Options for opposing Connecticut Avenue changes?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Exactly how does adding bike lanes make a place whiter?

Really? Bicylcing is the "whitest" hobby there is. It's even whiter than tennis and golf. That doesn't mean that non-white people don't bike. But if your goal is diversification...

White people love bikes. Even more than San Francisco. Even more than having degrees in art history. Even more than expensive kitchen gadgets. Even more than having a black friend. Even more than knowing what's best for poor people.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Exactly how does adding bike lanes make a place whiter?

Really? Bicylcing is the "whitest" hobby there is. It's even whiter than tennis and golf. That doesn't mean that non-white people don't bike. But if your goal is diversification...

White people love bikes. Even more than San Francisco. Even more than having degrees in art history. Even more than expensive kitchen gadgets. Even more than having a black friend. Even more than knowing what's best for poor people.

Even more than scolding people?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Exactly how does adding bike lanes make a place whiter?

Really? Bicylcing is the "whitest" hobby there is. It's even whiter than tennis and golf. That doesn't mean that non-white people don't bike. But if your goal is diversification...

White people love bikes. Even more than San Francisco. Even more than having degrees in art history. Even more than expensive kitchen gadgets. Even more than having a black friend. Even more than knowing what's best for poor people.

Oh, look, it's the poster who thinks racial stereotypes are funny! So nice to see you again. I have a few reading suggestions for you . . .

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I was up and down Connecticut today and noticed something. The entire road is sloped in order to let rain run off. The slope is especially prominent by the curbs. All of that will have to get flattened and graded to put in the bike lanes. Time to add drainage and icing to the multitude of reasons why this a bad idea.

What you are describing is called crowning. Every road in DC has this.

And how will stormwater runoff be accommodated with protected bike lanes?

The same way it always is? People can bike just fine on a road with crowning.

Do you always make up inane trash then pontificate around it?

I think the poster may not have seen other bike lanes. The roads are crowned. The protective barriers for the bike lane either let water through to the original gutter, or contain gutters themselves.

Bike lanes are a solved problem, where they should go is the debate.

This is what happens when everyone decides they can play civil engineer. Seriously people, let the professionals do their jobs.

The professionals that claim traffic will disappear?

Stop.Lying. There is no claim traffic will disappear.

You guys are really absurd. From made-up new problem (“bike lanes won’t allow drainage!”) back to lies and then on to the next fantasized problem.

So traffic will just go to the surrounding neighborhood streets? You can't claim both ways. You all have been lying, dissembling and exaggerating at every turn while pitching this asinine proposal as the magic cure for all of society's ills.

Too much traffic and congestion? Let's eliminate car lanes and add bike lanes.
Too many white people? Add bike lanes
Not enough mass transit? Add bike lanes
Mediocre restaurants and dying retail? Add bike lanes
Neighborhood safety conerns? Add bike lanes

It's all circular. There will be a massive increase in congestion and neighborhood traffic with this plan. That is, unless traffic magically disappears. So which is it?

yes, traffic will go onto surrounding streets. there is plenty of documentation about DDOTs projections about where the diversion will be.

do you honestly think DDOT’s traffic engineers’ analysis is “the traffic will disappear”?

there is some amount of changes to mode but “traffic will disappear” is not part of the plan.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Exactly how does adding bike lanes make a place whiter?

Really? Bicylcing is the "whitest" hobby there is. It's even whiter than tennis and golf. That doesn't mean that non-white people don't bike. But if your goal is diversification...

White people love bikes. Even more than San Francisco. Even more than having degrees in art history. Even more than expensive kitchen gadgets. Even more than having a black friend. Even more than knowing what's best for poor people.

Oh, look, it's the poster who thinks racial stereotypes are funny! So nice to see you again. I have a few reading suggestions for you . . .

high income, leftist white males between the ages of 25 and 45 are now their own racial group?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I was up and down Connecticut today and noticed something. The entire road is sloped in order to let rain run off. The slope is especially prominent by the curbs. All of that will have to get flattened and graded to put in the bike lanes. Time to add drainage and icing to the multitude of reasons why this a bad idea.

What you are describing is called crowning. Every road in DC has this.

