Options for opposing Connecticut Avenue changes?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This will push more commuting cars onto reno road and wisconsin who then will cut through neighborhoods to get to rock creek, you are just "calming" traffic (e.g. creating gridlock) on Conn Ave and pumping tons of cars onto peoples residential streets, which are not made for it, which is worse for the environment and the city - but you can now feel superior coasting down your bike lane on Conn Ave. There is no reason bikes can't use the side streets, they are safer - it just takes longer and the bike's want to hijack a lane on the most direct route (signed a pedestrian, not a driver)

If you’re really worried about cut through traffic (which is an issue for a lot of neighborhoods with artery roads without bike lanes), ask DDOT to install speed bumps. The risk that some streets experience cut through traffic is not a good argument against the bike lanes.

Speed humps are not meant to mitigate the volume of traffic, but rather the speed.

DC is a grid, you can't just close off public space in the form of streets.

So your problem is just that people may drive down your street? Find a better problem to worry about.

I thought you were worried about pedestrian and bicylist safety?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This will push more commuting cars onto reno road and wisconsin who then will cut through neighborhoods to get to rock creek, you are just "calming" traffic (e.g. creating gridlock) on Conn Ave and pumping tons of cars onto peoples residential streets, which are not made for it, which is worse for the environment and the city - but you can now feel superior coasting down your bike lane on Conn Ave. There is no reason bikes can't use the side streets, they are safer - it just takes longer and the bike's want to hijack a lane on the most direct route (signed a pedestrian, not a driver)

If you’re really worried about cut through traffic (which is an issue for a lot of neighborhoods with artery roads without bike lanes), ask DDOT to install speed bumps. The risk that some streets experience cut through traffic is not a good argument against the bike lanes.

Speed humps are not meant to mitigate the volume of traffic, but rather the speed.

DC is a grid, you can't just close off public space in the form of streets.

So your problem is just that people may drive down your street? Find a better problem to worry about.

Nobody is allowed to drive down PP’s street, except PP.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This will push more commuting cars onto reno road and wisconsin who then will cut through neighborhoods to get to rock creek, you are just "calming" traffic (e.g. creating gridlock) on Conn Ave and pumping tons of cars onto peoples residential streets, which are not made for it, which is worse for the environment and the city - but you can now feel superior coasting down your bike lane on Conn Ave. There is no reason bikes can't use the side streets, they are safer - it just takes longer and the bike's want to hijack a lane on the most direct route (signed a pedestrian, not a driver)

If you’re really worried about cut through traffic (which is an issue for a lot of neighborhoods with artery roads without bike lanes), ask DDOT to install speed bumps. The risk that some streets experience cut through traffic is not a good argument against the bike lanes.

Speed humps are not meant to mitigate the volume of traffic, but rather the speed.

DC is a grid, you can't just close off public space in the form of streets.

Who is closing streets?

That's the point. Although some are trying. You can't close off side streets. Side streets filled with seniors and children walking and bicycling. The traffic from Connecticut is being diverted onto the side streets. In order to "protect" currently non-existent bicyclists on Connecticut you are endangering existent bicyclists and pedestrians that happen to predominenrly be small children and seniors. The two groups most vulnerable. The only way thr circle gets squared is if over 10,000 people magically give up cars and start bicycling into town. That is not going to happen.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This will push more commuting cars onto reno road and wisconsin who then will cut through neighborhoods to get to rock creek, you are just "calming" traffic (e.g. creating gridlock) on Conn Ave and pumping tons of cars onto peoples residential streets, which are not made for it, which is worse for the environment and the city - but you can now feel superior coasting down your bike lane on Conn Ave. There is no reason bikes can't use the side streets, they are safer - it just takes longer and the bike's want to hijack a lane on the most direct route (signed a pedestrian, not a driver)

If you’re really worried about cut through traffic (which is an issue for a lot of neighborhoods with artery roads without bike lanes), ask DDOT to install speed bumps. The risk that some streets experience cut through traffic is not a good argument against the bike lanes.

Speed humps are not meant to mitigate the volume of traffic, but rather the speed.

DC is a grid, you can't just close off public space in the form of streets.

Who is closing streets?

