Options for opposing Connecticut Avenue changes?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

It is a simple explanation. DDOT conducted a study to end reversible lanes and decide what the path is for the future. DDOT held a bunch of meetings, the ANC's and even SMD commissioners held meetings. The feedbacl was overhwelmingly in favor of "Option C," the Mayor based on the feedback from the public and the ANC's "great weight" chose option C and the Council funded it.

Again, the overwhelming majority of people who provided comments were in favor of it; with almost unanimity, the ANC Commissioners were in favor of it, and only one single Commissioner in the span of Connecticut Avenue from Woodley Park to Chevy Chase opposed it

If anything, at this point, the people who need to explain themselves are the ones who believe that cars are the future, that clogging roads with the most inefficient form of urban transportation is the path forward.

The mayor also closed the schools at the same time these meetings were occurring. Few parents had any bandwidth left to participate in this process because they were trying to juggle home school with work obligations. Most of the participants were young, childless, renters who have little if any skin in the game. This process was a complete fraud.

Oh yes, SIXTY public meetings plus the chance to submit written comments to DDOT is a "complete fraud." Designed to silence parents who spent $2 mil on their "1940s colonial" and to only hear those worthless renters.

Anyway, covid forced all public meetings to transition to virtual. This actually drastically increased the number of participants of all different opinions. Before, there would be like 3 people at ANC meetings. After, dozens or hundreds came online. Virtual made it significantly easier for parents to participate, actually.

You obviously do not have kids. Because if you did you’d still be recovering from the trauma of trying to juggle 8 simultaneously hours of Zoom calls for two working adults and two kids five days a week. The last thing parents wanted to deal with those two years was another Zoom call.

Yes, I do. And it was significantly easier to attend on Zoom than it is to have to go in person. Your claims are frankly absurd and just go to show the lengths to which people will go to complain. You're convincing nobody except yourself.

Give me a break. If you are a parent and you have time to pay attention to this stuff, you are the rare exception. People without kids have all the time in the world. People with kids, generally speaking, are just trying to keep their heads above water.

DP, hardly the rare exception. Most of the people I know who commented were parents with small children who wanted to be able to ride with their kids to school safely on a bike via Connecticut Avenue.

ok now we know you're a troll. as a parent of small children who pretty much only socializes with parents of small children, i can tell you that parents of small children would be horrified by the idea of their kids riding bikes almost anywhere in dc, but especially connecticut avenue. there is no one who wants that.

Then you should get outside your bubble and meet other people who want their kids to be able to get around safely.

Pretty much the only people who care about bike lanes are childless white guys between the ages of 25 and 45. But I love how they say they're *really* doing it for black and brown people and children and the poor and old people. Don't forget the blind and disabled! They really want bike lanes too, right?

Oh ffs miss me with the false accusations of racism. Wards 7 and 8 face the biggest risk of traffic injury, including to kids. Bike lanes as a traffic calming measure are important for everyone in DC. You think moms in Ward 7 don’t want their kids to be able to cross the street safely?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

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

Who is closing streets?

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

So no one is closing streets. I guess that PP is wrong.

Lurker here. Maybe not yet, but it will be coming. Take a look at Connecticut Avenue up in the Chevy Chase area south of MD-410 (southbound). In that area, all or almost all of the side streets have signs that say that there is no right turn through the neighborhood from 7am-9am Mon-Fri. These are designed to discourage cut-through traffic. Once the bike lanes are created, the through-traffic lanes on Conn Ave are throttled and the traffic starts to flood the the surrounding streets like the Nile delta, then you can bet that neighborhoods will be clamoring to have the same type of cut-offs enabled to block commuters from flooding their streets. It may not be planned now, but it will logically flow that they will demand that those actions be taken, just like they were further north on the same street.

Before this type of change, e.g. throttling the major north-south commuter route, there really needs to be better planning for how to account for the same volume of traffic. Even if the volume of bikers doubles from 4% to 8% over the next 5-10 years, you are still going to significantly impact the commuter traffic giving them no viable alternatives. There is not going to be sufficient diversion from car traffic to combined metro and biking commuting that will prevent this from being a major massive commuter PITA for decades to come. Not only will this impact the car commuters, but it will also poorly affect those neighborhoods within 1-3 blocks of Conn Ave for many years. Those areas will become less safe due to increased car traffic. Without an adequate sidewalk network in the area, walkability on the side roads, plus less safety for strollers and kids on bikes will become a big problem.

That is in Maryland and has nothing to do with this discussion. But I do agree that having those roads closed to cars makes Connecticut Avenue (and to a degree the area around Friendship Heights) a traffic sewer.

Resident of DC within 3 blocks of Connecticut Ave here. The Maryland examples are entirely relevant to "this discussion" because you can bank on the fact that similar actions will be proposed to DOT by residents like me.

