Options for opposing Connecticut Avenue changes?

[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.

Yeah but you got to admit that was some weak sauce.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

“Reduced demand” is not a “basic economic theory”. Jesus.

[Anonymous]

[Anonymous]

4 percent bicycle share across the entire DMV is not impressive. However, the numbers don’t add up. How many ride 15th street, CCT, MBT and Maine Ave every day? That’s less than 20,000 daily average on the most popular trails/bike lanes. Add another 10,000 daily Capital Bikeshare users, even if that is double counting and we don’t even have 10%.

I imagine a lot of survey respondents claim to cycle but don’t in their mind they are bike commuters but not in practice. However, not much of anything.

[Anonymous]

And yet, we know the model for development and transportation is no longer environmentally or economically sustainable, so we need to make changes. Investing in infrastructure that gets some people away from cars is a solution that has worked elsewhere. We are not so special that it should not work here as well.

As others have said, we need to invest in bikes and mass transit.

What is your solution?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:And yet, we know the model for development and transportation is no longer environmentally or economically sustainable, so we need to make changes. Investing in infrastructure that gets some people away from cars is a solution that has worked elsewhere. We are not so special that it should not work here as well.

As others have said, we need to invest in bikes and mass transit.

What is your solution?

I prefer hybrids and electric cars, and plan to continue to use them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And yet, we know the model for development and transportation is no longer environmentally or economically sustainable, so we need to make changes. Investing in infrastructure that gets some people away from cars is a solution that has worked elsewhere. We are not so special that it should not work here as well.

As others have said, we need to invest in bikes and mass transit.

What is your solution?

I prefer hybrids and electric cars, and plan to continue to use them.

That is fine, but it does nothing to reduce limited road capacity. Do you expect city streets to be further widened somehow?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And yet, we know the model for development and transportation is no longer environmentally or economically sustainable, so we need to make changes. Investing in infrastructure that gets some people away from cars is a solution that has worked elsewhere. We are not so special that it should not work here as well.

As others have said, we need to invest in bikes and mass transit.

What is your solution?

I prefer hybrids and electric cars, and plan to continue to use them.

That is fine, but it does nothing to reduce limited road capacity. Do you expect city streets to be further widened somehow?

I am not interested in reducing road capacity.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And yet, we know the model for development and transportation is no longer environmentally or economically sustainable, so we need to make changes. Investing in infrastructure that gets some people away from cars is a solution that has worked elsewhere. We are not so special that it should not work here as well.

As others have said, we need to invest in bikes and mass transit.

What is your solution?

I prefer hybrids and electric cars, and plan to continue to use them.

What about the looming electrical black-outs?
Like in CA.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

What exactly is this survey based on? Self-reporting? Dream on...

News Flash: Americans are not giving up their cars. And as soon as immigrants can afford a car, they get one. Just a little reality check for you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And yet, we know the model for development and transportation is no longer environmentally or economically sustainable, so we need to make changes. Investing in infrastructure that gets some people away from cars is a solution that has worked elsewhere. We are not so special that it should not work here as well.

As others have said, we need to invest in bikes and mass transit.

What is your solution?

I prefer hybrids and electric cars, and plan to continue to use them.

That is fine, but it does nothing to reduce limited road capacity. Do you expect city streets to be further widened somehow?

I am not interested in reducing road capacity.

Then expect to be stuck with a lot of other people who don't care about car traffic clogging up limited lanes on our public streets. People will continue to migrate to cities, and there won't be more road capacity added to handle the additional population, which means more cars on the roads, unless there are alternatives.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Your point is that the dismantling of the Embarcadero helped Silicon Valley at the expense of Oakland is it not? It’s still a very complex argument to make. But good luck if you want to make a serious attempt.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

“Reduced demand” is not a “basic economic theory”. Jesus.

It’s not a basic economic theory. It’s an application of very basic economic theory. So simple that it doesn’t warrant even being called a theory. But still yet you struggle with it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Your point is that the dismantling of the Embarcadero helped Silicon Valley at the expense of Oakland is it not? It’s still a very complex argument to make. But good luck if you want to make a serious attempt.

So how does that translate to Oakland becoming Silicon Valley and it is not an argument but an actual recitation of the facts of the change in the economy of the Bay Area immediately following the Loma Preita earthquake. The Penninsula and also East Bay suburbs across the San Mateo bridge (Hayward and Pleasanton) grew dramatically. Oakland, Richmond, Vallejo, etc economically suffered. You could call it a one off, and yet the same phenomenon occurred here in the DMV, with Fairfax taking off and Montgomery County almost taking off before succumbing to NIMBYism.

The problem with our area for DC is that the jurisdictional competition is a lot different than other cities and this will actually precipitate more population loss to the suburbs because it decreases the amenities and quality of life of a big chunk of the city. Harder to drive, harder to receive deliveries but no supermarkets or significant shopping doesn’t sound like a nice place to live.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

“Reduced demand” is not a “basic economic theory”. Jesus.

It’s not a basic economic theory. It’s an application of very basic economic theory. So simple that it doesn’t warrant even being called a theory. But still yet you struggle with it.

LOL. It absolutely is not.