Options for opposing Connecticut Avenue changes?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Traffic has picked up dramatically on CT Ave, NW in the last two weeks. More people are returning to work.

I don’t see how taking away lanes can possibly help.

You know the part of southbound CT across from Comet Ping Pong Pizza that still has cafe seating in the far lane? That creates a bottleneck every day.

Car traffic will never get better. the region grows, more people living in the 'burbs means more cars and more cars coming in to DC. We cannot build more lanes to handle those cars. We need to do something different, and thus are.

The 1950's transportation planning simply doesn't work. Europe and Asia have shown how to do it, so that is what we need to do.

But how does this improve the situation?

People aren’t going to magically hop on bikes. They just won’t. First of all, this isn’t a warm weather area. It snows. It rains.

People live too far from their offices. Bikes just aren’t practical. Neither are buses.

Yes, some people will hop on bikes. For others, the bike lanes are a positive amenity. It isn't about getting EVERYONE on to bikes. It is about making safe and viable for enough people to use it so the number of cars on the road are reduced for those who MUST drive for whatever reason. Having a viable mobility split is critical to a functioning urban environment. When it is so tilted to cars, the quality of life, the environment etc degrades for everyone.

I know people who ride, year round, from places like Olney into DC to go to their Ward 3 private schools or into downtown. Just because YOU don't do it doesn't mean there are others who wouldn't.

I’ve commuted down GA to CT into K Street for 20+ years from Olney and I’ve literally never seen anyone commuting by bike from Olney or anywhere on CT until close-in DC. When I took 16th, I saw more bikers. I rarely see more than 3-5 people on bikes during my commute each day.

At some point, it’s just math. Thousands of cars can’t be replaced by bikes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Traffic has picked up dramatically on CT Ave, NW in the last two weeks. More people are returning to work.

I don’t see how taking away lanes can possibly help.

You know the part of southbound CT across from Comet Ping Pong Pizza that still has cafe seating in the far lane? That creates a bottleneck every day.

Streeteries generated $181 million while if the same spots remained as parking, would have generated $3.7 million.

Who cares about a lane of traffic for commuters when you can have outdoor seating and an improved quality of life and support for local businesses?

It’s the only portion of CT Ave with a streetery currently, and it’s always vacant when I commute in the evening.

If you actually lived there, you would know those places are filled most evenings and it is very lively. Enjoy your suburban, auto-centric lifestyle.

I commute past that block every evening, and the streetery is empty. People are eating indoors.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Traffic has picked up dramatically on CT Ave, NW in the last two weeks. More people are returning to work.

I don’t see how taking away lanes can possibly help.

You know the part of southbound CT across from Comet Ping Pong Pizza that still has cafe seating in the far lane? That creates a bottleneck every day.

Streeteries generated $181 million while if the same spots remained as parking, would have generated $3.7 million.

Who cares about a lane of traffic for commuters when you can have outdoor seating and an improved quality of life and support for local businesses?

It’s the only portion of CT Ave with a streetery currently, and it’s always vacant when I commute in the evening.

If you actually lived there, you would know those places are filled most evenings and it is very lively. Enjoy your suburban, auto-centric lifestyle.

I live in Olney, and while I must drive to work in DC, I can easily walk to the following in my suburban Olney area:

Schools
Library
Doctors
Hospital
CVS and Walgreens
3 grocery stores
Multiple coffee places
Multiple restaurants, bars
Shops
Liquor store
Multiple gyms
Etc.

I just can’t walk or bike to my office 20 miles away.

Regardless of bike lanes in DC, we simply don’t have them on CT Ave in MoCo.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

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"

In transportation, induced demand usually refers to what happens when you add more car lanes: you get even more traffic than you had before, because people think the new lanes will make it easier to drive there, and they all start using that road. I don't think I've ever heard the concept applied to bike lanes.

True. But no one is proposing the WIDEN Connecticut Avenue for vehicles. Instead, the plan is to CUT rush hour carrying capacity by 50 percent. Induced demand isn’t the issue, but rather gridlock and the diversion of significant thru traffic to streets that weren’t designed to handle such traffic. It’s like squeezing a balloon.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Traffic has picked up dramatically on CT Ave, NW in the last two weeks. More people are returning to work.

I don’t see how taking away lanes can possibly help.

You know the part of southbound CT across from Comet Ping Pong Pizza that still has cafe seating in the far lane? That creates a bottleneck every day.

Streeteries generated $181 million while if the same spots remained as parking, would have generated $3.7 million.

Who cares about a lane of traffic for commuters when you can have outdoor seating and an improved quality of life and support for local businesses?

It’s the only portion of CT Ave with a streetery currently, and it’s always vacant when I commute in the evening.

If you actually lived there, you would know those places are filled most evenings and it is very lively. Enjoy your suburban, auto-centric lifestyle.

