Options for opposing Connecticut Avenue changes?

[Anonymous]

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.

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.

It would be less painful to go and hit my head against a wall.

Doesn't matter what it is in MD - this is a discussion about the road in DC.

And you should read up about the history - the Avenue, including in MD, originally evolved around streetcars and the suburban portions pre-dated the beltway by more than 60 years so no it really doesn't matter that it is a feeder to the beltway something that if you knew your history wasn't even true until 20 years ago.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

They're eliminating the bus service you talk about

[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.

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.

It would be less painful to go and hit my head against a wall.

Doesn't matter what it is in MD - this is a discussion about the road in DC.

And you should read up about the history - the Avenue, including in MD, originally evolved around streetcars and the suburban portions pre-dated the beltway by more than 60 years so no it really doesn't matter that it is a feeder to the beltway something that if you knew your history wasn't even true until 20 years ago.

And even if it was designed as a state highway (which is debatable), who cares? Residents who want to live and work in DC are never allowed to change roads because they were once designed for one specific purpose?

[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.

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.

It would be less painful to go and hit my head against a wall.

Doesn't matter what it is in MD - this is a discussion about the road in DC.

And you should read up about the history - the Avenue, including in MD, originally evolved around streetcars and the suburban portions pre-dated the beltway by more than 60 years so no it really doesn't matter that it is a feeder to the beltway something that if you knew your history wasn't even true until 20 years ago.

And even if it was designed as a state highway (which is debatable), who cares? Residents who want to live and work in DC are never allowed to change roads because they were once designed for one specific purpose?

I know it's hard for some DC residents to comprehend, but it's more than what you want for your little slice of the pie. You're part of a much larger region.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

It would be less painful to go and hit my head against a wall.

Doesn't matter what it is in MD - this is a discussion about the road in DC.

And you should read up about the history - the Avenue, including in MD, originally evolved around streetcars and the suburban portions pre-dated the beltway by more than 60 years so no it really doesn't matter that it is a feeder to the beltway something that if you knew your history wasn't even true until 20 years ago.

And even if it was designed as a state highway (which is debatable), who cares? Residents who want to live and work in DC are never allowed to change roads because they were once designed for one specific purpose?

I know it's hard for some DC residents to comprehend, but it's more than what you want for your little slice of the pie. You're part of a much larger region.

So our quality of life should suffer for the planning and transportation choices that created the likes of Germantown and Ashburn?

[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.

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.

It would be less painful to go and hit my head against a wall.

Doesn't matter what it is in MD - this is a discussion about the road in DC.

And you should read up about the history - the Avenue, including in MD, originally evolved around streetcars and the suburban portions pre-dated the beltway by more than 60 years so no it really doesn't matter that it is a feeder to the beltway something that if you knew your history wasn't even true until 20 years ago.

And even if it was designed as a state highway (which is debatable), who cares? Residents who want to live and work in DC are never allowed to change roads because they were once designed for one specific purpose?

Residents who live and work in DC are the ones against this cockamamie plan.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

It would be less painful to go and hit my head against a wall.

Doesn't matter what it is in MD - this is a discussion about the road in DC.

And you should read up about the history - the Avenue, including in MD, originally evolved around streetcars and the suburban portions pre-dated the beltway by more than 60 years so no it really doesn't matter that it is a feeder to the beltway something that if you knew your history wasn't even true until 20 years ago.

And even if it was designed as a state highway (which is debatable), who cares? Residents who want to live and work in DC are never allowed to change roads because they were once designed for one specific purpose?

Residents who live and work in DC are the ones against this cockamamie plan.

Not me. Not my neighbors. Not the people who attended all the meetings. It’s actually the drivers coming into the city who will have a slower commute who are opposed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

It would be less painful to go and hit my head against a wall.

Doesn't matter what it is in MD - this is a discussion about the road in DC.

