DDOT's latest plan to destroy traffic, Georgia Avenue edition

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Pretty sure Waze runs DDOT. Why would you want to redirect the traffic from a major thoroughfare onto all the surrounding side streets?

The concurrence of the talking points being deployed against this proposal with what was trotted out in response to Conn Ave Concept C is absolutely stunning.

Same complete lack of understanding of transportation dynamics. And probably the same exact people.

No, no, it's very different!

On Connecticut Avenue: We oppose bike lanes, they will kill children, Connecticut Avenue is safe, the real problem is double parking, this is all part of the war on cars, we would support bus lanes.

On Georgia Avenue: We oppose bus lanes, they will kill children, Georgia Avenue is safe, the real problem is double parking, this is all part of the war on cars.

(Actually it's not different at all.)

Or

On Connecticut: We don't care about bike lanes but it is a bad idea to eliminate two lanes because the increased congestion will make things less safe both on Connecticut and the surrounding streets.

On Georgia: We don't care about bus lanes but it is a bad idea to eliminate half of the traffic lanes because the increased congestion will make things less safe both on Georgia and the surrounding streets.

You're right. It is the same.

Yes, you're right. In both cases, you are opposing actions that would make the street safer and more comfortable for people not in cars, because you are prioritizing the movement of cars.

No. In both cases the proposed changes make streets less safe and less confortable for everyone.


It's even more galling when one realizes that the exact same dangerous plan has been proposed for every North-South route in NW without a single analysis of what the already implemented changes have done.

I'm sure that it's a complete coincidence that the positions assumed by those who claim bus lanes / bike lanes "make streets less safe" align almost perfectly with the interests of suburban commuters who couldn't care less about the safety and comfort of DC residents who use both arterial and side streets to navigate their city.

Or. The DC residents that live in Shepherd Park, Chevy Chase, Colonial Village, Barnaby Woods, North Portal and Hawthorne who are most impacted by these changes and that you think live in Maryland.

Well, some of them. Not the ones who would use the bus and/or bike lanes, of course. Also not the ones who support the bus and/or bike lanes, even though they personally wouldn't use them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Pretty sure Waze runs DDOT. Why would you want to redirect the traffic from a major thoroughfare onto all the surrounding side streets?

The concurrence of the talking points being deployed against this proposal with what was trotted out in response to Conn Ave Concept C is absolutely stunning.

Same complete lack of understanding of transportation dynamics. And probably the same exact people.

No, no, it's very different!

On Connecticut Avenue: We oppose bike lanes, they will kill children, Connecticut Avenue is safe, the real problem is double parking, this is all part of the war on cars, we would support bus lanes.

On Georgia Avenue: We oppose bus lanes, they will kill children, Georgia Avenue is safe, the real problem is double parking, this is all part of the war on cars.

(Actually it's not different at all.)

Or

On Connecticut: We don't care about bike lanes but it is a bad idea to eliminate two lanes because the increased congestion will make things less safe both on Connecticut and the surrounding streets.

On Georgia: We don't care about bus lanes but it is a bad idea to eliminate half of the traffic lanes because the increased congestion will make things less safe both on Georgia and the surrounding streets.

You're right. It is the same.

Yes, you're right. In both cases, you are opposing actions that would make the street safer and more comfortable for people not in cars, because you are prioritizing the movement of cars.

No. In both cases the proposed changes make streets less safe and less confortable for everyone.

It's even more galling when one realizes that the exact same dangerous plan has been proposed for every North-South route in NW without a single analysis of what the already implemented changes have done.

This is true, if "everyone" means "people in cars who don't want to drive slowly and carefully". Actually no, it's still not true, because it will even make those streets safer for people in cars who don't want to drive slowly and carefully.

No, you're still lying. The issue is rush hour. The times of day when most people use those roads, when kids go to school, when the most accidents occur, when everyone is already driving slowly because of congestion, and when increasing congestion causes the most safety problems.

You can lower the speed limit to 15 during rush hour and it won't make a difference either way. Nobody is speeding on Georgia or Connecticut during the rush hours. Which also happens to be the time of the day when most of the accidents occur.