I live in Olney, and while I must drive to work in DC, I can easily walk to the following in my suburban Olney area:

Schools
Library
Doctors
Hospital
CVS and Walgreens
3 grocery stores
Multiple coffee places
Multiple restaurants, bars
Shops
Liquor store
Multiple gyms
Etc.

I just can’t walk or bike to my office 20 miles away.

Regardless of bike lanes in DC, we simply don’t have them on CT Ave in MoCo.

From Olney, you could take Beach Drive and pop out on Leland up to Western and then take the bike lanes downtown. Pretty straightforward.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

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"

In transportation, induced demand usually refers to what happens when you add more car lanes: you get even more traffic than you had before, because people think the new lanes will make it easier to drive there, and they all start using that road. I don't think I've ever heard the concept applied to bike lanes.

True. But no one is proposing the WIDEN Connecticut Avenue for vehicles. Instead, the plan is to CUT rush hour carrying capacity by 50 percent. Induced demand isn’t the issue, but rather gridlock and the diversion of significant thru traffic to streets that weren’t designed to handle such traffic. It’s like squeezing a balloon.

This is false.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

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"

In transportation, induced demand usually refers to what happens when you add more car lanes: you get even more traffic than you had before, because people think the new lanes will make it easier to drive there, and they all start using that road. I don't think I've ever heard the concept applied to bike lanes.

True. But no one is proposing the WIDEN Connecticut Avenue for vehicles. Instead, the plan is to CUT rush hour carrying capacity by 50 percent. Induced demand isn’t the issue, but rather gridlock and the diversion of significant thru traffic to streets that weren’t designed to handle such traffic. It’s like squeezing a balloon.

There is already gridlock. It can't get more girdlocked.
There is already diversion on to side streets.

The solution is to provide alternatives to cars. That is what mass transit and bikes, scooters etc are for. We have to provide capacity for the alternatives because we already have the conditions you are complaining about.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

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"

In transportation, induced demand usually refers to what happens when you add more car lanes: you get even more traffic than you had before, because people think the new lanes will make it easier to drive there, and they all start using that road. I don't think I've ever heard the concept applied to bike lanes.

True. But no one is proposing the WIDEN Connecticut Avenue for vehicles. Instead, the plan is to CUT rush hour carrying capacity by 50 percent. Induced demand isn’t the issue, but rather gridlock and the diversion of significant thru traffic to streets that weren’t designed to handle such traffic. It’s like squeezing a balloon.

This is false.

2/4 = 50%

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Traffic has picked up dramatically on CT Ave, NW in the last two weeks. More people are returning to work.

I don’t see how taking away lanes can possibly help.

You know the part of southbound CT across from Comet Ping Pong Pizza that still has cafe seating in the far lane? That creates a bottleneck every day.

Streeteries generated $181 million while if the same spots remained as parking, would have generated $3.7 million.

Who cares about a lane of traffic for commuters when you can have outdoor seating and an improved quality of life and support for local businesses?

It’s the only portion of CT Ave with a streetery currently, and it’s always vacant when I commute in the evening.

If you actually lived there, you would know those places are filled most evenings and it is very lively. Enjoy your suburban, auto-centric lifestyle.

I live in Olney, and while I must drive to work in DC, I can easily walk to the following in my suburban Olney area:

Schools
Library
Doctors
Hospital
CVS and Walgreens
3 grocery stores
Multiple coffee places
Multiple restaurants, bars
Shops
Liquor store
Multiple gyms
Etc.

I just can’t walk or bike to my office 20 miles away.

Regardless of bike lanes in DC, we simply don’t have them on CT Ave in MoCo.

From Olney, you could take Beach Drive and pop out on Leland up to Western and then take the bike lanes downtown. Pretty straightforward.

It’s 22 miles and 2 hours, 8 minutes according to google cycling directions.

I’ll get right on that, Rose.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

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"

In transportation, induced demand usually refers to what happens when you add more car lanes: you get even more traffic than you had before, because people think the new lanes will make it easier to drive there, and they all start using that road. I don't think I've ever heard the concept applied to bike lanes.

True. But no one is proposing the WIDEN Connecticut Avenue for vehicles. Instead, the plan is to CUT rush hour carrying capacity by 50 percent. Induced demand isn’t the issue, but rather gridlock and the diversion of significant thru traffic to streets that weren’t designed to handle such traffic. It’s like squeezing a balloon.

There is already gridlock. It can't get more girdlocked.
There is already diversion on to side streets.

The solution is to provide alternatives to cars. That is what mass transit and bikes, scooters etc are for. We have to provide capacity for the alternatives because we already have the conditions you are complaining about.

Disagree.

They need to identify two new main arteries (at least) via side streets and convert them to commuter streets.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

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"

In transportation, induced demand usually refers to what happens when you add more car lanes: you get even more traffic than you had before, because people think the new lanes will make it easier to drive there, and they all start using that road. I don't think I've ever heard the concept applied to bike lanes.

