is a terrible administrator, and is very hard to relate to. In retrospect, it’s not hard to understand how she was almost lost to a Republican in her first mayoral election.

It’s quaint that you think there was real “participatory planning” in the first place. There’s only just power. DDOT only conducts citizen engagement to either inform people of the decisions they have made or to pretend that they are taking community input seriously to justify decisions they have already made. DDOT made a decision that was met with significant resistance from the business community, who are more important than the cycling activists DDOT has been catering to, and as result their decision was overturned. It’s only the mayor’s fault to the extent that she appoints DDOT leadership and DDOT leadership did a bad job of protecting the mayors interests. It’s probably why Everett Lott isn’t there anymore. It’s not more complicated than that.

What is quaint is that you think it’s perfectly fine that elected representatives privilege “business interests” - in reality, a handful of corporate landlords desperately hankering for a return to 2019 amidst their complete denial that the world has moved on - over the ability of DC residents to travel throughout their city in an inexpensive, healthy, safe, and environmentally-friendly manner.

Even the Fleet Feet Fenty's oppose new bike lanes on major roads. The world has indeed moved on.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I hardly ever drive on Connecticut and would almost certainly never bike there, bike lanes or not.

What annoys about this whole episode is that I’m noticing a pattern of behavior with Bowser where she will float controversial proposals, launch drawn-out batteries of community consultations which bitterly divide neighbors, allow these processes to run their course, create the illusion that the decision and concepts have been finalized on the basis of the input received through the official consultation processes and the input of ANCs and relevant councilmembers, and then at the 11th hour switcheroo at the behest of shadowy interests that can’t legitimately claim to represent anyone beyond themselves.

This of course describes the Connecticut bike lane saga to a T, but also is exactly how things went down with several other non-transportation projects in my part of the city.

Some like the end result and so are inclined to defend Bowser or take issue with certain specifics, but no one should be able to argue with a straight face that this is what good municipal governance looks like. She is sowing division and completely undermining faith in the integrity in established structures for participatory governance. Of course, if you do not live in the District and don’t give a damn about anything in the city beyond the ease of your commute, I can understand why this wouldn’t bother you in the slightest.

Hopefully the city can find itself a radically better mayor in a couple of years and take a turn to becoming a better place for people to live, even at the cost of not being the most pleasurable of door mats for suburban commuters.

Bowser wanted ANC support for her voucher plan and the Chevy Chase Library and Small Area Plan. She used bike lanes to get that support and then dropped them because they weren't popular leaving the ANCs holding the bag for everything. The bike lane fiasco sucked up all the backlash and she succeeded.

Nothing about this proposal was an example of good governance. Always remember that it started as a seemingly innocuous discussion on whether or not to keep reversible lanes at rush hour.

I see the anti-Bowser conspiracy theorist is back.

DP. I love would be able to see some logic behind Bowser’s approach - such as that by undermining participatory planning processes and ANCs so that she can get things done faster - but it’s hard to see what she is getting out of all this other than making people hate each other and eventually her too. I tended to give her the benefit of the doubt until she flip-flopped all over the map on school openings over COVID, pitting teachers against parents and endowing the city with a truancy and youth crime crisis. She’s not the worst mayor in DC’s history by a long stretch, but she’s not a leader, has no discernible vision for the city, is a terrible administrator, and is very hard to relate to. In retrospect, it’s not hard to understand how she was almost lost to a Republican in her first mayoral election.

It’s quaint that you think there was real “participatory planning” in the first place. There’s only just power. DDOT only conducts citizen engagement to either inform people of the decisions they have made or to pretend that they are taking community input seriously to justify decisions they have already made. DDOT made a decision that was met with significant resistance from the business community, who are more important than the cycling activists DDOT has been catering to, and as result their decision was overturned. It’s only the mayor’s fault to the extent that she appoints DDOT leadership and DDOT leadership did a bad job of protecting the mayors interests. It’s probably why Everett Lott isn’t there anymore. It’s not more complicated than that.

What is quaint is that you think it’s perfectly fine that elected representatives privilege “business interests” - in reality, a handful of corporate landlords desperately hankering for a return to 2019 amidst their complete denial that the world has moved on - over the ability of DC residents to travel throughout their city in an inexpensive, healthy, safe, and environmentally-friendly manner.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I hardly ever drive on Connecticut and would almost certainly never bike there, bike lanes or not.

What annoys about this whole episode is that I’m noticing a pattern of behavior with Bowser where she will float controversial proposals, launch drawn-out batteries of community consultations which bitterly divide neighbors, allow these processes to run their course, create the illusion that the decision and concepts have been finalized on the basis of the input received through the official consultation processes and the input of ANCs and relevant councilmembers, and then at the 11th hour switcheroo at the behest of shadowy interests that can’t legitimately claim to represent anyone beyond themselves.