And how will stormwater runoff be accommodated with protected bike lanes?

The same way it always is? People can bike just fine on a road with crowning.

Do you always make up inane trash then pontificate around it?

I think the poster may not have seen other bike lanes. The roads are crowned. The protective barriers for the bike lane either let water through to the original gutter, or contain gutters themselves.

Bike lanes are a solved problem, where they should go is the debate.

This is what happens when everyone decides they can play civil engineer. Seriously people, let the professionals do their jobs.

The professionals that claim traffic will disappear?

Stop.Lying. There is no claim traffic will disappear.

You guys are really absurd. From made-up new problem (“bike lanes won’t allow drainage!”) back to lies and then on to the next fantasized problem.

So traffic will just go to the surrounding neighborhood streets? You can't claim both ways. You all have been lying, dissembling and exaggerating at every turn while pitching this asinine proposal as the magic cure for all of society's ills.

Too much traffic and congestion? Let's eliminate car lanes and add bike lanes.
Too many white people? Add bike lanes
Not enough mass transit? Add bike lanes
Mediocre restaurants and dying retail? Add bike lanes
Neighborhood safety conerns? Add bike lanes

It's all circular. There will be a massive increase in congestion and neighborhood traffic with this plan. That is, unless traffic magically disappears. So which is it?

This crap was debunked in the first few pages of this thread, for chrissakes. There is no evidence whatsoever from past projects in DC or elsewhere that the proposal will produce a "massive increase in congestion and neighborhood traffic". Such claims are nothing but anti-scientific nonsense. Your repeating it ad infitinitum won't make it anything else than that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Exactly how does adding bike lanes make a place whiter?

Really? Bicylcing is the "whitest" hobby there is. It's even whiter than tennis and golf. That doesn't mean that non-white people don't bike. But if your goal is diversification...

White people love bikes. Even more than San Francisco. Even more than having degrees in art history. Even more than expensive kitchen gadgets. Even more than having a black friend. Even more than knowing what's best for poor people.

Oh, look, it's the poster who thinks racial stereotypes are funny! So nice to see you again. I have a few reading suggestions for you . . .

high income, leftist white males between the ages of 25 and 45 are now their own racial group?

"White people" are a racial group. The quoted part is what you wrote, dear poster. Here's a tip - your gaslighting needs to be a tad more subtle to be remotely effective.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I was up and down Connecticut today and noticed something. The entire road is sloped in order to let rain run off. The slope is especially prominent by the curbs. All of that will have to get flattened and graded to put in the bike lanes. Time to add drainage and icing to the multitude of reasons why this a bad idea.

What you are describing is called crowning. Every road in DC has this.

And how will stormwater runoff be accommodated with protected bike lanes?

The same way it always is? People can bike just fine on a road with crowning.

Do you always make up inane trash then pontificate around it?

I think the poster may not have seen other bike lanes. The roads are crowned. The protective barriers for the bike lane either let water through to the original gutter, or contain gutters themselves.

Bike lanes are a solved problem, where they should go is the debate.

This is what happens when everyone decides they can play civil engineer. Seriously people, let the professionals do their jobs.

The professionals that claim traffic will disappear?

Stop.Lying. There is no claim traffic will disappear.

You guys are really absurd. From made-up new problem (“bike lanes won’t allow drainage!”) back to lies and then on to the next fantasized problem.

So traffic will just go to the surrounding neighborhood streets? You can't claim both ways. You all have been lying, dissembling and exaggerating at every turn while pitching this asinine proposal as the magic cure for all of society's ills.

Too much traffic and congestion? Let's eliminate car lanes and add bike lanes.
Too many white people? Add bike lanes
Not enough mass transit? Add bike lanes
Mediocre restaurants and dying retail? Add bike lanes
Neighborhood safety conerns? Add bike lanes

It's all circular. There will be a massive increase in congestion and neighborhood traffic with this plan. That is, unless traffic magically disappears. So which is it?

This crap was debunked in the first few pages of this thread, for chrissakes. There is no evidence whatsoever from past projects in DC or elsewhere that the proposal will produce a "massive increase in congestion and neighborhood traffic". Such claims are nothing but anti-scientific nonsense. Your repeating it ad infitinitum won't make it anything else than that.