True. But no one is proposing the WIDEN Connecticut Avenue for vehicles. Instead, the plan is to CUT rush hour carrying capacity by 50 percent. Induced demand isn’t the issue, but rather gridlock and the diversion of significant thru traffic to streets that weren’t designed to handle such traffic. It’s like squeezing a balloon.

There is already gridlock. It can't get more girdlocked.
There is already diversion on to side streets.

The solution is to provide alternatives to cars. That is what mass transit and bikes, scooters etc are for. We have to provide capacity for the alternatives because we already have the conditions you are complaining about.

Yes it can
The current diversion onto side streets is minimal. It will be exponentially worse.

Mass transit (buses) is being reduced. Increasing bike capacity does not require decreasing traffic capacity. Renovating the existing Beach Drive bike path would do that without harming anything else. But you demand Connecticut because it's about prestige not policy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Traffic has picked up dramatically on CT Ave, NW in the last two weeks. More people are returning to work.

I don’t see how taking away lanes can possibly help.

You know the part of southbound CT across from Comet Ping Pong Pizza that still has cafe seating in the far lane? That creates a bottleneck every day.

Streeteries generated $181 million while if the same spots remained as parking, would have generated $3.7 million.

Who cares about a lane of traffic for commuters when you can have outdoor seating and an improved quality of life and support for local businesses?

It’s the only portion of CT Ave with a streetery currently, and it’s always vacant when I commute in the evening.

If you actually lived there, you would know those places are filled most evenings and it is very lively. Enjoy your suburban, auto-centric lifestyle.

No they aren't.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

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"

In transportation, induced demand usually refers to what happens when you add more car lanes: you get even more traffic than you had before, because people think the new lanes will make it easier to drive there, and they all start using that road. I don't think I've ever heard the concept applied to bike lanes.

True. But no one is proposing the WIDEN Connecticut Avenue for vehicles. Instead, the plan is to CUT rush hour carrying capacity by 50 percent. Induced demand isn’t the issue, but rather gridlock and the diversion of significant thru traffic to streets that weren’t designed to handle such traffic. It’s like squeezing a balloon.

This is false.

2/4 = 50%

You need to factor in the turn lanes, which will actually help improve flow.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

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"

In transportation, induced demand usually refers to what happens when you add more car lanes: you get even more traffic than you had before, because people think the new lanes will make it easier to drive there, and they all start using that road. I don't think I've ever heard the concept applied to bike lanes.

True. But no one is proposing the WIDEN Connecticut Avenue for vehicles. Instead, the plan is to CUT rush hour carrying capacity by 50 percent. Induced demand isn’t the issue, but rather gridlock and the diversion of significant thru traffic to streets that weren’t designed to handle such traffic. It’s like squeezing a balloon.

There is already gridlock. It can't get more girdlocked.
There is already diversion on to side streets.

The solution is to provide alternatives to cars. That is what mass transit and bikes, scooters etc are for. We have to provide capacity for the alternatives because we already have the conditions you are complaining about.

Yes it can
The current diversion onto side streets is minimal. It will be exponentially worse.

Mass transit (buses) is being reduced. Increasing bike capacity does not require decreasing traffic capacity. Renovating the existing Beach Drive bike path would do that without harming anything else. But you demand Connecticut because it's about prestige not policy.

If the sole purpose was getting downtown, then perhaps expanding the Beach Drive infrastructure would be helpful. But this is as much about getting from one neighborhood to another, from one commerce center to another ON CONNECTICUT AVENUE. No one is going to ride a bike from Cleveland Park to Forest Hills via Beach Drive.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

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"

In transportation, induced demand usually refers to what happens when you add more car lanes: you get even more traffic than you had before, because people think the new lanes will make it easier to drive there, and they all start using that road. I don't think I've ever heard the concept applied to bike lanes.

True. But no one is proposing the WIDEN Connecticut Avenue for vehicles. Instead, the plan is to CUT rush hour carrying capacity by 50 percent. Induced demand isn’t the issue, but rather gridlock and the diversion of significant thru traffic to streets that weren’t designed to handle such traffic. It’s like squeezing a balloon.

There is already gridlock. It can't get more girdlocked.
There is already diversion on to side streets.

The solution is to provide alternatives to cars. That is what mass transit and bikes, scooters etc are for. We have to provide capacity for the alternatives because we already have the conditions you are complaining about.

Yes it can
The current diversion onto side streets is minimal. It will be exponentially worse.

Mass transit (buses) is being reduced. Increasing bike capacity does not require decreasing traffic capacity. Renovating the existing Beach Drive bike path would do that without harming anything else. But you demand Connecticut because it's about prestige not policy.

If the sole purpose was getting downtown, then perhaps expanding the Beach Drive infrastructure would be helpful. But this is as much about getting from one neighborhood to another, from one commerce center to another ON CONNECTICUT AVENUE. No one is going to ride a bike from Cleveland Park to Forest Hills via Beach Drive.

We all already do that by WALKING.