Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Who is Nick?

Anti-bike nutjob.

My name is not Nick, I’m a cyclist and I think it makes more sense to put bike lanes where there is the most population density and where there is the highest deaths due to traffic violence. To argue otherwise seems like whack job type stuff to me.

Again, what’s wrong with Metro train and metro bus that we’ve collectively paid $10 billion for and has an annual operating budget of $2+ billion? You can put your little bike right on the front.

The craziest thing about bike lanes in D.C. is how few people use them. It would be cheaper if the city paid each bicyclist $10,000 to take the bus.

Ummm the 15th Street bike lane gets as many as 3000 bikes per day and it gets that usage without DC even having a network of lanes which would greatly increase the utilization.

And no it would not be cheaper to pay each bicyclist to take the bus (though most bicyclists also use public transit) - the CT Ave bike lanes are a minuscule expense - the entire project is going to cost about 10 million - DC spends $600 million a year on just maintaining its roads

1. There aren't 3,000 bicyclists in the entire metropolitan area

2. Look at the DC budget -- the city has spend billions on bike infrastructure (the city wants to hire full time people just to clean bike lanes!)

3. Between gas taxes and DC's insane vehicle fees and income taxes, drivers pay for the roads. Bikers are the freeloaders here.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Who is Nick?

Anti-bike nutjob.

My name is not Nick, I’m a cyclist and I think it makes more sense to put bike lanes where there is the most population density and where there is the highest deaths due to traffic violence. To argue otherwise seems like whack job type stuff to me.

Again, what’s wrong with Metro train and metro bus that we’ve collectively paid $10 billion for and has an annual operating budget of $2+ billion? You can put your little bike right on the front.

The craziest thing about bike lanes in D.C. is how few people use them. It would be cheaper if the city paid each bicyclist $10,000 to take the bus.

Ummm the 15th Street bike lane gets as many as 3000 bikes per day and it gets that usage without DC even having a network of lanes which would greatly increase the utilization.

And no it would not be cheaper to pay each bicyclist to take the bus (though most bicyclists also use public transit) - the CT Ave bike lanes are a minuscule expense - the entire project is going to cost about 10 million - DC spends $600 million a year on just maintaining its roads

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Who is Nick?

Anti-bike nutjob.

My name is not Nick, I’m a cyclist and I think it makes more sense to put bike lanes where there is the most population density and where there is the highest deaths due to traffic violence. To argue otherwise seems like whack job type stuff to me.

Again, what’s wrong with Metro train and metro bus that we’ve collectively paid $10 billion for and has an annual operating budget of $2+ billion? You can put your little bike right on the front.

The craziest thing about bike lanes in D.C. is how few people use them. It would be cheaper if the city paid each bicyclist $10,000 to take the bus.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Honest question, why can’t bikers ride from their neighborhood to CT Ave and then slap the bike on front of the bus? Or leave it in a locker and jump on the metro? What is so difficult about this? This seems like a solution in search of a problem.

The “safety” case looks even worse when considering that there have been zero accidents involving bicycles even resulting in minor injuries - even accidents not involving cars - so far this year along CT Ave from Kalorama to the District line. Literally none.

We require a few blood sacrifices before making any changes. There is no way to identify safety issues without that. We are very smart people.

/s

I don’t understand this response. I would presume that data driven policy would focus limited resources on trying to address priorities. In this case, bicycle safety on Connecticut Ave is not a priority based on the data.

When looking at the data, it is clear that the priorities should be Ward 2 (2 bike fatalities, 2 major injuries, 91 minor injuries) and not Ward 3 (0 fatalities, 1 major injury and 3 minor injuries). In fact, directing resources and attention to Ward 3 and away from Ward 2 for cycling infrastructure is actually condemning more people in Ward 2 to death or maiming. You want talk about blood sacrifice? That’s the blood sacrifice that is actually being made.

It neglects data on near misses or hazards that have not yet killed people. That's not a good way to be "data driven".

Prioritizing resources based on data is great. But some improvements aren't resource issues but rather "don't inconvenience drivers" because no one has died yet. It can also argue for more resources rather than just shifting where current resources are spent.

