Connecticut Ave bike lanes are back!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

The Uptown Theater owners oppose bike lanes on Connecticut because it will take away customer parking.

Are we really supposed to give a shlt about the feelings of the owner of a drastically underused theater regarding city transportation policy? Why doesn't anyone ask owner of the Takoma Theater about transportation policy in Ward 4?

The Uptown is one of the most important buildings in Cleveland Park, which locals fervently hope will be reopened as a theater or arts venue. The owner has been vocal that parking is important. Who would want to see the Uptown be lost to just more mixed-use generica?

I'm a DP, but I can love the Uptown and its historical significance to the area while still understanding that they may not be the expert on this subject. That's why I listen to the studies

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

The Uptown Theater owners oppose bike lanes on Connecticut because it will take away customer parking.

Are we really supposed to give a shlt about the feelings of the owner of a drastically underused theater regarding city transportation policy? Why doesn't anyone ask owner of the Takoma Theater about transportation policy in Ward 4?

The Uptown is one of the most important buildings in Cleveland Park, which locals fervently hope will be reopened as a theater or arts venue. The owner has been vocal that parking is important. Who would want to see the Uptown be lost to just more mixed-use generica?

I'm a DP, but I can love the Uptown and its historical significance to the area while still understanding that they may not be the expert on this subject. That's why I listen to the studies

I’m a Democratic progressive but I can understand the view that businesses have a better sense of their customers’ needs and desires than central planners in the D.C. Office of Planning and self-styled “urbanists” or “activists” do.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

The Uptown Theater owners oppose bike lanes on Connecticut because it will take away customer parking.

Are we really supposed to give a shlt about the feelings of the owner of a drastically underused theater regarding city transportation policy? Why doesn't anyone ask owner of the Takoma Theater about transportation policy in Ward 4?

The Uptown is one of the most important buildings in Cleveland Park, which locals fervently hope will be reopened as a theater or arts venue. The owner has been vocal that parking is important. Who would want to see the Uptown be lost to just more mixed-use generica?

I'm a DP, but I can love the Uptown and its historical significance to the area while still understanding that they may not be the expert on this subject. That's why I listen to the studies

I’m a Democratic progressive but I can understand the view that businesses have a better sense of their customers’ needs and desires than central planners in the D.C. Office of Planning and self-styled “urbanists” or “activists” do.

Well I can't do anything about your choice to be willfully ignorant

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

The Uptown Theater owners oppose bike lanes on Connecticut because it will take away customer parking.

Are we really supposed to give a shlt about the feelings of the owner of a drastically underused theater regarding city transportation policy? Why doesn't anyone ask owner of the Takoma Theater about transportation policy in Ward 4?

The Uptown is one of the most important buildings in Cleveland Park, which locals fervently hope will be reopened as a theater or arts venue. The owner has been vocal that parking is important. Who would want to see the Uptown be lost to just more mixed-use generica?

I'm a DP, but I can love the Uptown and its historical significance to the area while still understanding that they may not be the expert on this subject. That's why I listen to the studies

I’m a Democratic progressive but I can understand the view that businesses have a better sense of their customers’ needs and desires than central planners in the D.C. Office of Planning and self-styled “urbanists” or “activists” do.

Well I can't do anything about your choice to be willfully ignorant

DP. How is it that urban planners know so much about people and their preferences and yet are not massively rich?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:At the same time they are pushing to get rid of a significant amount of the bus service in the same area - re: the 96 and the L2. Buses are much more accessible to many people than the metro and bike lanes and should not be cut back

There is so much overlap with metrorail on this corridor that cutting the bus service actually makes sense.

So bikes can't ride on side streets and then double back on to CT Ave to do their shopping (there are tons of posts about how bikes must have a straight shot and bike lanes all the way along their preferred routes), but old people, disabled, people with little kids etc.. need to get themselves multiple blocks to the metro stops and up and down the escalators v.s the bus stops which are much more frequent and user friendly for groups that arent' fleet footed.

