Options for opposing Connecticut Avenue changes?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Use of the bike lanes will be minimal. I hate that they already got rid of the four lane down and up in the morning and afternoon. Traffic is already terrible and taking away another lane on each side will make it worse.

Bikers have rock creek park path. Use it.

So when I come up the hill from Rock Creek Park, I would still have to use the same sidewalks or dangerous streets to get to the businesses I want to support. And you will still be bitter that I am on a bike blocking "your lane" to get there.

If it’s all about getting to businesses on CT Avenue, why not make the plan about more bus service instead? Make Connecticut b/w Chevy Chase Circle and the Mall a Circulator route. Put enough buses in it that they come 10 mins apart. You would move far more people up and down the Avenue in a bus than you would by bike on any given day. It’s a safe form of transport for everyone, including single adults, families, older adults and people with disabilities. By providing a reliable mass transit option, you’re accomplishing your stated objectives (fewer cars, safe transport) without blowing up the whole street.

Why not both? Why is there such an antipathy towards people who would like to bike? It is cheap and efficient.

Because the people freaking out about bike lanes are not honestly interested in improvement. They are motivated by an at-times paranoid resistance to change and ODD-like reaction to changes imposed in their living environment that they cannot control. They will bring up any possible alternative to the current proposal to object to it.

Do you have super powers or something? Otherwise, how could you possibly know someone else’s motivations? But putting motivations aside, improving transit on the corridor is not mutually exclusive with improving cycling infrastructure. All bus lanes in DC also allow bicycles. Seems like a much better proposal for a multipurpose, rather a single purpose lane.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Use of the bike lanes will be minimal. I hate that they already got rid of the four lane down and up in the morning and afternoon. Traffic is already terrible and taking away another lane on each side will make it worse.

Bikers have rock creek park path. Use it.

Drivers have Wisconsin Avenue. Use it
Drivers have Reno Rd. Use it
Drivers have mass Ave. use it

Put your bike route on Wisconsin, Reno or Mass avenue. They are less traveled that Connecticut. Bring back four lanes!

Yes!!!! Bike routes on every major road! Anywhere a person can go in a car should be accessible to pedestrians and cyclists!

Leave pedestrians out of your crap. Nothing you all do benefits pedestrians.

I wish the pedestrians who have been injured or killed by speeding drivers on CT Ave may disagree were here to explain the concept of traffic calming to you.

Those drivers broke the law. You think these lanes will somehow prevent people from breaking the law?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Use of the bike lanes will be minimal. I hate that they already got rid of the four lane down and up in the morning and afternoon. Traffic is already terrible and taking away another lane on each side will make it worse.

Bikers have rock creek park path. Use it.

So when I come up the hill from Rock Creek Park, I would still have to use the same sidewalks or dangerous streets to get to the businesses I want to support. And you will still be bitter that I am on a bike blocking "your lane" to get there.

If it’s all about getting to businesses on CT Avenue, why not make the plan about more bus service instead? Make Connecticut b/w Chevy Chase Circle and the Mall a Circulator route. Put enough buses in it that they come 10 mins apart. You would move far more people up and down the Avenue in a bus than you would by bike on any given day. It’s a safe form of transport for everyone, including single adults, families, older adults and people with disabilities. By providing a reliable mass transit option, you’re accomplishing your stated objectives (fewer cars, safe transport) without blowing up the whole street.

Why not both? Why is there such an antipathy towards people who would like to bike? It is cheap and efficient.

Because the people freaking out about bike lanes are not honestly interested in improvement. They are motivated by an at-times paranoid resistance to change and ODD-like reaction to changes imposed in their living environment that they cannot control. They will bring up any possible alternative to the current proposal to object to it.

Do you have super powers or something? Otherwise, how could you possibly know someone else’s motivations? But putting motivations aside, improving transit on the corridor is not mutually exclusive with improving cycling infrastructure. All bus lanes in DC also allow bicycles. Seems like a much better proposal for a multipurpose, rather a single purpose lane.

because people make truly bizarre arguments about this stuff. like the “broken social contract” lady.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Use of the bike lanes will be minimal. I hate that they already got rid of the four lane down and up in the morning and afternoon. Traffic is already terrible and taking away another lane on each side will make it worse.

