Options for opposing Connecticut Avenue changes?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Dc resident here. This won’t affect my commute at all. I still won’t bike to work (too far and would take too long), and I will either take the bus or the metro to get downtown, or drive during non rush hour

I do feel for Maryland commuters

And anyone on a north south side street. Or a cut thru between conn and reno. Yes traffic will calm. But if that becomes gridlock things could get stupid pretty fast.

Yes yes, cars are bad. I agree! And we are in a new age where many office workers can be more flexible in their routines. But roads do help hundreds of thousands of people get to their jobs, prop up the tax base, allow families to get activities. So it is an important balance.

hope I am wrong and tons of people do bike conn ave. And traffic adjusts and a new safer equilibrium reached. Bookmarking this thread for review later …

The biggest problem with those cut throughs is the number of parks and schools, from nursery to college, along that road with students who mostly walk to school, many of whom cross Reno. I can think of 15 schools off the top of my head. There are not crossing lights at all of these intersections (only a few), unlike along Connecticut and Wisconsin. I'm glad they are finally putting speed bumps near the schools, but there are so many accidents at the Reno intersections as it is. Cars belong on the main roads of Connecticut and Wisconsin. Even there, we have a lot of schools and parks: 9 along upper Connecticut and 8 along upper Wisconsin.

The problem with the cut throughs is the drivers driving too fast and badly.

So we should intentionally triple the amount of them?

No, we should install more speed bumps and deploy cameras pointed at intersections. Punish the bad drivers and force them to slow down until they follow the law. Or go drive on CT Ave.

If we all chip in and buy you and your 10 friends condos downtown will you just go away? This is a shakedown right? Parents spent 1.5 years distracted during the pandemic trying to homeschool their kids and meanwhile like 20 renters along Connecticut Ave and their ANC pals are pushing through bike lanes and weed dispensaries while no one is looking.

The bike lane proposal is wildly popular to most everyone it has been presented to. There are like 20 people on two listserve and now this thread, who are opposed to them, oh and the GOP candidate for Ward 3. I guess you should go support him and his anti-Choice, pro-Christian agenda.

And Trayon White. One of those beautiful instances that demonstrates the political spectrum is in fact a circle.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Dc resident here. This won’t affect my commute at all. I still won’t bike to work (too far and would take too long), and I will either take the bus or the metro to get downtown, or drive during non rush hour

I do feel for Maryland commuters

And anyone on a north south side street. Or a cut thru between conn and reno. Yes traffic will calm. But if that becomes gridlock things could get stupid pretty fast.

Yes yes, cars are bad. I agree! And we are in a new age where many office workers can be more flexible in their routines. But roads do help hundreds of thousands of people get to their jobs, prop up the tax base, allow families to get activities. So it is an important balance.

hope I am wrong and tons of people do bike conn ave. And traffic adjusts and a new safer equilibrium reached. Bookmarking this thread for review later …

The biggest problem with those cut throughs is the number of parks and schools, from nursery to college, along that road with students who mostly walk to school, many of whom cross Reno. I can think of 15 schools off the top of my head. There are not crossing lights at all of these intersections (only a few), unlike along Connecticut and Wisconsin. I'm glad they are finally putting speed bumps near the schools, but there are so many accidents at the Reno intersections as it is. Cars belong on the main roads of Connecticut and Wisconsin. Even there, we have a lot of schools and parks: 9 along upper Connecticut and 8 along upper Wisconsin.

The problem with the cut throughs is the drivers driving too fast and badly.

So we should intentionally triple the amount of them?

No, we should install more speed bumps and deploy cameras pointed at intersections. Punish the bad drivers and force them to slow down until they follow the law. Or go drive on CT Ave.

If we all chip in and buy you and your 10 friends condos downtown will you just go away? This is a shakedown right? Parents spent 1.5 years distracted during the pandemic trying to homeschool their kids and meanwhile like 20 renters along Connecticut Ave and their ANC pals are pushing through bike lanes and weed dispensaries while no one is looking.

