Options for opposing Connecticut Avenue changes?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's in everyone's interest -- drivers, pedestrians, cyclists -- to have any much car traffic moving as efficiently as possible on major roads, ie any street named after a state. That's what they were designed for and that's where everyone expects there to be lots of traffic. When we force drivers to start cutting through neighborhoods on side streets because the main arteries are clogged, that's when we're asking for trouble.

+1. And it could be even worse on the weekends when tourists heading to the Zoo get routed by Waze onto Reno and into the neighborhoods. It’s completely foreseeable, sadly. Homeowners on side streets adjacent to Connecticut will get no relief.

It is frustrating how many people commenting on here and the local listserves have no idea what they are talking about - people who are clueless about both the current baseline and what the road will look like in the future.

On weekends CT Ave in the future will in fact not have the same car carrying capacity it has today - it will have a greater car carrying capacity.

Currently on weekends (and 90% of the entire week in fact and the way the road has been the last 50 years outside of rush hour) Connecticut has two travel lanes in each direction.

Under Concept C on weekends (and the remaining 10% of the week) the road will have two travel lanes in each direction.

But for the 90% of the week that is not rush hour the roads carrying capacity will actually be increasing because most intersections will now have queuing pockets for left hand turns which only exist today at a couple of intersections in the corridor.

So today if you drive on CT Ave on a Saturday afternoon even a single car waiting to turn left blocks the entire left lane until he can make a turn, effectively reducing the road to one lane.

If you are as familiar with CT Ave as I am you know that it is pretty common to have left hand turning cars queued up at every single intersection which means that it is common that only one lane of traffic is flowing through intersections and that behind that lane you have block by block clusterfu(ks of cars jumping in and out of the center lane to go around the queued cars and that lane jumping is one of the most common causes of accidents in urban areas.

If you are as familiar with CT Ave as I am you also know that even when there were reversible lanes cars were commonly illegally parked in the curb lane and other cars commonly ignored the rush hour left turn prohibitions and guess what that meant - it meant that even during rush hour CT Ave at intersections was commonly squeezed down to 2 lanes of traffic flowing in each direction.

Under the previous and current rush hour configurations left hand turns were prohibited which in fact made it harder to legally use CT Ave to get to the residential side streets effectively pushing some of those trips onto the side streets, at least for the handful of drivers who actually obeyed the turn restrictions.

In the future during rush hour not only will you be able to park on one-side of CT Ave (that has been prohibited on both sides 6 hours a day during rush hour)but you will be able to turn off of CT Ave to get to your home on a residential side street.

If any of you car dependent luddites had actually read the traffic study you would know that almost all of the projected increases in travel delays for drivers are projected to be on the E-W roads which again if you understood the baseline current conditions would not be a surprise because that is where the delays and subpar levels of service are today which again is not a surprise to anyone with a functioning brain because there is relatively little E-W capacity for moving people whether in cars or on public transportation (or even on bikes) because of the physical barrier of Rock Creek Park.

That is why so many of the car diversions happen outside the neighborhood (opponents keep saying 7000 cars will be diverted onto neighborhood streets but that is not what the traffic study says - it says 7000 cars will find other routes and it estimates the vast majority will find routes completely outside of the CT Ave corridor) and why the impacts on alternate N-S routes in the neighborhood are so minimal - the chokepoints are all for people going E-W and many of those drivers aren't originating near the corridor in the first place and will find an alternate N-S corridor.

In fact if any of you car zealots had read the traffic study you'd know that it actually predicts improved levels of service for almost all of the intersections along CT Avenue because the corridor will be moving fewer cars.

Or to put it in simpler terms this change will negatively impact suburban drivers while positively impacting DC residents, including those who still choose to drive.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's in everyone's interest -- drivers, pedestrians, cyclists -- to have any much car traffic moving as efficiently as possible on major roads, ie any street named after a state. That's what they were designed for and that's where everyone expects there to be lots of traffic. When we force drivers to start cutting through neighborhoods on side streets because the main arteries are clogged, that's when we're asking for trouble.

It is also in everyone's interest to have roads where pedestrians, cyclists and drivers, can move about their business in a safe manner. When a road is designed such that someone operating a car can move fast enough that they overturn it, as happened on Connecticut Avenue earlier this month, that is problematic. I am not sure why anyone would defend the status quo, which is clearly unsafe.

We'd all be better off if the handful of dudes super into bikes would just take the subway.

If I want to go from Chevy Chase to Vace, the Metro isn't really going to help me.

How many people are going from Chevy Chase to Vace? Not many. Much better to make Vace’s block back into a neighborhood/tourist destination- which will be helped by traffic calming, not hurt. CT Ave retail is not like a strip mall you drive to.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's in everyone's interest -- drivers, pedestrians, cyclists -- to have any much car traffic moving as efficiently as possible on major roads, ie any street named after a state. That's what they were designed for and that's where everyone expects there to be lots of traffic. When we force drivers to start cutting through neighborhoods on side streets because the main arteries are clogged, that's when we're asking for trouble.

