Let's look at some of the goofy things Bowser wants to spend our tax dollars on

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:My 12 yr old knows that DC is too cold in the winters and too hot in the summers for most able-bodied people to bike comfortably for most of the year.

'

Your 12 year old seems to be unaware of Scandinavian countries that easily make it possible to bike when it's cold out, as well as the Mediterranean countries that do the same for when it's hot out.

But that's okay. 12 year olds are supposed to be ignorant. Adults trying and failing to make their trash take joke, however...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DC is putting in bike lanes on Connecticut Avenue, one in each direction. While this may seem like an attractive idea, the rush hour carrying capacity of Conn. Ave. will be cut from 4 lanes down to 2 lanes. DC just assumes that the traffic will just go away, or maybe MD commuters will all switch to those little Lime scooters. More likely, Connecticut will be gridlocked several hours a day, with more traffic diverting onto Reno Rd, Porter St., etc. trying to find a way to or from downtown. Nice.

Poor Upper NW and MD drivers. Won't someone think of the drivers?

We need to plan for where the traffic will be diverted, I am thinking os much of the drivers, but of the kids who walk along Reno/34th Street to Much, Hearst, Eaton and several other schools. I'm thinking of people who cross or ride their bikes on Albemarle or Porter, and the folks who live on narrow streets who will find that Waze is diverting commuters all the time from the gridlocked Connecticut arterial. What about their safety? Slogans and wishful thinking are no substitute for real traffic planning.

I went to Murch, Deal, and Wilson and would have killed for traffic calming on Connecticut, Reno, Nebraska and Wisconsin (I didn't have to cross the last one to get to school but friends did). Crossing six lanes of car traffic on Connecticut was harrowing and I assure you that car commuters on did not care at all about school kids so keeping the status quo is absolutely not safer. I had friends who lived a bit further who would have biked if it was safe but instead their parents drove them, creating more car traffic.

The fact that car commuters might feel entitled to speed on side roads is not a reason to keep six lanes of high speed traffic on Connecticut- drivers already speed and break traffic laws, they should not be rewarded with continuing to be allowed to monopolize public space with no consequences.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DC is putting in bike lanes on Connecticut Avenue, one in each direction. While this may seem like an attractive idea, the rush hour carrying capacity of Conn. Ave. will be cut from 4 lanes down to 2 lanes. DC just assumes that the traffic will just go away, or maybe MD commuters will all switch to those little Lime scooters. More likely, Connecticut will be gridlocked several hours a day, with more traffic diverting onto Reno Rd, Porter St., etc. trying to find a way to or from downtown. Nice.

Poor Upper NW and MD drivers. Won't someone think of the drivers?

We need to plan for where the traffic will be diverted, I am thinking os much of the drivers, but of the kids who walk along Reno/34th Street to Much, Hearst, Eaton and several other schools. I'm thinking of people who cross or ride their bikes on Albemarle or Porter, and the folks who live on narrow streets who will find that Waze is diverting commuters all the time from the gridlocked Connecticut arterial. What about their safety? Slogans and wishful thinking are no substitute for real traffic planning.

I went to Murch, Deal, and Wilson and would have killed for traffic calming on Connecticut, Reno, Nebraska and Wisconsin (I didn't have to cross the last one to get to school but friends did). Crossing six lanes of car traffic on Connecticut was harrowing and I assure you that car commuters on did not care at all about school kids so keeping the status quo is absolutely not safer. I had friends who lived a bit further who would have biked if it was safe but instead their parents drove them, creating more car traffic.

The fact that car commuters might feel entitled to speed on side roads is not a reason to keep six lanes of high speed traffic on Connecticut- drivers already speed and break traffic laws, they should not be rewarded with continuing to be allowed to monopolize public space with no consequences.

