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.

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.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think I could be convinced about installing dedicated rush hour bus lanes on CT Ave. But these bikes lanes are the transportation version of Defund the Police. They sound great on paper, but as soon as they’re implemented it will be obvious very quickly that it was a terrible mistake.

Twice a day I drive along a route in Alexandria where bikes lanes were installed despite the overwhelming objections of numerous people in the area. During the ride, I count the number of cars using the road and the number of people in the bike lanes. I have been doing this for three years. In over 300 trips, I have counted thousands of cars using the road and 17 bikes in the bike lanes. At the end of each week, I email a report to the mayor. He is too embarrassed to respond, because he knows he was played by the bike lobby.

That's funny. There are bike lanes that I've *never* seen anyone use. It is an appalling use of resources.

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.

And the increased congestion will only make walking more difficult and push vehicle traffic onto the neighborhood side streets.. It blows my mind that anyone thinks this is a good idea.

The absolute worst part is that the bike lanes won't even be used. Nobody is biking up or down that hill on a casual basis. Meanwhile the 100 or so bicycle commuters from NW all use Beach Drive which is much more pleasant.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think I could be convinced about installing dedicated rush hour bus lanes on CT Ave. But these bikes lanes are the transportation version of Defund the Police. They sound great on paper, but as soon as they’re implemented it will be obvious very quickly that it was a terrible mistake.

Twice a day I drive along a route in Alexandria where bikes lanes were installed despite the overwhelming objections of numerous people in the area. During the ride, I count the number of cars using the road and the number of people in the bike lanes. I have been doing this for three years. In over 300 trips, I have counted thousands of cars using the road and 17 bikes in the bike lanes. At the end of each week, I email a report to the mayor. He is too embarrassed to respond, because he knows he was played by the bike lobby.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Awkward question. In the post COVID world, does DC need more housing? Our population is shrinking and downtown DC is hollowing out. Isn’t the better solution to convert vacant offices downtown to housing? That way you avoid the need for these ridiculous bike lanes on major thoroughfares, you keep downtown viable, and you preserve modest single family home neighborhoods.

I think in theory this makes a ton of sense, and is great from a preservation and environmental perspective, but I'm not sure of the profitability stripping and retrofitting those buildings vs building new. Like going from office to residential, you need more than one kitchen and bathroom per floor (unless each floor is its own massive unit, maybe, but even then you need *different* kitchen and bath facilities). That's a ton of plumbing, just to start!

I think the conversion of family sized dwellings to 1 and 2 bedroom condos only is harmful, but I would love to see more 3-4 bed options in upzoned areas. It's not a binary choice between 1 bedrooms for new grads and single family detached homes for families. Just look at the many, many double stacked townhomes popping up around MoCo.

The city should offer tax incentives for downtown residential conversion. The city has a vested interest in preventing downtown from becoming a ghost town both to preserve the tax base and for public safety. These tax incentives may actually end up being revenue neutral when you consider the cost of the CT Ave bike lanes and the business closures they will cause. It makes total sense to do this, except the Mayor will have to weather the temper tantrum the bike community will have.

Muriel versus the lycra-nauts! I can't wait!

A small business owner in Cleveland Park announced last week that he was closing his store of 30 years specifically because the proposed bike lanes would make it impossible economically to continue. More will follow, sadly.

Very sad. And ridiculous given how few people actually use all these bike lanes.

The only thing that's sad about this story is how spectacularly stupid this business owner must be to close their store over bike lanes. There is approximately a 0% chance installing bike lanes "would make it impossible economically to continue" and in the infinitesimally small chance it actually does then they have nobody to blame but themselves for operating such a ridiculously terrible business model that losing a couple parking spaces that they never even owned in the first place forces them to close their business.

If he's managed to stay in business for 30 years, turning a profit and being able to make payroll, he must know what he's doing.

This is what bike lanes do -- they make it harder for people to get around the city. If traffic is terrible and parking is hard, people aren't going to switch to bikes. They'll just go somewhere else, where it isn't such a pain to move around.

What they do is block curb access. Plenty of businesses (and people) require curb access to survive.

I have nothing against bike lanes but also understand how important curb access is. Put the bike lanes up the middle of the street like on Pennsylvania Avenue and it’s no problem.

Or stop building bike lanes. It is incredible how much of our limited transportation resources we dedicate to the minuscule number of bicyclists. The goal of a transportation system should be to move as many people around as efficiently as possible.

+1 We have a mass transit system for a reason. Its easy to pop your bike on a bus or metro train. Why the need for bikes lanes?

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.

Anonymous wrote:I think I could be convinced about installing dedicated rush hour bus lanes on CT Ave. But these bikes lanes are the transportation version of Defund the Police. They sound great on paper, but as soon as they’re implemented it will be obvious very quickly that it was a terrible mistake.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Awkward question. In the post COVID world, does DC need more housing? Our population is shrinking and downtown DC is hollowing out. Isn’t the better solution to convert vacant offices downtown to housing? That way you avoid the need for these ridiculous bike lanes on major thoroughfares, you keep downtown viable, and you preserve modest single family home neighborhoods.

Ladies and gentlemen, the only sensible person on DCUM. I'd also note that Fort Totten right now is nothing but empty condos. Right on the subway line too.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Awkward question. In the post COVID world, does DC need more housing? Our population is shrinking and downtown DC is hollowing out. Isn’t the better solution to convert vacant offices downtown to housing? That way you avoid the need for these ridiculous bike lanes on major thoroughfares, you keep downtown viable, and you preserve modest single family home neighborhoods.

