Options for opposing Connecticut Avenue changes?

[Anonymous]

I can't believe this thread is still going on, but new poster here with a few observations:

-Some bike lanes work great. Others are terrible and scream "bike lobby was here." I am not sure who will actually USE these particular new bikelanes. Will it be even a couple hundred people a day? Or is this really just all about hating cars and busses?

-Anyone who drives to work (or takes the bus down Connecticut!) will see their commute time increase significantly under the bike plan. And yes, we would all LOVE to work from home in our little walkable village, or take the bus to the metro, but when kids, cold weather and tight schedules are involved, practicality wins out. I think DOT in one of its reports said commute time would increase something like 7-10 minutes each way, depending on what part of day and what direction. I find it economically suicidal that the city would consider this set of lanes.

-WHY ARE THESE NOT RUSH HOUR BUS LANES? I think people could get behind that. A true choice. I actually think 16th Street works better with them now, and why not for Connecticut Ave? And people in DC actually use buses, and you could pair it with a service increase of some sort.

- Taking away traffic lanes MAY help cut accidents and boost safety (though DC's record in recent years is abysmal, many factors involved), BUT putting in bike lanes, on their own, obviously does not.

-Where is the "wiggle room" for the doubleparked trucks? I hate doubleparkers, but I also as a person who lives in the real world realize they have to go somewhere to make their deliveries.

Rant over, but man is this plan dumb, and it is disappointing to see people think this is some magical solution.

[Anonymous]

I don't know which bike lanes you're talking about, but the "bike lobby" is not lobbying for terrible bike lanes.

And actually putting in protected bike lanes, on their own, does improve safety.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/05/190529113036.htm

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Clearly OP wants more of this

How many more people need to be maimed before the city moves forward with safety improvements?

The proposed safety "improvements" will lead to more incidents like this one. Increasing congestion and decreasing visibility does not make anything safer.

1) reducing speed always makes things safer
2) what reduced visibility? please be specific.

This is like my mom saying "there's nothing for kids to do after midnight except get into trouble." Obviously it's untrue. If you impose rules on drivers that seem arbitrary or serve no purpose, they'll just ignore them. There's a traffic light they recently put up in my neighborhood that no one seems understand why it's there. People now just drive right through it. Don't even slow down.

I'd rather live in a world where stop signs and such are put up judiciously and obeyed religiously than a world where there's stop signs every five feet and half the people don't obey them.

No turn on red signs have become meaningless.

When I used to see them, I took note because it meant there was something unusual about the intersection.

But now they're everywhere and seem to signify nothing.

They have added them in a confusing manner. There are intersections with almost no pedestrians that banned right on red in the last few years, while there are very busy intersections with pedestrians where it is still allowed.

Ban right turn on red there too.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Clearly OP wants more of this

How many more people need to be maimed before the city moves forward with safety improvements?

The proposed safety "improvements" will lead to more incidents like this one. Increasing congestion and decreasing visibility does not make anything safer.

1) reducing speed always makes things safer
2) what reduced visibility? please be specific.

This is like my mom saying "there's nothing for kids to do after midnight except get into trouble." Obviously it's untrue. If you impose rules on drivers that seem arbitrary or serve no purpose, they'll just ignore them. There's a traffic light they recently put up in my neighborhood that no one seems understand why it's there. People now just drive right through it. Don't even slow down.

I'd rather live in a world where stop signs and such are put up judiciously and obeyed religiously than a world where there's stop signs every five feet and half the people don't obey them.

No turn on red signs have become meaningless.

When I used to see them, I took note because it meant there was something unusual about the intersection.

But now they're everywhere and seem to signify nothing.

They have added them in a confusing manner. There are intersections with almost no pedestrians that banned right on red in the last few years, while there are very busy intersections with pedestrians where it is still allowed.

Ban right turn on red there too.

Yeah, they should focus on banning it when there are a lot of pedestrians or a combination of cross traffic speed and visibility makes it dangerous. People are more likely to comply with laws that make sense to them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Clearly OP wants more of this

How many more people need to be maimed before the city moves forward with safety improvements?

The proposed safety "improvements" will lead to more incidents like this one. Increasing congestion and decreasing visibility does not make anything safer.

1) reducing speed always makes things safer
2) what reduced visibility? please be specific.

This is like my mom saying "there's nothing for kids to do after midnight except get into trouble." Obviously it's untrue. If you impose rules on drivers that seem arbitrary or serve no purpose, they'll just ignore them. There's a traffic light they recently put up in my neighborhood that no one seems understand why it's there. People now just drive right through it. Don't even slow down.

I'd rather live in a world where stop signs and such are put up judiciously and obeyed religiously than a world where there's stop signs every five feet and half the people don't obey them.

No turn on red signs have become meaningless.

When I used to see them, I took note because it meant there was something unusual about the intersection.

But now they're everywhere and seem to signify nothing.

They have added them in a confusing manner. There are intersections with almost no pedestrians that banned right on red in the last few years, while there are very busy intersections with pedestrians where it is still allowed.

Ban right turn on red there too.

Yeah, they should focus on banning it when there are a lot of pedestrians or a combination of cross traffic speed and visibility makes it dangerous. People are more likely to comply with laws that make sense to them.

