Options for opposing Connecticut Avenue changes?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Maybe some of the people who are annoyed at sitting in their cars longer will switch to the subway. In the meantime, the roads will be reconfigured so cars aren't the only things anyone thinks are entitled to use them.

Yes, slowing traffic on Ct Ave is one of the stated goals for the project. You will need to leave 15 minutes earlier. And slow down.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So none of you have any suggestions for OP? Is anyone actually doing anything to oppose this plan?

Because it is going forward and posting here isn’t changing that.

You seem closely involved, any ideas? Who should we contact to express our concerns?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So none of you have any suggestions for OP? Is anyone actually doing anything to oppose this plan?

Because it is going forward and posting here isn’t changing that.

You seem closely involved, any ideas? Who should we contact to express our concerns?

Or support, as the case seems to be for many here.

[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: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.

Congratulations. You have established new standards for intellectual dishonesty on DCUM. We all thought it could not be done but how foolish we were to doubt you.

You project more than Donald Trump.

There are reasonable and sane pro-bike people. You are not one of them. Reno Road has been mentioned a hundred times on this thread. It's even been mentioned as a better location for this silly bike commuter idea.

Look at the map for goodness sake. Most of the side streets - and the “Save Connecticut Ave” article - specifically mentions side street are forecast to experience reduced traffic as a result of the CT Ave bike lane. Reno Rd., like Mass Ave, CT Ave., Military Rd., MacArthur Blvd. etc. etc. is an arterial road, not a side street.

No, it is quite different from all of those streets, which is why you don't see city busses on Reno.

Which raises a good question. Why are they so focused on making Connecticut a bike thoroughfare when Reno is a far superior option in every regard? There's no buses, it's a one lane road with space on either side, it provides much better connections to existing bike infrastructure, is closer to two additonal metro stations, is inbetween Conn and Wisc so it'd be a twofor, and would be a much more pleasant ride that children could use. Doing it there would also not create a clusterf@k for the entire area. It'd be a win for everybody and might actually be beneficial. But I guess that just makes too much sense.

[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: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.

Congratulations. You have established new standards for intellectual dishonesty on DCUM. We all thought it could not be done but how foolish we were to doubt you.

You project more than Donald Trump.

There are reasonable and sane pro-bike people. You are not one of them. Reno Road has been mentioned a hundred times on this thread. It's even been mentioned as a better location for this silly bike commuter idea.

Look at the map for goodness sake. Most of the side streets - and the “Save Connecticut Ave” article - specifically mentions side street are forecast to experience reduced traffic as a result of the CT Ave bike lane. Reno Rd., like Mass Ave, CT Ave., Military Rd., MacArthur Blvd. etc. etc. is an arterial road, not a side street.

No, it is quite different from all of those streets, which is why you don't see city busses on Reno.

Which raises a good question. Why are they so focused on making Connecticut a bike thoroughfare when Reno is a far superior option in every regard? There's no buses, it's a one lane road with space on either side, it provides much better connections to existing bike infrastructure, is closer to two additonal metro stations, is inbetween Conn and Wisc so it'd be a twofor, and would be a much more pleasant ride that children could use. Doing it there would also not create a clusterf@k for the entire area. It'd be a win for everybody and might actually be beneficial. But I guess that just makes too much sense.

because for the 50 millionth time … the bike lanes are a *traffic calming* measure for CT Ave. They will make CT safer. For all types of users. As much as I know it’s fun to rant about bike riders, this is a project for all users.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So none of you have any suggestions for OP? Is anyone actually doing anything to oppose this plan?

Because it is going forward and posting here isn’t changing that.

You seem closely involved, any ideas? Who should we contact to express our concerns?

Or support, as the case seems to be for many here.

Oh, no, sorry. I already participated in the process through my ANC. I was just wondering, since you all seem so very concerned, what you are actually doing about it. I am sure you can find the contact information for the right people without my help.

[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: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.

Congratulations. You have established new standards for intellectual dishonesty on DCUM. We all thought it could not be done but how foolish we were to doubt you.

You project more than Donald Trump.

There are reasonable and sane pro-bike people. You are not one of them. Reno Road has been mentioned a hundred times on this thread. It's even been mentioned as a better location for this silly bike commuter idea.

Look at the map for goodness sake. Most of the side streets - and the “Save Connecticut Ave” article - specifically mentions side street are forecast to experience reduced traffic as a result of the CT Ave bike lane. Reno Rd., like Mass Ave, CT Ave., Military Rd., MacArthur Blvd. etc. etc. is an arterial road, not a side street.

No, it is quite different from all of those streets, which is why you don't see city busses on Reno.

