Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is hilarious.

Is there 14,000 cyclists in all of North America? I doubt it.

“Replacing vehicular lanes with bicycle lanes ultimately increases the maximum capacity of the overall right of way, as an average car lane moves up to around 2,000 people per hour per direction, while an average bike lane using the same space can move up to around 14,000 people per hour per direction,” the report said.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2024/05/15/connecticut-avenue-bike-lane-revived/

It's one of those meaningless statistics because one could also say that 28,000 Segways (half the size of a bike but the same speed) per hour or even more smart cars (smaller length, larger width but faster speed).

There is one simple fact that matters. Right now, 30,000 cars per day use Connecticut while bicycle use per day is in the low double digits. The demand is simply not there.

As usual, the bicyclists overreached. If they had waited until at least 500 people on average per day over a calendar year were using it then they might have had a point.

People not wanting to risk their lives riding a bike on Connecticut Avenue is not indicative of a lack of demand. Count me and three additional members of my family who would replace countless car trips if it were safe to do so.

A protected gutter lane on a major avenue will never induce usage from anyone who is concerned about safety.

Of course it will — it would be far, far safer than the way you ride on that street now, i.e., just in traffic.

You forget the fact that nothing is stopping these people from riding on the sidewalk today. But yes, let’s imagine this magical group of people too worried about their own safety to ride on Connecticut Ave today but also not willing to use a really safe alternative option currently available would start riding their bicycle because there was a plastic bollard protecting them from a car 3 feet away while they had to ride through broken glass and trash. Make this make sense.

You’re telling me that there are thousands of people who don’t ride bikes on Connecticut Avenue today would because they are worried about personal safety

I didn't say thousands would start riding. You said a protected bike lane would "never" induce "anyone" to start, which is clearly wrong.

Riding on the sidewalk isn't anything like riding in a protected bike lane; there are no pedestrians in the bike lane (well, at least, there aren't supposed to be). There's far less perpendicular foot traffic crossing the bike lane than there is on a sidewalk, too. You don't have to go down and up dips for curb cuts and driveways in a bike lane, as you frequently do on a sidewalk (I once rode from Tenleytown to Dupont Circle on the sidewalk on Mass Ave and found that part of it particularly annoying). And in a lot of places, the sidewalk is narrower than the bike lanes are.

I don't entirely see what your argument is here — you're against bike lanes, okay, but you also think they're not safe enough? Have you ever ridden a bike in D.C.? I promise you that it feels far, far safer to ride in a protected lane than it does without one. Don't believe me? Go try it!

Yeah, people who claim to be for pedestrians should be for good bike lanes, not against them. I have this thought every time I used "shared use paths" as either a bicyclist or a pedestrian, and I use them a lot.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is hilarious.

Is there 14,000 cyclists in all of North America? I doubt it.

“Replacing vehicular lanes with bicycle lanes ultimately increases the maximum capacity of the overall right of way, as an average car lane moves up to around 2,000 people per hour per direction, while an average bike lane using the same space can move up to around 14,000 people per hour per direction,” the report said.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2024/05/15/connecticut-avenue-bike-lane-revived/

It's one of those meaningless statistics because one could also say that 28,000 Segways (half the size of a bike but the same speed) per hour or even more smart cars (smaller length, larger width but faster speed).

There is one simple fact that matters. Right now, 30,000 cars per day use Connecticut while bicycle use per day is in the low double digits. The demand is simply not there.

As usual, the bicyclists overreached. If they had waited until at least 500 people on average per day over a calendar year were using it then they might have had a point.

People not wanting to risk their lives riding a bike on Connecticut Avenue is not indicative of a lack of demand. Count me and three additional members of my family who would replace countless car trips if it were safe to do so.

A protected gutter lane on a major avenue will never induce usage from anyone who is concerned about safety.

Of course it will — it would be far, far safer than the way you ride on that street now, i.e., just in traffic.

You forget the fact that nothing is stopping these people from riding on the sidewalk today. But yes, let’s imagine this magical group of people too worried about their own safety to ride on Connecticut Ave today but also not willing to use a really safe alternative option currently available would start riding their bicycle because there was a plastic bollard protecting them from a car 3 feet away while they had to ride through broken glass and trash. Make this make sense.