I already live on a partially restricted / Do Not Enter block - a result of my neighbors and I effectively organizing and advocating for this change. The restriction single handedly reduced the speed of traffic on our residential block by 20 mph and the amount of cut through traffic from Wisconsin to Reno to Connecticut plummeted.

It's what a RESIDENTIAL block should be, and I encourage all residents to agitate for similar treatment once this assinine projects takes effect.

So you are ok with restricting access to your street but don't want others to do the same. There is a word for that and it isn't pretty.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

It is a simple explanation. DDOT conducted a study to end reversible lanes and decide what the path is for the future. DDOT held a bunch of meetings, the ANC's and even SMD commissioners held meetings. The feedbacl was overhwelmingly in favor of "Option C," the Mayor based on the feedback from the public and the ANC's "great weight" chose option C and the Council funded it.

Again, the overwhelming majority of people who provided comments were in favor of it; with almost unanimity, the ANC Commissioners were in favor of it, and only one single Commissioner in the span of Connecticut Avenue from Woodley Park to Chevy Chase opposed it

If anything, at this point, the people who need to explain themselves are the ones who believe that cars are the future, that clogging roads with the most inefficient form of urban transportation is the path forward.

The mayor also closed the schools at the same time these meetings were occurring. Few parents had any bandwidth left to participate in this process because they were trying to juggle home school with work obligations. Most of the participants were young, childless, renters who have little if any skin in the game. This process was a complete fraud.

Oh yes, SIXTY public meetings plus the chance to submit written comments to DDOT is a "complete fraud." Designed to silence parents who spent $2 mil on their "1940s colonial" and to only hear those worthless renters.

Anyway, covid forced all public meetings to transition to virtual. This actually drastically increased the number of participants of all different opinions. Before, there would be like 3 people at ANC meetings. After, dozens or hundreds came online. Virtual made it significantly easier for parents to participate, actually.

You obviously do not have kids. Because if you did you’d still be recovering from the trauma of trying to juggle 8 simultaneously hours of Zoom calls for two working adults and two kids five days a week. The last thing parents wanted to deal with those two years was another Zoom call.

Yes, I do. And it was significantly easier to attend on Zoom than it is to have to go in person. Your claims are frankly absurd and just go to show the lengths to which people will go to complain. You're convincing nobody except yourself.

Give me a break. If you are a parent and you have time to pay attention to this stuff, you are the rare exception. People without kids have all the time in the world. People with kids, generally speaking, are just trying to keep their heads above water.

DP, hardly the rare exception. Most of the people I know who commented were parents with small children who wanted to be able to ride with their kids to school safely on a bike via Connecticut Avenue.

ok now we know you're a troll. as a parent of small children who pretty much only socializes with parents of small children, i can tell you that parents of small children would be horrified by the idea of their kids riding bikes almost anywhere in dc, but especially connecticut avenue. there is no one who wants that.

Then you should get outside your bubble and meet other people who want their kids to be able to get around safely.

If all these Canadian girlfriends want their kids to be able to bike safely in their neighborhood then why do they want to massively increase traffic on their own residential streets? It makes no sense.

Maybe it makes no sense because it’s not true? Just a thought!

[Anonymous]

Honestly these arguments make me hate DC and the US in general. We will jealously refuse to improve anything until the country falls apart and is miserable for all.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

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

Who is closing streets?

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

So no one is closing streets. I guess that PP is wrong.

Lurker here. Maybe not yet, but it will be coming. Take a look at Connecticut Avenue up in the Chevy Chase area south of MD-410 (southbound). In that area, all or almost all of the side streets have signs that say that there is no right turn through the neighborhood from 7am-9am Mon-Fri. These are designed to discourage cut-through traffic. Once the bike lanes are created, the through-traffic lanes on Conn Ave are throttled and the traffic starts to flood the the surrounding streets like the Nile delta, then you can bet that neighborhoods will be clamoring to have the same type of cut-offs enabled to block commuters from flooding their streets. It may not be planned now, but it will logically flow that they will demand that those actions be taken, just like they were further north on the same street.

Before this type of change, e.g. throttling the major north-south commuter route, there really needs to be better planning for how to account for the same volume of traffic. Even if the volume of bikers doubles from 4% to 8% over the next 5-10 years, you are still going to significantly impact the commuter traffic giving them no viable alternatives. There is not going to be sufficient diversion from car traffic to combined metro and biking commuting that will prevent this from being a major massive commuter PITA for decades to come. Not only will this impact the car commuters, but it will also poorly affect those neighborhoods within 1-3 blocks of Conn Ave for many years. Those areas will become less safe due to increased car traffic. Without an adequate sidewalk network in the area, walkability on the side roads, plus less safety for strollers and kids on bikes will become a big problem.

