Options for opposing Connecticut Avenue changes?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Enough with besmirching people in the neighborhood. What’s Trumpian is denigrating those who aren’t unstinting supporters of Plan C with ad hominem attacks. You’re trying to divide people by making snide comments about what type of dwelling they live in and/or how much money they might have. Stop it. I was mostly in the Plan C camp but I’m so disgusted with the snark and snideness that’s coming from the main proponents,including ANC reps, I’m starting to question the wisdom of going forward if this is who is driving it.

[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.

What is missing here is that RC has plenty of paths and walkways that could be widened for bikes. For commuters to downtown, and for athletic bikers, Rock Creek is far safer than CT Avenue will ever be, under any conditions.

This isn't about "commuting downtown" - this is about teh safe passage of your neighbors from one part of Connecticut Avenue to another. People bike to shop, to go to work, to go to school etc. The best and easiest way to do this is in a straight line. Sending cyclists who are going from Cleveland Park to Van Ness via Rock Creek is idiotic.

This is a great thought. Maybe we should build an underground train along Connecticut Ave that protects pedestrians and bikers from weather and cars?

Most people can ride faster than it takes to take the escalator, wait and take the escalator again. Plus....it's free.

Walk, take the bus or ride the Metro. Three good options already available to you to get from neighborhood to neighborhood if you don’t want to go by car.

[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:

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.

Enough with besmirching people in the neighborhood. What’s Trumpian is denigrating those who aren’t unstinting supporters of Plan C with ad hominem attacks. You’re trying to divide people by making snide comments about what type of dwelling they live in and/or how much money they might have. Stop it. I was mostly in the Plan C camp but I’m so disgusted with the snark and snideness that’s coming from the main proponents,including ANC reps, I’m starting to question the wisdom of going forward if this is who is driving it.

+1 the way some of the ANC reps have been acting, including on this thread, is despicable.

[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.

What is missing here is that RC has plenty of paths and walkways that could be widened for bikes. For commuters to downtown, and for athletic bikers, Rock Creek is far safer than CT Avenue will ever be, under any conditions.

This isn't about "commuting downtown" - this is about teh safe passage of your neighbors from one part of Connecticut Avenue to another. People bike to shop, to go to work, to go to school etc. The best and easiest way to do this is in a straight line. Sending cyclists who are going from Cleveland Park to Van Ness via Rock Creek is idiotic.

This is a great thought. Maybe we should build an underground train along Connecticut Ave that protects pedestrians and bikers from weather and cars?

Most people can ride faster than it takes to take the escalator, wait and take the escalator again. Plus....it's free.

Walk, take the bus or ride the Metro. Three good options already available to you to get from neighborhood to neighborhood if you don’t want to go by car.

Yup, and biking is a great fourth option for those that don’t want to drive. It will be an even better option once the lanes are optimized for all users and not just catering towards drivers

[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:

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.

Enough with besmirching people in the neighborhood. What’s Trumpian is denigrating those who aren’t unstinting supporters of Plan C with ad hominem attacks. You’re trying to divide people by making snide comments about what type of dwelling they live in and/or how much money they might have. Stop it. I was mostly in the Plan C camp but I’m so disgusted with the snark and snideness that’s coming from the main proponents,including ANC reps, I’m starting to question the wisdom of going forward if this is who is driving it.

LOL. "I was a lifelong democrat until [petty nonsense]" parody headlines come to mind.

[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.

What is missing here is that RC has plenty of paths and walkways that could be widened for bikes. For commuters to downtown, and for athletic bikers, Rock Creek is far safer than CT Avenue will ever be, under any conditions.

This isn't about "commuting downtown" - this is about teh safe passage of your neighbors from one part of Connecticut Avenue to another. People bike to shop, to go to work, to go to school etc. The best and easiest way to do this is in a straight line. Sending cyclists who are going from Cleveland Park to Van Ness via Rock Creek is idiotic.

This is a great thought. Maybe we should build an underground train along Connecticut Ave that protects pedestrians and bikers from weather and cars?

Most people can ride faster than it takes to take the escalator, wait and take the escalator again. Plus....it's free.

Walk, take the bus or ride the Metro. Three good options already available to you to get from neighborhood to neighborhood if you don’t want to go by car.

Yup, and biking is a great fourth option for those that don’t want to drive. It will be an even better option once the lanes are optimized for all users and not just catering towards drivers

Biking does not replace driving. Biking is optimized for trips less than 2 miles. It replaces walking and transit.

[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:

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.