You’re telling me that there are thousands of people who don’t ride bikes on Connecticut Avenue today would because they are worried about personal safety

I didn't say thousands would start riding. You said a protected bike lane would "never" induce "anyone" to start, which is clearly wrong.

Riding on the sidewalk isn't anything like riding in a protected bike lane; there are no pedestrians in the bike lane (well, at least, there aren't supposed to be). There's far less perpendicular foot traffic crossing the bike lane than there is on a sidewalk, too. You don't have to go down and up dips for curb cuts and driveways in a bike lane, as you frequently do on a sidewalk (I once rode from Tenleytown to Dupont Circle on the sidewalk on Mass Ave and found that part of it particularly annoying). And in a lot of places, the sidewalk is narrower than the bike lanes are.

I don't entirely see what your argument is here — you're against bike lanes, okay, but you also think they're not safe enough? Have you ever ridden a bike in D.C.? I promise you that it feels far, far safer to ride in a protected lane than it does without one. Don't believe me? Go try it!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

DC already has more than 150 miles of bike lanes, many of them protected, and the number of cyclists in this city is going down. If cyclists were a stock, you'd sell. It's already topped out.

False statement. You continue to cite "commuter" which, with work from home, is down everywhere. Cycling in general is way up, so measure that way rather than taking faulty "commuter" stats.

The number of people that work from home had declined significantly and continues to decline every month. The fad is over.

Then why do you keep citing your 11 county commuter survey from 2022? We know things like CABI are way up since 2022.

You’re absolutely and completely crazy. You’re the one playing both sides of the work from home. No one else gives a crap.

Why don’t you go and find data instead of reverting to anecdotes about commuter garages.

Get help. Seriously.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

DC already has more than 150 miles of bike lanes, many of them protected, and the number of cyclists in this city is going down. If cyclists were a stock, you'd sell. It's already topped out.

False statement. You continue to cite "commuter" which, with work from home, is down everywhere. Cycling in general is way up, so measure that way rather than taking faulty "commuter" stats.

Every transportation survey I’ve seen shows the number of cyclists is not only very small but is getting smaller…

+1

Where's the study that shows cycling in DC is "way up"?

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:Yeah, I'm at least as pro-bike lane as the next person who bikes downtown a lot, but it's silly to pretend the elections (at any level, ANC through ward Council member) were referenda on bike lanes. No one specifically campaigned against them in any race I can remember, so the fact that the people who won supported them doesn't exactly prove that everyone who voted for them also wanted the project.

Not true.

David Krucoff campaigned against them and in the Connecticut Avenue precincts, he did worse against Frumin than he did elsewhere across the Ward.
There were several ANC races in Ward 3 where the bike lanes were THE defining issue, and in each case, the pro-bile lane candidate won.

Krucoff had an "R" next to his name, which means he had no chance of winning no matter his stance on anything.

Good lord, you can't possibly be so stupid to use that argument.

And, in the precincts where bike lanes were the main issue, Frumin outperformed Krucoff as compared to the rest of the ward. Maybe you aren't getting it, so I will explain.

If Frumin generally beat Krucoff 75-25 in Palisades and Spring Valley, in Woodley Park, Cleveland Park and Forest Hills, he beat Krucoff 80-20. Get it?

DP, but nothing you’ve written excludes party affiliation as an explanation for voter preference. Maybe Woodley Park, Cleveland Park, Forest Hills voters have stronger partisan biases.

Which would mean more people in those areas support progressive issues like...bike lanes.

Not all progressives think bike lanes on Connecticut Avenue are a good idea, but even if they did, you still haven’t excluded partisan identification as the primary driver of voter preference. The only information on the ballot were the candidates’ names and party affiliation. You would have a stronger case if bike lane positions were on the ballot or if party identification had a weaker relationship with candidate preference in recent elections.

Anyone engaged with the Council race, particularly in the Connecticut Avenue corridor, had a lot of exposure to this issue, as other than party affiliation, was the only real difference between the candidates. The republican, in fact LIVES in Cleveland Park so it was his home turf, and he still underperformed. It is clear you don't live on the Conn Ave corridor and missed all of the signs, wheatpaste stickers, Nextdoor and Listserv posts on the race, which were solely focused on this one issue.

