Options for opposing Connecticut Avenue changes?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
The bike crowd is easily triggered. They are threatened by just the thought of cars. I love the poster who suggested that people in motorized shell chairs could also use the bike lanes. Can you imagine the tantrum one of the Bernie Bros would through if he was slowed down by a person in a wheel chair? DEFCON Level 1 tantrum.

Ward 3 bicyclist here. Most of us I know were big Hillary supporters, not Bernie.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
LOL. There is a small and dedicated group of single, middle aged white guys who seek attention while everyone else is just looking for the most practical and comfortable options.

Ha! That's funny. W3BA's leadership is not all white, none are single, and several have kids.

[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: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.

ANCs are not elected leaders. It's an unpaod volunteer liason position

Prepare to have your mind blown: https://anc.dc.gov/page/anc-elections

Yes they are elected but they are not leaders and their role is advisory. They are supposed to just be community liasons.

no you are wrong.

Advisory Neighborhood Commission

+1. Almost every ANC Rep is unopposed. So all you need is 25 warm bodies to sign a petition and you get the job. This should not entitle anyone to make major transportation decisions. Especially a 25 year old single childless nonprofit worker who’s parents still help him with the rent.

The ANC did not make any decisions.

DDOT announced a process. The ANCs up and down CT Ave held public meetings. DDOT held public meetings, ANCs took input and passed resolutions supporting a concept that was presented by DDOT.

DDOT went down that path based on global best practices and the Mayor personally made the decision. It was supported by our elected Councilmember and the various ANCs with almost unanimity.

So how do you see it as a bunch of 25 year olds?

DDOT announced a process after receiving multiple ANC Resolutions from ANC commissioners who were trained and financed by the bike community. The tail has always been wagging the dog here.

You have a very vivid imagination. Unfortunately it bears no relation whatsoever to what happens in the real world.

For real. This is a wild conspiracy theory that the tiniest amount of sunlight will debunk. Trained by the bike community? Who exactly has been trained by the bike community? Name names. Who has been financed by the bike community? Again, name names. Who is your "bike community" exactly?

https://ggwash.org/view/86058/so-you-might-want-to-run-for-anc-our-training-is-here-to-help

[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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

ANCs are not elected leaders. It's an unpaod volunteer liason position

Prepare to have your mind blown: https://anc.dc.gov/page/anc-elections

Yes they are elected but they are not leaders and their role is advisory. They are supposed to just be community liasons.

no you are wrong.

Advisory Neighborhood Commission

+1. Almost every ANC Rep is unopposed. So all you need is 25 warm bodies to sign a petition and you get the job. This should not entitle anyone to make major transportation decisions. Especially a 25 year old single childless nonprofit worker who’s parents still help him with the rent.

The ANC did not make any decisions.

DDOT announced a process. The ANCs up and down CT Ave held public meetings. DDOT held public meetings, ANCs took input and passed resolutions supporting a concept that was presented by DDOT.

DDOT went down that path based on global best practices and the Mayor personally made the decision. It was supported by our elected Councilmember and the various ANCs with almost unanimity.

So how do you see it as a bunch of 25 year olds?

DDOT announced a process after receiving multiple ANC Resolutions from ANC commissioners who were trained and financed by the bike community. The tail has always been wagging the dog here.

Not true. Facts matter. DDOT started this process with the 2003 corridor study. Seriously, stop with the nonsense, it really makes you look silly.

You really need to come clean about your role in all of this.

Their role is that they reside in DC and pay attention to local public affairs. The latter is something that opponents of the project who actually do live in DC apparently haven't been able to do - maybe because they have no concern for local public affairs until they perceive it will affect their narrow self-interest.

All their “meetings” and rushed “public processes” have been during the pandemic. Residents within a half mile of Conn Ave are just waking up to this and they’re upset. It’s time that the council and the GGW ANCs hear the voices of the people they’re supposed to represent, rather than WABA and the development lobbyists.

There was never a time in history that was easier to participate in these meetings than during the pandemic. That’s a terrible excuse for not participating. But your tendency to see nefarious conspiracies in every decision you don’t like suggests that you bigger issues to deal with.

Uh, what? You mean when schools were closed? And kids were at home? And people were trying to entertain/educate their children while desperately trying to hold onto their jobs? You think that was the best time for this?

You can always tell who has kids and who doesn't. People without kids were twiddling their thumbs during the pandemic, and parents were trying not to drown.

Also addressed up thread.

Many people had kids home for 18 months and still managed to participate. Even people opposed to the plan.

