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.

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.

There aren't hundreds of cyclists in all of Washington DC

That's just obviously false. The bike counter at Columbia Road, for instance, which only counts bikes, records a daily average of more than 200 (https://ddot.dc.gov/page/dc-automated-bicycle-and-pedestrian-counters). That's 365 days a year, going back to spring 2020; I'm sure if you could get the data to filter out weekends, the weekday commuting ridership is more than that. And that's just one counter, on an east-west street that few people who don't live nearby would have much reason to ride past on their way downtown.

We can argue about how many cyclists do or don't make bike infrastructure worthwhile, but I don't see the point of just blatantly making up information about how many there are.

Most of those are bikes in the process of being stolen. Those aren’t majority commuter bikes.

Why do you keep singling out commuters? There are plenty of YOUR neighbors who live in upper NW and want to go to Politics and Prose or Vace or any one of a number of other places, on bike, during the day. These trips have nothing to do with commuters.

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.

There aren't hundreds of cyclists in all of Washington DC

That's just obviously false. The bike counter at Columbia Road, for instance, which only counts bikes, records a daily average of more than 200 (https://ddot.dc.gov/page/dc-automated-bicycle-and-pedestrian-counters). That's 365 days a year, going back to spring 2020; I'm sure if you could get the data to filter out weekends, the weekday commuting ridership is more than that. And that's just one counter, on an east-west street that few people who don't live nearby would have much reason to ride past on their way downtown.

We can argue about how many cyclists do or don't make bike infrastructure worthwhile, but I don't see the point of just blatantly making up information about how many there are.

Most of those are bikes in the process of being stolen. Those aren’t majority commuter bikes.

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.

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.

Eh, I don't know; I very much support these bike lanes, but I don't know that there are hundreds of people on bikes on Connecticut for non-commuting purposes. I don't know that the MWCOG survey is the best way to estimate ridership, but how many people are going on short errands in the middle of the day by any mode of transportation, let alone by bike?

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:

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.

Now we're back to thinking that everyone has your preferences. You would prefer to walk. That's fine.

Not my preferences. It is straight forward logic. Let's pretend that you are a chaperone taking a single class on a visit to the zoo. With additional chaperones we're talking about 30 people. You can have everybody walk 3 blocks for free or you can pay to rent all the citibikes at the metro and still not have enough for everyone.

Now let's pretend you're one of the millions of zoo visitors who is going to the zoo and is not a chaperone taking a single class.

I'm still walking 3 blocks from the metro because walking is free.

You've created a solution in search of a problem. A statement which is at the very heart of this debate.

That's fine. Nobody is stopping you from choosing to walk. The point is for people to have choices.

At a certain point too many choices becomes untenable. Walk, metro, bus, drive private, ride share. That’s plenty of choices.

And bike. And e-scooter. And skateboard. And wheelchair. And mobility scooter. And... How would there be too many choices, and who gets to decide how many is too many?

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: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.

Some parents on the cut through streets would like a word.

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.

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.

Firstly let's put this straight out in the open. You clearly don't live near or use Connecticut Ave, north of Calvert.

Secondly, the number comes from DDOT which counted the number of bicyclists, just as they did cars. They have never released the exact number but they used a de minimis number of 100 as their estimate. That means we know it is less than 100.

Please remember that all numbers are done on a full year daily average basis.

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: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.

Now we're back to thinking that everyone has your preferences. You would prefer to walk. That's fine.

Not my preferences. It is straight forward logic. Let's pretend that you are a chaperone taking a single class on a visit to the zoo. With additional chaperones we're talking about 30 people. You can have everybody walk 3 blocks for free or you can pay to rent all the citibikes at the metro and still not have enough for everyone.

Now let's pretend you're one of the millions of zoo visitors who is going to the zoo and is not a chaperone taking a single class.

I'm still walking 3 blocks from the metro because walking is free.

You've created a solution in search of a problem. A statement which is at the very heart of this debate.

That's fine. Nobody is stopping you from choosing to walk. The point is for people to have choices.

At a certain point too many choices becomes untenable. Walk, metro, bus, drive private, ride share. That’s plenty of choices.

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: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.

Now we're back to thinking that everyone has your preferences. You would prefer to walk. That's fine.

Not my preferences. It is straight forward logic. Let's pretend that you are a chaperone taking a single class on a visit to the zoo. With additional chaperones we're talking about 30 people. You can have everybody walk 3 blocks for free or you can pay to rent all the citibikes at the metro and still not have enough for everyone.

Now let's pretend you're one of the millions of zoo visitors who is going to the zoo and is not a chaperone taking a single class.

I'm still walking 3 blocks from the metro because walking is free.

You've created a solution in search of a problem. A statement which is at the very heart of this debate.

That's fine. Nobody is stopping you from choosing to walk. The point is for people to have choices.

At a certain point too many choices becomes untenable. Walk, metro, bus, drive private, ride share. That’s plenty of choices.

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.

There aren't hundreds of cyclists in all of Washington DC

That's just obviously false. The bike counter at Columbia Road, for instance, which only counts bikes, records a daily average of more than 200 (https://ddot.dc.gov/page/dc-automated-bicycle-and-pedestrian-counters). That's 365 days a year, going back to spring 2020; I'm sure if you could get the data to filter out weekends, the weekday commuting ridership is more than that. And that's just one counter, on an east-west street that few people who don't live nearby would have much reason to ride past on their way downtown.

We can argue about how many cyclists do or don't make bike infrastructure worthwhile, but I don't see the point of just blatantly making up information about how many there are.

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: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.

Now we're back to thinking that everyone has your preferences. You would prefer to walk. That's fine.

Not my preferences. It is straight forward logic. Let's pretend that you are a chaperone taking a single class on a visit to the zoo. With additional chaperones we're talking about 30 people. You can have everybody walk 3 blocks for free or you can pay to rent all the citibikes at the metro and still not have enough for everyone.

Now let's pretend you're one of the millions of zoo visitors who is going to the zoo and is not a chaperone taking a single class.

I'm still walking 3 blocks from the metro because walking is free.

You've created a solution in search of a problem. A statement which is at the very heart of this debate.

That's fine. Nobody is stopping you from choosing to walk. The point is for people to have choices.

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.

There aren't hundreds of cyclists in all of Washington DC

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:

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.

Yes, they are going to take hundreds/thousands of Citibike and scooter trips daily. Will reduce usage of uber and private cars.

Do people Uber from the Metro to the Zoo? I find that hard to imagine. Especially school groups. They just walk, don't they? I see them walking.

How would you see them Ubering? You wouldn't. That doesn't mean they don't.

It's like six blocks, seems inconceivable that school groups are hopping into multiple Ubers from the Metro instead of walking.

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: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.

Yes, they are going to take hundreds/thousands of Citibike and scooter trips daily. Will reduce usage of uber and private cars.

Do people Uber from the Metro to the Zoo? I find that hard to imagine. Especially school groups. They just walk, don't they? I see them walking.

How would you see them Ubering? You wouldn't. That doesn't mean they don't.