This of course describes the Connecticut bike lane saga to a T, but also is exactly how things went down with several other non-transportation projects in my part of the city.

Some like the end result and so are inclined to defend Bowser or take issue with certain specifics, but no one should be able to argue with a straight face that this is what good municipal governance looks like. She is sowing division and completely undermining faith in the integrity in established structures for participatory governance. Of course, if you do not live in the District and don’t give a damn about anything in the city beyond the ease of your commute, I can understand why this wouldn’t bother you in the slightest.

Hopefully the city can find itself a radically better mayor in a couple of years and take a turn to becoming a better place for people to live, even at the cost of not being the most pleasurable of door mats for suburban commuters.

Bowser wanted ANC support for her voucher plan and the Chevy Chase Library and Small Area Plan. She used bike lanes to get that support and then dropped them because they weren't popular leaving the ANCs holding the bag for everything. The bike lane fiasco sucked up all the backlash and she succeeded.

Nothing about this proposal was an example of good governance. Always remember that it started as a seemingly innocuous discussion on whether or not to keep reversible lanes at rush hour.

I see the anti-Bowser conspiracy theorist is back.

DP. I love would be able to see some logic behind Bowser’s approach - such as that by undermining participatory planning processes and ANCs so that she can get things done faster - but it’s hard to see what she is getting out of all this other than making people hate each other and eventually her too. I tended to give her the benefit of the doubt until she flip-flopped all over the map on school openings over COVID, pitting teachers against parents and endowing the city with a truancy and youth crime crisis. She’s not the worst mayor in DC’s history by a long stretch, but she’s not a leader, has no discernible vision for the city, is a terrible administrator, and is very hard to relate to. In retrospect, it’s not hard to understand how she was almost lost to a Republican in her first mayoral election.

It’s quaint that you think there was real “participatory planning” in the first place. There’s only just power. DDOT only conducts citizen engagement to either inform people of the decisions they have made or to pretend that they are taking community input seriously to justify decisions they have already made. DDOT made a decision that was met with significant resistance from the business community, who are more important than the cycling activists DDOT has been catering to, and as result their decision was overturned. It’s only the mayor’s fault to the extent that she appoints DDOT leadership and DDOT leadership did a bad job of protecting the mayors interests. It’s probably why Everett Lott isn’t there anymore. It’s not more complicated than that.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I hardly ever drive on Connecticut and would almost certainly never bike there, bike lanes or not.

What annoys about this whole episode is that I’m noticing a pattern of behavior with Bowser where she will float controversial proposals, launch drawn-out batteries of community consultations which bitterly divide neighbors, allow these processes to run their course, create the illusion that the decision and concepts have been finalized on the basis of the input received through the official consultation processes and the input of ANCs and relevant councilmembers, and then at the 11th hour switcheroo at the behest of shadowy interests that can’t legitimately claim to represent anyone beyond themselves.

This of course describes the Connecticut bike lane saga to a T, but also is exactly how things went down with several other non-transportation projects in my part of the city.

Some like the end result and so are inclined to defend Bowser or take issue with certain specifics, but no one should be able to argue with a straight face that this is what good municipal governance looks like. She is sowing division and completely undermining faith in the integrity in established structures for participatory governance. Of course, if you do not live in the District and don’t give a damn about anything in the city beyond the ease of your commute, I can understand why this wouldn’t bother you in the slightest.

Hopefully the city can find itself a radically better mayor in a couple of years and take a turn to becoming a better place for people to live, even at the cost of not being the most pleasurable of door mats for suburban commuters.

Bowser wanted ANC support for her voucher plan and the Chevy Chase Library and Small Area Plan. She used bike lanes to get that support and then dropped them because they weren't popular leaving the ANCs holding the bag for everything. The bike lane fiasco sucked up all the backlash and she succeeded.

Nothing about this proposal was an example of good governance. Always remember that it started as a seemingly innocuous discussion on whether or not to keep reversible lanes at rush hour.

I see the anti-Bowser conspiracy theorist is back.

DP. I love would be able to see some logic behind Bowser’s approach - such as that by undermining participatory planning processes and ANCs so that she can get things done faster - but it’s hard to see what she is getting out of all this other than making people hate each other and eventually her too. I tended to give her the benefit of the doubt until she flip-flopped all over the map on school openings over COVID, pitting teachers against parents and endowing the city with a truancy and youth crime crisis. She’s not the worst mayor in DC’s history by a long stretch, but she’s not a leader, has no discernible vision for the city, is a terrible administrator, and is very hard to relate to. In retrospect, it’s not hard to understand how she was almost lost to a Republican in her first mayoral election.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I hardly ever drive on Connecticut and would almost certainly never bike there, bike lanes or not.