The bike lane proposal is wildly popular to most everyone it has been presented to. There are like 20 people on two listserve and now this thread, who are opposed to them, oh and the GOP candidate for Ward 3. I guess you should go support him and his anti-Choice, pro-Christian agenda.

How do you know? Are you the one behind this stupid and widely unpopular idea? Did you tell them that you had a magical fix to make traffic go away? Are you telling me this entire fiasco is the result of a fool telling people that demand will just disappear?

Wtf does this have to do with national partisan politics or religion?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Dc resident here. This won’t affect my commute at all. I still won’t bike to work (too far and would take too long), and I will either take the bus or the metro to get downtown, or drive during non rush hour

I do feel for Maryland commuters

And anyone on a north south side street. Or a cut thru between conn and reno. Yes traffic will calm. But if that becomes gridlock things could get stupid pretty fast.

Yes yes, cars are bad. I agree! And we are in a new age where many office workers can be more flexible in their routines. But roads do help hundreds of thousands of people get to their jobs, prop up the tax base, allow families to get activities. So it is an important balance.

hope I am wrong and tons of people do bike conn ave. And traffic adjusts and a new safer equilibrium reached. Bookmarking this thread for review later …

The biggest problem with those cut throughs is the number of parks and schools, from nursery to college, along that road with students who mostly walk to school, many of whom cross Reno. I can think of 15 schools off the top of my head. There are not crossing lights at all of these intersections (only a few), unlike along Connecticut and Wisconsin. I'm glad they are finally putting speed bumps near the schools, but there are so many accidents at the Reno intersections as it is. Cars belong on the main roads of Connecticut and Wisconsin. Even there, we have a lot of schools and parks: 9 along upper Connecticut and 8 along upper Wisconsin.

The problem with the cut throughs is the drivers driving too fast and badly.

So we should intentionally triple the amount of them?

No, we should install more speed bumps and deploy cameras pointed at intersections. Punish the bad drivers and force them to slow down until they follow the law. Or go drive on CT Ave.

If we all chip in and buy you and your 10 friends condos downtown will you just go away? This is a shakedown right? Parents spent 1.5 years distracted during the pandemic trying to homeschool their kids and meanwhile like 20 renters along Connecticut Ave and their ANC pals are pushing through bike lanes and weed dispensaries while no one is looking.

The bike lane proposal is wildly popular to most everyone it has been presented to. There are like 20 people on two listserve and now this thread, who are opposed to them, oh and the GOP candidate for Ward 3. I guess you should go support him and his anti-Choice, pro-Christian agenda.

How do you know? Are you the one behind this stupid and widely unpopular idea? Did you tell them that you had a magical fix to make traffic go away? Are you telling me this entire fiasco is the result of a fool telling people that demand will just disappear?

Wtf does this have to do with national partisan politics or religion?

Because there are scores of public meetings, there were ANC commissioners who took feedback from their constituents and to a commissioner they commented the positive ratio of feedback. The only people complaining about it are, as someone said on the first page, a handful of entitled Ward 3 cranks who cannot envision a world other than their car centered life where they drive from 34th place to Ordway street to take the metro because, reasons..

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Dc resident here. This won’t affect my commute at all. I still won’t bike to work (too far and would take too long), and I will either take the bus or the metro to get downtown, or drive during non rush hour

I do feel for Maryland commuters

And anyone on a north south side street. Or a cut thru between conn and reno. Yes traffic will calm. But if that becomes gridlock things could get stupid pretty fast.

Yes yes, cars are bad. I agree! And we are in a new age where many office workers can be more flexible in their routines. But roads do help hundreds of thousands of people get to their jobs, prop up the tax base, allow families to get activities. So it is an important balance.

hope I am wrong and tons of people do bike conn ave. And traffic adjusts and a new safer equilibrium reached. Bookmarking this thread for review later …

The biggest problem with those cut throughs is the number of parks and schools, from nursery to college, along that road with students who mostly walk to school, many of whom cross Reno. I can think of 15 schools off the top of my head. There are not crossing lights at all of these intersections (only a few), unlike along Connecticut and Wisconsin. I'm glad they are finally putting speed bumps near the schools, but there are so many accidents at the Reno intersections as it is. Cars belong on the main roads of Connecticut and Wisconsin. Even there, we have a lot of schools and parks: 9 along upper Connecticut and 8 along upper Wisconsin.

