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: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.

At least before the pandemic, the daytime population of Washington was 80 percent -- EIGHTY PERCENT -- higher than the population is while we're sleeping. Of course, you're free to do your weird Trump-y brand of xenophobia. But it seems odd (and a little offensive) to pretend that hundreds of thousands of people who are here among us every day don't matter.

Bethesda SOV commuters are now comparing themselves to undocumented immigrants. This thread never fails to disappoint!

I don’t see anyone claiming that the commuters don’t matter. But it’s hard to understand why their convenience should trump the safety of local residents. Given the general lack of respect exhibited by commuters for DC road regulations (particularly speed limits) and the failure en masse of commuters to pay their traffic fines (and the lack of assistance provided by the MD and VA governments on that matter), I can’t understand why any DC politician would be interested in catering to their interests.

[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 in everyone’s interest - and when I say everyone, I mean exactly that - for people to drive single occupant vehicles only when absolutely necessary and to opt for alternative modes of transportation whenever possible and, when they do drive, to drive at a speed low enough to minimize the risk of death or serious injury to other drivers, cyclists, and pedestrians. The proposed PBL on CT Ave is perfectly consistent with these interests.

[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 in everyone’s interest - and when I say everyone, I mean exactly that - for people to drive single occupant vehicles only when absolutely necessary and to opt for alternative modes of transportation whenever possible and, when they do drive, to drive at a speed low enough to minimize the risk of death or serious injury to other drivers, cyclists, and pedestrians. The proposed PBL on CT Ave is perfectly consistent with these interests.

This is all just wishful thinking. D.C. is a car city. That's just what it is. We have more cars than households -- a lot more. People don't want to ride bikes. They don't want to ride the bus. The subway used to be extremely popular until our government drove it into the ground. If we wanted to get people out of cars, we'd focus on making the subway useable again, but no one seems to want to do that. Instead, we're focused on building bike lanes that virtually no one uses.

[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.

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.

If I want to go from Chevy Chase to Vace, the Metro isn't really going to help me.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

"half the city"

cite for that?

The majority of people voted for a mayor, a councilmember and ANC commissioners who have overwhemingly supported this project.

I would also note that along the Connecticut Avenue corridor, 20% of the population live in single family houses. Those are also the majority of those who participate in the neighborhood email groups. So if you want to say that "half of the single family homeowners are up in arms over this" it would be more believable, but at least where there are people I know, most of them also support this.

I would venture that it is a small, vocal minority complaning about this. Anecdotally, for the hundreds of posts and complaints about this on said listservs, it is the same 20-30 people complaining. I am sure the opposition is great that than that, but it isn't anywhere close to "half the city"

[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.

It is in everyone’s interest - and when I say everyone, I mean exactly that - for people to drive single occupant vehicles only when absolutely necessary and to opt for alternative modes of transportation whenever possible and, when they do drive, to drive at a speed low enough to minimize the risk of death or serious injury to other drivers, cyclists, and pedestrians. The proposed PBL on CT Ave is perfectly consistent with these interests.

This is all just wishful thinking. D.C. is a car city. That's just what it is. We have more cars than households -- a lot more. People don't want to ride bikes. They don't want to ride the bus. The subway used to be extremely popular until our government drove it into the ground. If we wanted to get people out of cars, we'd focus on making the subway useable again, but no one seems to want to do that. Instead, we're focused on building bike lanes that virtually no one uses.

Only 40% of the people have cars. So maybe YOUR neighborhood is car city, but DC isn't. Further, it is only car city, to your estimation, because we don't have the biking and mass transit infrastructure for something different. So if we invest in the something different, we will get...something different.

Was time Square always a pedestrian focal point to New York City? No - Jeanette Sadik-Kahn and Mayor Bloomberg implemented something different and it has been wonderful and a huge revenue boost for the city.

DC can and is, doing the same.

[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.

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.

If I want to go from Chevy Chase to Vace, the Metro isn't really going to help me.

It does the other way. Vace has a second location in Bethesda.

[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.

It is in everyone’s interest - and when I say everyone, I mean exactly that - for people to drive single occupant vehicles only when absolutely necessary and to opt for alternative modes of transportation whenever possible and, when they do drive, to drive at a speed low enough to minimize the risk of death or serious injury to other drivers, cyclists, and pedestrians. The proposed PBL on CT Ave is perfectly consistent with these interests.

This is all just wishful thinking. D.C. is a car city. That's just what it is. We have more cars than households -- a lot more. People don't want to ride bikes. They don't want to ride the bus. The subway used to be extremely popular until our government drove it into the ground. If we wanted to get people out of cars, we'd focus on making the subway useable again, but no one seems to want to do that. Instead, we're focused on building bike lanes that virtually no one uses.

The metro is run by WMATA. How did "our" government drive it into the ground?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

"half the city"

cite for that?

The majority of people voted for a mayor, a councilmember and ANC commissioners who have overwhemingly supported this project.