The absolute craziest part of this though is that this has already been implemented on 16th and partially implemented on Connecticut. We have two case studies in our backyard on parallel streets. Why aren't we studying the impact? How much spillover traffic has there been? Have accidents gone up or down?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Pretty sure Waze runs DDOT. Why would you want to redirect the traffic from a major thoroughfare onto all the surrounding side streets?

The concurrence of the talking points being deployed against this proposal with what was trotted out in response to Conn Ave Concept C is absolutely stunning.

Same complete lack of understanding of transportation dynamics. And probably the same exact people.

No, no, it's very different!

On Connecticut Avenue: We oppose bike lanes, they will kill children, Connecticut Avenue is safe, the real problem is double parking, this is all part of the war on cars, we would support bus lanes.

On Georgia Avenue: We oppose bus lanes, they will kill children, Georgia Avenue is safe, the real problem is double parking, this is all part of the war on cars.

(Actually it's not different at all.)

Or

On Connecticut: We don't care about bike lanes but it is a bad idea to eliminate two lanes because the increased congestion will make things less safe both on Connecticut and the surrounding streets.

On Georgia: We don't care about bus lanes but it is a bad idea to eliminate half of the traffic lanes because the increased congestion will make things less safe both on Georgia and the surrounding streets.

You're right. It is the same.

Yes, you're right. In both cases, you are opposing actions that would make the street safer and more comfortable for people not in cars, because you are prioritizing the movement of cars.

No. In both cases the proposed changes make streets less safe and less confortable for everyone.

It's even more galling when one realizes that the exact same dangerous plan has been proposed for every North-South route in NW without a single analysis of what the already implemented changes have done.

This is true, if "everyone" means "people in cars who don't want to drive slowly and carefully". Actually no, it's still not true, because it will even make those streets safer for people in cars who don't want to drive slowly and carefully.

No, you're still lying. The issue is rush hour. The times of day when most people use those roads, when kids go to school, when the most accidents occur, when everyone is already driving slowly because of congestion, and when increasing congestion causes the most safety problems.

You can lower the speed limit to 15 during rush hour and it won't make a difference either way. Nobody is speeding on Georgia or Connecticut during the rush hours. Which also happens to be the time of the day when most of the accidents occur.

The absolute craziest part of this though is that this has already been implemented on 16th and partially implemented on Connecticut. We have two case studies in our backyard on parallel streets. Why aren't we studying the impact? How much spillover traffic has there been? Have accidents gone up or down?

Increasing congestion does not cause safety problems, except the ones involving impatient or angry drivers breaking traffic laws. Traffic back-ups make driving miserable, but they don't make driving unsafe.

The good news is, with bus-only lanes, drivers who are miserable driving in traffic back-ups will have a better, non-driving option.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Pretty sure Waze runs DDOT. Why would you want to redirect the traffic from a major thoroughfare onto all the surrounding side streets?

The concurrence of the talking points being deployed against this proposal with what was trotted out in response to Conn Ave Concept C is absolutely stunning.

Same complete lack of understanding of transportation dynamics. And probably the same exact people.

No, no, it's very different!

On Connecticut Avenue: We oppose bike lanes, they will kill children, Connecticut Avenue is safe, the real problem is double parking, this is all part of the war on cars, we would support bus lanes.

On Georgia Avenue: We oppose bus lanes, they will kill children, Georgia Avenue is safe, the real problem is double parking, this is all part of the war on cars.

(Actually it's not different at all.)

Or

On Connecticut: We don't care about bike lanes but it is a bad idea to eliminate two lanes because the increased congestion will make things less safe both on Connecticut and the surrounding streets.

On Georgia: We don't care about bus lanes but it is a bad idea to eliminate half of the traffic lanes because the increased congestion will make things less safe both on Georgia and the surrounding streets.

You're right. It is the same.

Yes, you're right. In both cases, you are opposing actions that would make the street safer and more comfortable for people not in cars, because you are prioritizing the movement of cars.

No. In both cases the proposed changes make streets less safe and less confortable for everyone.

It's even more galling when one realizes that the exact same dangerous plan has been proposed for every North-South route in NW without a single analysis of what the already implemented changes have done.

This is true, if "everyone" means "people in cars who don't want to drive slowly and carefully". Actually no, it's still not true, because it will even make those streets safer for people in cars who don't want to drive slowly and carefully.

