Options for opposing Connecticut Avenue changes?

[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.

Complain to your elected representatives. Politicians are usually very attentive to what their constituents complain about, even if they don't do anything about it. Make their lives harder for supporting this.

[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.

There are only a few hundred people a day (if that) who ride a bike on Connecticut Ave. It's not "reasonable" to create upheaval for tens of thousands who drive. And it's not "reasonable" to think we're all going to hop on our bikes in a severe thunderstorm and take our two kids to school.

[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.

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.

Those things don’t work on CT Ave - or haven’t you noticed? Reducing the number of lanes will force drivers who cannot obey speed limits to slow down. You can thank the speeders for this project.

[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.

Complain to your elected representatives. Politicians are usually very attentive to what their constituents complain about, even if they don't do anything about it. Make their lives harder for supporting this.

Here’s the thing. A large number of those opposed are not DC voters.

[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.

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.

There are only a few hundred people a day (if that) who ride a bike on Connecticut Ave. It's not "reasonable" to create upheaval for tens of thousands who drive. And it's not "reasonable" to think we're all going to hop on our bikes in a severe thunderstorm and take our two kids to school.

How are you on page 55 and still trotting out the same nonsense. Also, public policy isn’t made for inclement weather.

[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.

Complain to your elected representatives. Politicians are usually very attentive to what their constituents complain about, even if they don't do anything about it. Make their lives harder for supporting this.

Here’s the thing. A large number of those opposed are not DC voters.

Yes they are. You're projecting again.

[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: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.

There are only a few hundred people a day (if that) who ride a bike on Connecticut Ave. It's not "reasonable" to create upheaval for tens of thousands who drive. And it's not "reasonable" to think we're all going to hop on our bikes in a severe thunderstorm and take our two kids to school.

How are you on page 55 and still trotting out the same nonsense. Also, public policy isn’t made for inclement weather.

Because it's true. Even your fellow proponents agree. The hope is that if you build it they will come.

Public policy most certainly takes weather into account. It is why we have bus shelters and many other things.

[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.

Complain to your elected representatives. Politicians are usually very attentive to what their constituents complain about, even if they don't do anything about it. Make their lives harder for supporting this.

Here’s the thing. A large number of those opposed are not DC voters.

Yes they are. You're projecting again.

Oh yeah? Funny how y’all - bar a couple of now notorious figures - never manage to show up to any of the meetings organized to solicit the views of DC residents. Like the ANC3C tonight. There was a single person that spoke out against the proposal. Maybe you’re a bunch of sock puppets. Maybe y’all realize that putting a name, a voice, and maybe a face to some of the nonsensical views y’all have written here wouldn’t be wise. Maybe you’re “too busy” but manage to find the time to endlessly post here. Or maybe you’re not who you claim to be. But something is amiss.

[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: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.

There are only a few hundred people a day (if that) who ride a bike on Connecticut Ave. It's not "reasonable" to create upheaval for tens of thousands who drive. And it's not "reasonable" to think we're all going to hop on our bikes in a severe thunderstorm and take our two kids to school.

How are you on page 55 and still trotting out the same nonsense. Also, public policy isn’t made for inclement weather.

I would hope that public policy takes inclement weather into account. Is stormwater management important? What about snow removal?

If your response to legitimate issues raised is to say that public policy should not address inclement weather, then you clearly should not be listened to.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Complain to your elected representatives. Politicians are usually very attentive to what their constituents complain about, even if they don't do anything about it. Make their lives harder for supporting this.

Here’s the thing. A large number of those opposed are not DC voters.

Yes they are. You're projecting again.

Oh yeah? Funny how y’all - bar a couple of now notorious figures - never manage to show up to any of the meetings organized to solicit the views of DC residents. Like the ANC3C tonight. There was a single person that spoke out against the proposal. Maybe you’re a bunch of sock puppets. Maybe y’all realize that putting a name, a voice, and maybe a face to some of the nonsensical views y’all have written here wouldn’t be wise. Maybe you’re “too busy” but manage to find the time to endlessly post here. Or maybe you’re not who you claim to be. But something is amiss.

People have lives and a handful of cyclists nuts do not.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I agree. Moreover, I have been driving down CT Avenue for 40 plus years. Traffic has not gotten worse. DC, in fact, has not recovered in population from the 1950s, and DC is now declining in population again. CT Avenue was designed and built as a means to get downtown. 100 years ago. If you purchased a house near CT Ave, you knew what you were buying. No surprises.

[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.

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

The speed bumps are happening. I live on a street right off Connecticut where speed bumps were just approved.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I agree. Moreover, I have been driving down CT Avenue for 40 plus years. Traffic has not gotten worse. DC, in fact, has not recovered in population from the 1950s, and DC is now declining in population again. CT Avenue was designed and built as a means to get downtown. 100 years ago. If you purchased a house near CT Ave, you knew what you were buying. No surprises.

Connecticut Avenue above the Taft Bridge was built to host a streetcar line. Period.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Complain to your elected representatives. Politicians are usually very attentive to what their constituents complain about, even if they don't do anything about it. Make their lives harder for supporting this.

Here’s the thing. A large number of those opposed are not DC voters.

Yes they are. You're projecting again.

Oh yeah? Funny how y’all - bar a couple of now notorious figures - never manage to show up to any of the meetings organized to solicit the views of DC residents. Like the ANC3C tonight. There was a single person that spoke out against the proposal. Maybe you’re a bunch of sock puppets. Maybe y’all realize that putting a name, a voice, and maybe a face to some of the nonsensical views y’all have written here wouldn’t be wise. Maybe you’re “too busy” but manage to find the time to endlessly post here. Or maybe you’re not who you claim to be. But something is amiss.

People have lives and a handful of cyclists nuts do not.

So you are saying you would rather spend all day posting 50 times in this forum than spend 20 minutes lodging your opinion against this proposal over a zoom call.

Maybe, just maybe, this is a popular proposal and there really aren't more than a few hundred people (ie fewer households) who are opposed to it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Complain to your elected representatives. Politicians are usually very attentive to what their constituents complain about, even if they don't do anything about it. Make their lives harder for supporting this.

Here’s the thing. A large number of those opposed are not DC voters.

Yes they are. You're projecting again.

Oh yeah? Funny how y’all - bar a couple of now notorious figures - never manage to show up to any of the meetings organized to solicit the views of DC residents. Like the ANC3C tonight. There was a single person that spoke out against the proposal. Maybe you’re a bunch of sock puppets. Maybe y’all realize that putting a name, a voice, and maybe a face to some of the nonsensical views y’all have written here wouldn’t be wise. Maybe you’re “too busy” but manage to find the time to endlessly post here. Or maybe you’re not who you claim to be. But something is amiss.

People have lives and a handful of cyclists nuts do not.

So you are saying you would rather spend all day posting 50 times in this forum than spend 20 minutes lodging your opinion against this proposal over a zoom call.

Maybe, just maybe, this is a popular proposal and there really aren't more than a few hundred people (ie fewer households) who are opposed to it.

DP but it does seem that you, as a solitary individual, is actually posting relentlessly like your life depends on it to defend this dumb proposal while a there are a number of opponents posting against.