What annoys about this whole episode is that I’m noticing a pattern of behavior with Bowser where she will float controversial proposals, launch drawn-out batteries of community consultations which bitterly divide neighbors, allow these processes to run their course, create the illusion that the decision and concepts have been finalized on the basis of the input received through the official consultation processes and the input of ANCs and relevant councilmembers, and then at the 11th hour switcheroo at the behest of shadowy interests that can’t legitimately claim to represent anyone beyond themselves.

This of course describes the Connecticut bike lane saga to a T, but also is exactly how things went down with several other non-transportation projects in my part of the city.

Some like the end result and so are inclined to defend Bowser or take issue with certain specifics, but no one should be able to argue with a straight face that this is what good municipal governance looks like. She is sowing division and completely undermining faith in the integrity in established structures for participatory governance. Of course, if you do not live in the District and don’t give a damn about anything in the city beyond the ease of your commute, I can understand why this wouldn’t bother you in the slightest.

Hopefully the city can find itself a radically better mayor in a couple of years and take a turn to becoming a better place for people to live, even at the cost of not being the most pleasurable of door mats for suburban commuters.

Bowser wanted ANC support for her voucher plan and the Chevy Chase Library and Small Area Plan. She used bike lanes to get that support and then dropped them because they weren't popular leaving the ANCs holding the bag for everything. The bike lane fiasco sucked up all the backlash and she succeeded.

Nothing about this proposal was an example of good governance. Always remember that it started as a seemingly innocuous discussion on whether or not to keep reversible lanes at rush hour.

People are opposed to the Chevy Chase library giveaway and the Smart Growth Lobby’s upzoning, too. Those are driven by developers and their fixers, but they are not popular with residents.

With *some* residents. The vocal minority is just that.

Surprise surprise, but a ton of the people who are *against* bike lanes are also the ones *against* the Chevy Chase library redesign + housing, and the upzoning in the commerical districts along Conn Ave. So the Mayor's actions are just empowering the nimby's. Counterproductive as all get out for her.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I hardly ever drive on Connecticut and would almost certainly never bike there, bike lanes or not.

What annoys about this whole episode is that I’m noticing a pattern of behavior with Bowser where she will float controversial proposals, launch drawn-out batteries of community consultations which bitterly divide neighbors, allow these processes to run their course, create the illusion that the decision and concepts have been finalized on the basis of the input received through the official consultation processes and the input of ANCs and relevant councilmembers, and then at the 11th hour switcheroo at the behest of shadowy interests that can’t legitimately claim to represent anyone beyond themselves.

This of course describes the Connecticut bike lane saga to a T, but also is exactly how things went down with several other non-transportation projects in my part of the city.

Some like the end result and so are inclined to defend Bowser or take issue with certain specifics, but no one should be able to argue with a straight face that this is what good municipal governance looks like. She is sowing division and completely undermining faith in the integrity in established structures for participatory governance. Of course, if you do not live in the District and don’t give a damn about anything in the city beyond the ease of your commute, I can understand why this wouldn’t bother you in the slightest.

Hopefully the city can find itself a radically better mayor in a couple of years and take a turn to becoming a better place for people to live, even at the cost of not being the most pleasurable of door mats for suburban commuters.

Bowser wanted ANC support for her voucher plan and the Chevy Chase Library and Small Area Plan. She used bike lanes to get that support and then dropped them because they weren't popular leaving the ANCs holding the bag for everything. The bike lane fiasco sucked up all the backlash and she succeeded.

Nothing about this proposal was an example of good governance. Always remember that it started as a seemingly innocuous discussion on whether or not to keep reversible lanes at rush hour.

I see the anti-Bowser conspiracy theorist is back.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I hardly ever drive on Connecticut and would almost certainly never bike there, bike lanes or not.

What annoys about this whole episode is that I’m noticing a pattern of behavior with Bowser where she will float controversial proposals, launch drawn-out batteries of community consultations which bitterly divide neighbors, allow these processes to run their course, create the illusion that the decision and concepts have been finalized on the basis of the input received through the official consultation processes and the input of ANCs and relevant councilmembers, and then at the 11th hour switcheroo at the behest of shadowy interests that can’t legitimately claim to represent anyone beyond themselves.

This of course describes the Connecticut bike lane saga to a T, but also is exactly how things went down with several other non-transportation projects in my part of the city.

Some like the end result and so are inclined to defend Bowser or take issue with certain specifics, but no one should be able to argue with a straight face that this is what good municipal governance looks like. She is sowing division and completely undermining faith in the integrity in established structures for participatory governance. Of course, if you do not live in the District and don’t give a damn about anything in the city beyond the ease of your commute, I can understand why this wouldn’t bother you in the slightest.

