Options for opposing Connecticut Avenue changes?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

Are you saying that induced demand doesn't work for buses but will for bikes? If it doesn't work for buses, which have a lower barrier to entry, why would it work for bikes?

[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.

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.

There are no stores and restaurants on Reno- so if someone wants to bike from Bread Furst to the Chevy Chase library you think he should cross Connecticut, go up a side street to Reno, bike along Reno, bike back along a side street and then cross Connecticut again? Would you do that in a car if you were going between these destinations? That is not remotely more efficient.

Why would anyone do that when the Tenley library, which is bigger, is four blocks from Bread Furst directly down Albermarle?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

Are you saying that induced demand doesn't work for buses but will for bikes? If it doesn't work for buses, which have a lower barrier to entry, why would it work for bikes?

Still doesn't know what induced demand is...

[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: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.

There are no stores and restaurants on Reno- so if someone wants to bike from Bread Furst to the Chevy Chase library you think he should cross Connecticut, go up a side street to Reno, bike along Reno, bike back along a side street and then cross Connecticut again? Would you do that in a car if you were going between these destinations? That is not remotely more efficient.

Why would anyone do that when the Tenley library, which is bigger, is four blocks from Bread Furst directly down Albermarle?

I am not the PP, but they said they wanted to go to the Chevy Chase Library. They have their reasons and they didn't say they wanted to go to the Tenley library. Why are you so involved with where other people want to go?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

“Taft Bridge”. Where do you live? You either just arrived in DC but more likely live somewhere else.

"Taft Bridge"

[Anonymous]

The cargo ebike crowd will foist this on us and then when their kids hit 5 move to the suburbs and those of us who are long term residents will be stuck with it. Reno road is in between Wisconsin and CT - actually providing bike access to two commercial areas at once. So so people's itinerary may not be as easy as going down CT ave but others will be better. The objections to this are just opposite for no reason. There could be true separation for the bikes by putting the bike lane near the sidewalks which is 5-6 feet from the road. There is plenty of room on the West side of the road

What is the desired speed with the "traffic calming" 5 miles an hour? How many bus riders are having their commute disrupted - having taken toddlers to pre-k on the bus - having to walk an extra 4 blocks to get to the bus stop is way more inconvenient than an adult having to bike back and forth between reno and CT Ave

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The "highly respected" ANC Commissioner was past her prime 15 years ago, doesn't understand the steps needed to obviatae climate change and modern planning tactics and has kept the neighborhood stuck in 1990's because of her overbearing views on historic preservation superceding the needs of a modern society.

But yes, she does care about the neighborhood, it is just that her vision is from 30 years ago.

Then vote her out. Or run yourself.

Lesson here is if you care about an issue, you need to step up and get involved because people with the opposite position will and then you lose.

Or you can complain on the internet.

She is retiring, so its all good.

[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.

Are you stalking ANC meetings to try and dox people that raise questions about this stupid plan?

the fact is, there is minimal opposition to this plan as evidenced by the lack of negative comments and open, public meetings.

[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.

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.

There are no stores and restaurants on Reno- so if someone wants to bike from Bread Furst to the Chevy Chase library you think he should cross Connecticut, go up a side street to Reno, bike along Reno, bike back along a side street and then cross Connecticut again? Would you do that in a car if you were going between these destinations? That is not remotely more efficient.

Funny how the people driving cars want the straightest routes for themselves.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The cargo ebike crowd will foist this on us and then when their kids hit 5 move to the suburbs and those of us who are long term residents will be stuck with it. Reno road is in between Wisconsin and CT - actually providing bike access to two commercial areas at once. So so people's itinerary may not be as easy as going down CT ave but others will be better. The objections to this are just opposite for no reason. There could be true separation for the bikes by putting the bike lane near the sidewalks which is 5-6 feet from the road. There is plenty of room on the West side of the road

What is the desired speed with the "traffic calming" 5 miles an hour? How many bus riders are having their commute disrupted - having taken toddlers to pre-k on the bus - having to walk an extra 4 blocks to get to the bus stop is way more inconvenient than an adult having to bike back and forth between reno and CT Ave

Reno Road below Rodman Street isn't wide enough, unless you are suggesting removing the turn lane, which is the one thing that allows Reno to be functional.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The cargo ebike crowd will foist this on us and then when their kids hit 5 move to the suburbs and those of us who are long term residents will be stuck with it. Reno road is in between Wisconsin and CT - actually providing bike access to two commercial areas at once. So so people's itinerary may not be as easy as going down CT ave but others will be better. The objections to this are just opposite for no reason. There could be true separation for the bikes by putting the bike lane near the sidewalks which is 5-6 feet from the road. There is plenty of room on the West side of the road

What is the desired speed with the "traffic calming" 5 miles an hour? How many bus riders are having their commute disrupted - having taken toddlers to pre-k on the bus - having to walk an extra 4 blocks to get to the bus stop is way more inconvenient than an adult having to bike back and forth between reno and CT Ave

I would be good with a dedicated bike lane and a dedicated bus lane as well, with just one car/truck lane if WMATA upped its game.

[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: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.

There are no stores and restaurants on Reno- so if someone wants to bike from Bread Furst to the Chevy Chase library you think he should cross Connecticut, go up a side street to Reno, bike along Reno, bike back along a side street and then cross Connecticut again? Would you do that in a car if you were going between these destinations? That is not remotely more efficient.

Funny how the people driving cars want the straightest routes for themselves.

The straightest route between Bread Furst and a library is Albermarle. They share the same side street.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The cargo ebike crowd will foist this on us and then when their kids hit 5 move to the suburbs and those of us who are long term residents will be stuck with it. Reno road is in between Wisconsin and CT - actually providing bike access to two commercial areas at once. So so people's itinerary may not be as easy as going down CT ave but others will be better. The objections to this are just opposite for no reason. There could be true separation for the bikes by putting the bike lane near the sidewalks which is 5-6 feet from the road. There is plenty of room on the West side of the road

What is the desired speed with the "traffic calming" 5 miles an hour? How many bus riders are having their commute disrupted - having taken toddlers to pre-k on the bus - having to walk an extra 4 blocks to get to the bus stop is way more inconvenient than an adult having to bike back and forth between reno and CT Ave

Reno Road below Rodman Street isn't wide enough, unless you are suggesting removing the turn lane, which is the one thing that allows Reno to be functional.

Unfortunately Reno's not going to be functional if two lanes of Connecticut get shut down.

[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: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.

There are no stores and restaurants on Reno- so if someone wants to bike from Bread Furst to the Chevy Chase library you think he should cross Connecticut, go up a side street to Reno, bike along Reno, bike back along a side street and then cross Connecticut again? Would you do that in a car if you were going between these destinations? That is not remotely more efficient.

Funny how the people driving cars want the straightest routes for themselves.

The straightest route between Bread Furst and a library is Albermarle. They share the same side street.

It's literally half a mile closer and a better library.

[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: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.

There are no stores and restaurants on Reno- so if someone wants to bike from Bread Furst to the Chevy Chase library you think he should cross Connecticut, go up a side street to Reno, bike along Reno, bike back along a side street and then cross Connecticut again? Would you do that in a car if you were going between these destinations? That is not remotely more efficient.

Why would anyone do that when the Tenley library, which is bigger, is four blocks from Bread Furst directly down Albermarle?

I am not the PP, but they said they wanted to go to the Chevy Chase Library. They have their reasons and they didn't say they wanted to go to the Tenley library. Why are you so involved with where other people want to go?

Considering that your entire plan is designed to make traffic so bad that people are forced to bike...