Despite her "Vision Zero" mindset, Bowser overall has been rather hostile to traffic calming compared to DDOT under mayors Fenty and Gray. But going forward, pretty aggressive traffic calming measures will be needed to keep Connecticut Ave traffic from diverting to side streets in upper NW as well as 34th/Reno. DC should hire someone from Montgomery County to do the job -- they know how to do traffic calming there!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DC is putting in bike lanes on Connecticut Avenue, one in each direction. While this may seem like an attractive idea, the rush hour carrying capacity of Conn. Ave. will be cut from 4 lanes down to 2 lanes. DC just assumes that the traffic will just go away, or maybe MD commuters will all switch to those little Lime scooters. More likely, Connecticut will be gridlocked several hours a day, with more traffic diverting onto Reno Rd, Porter St., etc. trying to find a way to or from downtown. Nice.

Poor Upper NW and MD drivers. Won't someone think of the drivers?

We need to plan for where the traffic will be diverted, I am thinking os much of the drivers, but of the kids who walk along Reno/34th Street to Much, Hearst, Eaton and several other schools. I'm thinking of people who cross or ride their bikes on Albemarle or Porter, and the folks who live on narrow streets who will find that Waze is diverting commuters all the time from the gridlocked Connecticut arterial. What about their safety? Slogans and wishful thinking are no substitute for real traffic planning.

I went to Murch, Deal, and Wilson and would have killed for traffic calming on Connecticut, Reno, Nebraska and Wisconsin (I didn't have to cross the last one to get to school but friends did). Crossing six lanes of car traffic on Connecticut was harrowing and I assure you that car commuters on did not care at all about school kids so keeping the status quo is absolutely not safer. I had friends who lived a bit further who would have biked if it was safe but instead their parents drove them, creating more car traffic.

The fact that car commuters might feel entitled to speed on side roads is not a reason to keep six lanes of high speed traffic on Connecticut- drivers already speed and break traffic laws, they should not be rewarded with continuing to be allowed to monopolize public space with no consequences.

Despite her "Vision Zero" mindset, Bowser overall has been rather hostile to traffic calming compared to DDOT under mayors Fenty and Gray. But going forward, pretty aggressive traffic calming measures will be needed to keep Connecticut Ave traffic from diverting to side streets in upper NW as well as 34th/Reno. DC should hire someone from Montgomery County to do the job -- they know how to do traffic calming there!

Seriously- ever driven by a side street that is right off a Main Street in Takoma Park? Holy effective traffic calming

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DC is putting in bike lanes on Connecticut Avenue, one in each direction. While this may seem like an attractive idea, the rush hour carrying capacity of Conn. Ave. will be cut from 4 lanes down to 2 lanes. DC just assumes that the traffic will just go away, or maybe MD commuters will all switch to those little Lime scooters. More likely, Connecticut will be gridlocked several hours a day, with more traffic diverting onto Reno Rd, Porter St., etc. trying to find a way to or from downtown. Nice.

Poor Upper NW and MD drivers. Won't someone think of the drivers?

Actually, some of those folks will simply work from home, keeping their business in the burbs and away from the local downtown businesses.

Ok. I'm alright with reshaping downtown DC to be less of a playground for people who want to run me over to get to a Starbucks.

Chalk another up for the economically illiterate

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DC is putting in bike lanes on Connecticut Avenue, one in each direction. While this may seem like an attractive idea, the rush hour carrying capacity of Conn. Ave. will be cut from 4 lanes down to 2 lanes. DC just assumes that the traffic will just go away, or maybe MD commuters will all switch to those little Lime scooters. More likely, Connecticut will be gridlocked several hours a day, with more traffic diverting onto Reno Rd, Porter St., etc. trying to find a way to or from downtown. Nice.

Poor Upper NW and MD drivers. Won't someone think of the drivers?