That help?

Nobody bikes on that road. You're demanding to spend tens of millions of dollars, decrease pedestrian safety, destroy small businesses, create a transportation nightmare and massively increase traffic in residential neighborhoods around dozens of schools in order to protect a group of people that in a best case scenario can be counted on one hand and aren't currently in danger.

Nobody uses infrastructure that isn't there already? You sound nuts.

Lol, ok. Point out what is incorrect in that statement.

Perspective, logic, reason. Any other questions?

How ironic.

Please explain your perspectice, logic and reasoning because there doesn't seem to be any and you are avoiding answering the simple question. What exactly is incorrect about that statement?

Cars are bad. Driving them hurts the environment, kills people, and ruins cities.
Please explain why you disagree with that in explicit detail. Otherwise you are wrong.

/s

This is a case of sarcasm to point out how ridiculous you are. Try to keep up.

Cars are not bad. People are. My electric car is fine for the environment. Idiot drivers kill people, not cards. And, no, cars do not ruin cities.

Better than a gas/diesel engine, but still not great (mining, tire wear, roads, parking, etc.). And most drivers are idiots at some point. They just all think they are super.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Who is Nick?

Anti-bike nutjob.

My name is not Nick, I’m a cyclist and I think it makes more sense to put bike lanes where there is the most population density and where there is the highest deaths due to traffic violence. To argue otherwise seems like whack job type stuff to me.

Again, what’s wrong with Metro train and metro bus that we’ve collectively paid $10 billion for and has an annual operating budget of $2+ billion? You can put your little bike right on the front.

And you can put your little self inside the bus instead of inside a car. Easy-peasy.

My car will not kill businesses that we all depend on for services and the city needs for its tax base. One 30 year CT Ave business owner said last week the bike lanes would kill his business so he is not renewing his lease. Others will follow. He literally cited the bike lanes. And the bikers laughed at him. Here’s the thing, most reasonable people in Ward 3 are going to take the word of a small business job creator over the word of a bike riding non profit worker with a worthless college degree that contributes nothing to the community other than some annual report that nobody ever reads.

The way businesses in Cleveland Park have been going lately, it sort of seems hard to put ALL the blame on the bike lanes, which aren't even there yet. Who is this business owner, anyway? He's been cited a lot in this thread, but which business is it?

Some of the blame also falls on the city for its complete mismanagement of the homeless situation. They are packing the strip with housing vouchers. There were 5 pan handlers along the commercial strip yesterday. One was walking in and out of traffic. There’s also a shirtless gentleman who spends hours dancing on the sidewalks along the strip. I know all the bikers will enjoy meeting him.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Who is Nick?

Anti-bike nutjob.

My name is not Nick, I’m a cyclist and I think it makes more sense to put bike lanes where there is the most population density and where there is the highest deaths due to traffic violence. To argue otherwise seems like whack job type stuff to me.

Again, what’s wrong with Metro train and metro bus that we’ve collectively paid $10 billion for and has an annual operating budget of $2+ billion? You can put your little bike right on the front.

And you can put your little self inside the bus instead of inside a car. Easy-peasy.

My car will not kill businesses that we all depend on for services and the city needs for its tax base. One 30 year CT Ave business owner said last week the bike lanes would kill his business so he is not renewing his lease. Others will follow. He literally cited the bike lanes. And the bikers laughed at him. Here’s the thing, most reasonable people in Ward 3 are going to take the word of a small business job creator over the word of a bike riding non profit worker with a worthless college degree that contributes nothing to the community other than some annual report that nobody ever reads.

The way businesses in Cleveland Park have been going lately, it sort of seems hard to put ALL the blame on the bike lanes, which aren't even there yet. Who is this business owner, anyway? He's been cited a lot in this thread, but which business is it?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Who is Nick?

Anti-bike nutjob.

My name is not Nick, I’m a cyclist and I think it makes more sense to put bike lanes where there is the most population density and where there is the highest deaths due to traffic violence. To argue otherwise seems like whack job type stuff to me.

Again, what’s wrong with Metro train and metro bus that we’ve collectively paid $10 billion for and has an annual operating budget of $2+ billion? You can put your little bike right on the front.

