Options for opposing Connecticut Avenue changes?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

More congested = more emissions. You sure you want to go there?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

You live in the theoretical world. I bet you are highly educated, but modestly paid. You are some sort of “analyst” or “policy” person. You work at a nonprofit or NGO or maybe for the city government. It’s awkward when you go home for the holidays because you are still single. You parents smile but when you leave they express concern over your failure to launch and debate what your new tattoo is. You are thrilled about the new bike lanes because they will save you a little money. You used to live in Petworth and ride your bike, but you were scared after dark because of all the crime. You then moved to the place you used to mock as “upper cacausia.”

[Anonymous]

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: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.

You live in the theoretical world. I bet you are highly educated, but modestly paid. You are some sort of “analyst” or “policy” person. You work at a nonprofit or NGO or maybe for the city government. It’s awkward when you go home for the holidays because you are still single. You parents smile but when you leave they express concern over your failure to launch and debate what your new tattoo is. You are thrilled about the new bike lanes because they will save you a little money. You used to live in Petworth and ride your bike, but you were scared after dark because of all the crime. You then moved to the place you used to mock as “upper cacausia.”

Sad that is what in your mind's eye, but there is literally nothing about your description that describes me. I am probably your very successful net door neighbor.

[Anonymous]

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: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.

More congested = more emissions. You sure you want to go there?

It is already congested, so the emissions are already there.

[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.

Except this IS a suggestion for improvement.

No, it's not. It's a diversionary tactic. The next "suggestion" will just be something different once the first "suggestion" is dispensed with (either because it won't work or is already being done).

[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.

PREACH

[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.

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.

SOME people who "buy into a neighborhood" don't like it and freak out at any change, and yell much louder than the rest of the people, who are neutral or supportive. And don't forget that this is public space. Not owned by anyone.

[Anonymous]

So, I know some of the intense NIMBYs from professional, personal, and community life. The MOST intense ones are definitely, definitely a few sandwiches short of a picnic. Seriously.

[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.

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.

Some people bought into a neighborhood because of the racial covenants on their neighbors houses, what is your point? Change can be good.

[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.

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.

Some people bought into a neighborhood because of the racial covenants on their neighbors houses, what is your point? Change can be good.

So, you are okay with radical gentrification. Most of the historic residents in the gentrified areas are not okay with it. BTW. Almost no one alive today has bought a house because of racial covenants. They have been unenforceable for over 70 years. No one is stopping anyone of whatever color or religion from buying anywhere. Sorry to disappoint you. Not interested in changing the character of my neighborhood.

[Anonymous]

For those of you wondering about emissions from passenger vehicles in DC, here are some stats.

Bottom line: passenger vehicles account for 16 percent of DC's greenhouse gas emissions. The main source of greenhouse gas emissions are commercial and residential buildings. So for those of you wanting greater density, maybe you want to think of the environmental impact.

Overall, transportation accounts for about 21 percent of DC's greenhouse gas emissions, but passengers vehicles only represent 79 percent of that 21 percent. That equates to 16 percent of the overall emissions. Buses, trucks and transit account for the rest of the transportation emissions.


Obviously, reducing passenger car track plays an important role, but the argument for that is not the flex you think it is. Particularly when commercial and residential buildings are actually the biggest contributors to greenhouse gas emissions in DC.


https://doee.dc.gov/service/greenhouse-gas-inventories#:~:text=Emissions%20Sources%20in%20the%20District&text=In%20the%20District%2C%20emissions%20come,%25)%20and%20waste%20(7%25).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:For those of you wondering about emissions from passenger vehicles in DC, here are some stats.

Bottom line: passenger vehicles account for 16 percent of DC's greenhouse gas emissions. The main source of greenhouse gas emissions are commercial and residential buildings. So for those of you wanting greater density, maybe you want to think of the environmental impact.

Overall, transportation accounts for about 21 percent of DC's greenhouse gas emissions, but passengers vehicles only represent 79 percent of that 21 percent. That equates to 16 percent of the overall emissions. Buses, trucks and transit account for the rest of the transportation emissions.


Obviously, reducing passenger car track plays an important role, but the argument for that is not the flex you think it is. Particularly when commercial and residential buildings are actually the biggest contributors to greenhouse gas emissions in DC.


https://doee.dc.gov/service/greenhouse-gas-inventories#:~:text=Emissions%20Sources%20in%20the%20District&text=In%20the%20District%2C%20emissions%20come,%25)%20and%20waste%20(7%25).

And another interesting takeaway from this data is that residential buildings alone contribute more to DC's greenhouse gas emissions than passenger vehicles!! 21.6 percent overall (residential buildings) vs. 16.6 passenger vehicles

[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.

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.

Some people bought into a neighborhood because of the racial covenants on their neighbors houses, what is your point? Change can be good.

So, you are okay with radical gentrification. Most of the historic residents in the gentrified areas are not okay with it. BTW. Almost no one alive today has bought a house because of racial covenants. They have been unenforceable for over 70 years. No one is stopping anyone of whatever color or religion from buying anywhere. Sorry to disappoint you. Not interested in changing the character of my neighborhood.

No, I am making a point that things don't remain static. And particularly in a city, things change. Racial covenants were declared illegal, thankfully, and we are learnign that the planning and transportation paradigm of the 20th century is not sustainable, so we need to evolve to something else. The changes proposed for Connecticut Avenue are the something else. Let's not be stuck in the 20th century - it doesn't work.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For those of you wondering about emissions from passenger vehicles in DC, here are some stats.

Bottom line: passenger vehicles account for 16 percent of DC's greenhouse gas emissions. The main source of greenhouse gas emissions are commercial and residential buildings. So for those of you wanting greater density, maybe you want to think of the environmental impact.

Overall, transportation accounts for about 21 percent of DC's greenhouse gas emissions, but passengers vehicles only represent 79 percent of that 21 percent. That equates to 16 percent of the overall emissions. Buses, trucks and transit account for the rest of the transportation emissions.


Obviously, reducing passenger car track plays an important role, but the argument for that is not the flex you think it is. Particularly when commercial and residential buildings are actually the biggest contributors to greenhouse gas emissions in DC.


https://doee.dc.gov/service/greenhouse-gas-inventories#:~:text=Emissions%20Sources%20in%20the%20District&text=In%20the%20District%2C%20emissions%20come,%25)%20and%20waste%20(7%25).

And another interesting takeaway from this data is that residential buildings alone contribute more to DC's greenhouse gas emissions than passenger vehicles!! 21.6 percent overall (residential buildings) vs. 16.6 passenger vehicles

Which is why the city is decarbonizing and moving to all electric with the potential to being fully renewable. 21st Century thinking, not 20th century thinking.

[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.

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.

Some people bought into a neighborhood because of the racial covenants on their neighbors houses, what is your point? Change can be good.

So, you are okay with radical gentrification. Most of the historic residents in the gentrified areas are not okay with it. BTW. Almost no one alive today has bought a house because of racial covenants. They have been unenforceable for over 70 years. No one is stopping anyone of whatever color or religion from buying anywhere. Sorry to disappoint you. Not interested in changing the character of my neighborhood.

Adding bike lanes will not impact the character of the neighborhood.