Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Interesting.

DDOT said the configuration:

-will not impede emergency vehicles
-will not be an issue as an evacuation route
-will not impact "cut through" traffic


So basically everything the project opponents claimed was a lie. They just didn't want bike lanes, even if the proposed solution is worse, which it is.

I guess that is a win?

Did anyone ever think this was about anything other than parking?

Hell hath no fury quite like an Upper NW boomer threatened with the loss of his parking space.

Or, as Mary Cheh was fond of saying, all politics are local and all local politics is parking.

They kept their parking spaces so, yes, for them it’s a win.

Connecticut Ave will go on a road diet, just not with bike lanes. Curb extensions will reduce the distance that pedestrians, particularly elderly residents and kids, need to cross at certain intersections. So Connecticut will be safer, which was what Safer Connecticut Avenue wanted. DDOT seems to be leaning to another north-south bike lane route, like Reno Road.

The basic difference between what is proposed and "Option C" is an additional lane for parking.

The downside here is that without a facility for bikes, scooters etc, and with buses using the right side travel lane, it will be a mess because cars will be stuck behind both the cyclists and the buses, killing any throughput advantage that might have been gained with bike lanes.

The pedestrain safety components are roughly the same.

And Reno Road as an alternative is a non-starter. Too narrow and hilly, with no obvious destinations. You will still have cyclists using ConnAve because that is where the shops, library etc are located.

There aren't enough bicylists to matter. There is no throughput advantage to bike lanes.

There could be a million cyclists and it still wouldn't matter to you.

There could be a million bicyclists and they would still insist they didn't see any.

My opinion is irrelevent. The simple fact of the matter is that there aren't millions, thousands, or even hundreds of bicyclists on Connecticut Ave.

I am not sure there are even dozens of bicyclists on the Avenue each day. Not from my experience.

there would be SO MANY if bike lanes got put in, especially people taking citi bikes and scooters to and from the Zoo, too and from metro.

So instead of walking from the metro they are going to shuttle 15 citibikes up and down 3 blocks? How does that help anything? It costs more money, takes more time, increases traffic, is worse exercise, has a higher carbon footprint and is logistically impossible for a group size greater than 10.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Interesting.

DDOT said the configuration:

-will not impede emergency vehicles
-will not be an issue as an evacuation route
-will not impact "cut through" traffic


So basically everything the project opponents claimed was a lie. They just didn't want bike lanes, even if the proposed solution is worse, which it is.

I guess that is a win?

Did anyone ever think this was about anything other than parking?

Hell hath no fury quite like an Upper NW boomer threatened with the loss of his parking space.

Or, as Mary Cheh was fond of saying, all politics are local and all local politics is parking.

They kept their parking spaces so, yes, for them it’s a win.

Connecticut Ave will go on a road diet, just not with bike lanes. Curb extensions will reduce the distance that pedestrians, particularly elderly residents and kids, need to cross at certain intersections. So Connecticut will be safer, which was what Safer Connecticut Avenue wanted. DDOT seems to be leaning to another north-south bike lane route, like Reno Road.

The basic difference between what is proposed and "Option C" is an additional lane for parking.

The downside here is that without a facility for bikes, scooters etc, and with buses using the right side travel lane, it will be a mess because cars will be stuck behind both the cyclists and the buses, killing any throughput advantage that might have been gained with bike lanes.

The pedestrain safety components are roughly the same.

And Reno Road as an alternative is a non-starter. Too narrow and hilly, with no obvious destinations. You will still have cyclists using ConnAve because that is where the shops, library etc are located.

There aren't enough bicylists to matter. There is no throughput advantage to bike lanes.

There could be a million cyclists and it still wouldn't matter to you.

There could be a million bicyclists and they would still insist they didn't see any.

My opinion is irrelevent. The simple fact of the matter is that there aren't millions, thousands, or even hundreds of bicyclists on Connecticut Ave.

You keep saying this and it simply isn't true. The stat you cite was COMMUTING, like daily, downtown. There are still hundreds of cyclists using Connecticut Avenue to go to school and run errands. Those are not factored in the MWCOG survey.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Interesting.