Bikers have rock creek park path. Use it.

Drivers have Wisconsin Avenue. Use it
Drivers have Reno Rd. Use it
Drivers have mass Ave. use it

Put your bike route on Wisconsin, Reno or Mass avenue. They are less traveled that Connecticut. Bring back four lanes!

Yes!!!! Bike routes on every major road! Anywhere a person can go in a car should be accessible to pedestrians and cyclists!

Leave pedestrians out of your crap. Nothing you all do benefits pedestrians.

I wish the pedestrians who have been injured or killed by speeding drivers on CT Ave may disagree were here to explain the concept of traffic calming to you.

Those drivers broke the law. You think these lanes will somehow prevent people from breaking the law?

yes, because they won’t be able to drive as fast. that’s the whole point.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Use of the bike lanes will be minimal. I hate that they already got rid of the four lane down and up in the morning and afternoon. Traffic is already terrible and taking away another lane on each side will make it worse.

Bikers have rock creek park path. Use it.

Drivers have Wisconsin Avenue. Use it
Drivers have Reno Rd. Use it
Drivers have mass Ave. use it

Put your bike route on Wisconsin, Reno or Mass avenue. They are less traveled that Connecticut. Bring back four lanes!

Yes!!!! Bike routes on every major road! Anywhere a person can go in a car should be accessible to pedestrians and cyclists!

Leave pedestrians out of your crap. Nothing you all do benefits pedestrians.

I wish the pedestrians who have been injured or killed by speeding drivers on CT Ave may disagree were here to explain the concept of traffic calming to you.

Those drivers broke the law. You think these lanes will somehow prevent people from breaking the law?

yes, because they won’t be able to drive as fast. that’s the whole point.

Why not? What’s to stop them?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Use of the bike lanes will be minimal. I hate that they already got rid of the four lane down and up in the morning and afternoon. Traffic is already terrible and taking away another lane on each side will make it worse.

Bikers have rock creek park path. Use it.

Drivers have Wisconsin Avenue. Use it
Drivers have Reno Rd. Use it
Drivers have mass Ave. use it

Put your bike route on Wisconsin, Reno or Mass avenue. They are less traveled that Connecticut. Bring back four lanes!

Yes!!!! Bike routes on every major road! Anywhere a person can go in a car should be accessible to pedestrians and cyclists!

Leave pedestrians out of your crap. Nothing you all do benefits pedestrians.

I wish the pedestrians who have been injured or killed by speeding drivers on CT Ave may disagree were here to explain the concept of traffic calming to you.

Those drivers broke the law. You think these lanes will somehow prevent people from breaking the law?

yes, because they won’t be able to drive as fast. that’s the whole point.

Why not? What’s to stop them?

Fewer lanes. Again, see the studies.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Use of the bike lanes will be minimal. I hate that they already got rid of the four lane down and up in the morning and afternoon. Traffic is already terrible and taking away another lane on each side will make it worse.

Bikers have rock creek park path. Use it.

So when I come up the hill from Rock Creek Park, I would still have to use the same sidewalks or dangerous streets to get to the businesses I want to support. And you will still be bitter that I am on a bike blocking "your lane" to get there.

If it’s all about getting to businesses on CT Avenue, why not make the plan about more bus service instead? Make Connecticut b/w Chevy Chase Circle and the Mall a Circulator route. Put enough buses in it that they come 10 mins apart. You would move far more people up and down the Avenue in a bus than you would by bike on any given day. It’s a safe form of transport for everyone, including single adults, families, older adults and people with disabilities. By providing a reliable mass transit option, you’re accomplishing your stated objectives (fewer cars, safe transport) without blowing up the whole street.

Why not both? Why is there such an antipathy towards people who would like to bike? It is cheap and efficient.

Because the people freaking out about bike lanes are not honestly interested in improvement. They are motivated by an at-times paranoid resistance to change and ODD-like reaction to changes imposed in their living environment that they cannot control. They will bring up any possible alternative to the current proposal to object to it.

