Options for opposing Connecticut Avenue changes?

[Anonymous]

Great morning for a bike ride to work!

[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?

This plan will not reduce cars, help the environment, transit, or safety. It will make side streets less safe and congested and cannibalize transit riders. People did not overpay for 1940s colonials in order to live the U Street lifestyle. Supporters of this plan have fundamentally misread the desires of long time residents because you are young and childless and have little life experience. For every one cargo bike mom there are 100 parents too busy to pay attention to this nonsense because they are living their lives with the expectation that elected officials have their best interest at heart.

[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?

This plan will not reduce cars, help the environment, transit, or safety. It will make side streets less safe and congested and cannibalize transit riders. People did not overpay for 1940s colonials in order to live the U Street lifestyle. Supporters of this plan have fundamentally misread the desires of long time residents because you are young and childless and have little life experience. For every one cargo bike mom there are 100 parents too busy to pay attention to this nonsense because they are living their lives with the expectation that elected officials have their best interest at heart.

Where os your data that bike lanes draw more commuters away from mass transit than from cars?

[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?

This plan will not reduce cars, help the environment, transit, or safety. It will make side streets less safe and congested and cannibalize transit riders. People did not overpay for 1940s colonials in order to live the U Street lifestyle. Supporters of this plan have fundamentally misread the desires of long time residents because you are young and childless and have little life experience. For every one cargo bike mom there are 100 parents too busy to pay attention to this nonsense because they are living their lives with the expectation that elected officials have their best interest at heart.

Well said

[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?

This plan will not reduce cars, help the environment, transit, or safety. It will make side streets less safe and congested and cannibalize transit riders. People did not overpay for 1940s colonials in order to live the U Street lifestyle. Supporters of this plan have fundamentally misread the desires of long time residents because you are young and childless and have little life experience. For every one cargo bike mom there are 100 parents too busy to pay attention to this nonsense because they are living their lives with the expectation that elected officials have their best interest at heart.

Where os your data that bike lanes draw more commuters away from mass transit than from cars?

The plan will reduce the mandatory need for people to be car dependent, it will give them a safe alterntative for when the want it. De Facto, if more people are biking and they are biking instead of driving a fossil fuel based car, then yes, there will be less pollution. Giving public space to each mode share absolutely makes a street safer. And this isn't about making upper NW into U street. It is a bout a fundemental shift GLOBALLY away from single occupancy cars.

I am sorry long time, older residents don't like it. But things change. People of color are now considered a full person and not 3/5th. Women can vote, laundry machines make it so you don't have to take dirty clothes to the stream and pound rocks. Society evolves, and the sooner the better where climate change is concerned. THAT is the future and the reality. Living in a 20th century mode isn't feasible anymore. Our elected leaders understand that and are taking steps to prepare our society and our built environment to adjust accordingly.

[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?

This plan will not reduce cars, help the environment, transit, or safety. It will make side streets less safe and congested and cannibalize transit riders. People did not overpay for 1940s colonials in order to live the U Street lifestyle. Supporters of this plan have fundamentally misread the desires of long time residents because you are young and childless and have little life experience. For every one cargo bike mom there are 100 parents too busy to pay attention to this nonsense because they are living their lives with the expectation that elected officials have their best interest at heart.

Where os your data that bike lanes draw more commuters away from mass transit than from cars?

There is nothing about PP's statement that is factual. They are talking anecdotally and are grasping at straws to make whatever convoluted statement fits their narrative.

[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?

This plan will not reduce cars, help the environment, transit, or safety. It will make side streets less safe and congested and cannibalize transit riders. People did not overpay for 1940s colonials in order to live the U Street lifestyle. Supporters of this plan have fundamentally misread the desires of long time residents because you are young and childless and have little life experience. For every one cargo bike mom there are 100 parents too busy to pay attention to this nonsense because they are living their lives with the expectation that elected officials have their best interest at heart.

Where os your data that bike lanes draw more commuters away from mass transit than from cars?

There is nothing about PP's statement that is factual. They are talking anecdotally and are grasping at straws to make whatever convoluted statement fits their narrative.

Then it should be easy to point out what is inaccurate.

[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?

This plan will not reduce cars, help the environment, transit, or safety. It will make side streets less safe and congested and cannibalize transit riders. People did not overpay for 1940s colonials in order to live the U Street lifestyle. Supporters of this plan have fundamentally misread the desires of long time residents because you are young and childless and have little life experience. For every one cargo bike mom there are 100 parents too busy to pay attention to this nonsense because they are living their lives with the expectation that elected officials have their best interest at heart.

Where os your data that bike lanes draw more commuters away from mass transit than from cars?

The plan will reduce the mandatory need for people to be car dependent, it will give them a safe alterntative for when the want it. De Facto, if more people are biking and they are biking instead of driving a fossil fuel based car, then yes, there will be less pollution. Giving public space to each mode share absolutely makes a street safer. And this isn't about making upper NW into U street. It is a bout a fundemental shift GLOBALLY away from single occupancy cars.