Hypothetical: if you flip it around, and the R supported bike lanes and the D opposed them, who do you think would have won? If you think the R would have won, then you have won the argument.

If an R were running and supported the bike lanes, then the southern strategy and follow on political shift between the parties never would have happened, so, sure.

What are you talking about? The southern strategy was implemented decades ago. We’re talking about today. R candidate supports bike lanes. D candidate opposes. Who wins?

You missed the point. There is no planet where the MAGA infested GOP would have a candidate that supports bike lanes, so it is really a silly strawman question.

It’s no sillier than your assertion that a Democrat beat a Republican in DC because the Democrat supported bike lanes.

Dude, Frumin did better against Krucoff than Cheh did in her last couple runs against whatever republican was running against her. Like, Krucoff really did poorly. And a fair amount of the vote he did get were the people who really don't like bike lanes and dined with him and threw little fundraisers at the greek place where a few people got ran over by an errant driver.

My Republican neighbors voted against Krukoff because of Trump.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

DC already has more than 150 miles of bike lanes, many of them protected, and the number of cyclists in this city is going down. If cyclists were a stock, you'd sell. It's already topped out.

False statement. You continue to cite "commuter" which, with work from home, is down everywhere. Cycling in general is way up, so measure that way rather than taking faulty "commuter" stats.

The number of people that work from home had declined significantly and continues to decline every month. The fad is over.

Then why do you keep citing your 11 county commuter survey from 2022? We know things like CABI are way up since 2022.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is hilarious.

Is there 14,000 cyclists in all of North America? I doubt it.

“Replacing vehicular lanes with bicycle lanes ultimately increases the maximum capacity of the overall right of way, as an average car lane moves up to around 2,000 people per hour per direction, while an average bike lane using the same space can move up to around 14,000 people per hour per direction,” the report said.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2024/05/15/connecticut-avenue-bike-lane-revived/

It's one of those meaningless statistics because one could also say that 28,000 Segways (half the size of a bike but the same speed) per hour or even more smart cars (smaller length, larger width but faster speed).

There is one simple fact that matters. Right now, 30,000 cars per day use Connecticut while bicycle use per day is in the low double digits. The demand is simply not there.

As usual, the bicyclists overreached. If they had waited until at least 500 people on average per day over a calendar year were using it then they might have had a point.

People not wanting to risk their lives riding a bike on Connecticut Avenue is not indicative of a lack of demand. Count me and three additional members of my family who would replace countless car trips if it were safe to do so.

A protected gutter lane on a major avenue will never induce usage from anyone who is concerned about safety.

Of course it will — it would be far, far safer than the way you ride on that street now, i.e., just in traffic.

You forget the fact that nothing is stopping these people from riding on the sidewalk today. But yes, let’s imagine this magical group of people too worried about their own safety to ride on Connecticut Ave today but also not willing to use a really safe alternative option currently available would start riding their bicycle because there was a plastic bollard protecting them from a car 3 feet away while they had to ride through broken glass and trash. Make this make sense.

You’re telling me that there are thousands of people who don’t ride bikes on Connecticut Avenue today would because they are worried about personal safety

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:Yeah, I'm at least as pro-bike lane as the next person who bikes downtown a lot, but it's silly to pretend the elections (at any level, ANC through ward Council member) were referenda on bike lanes. No one specifically campaigned against them in any race I can remember, so the fact that the people who won supported them doesn't exactly prove that everyone who voted for them also wanted the project.

Not true.

David Krucoff campaigned against them and in the Connecticut Avenue precincts, he did worse against Frumin than he did elsewhere across the Ward.
There were several ANC races in Ward 3 where the bike lanes were THE defining issue, and in each case, the pro-bile lane candidate won.

Krucoff had an "R" next to his name, which means he had no chance of winning no matter his stance on anything.

Good lord, you can't possibly be so stupid to use that argument.

And, in the precincts where bike lanes were the main issue, Frumin outperformed Krucoff as compared to the rest of the ward. Maybe you aren't getting it, so I will explain.

