Options for opposing Connecticut Avenue changes?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

That PP has consistently portrayed everything that isn't death as not worth consideration.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

That PP has consistently portrayed everything that isn't death as not worth consideration.

It's the same standard we use when we talk about crime.

We usually focus on the number of homicides (274 last year) and not the total number of crimes (34,414 last year).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

That PP has consistently portrayed everything that isn't death as not worth consideration.

It's the same standard we use when we talk about crime.

We usually focus on the number of homicides (274 last year) and not the total number of crimes (34,414 last year).

This is not an assertion that a serious person would make.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

That PP has consistently portrayed everything that isn't death as not worth consideration.

It's the same standard we use when we talk about crime.

We usually focus on the number of homicides (274 last year) and not the total number of crimes (34,414 last year).

This is not an assertion that a serious person would make.

The only potential safety gain of increased congestion is a reduction in fatal accidents.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

That PP has consistently portrayed everything that isn't death as not worth consideration.

It's the same standard we use when we talk about crime.

We usually focus on the number of homicides (274 last year) and not the total number of crimes (34,414 last year).

This is not an assertion that a serious person would make.

A serious person wouldn’t try to ride a child’s toy on a major arterial road.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

That PP has consistently portrayed everything that isn't death as not worth consideration.

It's the same standard we use when we talk about crime.

We usually focus on the number of homicides (274 last year) and not the total number of crimes (34,414 last year).

This is not an assertion that a serious person would make.

A serious person wouldn’t try to ride a child’s toy on a major arterial road.

At this point in this thread, there are very clearly no serious people making arguments intended to persuade anyone anymore.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

That PP has consistently portrayed everything that isn't death as not worth consideration.

It's the same standard we use when we talk about crime.

We usually focus on the number of homicides (274 last year) and not the total number of crimes (34,414 last year).

This is not an assertion that a serious person would make.

A serious person wouldn’t try to ride a child’s toy on a major arterial road.

If the roads are dangerous, then obviously children should not be allowed to ride bikes on them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

That PP has consistently portrayed everything that isn't death as not worth consideration.

It's the same standard we use when we talk about crime.

We usually focus on the number of homicides (274 last year) and not the total number of crimes (34,414 last year).

This is not an assertion that a serious person would make.

A serious person wouldn’t try to ride a child’s toy on a major arterial road.

At this point in this thread, there are very clearly no serious people making arguments intended to persuade anyone anymore.

There have never been any serious people making arguments in favor of this. Never forget that one of the early claims was that it would increase ethnic and racial diversity.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

That PP has consistently portrayed everything that isn't death as not worth consideration.

It's the same standard we use when we talk about crime.

We usually focus on the number of homicides (274 last year) and not the total number of crimes (34,414 last year).

This is not an assertion that a serious person would make.

A serious person wouldn’t try to ride a child’s toy on a major arterial road.

At this point in this thread, there are very clearly no serious people making arguments intended to persuade anyone anymore.

There have never been any serious people making arguments in favor of this. Never forget that one of the early claims was that it would increase ethnic and racial diversity.

And make Ward 3 more vibrant and welcoming, plus save the planet!

[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?

So.. there are these things called Alleys. They are the place where loading usually and should be taking place. Go figure.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

So.. there are these things called Alleys. They are the place where loading usually and should be taking place. Go figure.

So you are concerned about the 40 feet of a side street a truck might travel on to get to an alley?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

So.. there are these things called Alleys. They are the place where loading usually and should be taking place. Go figure.

So you are concerned about the 40 feet of a side street a truck might travel on to get to an alley?

No, I'm saying truck do and can continue to use alleys for loading. I don't understand why this is an issue.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

That PP has consistently portrayed everything that isn't death as not worth consideration.

It's the same standard we use when we talk about crime.

We usually focus on the number of homicides (274 last year) and not the total number of crimes (34,414 last year).

This is not an assertion that a serious person would make.

A serious person wouldn’t try to ride a child’s toy on a major arterial road.

At this point in this thread, there are very clearly no serious people making arguments intended to persuade anyone anymore.

There have never been any serious people making arguments in favor of this. Never forget that one of the early claims was that it would increase ethnic and racial diversity.

I missed that, do you have a link?

[Anonymous]

Tonight

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Tonight

Imagine thinking that the spineless hack Frumin is gonna swoop in and save anything.

If Bowser is this opposed, that means the development community is also opposed, which means the plan is dead. Bowser also realizes that she will not suffer politically because either she's done after this term or because she (correctly) realizes that a significant portion of the people who would be directly affected by this are opposed to it. The only people who support this are the same Very Online white mediocrities who think crime isn't a big deal.