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:What if the goal was a safe and thriving neighborhood? If you want a dedicated tunnel to downtown then take Metro.

If the goal is a safe and thriving neighborhood then the impact of any plan on accidents and traffic volume within the neighborhood is vitally important.

If your goal is to ban cars that's simply not happening.

A safe and vibrant neighborhood has bike lanes.

Pretty sure there are many, many safe and vibrant neighborhoods that don’t have bike lanes.

But how many neighborhoods have bike lanes that aren't safe and vibrant?

Lots. You especially see this in other cities that haven’t been overrun with gentrification.

If there's one thing we can take off the table absolutely when it comes to this particular bike lane debate, it's gentrification. You can't gentrify out the landed gentry.

Bike lanes are not about gentrification but they are about density, vibrancy and smart growth. Connecticut Ave has had the reputation of being rather boring and, well, old. Bike lanes add a certain hipness factor to attract younger buyers and renters. This is the group that developers who want to build dense housing need to attract.

Uh rent is expensive. Owning and storing a car is expensive. Younger people who have lower disposable income depend on biking to get around. So if the city wants to continue to attract these post-college younger residents, bike lanes is a great way to do it.

DC attracts plenty of single post-college younger residents (and in any case it’s doubtful that many want to live in Chevy Chase DC or Cleveland Park vs U St or Petworth). DC needs to do more to retain families who otherwise move to the suburbs better quality public schools and overall public services. Conn. ave. Bike lanes aren’t at the top of their priority list.

For a lot of younger families who are car free or car-light, yes they are. You clearly have no idea of the demographic shift away from the Boomer-led car era.

Petworth is full of parents, and hardly anyone uses the bike lanes, fyi. Bikes are extremely impractical when you have children.

This is a reality for a lot of younger families.

If we had the proper infrastructure, more people would do this.

We have more than 150 miles of bike lanes. We've spent billions of dollars on biking infrastructure. Still, the number of people on bikes is microscopic. People don't ride bikes because they don't want to ride bikes, and it has nothing to do with whatever you think the infrastructure is still missing.

The bolded is a flat out lie, and a lot of the 150 miles of bike lanes you are citing is simply paint on the ground. That isn't infrastructure. Ergo, the false conclusion you are drawing is a result of the false premise and lies you start with.

Try again: if biking were safe, more people would be doing it. Despite the infrastructure, there are a lot of young families who are using cargo bikes and electric bikes as a replacement for a car or second car, and it works very well for them. Just imagine how many more would do this if they felt it was safe enough!

Look at the city's budget. DC spends $200 million on bike things every single year.

Also, if biking isn't safe, then *no one* should be allowed to put children on bikes.

What you are calling "bike things" are road and infrastructure projects where, for the most part, they are spending like 10k on plastic and paint.

So no, not "billions on bike things"

You could just read the actual budget. The city spends $80 million building a single bridge for cyclists. The city has spent at least $5 billion over the years on bike infrastructure. Not in a single year, obviously.

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:What if the goal was a safe and thriving neighborhood? If you want a dedicated tunnel to downtown then take Metro.

If the goal is a safe and thriving neighborhood then the impact of any plan on accidents and traffic volume within the neighborhood is vitally important.

If your goal is to ban cars that's simply not happening.

A safe and vibrant neighborhood has bike lanes.

Pretty sure there are many, many safe and vibrant neighborhoods that don’t have bike lanes.

But how many neighborhoods have bike lanes that aren't safe and vibrant?

Lots. You especially see this in other cities that haven’t been overrun with gentrification.

If there's one thing we can take off the table absolutely when it comes to this particular bike lane debate, it's gentrification. You can't gentrify out the landed gentry.

Bike lanes are not about gentrification but they are about density, vibrancy and smart growth. Connecticut Ave has had the reputation of being rather boring and, well, old. Bike lanes add a certain hipness factor to attract younger buyers and renters. This is the group that developers who want to build dense housing need to attract.

