Options for opposing Connecticut Avenue changes?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Sorry but the Trumps flackery falls flat. It’s right there in DDOT’s own slides. Under Options B and C DDOT assumes that bike trips remain roughly constant. However they assume under Option C that bike trips increase very substantially to a level that is 50 percent of the decreased number of vehicles on Connecticut. All magical thinking and glitter ponies.

[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).

Fairfax keeps adding lanes and their economy keeps growing, contrary to internet memes. Go figure.

[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).

Fairfax keeps adding lanes and their economy keeps growing, contrary to internet memes. Go figure.

It's really cool that those are the only two factors and it couldn't be anything else like DHS/Military Contracting $$$$

[Anonymous]

Maybe the fairest idea is to put Option C to a voter referendum in Ward 3 next year?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Maybe the fairest idea is to put Option C to a voter referendum in Ward 3 next year?

If you think D.C.'s current system of government with ANCs, etc., is a mess, just wait until every planning decision involves ward-based referenda.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Maybe the fairest idea is to put Option C to a voter referendum in Ward 3 next year?

No. The fair thing to do would be for the NIMBYs to come clean with the fact that they are wasting everyone’s time by spreading misinformation about a project they don’t understand because they never bothered to engage in the slightest in the public engagement process that was designed to explain it to them and that their efforts are principally guided by relentless narcissism and a sad attachment to ways of life that went out with 8 tracks.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Maybe the fairest idea is to put Option C to a voter referendum in Ward 3 next year?

You sound like a petulant child.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Maybe the fairest idea is to put Option C to a voter referendum in Ward 3 next year?

No. The fair thing to do would be for the NIMBYs to come clean with the fact that they are wasting everyone’s time by spreading misinformation about a project they don’t understand because they never bothered to engage in the slightest in the public engagement process that was designed to explain it to them and that their efforts are principally guided by relentless narcissism and a sad attachment to ways of life that went out with 8 tracks.

Nothing sad about it. I support the NIMBYs,

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Maybe the fairest idea is to put Option C to a voter referendum in Ward 3 next year?

No. The fair thing to do would be for the NIMBYs to come clean with the fact that they are wasting everyone’s time by spreading misinformation about a project they don’t understand because they never bothered to engage in the slightest in the public engagement process that was designed to explain it to them and that their efforts are principally guided by relentless narcissism and a sad attachment to ways of life that went out with 8 tracks.

Worry about huge traffic increase on narrow side street and Reno = “relentless narcissism” ?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Maybe the fairest idea is to put Option C to a voter referendum in Ward 3 next year?

No. The fair thing to do would be for the NIMBYs to come clean with the fact that they are wasting everyone’s time by spreading misinformation about a project they don’t understand because they never bothered to engage in the slightest in the public engagement process that was designed to explain it to them and that their efforts are principally guided by relentless narcissism and a sad attachment to ways of life that went out with 8 tracks.

You would benefit from reading up on psychological conditions and history before posting again. Perhaps you'll sound less ridiculous.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Maybe the fairest idea is to put Option C to a voter referendum in Ward 3 next year?

The decision has been made. The city is moving forward with this, and there is nothing the complaining public can do about it. The voters spoke through the ANCs and Councilmember and Mayor who all supported and moved this decision forward.

And, even if the decision hadn't been made, should we put ever new speed hump and liquor license on a referrendum as well?

We live ins a representative democracy, where we elect leaders to make these decisions. That is what happened here.

[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?

I think you are the voice of reason and I hope we end up here. I think neighbors can all agree that traffic calming (HAWKS, speed cameras, and actual enforcement) is necessary on Connecticut and improved bus/transit service would be great. We can probably agree on 80% of improvements, yet we are spending 100% of our time arguing about the bike lanes which is clearly a divisive issue. We need to find the common ground and start there.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Maybe the fairest idea is to put Option C to a voter referendum in Ward 3 next year?

No. The fair thing to do would be for the NIMBYs to come clean with the fact that they are wasting everyone’s time by spreading misinformation about a project they don’t understand because they never bothered to engage in the slightest in the public engagement process that was designed to explain it to them and that their efforts are principally guided by relentless narcissism and a sad attachment to ways of life that went out with 8 tracks.

Worry about huge traffic increase on narrow side street and Reno = “relentless narcissism” ?

The side streets are no more narrow than any other streets. They were build as a grid to move people from one place to another. If you think they are too congested, the n the problem is too many cars. That is a result of more people in the region owning more cars using the fixed amount of public space dedicated to roads. We cannot expand the size of the roads, to the options are to limit the number of cars, or provide safe alternatives like mass transit and biking.

Thanks for supporting the bike lanes!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

I think you are the voice of reason and I hope we end up here. I think neighbors can all agree that traffic calming (HAWKS, speed cameras, and actual enforcement) is necessary on Connecticut and improved bus/transit service would be great. We can probably agree on 80% of improvements, yet we are spending 100% of our time arguing about the bike lanes which is clearly a divisive issue. We need to find the common ground and start there.

I agree with the idea to develop more transit. The challenge, however, is what type of transit to go with. You're not going to lure more commuters from that area with buses. Buses remain stigmatized for better or for worse. Trackless trolleys or light rail, while more expensive, might prove to be more attractive.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Maybe the fairest idea is to put Option C to a voter referendum in Ward 3 next year?

No. The fair thing to do would be for the NIMBYs to come clean with the fact that they are wasting everyone’s time by spreading misinformation about a project they don’t understand because they never bothered to engage in the slightest in the public engagement process that was designed to explain it to them and that their efforts are principally guided by relentless narcissism and a sad attachment to ways of life that went out with 8 tracks.

Worry about huge traffic increase on narrow side street and Reno = “relentless narcissism” ?

are you equally worried about the traffic decreases on E-W streets under the plan?