We need to plan for where the traffic will be diverted, I am thinking os much of the drivers, but of the kids who walk along Reno/34th Street to Much, Hearst, Eaton and several other schools. I'm thinking of people who cross or ride their bikes on Albemarle or Porter, and the folks who live on narrow streets who will find that Waze is diverting commuters all the time from the gridlocked Connecticut arterial. What about their safety? Slogans and wishful thinking are no substitute for real traffic planning.

I went to Murch, Deal, and Wilson and would have killed for traffic calming on Connecticut, Reno, Nebraska and Wisconsin (I didn't have to cross the last one to get to school but friends did). Crossing six lanes of car traffic on Connecticut was harrowing and I assure you that car commuters on did not care at all about school kids so keeping the status quo is absolutely not safer. I had friends who lived a bit further who would have biked if it was safe but instead their parents drove them, creating more car traffic.

The fact that car commuters might feel entitled to speed on side roads is not a reason to keep six lanes of high speed traffic on Connecticut- drivers already speed and break traffic laws, they should not be rewarded with continuing to be allowed to monopolize public space with no consequences.

Despite her "Vision Zero" mindset, Bowser overall has been rather hostile to traffic calming compared to DDOT under mayors Fenty and Gray. But going forward, pretty aggressive traffic calming measures will be needed to keep Connecticut Ave traffic from diverting to side streets in upper NW as well as 34th/Reno. DC should hire someone from Montgomery County to do the job -- they know how to do traffic calming there!

Don't count on it. The people who designed the plans for the Connecticut Avenue redesign have fully admitted they have not studied how taking away two lanes of traffic on Connecticut will affect nearby streets. They also admitted that they purposely did not do this because they afraid of what they would uncover.

When this redesign kicks in, traffic on Reno/34th and the side streets that connect to Connecticut are going to be horror shows, because so much vehicular traffic is going to divert there when the section between Conn/Nebraska and CC circle becomes a parking lot during a.m. rush hour.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DC is putting in bike lanes on Connecticut Avenue, one in each direction. While this may seem like an attractive idea, the rush hour carrying capacity of Conn. Ave. will be cut from 4 lanes down to 2 lanes. DC just assumes that the traffic will just go away, or maybe MD commuters will all switch to those little Lime scooters. More likely, Connecticut will be gridlocked several hours a day, with more traffic diverting onto Reno Rd, Porter St., etc. trying to find a way to or from downtown. Nice.

Poor Upper NW and MD drivers. Won't someone think of the drivers?

We need to plan for where the traffic will be diverted, I am thinking os much of the drivers, but of the kids who walk along Reno/34th Street to Much, Hearst, Eaton and several other schools. I'm thinking of people who cross or ride their bikes on Albemarle or Porter, and the folks who live on narrow streets who will find that Waze is diverting commuters all the time from the gridlocked Connecticut arterial. What about their safety? Slogans and wishful thinking are no substitute for real traffic planning.

I went to Murch, Deal, and Wilson and would have killed for traffic calming on Connecticut, Reno, Nebraska and Wisconsin (I didn't have to cross the last one to get to school but friends did). Crossing six lanes of car traffic on Connecticut was harrowing and I assure you that car commuters on did not care at all about school kids so keeping the status quo is absolutely not safer. I had friends who lived a bit further who would have biked if it was safe but instead their parents drove them, creating more car traffic.

The fact that car commuters might feel entitled to speed on side roads is not a reason to keep six lanes of high speed traffic on Connecticut- drivers already speed and break traffic laws, they should not be rewarded with continuing to be allowed to monopolize public space with no consequences.

Despite her "Vision Zero" mindset, Bowser overall has been rather hostile to traffic calming compared to DDOT under mayors Fenty and Gray. But going forward, pretty aggressive traffic calming measures will be needed to keep Connecticut Ave traffic from diverting to side streets in upper NW as well as 34th/Reno. DC should hire someone from Montgomery County to do the job -- they know how to do traffic calming there!