If Frumin generally beat Krucoff 75-25 in Palisades and Spring Valley, in Woodley Park, Cleveland Park and Forest Hills, he beat Krucoff 80-20. Get it?

DP, but nothing you’ve written excludes party affiliation as an explanation for voter preference. Maybe Woodley Park, Cleveland Park, Forest Hills voters have stronger partisan biases.

Which would mean more people in those areas support progressive issues like...bike lanes.

Not all progressives think bike lanes on Connecticut Avenue are a good idea, but even if they did, you still haven’t excluded partisan identification as the primary driver of voter preference. The only information on the ballot were the candidates’ names and party affiliation. You would have a stronger case if bike lane positions were on the ballot or if party identification had a weaker relationship with candidate preference in recent elections.

Anyone engaged with the Council race, particularly in the Connecticut Avenue corridor, had a lot of exposure to this issue, as other than party affiliation, was the only real difference between the candidates. The republican, in fact LIVES in Cleveland Park so it was his home turf, and he still underperformed. It is clear you don't live on the Conn Ave corridor and missed all of the signs, wheatpaste stickers, Nextdoor and Listserv posts on the race, which were solely focused on this one issue.

Hypothetical: if you flip it around, and the R supported bike lanes and the D opposed them, who do you think would have won? If you think the R would have won, then you have won the argument.

If an R were running and supported the bike lanes, then the southern strategy and follow on political shift between the parties never would have happened, so, sure.

What are you talking about? The southern strategy was implemented decades ago. We’re talking about today. R candidate supports bike lanes. D candidate opposes. Who wins?

You missed the point. There is no planet where the MAGA infested GOP would have a candidate that supports bike lanes, so it is really a silly strawman question.

It’s no sillier than your assertion that a Democrat beat a Republican in DC because the Democrat supported bike lanes.

Dude, Frumin did better against Krucoff than Cheh did in her last couple runs against whatever republican was running against her. Like, Krucoff really did poorly. And a fair amount of the vote he did get were the people who really don't like bike lanes and dined with him and threw little fundraisers at the greek place where a few people got ran over by an errant driver.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

DC already has more than 150 miles of bike lanes, many of them protected, and the number of cyclists in this city is going down. If cyclists were a stock, you'd sell. It's already topped out.

False statement. You continue to cite "commuter" which, with work from home, is down everywhere. Cycling in general is way up, so measure that way rather than taking faulty "commuter" stats.

Every transportation survey I’ve seen shows the number of cyclists is not only very small but is getting smaller…

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:Yeah, I'm at least as pro-bike lane as the next person who bikes downtown a lot, but it's silly to pretend the elections (at any level, ANC through ward Council member) were referenda on bike lanes. No one specifically campaigned against them in any race I can remember, so the fact that the people who won supported them doesn't exactly prove that everyone who voted for them also wanted the project.

Not true.

David Krucoff campaigned against them and in the Connecticut Avenue precincts, he did worse against Frumin than he did elsewhere across the Ward.
There were several ANC races in Ward 3 where the bike lanes were THE defining issue, and in each case, the pro-bile lane candidate won.

Krucoff had an "R" next to his name, which means he had no chance of winning no matter his stance on anything.

Good lord, you can't possibly be so stupid to use that argument.

And, in the precincts where bike lanes were the main issue, Frumin outperformed Krucoff as compared to the rest of the ward. Maybe you aren't getting it, so I will explain.

If Frumin generally beat Krucoff 75-25 in Palisades and Spring Valley, in Woodley Park, Cleveland Park and Forest Hills, he beat Krucoff 80-20. Get it?

DP, but nothing you’ve written excludes party affiliation as an explanation for voter preference. Maybe Woodley Park, Cleveland Park, Forest Hills voters have stronger partisan biases.

Which would mean more people in those areas support progressive issues like...bike lanes.

Not all progressives think bike lanes on Connecticut Avenue are a good idea, but even if they did, you still haven’t excluded partisan identification as the primary driver of voter preference. The only information on the ballot were the candidates’ names and party affiliation. You would have a stronger case if bike lane positions were on the ballot or if party identification had a weaker relationship with candidate preference in recent elections.

