Connecticut Ave bike lanes are back!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20240517-vision-zero-how-europe-cut-the-number-of-people-dying-on-its-roads

Interesting article about the origins of Vision Zero. It is very different than what it has transmogrified into. For instance, the very first project was removing concrete barriers. One of the other differences is that roads are defined according to their main use.

In short, the Connectict Ave plan goes against the very ideas it is supposed to represent.

Exactly. Under the classification system, Connecticut Avenue has the highest use classification (major arterial) short of limited access highways in DC. The problem is that by constraining Connecticut, DDOT would divert and squeeze more thru traffic, including trucks, into narrower collector streets and m very narrow “local” (lowest classification) streets in adjoining neighborhoods.

That’s definitely not Vision Zero but it might reflect zero vision.

There is no planet where Connecticut Avenue in DC is anything close to a "limited access highway" - you are doing a lot of work there conflating classifications.

No conflating anything. Connecticut has the highest functional classification in upper Northwest, "major arterial," aside from the Whitehurst and short I-66. Outside of these highways, Connecticut and the other major arterials are the roads that are supposed to carry the major thru traffic between Maryland, uptown Northwest and the western part of downtown Washington. Constraining Connecticut's capacity will divert a lot of cars and vehicles on to streets that were not planned or build for such traffic loads. Recall an experiment about 10 years ago to constrain Wisconsin Ave between Massachusetts Ave and Burleith. It did not end well but because the construction involved flexible pylons, it was relatively easy to address the resulting gridlock and diversion by reversing and removing the new road configuration. Connecticut bike lanes would be constructed for permanence, making them more difficult and far more costly to fix.

This is not what the DDOT study said. What the DDOT study said is that MD commuters would use OTHER ARTERIALS and Metro instead of Connecticut Avenue. And this has been pointed out repeatedly and yet opponents of the bike lanes CONTINUE to repeat this lie again and again.

One of the other major arterials that DDOT said would absorb the traffic was Beach Dr. Then the cycling advocates succeeded in keeping Beach Dr closed and as a result the DDOT study, as flawed as it was, became worthless.

The changes that DDOT have already made to remove the reversible lane and remove the rush hour parking restrictions have increased travel times along Connecticut significantly. It can now commonly take over 1 hour to go from Military to Dupont. This is the exact opposite of what transportation planning should be doing, which is improving safety and efficiency. Add the bike lanes and Connecticut becomes worthless.

This won’t encourage people to bike, but it will encourage people to move to places that are more convenient.

Over an hour, to drive four miles? That's terrible! I hate how slow and inconvenient driving is. No wonder nobody wants to drive. Have people considered transportation modes that would be faster and more efficient than driving? For example, Metro. Or buses in bus lanes. Or bicycling in bike lanes! Or walking.

It’s interesting that by making traffic miserable that you think it will convince people to ride a bike rather than just moving to a different location where the government is not doing it’s best to make your life as inconvenient as possible.

You can see this reflected in the stagnant home prices in CCDC and Barnaby Woods versus what’s happening across Western Avenue.

A flip just sold for 3.5M ON Nebraska Avenue in less than a week. I hardly think that constitutes a lack of demand in CCDC.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Has any cyclist ever considered the fact that staying out of dangerous car traffic virtually guarantees they’re not being hit by or hitting a car? Cyclists do what you want but don’t expect other tax payers to foot the bills for your foolishness. Grow up sometimes we don’t get to annoy lots of other people even though we really want to.

Cyclists are taxpayers too.
Cyclists have the legal right to use any public space (except for sidewalks in the old city)
Riding on a road isn't "foolishness," it is what is needed to get from one place to another.
If the car traffic is dangerous, it is incumbent, and the law, for the car driver to be vigilant and not hit pedestrians or cyclists. That is why there are licenses and insurance, something not required for humans to walk or bike. Driving is a privilege. Government treats walking and biking as a right, in that respect.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Has any cyclist ever considered the fact that staying out of dangerous car traffic virtually guarantees they’re not being hit by or hitting a car? Cyclists do what you want but don’t expect other tax payers to foot the bills for your foolishness. Grow up sometimes we don’t get to annoy lots of other people even though we really want to.

