DDOT's latest plan to destroy traffic, Georgia Avenue edition

[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:Ward 4 has the highest concentration of children under the age of 10 in the city. Some of them will inevitably be killed as a direct result of this DDOT proposal. We all know it will send tens of thousands of cars through side streets of Ward 4 to avoid the gridlock on Georgia that this plan will create.

There's basically no children on Georgia Avenue (Georgia Avenue is mostly liquor stores and other businesses), but go a few blocks east or west and there's a million of them. A lot of young children.

It's hard to imagine how this plan would *not* result in many children being killed. I would think someone will sue to stop this truly insane idea.

The status quo has already resulted in at least one actual - not hypothetical - child being actually - not hypothetically - killed.

On a different street. After 16th Street was redesigned.

The child was killed at the intersection of Kennedy and Georgia. The family was crossing Kennedy at Georgia - just like you would do if you were walking along Georgia and needed to get to the other side of Kennedy. And yet you keep insisting that the intersection of Kennedy and Georgia has nothing to do with Georgia.

they crossed from one side of Kennedy to the other side of Kennedy. Breaking the law in the process, it's probably worth noting.

https://ddot.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/ddot/publication/attachments/bike_ped_traffic_reg_summary_0_0.pdf

"If a pedestrian crosses a roadway AT ANY POINT OTHER THAN A MARKED CROSSWALK, or within an unmarked crosswalk at an intersection, THE PEDESTRIAN SHALL YEILD THE RIGHT OF WAY TO ANY VEHICLE."

At Georgia.

Is it open season on four-year-old children who break traffic laws, now? Are you the one expressing concern about the safety of children on "side streets"?

Not PP but what are you talking about re: “open season on 4 year olds”. The point is that crossing a road can be dangerous. That is true especially when Jay walking. It is parents’ responsibility to look out for 4 year olds and not let them run into the street.

You know, it's interesting, because I would say it's drivers' responsibility to look out for 4 year olds and not hit them, and I would also say it's DDOT's responsibility to make crossing a road safe.

A person might infer from your post that you actually are not concerned about the safety of children, after all.

The primary person charged with ensuring the safety of the deceased boy did not do that, for whatever reason. No one is blaming a four year old He however was accompanied by an adult who had an absolute duty to keep him from harm.

He would not have come to harm if the driver had stopped instead of hitting him.

People who blame children for getting hit by cars, and people who blame parents for their children getting hit by cars, are equally morally reprehensible. And equally uninterested in children's safety.

And if father and mother had wheels, then the boy would have been born a trolley.

The driver was determined to be not at fault. After a review the visual recordings of the incident by law enforcement. In 5th grade vocab, that means they didn’t do anything wrong. They had a right to be doing what they were doing and the manner in which they were doing it was lawful and correct.

Something here was however not correct. Just because a parent may be in pain following a tragedy (pool drowning, hot carseat death, playdate with a pit bull) does not mean they are not at fault for the death of a child.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ward 4 has the highest concentration of children under the age of 10 in the city. Some of them will inevitably be killed as a direct result of this DDOT proposal. We all know it will send tens of thousands of cars through side streets of Ward 4 to avoid the gridlock on Georgia that this plan will create.

There's basically no children on Georgia Avenue (Georgia Avenue is mostly liquor stores and other businesses), but go a few blocks east or west and there's a million of them. A lot of young children.

It's hard to imagine how this plan would *not* result in many children being killed. I would think someone will sue to stop this truly insane idea.

The status quo has already resulted in at least one actual - not hypothetical - child being actually - not hypothetically - killed.

On a different street. After 16th Street was redesigned.

The child was killed at the intersection of Kennedy and Georgia. The family was crossing Kennedy at Georgia - just like you would do if you were walking along Georgia and needed to get to the other side of Kennedy. And yet you keep insisting that the intersection of Kennedy and Georgia has nothing to do with Georgia.

they crossed from one side of Kennedy to the other side of Kennedy. Breaking the law in the process, it's probably worth noting.

https://ddot.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/ddot/publication/attachments/bike_ped_traffic_reg_summary_0_0.pdf

"If a pedestrian crosses a roadway AT ANY POINT OTHER THAN A MARKED CROSSWALK, or within an unmarked crosswalk at an intersection, THE PEDESTRIAN SHALL YEILD THE RIGHT OF WAY TO ANY VEHICLE."

