Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“Not to mention that bike lanes on Connecticut Avenue would INCREASE the carrying capacity of Connecticut Avenue.“

This is mendacious spin at a truly Trumpy tier.

Single occupancy vehicles are the least efficient method of getting people from one place to another. Mass transit and bikes are many times more efficient. So if planners and engineers redesign roads to priorities mass transit and bikes over cars, then by definition, the carrying capacity will increase.

Denying that is actually Trumpian.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Also, as for "drivers are a minority" - a lot of people can't drive. A third of people in the US don't have a driver's license. The majority of them are are disabled, lower income, unhoused, formerly incarcerated, undocumented immigrants, kids, young people, and the elderly.

(Plus people like my parents, who are elderly, and do have a driver's license, but don't drive.)

I don't know what the specific fraction is of DC residents who don't have a driver's license.

First you don’t know what an average is and now apparently don’t know what a household is either.

Helpful hints: When a person says household, they're talking about households. When a person says driver, they're talking about individual people. When a person says resident, they're also talking about individual people.

Don't you have anything better to do on a Saturday afternoon then sling insults at anonymous people on the internet?

Anonymous wrote:“Not to mention that bike lanes on Connecticut Avenue would INCREASE the carrying capacity of Connecticut Avenue.“

This is mendacious spin at a truly Trumpy tier.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Also, as for "drivers are a minority" - a lot of people can't drive. A third of people in the US don't have a driver's license. The majority of them are are disabled, lower income, unhoused, formerly incarcerated, undocumented immigrants, kids, young people, and the elderly.

(Plus people like my parents, who are elderly, and do have a driver's license, but don't drive.)

I don't know what the specific fraction is of DC residents who don't have a driver's license.

Of those people who are too frail to drive, how many of them can ride a bike? Probably not many. But they all need to be able to cross a street safely and that would be much easier with the curb bump outs that the bike lobby opposes.

Anonymous wrote:This question has nothing to do with Dubai, Houston or even Amsterdam. It shouldn’t even resolve around whether bike trails and lanes are good in Washington DC. I submit that they are … in the right location. The Capital Cresent Trail and Rick Creek trail are heavily used by recreational cyclists and commuters. Building the Klingle bike path (which connects Woodley &Cleveland Park to Mt Pleasant) instead of rebuilding the road was one of DC’s smarter decisions. But cutting carrying capacity in Connecticut Ave - one of the most important arteries in Northwest for bike paths doesn’t make sense. Bike paths there are not worth the consequences of gridlock, traffic diversion and loss of business parking.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Plenty of posters on this thread and similar threads hate written that if the bike lanes lead to more traffic congestion and gridlock on Connecticut Ave, that’s a good thing. They’ve even argued that choking side streets with diverted traffic will make them “safer.”

The fact is, the city is going to out Connecticut Avenue on a road diet.

The narrowed solution will either be with parking lanes 24/7 on each side of the street, with two lanes for cars, or, it will have 5 lanes for cars and one, split each way, for bikes.

And of those are the only two choices then I vote for parking.

It will benefit more people, be better for businesses along the corridor, provide more future flexibility, increase safety, and reduce the harm inflicted on the surrounding neighborhoods.

It will also really piss the bikebros off which is something I am now wholeheartedly in favor of because of all of you posters lying all the freaking time.

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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:All traffic deaths are horrible and streets must be made safer for all users. That's why I find it so offensive that the bike lobby, led by Charles Allen, is seeking to include language in the budget that would deny any expenditure for safer streets that did not include bike lanes. It shows that for the bike lobby, it is about biking, not safe streets. Bike lanes are not going to happen for years because there is a cash crunch and issues to be worked out, so why not make Connecticut Avenue safer in the interim?

How would the street be made safer without consideration for cyclists? Sure, they can put in some bulbouts, but if cyclists are left competing with motorists in driving lanes, then it is unsafe for cyclists. If cyclists are left competing with pedestrians on sidewalks, then it is unsafe for pedestrians.

