Options for opposing Connecticut Avenue changes?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There are at least two posters posting about safety concerns with kids in traffic on bikes - I was one and not the other. Toodling around the hill on your cargo ebike is very different than riding down the 4 plus lane CT Ave - I don't see how that is safe for kids. What if they fall off and run into traffic. What if another bike hits you and the child goes flying - it is insanity and not necessary if you can afford a 2-3k bike you can afford a much safer bus pass. Little children don't belong in a big road unless they are in a vehicle of some kind. on bike paths or neighborhood streets sure.

As a parent it's upsetting because the children didn't get a choice in being put in a really dangerous situation. They are victims of their parent's poor judgment.

I can’t recall of any children who were killed or even injured in DC as a result of their parents daring to transport them on bikes. However, there were multiple young children killed last year by drivers who couldn’t control their speed. Allie Hart, killed on a crosswalk by a driver contracted to the city, was one. If yo care, you may read a memorial to her here: https://twitter.com/lambda_calculus/status/1569432531145048067?s=46&t=Lzk5o5OewfFwu4t2TIky8A

If we lived in a city where children and adults alike weren’t being killed by bad driving, then maybe we could have a different conversation. But we don’t. If you care at all about saving the lives of people in this city, you will understand why traffic calming infrastructure - of which bike lanes are but one example - are urgently needed.

Which brings us back to the absolute fact that this plan will triple traffic on the very residential side streets that children walk and bike on today. In other words, this plan decreases safety substantially.

Let me guess . . . you have absolutely no evidence to support such an assertion. Of course because all the evidence points to the opposite effect.

Children walk and cross on arterial streets too. Look up where children where killed or maimed by cars in DC in 2021 and that fact will be painfully apparent to you.

It’s very sad that people like you believe that the convenience of your commute should trump the safety of DC adults and children alike.

If you do not think that reducing the lanes on CT Ave will not lead to more traffic in the residential areas, then you are not in touch with reality. I have driven thru multiple residential areas in multiple cities solely because my phone direc ts me there. Moreover, I am aware of dead end streets in the DMV that receive a bizarre amount of cars because their phones direct those drivers there.

There is already "traffic"; there is already cut through traffic. This isn't going to make it worse for people who walk and bike. There is no evidence it will make it worse for people who drive, either. Just your hyperbole.

How does significantly increasing something not make it worse. You've spent pages and hours saying that cars are death machines and inherently dangerous to pedestrians and bicyclists. DDOT isays that the majority (around 75%) of the traffic volume reduced on Connecticut by permanently eliminating two lanes will end up on the neighborhood side streets. The very places people currently walk and bike. You say that it will all disappear because of the magic of induced demand (supply side economics btw).

Putting aside that fantasy and sticking with DDOT's numbers. As you rightly point out, the mere presence of a moving vehicle increases potential risk. That means you are asking children, who do bike on the side streets but dont and will not bike on Connecticut, to take on significantly higher risk in order to lower the risk for hypothetical bicyclists. That traffic will be focused on side streets and will double to triple their current rate. The hypothetical bicyclists meanwhile will all be single rider adults because of the congestion, which under this scenario is increased by 25%. I think it's disgusting that you arguing that this somehow protects children while under your own rubric you are putting them in constant mortal danger. There is nothing you seemingly won't say or claim in your zeal. I do not think that is right.

Traffic does not disappear. It adapts. It belongs on Connecticut and not the side streets. Side streets where we've tended to put elementary schools.

and people want to bike their kids to those schools, and the best way to do that is to use Conn Ave and then cut up the side street. Hence the need for bike lanes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There are at least two posters posting about safety concerns with kids in traffic on bikes - I was one and not the other. Toodling around the hill on your cargo ebike is very different than riding down the 4 plus lane CT Ave - I don't see how that is safe for kids. What if they fall off and run into traffic. What if another bike hits you and the child goes flying - it is insanity and not necessary if you can afford a 2-3k bike you can afford a much safer bus pass. Little children don't belong in a big road unless they are in a vehicle of some kind. on bike paths or neighborhood streets sure.