Uh rent is expensive. Owning and storing a car is expensive. Younger people who have lower disposable income depend on biking to get around. So if the city wants to continue to attract these post-college younger residents, bike lanes is a great way to do it.

DC attracts plenty of single post-college younger residents (and in any case it’s doubtful that many want to live in Chevy Chase DC or Cleveland Park vs U St or Petworth). DC needs to do more to retain families who otherwise move to the suburbs better quality public schools and overall public services. Conn. ave. Bike lanes aren’t at the top of their priority list.

For a lot of younger families who are car free or car-light, yes they are. You clearly have no idea of the demographic shift away from the Boomer-led car era.

Petworth is full of parents, and hardly anyone uses the bike lanes, fyi. Bikes are extremely impractical when you have children.

This is a reality for a lot of younger families.

If we had the proper infrastructure, more people would do this.

We have more than 150 miles of bike lanes. We've spent billions of dollars on biking infrastructure. Still, the number of people on bikes is microscopic. People don't ride bikes because they don't want to ride bikes, and it has nothing to do with whatever you think the infrastructure is still missing.

The bolded is a flat out lie, and a lot of the 150 miles of bike lanes you are citing is simply paint on the ground. That isn't infrastructure. Ergo, the false conclusion you are drawing is a result of the false premise and lies you start with.

Try again: if biking were safe, more people would be doing it. Despite the infrastructure, there are a lot of young families who are using cargo bikes and electric bikes as a replacement for a car or second car, and it works very well for them. Just imagine how many more would do this if they felt it was safe enough!

Yes, yes, we know. Tens of thousands of bikers are ready to crawl out of the woodwork at any moment, if those pesky drivers would just get out of the way.

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:What if the goal was a safe and thriving neighborhood? If you want a dedicated tunnel to downtown then take Metro.

If the goal is a safe and thriving neighborhood then the impact of any plan on accidents and traffic volume within the neighborhood is vitally important.

If your goal is to ban cars that's simply not happening.

A safe and vibrant neighborhood has bike lanes.

Pretty sure there are many, many safe and vibrant neighborhoods that don’t have bike lanes.

But how many neighborhoods have bike lanes that aren't safe and vibrant?

Lots. You especially see this in other cities that haven’t been overrun with gentrification.

If there's one thing we can take off the table absolutely when it comes to this particular bike lane debate, it's gentrification. You can't gentrify out the landed gentry.

Bike lanes are not about gentrification but they are about density, vibrancy and smart growth. Connecticut Ave has had the reputation of being rather boring and, well, old. Bike lanes add a certain hipness factor to attract younger buyers and renters. This is the group that developers who want to build dense housing need to attract.

Uh rent is expensive. Owning and storing a car is expensive. Younger people who have lower disposable income depend on biking to get around. So if the city wants to continue to attract these post-college younger residents, bike lanes is a great way to do it.

DC attracts plenty of single post-college younger residents (and in any case it’s doubtful that many want to live in Chevy Chase DC or Cleveland Park vs U St or Petworth). DC needs to do more to retain families who otherwise move to the suburbs better quality public schools and overall public services. Conn. ave. Bike lanes aren’t at the top of their priority list.

For a lot of younger families who are car free or car-light, yes they are. You clearly have no idea of the demographic shift away from the Boomer-led car era.

Petworth is full of parents, and hardly anyone uses the bike lanes, fyi. Bikes are extremely impractical when you have children.

This is a reality for a lot of younger families.

If we had the proper infrastructure, more people would do this.

We have more than 150 miles of bike lanes. We've spent billions of dollars on biking infrastructure. Still, the number of people on bikes is microscopic. People don't ride bikes because they don't want to ride bikes, and it has nothing to do with whatever you think the infrastructure is still missing.

The bolded is a flat out lie, and a lot of the 150 miles of bike lanes you are citing is simply paint on the ground. That isn't infrastructure. Ergo, the false conclusion you are drawing is a result of the false premise and lies you start with.

Try again: if biking were safe, more people would be doing it. Despite the infrastructure, there are a lot of young families who are using cargo bikes and electric bikes as a replacement for a car or second car, and it works very well for them. Just imagine how many more would do this if they felt it was safe enough!