At Georgia.

Is it open season on four-year-old children who break traffic laws, now? Are you the one expressing concern about the safety of children on "side streets"?

Not PP but what are you talking about re: “open season on 4 year olds”. The point is that crossing a road can be dangerous. That is true especially when Jay walking. It is parents’ responsibility to look out for 4 year olds and not let them run into the street.

You know, it's interesting, because I would say it's drivers' responsibility to look out for 4 year olds and not hit them, and I would also say it's DDOT's responsibility to make crossing a road safe.

A person might infer from your post that you actually are not concerned about the safety of children, after all.

The primary person charged with ensuring the safety of the deceased boy did not do that, for whatever reason. No one is blaming a four year old He however was accompanied by an adult who had an absolute duty to keep him from harm.

Can you be sure that the child would still be alive if he had crossed the street on a crosswalk? I can’t. People are killed in DC every year while crossing with a cross signal on a crosswalk. The most recent person to suffer this fate, I believe, was Patricia Bullinger. She died after being struck by a vehicle while crossing Foxhall Road.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:These discussions are always completely ruined by the monomaniacal NIMBYs. Can we have an actual discussion about it?

One caveat: they're not NIMBYs. They don't want bus lanes or bike lanes or anything that might inconvenience driving, anywhere. They are opposed to such things everywhere.

To be fair, my sense isn't that these people are opposed to bike lanes, per se. What they're opposed to is installing them on Georgia Ave. specifically and the resulting loss of driving lanes.

Perhaps more broadly, since we're seeing similar resistance to bike lanes taking over driving lanes on CT and SD Ave, is there's an argument to be made that bike lanes don't belong on main arterial streets. One can make that argument while not being opposed to bike lanes overall.

They are opposed to bike lanes, per se. Or maybe not per se, but they are opposed to installing them here, and there, and there, and also there, and everywhere else anybody is actually proposing to build bike lanes. In other words, they might not be opposed to bike lanes in theory (although I think they actually are), but they are certainly opposed to every real bike lane.

[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:Ward 4 has the highest concentration of children under the age of 10 in the city. Some of them will inevitably be killed as a direct result of this DDOT proposal. We all know it will send tens of thousands of cars through side streets of Ward 4 to avoid the gridlock on Georgia that this plan will create.

There's basically no children on Georgia Avenue (Georgia Avenue is mostly liquor stores and other businesses), but go a few blocks east or west and there's a million of them. A lot of young children.

It's hard to imagine how this plan would *not* result in many children being killed. I would think someone will sue to stop this truly insane idea.

The status quo has already resulted in at least one actual - not hypothetical - child being actually - not hypothetically - killed.

On a different street. After 16th Street was redesigned.

The child was killed at the intersection of Kennedy and Georgia. The family was crossing Kennedy at Georgia - just like you would do if you were walking along Georgia and needed to get to the other side of Kennedy. And yet you keep insisting that the intersection of Kennedy and Georgia has nothing to do with Georgia.

they crossed from one side of Kennedy to the other side of Kennedy. Breaking the law in the process, it's probably worth noting.

https://ddot.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/ddot/publication/attachments/bike_ped_traffic_reg_summary_0_0.pdf

"If a pedestrian crosses a roadway AT ANY POINT OTHER THAN A MARKED CROSSWALK, or within an unmarked crosswalk at an intersection, THE PEDESTRIAN SHALL YEILD THE RIGHT OF WAY TO ANY VEHICLE."

At Georgia.

Is it open season on four-year-old children who break traffic laws, now? Are you the one expressing concern about the safety of children on "side streets"?

Not PP but what are you talking about re: “open season on 4 year olds”. The point is that crossing a road can be dangerous. That is true especially when Jay walking. It is parents’ responsibility to look out for 4 year olds and not let them run into the street.

You know, it's interesting, because I would say it's drivers' responsibility to look out for 4 year olds and not hit them, and I would also say it's DDOT's responsibility to make crossing a road safe.

A person might infer from your post that you actually are not concerned about the safety of children, after all.

The primary person charged with ensuring the safety of the deceased boy did not do that, for whatever reason. No one is blaming a four year old He however was accompanied by an adult who had an absolute duty to keep him from harm.

He would not have come to harm if the driver had stopped instead of hitting him.

People who blame children for getting hit by cars, and people who blame parents for their children getting hit by cars, are equally morally reprehensible. And equally uninterested in children's safety.

