Options for opposing Connecticut Avenue changes?

[Anonymous]

I’m a Democrat and I would welcome it. And so would everyone I know. People are tired of halfwits with no other career opportunities representing them and yet not listening to them

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Even without the significant practical concerns about Connecticut Avenue bike lanes, they were not going to happen for a long time. DC is facing a crime crisis, a looming fiscal crisis, and a possible control board situation if DC doesn't address the first two. Cases in point: Fannie Mae has already notified its landlord that it plans to vacate its lease on marquee HQ space downtown where it was the first tenant. Uptown, the largest office tenant in Fannie Mae's former HQ (at newish City Ridge) announced plans to move out it seems after barely having moved in. The crashing commercial office market will be the principal cause of DC's revenue cliff, and going forward with discretionary (and controversial) commitments like bike lanes just will not happen.

There's no chance of a control board while a Democrat is president and/or without a GOP super-majority in the Senate.

We don't need a control board. We just need an actual mayor who has a vision and the means to execute on it. Crystal clear that Bowser has been a lapdog for others, and now that Falciccio was removed, there is no one left to actually manage the city effectively. She really should resign and let someone else have a shot at it, because three more years of this is going to be brutal.

[Anonymous]

No, I’d prefer to be el DF, thanks and stop wasting money on local government. They had their chance. This from someone who was a staunch Dem, pro statehood. Yeah, no, they can go grift elsewhere from Mayor to the sexual abusers in her office to Chuck and his corrupt non profit schemes for personal enrichment of his wife and associates. The stuff I’ve read and seen doesn’t recommend local government

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Even without the significant practical concerns about Connecticut Avenue bike lanes, they were not going to happen for a long time. DC is facing a crime crisis, a looming fiscal crisis, and a possible control board situation if DC doesn't address the first two. Cases in point: Fannie Mae has already notified its landlord that it plans to vacate its lease on marquee HQ space downtown where it was the first tenant. Uptown, the largest office tenant in Fannie Mae's former HQ (at newish City Ridge) announced plans to move out it seems after barely having moved in. The crashing commercial office market will be the principal cause of DC's revenue cliff, and going forward with discretionary (and controversial) commitments like bike lanes just will not happen.

There's no chance of a control board while a Democrat is president and/or without a GOP super-majority in the Senate.

We don't need a control board. We just need an actual mayor who has a vision and the means to execute on it. Crystal clear that Bowser has been a lapdog for others, and now that Falciccio was removed, there is no one left to actually manage the city effectively. She really should resign and let someone else have a shot at it, because three more years of this is going to be brutal.

After 384 pages of this, at least we finally found *something* we could agree on.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes that’s right - the only way to fight crime is to make the roads as unpleasant for bikes, pedestrians and bus riders as possible. Woo hoo!

It takes a lot of money to fight crime. You need a tax base in order to get a lot of money. You lose your tax base when you make it painful for commuters to get down town.

I live in upper NW D.C. and pay high property and income taxes, and the most painful way to get downtown I could think of is to drive my car to my office. I take Metro about 2/3 of the time and bike 1/3 of the time. Have driven from here to work maybe five times in the six years I've lived in this neighborhood and cannot imagine why anyone would want to do it every day.

Let’s see. Hospitalizations. Traumatic brain injuries and deaths. And that’s just the people I know or knew of biking regularly on bike lines in traffic.

Raise them onto the sidewalks or completely separate and leave the streets alone.

So, in other words, there should be safe, protected bike lanes - which also make the streets safer for everyone else.

There's no such thing as "leaving the streets alone" because the streets are for everyone - people on foot, people in strollers, people on bikes, people in wheelchairs, people on scooters, people going to or from buses, etc. etc. etc. Not just people in cars.

There can be no “protected” bike lanes on a street like Connecticut Avenue which would require cars to cross over the lanes at literally hundreds of points to turn on to side streets, alleys, apartment turnarounds, businesses, etc. If this project were built and with the projected 3000 daily users there would be multiple collisions every day. It’s both completely foreseeable and completely unavoidable for this type of road. And, yes, we need greater speed enforcement.

Yes, a reduction from near infinite opportunity to collision with a high speed car to mere hundreds at predictable places like driveways and cross streets would be very desirable. Thanks for pointing out so clearly why the bike lanes are a necessary addition!

Rock Creek Park has a very nice bike path and it's off the road.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Roses are red
Conn bike lanes are dead
Continuing this thread is sad
And you biketard are a cad

Get a life!

