Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://www.fox5dc.com/news/connecticut-avenue-bike-lane-plan-faces-opposition

They're eliminating two lanes on Connecticut freaking Avenue. That is honestly one of the stupidest decisions ever made by the DC Government.

Is it just me or is it totally insane to promote higher density while intentionally removing transportation infrastructure.

I could see removing a lane for a bus lane, but a bike lane is insane. CT Ave goes up a steep hill. I hear a lot about the Netherlands model. You know what the Netherlands doesn’t have? Hills. By all means turn the Old City, that’s mostly flat, into a bike utopia. This seems like an intentional plan to make upper CT an undesirable place to live which is consistent with other DC government behaviors, like the housing homeless in apartment buildings and hotels in the same area. I guess the plan is to intentionally impoverish the area so it can be redeveloped?

The city is intentionally making traffic worse because they think that will prompt people to switch to bikes. That's obviously ridiculous. People will just leave or stop going to parts of the city where it's hard to get around.

The idea that I am going to bike to the small businesses along CT Avenue is absurd. In a funny way, adding bike lanes will benefit suburban malls (which I historically have tried to avoid) as one can drive and park and do multiple errands.

A lot of DC stores rely on foot traffic. Bike lanes are one way to calm traffic so pedestrians are more likely to shop locally.

+1. I live near CT Ave and definitely will use local business more once it it easier to cross the street. Makes it much easier to pop into businesses if I can actually cross the street and not worry about getting hit by drivers. I highly doubt most commuters are stopping halfway through their commute to patronize DC businesses. I am much more likely to stop at a local business when I am walking than when I am driving

This is long overdue- DC has catered to people
Driving for far too long with the design of Connecticut - it is basically a death trap speedway through residential areas

Nonsense. I likewise live near CT Ave and regularly cross it for a wide variety of reasons. Have had no issues. Turning lanes into bike lanes will simply drive cars into the residential neighborhoods, which is far more dangerous to pedestrians than CT Ave. And no business on CT Ave relies solely on residents within easy walking distance. All of those businesses depend in part on drivers who park nearby and access the business. If accessing these businesses (particularly on Upper Avenue) becomes too difficult, then residents will simply use the Maryland based businesses. And, of course, given DC's dependence on white collar workers, and given that most can work from home at least several days a week, DC will simply encourage suburbanites to work from home even more. Why hassle with the drive and parking? Downtown businesses and restaurans then lose out. And eventually some of those businesses will leave DC, though some may retain a DC mailing address.

Nonsense - almost all of the pedestrian fatalities in DC happen on the major roads including 3 in the past 6 months on Upper Connecticut. Which isn't a surprise because that is where all the traffic and pedestrians are and the roads are also engineered for much higher speeds.

And what until you see all of the protected bike lanes that are being put in in downtown Bethesda and Silver Spring.

Driving and parking should be a hassle - it is better for everyone if we do less of it and the DC neighborhoods where those things are most difficult are also its most vibrant.

Ha! This is such lunacy. This is how you strangle a city. Make it impossible for people to move around. This will just Balkanize the city. People won't leave their little neighborhoods because it will be too much hassle or they'll flow into areas where it's easier to get around.

DC has been anti car since the 90s (side note that's when they started being anti kid/family as well) and the city hasn't strangled itself

DC is weird because many parts of the"city limits" are SFH neighborhoods including most of upper NW. To that end it doesn't make sense to do urban design in a suburban area.

DC was lucky to catch a generational millennial wave. Moving poor Black families out to replace with young, single white professionals is not a viable long term growth strategy. Being anti-kid will end up hurting the city long term, particularly as this millennial wave looks to form families. The millennials are trying hard to turn the city suburban, effectively turning neighborhoods into cul de sacs. This can never be effective in a city and will end with the families eventually leaving and a destroyed city in the process.

Cities are places where people, goods and services are to come together. That’s why most cities are located on important trade corridors where transportation is facilitated. People that want to end circulation in cities want to end the key role and purpose of cities. It’s really weird thinking how people who grew up in suburbs fetishizing cities are now trying to replicate the suburban experience in the city. Totally crazy.

It won’t hurt the city. People with kids will move and take the cost of educating those kids with them to their new houses. Those people will be replaced by other people without kids. DC’s only risk is if childless millennials start annoying themselves.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://www.fox5dc.com/news/connecticut-avenue-bike-lane-plan-faces-opposition

They're eliminating two lanes on Connecticut freaking Avenue. That is honestly one of the stupidest decisions ever made by the DC Government.

Is it just me or is it totally insane to promote higher density while intentionally removing transportation infrastructure.

