Reply to Connecticut Ave bike lanes are back!

Forum Index » Metropolitan DC Local Politics

Reply to "Connecticut Ave bike lanes are back!"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20240517-vision-zero-how-europe-cut-the-number-of-people-dying-on-its-roads

Interesting article about the origins of Vision Zero.  It is very different than what it has transmogrified into.  For instance, the very first project was removing concrete barriers.  One of the other differences is that roads are defined according to their main use.

In short, the Connectict Ave plan goes against the very ideas it is supposed to represent.[/quote]

Exactly.  Under the classification system, Connecticut Avenue has the highest use classification (major arterial) short of limited access highways in DC.  The problem is that by constraining Connecticut, DDOT would divert and squeeze more thru traffic, including trucks, into narrower collector streets and m very narrow “local” (lowest classification) streets in adjoining neighborhoods.

That’s definitely not Vision Zero but it might reflect zero vision.[/quote]

There is no planet where Connecticut Avenue in DC is anything close to a "limited access highway" - you are doing a lot of work there conflating classifications.[/quote]

No conflating anything.  Connecticut has the highest functional classification in upper Northwest, "major arterial," aside from the Whitehurst and short I-66.  Outside of these highways, Connecticut and the other major arterials are the roads that are supposed to carry the major thru traffic between Maryland, uptown Northwest and the western part of downtown Washington.  [b]Constraining Connecticut's capacity will divert a lot of cars and vehicles on to streets that were not planned or build for such traffic loads.[/b]  Recall an experiment about 10 years ago to constrain Wisconsin Ave between Massachusetts Ave and Burleith.  It did not end well but because the construction involved flexible pylons, it was relatively easy to address the resulting gridlock and diversion by reversing and removing the new road configuration.  Connecticut bike lanes would be constructed for permanence, making them more difficult and far more costly to fix.[/quote]

This is not what the DDOT study said. What the DDOT study said is that MD commuters would use OTHER ARTERIALS and Metro instead of Connecticut Avenue. And this has been pointed out repeatedly and yet opponents of the bike lanes CONTINUE to repeat this lie again and again.[/quote]
One of the other major arterials that DDOT said would absorb the traffic was Beach Dr. Then the cycling advocates succeeded in keeping Beach Dr closed and as a result the DDOT study, as flawed as it was, became worthless.

The changes that DDOT have already made to remove the reversible lane and remove the rush hour parking restrictions have increased travel times along Connecticut significantly. It can now commonly take over 1 hour to go from Military to Dupont. This is the exact opposite of what transportation planning should be doing, which is improving safety and efficiency. Add the bike lanes and Connecticut becomes worthless.

This won’t encourage people to bike, but it will encourage people to move to places that are more convenient. [/quote]

It wasn't the cycling advocates, though they supported it. At the end of the day, the National Park Service and Department of Interior's mission is to the parks, not commuters. The changes in Rock Creek were supported by the Sierra Club, the Rock Creek Conservancy and other environmental groups.[/quote]
This is revisionist history. Area cycling activists and organizations were at the heart of the campaign to keep it closed. NPS announced a seasonal opening and closing. Those groups went berserk and NPS changed their mind. That group, that everyone knows, announced public victory for their efforts.

There were other groups involved but to pretend that the cycling activists were not a big part of it belies the facts. [/quote]

Wait, you mean multiple groups with different agendas agreed on a course of action and advocated for same? Shocking.[/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics