Options for opposing Connecticut Avenue changes?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It's in everyone's interest -- drivers, pedestrians, cyclists -- to have any much car traffic moving as efficiently as possible on major roads, ie any street named after a state. That's what they were designed for and that's where everyone expects there to be lots of traffic. When we force drivers to start cutting through neighborhoods on side streets because the main arteries are clogged, that's when we're asking for trouble.

+1. And it could be even worse on the weekends when tourists heading to the Zoo get routed by Waze onto Reno and into the neighborhoods. It’s completely foreseeable, sadly. Homeowners on side streets adjacent to Connecticut will get no relief.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's in everyone's interest -- drivers, pedestrians, cyclists -- to have any much car traffic moving as efficiently as possible on major roads, ie any street named after a state. That's what they were designed for and that's where everyone expects there to be lots of traffic. When we force drivers to start cutting through neighborhoods on side streets because the main arteries are clogged, that's when we're asking for trouble.

+1. And it could be even worse on the weekends when tourists heading to the Zoo get routed by Waze onto Reno and into the neighborhoods. It’s completely foreseeable, sadly. Homeowners on side streets adjacent to Connecticut will get no relief.

+2 And it is certifiably insane to be trying to do that on purpose

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's in everyone's interest -- drivers, pedestrians, cyclists -- to have any much car traffic moving as efficiently as possible on major roads, ie any street named after a state. That's what they were designed for and that's where everyone expects there to be lots of traffic. When we force drivers to start cutting through neighborhoods on side streets because the main arteries are clogged, that's when we're asking for trouble.

+1. And it could be even worse on the weekends when tourists heading to the Zoo get routed by Waze onto Reno and into the neighborhoods. It’s completely foreseeable, sadly. Homeowners on side streets adjacent to Connecticut will get no relief.

Maybe this will encourage more people to use the metro that is conveniently located near the Zoo!
I think the 89 pages of this thread show pretty clearly that it is not in cyclists and pedestrian interest to keep things as they are, but you can keep chatting into the void.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's in everyone's interest -- drivers, pedestrians, cyclists -- to have any much car traffic moving as efficiently as possible on major roads, ie any street named after a state. That's what they were designed for and that's where everyone expects there to be lots of traffic. When we force drivers to start cutting through neighborhoods on side streets because the main arteries are clogged, that's when we're asking for trouble.

+1. And it could be even worse on the weekends when tourists heading to the Zoo get routed by Waze onto Reno and into the neighborhoods. It’s completely foreseeable, sadly. Homeowners on side streets adjacent to Connecticut will get no relief.

Maybe this will encourage more people to use the metro that is conveniently located near the Zoo!
I think the 89 pages of this thread show pretty clearly that it is not in cyclists and pedestrian interest to keep things as they are, but you can keep chatting into the void.

Don't we all know how this movie is going to end? This plan is never going to take effect and, if it does, it will quickly be rescinded. It would be career suicide for city council members to create traffic Armageddon that pisses off hundreds of thousands of people for the sake of, like, nine guys who are really into bikes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's in everyone's interest -- drivers, pedestrians, cyclists -- to have any much car traffic moving as efficiently as possible on major roads, ie any street named after a state. That's what they were designed for and that's where everyone expects there to be lots of traffic. When we force drivers to start cutting through neighborhoods on side streets because the main arteries are clogged, that's when we're asking for trouble.

+1. And it could be even worse on the weekends when tourists heading to the Zoo get routed by Waze onto Reno and into the neighborhoods. It’s completely foreseeable, sadly. Homeowners on side streets adjacent to Connecticut will get no relief.

Maybe this will encourage more people to use the metro that is conveniently located near the Zoo!
I think the 89 pages of this thread show pretty clearly that it is not in cyclists and pedestrian interest to keep things as they are, but you can keep chatting into the void.

Don't we all know how this movie is going to end? This plan is never going to take effect and, if it does, it will quickly be rescinded. It would be career suicide for city council members to create traffic Armageddon that pisses off hundreds of thousands of people for the sake of, like, nine guys who are really into bikes.

another original thought.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It's in everyone's interest -- drivers, pedestrians, cyclists -- to have any much car traffic moving as efficiently as possible on major roads, ie any street named after a state. That's what they were designed for and that's where everyone expects there to be lots of traffic. When we force drivers to start cutting through neighborhoods on side streets because the main arteries are clogged, that's when we're asking for trouble.