As a parent it's upsetting because the children didn't get a choice in being put in a really dangerous situation. They are victims of their parent's poor judgment.

I can’t recall of any children who were killed or even injured in DC as a result of their parents daring to transport them on bikes. However, there were multiple young children killed last year by drivers who couldn’t control their speed. Allie Hart, killed on a crosswalk by a driver contracted to the city, was one. If yo care, you may read a memorial to her here: https://twitter.com/lambda_calculus/status/1569432531145048067?s=46&t=Lzk5o5OewfFwu4t2TIky8A

If we lived in a city where children and adults alike weren’t being killed by bad driving, then maybe we could have a different conversation. But we don’t. If you care at all about saving the lives of people in this city, you will understand why traffic calming infrastructure - of which bike lanes are but one example - are urgently needed.

Which brings us back to the absolute fact that this plan will triple traffic on the very residential side streets that children walk and bike on today. In other words, this plan decreases safety substantially.

Let me guess . . . you have absolutely no evidence to support such an assertion. Of course because all the evidence points to the opposite effect.

Children walk and cross on arterial streets too. Look up where children where killed or maimed by cars in DC in 2021 and that fact will be painfully apparent to you.

It’s very sad that people like you believe that the convenience of your commute should trump the safety of DC adults and children alike.

If you do not think that reducing the lanes on CT Ave will not lead to more traffic in the residential areas, then you are not in touch with reality. I have driven thru multiple residential areas in multiple cities solely because my phone directs me there. Moreover, I am aware of dead end streets in the DMV that receive a bizarre amount of cars because their phones direct those drivers there.

Fully agree with PP. This is going to be a disaster. I'm so sick of the bike lane bullies. There are about 0-20 people biking on Connecticut Ave at any given time. You've got Beach Dr. and Rock Creek Park bike path that are a great and safer alternative to Connecticut Ave. The Connecticut Ave bike lanes are unnecessary and will end up being redone with two years of implementation, wasting all of our tax dollars.

"Bike lane bullies". "Wasting all of our tax dollars". This stuff needs to be saved for posterity.

You wouldn't happen to be a driver, would you?

+1

The overwhelming majority of public space is dedicated to CAR lanes and parking CARS - cars that pollute the air, take up space and inhibit people from walking or biking to their daily mobility needs. I get it, a lot of people HAVE to drive because they are older or are going too far to sensibly bike or because they require accessibility accommodations. That is of course totally fine. The bike lanes are designed to give options to everyone else.

[Anonymous]

At the end of the day it’s just not going to work. And we all know it. There will be postal trucks, delivery trucks, contractors, fire engines, rude people who block a car travel lane by parking with their blinkers on. We all see it every day. There is no enforcement on the current bike infrastructure and there will be no enforcement here. So what will happen in reality is that you will have rush hour traffic using a single lane. It will back up to Chevy Chase into the circle in the morning and the same with DuPont in the evening. Reasonable people managed to push back on Defund the Police and we must do the same here.

[Anonymous]

What have you done? Did you attend any ANC mtgs? Email DDOT or the mayor? Start a petition?

This is OP’s original Q.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:At the end of the day it’s just not going to work. And we all know it. There will be postal trucks, delivery trucks, contractors, fire engines, rude people who block a car travel lane by parking with their blinkers on. We all see it every day. There is no enforcement on the current bike infrastructure and there will be no enforcement here. So what will happen in reality is that you will have rush hour traffic using a single lane. It will back up to Chevy Chase into the circle in the morning and the same with DuPont in the evening. Reasonable people managed to push back on Defund the Police and we must do the same here.

Why do you consider it more reasonable to push back on building infrastructure that protects cyclists, scooterers etc. than to push back on the lack of enforcement of traffic and parking violations that inconvenience everybody?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There are at least two posters posting about safety concerns with kids in traffic on bikes - I was one and not the other. Toodling around the hill on your cargo ebike is very different than riding down the 4 plus lane CT Ave - I don't see how that is safe for kids. What if they fall off and run into traffic. What if another bike hits you and the child goes flying - it is insanity and not necessary if you can afford a 2-3k bike you can afford a much safer bus pass. Little children don't belong in a big road unless they are in a vehicle of some kind. on bike paths or neighborhood streets sure.

