Options for opposing Connecticut Avenue changes?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The accident was sad. But with 9,000,000 cars a year, there will always be some sad occurrences. Sometimes it will be the drivers fault. Sometimes it will be a medical related occurrence. Sometimes it will be mechanical. And, yes, sometimes it will be the biker/pedestrians fault.

This project will have de minimus benefits. And if you believe the police and business community it could lead to even greater harm. Attempting to get to zero accidents is as impossible and dangerous as it was trying to get to zero COVID.

So there are actually proven methods to make roads and streets safer and prevent "accidents".

And then, on the other hand, there are people who aren't interested in preventing crashes that cause physical, emotional, and financial harm adding up to $340 billion a year in the US alone - due to their irrational and obsessive hatred for some people when those people are riding a bicycle.

+4,200,000 (or roughly the amount of American's who've perished from automobile related crashes since 1932)

[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.

Banned city wide come 2025.

Good luck with that! No one is going to obey that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The accident was sad. But with 9,000,000 cars a year, there will always be some sad occurrences. Sometimes it will be the drivers fault. Sometimes it will be a medical related occurrence. Sometimes it will be mechanical. And, yes, sometimes it will be the biker/pedestrians fault.

This project will have de minimus benefits. And if you believe the police and business community it could lead to even greater harm. Attempting to get to zero accidents is as impossible and dangerous as it was trying to get to zero COVID.

So there are actually proven methods to make roads and streets safer and prevent "accidents".

And then, on the other hand, there are people who aren't interested in preventing crashes that cause physical, emotional, and financial harm adding up to $340 billion a year in the US alone - due to their irrational and obsessive hatred for some people when those people are riding a bicycle.

Shifting accidents to the side streets and killing already struggling small will increase emotional and financial harm.

No, those things won't happen, as has been repeatedly explained on the 372 pages of this thread that someone keeps reviving, presumably because they get some kind of emotional satisfaction out of it.

You live in reports and studies. We live in the real world. As a 30 year DC resident I know exactly what will happen to my block just off Connecticut. Bye.

I too live on a block immediately off CT Ave (a "unit" block if you will) and want the bike lanes and have zero issue with any prospective increase in car traffic. Because 1) we need a safer avenue and 2) a street is a street, and it is meant to be used by people, bikes, cars etc. So if there are more cars on my street (doubtful) then so be it, that is what public space is for.

Oh and I am a 50 year resident, so...

That's fine. Others may disagree about the potential benefits but what everyone should agree upon is that traffic will be diverted and congestion will increase. Whether that is a good or bad thing is a difference of opinion. What isn't a difference of opinion is whether or not it would occur.

It actually is a difference of opinion.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Banned city wide come 2025.

Good luck with that! No one is going to obey that.

Scofflaw drivers.

[Anonymous]

Bill hates bike lanes. So that’s good news.

[Anonymous]

There's a lot of hyperventilating here, but traffic deaths are quite rare. We have about 40 per year. Don't forget the denominator! That's out of billions of trips.

The police say about 25 percent of those deaths are caused by speeding.

Another 25 percent are the fault of someone who wasn't driving, ie the pedestrian, cyclist, etc.

Another quarter are because the driver was drunk or stoned.

The rest are because of medical emergencies or otherwise unknown causses.

The easiest thing we could do is have the police get back into the traffic enforcement businesses (instead of relying on cameras) and have them hunt down impaired drivers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The accident was sad. But with 9,000,000 cars a year, there will always be some sad occurrences. Sometimes it will be the drivers fault. Sometimes it will be a medical related occurrence. Sometimes it will be mechanical. And, yes, sometimes it will be the biker/pedestrians fault.

This project will have de minimus benefits. And if you believe the police and business community it could lead to even greater harm. Attempting to get to zero accidents is as impossible and dangerous as it was trying to get to zero COVID.

So there are actually proven methods to make roads and streets safer and prevent "accidents".

And then, on the other hand, there are people who aren't interested in preventing crashes that cause physical, emotional, and financial harm adding up to $340 billion a year in the US alone - due to their irrational and obsessive hatred for some people when those people are riding a bicycle.

Shifting accidents to the side streets and killing already struggling small will increase emotional and financial harm.

No, those things won't happen, as has been repeatedly explained on the 372 pages of this thread that someone keeps reviving, presumably because they get some kind of emotional satisfaction out of it.

You live in reports and studies. We live in the real world. As a 30 year DC resident I know exactly what will happen to my block just off Connecticut. Bye.

I too live on a block immediately off CT Ave (a "unit" block if you will) and want the bike lanes and have zero issue with any prospective increase in car traffic. Because 1) we need a safer avenue and 2) a street is a street, and it is meant to be used by people, bikes, cars etc. So if there are more cars on my street (doubtful) then so be it, that is what public space is for.

Oh and I am a 50 year resident, so...