Hopefully the city can find itself a radically better mayor in a couple of years and take a turn to becoming a better place for people to live, even at the cost of not being the most pleasurable of door mats for suburban commuters.

Bowser wanted ANC support for her voucher plan and the Chevy Chase Library and Small Area Plan. She used bike lanes to get that support and then dropped them because they weren't popular leaving the ANCs holding the bag for everything. The bike lane fiasco sucked up all the backlash and she succeeded.

Nothing about this proposal was an example of good governance. Always remember that it started as a seemingly innocuous discussion on whether or not to keep reversible lanes at rush hour.

People are opposed to the Chevy Chase library giveaway and the Smart Growth Lobby’s upzoning, too. Those are driven by developers and their fixers, but they are not popular with residents.

With *some* residents. The vocal minority is just that.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This article from the NYT on how e-bikes have made life more dangerous for pedestrians in New York. Shouldn’t Washington DC consider similar legislation/rules for e-bikes?

“[T]he explosion of e-bikes has also soured the way some New Yorkers view the streets.
“In the last three years there’s been an enormous shift,” said Susan Simon, who moved to New York in the late 1970s. “The quality of life has gone down.”

“The streets are very dangerous,” Simon continued. “What used to be a wonderful walking city for tourists, for pedestrians, has become something of a nightmare.”

Simon used to pedal a bike herself, for fun or to go to the grocery store. But e-bikes are different, she said — faster and heavier and therefore riskier. She noted that a woman was killed last year after someone riding an electric Citi Bike hit her.

There are some efforts to tame the chaos. Janet Schroeder and Pamela Manasse, who was hit by an electric vehicle in 2022 and suffered a severe brain injury, founded the NYC E-Vehicle Safety Alliance, which promotes various regulations for e-bikes.

The alliance supports a bill that would ban e-bikes and other e-vehicles from parks and greenways. It would also like the government to require that e-bikes be registered and riders licensed.”

I am a cycling advocate. I would support such limits for eBikes that can go over a certain speed. I would not be supportive of banning them from parks and greenways. Otherwise, one couldn't ride one in Rock Creek Park, either on the road or the path, which seems misguided.

I would also be for speed limiters for cars, so they could not exceed the posted speed limits.

Rock Creek Park was not created for use by motorized vehicles and their ban in the park would be far from misguided. It would bring the use of the park back to its true purpose.

The amount of carbrain idiocy in this thread is staggering.

You know what was bigger in the 1960's and 1970's? Kids riding bikes and walking to school.

You what wasn't bigger in the 1960's and 1970's? The kids themselves - childhood obesity rates were so low it was never considered a major concern - less than 5%. Today? ONE FIFTH to ONE FOURTH.

Jesus christ.

Why?

Because our roads are ridiculously dangerous.

SUVs and massive trucks. Distracted driving because of phones or texts. Too much speed. Too many cars.

A major dependence on automobile infrastructure has provided us with...

...massive increases in obesity rates across all age groups
...a huge amount of microplastic pollution from tires
...a ridiculous amount of money being dumped into road resurfacing constantly to fix all the potholes left by the increasingly heavier cars (electric vehicles are WORSE for this)
...noise pollution (hello mr. Dodge Challenger driver, or mr. I'm late for my dentist appt but stuck in this school drop off traffic-horn lay-er on-er)
...air pollution
...a money sink for a massive chunk of the average family's income into an asset that depreciates quickly and doesn't help build wealth (which btw is disproportionately felt by lower income families)
...a defunding of public services related to mobility like buses, trams, trains, etc because "no one is using these because they all drive" (while sticking buses and trolleys in traffic and then wondering why people don't use it).

We need all of our major streets in the city to be rethought. We need all of our streets in the city to consider multiple modes of transportation that *advantage* anything but a single-occupancy motor vehicle.

The amount of energy poured into blocking this bike lane by a bunch of people who have spent their whole lives happily driving automobiles and wanting to do so to the grave while their kids and kids' kids can deal with the consequences is absolutely absurd.

Like wtf. We have speed limiters on freaking stand on scooters in DC. But every freaking day the dozens or so of speed cameras are racking up hundreds of thousands of dollars in tickets (which many go unpaid because of VA and MD drivers just ignoring them) and there's not really any serious discussion about speed limiters on motor vehicles. Instead you carbrains are like - ah ITS THE EBIKES FAULT that our roads are so dangerous!!!

Oof. Imagine calling people idiots and then writing something like this and willingly posting it.

