Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Connecticut Avenue is already on a diet now that parking is allowed all day, no rush hour restrictions. That should slow things down the same as bike lanes would.

With the safety argument gone and the transportation argument quite dubious seeing that it is a major public transit corridor there is no rationale at all beyond providing an expensive amenity for a couple dozen of wealthy white people in a city where a lot of basic needs are not being met. This is the kind of thing a city does when it has a growing economy and is flush with cash. That is not the DC of 2023 and thankfully Mayor Bowser and the Council understand that very well.

DC has the same poverty rate as West Virginia

Is West Virginia planning any boondoggle transportation projects that will only benefit a handful of rich people?

Exactly. DC has spent billions of dollars on bike lanes.

Not sure about billions but certainly more than $100 million over the past decade.

This is total nonsense. After repeated requests, someone in the other thread strung together a bunch of projects that allocated funding to a wide range of infra, including road maintenance, and sheepishly tried to claim that the allocations were all for bike lanes. It was patently absurd. If you nothing to contribute other than lies and manipulation, please just be quiet.

Bowser's current budget proposal alone has close to $60 million. $100 million over the past decade is neither absurd nor an exaggeration.

Bike funding routinely exceeds $100 million annually. DC has had bike lanes for 15 years. Things aren’t cheap and the DC government is very generous when it spends other people’s money

show a link for this claim

Here's a sampling from the 2023 budget:

$36 million to expand bike lanes
$15 million to expand Capital Bikeshare
$1.3 million to hire people to clean bike lanes
$57 million to make K Street more bike/bus friendly
$21 million for bike/pedestrian bridge
$18.5 million for bike/pedestrian bridge
$120,000 to buy electric bikes

Most of the Washington area bicycling associations annual budget comes from the city. DC pays the bike lobby to lobby the DC government. Surprisingly few real people actually give to waba

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You anti-bike people are insane. Why even live in or commute to the city? Go make your life out in the exurbs and leave us alone.

Are you aware that less than 4% of the city population bike commutes? You exist in a very narrow minority.

I am aware that both myself and my children would all commute by bike if there were a safe way to do so. And I live right off Conn Ave.

Also, isn't 4% like 28,000 people? Do you want 30,000 more cars on the street for your commute?

1. It is 4% of COMMUTERS. So more like less than 10,000 people and likely substantially lower.

2. Your math indicates that you believe DC has 700,000 residents which is disqualifying.

3. There is a thing called public transit, which a lot of people use.

There are a lot of people who wouldn't be considered "commuters" who would use the bike lanes to bike from one neighborhood to another to shop, eat, etc. Those are not factored into the 4% commuter figure the anti's keep falsely citing.

1. I stand corrected it is only 2% of commuters (thanks PPP)

2. Define “a lot”

3. Why not just use other options available to you? Take transit like the rest of us or bike on side streets?

4. At a time when the city is cutting support to people to prevent eviction and displacement, do you realize how tone deaf you sound? You claim to be a cyclist but I do wonder when the actual last time you touched grass because you are living in a real small bubble.

I don't believe you take transit or patronize local businesses, if you did you wouldn't be complaining about bike lanes. The people who don't want the bike lanes are car commuters who want to be able to speed down Conn Ave at 45mph on their way from their home garage to their work garage and back to their home garage.

The cost per user of bike lanes is astronomical. It would be cheaper if the city bought every cyclist in the city a Ferrari

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Connecticut Avenue is already on a diet now that parking is allowed all day, no rush hour restrictions. That should slow things down the same as bike lanes would.

With the safety argument gone and the transportation argument quite dubious seeing that it is a major public transit corridor there is no rationale at all beyond providing an expensive amenity for a couple dozen of wealthy white people in a city where a lot of basic needs are not being met. This is the kind of thing a city does when it has a growing economy and is flush with cash. That is not the DC of 2023 and thankfully Mayor Bowser and the Council understand that very well.

DC has the same poverty rate as West Virginia

Is West Virginia planning any boondoggle transportation projects that will only benefit a handful of rich people?

Exactly. DC has spent billions of dollars on bike lanes.