And if father and mother had wheels, then the boy would have been born a trolley.

The driver was determined to be not at fault. After a review the visual recordings of the incident by law enforcement. In 5th grade vocab, that means they didn’t do anything wrong. They had a right to be doing what they were doing and the manner in which they were doing it was lawful and correct.

Something here was however not correct. Just because a parent may be in pain following a tragedy (pool drowning, hot carseat death, playdate with a pit bull) does not mean they are not at fault for the death of a child.

Was the driver deemed to be not at fault or did MPD just lack the evidence necessary to pursue a conviction? Many deaths caused by vehicular crashes are not prosecuted but not because no one was at fault.

[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:Ward 4 has the highest concentration of children under the age of 10 in the city. Some of them will inevitably be killed as a direct result of this DDOT proposal. We all know it will send tens of thousands of cars through side streets of Ward 4 to avoid the gridlock on Georgia that this plan will create.

There's basically no children on Georgia Avenue (Georgia Avenue is mostly liquor stores and other businesses), but go a few blocks east or west and there's a million of them. A lot of young children.

It's hard to imagine how this plan would *not* result in many children being killed. I would think someone will sue to stop this truly insane idea.

The status quo has already resulted in at least one actual - not hypothetical - child being actually - not hypothetically - killed.

On a different street. After 16th Street was redesigned.

The child was killed at the intersection of Kennedy and Georgia. The family was crossing Kennedy at Georgia - just like you would do if you were walking along Georgia and needed to get to the other side of Kennedy. And yet you keep insisting that the intersection of Kennedy and Georgia has nothing to do with Georgia.

they crossed from one side of Kennedy to the other side of Kennedy. Breaking the law in the process, it's probably worth noting.

https://ddot.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/ddot/publication/attachments/bike_ped_traffic_reg_summary_0_0.pdf

"If a pedestrian crosses a roadway AT ANY POINT OTHER THAN A MARKED CROSSWALK, or within an unmarked crosswalk at an intersection, THE PEDESTRIAN SHALL YEILD THE RIGHT OF WAY TO ANY VEHICLE."

At Georgia.

Is it open season on four-year-old children who break traffic laws, now? Are you the one expressing concern about the safety of children on "side streets"?

Not PP but what are you talking about re: “open season on 4 year olds”. The point is that crossing a road can be dangerous. That is true especially when Jay walking. It is parents’ responsibility to look out for 4 year olds and not let them run into the street.

You know, it's interesting, because I would say it's drivers' responsibility to look out for 4 year olds and not hit them, and I would also say it's DDOT's responsibility to make crossing a road safe.

A person might infer from your post that you actually are not concerned about the safety of children, after all.

The primary person charged with ensuring the safety of the deceased boy did not do that, for whatever reason. No one is blaming a four year old He however was accompanied by an adult who had an absolute duty to keep him from harm.

He would not have come to harm if the driver had stopped instead of hitting him.

People who blame children for getting hit by cars, and people who blame parents for their children getting hit by cars, are equally morally reprehensible. And equally uninterested in children's safety.

And if father and mother had wheels, then the boy would have been born a trolley.

The driver was determined to be not at fault. After a review the visual recordings of the incident by law enforcement. In 5th grade vocab, that means they didn’t do anything wrong. They had a right to be doing what they were doing and the manner in which they were doing it was lawful and correct.

Something here was however not correct. Just because a parent may be in pain following a tragedy (pool drowning, hot carseat death, playdate with a pit bull) does not mean they are not at fault for the death of a child.

No, it doesn't. It means they didn't do anything illegal. There is no moral universe in which killing a child with your car isn't wrong.

[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:Ward 4 has the highest concentration of children under the age of 10 in the city. Some of them will inevitably be killed as a direct result of this DDOT proposal. We all know it will send tens of thousands of cars through side streets of Ward 4 to avoid the gridlock on Georgia that this plan will create.

There's basically no children on Georgia Avenue (Georgia Avenue is mostly liquor stores and other businesses), but go a few blocks east or west and there's a million of them. A lot of young children.

It's hard to imagine how this plan would *not* result in many children being killed. I would think someone will sue to stop this truly insane idea.

The status quo has already resulted in at least one actual - not hypothetical - child being actually - not hypothetically - killed.

On a different street. After 16th Street was redesigned.