The project will make everyone LESS safe. Even to those who never set foot on Connecticut. The police are opposed to the project because it will increase response times which will have “serious consequences for public safety." Open your eyes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The accident was sad. But with 9,000,000 cars a year, there will always be some sad occurrences. Sometimes it will be the drivers fault. Sometimes it will be a medical related occurrence. Sometimes it will be mechanical. And, yes, sometimes it will be the biker/pedestrians fault.

This project will have de minimus benefits. And if you believe the police and business community it could lead to even greater harm. Attempting to get to zero accidents is as impossible and dangerous as it was trying to get to zero COVID.

So there are actually proven methods to make roads and streets safer and prevent "accidents".

And then, on the other hand, there are people who aren't interested in preventing crashes that cause physical, emotional, and financial harm adding up to $340 billion a year in the US alone - due to their irrational and obsessive hatred for some people when those people are riding a bicycle.

Shifting accidents to the side streets and killing already struggling small will increase emotional and financial harm.

No, those things won't happen, as has been repeatedly explained on the 372 pages of this thread that someone keeps reviving, presumably because they get some kind of emotional satisfaction out of it.

You live in reports and studies. We live in the real world. As a 30 year DC resident I know exactly what will happen to my block just off Connecticut. Bye.

I too live on a block immediately off CT Ave (a "unit" block if you will) and want the bike lanes and have zero issue with any prospective increase in car traffic. Because 1) we need a safer avenue and 2) a street is a street, and it is meant to be used by people, bikes, cars etc. So if there are more cars on my street (doubtful) then so be it, that is what public space is for.

Oh and I am a 50 year resident, so...

I think the more prevalent view is that diverting vehicle traffic, including trucks, from a major arterial road like Connecticut Avenue (the highest DC classification short of an interstate-type divided highway) into narrower collector or local streets is just not logical. And it's not safer.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

You fail to recognize the likely consequences of your favorite policy. With WAZE, etc, I (and thousands of others) regularly drive routes that I would not have considered, because my phone tells me what is the fastest in terms of time. So, the idea that traffic changes on the Avenue will not affect the side streets is simply delusional.

and?

WAZE already diverts people from CT Av. Look at the mess it creates with the unsignaled intersection of Chevy Chase Parkway. But so what? It is all public space meant to be used...by the public.

The fact is, other than "north cleveland park" there really isn't enough of a grid pattern for cars to diver to other than Reno Road to get north/south so WAZE can divert drivers all it wants, there are not many options to really bypass.

Reno Rd (known as 34th St south of Tiden) already carries a huge traffic load. It has multiple schools along it and narrow sidewalks that are barely buffered from the traffic lanes. Dwellings have narrow setbacks from the street. Diverting even more Connecticut traffic onto Reno/34th is just a crazy idea.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The accident was sad. But with 9,000,000 cars a year, there will always be some sad occurrences. Sometimes it will be the drivers fault. Sometimes it will be a medical related occurrence. Sometimes it will be mechanical. And, yes, sometimes it will be the biker/pedestrians fault.

This project will have de minimus benefits. And if you believe the police and business community it could lead to even greater harm. Attempting to get to zero accidents is as impossible and dangerous as it was trying to get to zero COVID.

So there are actually proven methods to make roads and streets safer and prevent "accidents".

And then, on the other hand, there are people who aren't interested in preventing crashes that cause physical, emotional, and financial harm adding up to $340 billion a year in the US alone - due to their irrational and obsessive hatred for some people when those people are riding a bicycle.

Shifting accidents to the side streets and killing already struggling small will increase emotional and financial harm.

No, those things won't happen, as has been repeatedly explained on the 372 pages of this thread that someone keeps reviving, presumably because they get some kind of emotional satisfaction out of it.

You live in reports and studies. We live in the real world. As a 30 year DC resident I know exactly what will happen to my block just off Connecticut. Bye.

I too live on a block immediately off CT Ave (a "unit" block if you will) and want the bike lanes and have zero issue with any prospective increase in car traffic. Because 1) we need a safer avenue and 2) a street is a street, and it is meant to be used by people, bikes, cars etc. So if there are more cars on my street (doubtful) then so be it, that is what public space is for.

Oh and I am a 50 year resident, so...

I think the more prevalent view is that diverting vehicle traffic, including trucks, from a major arterial road like Connecticut Avenue (the highest DC classification short of an interstate-type divided highway) into narrower collector or local streets is just not logical. And it's not safer.

Why would trucks that are making deliveries to businesses on CT Ave divert away from there?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

You fail to recognize the likely consequences of your favorite policy. With WAZE, etc, I (and thousands of others) regularly drive routes that I would not have considered, because my phone tells me what is the fastest in terms of time. So, the idea that traffic changes on the Avenue will not affect the side streets is simply delusional.

and?

WAZE already diverts people from CT Av. Look at the mess it creates with the unsignaled intersection of Chevy Chase Parkway. But so what? It is all public space meant to be used...by the public.

