Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:While I don't agree with the image, I do think that the people who are opposing the bike lanes are basically telling a sizable percentage of their neighbors that they don't care if there is safe access to neigborhood amenities.

Maybe the "opposition" should take a look in the mirror and understand what would prompt people to display such anger.

I think the opposition wants to meet in the middle: increased traffic enforcement, HAWKs, dedicated bus lanes, better bike amenities at Metro stations. The bike crowd wants it all.

They only started playing the bus card in the past three weeks because the "save the parking" card wasn't working anymore.

Or, in the real world, bus service on Connecticut will get significantly worse and people who rely more on buses than bicycles are worried about it. DDOT's representative just last week admitted that it's basically throwing the L2 into the trash heap by rebranding Connecticut from the CC circle to Van Ness as a "bicycle priority corridor" instead of a "bus priority corridor."

Did that ever cross your mind?

He didn't admit to throwing the L2 into the trash heap. I actually ride the L2 fairly frequently. You probably do not. He did say that Conn Ave is not a Bus Priority Corridor. That part is true. But that also wasn't new news so stop acting like it was. The Bus Priority Corridors are those corridors which do not have mass transit access. Conn ave is literally on top of three red line stops. It's not 16th street in a metro desert. Also, DDOT isn't the one defunding bus service on Conn Ave, that's Metro and they've been doing it for years since they got rid of the L1.

The changes that are part of this plan will make the loading and unloading of buses more efficient than they are today. Buses will stay in a traffic lane so they won't get stuck having to go in and out of the lane. They will be horizontal to the curb instead of the jackknife they often are today.

Connecticut from the MD line to Van Ness is literally not on top of any metro line. It's literally the only mass transit option for a whole lot of people whom you clearly think are disposable.

What are you talking about? I just said that the plan will make the unloading and loading better than today. Most of the study area is not the area that you just cited. Most of the study area is the area from Van Ness to Calvert. Numerous parties (including myself) have asked WMTA to reconsider the L1 and to keep the L2 going. The L1 was important to connect to Foggy bottom. That's a fools errand at this point. WMATA is focused on the rail issue presently. Out of this project it is entirely possible that we can get DDOT to put in a circulator that would run from ChChCircle down to Van Ness and back. Or maybe even all the way down to the green/yellow circulators that already exist.

Quit trying to preach at me from some moral high ground. You don't even ride a bus.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:While I don't agree with the image, I do think that the people who are opposing the bike lanes are basically telling a sizable percentage of their neighbors that they don't care if there is safe access to neigborhood amenities.

Maybe the "opposition" should take a look in the mirror and understand what would prompt people to display such anger.

I think the opposition wants to meet in the middle: increased traffic enforcement, HAWKs, dedicated bus lanes, better bike amenities at Metro stations. The bike crowd wants it all.

They only started playing the bus card in the past three weeks because the "save the parking" card wasn't working anymore.

Or, in the real world, bus service on Connecticut will get significantly worse and people who rely more on buses than bicycles are worried about it. DDOT's representative just last week admitted that it's basically throwing the L2 into the trash heap by rebranding Connecticut from the CC circle to Van Ness as a "bicycle priority corridor" instead of a "bus priority corridor."

Did that ever cross your mind?

Why do people keep repeating that bus service on CT Ave is going to get worse under Concept C when it is not true?

Why do you even believe that?

Buses will no longer have to pull in and out of traffic to get to their bus stops which is going to be a huge operational improvement for the buses.

Also a lot of bus stops are being moved to better locations, in particular further from intersections which puts them perpetually in conflict with turning cars.

What is so frustrating about the debate about Connecticut Avenue is how ignorant all of the folks in opposition are to everything - the process, the data, the baselines, the purpose, the proposals etc.

It is just a bunch of entitled drivers flailing around worried about losing free parking while feigning concern about bus service they have never even once taken advantage of and businesses they have no stake in or information about.

During rush hour, 3 lanes of car traffic will become two lanes of car traffic. Buses travel in those lanes. It's not rocket science to know that the L2 will be significantly slowed by this.

I don't own a car. I ride the L2 every weekday. But please, inform me further how I'm "entitled" because I don't want my commute to get worse.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:While I don't agree with the image, I do think that the people who are opposing the bike lanes are basically telling a sizable percentage of their neighbors that they don't care if there is safe access to neigborhood amenities.

Maybe the "opposition" should take a look in the mirror and understand what would prompt people to display such anger.