The problem with the cut throughs is the drivers driving too fast and badly.

So we should intentionally triple the amount of them?

No, we should install more speed bumps and deploy cameras pointed at intersections. Punish the bad drivers and force them to slow down until they follow the law. Or go drive on CT Ave.

If we all chip in and buy you and your 10 friends condos downtown will you just go away? This is a shakedown right? Parents spent 1.5 years distracted during the pandemic trying to homeschool their kids and meanwhile like 20 renters along Connecticut Ave and their ANC pals are pushing through bike lanes and weed dispensaries while no one is looking.

The bike lane proposal is wildly popular to most everyone it has been presented to. There are like 20 people on two listserve and now this thread, who are opposed to them, oh and the GOP candidate for Ward 3. I guess you should go support him and his anti-Choice, pro-Christian agenda.

How do you know? Are you the one behind this stupid and widely unpopular idea? Did you tell them that you had a magical fix to make traffic go away? Are you telling me this entire fiasco is the result of a fool telling people that demand will just disappear?

Wtf does this have to do with national partisan politics or religion?

Because I am willing to bet there are a few hundred people who will put their personal politics aside to vote for the GOP ward 3 candidate to make a statement about their opposition to Biden Administration transportation priorities because that is how latte liberals roll.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

What the hell is this nonsense? The inverse of induced demand is, wait for it, reduced demand. As much as this poster doesn’t wish it to be so, it’s a thing: https://www.cnu.org/publicsquare/2021/03/19/reduced-demand-just-important-induced-demand

You guys are so corny. Probably explains why the planning profession lacks rigor.

Here’s an intellectual exercise, take away all of the lanes and then ponder the implications of “reduced demand”.

I cannot believe you think this is real.

It doesn’t need to be an intellectual exercise. There are actual real world examples that have been extensively studied. The collapse of the West Side Highway. The dismantling of the Embacadero in San Francisco. And so on. And the lesson from all those who have studied what happened in the aftermath of these events is that you have absolutely no freaking idea what you are talking about. But by all means keep making stuff up. You might even fool the odd NIMBY or two and win yourself a gram cracker.

Everyone likes to point to the Embarcadero. First of all, the Embarcadero freeway was unfinished because NIMBYs stopped it from completing its design connecting the Bay Bridge to the Golden Gate bride. So it dropped you off in Chinatown and North Beach. Second, and this is critically important to think about: what year was the earthquake and since the earthquake what happened in the Bay Area? If your response is not the explosion of Silicon Valley coupled with the economic demise of the East Bay, then you don’t know the Bay Area. You see, the traffic didn’t just magically disappear. The “traffic”, which represents the economy, moved down the Penninsula and Oakland lost. There are always trade offs. Sorry to break it to you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Dc resident here. This won’t affect my commute at all. I still won’t bike to work (too far and would take too long), and I will either take the bus or the metro to get downtown, or drive during non rush hour

I do feel for Maryland commuters

And anyone on a north south side street. Or a cut thru between conn and reno. Yes traffic will calm. But if that becomes gridlock things could get stupid pretty fast.

Yes yes, cars are bad. I agree! And we are in a new age where many office workers can be more flexible in their routines. But roads do help hundreds of thousands of people get to their jobs, prop up the tax base, allow families to get activities. So it is an important balance.

hope I am wrong and tons of people do bike conn ave. And traffic adjusts and a new safer equilibrium reached. Bookmarking this thread for review later …

The biggest problem with those cut throughs is the number of parks and schools, from nursery to college, along that road with students who mostly walk to school, many of whom cross Reno. I can think of 15 schools off the top of my head. There are not crossing lights at all of these intersections (only a few), unlike along Connecticut and Wisconsin. I'm glad they are finally putting speed bumps near the schools, but there are so many accidents at the Reno intersections as it is. Cars belong on the main roads of Connecticut and Wisconsin. Even there, we have a lot of schools and parks: 9 along upper Connecticut and 8 along upper Wisconsin.