Yay for not reducing carbon emissions!

Residential and commercial buildings are the largest emitters of greenhouse gas in DC, not passenger vehicles. And, if all the drivers go vegan, it'd probably do more to reduce emissions than not driving.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes that’s right - the only way to fight crime is to make the roads as unpleasant for bikes, pedestrians and bus riders as possible. Woo hoo!

It takes a lot of money to fight crime. You need a tax base in order to get a lot of money. You lose your tax base when you make it painful for commuters to get down town.

I live in upper NW D.C. and pay high property and income taxes, and the most painful way to get downtown I could think of is to drive my car to my office. I take Metro about 2/3 of the time and bike 1/3 of the time. Have driven from here to work maybe five times in the six years I've lived in this neighborhood and cannot imagine why anyone would want to do it every day.

Let’s see. Hospitalizations. Traumatic brain injuries and deaths. And that’s just the people I know or knew of biking regularly on bike lines in traffic.

Raise them onto the sidewalks or completely separate and leave the streets alone.

So, in other words, there should be safe, protected bike lanes - which also make the streets safer for everyone else.

There's no such thing as "leaving the streets alone" because the streets are for everyone - people on foot, people in strollers, people on bikes, people in wheelchairs, people on scooters, people going to or from buses, etc. etc. etc. Not just people in cars.

There can be no “protected” bike lanes on a street like Connecticut Avenue which would require cars to cross over the lanes at literally hundreds of points to turn on to side streets, alleys, apartment turnarounds, businesses, etc. If this project were built and with the projected 3000 daily users there would be multiple collisions every day. It’s both completely foreseeable and completely unavoidable for this type of road. And, yes, we need greater speed enforcement.

Yes, a reduction from near infinite opportunity to collision with a high speed car to mere hundreds at predictable places like driveways and cross streets would be very desirable. Thanks for pointing out so clearly why the bike lanes are a necessary addition!

Rock Creek Park has a very nice bike path and it's off the road.

When Rock Creek Park hosts grocery stores and other amenities, then it will be a good replacement for a Connecticut Avenue Bike Lane. As has been discussed ad nasuem, this isn't about commuting downtown, or at least not solely. There are thousands of residents who would replace car trips with bikes if they could do it safely to get from one commercial area to another.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes that’s right - the only way to fight crime is to make the roads as unpleasant for bikes, pedestrians and bus riders as possible. Woo hoo!

It takes a lot of money to fight crime. You need a tax base in order to get a lot of money. You lose your tax base when you make it painful for commuters to get down town.

I live in upper NW D.C. and pay high property and income taxes, and the most painful way to get downtown I could think of is to drive my car to my office. I take Metro about 2/3 of the time and bike 1/3 of the time. Have driven from here to work maybe five times in the six years I've lived in this neighborhood and cannot imagine why anyone would want to do it every day.

Let’s see. Hospitalizations. Traumatic brain injuries and deaths. And that’s just the people I know or knew of biking regularly on bike lines in traffic.

Raise them onto the sidewalks or completely separate and leave the streets alone.

So, in other words, there should be safe, protected bike lanes - which also make the streets safer for everyone else.

There's no such thing as "leaving the streets alone" because the streets are for everyone - people on foot, people in strollers, people on bikes, people in wheelchairs, people on scooters, people going to or from buses, etc. etc. etc. Not just people in cars.

There can be no “protected” bike lanes on a street like Connecticut Avenue which would require cars to cross over the lanes at literally hundreds of points to turn on to side streets, alleys, apartment turnarounds, businesses, etc. If this project were built and with the projected 3000 daily users there would be multiple collisions every day. It’s both completely foreseeable and completely unavoidable for this type of road. And, yes, we need greater speed enforcement.

Yes, a reduction from near infinite opportunity to collision with a high speed car to mere hundreds at predictable places like driveways and cross streets would be very desirable. Thanks for pointing out so clearly why the bike lanes are a necessary addition!

Rock Creek Park has a very nice bike path and it's off the road.

When Rock Creek Park hosts grocery stores and other amenities, then it will be a good replacement for a Connecticut Avenue Bike Lane. As has been discussed ad nasuem, this isn't about commuting downtown, or at least not solely. There are thousands of residents who would replace car trips with bikes if they could do it safely to get from one commercial area to another.

Can't we stick to just talking about how the Mayor is a serious disappointment to the city and for a host of reasons we'd be better off if she resigned? Common ground??