No, you're still lying. The issue is rush hour. The times of day when most people use those roads, when kids go to school, when the most accidents occur, when everyone is already driving slowly because of congestion, and when increasing congestion causes the most safety problems.

You can lower the speed limit to 15 during rush hour and it won't make a difference either way. Nobody is speeding on Georgia or Connecticut during the rush hours. Which also happens to be the time of the day when most of the accidents occur.

The absolute craziest part of this though is that this has already been implemented on 16th and partially implemented on Connecticut. We have two case studies in our backyard on parallel streets. Why aren't we studying the impact? How much spillover traffic has there been? Have accidents gone up or down?

Increasing congestion does not cause safety problems, except the ones involving impatient or angry drivers breaking traffic laws. Traffic back-ups make driving miserable, but they don't make driving unsafe.

The good news is, with bus-only lanes, drivers who are miserable driving in traffic back-ups will have a better, non-driving option.

99% of safety issues involve somone (whether trucks, cars, pedestrians, bicycles, motorcycles ebike/mopeds, scooters, or that one weirdo on stilts) breaking traffic laws.

It seems you don't know this but you should be aware that it is default illegal for anyone to hit anyone else.


There are literally hundreds of studies showing that high levels of congestion increase accidents. Pretending that is not true does not help your credibility.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Pretty sure Waze runs DDOT. Why would you want to redirect the traffic from a major thoroughfare onto all the surrounding side streets?

The concurrence of the talking points being deployed against this proposal with what was trotted out in response to Conn Ave Concept C is absolutely stunning.

Same complete lack of understanding of transportation dynamics. And probably the same exact people.

No, no, it's very different!

On Connecticut Avenue: We oppose bike lanes, they will kill children, Connecticut Avenue is safe, the real problem is double parking, this is all part of the war on cars, we would support bus lanes.

On Georgia Avenue: We oppose bus lanes, they will kill children, Georgia Avenue is safe, the real problem is double parking, this is all part of the war on cars.

(Actually it's not different at all.)

Or

On Connecticut: We don't care about bike lanes but it is a bad idea to eliminate two lanes because the increased congestion will make things less safe both on Connecticut and the surrounding streets.

On Georgia: We don't care about bus lanes but it is a bad idea to eliminate half of the traffic lanes because the increased congestion will make things less safe both on Georgia and the surrounding streets.

You're right. It is the same.

Yes, you're right. In both cases, you are opposing actions that would make the street safer and more comfortable for people not in cars, because you are prioritizing the movement of cars.

No. In both cases the proposed changes make streets less safe and less confortable for everyone.

It's even more galling when one realizes that the exact same dangerous plan has been proposed for every North-South route in NW without a single analysis of what the already implemented changes have done.

This is true, if "everyone" means "people in cars who don't want to drive slowly and carefully". Actually no, it's still not true, because it will even make those streets safer for people in cars who don't want to drive slowly and carefully.

No, you're still lying. The issue is rush hour. The times of day when most people use those roads, when kids go to school, when the most accidents occur, when everyone is already driving slowly because of congestion, and when increasing congestion causes the most safety problems.

You can lower the speed limit to 15 during rush hour and it won't make a difference either way. Nobody is speeding on Georgia or Connecticut during the rush hours. Which also happens to be the time of the day when most of the accidents occur.

The absolute craziest part of this though is that this has already been implemented on 16th and partially implemented on Connecticut. We have two case studies in our backyard on parallel streets. Why aren't we studying the impact? How much spillover traffic has there been? Have accidents gone up or down?

Increasing congestion does not cause safety problems, except the ones involving impatient or angry drivers breaking traffic laws. Traffic back-ups make driving miserable, but they don't make driving unsafe.

The good news is, with bus-only lanes, drivers who are miserable driving in traffic back-ups will have a better, non-driving option.

99% of safety issues involve somone (whether trucks, cars, pedestrians, bicycles, motorcycles ebike/mopeds, scooters, or that one weirdo on stilts) breaking traffic laws.

It seems you don't know this but you should be aware that it is default illegal for anyone to hit anyone else.


There are literally hundreds of studies showing that high levels of congestion increase accidents. Pretending that is not true does not help your credibility.

Fender benders that don't injure anyone. If you think preventing damage to cars is more important than preventing damage to people, then yes, that's what you would focus on.