I could see removing a lane for a bus lane, but a bike lane is insane. CT Ave goes up a steep hill. I hear a lot about the Netherlands model. You know what the Netherlands doesn’t have? Hills. By all means turn the Old City, that’s mostly flat, into a bike utopia. This seems like an intentional plan to make upper CT an undesirable place to live which is consistent with other DC government behaviors, like the housing homeless in apartment buildings and hotels in the same area. I guess the plan is to intentionally impoverish the area so it can be redeveloped?

The city is intentionally making traffic worse because they think that will prompt people to switch to bikes. That's obviously ridiculous. People will just leave or stop going to parts of the city where it's hard to get around.

The idea that I am going to bike to the small businesses along CT Avenue is absurd. In a funny way, adding bike lanes will benefit suburban malls (which I historically have tried to avoid) as one can drive and park and do multiple errands.

If we're going to argue entirely by first-person anecdote, I will chime in to say that I routinely bike to small businesses on Connecticut and Wisconsin avenues, because errands within two miles of my house are the perfect thing to bike to instead of driving.

The bigger issue is that tens of thousands of people use these roads every day. How many people use these bike lanes? Some of these lanes aren't even used by 10 people a day.

I don't know if we have data that shows that bike lanes are used by fewer than 10 people a day. When I bike to work along Connecticut, I usually see more than 10 other people on bikes just when I'm on the road, so I can guarantee that a bike lane there would get more use than that.

There's no question that thousands of people use that road every day. But are we sure that two lanes in each direction, with protected bike lanes, will lead to significantly less use of the road by drivers than the reversible lanes and the parking? Some tradeoff that makes the roads safer and more usable for non-drivers but still leaves most cars able to use the road as they currently do would surely be OK, no? Or is your argument that anything that delays a driver's commute by, say, 4 minutes in total is unacceptable?

We don’t know how many people use bike lanes because DDOT conveniently stopped recording data at many of them and doesn’t install bike counters at new bike lanes. If one were a conspiracy theorist…

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://www.fox5dc.com/news/connecticut-avenue-bike-lane-plan-faces-opposition

They're eliminating two lanes on Connecticut freaking Avenue. That is honestly one of the stupidest decisions ever made by the DC Government.

Is it just me or is it totally insane to promote higher density while intentionally removing transportation infrastructure.

I could see removing a lane for a bus lane, but a bike lane is insane. CT Ave goes up a steep hill. I hear a lot about the Netherlands model. You know what the Netherlands doesn’t have? Hills. By all means turn the Old City, that’s mostly flat, into a bike utopia. This seems like an intentional plan to make upper CT an undesirable place to live which is consistent with other DC government behaviors, like the housing homeless in apartment buildings and hotels in the same area. I guess the plan is to intentionally impoverish the area so it can be redeveloped?

The city is intentionally making traffic worse because they think that will prompt people to switch to bikes. That's obviously ridiculous. People will just leave or stop going to parts of the city where it's hard to get around.

The idea that I am going to bike to the small businesses along CT Avenue is absurd. In a funny way, adding bike lanes will benefit suburban malls (which I historically have tried to avoid) as one can drive and park and do multiple errands.

If we're going to argue entirely by first-person anecdote, I will chime in to say that I routinely bike to small businesses on Connecticut and Wisconsin avenues, because errands within two miles of my house are the perfect thing to bike to instead of driving.

The bigger issue is that tens of thousands of people use these roads every day. How many people use these bike lanes? Some of these lanes aren't even used by 10 people a day.

I don't know if we have data that shows that bike lanes are used by fewer than 10 people a day. When I bike to work along Connecticut, I usually see more than 10 other people on bikes just when I'm on the road, so I can guarantee that a bike lane there would get more use than that.

There's no question that thousands of people use that road every day. But are we sure that two lanes in each direction, with protected bike lanes, will lead to significantly less use of the road by drivers than the reversible lanes and the parking? Some tradeoff that makes the roads safer and more usable for non-drivers but still leaves most cars able to use the road as they currently do would surely be OK, no? Or is your argument that anything that delays a driver's commute by, say, 4 minutes in total is unacceptable?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://www.fox5dc.com/news/connecticut-avenue-bike-lane-plan-faces-opposition

They're eliminating two lanes on Connecticut freaking Avenue. That is honestly one of the stupidest decisions ever made by the DC Government.

Is it just me or is it totally insane to promote higher density while intentionally removing transportation infrastructure.

I could see removing a lane for a bus lane, but a bike lane is insane. CT Ave goes up a steep hill. I hear a lot about the Netherlands model. You know what the Netherlands doesn’t have? Hills. By all means turn the Old City, that’s mostly flat, into a bike utopia. This seems like an intentional plan to make upper CT an undesirable place to live which is consistent with other DC government behaviors, like the housing homeless in apartment buildings and hotels in the same area. I guess the plan is to intentionally impoverish the area so it can be redeveloped?