Not sure about billions but certainly more than $100 million over the past decade.

This is total nonsense. After repeated requests, someone in the other thread strung together a bunch of projects that allocated funding to a wide range of infra, including road maintenance, and sheepishly tried to claim that the allocations were all for bike lanes. It was patently absurd. If you nothing to contribute other than lies and manipulation, please just be quiet.

Bowser's current budget proposal alone has close to $60 million. $100 million over the past decade is neither absurd nor an exaggeration.

Bike funding routinely exceeds $100 million annually. DC has had bike lanes for 15 years. Things aren’t cheap and the DC government is very generous when it spends other people’s money

show a link for this claim

Here's a sampling from the 2023 budget:

$36 million to expand bike lanes
$15 million to expand Capital Bikeshare
$1.3 million to hire people to clean bike lanes
$57 million to make K Street more bike/bus friendly
$21 million for bike/pedestrian bridge
$18.5 million for bike/pedestrian bridge
$120,000 to buy electric bikes

Note how you are comingling money that is going to PED infrastructure and BUS infrastructure but calling it all for Bike infrastructure. Stop gaslighting us.

Because pedestrians are demanding $20 million bridges to nowhere…

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Connecticut Avenue is already on a diet now that parking is allowed all day, no rush hour restrictions. That should slow things down the same as bike lanes would.

With the safety argument gone and the transportation argument quite dubious seeing that it is a major public transit corridor there is no rationale at all beyond providing an expensive amenity for a couple dozen of wealthy white people in a city where a lot of basic needs are not being met. This is the kind of thing a city does when it has a growing economy and is flush with cash. That is not the DC of 2023 and thankfully Mayor Bowser and the Council understand that very well.

It is such a trope to suggest this is for several dozen wealthy white people. As it currently sits, there are a lot of blue collar workers who ride bikes and bring them into the backs of the restaruants etc they work in. YOu don't see them because they are commuting to their work midday and are leaving in the dark of night. You have NO idea how people get to and from their jobs.

If they're coming in mid day and leaving at night, when the roads are dead, they don't need bike lanes.

It is dark out...they need them more than ever. This isn't about the road being congested and having bikes in a different space. It is about having a safe space for bikes and pedestrians, segregated from cars all together.

Then make sidewalks for bikes. Don't take up space that is urgently needed for cars to drive on. More people need roads for cars than they do for bikes. That's the reality of how we use the space.

Sidewalks are for pedestrians. Pedestrians don't like having bicyclists on the sidewalk. Bicyclists also don't like bicycling on the sidewalk with pedestrians. The only people who like having bicyclists on the sidewalk are drivers.

The reality of how we use that space is that there will be bike lanes on it.

I said, make sidewalks FOR BIKES. Sidewalks for pedestrians and sidewalks for bikes. The bike lanes in idiotic on so many levels. One is that cars have to cross them all the time. The other is that way, way more people need the space for driving than for biking. So dumb.

Ah, sidewalks FOR BIKES. We call those "bike lanes".

No, bike lanes are in the road. Where cars belong. Sidewalks for bikes are not on the road. Just like sidewalks for pedestrians.

If your bike lanes are off the road, like sidewalks are, then I'm all for them.

So you want to keep the same space for cars but squeeze all of the people walking and biking and not polluting, who are supporting their local neighborhood businesses, so you can sit in your car and spew pollution at all the people who have to breath it, while you blow past one commercial area after another in your car.

That sounds....fair.

Take the cars away and there will be no local neighborhood businesses left. Most people drive. Businesses know this.

1) no one is taking cars away
2) most people do not drive to commercial areas on CT Ave to support the businesses
3) one could just as easily take a bus or Uber/cab than drive

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Connecticut Avenue is already on a diet now that parking is allowed all day, no rush hour restrictions. That should slow things down the same as bike lanes would.

With the safety argument gone and the transportation argument quite dubious seeing that it is a major public transit corridor there is no rationale at all beyond providing an expensive amenity for a couple dozen of wealthy white people in a city where a lot of basic needs are not being met. This is the kind of thing a city does when it has a growing economy and is flush with cash. That is not the DC of 2023 and thankfully Mayor Bowser and the Council understand that very well.