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Even without the significant practical concerns about Connecticut Avenue bike lanes, they were not going to happen for a long time. DC is facing a crime crisis, a looming fiscal crisis, and a possible control board situation if DC doesn't address the first two. Cases in point: Fannie Mae has already notified its landlord that it plans to vacate its lease on marquee HQ space downtown where it was the first tenant. Uptown, the largest office tenant in Fannie Mae's former HQ (at newish City Ridge) announced plans to move out it seems after barely having moved in. The crashing commercial office market will be the principal cause of DC's revenue cliff, and going forward with discretionary (and controversial) commitments like bike lanes just will not happen.

There's no chance of a control board while a Democrat is president and/or without a GOP super-majority in the Senate.

We don't need a control board. We just need an actual mayor who has a vision and the means to execute on it. Crystal clear that Bowser has been a lapdog for others, and now that Falciccio was removed, there is no one left to actually manage the city effectively. She really should resign and let someone else have a shot at it, because three more years of this is going to be brutal.

Biden would do a control board if it made sense. Several of his senior aides are DC residents and know firsthand how far downhill DC has gone.. The first control board was under Democratic President Bill Clinton.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes that’s right - the only way to fight crime is to make the roads as unpleasant for bikes, pedestrians and bus riders as possible. Woo hoo!

It takes a lot of money to fight crime. You need a tax base in order to get a lot of money. You lose your tax base when you make it painful for commuters to get down town.

I live in upper NW D.C. and pay high property and income taxes, and the most painful way to get downtown I could think of is to drive my car to my office. I take Metro about 2/3 of the time and bike 1/3 of the time. Have driven from here to work maybe five times in the six years I've lived in this neighborhood and cannot imagine why anyone would want to do it every day.

Let’s see. Hospitalizations. Traumatic brain injuries and deaths. And that’s just the people I know or knew of biking regularly on bike lines in traffic.

Raise them onto the sidewalks or completely separate and leave the streets alone.

So, in other words, there should be safe, protected bike lanes - which also make the streets safer for everyone else.

There's no such thing as "leaving the streets alone" because the streets are for everyone - people on foot, people in strollers, people on bikes, people in wheelchairs, people on scooters, people going to or from buses, etc. etc. etc. Not just people in cars.

There can be no “protected” bike lanes on a street like Connecticut Avenue which would require cars to cross over the lanes at literally hundreds of points to turn on to side streets, alleys, apartment turnarounds, businesses, etc. If this project were built and with the projected 3000 daily users there would be multiple collisions every day. It’s both completely foreseeable and completely unavoidable for this type of road. And, yes, we need greater speed enforcement.

Yes, a reduction from near infinite opportunity to collision with a high speed car to mere hundreds at predictable places like driveways and cross streets would be very desirable. Thanks for pointing out so clearly why the bike lanes are a necessary addition!

Rock Creek Park has a very nice bike path and it's off the road.

When Rock Creek Park hosts grocery stores and other amenities, then it will be a good replacement for a Connecticut Avenue Bike Lane. As has been discussed ad nasuem, this isn't about commuting downtown, or at least not solely. There are thousands of residents who would replace car trips with bikes if they could do it safely to get from one commercial area to another.

Option C also has a lot to do with a GGW smart growth vison of how to make Connecticut Ave in Ward 3”vibrant” like downtown. No thanks. Not wiorth the cost and the impact.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Even without the significant practical concerns about Connecticut Avenue bike lanes, they were not going to happen for a long time. DC is facing a crime crisis, a looming fiscal crisis, and a possible control board situation if DC doesn't address the first two. Cases in point: Fannie Mae has already notified its landlord that it plans to vacate its lease on marquee HQ space downtown where it was the first tenant. Uptown, the largest office tenant in Fannie Mae's former HQ (at newish City Ridge) announced plans to move out it seems after barely having moved in. The crashing commercial office market will be the principal cause of DC's revenue cliff, and going forward with discretionary (and controversial) commitments like bike lanes just will not happen.

There's no chance of a control board while a Democrat is president and/or without a GOP super-majority in the Senate.

We don't need a control board. We just need an actual mayor who has a vision and the means to execute on it. Crystal clear that Bowser has been a lapdog for others, and now that Falciccio was removed, there is no one left to actually manage the city effectively. She really should resign and let someone else have a shot at it, because three more years of this is going to be brutal.

Agree as to Bowser’s ineptness. But Falcicchio was not managing effectively. When he wasn’t schtuppng his staff, Johnny Money was cutting sweetheart deals for Bowser with her crony developer friends - possibly corruptly, but that’s under investigation by the FBI and US attorney’s office.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes that’s right - the only way to fight crime is to make the roads as unpleasant for bikes, pedestrians and bus riders as possible. Woo hoo!

