Anonymous wrote:What if the goal was a safe and thriving neighborhood? If you want a dedicated tunnel to downtown then take Metro.
If the goal is a safe and thriving neighborhood then the impact of any plan on accidents and traffic volume within the neighborhood is vitally important.
If your goal is to ban cars that's simply not happening.
A safe and vibrant neighborhood has bike lanes.
Pretty sure there are many, many safe and vibrant neighborhoods that don’t have bike lanes.
But how many neighborhoods have bike lanes that aren't safe and vibrant?
Lots. You especially see this in other cities that haven’t been overrun with gentrification.
If there's one thing we can take off the table absolutely when it comes to this particular bike lane debate, it's gentrification. You can't gentrify out the landed gentry.
Bike lanes are not about gentrification but they are about density, vibrancy and smart growth. Connecticut Ave has had the reputation of being rather boring and, well, old. Bike lanes add a certain hipness factor to attract younger buyers and renters. This is the group that developers who want to build dense housing need to attract.
Uh rent is expensive. Owning and storing a car is expensive. Younger people who have lower disposable income depend on biking to get around. So if the city wants to continue to attract these post-college younger residents, bike lanes is a great way to do it.
DC attracts plenty of single post-college younger residents (and in any case it’s doubtful that many want to live in Chevy Chase DC or Cleveland Park vs U St or Petworth). DC needs to do more to retain families who otherwise move to the suburbs better quality public schools and overall public services. Conn. ave. Bike lanes aren’t at the top of their priority list.
For a lot of younger families who are car free or car-light, yes they are. You clearly have no idea of the demographic shift away from the Boomer-led car era.
Petworth is full of parents, and hardly anyone uses the bike lanes, fyi. Bikes are extremely impractical when you have children.
This is a reality for a lot of younger families.
If we had the proper infrastructure, more people would do this.
We have more than 150 miles of bike lanes. We've spent billions of dollars on biking infrastructure. Still, the number of people on bikes is microscopic. People don't ride bikes because they don't want to ride bikes, and it has nothing to do with whatever you think the infrastructure is still missing.
The bolded is a flat out lie, and a lot of the 150 miles of bike lanes you are citing is simply paint on the ground. That isn't infrastructure. Ergo, the false conclusion you are drawing is a result of the false premise and lies you start with.
Try again: if biking were safe, more people would be doing it. Despite the infrastructure, there are a lot of young families who are using cargo bikes and electric bikes as a replacement for a car or second car, and it works very well for them. Just imagine how many more would do this if they felt it was safe enough!
Yes, yes, we know. Tens of thousands of bikers are ready to crawl out of the woodwork at any moment, if those pesky drivers would just get out of the way.
It’s a bit chicken and egg. Bike lanes are needed to help transform Connecticut Ave from a somewhat sleepy linear retirement community (albeit one with traffic) into a vibrant urban corridor. Bike lanes will attract the private investment to add density, thousands of new housing units to attract young creatives. That, in turn, will generate thousands of bike riders for the new infrastructure.
It is really more about converting the road from a dangerous traffic sewer to a bona fide main street that connects various commercial nodes.
How does making traffic worse and more dangerous during peak usage make it less of a traffic sewer?
The concept is to encourage more commuter traffic not to use Connecticut and distribute it via more efficient utilization of the area street grid. A traffic sewer is incompatible with a multimodal boulevard and urban place making design.
I'll make it more clear
- How does either plan encourage traffic not to use Connecticut if not via increased congestion caused by removing traffic lanes?
- Distributing it = more traffic on residential roads - The third statement is an axiom of traffic management (please note that this axoim is neither contested nor disputed). Increasing congestion during periods of high congestion, such as occurs during peak usage, increases accidents.
This has never been the case, and you can go back to the original DDOT documents on the study, and yet, despite it having been pointed out to you a million times, you still make this false claim.
Distributed network of roads does NOT mean the incomplete street grid in upper NW, but rather the other routes into DC which include other arterials as well as metro. The number of additional cars projected on to residential side streets is infintesimal.
If that's what you want to cite then you should know that that DDOT study showed ZERO increase in Metro usage, did not break things down by time of day, did not take into account any other road changes, and excluded Chevy Chase (but included Palisades). In addition those "arterial" roads are things like Nebraska (which is already bumper to bumper and the most dangerous intersection) and Beach (which is the main bicycle route).
But at least you are finally acknowledging that it makes Connecticut more of a traffic sewer.
That was DDOT's stated goal from the outset. This isn't the "gotcha" you think it is.
The Avenue is already a traffic sewer. The question is whether it will be one with, or without bike lanes, and the forces of no changes have managed to talk the Mayor into the worst possible solution for all users and nearby residents.
The stated goal was safety and a lot of time and effort has been spent trying to pretend that making Connecticut a worse traffic sewer was not the goal. Heck, the person I was responding to even flat out accused everyone of lying for pointing that out.
One of the underlying problems with the plans has been the rampant and bold dishonesty of many of its proponents in their effort to hide the fact that increasing congestion is their proposed mechanism of action.
I appreciate your honesty regarding this but you are an outlier.
You mean DDOT is the outlier? their goal is to slow traffic of cars down. There are a lot of ways to do this. Reducing from 6 to 4 the travel lanes is one of them. The only real question in this whole process is whether one of the lanes would be converted into use for bikes only. The answer now is no.
So we will live with that result, which will mean cars and buses will go even slower because they will be stuck behind cyclists, particularly on the part of the road that have uphill grades.
Oh well. I prey that impatient motorists do not mow down cyclists with impunity.
Slowing down traffic doesn't work. You're not going to convince drivers that a 20 minute drive should now take 30 minutes. They'll just take an alternative route. It's like when there's construction. They'll just speed down side streets to get around it.
Then you add more stop signs, raised crosswalks and speed humps. This isn't hard, people.
Actually, it is. Add more speed bumps and people are more likely to blow stop signs. I'd rather have people stop at intersections than mid-way down the block. Seems safer?
Raised crosswalks are like speed humps. If they are where the stop signs are, people will stop. It will be painful for their cars otherwise.
And it isn't like these roads have tumbleweeds on them. There is plenty of "cut through" traffic already.
Raised/continuous crosswalks and smart lights are two of the things DC/Americans refuse to try. We much prefer to just let people die and complain about traffic instead.
There are actually smart lights on Porter Street between Reno and CT.
Can you clarify which intersections you mean, and what makes them a smart traffic light?
The light in question is roughly 1/4 mile up the hill from Connecticut. If drivers go a certain amount above the speed limit as they approach the light from either direction, the light changes to red automatically to slow them down (though drivers routinely run the light because there's never MPD presence on the road, nor is there a camera, and cyclists never even slow down when that light is red). Then the drivers speed off when the light turns green.
I guess that's something, but I was thinking of the more robust systems they use in Europe and Asia. Multiple detection loops, independent phases, transit priority, no "dead" time, etc. Like this:
In Europe, Connecticut Avenue would be considered a major highway and treated as such. No bikes allowed.
In imaginary Europe, where the laws of Europe apply and everyone speaks European, there would not be anything like Connecticut Avenue through a city.
In actual, real countries in Europe, there are unfortunately are things like Connecticut Avenue through cities, and bikes are allowed.
The Champs Elysees, what some people think Connecticut is, actually has dedicated bus lanes and bike lanes.
Noone thinks Connecticut is the Champs-Elysees. That would be more like Constitution. Connecticut is more like the A1 in London.
Bicycles are allowed on the A1.
Bicycles are allowed on Connecticut. What they aren't doing is making the A1 smaller in order to purposefully increase congestion.
Anonymous wrote:What if the goal was a safe and thriving neighborhood? If you want a dedicated tunnel to downtown then take Metro.
If the goal is a safe and thriving neighborhood then the impact of any plan on accidents and traffic volume within the neighborhood is vitally important.
If your goal is to ban cars that's simply not happening.
A safe and vibrant neighborhood has bike lanes.
Pretty sure there are many, many safe and vibrant neighborhoods that don’t have bike lanes.
But how many neighborhoods have bike lanes that aren't safe and vibrant?
Lots. You especially see this in other cities that haven’t been overrun with gentrification.
If there's one thing we can take off the table absolutely when it comes to this particular bike lane debate, it's gentrification. You can't gentrify out the landed gentry.
Bike lanes are not about gentrification but they are about density, vibrancy and smart growth. Connecticut Ave has had the reputation of being rather boring and, well, old. Bike lanes add a certain hipness factor to attract younger buyers and renters. This is the group that developers who want to build dense housing need to attract.
Uh rent is expensive. Owning and storing a car is expensive. Younger people who have lower disposable income depend on biking to get around. So if the city wants to continue to attract these post-college younger residents, bike lanes is a great way to do it.
DC attracts plenty of single post-college younger residents (and in any case it’s doubtful that many want to live in Chevy Chase DC or Cleveland Park vs U St or Petworth). DC needs to do more to retain families who otherwise move to the suburbs better quality public schools and overall public services. Conn. ave. Bike lanes aren’t at the top of their priority list.
For a lot of younger families who are car free or car-light, yes they are. You clearly have no idea of the demographic shift away from the Boomer-led car era.
Petworth is full of parents, and hardly anyone uses the bike lanes, fyi. Bikes are extremely impractical when you have children.
This is a reality for a lot of younger families.
If we had the proper infrastructure, more people would do this.
We have more than 150 miles of bike lanes. We've spent billions of dollars on biking infrastructure. Still, the number of people on bikes is microscopic. People don't ride bikes because they don't want to ride bikes, and it has nothing to do with whatever you think the infrastructure is still missing.
The bolded is a flat out lie, and a lot of the 150 miles of bike lanes you are citing is simply paint on the ground. That isn't infrastructure. Ergo, the false conclusion you are drawing is a result of the false premise and lies you start with.
Try again: if biking were safe, more people would be doing it. Despite the infrastructure, there are a lot of young families who are using cargo bikes and electric bikes as a replacement for a car or second car, and it works very well for them. Just imagine how many more would do this if they felt it was safe enough!
Yes, yes, we know. Tens of thousands of bikers are ready to crawl out of the woodwork at any moment, if those pesky drivers would just get out of the way.
It’s a bit chicken and egg. Bike lanes are needed to help transform Connecticut Ave from a somewhat sleepy linear retirement community (albeit one with traffic) into a vibrant urban corridor. Bike lanes will attract the private investment to add density, thousands of new housing units to attract young creatives. That, in turn, will generate thousands of bike riders for the new infrastructure.
It is really more about converting the road from a dangerous traffic sewer to a bona fide main street that connects various commercial nodes.
How does making traffic worse and more dangerous during peak usage make it less of a traffic sewer?
The concept is to encourage more commuter traffic not to use Connecticut and distribute it via more efficient utilization of the area street grid. A traffic sewer is incompatible with a multimodal boulevard and urban place making design.
I'll make it more clear
- How does either plan encourage traffic not to use Connecticut if not via increased congestion caused by removing traffic lanes?
- Distributing it = more traffic on residential roads - The third statement is an axiom of traffic management (please note that this axoim is neither contested nor disputed). Increasing congestion during periods of high congestion, such as occurs during peak usage, increases accidents.
This has never been the case, and you can go back to the original DDOT documents on the study, and yet, despite it having been pointed out to you a million times, you still make this false claim.
Distributed network of roads does NOT mean the incomplete street grid in upper NW, but rather the other routes into DC which include other arterials as well as metro. The number of additional cars projected on to residential side streets is infintesimal.
If that's what you want to cite then you should know that that DDOT study showed ZERO increase in Metro usage, did not break things down by time of day, did not take into account any other road changes, and excluded Chevy Chase (but included Palisades). In addition those "arterial" roads are things like Nebraska (which is already bumper to bumper and the most dangerous intersection) and Beach (which is the main bicycle route).
But at least you are finally acknowledging that it makes Connecticut more of a traffic sewer.
That was DDOT's stated goal from the outset. This isn't the "gotcha" you think it is.
The Avenue is already a traffic sewer. The question is whether it will be one with, or without bike lanes, and the forces of no changes have managed to talk the Mayor into the worst possible solution for all users and nearby residents.
The stated goal was safety and a lot of time and effort has been spent trying to pretend that making Connecticut a worse traffic sewer was not the goal. Heck, the person I was responding to even flat out accused everyone of lying for pointing that out.
One of the underlying problems with the plans has been the rampant and bold dishonesty of many of its proponents in their effort to hide the fact that increasing congestion is their proposed mechanism of action.
I appreciate your honesty regarding this but you are an outlier.
You mean DDOT is the outlier? their goal is to slow traffic of cars down. There are a lot of ways to do this. Reducing from 6 to 4 the travel lanes is one of them. The only real question in this whole process is whether one of the lanes would be converted into use for bikes only. The answer now is no.
So we will live with that result, which will mean cars and buses will go even slower because they will be stuck behind cyclists, particularly on the part of the road that have uphill grades.
Oh well. I prey that impatient motorists do not mow down cyclists with impunity.
Slowing down traffic doesn't work. You're not going to convince drivers that a 20 minute drive should now take 30 minutes. They'll just take an alternative route. It's like when there's construction. They'll just speed down side streets to get around it.
Then you add more stop signs, raised crosswalks and speed humps. This isn't hard, people.
Actually, it is. Add more speed bumps and people are more likely to blow stop signs. I'd rather have people stop at intersections than mid-way down the block. Seems safer?