This describes Ward 3 NIMBYism - as manifested in the opposition to the CT Ave PBLs, the Palisades Trolley Trail revitalization, and the public schools in Foxhall - to a T. Very few of the opponents of these projects - who are mostly long-term residents of the respective neighborhoods - are at all interested in anything that might resemble an informed and rational discussion. I used to believe in consultation and community-based decision-making, but my experiences with these people lead me to conclude that such processed are nothing but a giant waste of precious time and public money. It's time to stop people's irrational beliefs and intransigence slowing down projects that will save lives and leave the vast majority of city residents better off.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Use of the bike lanes will be minimal. I hate that they already got rid of the four lane down and up in the morning and afternoon. Traffic is already terrible and taking away another lane on each side will make it worse.

Bikers have rock creek park path. Use it.

So when I come up the hill from Rock Creek Park, I would still have to use the same sidewalks or dangerous streets to get to the businesses I want to support. And you will still be bitter that I am on a bike blocking "your lane" to get there.

If it’s all about getting to businesses on CT Avenue, why not make the plan about more bus service instead? Make Connecticut b/w Chevy Chase Circle and the Mall a Circulator route. Put enough buses in it that they come 10 mins apart. You would move far more people up and down the Avenue in a bus than you would by bike on any given day. It’s a safe form of transport for everyone, including single adults, families, older adults and people with disabilities. By providing a reliable mass transit option, you’re accomplishing your stated objectives (fewer cars, safe transport) without blowing up the whole street.

Why not both? Why is there such an antipathy towards people who would like to bike? It is cheap and efficient.

Because the people freaking out about bike lanes are not honestly interested in improvement. They are motivated by an at-times paranoid resistance to change and ODD-like reaction to changes imposed in their living environment that they cannot control. They will bring up any possible alternative to the current proposal to object to it.

Do you have super powers or something? Otherwise, how could you possibly know someone else’s motivations? But putting motivations aside, improving transit on the corridor is not mutually exclusive with improving cycling infrastructure. All bus lanes in DC also allow bicycles. Seems like a much better proposal for a multipurpose, rather a single purpose lane.

because people make truly bizarre arguments about this stuff. like the “broken social contract” lady.

You have honestly lost me. If you are at the stage of trying to do whatever you perceive to be the opposite of what you think your opponents want, you are not going to get good outcomes from public policy and it will eventually be self-defeating to whatever you actually want to achieve.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Use of the bike lanes will be minimal. I hate that they already got rid of the four lane down and up in the morning and afternoon. Traffic is already terrible and taking away another lane on each side will make it worse.

Bikers have rock creek park path. Use it.

Drivers have Wisconsin Avenue. Use it
Drivers have Reno Rd. Use it
Drivers have mass Ave. use it

Put your bike route on Wisconsin, Reno or Mass avenue. They are less traveled that Connecticut. Bring back four lanes!

Yes!!!! Bike routes on every major road! Anywhere a person can go in a car should be accessible to pedestrians and cyclists!

Leave pedestrians out of your crap. Nothing you all do benefits pedestrians.

I wish the pedestrians who have been injured or killed by speeding drivers on CT Ave may disagree were here to explain the concept of traffic calming to you.

Those drivers broke the law. You think these lanes will somehow prevent people from breaking the law?

yes, because they won’t be able to drive as fast. that’s the whole point.

Why not? What’s to stop them?

Fewer lanes. Again, see the studies.

So your theory is that a person normally predisposed to speeding, who will now have to sit in even more traffic, will somehow now see the light and begin following the speed limit? I don’t. I think that person will now speed even more to make it through intersections to make up for lost time. Only now, he might easily jump crowded street level “protected” bike lane with riders penned in and have no ability to maneuver.
Most experienced bike riders understand how dangerous protected bike lanes are and prefer traffic lanes shared by both motorists and cyclists. Protected bike lanes give bikers a false sense of security. My kids love riding in Rock Creek Park. Anyone who lets their kid use the Connecticut Ave bike lanes is crazy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Use of the bike lanes will be minimal. I hate that they already got rid of the four lane down and up in the morning and afternoon. Traffic is already terrible and taking away another lane on each side will make it worse.