DDOT said the configuration:

-will not impede emergency vehicles
-will not be an issue as an evacuation route
-will not impact "cut through" traffic


So basically everything the project opponents claimed was a lie. They just didn't want bike lanes, even if the proposed solution is worse, which it is.

I guess that is a win?

Did anyone ever think this was about anything other than parking?

Hell hath no fury quite like an Upper NW boomer threatened with the loss of his parking space.

Or, as Mary Cheh was fond of saying, all politics are local and all local politics is parking.

They kept their parking spaces so, yes, for them it’s a win.

Connecticut Ave will go on a road diet, just not with bike lanes. Curb extensions will reduce the distance that pedestrians, particularly elderly residents and kids, need to cross at certain intersections. So Connecticut will be safer, which was what Safer Connecticut Avenue wanted. DDOT seems to be leaning to another north-south bike lane route, like Reno Road.

The basic difference between what is proposed and "Option C" is an additional lane for parking.

The downside here is that without a facility for bikes, scooters etc, and with buses using the right side travel lane, it will be a mess because cars will be stuck behind both the cyclists and the buses, killing any throughput advantage that might have been gained with bike lanes.

The pedestrain safety components are roughly the same.

And Reno Road as an alternative is a non-starter. Too narrow and hilly, with no obvious destinations. You will still have cyclists using ConnAve because that is where the shops, library etc are located.

There aren't enough bicylists to matter. There is no throughput advantage to bike lanes.

There could be a million cyclists and it still wouldn't matter to you.

There could be a million bicyclists and they would still insist they didn't see any.

My opinion is irrelevent. The simple fact of the matter is that there aren't millions, thousands, or even hundreds of bicyclists on Connecticut Ave.

I am not sure there are even dozens of bicyclists on the Avenue each day. Not from my experience.

there would be SO MANY if bike lanes got put in, especially people taking citi bikes and scooters to and from the Zoo, too and from metro.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Interesting.

DDOT said the configuration:

-will not impede emergency vehicles
-will not be an issue as an evacuation route
-will not impact "cut through" traffic


So basically everything the project opponents claimed was a lie. They just didn't want bike lanes, even if the proposed solution is worse, which it is.

I guess that is a win?

Did anyone ever think this was about anything other than parking?

Hell hath no fury quite like an Upper NW boomer threatened with the loss of his parking space.

Or, as Mary Cheh was fond of saying, all politics are local and all local politics is parking.

They kept their parking spaces so, yes, for them it’s a win.

Connecticut Ave will go on a road diet, just not with bike lanes. Curb extensions will reduce the distance that pedestrians, particularly elderly residents and kids, need to cross at certain intersections. So Connecticut will be safer, which was what Safer Connecticut Avenue wanted. DDOT seems to be leaning to another north-south bike lane route, like Reno Road.

The basic difference between what is proposed and "Option C" is an additional lane for parking.

The downside here is that without a facility for bikes, scooters etc, and with buses using the right side travel lane, it will be a mess because cars will be stuck behind both the cyclists and the buses, killing any throughput advantage that might have been gained with bike lanes.

The pedestrain safety components are roughly the same.

And Reno Road as an alternative is a non-starter. Too narrow and hilly, with no obvious destinations. You will still have cyclists using ConnAve because that is where the shops, library etc are located.

There aren't enough bicylists to matter. There is no throughput advantage to bike lanes.

There could be a million cyclists and it still wouldn't matter to you.

There could be a million bicyclists and they would still insist they didn't see any.

My opinion is irrelevent. The simple fact of the matter is that there aren't millions, thousands, or even hundreds of bicyclists on Connecticut Ave.

I am not sure there are even dozens of bicyclists on the Avenue each day. Not from my experience.

there would be SO MANY if bike lanes got put in, especially people taking citi bikes and scooters to and from the Zoo, too and from metro.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Interesting.

DDOT said the configuration:

-will not impede emergency vehicles
-will not be an issue as an evacuation route
-will not impact "cut through" traffic


So basically everything the project opponents claimed was a lie. They just didn't want bike lanes, even if the proposed solution is worse, which it is.

