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

Oh, so we're just being petty huh

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

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.

WMATA has a structural deficit, and they have an acute bus driver shortage. The driver shortage is actually worldwide, because being a bus driver sucks. They are going to have to cut routes eventually. The best routes to cut are going to be the ones that are wholly or partially redundant with metrorail.

Which is not the L2 or 96. The 96 is crosstown and the L2 serves the half of Connecticut that has no subway.

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.

WMATA has a structural deficit, and they have an acute bus driver shortage. The driver shortage is actually worldwide, because being a bus driver sucks. They are going to have to cut routes eventually. The best routes to cut are going to be the ones that are wholly or partially redundant with metrorail.

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).

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.

No, cutting public transit service is almost never actually the best thing to do from a transportation (or equity) standpoint.

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.

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.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's time to make Connecticut avenue a grand boulevard that works for people living, working and being around it. Not the cars that drive through.

Right. More drive-through traffic can go on Porter Street or Reno Road.

DDOT proposed 24/7 parking on CT Ave. That would push more "cut through" traffic than Concept C.

Frumin is trying to avoid that.

Yeah, if your main objection to the bike lanes was that they would slow traffic on CT or force more cars off it to neighboring streets, you should not want parking, either. Bike lanes are a better choice from a driver's perspective than parking, because at least they also keep bikes out of the traffic lanes.

There are only 2 dozen bikes a day on Connecticut.

Not sure how you could possibly know that, but either way, you're better off with a bike lane that only 24 people use than you are with 24-hour-a-day parking on both sides of the street, which takes up more space than the bike lane would.

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.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Nah. This time, we're awake. "We" being the overwhelming majority of affected persons who oppose any bike lanes whatsoever on Connecticut. And we will prevail, again, in shutting this shit down.

-- District resident, not a "Maryland commuter"

You calling yourself an “overwhelming majority” does not make you an overwhelming majority.

And those whose route from their house to Connecticut Avenue necessarily involves driving on a road in Maryland are, in fact, Maryland commuters.

Different poster. This insistence that anyone who opposes the bike lanes is a MD commuter is going to do you in. There is strong opposition within the neighborhoods along Connecticut. Stop with the fallacy that the opposition is Maryland commuter-based.

It is hard to know how much opposition there really is.
E
example:
-ANCs voted to support the bike lanes with one absention and one opposed across 3 commission
-All of the democrats running for ward 3 to replace Cheh supported the bike lanes
-The petition to support bike lanes (live for 2 weeks now) lapped the opposition petiition that it took 2+ years to gather.

Sure, there are people opposed to the bike lanes, but it is no where near the majority.

Right. But the people opposed to the bike lanes don’t have a government funded advocacy group and a “nonprofit” carrying their water either.

The people in favor of the bike lanes are your neighbors and even some of your friends. There are just more of them.

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

The "they" you are referring to is WMATA, not the Council.

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.

The metro switches to Wisconsin halfway down this corridor.

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.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Nah. This time, we're awake. "We" being the overwhelming majority of affected persons who oppose any bike lanes whatsoever on Connecticut. And we will prevail, again, in shutting this shit down.

-- District resident, not a "Maryland commuter"

You calling yourself an “overwhelming majority” does not make you an overwhelming majority.

And those whose route from their house to Connecticut Avenue necessarily involves driving on a road in Maryland are, in fact, Maryland commuters.

Different poster. This insistence that anyone who opposes the bike lanes is a MD commuter is going to do you in. There is strong opposition within the neighborhoods along Connecticut. Stop with the fallacy that the opposition is Maryland commuter-based.

It is hard to know how much opposition there really is.
E
example:
-ANCs voted to support the bike lanes with one absention and one opposed across 3 commission
-All of the democrats running for ward 3 to replace Cheh supported the bike lanes
-The petition to support bike lanes (live for 2 weeks now) lapped the opposition petiition that it took 2+ years to gather.

Sure, there are people opposed to the bike lanes, but it is no where near the majority.

Right. But the people opposed to the bike lanes don’t have a government funded advocacy group and a “nonprofit” carrying their water either.