As a parent it's upsetting because the children didn't get a choice in being put in a really dangerous situation. They are victims of their parent's poor judgment.

I can’t recall of any children who were killed or even injured in DC as a result of their parents daring to transport them on bikes. However, there were multiple young children killed last year by drivers who couldn’t control their speed. Allie Hart, killed on a crosswalk by a driver contracted to the city, was one. If yo care, you may read a memorial to her here: https://twitter.com/lambda_calculus/status/1569432531145048067?s=46&t=Lzk5o5OewfFwu4t2TIky8A

If we lived in a city where children and adults alike weren’t being killed by bad driving, then maybe we could have a different conversation. But we don’t. If you care at all about saving the lives of people in this city, you will understand why traffic calming infrastructure - of which bike lanes are but one example - are urgently needed.

Which brings us back to the absolute fact that this plan will triple traffic on the very residential side streets that children walk and bike on today. In other words, this plan decreases safety substantially.

Let me guess . . . you have absolutely no evidence to support such an assertion. Of course because all the evidence points to the opposite effect.

Children walk and cross on arterial streets too. Look up where children where killed or maimed by cars in DC in 2021 and that fact will be painfully apparent to you.

It’s very sad that people like you believe that the convenience of your commute should trump the safety of DC adults and children alike.

If you do not think that reducing the lanes on CT Ave will not lead to more traffic in the residential areas, then you are not in touch with reality. I have driven thru multiple residential areas in multiple cities solely because my phone directs me there. Moreover, I am aware of dead end streets in the DMV that receive a bizarre amount of cars because their phones direct those drivers there.

Nice anecdote, bro. But there also happens to be decades of evidence which demonstrates the elimination of not just travel lanes but entire highways leads to changes in driver behavior that, in sum, do not produce the kind of carmaggedon that the opponents of these lanes would have you believe will come to pass. There may be an increase in cut through traffic in the short-term as drivers adjust to the new patterns, but experience suggests that the overall effect in equilibrium will be negligible.

How much of that "experience" includes narrowing the main commuter road into a city, parallel to a street that has over 15 schools along it, where kids walk to school and most intersections do not have stop lights?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There are at least two posters posting about safety concerns with kids in traffic on bikes - I was one and not the other. Toodling around the hill on your cargo ebike is very different than riding down the 4 plus lane CT Ave - I don't see how that is safe for kids. What if they fall off and run into traffic. What if another bike hits you and the child goes flying - it is insanity and not necessary if you can afford a 2-3k bike you can afford a much safer bus pass. Little children don't belong in a big road unless they are in a vehicle of some kind. on bike paths or neighborhood streets sure.

As a parent it's upsetting because the children didn't get a choice in being put in a really dangerous situation. They are victims of their parent's poor judgment.

I can’t recall of any children who were killed or even injured in DC as a result of their parents daring to transport them on bikes. However, there were multiple young children killed last year by drivers who couldn’t control their speed. Allie Hart, killed on a crosswalk by a driver contracted to the city, was one. If yo care, you may read a memorial to her here: https://twitter.com/lambda_calculus/status/1569432531145048067?s=46&t=Lzk5o5OewfFwu4t2TIky8A

If we lived in a city where children and adults alike weren’t being killed by bad driving, then maybe we could have a different conversation. But we don’t. If you care at all about saving the lives of people in this city, you will understand why traffic calming infrastructure - of which bike lanes are but one example - are urgently needed.

Which brings us back to the absolute fact that this plan will triple traffic on the very residential side streets that children walk and bike on today. In other words, this plan decreases safety substantially.

Let me guess . . . you have absolutely no evidence to support such an assertion. Of course because all the evidence points to the opposite effect.

Children walk and cross on arterial streets too. Look up where children where killed or maimed by cars in DC in 2021 and that fact will be painfully apparent to you.

It’s very sad that people like you believe that the convenience of your commute should trump the safety of DC adults and children alike.