[Anonymous]

We know from literally decades of experience from cities all over the world that improving the accessibility, efficiency, and reliability of public transportation is the only durable means of reducing congestion and commute times. That is unless you want to continually bulldoze human settlements and parkland to make way for yet another lane. The folks on here opposing bus lanes think they are helping commuters by opposing bus lanes (they've thankfully forgotten the ruse that they care about kids' safety for the moment), but they are not even doing that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Pretty sure Waze runs DDOT. Why would you want to redirect the traffic from a major thoroughfare onto all the surrounding side streets?

The concurrence of the talking points being deployed against this proposal with what was trotted out in response to Conn Ave Concept C is absolutely stunning.

Same complete lack of understanding of transportation dynamics. And probably the same exact people.

No, no, it's very different!

On Connecticut Avenue: We oppose bike lanes, they will kill children, Connecticut Avenue is safe, the real problem is double parking, this is all part of the war on cars, we would support bus lanes.

On Georgia Avenue: We oppose bus lanes, they will kill children, Georgia Avenue is safe, the real problem is double parking, this is all part of the war on cars.

(Actually it's not different at all.)

Or

On Connecticut: We don't care about bike lanes but it is a bad idea to eliminate two lanes because the increased congestion will make things less safe both on Connecticut and the surrounding streets.

On Georgia: We don't care about bus lanes but it is a bad idea to eliminate half of the traffic lanes because the increased congestion will make things less safe both on Georgia and the surrounding streets.

You're right. It is the same.

Yes, you're right. In both cases, you are opposing actions that would make the street safer and more comfortable for people not in cars, because you are prioritizing the movement of cars.

No. In both cases the proposed changes make streets less safe and less confortable for everyone.

It's even more galling when one realizes that the exact same dangerous plan has been proposed for every North-South route in NW without a single analysis of what the already implemented changes have done.

This is true, if "everyone" means "people in cars who don't want to drive slowly and carefully". Actually no, it's still not true, because it will even make those streets safer for people in cars who don't want to drive slowly and carefully.

No, you're still lying. The issue is rush hour. The times of day when most people use those roads, when kids go to school, when the most accidents occur, when everyone is already driving slowly because of congestion, and when increasing congestion causes the most safety problems.

You can lower the speed limit to 15 during rush hour and it won't make a difference either way. Nobody is speeding on Georgia or Connecticut during the rush hours. Which also happens to be the time of the day when most of the accidents occur.

The absolute craziest part of this though is that this has already been implemented on 16th and partially implemented on Connecticut. We have two case studies in our backyard on parallel streets. Why aren't we studying the impact? How much spillover traffic has there been? Have accidents gone up or down?

Increasing congestion does not cause safety problems, except the ones involving impatient or angry drivers breaking traffic laws. Traffic back-ups make driving miserable, but they don't make driving unsafe.

The good news is, with bus-only lanes, drivers who are miserable driving in traffic back-ups will have a better, non-driving option.

99% of safety issues involve somone (whether trucks, cars, pedestrians, bicycles, motorcycles ebike/mopeds, scooters, or that one weirdo on stilts) breaking traffic laws.

It seems you don't know this but you should be aware that it is default illegal for anyone to hit anyone else.


There are literally hundreds of studies showing that high levels of congestion increase accidents. Pretending that is not true does not help your credibility.

Congestion makes traffic move more slowly so I can’t possibly see how this could be true.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Pretty sure Waze runs DDOT. Why would you want to redirect the traffic from a major thoroughfare onto all the surrounding side streets?

The concurrence of the talking points being deployed against this proposal with what was trotted out in response to Conn Ave Concept C is absolutely stunning.

Same complete lack of understanding of transportation dynamics. And probably the same exact people.

No, no, it's very different!

On Connecticut Avenue: We oppose bike lanes, they will kill children, Connecticut Avenue is safe, the real problem is double parking, this is all part of the war on cars, we would support bus lanes.

On Georgia Avenue: We oppose bus lanes, they will kill children, Georgia Avenue is safe, the real problem is double parking, this is all part of the war on cars.

(Actually it's not different at all.)

Or

On Connecticut: We don't care about bike lanes but it is a bad idea to eliminate two lanes because the increased congestion will make things less safe both on Connecticut and the surrounding streets.