The city is intentionally making traffic worse because they think that will prompt people to switch to bikes. That's obviously ridiculous. People will just leave or stop going to parts of the city where it's hard to get around.

The idea that I am going to bike to the small businesses along CT Avenue is absurd. In a funny way, adding bike lanes will benefit suburban malls (which I historically have tried to avoid) as one can drive and park and do multiple errands.

A lot of DC stores rely on foot traffic. Bike lanes are one way to calm traffic so pedestrians are more likely to shop locally.

+1. I live near CT Ave and definitely will use local business more once it it easier to cross the street. Makes it much easier to pop into businesses if I can actually cross the street and not worry about getting hit by drivers. I highly doubt most commuters are stopping halfway through their commute to patronize DC businesses. I am much more likely to stop at a local business when I am walking than when I am driving

This is long overdue- DC has catered to people
Driving for far too long with the design of Connecticut - it is basically a death trap speedway through residential areas

Nonsense. I likewise live near CT Ave and regularly cross it for a wide variety of reasons. Have had no issues. Turning lanes into bike lanes will simply drive cars into the residential neighborhoods, which is far more dangerous to pedestrians than CT Ave. And no business on CT Ave relies solely on residents within easy walking distance. All of those businesses depend in part on drivers who park nearby and access the business. If accessing these businesses (particularly on Upper Avenue) becomes too difficult, then residents will simply use the Maryland based businesses. And, of course, given DC's dependence on white collar workers, and given that most can work from home at least several days a week, DC will simply encourage suburbanites to work from home even more. Why hassle with the drive and parking? Downtown businesses and restaurans then lose out. And eventually some of those businesses will leave DC, though some may retain a DC mailing address.

Nonsense - almost all of the pedestrian fatalities in DC happen on the major roads including 3 in the past 6 months on Upper Connecticut. Which isn't a surprise because that is where all the traffic and pedestrians are and the roads are also engineered for much higher speeds.

And what until you see all of the protected bike lanes that are being put in in downtown Bethesda and Silver Spring.

Driving and parking should be a hassle - it is better for everyone if we do less of it and the DC neighborhoods where those things are most difficult are also its most vibrant.

Ha! This is such lunacy. This is how you strangle a city. Make it impossible for people to move around. This will just Balkanize the city. People won't leave their little neighborhoods because it will be too much hassle or they'll flow into areas where it's easier to get around.

DC has been anti car since the 90s (side note that's when they started being anti kid/family as well) and the city hasn't strangled itself

DC is weird because many parts of the"city limits" are SFH neighborhoods including most of upper NW. To that end it doesn't make sense to do urban design in a suburban area.

DC was lucky to catch a generational millennial wave. Moving poor Black families out to replace with young, single white professionals is not a viable long term growth strategy. Being anti-kid will end up hurting the city long term, particularly as this millennial wave looks to form families. The millennials are trying hard to turn the city suburban, effectively turning neighborhoods into cul de sacs. This can never be effective in a city and will end with the families eventually leaving and a destroyed city in the process.

Cities are places where people, goods and services are to come together. That’s why most cities are located on important trade corridors where transportation is facilitated. People that want to end circulation in cities want to end the key role and purpose of cities. It’s really weird thinking how people who grew up in suburbs fetishizing cities are now trying to replicate the suburban experience in the city. Totally crazy.

It won’t hurt the city. People with kids will move and take the cost of educating those kids with them to their new houses. Those people will be replaced by other people without kids. DC’s only risk is if childless millennials start annoying themselves.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://www.fox5dc.com/news/connecticut-avenue-bike-lane-plan-faces-opposition

They're eliminating two lanes on Connecticut freaking Avenue. That is honestly one of the stupidest decisions ever made by the DC Government.

Is it just me or is it totally insane to promote higher density while intentionally removing transportation infrastructure.

I could see removing a lane for a bus lane, but a bike lane is insane. CT Ave goes up a steep hill. I hear a lot about the Netherlands model. You know what the Netherlands doesn’t have? Hills. By all means turn the Old City, that’s mostly flat, into a bike utopia. This seems like an intentional plan to make upper CT an undesirable place to live which is consistent with other DC government behaviors, like the housing homeless in apartment buildings and hotels in the same area. I guess the plan is to intentionally impoverish the area so it can be redeveloped?

The city is intentionally making traffic worse because they think that will prompt people to switch to bikes. That's obviously ridiculous. People will just leave or stop going to parts of the city where it's hard to get around.

