Connecticut Ave bike lanes are back!

[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.

I still don't understand why they just don't encourage using Beach Drive/RCP instead of making bike lanes. Keep it closed from the MD border to Broad Branch then bikers can use the path along the road. Isn't that what the path is for???

If you are talking about commuting downtown, then sure. But as explained previously, most urban bike trips are about running errands. So by your suggestion, someone wanting to go from Woodley Park to Forest Hills (Politcs and Prose, for example) would go via RCP rather than straight up Ct ave. How does that make any sense?

Why would you ride to the overpriced store when you can walk to the free library? Your lack of good judgement is showing…

[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.

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.

I still don't understand why they just don't encourage using Beach Drive/RCP instead of making bike lanes. Keep it closed from the MD border to Broad Branch then bikers can use the path along the road. Isn't that what the path is for???

If you are talking about commuting downtown, then sure. But as explained previously, most urban bike trips are about running errands. So by your suggestion, someone wanting to go from Woodley Park to Forest Hills (Politcs and Prose, for example) would go via RCP rather than straight up Ct ave. How does that make any sense?

Why would you ride to the overpriced store when you can walk to the free library? Your lack of good judgement is showing…

They don't even believe half the stuff they say. The idea that there's some mythical population of people in the wild corners of upper NW that really love bread, books, pizza and exercise that can't walk or take the bus but love bicycling is absurd.

There's a bus that does nothing but go up and down Connecticut every 20 minutes. The entire stretch has wide sidewalks. There is no value added and considering that WMATA keeps taking away our buses it makes absolutely no sense.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

I still don't understand why they just don't encourage using Beach Drive/RCP instead of making bike lanes. Keep it closed from the MD border to Broad Branch then bikers can use the path along the road. Isn't that what the path is for???

If you are talking about commuting downtown, then sure. But as explained previously, most urban bike trips are about running errands. So by your suggestion, someone wanting to go from Woodley Park to Forest Hills (Politcs and Prose, for example) would go via RCP rather than straight up Ct ave. How does that make any sense?

Why would you ride to the overpriced store when you can walk to the free library? Your lack of good judgement is showing…

They don't even believe half the stuff they say. The idea that there's some mythical population of people in the wild corners of upper NW that really love bread, books, pizza and exercise that can't walk or take the bus but love bicycling is absurd.

There's a bus that does nothing but go up and down Connecticut every 20 minutes. The entire stretch has wide sidewalks. There is no value added and considering that WMATA keeps taking away our buses it makes absolutely no sense.

But if WMATA is taking away the buses, that seems like a good reason to... look for an alternative mode of transportation up and down the street rather than taking the bus.

Also, just for the record, Little Free Libraries are the worst.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

I still don't understand why they just don't encourage using Beach Drive/RCP instead of making bike lanes. Keep it closed from the MD border to Broad Branch then bikers can use the path along the road. Isn't that what the path is for???

If you are talking about commuting downtown, then sure. But as explained previously, most urban bike trips are about running errands. So by your suggestion, someone wanting to go from Woodley Park to Forest Hills (Politcs and Prose, for example) would go via RCP rather than straight up Ct ave. How does that make any sense?

Why would you ride to the overpriced store when you can walk to the free library? Your lack of good judgement is showing…

They don't even believe half the stuff they say. The idea that there's some mythical population of people in the wild corners of upper NW that really love bread, books, pizza and exercise that can't walk or take the bus but love bicycling is absurd.

There's a bus that does nothing but go up and down Connecticut every 20 minutes. The entire stretch has wide sidewalks. There is no value added and considering that WMATA keeps taking away our buses it makes absolutely no sense.

But if WMATA is taking away the buses, that seems like a good reason to... look for an alternative mode of transportation up and down the street rather than taking the bus.

Also, just for the record, Little Free Libraries are the worst.

Maybe if our ANCs fought to keep our buses half as much as they fight for the bike lanes we wouldn't have this pending problem.

