Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:That's what's so wrong about these efforts. Upper Connecticut will never be cool or hip. That's because it is the part of town that people move to when they start families and stop being cool or hip. It's a land of mom jeans and power walks. Conversations about schools and youth sports. Kid friendly restaurants and gardening. It's where Gen Z and Zoomers live at home with their parents. It's where Gen X moved when they had kids, just like the Boomers before them, and Millennials now.

To put it simply, there are too many kids and fuddy duddies to ever attract the trendy and childless.

It's the first I've ever heard that walking and riding a bike are things only done by the trendy and childless. I've been walking since I was 1, and riding a bike since I was 4, so this comes as quite a surprise.

It's ok, you got old and are no longer hip or cool. There's no shame in that. It's the circle of life. Remember, there is nothing less cool than a parent trying to pretend that they are. So it was and so shall it be.

I'm the PP you're responding to, and I have never even aspired to be hip or cool, before, during, or after kids in the house. What does that have to do with walking and riding a bike?

You seem not to have read the post immediately above the one you responded to.

Everyone already bikes and walks within the neighborhoods on the side streets. The very places you seemingly wish to divert traffic to.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:That's what's so wrong about these efforts. Upper Connecticut will never be cool or hip. That's because it is the part of town that people move to when they start families and stop being cool or hip. It's a land of mom jeans and power walks. Conversations about schools and youth sports. Kid friendly restaurants and gardening. It's where Gen Z and Zoomers live at home with their parents. It's where Gen X moved when they had kids, just like the Boomers before them, and Millennials now.

To put it simply, there are too many kids and fuddy duddies to ever attract the trendy and childless.

It's the first I've ever heard that walking and riding a bike are things only done by the trendy and childless. I've been walking since I was 1, and riding a bike since I was 4, so this comes as quite a surprise.

That's why I want our neighborhood streets to be safe so that my kids can ride bikes there as they do now. More cars and trucks diverted from gridlocked Connecticut Avenue onto these streets will make them less safe.

Agreed! Neighborhood streets should be safe. All streets should be safe! Including Connecticut Avenue, which is also a neighborhood street and should also be safe.

How exactly will bike lanes make Connecticut Avenue safe, particularly when they squeeze capacity down? And Connecticut Avenue and the other major arterials are where the through traffic is supposed to go, because Upper Northwest Washington (Ward 3) lacks any of the radial freeways like in SE, SW, MoCo and Arlington.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:That's what's so wrong about these efforts. Upper Connecticut will never be cool or hip. That's because it is the part of town that people move to when they start families and stop being cool or hip. It's a land of mom jeans and power walks. Conversations about schools and youth sports. Kid friendly restaurants and gardening. It's where Gen Z and Zoomers live at home with their parents. It's where Gen X moved when they had kids, just like the Boomers before them, and Millennials now.

To put it simply, there are too many kids and fuddy duddies to ever attract the trendy and childless.

It's the first I've ever heard that walking and riding a bike are things only done by the trendy and childless. I've been walking since I was 1, and riding a bike since I was 4, so this comes as quite a surprise.

That's why I want our neighborhood streets to be safe so that my kids can ride bikes there as they do now. More cars and trucks diverted from gridlocked Connecticut Avenue onto these streets will make them less safe.

Agreed! Neighborhood streets should be safe. All streets should be safe! Including Connecticut Avenue, which is also a neighborhood street and should also be safe.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:That's what's so wrong about these efforts. Upper Connecticut will never be cool or hip. That's because it is the part of town that people move to when they start families and stop being cool or hip. It's a land of mom jeans and power walks. Conversations about schools and youth sports. Kid friendly restaurants and gardening. It's where Gen Z and Zoomers live at home with their parents. It's where Gen X moved when they had kids, just like the Boomers before them, and Millennials now.

To put it simply, there are too many kids and fuddy duddies to ever attract the trendy and childless.

It's the first I've ever heard that walking and riding a bike are things only done by the trendy and childless. I've been walking since I was 1, and riding a bike since I was 4, so this comes as quite a surprise.

It's ok, you got old and are no longer hip or cool. There's no shame in that. It's the circle of life. Remember, there is nothing less cool than a parent trying to pretend that they are. So it was and so shall it be.

I'm the PP you're responding to, and I have never even aspired to be hip or cool, before, during, or after kids in the house. What does that have to do with walking and riding a bike?