The idea that I am going to bike to the small businesses along CT Avenue is absurd. In a funny way, adding bike lanes will benefit suburban malls (which I historically have tried to avoid) as one can drive and park and do multiple errands.

If we're going to argue entirely by first-person anecdote, I will chime in to say that I routinely bike to small businesses on Connecticut and Wisconsin avenues, because errands within two miles of my house are the perfect thing to bike to instead of driving.

The bigger issue is that tens of thousands of people use these roads every day. How many people use these bike lanes? Some of these lanes aren't even used by 10 people a day.

I don't know if we have data that shows that bike lanes are used by fewer than 10 people a day. When I bike to work along Connecticut, I usually see more than 10 other people on bikes just when I'm on the road, so I can guarantee that a bike lane there would get more use than that.

There's no question that thousands of people use that road every day. But are we sure that two lanes in each direction, with protected bike lanes, will lead to significantly less use of the road by drivers than the reversible lanes and the parking? Some tradeoff that makes the roads safer and more usable for non-drivers but still leaves most cars able to use the road as they currently do would surely be OK, no? Or is your argument that anything that delays a driver's commute by, say, 4 minutes in total is unacceptable?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://www.fox5dc.com/news/connecticut-avenue-bike-lane-plan-faces-opposition

They're eliminating two lanes on Connecticut freaking Avenue. That is honestly one of the stupidest decisions ever made by the DC Government.

Is it just me or is it totally insane to promote higher density while intentionally removing transportation infrastructure.

I could see removing a lane for a bus lane, but a bike lane is insane. CT Ave goes up a steep hill. I hear a lot about the Netherlands model. You know what the Netherlands doesn’t have? Hills. By all means turn the Old City, that’s mostly flat, into a bike utopia. This seems like an intentional plan to make upper CT an undesirable place to live which is consistent with other DC government behaviors, like the housing homeless in apartment buildings and hotels in the same area. I guess the plan is to intentionally impoverish the area so it can be redeveloped?

The city is intentionally making traffic worse because they think that will prompt people to switch to bikes. That's obviously ridiculous. People will just leave or stop going to parts of the city where it's hard to get around.

The idea that I am going to bike to the small businesses along CT Avenue is absurd. In a funny way, adding bike lanes will benefit suburban malls (which I historically have tried to avoid) as one can drive and park and do multiple errands.

A lot of DC stores rely on foot traffic. Bike lanes are one way to calm traffic so pedestrians are more likely to shop locally.

+1. I live near CT Ave and definitely will use local business more once it it easier to cross the street. Makes it much easier to pop into businesses if I can actually cross the street and not worry about getting hit by drivers. I highly doubt most commuters are stopping halfway through their commute to patronize DC businesses. I am much more likely to stop at a local business when I am walking than when I am driving

This is long overdue- DC has catered to people
Driving for far too long with the design of Connecticut - it is basically a death trap speedway through residential areas

Nonsense. I likewise live near CT Ave and regularly cross it for a wide variety of reasons. Have had no issues. Turning lanes into bike lanes will simply drive cars into the residential neighborhoods, which is far more dangerous to pedestrians than CT Ave. And no business on CT Ave relies solely on residents within easy walking distance. All of those businesses depend in part on drivers who park nearby and access the business. If accessing these businesses (particularly on Upper Avenue) becomes too difficult, then residents will simply use the Maryland based businesses. And, of course, given DC's dependence on white collar workers, and given that most can work from home at least several days a week, DC will simply encourage suburbanites to work from home even more. Why hassle with the drive and parking? Downtown businesses and restaurans then lose out. And eventually some of those businesses will leave DC, though some may retain a DC mailing address.

Nonsense - almost all of the pedestrian fatalities in DC happen on the major roads including 3 in the past 6 months on Upper Connecticut. Which isn't a surprise because that is where all the traffic and pedestrians are and the roads are also engineered for much higher speeds.

And what until you see all of the protected bike lanes that are being put in in downtown Bethesda and Silver Spring.

Driving and parking should be a hassle - it is better for everyone if we do less of it and the DC neighborhoods where those things are most difficult are also its most vibrant.

Ha! This is such lunacy. This is how you strangle a city. Make it impossible for people to move around. This will just Balkanize the city. People won't leave their little neighborhoods because it will be too much hassle or they'll flow into areas where it's easier to get around.

DC has been anti car since the 90s (side note that's when they started being anti kid/family as well) and the city hasn't strangled itself

DC is weird because many parts of the"city limits" are SFH neighborhoods including most of upper NW. To that end it doesn't make sense to do urban design in a suburban area.