I am sorry long time, older residents don't like it. But things change. People of color are now considered a full person and not 3/5th. Women can vote, laundry machines make it so you don't have to take dirty clothes to the stream and pound rocks. Society evolves, and the sooner the better where climate change is concerned. THAT is the future and the reality. Living in a 20th century mode isn't feasible anymore. Our elected leaders understand that and are taking steps to prepare our society and our built environment to adjust accordingly.

This is a Pyrrhic victory. It will not reduce the total number of cars or pollution. People who have chosen not to ride transit are not going to all of a sudden start riding bikes. You’ve doomed Connecticut Ave retail which was already struggling to recover. Your future retail options are going to include countless check cashing stores and vape shops.

[Anonymous]

People in our neighborhood throw debris in the bike lanes so people can't use them. Be careful out there.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Right? This is the funny thing about the people who dig in and resist any transit or density improvements. What exactly do they think they are engineering? I saw my hometown area go from little traffic to constant gridlock over about 15 years because of the lack of improvement to transit coupled with increased population.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

it’s sad how the unhinged get so much air time. We learned nothing from Trump.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?)

there was also the DDOT public comment period.

And no, I’m sorry, individual public works don’t get put up to votes by the public. that would be utterly insane and result in our infrastructure falling apart even more than it is now. We elect officials whose job it is to do these things. You don’t like them, vote them out.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

This plan will not reduce cars, help the environment, transit, or safety. It will make side streets less safe and congested and cannibalize transit riders. People did not overpay for 1940s colonials in order to live the U Street lifestyle. Supporters of this plan have fundamentally misread the desires of long time residents because you are young and childless and have little life experience. For every one cargo bike mom there are 100 parents too busy to pay attention to this nonsense because they are living their lives with the expectation that elected officials have their best interest at heart.

Where os your data that bike lanes draw more commuters away from mass transit than from cars?

The plan will reduce the mandatory need for people to be car dependent, it will give them a safe alterntative for when the want it. De Facto, if more people are biking and they are biking instead of driving a fossil fuel based car, then yes, there will be less pollution. Giving public space to each mode share absolutely makes a street safer. And this isn't about making upper NW into U street. It is a bout a fundemental shift GLOBALLY away from single occupancy cars.

I am sorry long time, older residents don't like it. But things change. People of color are now considered a full person and not 3/5th. Women can vote, laundry machines make it so you don't have to take dirty clothes to the stream and pound rocks. Society evolves, and the sooner the better where climate change is concerned. THAT is the future and the reality. Living in a 20th century mode isn't feasible anymore. Our elected leaders understand that and are taking steps to prepare our society and our built environment to adjust accordingly.

This is a Pyrrhic victory. It will not reduce the total number of cars or pollution. People who have chosen not to ride transit are not going to all of a sudden start riding bikes. You’ve doomed Connecticut Ave retail which was already struggling to recover. Your future retail options are going to include countless check cashing stores and vape shops.

With a growing population and a static amount of road space, it isn't about "reducing the number of cars" - it is about giving people options so they are not forced to use a car. If you want to use a car and sit in traffic and generate fumes, that is your choice, but there should be options, including being able to access the businesses on Connecticut Avenue safely.

The businesses on Connecticut Avenue are generally neighborhood serving. In other words, most of their customers are from the neighborhood, not people driving there.

[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?

This plan will not reduce cars, help the environment, transit, or safety. It will make side streets less safe and congested and cannibalize transit riders. People did not overpay for 1940s colonials in order to live the U Street lifestyle. Supporters of this plan have fundamentally misread the desires of long time residents because you are young and childless and have little life experience. For every one cargo bike mom there are 100 parents too busy to pay attention to this nonsense because they are living their lives with the expectation that elected officials have their best interest at heart.

Where os your data that bike lanes draw more commuters away from mass transit than from cars?

The plan will reduce the mandatory need for people to be car dependent, it will give them a safe alterntative for when the want it. De Facto, if more people are biking and they are biking instead of driving a fossil fuel based car, then yes, there will be less pollution. Giving public space to each mode share absolutely makes a street safer. And this isn't about making upper NW into U street. It is a bout a fundemental shift GLOBALLY away from single occupancy cars.

I am sorry long time, older residents don't like it. But things change. People of color are now considered a full person and not 3/5th. Women can vote, laundry machines make it so you don't have to take dirty clothes to the stream and pound rocks. Society evolves, and the sooner the better where climate change is concerned. THAT is the future and the reality. Living in a 20th century mode isn't feasible anymore. Our elected leaders understand that and are taking steps to prepare our society and our built environment to adjust accordingly.

YOU are the one stuck in the past. This isn’t 1990 anymore and people are not tied to their desks. DC’s population is shrinking. Downtown office occupancy is at 50% of pre COVID levels The move should be to infill downtown with housing and bike infrastructure. Not destroy residential neighborhoods. You people keep stepping on the rake.

[Anonymous]

Here is the list of ANC commissioners behind this plan.
- https://anc3c.org/commissioners/
- http://anc3f.com/about/
- https://anc3g.org/commission-as-a-whole/
- https://anc.dc.gov/page/advisory-neighborhood-commission-3e

These are the people that need to explain themselves.