Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

It’s a bit chicken and egg. Bike lanes are needed to help transform Connecticut Ave from a somewhat sleepy linear retirement community (albeit one with traffic) into a vibrant urban corridor. Bike lanes will attract the private investment to add density, thousands of new housing units to attract young creatives. That, in turn, will generate thousands of bike riders for the new infrastructure.

It is really more about converting the road from a dangerous traffic sewer to a bona fide main street that connects various commercial nodes.

How does making traffic worse and more dangerous during peak usage make it less of a traffic sewer?

The concept is to encourage more commuter traffic not to use Connecticut and distribute it via more efficient utilization of the area street grid. A traffic sewer is incompatible with a multimodal boulevard and urban place making design.

You didn't answer the question. How does increasing congestion at all times, diverting traffic through residential neighborhoods and making traffic more dangerous during peak usage make Connecticut less of a "traffic sewer"?

Read any modern traffic engineering or traffic planning book. It is actually the truth, it has been explained in this thread at least 50 times in the 118 pages so far. You don't want to accept what others have posted here, so you can either continue to be ignorant about it, or you can read up. Other cities around the country and world have managed to make this conversion away from cars with great success.

Just answer the question. How does increasing congestion, diverting traffic into residential neighborhoods, and making the entire area more dangerous during peak usage lead make it less of a "traffic sewer"?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

It’s a bit chicken and egg. Bike lanes are needed to help transform Connecticut Ave from a somewhat sleepy linear retirement community (albeit one with traffic) into a vibrant urban corridor. Bike lanes will attract the private investment to add density, thousands of new housing units to attract young creatives. That, in turn, will generate thousands of bike riders for the new infrastructure.

It is really more about converting the road from a dangerous traffic sewer to a bona fide main street that connects various commercial nodes.

How does making traffic worse and more dangerous during peak usage make it less of a traffic sewer?

You are getting "worse" either way, but what DDOT has offered up currently is worse and more dangerous than what is currently there or what was proposed under Concept C. But the pro-parking lobby won out so it is all good.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

It’s a bit chicken and egg. Bike lanes are needed to help transform Connecticut Ave from a somewhat sleepy linear retirement community (albeit one with traffic) into a vibrant urban corridor. Bike lanes will attract the private investment to add density, thousands of new housing units to attract young creatives. That, in turn, will generate thousands of bike riders for the new infrastructure.

It is really more about converting the road from a dangerous traffic sewer to a bona fide main street that connects various commercial nodes.

How does making traffic worse and more dangerous during peak usage make it less of a traffic sewer?

The concept is to encourage more commuter traffic not to use Connecticut and distribute it via more efficient utilization of the area street grid. A traffic sewer is incompatible with a multimodal boulevard and urban place making design.

You didn't answer the question. How does increasing congestion at all times, diverting traffic through residential neighborhoods and making traffic more dangerous during peak usage make Connecticut less of a "traffic sewer"?

Read any modern traffic engineering or traffic planning book. It is actually the truth, it has been explained in this thread at least 50 times in the 118 pages so far. You don't want to accept what others have posted here, so you can either continue to be ignorant about it, or you can read up. Other cities around the country and world have managed to make this conversion away from cars with great success.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

It’s a bit chicken and egg. Bike lanes are needed to help transform Connecticut Ave from a somewhat sleepy linear retirement community (albeit one with traffic) into a vibrant urban corridor. Bike lanes will attract the private investment to add density, thousands of new housing units to attract young creatives. That, in turn, will generate thousands of bike riders for the new infrastructure.

It is really more about converting the road from a dangerous traffic sewer to a bona fide main street that connects various commercial nodes.

How does making traffic worse and more dangerous during peak usage make it less of a traffic sewer?

The concept is to encourage more commuter traffic not to use Connecticut and distribute it via more efficient utilization of the area street grid. A traffic sewer is incompatible with a multimodal boulevard and urban place making design.