I guess that is a win?

Did anyone ever think this was about anything other than parking?

Hell hath no fury quite like an Upper NW boomer threatened with the loss of his parking space.

Or, as Mary Cheh was fond of saying, all politics are local and all local politics is parking.

They kept their parking spaces so, yes, for them it’s a win.

Connecticut Ave will go on a road diet, just not with bike lanes. Curb extensions will reduce the distance that pedestrians, particularly elderly residents and kids, need to cross at certain intersections. So Connecticut will be safer, which was what Safer Connecticut Avenue wanted. DDOT seems to be leaning to another north-south bike lane route, like Reno Road.

The basic difference between what is proposed and "Option C" is an additional lane for parking.

The downside here is that without a facility for bikes, scooters etc, and with buses using the right side travel lane, it will be a mess because cars will be stuck behind both the cyclists and the buses, killing any throughput advantage that might have been gained with bike lanes.

The pedestrain safety components are roughly the same.

And Reno Road as an alternative is a non-starter. Too narrow and hilly, with no obvious destinations. You will still have cyclists using ConnAve because that is where the shops, library etc are located.

There aren't enough bicylists to matter. There is no throughput advantage to bike lanes.

There could be a million cyclists and it still wouldn't matter to you.

There could be a million bicyclists and they would still insist they didn't see any.

My opinion is irrelevent. The simple fact of the matter is that there aren't millions, thousands, or even hundreds of bicyclists on Connecticut Ave.

I am not sure there are even dozens of bicyclists on the Avenue each day. Not from my experience.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Interesting.

DDOT said the configuration:

-will not impede emergency vehicles
-will not be an issue as an evacuation route
-will not impact "cut through" traffic


So basically everything the project opponents claimed was a lie. They just didn't want bike lanes, even if the proposed solution is worse, which it is.

I guess that is a win?

Did anyone ever think this was about anything other than parking?

Hell hath no fury quite like an Upper NW boomer threatened with the loss of his parking space.

Or, as Mary Cheh was fond of saying, all politics are local and all local politics is parking.

They kept their parking spaces so, yes, for them it’s a win.

Connecticut Ave will go on a road diet, just not with bike lanes. Curb extensions will reduce the distance that pedestrians, particularly elderly residents and kids, need to cross at certain intersections. So Connecticut will be safer, which was what Safer Connecticut Avenue wanted. DDOT seems to be leaning to another north-south bike lane route, like Reno Road.

The basic difference between what is proposed and "Option C" is an additional lane for parking.

The downside here is that without a facility for bikes, scooters etc, and with buses using the right side travel lane, it will be a mess because cars will be stuck behind both the cyclists and the buses, killing any throughput advantage that might have been gained with bike lanes.

The pedestrain safety components are roughly the same.

And Reno Road as an alternative is a non-starter. Too narrow and hilly, with no obvious destinations. You will still have cyclists using ConnAve because that is where the shops, library etc are located.

There aren't enough bicylists to matter. There is no throughput advantage to bike lanes.

So when you are stuck behind me in the center lane as I proceed at 12mph up from Calvert Street northbound, you will just flow patiently, right?

The odds of that happening are very low so it's an empty threat.

Why would you say it is low? People like me avoid Connecticut Avenue, but screw it, I will start riding it again and let the chips fall where they will.

Opposing this basic 21st century infrastructure for a 1950's parking paradigm is about the stupidest thing I have seen.

Good news. We fixed the 1950’s paradigm in the 1980’s when we spent billions on the red line. I use it every weekday and you should too.

It is faster, easier and healthier for me to bike than make my way to a metro station and ride to a place and then walk/bike to my destination, which may or may not be on top of a metro.

I could say the same thing about you and driving, no?

No you couldn’t. I walk 15 minutes to the Metro stations each day on both ends of my commute. I understand the world does not revolve around me.

But you have no capacity to support making the world safer for others.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Interesting.

DDOT said the configuration:

-will not impede emergency vehicles
-will not be an issue as an evacuation route
-will not impact "cut through" traffic


So basically everything the project opponents claimed was a lie. They just didn't want bike lanes, even if the proposed solution is worse, which it is.