Greater Greater Washington, Coalition for Smarter Growth, Cleveland Park Smart Growth, etc. = fronts, lobbyists and spinmeisters for the real estate development industry.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:That's what's so wrong about these efforts. Upper Connecticut will never be cool or hip. That's because it is the part of town that people move to when they start families and stop being cool or hip. It's a land of mom jeans and power walks. Conversations about schools and youth sports. Kid friendly restaurants and gardening. It's where Gen Z and Zoomers live at home with their parents. It's where Gen X moved when they had kids, just like the Boomers before them, and Millennials now.

To put it simply, there are too many kids and fuddy duddies to ever attract the trendy and childless.

It's the first I've ever heard that walking and riding a bike are things only done by the trendy and childless. I've been walking since I was 1, and riding a bike since I was 4, so this comes as quite a surprise.

It's ok, you got old and are no longer hip or cool. There's no shame in that. It's the circle of life. Remember, there is nothing less cool than a parent trying to pretend that they are. So it was and so shall it be.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:That's what's so wrong about these efforts. Upper Connecticut will never be cool or hip. That's because it is the part of town that people move to when they start families and stop being cool or hip. It's a land of mom jeans and power walks. Conversations about schools and youth sports. Kid friendly restaurants and gardening. It's where Gen Z and Zoomers live at home with their parents. It's where Gen X moved when they had kids, just like the Boomers before them, and Millennials now.

To put it simply, there are too many kids and fuddy duddies to ever attract the trendy and childless.

It's the first I've ever heard that walking and riding a bike are things only done by the trendy and childless. I've been walking since I was 1, and riding a bike since I was 4, so this comes as quite a surprise.

That's why I want our neighborhood streets to be safe so that my kids can ride bikes there as they do now. More cars and trucks diverted from gridlocked Connecticut Avenue onto these streets will make them less safe.

Anonymous wrote:That's what's so wrong about these efforts. Upper Connecticut will never be cool or hip. That's because it is the part of town that people move to when they start families and stop being cool or hip. It's a land of mom jeans and power walks. Conversations about schools and youth sports. Kid friendly restaurants and gardening. It's where Gen Z and Zoomers live at home with their parents. It's where Gen X moved when they had kids, just like the Boomers before them, and Millennials now.

To put it simply, there are too many kids and fuddy duddies to ever attract the trendy and childless.

It's the first I've ever heard that walking and riding a bike are things only done by the trendy and childless. I've been walking since I was 1, and riding a bike since I was 4, so this comes as quite a surprise.

That's what's so wrong about these efforts. Upper Connecticut will never be cool or hip. That's because it is the part of town that people move to when they start families and stop being cool or hip. It's a land of mom jeans and power walks. Conversations about schools and youth sports. Kid friendly restaurants and gardening. It's where Gen Z and Zoomers live at home with their parents. It's where Gen X moved when they had kids, just like the Boomers before them, and Millennials now.

To put it simply, there are too many kids and fuddy duddies to ever attract the trendy and childless.

The DC police union position against the Connecticut Avenue bike lane proposal apparently has prompted WABA to rush the release of a “Coalition Letter Regarding Connecticut Avenue Multimodal Project” in support of bike lanes. What’s noteworthy about the “coalition” should have seemed so obvious in hindsight, the active role of Greater Greater Washington and the various development lobby groups in the echo chamber in pushing the construction of the bike lanes. It’s clear that the Option C bike lane plan is not just about alternative transportation options, it’s a necessary ingredient, an enabling condition for the development lobby to realize its plans to redevelop all of Connecticut Avenue from the Taft Bridge up to Chevy Chase Circle as a much taller, denser, busier urban corridor. Maybe that’s even the primary reason driving bike lanes forward. One challenge that DC real estate developers and investors face is that Connecticut Ave and Ward 3 in general lack the “vibe” or coolness factor of U Street and other hot neighborhoods to attract the Millennial and Gen Z renters and purchasers that they desperately need. They believe that bike lanes will help to market the Connecticut corridor to this demographic. And just as bike lanes can help to support upzoned, upmarket development along the entire length of Connecticut, much more development is necessary to provide more bike riders to justify the cost and disruption and impact of Option C. That’s the real deal - bike lanes for greater, greater development.

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:Now the bike lobby has to reckon with the DC Police Union, which is officially on record as opposing Connecticut Ave bike lanes as worsening traffic congestion and making conditions less safe.

There have been over 300 car crashes since the "Option C" was announced by the mayor. How much police time and traffic tie ups did those crashes cause?