Has any driver ever considered the fact that staying out of dangerous car traffic virtually guarantees that they won't hit anyone or get hit by a car? Drivers do what you want but don't expect other tax payers to foot the bill for your foolishness. Grow up sometimes we don’t get to annoy lots of other people even though we really want to.

[Anonymous]

More grist for the mills: https://ggwash.org/view/93696/bikeshare-beat-ridership-surges-in-april-2024
CaBi rides were up 26% YoY in April.
And this image must have been made just to needle certain posters here:

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20240517-vision-zero-how-europe-cut-the-number-of-people-dying-on-its-roads

Interesting article about the origins of Vision Zero. It is very different than what it has transmogrified into. For instance, the very first project was removing concrete barriers. One of the other differences is that roads are defined according to their main use.

In short, the Connectict Ave plan goes against the very ideas it is supposed to represent.

Exactly. Under the classification system, Connecticut Avenue has the highest use classification (major arterial) short of limited access highways in DC. The problem is that by constraining Connecticut, DDOT would divert and squeeze more thru traffic, including trucks, into narrower collector streets and m very narrow “local” (lowest classification) streets in adjoining neighborhoods.

That’s definitely not Vision Zero but it might reflect zero vision.

There is no planet where Connecticut Avenue in DC is anything close to a "limited access highway" - you are doing a lot of work there conflating classifications.

No conflating anything. Connecticut has the highest functional classification in upper Northwest, "major arterial," aside from the Whitehurst and short I-66. Outside of these highways, Connecticut and the other major arterials are the roads that are supposed to carry the major thru traffic between Maryland, uptown Northwest and the western part of downtown Washington. Constraining Connecticut's capacity will divert a lot of cars and vehicles on to streets that were not planned or build for such traffic loads. Recall an experiment about 10 years ago to constrain Wisconsin Ave between Massachusetts Ave and Burleith. It did not end well but because the construction involved flexible pylons, it was relatively easy to address the resulting gridlock and diversion by reversing and removing the new road configuration. Connecticut bike lanes would be constructed for permanence, making them more difficult and far more costly to fix.

This is not what the DDOT study said. What the DDOT study said is that MD commuters would use OTHER ARTERIALS and Metro instead of Connecticut Avenue. And this has been pointed out repeatedly and yet opponents of the bike lanes CONTINUE to repeat this lie again and again.

One of the other major arterials that DDOT said would absorb the traffic was Beach Dr. Then the cycling advocates succeeded in keeping Beach Dr closed and as a result the DDOT study, as flawed as it was, became worthless.

The changes that DDOT have already made to remove the reversible lane and remove the rush hour parking restrictions have increased travel times along Connecticut significantly. It can now commonly take over 1 hour to go from Military to Dupont. This is the exact opposite of what transportation planning should be doing, which is improving safety and efficiency. Add the bike lanes and Connecticut becomes worthless.

This won’t encourage people to bike, but it will encourage people to move to places that are more convenient.

Over an hour, to drive four miles? That's terrible! I hate how slow and inconvenient driving is. No wonder nobody wants to drive. Have people considered transportation modes that would be faster and more efficient than driving? For example, Metro. Or buses in bus lanes. Or bicycling in bike lanes! Or walking.

It’s interesting that by making traffic miserable that you think it will convince people to ride a bike rather than just moving to a different location where the government is not doing it’s best to make your life as inconvenient as possible.

You can see this reflected in the stagnant home prices in CCDC and Barnaby Woods versus what’s happening across Western Avenue.

How would moving across Western Avenue from CCDC to Chevy Chase, Md., do anything to improve your commute, though, even if you think Montgomery County is less hostile to driving than D.C. is? You're still stuck driving on Connecticut Avenue. Doesn't seem likely that any home price differences have much to do with commute times here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20240517-vision-zero-how-europe-cut-the-number-of-people-dying-on-its-roads

Interesting article about the origins of Vision Zero. It is very different than what it has transmogrified into. For instance, the very first project was removing concrete barriers. One of the other differences is that roads are defined according to their main use.

In short, the Connectict Ave plan goes against the very ideas it is supposed to represent.