That is in Maryland and has nothing to do with this discussion. But I do agree that having those roads closed to cars makes Connecticut Avenue (and to a degree the area around Friendship Heights) a traffic sewer.

Resident of DC within 3 blocks of Connecticut Ave here. The Maryland examples are entirely relevant to "this discussion" because you can bank on the fact that similar actions will be proposed to DOT by residents like me.

I already live on a partially restricted / Do Not Enter block - a result of my neighbors and I effectively organizing and advocating for this change. The restriction single handedly reduced the speed of traffic on our residential block by 20 mph and the amount of cut through traffic from Wisconsin to Reno to Connecticut plummeted.

It's what a RESIDENTIAL block should be, and I encourage all residents to agitate for similar treatment once this assinine projects takes effect.

A city street is a city street that should be open and safe to all. When you restrict traffic on your street, you are pushing it on to your neighbor's street. That is so kind of you. We live in a city and expect there to be cars on our streets, and some of them may park in front of our houses, egads.

What isn't cool is when a street is so hostile that people who want to use a mode other than a car, cannot in a safe manner. I am a driver, a walker and yes, a biker. I would bike a lot more if Conn Ave had a bike lane. Alas, it doesn't, so I might find my self driving on your street. Apologies in advance for begriming you with my presence.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The city has had bike lanes for more than a decade, and the government has bent over backwards to promote them, and yet biking remains the least popular means of transportation.

Surveys show biking is less popular than driving, taking the subway, riding the bus, taking a cab/uber, walking, carpooling and commuter rail

It's surprising that the city has put so much effort into promoting bike lanes (they even pay teachers to bike), for so long, and still it hasn't really caught on.

I guess maybe it only appeals to a small segment of the population.

All this bandwidth dedicated to the least popular way of getting around in Washington D.C.

the “bandwith” taken up by bike lanes is 90% people freaking out about bikelanes because they represent change and are for some reason very triggering to people.

In this case, people could care less about the bike lane part. It's the closing down a third of Connecticut Avenue part that people hate. And for good reason, it's a stupendously stupid idea that will actively harm the local community. If you all had decided to cannibalize the sidewalk for your scheme, it'd still be a bad idea but not a stupendously bad idea and there wouldn't be any outrage.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The city has had bike lanes for more than a decade, and the government has bent over backwards to promote them, and yet biking remains the least popular means of transportation.

Surveys show biking is less popular than driving, taking the subway, riding the bus, taking a cab/uber, walking, carpooling and commuter rail

It's surprising that the city has put so much effort into promoting bike lanes (they even pay teachers to bike), for so long, and still it hasn't really caught on.

I guess maybe it only appeals to a small segment of the population.

All this bandwidth dedicated to the least popular way of getting around in Washington D.C.

the “bandwith” taken up by bike lanes is 90% people freaking out about bikelanes because they represent change and are for some reason very triggering to people.

do you actually believe this? (because it is crazy). people hate bike lanes because they ruin traffic. they help a tiny number of bike bros and simultaneously hurt tens of thousands of other people.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The city has had bike lanes for more than a decade, and the government has bent over backwards to promote them, and yet biking remains the least popular means of transportation.

Surveys show biking is less popular than driving, taking the subway, riding the bus, taking a cab/uber, walking, carpooling and commuter rail

It's surprising that the city has put so much effort into promoting bike lanes (they even pay teachers to bike), for so long, and still it hasn't really caught on.

I guess maybe it only appeals to a small segment of the population.

All this bandwidth dedicated to the least popular way of getting around in Washington D.C.

the “bandwith” taken up by bike lanes is 90% people freaking out about bikelanes because they represent change and are for some reason very triggering to people.

do you actually believe this? (because it is crazy). people hate bike lanes because they ruin traffic. they help a tiny number of bike bros and simultaneously hurt tens of thousands of other people.

I mean, all I have to do is quote your absurd post to support it, yes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The city has had bike lanes for more than a decade, and the government has bent over backwards to promote them, and yet biking remains the least popular means of transportation.

Surveys show biking is less popular than driving, taking the subway, riding the bus, taking a cab/uber, walking, carpooling and commuter rail

It's surprising that the city has put so much effort into promoting bike lanes (they even pay teachers to bike), for so long, and still it hasn't really caught on.

I guess maybe it only appeals to a small segment of the population.

the government pays people to ride a bike! and it is still wildly unpopular!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

It is a simple explanation. DDOT conducted a study to end reversible lanes and decide what the path is for the future. DDOT held a bunch of meetings, the ANC's and even SMD commissioners held meetings. The feedbacl was overhwelmingly in favor of "Option C," the Mayor based on the feedback from the public and the ANC's "great weight" chose option C and the Council funded it.

