Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I've *never* seen anyone, not a single person, ever, use a bike lane near my house.

Then either it's a bad bike lane that people don't feel safe riding in, or it's a bike lane that doesn't connect to anything, or both. You should advocate for a connected network of good bike lanes.

There's quite a few bike lanes that no one appears to use. I don't think biking is very popular.

Ok Nick

Oh, Bob. Isn't Mar-a-Lago calling?

Are you suggesting that progressive bike activists are Trumpy?

Ok Nick

The "progressive" bike activitsts and their Smart Growth fellow travelers work with a Trumpy operative who runs several Astroturf group platforms, including "Safer Connecticut Avenue," "Cleveland Park Smart Growth", Uptown Urbanist, CP Boomer, and others.

LOL. Okay bud. You do realize that those are all different people who run those accounts?

No, it’s all the same “Ward Boss.”

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I've *never* seen anyone, not a single person, ever, use a bike lane near my house.

Then either it's a bad bike lane that people don't feel safe riding in, or it's a bike lane that doesn't connect to anything, or both. You should advocate for a connected network of good bike lanes.

There's quite a few bike lanes that no one appears to use. I don't think biking is very popular.

Ok Nick

Oh, Bob. Isn't Mar-a-Lago calling?

Are you suggesting that progressive bike activists are Trumpy?

Ok Nick

The "progressive" bike activitsts and their Smart Growth fellow travelers work with a Trumpy operative who runs several Astroturf group platforms, including "Safer Connecticut Avenue," "Cleveland Park Smart Growth", Uptown Urbanist, CP Boomer, and others.

LOL. Okay bud. You do realize that those are all different people who run those accounts?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The assumption in this post is flawed: that people are anti-bike and anti-bus. First, few people are "anti-bike." They just don't think putting two bike lanes down Connecticut Avenue is the best use of resources given the other competing needs in a finite space. That leads to the second point. If Connecticut is to be redesigned, it would be a far better tradeoff to have dedicated bus lanes than bike lanes. Frequent, fast bus service is a more efficient user of a scarce resource -- lane capacity -- than bike lanes. It is the only option that has the potential to meaningfully reduce private car trips. And bus lanes would enhance a transit option that is inclusive: for senior citizens, the less-mobile, people on fixed incomes who don't have a car, etc.

CT Ave remains 4 lanes wide with the addition of the bike lanes. The city would be well within its rights to reserve two of those lanes for buses. But the issue with the buses is WMATA. They are cutting service, not adding it.

The proposal is not 4 travel lanes. It’s one travel lane and a left turn lane.

No one who lives on the intersecting side streets wants dedicated turn lanes on Connecticut Avenue. They will become inviting off ramps for frustrated commuters in gridlocked traffic con Connecticut Avenue. The volume and speed on vehicles on the the side streets will increase substantially. Why make it easy for through traffic to divert to narrower streets?!

Uh, people are already turning left. This will just make it so they aren't blocking a lane at each intersection. IOW, it will allow CT Ave to flow better. But then, I can see why you would be against, that, because it undermines your argument about gridlock.

It suggests to me the myopic (narcissistic) view of those who want two bike lanes on Connecticut Avenue, no compromises. Put the car traffic somewhere else. If it is driven to narrower side streets where more SFH homes are, so much the better!

Do you know the slightest thing about the plans at all? It would seem not. Here they are: https://ddot.dc.gov/page/connecticut-avenue-nw-reversible-lane-safety-and-operations-study

There is no loss of lanes. In fact, traffic will probably flow better due to the addition of turning lanes.

Anonymous wrote:People will always drive. Encouraging bike fanatics to share road space during peak traffic times - and I am talking specifically about bike fanatics, this is a nuisance and dangerous IMO. If you live in DC, take metro and/or walk to work. Bike miles on a bike path.

My vision is also to stop unchecked growth. Stop building and building more density that cannot be supported by current transportation and school systems and other government services.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The assumption in this post is flawed: that people are anti-bike and anti-bus. First, few people are "anti-bike." They just don't think putting two bike lanes down Connecticut Avenue is the best use of resources given the other competing needs in a finite space. That leads to the second point. If Connecticut is to be redesigned, it would be a far better tradeoff to have dedicated bus lanes than bike lanes. Frequent, fast bus service is a more efficient user of a scarce resource -- lane capacity -- than bike lanes. It is the only option that has the potential to meaningfully reduce private car trips. And bus lanes would enhance a transit option that is inclusive: for senior citizens, the less-mobile, people on fixed incomes who don't have a car, etc.

CT Ave remains 4 lanes wide with the addition of the bike lanes. The city would be well within its rights to reserve two of those lanes for buses. But the issue with the buses is WMATA. They are cutting service, not adding it.

The proposal is not 4 travel lanes. It’s one travel lane and a left turn lane.

No one who lives on the intersecting side streets wants dedicated turn lanes on Connecticut Avenue. They will become inviting off ramps for frustrated commuters in gridlocked traffic con Connecticut Avenue. The volume and speed on vehicles on the the side streets will increase substantially. Why make it easy for through traffic to divert to narrower streets?!