Don't count on it. The people who designed the plans for the Connecticut Avenue redesign have fully admitted they have not studied how taking away two lanes of traffic on Connecticut will affect nearby streets. They also admitted that they purposely did not do this because they afraid of what they would uncover.

When this redesign kicks in, traffic on Reno/34th and the side streets that connect to Connecticut are going to be horror shows, because so much vehicular traffic is going to divert there when the section between Conn/Nebraska and CC circle becomes a parking lot during a.m. rush hour.

They'd rather endanger children playing on previously quiet streets than inconvenience white cyclists from Ward 3 who refuse to ride the bus.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Ridership on Capital Bikeshare has cratered since it was introduced. But that's not stopping Bowser.

She wants to spend $15 million expanding Capital Bikeshare so that every resident lives within a quarter mile of a Capital Bikeshare station they will never use.

This is one of themes in the budget. They will spent a stupendous amount of money building up the city's bike infrastructure on the theory that if they build it, people will come -- all evidence to the contrary. Look at Capital Bikeshare. People don't use it, and not because the stations are too. It's because most people have zero interest in riding a bike.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ridership on Capital Bikeshare has cratered since it was introduced. But that's not stopping Bowser.

She wants to spend $15 million expanding Capital Bikeshare so that every resident lives within a quarter mile of a Capital Bikeshare station they will never use.

This is one of themes in the budget. They will spent a stupendous amount of money building up the city's bike infrastructure on the theory that if they build it, people will come -- all evidence to the contrary. Look at Capital Bikeshare. People don't use it, and not because the stations are too. It's because most people have zero interest in riding a bike.

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ridership on Capital Bikeshare has cratered since it was introduced. But that's not stopping Bowser.

She wants to spend $15 million expanding Capital Bikeshare so that every resident lives within a quarter mile of a Capital Bikeshare station they will never use.

This is one of themes in the budget. They will spent a stupendous amount of money building up the city's bike infrastructure on the theory that if they build it, people will come -- all evidence to the contrary. Look at Capital Bikeshare. People don't use it, and not because the stations are too. It's because most people have zero interest in riding a bike.

+1

People stopped riding capital bike share because all the other privately owned transportation sharing methods (scooters, electric bikes, etc.) turned out to be better. I also think the Capital bike share money is a waste, but only because they're not getting bankrolled like those other methods.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DC is putting in bike lanes on Connecticut Avenue, one in each direction. While this may seem like an attractive idea, the rush hour carrying capacity of Conn. Ave. will be cut from 4 lanes down to 2 lanes. DC just assumes that the traffic will just go away, or maybe MD commuters will all switch to those little Lime scooters. More likely, Connecticut will be gridlocked several hours a day, with more traffic diverting onto Reno Rd, Porter St., etc. trying to find a way to or from downtown. Nice.

Poor Upper NW and MD drivers. Won't someone think of the drivers?

We need to plan for where the traffic will be diverted, I am thinking os much of the drivers, but of the kids who walk along Reno/34th Street to Much, Hearst, Eaton and several other schools. I'm thinking of people who cross or ride their bikes on Albemarle or Porter, and the folks who live on narrow streets who will find that Waze is diverting commuters all the time from the gridlocked Connecticut arterial. What about their safety? Slogans and wishful thinking are no substitute for real traffic planning.

I went to Murch, Deal, and Wilson and would have killed for traffic calming on Connecticut, Reno, Nebraska and Wisconsin (I didn't have to cross the last one to get to school but friends did). Crossing six lanes of car traffic on Connecticut was harrowing and I assure you that car commuters on did not care at all about school kids so keeping the status quo is absolutely not safer. I had friends who lived a bit further who would have biked if it was safe but instead their parents drove them, creating more car traffic.

The fact that car commuters might feel entitled to speed on side roads is not a reason to keep six lanes of high speed traffic on Connecticut- drivers already speed and break traffic laws, they should not be rewarded with continuing to be allowed to monopolize public space with no consequences.