Bikers have rock creek park path. Use it.

So when I come up the hill from Rock Creek Park, I would still have to use the same sidewalks or dangerous streets to get to the businesses I want to support. And you will still be bitter that I am on a bike blocking "your lane" to get there.

If it’s all about getting to businesses on CT Avenue, why not make the plan about more bus service instead? Make Connecticut b/w Chevy Chase Circle and the Mall a Circulator route. Put enough buses in it that they come 10 mins apart. You would move far more people up and down the Avenue in a bus than you would by bike on any given day. It’s a safe form of transport for everyone, including single adults, families, older adults and people with disabilities. By providing a reliable mass transit option, you’re accomplishing your stated objectives (fewer cars, safe transport) without blowing up the whole street.

Why not both? Why is there such an antipathy towards people who would like to bike? It is cheap and efficient.

Because the people freaking out about bike lanes are not honestly interested in improvement. They are motivated by an at-times paranoid resistance to change and ODD-like reaction to changes imposed in their living environment that they cannot control. They will bring up any possible alternative to the current proposal to object to it.

Except this IS a suggestion for improvement.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Use of the bike lanes will be minimal. I hate that they already got rid of the four lane down and up in the morning and afternoon. Traffic is already terrible and taking away another lane on each side will make it worse.

Bikers have rock creek park path. Use it.

Drivers have Wisconsin Avenue. Use it
Drivers have Reno Rd. Use it
Drivers have mass Ave. use it

Put your bike route on Wisconsin, Reno or Mass avenue. They are less traveled that Connecticut. Bring back four lanes!

Yes!!!! Bike routes on every major road! Anywhere a person can go in a car should be accessible to pedestrians and cyclists!

Leave pedestrians out of your crap. Nothing you all do benefits pedestrians.

I wish the pedestrians who have been injured or killed by speeding drivers on CT Ave may disagree were here to explain the concept of traffic calming to you.

Those drivers broke the law. You think these lanes will somehow prevent people from breaking the law?

When people driving cars break laws, other people die.
When someone on a bike breaks the law, someone's feelings get hurt.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Use of the bike lanes will be minimal. I hate that they already got rid of the four lane down and up in the morning and afternoon. Traffic is already terrible and taking away another lane on each side will make it worse.

Bikers have rock creek park path. Use it.

Drivers have Wisconsin Avenue. Use it
Drivers have Reno Rd. Use it
Drivers have mass Ave. use it

Put your bike route on Wisconsin, Reno or Mass avenue. They are less traveled that Connecticut. Bring back four lanes!

Yes!!!! Bike routes on every major road! Anywhere a person can go in a car should be accessible to pedestrians and cyclists!

Leave pedestrians out of your crap. Nothing you all do benefits pedestrians.

I wish the pedestrians who have been injured or killed by speeding drivers on CT Ave may disagree were here to explain the concept of traffic calming to you.

Those drivers broke the law. You think these lanes will somehow prevent people from breaking the law?

yes, because they won’t be able to drive as fast. that’s the whole point.

Why not? What’s to stop them?

Fewer lanes. Again, see the studies.

So your theory is that a person normally predisposed to speeding, who will now have to sit in even more traffic, will somehow now see the light and begin following the speed limit? I don’t. I think that person will now speed even more to make it through intersections to make up for lost time. Only now, he might easily jump crowded street level “protected” bike lane with riders penned in and have no ability to maneuver.
Most experienced bike riders understand how dangerous protected bike lanes are and prefer traffic lanes shared by both motorists and cyclists. Protected bike lanes give bikers a false sense of security. My kids love riding in Rock Creek Park. Anyone who lets their kid use the Connecticut Ave bike lanes is crazy.

DP, no, if the road is more congested, unless they have a bulldozer, they won't be able to go faster.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Use of the bike lanes will be minimal. I hate that they already got rid of the four lane down and up in the morning and afternoon. Traffic is already terrible and taking away another lane on each side will make it worse.

Bikers have rock creek park path. Use it.