Uh, people are already turning left. This will just make it so they aren't blocking a lane at each intersection. IOW, it will allow CT Ave to flow better. But then, I can see why you would be against, that, because it undermines your argument about gridlock.

It suggests to me the myopic (narcissistic) view of those who want two bike lanes on Connecticut Avenue, no compromises. Put the car traffic somewhere else. If it is driven to narrower side streets where more SFH homes are, so much the better!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The assumption in this post is flawed: that people are anti-bike and anti-bus. First, few people are "anti-bike." They just don't think putting two bike lanes down Connecticut Avenue is the best use of resources given the other competing needs in a finite space. That leads to the second point. If Connecticut is to be redesigned, it would be a far better tradeoff to have dedicated bus lanes than bike lanes. Frequent, fast bus service is a more efficient user of a scarce resource -- lane capacity -- than bike lanes. It is the only option that has the potential to meaningfully reduce private car trips. And bus lanes would enhance a transit option that is inclusive: for senior citizens, the less-mobile, people on fixed incomes who don't have a car, etc.

CT Ave remains 4 lanes wide with the addition of the bike lanes. The city would be well within its rights to reserve two of those lanes for buses. But the issue with the buses is WMATA. They are cutting service, not adding it.

The proposal is not 4 travel lanes. It’s one travel lane and a left turn lane.

No one who lives on the intersecting side streets wants dedicated turn lanes on Connecticut Avenue. They will become inviting off ramps for frustrated commuters in gridlocked traffic con Connecticut Avenue. The volume and speed on vehicles on the the side streets will increase substantially. Why make it easy for through traffic to divert to narrower streets?!

Uh, people are already turning left. This will just make it so they aren't blocking a lane at each intersection. IOW, it will allow CT Ave to flow better. But then, I can see why you would be against, that, because it undermines your argument about gridlock.

It suggests to me the myopic (narcissistic) view of those who want two bike lanes on Connecticut Avenue, no compromises. Put the car traffic somewhere else. If it is driven to narrower side streets where more SFH homes are, so much the better!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I've *never* seen anyone, not a single person, ever, use a bike lane near my house.

Then either it's a bad bike lane that people don't feel safe riding in, or it's a bike lane that doesn't connect to anything, or both. You should advocate for a connected network of good bike lanes.

There's quite a few bike lanes that no one appears to use. I don't think biking is very popular.

Ok Nick

Oh, Bob. Isn't Mar-a-Lago calling?

Are you suggesting that progressive bike activists are Trumpy?

Ok Nick

The "progressive" bike activitsts and their Smart Growth fellow travelers work with a Trumpy operative who runs several Astroturf group platforms, including "Safer Connecticut Avenue," "Cleveland Park Smart Growth", Uptown Urbanist, CP Boomer, and others.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:LOL. PP is so unhinged about bicycles that they posted twice revealing their inability to read.

“it is used incredibly frequently” means that it is used a lot, not a little.

Perhaps there is something about bicycles that makes people lose brain cells?

Read fine to me. PP and PP above that were agreeing with PP that each were quoting. Which was calling the person out who said billions are spent on bike lanes. Because that's just stupid. Like, intensely stupid. Most of the ~100 miles of bike lanes in the city are just paint. Paint is pretty damn cheap last I checked and the labor to repaint a road takes all of a day or so.

I 'd wager good money that the city has spent more on the Mass Ave resurfacing & road bed project in the last year than it's spent on ALL bike related infrastructure ever.

And you would lose all your money. The Mass Ave Rehabilitation budget was $40 million. DC just passed a capital budget commitment of $36 million over the next six years for bike lanes, $125 million to improve trails and $15 million for Capital Bikeshare.

I’m not even going to bother looking up how much has been spent over the past decade.

This is just silly. Those commitments are all over six years. The $125m is for trails in Ward 8 and has nothing to do with bike lanes (which the sitting CM won’t allow).

Do you happen to have a figure for annual expenditure on DC road maintenance?

I think the objection is that, over the years, the city has spent billions of dollars on bike lanes, and only a tiny number of people use them. The cost per user is astronomical. It would be cheaper to pay every cyclist in the city $100,000 to ride the bus or take the subway.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The assumption in this post is flawed: that people are anti-bike and anti-bus. First, few people are "anti-bike." They just don't think putting two bike lanes down Connecticut Avenue is the best use of resources given the other competing needs in a finite space. That leads to the second point. If Connecticut is to be redesigned, it would be a far better tradeoff to have dedicated bus lanes than bike lanes. Frequent, fast bus service is a more efficient user of a scarce resource -- lane capacity -- than bike lanes. It is the only option that has the potential to meaningfully reduce private car trips. And bus lanes would enhance a transit option that is inclusive: for senior citizens, the less-mobile, people on fixed incomes who don't have a car, etc.

CT Ave remains 4 lanes wide with the addition of the bike lanes. The city would be well within its rights to reserve two of those lanes for buses. But the issue with the buses is WMATA. They are cutting service, not adding it.