On Georgia: We don't care about bus lanes but it is a bad idea to eliminate half of the traffic lanes because the increased congestion will make things less safe both on Georgia and the surrounding streets.

You're right. It is the same.

Yes, you're right. In both cases, you are opposing actions that would make the street safer and more comfortable for people not in cars, because you are prioritizing the movement of cars.

No. In both cases the proposed changes make streets less safe and less confortable for everyone.

It's even more galling when one realizes that the exact same dangerous plan has been proposed for every North-South route in NW without a single analysis of what the already implemented changes have done.

This is true, if "everyone" means "people in cars who don't want to drive slowly and carefully". Actually no, it's still not true, because it will even make those streets safer for people in cars who don't want to drive slowly and carefully.

No, you're still lying. The issue is rush hour. The times of day when most people use those roads, when kids go to school, when the most accidents occur, when everyone is already driving slowly because of congestion, and when increasing congestion causes the most safety problems.

You can lower the speed limit to 15 during rush hour and it won't make a difference either way. Nobody is speeding on Georgia or Connecticut during the rush hours. Which also happens to be the time of the day when most of the accidents occur.

The absolute craziest part of this though is that this has already been implemented on 16th and partially implemented on Connecticut. We have two case studies in our backyard on parallel streets. Why aren't we studying the impact? How much spillover traffic has there been? Have accidents gone up or down?

Increasing congestion does not cause safety problems, except the ones involving impatient or angry drivers breaking traffic laws. Traffic back-ups make driving miserable, but they don't make driving unsafe.

The good news is, with bus-only lanes, drivers who are miserable driving in traffic back-ups will have a better, non-driving option.

99% of safety issues involve somone (whether trucks, cars, pedestrians, bicycles, motorcycles ebike/mopeds, scooters, or that one weirdo on stilts) breaking traffic laws.

It seems you don't know this but you should be aware that it is default illegal for anyone to hit anyone else.


There are literally hundreds of studies showing that high levels of congestion increase accidents. Pretending that is not true does not help your credibility.

Someone did a study showing that the more cars you have in one place, the more accidents occur in that one place? Really? What an earth-shattering conclusion. Can you please also find me a study that shows that if I walk to a place infested with mosquitoes I am more likely to get a mosquito bite?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:We know from literally decades of experience from cities all over the world that improving the accessibility, efficiency, and reliability of public transportation is the only durable means of reducing congestion and commute times. That is unless you want to continually bulldoze human settlements and parkland to make way for yet another lane. The folks on here opposing bus lanes think they are helping commuters by opposing bus lanes (they've thankfully forgotten the ruse that they care about kids' safety for the moment), but they are not even doing that.

And they're definitely not thinking about the commuters who are currently commuting on the bus, let alone the commuters who would commute on the bus if the bus weren't stuck in car traffic.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Pretty sure Waze runs DDOT. Why would you want to redirect the traffic from a major thoroughfare onto all the surrounding side streets?

The concurrence of the talking points being deployed against this proposal with what was trotted out in response to Conn Ave Concept C is absolutely stunning.

Same complete lack of understanding of transportation dynamics. And probably the same exact people.

No, no, it's very different!

On Connecticut Avenue: We oppose bike lanes, they will kill children, Connecticut Avenue is safe, the real problem is double parking, this is all part of the war on cars, we would support bus lanes.

On Georgia Avenue: We oppose bus lanes, they will kill children, Georgia Avenue is safe, the real problem is double parking, this is all part of the war on cars.

(Actually it's not different at all.)

Or

On Connecticut: We don't care about bike lanes but it is a bad idea to eliminate two lanes because the increased congestion will make things less safe both on Connecticut and the surrounding streets.

On Georgia: We don't care about bus lanes but it is a bad idea to eliminate half of the traffic lanes because the increased congestion will make things less safe both on Georgia and the surrounding streets.

You're right. It is the same.

Yes, you're right. In both cases, you are opposing actions that would make the street safer and more comfortable for people not in cars, because you are prioritizing the movement of cars.

No. In both cases the proposed changes make streets less safe and less confortable for everyone.

It's even more galling when one realizes that the exact same dangerous plan has been proposed for every North-South route in NW without a single analysis of what the already implemented changes have done.

This is true, if "everyone" means "people in cars who don't want to drive slowly and carefully". Actually no, it's still not true, because it will even make those streets safer for people in cars who don't want to drive slowly and carefully.