This project is *supposed* to massively increase traffic congestion. That's what "traffic calming" is all about -- making traffic so terrible that people can't get anywhere quickly.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I was up and down Connecticut today and noticed something. The entire road is sloped in order to let rain run off. The slope is especially prominent by the curbs. All of that will have to get flattened and graded to put in the bike lanes. Time to add drainage and icing to the multitude of reasons why this a bad idea.

What you are describing is called crowning. Every road in DC has this.

And how will stormwater runoff be accommodated with protected bike lanes?

The same way it always is? People can bike just fine on a road with crowning.

Do you always make up inane trash then pontificate around it?

I think the poster may not have seen other bike lanes. The roads are crowned. The protective barriers for the bike lane either let water through to the original gutter, or contain gutters themselves.

Bike lanes are a solved problem, where they should go is the debate.

This is what happens when everyone decides they can play civil engineer. Seriously people, let the professionals do their jobs.

The professionals that claim traffic will disappear?

Stop.Lying. There is no claim traffic will disappear.

You guys are really absurd. From made-up new problem (“bike lanes won’t allow drainage!”) back to lies and then on to the next fantasized problem.

So traffic will just go to the surrounding neighborhood streets? You can't claim both ways. You all have been lying, dissembling and exaggerating at every turn while pitching this asinine proposal as the magic cure for all of society's ills.

Too much traffic and congestion? Let's eliminate car lanes and add bike lanes.
Too many white people? Add bike lanes
Not enough mass transit? Add bike lanes
Mediocre restaurants and dying retail? Add bike lanes
Neighborhood safety conerns? Add bike lanes

It's all circular. There will be a massive increase in congestion and neighborhood traffic with this plan. That is, unless traffic magically disappears. So which is it?

This crap was debunked in the first few pages of this thread, for chrissakes. There is no evidence whatsoever from past projects in DC or elsewhere that the proposal will produce a "massive increase in congestion and neighborhood traffic". Such claims are nothing but anti-scientific nonsense. Your repeating it ad infitinitum won't make it anything else than that.

This project is *supposed* to massively increase traffic congestion. That's what "traffic calming" is all about -- making traffic so terrible that people can't get anywhere quickly.

It's sad that you know nothing about the project you are posting about. The project contains several adjustments that will actually improve end up improving the flow of traffic along CT Ave.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I was up and down Connecticut today and noticed something. The entire road is sloped in order to let rain run off. The slope is especially prominent by the curbs. All of that will have to get flattened and graded to put in the bike lanes. Time to add drainage and icing to the multitude of reasons why this a bad idea.

What you are describing is called crowning. Every road in DC has this.

And how will stormwater runoff be accommodated with protected bike lanes?

The same way it always is? People can bike just fine on a road with crowning.

Do you always make up inane trash then pontificate around it?

I think the poster may not have seen other bike lanes. The roads are crowned. The protective barriers for the bike lane either let water through to the original gutter, or contain gutters themselves.

Bike lanes are a solved problem, where they should go is the debate.

This is what happens when everyone decides they can play civil engineer. Seriously people, let the professionals do their jobs.

The professionals that claim traffic will disappear?

Stop.Lying. There is no claim traffic will disappear.

You guys are really absurd. From made-up new problem (“bike lanes won’t allow drainage!”) back to lies and then on to the next fantasized problem.

So traffic will just go to the surrounding neighborhood streets? You can't claim both ways. You all have been lying, dissembling and exaggerating at every turn while pitching this asinine proposal as the magic cure for all of society's ills.

Too much traffic and congestion? Let's eliminate car lanes and add bike lanes.
Too many white people? Add bike lanes
Not enough mass transit? Add bike lanes
Mediocre restaurants and dying retail? Add bike lanes
Neighborhood safety conerns? Add bike lanes

It's all circular. There will be a massive increase in congestion and neighborhood traffic with this plan. That is, unless traffic magically disappears. So which is it?

This crap was debunked in the first few pages of this thread, for chrissakes. There is no evidence whatsoever from past projects in DC or elsewhere that the proposal will produce a "massive increase in congestion and neighborhood traffic". Such claims are nothing but anti-scientific nonsense. Your repeating it ad infitinitum won't make it anything else than that.

