Options for opposing Connecticut Avenue changes?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How are Metro buses and other public transportation on Connecticut and Wisconsin being improved in the midst of all this? Doesn’t public transit need more focus and safety improvement? It’s used by a much larger segment of the population and a less affluent, more diverse cross section of people in this city. How are buses not going to come to a grinding halt along with cars in Connecticut and Wisconsin?

+1

I support adding protected bike lanes, but I also find it baffling that DDOT isn’t prioritizing bus transit along the two corridors. The ”study” of the different concepts barely touched on bus transit, and it concluded that Concept C is a wash. First, that’s obviously wrong, it’ll definitely get worse. DDOT can’t claim that traffic will be a little worse but bus transit will be unaffected. And second, why not improve bus transit at the same time? It’s a waste to tear up the street without figuring out bus priority, like a bus-only lane during rush hours.

But how to do that? The bike lanes will essentially take up most of two traffic lanes. The only way to do all this would be to narrow the sidewalks, including to cannibalize the service lane.

The two bike lanes are exactly the width of one travel lane, together. They do not take up "most of two travel lanes"

Please stop lyiing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How are Metro buses and other public transportation on Connecticut and Wisconsin being improved in the midst of all this? Doesn’t public transit need more focus and safety improvement? It’s used by a much larger segment of the population and a less affluent, more diverse cross section of people in this city. How are buses not going to come to a grinding halt along with cars in Connecticut and Wisconsin?

+1

I support adding protected bike lanes, but I also find it baffling that DDOT isn’t prioritizing bus transit along the two corridors. The ”study” of the different concepts barely touched on bus transit, and it concluded that Concept C is a wash. First, that’s obviously wrong, it’ll definitely get worse. DDOT can’t claim that traffic will be a little worse but bus transit will be unaffected. And second, why not improve bus transit at the same time? It’s a waste to tear up the street without figuring out bus priority, like a bus-only lane during rush hours.

But how to do that? The bike lanes will essentially take up most of two traffic lanes. The only way to do all this would be to narrow the sidewalks, including to cannibalize the service lane.

We don’t know what the bus priority options would be, because DDOT didn’t study them! And if Concept C means making the Connecticut Avenue bus service even worse, DDOT should be honest about that.

Add it to the list. Is there anything DDOT was truthful about?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How are Metro buses and other public transportation on Connecticut and Wisconsin being improved in the midst of all this? Doesn’t public transit need more focus and safety improvement? It’s used by a much larger segment of the population and a less affluent, more diverse cross section of people in this city. How are buses not going to come to a grinding halt along with cars in Connecticut and Wisconsin?

+1

I support adding protected bike lanes, but I also find it baffling that DDOT isn’t prioritizing bus transit along the two corridors. The ”study” of the different concepts barely touched on bus transit, and it concluded that Concept C is a wash. First, that’s obviously wrong, it’ll definitely get worse. DDOT can’t claim that traffic will be a little worse but bus transit will be unaffected. And second, why not improve bus transit at the same time? It’s a waste to tear up the street without figuring out bus priority, like a bus-only lane during rush hours.

But how to do that? The bike lanes will essentially take up most of two traffic lanes. The only way to do all this would be to narrow the sidewalks, including to cannibalize the service lane.

The two bike lanes are exactly the width of one travel lane, together. They do not take up "most of two travel lanes"

Please stop lyiing.

You must be mistaken. I don’t work for DDOT!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:How are Metro buses and other public transportation on Connecticut and Wisconsin being improved in the midst of all this? Doesn’t public transit need more focus and safety improvement? It’s used by a much larger segment of the population and a less affluent, more diverse cross section of people in this city. How are buses not going to come to a grinding halt along with cars in Connecticut and Wisconsin?

That's part of the plan. Remember "induced demand"? The plan is to make traffic and congestion so unbearable that people are forced to use bikes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How are Metro buses and other public transportation on Connecticut and Wisconsin being improved in the midst of all this? Doesn’t public transit need more focus and safety improvement? It’s used by a much larger segment of the population and a less affluent, more diverse cross section of people in this city. How are buses not going to come to a grinding halt along with cars in Connecticut and Wisconsin?

That's part of the plan. Remember "induced demand"? The plan is to make traffic and congestion so unbearable that people are forced to use bikes.

Or not to drive into DC.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How are Metro buses and other public transportation on Connecticut and Wisconsin being improved in the midst of all this? Doesn’t public transit need more focus and safety improvement? It’s used by a much larger segment of the population and a less affluent, more diverse cross section of people in this city. How are buses not going to come to a grinding halt along with cars in Connecticut and Wisconsin?

