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: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.

David Copperfield is back! How about you magically produce a citation when you want others to believe that someone else said something. Based on your performance throughout this thread, I’m not inclined to take your word for it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

The fastest from EOTR (even a northern EOTR neighborhood like Deanwood) to Deal / JR are via Western Ave, GWP, and 395. Conn Ave has little to do with it. I’d be happy to sell you some straws if you need something to clutch.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

David Copperfield is back! How about you magically produce a citation when you want others to believe that someone else said something. Based on your performance throughout this thread, I’m not inclined to take your word for it.

You really have nothing but insults and lies. Induced demand! Traffic will magically disappear. 10,000 people are going to bike up and down Connecticut Avenue.

[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: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.

David Copperfield is back! How about you magically produce a citation when you want others to believe that someone else said something. Based on your performance throughout this thread, I’m not inclined to take your word for it.

You really have nothing but insults and lies. Induced demand! Traffic will magically disappear. 10,000 people are going to bike up and down Connecticut Avenue.

Is there a citation in there? Where’s the lie? That you are David Copperfield? OK, so that is a lie because I do know who you are and, sadly, it’s not him.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

Please go back to the beginning of the thread and start reading. You are spreading debunked claims.

[Anonymous]

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

Exactly.

Let's stay home.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

The fastest from EOTR (even a northern EOTR neighborhood like Deanwood) to Deal / JR are via Western Ave, GWP, and 395. Conn Ave has little to do with it. I’d be happy to sell you some straws if you need something to clutch.

George Washington Parkway and 395, lol. Are you just pulling road names out of a hat?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

Please go back to the beginning of the thread and start reading. You are spreading debunked claims.

Right. Forgot. Traffic will magically disappear!

[Anonymous]

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

Odds are that many of the opponents here are not DC residents, but suburbanites who haven’t discovered park-and-ride. Look at the other posts on this forum - it’s mostly MoCO / NOVA issues.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

The fastest from EOTR (even a northern EOTR neighborhood like Deanwood) to Deal / JR are via Western Ave, GWP, and 395. Conn Ave has little to do with it. I’d be happy to sell you some straws if you need something to clutch.

George Washington Parkway and 395, lol. Are you just pulling road names out of a hat?

You’ve never used a navigation app in your life, have you?

[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

1) they are narrow
2) pedestrians complain about cyclists on the sidewalks all.the.time.
3) what businesses are on Reno Road that cyclists can support?

[Anonymous]

https://saveconnecticutave.org/f/conn-ave-bike-lane-to-reroute-7020-vehicles-daily

There's your DDOT study

[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!

Most of us support the trolley trail that would afford the opportunity for students to bike to the new high school. Get Georgetown University on board to make it happen!
The east-west traffic is horrible, which is why we support the upgrades for bike facilities at Military Road to get across the Park more safely. Connect that to Connecticut Avenue and it will be a lot easier and safer for students from across the Park to access upper NW schools.

[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.

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.

How so? As it is bikes can legally use the sidewalks in Upper NW. So by adding the cycle track, you are taking those bikes off the sidewalks, thus making it safer for pedestrians.

[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.

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.

How is walking being made less safe here? Cyclists are being given their own lane and will be off sidewalks. Connecticut Avenue will be easier to cross because instead of six lanes of drivers you only have to cross four. DC is generally responsive to resident complaints about people cutting through residential areas too fast so hopefully there will be more speed bumps and other traffic calming put in those streets.

Again, for the people in the back, DDOT has made it very clear that it is encouraging mode shift with this plan. They want people to drive to suburban metro stations instead of deriving all the way in. They want people who might drive a mile down CT Ave to hop on a bike instead. People who drive from suburban Maryland houses all the way to DC are not DDOT's highest priority here. It is just not realistic to think that you can for all eternity drive a car solo into a dense urban area.