Raised crosswalks are like speed humps. If they are where the stop signs are, people will stop. It will be painful for their cars otherwise.
And it isn't like these roads have tumbleweeds on them. There is plenty of "cut through" traffic already.
Raised/continuous crosswalks and smart lights are two of the things DC/Americans refuse to try. We much prefer to just let people die and complain about traffic instead.
There are actually smart lights on Porter Street between Reno and CT.
Can you clarify which intersections you mean, and what makes them a smart traffic light?
The light in question is roughly 1/4 mile up the hill from Connecticut. If drivers go a certain amount above the speed limit as they approach the light from either direction, the light changes to red automatically to slow them down (though drivers routinely run the light because there's never MPD presence on the road, nor is there a camera, and cyclists never even slow down when that light is red). Then the drivers speed off when the light turns green.
I guess that's something, but I was thinking of the more robust systems they use in Europe and Asia. Multiple detection loops, independent phases, transit priority, no "dead" time, etc. Like this:
In Europe, Connecticut Avenue would be considered a major highway and treated as such. No bikes allowed.
In imaginary Europe, where the laws of Europe apply and everyone speaks European, there would not be anything like Connecticut Avenue through a city.
In actual, real countries in Europe, there are unfortunately are things like Connecticut Avenue through cities, and bikes are allowed.
The Champs Elysees, what some people think Connecticut is, actually has dedicated bus lanes and bike lanes.
If the French knew anything about infrastructure then they would not have fallen in just six weeks to the Germans when given years to prepare. No, we should not follow their lead.
Anonymous wrote:What if the goal was a safe and thriving neighborhood? If you want a dedicated tunnel to downtown then take Metro.
If the goal is a safe and thriving neighborhood then the impact of any plan on accidents and traffic volume within the neighborhood is vitally important.
If your goal is to ban cars that's simply not happening.
A safe and vibrant neighborhood has bike lanes.
Pretty sure there are many, many safe and vibrant neighborhoods that don’t have bike lanes.
But how many neighborhoods have bike lanes that aren't safe and vibrant?
Lots. You especially see this in other cities that haven’t been overrun with gentrification.
If there's one thing we can take off the table absolutely when it comes to this particular bike lane debate, it's gentrification. You can't gentrify out the landed gentry.
Bike lanes are not about gentrification but they are about density, vibrancy and smart growth. Connecticut Ave has had the reputation of being rather boring and, well, old. Bike lanes add a certain hipness factor to attract younger buyers and renters. This is the group that developers who want to build dense housing need to attract.
Uh rent is expensive. Owning and storing a car is expensive. Younger people who have lower disposable income depend on biking to get around. So if the city wants to continue to attract these post-college younger residents, bike lanes is a great way to do it.
DC attracts plenty of single post-college younger residents (and in any case it’s doubtful that many want to live in Chevy Chase DC or Cleveland Park vs U St or Petworth). DC needs to do more to retain families who otherwise move to the suburbs better quality public schools and overall public services. Conn. ave. Bike lanes aren’t at the top of their priority list.
For a lot of younger families who are car free or car-light, yes they are. You clearly have no idea of the demographic shift away from the Boomer-led car era.
Petworth is full of parents, and hardly anyone uses the bike lanes, fyi. Bikes are extremely impractical when you have children.
This is a reality for a lot of younger families.
If we had the proper infrastructure, more people would do this.
We have more than 150 miles of bike lanes. We've spent billions of dollars on biking infrastructure. Still, the number of people on bikes is microscopic. People don't ride bikes because they don't want to ride bikes, and it has nothing to do with whatever you think the infrastructure is still missing.
The bolded is a flat out lie, and a lot of the 150 miles of bike lanes you are citing is simply paint on the ground. That isn't infrastructure. Ergo, the false conclusion you are drawing is a result of the false premise and lies you start with.
Try again: if biking were safe, more people would be doing it. Despite the infrastructure, there are a lot of young families who are using cargo bikes and electric bikes as a replacement for a car or second car, and it works very well for them. Just imagine how many more would do this if they felt it was safe enough!
Yes, yes, we know. Tens of thousands of bikers are ready to crawl out of the woodwork at any moment, if those pesky drivers would just get out of the way.
It’s a bit chicken and egg. Bike lanes are needed to help transform Connecticut Ave from a somewhat sleepy linear retirement community (albeit one with traffic) into a vibrant urban corridor. Bike lanes will attract the private investment to add density, thousands of new housing units to attract young creatives. That, in turn, will generate thousands of bike riders for the new infrastructure.
It is really more about converting the road from a dangerous traffic sewer to a bona fide main street that connects various commercial nodes.
How does making traffic worse and more dangerous during peak usage make it less of a traffic sewer?
The concept is to encourage more commuter traffic not to use Connecticut and distribute it via more efficient utilization of the area street grid. A traffic sewer is incompatible with a multimodal boulevard and urban place making design.
I'll make it more clear
- How does either plan encourage traffic not to use Connecticut if not via increased congestion caused by removing traffic lanes?
- Distributing it = more traffic on residential roads - The third statement is an axiom of traffic management (please note that this axoim is neither contested nor disputed). Increasing congestion during periods of high congestion, such as occurs during peak usage, increases accidents.
This has never been the case, and you can go back to the original DDOT documents on the study, and yet, despite it having been pointed out to you a million times, you still make this false claim.
Distributed network of roads does NOT mean the incomplete street grid in upper NW, but rather the other routes into DC which include other arterials as well as metro. The number of additional cars projected on to residential side streets is infintesimal.
If that's what you want to cite then you should know that that DDOT study showed ZERO increase in Metro usage, did not break things down by time of day, did not take into account any other road changes, and excluded Chevy Chase (but included Palisades). In addition those "arterial" roads are things like Nebraska (which is already bumper to bumper and the most dangerous intersection) and Beach (which is the main bicycle route).
But at least you are finally acknowledging that it makes Connecticut more of a traffic sewer.
That was DDOT's stated goal from the outset. This isn't the "gotcha" you think it is.
The Avenue is already a traffic sewer. The question is whether it will be one with, or without bike lanes, and the forces of no changes have managed to talk the Mayor into the worst possible solution for all users and nearby residents.
The stated goal was safety and a lot of time and effort has been spent trying to pretend that making Connecticut a worse traffic sewer was not the goal. Heck, the person I was responding to even flat out accused everyone of lying for pointing that out.
One of the underlying problems with the plans has been the rampant and bold dishonesty of many of its proponents in their effort to hide the fact that increasing congestion is their proposed mechanism of action.
I appreciate your honesty regarding this but you are an outlier.
You mean DDOT is the outlier? their goal is to slow traffic of cars down. There are a lot of ways to do this. Reducing from 6 to 4 the travel lanes is one of them. The only real question in this whole process is whether one of the lanes would be converted into use for bikes only. The answer now is no.
So we will live with that result, which will mean cars and buses will go even slower because they will be stuck behind cyclists, particularly on the part of the road that have uphill grades.
Oh well. I prey that impatient motorists do not mow down cyclists with impunity.
Slowing down traffic doesn't work. You're not going to convince drivers that a 20 minute drive should now take 30 minutes. They'll just take an alternative route. It's like when there's construction. They'll just speed down side streets to get around it.
Then you add more stop signs, raised crosswalks and speed humps. This isn't hard, people.
Actually, it is. Add more speed bumps and people are more likely to blow stop signs. I'd rather have people stop at intersections than mid-way down the block. Seems safer?
Raised crosswalks are like speed humps. If they are where the stop signs are, people will stop. It will be painful for their cars otherwise.
And it isn't like these roads have tumbleweeds on them. There is plenty of "cut through" traffic already.
Raised/continuous crosswalks and smart lights are two of the things DC/Americans refuse to try. We much prefer to just let people die and complain about traffic instead.
There are actually smart lights on Porter Street between Reno and CT.
Can you clarify which intersections you mean, and what makes them a smart traffic light?
The light in question is roughly 1/4 mile up the hill from Connecticut. If drivers go a certain amount above the speed limit as they approach the light from either direction, the light changes to red automatically to slow them down (though drivers routinely run the light because there's never MPD presence on the road, nor is there a camera, and cyclists never even slow down when that light is red). Then the drivers speed off when the light turns green.
I guess that's something, but I was thinking of the more robust systems they use in Europe and Asia. Multiple detection loops, independent phases, transit priority, no "dead" time, etc. Like this:
In Europe, Connecticut Avenue would be considered a major highway and treated as such. No bikes allowed.
In imaginary Europe, where the laws of Europe apply and everyone speaks European, there would not be anything like Connecticut Avenue through a city.
In actual, real countries in Europe, there are unfortunately are things like Connecticut Avenue through cities, and bikes are allowed.
The Champs Elysees, what some people think Connecticut is, actually has dedicated bus lanes and bike lanes.
If the French knew anything about infrastructure then they would not have fallen in just six weeks to the Germans when given years to prepare. No, we should not follow their lead.
Congratulations, PP. I didn't think there were any NO BIKE LANES BIKE LANES ARE BAD arguments that I hadn't heard, but you just came up with one. Bike lanes are bad because the Second Armistice at Compiègne on June 22, 1940.
Anonymous wrote:What if the goal was a safe and thriving neighborhood? If you want a dedicated tunnel to downtown then take Metro.
If the goal is a safe and thriving neighborhood then the impact of any plan on accidents and traffic volume within the neighborhood is vitally important.
If your goal is to ban cars that's simply not happening.
A safe and vibrant neighborhood has bike lanes.
Pretty sure there are many, many safe and vibrant neighborhoods that don’t have bike lanes.
But how many neighborhoods have bike lanes that aren't safe and vibrant?
Lots. You especially see this in other cities that haven’t been overrun with gentrification.
If there's one thing we can take off the table absolutely when it comes to this particular bike lane debate, it's gentrification. You can't gentrify out the landed gentry.
Bike lanes are not about gentrification but they are about density, vibrancy and smart growth. Connecticut Ave has had the reputation of being rather boring and, well, old. Bike lanes add a certain hipness factor to attract younger buyers and renters. This is the group that developers who want to build dense housing need to attract.
Uh rent is expensive. Owning and storing a car is expensive. Younger people who have lower disposable income depend on biking to get around. So if the city wants to continue to attract these post-college younger residents, bike lanes is a great way to do it.
DC attracts plenty of single post-college younger residents (and in any case it’s doubtful that many want to live in Chevy Chase DC or Cleveland Park vs U St or Petworth). DC needs to do more to retain families who otherwise move to the suburbs better quality public schools and overall public services. Conn. ave. Bike lanes aren’t at the top of their priority list.
For a lot of younger families who are car free or car-light, yes they are. You clearly have no idea of the demographic shift away from the Boomer-led car era.
Petworth is full of parents, and hardly anyone uses the bike lanes, fyi. Bikes are extremely impractical when you have children.
This is a reality for a lot of younger families.
If we had the proper infrastructure, more people would do this.
We have more than 150 miles of bike lanes. We've spent billions of dollars on biking infrastructure. Still, the number of people on bikes is microscopic. People don't ride bikes because they don't want to ride bikes, and it has nothing to do with whatever you think the infrastructure is still missing.
The bolded is a flat out lie, and a lot of the 150 miles of bike lanes you are citing is simply paint on the ground. That isn't infrastructure. Ergo, the false conclusion you are drawing is a result of the false premise and lies you start with.
Try again: if biking were safe, more people would be doing it. Despite the infrastructure, there are a lot of young families who are using cargo bikes and electric bikes as a replacement for a car or second car, and it works very well for them. Just imagine how many more would do this if they felt it was safe enough!
Yes, yes, we know. Tens of thousands of bikers are ready to crawl out of the woodwork at any moment, if those pesky drivers would just get out of the way.
It’s a bit chicken and egg. Bike lanes are needed to help transform Connecticut Ave from a somewhat sleepy linear retirement community (albeit one with traffic) into a vibrant urban corridor. Bike lanes will attract the private investment to add density, thousands of new housing units to attract young creatives. That, in turn, will generate thousands of bike riders for the new infrastructure.
It is really more about converting the road from a dangerous traffic sewer to a bona fide main street that connects various commercial nodes.
How does making traffic worse and more dangerous during peak usage make it less of a traffic sewer?
The concept is to encourage more commuter traffic not to use Connecticut and distribute it via more efficient utilization of the area street grid. A traffic sewer is incompatible with a multimodal boulevard and urban place making design.
I'll make it more clear
- How does either plan encourage traffic not to use Connecticut if not via increased congestion caused by removing traffic lanes?
- Distributing it = more traffic on residential roads - The third statement is an axiom of traffic management (please note that this axoim is neither contested nor disputed). Increasing congestion during periods of high congestion, such as occurs during peak usage, increases accidents.
This has never been the case, and you can go back to the original DDOT documents on the study, and yet, despite it having been pointed out to you a million times, you still make this false claim.
Distributed network of roads does NOT mean the incomplete street grid in upper NW, but rather the other routes into DC which include other arterials as well as metro. The number of additional cars projected on to residential side streets is infintesimal.
If that's what you want to cite then you should know that that DDOT study showed ZERO increase in Metro usage, did not break things down by time of day, did not take into account any other road changes, and excluded Chevy Chase (but included Palisades). In addition those "arterial" roads are things like Nebraska (which is already bumper to bumper and the most dangerous intersection) and Beach (which is the main bicycle route).