I guess that is a win?

Did anyone ever think this was about anything other than parking?

Hell hath no fury quite like an Upper NW boomer threatened with the loss of his parking space.

Or, as Mary Cheh was fond of saying, all politics are local and all local politics is parking.

They kept their parking spaces so, yes, for them it’s a win.

Connecticut Ave will go on a road diet, just not with bike lanes. Curb extensions will reduce the distance that pedestrians, particularly elderly residents and kids, need to cross at certain intersections. So Connecticut will be safer, which was what Safer Connecticut Avenue wanted. DDOT seems to be leaning to another north-south bike lane route, like Reno Road.

The basic difference between what is proposed and "Option C" is an additional lane for parking.

The downside here is that without a facility for bikes, scooters etc, and with buses using the right side travel lane, it will be a mess because cars will be stuck behind both the cyclists and the buses, killing any throughput advantage that might have been gained with bike lanes.

The pedestrain safety components are roughly the same.

And Reno Road as an alternative is a non-starter. Too narrow and hilly, with no obvious destinations. You will still have cyclists using ConnAve because that is where the shops, library etc are located.

There aren't enough bicylists to matter. There is no throughput advantage to bike lanes.

There could be a million cyclists and it still wouldn't matter to you.

There could be a million bicyclists and they would still insist they didn't see any.

My opinion is irrelevent. The simple fact of the matter is that there aren't millions, thousands, or even hundreds of bicyclists on Connecticut Ave.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Interesting.

DDOT said the configuration:

-will not impede emergency vehicles
-will not be an issue as an evacuation route
-will not impact "cut through" traffic


So basically everything the project opponents claimed was a lie. They just didn't want bike lanes, even if the proposed solution is worse, which it is.

I guess that is a win?

Did anyone ever think this was about anything other than parking?

Hell hath no fury quite like an Upper NW boomer threatened with the loss of his parking space.

Or, as Mary Cheh was fond of saying, all politics are local and all local politics is parking.

They kept their parking spaces so, yes, for them it’s a win.

Connecticut Ave will go on a road diet, just not with bike lanes. Curb extensions will reduce the distance that pedestrians, particularly elderly residents and kids, need to cross at certain intersections. So Connecticut will be safer, which was what Safer Connecticut Avenue wanted. DDOT seems to be leaning to another north-south bike lane route, like Reno Road.

The basic difference between what is proposed and "Option C" is an additional lane for parking.

The downside here is that without a facility for bikes, scooters etc, and with buses using the right side travel lane, it will be a mess because cars will be stuck behind both the cyclists and the buses, killing any throughput advantage that might have been gained with bike lanes.

The pedestrain safety components are roughly the same.

And Reno Road as an alternative is a non-starter. Too narrow and hilly, with no obvious destinations. You will still have cyclists using ConnAve because that is where the shops, library etc are located.

There aren't enough bicylists to matter. There is no throughput advantage to bike lanes.

There could be a million cyclists and it still wouldn't matter to you.

There could be a million bicyclists and they would still insist they didn't see any.

My opinion is irrelevent. The simple fact of the matter is that there aren't millions, thousands, or even hundreds of bicyclists on Connecticut Ave.

You keep saying this and it simply isn't true. The stat you cite was COMMUTING, like daily, downtown. There are still hundreds of cyclists using Connecticut Avenue to go to school and run errands. Those are not factored in the MWCOG survey.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Interesting.

DDOT said the configuration:

-will not impede emergency vehicles
-will not be an issue as an evacuation route
-will not impact "cut through" traffic


So basically everything the project opponents claimed was a lie. They just didn't want bike lanes, even if the proposed solution is worse, which it is.

I guess that is a win?

Did anyone ever think this was about anything other than parking?

Hell hath no fury quite like an Upper NW boomer threatened with the loss of his parking space.

Or, as Mary Cheh was fond of saying, all politics are local and all local politics is parking.

They kept their parking spaces so, yes, for them it’s a win.