Typical anti-biker boomer response. You probably grew up riding a book to school. But now that you’re old and don’t have the energy for such physical exertion, you demand the right to the widest possible streets and an abundance of parking because what could possibly be more important than your own convenience? The inevitable consequences of further embedding car dependence - congestion, pollution, unnecessary deaths and injuries, squandering of resources and so on - are none of your concern for the likelihood of you being around here to experience what this all leads to in 10 to 20 years is slim to none. Of course, you lack the self-awareness to realize that this is what really going on but nonetheless come up a strange cognitive dissonance when anyone brings serious facts to the discussion. And so “Oof.” is about all you can muster by way of a response.

Not PP but whoever wrote this sounds like a kooky cult member. If you really want to make things safer for cyclists, diverting them to side streets would be a great idea. But safety is not your actual goal.

No, not really. A great idea is: Connecticut Avenue that is safe AND ALSO streets in the network around Connecticut Avenue that are safe. Also a simple idea, conceptually. Streets should be 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.

And yet only the minority of cyclists is asking local government to spend everyone’s tax dollars for their convenience. Cyclists are still out there without bike lanes. It is your choice to bicycle. If you feel unsafe riding near cars DON’T ride near cars. Problem solved instead of problem created.

And for all the people who pay taxes but down own or operate cars?

NP. Bus, metro, ride share, walk.

Biking is also a good option. Streets should be 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 can bike all you want just stop asking for things that are desired by few and opposed by many. Why do you feel your needs are more important than others?

The bike lanes have political support: The Mayor originally, all of the ANCs, the former councilmember and the current councilmember.
The bike lanes have broad residential support: as evidenced by the elections and the gathering of over 5,000 signatures in support since the Mayor changed her mind.

The opponents have a bunch of unvalidated signtures, mostly from Maryland Commuters, certainly far fewer in like two years of trying, than the proponents.

So just stop with the "opposed by many" because whatever the actual number of DC much less ward 3 residents oppose the bike lanes, many more support it.

Can I ask who are you posting this for and for what purpose?

I havent posted on here in a week, but there's a clear pattern of everytime a pro bike person makes a salient point, they are immediately responded to with off topic questions such as this to derail the fact they made an effective argument. I think at this point there's no point trying to convince to 2 - 3 anti bike trolls that are hovering over this page and we can call it a day. Hopefully, the Council was able to get the message through that the will of the people is for bike lanes on CT Ave and we can all move on with our lives.

I think you mixed up pro bike and anti bike. A pro bike person started the thread, and the pro bike people are the ones who jump in with what about cars every time someone makes a salient point about pedestrian safety and the fact that the pro bike are willing to sacrifice pedestrian safety for bike lanes, which won’t be safe for pedestrians without speed humps or elevated crosswalks in the bike lanes.

Someone posted an FHA doc up thread with design options. The "bend out" design makes everything safer for everyone. This isn't a technical problem, but a political one

Too bad that option wasn’t what was offered, and the bike lane advocates were happy to advocate for their interests alone and screw pedestrians. Never again will I side with them on transportation issues because they’ve shown they can talk a good game but are not to be trusted. They just care about themselves.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I hardly ever drive on Connecticut and would almost certainly never bike there, bike lanes or not.

What annoys about this whole episode is that I’m noticing a pattern of behavior with Bowser where she will float controversial proposals, launch drawn-out batteries of community consultations which bitterly divide neighbors, allow these processes to run their course, create the illusion that the decision and concepts have been finalized on the basis of the input received through the official consultation processes and the input of ANCs and relevant councilmembers, and then at the 11th hour switcheroo at the behest of shadowy interests that can’t legitimately claim to represent anyone beyond themselves.

This of course describes the Connecticut bike lane saga to a T, but also is exactly how things went down with several other non-transportation projects in my part of the city.

Some like the end result and so are inclined to defend Bowser or take issue with certain specifics, but no one should be able to argue with a straight face that this is what good municipal governance looks like. She is sowing division and completely undermining faith in the integrity in established structures for participatory governance. Of course, if you do not live in the District and don’t give a damn about anything in the city beyond the ease of your commute, I can understand why this wouldn’t bother you in the slightest.

Hopefully the city can find itself a radically better mayor in a couple of years and take a turn to becoming a better place for people to live, even at the cost of not being the most pleasurable of door mats for suburban commuters.

Bowser wanted ANC support for her voucher plan and the Chevy Chase Library and Small Area Plan. She used bike lanes to get that support and then dropped them because they weren't popular leaving the ANCs holding the bag for everything. The bike lane fiasco sucked up all the backlash and she succeeded.

Nothing about this proposal was an example of good governance. Always remember that it started as a seemingly innocuous discussion on whether or not to keep reversible lanes at rush hour.