If you do not think that reducing the lanes on CT Ave will not lead to more traffic in the residential areas, then you are not in touch with reality. I have driven thru multiple residential areas in multiple cities solely because my phone direc ts me there. Moreover, I am aware of dead end streets in the DMV that receive a bizarre amount of cars because their phones direct those drivers there.

There is already "traffic"; there is already cut through traffic. This isn't going to make it worse for people who walk and bike. There is no evidence it will make it worse for people who drive, either. Just your hyperbole.

How does significantly increasing something not make it worse. You've spent pages and hours saying that cars are death machines and inherently dangerous to pedestrians and bicyclists. DDOT isays that the majority (around 75%) of the traffic volume reduced on Connecticut by permanently eliminating two lanes will end up on the neighborhood side streets. The very places people currently walk and bike. You say that it will all disappear because of the magic of induced demand (supply side economics btw).

Putting aside that fantasy and sticking with DDOT's numbers. As you rightly point out, the mere presence of a moving vehicle increases potential risk. That means you are asking children, who do bike on the side streets but dont and will not bike on Connecticut, to take on significantly higher risk in order to lower the risk for hypothetical bicyclists. That traffic will be focused on side streets and will double to triple their current rate. The hypothetical bicyclists meanwhile will all be single rider adults because of the congestion, which under this scenario is increased by 25%. I think it's disgusting that you arguing that this somehow protects children while under your own rubric you are putting them in constant mortal danger. There is nothing you seemingly won't say or claim in your zeal. I do not think that is right.

Traffic does not disappear. It adapts. It belongs on Connecticut and not the side streets. Side streets where we've tended to put elementary schools.

And once again you can't produce a single study to back up your preposterous claims. Forgive the rest of us for siding with the wealth of studies that have shown that bike lanes improve everyone's safety over those who have a hard time distinguishing between transportation planning and macroeconomics.

And you also have not shown studies relevant to the area we are discussing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There are at least two posters posting about safety concerns with kids in traffic on bikes - I was one and not the other. Toodling around the hill on your cargo ebike is very different than riding down the 4 plus lane CT Ave - I don't see how that is safe for kids. What if they fall off and run into traffic. What if another bike hits you and the child goes flying - it is insanity and not necessary if you can afford a 2-3k bike you can afford a much safer bus pass. Little children don't belong in a big road unless they are in a vehicle of some kind. on bike paths or neighborhood streets sure.

As a parent it's upsetting because the children didn't get a choice in being put in a really dangerous situation. They are victims of their parent's poor judgment.

I can’t recall of any children who were killed or even injured in DC as a result of their parents daring to transport them on bikes. However, there were multiple young children killed last year by drivers who couldn’t control their speed. Allie Hart, killed on a crosswalk by a driver contracted to the city, was one. If yo care, you may read a memorial to her here: https://twitter.com/lambda_calculus/status/1569432531145048067?s=46&t=Lzk5o5OewfFwu4t2TIky8A

If we lived in a city where children and adults alike weren’t being killed by bad driving, then maybe we could have a different conversation. But we don’t. If you care at all about saving the lives of people in this city, you will understand why traffic calming infrastructure - of which bike lanes are but one example - are urgently needed.

Which brings us back to the absolute fact that this plan will triple traffic on the very residential side streets that children walk and bike on today. In other words, this plan decreases safety substantially.

Let me guess . . . you have absolutely no evidence to support such an assertion. Of course because all the evidence points to the opposite effect.

Children walk and cross on arterial streets too. Look up where children where killed or maimed by cars in DC in 2021 and that fact will be painfully apparent to you.

It’s very sad that people like you believe that the convenience of your commute should trump the safety of DC adults and children alike.

If you do not think that reducing the lanes on CT Ave will not lead to more traffic in the residential areas, then you are not in touch with reality. I have driven thru multiple residential areas in multiple cities solely because my phone direc ts me there. Moreover, I am aware of dead end streets in the DMV that receive a bizarre amount of cars because their phones direct those drivers there.

There is already "traffic"; there is already cut through traffic. This isn't going to make it worse for people who walk and bike. There is no evidence it will make it worse for people who drive, either. Just your hyperbole.