What is missing here is that RC has plenty of paths and walkways that could be widened for bikes. For commuters to downtown, and for athletic bikers, Rock Creek is far safer than CT Avenue will ever be, under any conditions.

This isn't about "commuting downtown" - this is about teh safe passage of your neighbors from one part of Connecticut Avenue to another. People bike to shop, to go to work, to go to school etc. The best and easiest way to do this is in a straight line. Sending cyclists who are going from Cleveland Park to Van Ness via Rock Creek is idiotic.

This is a great thought. Maybe we should build an underground train along Connecticut Ave that protects pedestrians and bikers from weather and cars?

Most people can ride faster than it takes to take the escalator, wait and take the escalator again. Plus....it's free.

Walk, take the bus or ride the Metro. Three good options already available to you to get from neighborhood to neighborhood if you don’t want to go by car.

Yup, and biking is a great fourth option for those that don’t want to drive. It will be an even better option once the lanes are optimized for all users and not just catering towards drivers

Biking does not replace driving. Biking is optimized for trips less than 2 miles. It replaces walking and transit.

Something like half of all car trips are under 2 miles. And lots of short trips are not served by transit at all. Walking 2 miles for most people is going to take about 30 minutes - biking the same distance maybe 10 minutes. Not sure where you are getting this stuff but it is not based on personal experience at all but conjecture.

[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:

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.

What is missing here is that RC has plenty of paths and walkways that could be widened for bikes. For commuters to downtown, and for athletic bikers, Rock Creek is far safer than CT Avenue will ever be, under any conditions.

This isn't about "commuting downtown" - this is about teh safe passage of your neighbors from one part of Connecticut Avenue to another. People bike to shop, to go to work, to go to school etc. The best and easiest way to do this is in a straight line. Sending cyclists who are going from Cleveland Park to Van Ness via Rock Creek is idiotic.

This is a great thought. Maybe we should build an underground train along Connecticut Ave that protects pedestrians and bikers from weather and cars?

Most people can ride faster than it takes to take the escalator, wait and take the escalator again. Plus....it's free.

Walk, take the bus or ride the Metro. Three good options already available to you to get from neighborhood to neighborhood if you don’t want to go by car.

Yup, and biking is a great fourth option for those that don’t want to drive. It will be an even better option once the lanes are optimized for all users and not just catering towards drivers

Biking does not replace driving. Biking is optimized for trips less than 2 miles. It replaces walking and transit.

Something like half of all car trips are under 2 miles. And lots of short trips are not served by transit at all. Walking 2 miles for most people is going to take about 30 minutes - biking the same distance maybe 10 minutes. Not sure where you are getting this stuff but it is not based on personal experience at all but conjecture.

.

Biking does not replace driving because very few people want to ride bikes.

[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:

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.

What is missing here is that RC has plenty of paths and walkways that could be widened for bikes. For commuters to downtown, and for athletic bikers, Rock Creek is far safer than CT Avenue will ever be, under any conditions.

This isn't about "commuting downtown" - this is about teh safe passage of your neighbors from one part of Connecticut Avenue to another. People bike to shop, to go to work, to go to school etc. The best and easiest way to do this is in a straight line. Sending cyclists who are going from Cleveland Park to Van Ness via Rock Creek is idiotic.

This is a great thought. Maybe we should build an underground train along Connecticut Ave that protects pedestrians and bikers from weather and cars?

Most people can ride faster than it takes to take the escalator, wait and take the escalator again. Plus....it's free.

Walk, take the bus or ride the Metro. Three good options already available to you to get from neighborhood to neighborhood if you don’t want to go by car.

Yup, and biking is a great fourth option for those that don’t want to drive. It will be an even better option once the lanes are optimized for all users and not just catering towards drivers

Biking does not replace driving. Biking is optimized for trips less than 2 miles. It replaces walking and transit.

Something like half of all car trips are under 2 miles. And lots of short trips are not served by transit at all. Walking 2 miles for most people is going to take about 30 minutes - biking the same distance maybe 10 minutes. Not sure where you are getting this stuff but it is not based on personal experience at all but conjecture.

You got data for that *in DC*? Seems that you like to use a lot of guess work and your “personal experience” in favor of real data.

[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:

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.

Enough with besmirching people in the neighborhood. What’s Trumpian is denigrating those who aren’t unstinting supporters of Plan C with ad hominem attacks. You’re trying to divide people by making snide comments about what type of dwelling they live in and/or how much money they might have. Stop it. I was mostly in the Plan C camp but I’m so disgusted with the snark and snideness that’s coming from the main proponents,including ANC reps, I’m starting to question the wisdom of going forward if this is who is driving it.