The problem with the cut throughs is the drivers driving too fast and badly.

So we should intentionally triple the amount of them?

No, we should install more speed bumps and deploy cameras pointed at intersections. Punish the bad drivers and force them to slow down until they follow the law. Or go drive on CT Ave.

If we all chip in and buy you and your 10 friends condos downtown will you just go away? This is a shakedown right? Parents spent 1.5 years distracted during the pandemic trying to homeschool their kids and meanwhile like 20 renters along Connecticut Ave and their ANC pals are pushing through bike lanes and weed dispensaries while no one is looking.

The bike lane proposal is wildly popular to most everyone it has been presented to. There are like 20 people on two listserve and now this thread, who are opposed to them, oh and the GOP candidate for Ward 3. I guess you should go support him and his anti-Choice, pro-Christian agenda.

How do you know? Are you the one behind this stupid and widely unpopular idea? Did you tell them that you had a magical fix to make traffic go away? Are you telling me this entire fiasco is the result of a fool telling people that demand will just disappear?

Wtf does this have to do with national partisan politics or religion?

Because there are scores of public meetings, there were ANC commissioners who took feedback from their constituents and to a commissioner they commented the positive ratio of feedback. The only people complaining about it are, as someone said on the first page, a handful of entitled Ward 3 cranks who cannot envision a world other than their car centered life where they drive from 34th place to Ordway street to take the metro because, reasons..

Don’t forget about the “gadfly” from Ward 2. No NIMBY party could quite be complete without Nick “Your [expletive] children are not the subject here, you stupid [expletive]!” Delle Donne

[Anonymous]

What does the Embarcadero have to do with Connecticut Ave anyway? They aren't the least bit similar. There is literally nothing that they have in common. The Embacardero was like the SE/SW or Whitehurst Freeways.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What does the Embarcadero have to do with Connecticut Ave anyway? They aren't the least bit similar. There is literally nothing that they have in common. The Embacardero was like the SE/SW or Whitehurst Freeways.

Ask the proponents of this plan. They claim its relevant because ….. they invented a term called “reduced demand” which has zero intellectual foundation to explain why this bike lane won’t lead to adverse consequences, despite DDOT admitting that it will.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

What the hell is this nonsense? The inverse of induced demand is, wait for it, reduced demand. As much as this poster doesn’t wish it to be so, it’s a thing: https://www.cnu.org/publicsquare/2021/03/19/reduced-demand-just-important-induced-demand

You guys are so corny. Probably explains why the planning profession lacks rigor.

Here’s an intellectual exercise, take away all of the lanes and then ponder the implications of “reduced demand”.

I cannot believe you think this is real.

It doesn’t need to be an intellectual exercise. There are actual real world examples that have been extensively studied. The collapse of the West Side Highway. The dismantling of the Embacadero in San Francisco. And so on. And the lesson from all those who have studied what happened in the aftermath of these events is that you have absolutely no freaking idea what you are talking about. But by all means keep making stuff up. You might even fool the odd NIMBY or two and win yourself a gram cracker.

Everyone likes to point to the Embarcadero. First of all, the Embarcadero freeway was unfinished because NIMBYs stopped it from completing its design connecting the Bay Bridge to the Golden Gate bride. So it dropped you off in Chinatown and North Beach. Second, and this is critically important to think about: what year was the earthquake and since the earthquake what happened in the Bay Area? If your response is not the explosion of Silicon Valley coupled with the economic demise of the East Bay, then you don’t know the Bay Area. You see, the traffic didn’t just magically disappear. The “traffic”, which represents the economy, moved down the Penninsula and Oakland lost. There are always trade offs. Sorry to break it to you.