And you can put your little self inside the bus instead of inside a car. Easy-peasy.

My car will not kill businesses that we all depend on for services and the city needs for its tax base. One 30 year CT Ave business owner said last week the bike lanes would kill his business so he is not renewing his lease. Others will follow. He literally cited the bike lanes. And the bikers laughed at him. Here’s the thing, most reasonable people in Ward 3 are going to take the word of a small business job creator over the word of a bike riding non profit worker with a worthless college degree that contributes nothing to the community other than some annual report that nobody ever reads.

The way businesses in Cleveland Park have been going lately, it sort of seems hard to put ALL the blame on the bike lanes, which aren't even there yet. Who is this business owner, anyway? He's been cited a lot in this thread, but which business is it?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Who is Nick?

Anti-bike nutjob.

My name is not Nick, I’m a cyclist and I think it makes more sense to put bike lanes where there is the most population density and where there is the highest deaths due to traffic violence. To argue otherwise seems like whack job type stuff to me.

Again, what’s wrong with Metro train and metro bus that we’ve collectively paid $10 billion for and has an annual operating budget of $2+ billion? You can put your little bike right on the front.

And you can put your little self inside the bus instead of inside a car. Easy-peasy.

My car will not kill businesses that we all depend on for services and the city needs for its tax base. One 30 year CT Ave business owner said last week the bike lanes would kill his business so he is not renewing his lease. Others will follow. He literally cited the bike lanes. And the bikers laughed at him. Here’s the thing, most reasonable people in Ward 3 are going to take the word of a small business job creator over the word of a bike riding non profit worker with a worthless college degree that contributes nothing to the community other than some annual report that nobody ever reads.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Who is Nick?

Anti-bike nutjob.

My name is not Nick, I’m a cyclist and I think it makes more sense to put bike lanes where there is the most population density and where there is the highest deaths due to traffic violence. To argue otherwise seems like whack job type stuff to me.

Again, what’s wrong with Metro train and metro bus that we’ve collectively paid $10 billion for and has an annual operating budget of $2+ billion? You can put your little bike right on the front.

And you can put your little self inside the bus instead of inside a car. Easy-peasy.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Honest question, why can’t bikers ride from their neighborhood to CT Ave and then slap the bike on front of the bus? Or leave it in a locker and jump on the metro? What is so difficult about this? This seems like a solution in search of a problem.

The “safety” case looks even worse when considering that there have been zero accidents involving bicycles even resulting in minor injuries - even accidents not involving cars - so far this year along CT Ave from Kalorama to the District line. Literally none.

We require a few blood sacrifices before making any changes. There is no way to identify safety issues without that. We are very smart people.

/s

I don’t understand this response. I would presume that data driven policy would focus limited resources on trying to address priorities. In this case, bicycle safety on Connecticut Ave is not a priority based on the data.

When looking at the data, it is clear that the priorities should be Ward 2 (2 bike fatalities, 2 major injuries, 91 minor injuries) and not Ward 3 (0 fatalities, 1 major injury and 3 minor injuries). In fact, directing resources and attention to Ward 3 and away from Ward 2 for cycling infrastructure is actually condemning more people in Ward 2 to death or maiming. You want talk about blood sacrifice? That’s the blood sacrifice that is actually being made.

It neglects data on near misses or hazards that have not yet killed people. That's not a good way to be "data driven".

Prioritizing resources based on data is great. But some improvements aren't resource issues but rather "don't inconvenience drivers" because no one has died yet. It can also argue for more resources rather than just shifting where current resources are spent.

That help?

Nobody bikes on that road. You're demanding to spend tens of millions of dollars, decrease pedestrian safety, destroy small businesses, create a transportation nightmare and massively increase traffic in residential neighborhoods around dozens of schools in order to protect a group of people that in a best case scenario can be counted on one hand and aren't currently in danger.

Nobody uses infrastructure that isn't there already? You sound nuts.

Lol, ok. Point out what is incorrect in that statement.