The child was killed at the intersection of Kennedy and Georgia. The family was crossing Kennedy at Georgia - just like you would do if you were walking along Georgia and needed to get to the other side of Kennedy. And yet you keep insisting that the intersection of Kennedy and Georgia has nothing to do with Georgia.

they crossed from one side of Kennedy to the other side of Kennedy. Breaking the law in the process, it's probably worth noting.

https://ddot.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/ddot/publication/attachments/bike_ped_traffic_reg_summary_0_0.pdf

"If a pedestrian crosses a roadway AT ANY POINT OTHER THAN A MARKED CROSSWALK, or within an unmarked crosswalk at an intersection, THE PEDESTRIAN SHALL YEILD THE RIGHT OF WAY TO ANY VEHICLE."

At Georgia.

Is it open season on four-year-old children who break traffic laws, now? Are you the one expressing concern about the safety of children on "side streets"?

Not PP but what are you talking about re: “open season on 4 year olds”. The point is that crossing a road can be dangerous. That is true especially when Jay walking. It is parents’ responsibility to look out for 4 year olds and not let them run into the street.

You know, it's interesting, because I would say it's drivers' responsibility to look out for 4 year olds and not hit them, and I would also say it's DDOT's responsibility to make crossing a road safe.

A person might infer from your post that you actually are not concerned about the safety of children, after all.

The primary person charged with ensuring the safety of the deceased boy did not do that, for whatever reason. No one is blaming a four year old He however was accompanied by an adult who had an absolute duty to keep him from harm.

Can you be sure that the child would still be alive if he had crossed the street on a crosswalk? I can’t. People are killed in DC every year while crossing with a cross signal on a crosswalk. The most recent person to suffer this fate, I believe, was Patricia Bullinger. She died after being struck by a vehicle while crossing Foxhall Road.

I think everyone understands that there is no magical anti-car force field when you have your feet on white paint on the road. If the driver had hit him when he had his feet on white paint on the road, he would have been just as dead.

[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:Ward 4 has the highest concentration of children under the age of 10 in the city. Some of them will inevitably be killed as a direct result of this DDOT proposal. We all know it will send tens of thousands of cars through side streets of Ward 4 to avoid the gridlock on Georgia that this plan will create.

There's basically no children on Georgia Avenue (Georgia Avenue is mostly liquor stores and other businesses), but go a few blocks east or west and there's a million of them. A lot of young children.

It's hard to imagine how this plan would *not* result in many children being killed. I would think someone will sue to stop this truly insane idea.

The status quo has already resulted in at least one actual - not hypothetical - child being actually - not hypothetically - killed.

On a different street. After 16th Street was redesigned.

The child was killed at the intersection of Kennedy and Georgia. The family was crossing Kennedy at Georgia - just like you would do if you were walking along Georgia and needed to get to the other side of Kennedy. And yet you keep insisting that the intersection of Kennedy and Georgia has nothing to do with Georgia.

they crossed from one side of Kennedy to the other side of Kennedy. Breaking the law in the process, it's probably worth noting.

https://ddot.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/ddot/publication/attachments/bike_ped_traffic_reg_summary_0_0.pdf

"If a pedestrian crosses a roadway AT ANY POINT OTHER THAN A MARKED CROSSWALK, or within an unmarked crosswalk at an intersection, THE PEDESTRIAN SHALL YEILD THE RIGHT OF WAY TO ANY VEHICLE."

At Georgia.

Is it open season on four-year-old children who break traffic laws, now? Are you the one expressing concern about the safety of children on "side streets"?

Not PP but what are you talking about re: “open season on 4 year olds”. The point is that crossing a road can be dangerous. That is true especially when Jay walking. It is parents’ responsibility to look out for 4 year olds and not let them run into the street.

You know, it's interesting, because I would say it's drivers' responsibility to look out for 4 year olds and not hit them, and I would also say it's DDOT's responsibility to make crossing a road safe.

A person might infer from your post that you actually are not concerned about the safety of children, after all.

The primary person charged with ensuring the safety of the deceased boy did not do that, for whatever reason. No one is blaming a four year old He however was accompanied by an adult who had an absolute duty to keep him from harm.

Can you be sure that the child would still be alive if he had crossed the street on a crosswalk? I can’t. People are killed in DC every year while crossing with a cross signal on a crosswalk. The most recent person to suffer this fate, I believe, was Patricia Bullinger. She died after being struck by a vehicle while crossing Foxhall Road.