Alternate histories are always fun and I do sincerely appreciate the effort. But I think you will need to try a bit harder to convince anyone with even a passing knowledge of the Bay Area that the only thing standing between Oakland becoming what Silicon Valley know is was the full realization of the original vision for the Embarcadero freeway. If you do have something developed, please post it here. I will read it with interest. I won’t necessarily buy the argument, but I will read it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What does the Embarcadero have to do with Connecticut Ave anyway? They aren't the least bit similar. There is literally nothing that they have in common. The Embacardero was like the SE/SW or Whitehurst Freeways.

Ask the proponents of this plan. They claim its relevant because ….. they invented a term called “reduced demand” which has zero intellectual foundation to explain why this bike lane won’t lead to adverse consequences, despite DDOT admitting that it will.

No one needs to invent anything. It is very basic economic theory. With plenty of evidence in support.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

What the hell is this nonsense? The inverse of induced demand is, wait for it, reduced demand. As much as this poster doesn’t wish it to be so, it’s a thing: https://www.cnu.org/publicsquare/2021/03/19/reduced-demand-just-important-induced-demand

You guys are so corny. Probably explains why the planning profession lacks rigor.

Here’s an intellectual exercise, take away all of the lanes and then ponder the implications of “reduced demand”.

I cannot believe you think this is real.

It doesn’t need to be an intellectual exercise. There are actual real world examples that have been extensively studied. The collapse of the West Side Highway. The dismantling of the Embacadero in San Francisco. And so on. And the lesson from all those who have studied what happened in the aftermath of these events is that you have absolutely no freaking idea what you are talking about. But by all means keep making stuff up. You might even fool the odd NIMBY or two and win yourself a gram cracker.

Everyone likes to point to the Embarcadero. First of all, the Embarcadero freeway was unfinished because NIMBYs stopped it from completing its design connecting the Bay Bridge to the Golden Gate bride. So it dropped you off in Chinatown and North Beach. Second, and this is critically important to think about: what year was the earthquake and since the earthquake what happened in the Bay Area? If your response is not the explosion of Silicon Valley coupled with the economic demise of the East Bay, then you don’t know the Bay Area. You see, the traffic didn’t just magically disappear. The “traffic”, which represents the economy, moved down the Penninsula and Oakland lost. There are always trade offs. Sorry to break it to you.

Alternate histories are always fun and I do sincerely appreciate the effort. But I think you will need to try a bit harder to convince anyone with even a passing knowledge of the Bay Area that the only thing standing between Oakland becoming what Silicon Valley know is was the full realization of the original vision for the Embarcadero freeway. If you do have something developed, please post it here. I will read it with interest. I won’t necessarily buy the argument, but I will read it.

It's great that you have knowledge about the Bay Area. The problem is that you don't have a passing knowledge of the DMV.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Dc resident here. This won’t affect my commute at all. I still won’t bike to work (too far and would take too long), and I will either take the bus or the metro to get downtown, or drive during non rush hour

I do feel for Maryland commuters

And anyone on a north south side street. Or a cut thru between conn and reno. Yes traffic will calm. But if that becomes gridlock things could get stupid pretty fast.

Yes yes, cars are bad. I agree! And we are in a new age where many office workers can be more flexible in their routines. But roads do help hundreds of thousands of people get to their jobs, prop up the tax base, allow families to get activities. So it is an important balance.

hope I am wrong and tons of people do bike conn ave. And traffic adjusts and a new safer equilibrium reached. Bookmarking this thread for review later …

The biggest problem with those cut throughs is the number of parks and schools, from nursery to college, along that road with students who mostly walk to school, many of whom cross Reno. I can think of 15 schools off the top of my head. There are not crossing lights at all of these intersections (only a few), unlike along Connecticut and Wisconsin. I'm glad they are finally putting speed bumps near the schools, but there are so many accidents at the Reno intersections as it is. Cars belong on the main roads of Connecticut and Wisconsin. Even there, we have a lot of schools and parks: 9 along upper Connecticut and 8 along upper Wisconsin.

The problem with the cut throughs is the drivers driving too fast and badly.