And you should read up about the history - the Avenue, including in MD, originally evolved around streetcars and the suburban portions pre-dated the beltway by more than 60 years so no it really doesn't matter that it is a feeder to the beltway something that if you knew your history wasn't even true until 20 years ago.

And even if it was designed as a state highway (which is debatable), who cares? Residents who want to live and work in DC are never allowed to change roads because they were once designed for one specific purpose?

Residents who live and work in DC are the ones against this cockamamie plan.

Not me. Not my neighbors. Not the people who attended all the meetings. It’s actually the drivers coming into the city who will have a slower commute who are opposed.

Not me. Not my neighbors. Not the people that didn't know about this plan. It's actually the people that live downtown, never come up north, and know nothing about how the locals lice that are in favor. That's the inconvenient truth.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

It would be less painful to go and hit my head against a wall.

Doesn't matter what it is in MD - this is a discussion about the road in DC.

And you should read up about the history - the Avenue, including in MD, originally evolved around streetcars and the suburban portions pre-dated the beltway by more than 60 years so no it really doesn't matter that it is a feeder to the beltway something that if you knew your history wasn't even true until 20 years ago.

And even if it was designed as a state highway (which is debatable), who cares? Residents who want to live and work in DC are never allowed to change roads because they were once designed for one specific purpose?

Residents who live and work in DC are the ones against this cockamamie plan.

Not me. Not my neighbors. Not the people who attended all the meetings. It’s actually the drivers coming into the city who will have a slower commute who are opposed.

Not me. Not my neighbors. Not the people that didn't know about this plan. It's actually the people that live downtown, never come up north, and know nothing about how the locals lice that are in favor. That's the inconvenient truth.

I live in D.C., less than a mile from Connecticut and just a few blocks from Maryland, and I am in favor of this plan because I bike to and from work on Connecticut multiple times a week. Even though I also often drive down Connecticut! So there you go, one anonymous data point for to balance out your anonymous data point against.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

It would be less painful to go and hit my head against a wall.

Doesn't matter what it is in MD - this is a discussion about the road in DC.

And you should read up about the history - the Avenue, including in MD, originally evolved around streetcars and the suburban portions pre-dated the beltway by more than 60 years so no it really doesn't matter that it is a feeder to the beltway something that if you knew your history wasn't even true until 20 years ago.

And even if it was designed as a state highway (which is debatable), who cares? Residents who want to live and work in DC are never allowed to change roads because they were once designed for one specific purpose?

Residents who live and work in DC are the ones against this cockamamie plan.

Not me. Not my neighbors. Not the people who attended all the meetings. It’s actually the drivers coming into the city who will have a slower commute who are opposed.

Not me. Not my neighbors. Not the people that didn't know about this plan. It's actually the people that live downtown, never come up north, and know nothing about how the locals lice that are in favor. That's the inconvenient truth.

Sorry, friend. I’m a local and am in favor.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

It would be less painful to go and hit my head against a wall.

Doesn't matter what it is in MD - this is a discussion about the road in DC.

And you should read up about the history - the Avenue, including in MD, originally evolved around streetcars and the suburban portions pre-dated the beltway by more than 60 years so no it really doesn't matter that it is a feeder to the beltway something that if you knew your history wasn't even true until 20 years ago.

And even if it was designed as a state highway (which is debatable), who cares? Residents who want to live and work in DC are never allowed to change roads because they were once designed for one specific purpose?

Residents who live and work in DC are the ones against this cockamamie plan.

Some residents. Most of us, as well as the politicians we all voted for, all support it too.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

It would be less painful to go and hit my head against a wall.

Doesn't matter what it is in MD - this is a discussion about the road in DC.

And you should read up about the history - the Avenue, including in MD, originally evolved around streetcars and the suburban portions pre-dated the beltway by more than 60 years so no it really doesn't matter that it is a feeder to the beltway something that if you knew your history wasn't even true until 20 years ago.

And even if it was designed as a state highway (which is debatable), who cares? Residents who want to live and work in DC are never allowed to change roads because they were once designed for one specific purpose?