LOL. "I was a lifelong democrat until [petty nonsense]" parody headlines come to mind.

Did you not see the, if you're against this plan you're against Roe v Wade posts?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
Enough with besmirching people in the neighborhood. What’s Trumpian is denigrating those who aren’t unstinting supporters of Plan C with ad hominem attacks. You’re trying to divide people by making snide comments about what type of dwelling they live in and/or how much money they might have. Stop it. I was mostly in the Plan C camp but I’m so disgusted with the snark and snideness that’s coming from the main proponents,including ANC reps, I’m starting to question the wisdom of going forward if this is who is driving it.

What is actually Trumpian are people who are opposed to the changes on Connecticut Avenue distorting facts or making up new ones to bolster their arguments.

[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:

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.

What is missing here is that RC has plenty of paths and walkways that could be widened for bikes. For commuters to downtown, and for athletic bikers, Rock Creek is far safer than CT Avenue will ever be, under any conditions.

This isn't about "commuting downtown" - this is about teh safe passage of your neighbors from one part of Connecticut Avenue to another. People bike to shop, to go to work, to go to school etc. The best and easiest way to do this is in a straight line. Sending cyclists who are going from Cleveland Park to Van Ness via Rock Creek is idiotic.

This is a great thought. Maybe we should build an underground train along Connecticut Ave that protects pedestrians and bikers from weather and cars?

Most people can ride faster than it takes to take the escalator, wait and take the escalator again. Plus....it's free.

Walk, take the bus or ride the Metro. Three good options already available to you to get from neighborhood to neighborhood if you don’t want to go by car.

Yup, and biking is a great fourth option for those that don’t want to drive. It will be an even better option once the lanes are optimized for all users and not just catering towards drivers

Biking does not replace driving. Biking is optimized for trips less than 2 miles. It replaces walking and transit.

For me, it replaces driving on anything under 10 miles in terms of common trips and errands. YMMV. But please stop with the narrow options. 2 miles on a bike for an average human being takes ten minutes or less and is minimal physical exertion.

[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:

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.

Enough with besmirching people in the neighborhood. What’s Trumpian is denigrating those who aren’t unstinting supporters of Plan C with ad hominem attacks. You’re trying to divide people by making snide comments about what type of dwelling they live in and/or how much money they might have. Stop it. I was mostly in the Plan C camp but I’m so disgusted with the snark and snideness that’s coming from the main proponents,including ANC reps, I’m starting to question the wisdom of going forward if this is who is driving it.

LOL. "I was a lifelong democrat until [petty nonsense]" parody headlines come to mind.

Did you not see the, if you're against this plan you're against Roe v Wade posts?

to be fair, there are a handful of lifelong democrats who will support the republican in the ward 3 race over this issue, eventhough this plan is fully aligned with the Biden climate change and transportation agenda.

Limousine Liberals at their finest.

[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:

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.

Enough with besmirching people in the neighborhood. What’s Trumpian is denigrating those who aren’t unstinting supporters of Plan C with ad hominem attacks. You’re trying to divide people by making snide comments about what type of dwelling they live in and/or how much money they might have. Stop it. I was mostly in the Plan C camp but I’m so disgusted with the snark and snideness that’s coming from the main proponents,including ANC reps, I’m starting to question the wisdom of going forward if this is who is driving it.

LOL. "I was a lifelong democrat until [petty nonsense]" parody headlines come to mind.

Did you not see the, if you're against this plan you're against Roe v Wade posts?

to be fair, there are a handful of lifelong democrats who will support the republican in the ward 3 race over this issue, eventhough this plan is fully aligned with the Biden climate change and transportation agenda.

Limousine Liberals at their finest.

Lol, you just can't help yourself can you.

Increasing neighborhood traffic and congestion is not part of either the Biden or Democratic agenda. If you were talking about light rail you might have a point. But in general, the way this has played out is the opposite of Biden's unifying no bs agenda.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Enough with besmirching people in the neighborhood. What’s Trumpian is denigrating those who aren’t unstinting supporters of Plan C with ad hominem attacks. You’re trying to divide people by making snide comments about what type of dwelling they live in and/or how much money they might have. Stop it. I was mostly in the Plan C camp but I’m so disgusted with the snark and snideness that’s coming from the main proponents,including ANC reps, I’m starting to question the wisdom of going forward if this is who is driving it.

What is actually Trumpian are people who are opposed to the changes on Connecticut Avenue distorting facts or making up new ones to bolster their arguments.

Back with the projection again