Connecticut Ave will go on a road diet, just not with bike lanes. Curb extensions will reduce the distance that pedestrians, particularly elderly residents and kids, need to cross at certain intersections. So Connecticut will be safer, which was what Safer Connecticut Avenue wanted. DDOT seems to be leaning to another north-south bike lane route, like Reno Road.

The basic difference between what is proposed and "Option C" is an additional lane for parking.

The downside here is that without a facility for bikes, scooters etc, and with buses using the right side travel lane, it will be a mess because cars will be stuck behind both the cyclists and the buses, killing any throughput advantage that might have been gained with bike lanes.

The pedestrain safety components are roughly the same.

And Reno Road as an alternative is a non-starter. Too narrow and hilly, with no obvious destinations. You will still have cyclists using ConnAve because that is where the shops, library etc are located.

There aren't enough bicylists to matter. There is no throughput advantage to bike lanes.

There could be a million cyclists and it still wouldn't matter to you.

There could be a million bicyclists and they would still insist they didn't see any.

My opinion is irrelevent. The simple fact of the matter is that there aren't millions, thousands, or even hundreds of bicyclists on Connecticut Ave.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Interesting.

DDOT said the configuration:

-will not impede emergency vehicles
-will not be an issue as an evacuation route
-will not impact "cut through" traffic


So basically everything the project opponents claimed was a lie. They just didn't want bike lanes, even if the proposed solution is worse, which it is.

I guess that is a win?

Did anyone ever think this was about anything other than parking?

Hell hath no fury quite like an Upper NW boomer threatened with the loss of his parking space.

Or, as Mary Cheh was fond of saying, all politics are local and all local politics is parking.

They kept their parking spaces so, yes, for them it’s a win.

Connecticut Ave will go on a road diet, just not with bike lanes. Curb extensions will reduce the distance that pedestrians, particularly elderly residents and kids, need to cross at certain intersections. So Connecticut will be safer, which was what Safer Connecticut Avenue wanted. DDOT seems to be leaning to another north-south bike lane route, like Reno Road.

The basic difference between what is proposed and "Option C" is an additional lane for parking.

The downside here is that without a facility for bikes, scooters etc, and with buses using the right side travel lane, it will be a mess because cars will be stuck behind both the cyclists and the buses, killing any throughput advantage that might have been gained with bike lanes.

The pedestrain safety components are roughly the same.

And Reno Road as an alternative is a non-starter. Too narrow and hilly, with no obvious destinations. You will still have cyclists using ConnAve because that is where the shops, library etc are located.

There aren't enough bicylists to matter. There is no throughput advantage to bike lanes.

There could be a million cyclists and it still wouldn't matter to you.

There could be a million bicyclists and they would still insist they didn't see any.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Interesting.

DDOT said the configuration:

-will not impede emergency vehicles
-will not be an issue as an evacuation route
-will not impact "cut through" traffic


So basically everything the project opponents claimed was a lie. They just didn't want bike lanes, even if the proposed solution is worse, which it is.

I guess that is a win?

Did anyone ever think this was about anything other than parking?

Hell hath no fury quite like an Upper NW boomer threatened with the loss of his parking space.

Or, as Mary Cheh was fond of saying, all politics are local and all local politics is parking.

They kept their parking spaces so, yes, for them it’s a win.

Connecticut Ave will go on a road diet, just not with bike lanes. Curb extensions will reduce the distance that pedestrians, particularly elderly residents and kids, need to cross at certain intersections. So Connecticut will be safer, which was what Safer Connecticut Avenue wanted. DDOT seems to be leaning to another north-south bike lane route, like Reno Road.

The basic difference between what is proposed and "Option C" is an additional lane for parking.

The downside here is that without a facility for bikes, scooters etc, and with buses using the right side travel lane, it will be a mess because cars will be stuck behind both the cyclists and the buses, killing any throughput advantage that might have been gained with bike lanes.

The pedestrain safety components are roughly the same.

And Reno Road as an alternative is a non-starter. Too narrow and hilly, with no obvious destinations. You will still have cyclists using ConnAve because that is where the shops, library etc are located.

There aren't enough bicylists to matter. There is no throughput advantage to bike lanes.

There could be a million cyclists and it still wouldn't matter to you.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Interesting.