Despite her "Vision Zero" mindset, Bowser overall has been rather hostile to traffic calming compared to DDOT under mayors Fenty and Gray. But going forward, pretty aggressive traffic calming measures will be needed to keep Connecticut Ave traffic from diverting to side streets in upper NW as well as 34th/Reno. DC should hire someone from Montgomery County to do the job -- they know how to do traffic calming there!

Don't count on it. The people who designed the plans for the Connecticut Avenue redesign have fully admitted they have not studied how taking away two lanes of traffic on Connecticut will affect nearby streets. They also admitted that they purposely did not do this because they afraid of what they would uncover.

When this redesign kicks in, traffic on Reno/34th and the side streets that connect to Connecticut are going to be horror shows, because so much vehicular traffic is going to divert there when the section between Conn/Nebraska and CC circle becomes a parking lot during a.m. rush hour.

They'd rather endanger children playing on previously quiet streets than inconvenience white cyclists from Ward 3 who refuse to ride the bus.

It is enormously ironic that the people who are being proactively blamed for car traffic are people who want to ride their bikes. If car traffic diverts onto side street it will be because drivers don’t want to be inconvenienced, not cyclists. Otherwise drivers would take a bus or just realize that if they are sitting in an air conditioned car it’s not the end of the world to take an extra five minutes to get to your destination if it means keeping streets safer for pedestrians and other road users

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DC is putting in bike lanes on Connecticut Avenue, one in each direction. While this may seem like an attractive idea, the rush hour carrying capacity of Conn. Ave. will be cut from 4 lanes down to 2 lanes. DC just assumes that the traffic will just go away, or maybe MD commuters will all switch to those little Lime scooters. More likely, Connecticut will be gridlocked several hours a day, with more traffic diverting onto Reno Rd, Porter St., etc. trying to find a way to or from downtown. Nice.

Poor Upper NW and MD drivers. Won't someone think of the drivers?

We need to plan for where the traffic will be diverted, I am thinking os much of the drivers, but of the kids who walk along Reno/34th Street to Much, Hearst, Eaton and several other schools. I'm thinking of people who cross or ride their bikes on Albemarle or Porter, and the folks who live on narrow streets who will find that Waze is diverting commuters all the time from the gridlocked Connecticut arterial. What about their safety? Slogans and wishful thinking are no substitute for real traffic planning.

I went to Murch, Deal, and Wilson and would have killed for traffic calming on Connecticut, Reno, Nebraska and Wisconsin (I didn't have to cross the last one to get to school but friends did). Crossing six lanes of car traffic on Connecticut was harrowing and I assure you that car commuters on did not care at all about school kids so keeping the status quo is absolutely not safer. I had friends who lived a bit further who would have biked if it was safe but instead their parents drove them, creating more car traffic.

The fact that car commuters might feel entitled to speed on side roads is not a reason to keep six lanes of high speed traffic on Connecticut- drivers already speed and break traffic laws, they should not be rewarded with continuing to be allowed to monopolize public space with no consequences.

Despite her "Vision Zero" mindset, Bowser overall has been rather hostile to traffic calming compared to DDOT under mayors Fenty and Gray. But going forward, pretty aggressive traffic calming measures will be needed to keep Connecticut Ave traffic from diverting to side streets in upper NW as well as 34th/Reno. DC should hire someone from Montgomery County to do the job -- they know how to do traffic calming there!

Don't count on it. The people who designed the plans for the Connecticut Avenue redesign have fully admitted they have not studied how taking away two lanes of traffic on Connecticut will affect nearby streets. They also admitted that they purposely did not do this because they afraid of what they would uncover.

When this redesign kicks in, traffic on Reno/34th and the side streets that connect to Connecticut are going to be horror shows, because so much vehicular traffic is going to divert there when the section between Conn/Nebraska and CC circle becomes a parking lot during a.m. rush hour.