The city actually made this argument not even a year ago with their Safe Streets program. They were closing side streets to everything but local traffic with the argument that cars belong on big roads, not small roads. With this plan for Connecticut Avenue, they're doing the opposite.

Safe Streets was killed because people hated it and this plan for Connecticut Avenue will be exponentially more unpopular.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's in everyone's interest -- drivers, pedestrians, cyclists -- to have any much car traffic moving as efficiently as possible on major roads, ie any street named after a state. That's what they were designed for and that's where everyone expects there to be lots of traffic. When we force drivers to start cutting through neighborhoods on side streets because the main arteries are clogged, that's when we're asking for trouble.

+1. And it could be even worse on the weekends when tourists heading to the Zoo get routed by Waze onto Reno and into the neighborhoods. It’s completely foreseeable, sadly. Homeowners on side streets adjacent to Connecticut will get no relief.

Maybe this will encourage more people to use the metro that is conveniently located near the Zoo!
I think the 89 pages of this thread show pretty clearly that it is not in cyclists and pedestrian interest to keep things as they are, but you can keep chatting into the void.

Don't we all know how this movie is going to end? This plan is never going to take effect and, if it does, it will quickly be rescinded. It would be career suicide for city council members to create traffic Armageddon that pisses off hundreds of thousands of people for the sake of, like, nine guys who are really into bikes.

The city voted for a mayor, actually three of them, who fully support this agenda. There is no "overtuning" these changes to Connecticut Avenue. The design process is underway now, and it will be implemented between 2024 and 2025. There is nothing the public can do now to change it. Even the GOP Ward 3 Candidate, if he were to win, would not be able to undermine it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It's in everyone's interest -- drivers, pedestrians, cyclists -- to have any much car traffic moving as efficiently as possible on major roads, ie any street named after a state. That's what they were designed for and that's where everyone expects there to be lots of traffic. When we force drivers to start cutting through neighborhoods on side streets because the main arteries are clogged, that's when we're asking for trouble.

It is also in everyone's interest to have roads where pedestrians, cyclists and drivers, can move about their business in a safe manner. When a road is designed such that someone operating a car can move fast enough that they overturn it, as happened on Connecticut Avenue earlier this month, that is problematic. I am not sure why anyone would defend the status quo, which is clearly unsafe.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It's in everyone's interest -- drivers, pedestrians, cyclists -- to have any much car traffic moving as efficiently as possible on major roads, ie any street named after a state. That's what they were designed for and that's where everyone expects there to be lots of traffic. When we force drivers to start cutting through neighborhoods on side streets because the main arteries are clogged, that's when we're asking for trouble.

No, some roads are too wide for the traffic volume and need to be slowed down.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:At 1030 am today, I drove straight down CT from near the border to K Street, and then I returned at 2 pm or so. I saw a total of 6 bicyclists for my round trip. 4 of the 6 were on the sidewalk. 1 turned onto a side street, and last was riding for at least several blocks down CT Avenue. I obviously saw many hundreds of cars, but only 6 riders. DC of course should focus on those 6 at the expense of the rest of us. Fortunately, I did not see a middle aged white guy trying to be hip and healthy. [I am a middle aged white guy.]

I do this too when I'm driving -- count how many bikers I see. Same result. The number of cyclists in this city is vastly overstated.

Census Bureau says two percent bike in D.C. That's probably higher than it actually is because they're just asking people how they travel, not confirming what they say is true.

Again, D.C. counts actual bikes making one-way trips in multiple locations around the city every single day. We don’t need to go by Census sampling or self-reporting or “I saw one bicycle” or anything else. There is actual data, which is what the District is using to inform policy choices.

There are so few bicyclists that the city lumps bicyclists in a miscellaneous category in its statistics.

You were trying to say that about the census bureau data as well until someone showed that you were dead wrong. Care to spread any other misinformation today?

one of the unique things about washington is that the daytime population is much bigger than the nighttime population because of all the commuters who live in maryland and virginia (the differential is one of the biggest, if not the biggest, in the united states). though the official population of washington is now a shade under 700,000, there's actually more than a million people here during the day. both dc and the census bureau overstate the share of people commuting by bike because they exclude anyone who doesnt live here, even if they're physically here during waking hours.