The OP was talking about the Cleveland Park and Chevy Chase public libraries. Two other things that have been ignored in exchange for an obsessive focus on bike lanes that barely anyone will use.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So the criminal lobby’s friend, Charles Allen, now wants to prevent DDOT from funding any safety improvements at all along Connecticut Ave. (like a raised crosswalk on Davenport and Connecticut so that Murch kids can walk more safely to school) UNLESS Allen gets his bike lanes.

Is Allen a bratty child or a public servant?!

Never mind, this is my favorite tantrum

And when pedestrians die will you consider that a tantrum too?

A cyclist nearly hit me walking across Utah Avenue in a crosswalk last week. He eyed me, thinking I would stop in the middle of the street for him and when I didn’t he swerved out of the way going probably 25 mph through the stop.

Cyclists are just as dangerous as cars in DC. They constantly run red lights on Connecticut.

How many pedestrians have died as a result of cyclists in DC in the past 100 years? Like 2 or 3?

Now do cars.

A cyclist just killed another cyclist. This is not a good talking point for you.

yawn

I wish cyclists would realize that acting like jerks does not exactly make other commuters feel very sympathetic to their demands.

I wish motorists would realize that acting like jerks by dismissing cycling as a "hobby" rather than a form of transportation and treating them like road chattel does not exactly make others feel very sympathetic to their demands.

DP but if motorists weren’t as deferential to cyclists as they are, there would be a lot more dead cyclists. For that matter, if pedestrians weren’t as deferential and o cyclists as they are, there would be a lot more dead pedestrians. As a group, cyclists are the worst behaved group of people on the road even though they get more grace than any other group of users.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So the criminal lobby’s friend, Charles Allen, now wants to prevent DDOT from funding any safety improvements at all along Connecticut Ave. (like a raised crosswalk on Davenport and Connecticut so that Murch kids can walk more safely to school) UNLESS Allen gets his bike lanes.

Is Allen a bratty child or a public servant?!

Never mind, this is my favorite tantrum

And when pedestrians die will you consider that a tantrum too?

A cyclist nearly hit me walking across Utah Avenue in a crosswalk last week. He eyed me, thinking I would stop in the middle of the street for him and when I didn’t he swerved out of the way going probably 25 mph through the stop.

Cyclists are just as dangerous as cars in DC. They constantly run red lights on Connecticut.

How many pedestrians have died as a result of cyclists in DC in the past 100 years? Like 2 or 3?

Now do cars.

A cyclist just killed another cyclist. This is not a good talking point for you.

yawn

I wish cyclists would realize that acting like jerks does not exactly make other commuters feel very sympathetic to their demands.

I wish motorists would realize that acting like jerks by dismissing cycling as a "hobby" rather than a form of transportation and treating them like road chattel does not exactly make others feel very sympathetic to their demands.

DP but if motorists weren’t as deferential to cyclists as they are, there would be a lot more dead cyclists. For that matter, if pedestrians weren’t as deferential and o cyclists as they are, there would be a lot more dead pedestrians. As a group, cyclists are the worst behaved group of people on the road even though they get more grace than any other group of users.

I drive and I’ve saved the lives of several cyclists flying through intersections like complete morons. They’re only alive because I slammed on the breaks.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So the criminal lobby’s friend, Charles Allen, now wants to prevent DDOT from funding any safety improvements at all along Connecticut Ave. (like a raised crosswalk on Davenport and Connecticut so that Murch kids can walk more safely to school) UNLESS Allen gets his bike lanes.

Is Allen a bratty child or a public servant?!

Never mind, this is my favorite tantrum

And when pedestrians die will you consider that a tantrum too?

A cyclist nearly hit me walking across Utah Avenue in a crosswalk last week. He eyed me, thinking I would stop in the middle of the street for him and when I didn’t he swerved out of the way going probably 25 mph through the stop.

Cyclists are just as dangerous as cars in DC. They constantly run red lights on Connecticut.

How many pedestrians have died as a result of cyclists in DC in the past 100 years? Like 2 or 3?