Residents who live and work in DC are the ones against this cockamamie plan.

Not me. Not my neighbors. Not the people who attended all the meetings. It’s actually the drivers coming into the city who will have a slower commute who are opposed.

Not me. Not my neighbors. Not the people that didn't know about this plan. It's actually the people that live downtown, never come up north, and know nothing about how the locals lice that are in favor. That's the inconvenient truth.

Tbis issue ahs gone through THREE YEARS or public engagement including a different thread in this forum, on the two largest listservs in the Ward and with notice from the ANCs for the public meetings. If YOU didn't know about it, that is not anyone else's fault. What other issues should the rest of us bow to because YOU missed the various neighborhood discussions and votes around?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

It would be less painful to go and hit my head against a wall.

Doesn't matter what it is in MD - this is a discussion about the road in DC.

And you should read up about the history - the Avenue, including in MD, originally evolved around streetcars and the suburban portions pre-dated the beltway by more than 60 years so no it really doesn't matter that it is a feeder to the beltway something that if you knew your history wasn't even true until 20 years ago.

And even if it was designed as a state highway (which is debatable), who cares? Residents who want to live and work in DC are never allowed to change roads because they were once designed for one specific purpose?

Residents who live and work in DC are the ones against this cockamamie plan.

Not me. Not my neighbors. Not the people who attended all the meetings. It’s actually the drivers coming into the city who will have a slower commute who are opposed.

Not me. Not my neighbors. Not the people that didn't know about this plan. It's actually the people that live downtown, never come up north, and know nothing about how the locals lice that are in favor. That's the inconvenient truth.

Tbis issue ahs gone through THREE YEARS or public engagement including a different thread in this forum, on the two largest listservs in the Ward and with notice from the ANCs for the public meetings. If YOU didn't know about it, that is not anyone else's fault. What other issues should the rest of us bow to because YOU missed the various neighborhood discussions and votes around?

Even the two most recent meetings on this subject which were long after the opponents started making noise about this issue were well attended and attendees overwhelmingly supported Concept C.

And at the CAC meeting two weeks ago which is also open to the public and was publicized on the same neighborhood listserves where opponents are complaining none of the opponents showed up to constructively engage about the plans.

This is all a bit Trumpian from the opponents - lots of baseless complaints about the result when the overwhelming easily accessible evidence shows that this has been a painfully slow process with lots and lots of public meetings. But there are a lots of vain and clueless people in the wealthy neighborhoods along CT Ave who care more about themselves than process or the planet which again is very Trumpian.

[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.

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.

It would be less painful to go and hit my head against a wall.

Doesn't matter what it is in MD - this is a discussion about the road in DC.

And you should read up about the history - the Avenue, including in MD, originally evolved around streetcars and the suburban portions pre-dated the beltway by more than 60 years so no it really doesn't matter that it is a feeder to the beltway something that if you knew your history wasn't even true until 20 years ago.

And even if it was designed as a state highway (which is debatable), who cares? Residents who want to live and work in DC are never allowed to change roads because they were once designed for one specific purpose?

DC has the lowest return to office rate in the country. We are about to enter recession. We live adjacent to one of the ten wealthiest counties in the country. And your masterplan is to make it MORE difficult for commuters to come to DC?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

It would be less painful to go and hit my head against a wall.

Doesn't matter what it is in MD - this is a discussion about the road in DC.

And you should read up about the history - the Avenue, including in MD, originally evolved around streetcars and the suburban portions pre-dated the beltway by more than 60 years so no it really doesn't matter that it is a feeder to the beltway something that if you knew your history wasn't even true until 20 years ago.

And even if it was designed as a state highway (which is debatable), who cares? Residents who want to live and work in DC are never allowed to change roads because they were once designed for one specific purpose?

I know it's hard for some DC residents to comprehend, but it's more than what you want for your little slice of the pie. You're part of a much larger region.

Feel free to pay a commuter tax!!