Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For me, the one thing that makes Connecticut Ave such a bad idea for bikes lanes is that it is the gateway for millions of tourists each year. Most of whom are not familiar with DC roads nor used to driving in any city. So to mix those tens of thousands of tourist cars each year with a project that will induce thousands of new cyclists each day seems like a total death wish. For that reason Connecticut Ave is fairly unique as compared to other roads where this has been attempted. It’s just a really bad idea.

To me, that makes Connecticut Ave a GOOD idea for bike lanes. Think about all of the tourists who DON'T arrive or get around DC by car. They use Metro, walk, use Bikeshare bikes, use e-scooters...

The zoo alone gets 2,000,000 visitors a year. They have 3,400 parking spots that are full by 10am every day of the year. Plus the folks who park in the neighborhoods. Plus the tourists driving to the mall. That’s a lot of clueless drivers to have on a road along with thousands of kids riding bikes to school and neighbors snacking on Vace pizza while they cruise wistfully along on their beach cruisers, which seems to be the utopian vision of the proponents. It’s kind of a really bad idea and deep down inside you know it.

Some people's anxiety gets them so deep in their unrealistic worries

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For me, the one thing that makes Connecticut Ave such a bad idea for bikes lanes is that it is the gateway for millions of tourists each year. Most of whom are not familiar with DC roads nor used to driving in any city. So to mix those tens of thousands of tourist cars each year with a project that will induce thousands of new cyclists each day seems like a total death wish. For that reason Connecticut Ave is fairly unique as compared to other roads where this has been attempted. It’s just a really bad idea.

To me, that makes Connecticut Ave a GOOD idea for bike lanes. Think about all of the tourists who DON'T arrive or get around DC by car. They use Metro, walk, use Bikeshare bikes, use e-scooters...

The zoo alone gets 2,000,000 visitors a year. They have 3,400 parking spots that are full by 10am every day of the year. Plus the folks who park in the neighborhoods. Plus the tourists driving to the mall. That’s a lot of clueless drivers to have on a road along with thousands of kids riding bikes to school and neighbors snacking on Vace pizza while they cruise wistfully along on their beach cruisers, which seems to be the utopian vision of the proponents. It’s kind of a really bad idea and deep down inside you know it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I like the IDEA of bike lanes. But I have to say that when I was trying to work and raise three kids, at three different schools, with the associated activities, playdates and doctor's appointments, I could barely manage WITH a car. No chance it would have worked on a bike.

If only there was a safe way for some of your kids to get to some of their destination via mode of transportation that they controlled...

Right on. I and a bunch of other kids I went to school with used to ride our bikes to and from school and activities from middle school up through most of high school. Now.. I am a bit older, so back when this was happening pick up trucks were like 2/3rds the size they are today at worst and SUV's didn't really exist.

The whole bigger is better and safer (maybe for the occupants of that vehicle?) craze that has permeated our country has really taken away freedom from both parents and kids and they didn't even consider it.

Kids already bike to all the schools near Connecticut. Doing it on Connecticut is not needed and something no parent would ever allow their elementary school student to do.

More would do it if it were safer.

Where is home/school that would make a major car commuter road your choice for a kid biking to school? Every other option for the local schools is more direct and better.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I like the IDEA of bike lanes. But I have to say that when I was trying to work and raise three kids, at three different schools, with the associated activities, playdates and doctor's appointments, I could barely manage WITH a car. No chance it would have worked on a bike.

If only there was a safe way for some of your kids to get to some of their destination via mode of transportation that they controlled...

Right on. I and a bunch of other kids I went to school with used to ride our bikes to and from school and activities from middle school up through most of high school. Now.. I am a bit older, so back when this was happening pick up trucks were like 2/3rds the size they are today at worst and SUV's didn't really exist.

The whole bigger is better and safer (maybe for the occupants of that vehicle?) craze that has permeated our country has really taken away freedom from both parents and kids and they didn't even consider it.

Kids already bike to all the schools near Connecticut. Doing it on Connecticut is not needed and something no parent would ever allow their elementary school student to do.