Now do cars.

A cyclist just killed another cyclist. This is not a good talking point for you.

yawn

I wish cyclists would realize that acting like jerks does not exactly make other commuters feel very sympathetic to their demands.

I wish motorists would realize that acting like jerks by dismissing cycling as a "hobby" rather than a form of transportation and treating them like road chattel does not exactly make others feel very sympathetic to their demands.

DP but if motorists weren’t as deferential to cyclists as they are, there would be a lot more dead cyclists. For that matter, if pedestrians weren’t as deferential and o cyclists as they are, there would be a lot more dead pedestrians. As a group, cyclists are the worst behaved group of people on the road even though they get more grace than any other group of users.

I drive and I’ve saved the lives of several cyclists flying through intersections like complete morons. They’re only alive because I slammed on the breaks.

*brakes

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So the criminal lobby’s friend, Charles Allen, now wants to prevent DDOT from funding any safety improvements at all along Connecticut Ave. (like a raised crosswalk on Davenport and Connecticut so that Murch kids can walk more safely to school) UNLESS Allen gets his bike lanes.

Is Allen a bratty child or a public servant?!

Never mind, this is my favorite tantrum

And when pedestrians die will you consider that a tantrum too?

A cyclist nearly hit me walking across Utah Avenue in a crosswalk last week. He eyed me, thinking I would stop in the middle of the street for him and when I didn’t he swerved out of the way going probably 25 mph through the stop.

Cyclists are just as dangerous as cars in DC. They constantly run red lights on Connecticut.

How many pedestrians have died as a result of cyclists in DC in the past 100 years? Like 2 or 3?

Now do cars.

A cyclist just killed another cyclist. This is not a good talking point for you.

yawn

I wish cyclists would realize that acting like jerks does not exactly make other commuters feel very sympathetic to their demands.

I wish motorists would realize that acting like jerks by dismissing cycling as a "hobby" rather than a form of transportation and treating them like road chattel does not exactly make others feel very sympathetic to their demands.

DP but if motorists weren’t as deferential to cyclists as they are, there would be a lot more dead cyclists. For that matter, if pedestrians weren’t as deferential and o cyclists as they are, there would be a lot more dead pedestrians. As a group, cyclists are the worst behaved group of people on the road even though they get more grace than any other group of users.

Where "deferential" means obeying traffic laws.

When I'm driving, I do my utmost to not hit anybody, including people on bikes, as required by law. When I'm bicycling or walking, I assume that drivers don't even see me, and far too often that is literally true. They don't see me because their heads are turned the wrong way, or they're staring at their phones, or their brains are only able to process motor vehicles. And right turns are the worst. I don't start walking when the walk light comes on, because I know that someone with a green light is going to turn, or maybe even someone who was turning right on red when the walk light came on. Guess who has the right of way when the walk light comes on? Not the driver.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So the criminal lobby’s friend, Charles Allen, now wants to prevent DDOT from funding any safety improvements at all along Connecticut Ave. (like a raised crosswalk on Davenport and Connecticut so that Murch kids can walk more safely to school) UNLESS Allen gets his bike lanes.

Is Allen a bratty child or a public servant?!

Never mind, this is my favorite tantrum

And when pedestrians die will you consider that a tantrum too?

A cyclist nearly hit me walking across Utah Avenue in a crosswalk last week. He eyed me, thinking I would stop in the middle of the street for him and when I didn’t he swerved out of the way going probably 25 mph through the stop.

Cyclists are just as dangerous as cars in DC. They constantly run red lights on Connecticut.

How many pedestrians have died as a result of cyclists in DC in the past 100 years? Like 2 or 3?

Now do cars.

A cyclist just killed another cyclist. This is not a good talking point for you.

yawn

I wish cyclists would realize that acting like jerks does not exactly make other commuters feel very sympathetic to their demands.

I wish motorists would realize that acting like jerks by dismissing cycling as a "hobby" rather than a form of transportation and treating them like road chattel does not exactly make others feel very sympathetic to their demands.