The proposal is not 4 travel lanes. It’s one travel lane and a left turn lane.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The assumption in this post is flawed: that people are anti-bike and anti-bus. First, few people are "anti-bike." They just don't think putting two bike lanes down Connecticut Avenue is the best use of resources given the other competing needs in a finite space. That leads to the second point. If Connecticut is to be redesigned, it would be a far better tradeoff to have dedicated bus lanes than bike lanes. Frequent, fast bus service is a more efficient user of a scarce resource -- lane capacity -- than bike lanes. It is the only option that has the potential to meaningfully reduce private car trips. And bus lanes would enhance a transit option that is inclusive: for senior citizens, the less-mobile, people on fixed incomes who don't have a car, etc.

But they all post repeatedly on DCUM.

In real life, there are very few anti-transit/pro-bike or pro-transit/anti-bike people. Not least because transit and bikes work together. Most people either support transportation policies that make it easier for people to get places without cars (walking, biking, scooters, buses, etc.) or oppose all efforts to do so.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The assumption in this post is flawed: that people are anti-bike and anti-bus. First, few people are "anti-bike." They just don't think putting two bike lanes down Connecticut Avenue is the best use of resources given the other competing needs in a finite space. That leads to the second point. If Connecticut is to be redesigned, it would be a far better tradeoff to have dedicated bus lanes than bike lanes. Frequent, fast bus service is a more efficient user of a scarce resource -- lane capacity -- than bike lanes. It is the only option that has the potential to meaningfully reduce private car trips. And bus lanes would enhance a transit option that is inclusive: for senior citizens, the less-mobile, people on fixed incomes who don't have a car, etc.

CT Ave remains 4 lanes wide with the addition of the bike lanes. The city would be well within its rights to reserve two of those lanes for buses. But the issue with the buses is WMATA. They are cutting service, not adding it.

The proposal is not 4 travel lanes. It’s one travel lane and a left turn lane.

No one who lives on the intersecting side streets wants dedicated turn lanes on Connecticut Avenue. They will become inviting off ramps for frustrated commuters in gridlocked traffic con Connecticut Avenue. The volume and speed on vehicles on the the side streets will increase substantially. Why make it easy for through traffic to divert to narrower streets?!

Uh, people are already turning left. This will just make it so they aren't blocking a lane at each intersection. IOW, it will allow CT Ave to flow better. But then, I can see why you would be against, that, because it undermines your argument about gridlock.

It suggests to me the myopic (narcissistic) view of those who want two bike lanes on Connecticut Avenue, no compromises. Put the car traffic somewhere else. If it is driven to narrower side streets where more SFH homes are, so much the better!

Anonymous wrote:

It suggests to me the myopic (narcissistic) view of those who want two bike lanes on Connecticut Avenue, no compromises. Put the car traffic somewhere else. If it is driven to narrower side streets where more SFH homes are, so much the better!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The assumption in this post is flawed: that people are anti-bike and anti-bus. First, few people are "anti-bike." They just don't think putting two bike lanes down Connecticut Avenue is the best use of resources given the other competing needs in a finite space. That leads to the second point. If Connecticut is to be redesigned, it would be a far better tradeoff to have dedicated bus lanes than bike lanes. Frequent, fast bus service is a more efficient user of a scarce resource -- lane capacity -- than bike lanes. It is the only option that has the potential to meaningfully reduce private car trips. And bus lanes would enhance a transit option that is inclusive: for senior citizens, the less-mobile, people on fixed incomes who don't have a car, etc.

CT Ave remains 4 lanes wide with the addition of the bike lanes. The city would be well within its rights to reserve two of those lanes for buses. But the issue with the buses is WMATA. They are cutting service, not adding it.

The proposal is not 4 travel lanes. It’s one travel lane and a left turn lane.

No one who lives on the intersecting side streets wants dedicated turn lanes on Connecticut Avenue. They will become inviting off ramps for frustrated commuters in gridlocked traffic con Connecticut Avenue. The volume and speed on vehicles on the the side streets will increase substantially. Why make it easy for through traffic to divert to narrower streets?!

Uh, people are already turning left. This will just make it so they aren't blocking a lane at each intersection. IOW, it will allow CT Ave to flow better. But then, I can see why you would be against, that, because it undermines your argument about gridlock.

Anonymous wrote:The assumption in this post is flawed: that people are anti-bike and anti-bus. First, few people are "anti-bike." They just don't think putting two bike lanes down Connecticut Avenue is the best use of resources given the other competing needs in a finite space. That leads to the second point. If Connecticut is to be redesigned, it would be a far better tradeoff to have dedicated bus lanes than bike lanes. Frequent, fast bus service is a more efficient user of a scarce resource -- lane capacity -- than bike lanes. It is the only option that has the potential to meaningfully reduce private car trips. And bus lanes would enhance a transit option that is inclusive: for senior citizens, the less-mobile, people on fixed incomes who don't have a car, etc.