Options for opposing Connecticut Avenue changes?

[Anonymous]

Let’s just ban all cars and all bikes. Everyone walks.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:biking is not for everyone - i had a coworker in her 60s fracture her elbow in a solo accident from just falling off the bike - many people have health/physical reasons why they need to take the bus, walk or drive v.s. biking. The idea that everyone has to become a biker is part of why people are reacting to these posts like this.

What is the specific mph the bike lane is supposed to calm traffic to? Personally keeping everyone driving under the spped limit to 23-25 sounds good to me. Is that the goal or is the goal to have everyone in gridlock inching along. Some clarity on that point might be helpful and seem less focused only on the convenience of the existing small number of bikers

Nobody is saying the everyone has to bike. There are six lanes dedicated to cars and two are being repurposed for bike lanes. So there are still four lanes for cars.

Not everyone can drive, not everyone can bike. This plan accommodates both and also makes it safer for pedestrians.

The problem here is a disagreement about the objective of public policy. Most people think that it should maximize utility. You think it should be used to deliver goodies to special, niche constituencies.

I don’t think cyclists and pedestrians are a niche constituency so there is more than one disagreement there.

I don’t see any proposals for pedestrian lanes. This is another one of my favorite bicyclist things: claiming that policies that favor them help pedestrians. However, if a pedestrian gets hit by a bicycle in the bike lane you say it’s the pedestrians fault even though they are the more vulnerable road user. “It’s our space”. Ridiculous.

The "pedestrian lanes" are called sidewalks. And the CT Project has many, many features to improve pedestrian safety. But of course you don't actually care about the actual project.

What a dumb comment but it is an ignorant one which makes it consistent with the other comments in this thread and on the neighborhood listserves.

Besides getting bikes and scooters off of the sidewalk which is a big net win for pedestrians the plan includes a couple of additional hawk signals in the corridor which will eliminate some existing gaps in the corridor between safe spaces to cross. Also narrowing the road from 6 lanes to 5 will make it easier to cross for pedestrians and getting rid of rush hour travel lanes and lowering the speed limit will calm traffic and reduce red-light running.

Oh and the current planning process is also studying all signal timing and among the factors they are considering is pedestrian crossing times - currently all of the signals are times only to get as many cars through the corridor as possible and 20 second crossing times are common in the corridor today.

So yeah this project will be a big net win for pedestrians.

So they cannot install HAWK signals on CT without a bike lane? Didn’t realize. Must be something special about CT because they certainly have been able to install them in other parts of the city without problem.

Also didn’t realize that they amended DC Code to make it illegal to ride bikes on sidewalks outside the CBD where bike lanes are present. Which is particularly funny since bicyclist don’t obey this law in the CBD where it is illegal and you can see them riding both on sidewalks and in the street directly adjacent to protected bike lanes. So much for that theory.

You’re grasping at straws and you know it. Just do us all a favor and stop pretending that pedestrians have anything to do with this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Let’s just ban all cars and all bikes. Everyone walks.

I'm sure you are kidding but if you re-purposed all the roads and parking lots for housing and parks you'd have the density to have most things within walking distance and yes in fact people could walk to most of the things they need to do on a day to day basis.

Works in lots and lots of cities and they don't even have to be that vertical to achieve the density and most of those same cities are blessed with outstanding parks and recreation spaces too.

Interestingly the CT Ave corridor already has two of the most difficult things needed to make such a place really work - high capacity public transportation and access to fantastic green spaces.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Another of many daily reports from Bike Squatters of DC Twitter”:

“Not one, but two UPS trucks were seen illegally parked in the protected bike lane at 1st & L NE”

This is going to happen at multiple points on CT Ave EVERY day. It’s completely foreseeable. Delivery companies will just price tickets into the cost of service. For them, time is more important. What happens then? Bikes will take over one of two traffic lanes. It’s going to be a cluster.

I think the city needs to decide if it wants a functioning commerce or bike lanes. It cannot have both if they insist on putting bike lanes along commercial corridors.

Where do people get this from? Do you think that people who bike don't buy things? I am much more likely to pull over and patronize local businesses on my bike rather than in a car since it is easier to find bike parking. I live in the city, I have a dual income family, and we don't have a large car payment so we have more disposable income to spend on supporting local businesses.