Look at the city's budget. DC spends $200 million on bike things every single year.

Also, if biking isn't safe, then *no one* should be allowed to put children on bikes.

What you are calling "bike things" are road and infrastructure projects where, for the most part, they are spending like 10k on plastic and paint.

So no, not "billions on bike things"

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:What if the goal was a safe and thriving neighborhood? If you want a dedicated tunnel to downtown then take Metro.

If the goal is a safe and thriving neighborhood then the impact of any plan on accidents and traffic volume within the neighborhood is vitally important.

If your goal is to ban cars that's simply not happening.

A safe and vibrant neighborhood has bike lanes.

Pretty sure there are many, many safe and vibrant neighborhoods that don’t have bike lanes.

But how many neighborhoods have bike lanes that aren't safe and vibrant?

Lots. You especially see this in other cities that haven’t been overrun with gentrification.

If there's one thing we can take off the table absolutely when it comes to this particular bike lane debate, it's gentrification. You can't gentrify out the landed gentry.

Bike lanes are not about gentrification but they are about density, vibrancy and smart growth. Connecticut Ave has had the reputation of being rather boring and, well, old. Bike lanes add a certain hipness factor to attract younger buyers and renters. This is the group that developers who want to build dense housing need to attract.

Uh rent is expensive. Owning and storing a car is expensive. Younger people who have lower disposable income depend on biking to get around. So if the city wants to continue to attract these post-college younger residents, bike lanes is a great way to do it.

DC attracts plenty of single post-college younger residents (and in any case it’s doubtful that many want to live in Chevy Chase DC or Cleveland Park vs U St or Petworth). DC needs to do more to retain families who otherwise move to the suburbs better quality public schools and overall public services. Conn. ave. Bike lanes aren’t at the top of their priority list.

For a lot of younger families who are car free or car-light, yes they are. You clearly have no idea of the demographic shift away from the Boomer-led car era.

Petworth is full of parents, and hardly anyone uses the bike lanes, fyi. Bikes are extremely impractical when you have children.

This is a reality for a lot of younger families.

If we had the proper infrastructure, more people would do this.

We have more than 150 miles of bike lanes. We've spent billions of dollars on biking infrastructure. Still, the number of people on bikes is microscopic. People don't ride bikes because they don't want to ride bikes, and it has nothing to do with whatever you think the infrastructure is still missing.

The bolded is a flat out lie, and a lot of the 150 miles of bike lanes you are citing is simply paint on the ground. That isn't infrastructure. Ergo, the false conclusion you are drawing is a result of the false premise and lies you start with.

Try again: if biking were safe, more people would be doing it. Despite the infrastructure, there are a lot of young families who are using cargo bikes and electric bikes as a replacement for a car or second car, and it works very well for them. Just imagine how many more would do this if they felt it was safe enough!

Look at the city's budget. DC spends $200 million on bike things every single year.

Also, if biking isn't safe, then *no one* should be allowed to put children on bikes.

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:What if the goal was a safe and thriving neighborhood? If you want a dedicated tunnel to downtown then take Metro.

If the goal is a safe and thriving neighborhood then the impact of any plan on accidents and traffic volume within the neighborhood is vitally important.

If your goal is to ban cars that's simply not happening.

A safe and vibrant neighborhood has bike lanes.

Pretty sure there are many, many safe and vibrant neighborhoods that don’t have bike lanes.

But how many neighborhoods have bike lanes that aren't safe and vibrant?

Lots. You especially see this in other cities that haven’t been overrun with gentrification.

If there's one thing we can take off the table absolutely when it comes to this particular bike lane debate, it's gentrification. You can't gentrify out the landed gentry.

Bike lanes are not about gentrification but they are about density, vibrancy and smart growth. Connecticut Ave has had the reputation of being rather boring and, well, old. Bike lanes add a certain hipness factor to attract younger buyers and renters. This is the group that developers who want to build dense housing need to attract.