If people don’t live in the District want to decide District policy, they are most welcome to move to the District. Those of us who live in the District are grateful to have a government that values the safety of local residents over the convenience of suburban commuters.

I’ve lived in the District for 30 years and I believe this project will decrease safety both on the Avenue and in side streets. Point to all the studies you like but in my lived experience DC will be unable/unwilling to provide the type of traffic enforcement or maintenance to support a project of this magnitude. There is just no history of it. MPD/DDOt would require a dedicated team of traffic enforcement and tow trucks on this corridor 5 days a week for 12 hours a day.

Are you the same person who claimed to live in DC and asserted that there are primary elections for ANC positions?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:At 1030 am today, I drove straight down CT from near the border to K Street, and then I returned at 2 pm or so. I saw a total of 6 bicyclists for my round trip. 4 of the 6 were on the sidewalk. 1 turned onto a side street, and last was riding for at least several blocks down CT Avenue. I obviously saw many hundreds of cars, but only 6 riders. DC of course should focus on those 6 at the expense of the rest of us. Fortunately, I did not see a middle aged white guy trying to be hip and healthy. [I am a middle aged white guy.]

I do this too when I'm driving -- count how many bikers I see. Same result. The number of cyclists in this city is vastly overstated.

Census Bureau says two percent bike in D.C. That's probably higher than it actually is because they're just asking people how they travel, not confirming what they say is true.

Again, D.C. counts actual bikes making one-way trips in multiple locations around the city every single day. We don’t need to go by Census sampling or self-reporting or “I saw one bicycle” or anything else. There is actual data, which is what the District is using to inform policy choices.

There are so few bicyclists that the city lumps bicyclists in a miscellaneous category in its statistics.

You were trying to say that about the census bureau data as well until someone showed that you were dead wrong. Care to spread any other misinformation today?

one of the unique things about washington is that the daytime population is much bigger than the nighttime population because of all the commuters who live in maryland and virginia (the differential is one of the biggest, if not the biggest, in the united states). though the official population of washington is now a shade under 700,000, there's actually more than a million people here during the day. both dc and the census bureau overstate the share of people commuting by bike because they exclude anyone who doesnt live here, even if they're physically here during waking hours.

The D.C. count of bike trips doesn’t exclude anyone. It counts whoever rides by the counters on a bike. That’s it. It’s not an estimate, it’s not a survey, it is literally a device that counts bicycles. The average at the 18 counters around the city of bike and pedestrian counters, most of which only count bikes, is 4,000 one-way trips per day, since 2014.

I ride frequently, and have never ridden on a trail where there would be a counter. So how does that work?

Yes. Unless these counters are on every street - which they are not and never will be - they are biased and therefore less accurate than a survey for determining the overall number of cyclists or pedestrians or wherever. Anyone who doesn't understand that shouldn't be involved in any discussion about statistics.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's in everyone's interest -- drivers, pedestrians, cyclists -- to have any much car traffic moving as efficiently as possible on major roads, ie any street named after a state. That's what they were designed for and that's where everyone expects there to be lots of traffic. When we force drivers to start cutting through neighborhoods on side streets because the main arteries are clogged, that's when we're asking for trouble.

It is also in everyone's interest to have roads where pedestrians, cyclists and drivers, can move about their business in a safe manner. When a road is designed such that someone operating a car can move fast enough that they overturn it, as happened on Connecticut Avenue earlier this month, that is problematic. I am not sure why anyone would defend the status quo, which is clearly unsafe.

We'd all be better off if the handful of dudes super into bikes would just take the subway.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's in everyone's interest -- drivers, pedestrians, cyclists -- to have any much car traffic moving as efficiently as possible on major roads, ie any street named after a state. That's what they were designed for and that's where everyone expects there to be lots of traffic. When we force drivers to start cutting through neighborhoods on side streets because the main arteries are clogged, that's when we're asking for trouble.

+1. And it could be even worse on the weekends when tourists heading to the Zoo get routed by Waze onto Reno and into the neighborhoods. It’s completely foreseeable, sadly. Homeowners on side streets adjacent to Connecticut will get no relief.