Exactly. Under the classification system, Connecticut Avenue has the highest use classification (major arterial) short of limited access highways in DC. The problem is that by constraining Connecticut, DDOT would divert and squeeze more thru traffic, including trucks, into narrower collector streets and m very narrow “local” (lowest classification) streets in adjoining neighborhoods.

That’s definitely not Vision Zero but it might reflect zero vision.

There is no planet where Connecticut Avenue in DC is anything close to a "limited access highway" - you are doing a lot of work there conflating classifications.

No conflating anything. Connecticut has the highest functional classification in upper Northwest, "major arterial," aside from the Whitehurst and short I-66. Outside of these highways, Connecticut and the other major arterials are the roads that are supposed to carry the major thru traffic between Maryland, uptown Northwest and the western part of downtown Washington. Constraining Connecticut's capacity will divert a lot of cars and vehicles on to streets that were not planned or build for such traffic loads. Recall an experiment about 10 years ago to constrain Wisconsin Ave between Massachusetts Ave and Burleith. It did not end well but because the construction involved flexible pylons, it was relatively easy to address the resulting gridlock and diversion by reversing and removing the new road configuration. Connecticut bike lanes would be constructed for permanence, making them more difficult and far more costly to fix.

This is not what the DDOT study said. What the DDOT study said is that MD commuters would use OTHER ARTERIALS and Metro instead of Connecticut Avenue. And this has been pointed out repeatedly and yet opponents of the bike lanes CONTINUE to repeat this lie again and again.

One of the other major arterials that DDOT said would absorb the traffic was Beach Dr. Then the cycling advocates succeeded in keeping Beach Dr closed and as a result the DDOT study, as flawed as it was, became worthless.

The changes that DDOT have already made to remove the reversible lane and remove the rush hour parking restrictions have increased travel times along Connecticut significantly. It can now commonly take over 1 hour to go from Military to Dupont. This is the exact opposite of what transportation planning should be doing, which is improving safety and efficiency. Add the bike lanes and Connecticut becomes worthless.

This won’t encourage people to bike, but it will encourage people to move to places that are more convenient.

It wasn't the cycling advocates, though they supported it. At the end of the day, the National Park Service and Department of Interior's mission is to the parks, not commuters. The changes in Rock Creek were supported by the Sierra Club, the Rock Creek Conservancy and other environmental groups.

This is revisionist history. Area cycling activists and organizations were at the heart of the campaign to keep it closed. NPS announced a seasonal opening and closing. Those groups went berserk and NPS changed their mind. That group, that everyone knows, announced public victory for their efforts.

There were other groups involved but to pretend that the cycling activists were not a big part of it belies the facts.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:More grist for the mills: https://ggwash.org/view/93696/bikeshare-beat-ridership-surges-in-april-2024
CaBi rides were up 26% YoY in April.
And this image must have been made just to needle certain posters here:

CaBi users killing other CaBi users up 100%.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20240517-vision-zero-how-europe-cut-the-number-of-people-dying-on-its-roads

Interesting article about the origins of Vision Zero. It is very different than what it has transmogrified into. For instance, the very first project was removing concrete barriers. One of the other differences is that roads are defined according to their main use.

In short, the Connectict Ave plan goes against the very ideas it is supposed to represent.

Exactly. Under the classification system, Connecticut Avenue has the highest use classification (major arterial) short of limited access highways in DC. The problem is that by constraining Connecticut, DDOT would divert and squeeze more thru traffic, including trucks, into narrower collector streets and m very narrow “local” (lowest classification) streets in adjoining neighborhoods.

That’s definitely not Vision Zero but it might reflect zero vision.

There is no planet where Connecticut Avenue in DC is anything close to a "limited access highway" - you are doing a lot of work there conflating classifications.

No conflating anything. Connecticut has the highest functional classification in upper Northwest, "major arterial," aside from the Whitehurst and short I-66. Outside of these highways, Connecticut and the other major arterials are the roads that are supposed to carry the major thru traffic between Maryland, uptown Northwest and the western part of downtown Washington. Constraining Connecticut's capacity will divert a lot of cars and vehicles on to streets that were not planned or build for such traffic loads. Recall an experiment about 10 years ago to constrain Wisconsin Ave between Massachusetts Ave and Burleith. It did not end well but because the construction involved flexible pylons, it was relatively easy to address the resulting gridlock and diversion by reversing and removing the new road configuration. Connecticut bike lanes would be constructed for permanence, making them more difficult and far more costly to fix.