I think in theory this makes a ton of sense, and is great from a preservation and environmental perspective, but I'm not sure of the profitability stripping and retrofitting those buildings vs building new. Like going from office to residential, you need more than one kitchen and bathroom per floor (unless each floor is its own massive unit, maybe, but even then you need *different* kitchen and bath facilities). That's a ton of plumbing, just to start!

I think the conversion of family sized dwellings to 1 and 2 bedroom condos only is harmful, but I would love to see more 3-4 bed options in upzoned areas. It's not a binary choice between 1 bedrooms for new grads and single family detached homes for families. Just look at the many, many double stacked townhomes popping up around MoCo.

The city should offer tax incentives for downtown residential conversion. The city has a vested interest in preventing downtown from becoming a ghost town both to preserve the tax base and for public safety. These tax incentives may actually end up being revenue neutral when you consider the cost of the CT Ave bike lanes and the business closures they will cause. It makes total sense to do this, except the Mayor will have to weather the temper tantrum the bike community will have.

Muriel versus the lycra-nauts! I can't wait!

A small business owner in Cleveland Park announced last week that he was closing his store of 30 years specifically because the proposed bike lanes would make it impossible economically to continue. More will follow, sadly.

Very sad. And ridiculous given how few people actually use all these bike lanes.

The only thing that's sad about this story is how spectacularly stupid this business owner must be to close their store over bike lanes. There is approximately a 0% chance installing bike lanes "would make it impossible economically to continue" and in the infinitesimally small chance it actually does then they have nobody to blame but themselves for operating such a ridiculously terrible business model that losing a couple parking spaces that they never even owned in the first place forces them to close their business.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Awkward question. In the post COVID world, does DC need more housing? Our population is shrinking and downtown DC is hollowing out. Isn’t the better solution to convert vacant offices downtown to housing? That way you avoid the need for these ridiculous bike lanes on major thoroughfares, you keep downtown viable, and you preserve modest single family home neighborhoods.

I think in theory this makes a ton of sense, and is great from a preservation and environmental perspective, but I'm not sure of the profitability stripping and retrofitting those buildings vs building new. Like going from office to residential, you need more than one kitchen and bathroom per floor (unless each floor is its own massive unit, maybe, but even then you need *different* kitchen and bath facilities). That's a ton of plumbing, just to start!

I think the conversion of family sized dwellings to 1 and 2 bedroom condos only is harmful, but I would love to see more 3-4 bed options in upzoned areas. It's not a binary choice between 1 bedrooms for new grads and single family detached homes for families. Just look at the many, many double stacked townhomes popping up around MoCo.

The city should offer tax incentives for downtown residential conversion. The city has a vested interest in preventing downtown from becoming a ghost town both to preserve the tax base and for public safety. These tax incentives may actually end up being revenue neutral when you consider the cost of the CT Ave bike lanes and the business closures they will cause. It makes total sense to do this, except the Mayor will have to weather the temper tantrum the bike community will have.

Muriel versus the lycra-nauts! I can't wait!

A small business owner in Cleveland Park announced last week that he was closing his store of 30 years specifically because the proposed bike lanes would make it impossible economically to continue. More will follow, sadly.

Very sad. And ridiculous given how few people actually use all these bike lanes.

The only thing that's sad about this story is how spectacularly stupid this business owner must be to close their store over bike lanes. There is approximately a 0% chance installing bike lanes "would make it impossible economically to continue" and in the infinitesimally small chance it actually does then they have nobody to blame but themselves for operating such a ridiculously terrible business model that losing a couple parking spaces that they never even owned in the first place forces them to close their business.

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.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Awkward question. In the post COVID world, does DC need more housing? Our population is shrinking and downtown DC is hollowing out. Isn’t the better solution to convert vacant offices downtown to housing? That way you avoid the need for these ridiculous bike lanes on major thoroughfares, you keep downtown viable, and you preserve modest single family home neighborhoods.

I think in theory this makes a ton of sense, and is great from a preservation and environmental perspective, but I'm not sure of the profitability stripping and retrofitting those buildings vs building new. Like going from office to residential, you need more than one kitchen and bathroom per floor (unless each floor is its own massive unit, maybe, but even then you need *different* kitchen and bath facilities). That's a ton of plumbing, just to start!

I think the conversion of family sized dwellings to 1 and 2 bedroom condos only is harmful, but I would love to see more 3-4 bed options in upzoned areas. It's not a binary choice between 1 bedrooms for new grads and single family detached homes for families. Just look at the many, many double stacked townhomes popping up around MoCo.

The city should offer tax incentives for downtown residential conversion. The city has a vested interest in preventing downtown from becoming a ghost town both to preserve the tax base and for public safety. These tax incentives may actually end up being revenue neutral when you consider the cost of the CT Ave bike lanes and the business closures they will cause. It makes total sense to do this, except the Mayor will have to weather the temper tantrum the bike community will have.

Muriel versus the lycra-nauts! I can't wait!

A small business owner in Cleveland Park announced last week that he was closing his store of 30 years specifically because the proposed bike lanes would make it impossible economically to continue. More will follow, sadly.

Very sad. And ridiculous given how few people actually use all these bike lanes.

The only thing that's sad about this story is how spectacularly stupid this business owner must be to close their store over bike lanes. There is approximately a 0% chance installing bike lanes "would make it impossible economically to continue" and in the infinitesimally small chance it actually does then they have nobody to blame but themselves for operating such a ridiculously terrible business model that losing a couple parking spaces that they never even owned in the first place forces them to close their business.

Incredible that you know more about this persons business than they do. What arrogance.

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?