Options for opposing Connecticut Avenue changes?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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?

1. The demand for single occupant vehicle trips is not fixed.
2. There exist other modes of travel besides single occupant vehicle trips and biking.
3. Throughput is affected by factors other than the number of lanes.
4. That you want us to believe that you can’t grasp these simple realities suggests you are not serious.

[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.

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?

1. The demand for single occupant vehicle trips is not fixed.
2. There exist other modes of travel besides single occupant vehicle trips and biking.
3. Throughput is affected by factors other than the number of lanes.
4. That you want us to believe that you can’t grasp these simple realities suggests you are not serious.

It's all just magical thinking. People think if they make traffic horrible enough people will switch to bikes. They won't. They'll just avoid going wherever traffic is horrible and those parts of the city will slowly die (see: downtown).

[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.

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?

1. The demand for single occupant vehicle trips is not fixed.
2. There exist other modes of travel besides single occupant vehicle trips and biking.
3. Throughput is affected by factors other than the number of lanes.
4. That you want us to believe that you can’t grasp these simple realities suggests you are not serious.

1. Demand is not based on method of transport but distance and time. Occupancy is irrelevent, there is no data regarding the amount of passengers in a vehicle and no HOV component.
2. Local buses are being cut back and Connecticut above Van Ness is not served by Metro.
3. The primary limiting component of throughput is physical capacity.
4. That you want us to believe that these basic realities are not true belie the veracity of anything you say.

[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?

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?

1. The demand for single occupant vehicle trips is not fixed.
2. There exist other modes of travel besides single occupant vehicle trips and biking.
3. Throughput is affected by factors other than the number of lanes.
4. That you want us to believe that you can’t grasp these simple realities suggests you are not serious.

It's all just magical thinking. People think if they make traffic horrible enough people will switch to bikes. They won't. They'll just avoid going wherever traffic is horrible and those parts of the city will slowly die (see: downtown).

DDOT assumes that half of vehicle trips diverted from Connecticut Avenue will divert (convert) to bike trips. That’s more like magical mushroom thinking!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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"

No. The claim was that bike lanes would lead to an increase in the proportion of non-white to white residents. The only way that claim could be true is if bike lanes were relatively more attractive to non-white versus white prospective residents. Holding out the race of ANC commissioners as proof of that statement is akin to "I have a black friend".

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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?

1. The demand for single occupant vehicle trips is not fixed.
2. There exist other modes of travel besides single occupant vehicle trips and biking.
3. Throughput is affected by factors other than the number of lanes.
4. That you want us to believe that you can’t grasp these simple realities suggests you are not serious.

It's all just magical thinking. People think if they make traffic horrible enough people will switch to bikes. They won't. They'll just avoid going wherever traffic is horrible and those parts of the city will slowly die (see: downtown).

DDOT assumes that half of vehicle trips diverted from Connecticut Avenue will divert (convert) to bike trips. That’s more like magical mushroom thinking!

Ridiculous. We've had bike lanes in this city for 15 years and still...hardly anyone bikes. People have voted with their feet. They don't want to bike and they aren't going to suddenly change their minds.

[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?

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?

1. The demand for single occupant vehicle trips is not fixed.
2. There exist other modes of travel besides single occupant vehicle trips and biking.
3. Throughput is affected by factors other than the number of lanes.
4. That you want us to believe that you can’t grasp these simple realities suggests you are not serious.

It's all just magical thinking. People think if they make traffic horrible enough people will switch to bikes. They won't. They'll just avoid going wherever traffic is horrible and those parts of the city will slowly die (see: downtown).

yes, every single downtown with lots of traffic is completely dead. See: Manhattan.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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?

1. The demand for single occupant vehicle trips is not fixed.
2. There exist other modes of travel besides single occupant vehicle trips and biking.
3. Throughput is affected by factors other than the number of lanes.
4. That you want us to believe that you can’t grasp these simple realities suggests you are not serious.

It's all just magical thinking. People think if they make traffic horrible enough people will switch to bikes. They won't. They'll just avoid going wherever traffic is horrible and those parts of the city will slowly die (see: downtown).

yes, every single downtown with lots of traffic is completely dead. See: Manhattan.