Uh rent is expensive. Owning and storing a car is expensive. Younger people who have lower disposable income depend on biking to get around. So if the city wants to continue to attract these post-college younger residents, bike lanes is a great way to do it.

DC attracts plenty of single post-college younger residents (and in any case it’s doubtful that many want to live in Chevy Chase DC or Cleveland Park vs U St or Petworth). DC needs to do more to retain families who otherwise move to the suburbs better quality public schools and overall public services. Conn. ave. Bike lanes aren’t at the top of their priority list.

For a lot of younger families who are car free or car-light, yes they are. You clearly have no idea of the demographic shift away from the Boomer-led car era.

Petworth is full of parents, and hardly anyone uses the bike lanes, fyi. Bikes are extremely impractical when you have children.

This is a reality for a lot of younger families.

If we had the proper infrastructure, more people would do this.

We have more than 150 miles of bike lanes. We've spent billions of dollars on biking infrastructure. Still, the number of people on bikes is microscopic. People don't ride bikes because they don't want to ride bikes, and it has nothing to do with whatever you think the infrastructure is still missing.

The bolded is a flat out lie, and a lot of the 150 miles of bike lanes you are citing is simply paint on the ground. That isn't infrastructure. Ergo, the false conclusion you are drawing is a result of the false premise and lies you start with.

Try again: if biking were safe, more people would be doing it. Despite the infrastructure, there are a lot of young families who are using cargo bikes and electric bikes as a replacement for a car or second car, and it works very well for them. Just imagine how many more would do this if they felt it was safe enough!

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:What if the goal was a safe and thriving neighborhood? If you want a dedicated tunnel to downtown then take Metro.

If the goal is a safe and thriving neighborhood then the impact of any plan on accidents and traffic volume within the neighborhood is vitally important.

If your goal is to ban cars that's simply not happening.

A safe and vibrant neighborhood has bike lanes.

Pretty sure there are many, many safe and vibrant neighborhoods that don’t have bike lanes.

But how many neighborhoods have bike lanes that aren't safe and vibrant?

Lots. You especially see this in other cities that haven’t been overrun with gentrification.

If there's one thing we can take off the table absolutely when it comes to this particular bike lane debate, it's gentrification. You can't gentrify out the landed gentry.

Bike lanes are not about gentrification but they are about density, vibrancy and smart growth. Connecticut Ave has had the reputation of being rather boring and, well, old. Bike lanes add a certain hipness factor to attract younger buyers and renters. This is the group that developers who want to build dense housing need to attract.

Uh rent is expensive. Owning and storing a car is expensive. Younger people who have lower disposable income depend on biking to get around. So if the city wants to continue to attract these post-college younger residents, bike lanes is a great way to do it.

DC attracts plenty of single post-college younger residents (and in any case it’s doubtful that many want to live in Chevy Chase DC or Cleveland Park vs U St or Petworth). DC needs to do more to retain families who otherwise move to the suburbs better quality public schools and overall public services. Conn. ave. Bike lanes aren’t at the top of their priority list.

For a lot of younger families who are car free or car-light, yes they are. You clearly have no idea of the demographic shift away from the Boomer-led car era.

Petworth is full of parents, and hardly anyone uses the bike lanes, fyi. Bikes are extremely impractical when you have children.

This is a reality for a lot of younger families.

If we had the proper infrastructure, more people would do this.

We have more than 150 miles of bike lanes. We've spent billions of dollars on biking infrastructure. Still, the number of people on bikes is microscopic. People don't ride bikes because they don't want to ride bikes, and it has nothing to do with whatever you think the infrastructure is still missing.

The bolded is a flat out lie, and a lot of the 150 miles of bike lanes you are citing is simply paint on the ground. That isn't infrastructure. Ergo, the false conclusion you are drawing is a result of the false premise and lies you start with.

Try again: if biking were safe, more people would be doing it. Despite the infrastructure, there are a lot of young families who are using cargo bikes and electric bikes as a replacement for a car or second car, and it works very well for them. Just imagine how many more would do this if they felt it was safe enough!