Most of the people who say stuff like this have never ridden a bike. They don't realize how different it is from a perception standpoint to pedal somewhere (when peaceful and not having to be in hypervigilant mode about cars trying to kill you), versus the zoned out car driver doing their daily grind commute. They don't realize that most bike riders actually enjoy their commute and don't mind stopping along the way for a bite to eat. Where most car drivers are just in a competition to beat whomever to the next red light in a fruitless battle to get through grid lock.

It's a shame, because for ever cyclist on the road, that's one less car. Or that one more seat open on a crowded metro train. Or that is one more opening on a bus.

But no, no. Cyclist be damned. Subhuman scoundrels.

Sounds like you have no idea what driving is like and are suffering from serious projection issues. By the way, biking primarily replaces walking and local bus use not driving or metro which are both used primarily for longer trips.

citation for this? Isn't true for our household.

This is my favorite thing that cyclists do, frequent use of annectdata.

Studies say that the sweet spot for mode share are waking < 1 mile, bicycles < 2 miles, bus/subway < 5 miles, and commuter rail < 15 miles.

But since driving isn't on that list, doesn't it seem like each of those alternatives replace car trips?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:biking is not for everyone - i had a coworker in her 60s fracture her elbow in a solo accident from just falling off the bike - many people have health/physical reasons why they need to take the bus, walk or drive v.s. biking. The idea that everyone has to become a biker is part of why people are reacting to these posts like this.

What is the specific mph the bike lane is supposed to calm traffic to? Personally keeping everyone driving under the spped limit to 23-25 sounds good to me. Is that the goal or is the goal to have everyone in gridlock inching along. Some clarity on that point might be helpful and seem less focused only on the convenience of the existing small number of bikers

Nobody is saying the everyone has to bike. There are six lanes dedicated to cars and two are being repurposed for bike lanes. So there are still four lanes for cars.

Not everyone can drive, not everyone can bike. This plan accommodates both and also makes it safer for pedestrians.

The problem here is a disagreement about the objective of public policy. Most people think that it should maximize utility. You think it should be used to deliver goodies to special, niche constituencies.

I don’t think cyclists and pedestrians are a niche constituency so there is more than one disagreement there.

I don’t see any proposals for pedestrian lanes. This is another one of my favorite bicyclist things: claiming that policies that favor them help pedestrians. However, if a pedestrian gets hit by a bicycle in the bike lane you say it’s the pedestrians fault even though they are the more vulnerable road user. “It’s our space”. Ridiculous.

The "pedestrian lanes" are called sidewalks. And the CT Project has many, many features to improve pedestrian safety. But of course you don't actually care about the actual project.

What a dumb comment but it is an ignorant one which makes it consistent with the other comments in this thread and on the neighborhood listserves.

Besides getting bikes and scooters off of the sidewalk which is a big net win for pedestrians the plan includes a couple of additional hawk signals in the corridor which will eliminate some existing gaps in the corridor between safe spaces to cross. Also narrowing the road from 6 lanes to 5 will make it easier to cross for pedestrians and getting rid of rush hour travel lanes and lowering the speed limit will calm traffic and reduce red-light running.

Oh and the current planning process is also studying all signal timing and among the factors they are considering is pedestrian crossing times - currently all of the signals are times only to get as many cars through the corridor as possible and 20 second crossing times are common in the corridor today.

So yeah this project will be a big net win for pedestrians.

So they cannot install HAWK signals on CT without a bike lane? Didn’t realize. Must be something special about CT because they certainly have been able to install them in other parts of the city without problem.

Also didn’t realize that they amended DC Code to make it illegal to ride bikes on sidewalks outside the CBD where bike lanes are present. Which is particularly funny since bicyclist don’t obey this law in the CBD where it is illegal and you can see them riding both on sidewalks and in the street directly adjacent to protected bike lanes. So much for that theory.

You’re grasping at straws and you know it. Just do us all a favor and stop pretending that pedestrians have anything to do with this.

Stop lying. It really would be better for your cause if you just stopped lying.

The CT Ave project is a comprehensives set of modifications intended to make the corridor safer for *all users.*

"The preferred “Concept C” comes out of the Connecticut Avenue Reversible Operations and Safety Study. When the reversible lanes were in operation before the pandemic, 1,500 crashes were reported over a three-year review period. It was estimated that eliminating the reversible lanes would decrease crashes there by about 17 percent. The addition of protected bicycle lanes also helps to reduce the speed of vehicular traffic, reducing crash severity and making the area safer for pedestrians."

https://ddot.dc.gov/node/1572716

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:biking is not for everyone - i had a coworker in her 60s fracture her elbow in a solo accident from just falling off the bike - many people have health/physical reasons why they need to take the bus, walk or drive v.s. biking. The idea that everyone has to become a biker is part of why people are reacting to these posts like this.