OK, but where's the evidence that Option C will reduce car accidents on Connecticut Avenue? The police union says it may actually make the avenue less safe. Of course, eliminating a rush hour travel lane will reduce the avenue's carrying capacity. Maybe that could reduce accidents on Connecticut Avenue (and put them on other streets) if constrained capacity causes vehicles to divert elsewhere. But then you'll see more accidents on Reno Rd and side streets.

Traffic studies and best practices from other cities show that the changes proposed by DDOT will make the street safer. But don't let sciences and facts get in the way of innuendo and hyperbole.

By slowing traffic to a crawl, and gridlock during peak times? That will only lead to more rear end collisions and other accidents, especially as more frustrated drivers change lanes constantly or flee Connecticut congestion and divert to narrower streets that weren't designed for increased traffic.

If that frustrates people, then they don't have the maturity and self control to operate a vehicle.

Let’s say that you’re right. So how would you have DC deal with that while residents of 34th St, Porter, and other nearby roadways are having to dea with all the vehicles (and their frustrated drivers) that divert from Connecticut Ave.?

They are roads already. People are already driving on them, some of them, too fast. There is a reason there is a speed activated light on Porter, for example, and speed humps on other side streets. Are you suggesting those roads should be closed, or they are somehow exempt from the ills of motor vehicle operation?

equity?

Narrow side streets like Macomb and Brandywine were not built to carry substantial cross traffic. Imagine what even a 30% increase in traffic from vehicles diverting from Connecticut Ave would mean for safety on these and similar streets. Reno (called 34th St south of Tilden) already carries too much commuter traffic and has many kids walking and crossing to the several schools along it.

This is just a folk version of traffic engineering. In fact it is better to spread out and slow down traffic, and incentize alternatives. You seem to think that a good solution is a network of highways cutting through the city (as long as its not your block of course).

If the bike lobby is advocating to divert and spread out thru and truck traffic from Connecticut Avenue and other arterials through neighborhood streets, then politically it is more likely that they will ride their bikes on the Yellow Brick Road long before they get dedicated bike lanes.

People driving cars already divert and spread out through the network of streets. Changes on CT Ave won't alter or make it worse. It already happens.

How will it not alter or make things worse? That doesn't seem logically possible. If the changes dont change anything then why would we do them?

Because the current configuation is unsafe and making the changes will make it better for all users, but particularly pedestrians and cyclists.

So it will make things worse on those streets? The very streets that most of the pedestrians and cyclists use.

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:Now the bike lobby has to reckon with the DC Police Union, which is officially on record as opposing Connecticut Ave bike lanes as worsening traffic congestion and making conditions less safe.

There have been over 300 car crashes since the "Option C" was announced by the mayor. How much police time and traffic tie ups did those crashes cause?

OK, but where's the evidence that Option C will reduce car accidents on Connecticut Avenue? The police union says it may actually make the avenue less safe. Of course, eliminating a rush hour travel lane will reduce the avenue's carrying capacity. Maybe that could reduce accidents on Connecticut Avenue (and put them on other streets) if constrained capacity causes vehicles to divert elsewhere. But then you'll see more accidents on Reno Rd and side streets.

Traffic studies and best practices from other cities show that the changes proposed by DDOT will make the street safer. But don't let sciences and facts get in the way of innuendo and hyperbole.

By slowing traffic to a crawl, and gridlock during peak times? That will only lead to more rear end collisions and other accidents, especially as more frustrated drivers change lanes constantly or flee Connecticut congestion and divert to narrower streets that weren't designed for increased traffic.

If that frustrates people, then they don't have the maturity and self control to operate a vehicle.

Let’s say that you’re right. So how would you have DC deal with that while residents of 34th St, Porter, and other nearby roadways are having to dea with all the vehicles (and their frustrated drivers) that divert from Connecticut Ave.?

They are roads already. People are already driving on them, some of them, too fast. There is a reason there is a speed activated light on Porter, for example, and speed humps on other side streets. Are you suggesting those roads should be closed, or they are somehow exempt from the ills of motor vehicle operation?

equity?

Narrow side streets like Macomb and Brandywine were not built to carry substantial cross traffic. Imagine what even a 30% increase in traffic from vehicles diverting from Connecticut Ave would mean for safety on these and similar streets. Reno (called 34th St south of Tilden) already carries too much commuter traffic and has many kids walking and crossing to the several schools along it.

This is just a folk version of traffic engineering. In fact it is better to spread out and slow down traffic, and incentize alternatives. You seem to think that a good solution is a network of highways cutting through the city (as long as its not your block of course).