Enough with this. Some people were able to attend, while others weren’t. It’s not up to you to decree their reasons illegitimate, and it’s not some moral failing to not have attended. You have no idea what was going on in people’s lives. The righteousness has run its course. Move on and allow everyone to share their support, opposition, ideas, concerns, suggestions and/or questions now.

Sharing here doesn’t accomplish anything.

It does more than you think. It's pretty clear that there is at least one ANC posting here. I would assume that someone in the Mayor's office is lurking just like DCPS does. The proponents have told the Mayor's office that the idea is popular and widely supported.

The ANCs were only created because the actual elected council members did not want to deal with curb cuts and noise complaints. They weren’t created to overhaul the regional transportation system.

Yes and they were being used as cover and are now the scapegoat.

More people have engaged and commented on this thread than all the ANC meetings combined.

[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: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.

ANCs are not elected leaders. It's an unpaod volunteer liason position

Prepare to have your mind blown: https://anc.dc.gov/page/anc-elections

Yes they are elected but they are not leaders and their role is advisory. They are supposed to just be community liasons.

no you are wrong.

Advisory Neighborhood Commission

+1. Almost every ANC Rep is unopposed. So all you need is 25 warm bodies to sign a petition and you get the job. This should not entitle anyone to make major transportation decisions. Especially a 25 year old single childless nonprofit worker who’s parents still help him with the rent.

The ANC did not make any decisions.

DDOT announced a process. The ANCs up and down CT Ave held public meetings. DDOT held public meetings, ANCs took input and passed resolutions supporting a concept that was presented by DDOT.

DDOT went down that path based on global best practices and the Mayor personally made the decision. It was supported by our elected Councilmember and the various ANCs with almost unanimity.

So how do you see it as a bunch of 25 year olds?

DDOT announced a process after receiving multiple ANC Resolutions from ANC commissioners who were trained and financed by the bike community. The tail has always been wagging the dog here.

You have a very vivid imagination. Unfortunately it bears no relation whatsoever to what happens in the real world.

For real. This is a wild conspiracy theory that the tiniest amount of sunlight will debunk. Trained by the bike community? Who exactly has been trained by the bike community? Name names. Who has been financed by the bike community? Again, name names. Who is your "bike community" exactly?

https://ggwash.org/view/86058/so-you-might-want-to-run-for-anc-our-training-is-here-to-help

A link to a website that offers training does not support your assertion. Something like 2 of the ANC commissioners throughout the Conn Ave corridor opposed adding bike lanes, out of 23 commissioners. You're saying that 20ish commissioners were trained by GGW and financed by the *checks notes* volunteers in the bike community?

You refuse to name names. Why is that? Is it because you're full of it?

[Anonymous]

For the Cleveland Parkers in attendance (which is probably like 80% of this thread + the Save Conn Ave folks), even Nancy Macwood did not oppose Concept C at ANC 3C.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:For the Cleveland Parkers in attendance (which is probably like 80% of this thread + the Save Conn Ave folks), even Nancy Macwood did not oppose Concept C at ANC 3C.

And she has expressed great dismay at the treatment of those who are expressing concerns about the plan, believing their voices should be heard, and called out the fallacy that the majority of businesses on the corridor are supportive of the plan. For this, she was undeservedly mocked as old and out of touch in an earlier post in this thread, because ad hominem attacks are the default from at least one or two very active proponents of the bike lanes. I wonder how she would vote now given all that’s transpired since.

[Anonymous]

The bike proponents don't care if more people bike - they want to bike where and when they want to go somewhere and since they correctly feel like it is unsafe to bike in traffic lanes they want protected bike lanes. The attempts to get them to admit that there will likely be no significant increase in bikers doesn't matter to them since they will have the way the 2.6 percent of them opt to travel safer. Which is true - but might be better for the city overall if that 2.6 percent of the people on that road would simply travel over the neighborhood roads which are much safer and leave conn ave to the traffic keeping the traffic off the neighborhood roads

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For the Cleveland Parkers in attendance (which is probably like 80% of this thread + the Save Conn Ave folks), even Nancy Macwood did not oppose Concept C at ANC 3C.

And she has expressed great dismay at the treatment of those who are expressing concerns about the plan, believing their voices should be heard, and called out the fallacy that the majority of businesses on the corridor are supportive of the plan. For this, she was undeservedly mocked as old and out of touch in an earlier post in this thread, because ad hominem attacks are the default from at least one or two very active proponents of the bike lanes. I wonder how she would vote now given all that’s transpired since.