DP but if motorists weren’t as deferential to cyclists as they are, there would be a lot more dead cyclists. For that matter, if pedestrians weren’t as deferential and o cyclists as they are, there would be a lot more dead pedestrians. As a group, cyclists are the worst behaved group of people on the road even though they get more grace than any other group of users.

Where "deferential" means obeying traffic laws.

When I'm driving, I do my utmost to not hit anybody, including people on bikes, as required by law. When I'm bicycling or walking, I assume that drivers don't even see me, and far too often that is literally true. They don't see me because their heads are turned the wrong way, or they're staring at their phones, or their brains are only able to process motor vehicles. And right turns are the worst. I don't start walking when the walk light comes on, because I know that someone with a green light is going to turn, or maybe even someone who was turning right on red when the walk light came on. Guess who has the right of way when the walk light comes on? Not the driver.

No, dude. It’s where deferential means stopping for you when you’ve run a red light. By a lot. Or swerving to avoid you after you’ve made an unsafe lane change to pass someone going more slowly than you. If you didn’t know that drivers almost always stop yield to you even when you’re in the wrong.

Pedwsteians have the right of way when the walk sign comes on. It would be great if cyclists knew that.

[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.

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.

I mean, as they say "Bikes run on fat and save you money, cars run on money and make you fat. "

[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.

I mean, as they say "Bikes run on fat and save you money, cars run on money and make you fat. "

I always wonder why cyclists are always so tubby. Riding a bike does not seem like a very effective way to get into shape.

[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.

I mean, as they say "Bikes run on fat and save you money, cars run on money and make you fat. "

I always wonder why cyclists are always so tubby. Riding a bike does not seem like a very effective way to get into shape.

It’s one of the best ways. Certainly much better than destroying your knees by running. The best part is that you can, by biking to work, you can get your exercise in while also saving time and money commuting. It’s a win-win, except for those like yourself you harbor an irrational hatred towards bicycles and those that ride them.

[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.

I mean, as they say "Bikes run on fat and save you money, cars run on money and make you fat. "

I always wonder why cyclists are always so tubby. Riding a bike does not seem like a very effective way to get into shape.

Why do you have a fetish for looking at far cyclists. It's weird. Especially when there are fit attractive ones to look at too.

I guess you do you, but you might not want to tell everyone.

[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.

I mean, as they say "Bikes run on fat and save you money, cars run on money and make you fat. "

I always wonder why cyclists are always so tubby. Riding a bike does not seem like a very effective way to get into shape.

It’s one of the best ways. Certainly much better than destroying your knees by running. The best part is that you can, by biking to work, you can get your exercise in while also saving time and money commuting. It’s a win-win, except for those like yourself you harbor an irrational hatred towards bicycles and those that ride them.

Pfft. Go to a gym. Look at who rides the bikes. Hint: It's not the people who are in shape.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So the criminal lobby’s friend, Charles Allen, now wants to prevent DDOT from funding any safety improvements at all along Connecticut Ave. (like a raised crosswalk on Davenport and Connecticut so that Murch kids can walk more safely to school) UNLESS Allen gets his bike lanes.

Is Allen a bratty child or a public servant?!

Never mind, this is my favorite tantrum

And when pedestrians die will you consider that a tantrum too?

A cyclist nearly hit me walking across Utah Avenue in a crosswalk last week. He eyed me, thinking I would stop in the middle of the street for him and when I didn’t he swerved out of the way going probably 25 mph through the stop.

Cyclists are just as dangerous as cars in DC. They constantly run red lights on Connecticut.

How many pedestrians have died as a result of cyclists in DC in the past 100 years? Like 2 or 3?

Now do cars.

A cyclist just killed another cyclist. This is not a good talking point for you.

yawn

I wish cyclists would realize that acting like jerks does not exactly make other commuters feel very sympathetic to their demands.

I saw a driver acting like a jerk today. Let’s stop all road maintenance and put a moratorium on new car registrations.