Plenty of people use infrastructure that isn't already there. Classic example is a college campus where no walkways are created to a new building. Pedestrians create their own paths to the buildings and these paths are then formalized following those created organically.

This really seems quite difficult for you. And to bring it back on point. We are discussing a multi-million dollar endeavor to reduce the size of one the most important and utilized north south roads in the city by 1/3rd. This plan, as proposed, specifically intends to push 25% of existing traffic from Connecticut onto residential side streets. Businesses along this road are almost unanimously opposed. It does not benefit anybody at this moment and will make residential streets less safe for both pedestrians and bicyclists. This is not about anyone's "team".

Why don't they just use the bus like the other poster glibly suggested bicyclists do?

What are you blathering on about? Bicyclists dont even use Connecticut they use Beach.

I don't want thousands of extra vehicles on my residential side street. I want my kids to be able to bike safely in their neighborhood. I want seniors to be able to cross the street in my neighborhood. I want businesses on Connecticut Avenue to survive and thrive. And lastly I don't want my city goverenment to spend tens of millions of dollars on a white elephant that has no benefit for anyone and causes harm.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Honest question, why can’t bikers ride from their neighborhood to CT Ave and then slap the bike on front of the bus? Or leave it in a locker and jump on the metro? What is so difficult about this? This seems like a solution in search of a problem.

The “safety” case looks even worse when considering that there have been zero accidents involving bicycles even resulting in minor injuries - even accidents not involving cars - so far this year along CT Ave from Kalorama to the District line. Literally none.

We require a few blood sacrifices before making any changes. There is no way to identify safety issues without that. We are very smart people.

/s

I don’t understand this response. I would presume that data driven policy would focus limited resources on trying to address priorities. In this case, bicycle safety on Connecticut Ave is not a priority based on the data.

When looking at the data, it is clear that the priorities should be Ward 2 (2 bike fatalities, 2 major injuries, 91 minor injuries) and not Ward 3 (0 fatalities, 1 major injury and 3 minor injuries). In fact, directing resources and attention to Ward 3 and away from Ward 2 for cycling infrastructure is actually condemning more people in Ward 2 to death or maiming. You want talk about blood sacrifice? That’s the blood sacrifice that is actually being made.

It neglects data on near misses or hazards that have not yet killed people. That's not a good way to be "data driven".

Prioritizing resources based on data is great. But some improvements aren't resource issues but rather "don't inconvenience drivers" because no one has died yet. It can also argue for more resources rather than just shifting where current resources are spent.

That help?

Nobody bikes on that road. You're demanding to spend tens of millions of dollars, decrease pedestrian safety, destroy small businesses, create a transportation nightmare and massively increase traffic in residential neighborhoods around dozens of schools in order to protect a group of people that in a best case scenario can be counted on one hand and aren't currently in danger.

Nobody uses infrastructure that isn't there already? You sound nuts.

Lol, ok. Point out what is incorrect in that statement.

Plenty of people use infrastructure that isn't already there. Classic example is a college campus where no walkways are created to a new building. Pedestrians create their own paths to the buildings and these paths are then formalized following those created organically.

This really seems quite difficult for you. And to bring it back on point. We are discussing a multi-million dollar endeavor to reduce the size of one the most important and utilized north south roads in the city by 1/3rd. This plan, as proposed, specifically intends to push 25% of existing traffic from Connecticut onto residential side streets. Businesses along this road are almost unanimously opposed. It does not benefit anybody at this moment and will make residential streets less safe for both pedestrians and bicyclists. This is not about anyone's "team".

Why don't they just use the bus like the other poster glibly suggested bicyclists do?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why don't people who want a car-centric sprawl move to LA? That should be their Mecca!

Why don’t people who want to bike move to Memphis. At least in Memphis, they are more likely to be murdered than to die in a traffic accident they caused.

Why don't you make like a tree and...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Honest question, why can’t bikers ride from their neighborhood to CT Ave and then slap the bike on front of the bus? Or leave it in a locker and jump on the metro? What is so difficult about this? This seems like a solution in search of a problem.

The “safety” case looks even worse when considering that there have been zero accidents involving bicycles even resulting in minor injuries - even accidents not involving cars - so far this year along CT Ave from Kalorama to the District line. Literally none.

