Options for opposing Connecticut Avenue changes?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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...

Are their drivers (other than me) who stop at stop signs? Not a lot. Plenty are running red lights as well. And people are dying as a direct result. Why the obsession with cyclist behavior when bad driving is literally a mortal threat to most of us?

1. Most people would probably agree, based on their own experience, that the vast majority of drivers obey the law (we're surprised when we see one run a stop sign) and the vast majority of cyclists do not obey the law (we're surprised when one stops at a stop sign).

2. DC streets are pretty safe. 24 people this year have died, out of tens of millions of trips.

3. Riding a bike here is just plain dangerous. Accidents are inevitable, and if you're in a car, you'll probably be fine thanks to seat belts and air bags and all the steel around you. If you're in on a bike and you're in an accident, you're probably going to die because there's very little protecting you. The solution? Don't ride bikes on busy streets, just like your mother told you.

1. Citing public opinion is easy if you make it up! "Most people would probably" agree that actually, the reason you only notice cyclists who don't follow the law is because they stand out, and your mind ignores the ones who stop at stop signs and red lights. Just like you do with drivers. But I also think you're way overestimating the percentage of drivers who don't routinely run stop signs.
2. Yes, and wouldn't it be nice if they were safer?
3. So the problem is the people getting hit by the cars, not... the cars. Got it.

You could just stop putting yourself in harm's way.

We pay taxes for the same streets you do. Why can't we use them safely as well?

[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.

Reno isn't superior. It is too narrow, and it doesn't connect the commercial areas that people want to access.

Only a non-cyclist would believe that Rock Creek Park and Reno Road are "reasonable" alternatives to Connectcit Avenue.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

And that’s clear to anyone who has actually seen the DDOT project materials. The point that the current configuration of CT Ave is not tenable from a public safety standpoint is not exactly hidden.

[Anonymous]

This idea that bike lanes calm traffic is just nutty. People will just go on neighboring streets, and they'll drive faster to make up the time they lost on Connecticut. We all know the city is not going to put up speed bumps everywhere.

[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:

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...

Are their drivers (other than me) who stop at stop signs? Not a lot. Plenty are running red lights as well. And people are dying as a direct result. Why the obsession with cyclist behavior when bad driving is literally a mortal threat to most of us?

1. Most people would probably agree, based on their own experience, that the vast majority of drivers obey the law (we're surprised when we see one run a stop sign) and the vast majority of cyclists do not obey the law (we're surprised when one stops at a stop sign).

2. DC streets are pretty safe. 24 people this year have died, out of tens of millions of trips.

3. Riding a bike here is just plain dangerous. Accidents are inevitable, and if you're in a car, you'll probably be fine thanks to seat belts and air bags and all the steel around you. If you're in on a bike and you're in an accident, you're probably going to die because there's very little protecting you. The solution? Don't ride bikes on busy streets, just like your mother told you.

1. Citing public opinion is easy if you make it up! "Most people would probably" agree that actually, the reason you only notice cyclists who don't follow the law is because they stand out, and your mind ignores the ones who stop at stop signs and red lights. Just like you do with drivers. But I also think you're way overestimating the percentage of drivers who don't routinely run stop signs.
2. Yes, and wouldn't it be nice if they were safer?
3. So the problem is the people getting hit by the cars, not... the cars. Got it.

You could just stop putting yourself in harm's way.

We pay taxes for the same streets you do. Why can't we use them safely as well?

We don't spends billions of dollars building special lanes because of handful of Bernie Bros want to roller skate to work.

[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.

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.

I think you're misreading this. If this is as disastrous as it appears to be, it will not only be rescinded. It will turn the public against these sorts of projects more broadly. (In politics, it's called overreaching.) Some enterprising politician will turn undoing all this into a rallying cry, which, even if he or she doesnt get elected, will put the fear of God in the people he or she is trying to replace.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This idea that bike lanes calm traffic is just nutty. People will just go on neighboring streets, and they'll drive faster to make up the time they lost on Connecticut. We all know the city is not going to put up speed bumps everywhere.

they already drive on neighborhood streets, they already drive faster...there is a reason there are ginormous speed humps on Newark Street, for example.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This idea that bike lanes calm traffic is just nutty. People will just go on neighboring streets, and they'll drive faster to make up the time they lost on Connecticut. We all know the city is not going to put up speed bumps everywhere.

Narrower streets = slower traffic. This is very well established. Streets that are too wide for the volume create speeding.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This idea that bike lanes calm traffic is just nutty. People will just go on neighboring streets, and they'll drive faster to make up the time they lost on Connecticut. We all know the city is not going to put up speed bumps everywhere.

they already drive on neighborhood streets, they already drive faster...there is a reason there are ginormous speed humps on Newark Street, for example.

this will be many orders of magnitude bigger. someone said it earlier, but this really is defund the police for transportation. we know how that turned out.

[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.

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.

