Options for opposing Connecticut Avenue changes?

[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: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?

In Amsterdam they would physically separate the bike lanes, not put them right next to truck traffic. They would probably also reduce the road to one lane in each direction.

[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: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?

In Amsterdam they would physically separate the bike lanes, not put them right next to truck traffic. They would probably also reduce the road to one lane in each direction.

And in option C, the bike lanes would be physically separated by a concrete barrier. So...win!

[Anonymous]

Folks, in case you haven’t heard, dc is going off a fiscal cliff. No money for these projects.

[Anonymous]

Tis dead, tis dead, yey!!!

I like the bike lines but grew to hate the advocates and the ANC. They can now stick their dirty middle fingers right back up their

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Tis dead, tis dead, yey!!!

I like the bike lines but grew to hate the advocates and the ANC. They can now stick their dirty middle fingers right back up their

The ANC majority won - and they’re doing bike lanes! Get over it.

[Anonymous]

Naah. They are not.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Tis dead, tis dead, yey!!!

I like the bike lines but grew to hate the advocates and the ANC. They can now stick their dirty middle fingers right back up their

The ANC majority won - and they’re doing bike lanes! Get over it.

Errrm,😂, not happening.

[Anonymous]

Amusing to see how the ANC commissioners think they have so much power. The judge themselves by how many silly resolutions they pass.

[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: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?

In Amsterdam they would physically separate the bike lanes, not put them right next to truck traffic. They would probably also reduce the road to one lane in each direction.

On Amsterdam cyclists obey the traffic rules, including obeying traffic signals and signs. Not in DC where WABA types don’t even bother to stop at red lights, plow through crosswalks and sidewalks where pedestrians are present, and weave dangerously between vehicles.

[Anonymous]

This!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
In Amsterdam they would physically separate the bike lanes, not put them right next to truck traffic. They would probably also reduce the road to one lane in each direction.

On Amsterdam cyclists obey the traffic rules, including obeying traffic signals and signs. Not in DC where WABA types don’t even bother to stop at red lights, plow through crosswalks and sidewalks where pedestrians are present, and weave dangerously between vehicles.

How many pedestrians were killed or injured by cyclists in DC last year? Take your time, we'll wait.

[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: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?

In Amsterdam they would physically separate the bike lanes, not put them right next to truck traffic. They would probably also reduce the road to one lane in each direction.

On Amsterdam cyclists obey the traffic rules, including obeying traffic signals and signs. Not in DC where WABA types don’t even bother to stop at red lights, plow through crosswalks and sidewalks where pedestrians are present, and weave dangerously between vehicles.

Not the Amsterdam I visited.

[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: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?

In Amsterdam they would physically separate the bike lanes, not put them right next to truck traffic. They would probably also reduce the road to one lane in each direction.

On Amsterdam cyclists obey the traffic rules, including obeying traffic signals and signs. Not in DC where WABA types don’t even bother to stop at red lights, plow through crosswalks and sidewalks where pedestrians are present, and weave dangerously between vehicles.

In Amsterdam most roads in the city proper are one lane in each direction, with a center-lane for mass transit, with a whole side path for cyclists and a separate sidewalk for pedestrians. So, each mode is treated as a mode and not inferior to the other by over-allocating space to one. Here we're shoved in between parked cars and some lobbyist in his SUV hell bent on shaving 35 seconds off his commute. So yeah, gonna do what I need to do to not get run the hell over.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Folks, in case you haven’t heard, dc is going off a fiscal cliff. No money for these projects.

Yes, plus Bowser specifically indicated it is not happening.

I'm mystified that this thread continues.

[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:

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?

In Amsterdam they would physically separate the bike lanes, not put them right next to truck traffic. They would probably also reduce the road to one lane in each direction.

On Amsterdam cyclists obey the traffic rules, including obeying traffic signals and signs. Not in DC where WABA types don’t even bother to stop at red lights, plow through crosswalks and sidewalks where pedestrians are present, and weave dangerously between vehicles.

In Amsterdam most roads in the city proper are one lane in each direction, with a center-lane for mass transit, with a whole side path for cyclists and a separate sidewalk for pedestrians. So, each mode is treated as a mode and not inferior to the other by over-allocating space to one. Here we're shoved in between parked cars and some lobbyist in his SUV hell bent on shaving 35 seconds off his commute. So yeah, gonna do what I need to do to not get run the hell over.

I would be all for reconfiguring our public roads for this kind of split.