No, you're still lying. The issue is rush hour. The times of day when most people use those roads, when kids go to school, when the most accidents occur, when everyone is already driving slowly because of congestion, and when increasing congestion causes the most safety problems.

You can lower the speed limit to 15 during rush hour and it won't make a difference either way. Nobody is speeding on Georgia or Connecticut during the rush hours. Which also happens to be the time of the day when most of the accidents occur.

The absolute craziest part of this though is that this has already been implemented on 16th and partially implemented on Connecticut. We have two case studies in our backyard on parallel streets. Why aren't we studying the impact? How much spillover traffic has there been? Have accidents gone up or down?

Increasing congestion does not cause safety problems, except the ones involving impatient or angry drivers breaking traffic laws. Traffic back-ups make driving miserable, but they don't make driving unsafe.

The good news is, with bus-only lanes, drivers who are miserable driving in traffic back-ups will have a better, non-driving option.

99% of safety issues involve somone (whether trucks, cars, pedestrians, bicycles, motorcycles ebike/mopeds, scooters, or that one weirdo on stilts) breaking traffic laws.

It seems you don't know this but you should be aware that it is default illegal for anyone to hit anyone else.


There are literally hundreds of studies showing that high levels of congestion increase accidents. Pretending that is not true does not help your credibility.

Someone did a study showing that the more cars you have in one place, the more accidents occur in that one place? Really? What an earth-shattering conclusion. Can you please also find me a study that shows that if I walk to a place infested with mosquitoes I am more likely to get a mosquito bite?

I can't. But at the same time there aren't any idiots suggesting that we increase mosquitos in order to prevent mosquito bites.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Pretty sure Waze runs DDOT. Why would you want to redirect the traffic from a major thoroughfare onto all the surrounding side streets?

The concurrence of the talking points being deployed against this proposal with what was trotted out in response to Conn Ave Concept C is absolutely stunning.

Same complete lack of understanding of transportation dynamics. And probably the same exact people.

No, no, it's very different!

On Connecticut Avenue: We oppose bike lanes, they will kill children, Connecticut Avenue is safe, the real problem is double parking, this is all part of the war on cars, we would support bus lanes.

On Georgia Avenue: We oppose bus lanes, they will kill children, Georgia Avenue is safe, the real problem is double parking, this is all part of the war on cars.

(Actually it's not different at all.)

Or

On Connecticut: We don't care about bike lanes but it is a bad idea to eliminate two lanes because the increased congestion will make things less safe both on Connecticut and the surrounding streets.

On Georgia: We don't care about bus lanes but it is a bad idea to eliminate half of the traffic lanes because the increased congestion will make things less safe both on Georgia and the surrounding streets.

You're right. It is the same.

Yes, you're right. In both cases, you are opposing actions that would make the street safer and more comfortable for people not in cars, because you are prioritizing the movement of cars.

No. In both cases the proposed changes make streets less safe and less confortable for everyone.

It's even more galling when one realizes that the exact same dangerous plan has been proposed for every North-South route in NW without a single analysis of what the already implemented changes have done.

This is true, if "everyone" means "people in cars who don't want to drive slowly and carefully". Actually no, it's still not true, because it will even make those streets safer for people in cars who don't want to drive slowly and carefully.

No, you're still lying. The issue is rush hour. The times of day when most people use those roads, when kids go to school, when the most accidents occur, when everyone is already driving slowly because of congestion, and when increasing congestion causes the most safety problems.

You can lower the speed limit to 15 during rush hour and it won't make a difference either way. Nobody is speeding on Georgia or Connecticut during the rush hours. Which also happens to be the time of the day when most of the accidents occur.

The absolute craziest part of this though is that this has already been implemented on 16th and partially implemented on Connecticut. We have two case studies in our backyard on parallel streets. Why aren't we studying the impact? How much spillover traffic has there been? Have accidents gone up or down?

Increasing congestion does not cause safety problems, except the ones involving impatient or angry drivers breaking traffic laws. Traffic back-ups make driving miserable, but they don't make driving unsafe.

The good news is, with bus-only lanes, drivers who are miserable driving in traffic back-ups will have a better, non-driving option.