Most kids walk to school. No one bikes along Connecticut. Across it, yes, not along it.

Anonymous wrote:For me, the one thing that makes Connecticut Ave such a bad idea for bikes lanes is that it is the gateway for millions of tourists each year. Most of whom are not familiar with DC roads nor used to driving in any city. So to mix those tens of thousands of tourist cars each year with a project that will induce thousands of new cyclists each day seems like a total death wish. For that reason Connecticut Ave is fairly unique as compared to other roads where this has been attempted. It’s just a really bad idea.

To me, that makes Connecticut Ave a GOOD idea for bike lanes. Think about all of the tourists who DON'T arrive or get around DC by car. They use Metro, walk, use Bikeshare bikes, use e-scooters...

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:At the same time they are pushing to get rid of a significant amount of the bus service in the same area - re: the 96 and the L2. Buses are much more accessible to many people than the metro and bike lanes and should not be cut back

There is so much overlap with metrorail on this corridor that cutting the bus service actually makes sense.

Way to demonstrate your keen knowledge of the area. You must be local.

Van Ness -> Farragut/Dupont is all along CT ave. Not sure what that poster got incorrect.

The other half of the road.

Van Ness -> Chevy Chase Circle

Its less than a third of the distance and stops if we're being generous and assume no one can walk. A quarter if we assume people can walk a few blocks.

It's exactly half. It's 4 miles from Chevy Chase Circle to the Taft Bridge and Van Ness is the middle point.

The L2 doesn't stop at the Taft Bridge. The L2 is a route to downtown, just like the red line which it parallels for 2/3 to 3/4 of its route.

The L2 stops on both sides of the Taft Bridge. IT serves a very different group of people than the metro and has many people getting on an off along the route - not all going down town

For me, the one thing that makes Connecticut Ave such a bad idea for bikes lanes is that it is the gateway for millions of tourists each year. Most of whom are not familiar with DC roads nor used to driving in any city. So to mix those tens of thousands of tourist cars each year with a project that will induce thousands of new cyclists each day seems like a total death wish. For that reason Connecticut Ave is fairly unique as compared to other roads where this has been attempted. It’s just a really bad idea.

I am not sure why this website tolerates and in fact encourages post after post and thread after thread of this bicycle nonsense.

This thread isn’t even accurate. The bike lanes are not back. The proposal is to prevent DDOT from doing anything on Connecticut unless it includes bike lanes. Same thing happened with the K Street Transitway. Bike lanes there are no back either.

Anonymous wrote:Bikers are fine with taking detours etc. But to suggest that Porter (which is perpendicular, not parallel to CT Ave) is an alternative, or that Rock Creek, which is fine for many downtown commuters but does nothing for folks who want to run errands etc, is just plain silly.

FWIW, Porter was a typo, I meant Reno there.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:At the same time they are pushing to get rid of a significant amount of the bus service in the same area - re: the 96 and the L2. Buses are much more accessible to many people than the metro and bike lanes and should not be cut back

There is so much overlap with metrorail on this corridor that cutting the bus service actually makes sense.

So bikes can't ride on side streets and then double back on to CT Ave to do their shopping (there are tons of posts about how bikes must have a straight shot and bike lanes all the way along their preferred routes), but old people, disabled, people with little kids etc.. need to get themselves multiple blocks to the metro stops and up and down the escalators v.s the bus stops which are much more frequent and user friendly for groups that arent' fleet footed.

I'm pro-bike lane but agree with you that cutting bus service would be a mistake. However, to be clear, the posts don't say bikes "must have a straight shot"; they typically say riding in Rock Creek Park is a bad alternative to riding on Connecticut. If you wanted to put protected bike lanes on, say, Porter instead of CT, I'd be all for it, going a couple of blocks out of the way is nothing like going half a mile downhill out of the way (and then ending up in Georgetown instead of downtown).

Cars have to go out of the way ALL THE TIME (one way streets, roundabouts, etc). This is a function of travel by car. You can't get directly where you want to go in DC without having to make some loops and turnarounds because of the traffic flow. Pedestrians are the only ones not limited in this way. I don't understand why bikers believe that this should not be the case for them as well. Their traffic patterns need to be managed and diverted for the greater good just like vehicle traffic.