DDOT said the configuration:

-will not impede emergency vehicles
-will not be an issue as an evacuation route
-will not impact "cut through" traffic


So basically everything the project opponents claimed was a lie. They just didn't want bike lanes, even if the proposed solution is worse, which it is.

I guess that is a win?

Did anyone ever think this was about anything other than parking?

Hell hath no fury quite like an Upper NW boomer threatened with the loss of his parking space.

Or, as Mary Cheh was fond of saying, all politics are local and all local politics is parking.

They kept their parking spaces so, yes, for them it’s a win.

Connecticut Ave will go on a road diet, just not with bike lanes. Curb extensions will reduce the distance that pedestrians, particularly elderly residents and kids, need to cross at certain intersections. So Connecticut will be safer, which was what Safer Connecticut Avenue wanted. DDOT seems to be leaning to another north-south bike lane route, like Reno Road.

The basic difference between what is proposed and "Option C" is an additional lane for parking.

The downside here is that without a facility for bikes, scooters etc, and with buses using the right side travel lane, it will be a mess because cars will be stuck behind both the cyclists and the buses, killing any throughput advantage that might have been gained with bike lanes.

The pedestrain safety components are roughly the same.

And Reno Road as an alternative is a non-starter. Too narrow and hilly, with no obvious destinations. You will still have cyclists using ConnAve because that is where the shops, library etc are located.

There aren't enough bicylists to matter. There is no throughput advantage to bike lanes.

So when you are stuck behind me in the center lane as I proceed at 12mph up from Calvert Street northbound, you will just flow patiently, right?

The odds of that happening are very low so it's an empty threat.

Why would you say it is low? People like me avoid Connecticut Avenue, but screw it, I will start riding it again and let the chips fall where they will.

Opposing this basic 21st century infrastructure for a 1950's parking paradigm is about the stupidest thing I have seen.

Good news. We fixed the 1950’s paradigm in the 1980’s when we spent billions on the red line. I use it every weekday and you should too.

It is faster, easier and healthier for me to bike than make my way to a metro station and ride to a place and then walk/bike to my destination, which may or may not be on top of a metro.

I could say the same thing about you and driving, no?

No you couldn’t. I walk 15 minutes to the Metro stations each day on both ends of my commute. I understand the world does not revolve around me.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Interesting.

DDOT said the configuration:

-will not impede emergency vehicles
-will not be an issue as an evacuation route
-will not impact "cut through" traffic


So basically everything the project opponents claimed was a lie. They just didn't want bike lanes, even if the proposed solution is worse, which it is.

I guess that is a win?

Did anyone ever think this was about anything other than parking?

Hell hath no fury quite like an Upper NW boomer threatened with the loss of his parking space.

Or, as Mary Cheh was fond of saying, all politics are local and all local politics is parking.

They kept their parking spaces so, yes, for them it’s a win.

Connecticut Ave will go on a road diet, just not with bike lanes. Curb extensions will reduce the distance that pedestrians, particularly elderly residents and kids, need to cross at certain intersections. So Connecticut will be safer, which was what Safer Connecticut Avenue wanted. DDOT seems to be leaning to another north-south bike lane route, like Reno Road.

The basic difference between what is proposed and "Option C" is an additional lane for parking.

The downside here is that without a facility for bikes, scooters etc, and with buses using the right side travel lane, it will be a mess because cars will be stuck behind both the cyclists and the buses, killing any throughput advantage that might have been gained with bike lanes.

The pedestrain safety components are roughly the same.

And Reno Road as an alternative is a non-starter. Too narrow and hilly, with no obvious destinations. You will still have cyclists using ConnAve because that is where the shops, library etc are located.

There aren't enough bicylists to matter. There is no throughput advantage to bike lanes.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Interesting.

DDOT said the configuration:

-will not impede emergency vehicles
-will not be an issue as an evacuation route
-will not impact "cut through" traffic


So basically everything the project opponents claimed was a lie. They just didn't want bike lanes, even if the proposed solution is worse, which it is.

I guess that is a win?

Did anyone ever think this was about anything other than parking?