That's the point. Although some are trying. You can't close off side streets. Side streets filled with seniors and children walking and bicycling. The traffic from Connecticut is being diverted onto the side streets. In order to "protect" currently non-existent bicyclists on Connecticut you are endangering existent bicyclists and pedestrians that happen to predominenrly be small children and seniors. The two groups most vulnerable. The only way thr circle gets squared is if over 10,000 people magically give up cars and start bicycling into town. That is not going to happen.

They’re right! Last week I drove up 36th by Cleveland park and seniors and children were biking and walking in harmony. Boy Scouts helped the truly elderly cross the street and there were lemonade stands on every yard. My senses were overwhelmed by the noise of men tuning up their hot rods and the smell of women baking fresh pies.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This will push more commuting cars onto reno road and wisconsin who then will cut through neighborhoods to get to rock creek, you are just "calming" traffic (e.g. creating gridlock) on Conn Ave and pumping tons of cars onto peoples residential streets, which are not made for it, which is worse for the environment and the city - but you can now feel superior coasting down your bike lane on Conn Ave. There is no reason bikes can't use the side streets, they are safer - it just takes longer and the bike's want to hijack a lane on the most direct route (signed a pedestrian, not a driver)

If you’re really worried about cut through traffic (which is an issue for a lot of neighborhoods with artery roads without bike lanes), ask DDOT to install speed bumps. The risk that some streets experience cut through traffic is not a good argument against the bike lanes.

Speed humps are not meant to mitigate the volume of traffic, but rather the speed.

DC is a grid, you can't just close off public space in the form of streets.

Who is closing streets?

That's the point. Although some are trying. You can't close off side streets. Side streets filled with seniors and children walking and bicycling. The traffic from Connecticut is being diverted onto the side streets. In order to "protect" currently non-existent bicyclists on Connecticut you are endangering existent bicyclists and pedestrians that happen to predominenrly be small children and seniors. The two groups most vulnerable. The only way thr circle gets squared is if over 10,000 people magically give up cars and start bicycling into town. That is not going to happen.

Guess what? elderly and children are walking on Connecticut Avenue as well. Side streets are still streets. they are still public space. Cars use them too. "Cut through" traffic is still traffic. This isn't about people "bicycling into town" - we already live here and want to bike safely to stores and restaurants. Right now, we can't.

[Anonymous]

The people opposed to the bike lanes think this is perfectly acceptable

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is not 1922, people. We have decades of data now to have a complete picture of how subsidizing car dependence affects cities and their inhabitants.

No one who is remotely informed and objective could argue that it is in the interests of a city like DC to subsidize an activity that reduces urban property values, destroys civic culture, pollutes the air, accelerates climate change, kills and maims pedestrians, cyclists, and drivers alike, fuels political polarization, and wastes hours upon hours of commuter’s time on this earth.

We get it that some of you are hopelessly addicted to your cars and the suburban lifestyles they support, but trying to disguise the fact that you think public policy should be made to serve your interests and not the greater good by making baselessly claims and fat-shaming people is a little pathetic.

I mean, there are a lot of things I’d like that I wish the government would just give me, but I’m not silly enough to go on public forums and whine about not getting them.

Let me guess: You're a senior in high school? This sounds like something a senior in high school would say.

Cognitive skills and social consciousness decline from about age 18 on, so thanks for the compliment. Maybe you should start listening to more HS seniors.

But practical experience about how people respond to stimuli in real life goes through the roof. You know, the ability to predict outcomes. That's what everyone is pointing out. Vehicles will not magically disappear from the road. Thousands won't start biking on Connecticut Avenue. It will be a cluster...

And btw cognitive skills dont start declining until the 30's.

Induced demand is a pretty simple concept and the evidence for it is fairly clear. If you can’t grasp basic principles of transportation analysis, it’s maybe time to start worrying about your own cognitive decline rather than spending your time constructing straw men.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is there any mode of transportation that is *less* popular in Washington D.C. than biking?

People are more likely to drive or take the metro or take the bus or walk or carpool or take commuter rail or take a cab than they are to ride a bike.

And yet it's biking, the city's least popular way of getting around, that sponges up such a massive share of our transportation resources. It's bizarre.

Consider maybe that it’s not popular because it only has a tiny fraction of the infrastructure dedicated to cars and pedestrians?

