Options for opposing Connecticut Avenue changes?

[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.

They already do this.

[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.

They’re reopening Beach Drive because closing it to cars allowed too many people to be in the park, which apparently was bad. (Not a joke.)

[Anonymous]

Looks like a done deal.

What are the people opposed doing to stop it?

Besides these 48 pages, of course.

[Anonymous]

As someone who lives on the CT Ave in Cleveland Park, drives minimally, and walks my young child to school every day I support any plan that will slow cars down on our street. We cannot afford a SFH and like apartment living but the speeding is really dangerous. The area around the zoo in particular is atrocious in the spring and summer months.

However - my biggest concern is whether cyclists in the bike lanes will follow traffic signals. I am not a biker so I don't know the rules - but I worry about potential accidents with cars turning right. Also our garage driveway has a (short) signal that allows us to safely turn out onto CT Ave. Cars on CT Ave frequently run this light (and pedestrians frequently ignore the don't walk signal) so it is not an ideal situation already. I am worried that cyclists will run the light as well. Can anyone weigh in about this issue?

[Anonymous]

This whole thread

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Right - someone has to be in very good shape to ride a bike all the way up CT ave. Which is why so few people do v.s. the riders down in the center of town. You could commute down CT ave and then take a bus or metro with the bike back up the hill - not sure how likely that scenario is

E-bikes are a thing, and they have become quite popular. I would assume that most individuals who would be doing that commute on a regular basis will just use e-bikes to make the hill climb easier. Over here on the Hill, cargo e-bikes that are set up to transport children are very popular as well.

E-bikes are a thing for rich people. The pool of people who will use these lanes is narrow: young, able-bodied, rich enough to buy an ebike, and with uncomplicated lives (ie, they’re not transporting kids to sports practice after work or picking up the family groceries.)

Almost everything you assume is wrong. E-bikes are much cheaper than cars yet are supposedly only for the rich. They are precisely designed for those not young, fit, or “able-bodied” enough to use regular bikes. Plenty of elderly people use them. Plenty of people with “complicated lives” use them to carry out all manner of errands. That your small mind and limited knowledge cannot fathom how people in the city are actually living is not an argument.

So says the People For Bikes Coalition board member from the E Bike company that paid for the study just posted…

Who is also the person who must end every counterargument with an insult.

[Anonymous]

So many conservatives in this thread.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:As someone who lives on the CT Ave in Cleveland Park, drives minimally, and walks my young child to school every day I support any plan that will slow cars down on our street. We cannot afford a SFH and like apartment living but the speeding is really dangerous. The area around the zoo in particular is atrocious in the spring and summer months.

However - my biggest concern is whether cyclists in the bike lanes will follow traffic signals. I am not a biker so I don't know the rules - but I worry about potential accidents with cars turning right. Also our garage driveway has a (short) signal that allows us to safely turn out onto CT Ave. Cars on CT Ave frequently run this light (and pedestrians frequently ignore the don't walk signal) so it is not an ideal situation already. I am worried that cyclists will run the light as well. Can anyone weigh in about this issue?

Not sure of the plan for this corridor but: 1) yes generally cyclists are expected to follow the same signals that are given to cars EXCEPT 2) cyclists are allowed to use a leading pedestrian interval to start moving forward (so those intersections where a walk sign starts before the green light- cyclists are allowed to use the walk sign as a green light while cars are still stopped) and 3) many cycle lane plans also add in additional bike signals- depending on how the road is setup which might eg give cars the chance to turn across the cycle lane.

[Anonymous]

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

There's your DDOT study

Nice try, but that’s not the DDOT study. That is a car lobby screed with a couple of slides that have been misinterpreted. I don’t expect you to understand the distinction.