This is not what the DDOT study said. What the DDOT study said is that MD commuters would use OTHER ARTERIALS and Metro instead of Connecticut Avenue. And this has been pointed out repeatedly and yet opponents of the bike lanes CONTINUE to repeat this lie again and again.

One of the other major arterials that DDOT said would absorb the traffic was Beach Dr. Then the cycling advocates succeeded in keeping Beach Dr closed and as a result the DDOT study, as flawed as it was, became worthless.

The changes that DDOT have already made to remove the reversible lane and remove the rush hour parking restrictions have increased travel times along Connecticut significantly. It can now commonly take over 1 hour to go from Military to Dupont. This is the exact opposite of what transportation planning should be doing, which is improving safety and efficiency. Add the bike lanes and Connecticut becomes worthless.

This won’t encourage people to bike, but it will encourage people to move to places that are more convenient.

Over an hour, to drive four miles? That's terrible! I hate how slow and inconvenient driving is. No wonder nobody wants to drive. Have people considered transportation modes that would be faster and more efficient than driving? For example, Metro. Or buses in bus lanes. Or bicycling in bike lanes! Or walking.

It’s interesting that by making traffic miserable that you think it will convince people to ride a bike rather than just moving to a different location where the government is not doing it’s best to make your life as inconvenient as possible.

You can see this reflected in the stagnant home prices in CCDC and Barnaby Woods versus what’s happening across Western Avenue.

How would moving across Western Avenue from CCDC to Chevy Chase, Md., do anything to improve your commute, though, even if you think Montgomery County is less hostile to driving than D.C. is? You're still stuck driving on Connecticut Avenue. Doesn't seem likely that any home price differences have much to do with commute times here.

You may not understand this, but people that live in CCDC don’t all work in downtown DC.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20240517-vision-zero-how-europe-cut-the-number-of-people-dying-on-its-roads

Interesting article about the origins of Vision Zero. It is very different than what it has transmogrified into. For instance, the very first project was removing concrete barriers. One of the other differences is that roads are defined according to their main use.

In short, the Connectict Ave plan goes against the very ideas it is supposed to represent.

Exactly. Under the classification system, Connecticut Avenue has the highest use classification (major arterial) short of limited access highways in DC. The problem is that by constraining Connecticut, DDOT would divert and squeeze more thru traffic, including trucks, into narrower collector streets and m very narrow “local” (lowest classification) streets in adjoining neighborhoods.

That’s definitely not Vision Zero but it might reflect zero vision.

There is no planet where Connecticut Avenue in DC is anything close to a "limited access highway" - you are doing a lot of work there conflating classifications.

No conflating anything. Connecticut has the highest functional classification in upper Northwest, "major arterial," aside from the Whitehurst and short I-66. Outside of these highways, Connecticut and the other major arterials are the roads that are supposed to carry the major thru traffic between Maryland, uptown Northwest and the western part of downtown Washington. Constraining Connecticut's capacity will divert a lot of cars and vehicles on to streets that were not planned or build for such traffic loads. Recall an experiment about 10 years ago to constrain Wisconsin Ave between Massachusetts Ave and Burleith. It did not end well but because the construction involved flexible pylons, it was relatively easy to address the resulting gridlock and diversion by reversing and removing the new road configuration. Connecticut bike lanes would be constructed for permanence, making them more difficult and far more costly to fix.

This is not what the DDOT study said. What the DDOT study said is that MD commuters would use OTHER ARTERIALS and Metro instead of Connecticut Avenue. And this has been pointed out repeatedly and yet opponents of the bike lanes CONTINUE to repeat this lie again and again.

One of the other major arterials that DDOT said would absorb the traffic was Beach Dr. Then the cycling advocates succeeded in keeping Beach Dr closed and as a result the DDOT study, as flawed as it was, became worthless.

The changes that DDOT have already made to remove the reversible lane and remove the rush hour parking restrictions have increased travel times along Connecticut significantly. It can now commonly take over 1 hour to go from Military to Dupont. This is the exact opposite of what transportation planning should be doing, which is improving safety and efficiency. Add the bike lanes and Connecticut becomes worthless.