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:What if the goal was a safe and thriving neighborhood? If you want a dedicated tunnel to downtown then take Metro.

If the goal is a safe and thriving neighborhood then the impact of any plan on accidents and traffic volume within the neighborhood is vitally important.

If your goal is to ban cars that's simply not happening.

A safe and vibrant neighborhood has bike lanes.

Pretty sure there are many, many safe and vibrant neighborhoods that don’t have bike lanes.

But how many neighborhoods have bike lanes that aren't safe and vibrant?

Lots. You especially see this in other cities that haven’t been overrun with gentrification.

If there's one thing we can take off the table absolutely when it comes to this particular bike lane debate, it's gentrification. You can't gentrify out the landed gentry.

Bike lanes are not about gentrification but they are about density, vibrancy and smart growth. Connecticut Ave has had the reputation of being rather boring and, well, old. Bike lanes add a certain hipness factor to attract younger buyers and renters. This is the group that developers who want to build dense housing need to attract.

Uh rent is expensive. Owning and storing a car is expensive. Younger people who have lower disposable income depend on biking to get around. So if the city wants to continue to attract these post-college younger residents, bike lanes is a great way to do it.

DC attracts plenty of single post-college younger residents (and in any case it’s doubtful that many want to live in Chevy Chase DC or Cleveland Park vs U St or Petworth). DC needs to do more to retain families who otherwise move to the suburbs better quality public schools and overall public services. Conn. ave. Bike lanes aren’t at the top of their priority list.

For a lot of younger families who are car free or car-light, yes they are. You clearly have no idea of the demographic shift away from the Boomer-led car era.

Petworth is full of parents, and hardly anyone uses the bike lanes, fyi. Bikes are extremely impractical when you have children.

This is a reality for a lot of younger families.

If we had the proper infrastructure, more people would do this.

We have more than 150 miles of bike lanes. We've spent billions of dollars on biking infrastructure. Still, the number of people on bikes is microscopic. People don't ride bikes because they don't want to ride bikes, and it has nothing to do with whatever you think the infrastructure is still missing.

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:What if the goal was a safe and thriving neighborhood? If you want a dedicated tunnel to downtown then take Metro.

If the goal is a safe and thriving neighborhood then the impact of any plan on accidents and traffic volume within the neighborhood is vitally important.

If your goal is to ban cars that's simply not happening.

A safe and vibrant neighborhood has bike lanes.

Pretty sure there are many, many safe and vibrant neighborhoods that don’t have bike lanes.

But how many neighborhoods have bike lanes that aren't safe and vibrant?

Lots. You especially see this in other cities that haven’t been overrun with gentrification.

If there's one thing we can take off the table absolutely when it comes to this particular bike lane debate, it's gentrification. You can't gentrify out the landed gentry.

Bike lanes are not about gentrification but they are about density, vibrancy and smart growth. Connecticut Ave has had the reputation of being rather boring and, well, old. Bike lanes add a certain hipness factor to attract younger buyers and renters. This is the group that developers who want to build dense housing need to attract.

Uh rent is expensive. Owning and storing a car is expensive. Younger people who have lower disposable income depend on biking to get around. So if the city wants to continue to attract these post-college younger residents, bike lanes is a great way to do it.

DC attracts plenty of single post-college younger residents (and in any case it’s doubtful that many want to live in Chevy Chase DC or Cleveland Park vs U St or Petworth). DC needs to do more to retain families who otherwise move to the suburbs better quality public schools and overall public services. Conn. ave. Bike lanes aren’t at the top of their priority list.

For a lot of younger families who are car free or car-light, yes they are. You clearly have no idea of the demographic shift away from the Boomer-led car era.

That's not a lot of people in total though.

Please quantify the statement. I dont think you understand how expensive housing in relative to younger two income families.

The amount of that demographic buying in Upper NW off of Connecticut is very small and overwhelmingly offset by normies.

I don't think you understand the neighborhoods you are trying to push this into. The people you are talking about don't live up there.

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:What if the goal was a safe and thriving neighborhood? If you want a dedicated tunnel to downtown then take Metro.