I'm pro-bike lane but agree with you that cutting bus service would be a mistake. However, to be clear, the posts don't say bikes "must have a straight shot"; they typically say riding in Rock Creek Park is a bad alternative to riding on Connecticut. If you wanted to put protected bike lanes on, say, Porter instead of CT, I'd be all for it, going a couple of blocks out of the way is nothing like going half a mile downhill out of the way (and then ending up in Georgetown instead of downtown).

Porter is perpendicular, not parallel, to Connectcut Ave. So that really isn't a replacement.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

The Uptown Theater owners oppose bike lanes on Connecticut because it will take away customer parking.

Are we really supposed to give a shlt about the feelings of the owner of a drastically underused theater regarding city transportation policy? Why doesn't anyone ask owner of the Takoma Theater about transportation policy in Ward 4?

The Uptown is one of the most important buildings in Cleveland Park, which locals fervently hope will be reopened as a theater or arts venue. The owner has been vocal that parking is important. Who would want to see the Uptown be lost to just more mixed-use generica?

I'm a DP, but I can love the Uptown and its historical significance to the area while still understanding that they may not be the expert on this subject. That's why I listen to the studies

I’m a Democratic progressive but I can understand the view that businesses have a better sense of their customers’ needs and desires than central planners in the D.C. Office of Planning and self-styled “urbanists” or “activists” do.

By "businesses" you mean the owner of a building who has sat on it for going on 4 years without doing jack shit? While an arthouse theater sits about 2 miles up the street and does great? Yeah. That person sure seems like they have an awesome business model.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So the criminal lobby’s friend, Charles Allen, now wants to prevent DDOT from funding any safety improvements at all along Connecticut Ave. (like a raised crosswalk on Davenport and Connecticut so that Murch kids can walk more safely to school) UNLESS Allen gets his bike lanes.

Is Allen a bratty child or a public servant?!

Never mind, this is my favorite tantrum

And when pedestrians die will you consider that a tantrum too?

Your doomsaying doesn't work on me

Apparently only bike lives matter. You folks are exactly who you present yourselves. Pedestrian safety = scaremongering. Incredible.

Agree. What makes this move so outrageous is that the alternative they chase is safer for pedestrians than the alternative that Allen wants. He’s completely throwing pedestrians under the bus for the sake of cyclists.

More like under Option 3, pedestrians stepping off a bus will get whacked by speeding cyclists as they try to cross the bike lanes to get to the curb. You wouldn't want that to happen to someone's grandma.

Yep, this is the Connecticut Avenue that Charles Allen wants:

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-media-max-width="560"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">WARNING We've been filming the chaotic & downright dangerous situation at the Westminster Bridge floating bus stop at St Thomas' hospital. Clip includes a speeding cyclist crashing into an elderly person. These designs are not safe & they need to be urgently halted <a href="https://twitter.com/Mark_J_Harper?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@Mark_J_Harper</a> <a href="https://t.co/MrScNnWLs7">pic.twitter.com/MrScNnWLs7</a></p>— NFBUK (@NFBUK) <a href="https://twitter.com/NFBUK/status/1787211980027101194?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">May 5, 2024</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

Sorry:

https://twitter.com/NFBUK/status/1787211980027101194

Might one suggest that creating a dedicated bike pathway through RC park be safer for all concerned.

You (falsely) make the assumption that this is solely about commuting downtown, but it isn't. It is about providing a safe mode of transportation in a commercial corridor so people can access amenities in a safe manner, so kids can ride to school safely etc. Sure, some will also commute downtown, but it isn't only about commuting, which is why the people who continuously cite the MWCOG commuting study get it wrong every time.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's time to make Connecticut avenue a grand boulevard that works for people living, working and being around it. Not the cars that drive through.

Right. More drive-through traffic can go on Porter Street or Reno Road.

DDOT proposed 24/7 parking on CT Ave. That would push more "cut through" traffic than Concept C.