But at least you are finally acknowledging that it makes Connecticut more of a traffic sewer.
That was DDOT's stated goal from the outset. This isn't the "gotcha" you think it is.
The Avenue is already a traffic sewer. The question is whether it will be one with, or without bike lanes, and the forces of no changes have managed to talk the Mayor into the worst possible solution for all users and nearby residents.
The stated goal was safety and a lot of time and effort has been spent trying to pretend that making Connecticut a worse traffic sewer was not the goal. Heck, the person I was responding to even flat out accused everyone of lying for pointing that out.
One of the underlying problems with the plans has been the rampant and bold dishonesty of many of its proponents in their effort to hide the fact that increasing congestion is their proposed mechanism of action.
I appreciate your honesty regarding this but you are an outlier.
You mean DDOT is the outlier? their goal is to slow traffic of cars down. There are a lot of ways to do this. Reducing from 6 to 4 the travel lanes is one of them. The only real question in this whole process is whether one of the lanes would be converted into use for bikes only. The answer now is no.
So we will live with that result, which will mean cars and buses will go even slower because they will be stuck behind cyclists, particularly on the part of the road that have uphill grades.
Oh well. I prey that impatient motorists do not mow down cyclists with impunity.
Slowing down traffic doesn't work. You're not going to convince drivers that a 20 minute drive should now take 30 minutes. They'll just take an alternative route. It's like when there's construction. They'll just speed down side streets to get around it.
Then you add more stop signs, raised crosswalks and speed humps. This isn't hard, people.
Actually, it is. Add more speed bumps and people are more likely to blow stop signs. I'd rather have people stop at intersections than mid-way down the block. Seems safer?
Raised crosswalks are like speed humps. If they are where the stop signs are, people will stop. It will be painful for their cars otherwise.
And it isn't like these roads have tumbleweeds on them. There is plenty of "cut through" traffic already.
Raised/continuous crosswalks and smart lights are two of the things DC/Americans refuse to try. We much prefer to just let people die and complain about traffic instead.
There are actually smart lights on Porter Street between Reno and CT.
Can you clarify which intersections you mean, and what makes them a smart traffic light?
The light in question is roughly 1/4 mile up the hill from Connecticut. If drivers go a certain amount above the speed limit as they approach the light from either direction, the light changes to red automatically to slow them down (though drivers routinely run the light because there's never MPD presence on the road, nor is there a camera, and cyclists never even slow down when that light is red). Then the drivers speed off when the light turns green.
I guess that's something, but I was thinking of the more robust systems they use in Europe and Asia. Multiple detection loops, independent phases, transit priority, no "dead" time, etc. Like this:
In Europe, Connecticut Avenue would be considered a major highway and treated as such. No bikes allowed.
In imaginary Europe, where the laws of Europe apply and everyone speaks European, there would not be anything like Connecticut Avenue through a city.
In actual, real countries in Europe, there are unfortunately are things like Connecticut Avenue through cities, and bikes are allowed.
The Champs Elysees, what some people think Connecticut is, actually has dedicated bus lanes and bike lanes.
Noone thinks Connecticut is the Champs-Elysees. That would be more like Constitution. Connecticut is more like the A1 in London.
Bicycles are allowed on the A1.
Bicycles are allowed on Connecticut. What they aren't doing is making the A1 smaller in order to purposefully increase congestion.
Which has never been proposed on Connecticut, but you know that.
Anonymous wrote:What if the goal was a safe and thriving neighborhood? If you want a dedicated tunnel to downtown then take Metro.
If the goal is a safe and thriving neighborhood then the impact of any plan on accidents and traffic volume within the neighborhood is vitally important.
If your goal is to ban cars that's simply not happening.
A safe and vibrant neighborhood has bike lanes.
Pretty sure there are many, many safe and vibrant neighborhoods that don’t have bike lanes.
But how many neighborhoods have bike lanes that aren't safe and vibrant?
Lots. You especially see this in other cities that haven’t been overrun with gentrification.
If there's one thing we can take off the table absolutely when it comes to this particular bike lane debate, it's gentrification. You can't gentrify out the landed gentry.
Bike lanes are not about gentrification but they are about density, vibrancy and smart growth. Connecticut Ave has had the reputation of being rather boring and, well, old. Bike lanes add a certain hipness factor to attract younger buyers and renters. This is the group that developers who want to build dense housing need to attract.
Uh rent is expensive. Owning and storing a car is expensive. Younger people who have lower disposable income depend on biking to get around. So if the city wants to continue to attract these post-college younger residents, bike lanes is a great way to do it.
DC attracts plenty of single post-college younger residents (and in any case it’s doubtful that many want to live in Chevy Chase DC or Cleveland Park vs U St or Petworth). DC needs to do more to retain families who otherwise move to the suburbs better quality public schools and overall public services. Conn. ave. Bike lanes aren’t at the top of their priority list.
For a lot of younger families who are car free or car-light, yes they are. You clearly have no idea of the demographic shift away from the Boomer-led car era.
Petworth is full of parents, and hardly anyone uses the bike lanes, fyi. Bikes are extremely impractical when you have children.
This is a reality for a lot of younger families.
If we had the proper infrastructure, more people would do this.
We have more than 150 miles of bike lanes. We've spent billions of dollars on biking infrastructure. Still, the number of people on bikes is microscopic. People don't ride bikes because they don't want to ride bikes, and it has nothing to do with whatever you think the infrastructure is still missing.
The bolded is a flat out lie, and a lot of the 150 miles of bike lanes you are citing is simply paint on the ground. That isn't infrastructure. Ergo, the false conclusion you are drawing is a result of the false premise and lies you start with.
Try again: if biking were safe, more people would be doing it. Despite the infrastructure, there are a lot of young families who are using cargo bikes and electric bikes as a replacement for a car or second car, and it works very well for them. Just imagine how many more would do this if they felt it was safe enough!
Yes, yes, we know. Tens of thousands of bikers are ready to crawl out of the woodwork at any moment, if those pesky drivers would just get out of the way.
It’s a bit chicken and egg. Bike lanes are needed to help transform Connecticut Ave from a somewhat sleepy linear retirement community (albeit one with traffic) into a vibrant urban corridor. Bike lanes will attract the private investment to add density, thousands of new housing units to attract young creatives. That, in turn, will generate thousands of bike riders for the new infrastructure.
It is really more about converting the road from a dangerous traffic sewer to a bona fide main street that connects various commercial nodes.
How does making traffic worse and more dangerous during peak usage make it less of a traffic sewer?
The concept is to encourage more commuter traffic not to use Connecticut and distribute it via more efficient utilization of the area street grid. A traffic sewer is incompatible with a multimodal boulevard and urban place making design.
I'll make it more clear
- How does either plan encourage traffic not to use Connecticut if not via increased congestion caused by removing traffic lanes?
- Distributing it = more traffic on residential roads - The third statement is an axiom of traffic management (please note that this axoim is neither contested nor disputed). Increasing congestion during periods of high congestion, such as occurs during peak usage, increases accidents.
This has never been the case, and you can go back to the original DDOT documents on the study, and yet, despite it having been pointed out to you a million times, you still make this false claim.
Distributed network of roads does NOT mean the incomplete street grid in upper NW, but rather the other routes into DC which include other arterials as well as metro. The number of additional cars projected on to residential side streets is infintesimal.
If that's what you want to cite then you should know that that DDOT study showed ZERO increase in Metro usage, did not break things down by time of day, did not take into account any other road changes, and excluded Chevy Chase (but included Palisades). In addition those "arterial" roads are things like Nebraska (which is already bumper to bumper and the most dangerous intersection) and Beach (which is the main bicycle route).
But at least you are finally acknowledging that it makes Connecticut more of a traffic sewer.
That was DDOT's stated goal from the outset. This isn't the "gotcha" you think it is.
The Avenue is already a traffic sewer. The question is whether it will be one with, or without bike lanes, and the forces of no changes have managed to talk the Mayor into the worst possible solution for all users and nearby residents.
The stated goal was safety and a lot of time and effort has been spent trying to pretend that making Connecticut a worse traffic sewer was not the goal. Heck, the person I was responding to even flat out accused everyone of lying for pointing that out.
One of the underlying problems with the plans has been the rampant and bold dishonesty of many of its proponents in their effort to hide the fact that increasing congestion is their proposed mechanism of action.
I appreciate your honesty regarding this but you are an outlier.
You mean DDOT is the outlier? their goal is to slow traffic of cars down. There are a lot of ways to do this. Reducing from 6 to 4 the travel lanes is one of them. The only real question in this whole process is whether one of the lanes would be converted into use for bikes only. The answer now is no.
So we will live with that result, which will mean cars and buses will go even slower because they will be stuck behind cyclists, particularly on the part of the road that have uphill grades.
Oh well. I prey that impatient motorists do not mow down cyclists with impunity.
Slowing down traffic doesn't work. You're not going to convince drivers that a 20 minute drive should now take 30 minutes. They'll just take an alternative route. It's like when there's construction. They'll just speed down side streets to get around it.
Then you add more stop signs, raised crosswalks and speed humps. This isn't hard, people.
Actually, it is. Add more speed bumps and people are more likely to blow stop signs. I'd rather have people stop at intersections than mid-way down the block. Seems safer?
Raised crosswalks are like speed humps. If they are where the stop signs are, people will stop. It will be painful for their cars otherwise.
And it isn't like these roads have tumbleweeds on them. There is plenty of "cut through" traffic already.
Raised/continuous crosswalks and smart lights are two of the things DC/Americans refuse to try. We much prefer to just let people die and complain about traffic instead.
There are actually smart lights on Porter Street between Reno and CT.
Can you clarify which intersections you mean, and what makes them a smart traffic light?
The light in question is roughly 1/4 mile up the hill from Connecticut. If drivers go a certain amount above the speed limit as they approach the light from either direction, the light changes to red automatically to slow them down (though drivers routinely run the light because there's never MPD presence on the road, nor is there a camera, and cyclists never even slow down when that light is red). Then the drivers speed off when the light turns green.
I guess that's something, but I was thinking of the more robust systems they use in Europe and Asia. Multiple detection loops, independent phases, transit priority, no "dead" time, etc. Like this:
In Europe, Connecticut Avenue would be considered a major highway and treated as such. No bikes allowed.
In imaginary Europe, where the laws of Europe apply and everyone speaks European, there would not be anything like Connecticut Avenue through a city.
In actual, real countries in Europe, there are unfortunately are things like Connecticut Avenue through cities, and bikes are allowed.
The Champs Elysees, what some people think Connecticut is, actually has dedicated bus lanes and bike lanes.
Noone thinks Connecticut is the Champs-Elysees. That would be more like Constitution. Connecticut is more like the A1 in London.
Bicycles are allowed on the A1.
Bicycles are allowed on Connecticut. What they aren't doing is making the A1 smaller in order to purposefully increase congestion.
Which has never been proposed on Connecticut, but you know that.
Yes it has. We've even been told by you all that it is an intentional plan.
Anonymous wrote:What if the goal was a safe and thriving neighborhood? If you want a dedicated tunnel to downtown then take Metro.
If the goal is a safe and thriving neighborhood then the impact of any plan on accidents and traffic volume within the neighborhood is vitally important.
If your goal is to ban cars that's simply not happening.
A safe and vibrant neighborhood has bike lanes.
Pretty sure there are many, many safe and vibrant neighborhoods that don’t have bike lanes.
But how many neighborhoods have bike lanes that aren't safe and vibrant?
Lots. You especially see this in other cities that haven’t been overrun with gentrification.
If there's one thing we can take off the table absolutely when it comes to this particular bike lane debate, it's gentrification. You can't gentrify out the landed gentry.
Bike lanes are not about gentrification but they are about density, vibrancy and smart growth. Connecticut Ave has had the reputation of being rather boring and, well, old. Bike lanes add a certain hipness factor to attract younger buyers and renters. This is the group that developers who want to build dense housing need to attract.
Uh rent is expensive. Owning and storing a car is expensive. Younger people who have lower disposable income depend on biking to get around. So if the city wants to continue to attract these post-college younger residents, bike lanes is a great way to do it.
DC attracts plenty of single post-college younger residents (and in any case it’s doubtful that many want to live in Chevy Chase DC or Cleveland Park vs U St or Petworth). DC needs to do more to retain families who otherwise move to the suburbs better quality public schools and overall public services. Conn. ave. Bike lanes aren’t at the top of their priority list.
For a lot of younger families who are car free or car-light, yes they are. You clearly have no idea of the demographic shift away from the Boomer-led car era.
Petworth is full of parents, and hardly anyone uses the bike lanes, fyi. Bikes are extremely impractical when you have children.
This is a reality for a lot of younger families.
If we had the proper infrastructure, more people would do this.
We have more than 150 miles of bike lanes. We've spent billions of dollars on biking infrastructure. Still, the number of people on bikes is microscopic. People don't ride bikes because they don't want to ride bikes, and it has nothing to do with whatever you think the infrastructure is still missing.
The bolded is a flat out lie, and a lot of the 150 miles of bike lanes you are citing is simply paint on the ground. That isn't infrastructure. Ergo, the false conclusion you are drawing is a result of the false premise and lies you start with.
Try again: if biking were safe, more people would be doing it. Despite the infrastructure, there are a lot of young families who are using cargo bikes and electric bikes as a replacement for a car or second car, and it works very well for them. Just imagine how many more would do this if they felt it was safe enough!