What is the specific mph the bike lane is supposed to calm traffic to? Personally keeping everyone driving under the spped limit to 23-25 sounds good to me. Is that the goal or is the goal to have everyone in gridlock inching along. Some clarity on that point might be helpful and seem less focused only on the convenience of the existing small number of bikers

Nobody is saying the everyone has to bike. There are six lanes dedicated to cars and two are being repurposed for bike lanes. So there are still four lanes for cars.

Not everyone can drive, not everyone can bike. This plan accommodates both and also makes it safer for pedestrians.

The problem here is a disagreement about the objective of public policy. Most people think that it should maximize utility. You think it should be used to deliver goodies to special, niche constituencies.

I don’t think cyclists and pedestrians are a niche constituency so there is more than one disagreement there.

I don’t see any proposals for pedestrian lanes. This is another one of my favorite bicyclist things: claiming that policies that favor them help pedestrians. However, if a pedestrian gets hit by a bicycle in the bike lane you say it’s the pedestrians fault even though they are the more vulnerable road user. “It’s our space”. Ridiculous.

Only jerks say this, regardless of what mode of transportation they prefer. Plenty of jerks drive cars, though. Everyone is safer if fewer people are hit by cars. Meanwhile, "pedestrian lanes" are sidewalks, and they're already in place on Connecticut.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:biking is not for everyone - i had a coworker in her 60s fracture her elbow in a solo accident from just falling off the bike - many people have health/physical reasons why they need to take the bus, walk or drive v.s. biking. The idea that everyone has to become a biker is part of why people are reacting to these posts like this.

What is the specific mph the bike lane is supposed to calm traffic to? Personally keeping everyone driving under the spped limit to 23-25 sounds good to me. Is that the goal or is the goal to have everyone in gridlock inching along. Some clarity on that point might be helpful and seem less focused only on the convenience of the existing small number of bikers

This is actually the opposite of what the cycling community is saying. There just need enough people to bike to free up the car lanes and parking spots for those who need to use them. Absolutely no one is suggesting that "everyone" bike.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:biking is not for everyone - i had a coworker in her 60s fracture her elbow in a solo accident from just falling off the bike - many people have health/physical reasons why they need to take the bus, walk or drive v.s. biking. The idea that everyone has to become a biker is part of why people are reacting to these posts like this.

What is the specific mph the bike lane is supposed to calm traffic to? Personally keeping everyone driving under the spped limit to 23-25 sounds good to me. Is that the goal or is the goal to have everyone in gridlock inching along. Some clarity on that point might be helpful and seem less focused only on the convenience of the existing small number of bikers

Given that the speed limit on CT Ave is 20, the suggestion that your "below" speeds are higher is quite a tell.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:biking is not for everyone - i had a coworker in her 60s fracture her elbow in a solo accident from just falling off the bike - many people have health/physical reasons why they need to take the bus, walk or drive v.s. biking. The idea that everyone has to become a biker is part of why people are reacting to these posts like this.

What is the specific mph the bike lane is supposed to calm traffic to? Personally keeping everyone driving under the spped limit to 23-25 sounds good to me. Is that the goal or is the goal to have everyone in gridlock inching along. Some clarity on that point might be helpful and seem less focused only on the convenience of the existing small number of bikers

Nobody is saying the everyone has to bike. There are six lanes dedicated to cars and two are being repurposed for bike lanes. So there are still four lanes for cars.

Not everyone can drive, not everyone can bike. This plan accommodates both and also makes it safer for pedestrians.

The problem here is a disagreement about the objective of public policy. Most people think that it should maximize utility. You think it should be used to deliver goodies to special, niche constituencies.

Single occupancy cars are the absolute least utility of public space allocation for transportation. So if that is the goal, then you should be advocating for mass transit and bikes, with cars a distant 4th behind peds.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:biking is not for everyone - i had a coworker in her 60s fracture her elbow in a solo accident from just falling off the bike - many people have health/physical reasons why they need to take the bus, walk or drive v.s. biking. The idea that everyone has to become a biker is part of why people are reacting to these posts like this.

What is the specific mph the bike lane is supposed to calm traffic to? Personally keeping everyone driving under the spped limit to 23-25 sounds good to me. Is that the goal or is the goal to have everyone in gridlock inching along. Some clarity on that point might be helpful and seem less focused only on the convenience of the existing small number of bikers

Nobody is saying the everyone has to bike. There are six lanes dedicated to cars and two are being repurposed for bike lanes. So there are still four lanes for cars.