Frumin is trying to avoid that.

Yeah, if your main objection to the bike lanes was that they would slow traffic on CT or force more cars off it to neighboring streets, you should not want parking, either. Bike lanes are a better choice from a driver's perspective than parking, because at least they also keep bikes out of the traffic lanes.

There are only 2 dozen bikes a day on Connecticut.

These numbers are consistent with my observations.

And you are counting bikes 24/7?

I see 20-30 daily when I drive on the Avenue, and those are the ones just around me. There is no way to know how many actual users there are unless you have multiple people doing an audit simultaneously at multiple locations.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's time to make Connecticut avenue a grand boulevard that works for people living, working and being around it. Not the cars that drive through.

Right. More drive-through traffic can go on Porter Street or Reno Road.

DDOT proposed 24/7 parking on CT Ave. That would push more "cut through" traffic than Concept C.

Frumin is trying to avoid that.

Yeah, if your main objection to the bike lanes was that they would slow traffic on CT or force more cars off it to neighboring streets, you should not want parking, either. Bike lanes are a better choice from a driver's perspective than parking, because at least they also keep bikes out of the traffic lanes.

There are only 2 dozen bikes a day on Connecticut.

Not sure how you could possibly know that, but either way, you're better off with a bike lane that only 24 people use than you are with 24-hour-a-day parking on both sides of the street, which takes up more space than the bike lane would.

And eliminating parking on Connecticut will hurt the businesses there, from dry cleaners to restaurants.

The great thing about Option C is that there is 24/ parking on one side of the street, something that doesn't exist today, so it is actually better for businesses.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's time to make Connecticut avenue a grand boulevard that works for people living, working and being around it. Not the cars that drive through.

Right. More drive-through traffic can go on Porter Street or Reno Road.

And diverting traffic into the side roads is no doubt safer. NOT.

That would be a good way to harass and push out more single family homeowners in the neighborhoods near Connecticut, then up-zone and redevelop those areas. Along with bike lanes, that's another part of the DC Smart Growth Urbanist fantasy.

No one is selling their three million dollar homes because of a few more cars on their side street.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:At the same time they are pushing to get rid of a significant amount of the bus service in the same area - re: the 96 and the L2. Buses are much more accessible to many people than the metro and bike lanes and should not be cut back

There is so much overlap with metrorail on this corridor that cutting the bus service actually makes sense.

So bikes can't ride on side streets and then double back on to CT Ave to do their shopping (there are tons of posts about how bikes must have a straight shot and bike lanes all the way along their preferred routes), but old people, disabled, people with little kids etc.. need to get themselves multiple blocks to the metro stops and up and down the escalators v.s the bus stops which are much more frequent and user friendly for groups that arent' fleet footed.

I'm pro-bike lane but agree with you that cutting bus service would be a mistake. However, to be clear, the posts don't say bikes "must have a straight shot"; they typically say riding in Rock Creek Park is a bad alternative to riding on Connecticut. If you wanted to put protected bike lanes on, say, Porter instead of CT, I'd be all for it, going a couple of blocks out of the way is nothing like going half a mile downhill out of the way (and then ending up in Georgetown instead of downtown).

Porter is perpendicular, not parallel, to Connectcut Ave. So that really isn't a replacement.

Ironic how bike bros see a Connecticut bike lane as nonnegotiable (so they can ride to a favorite bar or coffee place?) but have no problem in diverting thru trucks and car traffic from Connecticut to cross streets and parallel routes. In fact, moving thru traffic from the Connecticut Ave arterial to other streets seems to be their goal, to create a grand urbanist boulevard.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's time to make Connecticut avenue a grand boulevard that works for people living, working and being around it. Not the cars that drive through.

Right. More drive-through traffic can go on Porter Street or Reno Road.

DDOT proposed 24/7 parking on CT Ave. That would push more "cut through" traffic than Concept C.