If the goal is a safe and thriving neighborhood then the impact of any plan on accidents and traffic volume within the neighborhood is vitally important.

If your goal is to ban cars that's simply not happening.

A safe and vibrant neighborhood has bike lanes.

Pretty sure there are many, many safe and vibrant neighborhoods that don’t have bike lanes.

But how many neighborhoods have bike lanes that aren't safe and vibrant?

Lots. You especially see this in other cities that haven’t been overrun with gentrification.

If there's one thing we can take off the table absolutely when it comes to this particular bike lane debate, it's gentrification. You can't gentrify out the landed gentry.

Bike lanes are not about gentrification but they are about density, vibrancy and smart growth. Connecticut Ave has had the reputation of being rather boring and, well, old. Bike lanes add a certain hipness factor to attract younger buyers and renters. This is the group that developers who want to build dense housing need to attract.

Uh rent is expensive. Owning and storing a car is expensive. Younger people who have lower disposable income depend on biking to get around. So if the city wants to continue to attract these post-college younger residents, bike lanes is a great way to do it.

DC attracts plenty of single post-college younger residents (and in any case it’s doubtful that many want to live in Chevy Chase DC or Cleveland Park vs U St or Petworth). DC needs to do more to retain families who otherwise move to the suburbs better quality public schools and overall public services. Conn. ave. Bike lanes aren’t at the top of their priority list.

For a lot of younger families who are car free or car-light, yes they are. You clearly have no idea of the demographic shift away from the Boomer-led car era.

Petworth is full of parents, and hardly anyone uses the bike lanes, fyi. Bikes are extremely impractical when you have children.

I lived in Petworth for ten years, including when my kids were younger (though it was before the bike lanes were installed, mostly). We biked all over the neighborhood, I would put them in a bike trailer. Was quite practical! They liked it better than being in car seats, and I got some exercise and didn't have to worry about parking.

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:What if the goal was a safe and thriving neighborhood? If you want a dedicated tunnel to downtown then take Metro.

If the goal is a safe and thriving neighborhood then the impact of any plan on accidents and traffic volume within the neighborhood is vitally important.

If your goal is to ban cars that's simply not happening.

A safe and vibrant neighborhood has bike lanes.

Pretty sure there are many, many safe and vibrant neighborhoods that don’t have bike lanes.

But how many neighborhoods have bike lanes that aren't safe and vibrant?

Lots. You especially see this in other cities that haven’t been overrun with gentrification.

If there's one thing we can take off the table absolutely when it comes to this particular bike lane debate, it's gentrification. You can't gentrify out the landed gentry.

Bike lanes are not about gentrification but they are about density, vibrancy and smart growth. Connecticut Ave has had the reputation of being rather boring and, well, old. Bike lanes add a certain hipness factor to attract younger buyers and renters. This is the group that developers who want to build dense housing need to attract.

Uh rent is expensive. Owning and storing a car is expensive. Younger people who have lower disposable income depend on biking to get around. So if the city wants to continue to attract these post-college younger residents, bike lanes is a great way to do it.

DC attracts plenty of single post-college younger residents (and in any case it’s doubtful that many want to live in Chevy Chase DC or Cleveland Park vs U St or Petworth). DC needs to do more to retain families who otherwise move to the suburbs better quality public schools and overall public services. Conn. ave. Bike lanes aren’t at the top of their priority list.

For a lot of younger families who are car free or car-light, yes they are. You clearly have no idea of the demographic shift away from the Boomer-led car era.

Petworth is full of parents, and hardly anyone uses the bike lanes, fyi. Bikes are extremely impractical when you have children.

This is a reality for a lot of younger families.

If we had the proper infrastructure, more people would do this.

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:What if the goal was a safe and thriving neighborhood? If you want a dedicated tunnel to downtown then take Metro.

If the goal is a safe and thriving neighborhood then the impact of any plan on accidents and traffic volume within the neighborhood is vitally important.

If your goal is to ban cars that's simply not happening.

A safe and vibrant neighborhood has bike lanes.