DC has the same poverty rate as West Virginia

Is West Virginia planning any boondoggle transportation projects that will only benefit a handful of rich people?

Exactly. DC has spent billions of dollars on bike lanes.

Not sure about billions but certainly more than $100 million over the past decade.

This is total nonsense. After repeated requests, someone in the other thread strung together a bunch of projects that allocated funding to a wide range of infra, including road maintenance, and sheepishly tried to claim that the allocations were all for bike lanes. It was patently absurd. If you nothing to contribute other than lies and manipulation, please just be quiet.

Bowser's current budget proposal alone has close to $60 million. $100 million over the past decade is neither absurd nor an exaggeration.

Bike funding routinely exceeds $100 million annually. DC has had bike lanes for 15 years. Things aren’t cheap and the DC government is very generous when it spends other people’s money

show a link for this claim

Here's a sampling from the 2023 budget:

$36 million to expand bike lanes
$15 million to expand Capital Bikeshare
$1.3 million to hire people to clean bike lanes
$57 million to make K Street more bike/bus friendly
$21 million for bike/pedestrian bridge
$18.5 million for bike/pedestrian bridge
$120,000 to buy electric bikes

Note how you are comingling money that is going to PED infrastructure and BUS infrastructure but calling it all for Bike infrastructure. Stop gaslighting us.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Connecticut Avenue is already on a diet now that parking is allowed all day, no rush hour restrictions. That should slow things down the same as bike lanes would.

With the safety argument gone and the transportation argument quite dubious seeing that it is a major public transit corridor there is no rationale at all beyond providing an expensive amenity for a couple dozen of wealthy white people in a city where a lot of basic needs are not being met. This is the kind of thing a city does when it has a growing economy and is flush with cash. That is not the DC of 2023 and thankfully Mayor Bowser and the Council understand that very well.

It is such a trope to suggest this is for several dozen wealthy white people. As it currently sits, there are a lot of blue collar workers who ride bikes and bring them into the backs of the restaruants etc they work in. YOu don't see them because they are commuting to their work midday and are leaving in the dark of night. You have NO idea how people get to and from their jobs.

If they're coming in mid day and leaving at night, when the roads are dead, they don't need bike lanes.

It is dark out...they need them more than ever. This isn't about the road being congested and having bikes in a different space. It is about having a safe space for bikes and pedestrians, segregated from cars all together.

Then make sidewalks for bikes. Don't take up space that is urgently needed for cars to drive on. More people need roads for cars than they do for bikes. That's the reality of how we use the space.

The sidewalks are for pedestrians and sidewalk cafes. You know, the ones the businesses need to stay afloat. I guess we should let the businesses know that the bike lane opponents want to remove their outdoor seating.

Nice try. Businesses have already said they oppose bike lanes, because they hurt business.

1) there is not a single study that demonstrates that bike lanes hurt businesses and to the contrary, they are at worst, neutral to businesses and in most cases, are better for businesses. Please show proof of the bolded.
2) if opponents are suggesting that the bikers use sidewalks, that by definition means they support the removal of the outdoor seating that is part if what makes the commercial areas great. Neither the businesses nor the cyclists support that.

Businesses have already said they need MORE parking for CARS, not less. Less parking, less cars means less customers. Sorry but bikes are in the minority. That's reality. More people drive.

That isn't what every neighborhood study shows. The MAJORITY of the people walk, with the rest relatively evenly divided betweem mass transit, cycling and driving. Only one of these modes requires excessive storage in public space.

I would also add that the parking lot at the Park and Shop in Cleveland Park is almost always empty. If parking were in such high demand, we would see that lot full more frequently than we ever do. As such, I challenge the assertion that we need more parking in Cleveland Park.

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:Connecticut Avenue is already on a diet now that parking is allowed all day, no rush hour restrictions. That should slow things down the same as bike lanes would.

With the safety argument gone and the transportation argument quite dubious seeing that it is a major public transit corridor there is no rationale at all beyond providing an expensive amenity for a couple dozen of wealthy white people in a city where a lot of basic needs are not being met. This is the kind of thing a city does when it has a growing economy and is flush with cash. That is not the DC of 2023 and thankfully Mayor Bowser and the Council understand that very well.