The notion that DC is spending billions building bike lanes is absurd. The figure probably doesn’t exceed a few million annually, most of which is accounted for by hopeless community consultations in which crusty NIMBYs roll out fantastical nonsense to safeguard a selfish way of life that is doing immense damage to future generations.

If you want to talk about billions in subsidies, check out everything related to building and maintaining automotive infrastructure that gas taxes and car registrations don’t cover. Drivers are some of the biggest welfare queens around.

The popularity of cycling has not increased in any measurable way as a mode share of commuters since 1970. There is literally zero evidence that bicycle infrastructure induces more bicycling as a mode of transportation for commuting to work.

Great. Here is but one study that proves you are wrong: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0001457517301021. Will you please shut up now?

In case you have not noticed, Seville is in Spain and is not Washington, D.C. where the number of cyclists commuting to work is barely measurable despite significant investment in cycling infrastructure.

https://www.centerforwashingtonareastudies.org/state_of_the_capital_region/2022/_book/Intro.html

It’s cute how you think you can convince people that cycling in DC hasn’t increased by presenting statistics that don’t even disaggregate cycling as a category. In fact, the proportion of the population who cycle almost doubled from 2010 to 2015: https://wtop.com/local/2017/05/many-people-really-bike-work-around-dc-surprising-stats/

You argument is that if you removed taxis and motorcycles that it would make the bicycle mode share larger? It’s barely measurable combined. Did you bother to check the numbers in the article you posted? It says 4% cycle to work. 4 percent! 80% use cars. Sure, going from 2 to 4 is doubling, but when starting from such a small base its rather meaningless.

Run a calculation of how much public space - and funds - are devoted to vehicle infrastructure and how much is dedicated to bike infrastructure. The ratio of those two numbers is going to be a lot larger than 80/4.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is there any mode of transportation that is *less* popular in Washington D.C. than biking?

People are more likely to drive or take the metro or take the bus or walk or carpool or take commuter rail or take a cab than they are to ride a bike.

And yet it's biking, the city's least popular way of getting around, that sponges up such a massive share of our transportation resources. It's bizarre.

Consider maybe that it’s not popular because it only has a tiny fraction of the infrastructure dedicated to cars and pedestrians?

The notion that DC is spending billions building bike lanes is absurd. The figure probably doesn’t exceed a few million annually, most of which is accounted for by hopeless community consultations in which crusty NIMBYs roll out fantastical nonsense to safeguard a selfish way of life that is doing immense damage to future generations.

If you want to talk about billions in subsidies, check out everything related to building and maintaining automotive infrastructure that gas taxes and car registrations don’t cover. Drivers are some of the biggest welfare queens around.

The popularity of cycling has not increased in any measurable way as a mode share of commuters since 1970. There is literally zero evidence that bicycle infrastructure induces more bicycling as a mode of transportation for commuting to work.

Great. Here is but one study that proves you are wrong: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0001457517301021. Will you please shut up now?

In case you have not noticed, Seville is in Spain and is not Washington, D.C. where the number of cyclists commuting to work is barely measurable despite significant investment in cycling infrastructure.

https://www.centerforwashingtonareastudies.org/state_of_the_capital_region/2022/_book/Intro.html

It’s cute how you think you can convince people that cycling in DC hasn’t increased by presenting statistics that don’t even disaggregate cycling as a category. In fact, the proportion of the population who cycle almost doubled from 2010 to 2015: https://wtop.com/local/2017/05/many-people-really-bike-work-around-dc-surprising-stats/

You argument is that if you removed taxis and motorcycles that it would make the bicycle mode share larger? It’s barely measurable combined. Did you bother to check the numbers in the article you posted? It says 4% cycle to work. 4 percent! 80% use cars. Sure, going from 2 to 4 is doubling, but when starting from such a small base its rather meaningless.

You were claiming that cycling hadn’t increased in spite of all the new infrastructure. You were presented with statistics showing that cyclists in DC had doubled over just 5 years. Now you are claiming that the change doesn’t matter anyway. You are pathetic. Please just give up.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This will push more commuting cars onto reno road and wisconsin who then will cut through neighborhoods to get to rock creek, you are just "calming" traffic (e.g. creating gridlock) on Conn Ave and pumping tons of cars onto peoples residential streets, which are not made for it, which is worse for the environment and the city - but you can now feel superior coasting down your bike lane on Conn Ave. There is no reason bikes can't use the side streets, they are safer - it just takes longer and the bike's want to hijack a lane on the most direct route (signed a pedestrian, not a driver)

If you’re really worried about cut through traffic (which is an issue for a lot of neighborhoods with artery roads without bike lanes), ask DDOT to install speed bumps. The risk that some streets experience cut through traffic is not a good argument against the bike lanes.