This won’t encourage people to bike, but it will encourage people to move to places that are more convenient.

Over an hour, to drive four miles? That's terrible! I hate how slow and inconvenient driving is. No wonder nobody wants to drive. Have people considered transportation modes that would be faster and more efficient than driving? For example, Metro. Or buses in bus lanes. Or bicycling in bike lanes! Or walking.

It’s interesting that by making traffic miserable that you think it will convince people to ride a bike rather than just moving to a different location where the government is not doing it’s best to make your life as inconvenient as possible.

You can see this reflected in the stagnant home prices in CCDC and Barnaby Woods versus what’s happening across Western Avenue.

A flip just sold for 3.5M ON Nebraska Avenue in less than a week. I hardly think that constitutes a lack of demand in CCDC.

Prices in CCDC took a big jump early in COVID and have been flat since. Across Western Avenue it has been steady and increasing gains. The momentum has been taken out of the CCDC market. As a result, supply has disappeared.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Has any cyclist ever considered the fact that staying out of dangerous car traffic virtually guarantees they’re not being hit by or hitting a car? Cyclists do what you want but don’t expect other tax payers to foot the bills for your foolishness. Grow up sometimes we don’t get to annoy lots of other people even though we really want to.

Cyclists are taxpayers too.
Cyclists have the legal right to use any public space (except for sidewalks in the old city)
Riding on a road isn't "foolishness," it is what is needed to get from one place to another.
If the car traffic is dangerous, it is incumbent, and the law, for the car driver to be vigilant and not hit pedestrians or cyclists. That is why there are licenses and insurance, something not required for humans to walk or bike. Driving is a privilege. Government treats walking and biking as a right, in that respect.

I'm also a driver (and a passenger), a pedestrian, a bus rider, a Metro rider, and a train rider, in addition to a cyclist. And I'm an employee, a parent, a spouse, a neighbor, and a citizen, in addition to a taxpayer.

Any time anyone talks about "cyclists" as though the only thing they ever are or do is exist on a bicycle, that's nonsense.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20240517-vision-zero-how-europe-cut-the-number-of-people-dying-on-its-roads

Interesting article about the origins of Vision Zero. It is very different than what it has transmogrified into. For instance, the very first project was removing concrete barriers. One of the other differences is that roads are defined according to their main use.

In short, the Connectict Ave plan goes against the very ideas it is supposed to represent.

Exactly. Under the classification system, Connecticut Avenue has the highest use classification (major arterial) short of limited access highways in DC. The problem is that by constraining Connecticut, DDOT would divert and squeeze more thru traffic, including trucks, into narrower collector streets and m very narrow “local” (lowest classification) streets in adjoining neighborhoods.

That’s definitely not Vision Zero but it might reflect zero vision.

There is no planet where Connecticut Avenue in DC is anything close to a "limited access highway" - you are doing a lot of work there conflating classifications.

No conflating anything. Connecticut has the highest functional classification in upper Northwest, "major arterial," aside from the Whitehurst and short I-66. Outside of these highways, Connecticut and the other major arterials are the roads that are supposed to carry the major thru traffic between Maryland, uptown Northwest and the western part of downtown Washington. Constraining Connecticut's capacity will divert a lot of cars and vehicles on to streets that were not planned or build for such traffic loads. Recall an experiment about 10 years ago to constrain Wisconsin Ave between Massachusetts Ave and Burleith. It did not end well but because the construction involved flexible pylons, it was relatively easy to address the resulting gridlock and diversion by reversing and removing the new road configuration. Connecticut bike lanes would be constructed for permanence, making them more difficult and far more costly to fix.

This is not what the DDOT study said. What the DDOT study said is that MD commuters would use OTHER ARTERIALS and Metro instead of Connecticut Avenue. And this has been pointed out repeatedly and yet opponents of the bike lanes CONTINUE to repeat this lie again and again.

One of the other major arterials that DDOT said would absorb the traffic was Beach Dr. Then the cycling advocates succeeded in keeping Beach Dr closed and as a result the DDOT study, as flawed as it was, became worthless.