It is such a trope to suggest this is for several dozen wealthy white people. As it currently sits, there are a lot of blue collar workers who ride bikes and bring them into the backs of the restaruants etc they work in. YOu don't see them because they are commuting to their work midday and are leaving in the dark of night. You have NO idea how people get to and from their jobs.

If they're coming in mid day and leaving at night, when the roads are dead, they don't need bike lanes.

It is dark out...they need them more than ever. This isn't about the road being congested and having bikes in a different space. It is about having a safe space for bikes and pedestrians, segregated from cars all together.

Then make sidewalks for bikes. Don't take up space that is urgently needed for cars to drive on. More people need roads for cars than they do for bikes. That's the reality of how we use the space.

Sidewalks are for pedestrians. Pedestrians don't like having bicyclists on the sidewalk. Bicyclists also don't like bicycling on the sidewalk with pedestrians. The only people who like having bicyclists on the sidewalk are drivers.

The reality of how we use that space is that there will be bike lanes on it.

I said, make sidewalks FOR BIKES. Sidewalks for pedestrians and sidewalks for bikes. The bike lanes in idiotic on so many levels. One is that cars have to cross them all the time. The other is that way, way more people need the space for driving than for biking. So dumb.

Ah, sidewalks FOR BIKES. We call those "bike lanes".

No, bike lanes are in the road. Where cars belong. Sidewalks for bikes are not on the road. Just like sidewalks for pedestrians.

If your bike lanes are off the road, like sidewalks are, then I'm all for them.

So you want to keep the same space for cars but squeeze all of the people walking and biking and not polluting, who are supporting their local neighborhood businesses, so you can sit in your car and spew pollution at all the people who have to breath it, while you blow past one commercial area after another in your car.

That sounds....fair.

Don't pretend you care about pollution. Aren't bikers trying to do away with right turn on red? All those cars idling uselessly at red lights, just in case that one bike comes by?

That is more a pedestrian safety issue, but sure, blame it on the cyclists.

Pedestrians are not the ones pushing to eliminate the right turn on red. The cyclists are.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Connecticut Avenue is already on a diet now that parking is allowed all day, no rush hour restrictions. That should slow things down the same as bike lanes would.

With the safety argument gone and the transportation argument quite dubious seeing that it is a major public transit corridor there is no rationale at all beyond providing an expensive amenity for a couple dozen of wealthy white people in a city where a lot of basic needs are not being met. This is the kind of thing a city does when it has a growing economy and is flush with cash. That is not the DC of 2023 and thankfully Mayor Bowser and the Council understand that very well.

DC has the same poverty rate as West Virginia

Is West Virginia planning any boondoggle transportation projects that will only benefit a handful of rich people?

Exactly. DC has spent billions of dollars on bike lanes.

Not sure about billions but certainly more than $100 million over the past decade.

This is total nonsense. After repeated requests, someone in the other thread strung together a bunch of projects that allocated funding to a wide range of infra, including road maintenance, and sheepishly tried to claim that the allocations were all for bike lanes. It was patently absurd. If you nothing to contribute other than lies and manipulation, please just be quiet.

Bowser's current budget proposal alone has close to $60 million. $100 million over the past decade is neither absurd nor an exaggeration.

Bike funding routinely exceeds $100 million annually. DC has had bike lanes for 15 years. Things aren’t cheap and the DC government is very generous when it spends other people’s money

show a link for this claim

Here's a sampling from the 2023 budget:

$36 million to expand bike lanes
$15 million to expand Capital Bikeshare
$1.3 million to hire people to clean bike lanes
$57 million to make K Street more bike/bus friendly
$21 million for bike/pedestrian bridge
$18.5 million for bike/pedestrian bridge
$120,000 to buy electric bikes

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Connecticut Avenue is already on a diet now that parking is allowed all day, no rush hour restrictions. That should slow things down the same as bike lanes would.