This project is *supposed* to massively increase traffic congestion. That's what "traffic calming" is all about -- making traffic so terrible that people can't get anywhere quickly.

It's sad that you know nothing about the project you are posting about. The project contains several adjustments that will actually improve end up improving the flow of traffic along CT Ave.

The project is designed to create traffic Armageddon. That's why the anti-car jihadists love it and everyone else hates it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I was up and down Connecticut today and noticed something. The entire road is sloped in order to let rain run off. The slope is especially prominent by the curbs. All of that will have to get flattened and graded to put in the bike lanes. Time to add drainage and icing to the multitude of reasons why this a bad idea.

What you are describing is called crowning. Every road in DC has this.

And how will stormwater runoff be accommodated with protected bike lanes?

The same way it always is? People can bike just fine on a road with crowning.

Do you always make up inane trash then pontificate around it?

I think the poster may not have seen other bike lanes. The roads are crowned. The protective barriers for the bike lane either let water through to the original gutter, or contain gutters themselves.

Bike lanes are a solved problem, where they should go is the debate.

This is what happens when everyone decides they can play civil engineer. Seriously people, let the professionals do their jobs.

The professionals that claim traffic will disappear?

Stop.Lying. There is no claim traffic will disappear.

You guys are really absurd. From made-up new problem (“bike lanes won’t allow drainage!”) back to lies and then on to the next fantasized problem.

So traffic will just go to the surrounding neighborhood streets? You can't claim both ways. You all have been lying, dissembling and exaggerating at every turn while pitching this asinine proposal as the magic cure for all of society's ills.

Too much traffic and congestion? Let's eliminate car lanes and add bike lanes.
Too many white people? Add bike lanes
Not enough mass transit? Add bike lanes
Mediocre restaurants and dying retail? Add bike lanes
Neighborhood safety conerns? Add bike lanes

It's all circular. There will be a massive increase in congestion and neighborhood traffic with this plan. That is, unless traffic magically disappears. So which is it?

This crap was debunked in the first few pages of this thread, for chrissakes. There is no evidence whatsoever from past projects in DC or elsewhere that the proposal will produce a "massive increase in congestion and neighborhood traffic". Such claims are nothing but anti-scientific nonsense. Your repeating it ad infitinitum won't make it anything else than that.

No it wasn't. All you have is gaslighting and projection.

Will traffic get displaced to neighboring roads or will it magically disappear?
Will congestion increase due to the reduction in throughput capacity or will it magically disappear?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Exactly how does adding bike lanes make a place whiter?

Really? Bicylcing is the "whitest" hobby there is. It's even whiter than tennis and golf. That doesn't mean that non-white people don't bike. But if your goal is diversification...

Is this a real comment because it’s funny.

Totally ignores that every nonwhite commissioner up and down Connecticut in Ward 3 voted for the bike lanes.

What does that have to do with the relative demographic attractiveness of bike lanes? I'm glad that you have a non-white friend but claiming that bike lanes will be more attractive to non-white people than white people, which is what the PP did, is crazy talk.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I was up and down Connecticut today and noticed something. The entire road is sloped in order to let rain run off. The slope is especially prominent by the curbs. All of that will have to get flattened and graded to put in the bike lanes. Time to add drainage and icing to the multitude of reasons why this a bad idea.

What you are describing is called crowning. Every road in DC has this.

And how will stormwater runoff be accommodated with protected bike lanes?

The same way it always is? People can bike just fine on a road with crowning.

Do you always make up inane trash then pontificate around it?

I think the poster may not have seen other bike lanes. The roads are crowned. The protective barriers for the bike lane either let water through to the original gutter, or contain gutters themselves.

Bike lanes are a solved problem, where they should go is the debate.

This is what happens when everyone decides they can play civil engineer. Seriously people, let the professionals do their jobs.

The professionals that claim traffic will disappear?

Stop.Lying. There is no claim traffic will disappear.

You guys are really absurd. From made-up new problem (“bike lanes won’t allow drainage!”) back to lies and then on to the next fantasized problem.