99% of safety issues involve somone (whether trucks, cars, pedestrians, bicycles, motorcycles ebike/mopeds, scooters, or that one weirdo on stilts) breaking traffic laws.

It seems you don't know this but you should be aware that it is default illegal for anyone to hit anyone else.


There are literally hundreds of studies showing that high levels of congestion increase accidents. Pretending that is not true does not help your credibility.

Congestion makes traffic move more slowly so I can’t possibly see how this could be true.

And that is the crux of the problem. You haven't thought anything through.

[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:Pretty sure Waze runs DDOT. Why would you want to redirect the traffic from a major thoroughfare onto all the surrounding side streets?

The concurrence of the talking points being deployed against this proposal with what was trotted out in response to Conn Ave Concept C is absolutely stunning.

Same complete lack of understanding of transportation dynamics. And probably the same exact people.

No, no, it's very different!

On Connecticut Avenue: We oppose bike lanes, they will kill children, Connecticut Avenue is safe, the real problem is double parking, this is all part of the war on cars, we would support bus lanes.

On Georgia Avenue: We oppose bus lanes, they will kill children, Georgia Avenue is safe, the real problem is double parking, this is all part of the war on cars.

(Actually it's not different at all.)

Or

On Connecticut: We don't care about bike lanes but it is a bad idea to eliminate two lanes because the increased congestion will make things less safe both on Connecticut and the surrounding streets.

On Georgia: We don't care about bus lanes but it is a bad idea to eliminate half of the traffic lanes because the increased congestion will make things less safe both on Georgia and the surrounding streets.

You're right. It is the same.

Yes, you're right. In both cases, you are opposing actions that would make the street safer and more comfortable for people not in cars, because you are prioritizing the movement of cars.

No. In both cases the proposed changes make streets less safe and less confortable for everyone.

It's even more galling when one realizes that the exact same dangerous plan has been proposed for every North-South route in NW without a single analysis of what the already implemented changes have done.

This is true, if "everyone" means "people in cars who don't want to drive slowly and carefully". Actually no, it's still not true, because it will even make those streets safer for people in cars who don't want to drive slowly and carefully.

No, you're still lying. The issue is rush hour. The times of day when most people use those roads, when kids go to school, when the most accidents occur, when everyone is already driving slowly because of congestion, and when increasing congestion causes the most safety problems.

You can lower the speed limit to 15 during rush hour and it won't make a difference either way. Nobody is speeding on Georgia or Connecticut during the rush hours. Which also happens to be the time of the day when most of the accidents occur.

The absolute craziest part of this though is that this has already been implemented on 16th and partially implemented on Connecticut. We have two case studies in our backyard on parallel streets. Why aren't we studying the impact? How much spillover traffic has there been? Have accidents gone up or down?

Increasing congestion does not cause safety problems, except the ones involving impatient or angry drivers breaking traffic laws. Traffic back-ups make driving miserable, but they don't make driving unsafe.

The good news is, with bus-only lanes, drivers who are miserable driving in traffic back-ups will have a better, non-driving option.

99% of safety issues involve somone (whether trucks, cars, pedestrians, bicycles, motorcycles ebike/mopeds, scooters, or that one weirdo on stilts) breaking traffic laws.

It seems you don't know this but you should be aware that it is default illegal for anyone to hit anyone else.


There are literally hundreds of studies showing that high levels of congestion increase accidents. Pretending that is not true does not help your credibility.

Congestion makes traffic move more slowly so I can’t possibly see how this could be true.

And that is the crux of the problem. You haven't thought anything through.

DP. The PP can't possibly see how it could be true for the simple reason that it's not true.

Do you enjoy driving in a traffic jam? Probably not. (Although maybe you do, and that's ok; you do you.)

Is it more dangerous for you - are you at greater risk of being injured or injuring someone else - to be driving in a traffic jam vs higher speeds? Absolutely not. The most all-cars-all-the-time person in the world doesn't believe there's a higher risk of injury in a traffic jam vs higher speeds.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Pretty sure Waze runs DDOT. Why would you want to redirect the traffic from a major thoroughfare onto all the surrounding side streets?

The concurrence of the talking points being deployed against this proposal with what was trotted out in response to Conn Ave Concept C is absolutely stunning.

Same complete lack of understanding of transportation dynamics. And probably the same exact people.

No, no, it's very different!