We require a few blood sacrifices before making any changes. There is no way to identify safety issues without that. We are very smart people.

/s

I don’t understand this response. I would presume that data driven policy would focus limited resources on trying to address priorities. In this case, bicycle safety on Connecticut Ave is not a priority based on the data.

When looking at the data, it is clear that the priorities should be Ward 2 (2 bike fatalities, 2 major injuries, 91 minor injuries) and not Ward 3 (0 fatalities, 1 major injury and 3 minor injuries). In fact, directing resources and attention to Ward 3 and away from Ward 2 for cycling infrastructure is actually condemning more people in Ward 2 to death or maiming. You want talk about blood sacrifice? That’s the blood sacrifice that is actually being made.

It neglects data on near misses or hazards that have not yet killed people. That's not a good way to be "data driven".

Prioritizing resources based on data is great. But some improvements aren't resource issues but rather "don't inconvenience drivers" because no one has died yet. It can also argue for more resources rather than just shifting where current resources are spent.

That help?

Nobody bikes on that road. You're demanding to spend tens of millions of dollars, decrease pedestrian safety, destroy small businesses, create a transportation nightmare and massively increase traffic in residential neighborhoods around dozens of schools in order to protect a group of people that in a best case scenario can be counted on one hand and aren't currently in danger.

Nobody uses infrastructure that isn't there already? You sound nuts.

Lol, ok. Point out what is incorrect in that statement.

Plenty of people use infrastructure that isn't already there. Classic example is a college campus where no walkways are created to a new building. Pedestrians create their own paths to the buildings and these paths are then formalized following those created organically.

This really seems quite difficult for you. And to bring it back on point. We are discussing a multi-million dollar endeavor to reduce the size of one the most important and utilized north south roads in the city by 1/3rd. This plan, as proposed, specifically intends to push 25% of existing traffic from Connecticut onto residential side streets. Businesses along this road are almost unanimously opposed. It does not benefit anybody at this moment and will make residential streets less safe for both pedestrians and bicyclists. This is not about anyone's "team".

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Honest question, why can’t bikers ride from their neighborhood to CT Ave and then slap the bike on front of the bus? Or leave it in a locker and jump on the metro? What is so difficult about this? This seems like a solution in search of a problem.

The “safety” case looks even worse when considering that there have been zero accidents involving bicycles even resulting in minor injuries - even accidents not involving cars - so far this year along CT Ave from Kalorama to the District line. Literally none.

We require a few blood sacrifices before making any changes. There is no way to identify safety issues without that. We are very smart people.

/s

I don’t understand this response. I would presume that data driven policy would focus limited resources on trying to address priorities. In this case, bicycle safety on Connecticut Ave is not a priority based on the data.

When looking at the data, it is clear that the priorities should be Ward 2 (2 bike fatalities, 2 major injuries, 91 minor injuries) and not Ward 3 (0 fatalities, 1 major injury and 3 minor injuries). In fact, directing resources and attention to Ward 3 and away from Ward 2 for cycling infrastructure is actually condemning more people in Ward 2 to death or maiming. You want talk about blood sacrifice? That’s the blood sacrifice that is actually being made.

It neglects data on near misses or hazards that have not yet killed people. That's not a good way to be "data driven".

Prioritizing resources based on data is great. But some improvements aren't resource issues but rather "don't inconvenience drivers" because no one has died yet. It can also argue for more resources rather than just shifting where current resources are spent.

That help?

Nobody bikes on that road. You're demanding to spend tens of millions of dollars, decrease pedestrian safety, destroy small businesses, create a transportation nightmare and massively increase traffic in residential neighborhoods around dozens of schools in order to protect a group of people that in a best case scenario can be counted on one hand and aren't currently in danger.

Nobody uses infrastructure that isn't there already? You sound nuts.

Lol, ok. Point out what is incorrect in that statement.

Plenty of people use infrastructure that isn't already there. Classic example is a college campus where no walkways are created to a new building. Pedestrians create their own paths to the buildings and these paths are then formalized following those created organically.