So when I come up the hill from Rock Creek Park, I would still have to use the same sidewalks or dangerous streets to get to the businesses I want to support. And you will still be bitter that I am on a bike blocking "your lane" to get there.

If it’s all about getting to businesses on CT Avenue, why not make the plan about more bus service instead? Make Connecticut b/w Chevy Chase Circle and the Mall a Circulator route. Put enough buses in it that they come 10 mins apart. You would move far more people up and down the Avenue in a bus than you would by bike on any given day. It’s a safe form of transport for everyone, including single adults, families, older adults and people with disabilities. By providing a reliable mass transit option, you’re accomplishing your stated objectives (fewer cars, safe transport) without blowing up the whole street.

Why not both? Why is there such an antipathy towards people who would like to bike? It is cheap and efficient.

Because the people freaking out about bike lanes are not honestly interested in improvement. They are motivated by an at-times paranoid resistance to change and ODD-like reaction to changes imposed in their living environment that they cannot control. They will bring up any possible alternative to the current proposal to object to it.

This describes Ward 3 NIMBYism - as manifested in the opposition to the CT Ave PBLs, the Palisades Trolley Trail revitalization, and the public schools in Foxhall - to a T. Very few of the opponents of these projects - who are mostly long-term residents of the respective neighborhoods - are at all interested in anything that might resemble an informed and rational discussion. I used to believe in consultation and community-based decision-making, but my experiences with these people lead me to conclude that such processed are nothing but a giant waste of precious time and public money. It's time to stop people's irrational beliefs and intransigence slowing down projects that will save lives and leave the vast majority of city residents better off.

So, people who buy into a neighborhood buy into that neighborhood because they like its characteristics, including access to CT Avenue. And accordingly they are not interested in changes to those characteristics. Deal with it. Presumably, you are okay then with radical gentrification which is the exact same outcome-changing a neighborhood against the wishes of its residents.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Use of the bike lanes will be minimal. I hate that they already got rid of the four lane down and up in the morning and afternoon. Traffic is already terrible and taking away another lane on each side will make it worse.

Bikers have rock creek park path. Use it.

Drivers have Wisconsin Avenue. Use it
Drivers have Reno Rd. Use it
Drivers have mass Ave. use it

Put your bike route on Wisconsin, Reno or Mass avenue. They are less traveled that Connecticut. Bring back four lanes!

Yes!!!! Bike routes on every major road! Anywhere a person can go in a car should be accessible to pedestrians and cyclists!

Leave pedestrians out of your crap. Nothing you all do benefits pedestrians.

I wish the pedestrians who have been injured or killed by speeding drivers on CT Ave may disagree were here to explain the concept of traffic calming to you.

Those drivers broke the law. You think these lanes will somehow prevent people from breaking the law?

When people driving cars break laws, other people die.
When someone on a bike breaks the law, someone's feelings get hurt.

I have been driving CT Avenue for over 4 decades. Traffic has not gotten worse, and neither have accidents.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Use of the bike lanes will be minimal. I hate that they already got rid of the four lane down and up in the morning and afternoon. Traffic is already terrible and taking away another lane on each side will make it worse.

Bikers have rock creek park path. Use it.

Drivers have Wisconsin Avenue. Use it
Drivers have Reno Rd. Use it
Drivers have mass Ave. use it

Put your bike route on Wisconsin, Reno or Mass avenue. They are less traveled that Connecticut. Bring back four lanes!

Yes!!!! Bike routes on every major road! Anywhere a person can go in a car should be accessible to pedestrians and cyclists!

Leave pedestrians out of your crap. Nothing you all do benefits pedestrians.

I wish the pedestrians who have been injured or killed by speeding drivers on CT Ave may disagree were here to explain the concept of traffic calming to you.

Those drivers broke the law. You think these lanes will somehow prevent people from breaking the law?

When people driving cars break laws, other people die.
When someone on a bike breaks the law, someone's feelings get hurt.

Right. Which is why these lanes are a terrible idea. They will put speeding cars in close contact with bike riders who you’ve promised are somehow “protected.” The first time a mom with her two kids on a cargo bike get wiped out, nobody is going to use the lanes anymore. It’s entirely predictable.