On Connecticut Avenue: We oppose bike lanes, they will kill children, Connecticut Avenue is safe, the real problem is double parking, this is all part of the war on cars, we would support bus lanes.

On Georgia Avenue: We oppose bus lanes, they will kill children, Georgia Avenue is safe, the real problem is double parking, this is all part of the war on cars.

(Actually it's not different at all.)

Or

On Connecticut: We don't care about bike lanes but it is a bad idea to eliminate two lanes because the increased congestion will make things less safe both on Connecticut and the surrounding streets.

On Georgia: We don't care about bus lanes but it is a bad idea to eliminate half of the traffic lanes because the increased congestion will make things less safe both on Georgia and the surrounding streets.

You're right. It is the same.

Yes, you're right. In both cases, you are opposing actions that would make the street safer and more comfortable for people not in cars, because you are prioritizing the movement of cars.

No. In both cases the proposed changes make streets less safe and less confortable for everyone.

It's even more galling when one realizes that the exact same dangerous plan has been proposed for every North-South route in NW without a single analysis of what the already implemented changes have done.

This is true, if "everyone" means "people in cars who don't want to drive slowly and carefully". Actually no, it's still not true, because it will even make those streets safer for people in cars who don't want to drive slowly and carefully.

No, you're still lying. The issue is rush hour. The times of day when most people use those roads, when kids go to school, when the most accidents occur, when everyone is already driving slowly because of congestion, and when increasing congestion causes the most safety problems.

You can lower the speed limit to 15 during rush hour and it won't make a difference either way. Nobody is speeding on Georgia or Connecticut during the rush hours. Which also happens to be the time of the day when most of the accidents occur.

The absolute craziest part of this though is that this has already been implemented on 16th and partially implemented on Connecticut. We have two case studies in our backyard on parallel streets. Why aren't we studying the impact? How much spillover traffic has there been? Have accidents gone up or down?

Increasing congestion does not cause safety problems, except the ones involving impatient or angry drivers breaking traffic laws. Traffic back-ups make driving miserable, but they don't make driving unsafe.

The good news is, with bus-only lanes, drivers who are miserable driving in traffic back-ups will have a better, non-driving option.

99% of safety issues involve somone (whether trucks, cars, pedestrians, bicycles, motorcycles ebike/mopeds, scooters, or that one weirdo on stilts) breaking traffic laws.

It seems you don't know this but you should be aware that it is default illegal for anyone to hit anyone else.


There are literally hundreds of studies showing that high levels of congestion increase accidents. Pretending that is not true does not help your credibility.

Congestion makes traffic move more slowly so I can’t possibly see how this could be true.

And that is the crux of the problem. You haven't thought anything through.

DP. The PP can't possibly see how it could be true for the simple reason that it's not true.

Do you enjoy driving in a traffic jam? Probably not. (Although maybe you do, and that's ok; you do you.)

Is it more dangerous for you - are you at greater risk of being injured or injuring someone else - to be driving in a traffic jam vs higher speeds? Absolutely not. The most all-cars-all-the-time person in the world doesn't believe there's a higher risk of injury in a traffic jam vs higher speeds.

Indeed, now let's think through this.

Let's assume that we cannot control other people and that other people are rational beings. Given a situation in which one can sit in a slow moving accident prone traffic jam or turn off onto smaller neighborhood street without traffic which one will they take?

We don't even need to cherry pick. Let's assume that the time distance is the same but the physical distance is greater on the neighborhood option. Which is it? Which do you choose? But more importantly which choice does the broader population choose?

Most people would acknowledge that, at the very least, there is a percentage of people that will make a rational choice to use the uncongested path.

Now, let's remember the underlying theory. The underlying theory is that congestion decreases the prevalence of serious accidents even though it increases accidents on the aggregate.

Lots of cars means lots of accidents but few serious ones. Small amounts of cars equals few accidents but a lot of serious ones. While medium amounts of cars produce a medium size of accidents and a medium size of deaths. So far, so good?

But

[Anonymous]

But life does not happen in a vaccuum. People will take those alternate routes and therefore, according to the underlying theory, that will increse both serious and not-serious accidents on the aggregate.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:But life does not happen in a vaccuum. People will take those alternate routes and therefore, according to the underlying theory, that will increse both serious and not-serious accidents on the aggregate.

Lol