People are opposed to the Chevy Chase library giveaway and the Smart Growth Lobby’s upzoning, too. Those are driven by developers and their fixers, but they are not popular with residents.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I hardly ever drive on Connecticut and would almost certainly never bike there, bike lanes or not.

What annoys about this whole episode is that I’m noticing a pattern of behavior with Bowser where she will float controversial proposals, launch drawn-out batteries of community consultations which bitterly divide neighbors, allow these processes to run their course, create the illusion that the decision and concepts have been finalized on the basis of the input received through the official consultation processes and the input of ANCs and relevant councilmembers, and then at the 11th hour switcheroo at the behest of shadowy interests that can’t legitimately claim to represent anyone beyond themselves.

This of course describes the Connecticut bike lane saga to a T, but also is exactly how things went down with several other non-transportation projects in my part of the city.

Some like the end result and so are inclined to defend Bowser or take issue with certain specifics, but no one should be able to argue with a straight face that this is what good municipal governance looks like. She is sowing division and completely undermining faith in the integrity in established structures for participatory governance. Of course, if you do not live in the District and don’t give a damn about anything in the city beyond the ease of your commute, I can understand why this wouldn’t bother you in the slightest.

Hopefully the city can find itself a radically better mayor in a couple of years and take a turn to becoming a better place for people to live, even at the cost of not being the most pleasurable of door mats for suburban commuters.

Bowser wanted ANC support for her voucher plan and the Chevy Chase Library and Small Area Plan. She used bike lanes to get that support and then dropped them because they weren't popular leaving the ANCs holding the bag for everything. The bike lane fiasco sucked up all the backlash and she succeeded.

Nothing about this proposal was an example of good governance. Always remember that it started as a seemingly innocuous discussion on whether or not to keep reversible lanes at rush hour.

I see the anti-Bowser conspiracy theorist is back.

The proof is in the pudding. That's how special interest alliance politics work. The bike lane advocates did the same thing to the safety advocates.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I hardly ever drive on Connecticut and would almost certainly never bike there, bike lanes or not.

What annoys about this whole episode is that I’m noticing a pattern of behavior with Bowser where she will float controversial proposals, launch drawn-out batteries of community consultations which bitterly divide neighbors, allow these processes to run their course, create the illusion that the decision and concepts have been finalized on the basis of the input received through the official consultation processes and the input of ANCs and relevant councilmembers, and then at the 11th hour switcheroo at the behest of shadowy interests that can’t legitimately claim to represent anyone beyond themselves.

This of course describes the Connecticut bike lane saga to a T, but also is exactly how things went down with several other non-transportation projects in my part of the city.

Some like the end result and so are inclined to defend Bowser or take issue with certain specifics, but no one should be able to argue with a straight face that this is what good municipal governance looks like. She is sowing division and completely undermining faith in the integrity in established structures for participatory governance. Of course, if you do not live in the District and don’t give a damn about anything in the city beyond the ease of your commute, I can understand why this wouldn’t bother you in the slightest.

Hopefully the city can find itself a radically better mayor in a couple of years and take a turn to becoming a better place for people to live, even at the cost of not being the most pleasurable of door mats for suburban commuters.

Bowser wanted ANC support for her voucher plan and the Chevy Chase Library and Small Area Plan. She used bike lanes to get that support and then dropped them because they weren't popular leaving the ANCs holding the bag for everything. The bike lane fiasco sucked up all the backlash and she succeeded.

Nothing about this proposal was an example of good governance. Always remember that it started as a seemingly innocuous discussion on whether or not to keep reversible lanes at rush hour.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I hardly ever drive on Connecticut and would almost certainly never bike there, bike lanes or not.

What annoys about this whole episode is that I’m noticing a pattern of behavior with Bowser where she will float controversial proposals, launch drawn-out batteries of community consultations which bitterly divide neighbors, allow these processes to run their course, create the illusion that the decision and concepts have been finalized on the basis of the input received through the official consultation processes and the input of ANCs and relevant councilmembers, and then at the 11th hour switcheroo at the behest of shadowy interests that can’t legitimately claim to represent anyone beyond themselves.

This of course describes the Connecticut bike lane saga to a T, but also is exactly how things went down with several other non-transportation projects in my part of the city.

Some like the end result and so are inclined to defend Bowser or take issue with certain specifics, but no one should be able to argue with a straight face that this is what good municipal governance looks like. She is sowing division and completely undermining faith in the integrity in established structures for participatory governance. Of course, if you do not live in the District and don’t give a damn about anything in the city beyond the ease of your commute, I can understand why this wouldn’t bother you in the slightest.