The changes that DDOT have already made to remove the reversible lane and remove the rush hour parking restrictions have increased travel times along Connecticut significantly. It can now commonly take over 1 hour to go from Military to Dupont. This is the exact opposite of what transportation planning should be doing, which is improving safety and efficiency. Add the bike lanes and Connecticut becomes worthless.

This won’t encourage people to bike, but it will encourage people to move to places that are more convenient.

Over an hour, to drive four miles? That's terrible! I hate how slow and inconvenient driving is. No wonder nobody wants to drive. Have people considered transportation modes that would be faster and more efficient than driving? For example, Metro. Or buses in bus lanes. Or bicycling in bike lanes! Or walking.

It’s interesting that by making traffic miserable that you think it will convince people to ride a bike rather than just moving to a different location where the government is not doing it’s best to make your life as inconvenient as possible.

You can see this reflected in the stagnant home prices in CCDC and Barnaby Woods versus what’s happening across Western Avenue.

A flip just sold for 3.5M ON Nebraska Avenue in less than a week. I hardly think that constitutes a lack of demand in CCDC.

Prices in CCDC took a big jump early in COVID and have been flat since. Across Western Avenue it has been steady and increasing gains. The momentum has been taken out of the CCDC market. As a result, supply has disappeared.

You're going to have to show your work here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20240517-vision-zero-how-europe-cut-the-number-of-people-dying-on-its-roads

Interesting article about the origins of Vision Zero. It is very different than what it has transmogrified into. For instance, the very first project was removing concrete barriers. One of the other differences is that roads are defined according to their main use.

In short, the Connectict Ave plan goes against the very ideas it is supposed to represent.

Exactly. Under the classification system, Connecticut Avenue has the highest use classification (major arterial) short of limited access highways in DC. The problem is that by constraining Connecticut, DDOT would divert and squeeze more thru traffic, including trucks, into narrower collector streets and m very narrow “local” (lowest classification) streets in adjoining neighborhoods.

That’s definitely not Vision Zero but it might reflect zero vision.

There is no planet where Connecticut Avenue in DC is anything close to a "limited access highway" - you are doing a lot of work there conflating classifications.

No conflating anything. Connecticut has the highest functional classification in upper Northwest, "major arterial," aside from the Whitehurst and short I-66. Outside of these highways, Connecticut and the other major arterials are the roads that are supposed to carry the major thru traffic between Maryland, uptown Northwest and the western part of downtown Washington. Constraining Connecticut's capacity will divert a lot of cars and vehicles on to streets that were not planned or build for such traffic loads. Recall an experiment about 10 years ago to constrain Wisconsin Ave between Massachusetts Ave and Burleith. It did not end well but because the construction involved flexible pylons, it was relatively easy to address the resulting gridlock and diversion by reversing and removing the new road configuration. Connecticut bike lanes would be constructed for permanence, making them more difficult and far more costly to fix.

This is not what the DDOT study said. What the DDOT study said is that MD commuters would use OTHER ARTERIALS and Metro instead of Connecticut Avenue. And this has been pointed out repeatedly and yet opponents of the bike lanes CONTINUE to repeat this lie again and again.

One of the other major arterials that DDOT said would absorb the traffic was Beach Dr. Then the cycling advocates succeeded in keeping Beach Dr closed and as a result the DDOT study, as flawed as it was, became worthless.

The changes that DDOT have already made to remove the reversible lane and remove the rush hour parking restrictions have increased travel times along Connecticut significantly. It can now commonly take over 1 hour to go from Military to Dupont. This is the exact opposite of what transportation planning should be doing, which is improving safety and efficiency. Add the bike lanes and Connecticut becomes worthless.

This won’t encourage people to bike, but it will encourage people to move to places that are more convenient.

It wasn't the cycling advocates, though they supported it. At the end of the day, the National Park Service and Department of Interior's mission is to the parks, not commuters. The changes in Rock Creek were supported by the Sierra Club, the Rock Creek Conservancy and other environmental groups.

This is revisionist history. Area cycling activists and organizations were at the heart of the campaign to keep it closed. NPS announced a seasonal opening and closing. Those groups went berserk and NPS changed their mind. That group, that everyone knows, announced public victory for their efforts.