Pretty sure there are many, many safe and vibrant neighborhoods that don’t have bike lanes.

But how many neighborhoods have bike lanes that aren't safe and vibrant?

Lots. You especially see this in other cities that haven’t been overrun with gentrification.

If there's one thing we can take off the table absolutely when it comes to this particular bike lane debate, it's gentrification. You can't gentrify out the landed gentry.

Bike lanes are not about gentrification but they are about density, vibrancy and smart growth. Connecticut Ave has had the reputation of being rather boring and, well, old. Bike lanes add a certain hipness factor to attract younger buyers and renters. This is the group that developers who want to build dense housing need to attract.

Uh rent is expensive. Owning and storing a car is expensive. Younger people who have lower disposable income depend on biking to get around. So if the city wants to continue to attract these post-college younger residents, bike lanes is a great way to do it.

DC attracts plenty of single post-college younger residents (and in any case it’s doubtful that many want to live in Chevy Chase DC or Cleveland Park vs U St or Petworth). DC needs to do more to retain families who otherwise move to the suburbs better quality public schools and overall public services. Conn. ave. Bike lanes aren’t at the top of their priority list.

For a lot of younger families who are car free or car-light, yes they are. You clearly have no idea of the demographic shift away from the Boomer-led car era.

That's not a lot of people in total though.

Please quantify the statement. I dont think you understand how expensive housing in relative to younger two income families.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What if the goal was a safe and thriving neighborhood? If you want a dedicated tunnel to downtown then take Metro.

If the goal is a safe and thriving neighborhood then the impact of any plan on accidents and traffic volume within the neighborhood is vitally important.

If your goal is to ban cars that's simply not happening.

A safe and vibrant neighborhood has bike lanes.

Pretty sure there are many, many safe and vibrant neighborhoods that don’t have bike lanes.

But how many neighborhoods have bike lanes that aren't safe and vibrant?

Lots. You especially see this in other cities that haven’t been overrun with gentrification.

If there's one thing we can take off the table absolutely when it comes to this particular bike lane debate, it's gentrification. You can't gentrify out the landed gentry.

Bike lanes are not about gentrification but they are about density, vibrancy and smart growth. Connecticut Ave has had the reputation of being rather boring and, well, old. Bike lanes add a certain hipness factor to attract younger buyers and renters. This is the group that developers who want to build dense housing need to attract.

Uh rent is expensive. Owning and storing a car is expensive. Younger people who have lower disposable income depend on biking to get around. So if the city wants to continue to attract these post-college younger residents, bike lanes is a great way to do it.

DC attracts plenty of single post-college younger residents (and in any case it’s doubtful that many want to live in Chevy Chase DC or Cleveland Park vs U St or Petworth). DC needs to do more to retain families who otherwise move to the suburbs better quality public schools and overall public services. Conn. ave. Bike lanes aren’t at the top of their priority list.

For a lot of younger families who are car free or car-light, yes they are. You clearly have no idea of the demographic shift away from the Boomer-led car era.

Petworth is full of parents, and hardly anyone uses the bike lanes, fyi. Bikes are extremely impractical when you have children.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What if the goal was a safe and thriving neighborhood? If you want a dedicated tunnel to downtown then take Metro.

If the goal is a safe and thriving neighborhood then the impact of any plan on accidents and traffic volume within the neighborhood is vitally important.

If your goal is to ban cars that's simply not happening.

A safe and vibrant neighborhood has bike lanes.

Pretty sure there are many, many safe and vibrant neighborhoods that don’t have bike lanes.

But how many neighborhoods have bike lanes that aren't safe and vibrant?

Lots. You especially see this in other cities that haven’t been overrun with gentrification.

If there's one thing we can take off the table absolutely when it comes to this particular bike lane debate, it's gentrification. You can't gentrify out the landed gentry.

Bike lanes are not about gentrification but they are about density, vibrancy and smart growth. Connecticut Ave has had the reputation of being rather boring and, well, old. Bike lanes add a certain hipness factor to attract younger buyers and renters. This is the group that developers who want to build dense housing need to attract.

