Options for opposing Connecticut Avenue changes?

[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?

It's about 5 pages back. You commented on it already.

[Anonymous]

Where are the bikes coming from to come down CT ave to go downtown? Is this recreational use or commuting? When the studies or plans were done what was the data showing who would use this? That would be helpful information.

Just a philosophical feeling that bikes are great and environmental does not sway me. If there really were significant numbers of residents of upperNW around CT ave who would bike in (and back up the giant 4 mile hill) that would be more persuasive

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Where are the bikes coming from to come down CT ave to go downtown? Is this recreational use or commuting? When the studies or plans were done what was the data showing who would use this? That would be helpful information.

Just a philosophical feeling that bikes are great and environmental does not sway me. If there really were significant numbers of residents of upperNW around CT ave who would bike in (and back up the giant 4 mile hill) that would be more persuasive

There are no studies. This is more progressive wishful thinking. This is Defund the Police for transportation.

[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.

You keep repeating this nonsense about “biking not catching on”. The number of cyclists doubled in DC over just 5 years when the city started installing bike lanes.

The ratio of cyclists to drivers and transit riders is still relatively small, but then again the ratio of bike lanes to road space - let alone the amount of money spent on bike lanes vs. road construction and maintenance - is infinitesimal. If cycling received 4% of DC’s transportation outlays, there would be more bike lanes than cyclists would know what to do with and that would hold true even if everyone biked.

Also, the notion that cyclists have no rights to a safe commute simply because they constitute a minority is a tad fascist.

[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 being closed down at all. Are you paying attention? Its use is being reallocated from cars to bicycles. How is that closed?!

[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:

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.

This is all factually true and DDOT doesn’t care.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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

If you drive safely, then you don't need to worry about others. And, if you were really that concerned about them, you would support a bike lane that they can ride safely in with their kid.

But you don't.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Where are the bikes coming from to come down CT ave to go downtown? Is this recreational use or commuting? When the studies or plans were done what was the data showing who would use this? That would be helpful information.

Just a philosophical feeling that bikes are great and environmental does not sway me. If there really were significant numbers of residents of upperNW around CT ave who would bike in (and back up the giant 4 mile hill) that would be more persuasive

I live in Chevy Chase DC - I would use it multiple times per day and ditch the car.

[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?

There are also some women. But this is basically correct.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Where are the bikes coming from to come down CT ave to go downtown? Is this recreational use or commuting? When the studies or plans were done what was the data showing who would use this? That would be helpful information.

Just a philosophical feeling that bikes are great and environmental does not sway me. If there really were significant numbers of residents of upperNW around CT ave who would bike in (and back up the giant 4 mile hill) that would be more persuasive

I live in Chevy Chase DC - I would use it multiple times per day and ditch the car.

If you hated your car that much you would not choose to live in Chevy Chase DC.

[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.

Bike bros are not DC's bike population. I don't mind the occasional simplistic stereotype but this is simply not at all accurate.

[Anonymous]

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.

Yes, hopefully DC does this as well (the bolded refers to MD). If close-in MD drivers want their side streets closed to commuter traffic I presume they won't have any issues with DC residents wanting the same.

I used to occasionally commute by car along E/W and CT Ave to Bethesda. The inability to cut through side streets (which was actually enforced by MoCo cops) certainly influenced my decision to drive to work and I switched to bus or metro on days that I didn't feel like dealing with car traffic. I would have loved the ability to bike as an alternative. That is the point here- DDOT has made it very clear that they want people to shift modes from cars.

The opponents on here assume that because they are so stuck in their ways to deal with any possible change in their precious bubbles that no one else would change their behavior in response to the incentives they are presented with. This is very, very silly stuff.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

It would appeal to more if there were a concerted and connected network. That is why Connecticut Avenue is so important. It provides the straightest and flatest path from uptown, through the several commercial areas, to downtown. It connects residents with business and schools.

This is utterly ridiculous. No one who doesnt already bike thinks to themselves, "Well, I would if only there was a concerted and connected network." Only hardcore bike geeks think like that. Normal people see bike lanes everywhere.

It seems like the bike lobby's argument is always "we know not very many people bike right now but if you give us endless amounts of money and turn the city upside down, eventually people will come." Well, we've had bike lanes for almost 15 years and it seems clear they aren't catching on.

Wrong. Avid cyclists will bike wherever. The normal person says "holy crap, there is no way I am biking on Connecticut Avenue."

Normal people say "who are these idiots who think it's safe to ride a bike in a city?" That isn't going to change regardless of what happens with Connecticut Avenue.

So you think it is unsafe to blanket ride in a city? You think that protected bike lanes on Connecticut Avenue won't prompt people to ride in the neighborhood?

Boy, am I glad you are not in charge of anything related to planning and transportation.

I guess you prefer this:

It is not blanket unsafe to ride a bike in the city. There are lots of kids and parents riding bikes together inside the neighborhoods on residential streets just like there has always been. That has nothing to do with bike lanes.

It is blanket unsafe to ride a bike on Connecticut Avenue regardless of bike lanes. No parent will let their kid ride a bike on a street that has 30,000 vehicles per day use it. Permanently closing two lanes of traffic and intentionally increasing congestion will only make this more so.

What's more, the tripling of traffic within the residential neighborhoods caused by closing down 1/3 of Connecticut Avenue will make riding within the residently neighborhoods significantly unsafe. This plan will result in less people riding bikes because it makes the areas where people currently ride bikes less safe.

Everyone loses. This is a horrible plan and those ANC commissioners should be ashamed of themselves.

Side streets get speed bumps and raised crosswalks. Problem solved.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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

It gets even worse! The city actually allows children to walk around the city without any protection whatsoever! What the hell are they thinking?