No, they should ban it everywhere in DC. Much simpler and therefore easier to comply with.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Clearly OP wants more of this

How many more people need to be maimed before the city moves forward with safety improvements?

The proposed safety "improvements" will lead to more incidents like this one. Increasing congestion and decreasing visibility does not make anything safer.

All of the experts say you're wrong, but why trust them when we can trust an anonymous rando on the Internet?!

None of the experts say I'm wrong. Why are you so comfortable lying?

Different poster. Yes, experts would say you are wrong. There is no road engineer who would suggest higher speeds for cars and trucks make it safer for pedestrians and cyclists. None.

Then it's a good thing that that's not what I said.

I said increasing congestion and decreasing visibility causes an increase in accidents. There is not a single "road engineer" in the world that would disagree with that statement.

[Anonymous]

If anything we should be getting rid of bike lanes.

We didn’t ask for them, barely anyone uses them and few want them.

We should be focused on transportation that people actually use.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Clearly OP wants more of this

How many more people need to be maimed before the city moves forward with safety improvements?

The proposed safety "improvements" will lead to more incidents like this one. Increasing congestion and decreasing visibility does not make anything safer.

1) reducing speed always makes things safer
2) what reduced visibility? please be specific.

This is like my mom saying "there's nothing for kids to do after midnight except get into trouble." Obviously it's untrue. If you impose rules on drivers that seem arbitrary or serve no purpose, they'll just ignore them. There's a traffic light they recently put up in my neighborhood that no one seems understand why it's there. People now just drive right through it. Don't even slow down.

I'd rather live in a world where stop signs and such are put up judiciously and obeyed religiously than a world where there's stop signs every five feet and half the people don't obey them.

This.

[Anonymous]

We live in a city where the elected leaders have a written policy to allow fake dealer tags that allow a driver to escape all road penalties and you’re worried about right turn on red?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don't know which bike lanes you're talking about, but the "bike lobby" is not lobbying for terrible bike lanes.

And actually putting in protected bike lanes, on their own, does improve safety.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/05/190529113036.htm

Diverting Conn Avenue traffic onto the side streets off of Conn Ave will not improve safety. I will lead to accidents, and no doubt the death of a young running to school in NW DC. Question is not whether but when and where.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't know which bike lanes you're talking about, but the "bike lobby" is not lobbying for terrible bike lanes.

And actually putting in protected bike lanes, on their own, does improve safety.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/05/190529113036.htm

Diverting Conn Avenue traffic onto the side streets off of Conn Ave will not improve safety. I will lead to accidents, and no doubt the death of a young running to school in NW DC. Question is not whether but when and where.

You have repeated these lies for hundreds of pages. Don't you get tired of lying?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't know which bike lanes you're talking about, but the "bike lobby" is not lobbying for terrible bike lanes.

And actually putting in protected bike lanes, on their own, does improve safety.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/05/190529113036.htm

Diverting Conn Avenue traffic onto the side streets off of Conn Ave will not improve safety. I will lead to accidents, and no doubt the death of a young running to school in NW DC. Question is not whether but when and where.

Sounds like cars are not safe enough to drive around pedestrians.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't know which bike lanes you're talking about, but the "bike lobby" is not lobbying for terrible bike lanes.

And actually putting in protected bike lanes, on their own, does improve safety.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/05/190529113036.htm

Diverting Conn Avenue traffic onto the side streets off of Conn Ave will not improve safety. I will lead to accidents, and no doubt the death of a young running to school in NW DC. Question is not whether but when and where.

You have repeated these lies for hundreds of pages. Don't you get tired of lying?

So very Trumpy sounding. Wonder why that is?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Clearly OP wants more of this

How many more people need to be maimed before the city moves forward with safety improvements?

The proposed safety "improvements" will lead to more incidents like this one. Increasing congestion and decreasing visibility does not make anything safer.

All of the experts say you're wrong, but why trust them when we can trust an anonymous rando on the Internet?!

None of the experts say I'm wrong. Why are you so comfortable lying?

That lying Trumper who is now working for the Heritage Foundation planning out their Project 2025 is not a goddamn expert on traffic engineering.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Clearly OP wants more of this

How many more people need to be maimed before the city moves forward with safety improvements?

The proposed safety "improvements" will lead to more incidents like this one. Increasing congestion and decreasing visibility does not make anything safer.

1) reducing speed always makes things safer
2) what reduced visibility? please be specific.

This is like my mom saying "there's nothing for kids to do after midnight except get into trouble." Obviously it's untrue. If you impose rules on drivers that seem arbitrary or serve no purpose, they'll just ignore them. There's a traffic light they recently put up in my neighborhood that no one seems understand why it's there. People now just drive right through it. Don't even slow down.

I'd rather live in a world where stop signs and such are put up judiciously and obeyed religiously than a world where there's stop signs every five feet and half the people don't obey them.

No turn on red signs have become meaningless.

When I used to see them, I took note because it meant there was something unusual about the intersection.

But now they're everywhere and seem to signify nothing.

They have added them in a confusing manner. There are intersections with almost no pedestrians that banned right on red in the last few years, while there are very busy intersections with pedestrians where it is still allowed.

Ban right turn on red there too.

Banned city wide come 2025.