Uh rent is expensive. Owning and storing a car is expensive. Younger people who have lower disposable income depend on biking to get around. So if the city wants to continue to attract these post-college younger residents, bike lanes is a great way to do it.

DC attracts plenty of single post-college younger residents (and in any case it’s doubtful that many want to live in Chevy Chase DC or Cleveland Park vs U St or Petworth). DC needs to do more to retain families who otherwise move to the suburbs better quality public schools and overall public services. Conn. ave. Bike lanes aren’t at the top of their priority list.

For a lot of younger families who are car free or car-light, yes they are. You clearly have no idea of the demographic shift away from the Boomer-led car era.

Petworth is full of parents, and hardly anyone uses the bike lanes, fyi. Bikes are extremely impractical when you have children.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What if the goal was a safe and thriving neighborhood? If you want a dedicated tunnel to downtown then take Metro.

If the goal is a safe and thriving neighborhood then the impact of any plan on accidents and traffic volume within the neighborhood is vitally important.

If your goal is to ban cars that's simply not happening.

A safe and vibrant neighborhood has bike lanes.

Pretty sure there are many, many safe and vibrant neighborhoods that don’t have bike lanes.

But how many neighborhoods have bike lanes that aren't safe and vibrant?

Lots. You especially see this in other cities that haven’t been overrun with gentrification.

If there's one thing we can take off the table absolutely when it comes to this particular bike lane debate, it's gentrification. You can't gentrify out the landed gentry.

Bike lanes are not about gentrification but they are about density, vibrancy and smart growth. Connecticut Ave has had the reputation of being rather boring and, well, old. Bike lanes add a certain hipness factor to attract younger buyers and renters. This is the group that developers who want to build dense housing need to attract.

Uh rent is expensive. Owning and storing a car is expensive. Younger people who have lower disposable income depend on biking to get around. So if the city wants to continue to attract these post-college younger residents, bike lanes is a great way to do it.

DC attracts plenty of single post-college younger residents (and in any case it’s doubtful that many want to live in Chevy Chase DC or Cleveland Park vs U St or Petworth). DC needs to do more to retain families who otherwise move to the suburbs better quality public schools and overall public services. Conn. ave. Bike lanes aren’t at the top of their priority list.

For a lot of younger families who are car free or car-light, yes they are. You clearly have no idea of the demographic shift away from the Boomer-led car era.

That's not a lot of people in total though.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What if the goal was a safe and thriving neighborhood? If you want a dedicated tunnel to downtown then take Metro.

If the goal is a safe and thriving neighborhood then the impact of any plan on accidents and traffic volume within the neighborhood is vitally important.

If your goal is to ban cars that's simply not happening.

A safe and vibrant neighborhood has bike lanes.

Pretty sure there are many, many safe and vibrant neighborhoods that don’t have bike lanes.

But how many neighborhoods have bike lanes that aren't safe and vibrant?

Lots. You especially see this in other cities that haven’t been overrun with gentrification.

If there's one thing we can take off the table absolutely when it comes to this particular bike lane debate, it's gentrification. You can't gentrify out the landed gentry.

Bike lanes are not about gentrification but they are about density, vibrancy and smart growth. Connecticut Ave has had the reputation of being rather boring and, well, old. Bike lanes add a certain hipness factor to attract younger buyers and renters. This is the group that developers who want to build dense housing need to attract.

Uh rent is expensive. Owning and storing a car is expensive. Younger people who have lower disposable income depend on biking to get around. So if the city wants to continue to attract these post-college younger residents, bike lanes is a great way to do it.

DC attracts plenty of single post-college younger residents (and in any case it’s doubtful that many want to live in Chevy Chase DC or Cleveland Park vs U St or Petworth). DC needs to do more to retain families who otherwise move to the suburbs better quality public schools and overall public services. Conn. ave. Bike lanes aren’t at the top of their priority list.

For a lot of younger families who are car free or car-light, yes they are. You clearly have no idea of the demographic shift away from the Boomer-led car era.