Can be sure the child would be alive if they were in an air balloon instead? In the world of hypotheticals anything can be true.

You want us to follow your philosphy and preferences and editcs, and think like you, but we don't have to. No matter if you have a response to every post that is against your opinion. Volume of words doesn't have the power of mind control.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:These discussions are always completely ruined by the monomaniacal NIMBYs. Can we have an actual discussion about it?

One caveat: they're not NIMBYs. They don't want bus lanes or bike lanes or anything that might inconvenience driving, anywhere. They are opposed to such things everywhere.

To be fair, my sense isn't that these people are opposed to bike lanes, per se. What they're opposed to is installing them on Georgia Ave. specifically and the resulting loss of driving lanes.

Perhaps more broadly, since we're seeing similar resistance to bike lanes taking over driving lanes on CT and SD Ave, is there's an argument to be made that bike lanes don't belong on main arterial streets. One can make that argument while not being opposed to bike lanes overall.

They are opposed to installing bike lanes on arterial streets that they drive along. And they are opposed to installing bike lanes on side streets they drive or park along. And they find common cause with others who oppose bike lanes on arterial and side streets that others bike and park along. But they are probably OK with bike lanes in Oslo, Copenhagen, and Amsterdam, should they wish to vacation there. So I guess that makes them not opposed to bike lanes “overall”? OK.

[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:Ward 4 has the highest concentration of children under the age of 10 in the city. Some of them will inevitably be killed as a direct result of this DDOT proposal. We all know it will send tens of thousands of cars through side streets of Ward 4 to avoid the gridlock on Georgia that this plan will create.

There's basically no children on Georgia Avenue (Georgia Avenue is mostly liquor stores and other businesses), but go a few blocks east or west and there's a million of them. A lot of young children.

It's hard to imagine how this plan would *not* result in many children being killed. I would think someone will sue to stop this truly insane idea.

The status quo has already resulted in at least one actual - not hypothetical - child being actually - not hypothetically - killed.

On a different street. After 16th Street was redesigned.

The child was killed at the intersection of Kennedy and Georgia. The family was crossing Kennedy at Georgia - just like you would do if you were walking along Georgia and needed to get to the other side of Kennedy. And yet you keep insisting that the intersection of Kennedy and Georgia has nothing to do with Georgia.

they crossed from one side of Kennedy to the other side of Kennedy. Breaking the law in the process, it's probably worth noting.

https://ddot.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/ddot/publication/attachments/bike_ped_traffic_reg_summary_0_0.pdf

"If a pedestrian crosses a roadway AT ANY POINT OTHER THAN A MARKED CROSSWALK, or within an unmarked crosswalk at an intersection, THE PEDESTRIAN SHALL YEILD THE RIGHT OF WAY TO ANY VEHICLE."

At Georgia.

Is it open season on four-year-old children who break traffic laws, now? Are you the one expressing concern about the safety of children on "side streets"?

Not PP but what are you talking about re: “open season on 4 year olds”. The point is that crossing a road can be dangerous. That is true especially when Jay walking. It is parents’ responsibility to look out for 4 year olds and not let them run into the street.

You know, it's interesting, because I would say it's drivers' responsibility to look out for 4 year olds and not hit them, and I would also say it's DDOT's responsibility to make crossing a road safe.

A person might infer from your post that you actually are not concerned about the safety of children, after all.

The primary person charged with ensuring the safety of the deceased boy did not do that, for whatever reason. No one is blaming a four year old He however was accompanied by an adult who had an absolute duty to keep him from harm.

Can you be sure that the child would still be alive if he had crossed the street on a crosswalk? I can’t. People are killed in DC every year while crossing with a cross signal on a crosswalk. The most recent person to suffer this fate, I believe, was Patricia Bullinger. She died after being struck by a vehicle while crossing Foxhall Road.

I think everyone understands that there is no magical anti-car force field when you have your feet on white paint on the road. If the driver had hit him when he had his feet on white paint on the road, he would have been just as dead.

They want cars to go away and not exist. Cars are evil to them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:These discussions are always completely ruined by the monomaniacal NIMBYs. Can we have an actual discussion about it?

One caveat: they're not NIMBYs. They don't want bus lanes or bike lanes or anything that might inconvenience driving, anywhere. They are opposed to such things everywhere.