I think the opposition wants to meet in the middle: increased traffic enforcement, HAWKs, dedicated bus lanes, better bike amenities at Metro stations. The bike crowd wants it all.

They only started playing the bus card in the past three weeks because the "save the parking" card wasn't working anymore.

Or, in the real world, bus service on Connecticut will get significantly worse and people who rely more on buses than bicycles are worried about it. DDOT's representative just last week admitted that it's basically throwing the L2 into the trash heap by rebranding Connecticut from the CC circle to Van Ness as a "bicycle priority corridor" instead of a "bus priority corridor."

Did that ever cross your mind?

He didn't admit to throwing the L2 into the trash heap. I actually ride the L2 fairly frequently. You probably do not. He did say that Conn Ave is not a Bus Priority Corridor. That part is true. But that also wasn't new news so stop acting like it was. The Bus Priority Corridors are those corridors which do not have mass transit access. Conn ave is literally on top of three red line stops. It's not 16th street in a metro desert. Also, DDOT isn't the one defunding bus service on Conn Ave, that's Metro and they've been doing it for years since they got rid of the L1.

The changes that are part of this plan will make the loading and unloading of buses more efficient than they are today. Buses will stay in a traffic lane so they won't get stuck having to go in and out of the lane. They will be horizontal to the curb instead of the jackknife they often are today.

Connecticut from the MD line to Van Ness is literally not on top of any metro line. It's literally the only mass transit option for a whole lot of people whom you clearly think are disposable.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:While I don't agree with the image, I do think that the people who are opposing the bike lanes are basically telling a sizable percentage of their neighbors that they don't care if there is safe access to neigborhood amenities.

Maybe the "opposition" should take a look in the mirror and understand what would prompt people to display such anger.

I think the opposition wants to meet in the middle: increased traffic enforcement, HAWKs, dedicated bus lanes, better bike amenities at Metro stations. The bike crowd wants it all.

They only started playing the bus card in the past three weeks because the "save the parking" card wasn't working anymore.

Or, in the real world, bus service on Connecticut will get significantly worse and people who rely more on buses than bicycles are worried about it. DDOT's representative just last week admitted that it's basically throwing the L2 into the trash heap by rebranding Connecticut from the CC circle to Van Ness as a "bicycle priority corridor" instead of a "bus priority corridor."

Did that ever cross your mind?

Why do people keep repeating that bus service on CT Ave is going to get worse under Concept C when it is not true?

Why do you even believe that?

Buses will no longer have to pull in and out of traffic to get to their bus stops which is going to be a huge operational improvement for the buses.

Also a lot of bus stops are being moved to better locations, in particular further from intersections which puts them perpetually in conflict with turning cars.

What is so frustrating about the debate about Connecticut Avenue is how ignorant all of the folks in opposition are to everything - the process, the data, the baselines, the purpose, the proposals etc.

It is just a bunch of entitled drivers flailing around worried about losing free parking while feigning concern about bus service they have never even once taken advantage of and businesses they have no stake in or information about.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:While I don't agree with the image, I do think that the people who are opposing the bike lanes are basically telling a sizable percentage of their neighbors that they don't care if there is safe access to neigborhood amenities.

Maybe the "opposition" should take a look in the mirror and understand what would prompt people to display such anger.

I think the opposition wants to meet in the middle: increased traffic enforcement, HAWKs, dedicated bus lanes, better bike amenities at Metro stations. The bike crowd wants it all.

They only started playing the bus card in the past three weeks because the "save the parking" card wasn't working anymore.

Or, in the real world, bus service on Connecticut will get significantly worse and people who rely more on buses than bicycles are worried about it. DDOT's representative just last week admitted that it's basically throwing the L2 into the trash heap by rebranding Connecticut from the CC circle to Van Ness as a "bicycle priority corridor" instead of a "bus priority corridor."

Did that ever cross your mind?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:While I don't agree with the image, I do think that the people who are opposing the bike lanes are basically telling a sizable percentage of their neighbors that they don't care if there is safe access to neigborhood amenities.

Maybe the "opposition" should take a look in the mirror and understand what would prompt people to display such anger.

I think the opposition wants to meet in the middle: increased traffic enforcement, HAWKs, dedicated bus lanes, better bike amenities at Metro stations. The bike crowd wants it all.

They only started playing the bus card in the past three weeks because the "save the parking" card wasn't working anymore.

Or, in the real world, bus service on Connecticut will get significantly worse and people who rely more on buses than bicycles are worried about it. DDOT's representative just last week admitted that it's basically throwing the L2 into the trash heap by rebranding Connecticut from the CC circle to Van Ness as a "bicycle priority corridor" instead of a "bus priority corridor."

