Options for opposing Connecticut Avenue changes?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

Creating a means by which DC residents can safely use the cheapest, most environmentally-friendly, and economically efficient means of transportation and saving lives, preventing injuries, and reducing carbon emissions is “ableist, ageist, and racist”??? No, it’s what good public policy looks like.

I think what you meant to write is that you are annoyed because you suffer from both car addiction and narcissism and cannot stand the fact that city officials have proposed something that doesn’t directly serve your interests.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

People are leaving D.C. in droves so I suspect there will be less traffic to deal with in the long-term.

Show me where the glut in available housing is, such that the people leaving in droves aren't being replaced by others who are buying properties at a premium.

[Anonymous]

someone posted this link on a similar thread in the cleveland park email list. while this video is calgary,AB, there are similarities in terms of a neighborhood route (though ConnAve neighborhoods would be much hillier) the second route which would be akin to rock creek, which of course would have a huge hill coming out to get to the avenue, or the third option...

[Anonymous]

why can't the bikes use the existing sidewalks on Reno Road? There are rarely pedestrians or bikers on those and it essentially goes to the same place

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

Actually it is quite the opposite. It affords the opportunity for those who are not as confident walking or biking to have the option to do so more safely in the future and thus freeing up scaare car lanes for those who actually have to use them because they have no other options.

People like you have been trying to pull up the Ward 3 drawbridge for years. We beat you then and we’ll beat you this time. These bike lanes will make it difficult for black and brown kids to get to Deal and WOTP elementary schools. This will make it almost impossible to get to the new HS on McCarthur Blvd. The EOTP ANCs must vote on this. STOP this racist road!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:why can't the bikes use the existing sidewalks on Reno Road? There are rarely pedestrians or bikers on those and it essentially goes to the same place

Because this isn't about anything they claim it is. In every single use case the cut through streets provide a better route for bikers.

[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 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?

It isn't THE main commuter road into the city. It is one of several. Why is it acceptable to have a highway as our main street when we could have something much more livable?

And why do drivers always insist that cyclists can go out of their way too take other routes but they won't do the same? If Connecticut Avenue is too crowded then take Wisconsin or Mass Ave (or a freaking bus for once in your life)

They are going to. They will take the cut through streets in response to the increased congestion.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:why can't the bikes use the existing sidewalks on Reno Road? There are rarely pedestrians or bikers on those and it essentially goes to the same place

There are rarely pedestrians on the sidewalks on Conn Ave? Are you insane!? I lived there for 15 years and never drove anywhere during the week. I walked to the grocery store, metro, restaurants, everywhere!!! As did all of my neighbors.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:why can't the bikes use the existing sidewalks on Reno Road? There are rarely pedestrians or bikers on those and it essentially goes to the same place

There are rarely pedestrians on the sidewalks on Conn Ave? Are you insane!? I lived there for 15 years and never drove anywhere during the week. I walked to the grocery store, metro, restaurants, everywhere!!! As did all of my neighbors.

She said Reno

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

Creating a means by which DC residents can safely use the cheapest, most environmentally-friendly, and economically efficient means of transportation and saving lives, preventing injuries, and reducing carbon emissions is “ableist, ageist, and racist”??? No, it’s what good public policy looks like.

I think what you meant to write is that you are annoyed because you suffer from both car addiction and narcissism and cannot stand the fact that city officials have proposed something that doesn’t directly serve your interests.

The cheapest, most environmentally friendly and economically efficicient mode of transport is walking, which is being made less safe.

Speaking of narcissism... Lol

Your fundametal flaw is believing that driving is a choice and that biking is a like for like substitution
It is not. Commuters are not going to drive the beltway, take Connecticut to the border, park in Maryland and then bicycle downtown. They will detour through the residential streets instead.

[Anonymous]

So many climate change deniers in dc, this looks like Texas

[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.

What part of according to DDOT is difficuilt for you to comprehend?

At the same time you have not once shown anything that supports your farcical claim that traffic will magically disappear. You haven't because you can't. You can't because the premise is preposterous.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So many climate change deniers in dc, this looks like Texas

Then why do you want to increase emissions? Congestion increases pollution.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

Actually it is quite the opposite. It affords the opportunity for those who are not as confident walking or biking to have the option to do so more safely in the future and thus freeing up scaare car lanes for those who actually have to use them because they have no other options.

People like you have been trying to pull up the Ward 3 drawbridge for years. We beat you then and we’ll beat you this time. These bike lanes will make it difficult for black and brown kids to get to Deal and WOTP elementary schools. This will make it almost impossible to get to the new HS on McCarthur Blvd. The EOTP ANCs must vote on this. STOP this racist road!

Oh my goodness . . . this couldn’t get more ridiculous. If the poster were the least bit knowledgeable, they would know that the proposed changes - particularly the removal of the reversible lanes - will actually make it faster to travel from EOTR to these schools. People come up with the most bizarre claims in defense of their self-interests, but you need to try harder - you aren’t fooling anyone.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

Actually it is quite the opposite. It affords the opportunity for those who are not as confident walking or biking to have the option to do so more safely in the future and thus freeing up scaare car lanes for those who actually have to use them because they have no other options.

People like you have been trying to pull up the Ward 3 drawbridge for years. We beat you then and we’ll beat you this time. These bike lanes will make it difficult for black and brown kids to get to Deal and WOTP elementary schools. This will make it almost impossible to get to the new HS on McCarthur Blvd. The EOTP ANCs must vote on this. STOP this racist road!

Oh my goodness . . . this couldn’t get more ridiculous. If the poster were the least bit knowledgeable, they would know that the proposed changes - particularly the removal of the reversible lanes - will actually make it faster to travel from EOTR to these schools. People come up with the most bizarre claims in defense of their self-interests, but you need to try harder - you aren’t fooling anyone.

If you've tried to traverse Conn Ave lately around the start and end of school, you'll know that even without bike lanes, it's gridlock due to the removal of the rush hour extra lane and the closure of Beach Drive.