Yes, yes, we know. Tens of thousands of bikers are ready to crawl out of the woodwork at any moment, if those pesky drivers would just get out of the way.
It’s a bit chicken and egg. Bike lanes are needed to help transform Connecticut Ave from a somewhat sleepy linear retirement community (albeit one with traffic) into a vibrant urban corridor. Bike lanes will attract the private investment to add density, thousands of new housing units to attract young creatives. That, in turn, will generate thousands of bike riders for the new infrastructure.
It is really more about converting the road from a dangerous traffic sewer to a bona fide main street that connects various commercial nodes.
How does making traffic worse and more dangerous during peak usage make it less of a traffic sewer?
The concept is to encourage more commuter traffic not to use Connecticut and distribute it via more efficient utilization of the area street grid. A traffic sewer is incompatible with a multimodal boulevard and urban place making design.
I'll make it more clear
- How does either plan encourage traffic not to use Connecticut if not via increased congestion caused by removing traffic lanes?
- Distributing it = more traffic on residential roads - The third statement is an axiom of traffic management (please note that this axoim is neither contested nor disputed). Increasing congestion during periods of high congestion, such as occurs during peak usage, increases accidents.
This has never been the case, and you can go back to the original DDOT documents on the study, and yet, despite it having been pointed out to you a million times, you still make this false claim.
Distributed network of roads does NOT mean the incomplete street grid in upper NW, but rather the other routes into DC which include other arterials as well as metro. The number of additional cars projected on to residential side streets is infintesimal.
If that's what you want to cite then you should know that that DDOT study showed ZERO increase in Metro usage, did not break things down by time of day, did not take into account any other road changes, and excluded Chevy Chase (but included Palisades). In addition those "arterial" roads are things like Nebraska (which is already bumper to bumper and the most dangerous intersection) and Beach (which is the main bicycle route).
But at least you are finally acknowledging that it makes Connecticut more of a traffic sewer.
That was DDOT's stated goal from the outset. This isn't the "gotcha" you think it is.
The Avenue is already a traffic sewer. The question is whether it will be one with, or without bike lanes, and the forces of no changes have managed to talk the Mayor into the worst possible solution for all users and nearby residents.
The stated goal was safety and a lot of time and effort has been spent trying to pretend that making Connecticut a worse traffic sewer was not the goal. Heck, the person I was responding to even flat out accused everyone of lying for pointing that out.
One of the underlying problems with the plans has been the rampant and bold dishonesty of many of its proponents in their effort to hide the fact that increasing congestion is their proposed mechanism of action.
I appreciate your honesty regarding this but you are an outlier.
You mean DDOT is the outlier? their goal is to slow traffic of cars down. There are a lot of ways to do this. Reducing from 6 to 4 the travel lanes is one of them. The only real question in this whole process is whether one of the lanes would be converted into use for bikes only. The answer now is no.
So we will live with that result, which will mean cars and buses will go even slower because they will be stuck behind cyclists, particularly on the part of the road that have uphill grades.
Oh well. I prey that impatient motorists do not mow down cyclists with impunity.
Slowing down traffic doesn't work. You're not going to convince drivers that a 20 minute drive should now take 30 minutes. They'll just take an alternative route. It's like when there's construction. They'll just speed down side streets to get around it.
Then you add more stop signs, raised crosswalks and speed humps. This isn't hard, people.
Actually, it is. Add more speed bumps and people are more likely to blow stop signs. I'd rather have people stop at intersections than mid-way down the block. Seems safer?
Raised crosswalks are like speed humps. If they are where the stop signs are, people will stop. It will be painful for their cars otherwise.
And it isn't like these roads have tumbleweeds on them. There is plenty of "cut through" traffic already.
Raised/continuous crosswalks and smart lights are two of the things DC/Americans refuse to try. We much prefer to just let people die and complain about traffic instead.
There are actually smart lights on Porter Street between Reno and CT.
Can you clarify which intersections you mean, and what makes them a smart traffic light?
The light in question is roughly 1/4 mile up the hill from Connecticut. If drivers go a certain amount above the speed limit as they approach the light from either direction, the light changes to red automatically to slow them down (though drivers routinely run the light because there's never MPD presence on the road, nor is there a camera, and cyclists never even slow down when that light is red). Then the drivers speed off when the light turns green.
I guess that's something, but I was thinking of the more robust systems they use in Europe and Asia. Multiple detection loops, independent phases, transit priority, no "dead" time, etc. Like this:
In Europe, Connecticut Avenue would be considered a major highway and treated as such. No bikes allowed.
In imaginary Europe, where the laws of Europe apply and everyone speaks European, there would not be anything like Connecticut Avenue through a city.
In actual, real countries in Europe, there are unfortunately are things like Connecticut Avenue through cities, and bikes are allowed.
The Champs Elysees, what some people think Connecticut is, actually has dedicated bus lanes and bike lanes.
Noone thinks Connecticut is the Champs-Elysees. That would be more like Constitution. Connecticut is more like the A1 in London.
Bicycles are allowed on the A1.
Bicycles are allowed on Connecticut. What they aren't doing is making the A1 smaller in order to purposefully increase congestion.
Which has never been proposed on Connecticut, but you know that.
Yes it has. We've even been told by you all that it is an intentional plan.
Who is "you"? You certainly have not been told this by me. Anonymous randos on DCUM might have said this, but that' s not official information. It's not even unofficial information.
Anonymous wrote:What if the goal was a safe and thriving neighborhood? If you want a dedicated tunnel to downtown then take Metro.
If the goal is a safe and thriving neighborhood then the impact of any plan on accidents and traffic volume within the neighborhood is vitally important.
If your goal is to ban cars that's simply not happening.
A safe and vibrant neighborhood has bike lanes.
Pretty sure there are many, many safe and vibrant neighborhoods that don’t have bike lanes.
But how many neighborhoods have bike lanes that aren't safe and vibrant?
Lots. You especially see this in other cities that haven’t been overrun with gentrification.
If there's one thing we can take off the table absolutely when it comes to this particular bike lane debate, it's gentrification. You can't gentrify out the landed gentry.
Bike lanes are not about gentrification but they are about density, vibrancy and smart growth. Connecticut Ave has had the reputation of being rather boring and, well, old. Bike lanes add a certain hipness factor to attract younger buyers and renters. This is the group that developers who want to build dense housing need to attract.
Uh rent is expensive. Owning and storing a car is expensive. Younger people who have lower disposable income depend on biking to get around. So if the city wants to continue to attract these post-college younger residents, bike lanes is a great way to do it.
DC attracts plenty of single post-college younger residents (and in any case it’s doubtful that many want to live in Chevy Chase DC or Cleveland Park vs U St or Petworth). DC needs to do more to retain families who otherwise move to the suburbs better quality public schools and overall public services. Conn. ave. Bike lanes aren’t at the top of their priority list.
For a lot of younger families who are car free or car-light, yes they are. You clearly have no idea of the demographic shift away from the Boomer-led car era.
Petworth is full of parents, and hardly anyone uses the bike lanes, fyi. Bikes are extremely impractical when you have children.
This is a reality for a lot of younger families.
If we had the proper infrastructure, more people would do this.
We have more than 150 miles of bike lanes. We've spent billions of dollars on biking infrastructure. Still, the number of people on bikes is microscopic. People don't ride bikes because they don't want to ride bikes, and it has nothing to do with whatever you think the infrastructure is still missing.
The bolded is a flat out lie, and a lot of the 150 miles of bike lanes you are citing is simply paint on the ground. That isn't infrastructure. Ergo, the false conclusion you are drawing is a result of the false premise and lies you start with.
Try again: if biking were safe, more people would be doing it. Despite the infrastructure, there are a lot of young families who are using cargo bikes and electric bikes as a replacement for a car or second car, and it works very well for them. Just imagine how many more would do this if they felt it was safe enough!
Yes, yes, we know. Tens of thousands of bikers are ready to crawl out of the woodwork at any moment, if those pesky drivers would just get out of the way.
It’s a bit chicken and egg. Bike lanes are needed to help transform Connecticut Ave from a somewhat sleepy linear retirement community (albeit one with traffic) into a vibrant urban corridor. Bike lanes will attract the private investment to add density, thousands of new housing units to attract young creatives. That, in turn, will generate thousands of bike riders for the new infrastructure.
It is really more about converting the road from a dangerous traffic sewer to a bona fide main street that connects various commercial nodes.
How does making traffic worse and more dangerous during peak usage make it less of a traffic sewer?
The concept is to encourage more commuter traffic not to use Connecticut and distribute it via more efficient utilization of the area street grid. A traffic sewer is incompatible with a multimodal boulevard and urban place making design.
I'll make it more clear
- How does either plan encourage traffic not to use Connecticut if not via increased congestion caused by removing traffic lanes?
- Distributing it = more traffic on residential roads - The third statement is an axiom of traffic management (please note that this axoim is neither contested nor disputed). Increasing congestion during periods of high congestion, such as occurs during peak usage, increases accidents.
This has never been the case, and you can go back to the original DDOT documents on the study, and yet, despite it having been pointed out to you a million times, you still make this false claim.
Distributed network of roads does NOT mean the incomplete street grid in upper NW, but rather the other routes into DC which include other arterials as well as metro. The number of additional cars projected on to residential side streets is infintesimal.
If that's what you want to cite then you should know that that DDOT study showed ZERO increase in Metro usage, did not break things down by time of day, did not take into account any other road changes, and excluded Chevy Chase (but included Palisades). In addition those "arterial" roads are things like Nebraska (which is already bumper to bumper and the most dangerous intersection) and Beach (which is the main bicycle route).
But at least you are finally acknowledging that it makes Connecticut more of a traffic sewer.
That was DDOT's stated goal from the outset. This isn't the "gotcha" you think it is.
The Avenue is already a traffic sewer. The question is whether it will be one with, or without bike lanes, and the forces of no changes have managed to talk the Mayor into the worst possible solution for all users and nearby residents.
The stated goal was safety and a lot of time and effort has been spent trying to pretend that making Connecticut a worse traffic sewer was not the goal. Heck, the person I was responding to even flat out accused everyone of lying for pointing that out.
One of the underlying problems with the plans has been the rampant and bold dishonesty of many of its proponents in their effort to hide the fact that increasing congestion is their proposed mechanism of action.
I appreciate your honesty regarding this but you are an outlier.
You mean DDOT is the outlier? their goal is to slow traffic of cars down. There are a lot of ways to do this. Reducing from 6 to 4 the travel lanes is one of them. The only real question in this whole process is whether one of the lanes would be converted into use for bikes only. The answer now is no.
So we will live with that result, which will mean cars and buses will go even slower because they will be stuck behind cyclists, particularly on the part of the road that have uphill grades.
Oh well. I prey that impatient motorists do not mow down cyclists with impunity.
Slowing down traffic doesn't work. You're not going to convince drivers that a 20 minute drive should now take 30 minutes. They'll just take an alternative route. It's like when there's construction. They'll just speed down side streets to get around it.
Then you add more stop signs, raised crosswalks and speed humps. This isn't hard, people.
Actually, it is. Add more speed bumps and people are more likely to blow stop signs. I'd rather have people stop at intersections than mid-way down the block. Seems safer?
Raised crosswalks are like speed humps. If they are where the stop signs are, people will stop. It will be painful for their cars otherwise.
And it isn't like these roads have tumbleweeds on them. There is plenty of "cut through" traffic already.
Raised/continuous crosswalks and smart lights are two of the things DC/Americans refuse to try. We much prefer to just let people die and complain about traffic instead.
There are actually smart lights on Porter Street between Reno and CT.
Can you clarify which intersections you mean, and what makes them a smart traffic light?
The light in question is roughly 1/4 mile up the hill from Connecticut. If drivers go a certain amount above the speed limit as they approach the light from either direction, the light changes to red automatically to slow them down (though drivers routinely run the light because there's never MPD presence on the road, nor is there a camera, and cyclists never even slow down when that light is red). Then the drivers speed off when the light turns green.
I guess that's something, but I was thinking of the more robust systems they use in Europe and Asia. Multiple detection loops, independent phases, transit priority, no "dead" time, etc. Like this:
In Europe, Connecticut Avenue would be considered a major highway and treated as such. No bikes allowed.
In imaginary Europe, where the laws of Europe apply and everyone speaks European, there would not be anything like Connecticut Avenue through a city.
In actual, real countries in Europe, there are unfortunately are things like Connecticut Avenue through cities, and bikes are allowed.
The Champs Elysees, what some people think Connecticut is, actually has dedicated bus lanes and bike lanes.
Noone thinks Connecticut is the Champs-Elysees. That would be more like Constitution. Connecticut is more like the A1 in London.
Bicycles are allowed on the A1.
Bicycles are allowed on Connecticut. What they aren't doing is making the A1 smaller in order to purposefully increase congestion.
Which has never been proposed on Connecticut, but you know that.
Yes it has. We've even been told by you all that it is an intentional plan.
Who is "you"? You certainly have not been told this by me. Anonymous randos on DCUM might have said this, but that' s not official information. It's not even unofficial information.
Anonymous wrote:What if the goal was a safe and thriving neighborhood? If you want a dedicated tunnel to downtown then take Metro.
If the goal is a safe and thriving neighborhood then the impact of any plan on accidents and traffic volume within the neighborhood is vitally important.
If your goal is to ban cars that's simply not happening.
A safe and vibrant neighborhood has bike lanes.