So we should intentionally triple the amount of them?

No, we should install more speed bumps and deploy cameras pointed at intersections. Punish the bad drivers and force them to slow down until they follow the law. Or go drive on CT Ave.

If we all chip in and buy you and your 10 friends condos downtown will you just go away? This is a shakedown right? Parents spent 1.5 years distracted during the pandemic trying to homeschool their kids and meanwhile like 20 renters along Connecticut Ave and their ANC pals are pushing through bike lanes and weed dispensaries while no one is looking.

The bike lane proposal is wildly popular to most everyone it has been presented to. There are like 20 people on two listserve and now this thread, who are opposed to them, oh and the GOP candidate for Ward 3. I guess you should go support him and his anti-Choice, pro-Christian agenda.

How do you know? Are you the one behind this stupid and widely unpopular idea? Did you tell them that you had a magical fix to make traffic go away? Are you telling me this entire fiasco is the result of a fool telling people that demand will just disappear?

Wtf does this have to do with national partisan politics or religion?

Because there are scores of public meetings, there were ANC commissioners who took feedback from their constituents and to a commissioner they commented the positive ratio of feedback. The only people complaining about it are, as someone said on the first page, a handful of entitled Ward 3 cranks who cannot envision a world other than their car centered life where they drive from 34th place to Ordway street to take the metro because, reasons..

Let me see - according to some key ANC commissioner there were about 60 meetings and they were able to drag up 60 or so positive emails and 6 businesses that supported the plan. I'd say that this [60 | 60 | 6] platform shows convincing and overwhelming support for all the effort. All of 1 positive email per meeting. Put it to a broader vote if you're so darn convinced of your position. Smugness clearly isn't your weakness. Persuasive capability (hmm?)

[Anonymous]

There were over 25 ANC Commissioners who took comments from their constituents. You are citing one who post3d on the Cleveland Park group this week.

Go talk to the others like I did.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There were over 25 ANC Commissioners who took comments from their constituents. You are citing one who post3d on the Cleveland Park group this week.

Go talk to the others like I did.

I will - will make the ratio come out even.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

What the hell is this nonsense? The inverse of induced demand is, wait for it, reduced demand. As much as this poster doesn’t wish it to be so, it’s a thing: https://www.cnu.org/publicsquare/2021/03/19/reduced-demand-just-important-induced-demand

You guys are so corny. Probably explains why the planning profession lacks rigor.

Here’s an intellectual exercise, take away all of the lanes and then ponder the implications of “reduced demand”.

I cannot believe you think this is real.

It doesn’t need to be an intellectual exercise. There are actual real world examples that have been extensively studied. The collapse of the West Side Highway. The dismantling of the Embacadero in San Francisco. And so on. And the lesson from all those who have studied what happened in the aftermath of these events is that you have absolutely no freaking idea what you are talking about. But by all means keep making stuff up. You might even fool the odd NIMBY or two and win yourself a gram cracker.

Everyone likes to point to the Embarcadero. First of all, the Embarcadero freeway was unfinished because NIMBYs stopped it from completing its design connecting the Bay Bridge to the Golden Gate bride. So it dropped you off in Chinatown and North Beach. Second, and this is critically important to think about: what year was the earthquake and since the earthquake what happened in the Bay Area? If your response is not the explosion of Silicon Valley coupled with the economic demise of the East Bay, then you don’t know the Bay Area. You see, the traffic didn’t just magically disappear. The “traffic”, which represents the economy, moved down the Penninsula and Oakland lost. There are always trade offs. Sorry to break it to you.

Alternate histories are always fun and I do sincerely appreciate the effort. But I think you will need to try a bit harder to convince anyone with even a passing knowledge of the Bay Area that the only thing standing between Oakland becoming what Silicon Valley know is was the full realization of the original vision for the Embarcadero freeway. If you do have something developed, please post it here. I will read it with interest. I won’t necessarily buy the argument, but I will read it.

That is not what I said, but thanks for playing. I am not sure if you are trying to be clever or just dumb. Either way, pretty funny.