If the bike lobby is advocating to divert and spread out thru and truck traffic from Connecticut Avenue and other arterials through neighborhood streets, then politically it is more likely that they will ride their bikes on the Yellow Brick Road long before they get dedicated bike lanes.

People driving cars already divert and spread out through the network of streets. Changes on CT Ave won't alter or make it worse. It already happens.

How will it not alter or make things worse? That doesn't seem logically possible. If the changes dont change anything then why would we do them?

Because the current configuation is unsafe and making the changes will make it better for all users, but particularly pedestrians and cyclists.

And the pedestrians and cyclists are generally the people who live on and around CT Ave, so ya, the changes should be made for the taxpaying residents who live there.

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:Now the bike lobby has to reckon with the DC Police Union, which is officially on record as opposing Connecticut Ave bike lanes as worsening traffic congestion and making conditions less safe.

There have been over 300 car crashes since the "Option C" was announced by the mayor. How much police time and traffic tie ups did those crashes cause?

OK, but where's the evidence that Option C will reduce car accidents on Connecticut Avenue? The police union says it may actually make the avenue less safe. Of course, eliminating a rush hour travel lane will reduce the avenue's carrying capacity. Maybe that could reduce accidents on Connecticut Avenue (and put them on other streets) if constrained capacity causes vehicles to divert elsewhere. But then you'll see more accidents on Reno Rd and side streets.

Traffic studies and best practices from other cities show that the changes proposed by DDOT will make the street safer. But don't let sciences and facts get in the way of innuendo and hyperbole.

By slowing traffic to a crawl, and gridlock during peak times? That will only lead to more rear end collisions and other accidents, especially as more frustrated drivers change lanes constantly or flee Connecticut congestion and divert to narrower streets that weren't designed for increased traffic.

If that frustrates people, then they don't have the maturity and self control to operate a vehicle.

Let’s say that you’re right. So how would you have DC deal with that while residents of 34th St, Porter, and other nearby roadways are having to dea with all the vehicles (and their frustrated drivers) that divert from Connecticut Ave.?

They are roads already. People are already driving on them, some of them, too fast. There is a reason there is a speed activated light on Porter, for example, and speed humps on other side streets. Are you suggesting those roads should be closed, or they are somehow exempt from the ills of motor vehicle operation?

equity?

Narrow side streets like Macomb and Brandywine were not built to carry substantial cross traffic. Imagine what even a 30% increase in traffic from vehicles diverting from Connecticut Ave would mean for safety on these and similar streets. Reno (called 34th St south of Tilden) already carries too much commuter traffic and has many kids walking and crossing to the several schools along it.

This is just a folk version of traffic engineering. In fact it is better to spread out and slow down traffic, and incentize alternatives. You seem to think that a good solution is a network of highways cutting through the city (as long as its not your block of course).

If the bike lobby is advocating to divert and spread out thru and truck traffic from Connecticut Avenue and other arterials through neighborhood streets, then politically it is more likely that they will ride their bikes on the Yellow Brick Road long before they get dedicated bike lanes.

People driving cars already divert and spread out through the network of streets. Changes on CT Ave won't alter or make it worse. It already happens.

How will it not alter or make things worse? That doesn't seem logically possible. If the changes dont change anything then why would we do them?

Because the current configuation is unsafe and making the changes will make it better for all users, but particularly pedestrians and cyclists.

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:Now the bike lobby has to reckon with the DC Police Union, which is officially on record as opposing Connecticut Ave bike lanes as worsening traffic congestion and making conditions less safe.

There have been over 300 car crashes since the "Option C" was announced by the mayor. How much police time and traffic tie ups did those crashes cause?

OK, but where's the evidence that Option C will reduce car accidents on Connecticut Avenue? The police union says it may actually make the avenue less safe. Of course, eliminating a rush hour travel lane will reduce the avenue's carrying capacity. Maybe that could reduce accidents on Connecticut Avenue (and put them on other streets) if constrained capacity causes vehicles to divert elsewhere. But then you'll see more accidents on Reno Rd and side streets.

Traffic studies and best practices from other cities show that the changes proposed by DDOT will make the street safer. But don't let sciences and facts get in the way of innuendo and hyperbole.

By slowing traffic to a crawl, and gridlock during peak times? That will only lead to more rear end collisions and other accidents, especially as more frustrated drivers change lanes constantly or flee Connecticut congestion and divert to narrower streets that weren't designed for increased traffic.