How does significantly increasing something not make it worse. You've spent pages and hours saying that cars are death machines and inherently dangerous to pedestrians and bicyclists. DDOT isays that the majority (around 75%) of the traffic volume reduced on Connecticut by permanently eliminating two lanes will end up on the neighborhood side streets. The very places people currently walk and bike. You say that it will all disappear because of the magic of induced demand (supply side economics btw).

Putting aside that fantasy and sticking with DDOT's numbers. As you rightly point out, the mere presence of a moving vehicle increases potential risk. That means you are asking children, who do bike on the side streets but dont and will not bike on Connecticut, to take on significantly higher risk in order to lower the risk for hypothetical bicyclists. That traffic will be focused on side streets and will double to triple their current rate. The hypothetical bicyclists meanwhile will all be single rider adults because of the congestion, which under this scenario is increased by 25%. I think it's disgusting that you arguing that this somehow protects children while under your own rubric you are putting them in constant mortal danger. There is nothing you seemingly won't say or claim in your zeal. I do not think that is right.

Traffic does not disappear. It adapts. It belongs on Connecticut and not the side streets. Side streets where we've tended to put elementary schools.

and people want to bike their kids to those schools, and the best way to do that is to use Conn Ave and then cut up the side street. Hence the need for bike lanes.

You are wrong. Kids biking to school do not need to bike along Connecticut Ave at all. At most, those in a few neighborhoods on the park side need to cross it at an intersection. Where do you think kids live and go to school that Connecticut Ave would be the only or best biking route?

Now, the kids biking in the middle of the side streets are in greater danger now that more frustrated drivers will be flying through angry, stressed, and late because the main commuter route will effectively be one lane during school drop off hours.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There are at least two posters posting about safety concerns with kids in traffic on bikes - I was one and not the other. Toodling around the hill on your cargo ebike is very different than riding down the 4 plus lane CT Ave - I don't see how that is safe for kids. What if they fall off and run into traffic. What if another bike hits you and the child goes flying - it is insanity and not necessary if you can afford a 2-3k bike you can afford a much safer bus pass. Little children don't belong in a big road unless they are in a vehicle of some kind. on bike paths or neighborhood streets sure.

As a parent it's upsetting because the children didn't get a choice in being put in a really dangerous situation. They are victims of their parent's poor judgment.

I can’t recall of any children who were killed or even injured in DC as a result of their parents daring to transport them on bikes. However, there were multiple young children killed last year by drivers who couldn’t control their speed. Allie Hart, killed on a crosswalk by a driver contracted to the city, was one. If yo care, you may read a memorial to her here: https://twitter.com/lambda_calculus/status/1569432531145048067?s=46&t=Lzk5o5OewfFwu4t2TIky8A

If we lived in a city where children and adults alike weren’t being killed by bad driving, then maybe we could have a different conversation. But we don’t. If you care at all about saving the lives of people in this city, you will understand why traffic calming infrastructure - of which bike lanes are but one example - are urgently needed.

Which brings us back to the absolute fact that this plan will triple traffic on the very residential side streets that children walk and bike on today. In other words, this plan decreases safety substantially.

Let me guess . . . you have absolutely no evidence to support such an assertion. Of course because all the evidence points to the opposite effect.

Children walk and cross on arterial streets too. Look up where children where killed or maimed by cars in DC in 2021 and that fact will be painfully apparent to you.

It’s very sad that people like you believe that the convenience of your commute should trump the safety of DC adults and children alike.

If you do not think that reducing the lanes on CT Ave will not lead to more traffic in the residential areas, then you are not in touch with reality. I have driven thru multiple residential areas in multiple cities solely because my phone directs me there. Moreover, I am aware of dead end streets in the DMV that receive a bizarre amount of cars because their phones direct those drivers there.

Nice anecdote, bro. But there also happens to be decades of evidence which demonstrates the elimination of not just travel lanes but entire highways leads to changes in driver behavior that, in sum, do not produce the kind of carmaggedon that the opponents of these lanes would have you believe will come to pass. There may be an increase in cut through traffic in the short-term as drivers adjust to the new patterns, but experience suggests that the overall effect in equilibrium will be negligible.

