Options for opposing Connecticut Avenue changes?

[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.

Sure, but for people who want to bike, what you are telling them that your ability to get somewhere 25 seconds faster in a car is more important than their ability to have a safe space to ride.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Bring back the Connecticut Avenue Streetcar! The turnaround at Chevy Chase is still there. Make it happen!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Sure, but for people who want to bike, what you are telling them that your ability to get somewhere 25 seconds faster in a car is more important than their ability to have a safe space to ride.

Yes, exactly. It’s an ugly truth, but as long as vehicle occupants vastly outnumber bicyclists and traffic is congested, most drivers would like to discourage bicyclists from being on the road. Planners are creating bike lanes anyway because we should be encouraging bicycling, but people who do not and will not ride bikes don’t want that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Sure, but for people who want to bike, what you are telling them that your ability to get somewhere 25 seconds faster in a car is more important than their ability to have a safe space to ride.

Yes, exactly. It’s an ugly truth, but as long as vehicle occupants vastly outnumber bicyclists and traffic is congested, most drivers would like to discourage bicyclists from being on the road. Planners are creating bike lanes anyway because we should be encouraging bicycling, but people who do not and will not ride bikes don’t want that.

People don't want to bike. Look at the numbers. The number of people riding bikes in this city is pathetically small. People have voted with their feet. Transportation resources should be used to move people around as efficiently as possible, not because people want to make a political statement about bikes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Sure, but for people who want to bike, what you are telling them that your ability to get somewhere 25 seconds faster in a car is more important than their ability to have a safe space to ride.

Yes, exactly. It’s an ugly truth, but as long as vehicle occupants vastly outnumber bicyclists and traffic is congested, most drivers would like to discourage bicyclists from being on the road. Planners are creating bike lanes anyway because we should be encouraging bicycling, but people who do not and will not ride bikes don’t want that.

People don't want to bike. Look at the numbers. The number of people riding bikes in this city is pathetically small. People have voted with their feet. Transportation resources should be used to move people around as efficiently as possible, not because people want to make a political statement about bikes.

Yes they do want to bike. The number of people biking/scootering in my neighborhood has increased exponentially since the installation of bike lanes and the wider availability of ebikes, cargo bikes, and scooters.

But sure, we should spend our transportation resources on the most efficient modes - that is, buses and metro. single occupancy vehicles are the least efficient.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Sure, but for people who want to bike, what you are telling them that your ability to get somewhere 25 seconds faster in a car is more important than their ability to have a safe space to ride.

Yes, exactly. It’s an ugly truth, but as long as vehicle occupants vastly outnumber bicyclists and traffic is congested, most drivers would like to discourage bicyclists from being on the road. Planners are creating bike lanes anyway because we should be encouraging bicycling, but people who do not and will not ride bikes don’t want that.

People don't want to bike. Look at the numbers. The number of people riding bikes in this city is pathetically small. People have voted with their feet. Transportation resources should be used to move people around as efficiently as possible, not because people want to make a political statement about bikes.

Yes they do want to bike. The number of people biking/scootering in my neighborhood has increased exponentially since the installation of bike lanes and the wider availability of ebikes, cargo bikes, and scooters.

But sure, we should spend our transportation resources on the most efficient modes - that is, buses and metro. single occupancy vehicles are the least efficient.

also, PLEASE do not politicize biking or any transit discussion. I am perfectly happy for you to be a Democrat who hates bike lanes. There is nothing inherently right or left about biking. it’s a way to get around.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Sure, but for people who want to bike, what you are telling them that your ability to get somewhere 25 seconds faster in a car is more important than their ability to have a safe space to ride.

Yes, exactly. It’s an ugly truth, but as long as vehicle occupants vastly outnumber bicyclists and traffic is congested, most drivers would like to discourage bicyclists from being on the road. Planners are creating bike lanes anyway because we should be encouraging bicycling, but people who do not and will not ride bikes don’t want that.

People don't want to bike. Look at the numbers. The number of people riding bikes in this city is pathetically small. People have voted with their feet. Transportation resources should be used to move people around as efficiently as possible, not because people want to make a political statement about bikes.

Yes they do want to bike. The number of people biking/scootering in my neighborhood has increased exponentially since the installation of bike lanes and the wider availability of ebikes, cargo bikes, and scooters.

But sure, we should spend our transportation resources on the most efficient modes - that is, buses and metro. single occupancy vehicles are the least efficient.

Seems a little inefficient to spend billions of dollars and all this space on a mode of transportation that barely two percent of people in D.C. (per the Census Bureau) actually use. Meanwhile, there are more cars in D.C. than households.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Sure, but for people who want to bike, what you are telling them that your ability to get somewhere 25 seconds faster in a car is more important than their ability to have a safe space to ride.

Yes, exactly. It’s an ugly truth, but as long as vehicle occupants vastly outnumber bicyclists and traffic is congested, most drivers would like to discourage bicyclists from being on the road. Planners are creating bike lanes anyway because we should be encouraging bicycling, but people who do not and will not ride bikes don’t want that.

People don't want to bike. Look at the numbers. The number of people riding bikes in this city is pathetically small. People have voted with their feet. Transportation resources should be used to move people around as efficiently as possible, not because people want to make a political statement about bikes.

Yes they do want to bike. The number of people biking/scootering in my neighborhood has increased exponentially since the installation of bike lanes and the wider availability of ebikes, cargo bikes, and scooters.

But sure, we should spend our transportation resources on the most efficient modes - that is, buses and metro. single occupancy vehicles are the least efficient.