Given that Nancy is a rational person, I imagine she wouldn't let hurt feelings change how she views making Ward 3 safer and more inclusive for all.

[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: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.

ANCs are not elected leaders. It's an unpaod volunteer liason position

Prepare to have your mind blown: https://anc.dc.gov/page/anc-elections

Yes they are elected but they are not leaders and their role is advisory. They are supposed to just be community liasons.

no you are wrong.

Advisory Neighborhood Commission

+1. Almost every ANC Rep is unopposed. So all you need is 25 warm bodies to sign a petition and you get the job. This should not entitle anyone to make major transportation decisions. Especially a 25 year old single childless nonprofit worker who’s parents still help him with the rent.

The ANC did not make any decisions.

DDOT announced a process. The ANCs up and down CT Ave held public meetings. DDOT held public meetings, ANCs took input and passed resolutions supporting a concept that was presented by DDOT.

DDOT went down that path based on global best practices and the Mayor personally made the decision. It was supported by our elected Councilmember and the various ANCs with almost unanimity.

So how do you see it as a bunch of 25 year olds?

DDOT announced a process after receiving multiple ANC Resolutions from ANC commissioners who were trained and financed by the bike community. The tail has always been wagging the dog here.

You have a very vivid imagination. Unfortunately it bears no relation whatsoever to what happens in the real world.

For real. This is a wild conspiracy theory that the tiniest amount of sunlight will debunk. Trained by the bike community? Who exactly has been trained by the bike community? Name names. Who has been financed by the bike community? Again, name names. Who is your "bike community" exactly?

https://ggwash.org/view/86058/so-you-might-want-to-run-for-anc-our-training-is-here-to-help

That appears to be something offered to anyone who wants it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For the Cleveland Parkers in attendance (which is probably like 80% of this thread + the Save Conn Ave folks), even Nancy Macwood did not oppose Concept C at ANC 3C.

And she has expressed great dismay at the treatment of those who are expressing concerns about the plan, believing their voices should be heard, and called out the fallacy that the majority of businesses on the corridor are supportive of the plan. For this, she was undeservedly mocked as old and out of touch in an earlier post in this thread, because ad hominem attacks are the default from at least one or two very active proponents of the bike lanes. I wonder how she would vote now given all that’s transpired since.

Given that Nancy is a rational person, I imagine she wouldn't let hurt feelings change how she views making Ward 3 safer and more inclusive for all.

And how exactly is Concept C “more inclusive for all”? It’s a nice-sounding talking point, but like the GGW and CP Smart Growth flackery, it rings hollow. Unless by “inclusive” one means to “include” more DC streets near Connecticut Avenue in unsafe cut-through commuter traffic.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The bike proponents don't care if more people bike - they want to bike where and when they want to go somewhere and since they correctly feel like it is unsafe to bike in traffic lanes they want protected bike lanes. The attempts to get them to admit that there will likely be no significant increase in bikers doesn't matter to them since they will have the way the 2.6 percent of them opt to travel safer. Which is true - but might be better for the city overall if that 2.6 percent of the people on that road would simply travel over the neighborhood roads which are much safer and leave conn ave to the traffic keeping the traffic off the neighborhood roads

How DARE you tell the cycling bros where they should ride? Get ready for the onslaught of foot stomping and petulant name calling coming your way!

Oh, and I happen to agree with everything you said above.

So, +1

[Anonymous]

WABA, GGW and Smart Growrh support “IT”. — “inclusionary traffic” especially on SFH streets.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:WABA, GGW and Smart Growrh support “IT”. — “inclusionary traffic” especially on SFH streets.

Oh, if this is about being inclusive, then I suggest we redirect our money and efforts to get Ward 8 some grocery stores first before getting Ward 3 a bike lane on Connecticut Ave.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The bike proponents don't care if more people bike - they want to bike where and when they want to go somewhere and since they correctly feel like it is unsafe to bike in traffic lanes they want protected bike lanes. The attempts to get them to admit that there will likely be no significant increase in bikers doesn't matter to them since they will have the way the 2.6 percent of them opt to travel safer. Which is true - but might be better for the city overall if that 2.6 percent of the people on that road would simply travel over the neighborhood roads which are much safer and leave conn ave to the traffic keeping the traffic off the neighborhood roads

This is what happens to a generation that grows up getting participation trophies. Who gets their student loans cancelled. Who get coddled at the office. They really have never had to work for anything other than worthless degrees. They somehow think they’re special and that opinions matter.