Speed humps are not meant to mitigate the volume of traffic, but rather the speed.

DC is a grid, you can't just close off public space in the form of streets.

Who is closing streets?

That's the point. Although some are trying. You can't close off side streets. Side streets filled with seniors and children walking and bicycling. The traffic from Connecticut is being diverted onto the side streets. In order to "protect" currently non-existent bicyclists on Connecticut you are endangering existent bicyclists and pedestrians that happen to predominenrly be small children and seniors. The two groups most vulnerable. The only way thr circle gets squared is if over 10,000 people magically give up cars and start bicycling into town. That is not going to happen.

How do you drive from MD downtown on “sidestreets”?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is not 1922, people. We have decades of data now to have a complete picture of how subsidizing car dependence affects cities and their inhabitants.

No one who is remotely informed and objective could argue that it is in the interests of a city like DC to subsidize an activity that reduces urban property values, destroys civic culture, pollutes the air, accelerates climate change, kills and maims pedestrians, cyclists, and drivers alike, fuels political polarization, and wastes hours upon hours of commuter’s time on this earth.

We get it that some of you are hopelessly addicted to your cars and the suburban lifestyles they support, but trying to disguise the fact that you think public policy should be made to serve your interests and not the greater good by making baselessly claims and fat-shaming people is a little pathetic.

I mean, there are a lot of things I’d like that I wish the government would just give me, but I’m not silly enough to go on public forums and whine about not getting them.

Let me guess: You're a senior in high school? This sounds like something a senior in high school would say.

Cognitive skills and social consciousness decline from about age 18 on, so thanks for the compliment. Maybe you should start listening to more HS seniors.

But practical experience about how people respond to stimuli in real life goes through the roof. You know, the ability to predict outcomes. That's what everyone is pointing out. Vehicles will not magically disappear from the road. Thousands won't start biking on Connecticut Avenue. It will be a cluster...

And btw cognitive skills dont start declining until the 30's.

Induced demand is a pretty simple concept and the evidence for it is fairly clear. If you can’t grasp basic principles of transportation analysis, it’s maybe time to start worrying about your own cognitive decline rather than spending your time constructing straw men.

Induced demand is about congestion, which is effectively a measure of throughput. It holds that demand for an unpriced public good will exceed supply of that good, which is only natural. It is not a bi-directional concept that reduced supply of that good reduces demand. In any case, you also seem to fail to grasp that while the rate of throughput decreases over time, actual capacity is higher. Induced demand is not a collection of magic words that allow you wave a wand and pretend that your favored policy for this road will not have obvious negative externalities. The most obvious of which is the increased total capacity will mean people going elsewhere. Maybe that is a good trade off for you, but it is a real economic tradeoff. Close the street entirely to cars and you will see further changes to economic patterns. Nothing just magically disappears. But keep up the magical thinking.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is there any mode of transportation that is *less* popular in Washington D.C. than biking?

People are more likely to drive or take the metro or take the bus or walk or carpool or take commuter rail or take a cab than they are to ride a bike.

And yet it's biking, the city's least popular way of getting around, that sponges up such a massive share of our transportation resources. It's bizarre.

Consider maybe that it’s not popular because it only has a tiny fraction of the infrastructure dedicated to cars and pedestrians?

The notion that DC is spending billions building bike lanes is absurd. The figure probably doesn’t exceed a few million annually, most of which is accounted for by hopeless community consultations in which crusty NIMBYs roll out fantastical nonsense to safeguard a selfish way of life that is doing immense damage to future generations.

If you want to talk about billions in subsidies, check out everything related to building and maintaining automotive infrastructure that gas taxes and car registrations don’t cover. Drivers are some of the biggest welfare queens around.

The popularity of cycling has not increased in any measurable way as a mode share of commuters since 1970. There is literally zero evidence that bicycle infrastructure induces more bicycling as a mode of transportation for commuting to work.