Hopefully the city can find itself a radically better mayor in a couple of years and take a turn to becoming a better place for people to live, even at the cost of not being the most pleasurable of door mats for suburban commuters.

Bowser wanted ANC support for her voucher plan and the Chevy Chase Library and Small Area Plan. She used bike lanes to get that support and then dropped them because they weren't popular leaving the ANCs holding the bag for everything. The bike lane fiasco sucked up all the backlash and she succeeded.

Nothing about this proposal was an example of good governance. Always remember that it started as a seemingly innocuous discussion on whether or not to keep reversible lanes at rush hour.

I see the anti-Bowser conspiracy theorist is back.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This article from the NYT on how e-bikes have made life more dangerous for pedestrians in New York. Shouldn’t Washington DC consider similar legislation/rules for e-bikes?

“[T]he explosion of e-bikes has also soured the way some New Yorkers view the streets.
“In the last three years there’s been an enormous shift,” said Susan Simon, who moved to New York in the late 1970s. “The quality of life has gone down.”

“The streets are very dangerous,” Simon continued. “What used to be a wonderful walking city for tourists, for pedestrians, has become something of a nightmare.”

Simon used to pedal a bike herself, for fun or to go to the grocery store. But e-bikes are different, she said — faster and heavier and therefore riskier. She noted that a woman was killed last year after someone riding an electric Citi Bike hit her.

There are some efforts to tame the chaos. Janet Schroeder and Pamela Manasse, who was hit by an electric vehicle in 2022 and suffered a severe brain injury, founded the NYC E-Vehicle Safety Alliance, which promotes various regulations for e-bikes.

The alliance supports a bill that would ban e-bikes and other e-vehicles from parks and greenways. It would also like the government to require that e-bikes be registered and riders licensed.”

I am a cycling advocate. I would support such limits for eBikes that can go over a certain speed. I would not be supportive of banning them from parks and greenways. Otherwise, one couldn't ride one in Rock Creek Park, either on the road or the path, which seems misguided.

I would also be for speed limiters for cars, so they could not exceed the posted speed limits.

Rock Creek Park was not created for use by motorized vehicles and their ban in the park would be far from misguided. It would bring the use of the park back to its true purpose.

The amount of carbrain idiocy in this thread is staggering.

You know what was bigger in the 1960's and 1970's? Kids riding bikes and walking to school.

You what wasn't bigger in the 1960's and 1970's? The kids themselves - childhood obesity rates were so low it was never considered a major concern - less than 5%. Today? ONE FIFTH to ONE FOURTH.

Jesus christ.

Why?

Because our roads are ridiculously dangerous.

SUVs and massive trucks. Distracted driving because of phones or texts. Too much speed. Too many cars.

A major dependence on automobile infrastructure has provided us with...

...massive increases in obesity rates across all age groups
...a huge amount of microplastic pollution from tires
...a ridiculous amount of money being dumped into road resurfacing constantly to fix all the potholes left by the increasingly heavier cars (electric vehicles are WORSE for this)
...noise pollution (hello mr. Dodge Challenger driver, or mr. I'm late for my dentist appt but stuck in this school drop off traffic-horn lay-er on-er)
...air pollution
...a money sink for a massive chunk of the average family's income into an asset that depreciates quickly and doesn't help build wealth (which btw is disproportionately felt by lower income families)
...a defunding of public services related to mobility like buses, trams, trains, etc because "no one is using these because they all drive" (while sticking buses and trolleys in traffic and then wondering why people don't use it).

We need all of our major streets in the city to be rethought. We need all of our streets in the city to consider multiple modes of transportation that *advantage* anything but a single-occupancy motor vehicle.

The amount of energy poured into blocking this bike lane by a bunch of people who have spent their whole lives happily driving automobiles and wanting to do so to the grave while their kids and kids' kids can deal with the consequences is absolutely absurd.

Like wtf. We have speed limiters on freaking stand on scooters in DC. But every freaking day the dozens or so of speed cameras are racking up hundreds of thousands of dollars in tickets (which many go unpaid because of VA and MD drivers just ignoring them) and there's not really any serious discussion about speed limiters on motor vehicles. Instead you carbrains are like - ah ITS THE EBIKES FAULT that our roads are so dangerous!!!

Oof. Imagine calling people idiots and then writing something like this and willingly posting it.

Typical anti-biker boomer response. You probably grew up riding a book to school. But now that you’re old and don’t have the energy for such physical exertion, you demand the right to the widest possible streets and an abundance of parking because what could possibly be more important than your own convenience? The inevitable consequences of further embedding car dependence - congestion, pollution, unnecessary deaths and injuries, squandering of resources and so on - are none of your concern for the likelihood of you being around here to experience what this all leads to in 10 to 20 years is slim to none. Of course, you lack the self-awareness to realize that this is what really going on but nonetheless come up a strange cognitive dissonance when anyone brings serious facts to the discussion. And so “Oof.” is about all you can muster by way of a response.