That's part of the plan. Remember "induced demand"? The plan is to make traffic and congestion so unbearable that people are forced to use bikes.

And in the view of some, the less-mobile “oldsters” who drive or are dependent on vehicle rides should just move out to Ryderwood and Leisure World. Some of the biggest cheerleaders for the Conn Ave mega-restructuring on the local ANCs seem rather ageist in their statements.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How are Metro buses and other public transportation on Connecticut and Wisconsin being improved in the midst of all this? Doesn’t public transit need more focus and safety improvement? It’s used by a much larger segment of the population and a less affluent, more diverse cross section of people in this city. How are buses not going to come to a grinding halt along with cars in Connecticut and Wisconsin?

That's part of the plan. Remember "induced demand"? The plan is to make traffic and congestion so unbearable that people are forced to use bikes.

Or not to drive into DC.

You mean “in”, not just “into” Washington. There’s a nation that vehicle use is driven mostly by suburban consumers. Many people in the District need to drive also. Not to mention this “screw the suburban commuters” attitude is counterproductive for DC’s economy. I know several businesses and organizations that have moved out of the District because DC is too bureaucratic and difficulty driving and parking just adds to the burden. DC taxpayers can’t simply expect more baristas to take up the economic slack!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How are Metro buses and other public transportation on Connecticut and Wisconsin being improved in the midst of all this? Doesn’t public transit need more focus and safety improvement? It’s used by a much larger segment of the population and a less affluent, more diverse cross section of people in this city. How are buses not going to come to a grinding halt along with cars in Connecticut and Wisconsin?

That's part of the plan. Remember "induced demand"? The plan is to make traffic and congestion so unbearable that people are forced to use bikes.

Or not to drive into DC.

Seems counter-productive for areas on the border with Maryland.

Isolationism inside a broader metropolis is a bad idea. The population of DC is 700,000. The population of the DMV is 7,000,000.

[Anonymous]

This will hardly be isolationist. In fact, other than Rush Hour, the car traffic and through lanes will be no different than what we have right now.

Yes, there may be more auto density during rush hour, but so what, it is rush hour. It is already heavy with cars.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This will hardly be isolationist. In fact, other than Rush Hour, the car traffic and through lanes will be no different than what we have right now.

Yes, there may be more auto density during rush hour, but so what, it is rush hour. It is already heavy with cars.

This will make Connecticut Ave even worse (cutting rush hour carrying capacity by 50 percent!) and make the sides streets and parallel routes like 34th St much worse. That’s detrimental, not beneficial.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This will hardly be isolationist. In fact, other than Rush Hour, the car traffic and through lanes will be no different than what we have right now.

Yes, there may be more auto density during rush hour, but so what, it is rush hour. It is already heavy with cars.

The new Smart Growth/WABA term for gridlock:

“Auto density.” These folks love their density, in whatever form.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This will hardly be isolationist. In fact, other than Rush Hour, the car traffic and through lanes will be no different than what we have right now.

Yes, there may be more auto density during rush hour, but so what, it is rush hour. It is already heavy with cars.

The new Smart Growth/WABA term for gridlock:

“Auto density.” These folks love their density, in whatever form.

I think they know exactly how bad it will be. But they don't care. That's what they want. That's why one of the ANCs was on here admitting that it's bad for his own neighborhood but justifying it as good for the city. Without the hell the plan doesn't work. The ends justifies the means and the lies and distortortions are necessary to achieve that.

[Anonymous]

We should really make it easier to drive since the environment isn't an issue anymore.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How are Metro buses and other public transportation on Connecticut and Wisconsin being improved in the midst of all this? Doesn’t public transit need more focus and safety improvement? It’s used by a much larger segment of the population and a less affluent, more diverse cross section of people in this city. How are buses not going to come to a grinding halt along with cars in Connecticut and Wisconsin?

That's part of the plan. Remember "induced demand"? The plan is to make traffic and congestion so unbearable that people are forced to use bikes.

Thats....not what "induced demand" is.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How are Metro buses and other public transportation on Connecticut and Wisconsin being improved in the midst of all this? Doesn’t public transit need more focus and safety improvement? It’s used by a much larger segment of the population and a less affluent, more diverse cross section of people in this city. How are buses not going to come to a grinding halt along with cars in Connecticut and Wisconsin?

That's part of the plan. Remember "induced demand"? The plan is to make traffic and congestion so unbearable that people are forced to use bikes.

Thats....not what "induced demand" is.

Define the word "induced"