To be fair, my sense isn't that these people are opposed to bike lanes, per se. What they're opposed to is installing them on Georgia Ave. specifically and the resulting loss of driving lanes.

Perhaps more broadly, since we're seeing similar resistance to bike lanes taking over driving lanes on CT and SD Ave, is there's an argument to be made that bike lanes don't belong on main arterial streets. One can make that argument while not being opposed to bike lanes overall.

They are opposed to installing bike lanes on arterial streets that they drive along. And they are opposed to installing bike lanes on side streets they drive or park along. And they find common cause with others who oppose bike lanes on arterial and side streets that others bike and park along. But they are probably OK with bike lanes in Oslo, Copenhagen, and Amsterdam, should they wish to vacation there. So I guess that makes them not opposed to bike lanes “overall”? OK.

is this supposed to be a gotcha? People have preferences that are not yours. That is fine. Are we supposed to be concerned that you do not always get your way? You do not care if we get our way, so why should we care about your wants?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Everyone agrees traffic is awful, but drivers don't want anything to be done about it. They seem to hate bikes, busses and metro equally. What do they actually propose? Putting a freeway through Rock Creek Park? Just leave everyone a seething mass of road rage with 40 or so deaths a year?

I think drivers as a whole are probably reasonable and wouldn’t mind reasonable measures. The very loud NIMBYs on here with the ever-changing set of arguments are not actually motivated by any sort of thoughtful consideration of how a city should work.

[Anonymous]

This DDOT proposal pretty much guarantees that children will be killed.

It would create total gridlock on Georgia Avenue which would (with the help of Waze) redirect tens of thousands of cars every day onto side streets in the abutting neighborhoods, which just happen to have the highest concentrations of small children in the entire city.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This DDOT proposal pretty much guarantees that children will be killed.

It would create total gridlock on Georgia Avenue which would (with the help of Waze) redirect tens of thousands of cars every day onto side streets in the abutting neighborhoods, which just happen to have the highest concentrations of small children in the entire city.

You're not interested in the safety of small children. If you were, you would support changes to Georgia Avenue.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:These discussions are always completely ruined by the monomaniacal NIMBYs. Can we have an actual discussion about it?

One caveat: they're not NIMBYs. They don't want bus lanes or bike lanes or anything that might inconvenience driving, anywhere. They are opposed to such things everywhere.

To be fair, my sense isn't that these people are opposed to bike lanes, per se. What they're opposed to is installing them on Georgia Ave. specifically and the resulting loss of driving lanes.

Perhaps more broadly, since we're seeing similar resistance to bike lanes taking over driving lanes on CT and SD Ave, is there's an argument to be made that bike lanes don't belong on main arterial streets. One can make that argument while not being opposed to bike lanes overall.

these are bus lanes. not bike lanes. but the crazy opposition to the bus lanes on Georgia reveals that the opposition to bike lanes on CT was similarly dishonest - the same people fulminating here about bus lanes on Georgia were no doubt claiming that bike lanes on CT hurt bus riders (as one of their many arguments).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:These discussions are always completely ruined by the monomaniacal NIMBYs. Can we have an actual discussion about it?

One caveat: they're not NIMBYs. They don't want bus lanes or bike lanes or anything that might inconvenience driving, anywhere. They are opposed to such things everywhere.

To be fair, my sense isn't that these people are opposed to bike lanes, per se. What they're opposed to is installing them on Georgia Ave. specifically and the resulting loss of driving lanes.

Perhaps more broadly, since we're seeing similar resistance to bike lanes taking over driving lanes on CT and SD Ave, is there's an argument to be made that bike lanes don't belong on main arterial streets. One can make that argument while not being opposed to bike lanes overall.

They are opposed to installing bike lanes on arterial streets that they drive along. And they are opposed to installing bike lanes on side streets they drive or park along. And they find common cause with others who oppose bike lanes on arterial and side streets that others bike and park along. But they are probably OK with bike lanes in Oslo, Copenhagen, and Amsterdam, should they wish to vacation there. So I guess that makes them not opposed to bike lanes “overall”? OK.

is this supposed to be a gotcha? People have preferences that are not yours. That is fine. Are we supposed to be concerned that you do not always get your way? You do not care if we get our way, so why should we care about your wants?

DP. It's not a gotcha. It's a description of people who hate bike lanes and the people who use them.