Great. Here is but one study that proves you are wrong: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0001457517301021. Will you please shut up now?

In case you have not noticed, Seville is in Spain and is not Washington, D.C. where the number of cyclists commuting to work is barely measurable despite significant investment in cycling infrastructure.

https://www.centerforwashingtonareastudies.org/state_of_the_capital_region/2022/_book/Intro.html

It’s cute how you think you can convince people that cycling in DC hasn’t increased by presenting statistics that don’t even disaggregate cycling as a category. In fact, the proportion of the population who cycle almost doubled from 2010 to 2015: https://wtop.com/local/2017/05/many-people-really-bike-work-around-dc-surprising-stats/

You argument is that if you removed taxis and motorcycles that it would make the bicycle mode share larger? It’s barely measurable combined. Did you bother to check the numbers in the article you posted? It says 4% cycle to work. 4 percent! 80% use cars. Sure, going from 2 to 4 is doubling, but when starting from such a small base its rather meaningless.

You were claiming that cycling hadn’t increased in spite of all the new infrastructure. You were presented with statistics showing that cyclists in DC had doubled over just 5 years. Now you are claiming that the change doesn’t matter anyway. You are pathetic. Please just give up.

You think an increase of bicycle share from 2 to 4 percent is significant? It is barely measureable. Back out measurement error and it may not even be a statistically significant increase. I am sorry that facts make you so angry.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The people opposed to the bike lanes think this is perfectly acceptable

Please stop acting like this is anything other than an extremely rare occurrence. It’s not, and a major artery into and out of the city shouldn’t be turned into a clusterfu** because of it. You also act like the new format would somehow magically prevent such accidents.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Is there any mode of transportation that is *less* popular in Washington D.C. than biking?

People are more likely to drive or take the metro or take the bus or walk or carpool or take commuter rail or take a cab than they are to ride a bike.

And yet it's biking, the city's least popular way of getting around, that sponges up such a massive share of our transportation resources. It's bizarre.

Roller skating is less popular. Also traveling by stilts.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is there any mode of transportation that is *less* popular in Washington D.C. than biking?

People are more likely to drive or take the metro or take the bus or walk or carpool or take commuter rail or take a cab than they are to ride a bike.

And yet it's biking, the city's least popular way of getting around, that sponges up such a massive share of our transportation resources. It's bizarre.

Consider maybe that it’s not popular because it only has a tiny fraction of the infrastructure dedicated to cars and pedestrians?

The notion that DC is spending billions building bike lanes is absurd. The figure probably doesn’t exceed a few million annually, most of which is accounted for by hopeless community consultations in which crusty NIMBYs roll out fantastical nonsense to safeguard a selfish way of life that is doing immense damage to future generations.

If you want to talk about billions in subsidies, check out everything related to building and maintaining automotive infrastructure that gas taxes and car registrations don’t cover. Drivers are some of the biggest welfare queens around.

The popularity of cycling has not increased in any measurable way as a mode share of commuters since 1970. There is literally zero evidence that bicycle infrastructure induces more bicycling as a mode of transportation for commuting to work.

Great. Here is but one study that proves you are wrong: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0001457517301021. Will you please shut up now?

In case you have not noticed, Seville is in Spain and is not Washington, D.C. where the number of cyclists commuting to work is barely measurable despite significant investment in cycling infrastructure.

https://www.centerforwashingtonareastudies.org/state_of_the_capital_region/2022/_book/Intro.html

It’s cute how you think you can convince people that cycling in DC hasn’t increased by presenting statistics that don’t even disaggregate cycling as a category. In fact, the proportion of the population who cycle almost doubled from 2010 to 2015: https://wtop.com/local/2017/05/many-people-really-bike-work-around-dc-surprising-stats/

You argument is that if you removed taxis and motorcycles that it would make the bicycle mode share larger? It’s barely measurable combined. Did you bother to check the numbers in the article you posted? It says 4% cycle to work. 4 percent! 80% use cars. Sure, going from 2 to 4 is doubling, but when starting from such a small base its rather meaningless.

Run a calculation of how much public space - and funds - are devoted to vehicle infrastructure and how much is dedicated to bike infrastructure. The ratio of those two numbers is going to be a lot larger than 80/4.

Run the calculation of the collective economic contribution to GDP of those bike trips versus car trips.