There were other groups involved but to pretend that the cycling activists were not a big part of it belies the facts.

Wait, you mean multiple groups with different agendas agreed on a course of action and advocated for same? Shocking.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:More grist for the mills: https://ggwash.org/view/93696/bikeshare-beat-ridership-surges-in-april-2024
CaBi rides were up 26% YoY in April.
And this image must have been made just to needle certain posters here:

Surprise surprise, most of those Connecticut Ave stations and almost all their users are located south of the Taft Bridge.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20240517-vision-zero-how-europe-cut-the-number-of-people-dying-on-its-roads

Interesting article about the origins of Vision Zero. It is very different than what it has transmogrified into. For instance, the very first project was removing concrete barriers. One of the other differences is that roads are defined according to their main use.

In short, the Connectict Ave plan goes against the very ideas it is supposed to represent.

Exactly. Under the classification system, Connecticut Avenue has the highest use classification (major arterial) short of limited access highways in DC. The problem is that by constraining Connecticut, DDOT would divert and squeeze more thru traffic, including trucks, into narrower collector streets and m very narrow “local” (lowest classification) streets in adjoining neighborhoods.

That’s definitely not Vision Zero but it might reflect zero vision.

There is no planet where Connecticut Avenue in DC is anything close to a "limited access highway" - you are doing a lot of work there conflating classifications.

No conflating anything. Connecticut has the highest functional classification in upper Northwest, "major arterial," aside from the Whitehurst and short I-66. Outside of these highways, Connecticut and the other major arterials are the roads that are supposed to carry the major thru traffic between Maryland, uptown Northwest and the western part of downtown Washington. Constraining Connecticut's capacity will divert a lot of cars and vehicles on to streets that were not planned or build for such traffic loads. Recall an experiment about 10 years ago to constrain Wisconsin Ave between Massachusetts Ave and Burleith. It did not end well but because the construction involved flexible pylons, it was relatively easy to address the resulting gridlock and diversion by reversing and removing the new road configuration. Connecticut bike lanes would be constructed for permanence, making them more difficult and far more costly to fix.

This is not what the DDOT study said. What the DDOT study said is that MD commuters would use OTHER ARTERIALS and Metro instead of Connecticut Avenue. And this has been pointed out repeatedly and yet opponents of the bike lanes CONTINUE to repeat this lie again and again.

One of the other major arterials that DDOT said would absorb the traffic was Beach Dr. Then the cycling advocates succeeded in keeping Beach Dr closed and as a result the DDOT study, as flawed as it was, became worthless.

The changes that DDOT have already made to remove the reversible lane and remove the rush hour parking restrictions have increased travel times along Connecticut significantly. It can now commonly take over 1 hour to go from Military to Dupont. This is the exact opposite of what transportation planning should be doing, which is improving safety and efficiency. Add the bike lanes and Connecticut becomes worthless.

This won’t encourage people to bike, but it will encourage people to move to places that are more convenient.

It wasn't the cycling advocates, though they supported it. At the end of the day, the National Park Service and Department of Interior's mission is to the parks, not commuters. The changes in Rock Creek were supported by the Sierra Club, the Rock Creek Conservancy and other environmental groups.

This is revisionist history. Area cycling activists and organizations were at the heart of the campaign to keep it closed. NPS announced a seasonal opening and closing. Those groups went berserk and NPS changed their mind. That group, that everyone knows, announced public victory for their efforts.

There were other groups involved but to pretend that the cycling activists were not a big part of it belies the facts.

Wait, you mean multiple groups with different agendas agreed on a course of action and advocated for same? Shocking.

Another victory for the All-Powerful Bicycle Lobby, whose motto is "Autoraedae vetandae sunt", which Google Translate translates as "Parking garages are prohibited".

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:More grist for the mills: https://ggwash.org/view/93696/bikeshare-beat-ridership-surges-in-april-2024
CaBi rides were up 26% YoY in April.
And this image must have been made just to needle certain posters here:

Notably, in April, 18,259 trips ended at the 20 CaBi stations on or within one block of Connecticut Avenue NW, a hint that the street serves as more than just an auto-artery into the District.[i]

That seems like more than "20 people" riding bikes on Connecticut Avenue.