Maybe this will encourage more people to use the metro that is conveniently located near the Zoo!
I think the 89 pages of this thread show pretty clearly that it is not in cyclists and pedestrian interest to keep things as they are, but you can keep chatting into the void.

That's quite the interesting spin. This thread is mostly people that live near Connecticut complaining that it's a horrible idea versus people living downtown that want more bike lanes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:At 1030 am today, I drove straight down CT from near the border to K Street, and then I returned at 2 pm or so. I saw a total of 6 bicyclists for my round trip. 4 of the 6 were on the sidewalk. 1 turned onto a side street, and last was riding for at least several blocks down CT Avenue. I obviously saw many hundreds of cars, but only 6 riders. DC of course should focus on those 6 at the expense of the rest of us. Fortunately, I did not see a middle aged white guy trying to be hip and healthy. [I am a middle aged white guy.]

I do this too when I'm driving -- count how many bikers I see. Same result. The number of cyclists in this city is vastly overstated.

Census Bureau says two percent bike in D.C. That's probably higher than it actually is because they're just asking people how they travel, not confirming what they say is true.

Again, D.C. counts actual bikes making one-way trips in multiple locations around the city every single day. We don’t need to go by Census sampling or self-reporting or “I saw one bicycle” or anything else. There is actual data, which is what the District is using to inform policy choices.

There are so few bicyclists that the city lumps bicyclists in a miscellaneous category in its statistics.

You were trying to say that about the census bureau data as well until someone showed that you were dead wrong. Care to spread any other misinformation today?

one of the unique things about washington is that the daytime population is much bigger than the nighttime population because of all the commuters who live in maryland and virginia (the differential is one of the biggest, if not the biggest, in the united states). though the official population of washington is now a shade under 700,000, there's actually more than a million people here during the day. both dc and the census bureau overstate the share of people commuting by bike because they exclude anyone who doesnt live here, even if they're physically here during waking hours.

If people don’t live in the District want to decide District policy, they are most welcome to move to the District. Those of us who live in the District are grateful to have a government that values the safety of local residents over the convenience of suburban commuters.

I’ve lived in the District for 30 years and I believe this project will decrease safety both on the Avenue and in side streets. Point to all the studies you like but in my lived experience DC will be unable/unwilling to provide the type of traffic enforcement or maintenance to support a project of this magnitude. There is just no history of it. MPD/DDOt would require a dedicated team of traffic enforcement and tow trucks on this corridor 5 days a week for 12 hours a day.

I travelled along RI Ave every day this summer and every day there was a tow truck on the road towing cars parked illegally. DC is bumping up its Peking enforcement considerably. Booting is much more common now than it used to be.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's in everyone's interest -- drivers, pedestrians, cyclists -- to have any much car traffic moving as efficiently as possible on major roads, ie any street named after a state. That's what they were designed for and that's where everyone expects there to be lots of traffic. When we force drivers to start cutting through neighborhoods on side streets because the main arteries are clogged, that's when we're asking for trouble.

+1. And it could be even worse on the weekends when tourists heading to the Zoo get routed by Waze onto Reno and into the neighborhoods. It’s completely foreseeable, sadly. Homeowners on side streets adjacent to Connecticut will get no relief.

Maybe this will encourage more people to use the metro that is conveniently located near the Zoo!
I think the 89 pages of this thread show pretty clearly that it is not in cyclists and pedestrian interest to keep things as they are, but you can keep chatting into the void.

Don't we all know how this movie is going to end? This plan is never going to take effect and, if it does, it will quickly be rescinded. It would be career suicide for city council members to create traffic Armageddon that pisses off hundreds of thousands of people for the sake of, like, nine guys who are really into bikes.

The city voted for a mayor, actually three of them, who fully support this agenda. There is no "overtuning" these changes to Connecticut Avenue. The design process is underway now, and it will be implemented between 2024 and 2025. There is nothing the public can do now to change it. Even the GOP Ward 3 Candidate, if he were to win, would not be able to undermine it.

It's one thing to support something that's on the drawing board, that's years away, that a noisy special interest group is constantly pestering you about and that everyone else is completely oblivious to.

It's quite another to back something that has half the city up in arms (as they probably would) and that's only supported by a miniscule share of the population. That's a sure fire way of losing your election. Most politicians aren't that dumb, though, to be fair, we have some extremely dumb politicians.