One solution is to shift a new north-south bike lane to Reno Rd. Maybe it won't be as convenient for some bikers to reach the Connecticut Ave bars, but a Reno bike lane would provide easy access to locations up and down Connecticut and much of Wisconsin Ave. Reno has a center turn lane that is underultized or unnecessary at all but the most busy intersections so space could be re-allocated to bike lanes on the side. Connecticut Ave. is a designated arterial and evaluation route and where the thru and commuter traffic should be encouraged to go, instead of diverting more of it to Reno.

Reno Road isn't wide enough to accommodate turn lanes, through lanes and bike lanes. DDOT already dismissed that option years ago.

In fact, it is. Eliminate the turn lane at all but the most major cross streets and the space on an entire lane could be repurposed as a dedicated bike lane, probably moved to one side or another. The bikes are likely to have to stop for the signals at the major cross streets, so having the lane become striped at those locations is quite standard and doable.

Maybe Reno doesn't have the same Urbanist cachet of re-visioning Connecticut Ave as a very dense high-rise, mixed-use corridor with bike lanes, but that's not the primary purpose of having the bike lane, is it?

I don't think the people who ride their bikes downtown from upper NW have any problem with putting bike lanes on Reno and changing the traffic patterns there, instead of on Connecticut. I know I don't. But DDOT doesn't seem to be into the idea.

The focus should be building a bike path thru RC Park. Faster and safer.

Many of us aren't riding downtown at all and don't "need" a path in RCP. What we want is to be able to run errands in our neighborhood, of which Connecticut Avenue is our main street.

It is also a main street for a vastly larger number of drivers who don’t need all of the drawbacks that come with adding a bike lane there.

The drawbacks of a safer street with fewer crashes that cause injuries. Horrible!

If that’s the only thing you can comprehend about why the vast majority of commuters don’t like bike lanes, you will never succeed in getting the bike lines you want. If you can’t even understand the other side’s argument, you will fail.

Please stop using commuter as a synonym for driver. Lots of commuters aren't driving. Lots of drivers aren't commuting.

I didn’t say drivers. But the vast majority of commuters in this area drive. And the people taking the bus aren’t always thrilled about the bike lanes either.

This area being the 11 county metro area. In DC, which is where the entirety of the study area is located, driving commutes are in the minority (42%). Walkers and bikers also report being happier with their commutes than drivers. This is per your favorite study from 2022.

Okay, but the commuters come from all over, not just DC. And the argument isn’t about who is happiest in their commute, but you’ve clearly lost the plot.

Of course it's about who's happiest! That's the whole basis of the Everyone Is Trying To Force People Out Of Their Cars By Making Driving Miserable conspiracy fiction. But then it turns out that if the drivers forced themselves out of their cars and switched to non-driving, they'd actually be happier.

So you’re agreeing that people choose to drive if left to their own devices (your “false” assumption 1), since they could apparently easily be happier but are choosing not to be. Great.

Interesting too that there are complaints about not calling drivers “commuters,” since there are other groups, but you ignore that the metro and bus riders are not really any more satisfied than the drivers (my original point). I guess The Only Alternative Mode of transportation is biking.

Metro and bus riders are less stressed than drivers.

I don't agree that people choose to drive, actually. I think that people are forced to drive.

I prefer to drive, and will continue to drive. There is all this discussion about traffic. DC, in fact, still has fewer residents than in the 1960s and 70s, when DC's population was 750-800K. Today, it is about 680K.

Ok? Nobody is forcing you out of your car. To drive or not to drive, that's your choice. But DC does not have to configure DC streets for maximum convenience for your choice to drive.

I see we’ve hit that weird point where people are arguing that a street is not for a car.

A street is not ONLY for a car.

Today, streets are built and maintained for cars. And financed in part by gas taxes paid by drivers of cars.

“in part” being the key modifier.