Yes, cars go a block or two out of the way all the time. But going through the park instead of on Connecticut from, say, my house, would add three-quarters of a mile and nearly double the amount of vertical feet involved in the trip (and if I wanted to stay in the park all the way to where the trail ends, it would add even more, but that distance is for if I were to exit it in Woodley Park instead). I don't think that's really comparable to having to drive through a roundabout.

I'm often happy to go out of my way to get to a protected bike lane (I head to 15th Street as soon as possible when commuting through downtown). My point, though, is that suggesting Rock Creek Park is a fine alternative to bike lanes on Connecticut means making it FAR less convenient for bikes than for any other mode of transportation. Which maybe makes sense if you just think anyone who rides a bike anywhere is an idiot who must be punished, but from a planning standpoint, it's probably not ideal.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:At the same time they are pushing to get rid of a significant amount of the bus service in the same area - re: the 96 and the L2. Buses are much more accessible to many people than the metro and bike lanes and should not be cut back

There is so much overlap with metrorail on this corridor that cutting the bus service actually makes sense.

So bikes can't ride on side streets and then double back on to CT Ave to do their shopping (there are tons of posts about how bikes must have a straight shot and bike lanes all the way along their preferred routes), but old people, disabled, people with little kids etc.. need to get themselves multiple blocks to the metro stops and up and down the escalators v.s the bus stops which are much more frequent and user friendly for groups that arent' fleet footed.

I'm pro-bike lane but agree with you that cutting bus service would be a mistake. However, to be clear, the posts don't say bikes "must have a straight shot"; they typically say riding in Rock Creek Park is a bad alternative to riding on Connecticut. If you wanted to put protected bike lanes on, say, Porter instead of CT, I'd be all for it, going a couple of blocks out of the way is nothing like going half a mile downhill out of the way (and then ending up in Georgetown instead of downtown).

Cars have to go out of the way ALL THE TIME (one way streets, roundabouts, etc). This is a function of travel by car. You can't get directly where you want to go in DC without having to make some loops and turnarounds because of the traffic flow. Pedestrians are the only ones not limited in this way. I don't understand why bikers believe that this should not be the case for them as well. Their traffic patterns need to be managed and diverted for the greater good just like vehicle traffic.

So why all the fuss about bike lanes on Connecticut?

To be clear, when you're talking about "traffic flow" and "traffic patterns", you're talking about motor vehicles. You're not including people on bicycles, scooters, feet, etc., in "traffic". "Traffic" is only motor vehicles. Right?

Bikers are fine with taking detours etc. But to suggest that Porter (which is perpendicular, not parallel to CT Ave) is an alternative, or that Rock Creek, which is fine for many downtown commuters but does nothing for folks who want to run errands etc, is just plain silly.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:At the same time they are pushing to get rid of a significant amount of the bus service in the same area - re: the 96 and the L2. Buses are much more accessible to many people than the metro and bike lanes and should not be cut back

There is so much overlap with metrorail on this corridor that cutting the bus service actually makes sense.

So bikes can't ride on side streets and then double back on to CT Ave to do their shopping (there are tons of posts about how bikes must have a straight shot and bike lanes all the way along their preferred routes), but old people, disabled, people with little kids etc.. need to get themselves multiple blocks to the metro stops and up and down the escalators v.s the bus stops which are much more frequent and user friendly for groups that arent' fleet footed.

I'm pro-bike lane but agree with you that cutting bus service would be a mistake. However, to be clear, the posts don't say bikes "must have a straight shot"; they typically say riding in Rock Creek Park is a bad alternative to riding on Connecticut. If you wanted to put protected bike lanes on, say, Porter instead of CT, I'd be all for it, going a couple of blocks out of the way is nothing like going half a mile downhill out of the way (and then ending up in Georgetown instead of downtown).