Anyone engaged with the Council race, particularly in the Connecticut Avenue corridor, had a lot of exposure to this issue, as other than party affiliation, was the only real difference between the candidates. The republican, in fact LIVES in Cleveland Park so it was his home turf, and he still underperformed. It is clear you don't live on the Conn Ave corridor and missed all of the signs, wheatpaste stickers, Nextdoor and Listserv posts on the race, which were solely focused on this one issue.

Hypothetical: if you flip it around, and the R supported bike lanes and the D opposed them, who do you think would have won? If you think the R would have won, then you have won the argument.

If an R were running and supported the bike lanes, then the southern strategy and follow on political shift between the parties never would have happened, so, sure.

What are you talking about? The southern strategy was implemented decades ago. We’re talking about today. R candidate supports bike lanes. D candidate opposes. Who wins?

You missed the point. There is no planet where the MAGA infested GOP would have a candidate that supports bike lanes, so it is really a silly strawman question.

It’s no sillier than your assertion that a Democrat beat a Republican in DC because the Democrat supported bike lanes.

Dude, Frumin did better against Krucoff than Cheh did in her last couple runs against whatever republican was running against her. Like, Krucoff really did poorly. And a fair amount of the vote he did get were the people who really don't like bike lanes and dined with him and threw little fundraisers at the greek place where a few people got ran over by an errant driver.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

DC already has more than 150 miles of bike lanes, many of them protected, and the number of cyclists in this city is going down. If cyclists were a stock, you'd sell. It's already topped out.

False statement. You continue to cite "commuter" which, with work from home, is down everywhere. Cycling in general is way up, so measure that way rather than taking faulty "commuter" stats.

The number of people that work from home had declined significantly and continues to decline every month. The fad is over.

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:Yeah, I'm at least as pro-bike lane as the next person who bikes downtown a lot, but it's silly to pretend the elections (at any level, ANC through ward Council member) were referenda on bike lanes. No one specifically campaigned against them in any race I can remember, so the fact that the people who won supported them doesn't exactly prove that everyone who voted for them also wanted the project.

Not true.

David Krucoff campaigned against them and in the Connecticut Avenue precincts, he did worse against Frumin than he did elsewhere across the Ward.
There were several ANC races in Ward 3 where the bike lanes were THE defining issue, and in each case, the pro-bile lane candidate won.

Krucoff had an "R" next to his name, which means he had no chance of winning no matter his stance on anything.

Good lord, you can't possibly be so stupid to use that argument.

And, in the precincts where bike lanes were the main issue, Frumin outperformed Krucoff as compared to the rest of the ward. Maybe you aren't getting it, so I will explain.

If Frumin generally beat Krucoff 75-25 in Palisades and Spring Valley, in Woodley Park, Cleveland Park and Forest Hills, he beat Krucoff 80-20. Get it?

DP, but nothing you’ve written excludes party affiliation as an explanation for voter preference. Maybe Woodley Park, Cleveland Park, Forest Hills voters have stronger partisan biases.

Which would mean more people in those areas support progressive issues like...bike lanes.

Not all progressives think bike lanes on Connecticut Avenue are a good idea, but even if they did, you still haven’t excluded partisan identification as the primary driver of voter preference. The only information on the ballot were the candidates’ names and party affiliation. You would have a stronger case if bike lane positions were on the ballot or if party identification had a weaker relationship with candidate preference in recent elections.

Anyone engaged with the Council race, particularly in the Connecticut Avenue corridor, had a lot of exposure to this issue, as other than party affiliation, was the only real difference between the candidates. The republican, in fact LIVES in Cleveland Park so it was his home turf, and he still underperformed. It is clear you don't live on the Conn Ave corridor and missed all of the signs, wheatpaste stickers, Nextdoor and Listserv posts on the race, which were solely focused on this one issue.

Hypothetical: if you flip it around, and the R supported bike lanes and the D opposed them, who do you think would have won? If you think the R would have won, then you have won the argument.

If an R were running and supported the bike lanes, then the southern strategy and follow on political shift between the parties never would have happened, so, sure.

What are you talking about? The southern strategy was implemented decades ago. We’re talking about today. R candidate supports bike lanes. D candidate opposes. Who wins?