Anonymous wrote:“Not to mention that bike lanes on Connecticut Avenue would INCREASE the carrying capacity of Connecticut Avenue.“

This is mendacious spin at a truly Trumpy tier.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Also, as for "drivers are a minority" - a lot of people can't drive. A third of people in the US don't have a driver's license. The majority of them are are disabled, lower income, unhoused, formerly incarcerated, undocumented immigrants, kids, young people, and the elderly.

(Plus people like my parents, who are elderly, and do have a driver's license, but don't drive.)

I don't know what the specific fraction is of DC residents who don't have a driver's license.

First you don’t know what an average is and now apparently don’t know what a household is either.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Also, as for "drivers are a minority" - a lot of people can't drive. A third of people in the US don't have a driver's license. The majority of them are are disabled, lower income, unhoused, formerly incarcerated, undocumented immigrants, kids, young people, and the elderly.

(Plus people like my parents, who are elderly, and do have a driver's license, but don't drive.)

I don't know what the specific fraction is of DC residents who don't have a driver's license.

Of those people who are too frail to drive, how many of them can ride a bike? Probably not many. But they all need to be able to cross a street safely and that would be much easier with the curb bump outs that the bike lobby opposes.

There are a lot of reasons why people can't drive, besides being "too frail".

Also the All Powerful Bike Lobby doesn't oppose curb bump-outs.

But yes, people do need to be able to cross a street safely. One thing that really helps with that, as you point out, is fewer car lanes to have to cross.

Yes they do. The bikebros are now opposed to them because it doesn't include bike lanes. That's the page one post.

Anonymous wrote:Also, as for "drivers are a minority" - a lot of people can't drive. A third of people in the US don't have a driver's license. The majority of them are are disabled, lower income, unhoused, formerly incarcerated, undocumented immigrants, kids, young people, and the elderly.

(Plus people like my parents, who are elderly, and do have a driver's license, but don't drive.)

I don't know what the specific fraction is of DC residents who don't have a driver's license.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Also, as for "drivers are a minority" - a lot of people can't drive. A third of people in the US don't have a driver's license. The majority of them are are disabled, lower income, unhoused, formerly incarcerated, undocumented immigrants, kids, young people, and the elderly.

(Plus people like my parents, who are elderly, and do have a driver's license, but don't drive.)

I don't know what the specific fraction is of DC residents who don't have a driver's license.

Of those people who are too frail to drive, how many of them can ride a bike? Probably not many. But they all need to be able to cross a street safely and that would be much easier with the curb bump outs that the bike lobby opposes.

There are a lot of reasons why people can't drive, besides being "too frail".

Also the All Powerful Bike Lobby doesn't oppose curb bump-outs.

But yes, people do need to be able to cross a street safely. One thing that really helps with that, as you point out, is fewer car lanes to have to cross.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Also, as for "drivers are a minority" - a lot of people can't drive. A third of people in the US don't have a driver's license. The majority of them are are disabled, lower income, unhoused, formerly incarcerated, undocumented immigrants, kids, young people, and the elderly.

(Plus people like my parents, who are elderly, and do have a driver's license, but don't drive.)

I don't know what the specific fraction is of DC residents who don't have a driver's license.

Of those people who are too frail to drive, how many of them can ride a bike? Probably not many. But they all need to be able to cross a street safely and that would be much easier with the curb bump outs that the bike lobby opposes.

There are a lot of reasons why people can't drive, besides being "too frail".

Also the All Powerful Bike Lobby doesn't oppose curb bump-outs.

But yes, people do need to be able to cross a street safely. One thing that really helps with that, as you point out, is fewer car lanes to have to cross.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Also, as for "drivers are a minority" - a lot of people can't drive. A third of people in the US don't have a driver's license. The majority of them are are disabled, lower income, unhoused, formerly incarcerated, undocumented immigrants, kids, young people, and the elderly.

(Plus people like my parents, who are elderly, and do have a driver's license, but don't drive.)

I don't know what the specific fraction is of DC residents who don't have a driver's license.

Of those people who are too frail to drive, how many of them can ride a bike? Probably not many. But they all need to be able to cross a street safely and that would be much easier with the curb bump outs that the bike lobby opposes.