DC was lucky to catch a generational millennial wave. Moving poor Black families out to replace with young, single white professionals is not a viable long term growth strategy. Being anti-kid will end up hurting the city long term, particularly as this millennial wave looks to form families. The millennials are trying hard to turn the city suburban, effectively turning neighborhoods into cul de sacs. This can never be effective in a city and will end with the families eventually leaving and a destroyed city in the process.

Cities are places where people, goods and services are to come together. That’s why most cities are located on important trade corridors where transportation is facilitated. People that want to end circulation in cities want to end the key role and purpose of cities. It’s really weird thinking how people who grew up in suburbs fetishizing cities are now trying to replicate the suburban experience in the city. Totally crazy.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://www.fox5dc.com/news/connecticut-avenue-bike-lane-plan-faces-opposition

They're eliminating two lanes on Connecticut freaking Avenue. That is honestly one of the stupidest decisions ever made by the DC Government.

Is it just me or is it totally insane to promote higher density while intentionally removing transportation infrastructure.

I could see removing a lane for a bus lane, but a bike lane is insane. CT Ave goes up a steep hill. I hear a lot about the Netherlands model. You know what the Netherlands doesn’t have? Hills. By all means turn the Old City, that’s mostly flat, into a bike utopia. This seems like an intentional plan to make upper CT an undesirable place to live which is consistent with other DC government behaviors, like the housing homeless in apartment buildings and hotels in the same area. I guess the plan is to intentionally impoverish the area so it can be redeveloped?

The city is intentionally making traffic worse because they think that will prompt people to switch to bikes. That's obviously ridiculous. People will just leave or stop going to parts of the city where it's hard to get around.

The idea that I am going to bike to the small businesses along CT Avenue is absurd. In a funny way, adding bike lanes will benefit suburban malls (which I historically have tried to avoid) as one can drive and park and do multiple errands.

A lot of DC stores rely on foot traffic. Bike lanes are one way to calm traffic so pedestrians are more likely to shop locally.

+1. I live near CT Ave and definitely will use local business more once it it easier to cross the street. Makes it much easier to pop into businesses if I can actually cross the street and not worry about getting hit by drivers. I highly doubt most commuters are stopping halfway through their commute to patronize DC businesses. I am much more likely to stop at a local business when I am walking than when I am driving

This is long overdue- DC has catered to people
Driving for far too long with the design of Connecticut - it is basically a death trap speedway through residential areas

Nonsense. I likewise live near CT Ave and regularly cross it for a wide variety of reasons. Have had no issues. Turning lanes into bike lanes will simply drive cars into the residential neighborhoods, which is far more dangerous to pedestrians than CT Ave. And no business on CT Ave relies solely on residents within easy walking distance. All of those businesses depend in part on drivers who park nearby and access the business. If accessing these businesses (particularly on Upper Avenue) becomes too difficult, then residents will simply use the Maryland based businesses. And, of course, given DC's dependence on white collar workers, and given that most can work from home at least several days a week, DC will simply encourage suburbanites to work from home even more. Why hassle with the drive and parking? Downtown businesses and restaurans then lose out. And eventually some of those businesses will leave DC, though some may retain a DC mailing address.

Nonsense - almost all of the pedestrian fatalities in DC happen on the major roads including 3 in the past 6 months on Upper Connecticut. Which isn't a surprise because that is where all the traffic and pedestrians are and the roads are also engineered for much higher speeds.

And what until you see all of the protected bike lanes that are being put in in downtown Bethesda and Silver Spring.

Driving and parking should be a hassle - it is better for everyone if we do less of it and the DC neighborhoods where those things are most difficult are also its most vibrant.

Ha! This is such lunacy. This is how you strangle a city. Make it impossible for people to move around. This will just Balkanize the city. People won't leave their little neighborhoods because it will be too much hassle or they'll flow into areas where it's easier to get around.

DC has been anti car since the 90s (side note that's when they started being anti kid/family as well) and the city hasn't strangled itself

DC is weird because many parts of the"city limits" are SFH neighborhoods including most of upper NW. To that end it doesn't make sense to do urban design in a suburban area.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://www.fox5dc.com/news/connecticut-avenue-bike-lane-plan-faces-opposition

They're eliminating two lanes on Connecticut freaking Avenue. That is honestly one of the stupidest decisions ever made by the DC Government.

Is it just me or is it totally insane to promote higher density while intentionally removing transportation infrastructure.

I could see removing a lane for a bus lane, but a bike lane is insane. CT Ave goes up a steep hill. I hear a lot about the Netherlands model. You know what the Netherlands doesn’t have? Hills. By all means turn the Old City, that’s mostly flat, into a bike utopia. This seems like an intentional plan to make upper CT an undesirable place to live which is consistent with other DC government behaviors, like the housing homeless in apartment buildings and hotels in the same area. I guess the plan is to intentionally impoverish the area so it can be redeveloped?