They'd rather endanger children playing on previously quiet streets than inconvenience white cyclists from Ward 3 who refuse to ride the bus.

It is enormously ironic that the people who are being proactively blamed for car traffic are people who want to ride their bikes. If car traffic diverts onto side street it will be because drivers don’t want to be inconvenienced, not cyclists. Otherwise drivers would take a bus or just realize that if they are sitting in an air conditioned car it’s not the end of the world to take an extra five minutes to get to your destination if it means keeping streets safer for pedestrians and other road users

I'm old enough to remember the very stupid Safe Streets program, when bicyclists argued side streets should be virtually car free because cars belong on major roads, not side streets, because major roads are designed to handle lots of traffic.

Now they argue the opposite.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DC is putting in bike lanes on Connecticut Avenue, one in each direction. While this may seem like an attractive idea, the rush hour carrying capacity of Conn. Ave. will be cut from 4 lanes down to 2 lanes. DC just assumes that the traffic will just go away, or maybe MD commuters will all switch to those little Lime scooters. More likely, Connecticut will be gridlocked several hours a day, with more traffic diverting onto Reno Rd, Porter St., etc. trying to find a way to or from downtown. Nice.

Poor Upper NW and MD drivers. Won't someone think of the drivers?

We need to plan for where the traffic will be diverted, I am thinking os much of the drivers, but of the kids who walk along Reno/34th Street to Much, Hearst, Eaton and several other schools. I'm thinking of people who cross or ride their bikes on Albemarle or Porter, and the folks who live on narrow streets who will find that Waze is diverting commuters all the time from the gridlocked Connecticut arterial. What about their safety? Slogans and wishful thinking are no substitute for real traffic planning.

I went to Murch, Deal, and Wilson and would have killed for traffic calming on Connecticut, Reno, Nebraska and Wisconsin (I didn't have to cross the last one to get to school but friends did). Crossing six lanes of car traffic on Connecticut was harrowing and I assure you that car commuters on did not care at all about school kids so keeping the status quo is absolutely not safer. I had friends who lived a bit further who would have biked if it was safe but instead their parents drove them, creating more car traffic.

The fact that car commuters might feel entitled to speed on side roads is not a reason to keep six lanes of high speed traffic on Connecticut- drivers already speed and break traffic laws, they should not be rewarded with continuing to be allowed to monopolize public space with no consequences.

Despite her "Vision Zero" mindset, Bowser overall has been rather hostile to traffic calming compared to DDOT under mayors Fenty and Gray. But going forward, pretty aggressive traffic calming measures will be needed to keep Connecticut Ave traffic from diverting to side streets in upper NW as well as 34th/Reno. DC should hire someone from Montgomery County to do the job -- they know how to do traffic calming there!

Don't count on it. The people who designed the plans for the Connecticut Avenue redesign have fully admitted they have not studied how taking away two lanes of traffic on Connecticut will affect nearby streets. They also admitted that they purposely did not do this because they afraid of what they would uncover.

When this redesign kicks in, traffic on Reno/34th and the side streets that connect to Connecticut are going to be horror shows, because so much vehicular traffic is going to divert there when the section between Conn/Nebraska and CC circle becomes a parking lot during a.m. rush hour.

They'd rather endanger children playing on previously quiet streets than inconvenience white cyclists from Ward 3 who refuse to ride the bus.

It is enormously ironic that the people who are being proactively blamed for car traffic are people who want to ride their bikes. If car traffic diverts onto side street it will be because drivers don’t want to be inconvenienced, not cyclists. Otherwise drivers would take a bus or just realize that if they are sitting in an air conditioned car it’s not the end of the world to take an extra five minutes to get to your destination if it means keeping streets safer for pedestrians and other road users

I'm old enough to remember the very stupid Safe Streets program, when bicyclists argued side streets should be virtually car free because cars belong on major roads, not side streets, because major roads are designed to handle lots of traffic.