Again, the overwhelming majority of people who provided comments were in favor of it; with almost unanimity, the ANC Commissioners were in favor of it, and only one single Commissioner in the span of Connecticut Avenue from Woodley Park to Chevy Chase opposed it

If anything, at this point, the people who need to explain themselves are the ones who believe that cars are the future, that clogging roads with the most inefficient form of urban transportation is the path forward.

The mayor also closed the schools at the same time these meetings were occurring. Few parents had any bandwidth left to participate in this process because they were trying to juggle home school with work obligations. Most of the participants were young, childless, renters who have little if any skin in the game. This process was a complete fraud.

DC is remarkably hostile to parents and children, and I think this is a big reason why. Our elected leaders, beginning at the ANC level, almost never have school age kids. They don't even think about how their policies affect families. They see everything through the eyes of childless adults who have very different priorities than people with kids. And parents generally don't participate in the process because they don't have time.

The mayor has kids. DDOT working on this stuff have kids. At least half my ANC members have kids. MANY parents from our school participate in ANC meetings virtually. Every time we discuss traffic issues we talk about making it safe for kids.

Stop whining here and sign up for your local listserv.

So weird that the mayor lives in a leafy suburb with 24 hour armed security and is never impacted by the crime, homelessness, and bike lanes she delivers to our doorsteps.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The city has had bike lanes for more than a decade, and the government has bent over backwards to promote them, and yet biking remains the least popular means of transportation.

Surveys show biking is less popular than driving, taking the subway, riding the bus, taking a cab/uber, walking, carpooling and commuter rail

It's surprising that the city has put so much effort into promoting bike lanes (they even pay teachers to bike), for so long, and still it hasn't really caught on.

I guess maybe it only appeals to a small segment of the population.

All this bandwidth dedicated to the least popular way of getting around in Washington D.C.

the “bandwith” taken up by bike lanes is 90% people freaking out about bikelanes because they represent change and are for some reason very triggering to people.

In this case, people could care less about the bike lane part. It's the closing down a third of Connecticut Avenue part that people hate. And for good reason, it's a stupendously stupid idea that will actively harm the local community. If you all had decided to cannibalize the sidewalk for your scheme, it'd still be a bad idea but not a stupendously bad idea and there wouldn't be any outrage.

It isn't closing down a third when you look at it realistically. As it is, the left lane is backed up because people make turns. That goes away. The right lane is backed up with streeteries and double parked cars...that goes away. Still two through lanes, a buffer for pedestrians and a safe lane for bikes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The city has had bike lanes for more than a decade, and the government has bent over backwards to promote them, and yet biking remains the least popular means of transportation.

Surveys show biking is less popular than driving, taking the subway, riding the bus, taking a cab/uber, walking, carpooling and commuter rail

It's surprising that the city has put so much effort into promoting bike lanes (they even pay teachers to bike), for so long, and still it hasn't really caught on.

I guess maybe it only appeals to a small segment of the population.

All this bandwidth dedicated to the least popular way of getting around in Washington D.C.

the “bandwith” taken up by bike lanes is 90% people freaking out about bikelanes because they represent change and are for some reason very triggering to people.

do you actually believe this? (because it is crazy). people hate bike lanes because they ruin traffic. they help a tiny number of bike bros and simultaneously hurt tens of thousands of other people.

Traffic ruins traffic, not the bike lanes. The sooner you understand that, the more at peace you will be with the world.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The city has had bike lanes for more than a decade, and the government has bent over backwards to promote them, and yet biking remains the least popular means of transportation.

Surveys show biking is less popular than driving, taking the subway, riding the bus, taking a cab/uber, walking, carpooling and commuter rail

It's surprising that the city has put so much effort into promoting bike lanes (they even pay teachers to bike), for so long, and still it hasn't really caught on.

I guess maybe it only appeals to a small segment of the population.

All this bandwidth dedicated to the least popular way of getting around in Washington D.C.

the “bandwith” taken up by bike lanes is 90% people freaking out about bikelanes because they represent change and are for some reason very triggering to people.

In this case, people could care less about the bike lane part. It's the closing down a third of Connecticut Avenue part that people hate. And for good reason, it's a stupendously stupid idea that will actively harm the local community. If you all had decided to cannibalize the sidewalk for your scheme, it'd still be a bad idea but not a stupendously bad idea and there wouldn't be any outrage.

It isn't closing down a third when you look at it realistically. As it is, the left lane is backed up because people make turns. That goes away. The right lane is backed up with streeteries and double parked cars...that goes away. Still two through lanes, a buffer for pedestrians and a safe lane for bikes.

That's just blatantly not true.

[Anonymous]

I don't understand how in a car in dc where the speed limit max is 25 mph parents (Rightly) have to have their kids in protective car seats, but same parents are permitted on the road with the child in a tiny tent on wheels with a flag on top. That makes me so nervous every time I see the parent putting the kids in jeopardy like that

[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?