Pretty sure there are many, many safe and vibrant neighborhoods that don’t have bike lanes.
But how many neighborhoods have bike lanes that aren't safe and vibrant?
Lots. You especially see this in other cities that haven’t been overrun with gentrification.
If there's one thing we can take off the table absolutely when it comes to this particular bike lane debate, it's gentrification. You can't gentrify out the landed gentry.
Bike lanes are not about gentrification but they are about density, vibrancy and smart growth. Connecticut Ave has had the reputation of being rather boring and, well, old. Bike lanes add a certain hipness factor to attract younger buyers and renters. This is the group that developers who want to build dense housing need to attract.
Uh rent is expensive. Owning and storing a car is expensive. Younger people who have lower disposable income depend on biking to get around. So if the city wants to continue to attract these post-college younger residents, bike lanes is a great way to do it.
DC attracts plenty of single post-college younger residents (and in any case it’s doubtful that many want to live in Chevy Chase DC or Cleveland Park vs U St or Petworth). DC needs to do more to retain families who otherwise move to the suburbs better quality public schools and overall public services. Conn. ave. Bike lanes aren’t at the top of their priority list.
For a lot of younger families who are car free or car-light, yes they are. You clearly have no idea of the demographic shift away from the Boomer-led car era.
Petworth is full of parents, and hardly anyone uses the bike lanes, fyi. Bikes are extremely impractical when you have children.
This is a reality for a lot of younger families.
If we had the proper infrastructure, more people would do this.
We have more than 150 miles of bike lanes. We've spent billions of dollars on biking infrastructure. Still, the number of people on bikes is microscopic. People don't ride bikes because they don't want to ride bikes, and it has nothing to do with whatever you think the infrastructure is still missing.
The bolded is a flat out lie, and a lot of the 150 miles of bike lanes you are citing is simply paint on the ground. That isn't infrastructure. Ergo, the false conclusion you are drawing is a result of the false premise and lies you start with.
Try again: if biking were safe, more people would be doing it. Despite the infrastructure, there are a lot of young families who are using cargo bikes and electric bikes as a replacement for a car or second car, and it works very well for them. Just imagine how many more would do this if they felt it was safe enough!
Look at the city's budget. DC spends $200 million on bike things every single year.
Also, if biking isn't safe, then *no one* should be allowed to put children on bikes.
Bowser's budget included a whole lot more than $200M this year. To quote from the 2024 budget:
"$257.2 million to improve safety and mobility, including $90.9 million to install traffic safety infrastructure
around schools+ $56.4 million for Vision Zero improvements, hardening, and asset preservation+ $39.1 million
for bicycle and pedestrian safety+ $32.0 million for roadway segments and intersections where users have safety
concerns+ $18.5 million for signs+ and $15.3 million for expansion of Capital Bikeshare and electrification of
the bikeshare fleet
• $236.5 million for new or rehabilitated trail segments, including $52.0 million for the Long Bridge pedestrian
and bicycle connection+ $45.9 million for the Shepherd Branch Trail+ $36.5 million for the Anacostia River
Trail+ $36.5 million for the Metropolitan Branch Trail+ and $25.4 million for the Suitland Parkway Trail"
not every penny just for cyclists but gives you a sense of scale of funding that's been provided
This is mostly federal funding and there is money for infrastructure repairs and improvements every year. This isn't BILLIONS for cyclists, but rather general improvements that in some cases, have some infrastructure for cycling. But go ahead with your "it is all going to that wasteful mode of cycling and nothing else" tripe that you keep trying to spread.
Pretty remarkable there's a half billion dollars in one year's budget. They're cutting teachers at my kid's school. They say they don't have enough money to pay them. There's way more kids at our school than they are cyclists in the entire DMV.
Capital budget for roads is different than operational budget for teachers and other salaries. This has already been explained up thread when you, or someone like you made the same complaint.
So what? Have you figured out how to spend the same dollar twice? Every dollar in a budget that goes for one thing is a dollar that can't go for another thing.
The fact remains: we spend billions of dollars subsidizing the hobby of a tiny number of white guys while cutting funding for schools that mostly serve black children.
What’s wrong with once in a while spending a little to invest in the makers group? Usually DC just shovels bags and bags of cash to the takers group.
You tell 'em. Black elementary school students are such...takers?
Anonymous wrote:What if the goal was a safe and thriving neighborhood? If you want a dedicated tunnel to downtown then take Metro.
If the goal is a safe and thriving neighborhood then the impact of any plan on accidents and traffic volume within the neighborhood is vitally important.
If your goal is to ban cars that's simply not happening.
A safe and vibrant neighborhood has bike lanes.
Pretty sure there are many, many safe and vibrant neighborhoods that don’t have bike lanes.
But how many neighborhoods have bike lanes that aren't safe and vibrant?
Lots. You especially see this in other cities that haven’t been overrun with gentrification.
If there's one thing we can take off the table absolutely when it comes to this particular bike lane debate, it's gentrification. You can't gentrify out the landed gentry.
Bike lanes are not about gentrification but they are about density, vibrancy and smart growth. Connecticut Ave has had the reputation of being rather boring and, well, old. Bike lanes add a certain hipness factor to attract younger buyers and renters. This is the group that developers who want to build dense housing need to attract.
Uh rent is expensive. Owning and storing a car is expensive. Younger people who have lower disposable income depend on biking to get around. So if the city wants to continue to attract these post-college younger residents, bike lanes is a great way to do it.
DC attracts plenty of single post-college younger residents (and in any case it’s doubtful that many want to live in Chevy Chase DC or Cleveland Park vs U St or Petworth). DC needs to do more to retain families who otherwise move to the suburbs better quality public schools and overall public services. Conn. ave. Bike lanes aren’t at the top of their priority list.
For a lot of younger families who are car free or car-light, yes they are. You clearly have no idea of the demographic shift away from the Boomer-led car era.
Petworth is full of parents, and hardly anyone uses the bike lanes, fyi. Bikes are extremely impractical when you have children.
This is a reality for a lot of younger families.
If we had the proper infrastructure, more people would do this.
We have more than 150 miles of bike lanes. We've spent billions of dollars on biking infrastructure. Still, the number of people on bikes is microscopic. People don't ride bikes because they don't want to ride bikes, and it has nothing to do with whatever you think the infrastructure is still missing.
The bolded is a flat out lie, and a lot of the 150 miles of bike lanes you are citing is simply paint on the ground. That isn't infrastructure. Ergo, the false conclusion you are drawing is a result of the false premise and lies you start with.
Try again: if biking were safe, more people would be doing it. Despite the infrastructure, there are a lot of young families who are using cargo bikes and electric bikes as a replacement for a car or second car, and it works very well for them. Just imagine how many more would do this if they felt it was safe enough!
Look at the city's budget. DC spends $200 million on bike things every single year.
Also, if biking isn't safe, then *no one* should be allowed to put children on bikes.
Bowser's budget included a whole lot more than $200M this year. To quote from the 2024 budget:
"$257.2 million to improve safety and mobility, including $90.9 million to install traffic safety infrastructure
around schools+ $56.4 million for Vision Zero improvements, hardening, and asset preservation+ $39.1 million
for bicycle and pedestrian safety+ $32.0 million for roadway segments and intersections where users have safety
concerns+ $18.5 million for signs+ and $15.3 million for expansion of Capital Bikeshare and electrification of
the bikeshare fleet
• $236.5 million for new or rehabilitated trail segments, including $52.0 million for the Long Bridge pedestrian
and bicycle connection+ $45.9 million for the Shepherd Branch Trail+ $36.5 million for the Anacostia River
Trail+ $36.5 million for the Metropolitan Branch Trail+ and $25.4 million for the Suitland Parkway Trail"
not every penny just for cyclists but gives you a sense of scale of funding that's been provided
This is mostly federal funding and there is money for infrastructure repairs and improvements every year. This isn't BILLIONS for cyclists, but rather general improvements that in some cases, have some infrastructure for cycling. But go ahead with your "it is all going to that wasteful mode of cycling and nothing else" tripe that you keep trying to spread.
Pretty remarkable there's a half billion dollars in one year's budget. They're cutting teachers at my kid's school. They say they don't have enough money to pay them. There's way more kids at our school than they are cyclists in the entire DMV.
Capital budget for roads is different than operational budget for teachers and other salaries. This has already been explained up thread when you, or someone like you made the same complaint.
So what? Have you figured out how to spend the same dollar twice? Every dollar in a budget that goes for one thing is a dollar that can't go for another thing.
The fact remains: we spend billions of dollars subsidizing the hobby of a tiny number of white guys while cutting funding for schools that mostly serve black children.
What’s wrong with once in a while spending a little to invest in the makers group? Usually DC just shovels bags and bags of cash to the takers group.
I'm hoping this is a joke or a troll.
DP but it’s not really. Mortgage interest, pickleball courts, renewable credits and bike lanes are state benefits to makers to make you feel better about most of your taxes going to takers.
Some of your points are debatable here, but regardless of what the policy is, I don't think "give a little something to the rich people" is a good basis for making decisions.
Anonymous wrote:What if the goal was a safe and thriving neighborhood? If you want a dedicated tunnel to downtown then take Metro.
If the goal is a safe and thriving neighborhood then the impact of any plan on accidents and traffic volume within the neighborhood is vitally important.
If your goal is to ban cars that's simply not happening.
A safe and vibrant neighborhood has bike lanes.
Pretty sure there are many, many safe and vibrant neighborhoods that don’t have bike lanes.
But how many neighborhoods have bike lanes that aren't safe and vibrant?
Lots. You especially see this in other cities that haven’t been overrun with gentrification.
If there's one thing we can take off the table absolutely when it comes to this particular bike lane debate, it's gentrification. You can't gentrify out the landed gentry.
Bike lanes are not about gentrification but they are about density, vibrancy and smart growth. Connecticut Ave has had the reputation of being rather boring and, well, old. Bike lanes add a certain hipness factor to attract younger buyers and renters. This is the group that developers who want to build dense housing need to attract.
Uh rent is expensive. Owning and storing a car is expensive. Younger people who have lower disposable income depend on biking to get around. So if the city wants to continue to attract these post-college younger residents, bike lanes is a great way to do it.
DC attracts plenty of single post-college younger residents (and in any case it’s doubtful that many want to live in Chevy Chase DC or Cleveland Park vs U St or Petworth). DC needs to do more to retain families who otherwise move to the suburbs better quality public schools and overall public services. Conn. ave. Bike lanes aren’t at the top of their priority list.
For a lot of younger families who are car free or car-light, yes they are. You clearly have no idea of the demographic shift away from the Boomer-led car era.
Petworth is full of parents, and hardly anyone uses the bike lanes, fyi. Bikes are extremely impractical when you have children.
This is a reality for a lot of younger families.
If we had the proper infrastructure, more people would do this.
We have more than 150 miles of bike lanes. We've spent billions of dollars on biking infrastructure. Still, the number of people on bikes is microscopic. People don't ride bikes because they don't want to ride bikes, and it has nothing to do with whatever you think the infrastructure is still missing.
The bolded is a flat out lie, and a lot of the 150 miles of bike lanes you are citing is simply paint on the ground. That isn't infrastructure. Ergo, the false conclusion you are drawing is a result of the false premise and lies you start with.
Try again: if biking were safe, more people would be doing it. Despite the infrastructure, there are a lot of young families who are using cargo bikes and electric bikes as a replacement for a car or second car, and it works very well for them. Just imagine how many more would do this if they felt it was safe enough!
Look at the city's budget. DC spends $200 million on bike things every single year.
Also, if biking isn't safe, then *no one* should be allowed to put children on bikes.
Bowser's budget included a whole lot more than $200M this year. To quote from the 2024 budget:
"$257.2 million to improve safety and mobility, including $90.9 million to install traffic safety infrastructure
around schools+ $56.4 million for Vision Zero improvements, hardening, and asset preservation+ $39.1 million
for bicycle and pedestrian safety+ $32.0 million for roadway segments and intersections where users have safety
concerns+ $18.5 million for signs+ and $15.3 million for expansion of Capital Bikeshare and electrification of
the bikeshare fleet
• $236.5 million for new or rehabilitated trail segments, including $52.0 million for the Long Bridge pedestrian
and bicycle connection+ $45.9 million for the Shepherd Branch Trail+ $36.5 million for the Anacostia River
Trail+ $36.5 million for the Metropolitan Branch Trail+ and $25.4 million for the Suitland Parkway Trail"
not every penny just for cyclists but gives you a sense of scale of funding that's been provided
This is mostly federal funding and there is money for infrastructure repairs and improvements every year. This isn't BILLIONS for cyclists, but rather general improvements that in some cases, have some infrastructure for cycling. But go ahead with your "it is all going to that wasteful mode of cycling and nothing else" tripe that you keep trying to spread.
Pretty remarkable there's a half billion dollars in one year's budget. They're cutting teachers at my kid's school. They say they don't have enough money to pay them. There's way more kids at our school than they are cyclists in the entire DMV.
Capital budget for roads is different than operational budget for teachers and other salaries. This has already been explained up thread when you, or someone like you made the same complaint.
So what? Have you figured out how to spend the same dollar twice? Every dollar in a budget that goes for one thing is a dollar that can't go for another thing.
The fact remains: we spend billions of dollars subsidizing the hobby of a tiny number of white guys while cutting funding for schools that mostly serve black children.