If that frustrates people, then they don't have the maturity and self control to operate a vehicle.

Let’s say that you’re right. So how would you have DC deal with that while residents of 34th St, Porter, and other nearby roadways are having to dea with all the vehicles (and their frustrated drivers) that divert from Connecticut Ave.?

They are roads already. People are already driving on them, some of them, too fast. There is a reason there is a speed activated light on Porter, for example, and speed humps on other side streets. Are you suggesting those roads should be closed, or they are somehow exempt from the ills of motor vehicle operation?

equity?

Narrow side streets like Macomb and Brandywine were not built to carry substantial cross traffic. Imagine what even a 30% increase in traffic from vehicles diverting from Connecticut Ave would mean for safety on these and similar streets. Reno (called 34th St south of Tilden) already carries too much commuter traffic and has many kids walking and crossing to the several schools along it.

This is just a folk version of traffic engineering. In fact it is better to spread out and slow down traffic, and incentize alternatives. You seem to think that a good solution is a network of highways cutting through the city (as long as its not your block of course).

If the bike lobby is advocating to divert and spread out thru and truck traffic from Connecticut Avenue and other arterials through neighborhood streets, then politically it is more likely that they will ride their bikes on the Yellow Brick Road long before they get dedicated bike lanes.

People driving cars already divert and spread out through the network of streets. Changes on CT Ave won't alter or make it worse. It already happens.

How will it not alter or make things worse? That doesn't seem logically possible. If the changes dont change anything then why would we do them?

DP. To clarify what the pronoun "it" refers to, in the post you're responding to:

"People driving cars already divert and spread out through the network of streets. Changes on CT Ave won't alter [people driving cars already diverting or spreading out through the network of streets] or make [people driving cars already diverting or spreading out through the network of streets] worse. [People driving cars already diverting or spreading out through the network of streets] already happens."

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:Now the bike lobby has to reckon with the DC Police Union, which is officially on record as opposing Connecticut Ave bike lanes as worsening traffic congestion and making conditions less safe.

There have been over 300 car crashes since the "Option C" was announced by the mayor. How much police time and traffic tie ups did those crashes cause?

OK, but where's the evidence that Option C will reduce car accidents on Connecticut Avenue? The police union says it may actually make the avenue less safe. Of course, eliminating a rush hour travel lane will reduce the avenue's carrying capacity. Maybe that could reduce accidents on Connecticut Avenue (and put them on other streets) if constrained capacity causes vehicles to divert elsewhere. But then you'll see more accidents on Reno Rd and side streets.

Traffic studies and best practices from other cities show that the changes proposed by DDOT will make the street safer. But don't let sciences and facts get in the way of innuendo and hyperbole.

By slowing traffic to a crawl, and gridlock during peak times? That will only lead to more rear end collisions and other accidents, especially as more frustrated drivers change lanes constantly or flee Connecticut congestion and divert to narrower streets that weren't designed for increased traffic.

If that frustrates people, then they don't have the maturity and self control to operate a vehicle.

Let’s say that you’re right. So how would you have DC deal with that while residents of 34th St, Porter, and other nearby roadways are having to dea with all the vehicles (and their frustrated drivers) that divert from Connecticut Ave.?

They are roads already. People are already driving on them, some of them, too fast. There is a reason there is a speed activated light on Porter, for example, and speed humps on other side streets. Are you suggesting those roads should be closed, or they are somehow exempt from the ills of motor vehicle operation?

equity?

Narrow side streets like Macomb and Brandywine were not built to carry substantial cross traffic. Imagine what even a 30% increase in traffic from vehicles diverting from Connecticut Ave would mean for safety on these and similar streets. Reno (called 34th St south of Tilden) already carries too much commuter traffic and has many kids walking and crossing to the several schools along it.

This is just a folk version of traffic engineering. In fact it is better to spread out and slow down traffic, and incentize alternatives. You seem to think that a good solution is a network of highways cutting through the city (as long as its not your block of course).

If the bike lobby is advocating to divert and spread out thru and truck traffic from Connecticut Avenue and other arterials through neighborhood streets, then politically it is more likely that they will ride their bikes on the Yellow Brick Road long before they get dedicated bike lanes.

People driving cars already divert and spread out through the network of streets. Changes on CT Ave won't alter or make it worse. It already happens.

How will it not alter or make things worse? That doesn't seem logically possible. If the changes dont change anything then why would we do them?