Options for opposing Connecticut Avenue changes?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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

WMATA has been asking for this for decades. They want to put more stops on the other side of the intersections and they want to reduce stops that are never used (yes, they track these things) - both moves will make the buses more efficient.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

DP< posting just one slide without context doesn't tell the full story. Look at the full presentation and look at DDOT's numbers, not from that slide, but from other slides. Otherwise, you are engaging in half-truths and when expose, undermine all of your "save connecticut avenue" efforts.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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

WMATA has been asking for this for decades. They want to put more stops on the other side of the intersections and they want to reduce stops that are never used (yes, they track these things) - both moves will make the buses more efficient.

WMATA's goal is to make the bus ride more efficient for commuters from MD removing stops in upper NW to move people downtown faster and skipping the riders north of dupont. W/ the changes it will add 10-15 minutes to the walk to the bus stops. Not sure what you mean by "the other side of intersections" the stops they are getting rid of are all on the side they claim to want, and the stop I use that is slated for "consolidation" always has people at it in the morning rush

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

DP< posting just one slide without context doesn't tell the full story. Look at the full presentation and look at DDOT's numbers, not from that slide, but from other slides. Otherwise, you are engaging in half-truths and when expose, undermine all of your "save connecticut avenue" efforts.

The write-up not only misrepresents the entire presentation but even the slide it focuses on. Anyone who looks at the details of the slide (which you have to go to the presentation to do because the compression on the site makes it impossible to read) will realize that DDOT is predicting that traffic will decrease on most local (not arterial) streets as a right of the PBL - the write-up claims the opposite.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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

WMATA has been asking for this for decades. They want to put more stops on the other side of the intersections and they want to reduce stops that are never used (yes, they track these things) - both moves will make the buses more efficient.

WMATA's goal is to make the bus ride more efficient for commuters from MD removing stops in upper NW to move people downtown faster and skipping the riders north of dupont. W/ the changes it will add 10-15 minutes to the walk to the bus stops. Not sure what you mean by "the other side of intersections" the stops they are getting rid of are all on the side they claim to want, and the stop I use that is slated for "consolidation" always has people at it in the morning rush

other side of intersection means the southern corner for southbound traffic and north corner for nothbound traffic, so as to avoid a bus getting stuck at a light when it is ready to move.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

DP< posting just one slide without context doesn't tell the full story. Look at the full presentation and look at DDOT's numbers, not from that slide, but from other slides. Otherwise, you are engaging in half-truths and when expose, undermine all of your "save connecticut avenue" efforts.

The write-up not only misrepresents the entire presentation but even the slide it focuses on. Anyone who looks at the details of the slide (which you have to go to the presentation to do because the compression on the site makes it impossible to read) will realize that DDOT is predicting that traffic will decrease on most local (not arterial) streets as a right of the PBL - the write-up claims the opposite.

Arterial does a lot of heavy lifting for you. We're talking Reno, Beach, Nebraska, etc plus all the roads that lead to them and those they cross over. The exact roads everyone has been saying.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

No parent would dream of putting a young child in a car without a car seat (and you'll be cited by the police if you don't). And yet these people who put young children on bikes and go toodling off into traffic are like "I'll just be careful!" I mean, what? And how is this even legal?

Didn’t you already post this?

No. But I did see some people doing some insane stuff with their kids on bikes during rush hour. You'd think child protective services would have something to say about this.

You are late to the thread with this line of argument.

And if you cared about neighborhood kids on bikes, you would argue in favor of protected bikes lanes to - you know - protect them. And you would slow down and obey traffic laws.

There's no one with less regard for traffic laws than people on bikes. I almost hit one the other day. I had to slam on the breaks to avoid him. If I had killed him, there's no way I would have been cited.

That’s funny, when I posted once about having to slam on the brakes my bike, which sent me crashing to the ground, to avoid hitting a kid who ran out into the road between two parked cars in front of me, everyone told me it was proof cyclists are dangerous, too, and yet here’s someone doing the same thing in a car as proof of the same thing?

If you had to slam on the brakes so hard that it sent you crashing to the ground, you were going far too fast for the conditions.

“The conditions” here being that a kid ran out into the street 2 feet in front of me? Sure, I guess. I was probably going 9 mph. If you had to stop a car suddenly and it only had two wheels, you’d probably crash that, too — maintaining balance in an unexpected stop is difficult. The kid was fine and the only damage was to me/my helmet, so the whole thing was a nothingburger. I was just amused to see the exact same thing happening in a car as proof that bikes are dangerous somehow.

It wasn't remotely the same situation (I'm the person who almost hit the biker). I was turning left at a traffic light. The oncoming traffic had a red light. Everyone in the coming lanes had stopped at the light, except for a biker who went barreling through the red line right in front of me. It was at night and he was hard to see and he's really fortunate that's he not buried in the ground right now. Not really seeing how that's remotely similar to a child running out in the street.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

No parent would dream of putting a young child in a car without a car seat (and you'll be cited by the police if you don't). And yet these people who put young children on bikes and go toodling off into traffic are like "I'll just be careful!" I mean, what? And how is this even legal?

Didn’t you already post this?

No. But I did see some people doing some insane stuff with their kids on bikes during rush hour. You'd think child protective services would have something to say about this.

You are late to the thread with this line of argument.

And if you cared about neighborhood kids on bikes, you would argue in favor of protected bikes lanes to - you know - protect them. And you would slow down and obey traffic laws.

There's no one with less regard for traffic laws than people on bikes. I almost hit one the other day. I had to slam on the breaks to avoid him. If I had killed him, there's no way I would have been cited.

That’s funny, when I posted once about having to slam on the brakes my bike, which sent me crashing to the ground, to avoid hitting a kid who ran out into the road between two parked cars in front of me, everyone told me it was proof cyclists are dangerous, too, and yet here’s someone doing the same thing in a car as proof of the same thing?

If you had to slam on the brakes so hard that it sent you crashing to the ground, you were going far too fast for the conditions.

“The conditions” here being that a kid ran out into the street 2 feet in front of me? Sure, I guess. I was probably going 9 mph. If you had to stop a car suddenly and it only had two wheels, you’d probably crash that, too — maintaining balance in an unexpected stop is difficult. The kid was fine and the only damage was to me/my helmet, so the whole thing was a nothingburger. I was just amused to see the exact same thing happening in a car as proof that bikes are dangerous somehow.

It wasn't remotely the same situation (I'm the person who almost hit the biker). I was turning left at a traffic light. The oncoming traffic had a red light. Everyone in the coming lanes had stopped at the light, except for a biker who went barreling through the red line right in front of me. It was at night and he was hard to see and he's really fortunate that's he not buried in the ground right now. Not really seeing how that's remotely similar to a child running out in the street.

The fact that I slammed on my brakes (and then subsequently fell) was supposed to be proof that bicycling is dangerous. You also slammed on yours. Not defending running a red light, and I’m glad you didn’t hit the guy, which would have been awful for you, too. It’s just that people fit everything to their priors here — so cyclist slams on brakes to avoid accident = cyclist is bad, driver slams on brakes to avoid accident also = cyclist is bad.

[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: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.

No parent would dream of putting a young child in a car without a car seat (and you'll be cited by the police if you don't). And yet these people who put young children on bikes and go toodling off into traffic are like "I'll just be careful!" I mean, what? And how is this even legal?

Didn’t you already post this?

No. But I did see some people doing some insane stuff with their kids on bikes during rush hour. You'd think child protective services would have something to say about this.

You are late to the thread with this line of argument.

And if you cared about neighborhood kids on bikes, you would argue in favor of protected bikes lanes to - you know - protect them. And you would slow down and obey traffic laws.

There's no one with less regard for traffic laws than people on bikes. I almost hit one the other day. I had to slam on the breaks to avoid him. If I had killed him, there's no way I would have been cited.

That’s funny, when I posted once about having to slam on the brakes my bike, which sent me crashing to the ground, to avoid hitting a kid who ran out into the road between two parked cars in front of me, everyone told me it was proof cyclists are dangerous, too, and yet here’s someone doing the same thing in a car as proof of the same thing?

If you had to slam on the brakes so hard that it sent you crashing to the ground, you were going far too fast for the conditions.

“The conditions” here being that a kid ran out into the street 2 feet in front of me? Sure, I guess. I was probably going 9 mph. If you had to stop a car suddenly and it only had two wheels, you’d probably crash that, too — maintaining balance in an unexpected stop is difficult. The kid was fine and the only damage was to me/my helmet, so the whole thing was a nothingburger. I was just amused to see the exact same thing happening in a car as proof that bikes are dangerous somehow.

It wasn't remotely the same situation (I'm the person who almost hit the biker). I was turning left at a traffic light. The oncoming traffic had a red light. Everyone in the coming lanes had stopped at the light, except for a biker who went barreling through the red line right in front of me. It was at night and he was hard to see and he's really fortunate that's he not buried in the ground right now. Not really seeing how that's remotely similar to a child running out in the street.

The fact that I slammed on my brakes (and then subsequently fell) was supposed to be proof that bicycling is dangerous. You also slammed on yours. Not defending running a red light, and I’m glad you didn’t hit the guy, which would have been awful for you, too. It’s just that people fit everything to their priors here — so cyclist slams on brakes to avoid accident = cyclist is bad, driver slams on brakes to avoid accident also = cyclist is bad.

FWIW, replying to myself to add that the closest near-miss to an accident I’ve ever had was when I was driving and came to a stop at a 4-way stop, and nearly hit a cyclist who ran the stop going through the intersection the wrong way on a one-way street, because I didn’t expect anyone to be coming that way. I stopped in time. But I still think it would have been my fault if I’d hit him, not his — I was in a car.

And more to the point, I didn’t take away from that near-miss any broader ideology about cyclists being scofflaws, just like I don’t hold every driver responsible for the MANY who I’ve seen do dangerous things, including running stop signs and red lights (nearly hitting me), hurling their door open as they drove past me (a trash truck once, after I yelled at them for running a light), or hitting me in a bike lane (an Uber driver). There are plenty of people who handle whatever vehicle they’re riding badly, and plenty of oblivious pedestrians, too.

[Anonymous]

a lot of magical thinking here.

if you slow traffic on connecticut, people will just switch the neighboring streets (waze will figure the best way, naturally). you say you'll put speed bumps on those side streets. ok. maybe that will happen, but im guessing it actually won't. and even if it does, people will avoid the streets that have speed bumps or, they'll do like i do, and go faster between the speed bumps to make up the difference.

you can already see this effect around town where there are major road construction projects. the traffic on side streets around those projects is nuts.

either way, drivers are not just going accept having suddenly longer commutes. people are jealous about their time, and they will make up whatever they lose on connecticut by going around, on streets that were never designed to accommodate heavy traffic, and that will make lots and lots of people in the surrounding area pretty unhappy.

the thing that bicyclists don't seem to get is that these projects to most people just look like the transportation equivalent of special interest giveaways -- they help the tiny number of people who ride bikes at the expense of everyone else.

also, please stop with how riding your bike is saving the environment. it's not. climate change is so, so big that it doesnt matter if we ride bikes or drive cars. it is a rounding error.

[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: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.

No parent would dream of putting a young child in a car without a car seat (and you'll be cited by the police if you don't). And yet these people who put young children on bikes and go toodling off into traffic are like "I'll just be careful!" I mean, what? And how is this even legal?

Didn’t you already post this?

No. But I did see some people doing some insane stuff with their kids on bikes during rush hour. You'd think child protective services would have something to say about this.

You are late to the thread with this line of argument.

And if you cared about neighborhood kids on bikes, you would argue in favor of protected bikes lanes to - you know - protect them. And you would slow down and obey traffic laws.

There's no one with less regard for traffic laws than people on bikes. I almost hit one the other day. I had to slam on the breaks to avoid him. If I had killed him, there's no way I would have been cited.

That’s funny, when I posted once about having to slam on the brakes my bike, which sent me crashing to the ground, to avoid hitting a kid who ran out into the road between two parked cars in front of me, everyone told me it was proof cyclists are dangerous, too, and yet here’s someone doing the same thing in a car as proof of the same thing?

If you had to slam on the brakes so hard that it sent you crashing to the ground, you were going far too fast for the conditions.

“The conditions” here being that a kid ran out into the street 2 feet in front of me? Sure, I guess. I was probably going 9 mph. If you had to stop a car suddenly and it only had two wheels, you’d probably crash that, too — maintaining balance in an unexpected stop is difficult. The kid was fine and the only damage was to me/my helmet, so the whole thing was a nothingburger. I was just amused to see the exact same thing happening in a car as proof that bikes are dangerous somehow.

It wasn't remotely the same situation (I'm the person who almost hit the biker). I was turning left at a traffic light. The oncoming traffic had a red light. Everyone in the coming lanes had stopped at the light, except for a biker who went barreling through the red line right in front of me. It was at night and he was hard to see and he's really fortunate that's he not buried in the ground right now. Not really seeing how that's remotely similar to a child running out in the street.

The fact that I slammed on my brakes (and then subsequently fell) was supposed to be proof that bicycling is dangerous. You also slammed on yours. Not defending running a red light, and I’m glad you didn’t hit the guy, which would have been awful for you, too. It’s just that people fit everything to their priors here — so cyclist slams on brakes to avoid accident = cyclist is bad, driver slams on brakes to avoid accident also = cyclist is bad.

FWIW, replying to myself to add that the closest near-miss to an accident I’ve ever had was when I was driving and came to a stop at a 4-way stop, and nearly hit a cyclist who ran the stop going through the intersection the wrong way on a one-way street, because I didn’t expect anyone to be coming that way. I stopped in time. But I still think it would have been my fault if I’d hit him, not his — I was in a car.

And more to the point, I didn’t take away from that near-miss any broader ideology about cyclists being scofflaws, just like I don’t hold every driver responsible for the MANY who I’ve seen do dangerous things, including running stop signs and red lights (nearly hitting me), hurling their door open as they drove past me (a trash truck once, after I yelled at them for running a light), or hitting me in a bike lane (an Uber driver). There are plenty of people who handle whatever vehicle they’re riding badly, and plenty of oblivious pedestrians, too.

Yes, there are cyclists who break the rules. There are also people who drive cars and break the rules. There are even pedestrians who...break the rules. Go figure.

Somehow, it is only the cyclists that draw the ire.

[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:

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.

No parent would dream of putting a young child in a car without a car seat (and you'll be cited by the police if you don't). And yet these people who put young children on bikes and go toodling off into traffic are like "I'll just be careful!" I mean, what? And how is this even legal?

Didn’t you already post this?

No. But I did see some people doing some insane stuff with their kids on bikes during rush hour. You'd think child protective services would have something to say about this.

You are late to the thread with this line of argument.

And if you cared about neighborhood kids on bikes, you would argue in favor of protected bikes lanes to - you know - protect them. And you would slow down and obey traffic laws.

There's no one with less regard for traffic laws than people on bikes. I almost hit one the other day. I had to slam on the breaks to avoid him. If I had killed him, there's no way I would have been cited.

That’s funny, when I posted once about having to slam on the brakes my bike, which sent me crashing to the ground, to avoid hitting a kid who ran out into the road between two parked cars in front of me, everyone told me it was proof cyclists are dangerous, too, and yet here’s someone doing the same thing in a car as proof of the same thing?

If you had to slam on the brakes so hard that it sent you crashing to the ground, you were going far too fast for the conditions.

“The conditions” here being that a kid ran out into the street 2 feet in front of me? Sure, I guess. I was probably going 9 mph. If you had to stop a car suddenly and it only had two wheels, you’d probably crash that, too — maintaining balance in an unexpected stop is difficult. The kid was fine and the only damage was to me/my helmet, so the whole thing was a nothingburger. I was just amused to see the exact same thing happening in a car as proof that bikes are dangerous somehow.

It wasn't remotely the same situation (I'm the person who almost hit the biker). I was turning left at a traffic light. The oncoming traffic had a red light. Everyone in the coming lanes had stopped at the light, except for a biker who went barreling through the red line right in front of me. It was at night and he was hard to see and he's really fortunate that's he not buried in the ground right now. Not really seeing how that's remotely similar to a child running out in the street.

The fact that I slammed on my brakes (and then subsequently fell) was supposed to be proof that bicycling is dangerous. You also slammed on yours. Not defending running a red light, and I’m glad you didn’t hit the guy, which would have been awful for you, too. It’s just that people fit everything to their priors here — so cyclist slams on brakes to avoid accident = cyclist is bad, driver slams on brakes to avoid accident also = cyclist is bad.

FWIW, replying to myself to add that the closest near-miss to an accident I’ve ever had was when I was driving and came to a stop at a 4-way stop, and nearly hit a cyclist who ran the stop going through the intersection the wrong way on a one-way street, because I didn’t expect anyone to be coming that way. I stopped in time. But I still think it would have been my fault if I’d hit him, not his — I was in a car.

And more to the point, I didn’t take away from that near-miss any broader ideology about cyclists being scofflaws, just like I don’t hold every driver responsible for the MANY who I’ve seen do dangerous things, including running stop signs and red lights (nearly hitting me), hurling their door open as they drove past me (a trash truck once, after I yelled at them for running a light), or hitting me in a bike lane (an Uber driver). There are plenty of people who handle whatever vehicle they’re riding badly, and plenty of oblivious pedestrians, too.