What’s wrong with once in a while spending a little to invest in the makers group? Usually DC just shovels bags and bags of cash to the takers group.
I'm hoping this is a joke or a troll.
DP but it’s not really. Mortgage interest, pickleball courts, renewable credits and bike lanes are state benefits to makers to make you feel better about most of your taxes going to takers.
Some of your points are debatable here, but regardless of what the policy is, I don't think "give a little something to the rich people" is a good basis for making decisions.
Anonymous wrote:What if the goal was a safe and thriving neighborhood? If you want a dedicated tunnel to downtown then take Metro.
If the goal is a safe and thriving neighborhood then the impact of any plan on accidents and traffic volume within the neighborhood is vitally important.
If your goal is to ban cars that's simply not happening.
A safe and vibrant neighborhood has bike lanes.
Pretty sure there are many, many safe and vibrant neighborhoods that don’t have bike lanes.
But how many neighborhoods have bike lanes that aren't safe and vibrant?
Lots. You especially see this in other cities that haven’t been overrun with gentrification.
If there's one thing we can take off the table absolutely when it comes to this particular bike lane debate, it's gentrification. You can't gentrify out the landed gentry.
Bike lanes are not about gentrification but they are about density, vibrancy and smart growth. Connecticut Ave has had the reputation of being rather boring and, well, old. Bike lanes add a certain hipness factor to attract younger buyers and renters. This is the group that developers who want to build dense housing need to attract.
Uh rent is expensive. Owning and storing a car is expensive. Younger people who have lower disposable income depend on biking to get around. So if the city wants to continue to attract these post-college younger residents, bike lanes is a great way to do it.
DC attracts plenty of single post-college younger residents (and in any case it’s doubtful that many want to live in Chevy Chase DC or Cleveland Park vs U St or Petworth). DC needs to do more to retain families who otherwise move to the suburbs better quality public schools and overall public services. Conn. ave. Bike lanes aren’t at the top of their priority list.
For a lot of younger families who are car free or car-light, yes they are. You clearly have no idea of the demographic shift away from the Boomer-led car era.
Petworth is full of parents, and hardly anyone uses the bike lanes, fyi. Bikes are extremely impractical when you have children.
This is a reality for a lot of younger families.
If we had the proper infrastructure, more people would do this.
We have more than 150 miles of bike lanes. We've spent billions of dollars on biking infrastructure. Still, the number of people on bikes is microscopic. People don't ride bikes because they don't want to ride bikes, and it has nothing to do with whatever you think the infrastructure is still missing.
The bolded is a flat out lie, and a lot of the 150 miles of bike lanes you are citing is simply paint on the ground. That isn't infrastructure. Ergo, the false conclusion you are drawing is a result of the false premise and lies you start with.
Try again: if biking were safe, more people would be doing it. Despite the infrastructure, there are a lot of young families who are using cargo bikes and electric bikes as a replacement for a car or second car, and it works very well for them. Just imagine how many more would do this if they felt it was safe enough!
Look at the city's budget. DC spends $200 million on bike things every single year.
Also, if biking isn't safe, then *no one* should be allowed to put children on bikes.
Bowser's budget included a whole lot more than $200M this year. To quote from the 2024 budget:
"$257.2 million to improve safety and mobility, including $90.9 million to install traffic safety infrastructure
around schools+ $56.4 million for Vision Zero improvements, hardening, and asset preservation+ $39.1 million
for bicycle and pedestrian safety+ $32.0 million for roadway segments and intersections where users have safety
concerns+ $18.5 million for signs+ and $15.3 million for expansion of Capital Bikeshare and electrification of
the bikeshare fleet
• $236.5 million for new or rehabilitated trail segments, including $52.0 million for the Long Bridge pedestrian
and bicycle connection+ $45.9 million for the Shepherd Branch Trail+ $36.5 million for the Anacostia River
Trail+ $36.5 million for the Metropolitan Branch Trail+ and $25.4 million for the Suitland Parkway Trail"
not every penny just for cyclists but gives you a sense of scale of funding that's been provided
This is mostly federal funding and there is money for infrastructure repairs and improvements every year. This isn't BILLIONS for cyclists, but rather general improvements that in some cases, have some infrastructure for cycling. But go ahead with your "it is all going to that wasteful mode of cycling and nothing else" tripe that you keep trying to spread.
Pretty remarkable there's a half billion dollars in one year's budget. They're cutting teachers at my kid's school. They say they don't have enough money to pay them. There's way more kids at our school than they are cyclists in the entire DMV.
Capital budget for roads is different than operational budget for teachers and other salaries. This has already been explained up thread when you, or someone like you made the same complaint.
So what? Have you figured out how to spend the same dollar twice? Every dollar in a budget that goes for one thing is a dollar that can't go for another thing.
The fact remains: we spend billions of dollars subsidizing the hobby of a tiny number of white guys while cutting funding for schools that mostly serve black children.
What’s wrong with once in a while spending a little to invest in the makers group? Usually DC just shovels bags and bags of cash to the takers group.
I'm hoping this is a joke or a troll.
DP but it’s not really. Mortgage interest, pickleball courts, renewable credits and bike lanes are state benefits to makers to make you feel better about most of your taxes going to takers.
Some of your points are debatable here, but regardless of what the policy is, I don't think "give a little something to the rich people" is a good basis for making decisions.
And yet that’s exactly how politics works.
Then the politicians have failed at identifying what those people want. 90+% (estimate) of the people, no matter the demographic, don't want Connecticut to become a traffic nightmare. Just give us a working pool, a dog park and bus service so our kids can get to the overcrowded schools.
Anonymous wrote:What if the goal was a safe and thriving neighborhood? If you want a dedicated tunnel to downtown then take Metro.
If the goal is a safe and thriving neighborhood then the impact of any plan on accidents and traffic volume within the neighborhood is vitally important.
If your goal is to ban cars that's simply not happening.
A safe and vibrant neighborhood has bike lanes.
Pretty sure there are many, many safe and vibrant neighborhoods that don’t have bike lanes.
But how many neighborhoods have bike lanes that aren't safe and vibrant?
Lots. You especially see this in other cities that haven’t been overrun with gentrification.
If there's one thing we can take off the table absolutely when it comes to this particular bike lane debate, it's gentrification. You can't gentrify out the landed gentry.
Bike lanes are not about gentrification but they are about density, vibrancy and smart growth. Connecticut Ave has had the reputation of being rather boring and, well, old. Bike lanes add a certain hipness factor to attract younger buyers and renters. This is the group that developers who want to build dense housing need to attract.
Uh rent is expensive. Owning and storing a car is expensive. Younger people who have lower disposable income depend on biking to get around. So if the city wants to continue to attract these post-college younger residents, bike lanes is a great way to do it.
DC attracts plenty of single post-college younger residents (and in any case it’s doubtful that many want to live in Chevy Chase DC or Cleveland Park vs U St or Petworth). DC needs to do more to retain families who otherwise move to the suburbs better quality public schools and overall public services. Conn. ave. Bike lanes aren’t at the top of their priority list.
For a lot of younger families who are car free or car-light, yes they are. You clearly have no idea of the demographic shift away from the Boomer-led car era.
Petworth is full of parents, and hardly anyone uses the bike lanes, fyi. Bikes are extremely impractical when you have children.
This is a reality for a lot of younger families.
If we had the proper infrastructure, more people would do this.
We have more than 150 miles of bike lanes. We've spent billions of dollars on biking infrastructure. Still, the number of people on bikes is microscopic. People don't ride bikes because they don't want to ride bikes, and it has nothing to do with whatever you think the infrastructure is still missing.
The bolded is a flat out lie, and a lot of the 150 miles of bike lanes you are citing is simply paint on the ground. That isn't infrastructure. Ergo, the false conclusion you are drawing is a result of the false premise and lies you start with.
Try again: if biking were safe, more people would be doing it. Despite the infrastructure, there are a lot of young families who are using cargo bikes and electric bikes as a replacement for a car or second car, and it works very well for them. Just imagine how many more would do this if they felt it was safe enough!
Yes, yes, we know. Tens of thousands of bikers are ready to crawl out of the woodwork at any moment, if those pesky drivers would just get out of the way.
It’s a bit chicken and egg. Bike lanes are needed to help transform Connecticut Ave from a somewhat sleepy linear retirement community (albeit one with traffic) into a vibrant urban corridor. Bike lanes will attract the private investment to add density, thousands of new housing units to attract young creatives. That, in turn, will generate thousands of bike riders for the new infrastructure.
It is really more about converting the road from a dangerous traffic sewer to a bona fide main street that connects various commercial nodes.
How does making traffic worse and more dangerous during peak usage make it less of a traffic sewer?
The concept is to encourage more commuter traffic not to use Connecticut and distribute it via more efficient utilization of the area street grid. A traffic sewer is incompatible with a multimodal boulevard and urban place making design.
I'll make it more clear
- How does either plan encourage traffic not to use Connecticut if not via increased congestion caused by removing traffic lanes?
- Distributing it = more traffic on residential roads - The third statement is an axiom of traffic management (please note that this axoim is neither contested nor disputed). Increasing congestion during periods of high congestion, such as occurs during peak usage, increases accidents.
This has never been the case, and you can go back to the original DDOT documents on the study, and yet, despite it having been pointed out to you a million times, you still make this false claim.
Distributed network of roads does NOT mean the incomplete street grid in upper NW, but rather the other routes into DC which include other arterials as well as metro. The number of additional cars projected on to residential side streets is infintesimal.
If that's what you want to cite then you should know that that DDOT study showed ZERO increase in Metro usage, did not break things down by time of day, did not take into account any other road changes, and excluded Chevy Chase (but included Palisades). In addition those "arterial" roads are things like Nebraska (which is already bumper to bumper and the most dangerous intersection) and Beach (which is the main bicycle route).
But at least you are finally acknowledging that it makes Connecticut more of a traffic sewer.
That was DDOT's stated goal from the outset. This isn't the "gotcha" you think it is.
The Avenue is already a traffic sewer. The question is whether it will be one with, or without bike lanes, and the forces of no changes have managed to talk the Mayor into the worst possible solution for all users and nearby residents.
The stated goal was safety and a lot of time and effort has been spent trying to pretend that making Connecticut a worse traffic sewer was not the goal. Heck, the person I was responding to even flat out accused everyone of lying for pointing that out.
One of the underlying problems with the plans has been the rampant and bold dishonesty of many of its proponents in their effort to hide the fact that increasing congestion is their proposed mechanism of action.
I appreciate your honesty regarding this but you are an outlier.
You mean DDOT is the outlier? their goal is to slow traffic of cars down. There are a lot of ways to do this. Reducing from 6 to 4 the travel lanes is one of them. The only real question in this whole process is whether one of the lanes would be converted into use for bikes only. The answer now is no.
So we will live with that result, which will mean cars and buses will go even slower because they will be stuck behind cyclists, particularly on the part of the road that have uphill grades.
Oh well. I prey that impatient motorists do not mow down cyclists with impunity.
Slowing down traffic doesn't work. You're not going to convince drivers that a 20 minute drive should now take 30 minutes. They'll just take an alternative route. It's like when there's construction. They'll just speed down side streets to get around it.
Then you add more stop signs, raised crosswalks and speed humps. This isn't hard, people.
Actually, it is. Add more speed bumps and people are more likely to blow stop signs. I'd rather have people stop at intersections than mid-way down the block. Seems safer?
Raised crosswalks are like speed humps. If they are where the stop signs are, people will stop. It will be painful for their cars otherwise.
And it isn't like these roads have tumbleweeds on them. There is plenty of "cut through" traffic already.
Raised/continuous crosswalks and smart lights are two of the things DC/Americans refuse to try. We much prefer to just let people die and complain about traffic instead.
There are actually smart lights on Porter Street between Reno and CT.
Can you clarify which intersections you mean, and what makes them a smart traffic light?
The light in question is roughly 1/4 mile up the hill from Connecticut. If drivers go a certain amount above the speed limit as they approach the light from either direction, the light changes to red automatically to slow them down (though drivers routinely run the light because there's never MPD presence on the road, nor is there a camera, and cyclists never even slow down when that light is red). Then the drivers speed off when the light turns green.
I guess that's something, but I was thinking of the more robust systems they use in Europe and Asia. Multiple detection loops, independent phases, transit priority, no "dead" time, etc. Like this:
In Europe, Connecticut Avenue would be considered a major highway and treated as such. No bikes allowed.
In imaginary Europe, where the laws of Europe apply and everyone speaks European, there would not be anything like Connecticut Avenue through a city.
In actual, real countries in Europe, there are unfortunately are things like Connecticut Avenue through cities, and bikes are allowed.
The Champs Elysees, what some people think Connecticut is, actually has dedicated bus lanes and bike lanes.
If the French knew anything about infrastructure then they would not have fallen in just six weeks to the Germans when given years to prepare. No, we should not follow their lead.
Congratulations, PP. I didn't think there were any NO BIKE LANES BIKE LANES ARE BAD arguments that I hadn't heard, but you just came up with one. Bike lanes are bad because the Second Armistice at Compiègne on June 22, 1940.
Anonymous wrote:What if the goal was a safe and thriving neighborhood? If you want a dedicated tunnel to downtown then take Metro.
If the goal is a safe and thriving neighborhood then the impact of any plan on accidents and traffic volume within the neighborhood is vitally important.
If your goal is to ban cars that's simply not happening.
A safe and vibrant neighborhood has bike lanes.