How much of that "experience" includes narrowing the main commuter road into a city, parallel to a street that has over 15 schools along it, where kids walk to school and most intersections do not have stop lights?

Well, I guess you could dismiss the results of every relevant study simply because they do not replicate the exact conditions of this specific case. Although that would kinda being like refusing to get the COVID vaccine because, although clinical trials and popular experience demonstrate that it’s safe, it hasn’t been tested on your specific body. I trust that you are not a scientist or employed in any field that requires you to use deductive reasoning.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:At the end of the day it’s just not going to work. And we all know it. There will be postal trucks, delivery trucks, contractors, fire engines, rude people who block a car travel lane by parking with their blinkers on. We all see it every day. There is no enforcement on the current bike infrastructure and there will be no enforcement here. So what will happen in reality is that you will have rush hour traffic using a single lane. It will back up to Chevy Chase into the circle in the morning and the same with DuPont in the evening. Reasonable people managed to push back on Defund the Police and we must do the same here.

The other elephant in the room is that not only will these lanes bring Connecticut to a halt, but they will also bring the east-west roads to a halt. Literally hundreds of EOTP schools kids are driven by their parents or by bus to Upper NW elementary schools and Deal. Nebraska Ave, Tilden and Calvert will all see major delays. How will this impact attendance and performance? Were other affected EOTP ANCs brought into the process and provided and opportunity to comment? This plan is ableist and benefits young, white upper income people at the expense of others and it needs to be revisited.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm a commuter from close-in MD and have spent 20yrs going up and down Conn Ave. I spent a ton of money en route and near my downtown office during that time, including about 9 years of daycare, endless takeout lunches (and dinners), shopping for gifts, and personal care appointments. I don't do any of that any more - the commute is just so awful even before the bike lanes have appeared. No additional lane at rush hour, cars and trucks double parked or parked illegally on every single block, the random restaurant that has overtaken a lane of traffic across from Politics & Prose (seriously, who did the Rosemary Bistro pay off to squeeze traffic at an already busy intersection?), and of course the closure of Beach Drive to car traffic which pushes more cars to Conn. Driving on Connecticut is like some kind of Mad Max obstacle course - dangerous and unpleasant and still very slow.

Post-pandemic, I have total flexibility on where I work, and I'll work as little as possible from my office as a result of all this. I'm all for making biking safer, but making it harder to drive to work won't force most people onto bikes or even onto Metro - it will persuade many of us to work from home.

THIS!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:At the end of the day it’s just not going to work. And we all know it. There will be postal trucks, delivery trucks, contractors, fire engines, rude people who block a car travel lane by parking with their blinkers on. We all see it every day. There is no enforcement on the current bike infrastructure and there will be no enforcement here. So what will happen in reality is that you will have rush hour traffic using a single lane. It will back up to Chevy Chase into the circle in the morning and the same with DuPont in the evening. Reasonable people managed to push back on Defund the Police and we must do the same here.

The other elephant in the room is that not only will these lanes bring Connecticut to a halt, but they will also bring the east-west roads to a halt. Literally hundreds of EOTP schools kids are driven by their parents or by bus to Upper NW elementary schools and Deal. Nebraska Ave, Tilden and Calvert will all see major delays. How will this impact attendance and performance? Were other affected EOTP ANCs brought into the process and provided and opportunity to comment? This plan is ableist and benefits young, white upper income people at the expense of others and it needs to be revisited.

Using hundreds as a big number is objectively hilarious. And these bike lanes, and other traffic calming measures are being in put in place to discourage this exact practice. Maybe now more EOTP kids will take a bus or the metro to get to their schools. Or, you know, go to their IB schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There are at least two posters posting about safety concerns with kids in traffic on bikes - I was one and not the other. Toodling around the hill on your cargo ebike is very different than riding down the 4 plus lane CT Ave - I don't see how that is safe for kids. What if they fall off and run into traffic. What if another bike hits you and the child goes flying - it is insanity and not necessary if you can afford a 2-3k bike you can afford a much safer bus pass. Little children don't belong in a big road unless they are in a vehicle of some kind. on bike paths or neighborhood streets sure.