The city is intentionally making traffic worse because they think that will prompt people to switch to bikes. That's obviously ridiculous. People will just leave or stop going to parts of the city where it's hard to get around.

The idea that I am going to bike to the small businesses along CT Avenue is absurd. In a funny way, adding bike lanes will benefit suburban malls (which I historically have tried to avoid) as one can drive and park and do multiple errands.

If we're going to argue entirely by first-person anecdote, I will chime in to say that I routinely bike to small businesses on Connecticut and Wisconsin avenues, because errands within two miles of my house are the perfect thing to bike to instead of driving.

The bigger issue is that tens of thousands of people use these roads every day. How many people use these bike lanes? Some of these lanes aren't even used by 10 people a day.

I don't know if we have data that shows that bike lanes are used by fewer than 10 people a day. When I bike to work along Connecticut, I usually see more than 10 other people on bikes just when I'm on the road, so I can guarantee that a bike lane there would get more use than that.

There's no question that thousands of people use that road every day. But are we sure that two lanes in each direction, with protected bike lanes, will lead to significantly less use of the road by drivers than the reversible lanes and the parking? Some tradeoff that makes the roads safer and more usable for non-drivers but still leaves most cars able to use the road as they currently do would surely be OK, no? Or is your argument that anything that delays a driver's commute by, say, 4 minutes in total is unacceptable?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://www.fox5dc.com/news/connecticut-avenue-bike-lane-plan-faces-opposition

They're eliminating two lanes on Connecticut freaking Avenue. That is honestly one of the stupidest decisions ever made by the DC Government.

Is it just me or is it totally insane to promote higher density while intentionally removing transportation infrastructure.

I could see removing a lane for a bus lane, but a bike lane is insane. CT Ave goes up a steep hill. I hear a lot about the Netherlands model. You know what the Netherlands doesn’t have? Hills. By all means turn the Old City, that’s mostly flat, into a bike utopia. This seems like an intentional plan to make upper CT an undesirable place to live which is consistent with other DC government behaviors, like the housing homeless in apartment buildings and hotels in the same area. I guess the plan is to intentionally impoverish the area so it can be redeveloped?

The city is intentionally making traffic worse because they think that will prompt people to switch to bikes. That's obviously ridiculous. People will just leave or stop going to parts of the city where it's hard to get around.

Not to mention the fact that there is no chance anyone in the bike lanes is going to stop for a pedestrian regardless of what the law is or what color traffic lights are.
The idea that I am going to bike to the small businesses along CT Avenue is absurd. In a funny way, adding bike lanes will benefit suburban malls (which I historically have tried to avoid) as one can drive and park and do multiple errands.

If we're going to argue entirely by first-person anecdote, I will chime in to say that I routinely bike to small businesses on Connecticut and Wisconsin avenues, because errands within two miles of my house are the perfect thing to bike to instead of driving.

The bigger issue is that tens of thousands of people use these roads every day. How many people use these bike lanes? Some of these lanes aren't even used by 10 people a day.

30,000 use this road each day
DDOT estimates that 7,000 of them will start using the side streets instead
In addition, the 2 lanes in each direction will frequently become 1 lane because of left hand turns and deliveries.

It will be harder to cross the street because of the increased vehicle density and less safe to walk because of the massively increased residential traffic. Everyone loses under this plan.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://www.fox5dc.com/news/connecticut-avenue-bike-lane-plan-faces-opposition

They're eliminating two lanes on Connecticut freaking Avenue. That is honestly one of the stupidest decisions ever made by the DC Government.

Is it just me or is it totally insane to promote higher density while intentionally removing transportation infrastructure.

I could see removing a lane for a bus lane, but a bike lane is insane. CT Ave goes up a steep hill. I hear a lot about the Netherlands model. You know what the Netherlands doesn’t have? Hills. By all means turn the Old City, that’s mostly flat, into a bike utopia. This seems like an intentional plan to make upper CT an undesirable place to live which is consistent with other DC government behaviors, like the housing homeless in apartment buildings and hotels in the same area. I guess the plan is to intentionally impoverish the area so it can be redeveloped?

The city is intentionally making traffic worse because they think that will prompt people to switch to bikes. That's obviously ridiculous. People will just leave or stop going to parts of the city where it's hard to get around.

The idea that I am going to bike to the small businesses along CT Avenue is absurd. In a funny way, adding bike lanes will benefit suburban malls (which I historically have tried to avoid) as one can drive and park and do multiple errands.