Hell hath no fury quite like an Upper NW boomer threatened with the loss of his parking space.

Or, as Mary Cheh was fond of saying, all politics are local and all local politics is parking.

They kept their parking spaces so, yes, for them it’s a win.

Connecticut Ave will go on a road diet, just not with bike lanes. Curb extensions will reduce the distance that pedestrians, particularly elderly residents and kids, need to cross at certain intersections. So Connecticut will be safer, which was what Safer Connecticut Avenue wanted. DDOT seems to be leaning to another north-south bike lane route, like Reno Road.

The basic difference between what is proposed and "Option C" is an additional lane for parking.

The downside here is that without a facility for bikes, scooters etc, and with buses using the right side travel lane, it will be a mess because cars will be stuck behind both the cyclists and the buses, killing any throughput advantage that might have been gained with bike lanes.

The pedestrain safety components are roughly the same.

And Reno Road as an alternative is a non-starter. Too narrow and hilly, with no obvious destinations. You will still have cyclists using ConnAve because that is where the shops, library etc are located.

There aren't enough bicylists to matter. There is no throughput advantage to bike lanes.

So when you are stuck behind me in the center lane as I proceed at 12mph up from Calvert Street northbound, you will just flow patiently, right?

The odds of that happening are very low so it's an empty threat.

Why would you say it is low? People like me avoid Connecticut Avenue, but screw it, I will start riding it again and let the chips fall where they will.

Opposing this basic 21st century infrastructure for a 1950's parking paradigm is about the stupidest thing I have seen.

Good news. We fixed the 1950’s paradigm in the 1980’s when we spent billions on the red line. I use it every weekday and you should too.

It is faster, easier and healthier for me to bike than make my way to a metro station and ride to a place and then walk/bike to my destination, which may or may not be on top of a metro.

I could say the same thing about you and driving, no?

No you couldn’t. I walk 15 minutes to the Metro stations each day on both ends of my commute. I understand the world does not revolve around me.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Interesting.

DDOT said the configuration:

-will not impede emergency vehicles
-will not be an issue as an evacuation route
-will not impact "cut through" traffic


So basically everything the project opponents claimed was a lie. They just didn't want bike lanes, even if the proposed solution is worse, which it is.

I guess that is a win?

Did anyone ever think this was about anything other than parking?

Hell hath no fury quite like an Upper NW boomer threatened with the loss of his parking space.

Or, as Mary Cheh was fond of saying, all politics are local and all local politics is parking.

They kept their parking spaces so, yes, for them it’s a win.

Connecticut Ave will go on a road diet, just not with bike lanes. Curb extensions will reduce the distance that pedestrians, particularly elderly residents and kids, need to cross at certain intersections. So Connecticut will be safer, which was what Safer Connecticut Avenue wanted. DDOT seems to be leaning to another north-south bike lane route, like Reno Road.

The basic difference between what is proposed and "Option C" is an additional lane for parking.

The downside here is that without a facility for bikes, scooters etc, and with buses using the right side travel lane, it will be a mess because cars will be stuck behind both the cyclists and the buses, killing any throughput advantage that might have been gained with bike lanes.

The pedestrain safety components are roughly the same.

And Reno Road as an alternative is a non-starter. Too narrow and hilly, with no obvious destinations. You will still have cyclists using ConnAve because that is where the shops, library etc are located.

There aren't enough bicylists to matter. There is no throughput advantage to bike lanes.

So when you are stuck behind me in the center lane as I proceed at 12mph up from Calvert Street northbound, you will just flow patiently, right?

The odds of that happening are very low so it's an empty threat.

Why would you say it is low? People like me avoid Connecticut Avenue, but screw it, I will start riding it again and let the chips fall where they will.

Opposing this basic 21st century infrastructure for a 1950's parking paradigm is about the stupidest thing I have seen.

Good news. We fixed the 1950’s paradigm in the 1980’s when we spent billions on the red line. I use it every weekday and you should too.

It is faster, easier and healthier for me to bike than make my way to a metro station and ride to a place and then walk/bike to my destination, which may or may not be on top of a metro.

I could say the same thing about you and driving, no?