So traffic will just go to the surrounding neighborhood streets? You can't claim both ways. You all have been lying, dissembling and exaggerating at every turn while pitching this asinine proposal as the magic cure for all of society's ills.

Too much traffic and congestion? Let's eliminate car lanes and add bike lanes.
Too many white people? Add bike lanes
Not enough mass transit? Add bike lanes
Mediocre restaurants and dying retail? Add bike lanes
Neighborhood safety conerns? Add bike lanes

It's all circular. There will be a massive increase in congestion and neighborhood traffic with this plan. That is, unless traffic magically disappears. So which is it?

This crap was debunked in the first few pages of this thread, for chrissakes. There is no evidence whatsoever from past projects in DC or elsewhere that the proposal will produce a "massive increase in congestion and neighborhood traffic". Such claims are nothing but anti-scientific nonsense. Your repeating it ad infitinitum won't make it anything else than that.

The complaints are that there is already massive car congestion on Connecticut Avenue. That being the case, there is already "cut through" traffic, and failing intersections. This plan will not make a bad situation worse. It is already bad. But...it will at least make a bad situation safer.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Exactly how does adding bike lanes make a place whiter?

Really? Bicylcing is the "whitest" hobby there is. It's even whiter than tennis and golf. That doesn't mean that non-white people don't bike. But if your goal is diversification...

Is this a real comment because it’s funny.

Totally ignores that every nonwhite commissioner up and down Connecticut in Ward 3 voted for the bike lanes.

What does that have to do with the relative demographic attractiveness of bike lanes? I'm glad that you have a non-white friend but claiming that bike lanes will be more attractive to non-white people than white people, which is what the PP did, is crazy talk.

I am a different poster, but I think the assertion was that bike lanes were very white, so the idea that people of color who serve as ANC Commissioners also support the bike lanes,. is a good point. It isn't about one's "friend of color"

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I was up and down Connecticut today and noticed something. The entire road is sloped in order to let rain run off. The slope is especially prominent by the curbs. All of that will have to get flattened and graded to put in the bike lanes. Time to add drainage and icing to the multitude of reasons why this a bad idea.

What you are describing is called crowning. Every road in DC has this.

And how will stormwater runoff be accommodated with protected bike lanes?

The same way it always is? People can bike just fine on a road with crowning.

Do you always make up inane trash then pontificate around it?

Do you have any sense of how insane you sound?

I think the poster may not have seen other bike lanes. The roads are crowned. The protective barriers for the bike lane either let water through to the original gutter, or contain gutters themselves.

Bike lanes are a solved problem, where they should go is the debate.

This is what happens when everyone decides they can play civil engineer. Seriously people, let the professionals do their jobs.

The professionals that claim traffic will disappear?

Stop.Lying. There is no claim traffic will disappear.

You guys are really absurd. From made-up new problem (“bike lanes won’t allow drainage!”) back to lies and then on to the next fantasized problem.

So traffic will just go to the surrounding neighborhood streets? You can't claim both ways. You all have been lying, dissembling and exaggerating at every turn while pitching this asinine proposal as the magic cure for all of society's ills.

Too much traffic and congestion? Let's eliminate car lanes and add bike lanes.
Too many white people? Add bike lanes
Not enough mass transit? Add bike lanes
Mediocre restaurants and dying retail? Add bike lanes
Neighborhood safety conerns? Add bike lanes

It's all circular. There will be a massive increase in congestion and neighborhood traffic with this plan. That is, unless traffic magically disappears. So which is it?

This crap was debunked in the first few pages of this thread, for chrissakes. There is no evidence whatsoever from past projects in DC or elsewhere that the proposal will produce a "massive increase in congestion and neighborhood traffic". Such claims are nothing but anti-scientific nonsense. Your repeating it ad infitinitum won't make it anything else than that.

This project is *supposed* to massively increase traffic congestion. That's what "traffic calming" is all about -- making traffic so terrible that people can't get anywhere quickly.

It's sad that you know nothing about the project you are posting about. The project contains several adjustments that will actually improve end up improving the flow of traffic along CT Ave.

The project is designed to create traffic Armageddon. That's why the anti-car jihadists love it and everyone else hates it.