If we're going to argue entirely by first-person anecdote, I will chime in to say that I routinely bike to small businesses on Connecticut and Wisconsin avenues, because errands within two miles of my house are the perfect thing to bike to instead of driving.

The bigger issue is that tens of thousands of people use these roads every day. How many people use these bike lanes? Some of these lanes aren't even used by 10 people a day.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://www.fox5dc.com/news/connecticut-avenue-bike-lane-plan-faces-opposition

They're eliminating two lanes on Connecticut freaking Avenue. That is honestly one of the stupidest decisions ever made by the DC Government.

Is it just me or is it totally insane to promote higher density while intentionally removing transportation infrastructure.

I could see removing a lane for a bus lane, but a bike lane is insane. CT Ave goes up a steep hill. I hear a lot about the Netherlands model. You know what the Netherlands doesn’t have? Hills. By all means turn the Old City, that’s mostly flat, into a bike utopia. This seems like an intentional plan to make upper CT an undesirable place to live which is consistent with other DC government behaviors, like the housing homeless in apartment buildings and hotels in the same area. I guess the plan is to intentionally impoverish the area so it can be redeveloped?

The city is intentionally making traffic worse because they think that will prompt people to switch to bikes. That's obviously ridiculous. People will just leave or stop going to parts of the city where it's hard to get around.

The idea that I am going to bike to the small businesses along CT Avenue is absurd. In a funny way, adding bike lanes will benefit suburban malls (which I historically have tried to avoid) as one can drive and park and do multiple errands.

If we're going to argue entirely by first-person anecdote, I will chime in to say that I routinely bike to small businesses on Connecticut and Wisconsin avenues, because errands within two miles of my house are the perfect thing to bike to instead of driving.

The bigger issue is that tens of thousands of people use these roads every day. How many people use these bike lanes? Some of these lanes aren't even used by 10 people a day.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://www.fox5dc.com/news/connecticut-avenue-bike-lane-plan-faces-opposition

They're eliminating two lanes on Connecticut freaking Avenue. That is honestly one of the stupidest decisions ever made by the DC Government.

Is it just me or is it totally insane to promote higher density while intentionally removing transportation infrastructure.

I could see removing a lane for a bus lane, but a bike lane is insane. CT Ave goes up a steep hill. I hear a lot about the Netherlands model. You know what the Netherlands doesn’t have? Hills. By all means turn the Old City, that’s mostly flat, into a bike utopia. This seems like an intentional plan to make upper CT an undesirable place to live which is consistent with other DC government behaviors, like the housing homeless in apartment buildings and hotels in the same area. I guess the plan is to intentionally impoverish the area so it can be redeveloped?

The city is intentionally making traffic worse because they think that will prompt people to switch to bikes. That's obviously ridiculous. People will just leave or stop going to parts of the city where it's hard to get around.

The idea that I am going to bike to the small businesses along CT Avenue is absurd. In a funny way, adding bike lanes will benefit suburban malls (which I historically have tried to avoid) as one can drive and park and do multiple errands.

If we're going to argue entirely by first-person anecdote, I will chime in to say that I routinely bike to small businesses on Connecticut and Wisconsin avenues, because errands within two miles of my house are the perfect thing to bike to instead of driving.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://www.fox5dc.com/news/connecticut-avenue-bike-lane-plan-faces-opposition

They're eliminating two lanes on Connecticut freaking Avenue. That is honestly one of the stupidest decisions ever made by the DC Government.

Is it just me or is it totally insane to promote higher density while intentionally removing transportation infrastructure.

I could see removing a lane for a bus lane, but a bike lane is insane. CT Ave goes up a steep hill. I hear a lot about the Netherlands model. You know what the Netherlands doesn’t have? Hills. By all means turn the Old City, that’s mostly flat, into a bike utopia. This seems like an intentional plan to make upper CT an undesirable place to live which is consistent with other DC government behaviors, like the housing homeless in apartment buildings and hotels in the same area. I guess the plan is to intentionally impoverish the area so it can be redeveloped?

The city is intentionally making traffic worse because they think that will prompt people to switch to bikes. That's obviously ridiculous. People will just leave or stop going to parts of the city where it's hard to get around.

The idea that I am going to bike to the small businesses along CT Avenue is absurd. In a funny way, adding bike lanes will benefit suburban malls (which I historically have tried to avoid) as one can drive and park and do multiple errands.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://www.fox5dc.com/news/connecticut-avenue-bike-lane-plan-faces-opposition

They're eliminating two lanes on Connecticut freaking Avenue. That is honestly one of the stupidest decisions ever made by the DC Government.

Is it just me or is it totally insane to promote higher density while intentionally removing transportation infrastructure.