I would also note that along the Connecticut Avenue corridor, 20% of the population live in single family houses. Those are also the majority of those who participate in the neighborhood email groups. So if you want to say that "half of the single family homeowners are up in arms over this" it would be more believable, but at least where there are people I know, most of them also support this.

I would venture that it is a small, vocal minority complaning about this. Anecdotally, for the hundreds of posts and complaints about this on said listservs, it is the same 20-30 people complaining. I am sure the opposition is great that than that, but it isn't anywhere close to "half the city"

20-30 different people on a single list serv is a massive amount for a list serv.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

"half the city"

cite for that?

The majority of people voted for a mayor, a councilmember and ANC commissioners who have overwhemingly supported this project.

I would also note that along the Connecticut Avenue corridor, 20% of the population live in single family houses. Those are also the majority of those who participate in the neighborhood email groups. So if you want to say that "half of the single family homeowners are up in arms over this" it would be more believable, but at least where there are people I know, most of them also support this.

I would venture that it is a small, vocal minority complaning about this. Anecdotally, for the hundreds of posts and complaints about this on said listservs, it is the same 20-30 people complaining. I am sure the opposition is great that than that, but it isn't anywhere close to "half the city"

20-30 different people on a single list serv is a massive amount for a list serv.

There are 15,000 people on said list. Seems kinda puny in context.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

"half the city"

cite for that?

The majority of people voted for a mayor, a councilmember and ANC commissioners who have overwhemingly supported this project.

I would also note that along the Connecticut Avenue corridor, 20% of the population live in single family houses. Those are also the majority of those who participate in the neighborhood email groups. So if you want to say that "half of the single family homeowners are up in arms over this" it would be more believable, but at least where there are people I know, most of them also support this.

I would venture that it is a small, vocal minority complaning about this. Anecdotally, for the hundreds of posts and complaints about this on said listservs, it is the same 20-30 people complaining. I am sure the opposition is great that than that, but it isn't anywhere close to "half the city"

20-30 different people on a single list serv is a massive amount for a list serv.

There are 15,000 people on said list. Seems kinda puny in context.

Not when one factors in how many are lurkers, how many are dormant, how many don't want to speak out either way, and how many usually opine on a subject like this. Ask any staffer. That's a huge number. Especially for a position without any organized support or astroturfing group.

[Anonymous]

So many excuses for not getting your way.

[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.

It is in everyone’s interest - and when I say everyone, I mean exactly that - for people to drive single occupant vehicles only when absolutely necessary and to opt for alternative modes of transportation whenever possible and, when they do drive, to drive at a speed low enough to minimize the risk of death or serious injury to other drivers, cyclists, and pedestrians. The proposed PBL on CT Ave is perfectly consistent with these interests.

This is all just wishful thinking. D.C. is a car city. That's just what it is. We have more cars than households -- a lot more. People don't want to ride bikes. They don't want to ride the bus. The subway used to be extremely popular until our government drove it into the ground. If we wanted to get people out of cars, we'd focus on making the subway useable again, but no one seems to want to do that. Instead, we're focused on building bike lanes that virtually no one uses.

Only 40% of the people have cars. So maybe YOUR neighborhood is car city, but DC isn't. Further, it is only car city, to your estimation, because we don't have the biking and mass transit infrastructure for something different. So if we invest in the something different, we will get...something different.

Was time Square always a pedestrian focal point to New York City? No - Jeanette Sadik-Kahn and Mayor Bloomberg implemented something different and it has been wonderful and a huge revenue boost for the city.

DC can and is, doing the same.

There's 288,000 households in Washington D.C. per the Census Bureau. There's 300,000 cars registered with the city. There must be tens of thousands more unregistered cars, especially give how the city charges an arm and a leg for registration. Also, have you been to New York City? Washington D.C. is not remotely similar to NYC.

[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.

It is in everyone’s interest - and when I say everyone, I mean exactly that - for people to drive single occupant vehicles only when absolutely necessary and to opt for alternative modes of transportation whenever possible and, when they do drive, to drive at a speed low enough to minimize the risk of death or serious injury to other drivers, cyclists, and pedestrians. The proposed PBL on CT Ave is perfectly consistent with these interests.

This is all just wishful thinking. D.C. is a car city. That's just what it is. We have more cars than households -- a lot more. People don't want to ride bikes. They don't want to ride the bus. The subway used to be extremely popular until our government drove it into the ground. If we wanted to get people out of cars, we'd focus on making the subway useable again, but no one seems to want to do that. Instead, we're focused on building bike lanes that virtually no one uses.

The metro is run by WMATA. How did "our" government drive it into the ground?

Where do you think WMATA gets its money? If the subway system had to rely on people's fares to pay the bills, it would have closed a long time ago.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So many excuses for not getting your way.

Such a strange mentality that reveals so much. This isn't a discussion of what movie to watch or what to have for dinner. It's a discussion of a very important and very localized long term public policy proposal. A policy discussion that for whatever reason did not actually occur prior to the decision being made.