Seems a little inefficient to spend billions of dollars and all this space on a mode of transportation that barely two percent of people in D.C. (per the Census Bureau) actually use. Meanwhile, there are more cars in D.C. than households.

It would be cheaper and more efficient if the city paid every cyclist in the city $10,000 to take the bus.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Sure, but for people who want to bike, what you are telling them that your ability to get somewhere 25 seconds faster in a car is more important than their ability to have a safe space to ride.

Yes, exactly. It’s an ugly truth, but as long as vehicle occupants vastly outnumber bicyclists and traffic is congested, most drivers would like to discourage bicyclists from being on the road. Planners are creating bike lanes anyway because we should be encouraging bicycling, but people who do not and will not ride bikes don’t want that.

People don't want to bike. Look at the numbers. The number of people riding bikes in this city is pathetically small. People have voted with their feet. Transportation resources should be used to move people around as efficiently as possible, not because people want to make a political statement about bikes.

Yes they do want to bike. The number of people biking/scootering in my neighborhood has increased exponentially since the installation of bike lanes and the wider availability of ebikes, cargo bikes, and scooters.

But sure, we should spend our transportation resources on the most efficient modes - that is, buses and metro. single occupancy vehicles are the least efficient.

Seems a little inefficient to spend billions of dollars and all this space on a mode of transportation that barely two percent of people in D.C. (per the Census Bureau) actually use. Meanwhile, there are more cars in D.C. than households.

Does it bring you joy to repeat facts that have been repeatedly debunked. I have yet to see any evidence on this thread that even millions have been spent on bike lanes, let alone billions. The two percent figure is not accurate either, as you likely know.

[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” ?

Insisting that a lengthy and extensive public consultation process isn’t valid simply because you felt it was beneath you to partake in it and then knowingly and repeatedly spreading disinformation in a dilatory attempt to defeat a project that will improve others’ safety simply because it doesn’t comport with your narrow self-interest is “relentless narcissism”, absolutely.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Sure, but for people who want to bike, what you are telling them that your ability to get somewhere 25 seconds faster in a car is more important than their ability to have a safe space to ride.

Yes, exactly. It’s an ugly truth, but as long as vehicle occupants vastly outnumber bicyclists and traffic is congested, most drivers would like to discourage bicyclists from being on the road. Planners are creating bike lanes anyway because we should be encouraging bicycling, but people who do not and will not ride bikes don’t want that.

People don't want to bike. Look at the numbers. The number of people riding bikes in this city is pathetically small. People have voted with their feet. Transportation resources should be used to move people around as efficiently as possible, not because people want to make a political statement about bikes.

People aren't biking on CT Ave because it is unsafe. Make it safe, and more people will.

And I agree, transportation resources should be dedicated to efficient movement. Single occupancy cars is the LEAST efficient way to move people around. So how about we just ban single occupancy cars and have everyone bus and bike? Problem solved, right?

[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.

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

What is this history of which you speak? The history of how public transit - as well as the ability to safely walk and bike around urban areas - in America was decimated by political machinations? The history of how freeways destroyed the cultural and economic heart of all but a select few American cities? The history of what suburbanization has done to American culture and politics? The history of how many people are killed or maimed every year by impatient drivers? The history of the immense number environmental damage that has been done by suburbanization and commuters’ dependence on cars? The history of how many cities around the world have revitalized their urban cores by converting road space for dedicated use by pedestrians, cyclists, and public transit?

[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.

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

What are you talking about? The behavior of NIMBYs in relation to this issue and most others they engage on fits the definition of narcissism extremely well.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Sure, but for people who want to bike, what you are telling them that your ability to get somewhere 25 seconds faster in a car is more important than their ability to have a safe space to ride.

Yes, exactly. It’s an ugly truth, but as long as vehicle occupants vastly outnumber bicyclists and traffic is congested, most drivers would like to discourage bicyclists from being on the road. Planners are creating bike lanes anyway because we should be encouraging bicycling, but people who do not and will not ride bikes don’t want that.

People don't want to bike. Look at the numbers. The number of people riding bikes in this city is pathetically small. People have voted with their feet. Transportation resources should be used to move people around as efficiently as possible, not because people want to make a political statement about bikes.

Yes they do want to bike. The number of people biking/scootering in my neighborhood has increased exponentially since the installation of bike lanes and the wider availability of ebikes, cargo bikes, and scooters.

But sure, we should spend our transportation resources on the most efficient modes - that is, buses and metro. single occupancy vehicles are the least efficient.

Seems a little inefficient to spend billions of dollars and all this space on a mode of transportation that barely two percent of people in D.C. (per the Census Bureau) actually use. Meanwhile, there are more cars in D.C. than households.

NOBODY IS SPENDING BILLIONS

And what is your definition of "efficient"?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Bring back the Connecticut Avenue Streetcar! The turnaround at Chevy Chase is still there. Make it happen!

Light rail or BRT on Wisconsin would be genius, linking all the new development up by Tenleytown with Dupont Circle and Georgetown. That would benefit so many neighborhoods, commuters, and businesses, and it would unlock even more development in that area. Light rail can also really enhance a neighborhood’s charm when implemented well. WMATA already has a bus facility at the north end that could do double duty as a light rail facility.

Connecticut is a tougher sell for light rail, because it already has the Red Line. BRT or just faster and more frequent buses would still make lots of sense.

I agree with PPs that I’d much rather the ANC and the city spend time on these promising directions than bickering over bike lanes.