I think you're misreading this. If this is as disastrous as it appears to be, it will not only be rescinded. It will turn the public against these sorts of projects more broadly. (In politics, it's called overreaching.) Some enterprising politician will turn undoing all this into a rallying cry, which, even if he or she doesnt get elected, will put the fear of God in the people he or she is trying to replace.

It is only a disaster in the ninds of a few people. The overwhelming majoroty of the public and public officials understand how important and transformative this will be for a positiive quality of life for the people of upper NW.

There is zero merit to the arguments of the opponents other than hyperbole and anecdotal comments.

[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:

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...

Are their drivers (other than me) who stop at stop signs? Not a lot. Plenty are running red lights as well. And people are dying as a direct result. Why the obsession with cyclist behavior when bad driving is literally a mortal threat to most of us?

1. Most people would probably agree, based on their own experience, that the vast majority of drivers obey the law (we're surprised when we see one run a stop sign) and the vast majority of cyclists do not obey the law (we're surprised when one stops at a stop sign).

2. DC streets are pretty safe. 24 people this year have died, out of tens of millions of trips.

3. Riding a bike here is just plain dangerous. Accidents are inevitable, and if you're in a car, you'll probably be fine thanks to seat belts and air bags and all the steel around you. If you're in on a bike and you're in an accident, you're probably going to die because there's very little protecting you. The solution? Don't ride bikes on busy streets, just like your mother told you.

1. Citing public opinion is easy if you make it up! "Most people would probably" agree that actually, the reason you only notice cyclists who don't follow the law is because they stand out, and your mind ignores the ones who stop at stop signs and red lights. Just like you do with drivers. But I also think you're way overestimating the percentage of drivers who don't routinely run stop signs.
2. Yes, and wouldn't it be nice if they were safer?
3. So the problem is the people getting hit by the cars, not... the cars. Got it.

You could just stop putting yourself in harm's way.

We pay taxes for the same streets you do. Why can't we use them safely as well?

The roads are thoroughfares intended for cars. Cyclists have other options that are more safe for them and were also designed for them to use. These are located in Rock Creek Park. That said, I do support greater enforcement of traffic violations, speeding, etc. by human beings rather than machines. I also think there should be positive incentives for carpooling and using metro/bus service. And/or a commuter tax for non DC residents. Businesses shouldn't have to suffer/have reduced access for a tiny majority.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

I think you're misreading this. If this is as disastrous as it appears to be, it will not only be rescinded. It will turn the public against these sorts of projects more broadly. (In politics, it's called overreaching.) Some enterprising politician will turn undoing all this into a rallying cry, which, even if he or she doesnt get elected, will put the fear of God in the people he or she is trying to replace.

It is only a disaster in the ninds of a few people. The overwhelming majoroty of the public and public officials understand how important and transformative this will be for a positiive quality of life for the people of upper NW.

There is zero merit to the arguments of the opponents other than hyperbole and anecdotal comments.

I mean, this silly thread has gone on for 50 pages and the pro-bike people seem to have no answers to the specific questions raised by the anti folks. They just attack them personally or, like you, say they don't have to answer them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This idea that bike lanes calm traffic is just nutty. People will just go on neighboring streets, and they'll drive faster to make up the time they lost on Connecticut. We all know the city is not going to put up speed bumps everywhere.

Normally, if we want to slow traffic we do things like reduce the speed limit or put up traffic cameras or have the police enforce the law once in awhile.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

I think you're misreading this. If this is as disastrous as it appears to be, it will not only be rescinded. It will turn the public against these sorts of projects more broadly. (In politics, it's called overreaching.) Some enterprising politician will turn undoing all this into a rallying cry, which, even if he or she doesnt get elected, will put the fear of God in the people he or she is trying to replace.

It is only a disaster in the ninds of a few people. The overwhelming majoroty of the public and public officials understand how important and transformative this will be for a positiive quality of life for the people of upper NW.



There is zero merit to the arguments of the opponents other than hyperbole and anecdotal comments.

Your rigidity is hurting your case. There are some legitimate concerns.

This proposal is going to hurt Connecticut Avenue businesses. No way around it.
This proposal is going to cause immense bottlenecks and redirect traffic to residential areas. Traffic is already getting out of hand now that more people are coming back to work.
This is not the only way to increase safety for cyclists.
This proposal only benefits a super-minority.

[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.

Reno isn't superior. It is too narrow, and it doesn't connect the commercial areas that people want to access.

Only a non-cyclist would believe that Rock Creek Park and Reno Road are "reasonable" alternatives to Connectcit Avenue.

Please explain then. Because, unlike you, I have been listening to what the pro bike people have been saying. According to them the issues are safety, encouraging commuting by bicycle, connecting to metro, children and linking up with other bike routes. On all those subjects Reno is far superior. It also provides access to the commercial districts of both Connecticut and Wisconsin and has enough space around it to build bike lanes without changing the road or causing increased traffic on residential roads such as Reno. It would even be far cheaper to implement.