With the safety argument gone and the transportation argument quite dubious seeing that it is a major public transit corridor there is no rationale at all beyond providing an expensive amenity for a couple dozen of wealthy white people in a city where a lot of basic needs are not being met. This is the kind of thing a city does when it has a growing economy and is flush with cash. That is not the DC of 2023 and thankfully Mayor Bowser and the Council understand that very well.

It is such a trope to suggest this is for several dozen wealthy white people. As it currently sits, there are a lot of blue collar workers who ride bikes and bring them into the backs of the restaruants etc they work in. YOu don't see them because they are commuting to their work midday and are leaving in the dark of night. You have NO idea how people get to and from their jobs.

If they're coming in mid day and leaving at night, when the roads are dead, they don't need bike lanes.

It is dark out...they need them more than ever. This isn't about the road being congested and having bikes in a different space. It is about having a safe space for bikes and pedestrians, segregated from cars all together.

Then make sidewalks for bikes. Don't take up space that is urgently needed for cars to drive on. More people need roads for cars than they do for bikes. That's the reality of how we use the space.

Sidewalks are for pedestrians. Pedestrians don't like having bicyclists on the sidewalk. Bicyclists also don't like bicycling on the sidewalk with pedestrians. The only people who like having bicyclists on the sidewalk are drivers.

The reality of how we use that space is that there will be bike lanes on it.

I said, make sidewalks FOR BIKES. Sidewalks for pedestrians and sidewalks for bikes. The bike lanes in idiotic on so many levels. One is that cars have to cross them all the time. The other is that way, way more people need the space for driving than for biking. So dumb.

Ah, sidewalks FOR BIKES. We call those "bike lanes".

No, bike lanes are in the road. Where cars belong. Sidewalks for bikes are not on the road. Just like sidewalks for pedestrians.

If your bike lanes are off the road, like sidewalks are, then I'm all for them.

So you want to keep the same space for cars but squeeze all of the people walking and biking and not polluting, who are supporting their local neighborhood businesses, so you can sit in your car and spew pollution at all the people who have to breath it, while you blow past one commercial area after another in your car.

That sounds....fair.

Take the cars away and there will be no local neighborhood businesses left. Most people drive. Businesses know this.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Connecticut Avenue is already on a diet now that parking is allowed all day, no rush hour restrictions. That should slow things down the same as bike lanes would.

With the safety argument gone and the transportation argument quite dubious seeing that it is a major public transit corridor there is no rationale at all beyond providing an expensive amenity for a couple dozen of wealthy white people in a city where a lot of basic needs are not being met. This is the kind of thing a city does when it has a growing economy and is flush with cash. That is not the DC of 2023 and thankfully Mayor Bowser and the Council understand that very well.

It is such a trope to suggest this is for several dozen wealthy white people. As it currently sits, there are a lot of blue collar workers who ride bikes and bring them into the backs of the restaruants etc they work in. YOu don't see them because they are commuting to their work midday and are leaving in the dark of night. You have NO idea how people get to and from their jobs.

If they're coming in mid day and leaving at night, when the roads are dead, they don't need bike lanes.

It is dark out...they need them more than ever. This isn't about the road being congested and having bikes in a different space. It is about having a safe space for bikes and pedestrians, segregated from cars all together.

Then make sidewalks for bikes. Don't take up space that is urgently needed for cars to drive on. More people need roads for cars than they do for bikes. That's the reality of how we use the space.

Sidewalks are for pedestrians. Pedestrians don't like having bicyclists on the sidewalk. Bicyclists also don't like bicycling on the sidewalk with pedestrians. The only people who like having bicyclists on the sidewalk are drivers.

The reality of how we use that space is that there will be bike lanes on it.

I said, make sidewalks FOR BIKES. Sidewalks for pedestrians and sidewalks for bikes. The bike lanes in idiotic on so many levels. One is that cars have to cross them all the time. The other is that way, way more people need the space for driving than for biking. So dumb.

Ah, sidewalks FOR BIKES. We call those "bike lanes".

No, bike lanes are in the road. Where cars belong. Sidewalks for bikes are not on the road. Just like sidewalks for pedestrians.

If your bike lanes are off the road, like sidewalks are, then I'm all for them.