Cars have to go out of the way ALL THE TIME (one way streets, roundabouts, etc). This is a function of travel by car. You can't get directly where you want to go in DC without having to make some loops and turnarounds because of the traffic flow. Pedestrians are the only ones not limited in this way. I don't understand why bikers believe that this should not be the case for them as well. Their traffic patterns need to be managed and diverted for the greater good just like vehicle traffic.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I like the IDEA of bike lanes. But I have to say that when I was trying to work and raise three kids, at three different schools, with the associated activities, playdates and doctor's appointments, I could barely manage WITH a car. No chance it would have worked on a bike.

If only there was a safe way for some of your kids to get to some of their destination via mode of transportation that they controlled...

Right on. I and a bunch of other kids I went to school with used to ride our bikes to and from school and activities from middle school up through most of high school. Now.. I am a bit older, so back when this was happening pick up trucks were like 2/3rds the size they are today at worst and SUV's didn't really exist.

The whole bigger is better and safer (maybe for the occupants of that vehicle?) craze that has permeated our country has really taken away freedom from both parents and kids and they didn't even consider it.

Kids already bike to all the schools near Connecticut. Doing it on Connecticut is not needed and something no parent would ever allow their elementary school student to do.

More would do it if it were safer.

No. They wouldn't. Connecticut Ave is the most heavily traveled North-South road in DC and the schools are on the side streets. There is no need for kids to bike on it and it will always be a bad idea for them to do so.

This is an example of the proponents being woefully out of touch with the area, because they don't live there.

This is why some people have advocated making Reno/34th the "spine" of Ward 3 bike infrastructure. You then have "ribs" linking up to JR. Deal, Janney, Eaton and some privates, not to mention connecting to businesses on CT and Wisconsin via side streets. Way more useful and not nearly as heavy a political lift.

Reno isn't an option. DDOT studied and rejected it. Not going to happen. That is why everyone has coalesced around Connecticut Avenue and were shocked when the interim director suggested more study for an alternative north to south route...there isn't one.

I would love to read a write up on this. I can't imagine any problems with Reno that aren't much worse on Connecticut.

From what I remember, it was the cyclists who demanded Connecticut because it's more prestigious. The alternative argument was that it would be too politically difficult because the residents would fight it, which is ironic.

Or, hear me out, cyclists want a safe way to get to the shops and restaurants on Connecticut Avenue.

What does "prestige" even mean in this context?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I like the IDEA of bike lanes. But I have to say that when I was trying to work and raise three kids, at three different schools, with the associated activities, playdates and doctor's appointments, I could barely manage WITH a car. No chance it would have worked on a bike.

If only there was a safe way for some of your kids to get to some of their destination via mode of transportation that they controlled...

Right on. I and a bunch of other kids I went to school with used to ride our bikes to and from school and activities from middle school up through most of high school. Now.. I am a bit older, so back when this was happening pick up trucks were like 2/3rds the size they are today at worst and SUV's didn't really exist.

The whole bigger is better and safer (maybe for the occupants of that vehicle?) craze that has permeated our country has really taken away freedom from both parents and kids and they didn't even consider it.

Kids already bike to all the schools near Connecticut. Doing it on Connecticut is not needed and something no parent would ever allow their elementary school student to do.

More would do it if it were safer.

No. They wouldn't. Connecticut Ave is the most heavily traveled North-South road in DC and the schools are on the side streets. There is no need for kids to bike on it and it will always be a bad idea for them to do so.

This is an example of the proponents being woefully out of touch with the area, because they don't live there.

Schools that aren't on side streets:

franklin montessori
UDC
Burke
Stanford
Howard Law

Schools that are a block off Conn Ave
Aiden Montessori
Murch
Levine

Schools that are two blocks off
WIS
John Eaton

There are a ton of kids who could and would use the avenue to bike to school (or their parents would bike them for the younger ones) if it were safe

You want pre-schoolers to bike on their own on Connecticut and think law students are kids?

There is no scenario, absent complete region wide population collapse, where kids bicycling on Connecticut is a good idea.

I guess you missed this part of the post:

(or their parents would bike them for the younger ones)