Which raises a good question. Why are they so focused on making Connecticut a bike thoroughfare when Reno is a far superior option in every regard? There's no buses, it's a one lane road with space on either side, it provides much better connections to existing bike infrastructure, is closer to two additonal metro stations, is inbetween Conn and Wisc so it'd be a twofor, and would be a much more pleasant ride that children could use. Doing it there would also not create a clusterf@k for the entire area. It'd be a win for everybody and might actually be beneficial. But I guess that just makes too much sense.

Is their RPP parking on Reno? Taking out RPP parking to create bike lanes in Ward 3 has proved to be politically impossible for DDOT.

[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: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.

Congratulations. You have established new standards for intellectual dishonesty on DCUM. We all thought it could not be done but how foolish we were to doubt you.

You project more than Donald Trump.

There are reasonable and sane pro-bike people. You are not one of them. Reno Road has been mentioned a hundred times on this thread. It's even been mentioned as a better location for this silly bike commuter idea.

Look at the map for goodness sake. Most of the side streets - and the “Save Connecticut Ave” article - specifically mentions side street are forecast to experience reduced traffic as a result of the CT Ave bike lane. Reno Rd., like Mass Ave, CT Ave., Military Rd., MacArthur Blvd. etc. etc. is an arterial road, not a side street.

No, it is quite different from all of those streets, which is why you don't see city busses on Reno.

Which raises a good question. Why are they so focused on making Connecticut a bike thoroughfare when Reno is a far superior option in every regard? There's no buses, it's a one lane road with space on either side, it provides much better connections to existing bike infrastructure, is closer to two additonal metro stations, is inbetween Conn and Wisc so it'd be a twofor, and would be a much more pleasant ride that children could use. Doing it there would also not create a clusterf@k for the entire area. It'd be a win for everybody and might actually be beneficial. But I guess that just makes too much sense.

Is their RPP parking on Reno? Taking out RPP parking to create bike lanes in Ward 3 has proved to be politically impossible for DDOT.

Have you ever driven on Reno? Either of you?

[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:

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.

Congratulations. You have established new standards for intellectual dishonesty on DCUM. We all thought it could not be done but how foolish we were to doubt you.

You project more than Donald Trump.

There are reasonable and sane pro-bike people. You are not one of them. Reno Road has been mentioned a hundred times on this thread. It's even been mentioned as a better location for this silly bike commuter idea.

Look at the map for goodness sake. Most of the side streets - and the “Save Connecticut Ave” article - specifically mentions side street are forecast to experience reduced traffic as a result of the CT Ave bike lane. Reno Rd., like Mass Ave, CT Ave., Military Rd., MacArthur Blvd. etc. etc. is an arterial road, not a side street.

No, it is quite different from all of those streets, which is why you don't see city busses on Reno.

Which raises a good question. Why are they so focused on making Connecticut a bike thoroughfare when Reno is a far superior option in every regard? There's no buses, it's a one lane road with space on either side, it provides much better connections to existing bike infrastructure, is closer to two additonal metro stations, is inbetween Conn and Wisc so it'd be a twofor, and would be a much more pleasant ride that children could use. Doing it there would also not create a clusterf@k for the entire area. It'd be a win for everybody and might actually be beneficial. But I guess that just makes too much sense.

Is their RPP parking on Reno? Taking out RPP parking to create bike lanes in Ward 3 has proved to be politically impossible for DDOT.

Have you ever driven on Reno? Either of you?

I have. Take it all the time and live off it. It's absolutely perfect for what you claim to want.

[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: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.

Congratulations. You have established new standards for intellectual dishonesty on DCUM. We all thought it could not be done but how foolish we were to doubt you.

You project more than Donald Trump.

There are reasonable and sane pro-bike people. You are not one of them. Reno Road has been mentioned a hundred times on this thread. It's even been mentioned as a better location for this silly bike commuter idea.

Look at the map for goodness sake. Most of the side streets - and the “Save Connecticut Ave” article - specifically mentions side street are forecast to experience reduced traffic as a result of the CT Ave bike lane. Reno Rd., like Mass Ave, CT Ave., Military Rd., MacArthur Blvd. etc. etc. is an arterial road, not a side street.

No, it is quite different from all of those streets, which is why you don't see city busses on Reno.

Which raises a good question. Why are they so focused on making Connecticut a bike thoroughfare when Reno is a far superior option in every regard? There's no buses, it's a one lane road with space on either side, it provides much better connections to existing bike infrastructure, is closer to two additonal metro stations, is inbetween Conn and Wisc so it'd be a twofor, and would be a much more pleasant ride that children could use. Doing it there would also not create a clusterf@k for the entire area. It'd be a win for everybody and might actually be beneficial. But I guess that just makes too much sense.

because for the 50 millionth time … the bike lanes are a *traffic calming* measure for CT Ave. They will make CT safer. For all types of users. As much as I know it’s fun to rant about bike riders, this is a project for all users.