Did that ever cross your mind?

He didn't admit to throwing the L2 into the trash heap. I actually ride the L2 fairly frequently. You probably do not. He did say that Conn Ave is not a Bus Priority Corridor. That part is true. But that also wasn't new news so stop acting like it was. The Bus Priority Corridors are those corridors which do not have mass transit access. Conn ave is literally on top of three red line stops. It's not 16th street in a metro desert. Also, DDOT isn't the one defunding bus service on Conn Ave, that's Metro and they've been doing it for years since they got rid of the L1.

The changes that are part of this plan will make the loading and unloading of buses more efficient than they are today. Buses will stay in a traffic lane so they won't get stuck having to go in and out of the lane. They will be horizontal to the curb instead of the jackknife they often are today.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:While I don't agree with the image, I do think that the people who are opposing the bike lanes are basically telling a sizable percentage of their neighbors that they don't care if there is safe access to neigborhood amenities.

Maybe the "opposition" should take a look in the mirror and understand what would prompt people to display such anger.

I think the opposition wants to meet in the middle: increased traffic enforcement, HAWKs, dedicated bus lanes, better bike amenities at Metro stations. The bike crowd wants it all.

They only started playing the bus card in the past three weeks because the "save the parking" card wasn't working anymore.

Or, in the real world, bus service on Connecticut will get significantly worse and people who rely more on buses than bicycles are worried about it. DDOT's representative just last week admitted that it's basically throwing the L2 into the trash heap by rebranding Connecticut from the CC circle to Van Ness as a "bicycle priority corridor" instead of a "bus priority corridor."

Did that ever cross your mind?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:While I don't agree with the image, I do think that the people who are opposing the bike lanes are basically telling a sizable percentage of their neighbors that they don't care if there is safe access to neigborhood amenities.

Maybe the "opposition" should take a look in the mirror and understand what would prompt people to display such anger.

I think the opposition wants to meet in the middle: increased traffic enforcement, HAWKs, dedicated bus lanes, better bike amenities at Metro stations. The bike crowd wants it all.

They only started playing the bus card in the past three weeks because the "save the parking" card wasn't working anymore.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:While I don't agree with the image, I do think that the people who are opposing the bike lanes are basically telling a sizable percentage of their neighbors that they don't care if there is safe access to neigborhood amenities.

Maybe the "opposition" should take a look in the mirror and understand what would prompt people to display such anger.

I think the opposition wants to meet in the middle: increased traffic enforcement, HAWKs, dedicated bus lanes, better bike amenities at Metro stations. The bike crowd wants it all.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:While I don't agree with the image, I do think that the people who are opposing the bike lanes are basically telling a sizable percentage of their neighbors that they don't care if there is safe access to neigborhood amenities.

Maybe the "opposition" should take a look in the mirror and understand what would prompt people to display such anger.

I think the opposition wants to meet in the middle: increased traffic enforcement, HAWKs, dedicated bus lanes, better bike amenities at Metro stations. The bike crowd wants it all.

Anonymous wrote:While I don't agree with the image, I do think that the people who are opposing the bike lanes are basically telling a sizable percentage of their neighbors that they don't care if there is safe access to neigborhood amenities.

Maybe the "opposition" should take a look in the mirror and understand what would prompt people to display such anger.

Anonymous wrote:Someone posted on the Cleveland Park listserv a photo of five recently-elected ANC 3C commissioners actually giving the middle finger to a Save Connecticut Avenue sign displayed in the window of one of the Cleveland Park businesses that oppose DDOT Option C. One of the commissioners who posted the photo on her Twitter wrote “’F’ the ops” (“ops” meaning opposition). That’s an “F’” to all who don’t happen agree with them.

Some of these 3C commissioners in the photo were elected by default because they were the only candidates who filed to be on the ballot. Two of them won contested races by narrow margins. So their Twitter photo and "winner-take-all" attitude are incredibly rude, arrogant, and immature. Their job as ANC commissioners is not to act as if they have a mandate to push though their personal agendas over "the opps." It is to listen and represent the views of their various constituents and to try to address the concerns of as many stakeholders as possible.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Someone posted on the Cleveland Park listserv a photo of five recently-elected ANC 3C commissioners actually giving the middle finger to a Save Connecticut Avenue sign displayed in the window of one of the Cleveland Park businesses that oppose DDOT Option C.

Two of the five commissioners are not giving the finger to the sign.

Thanks. I feel better already.