Not everyone can drive, not everyone can bike. This plan accommodates both and also makes it safer for pedestrians.

The problem here is a disagreement about the objective of public policy. Most people think that it should maximize utility. You think it should be used to deliver goodies to special, niche constituencies.

I don’t think cyclists and pedestrians are a niche constituency so there is more than one disagreement there.

I don’t see any proposals for pedestrian lanes. This is another one of my favorite bicyclist things: claiming that policies that favor them help pedestrians. However, if a pedestrian gets hit by a bicycle in the bike lane you say it’s the pedestrians fault even though they are the more vulnerable road user. “It’s our space”. Ridiculous.

pedestrian lanes = sidewalks

We could use more, but they already exist. It's magic!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:biking is not for everyone - i had a coworker in her 60s fracture her elbow in a solo accident from just falling off the bike - many people have health/physical reasons why they need to take the bus, walk or drive v.s. biking. The idea that everyone has to become a biker is part of why people are reacting to these posts like this.

What is the specific mph the bike lane is supposed to calm traffic to? Personally keeping everyone driving under the spped limit to 23-25 sounds good to me. Is that the goal or is the goal to have everyone in gridlock inching along. Some clarity on that point might be helpful and seem less focused only on the convenience of the existing small number of bikers

Nobody is saying the everyone has to bike. There are six lanes dedicated to cars and two are being repurposed for bike lanes. So there are still four lanes for cars.

Not everyone can drive, not everyone can bike. This plan accommodates both and also makes it safer for pedestrians.

The problem here is a disagreement about the objective of public policy. Most people think that it should maximize utility. You think it should be used to deliver goodies to special, niche constituencies.

I don’t think cyclists and pedestrians are a niche constituency so there is more than one disagreement there.

I don’t see any proposals for pedestrian lanes. This is another one of my favorite bicyclist things: claiming that policies that favor them help pedestrians. However, if a pedestrian gets hit by a bicycle in the bike lane you say it’s the pedestrians fault even though they are the more vulnerable road user. “It’s our space”. Ridiculous.

The "pedestrian lanes" are called sidewalks. And the CT Project has many, many features to improve pedestrian safety. But of course you don't actually care about the actual project.

What a dumb comment but it is an ignorant one which makes it consistent with the other comments in this thread and on the neighborhood listserves.

Besides getting bikes and scooters off of the sidewalk which is a big net win for pedestrians the plan includes a couple of additional hawk signals in the corridor which will eliminate some existing gaps in the corridor between safe spaces to cross. Also narrowing the road from 6 lanes to 5 will make it easier to cross for pedestrians and getting rid of rush hour travel lanes and lowering the speed limit will calm traffic and reduce red-light running.

Oh and the current planning process is also studying all signal timing and among the factors they are considering is pedestrian crossing times - currently all of the signals are times only to get as many cars through the corridor as possible and 20 second crossing times are common in the corridor today.

So yeah this project will be a big net win for pedestrians.

So they cannot install HAWK signals on CT without a bike lane? Didn’t realize. Must be something special about CT because they certainly have been able to install them in other parts of the city without problem.

Also didn’t realize that they amended DC Code to make it illegal to ride bikes on sidewalks outside the CBD where bike lanes are present. Which is particularly funny since bicyclist don’t obey this law in the CBD where it is illegal and you can see them riding both on sidewalks and in the street directly adjacent to protected bike lanes. So much for that theory.

You’re grasping at straws and you know it. Just do us all a favor and stop pretending that pedestrians have anything to do with this.

There are at least 3 HAWK lights on Conn Ave currently. One at Northhampton, one at Ellicott and one in front of the Uptown Theater. So to answer your question, no there is nothing special about bike lanes or Connecticut Avenue where HAWK lights are concerned.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:biking is not for everyone - i had a coworker in her 60s fracture her elbow in a solo accident from just falling off the bike - many people have health/physical reasons why they need to take the bus, walk or drive v.s. biking. The idea that everyone has to become a biker is part of why people are reacting to these posts like this.

What is the specific mph the bike lane is supposed to calm traffic to? Personally keeping everyone driving under the spped limit to 23-25 sounds good to me. Is that the goal or is the goal to have everyone in gridlock inching along. Some clarity on that point might be helpful and seem less focused only on the convenience of the existing small number of bikers

Given that the speed limit on CT Ave is 20, the suggestion that your "below" speeds are higher is quite a tell.