Except it doesn't and nobody believes you because you think it will make traffic magically disappear. Even your fellow proponents don't believe that nonsense.

[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:

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.

Congratulations. You have established new standards for intellectual dishonesty on DCUM. We all thought it could not be done but how foolish we were to doubt you.

You project more than Donald Trump.

There are reasonable and sane pro-bike people. You are not one of them. Reno Road has been mentioned a hundred times on this thread. It's even been mentioned as a better location for this silly bike commuter idea.

Look at the map for goodness sake. Most of the side streets - and the “Save Connecticut Ave” article - specifically mentions side street are forecast to experience reduced traffic as a result of the CT Ave bike lane. Reno Rd., like Mass Ave, CT Ave., Military Rd., MacArthur Blvd. etc. etc. is an arterial road, not a side street.

No, it is quite different from all of those streets, which is why you don't see city busses on Reno.

Which raises a good question. Why are they so focused on making Connecticut a bike thoroughfare when Reno is a far superior option in every regard? There's no buses, it's a one lane road with space on either side, it provides much better connections to existing bike infrastructure, is closer to two additonal metro stations, is inbetween Conn and Wisc so it'd be a twofor, and would be a much more pleasant ride that children could use. Doing it there would also not create a clusterf@k for the entire area. It'd be a win for everybody and might actually be beneficial. But I guess that just makes too much sense.

because for the 50 millionth time … the bike lanes are a *traffic calming* measure for CT Ave. They will make CT safer. For all types of users. As much as I know it’s fun to rant about bike riders, this is a project for all users.

Except it doesn't and nobody believes you because you think it will make traffic magically disappear. Even your fellow proponents don't believe that nonsense.

Who said it would make traffic disappear? It will make people drive more safely.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Congratulations. You have established new standards for intellectual dishonesty on DCUM. We all thought it could not be done but how foolish we were to doubt you.

You project more than Donald Trump.

There are reasonable and sane pro-bike people. You are not one of them. Reno Road has been mentioned a hundred times on this thread. It's even been mentioned as a better location for this silly bike commuter idea.

And a hundred times, it has been explained that 1) it isn't wide enough and 2) it doesn't connect people to the commercial areas.

[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: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.

Congratulations. You have established new standards for intellectual dishonesty on DCUM. We all thought it could not be done but how foolish we were to doubt you.

You project more than Donald Trump.

There are reasonable and sane pro-bike people. You are not one of them. Reno Road has been mentioned a hundred times on this thread. It's even been mentioned as a better location for this silly bike commuter idea.

Look at the map for goodness sake. Most of the side streets - and the “Save Connecticut Ave” article - specifically mentions side street are forecast to experience reduced traffic as a result of the CT Ave bike lane. Reno Rd., like Mass Ave, CT Ave., Military Rd., MacArthur Blvd. etc. etc. is an arterial road, not a side street.

No, it is quite different from all of those streets, which is why you don't see city busses on Reno.

Which raises a good question. Why are they so focused on making Connecticut a bike thoroughfare when Reno is a far superior option in every regard? There's no buses, it's a one lane road with space on either side, it provides much better connections to existing bike infrastructure, is closer to two additonal metro stations, is inbetween Conn and Wisc so it'd be a twofor, and would be a much more pleasant ride that children could use. Doing it there would also not create a clusterf@k for the entire area. It'd be a win for everybody and might actually be beneficial. But I guess that just makes too much sense.

People here are losing their minds that 1/3 of the space previously allocated to cars is being reallocated to other users. Reno is only one lane each way with a turning lane. Are you proposing to allocate two of those three to cyclists? That would encounter zero opposition, I am sure.

Also, just like drivers, cyclists like having direct routes instead of having to go out of their way for each route. Drivers keep posting about how mad they are that they will have to drive on side streets (and that if they hit pedestrians then that is on DDOT, not on the drivers). So clearly they understand that taking. direct route is preferable to going blocks out of your way to get somewhere.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Congratulations. You have established new standards for intellectual dishonesty on DCUM. We all thought it could not be done but how foolish we were to doubt you.

You project more than Donald Trump.

There are reasonable and sane pro-bike people. You are not one of them. Reno Road has been mentioned a hundred times on this thread. It's even been mentioned as a better location for this silly bike commuter idea.

And a hundred times, it has been explained that 1) it isn't wide enough and 2) it doesn't connect people to the commercial areas.

and 3) the point is to make CT safer

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So none of you have any suggestions for OP? Is anyone actually doing anything to oppose this plan?

Because it is going forward and posting here isn’t changing that.

Given the Mayor, DDOT, ANC and Council support, no, there really isn't anything people can do to stop it.

But...complaining about it on neighborhood email groups and in this forum may help people feel better.