Frumin is trying to avoid that.

Yeah, if your main objection to the bike lanes was that they would slow traffic on CT or force more cars off it to neighboring streets, you should not want parking, either. Bike lanes are a better choice from a driver's perspective than parking, because at least they also keep bikes out of the traffic lanes.

There are only 2 dozen bikes a day on Connecticut.

Not sure how you could possibly know that, but either way, you're better off with a bike lane that only 24 people use than you are with 24-hour-a-day parking on both sides of the street, which takes up more space than the bike lane would.

And eliminating parking on Connecticut will hurt the businesses there, from dry cleaners to restaurants.

Do you people really drive and park in front of the business you are going to on CT ave?

I have lived along the Conn Ave Corridor since the 1980's and have never once tried, because it is a waste of time. Parking on the side streets is always easier.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's time to make Connecticut avenue a grand boulevard that works for people living, working and being around it. Not the cars that drive through.

Right. More drive-through traffic can go on Porter Street or Reno Road.

DDOT proposed 24/7 parking on CT Ave. That would push more "cut through" traffic than Concept C.

Frumin is trying to avoid that.

Yeah, if your main objection to the bike lanes was that they would slow traffic on CT or force more cars off it to neighboring streets, you should not want parking, either. Bike lanes are a better choice from a driver's perspective than parking, because at least they also keep bikes out of the traffic lanes.

There are only 2 dozen bikes a day on Connecticut.

Not sure how you could possibly know that, but either way, you're better off with a bike lane that only 24 people use than you are with 24-hour-a-day parking on both sides of the street, which takes up more space than the bike lane would.

And eliminating parking on Connecticut will hurt the businesses there, from dry cleaners to restaurants.

I'll just leave it to the Council to respond to this inaccurate claim:

"The other major concern voiced by those in opposition to adding bicycle lanes on Connecticut Avenue NW is the impact on local businesses, with the logic being reduced vehicular flow and access results in fewer customers. But a literature review
on this suspected phenomenon suggests otherwise. Studies have found this not to be the case. On the contrary, “perhaps the best-known paper on the economic impacts of bicycle infrastructure, an intercept survey-based examination of various travel mode users in Portland, OR, showed that, on average, cyclists spent more at certain business types and patronized them more often.”48 In sum, the evidence actually suggest that bike lanes may actually decrease traffic congestion while also boosting local businesses."

That is actually an accurate claim and there are hundreds of studies that back it up. Or we could leave the status quo where the road is a traffic sewer for Maryland commuters who never stop to support DC businesses.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's time to make Connecticut avenue a grand boulevard that works for people living, working and being around it. Not the cars that drive through.

Right. More drive-through traffic can go on Porter Street or Reno Road.

DDOT proposed 24/7 parking on CT Ave. That would push more "cut through" traffic than Concept C.

Frumin is trying to avoid that.

Yeah, if your main objection to the bike lanes was that they would slow traffic on CT or force more cars off it to neighboring streets, you should not want parking, either. Bike lanes are a better choice from a driver's perspective than parking, because at least they also keep bikes out of the traffic lanes.

There are only 2 dozen bikes a day on Connecticut.

Not sure how you could possibly know that, but either way, you're better off with a bike lane that only 24 people use than you are with 24-hour-a-day parking on both sides of the street, which takes up more space than the bike lane would.

And eliminating parking on Connecticut will hurt the businesses there, from dry cleaners to restaurants.

Do you people really drive and park in front of the business you are going to on CT ave?

Seems like that would seriously limit the number of customers who can patronize the business, especially if the business owner also wants to park there.

The studies done by DDOT and the Cleveland Park Main Street showed that over 85% of the retail patrons walk or bike to the commercial areas.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Without bike lanes, what will happen to the Loggia Townes at Uptowne Plaza?

The Uptown Theater owners oppose bike lanes on Connecticut because it will take away customer parking.

Literally no one who went to the Uptown parked on Ct Ave. ever.