Yes, there are cyclists who break the rules. There are also people who drive cars and break the rules. There are even pedestrians who...break the rules. Go figure.

Somehow, it is only the cyclists that draw the ire.

Allow me to interrupt your pity party to ask: Are there cyclists who follow the rules? I am shocked when I see cyclists do basic things like stop at stop signs. I thought they were all too lazy for that...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:a lot of magical thinking here.

if you slow traffic on connecticut, people will just switch the neighboring streets (waze will figure the best way, naturally). you say you'll put speed bumps on those side streets. ok. maybe that will happen, but im guessing it actually won't. and even if it does, people will avoid the streets that have speed bumps or, they'll do like i do, and go faster between the speed bumps to make up the difference.

you can already see this effect around town where there are major road construction projects. the traffic on side streets around those projects is nuts.

either way, drivers are not just going accept having suddenly longer commutes. people are jealous about their time, and they will make up whatever they lose on connecticut by going around, on streets that were never designed to accommodate heavy traffic, and that will make lots and lots of people in the surrounding area pretty unhappy.

the thing that bicyclists don't seem to get is that these projects to most people just look like the transportation equivalent of special interest giveaways -- they help the tiny number of people who ride bikes at the expense of everyone else.

also, please stop with how riding your bike is saving the environment. it's not. climate change is so, so big that it doesnt matter if we ride bikes or drive cars. it is a rounding error.

Waze is so loving this project.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:a lot of magical thinking here.

if you slow traffic on connecticut, people will just switch the neighboring streets (waze will figure the best way, naturally). you say you'll put speed bumps on those side streets. ok. maybe that will happen, but im guessing it actually won't. and even if it does, people will avoid the streets that have speed bumps or, they'll do like i do, and go faster between the speed bumps to make up the difference.

you can already see this effect around town where there are major road construction projects. the traffic on side streets around those projects is nuts.

either way, drivers are not just going accept having suddenly longer commutes. people are jealous about their time, and they will make up whatever they lose on connecticut by going around, on streets that were never designed to accommodate heavy traffic, and that will make lots and lots of people in the surrounding area pretty unhappy.

the thing that bicyclists don't seem to get is that these projects to most people just look like the transportation equivalent of special interest giveaways -- they help the tiny number of people who ride bikes at the expense of everyone else.

also, please stop with how riding your bike is saving the environment. it's not. climate change is so, so big that it doesnt matter if we ride bikes or drive cars. it is a rounding error.

Your last point is true at an individual commuter level, but also an argument for why we should be doing MORE projects that make alternatives to driving much more feasible, on a much larger scale. Is one person biking to work going to help anything? No. But would massively reducing car trips and auto dependence help? Yes. And yet, the smallest steps to making any changes to reduce car-centric planning stir up a furious backlash and a lot of scorn from people who say doing anything is pointless if it’s not going to solve everything.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:a lot of magical thinking here.

if you slow traffic on connecticut, people will just switch the neighboring streets (waze will figure the best way, naturally). you say you'll put speed bumps on those side streets. ok. maybe that will happen, but im guessing it actually won't. and even if it does, people will avoid the streets that have speed bumps or, they'll do like i do, and go faster between the speed bumps to make up the difference.

you can already see this effect around town where there are major road construction projects. the traffic on side streets around those projects is nuts.

either way, drivers are not just going accept having suddenly longer commutes. people are jealous about their time, and they will make up whatever they lose on connecticut by going around, on streets that were never designed to accommodate heavy traffic, and that will make lots and lots of people in the surrounding area pretty unhappy.

the thing that bicyclists don't seem to get is that these projects to most people just look like the transportation equivalent of special interest giveaways -- they help the tiny number of people who ride bikes at the expense of everyone else.

also, please stop with how riding your bike is saving the environment. it's not. climate change is so, so big that it doesnt matter if we ride bikes or drive cars. it is a rounding error.

Your last point is true at an individual commuter level, but also an argument for why we should be doing MORE projects that make alternatives to driving much more feasible, on a much larger scale. Is one person biking to work going to help anything? No. But would massively reducing car trips and auto dependence help? Yes. And yet, the smallest steps to making any changes to reduce car-centric planning stir up a furious backlash and a lot of scorn from people who say doing anything is pointless if it’s not going to solve everything.

This isn't going to do anything at all to reduce car trips. No one is going to switch to bikes from cars. That's just delusional. If anything, this will have people sitting in traffic longer.

If this was actually about the environment and getting people out of cars (and it's not), we'd be focusing on the subway.