It takes a lot of money to fight crime. You need a tax base in order to get a lot of money. You lose your tax base when you make it painful for commuters to get down town.

I live in upper NW D.C. and pay high property and income taxes, and the most painful way to get downtown I could think of is to drive my car to my office. I take Metro about 2/3 of the time and bike 1/3 of the time. Have driven from here to work maybe five times in the six years I've lived in this neighborhood and cannot imagine why anyone would want to do it every day.

Let’s see. Hospitalizations. Traumatic brain injuries and deaths. And that’s just the people I know or knew of biking regularly on bike lines in traffic.

Raise them onto the sidewalks or completely separate and leave the streets alone.

So, in other words, there should be safe, protected bike lanes - which also make the streets safer for everyone else.

There's no such thing as "leaving the streets alone" because the streets are for everyone - people on foot, people in strollers, people on bikes, people in wheelchairs, people on scooters, people going to or from buses, etc. etc. etc. Not just people in cars.

There can be no “protected” bike lanes on a street like Connecticut Avenue which would require cars to cross over the lanes at literally hundreds of points to turn on to side streets, alleys, apartment turnarounds, businesses, etc. If this project were built and with the projected 3000 daily users there would be multiple collisions every day. It’s both completely foreseeable and completely unavoidable for this type of road. And, yes, we need greater speed enforcement.

Yes, a reduction from near infinite opportunity to collision with a high speed car to mere hundreds at predictable places like driveways and cross streets would be very desirable. Thanks for pointing out so clearly why the bike lanes are a necessary addition!

Rock Creek Park has a very nice bike path and it's off the road.

When Rock Creek Park hosts grocery stores and other amenities, then it will be a good replacement for a Connecticut Avenue Bike Lane. As has been discussed ad nasuem, this isn't about commuting downtown, or at least not solely. There are thousands of residents who would replace car trips with bikes if they could do it safely to get from one commercial area to another.

Option C also has a lot to do with a GGW smart growth vison of how to make Connecticut Ave in Ward 3”vibrant” like downtown. No thanks. Not wiorth the cost and the impact.

Actually, Option C is based on best practices from cities around the country and world.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes that’s right - the only way to fight crime is to make the roads as unpleasant for bikes, pedestrians and bus riders as possible. Woo hoo!

It takes a lot of money to fight crime. You need a tax base in order to get a lot of money. You lose your tax base when you make it painful for commuters to get down town.

I live in upper NW D.C. and pay high property and income taxes, and the most painful way to get downtown I could think of is to drive my car to my office. I take Metro about 2/3 of the time and bike 1/3 of the time. Have driven from here to work maybe five times in the six years I've lived in this neighborhood and cannot imagine why anyone would want to do it every day.

Let’s see. Hospitalizations. Traumatic brain injuries and deaths. And that’s just the people I know or knew of biking regularly on bike lines in traffic.

Raise them onto the sidewalks or completely separate and leave the streets alone.

So, in other words, there should be safe, protected bike lanes - which also make the streets safer for everyone else.

There's no such thing as "leaving the streets alone" because the streets are for everyone - people on foot, people in strollers, people on bikes, people in wheelchairs, people on scooters, people going to or from buses, etc. etc. etc. Not just people in cars.

There can be no “protected” bike lanes on a street like Connecticut Avenue which would require cars to cross over the lanes at literally hundreds of points to turn on to side streets, alleys, apartment turnarounds, businesses, etc. If this project were built and with the projected 3000 daily users there would be multiple collisions every day. It’s both completely foreseeable and completely unavoidable for this type of road. And, yes, we need greater speed enforcement.

Yes, a reduction from near infinite opportunity to collision with a high speed car to mere hundreds at predictable places like driveways and cross streets would be very desirable. Thanks for pointing out so clearly why the bike lanes are a necessary addition!

Rock Creek Park has a very nice bike path and it's off the road.

When Rock Creek Park hosts grocery stores and other amenities, then it will be a good replacement for a Connecticut Avenue Bike Lane. As has been discussed ad nasuem, this isn't about commuting downtown, or at least not solely. There are thousands of residents who would replace car trips with bikes if they could do it safely to get from one commercial area to another.

Option C also has a lot to do with a GGW smart growth vison of how to make Connecticut Ave in Ward 3”vibrant” like downtown. No thanks. Not wiorth the cost and the impact.