The Central Business Districts of Amsterdam and Paris also. Such total wastelands! Nothing like Houston or Dallas, such bustling hives of inner-city activity!

[Anonymous]

A constructive counterproposal, which I haven't seen anyone advance yet, would be radically improving bus service on Connecticut and Wisconsin. It could be so much better than it is right now, especially for commuters. If the goal is to get people out of cars in Ward 3, I could see that getting buy-in from both sides of the Connecticut tussle.

In other words, if we don't agree on shifting toward biking infrastructure, but we do agree on shifting toward bus infrastructure, why don't we start by accomplishing that?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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?

1. The demand for single occupant vehicle trips is not fixed.
2. There exist other modes of travel besides single occupant vehicle trips and biking.
3. Throughput is affected by factors other than the number of lanes.
4. That you want us to believe that you can’t grasp these simple realities suggests you are not serious.

It's all just magical thinking. People think if they make traffic horrible enough people will switch to bikes. They won't. They'll just avoid going wherever traffic is horrible and those parts of the city will slowly die (see: downtown).

DDOT assumes that half of vehicle trips diverted from Connecticut Avenue will divert (convert) to bike trips. That’s more like magical mushroom thinking!

This is patently false. Please stop with the BS because it detracts from actually being able to discuss this. That is not DDOT assumption in any way, shape or form.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:A constructive counterproposal, which I haven't seen anyone advance yet, would be radically improving bus service on Connecticut and Wisconsin. It could be so much better than it is right now, especially for commuters. If the goal is to get people out of cars in Ward 3, I could see that getting buy-in from both sides of the Connecticut tussle.

In other words, if we don't agree on shifting toward biking infrastructure, but we do agree on shifting toward bus infrastructure, why don't we start by accomplishing that?

That is up to WMATA, not DC or DDOT. People have been advocating for this for decades to no avail.

Good luck trying though.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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?

1. The demand for single occupant vehicle trips is not fixed.
2. There exist other modes of travel besides single occupant vehicle trips and biking.
3. Throughput is affected by factors other than the number of lanes.
4. That you want us to believe that you can’t grasp these simple realities suggests you are not serious.

It's all just magical thinking. People think if they make traffic horrible enough people will switch to bikes. They won't. They'll just avoid going wherever traffic is horrible and those parts of the city will slowly die (see: downtown).

yes, every single downtown with lots of traffic is completely dead. See: Manhattan.

Manhattan doesnt seem analogous to DC. Manhattan works because there's a massive and widely used subway system. Our system is small and little used. DC is far more a car city than NYC.

[Anonymous]

And the metro is getting less and less reliable. When I moved here 25 years ago, I lived on a bus line and I would get so frustrated waiting for the bus that I'd take cabs half the time to get to work. Transit has not improved much in that time. I drive now because it takes 15 minutes to drive and 45 to go by public transportation. I would definitely switch to public transport if it worked better. I definitely won't start biking. I'm not confident enough on a bicycle to feel comfortable even in a lane with racing bikes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:And the metro is getting less and less reliable. When I moved here 25 years ago, I lived on a bus line and I would get so frustrated waiting for the bus that I'd take cabs half the time to get to work. Transit has not improved much in that time. I drive now because it takes 15 minutes to drive and 45 to go by public transportation. I would definitely switch to public transport if it worked better. I definitely won't start biking. I'm not confident enough on a bicycle to feel comfortable even in a lane with racing bikes.

WMATA needs a shake-up. I think that's something we can all agree on. Can you close the thread now? Jeff?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:A constructive counterproposal, which I haven't seen anyone advance yet, would be radically improving bus service on Connecticut and Wisconsin. It could be so much better than it is right now, especially for commuters. If the goal is to get people out of cars in Ward 3, I could see that getting buy-in from both sides of the Connecticut tussle.

In other words, if we don't agree on shifting toward biking infrastructure, but we do agree on shifting toward bus infrastructure, why don't we start by accomplishing that?

Because the bike lane proponents do not agree. They view this as a prestige project.