Right, so there are the building fronts, then sidewalks, then "bike sidewalks" then car lanes. That is what DDOT is proposing.

No. Sidewalks are off the road. Bike lanes are in the road. Sidewalks take up space on the side of the road. Bike lanes take up space IN the road.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Connecticut Avenue is already on a diet now that parking is allowed all day, no rush hour restrictions. That should slow things down the same as bike lanes would.

With the safety argument gone and the transportation argument quite dubious seeing that it is a major public transit corridor there is no rationale at all beyond providing an expensive amenity for a couple dozen of wealthy white people in a city where a lot of basic needs are not being met. This is the kind of thing a city does when it has a growing economy and is flush with cash. That is not the DC of 2023 and thankfully Mayor Bowser and the Council understand that very well.

It is such a trope to suggest this is for several dozen wealthy white people. As it currently sits, there are a lot of blue collar workers who ride bikes and bring them into the backs of the restaruants etc they work in. YOu don't see them because they are commuting to their work midday and are leaving in the dark of night. You have NO idea how people get to and from their jobs.

If they're coming in mid day and leaving at night, when the roads are dead, they don't need bike lanes.

It is dark out...they need them more than ever. This isn't about the road being congested and having bikes in a different space. It is about having a safe space for bikes and pedestrians, segregated from cars all together.

Then make sidewalks for bikes. Don't take up space that is urgently needed for cars to drive on. More people need roads for cars than they do for bikes. That's the reality of how we use the space.

Sidewalks are for pedestrians. Pedestrians don't like having bicyclists on the sidewalk. Bicyclists also don't like bicycling on the sidewalk with pedestrians. The only people who like having bicyclists on the sidewalk are drivers.

The reality of how we use that space is that there will be bike lanes on it.

I said, make sidewalks FOR BIKES. Sidewalks for pedestrians and sidewalks for bikes. The bike lanes in idiotic on so many levels. One is that cars have to cross them all the time. The other is that way, way more people need the space for driving than for biking. So dumb.

Ah, sidewalks FOR BIKES. We call those "bike lanes".

No, bike lanes are in the road. Where cars belong. Sidewalks for bikes are not on the road. Just like sidewalks for pedestrians.

If your bike lanes are off the road, like sidewalks are, then I'm all for them.

So you want to keep the same space for cars but squeeze all of the people walking and biking and not polluting, who are supporting their local neighborhood businesses, so you can sit in your car and spew pollution at all the people who have to breath it, while you blow past one commercial area after another in your car.

That sounds....fair.

Don't pretend you care about pollution. Aren't bikers trying to do away with right turn on red? All those cars idling uselessly at red lights, just in case that one bike comes by?

That is more a pedestrian safety issue, but sure, blame it on the cyclists.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Connecticut Avenue is already on a diet now that parking is allowed all day, no rush hour restrictions. That should slow things down the same as bike lanes would.

With the safety argument gone and the transportation argument quite dubious seeing that it is a major public transit corridor there is no rationale at all beyond providing an expensive amenity for a couple dozen of wealthy white people in a city where a lot of basic needs are not being met. This is the kind of thing a city does when it has a growing economy and is flush with cash. That is not the DC of 2023 and thankfully Mayor Bowser and the Council understand that very well.

It is such a trope to suggest this is for several dozen wealthy white people. As it currently sits, there are a lot of blue collar workers who ride bikes and bring them into the backs of the restaruants etc they work in. YOu don't see them because they are commuting to their work midday and are leaving in the dark of night. You have NO idea how people get to and from their jobs.

If they're coming in mid day and leaving at night, when the roads are dead, they don't need bike lanes.

It is dark out...they need them more than ever. This isn't about the road being congested and having bikes in a different space. It is about having a safe space for bikes and pedestrians, segregated from cars all together.

Then make sidewalks for bikes. Don't take up space that is urgently needed for cars to drive on. More people need roads for cars than they do for bikes. That's the reality of how we use the space.

The sidewalks are for pedestrians and sidewalk cafes. You know, the ones the businesses need to stay afloat. I guess we should let the businesses know that the bike lane opponents want to remove their outdoor seating.