Actually, Option C is based on best practices from cities around the country and world.

Like Amsterdam?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes that’s right - the only way to fight crime is to make the roads as unpleasant for bikes, pedestrians and bus riders as possible. Woo hoo!

It takes a lot of money to fight crime. You need a tax base in order to get a lot of money. You lose your tax base when you make it painful for commuters to get down town.

I live in upper NW D.C. and pay high property and income taxes, and the most painful way to get downtown I could think of is to drive my car to my office. I take Metro about 2/3 of the time and bike 1/3 of the time. Have driven from here to work maybe five times in the six years I've lived in this neighborhood and cannot imagine why anyone would want to do it every day.

Let’s see. Hospitalizations. Traumatic brain injuries and deaths. And that’s just the people I know or knew of biking regularly on bike lines in traffic.

Raise them onto the sidewalks or completely separate and leave the streets alone.

So, in other words, there should be safe, protected bike lanes - which also make the streets safer for everyone else.

There's no such thing as "leaving the streets alone" because the streets are for everyone - people on foot, people in strollers, people on bikes, people in wheelchairs, people on scooters, people going to or from buses, etc. etc. etc. Not just people in cars.

There can be no “protected” bike lanes on a street like Connecticut Avenue which would require cars to cross over the lanes at literally hundreds of points to turn on to side streets, alleys, apartment turnarounds, businesses, etc. If this project were built and with the projected 3000 daily users there would be multiple collisions every day. It’s both completely foreseeable and completely unavoidable for this type of road. And, yes, we need greater speed enforcement.

Yes, a reduction from near infinite opportunity to collision with a high speed car to mere hundreds at predictable places like driveways and cross streets would be very desirable. Thanks for pointing out so clearly why the bike lanes are a necessary addition!

Rock Creek Park has a very nice bike path and it's off the road.

When Rock Creek Park hosts grocery stores and other amenities, then it will be a good replacement for a Connecticut Avenue Bike Lane. As has been discussed ad nasuem, this isn't about commuting downtown, or at least not solely. There are thousands of residents who would replace car trips with bikes if they could do it safely to get from one commercial area to another.

Option C also has a lot to do with a GGW smart growth vison of how to make Connecticut Ave in Ward 3”vibrant” like downtown. No thanks. Not wiorth the cost and the impact.

What do WABA, GGW and other development shills have in common? They all get paid with taxpayer funds.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes that’s right - the only way to fight crime is to make the roads as unpleasant for bikes, pedestrians and bus riders as possible. Woo hoo!

It takes a lot of money to fight crime. You need a tax base in order to get a lot of money. You lose your tax base when you make it painful for commuters to get down town.

I live in upper NW D.C. and pay high property and income taxes, and the most painful way to get downtown I could think of is to drive my car to my office. I take Metro about 2/3 of the time and bike 1/3 of the time. Have driven from here to work maybe five times in the six years I've lived in this neighborhood and cannot imagine why anyone would want to do it every day.

Let’s see. Hospitalizations. Traumatic brain injuries and deaths. And that’s just the people I know or knew of biking regularly on bike lines in traffic.

Raise them onto the sidewalks or completely separate and leave the streets alone.

So, in other words, there should be safe, protected bike lanes - which also make the streets safer for everyone else.

There's no such thing as "leaving the streets alone" because the streets are for everyone - people on foot, people in strollers, people on bikes, people in wheelchairs, people on scooters, people going to or from buses, etc. etc. etc. Not just people in cars.

There can be no “protected” bike lanes on a street like Connecticut Avenue which would require cars to cross over the lanes at literally hundreds of points to turn on to side streets, alleys, apartment turnarounds, businesses, etc. If this project were built and with the projected 3000 daily users there would be multiple collisions every day. It’s both completely foreseeable and completely unavoidable for this type of road. And, yes, we need greater speed enforcement.

Yes, a reduction from near infinite opportunity to collision with a high speed car to mere hundreds at predictable places like driveways and cross streets would be very desirable. Thanks for pointing out so clearly why the bike lanes are a necessary addition!

Rock Creek Park has a very nice bike path and it's off the road.

When Rock Creek Park hosts grocery stores and other amenities, then it will be a good replacement for a Connecticut Avenue Bike Lane. As has been discussed ad nasuem, this isn't about commuting downtown, or at least not solely. There are thousands of residents who would replace car trips with bikes if they could do it safely to get from one commercial area to another.

Not according to DDOT