[Anonymous]

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

There's your DDOT study

Thanks for posting this. It is quite revealing. The “gotcha” slide is very small, so small that it can’t be read. But if you bother to go to the actual DDOT presentation, you will see that the DDOT analysis predicts that Concept C will actually *reduce* diversions for the majority of local streets. The roads where the diversions are predicted to occur are not neighborhood streets at all, but rather arterial roads such as Wisconsin, Reno Rd, and Mass Ave.. Why do y’all find it so hard to just be honest?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

There's your DDOT study

Nice try, but that’s not the DDOT study. That is a car lobby screed with a couple of slides that have been misinterpreted. I don’t expect you to understand the distinction.

How have they been misinterpreted? Numbers are numbers. It links directly to the page. It's also not a car lobby.

But since you know better then show us your numbers. Put a figure to what you are claiming. 30,000 people per day drive along Connecticit Ave. They use 6 lanes of traffic. Your plam reduces that to four lanes. Where do those 10,000 people go? How many will bike? How many will take metro? How many will find an alternate route? How many will accept the increased congestion and stay on Connecticut? How many will stop coming into DC altogether?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As someone who lives on the CT Ave in Cleveland Park, drives minimally, and walks my young child to school every day I support any plan that will slow cars down on our street. We cannot afford a SFH and like apartment living but the speeding is really dangerous. The area around the zoo in particular is atrocious in the spring and summer months.

However - my biggest concern is whether cyclists in the bike lanes will follow traffic signals. I am not a biker so I don't know the rules - but I worry about potential accidents with cars turning right. Also our garage driveway has a (short) signal that allows us to safely turn out onto CT Ave. Cars on CT Ave frequently run this light (and pedestrians frequently ignore the don't walk signal) so it is not an ideal situation already. I am worried that cyclists will run the light as well. Can anyone weigh in about this issue?

Not sure of the plan for this corridor but: 1) yes generally cyclists are expected to follow the same signals that are given to cars EXCEPT 2) cyclists are allowed to use a leading pedestrian interval to start moving forward (so those intersections where a walk sign starts before the green light- cyclists are allowed to use the walk sign as a green light while cars are still stopped) and 3) many cycle lane plans also add in additional bike signals- depending on how the road is setup which might eg give cars the chance to turn across the cycle lane.

Thanks for this info!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

There's your DDOT study

Nice try, but that’s not the DDOT study. That is a car lobby screed with a couple of slides that have been misinterpreted. I don’t expect you to understand the distinction.

How have they been misinterpreted? Numbers are numbers. It links directly to the page. It's also not a car lobby.

But since you know better then show us your numbers. Put a figure to what you are claiming. 30,000 people per day drive along Connecticit Ave. They use 6 lanes of traffic. Your plam reduces that to four lanes. Where do those 10,000 people go? How many will bike? How many will take metro? How many will find an alternate route? How many will accept the increased congestion and stay on Connecticut? How many will stop coming into DC altogether?

The screed willfully misinterprets the slide. Any objective observer realizes this immediately.

DDOT has predictions on the modal shifts, diversions, and overall trip reduction. Go and get it from them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

There's your DDOT study

Nice try, but that’s not the DDOT study. That is a car lobby screed with a couple of slides that have been misinterpreted. I don’t expect you to understand the distinction.

How have they been misinterpreted? Numbers are numbers. It links directly to the page. It's also not a car lobby.

But since you know better then show us your numbers. Put a figure to what you are claiming. 30,000 people per day drive along Connecticit Ave. They use 6 lanes of traffic. Your plam reduces that to four lanes. Where do those 10,000 people go? How many will bike? How many will take metro? How many will find an alternate route? How many will accept the increased congestion and stay on Connecticut? How many will stop coming into DC altogether?

The screed willfully misinterprets the slide. Any objective observer realizes this immediately.

DDOT has predictions on the modal shifts, diversions, and overall trip reduction. Go and get it from them.

You have nothing in other words. Why are you so scared of putting numbers to your claims?

[Anonymous]

If you look at the 6/28/22 concept plans posted by DDOT they are also "consolidating" i.e. removing several bus stops from Conn Ave to accommodate this change so add bus riders to the list of local citizens whose lives will be disrupted as a result of this change