As a parent it's upsetting because the children didn't get a choice in being put in a really dangerous situation. They are victims of their parent's poor judgment.

I can’t recall of any children who were killed or even injured in DC as a result of their parents daring to transport them on bikes. However, there were multiple young children killed last year by drivers who couldn’t control their speed. Allie Hart, killed on a crosswalk by a driver contracted to the city, was one. If yo care, you may read a memorial to her here: https://twitter.com/lambda_calculus/status/1569432531145048067?s=46&t=Lzk5o5OewfFwu4t2TIky8A

If we lived in a city where children and adults alike weren’t being killed by bad driving, then maybe we could have a different conversation. But we don’t. If you care at all about saving the lives of people in this city, you will understand why traffic calming infrastructure - of which bike lanes are but one example - are urgently needed.

Which brings us back to the absolute fact that this plan will triple traffic on the very residential side streets that children walk and bike on today. In other words, this plan decreases safety substantially.

Let me guess . . . you have absolutely no evidence to support such an assertion. Of course because all the evidence points to the opposite effect.

Children walk and cross on arterial streets too. Look up where children where killed or maimed by cars in DC in 2021 and that fact will be painfully apparent to you.

It’s very sad that people like you believe that the convenience of your commute should trump the safety of DC adults and children alike.

If you do not think that reducing the lanes on CT Ave will not lead to more traffic in the residential areas, then you are not in touch with reality. I have driven thru multiple residential areas in multiple cities solely because my phone direc ts me there. Moreover, I am aware of dead end streets in the DMV that receive a bizarre amount of cars because their phones direct those drivers there.

There is already "traffic"; there is already cut through traffic. This isn't going to make it worse for people who walk and bike. There is no evidence it will make it worse for people who drive, either. Just your hyperbole.

How does significantly increasing something not make it worse. You've spent pages and hours saying that cars are death machines and inherently dangerous to pedestrians and bicyclists. DDOT isays that the majority (around 75%) of the traffic volume reduced on Connecticut by permanently eliminating two lanes will end up on the neighborhood side streets. The very places people currently walk and bike. You say that it will all disappear because of the magic of induced demand (supply side economics btw).

Putting aside that fantasy and sticking with DDOT's numbers. As you rightly point out, the mere presence of a moving vehicle increases potential risk. That means you are asking children, who do bike on the side streets but dont and will not bike on Connecticut, to take on significantly higher risk in order to lower the risk for hypothetical bicyclists. That traffic will be focused on side streets and will double to triple their current rate. The hypothetical bicyclists meanwhile will all be single rider adults because of the congestion, which under this scenario is increased by 25%. I think it's disgusting that you arguing that this somehow protects children while under your own rubric you are putting them in constant mortal danger. There is nothing you seemingly won't say or claim in your zeal. I do not think that is right.

Traffic does not disappear. It adapts. It belongs on Connecticut and not the side streets. Side streets where we've tended to put elementary schools.

And once again you can't produce a single study to back up your preposterous claims. Forgive the rest of us for siding with the wealth of studies that have shown that bike lanes improve everyone's safety over those who have a hard time distinguishing between transportation planning and macroeconomics.

And you also have not shown studies relevant to the area we are discussing.

If you blindly ignore - or, in the unlikely event that you are new here, fail to read through the thread before weighing in - you can legitimately claim ignorance of the many studies and other forms of evidence that lay the basis for an informed opinion on this subject. Doing so makes you look like a clown, but you are free to do it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:D.C. started building protected bike lanes in 2009. You'd think that after almost 15 years and spending who knows how many billions of dollars on bike lanes, if bicycling was going to catch on, it would have caught on by now. And yet all these bike lanes are mostly empty. The number of people who actually use them is pathetically small.

+1000

[Anonymous]

This plan is ableist, ageist and racist and benefits young, white upper income people at the expense of others and it needs to be revisited.