The fact is, other than "north cleveland park" there really isn't enough of a grid pattern for cars to diver to other than Reno Road to get north/south so WAZE can divert drivers all it wants, there are not many options to really bypass.

Reno Rd (known as 34th St south of Tiden) already carries a huge traffic load. It has multiple schools along it and narrow sidewalks that are barely buffered from the traffic lanes. Dwellings have narrow setbacks from the street. Diverting even more Connecticut traffic onto Reno/34th is just a crazy idea.

Which is why WAZW won't be diverting more traffic diverted there. It is already very busy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There's a lot of hyperventilating here, but traffic deaths are quite rare. We have about 40 per year. Don't forget the denominator! That's out of billions of trips.

The police say about 25 percent of those deaths are caused by speeding.

Another 25 percent are the fault of someone who wasn't driving, ie the pedestrian, cyclist, etc.

Another quarter are because the driver was drunk or stoned.

The rest are because of medical emergencies or otherwise unknown causses.

The easiest thing we could do is have the police get back into the traffic enforcement businesses (instead of relying on cameras) and have them hunt down impaired drivers.

What about injuries short of death?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The accident was sad. But with 9,000,000 cars a year, there will always be some sad occurrences. Sometimes it will be the drivers fault. Sometimes it will be a medical related occurrence. Sometimes it will be mechanical. And, yes, sometimes it will be the biker/pedestrians fault.

This project will have de minimus benefits. And if you believe the police and business community it could lead to even greater harm. Attempting to get to zero accidents is as impossible and dangerous as it was trying to get to zero COVID.

So there are actually proven methods to make roads and streets safer and prevent "accidents".

And then, on the other hand, there are people who aren't interested in preventing crashes that cause physical, emotional, and financial harm adding up to $340 billion a year in the US alone - due to their irrational and obsessive hatred for some people when those people are riding a bicycle.

Shifting accidents to the side streets and killing already struggling small will increase emotional and financial harm.

No, those things won't happen, as has been repeatedly explained on the 372 pages of this thread that someone keeps reviving, presumably because they get some kind of emotional satisfaction out of it.

You live in reports and studies. We live in the real world. As a 30 year DC resident I know exactly what will happen to my block just off Connecticut. Bye.

I too live on a block immediately off CT Ave (a "unit" block if you will) and want the bike lanes and have zero issue with any prospective increase in car traffic. Because 1) we need a safer avenue and 2) a street is a street, and it is meant to be used by people, bikes, cars etc. So if there are more cars on my street (doubtful) then so be it, that is what public space is for.

Oh and I am a 50 year resident, so...

I think the more prevalent view is that diverting vehicle traffic, including trucks, from a major arterial road like Connecticut Avenue (the highest DC classification short of an interstate-type divided highway) into narrower collector or local streets is just not logical. And it's not safer.

Why would trucks that are making deliveries to businesses on CT Ave divert away from there?

Yes! DDOT helpfully proposed that commercial loading zones might shift to the side streets near Connecticut Avenue.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

You fail to recognize the likely consequences of your favorite policy. With WAZE, etc, I (and thousands of others) regularly drive routes that I would not have considered, because my phone tells me what is the fastest in terms of time. So, the idea that traffic changes on the Avenue will not affect the side streets is simply delusional.

and?

WAZE already diverts people from CT Av. Look at the mess it creates with the unsignaled intersection of Chevy Chase Parkway. But so what? It is all public space meant to be used...by the public.

The fact is, other than "north cleveland park" there really isn't enough of a grid pattern for cars to diver to other than Reno Road to get north/south so WAZE can divert drivers all it wants, there are not many options to really bypass.

You are missing the fact that WAZE and others guide us all to the fastest route. If the Avenue traffic becomes even slower, more traffic will be diverted to the side streets. I regularly drive down the Avenue, including today, because WAZE tells me it is the fastest. If it wasn't, it will divert me elsewhere.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

You fail to recognize the likely consequences of your favorite policy. With WAZE, etc, I (and thousands of others) regularly drive routes that I would not have considered, because my phone tells me what is the fastest in terms of time. So, the idea that traffic changes on the Avenue will not affect the side streets is simply delusional.

and?

WAZE already diverts people from CT Av. Look at the mess it creates with the unsignaled intersection of Chevy Chase Parkway. But so what? It is all public space meant to be used...by the public.

The fact is, other than "north cleveland park" there really isn't enough of a grid pattern for cars to diver to other than Reno Road to get north/south so WAZE can divert drivers all it wants, there are not many options to really bypass.

You are missing the fact that WAZE and others guide us all to the fastest route. If the Avenue traffic becomes even slower, more traffic will be diverted to the side streets. I regularly drive down the Avenue, including today, because WAZE tells me it is the fastest. If it wasn't, it will divert me elsewhere.

Plenty of people will take Connecticut regardless of literally anything else, because they won't be using GPS for things like "drive to run an errand" or "drive to work," because they know those routes. Do you always put on Waze every time you get in the car?