Options for opposing Connecticut Avenue changes?

[Anonymous]

No one said anything about your stupid bike lane. Your funeral.

I said traffic calming measures are stupid.

This is easy. One sidewalk for bikes, one for people, one or no lanes for parking, cars zoom, all is well.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It is a good idea. I agree, we shouldn't have a 6 lane highway as our city street. Adding the parking back should be supported by the anti-bikelane people as it should help boost businesses, right?

It’s not a city street. It’s a major artery, a highway if you will.

No, it is a city street. It is where I walk my dog, get my food, socialize with my neighbors, etc. It is not a highway and shouldn't be treated as one.

It’s where people have been walking dogs, getting food and socializing with neighbors for decades without needing to blow it all up. It’s also what you chose to move to and what you can choose to move away from if you don’t like it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It is a good idea. I agree, we shouldn't have a 6 lane highway as our city street. Adding the parking back should be supported by the anti-bikelane people as it should help boost businesses, right?

It’s not a city street. It’s a major artery, a highway if you will.

No, it is a city street. It is where I walk my dog, get my food, socialize with my neighbors, etc. It is not a highway and shouldn't be treated as one.

It’s where people have been walking dogs, getting food and socializing with neighbors for decades without needing to blow it all up. It’s also what you chose to move to and what you can choose to move away from if you don’t like it.

Don't worry, nobody is blowing up Connecticut Avenue. Connecticut Avenue will still be there.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:No one said anything about your stupid bike lane. Your funeral.

I said traffic calming measures are stupid.

This is easy. One sidewalk for bikes, one for people, one or no lanes for parking, cars zoom, all is well.

This is what we are getting.

The outer sidewalk is for people on both sides of CT Ave.
The inner sidewalk, or bike lane, is for people on bikes and scooters;
The inner most area, 4 lanes, are for cars.

Thanks for agreeing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No one said anything about your stupid bike lane. Your funeral.

I said traffic calming measures are stupid.

This is easy. One sidewalk for bikes, one for people, one or no lanes for parking, cars zoom, all is well.

This is what we are getting.

The outer sidewalk is for people on both sides of CT Ave.
The inner sidewalk, or bike lane, is for people on bikes and scooters;
The inner most area, 4 lanes, are for cars.

Thanks for agreeing.

I’m not agreeing. Bike lane takes out a sidewalk not a car lane.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No one said anything about your stupid bike lane. Your funeral.

I said traffic calming measures are stupid.

This is easy. One sidewalk for bikes, one for people, one or no lanes for parking, cars zoom, all is well.

This is what we are getting.

The outer sidewalk is for people on both sides of CT Ave.
The inner sidewalk, or bike lane, is for people on bikes and scooters;
The inner most area, 4 lanes, are for cars.

Thanks for agreeing.

I’m not agreeing. Bike lane takes out a sidewalk not a car lane.

You don't have to agree. There is no sign-off for you.

[Anonymous]

Congress!!! Congress!!!!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Congress!!! Congress!!!!

The crime bill is one thing, but there is no way Congress is getting involved in a dispute over bike lanes on Connecticut. half the reason most of those clowns wanted to move up to Congress from whatever dopey local office they had before was so they didn’t have to care about stuff like that in the places they actually represented anymore.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Congress!!! Congress!!!!

The crime bill is one thing, but there is no way Congress is getting involved in a dispute over bike lanes on Connecticut. half the reason most of those clowns wanted to move up to Congress from whatever dopey local office they had before was so they didn’t have to care about stuff like that in the places they actually represented anymore.

“No funds shall be used for the Connecticut Avenue Reversed Lane Traffic Study Project….” There are thousands of poorly paid congressional staffers who can make this happen.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It is a good idea. I agree, we shouldn't have a 6 lane highway as our city street. Adding the parking back should be supported by the anti-bikelane people as it should help boost businesses, right?

It’s not a city street. It’s a major artery, a highway if you will.

No, it is a city street. It is where I walk my dog, get my food, socialize with my neighbors, etc. It is not a highway and shouldn't be treated as one.

Why should Connecticut Ave be the "major artery." The logical solution is to shift the traffic to Reno Rd, which is less-densely populated and can be widened. It can be the main N-S route for thru traffic. This is a necessary transportation planning adjustment if Connecticut is to become a multi-modal vibrant urban "Main Street.}"

It cannot be widened, and what would happen at Western Ave? Sorry your idea makes zero sense.

Agree 100% Directing more traffic to Reno is simply stupid. Reno runs through multiple neighborhoods with houses on both sides and even some schools. Conn Ave is a historic gateway to DC, and has been for 100 plus years. Moreover, the Avenue runs through multiple commercial areas.

[Anonymous]

Use the giant sidewalk. All the Berlin streets are like that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Congress!!! Congress!!!!

The crime bill is one thing, but there is no way Congress is getting involved in a dispute over bike lanes on Connecticut. half the reason most of those clowns wanted to move up to Congress from whatever dopey local office they had before was so they didn’t have to care about stuff like that in the places they actually represented anymore.

“No funds shall be used for the Connecticut Avenue Reversed Lane Traffic Study Project….” There are thousands of poorly paid congressional staffers who can make this happen.

You call cyclists self-entitled but want the U.S. Congress to get involved in preventing the DC government from repurposing a lane of traffic? This site makes for some great comedy.

[Anonymous]

Yes I do

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Congress!!! Congress!!!!

The crime bill is one thing, but there is no way Congress is getting involved in a dispute over bike lanes on Connecticut. half the reason most of those clowns wanted to move up to Congress from whatever dopey local office they had before was so they didn’t have to care about stuff like that in the places they actually represented anymore.

Or . . . . Congress may be interested in who thought it was a good idea to turn an evacuation route for the federal city into a BMX park.

https://hsema.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/hsema/publication/attachments/60441_ward8_may_16.pdf

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Congress!!! Congress!!!!

The crime bill is one thing, but there is no way Congress is getting involved in a dispute over bike lanes on Connecticut. half the reason most of those clowns wanted to move up to Congress from whatever dopey local office they had before was so they didn’t have to care about stuff like that in the places they actually represented anymore.

Or . . . . Congress may be interested in who thought it was a good idea to turn an evacuation route for the federal city into a BMX park.

https://hsema.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/hsema/publication/attachments/60441_ward8_may_16.pdf

I didn't think the "I want my car lanes!!!" discourse could get any eye-roll-ier, but congratulations, you have succeeded.