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?

They have parking in the rear, but given meter limits, no one who went to the Uptown ever parked on Connecticut Avenue to see a movie.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Walk from their parking spots in the neighborhood, lol. Is there anything you all don't dissemble about?

[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.

ironically though, they don't. I have polled businesses I support on the Avenue and none of them have any idea what transportation mode their customers use. Studies show (you can google it) that business owners in urban areas dramatically overestimate the number of patrons who drive to their shops.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Because they conduct and read studies, use census information and other data. It is a very quantitative profession.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Because, as is strikingly obvious from their comments here, they don't live in the area.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Two dozen. That's the amount of people that bike on Connecticut. Kids already ride safely to school on the side streets, where the schools are located. Your grand plan puts them at risk!

[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.

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.

DDOT counted. Ask them

[Anonymous]

This is not happening -- at least anytime soon. Even when the bike lanes were theoretically still on the table in 2023, the projected date for them coming online was 2028. Now that the city is going back to the drawing board, as the Mayor is committed to doing, we're talking 2032 at best. The city has no money, has no interest in discouraging people from driving downtown, and recognizes that it needs a better bike lane solution than the mishmash we have now.

[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.

Right, sorry, meant to type Reno. Porter already has a bike lane (and a steep grade).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Right, sorry, meant to type Reno. Porter already has a bike lane (and a steep grade).

Reno isn't wide enough for bike lanes given the neighborhoods desire for turn lanes, so no, not happening. That is why Connecticut Avenue is the best north-south route for bike lanes in upper NW. DDOT already studied this, no matter how much the interim director, who has no transportation expertise, wants to claim otherwise.

[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 definitely love the Uptown, but it’s been closed for four years, and so I’m not sure that we have any evidence that the current owners know any more about what’s good for it than anyone else does.

[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 definitely love the Uptown, but it’s been closed for four years, and so I’m not sure that we have any evidence that the current owners know any more about what’s good for it than anyone else does.

If only a small, non chain movie theater could possibly do well on Connecticut Avenue? Nah, it's an impossible thing 😒 🤔

[Anonymous]

I think part of the problem with the bike lane folks is that they’re never satisfied. When government meets one of their demands then they instantly have new requests. It never ends. I think a lot of governments are getting smarter on how to deal with these progressive groups, which is to say “no.” You see this with the clearing of the “encampments” on the college campuses. Five years ago they never would have sent police in to clear out the protesters. Now, governments understand there is no appeasing this crowd. It is a nonstop firehose of complaints and demands from them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Who conducted the survey/study for Main Street?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Right, sorry, meant to type Reno. Porter already has a bike lane (and a steep grade).

Reno isn't wide enough for bike lanes given the neighborhoods desire for turn lanes, so no, not happening. That is why Connecticut Avenue is the best north-south route for bike lanes in upper NW. DDOT already studied this, no matter how much the interim director, who has no transportation expertise, wants to claim otherwise.

There is no “neighborhood desire” for turn lanes. In fact, people have questioned having then at every intersection because they take up space that could be used for other purposes - perhaps a bike lane, street parking, or wider sidewalks — and encourage more cut through traffic on side streets.