You didn't answer the question. How does increasing congestion at all times, diverting traffic through residential neighborhoods and making traffic more dangerous during peak usage make Connecticut less of a "traffic sewer"?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

It’s a bit chicken and egg. Bike lanes are needed to help transform Connecticut Ave from a somewhat sleepy linear retirement community (albeit one with traffic) into a vibrant urban corridor. Bike lanes will attract the private investment to add density, thousands of new housing units to attract young creatives. That, in turn, will generate thousands of bike riders for the new infrastructure.

It is really more about converting the road from a dangerous traffic sewer to a bona fide main street that connects various commercial nodes.

How does making traffic worse and more dangerous during peak usage make it less of a traffic sewer?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

It’s a bit chicken and egg. Bike lanes are needed to help transform Connecticut Ave from a somewhat sleepy linear retirement community (albeit one with traffic) into a vibrant urban corridor. Bike lanes will attract the private investment to add density, thousands of new housing units to attract young creatives. That, in turn, will generate thousands of bike riders for the new infrastructure.

It is really more about converting the road from a dangerous traffic sewer to a bona fide main street that connects various commercial nodes.

How does making traffic worse and more dangerous during peak usage make it less of a traffic sewer?

The concept is to encourage more commuter traffic not to use Connecticut and distribute it via more efficient utilization of the area street grid. A traffic sewer is incompatible with a multimodal boulevard and urban place making design.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

It’s a bit chicken and egg. Bike lanes are needed to help transform Connecticut Ave from a somewhat sleepy linear retirement community (albeit one with traffic) into a vibrant urban corridor. Bike lanes will attract the private investment to add density, thousands of new housing units to attract young creatives. That, in turn, will generate thousands of bike riders for the new infrastructure.

It is really more about converting the road from a dangerous traffic sewer to a bona fide main street that connects various commercial nodes.

How does making traffic worse and more dangerous during peak usage make it less of a traffic sewer?

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!

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.

It’s a bit chicken and egg. Bike lanes are needed to help transform Connecticut Ave from a somewhat sleepy linear retirement community (albeit one with traffic) into a vibrant urban corridor. Bike lanes will attract the private investment to add density, thousands of new housing units to attract young creatives. That, in turn, will generate thousands of bike riders for the new infrastructure.

It is really more about converting the road from a dangerous traffic sewer to a bona fide main street that connects various commercial nodes.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

It’s a bit chicken and egg. Bike lanes are needed to help transform Connecticut Ave from a somewhat sleepy linear retirement community (albeit one with traffic) into a vibrant urban corridor. Bike lanes will attract the private investment to add density, thousands of new housing units to attract young creatives. That, in turn, will generate thousands of bike riders for the new infrastructure.

It is really more about converting the road from a dangerous traffic sewer to a bona fide main street that connects various commercial nodes.

“Commercial nodes”? I thought they were neighborhood shopping districts?

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!

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.

It’s a bit chicken and egg. Bike lanes are needed to help transform Connecticut Ave from a somewhat sleepy linear retirement community (albeit one with traffic) into a vibrant urban corridor. Bike lanes will attract the private investment to add density, thousands of new housing units to attract young creatives. That, in turn, will generate thousands of bike riders for the new infrastructure.

It is really more about converting the road from a dangerous traffic sewer to a bona fide main street that connects various commercial nodes.

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!

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.

It’s a bit chicken and egg. Bike lanes are needed to help transform Connecticut Ave from a somewhat sleepy linear retirement community (albeit one with traffic) into a vibrant urban corridor. Bike lanes will attract the private investment to add density, thousands of new housing units to attract young creatives. That, in turn, will generate thousands of bike riders for the new infrastructure.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

I remember you making this claim way back when. And I remember that we dissected it and discovered that this was a shared use bridge funded largely by the federal government. But yet you are back again with your lies. Weird.

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!

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.

It’s a bit chicken and egg. Bike lanes are needed to help transform Connecticut Ave from a somewhat sleepy linear retirement community (albeit one with traffic) into a vibrant urban corridor. Bike lanes will attract the private investment to add density, thousands of new housing units to attract young creatives. That, in turn, will generate thousands of bike riders for the new infrastructure.

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.