Pretty sure there are many, many safe and vibrant neighborhoods that don’t have bike lanes.
But how many neighborhoods have bike lanes that aren't safe and vibrant?
Lots. You especially see this in other cities that haven’t been overrun with gentrification.
If there's one thing we can take off the table absolutely when it comes to this particular bike lane debate, it's gentrification. You can't gentrify out the landed gentry.
Bike lanes are not about gentrification but they are about density, vibrancy and smart growth. Connecticut Ave has had the reputation of being rather boring and, well, old. Bike lanes add a certain hipness factor to attract younger buyers and renters. This is the group that developers who want to build dense housing need to attract.
Uh rent is expensive. Owning and storing a car is expensive. Younger people who have lower disposable income depend on biking to get around. So if the city wants to continue to attract these post-college younger residents, bike lanes is a great way to do it.
DC attracts plenty of single post-college younger residents (and in any case it’s doubtful that many want to live in Chevy Chase DC or Cleveland Park vs U St or Petworth). DC needs to do more to retain families who otherwise move to the suburbs better quality public schools and overall public services. Conn. ave. Bike lanes aren’t at the top of their priority list.
For a lot of younger families who are car free or car-light, yes they are. You clearly have no idea of the demographic shift away from the Boomer-led car era.
Petworth is full of parents, and hardly anyone uses the bike lanes, fyi. Bikes are extremely impractical when you have children.
This is a reality for a lot of younger families.
If we had the proper infrastructure, more people would do this.
We have more than 150 miles of bike lanes. We've spent billions of dollars on biking infrastructure. Still, the number of people on bikes is microscopic. People don't ride bikes because they don't want to ride bikes, and it has nothing to do with whatever you think the infrastructure is still missing.
The bolded is a flat out lie, and a lot of the 150 miles of bike lanes you are citing is simply paint on the ground. That isn't infrastructure. Ergo, the false conclusion you are drawing is a result of the false premise and lies you start with.
Try again: if biking were safe, more people would be doing it. Despite the infrastructure, there are a lot of young families who are using cargo bikes and electric bikes as a replacement for a car or second car, and it works very well for them. Just imagine how many more would do this if they felt it was safe enough!
Yes, yes, we know. Tens of thousands of bikers are ready to crawl out of the woodwork at any moment, if those pesky drivers would just get out of the way.
It’s a bit chicken and egg. Bike lanes are needed to help transform Connecticut Ave from a somewhat sleepy linear retirement community (albeit one with traffic) into a vibrant urban corridor. Bike lanes will attract the private investment to add density, thousands of new housing units to attract young creatives. That, in turn, will generate thousands of bike riders for the new infrastructure.
It is really more about converting the road from a dangerous traffic sewer to a bona fide main street that connects various commercial nodes.
How does making traffic worse and more dangerous during peak usage make it less of a traffic sewer?
The concept is to encourage more commuter traffic not to use Connecticut and distribute it via more efficient utilization of the area street grid. A traffic sewer is incompatible with a multimodal boulevard and urban place making design.
I'll make it more clear
- How does either plan encourage traffic not to use Connecticut if not via increased congestion caused by removing traffic lanes?
- Distributing it = more traffic on residential roads - The third statement is an axiom of traffic management (please note that this axoim is neither contested nor disputed). Increasing congestion during periods of high congestion, such as occurs during peak usage, increases accidents.
This has never been the case, and you can go back to the original DDOT documents on the study, and yet, despite it having been pointed out to you a million times, you still make this false claim.
Distributed network of roads does NOT mean the incomplete street grid in upper NW, but rather the other routes into DC which include other arterials as well as metro. The number of additional cars projected on to residential side streets is infintesimal.
If that's what you want to cite then you should know that that DDOT study showed ZERO increase in Metro usage, did not break things down by time of day, did not take into account any other road changes, and excluded Chevy Chase (but included Palisades). In addition those "arterial" roads are things like Nebraska (which is already bumper to bumper and the most dangerous intersection) and Beach (which is the main bicycle route).
But at least you are finally acknowledging that it makes Connecticut more of a traffic sewer.
That was DDOT's stated goal from the outset. This isn't the "gotcha" you think it is.
The Avenue is already a traffic sewer. The question is whether it will be one with, or without bike lanes, and the forces of no changes have managed to talk the Mayor into the worst possible solution for all users and nearby residents.
The stated goal was safety and a lot of time and effort has been spent trying to pretend that making Connecticut a worse traffic sewer was not the goal. Heck, the person I was responding to even flat out accused everyone of lying for pointing that out.
One of the underlying problems with the plans has been the rampant and bold dishonesty of many of its proponents in their effort to hide the fact that increasing congestion is their proposed mechanism of action.
I appreciate your honesty regarding this but you are an outlier.
You mean DDOT is the outlier? their goal is to slow traffic of cars down. There are a lot of ways to do this. Reducing from 6 to 4 the travel lanes is one of them. The only real question in this whole process is whether one of the lanes would be converted into use for bikes only. The answer now is no.
So we will live with that result, which will mean cars and buses will go even slower because they will be stuck behind cyclists, particularly on the part of the road that have uphill grades.
Oh well. I prey that impatient motorists do not mow down cyclists with impunity.
Slowing down traffic doesn't work. You're not going to convince drivers that a 20 minute drive should now take 30 minutes. They'll just take an alternative route. It's like when there's construction. They'll just speed down side streets to get around it.
Then you add more stop signs, raised crosswalks and speed humps. This isn't hard, people.
Actually, it is. Add more speed bumps and people are more likely to blow stop signs. I'd rather have people stop at intersections than mid-way down the block. Seems safer?
Raised crosswalks are like speed humps. If they are where the stop signs are, people will stop. It will be painful for their cars otherwise.
And it isn't like these roads have tumbleweeds on them. There is plenty of "cut through" traffic already.
Raised/continuous crosswalks and smart lights are two of the things DC/Americans refuse to try. We much prefer to just let people die and complain about traffic instead.
There are actually smart lights on Porter Street between Reno and CT.
Can you clarify which intersections you mean, and what makes them a smart traffic light?
The light in question is roughly 1/4 mile up the hill from Connecticut. If drivers go a certain amount above the speed limit as they approach the light from either direction, the light changes to red automatically to slow them down (though drivers routinely run the light because there's never MPD presence on the road, nor is there a camera, and cyclists never even slow down when that light is red). Then the drivers speed off when the light turns green.
I guess that's something, but I was thinking of the more robust systems they use in Europe and Asia. Multiple detection loops, independent phases, transit priority, no "dead" time, etc. Like this:
In Europe, Connecticut Avenue would be considered a major highway and treated as such. No bikes allowed.
In imaginary Europe, where the laws of Europe apply and everyone speaks European, there would not be anything like Connecticut Avenue through a city.
In actual, real countries in Europe, there are unfortunately are things like Connecticut Avenue through cities, and bikes are allowed.
The Champs Elysees, what some people think Connecticut is, actually has dedicated bus lanes and bike lanes.
From the New York Times:
PARIS — On a recent afternoon, the Rue de Rivoli looked like this: Cyclists blowing through red lights in two directions. Delivery bike riders fixating on their cellphones. Electric scooters careening across lanes. Jaywalkers and nervous pedestrians scrambling as if in a video game.
Sarah Famery, a 20-year resident of the Marais neighborhood, braced for the tumult. She looked left, then right, then left and right again before venturing into a crosswalk, only to break into a rant-laden sprint as two cyclists came within inches of grazing her.
“It’s chaos!” exclaimed Ms. Famery, shaking a fist at the swarm of bikes that have displaced cars on the Rue de Rivoli ever since it was remade into a multilane highway for cyclists last year. “Politicians want to make Paris a cycling city, but no one is following any rules,” she said. “It’s becoming risky just to cross the street!”
....“It’s like Paris is in anarchy,” said Jean-Conrad LeMaitre, a former banker who was out for a stroll recently along the Rue de Rivoli. “We need to reduce pollution and improve the environment,” he said. “But everyone is just doing as they please. There are no police, no fines, no training and no respect.”
Anonymous wrote:What if the goal was a safe and thriving neighborhood? If you want a dedicated tunnel to downtown then take Metro.
If the goal is a safe and thriving neighborhood then the impact of any plan on accidents and traffic volume within the neighborhood is vitally important.
If your goal is to ban cars that's simply not happening.
A safe and vibrant neighborhood has bike lanes.
Pretty sure there are many, many safe and vibrant neighborhoods that don’t have bike lanes.
But how many neighborhoods have bike lanes that aren't safe and vibrant?
Lots. You especially see this in other cities that haven’t been overrun with gentrification.
If there's one thing we can take off the table absolutely when it comes to this particular bike lane debate, it's gentrification. You can't gentrify out the landed gentry.
Bike lanes are not about gentrification but they are about density, vibrancy and smart growth. Connecticut Ave has had the reputation of being rather boring and, well, old. Bike lanes add a certain hipness factor to attract younger buyers and renters. This is the group that developers who want to build dense housing need to attract.
Uh rent is expensive. Owning and storing a car is expensive. Younger people who have lower disposable income depend on biking to get around. So if the city wants to continue to attract these post-college younger residents, bike lanes is a great way to do it.
DC attracts plenty of single post-college younger residents (and in any case it’s doubtful that many want to live in Chevy Chase DC or Cleveland Park vs U St or Petworth). DC needs to do more to retain families who otherwise move to the suburbs better quality public schools and overall public services. Conn. ave. Bike lanes aren’t at the top of their priority list.
For a lot of younger families who are car free or car-light, yes they are. You clearly have no idea of the demographic shift away from the Boomer-led car era.
Petworth is full of parents, and hardly anyone uses the bike lanes, fyi. Bikes are extremely impractical when you have children.
This is a reality for a lot of younger families.
If we had the proper infrastructure, more people would do this.
We have more than 150 miles of bike lanes. We've spent billions of dollars on biking infrastructure. Still, the number of people on bikes is microscopic. People don't ride bikes because they don't want to ride bikes, and it has nothing to do with whatever you think the infrastructure is still missing.
The bolded is a flat out lie, and a lot of the 150 miles of bike lanes you are citing is simply paint on the ground. That isn't infrastructure. Ergo, the false conclusion you are drawing is a result of the false premise and lies you start with.
Try again: if biking were safe, more people would be doing it. Despite the infrastructure, there are a lot of young families who are using cargo bikes and electric bikes as a replacement for a car or second car, and it works very well for them. Just imagine how many more would do this if they felt it was safe enough!
Yes, yes, we know. Tens of thousands of bikers are ready to crawl out of the woodwork at any moment, if those pesky drivers would just get out of the way.
It’s a bit chicken and egg. Bike lanes are needed to help transform Connecticut Ave from a somewhat sleepy linear retirement community (albeit one with traffic) into a vibrant urban corridor. Bike lanes will attract the private investment to add density, thousands of new housing units to attract young creatives. That, in turn, will generate thousands of bike riders for the new infrastructure.
It is really more about converting the road from a dangerous traffic sewer to a bona fide main street that connects various commercial nodes.
How does making traffic worse and more dangerous during peak usage make it less of a traffic sewer?
The concept is to encourage more commuter traffic not to use Connecticut and distribute it via more efficient utilization of the area street grid. A traffic sewer is incompatible with a multimodal boulevard and urban place making design.
I'll make it more clear
- How does either plan encourage traffic not to use Connecticut if not via increased congestion caused by removing traffic lanes?
- Distributing it = more traffic on residential roads - The third statement is an axiom of traffic management (please note that this axoim is neither contested nor disputed). Increasing congestion during periods of high congestion, such as occurs during peak usage, increases accidents.
This has never been the case, and you can go back to the original DDOT documents on the study, and yet, despite it having been pointed out to you a million times, you still make this false claim.
Distributed network of roads does NOT mean the incomplete street grid in upper NW, but rather the other routes into DC which include other arterials as well as metro. The number of additional cars projected on to residential side streets is infintesimal.
If that's what you want to cite then you should know that that DDOT study showed ZERO increase in Metro usage, did not break things down by time of day, did not take into account any other road changes, and excluded Chevy Chase (but included Palisades). In addition those "arterial" roads are things like Nebraska (which is already bumper to bumper and the most dangerous intersection) and Beach (which is the main bicycle route).
But at least you are finally acknowledging that it makes Connecticut more of a traffic sewer.
That was DDOT's stated goal from the outset. This isn't the "gotcha" you think it is.
The Avenue is already a traffic sewer. The question is whether it will be one with, or without bike lanes, and the forces of no changes have managed to talk the Mayor into the worst possible solution for all users and nearby residents.
The stated goal was safety and a lot of time and effort has been spent trying to pretend that making Connecticut a worse traffic sewer was not the goal. Heck, the person I was responding to even flat out accused everyone of lying for pointing that out.
One of the underlying problems with the plans has been the rampant and bold dishonesty of many of its proponents in their effort to hide the fact that increasing congestion is their proposed mechanism of action.
I appreciate your honesty regarding this but you are an outlier.
You mean DDOT is the outlier? their goal is to slow traffic of cars down. There are a lot of ways to do this. Reducing from 6 to 4 the travel lanes is one of them. The only real question in this whole process is whether one of the lanes would be converted into use for bikes only. The answer now is no.
So we will live with that result, which will mean cars and buses will go even slower because they will be stuck behind cyclists, particularly on the part of the road that have uphill grades.