I could see removing a lane for a bus lane, but a bike lane is insane. CT Ave goes up a steep hill. I hear a lot about the Netherlands model. You know what the Netherlands doesn’t have? Hills. By all means turn the Old City, that’s mostly flat, into a bike utopia. This seems like an intentional plan to make upper CT an undesirable place to live which is consistent with other DC government behaviors, like the housing homeless in apartment buildings and hotels in the same area. I guess the plan is to intentionally impoverish the area so it can be redeveloped?

The city is intentionally making traffic worse because they think that will prompt people to switch to bikes. That's obviously ridiculous. People will just leave or stop going to parts of the city where it's hard to get around.

The idea that I am going to bike to the small businesses along CT Avenue is absurd. In a funny way, adding bike lanes will benefit suburban malls (which I historically have tried to avoid) as one can drive and park and do multiple errands.

A lot of DC stores rely on foot traffic. Bike lanes are one way to calm traffic so pedestrians are more likely to shop locally.

+1. I live near CT Ave and definitely will use local business more once it it easier to cross the street. Makes it much easier to pop into businesses if I can actually cross the street and not worry about getting hit by drivers. I highly doubt most commuters are stopping halfway through their commute to patronize DC businesses. I am much more likely to stop at a local business when I am walking than when I am driving

This is long overdue- DC has catered to people
Driving for far too long with the design of Connecticut - it is basically a death trap speedway through residential areas

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://www.fox5dc.com/news/connecticut-avenue-bike-lane-plan-faces-opposition

They're eliminating two lanes on Connecticut freaking Avenue. That is honestly one of the stupidest decisions ever made by the DC Government.

Is it just me or is it totally insane to promote higher density while intentionally removing transportation infrastructure.

I could see removing a lane for a bus lane, but a bike lane is insane. CT Ave goes up a steep hill. I hear a lot about the Netherlands model. You know what the Netherlands doesn’t have? Hills. By all means turn the Old City, that’s mostly flat, into a bike utopia. This seems like an intentional plan to make upper CT an undesirable place to live which is consistent with other DC government behaviors, like the housing homeless in apartment buildings and hotels in the same area. I guess the plan is to intentionally impoverish the area so it can be redeveloped?

The city is intentionally making traffic worse because they think that will prompt people to switch to bikes. That's obviously ridiculous. People will just leave or stop going to parts of the city where it's hard to get around.

The idea that I am going to bike to the small businesses along CT Avenue is absurd. In a funny way, adding bike lanes will benefit suburban malls (which I historically have tried to avoid) as one can drive and park and do multiple errands.

A lot of DC stores rely on foot traffic. Bike lanes are one way to calm traffic so pedestrians are more likely to shop locally.

+1. I live near CT Ave and definitely will use local business more once it it easier to cross the street. Makes it much easier to pop into businesses if I can actually cross the street and not worry about getting hit by drivers. I highly doubt most commuters are stopping halfway through their commute to patronize DC businesses. I am much more likely to stop at a local business when I am walking than when I am driving

This is long overdue- DC has catered to people
Driving for far too long with the design of Connecticut - it is basically a death trap speedway through residential areas

Nonsense. I likewise live near CT Ave and regularly cross it for a wide variety of reasons. Have had no issues. Turning lanes into bike lanes will simply drive cars into the residential neighborhoods, which is far more dangerous to pedestrians than CT Ave. And no business on CT Ave relies solely on residents within easy walking distance. All of those businesses depend in part on drivers who park nearby and access the business. If accessing these businesses (particularly on Upper Avenue) becomes too difficult, then residents will simply use the Maryland based businesses. And, of course, given DC's dependence on white collar workers, and given that most can work from home at least several days a week, DC will simply encourage suburbanites to work from home even more. Why hassle with the drive and parking? Downtown businesses and restaurans then lose out. And eventually some of those businesses will leave DC, though some may retain a DC mailing address.

Nonsense - almost all of the pedestrian fatalities in DC happen on the major roads including 3 in the past 6 months on Upper Connecticut. Which isn't a surprise because that is where all the traffic and pedestrians are and the roads are also engineered for much higher speeds.

And what until you see all of the protected bike lanes that are being put in in downtown Bethesda and Silver Spring.

Driving and parking should be a hassle - it is better for everyone if we do less of it and the DC neighborhoods where those things are most difficult are also its most vibrant.

Ha! This is such lunacy. This is how you strangle a city. Make it impossible for people to move around. This will just Balkanize the city. People won't leave their little neighborhoods because it will be too much hassle or they'll flow into areas where it's easier to get around.

This is the objective. It is desirable to make people stay where they are and not move around.