Not PP but whoever wrote this sounds like a kooky cult member. If you really want to make things safer for cyclists, diverting them to side streets would be a great idea. But safety is not your actual goal.

No, not really. A great idea is: Connecticut Avenue that is safe AND ALSO streets in the network around Connecticut Avenue that are safe. Also a simple idea, conceptually. Streets should be 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.

And yet only the minority of cyclists is asking local government to spend everyone’s tax dollars for their convenience. Cyclists are still out there without bike lanes. It is your choice to bicycle. If you feel unsafe riding near cars DON’T ride near cars. Problem solved instead of problem created.

And for all the people who pay taxes but down own or operate cars?

NP. Bus, metro, ride share, walk.

Biking is also a good option. Streets should be 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 can bike all you want just stop asking for things that are desired by few and opposed by many. Why do you feel your needs are more important than others?

The bike lanes have political support: The Mayor originally, all of the ANCs, the former councilmember and the current councilmember.
The bike lanes have broad residential support: as evidenced by the elections and the gathering of over 5,000 signatures in support since the Mayor changed her mind.

The opponents have a bunch of unvalidated signtures, mostly from Maryland Commuters, certainly far fewer in like two years of trying, than the proponents.

So just stop with the "opposed by many" because whatever the actual number of DC much less ward 3 residents oppose the bike lanes, many more support it.

Can I ask who are you posting this for and for what purpose?

I havent posted on here in a week, but there's a clear pattern of everytime a pro bike person makes a salient point, they are immediately responded to with off topic questions such as this to derail the fact they made an effective argument. I think at this point there's no point trying to convince to 2 - 3 anti bike trolls that are hovering over this page and we can call it a day. Hopefully, the Council was able to get the message through that the will of the people is for bike lanes on CT Ave and we can all move on with our lives.

I think you mixed up pro bike and anti bike. A pro bike person started the thread, and the pro bike people are the ones who jump in with what about cars every time someone makes a salient point about pedestrian safety and the fact that the pro bike are willing to sacrifice pedestrian safety for bike lanes, which won’t be safe for pedestrians without speed humps or elevated crosswalks in the bike lanes.

Someone posted an FHA doc up thread with design options. The "bend out" design makes everything safer for everyone. This isn't a technical problem, but a political one

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:At a press conference Tuesday, DC Council Chair Phil Mendelson said he removed the resolution from CM Charles Allen's Transportation Committee to stop safety measures on Connecticut Ave unless they include protected Bike lanes. Asked by the Wash Post reporter , Mendelson said the Council does not vote on bike plans in the budget and never has.

See the press conference at one hour 10 minutes

https://x.com/chmnmendelson/status/1795485600604401847?s=42 [x.com]

It's over. Bike lanes on Connecticut are dead.

Mendo steps in as the grown up once again.

He’s also the council member the bike bros and the density bros love to hate.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I hardly ever drive on Connecticut and would almost certainly never bike there, bike lanes or not.

What annoys about this whole episode is that I’m noticing a pattern of behavior with Bowser where she will float controversial proposals, launch drawn-out batteries of community consultations which bitterly divide neighbors, allow these processes to run their course, create the illusion that the decision and concepts have been finalized on the basis of the input received through the official consultation processes and the input of ANCs and relevant councilmembers, and then at the 11th hour switcheroo at the behest of shadowy interests that can’t legitimately claim to represent anyone beyond themselves.

This of course describes the Connecticut bike lane saga to a T, but also is exactly how things went down with several other non-transportation projects in my part of the city.

Some like the end result and so are inclined to defend Bowser or take issue with certain specifics, but no one should be able to argue with a straight face that this is what good municipal governance looks like. She is sowing division and completely undermining faith in the integrity in established structures for participatory governance. Of course, if you do not live in the District and don’t give a damn about anything in the city beyond the ease of your commute, I can understand why this wouldn’t bother you in the slightest.

Hopefully the city can find itself a radically better mayor in a couple of years and take a turn to becoming a better place for people to live, even at the cost of not being the most pleasurable of door mats for suburban commuters.

Bowser wanted ANC support for her voucher plan and the Chevy Chase Library and Small Area Plan. She used bike lanes to get that support and then dropped them because they weren't popular leaving the ANCs holding the bag for everything. The bike lane fiasco sucked up all the backlash and she succeeded.

Nothing about this proposal was an example of good governance. Always remember that it started as a seemingly innocuous discussion on whether or not to keep reversible lanes at rush hour.