You missed the point. There is no planet where the MAGA infested GOP would have a candidate that supports bike lanes, so it is really a silly strawman question.

It’s no sillier than your assertion that a Democrat beat a Republican in DC because the Democrat supported bike lanes.

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:Yeah, I'm at least as pro-bike lane as the next person who bikes downtown a lot, but it's silly to pretend the elections (at any level, ANC through ward Council member) were referenda on bike lanes. No one specifically campaigned against them in any race I can remember, so the fact that the people who won supported them doesn't exactly prove that everyone who voted for them also wanted the project.

Not true.

David Krucoff campaigned against them and in the Connecticut Avenue precincts, he did worse against Frumin than he did elsewhere across the Ward.
There were several ANC races in Ward 3 where the bike lanes were THE defining issue, and in each case, the pro-bile lane candidate won.

Krucoff had an "R" next to his name, which means he had no chance of winning no matter his stance on anything.

Good lord, you can't possibly be so stupid to use that argument.

And, in the precincts where bike lanes were the main issue, Frumin outperformed Krucoff as compared to the rest of the ward. Maybe you aren't getting it, so I will explain.

If Frumin generally beat Krucoff 75-25 in Palisades and Spring Valley, in Woodley Park, Cleveland Park and Forest Hills, he beat Krucoff 80-20. Get it?

DP, but nothing you’ve written excludes party affiliation as an explanation for voter preference. Maybe Woodley Park, Cleveland Park, Forest Hills voters have stronger partisan biases.

Which would mean more people in those areas support progressive issues like...bike lanes.

Not all progressives think bike lanes on Connecticut Avenue are a good idea, but even if they did, you still haven’t excluded partisan identification as the primary driver of voter preference. The only information on the ballot were the candidates’ names and party affiliation. You would have a stronger case if bike lane positions were on the ballot or if party identification had a weaker relationship with candidate preference in recent elections.

Anyone engaged with the Council race, particularly in the Connecticut Avenue corridor, had a lot of exposure to this issue, as other than party affiliation, was the only real difference between the candidates. The republican, in fact LIVES in Cleveland Park so it was his home turf, and he still underperformed. It is clear you don't live on the Conn Ave corridor and missed all of the signs, wheatpaste stickers, Nextdoor and Listserv posts on the race, which were solely focused on this one issue.

Hypothetical: if you flip it around, and the R supported bike lanes and the D opposed them, who do you think would have won? If you think the R would have won, then you have won the argument.

If an R were running and supported the bike lanes, then the southern strategy and follow on political shift between the parties never would have happened, so, sure.

What are you talking about? The southern strategy was implemented decades ago. We’re talking about today. R candidate supports bike lanes. D candidate opposes. Who wins?

You missed the point. There is no planet where the MAGA infested GOP would have a candidate that supports bike lanes, so it is really a silly strawman question.

It’s no sillier than your assertion that a Democrat beat a Republican in DC because the Democrat supported bike lanes.

That wasn't the assertion. Once again...the assertion was that the candidate OUTPERFORMED his results from the rest of the Ward in the precincts around Connecticut Avenue because in those areas, which were the R candidate's home base, the bike lanes were a central and important/motivating issue.

You’ve gone really far down a rabbit hole. Why don’t you go a little further and double check party registration for those precincts and then report back. Thanks!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

DC already has more than 150 miles of bike lanes, many of them protected, and the number of cyclists in this city is going down. If cyclists were a stock, you'd sell. It's already topped out.

False statement. You continue to cite "commuter" which, with work from home, is down everywhere. Cycling in general is way up, so measure that way rather than taking faulty "commuter" stats.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

DC already has more than 150 miles of bike lanes, many of them protected, and the number of cyclists in this city is going down. If cyclists were a stock, you'd sell. It's already topped out.

False statement. You continue to cite "commuter" which, with work from home, is down everywhere. Cycling in general is way up, so measure that way rather than taking faulty "commuter" stats.

Every transportation survey I’ve seen shows the number of cyclists is not only very small but is getting smaller…

And yet, there are 15-20 million new bikes sold each year. Bikes can last a lifetime. Go figure.