Nice try. Businesses have already said they oppose bike lanes, because they hurt business.

1) there is not a single study that demonstrates that bike lanes hurt businesses and to the contrary, they are at worst, neutral to businesses and in most cases, are better for businesses. Please show proof of the bolded.
2) if opponents are suggesting that the bikers use sidewalks, that by definition means they support the removal of the outdoor seating that is part if what makes the commercial areas great. Neither the businesses nor the cyclists support that.

Businesses have already said they need MORE parking for CARS, not less. Less parking, less cars means less customers. Sorry but bikes are in the minority. That's reality. More people drive.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Connecticut Avenue is already on a diet now that parking is allowed all day, no rush hour restrictions. That should slow things down the same as bike lanes would.

With the safety argument gone and the transportation argument quite dubious seeing that it is a major public transit corridor there is no rationale at all beyond providing an expensive amenity for a couple dozen of wealthy white people in a city where a lot of basic needs are not being met. This is the kind of thing a city does when it has a growing economy and is flush with cash. That is not the DC of 2023 and thankfully Mayor Bowser and the Council understand that very well.

It is such a trope to suggest this is for several dozen wealthy white people. As it currently sits, there are a lot of blue collar workers who ride bikes and bring them into the backs of the restaruants etc they work in. YOu don't see them because they are commuting to their work midday and are leaving in the dark of night. You have NO idea how people get to and from their jobs.

If they're coming in mid day and leaving at night, when the roads are dead, they don't need bike lanes.

It is dark out...they need them more than ever. This isn't about the road being congested and having bikes in a different space. It is about having a safe space for bikes and pedestrians, segregated from cars all together.

Then make sidewalks for bikes. Don't take up space that is urgently needed for cars to drive on. More people need roads for cars than they do for bikes. That's the reality of how we use the space.

Sidewalks are for pedestrians. Pedestrians don't like having bicyclists on the sidewalk. Bicyclists also don't like bicycling on the sidewalk with pedestrians. The only people who like having bicyclists on the sidewalk are drivers.

The reality of how we use that space is that there will be bike lanes on it.

I said, make sidewalks FOR BIKES. Sidewalks for pedestrians and sidewalks for bikes. The bike lanes in idiotic on so many levels. One is that cars have to cross them all the time. The other is that way, way more people need the space for driving than for biking. So dumb.

Ah, sidewalks FOR BIKES. We call those "bike lanes".

No, bike lanes are in the road. Where cars belong. Sidewalks for bikes are not on the road. Just like sidewalks for pedestrians.

If your bike lanes are off the road, like sidewalks are, then I'm all for them.

Right, so there are the building fronts, then sidewalks, then "bike sidewalks" then car lanes. That is what DDOT is proposing.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Connecticut Avenue is already on a diet now that parking is allowed all day, no rush hour restrictions. That should slow things down the same as bike lanes would.

With the safety argument gone and the transportation argument quite dubious seeing that it is a major public transit corridor there is no rationale at all beyond providing an expensive amenity for a couple dozen of wealthy white people in a city where a lot of basic needs are not being met. This is the kind of thing a city does when it has a growing economy and is flush with cash. That is not the DC of 2023 and thankfully Mayor Bowser and the Council understand that very well.

DC has the same poverty rate as West Virginia

Is West Virginia planning any boondoggle transportation projects that will only benefit a handful of rich people?

Exactly. DC has spent billions of dollars on bike lanes.

Not sure about billions but certainly more than $100 million over the past decade.

This is total nonsense. After repeated requests, someone in the other thread strung together a bunch of projects that allocated funding to a wide range of infra, including road maintenance, and sheepishly tried to claim that the allocations were all for bike lanes. It was patently absurd. If you nothing to contribute other than lies and manipulation, please just be quiet.

Bowser's current budget proposal alone has close to $60 million. $100 million over the past decade is neither absurd nor an exaggeration.

Bike funding routinely exceeds $100 million annually. DC has had bike lanes for 15 years. Things aren’t cheap and the DC government is very generous when it spends other people’s money

show a link for this claim