Oh well. I prey that impatient motorists do not mow down cyclists with impunity.
Slowing down traffic doesn't work. You're not going to convince drivers that a 20 minute drive should now take 30 minutes. They'll just take an alternative route. It's like when there's construction. They'll just speed down side streets to get around it.
Then you add more stop signs, raised crosswalks and speed humps. This isn't hard, people.
Actually, it is. Add more speed bumps and people are more likely to blow stop signs. I'd rather have people stop at intersections than mid-way down the block. Seems safer?
Raised crosswalks are like speed humps. If they are where the stop signs are, people will stop. It will be painful for their cars otherwise.
And it isn't like these roads have tumbleweeds on them. There is plenty of "cut through" traffic already.
Raised/continuous crosswalks and smart lights are two of the things DC/Americans refuse to try. We much prefer to just let people die and complain about traffic instead.
There are actually smart lights on Porter Street between Reno and CT.
Can you clarify which intersections you mean, and what makes them a smart traffic light?
The light in question is roughly 1/4 mile up the hill from Connecticut. If drivers go a certain amount above the speed limit as they approach the light from either direction, the light changes to red automatically to slow them down (though drivers routinely run the light because there's never MPD presence on the road, nor is there a camera, and cyclists never even slow down when that light is red). Then the drivers speed off when the light turns green.
I guess that's something, but I was thinking of the more robust systems they use in Europe and Asia. Multiple detection loops, independent phases, transit priority, no "dead" time, etc. Like this:
In Europe, Connecticut Avenue would be considered a major highway and treated as such. No bikes allowed.
In imaginary Europe, where the laws of Europe apply and everyone speaks European, there would not be anything like Connecticut Avenue through a city.
In actual, real countries in Europe, there are unfortunately are things like Connecticut Avenue through cities, and bikes are allowed.
The Champs Elysees, what some people think Connecticut is, actually has dedicated bus lanes and bike lanes.
From the New York Times:
PARIS — On a recent afternoon, the Rue de Rivoli looked like this: Cyclists blowing through red lights in two directions. Delivery bike riders fixating on their cellphones. Electric scooters careening across lanes. Jaywalkers and nervous pedestrians scrambling as if in a video game.
Sarah Famery, a 20-year resident of the Marais neighborhood, braced for the tumult. She looked left, then right, then left and right again before venturing into a crosswalk, only to break into a rant-laden sprint as two cyclists came within inches of grazing her.
“It’s chaos!” exclaimed Ms. Famery, shaking a fist at the swarm of bikes that have displaced cars on the Rue de Rivoli ever since it was remade into a multilane highway for cyclists last year. “Politicians want to make Paris a cycling city, but no one is following any rules,” she said. “It’s becoming risky just to cross the street!”
....“It’s like Paris is in anarchy,” said Jean-Conrad LeMaitre, a former banker who was out for a stroll recently along the Rue de Rivoli. “We need to reduce pollution and improve the environment,” he said. “But everyone is just doing as they please. There are no police, no fines, no training and no respect.”
The numbers are clear: the rumors about cyclists as lawless bandits are greatly exaggerated:
The study from the Danish Road Directorate shows that while less than five per cent of cyclists break traffic laws while riding, 66 per cent of motorists do so when driving.
It also found that bike riders breaking road rules rose from 4.9 per cent when they were riding on dedicated cycleways to 14 per cent in areas where there was no bike-specific infrastructure.
This sends a clear message: if we want fewer bike riders breaking road rules, install more bike riding infrastructure.
The study placed video cameras at major junctions in a number of Danish cities, including the capital, which captured the movements of over 28,579 bike riders.
Riding on the footpath was the most the rule broken most often, further indicating that compliance is linked to cycleways. Most riders who use the footpath will tell you that they do so because the road doesn't feel comfortable.
It is also not the first study to conclude that the common complaint of law-breaking lycra-wearing lunatics is in fact wrong – or at least unfair.
A previous study in Denmark that analysed the behaviour of 80,000 bike riders had very similar results, with only 5 per cent of riders breaking the law, and two-thirds of motorists.
Anonymous wrote:What if the goal was a safe and thriving neighborhood? If you want a dedicated tunnel to downtown then take Metro.
If the goal is a safe and thriving neighborhood then the impact of any plan on accidents and traffic volume within the neighborhood is vitally important.
If your goal is to ban cars that's simply not happening.
A safe and vibrant neighborhood has bike lanes.
Pretty sure there are many, many safe and vibrant neighborhoods that don’t have bike lanes.
But how many neighborhoods have bike lanes that aren't safe and vibrant?
Lots. You especially see this in other cities that haven’t been overrun with gentrification.
If there's one thing we can take off the table absolutely when it comes to this particular bike lane debate, it's gentrification. You can't gentrify out the landed gentry.
Bike lanes are not about gentrification but they are about density, vibrancy and smart growth. Connecticut Ave has had the reputation of being rather boring and, well, old. Bike lanes add a certain hipness factor to attract younger buyers and renters. This is the group that developers who want to build dense housing need to attract.
Uh rent is expensive. Owning and storing a car is expensive. Younger people who have lower disposable income depend on biking to get around. So if the city wants to continue to attract these post-college younger residents, bike lanes is a great way to do it.
DC attracts plenty of single post-college younger residents (and in any case it’s doubtful that many want to live in Chevy Chase DC or Cleveland Park vs U St or Petworth). DC needs to do more to retain families who otherwise move to the suburbs better quality public schools and overall public services. Conn. ave. Bike lanes aren’t at the top of their priority list.
For a lot of younger families who are car free or car-light, yes they are. You clearly have no idea of the demographic shift away from the Boomer-led car era.
Petworth is full of parents, and hardly anyone uses the bike lanes, fyi. Bikes are extremely impractical when you have children.
This is a reality for a lot of younger families.
If we had the proper infrastructure, more people would do this.
We have more than 150 miles of bike lanes. We've spent billions of dollars on biking infrastructure. Still, the number of people on bikes is microscopic. People don't ride bikes because they don't want to ride bikes, and it has nothing to do with whatever you think the infrastructure is still missing.
The bolded is a flat out lie, and a lot of the 150 miles of bike lanes you are citing is simply paint on the ground. That isn't infrastructure. Ergo, the false conclusion you are drawing is a result of the false premise and lies you start with.
Try again: if biking were safe, more people would be doing it. Despite the infrastructure, there are a lot of young families who are using cargo bikes and electric bikes as a replacement for a car or second car, and it works very well for them. Just imagine how many more would do this if they felt it was safe enough!
Yes, yes, we know. Tens of thousands of bikers are ready to crawl out of the woodwork at any moment, if those pesky drivers would just get out of the way.
It’s a bit chicken and egg. Bike lanes are needed to help transform Connecticut Ave from a somewhat sleepy linear retirement community (albeit one with traffic) into a vibrant urban corridor. Bike lanes will attract the private investment to add density, thousands of new housing units to attract young creatives. That, in turn, will generate thousands of bike riders for the new infrastructure.
It is really more about converting the road from a dangerous traffic sewer to a bona fide main street that connects various commercial nodes.
How does making traffic worse and more dangerous during peak usage make it less of a traffic sewer?
The concept is to encourage more commuter traffic not to use Connecticut and distribute it via more efficient utilization of the area street grid. A traffic sewer is incompatible with a multimodal boulevard and urban place making design.
I'll make it more clear
- How does either plan encourage traffic not to use Connecticut if not via increased congestion caused by removing traffic lanes?
- Distributing it = more traffic on residential roads - The third statement is an axiom of traffic management (please note that this axoim is neither contested nor disputed). Increasing congestion during periods of high congestion, such as occurs during peak usage, increases accidents.
This has never been the case, and you can go back to the original DDOT documents on the study, and yet, despite it having been pointed out to you a million times, you still make this false claim.
Distributed network of roads does NOT mean the incomplete street grid in upper NW, but rather the other routes into DC which include other arterials as well as metro. The number of additional cars projected on to residential side streets is infintesimal.
If that's what you want to cite then you should know that that DDOT study showed ZERO increase in Metro usage, did not break things down by time of day, did not take into account any other road changes, and excluded Chevy Chase (but included Palisades). In addition those "arterial" roads are things like Nebraska (which is already bumper to bumper and the most dangerous intersection) and Beach (which is the main bicycle route).
But at least you are finally acknowledging that it makes Connecticut more of a traffic sewer.
That was DDOT's stated goal from the outset. This isn't the "gotcha" you think it is.
The Avenue is already a traffic sewer. The question is whether it will be one with, or without bike lanes, and the forces of no changes have managed to talk the Mayor into the worst possible solution for all users and nearby residents.
The stated goal was safety and a lot of time and effort has been spent trying to pretend that making Connecticut a worse traffic sewer was not the goal. Heck, the person I was responding to even flat out accused everyone of lying for pointing that out.
One of the underlying problems with the plans has been the rampant and bold dishonesty of many of its proponents in their effort to hide the fact that increasing congestion is their proposed mechanism of action.
I appreciate your honesty regarding this but you are an outlier.
You mean DDOT is the outlier? their goal is to slow traffic of cars down. There are a lot of ways to do this. Reducing from 6 to 4 the travel lanes is one of them. The only real question in this whole process is whether one of the lanes would be converted into use for bikes only. The answer now is no.
So we will live with that result, which will mean cars and buses will go even slower because they will be stuck behind cyclists, particularly on the part of the road that have uphill grades.
Oh well. I prey that impatient motorists do not mow down cyclists with impunity.
Slowing down traffic doesn't work. You're not going to convince drivers that a 20 minute drive should now take 30 minutes. They'll just take an alternative route. It's like when there's construction. They'll just speed down side streets to get around it.
Then you add more stop signs, raised crosswalks and speed humps. This isn't hard, people.
Actually, it is. Add more speed bumps and people are more likely to blow stop signs. I'd rather have people stop at intersections than mid-way down the block. Seems safer?
Raised crosswalks are like speed humps. If they are where the stop signs are, people will stop. It will be painful for their cars otherwise.
And it isn't like these roads have tumbleweeds on them. There is plenty of "cut through" traffic already.
Raised/continuous crosswalks and smart lights are two of the things DC/Americans refuse to try. We much prefer to just let people die and complain about traffic instead.
There are actually smart lights on Porter Street between Reno and CT.
Can you clarify which intersections you mean, and what makes them a smart traffic light?
The light in question is roughly 1/4 mile up the hill from Connecticut. If drivers go a certain amount above the speed limit as they approach the light from either direction, the light changes to red automatically to slow them down (though drivers routinely run the light because there's never MPD presence on the road, nor is there a camera, and cyclists never even slow down when that light is red). Then the drivers speed off when the light turns green.
I guess that's something, but I was thinking of the more robust systems they use in Europe and Asia. Multiple detection loops, independent phases, transit priority, no "dead" time, etc. Like this:
In Europe, Connecticut Avenue would be considered a major highway and treated as such. No bikes allowed.
In imaginary Europe, where the laws of Europe apply and everyone speaks European, there would not be anything like Connecticut Avenue through a city.
In actual, real countries in Europe, there are unfortunately are things like Connecticut Avenue through cities, and bikes are allowed.
The Champs Elysees, what some people think Connecticut is, actually has dedicated bus lanes and bike lanes.
From the New York Times:
PARIS — On a recent afternoon, the Rue de Rivoli looked like this: Cyclists blowing through red lights in two directions. Delivery bike riders fixating on their cellphones. Electric scooters careening across lanes. Jaywalkers and nervous pedestrians scrambling as if in a video game.
Sarah Famery, a 20-year resident of the Marais neighborhood, braced for the tumult. She looked left, then right, then left and right again before venturing into a crosswalk, only to break into a rant-laden sprint as two cyclists came within inches of grazing her.
“It’s chaos!” exclaimed Ms. Famery, shaking a fist at the swarm of bikes that have displaced cars on the Rue de Rivoli ever since it was remade into a multilane highway for cyclists last year. “Politicians want to make Paris a cycling city, but no one is following any rules,” she said. “It’s becoming risky just to cross the street!”
....“It’s like Paris is in anarchy,” said Jean-Conrad LeMaitre, a former banker who was out for a stroll recently along the Rue de Rivoli. “We need to reduce pollution and improve the environment,” he said. “But everyone is just doing as they please. There are no police, no fines, no training and no respect.”
The numbers are clear: the rumors about cyclists as lawless bandits are greatly exaggerated:
The study from the Danish Road Directorate shows that while less than five per cent of cyclists break traffic laws while riding, 66 per cent of motorists do so when driving.
It also found that bike riders breaking road rules rose from 4.9 per cent when they were riding on dedicated cycleways to 14 per cent in areas where there was no bike-specific infrastructure.
This sends a clear message: if we want fewer bike riders breaking road rules, install more bike riding infrastructure.
The study placed video cameras at major junctions in a number of Danish cities, including the capital, which captured the movements of over 28,579 bike riders.
Riding on the footpath was the most the rule broken most often, further indicating that compliance is linked to cycleways. Most riders who use the footpath will tell you that they do so because the road doesn't feel comfortable.
It is also not the first study to conclude that the common complaint of law-breaking lycra-wearing lunatics is in fact wrong – or at least unfair.
A previous study in Denmark that analysed the behaviour of 80,000 bike riders had very similar results, with only 5 per cent of riders breaking the law, and two-thirds of motorists.
this "study" sounds like such a joke i can't tell if it is intended to be a joke.
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}