Considering that they did that a week or so ago your response is disengenuous.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Let’s just ban all cars and all bikes. Everyone walks.

I'm sure you are kidding but if you re-purposed all the roads and parking lots for housing and parks you'd have the density to have most things within walking distance and yes in fact people could walk to most of the things they need to do on a day to day basis.

Works in lots and lots of cities and they don't even have to be that vertical to achieve the density and most of those same cities are blessed with outstanding parks and recreation spaces too.

Interestingly the CT Ave corridor already has two of the most difficult things needed to make such a place really work - high capacity public transportation and access to fantastic green spaces.

Only part of the Connecticut Avenue corridor has that. This plan is Calvert to Chevy Chase Circle not Calvert to Van Ness.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:biking is not for everyone - i had a coworker in her 60s fracture her elbow in a solo accident from just falling off the bike - many people have health/physical reasons why they need to take the bus, walk or drive v.s. biking. The idea that everyone has to become a biker is part of why people are reacting to these posts like this.

What is the specific mph the bike lane is supposed to calm traffic to? Personally keeping everyone driving under the spped limit to 23-25 sounds good to me. Is that the goal or is the goal to have everyone in gridlock inching along. Some clarity on that point might be helpful and seem less focused only on the convenience of the existing small number of bikers

Nobody is saying the everyone has to bike. There are six lanes dedicated to cars and two are being repurposed for bike lanes. So there are still four lanes for cars.

Not everyone can drive, not everyone can bike. This plan accommodates both and also makes it safer for pedestrians.

The problem here is a disagreement about the objective of public policy. Most people think that it should maximize utility. You think it should be used to deliver goodies to special, niche constituencies.

I don’t think cyclists and pedestrians are a niche constituency so there is more than one disagreement there.

What is not a niche constituency in DC is people who don't drive for all their trips. 40% of DC households don't own a car and the majority of households that do own cars are, like our family, car light.

So we do drive. But we also walk, take the bus, take Metro and bike. We occasionally (though as rarely as possible) use Uber. I have a Capital Bikeshare membership though I only use it a couple of times a month. Much to my chagrin my teen regularly rents those Lime scooters for getting around and leaves them on the sidewalk in front of our house. And sometimes if both kids have sports events in the burbs at the same time we carpool.

The overwhelming majority of cars on the street in my DC neighborhood are from MD - easily 90% - I see no reason why DC transportation policy should be oriented towards that constituency particularly when they degrade the quality of life for DC residents.

DC transportation policy should instead be designed around safely moving DC residents around the city via all modes of transportation and remaking CT Ave improves the corridor for bikers, pedestrians, transit users and yes drivers. It comes at the expense of some parking spaces and some rush hour road carrying capacity but so what - it will make the road safe and usable for more DC residents while making it feel more like a neighborhood street than a traffic sewer for MD residents who have no concerns whatsoever for the livability of our city.

But Connecticut Avenue is not a local road. It’s literally designated as a state Highway once it enters Maryland and it’s a direct feeder into the federal highway system. Trying to make Connecticut Avenue a “neighborhood street” is not wise or even possible.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Let’s just ban all cars and all bikes. Everyone walks.

I'm sure you are kidding but if you re-purposed all the roads and parking lots for housing and parks you'd have the density to have most things within walking distance and yes in fact people could walk to most of the things they need to do on a day to day basis.

Works in lots and lots of cities and they don't even have to be that vertical to achieve the density and most of those same cities are blessed with outstanding parks and recreation spaces too.

Interestingly the CT Ave corridor already has two of the most difficult things needed to make such a place really work - high capacity public transportation and access to fantastic green spaces.

Only part of the Connecticut Avenue corridor has that. This plan is Calvert to Chevy Chase Circle not Calvert to Van Ness.

Which doesn't change the underlying facts at all - the corridor is well served by public transportation. The people on this thread complaining about bus service have in most cases never even been on a Metrobus.

BTW it is 1.8 miles from Chevy Chase Circle to the Van Ness Metro. And it is .7 miles from the FH metro to Chevy Chase Circle. It is .7 miles from the Van Ness Metro to the CP Metro so in fact even upper CT Ave is within reach of the Metro.

But the whole point of multi-modality is to bridge those modest gaps safely & efficiently - to make it safe and easy to walk, bike, scooter, take the bus etc to get to the high capacity regional rail network so even lower density neighborhoods can utilize our very good Metrorail system and utilize their cars less.