Options for opposing Connecticut Avenue changes?

[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.

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.

Multiple families, just on my block have 3-5 cars.

Aslo, the census doesn't lie. The number s 40%. Most people cannot afford one car, much less 3-5.

Multiple families on my block have 20 cars! I know a few people who have 50 cars!

Ha. This is all pure craziness. Washington D.C. is one of the wealthiest cities in America. People can afford cars, as evident by the number of people who bother registering them with the government.

Also, the Census Bureau says only two percent of people here ride 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.

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.

repeatedly referring to the metro as “the subway” doesn’t exactly make me think you’re authentically interested in or knowledgeable about transit in DC …

and your pointless pedantry makes me think you're not very bright...

[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.

You're in luck! It turns out there is also a city bus system!

[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.

+1

[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.

+1

+2. Go on Twitter. Follow Bike Lane Squaters of DC. Behold daily pictures of blocked bike lanes all over the city, INCLUDING the beloved concrete “protected” bike lanes. And you want to bring this junk to Connecticut Ave? Stop hiding behind studies. People can see with their own eyes that it’s not going to work.

[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.

+1

+2. Go on Twitter. Follow Bike Lane Squaters of DC. Behold daily pictures of blocked bike lanes all over the city, INCLUDING the beloved concrete “protected” bike lanes. And you want to bring this junk to Connecticut Ave? Stop hiding behind studies. People can see with their own eyes that it’s not going to work.

Oh well i guess you’ll be able to tell us you were right if it goes wrong but good on the city for being progressive

[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.

+1

+2. Go on Twitter. Follow Bike Lane Squaters of DC. Behold daily pictures of blocked bike lanes all over the city, INCLUDING the beloved concrete “protected” bike lanes. And you want to bring this junk to Connecticut Ave? Stop hiding behind studies. People can see with their own eyes that it’s not going to work.

That's hilarious. Love the government vehicles parked in bike lanes.

[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.

+1

+2. Go on Twitter. Follow Bike Lane Squaters of DC. Behold daily pictures of blocked bike lanes all over the city, INCLUDING the beloved concrete “protected” bike lanes. And you want to bring this junk to Connecticut Ave? Stop hiding behind studies. People can see with their own eyes that it’s not going to work.

That's hilarious. Love the government vehicles parked in bike lanes.

Government vehicles, private vehicles, and delivery trucks of all shapes and sizes. All over the city. Every single hour of every single day. The city does not adequately enforce the bike lanes it currently has. So these geniuses want to add a few miles more on a major transportation artery? There’s no wisdom to be gained from the second kick of a mule, folks.

[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.

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.

You're in luck! It turns out there is also a city bus system!

It is faster for me to bike. I would just like to do it safely.

[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.

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.

You're in luck! It turns out there is also a city bus system!

It is faster for me to bike. I would just like to do it safely.

Call me crazy but the city shouldnt have to spend billions of dollars and screw up traffic for hundreds of thousands of people because you and a handful of other Bernie bros don't like the bus

[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.

+1

+2. Go on Twitter. Follow Bike Lane Squaters of DC. Behold daily pictures of blocked bike lanes all over the city, INCLUDING the beloved concrete “protected” bike lanes. And you want to bring this junk to Connecticut Ave? Stop hiding behind studies. People can see with their own eyes that it’s not going to work.

That's hilarious. Love the government vehicles parked in bike lanes.

Government vehicles, private vehicles, and delivery trucks of all shapes and sizes. All over the city. Every single hour of every single day. The city does not adequately enforce the bike lanes it currently has. So these geniuses want to add a few miles more on a major transportation artery? There’s no wisdom to be gained from the second kick of a mule, folks.

I was wondering if I could park in bike lanes and get away with it. I guess the answer is yes.

[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.

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.

You're in luck! It turns out there is also a city bus system!

It is faster for me to bike. I would just like to do it safely.

Call me crazy but the city shouldnt have to spend billions of dollars and screw up traffic for hundreds of thousands of people because you and a handful of other Bernie bros don't like the bus

PP either has a terrible grasp of numbers or a terrible grasp of the truth but DC does not spend billions on bike and pedestrian infrastructure - in fact it is less than 5% of DDOT's massive budget which is astonishing because most people in DC get around every day in some manner without using a vehicle.

[Anonymous]

If there is no parking on Conn how will we have service providers in our condo building? We only have one loading dock parking spot and 2-3 more additional parking spaces for guests. There are no side streets on our side of the street due to the park, so would our painters and electricians have to park on a residential street and walk across Conn Ave with their supplies? There are hundreds of people in our building, which is one of many along Conn.

[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.

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.

You're in luck! It turns out there is also a city bus system!

It is faster for me to bike. I would just like to do it safely.

Call me crazy but the city shouldnt have to spend billions of dollars and screw up traffic for hundreds of thousands of people because you and a handful of other Bernie bros don't like the bus

PP either has a terrible grasp of numbers or a terrible grasp of the truth but DC does not spend billions on bike and pedestrian infrastructure - in fact it is less than 5% of DDOT's massive budget which is astonishing because most people in DC get around every day in some manner without using a vehicle.

Obviously the city doesnt spend billions in one year, but over the years? Yes, of course it has spend billions. We've had bike lanes in this city for almost 15 years.

[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.

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.

You're in luck! It turns out there is also a city bus system!

It is faster for me to bike. I would just like to do it safely.

Call me crazy but the city shouldnt have to spend billions of dollars and screw up traffic for hundreds of thousands of people because you and a handful of other Bernie bros don't like the bus

Don't worry, they also plan to dramtically cut back local bus service. Buses will now strictly be for commuters from Maryland.