Now they argue the opposite.

Part of the reason the safe street program didn’t work is because drivers didn’t really slow down. Drivers want to use all roads, no reason cyclists and pedestrians shouldn’t have the same right to safely do so as well.

[Anonymous]

I don't get how DC progressives will check everything to see the impact on POC but won't check to see what percentage of bikers in DC are white or if POC are the drivers/tax payer s most impacted negatively by these bike lanes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DC is putting in bike lanes on Connecticut Avenue, one in each direction. While this may seem like an attractive idea, the rush hour carrying capacity of Conn. Ave. will be cut from 4 lanes down to 2 lanes. DC just assumes that the traffic will just go away, or maybe MD commuters will all switch to those little Lime scooters. More likely, Connecticut will be gridlocked several hours a day, with more traffic diverting onto Reno Rd, Porter St., etc. trying to find a way to or from downtown. Nice.

Poor Upper NW and MD drivers. Won't someone think of the drivers?

We need to plan for where the traffic will be diverted, I am thinking os much of the drivers, but of the kids who walk along Reno/34th Street to Much, Hearst, Eaton and several other schools. I'm thinking of people who cross or ride their bikes on Albemarle or Porter, and the folks who live on narrow streets who will find that Waze is diverting commuters all the time from the gridlocked Connecticut arterial. What about their safety? Slogans and wishful thinking are no substitute for real traffic planning.

I went to Murch, Deal, and Wilson and would have killed for traffic calming on Connecticut, Reno, Nebraska and Wisconsin (I didn't have to cross the last one to get to school but friends did). Crossing six lanes of car traffic on Connecticut was harrowing and I assure you that car commuters on did not care at all about school kids so keeping the status quo is absolutely not safer. I had friends who lived a bit further who would have biked if it was safe but instead their parents drove them, creating more car traffic.

The fact that car commuters might feel entitled to speed on side roads is not a reason to keep six lanes of high speed traffic on Connecticut- drivers already speed and break traffic laws, they should not be rewarded with continuing to be allowed to monopolize public space with no consequences.

Despite her "Vision Zero" mindset, Bowser overall has been rather hostile to traffic calming compared to DDOT under mayors Fenty and Gray. But going forward, pretty aggressive traffic calming measures will be needed to keep Connecticut Ave traffic from diverting to side streets in upper NW as well as 34th/Reno. DC should hire someone from Montgomery County to do the job -- they know how to do traffic calming there!

Don't count on it. The people who designed the plans for the Connecticut Avenue redesign have fully admitted they have not studied how taking away two lanes of traffic on Connecticut will affect nearby streets. They also admitted that they purposely did not do this because they afraid of what they would uncover.

When this redesign kicks in, traffic on Reno/34th and the side streets that connect to Connecticut are going to be horror shows, because so much vehicular traffic is going to divert there when the section between Conn/Nebraska and CC circle becomes a parking lot during a.m. rush hour.

They'd rather endanger children playing on previously quiet streets than inconvenience white cyclists from Ward 3 who refuse to ride the bus.

It is enormously ironic that the people who are being proactively blamed for car traffic are people who want to ride their bikes. If car traffic diverts onto side street it will be because drivers don’t want to be inconvenienced, not cyclists. Otherwise drivers would take a bus or just realize that if they are sitting in an air conditioned car it’s not the end of the world to take an extra five minutes to get to your destination if it means keeping streets safer for pedestrians and other road users

I'm old enough to remember the very stupid Safe Streets program, when bicyclists argued side streets should be virtually car free because cars belong on major roads, not side streets, because major roads are designed to handle lots of traffic.

Now they argue the opposite.

Part of the reason the safe street program didn’t work is because drivers didn’t really slow down. Drivers want to use all roads, no reason cyclists and pedestrians shouldn’t have the same right to safely do so as well.

A program designed to make drivers slow down didn't make drivers slow down = the program did not work.