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:

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.

Maybe he/she is a chubby chaser.

[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.

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.

I forgot to add that you also harbor an irrational hatred of overweight people, especially those who are taking steps to lose weight.

For the record, most of the cyclists I’ve encountered in DC are fairly slim, but more power to those who are biking their way to a healthier future.

[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.

Runners are actually in shape. Bicyclists look like they're headed to Dunkin Donuts.

[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.

DC is not very big, so if you're riding as a means of transportation (and not as a hobby) you're probably not riding long enough or going fast enough to burn many calories or build much muscle.

[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.

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.

DC is not very big, so if you're riding as a means of transportation (and not as a hobby) you're probably not riding long enough or going fast enough to burn many calories or build much muscle.

That depends on how hard you’re riding and the topography of the route. In any case, though, the cyclist is burning more calories during their ride than someone who spends that time sitting in a vehicle.

[Anonymous]

E-bikes dominate the use of the Capital Crescent trail - not many calories burned. In fact they’re powered by coal and oil power plants right?

[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.

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.

Please make sure to drive your overpriced german luxury crossover as you make your way to the gym for your 45 minute workout with Fritz, your personal trainer. You know, rather than just commuting to work and to errands via a bicycle, which would do all of the above for basically free!

[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.

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.

DC is not very big, so if you're riding as a means of transportation (and not as a hobby) you're probably not riding long enough or going fast enough to burn many calories or build much muscle.

Apparently the CT Ave bike lanes are not for exercise or commuting. They’re to get people to Politics and Prose while holding slices from Vace.

[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.

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.

DC is not very big, so if you're riding as a means of transportation (and not as a hobby) you're probably not riding long enough or going fast enough to burn many calories or build much muscle.

Apparently the CT Ave bike lanes are not for exercise or commuting. They’re to get people to Politics and Prose while holding slices from Vace.

that sounds fun! i’m in.

[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.

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.

DC is not very big, so if you're riding as a means of transportation (and not as a hobby) you're probably not riding long enough or going fast enough to burn many calories or build much muscle.

That depends on how hard you’re riding and the topography of the route. In any case, though, the cyclist is burning more calories during their ride than someone who spends that time sitting in a vehicle.

Starting from a dead stop is what really builds muscle and burns calories, but a lot of cyclists miss out on this because they don’t stop for stop signs, red lights, or pedestrians in crosswalks. If you really want to get in shape, obey traffic laws. If you’re having a hard time with starting from a dead stop, hit the gym for legs day.

[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:

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.

DC is not very big, so if you're riding as a means of transportation (and not as a hobby) you're probably not riding long enough or going fast enough to burn many calories or build much muscle.

Apparently the CT Ave bike lanes are not for exercise or commuting. They’re to get people to Politics and Prose while holding slices from Vace.

that sounds fun! i’m in.

Me too! I assumed the Connecticut Avenue bike lanes were just generally for going places, just like the Connecticut Avenue general-travel lanes, and the Connecticut Avenue sidewalks, but I would love to bicycle to Politics and Prose while holding slices from Vace.

[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:

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.

DC is not very big, so if you're riding as a means of transportation (and not as a hobby) you're probably not riding long enough or going fast enough to burn many calories or build much muscle.

Apparently the CT Ave bike lanes are not for exercise or commuting. They’re to get people to Politics and Prose while holding slices from Vace.

that sounds fun! i’m in.

Me too! I assumed the Connecticut Avenue bike lanes were just generally for going places, just like the Connecticut Avenue general-travel lanes, and the Connecticut Avenue sidewalks, but I would love to bicycle to Politics and Prose while holding slices from Vace.

On an e-unicycle?

[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:

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.

DC is not very big, so if you're riding as a means of transportation (and not as a hobby) you're probably not riding long enough or going fast enough to burn many calories or build much muscle.

That depends on how hard you’re riding and the topography of the route. In any case, though, the cyclist is burning more calories during their ride than someone who spends that time sitting in a vehicle.

Starting from a dead stop is what really builds muscle and burns calories, but a lot of cyclists miss out on this because they don’t stop for stop signs, red lights, or pedestrians in crosswalks. If you really want to get in shape, obey traffic laws. If you’re having a hard time with starting from a dead stop, hit the gym for legs day.

In the bicycle nirvanas of Denmark, Netherlands, Sweden cyclists are punctilious in obeying traffic laws and rules. Rights come with obligations and responsibilities, folks.

[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:

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.

DC is not very big, so if you're riding as a means of transportation (and not as a hobby) you're probably not riding long enough or going fast enough to burn many calories or build much muscle.

That depends on how hard you’re riding and the topography of the route. In any case, though, the cyclist is burning more calories during their ride than someone who spends that time sitting in a vehicle.

Starting from a dead stop is what really builds muscle and burns calories, but a lot of cyclists miss out on this because they don’t stop for stop signs, red lights, or pedestrians in crosswalks. If you really want to get in shape, obey traffic laws. If you’re having a hard time with starting from a dead stop, hit the gym for legs day.

In the bicycle nirvanas of Denmark, Netherlands, Sweden cyclists are punctilious in obeying traffic laws and rules. Rights come with obligations and responsibilities, folks.

Lol, no they aren't. I've been there and biked around. I was one of few who stopped at stop signs religiously. They weren't reckless, not so different from most bicyclists in DC.

[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.

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.

Runners are actually in shape. Bicyclists look like they're headed to Dunkin Donuts.

Yesterday, I biked to work. Today, I went for a run before working from home. I guess I must look much better today than I did yesterday?