It is in everyone’s interest - and when I say everyone, I mean exactly that - for people to drive single occupant vehicles only when absolutely necessary and to opt for alternative modes of transportation whenever possible and, when they do drive, to drive at a speed low enough to minimize the risk of death or serious injury to other drivers, cyclists, and pedestrians. The proposed PBL on CT Ave is perfectly consistent with these interests.

This is all just wishful thinking. D.C. is a car city. That's just what it is. We have more cars than households -- a lot more. People don't want to ride bikes. They don't want to ride the bus. The subway used to be extremely popular until our government drove it into the ground. If we wanted to get people out of cars, we'd focus on making the subway useable again, but no one seems to want to do that. Instead, we're focused on building bike lanes that virtually no one uses.

repeatedly referring to the metro as “the subway” doesn’t exactly make me think you’re authentically interested in or knowledgeable about transit in DC …

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's in everyone's interest -- drivers, pedestrians, cyclists -- to have any much car traffic moving as efficiently as possible on major roads, ie any street named after a state. That's what they were designed for and that's where everyone expects there to be lots of traffic. When we force drivers to start cutting through neighborhoods on side streets because the main arteries are clogged, that's when we're asking for trouble.

It is in everyone’s interest - and when I say everyone, I mean exactly that - for people to drive single occupant vehicles only when absolutely necessary and to opt for alternative modes of transportation whenever possible and, when they do drive, to drive at a speed low enough to minimize the risk of death or serious injury to other drivers, cyclists, and pedestrians. The proposed PBL on CT Ave is perfectly consistent with these interests.

This is all just wishful thinking. D.C. is a car city. That's just what it is. We have more cars than households -- a lot more. People don't want to ride bikes. They don't want to ride the bus. The subway used to be extremely popular until our government drove it into the ground. If we wanted to get people out of cars, we'd focus on making the subway useable again, but no one seems to want to do that. Instead, we're focused on building bike lanes that virtually no one uses.

Only 40% of the people have cars. So maybe YOUR neighborhood is car city, but DC isn't. Further, it is only car city, to your estimation, because we don't have the biking and mass transit infrastructure for something different. So if we invest in the something different, we will get...something different.

Was time Square always a pedestrian focal point to New York City? No - Jeanette Sadik-Kahn and Mayor Bloomberg implemented something different and it has been wonderful and a huge revenue boost for the city.

DC can and is, doing the same.

There's 288,000 households in Washington D.C. per the Census Bureau. There's 300,000 cars registered with the city. There must be tens of thousands more unregistered cars, especially give how the city charges an arm and a leg for registration. Also, have you been to New York City? Washington D.C. is not remotely similar to NYC.

Multiple families, just on my block have 3-5 cars.

Aslo, the census doesn't lie. The number s 40%. Most people cannot afford one car, much less 3-5.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's in everyone's interest -- drivers, pedestrians, cyclists -- to have any much car traffic moving as efficiently as possible on major roads, ie any street named after a state. That's what they were designed for and that's where everyone expects there to be lots of traffic. When we force drivers to start cutting through neighborhoods on side streets because the main arteries are clogged, that's when we're asking for trouble.

It is in everyone’s interest - and when I say everyone, I mean exactly that - for people to drive single occupant vehicles only when absolutely necessary and to opt for alternative modes of transportation whenever possible and, when they do drive, to drive at a speed low enough to minimize the risk of death or serious injury to other drivers, cyclists, and pedestrians. The proposed PBL on CT Ave is perfectly consistent with these interests.

This is all just wishful thinking. D.C. is a car city. That's just what it is. We have more cars than households -- a lot more. People don't want to ride bikes. They don't want to ride the bus. The subway used to be extremely popular until our government drove it into the ground. If we wanted to get people out of cars, we'd focus on making the subway useable again, but no one seems to want to do that. Instead, we're focused on building bike lanes that virtually no one uses.

The metro is run by WMATA. How did "our" government drive it into the ground?

Where do you think WMATA gets its money? If the subway system had to rely on people's fares to pay the bills, it would have closed a long time ago.

So no, you don't have an answer for how "our" government is running metro into the ground.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So many excuses for not getting your way.

Such a strange mentality that reveals so much. This isn't a discussion of what movie to watch or what to have for dinner. It's a discussion of a very important and very localized long term public policy proposal. A policy discussion that for whatever reason did not actually occur prior to the decision being made.

the discussion occurred! just because you didn’t bother to stay engaged doesn’t mean it didn’t happen.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So many excuses for not getting your way.

Such a strange mentality that reveals so much. This isn't a discussion of what movie to watch or what to have for dinner. It's a discussion of a very important and very localized long term public policy proposal. A policy discussion that for whatever reason did not actually occur prior to the decision being made.

Yes it did, for over 2 years, this was hashed and re-hashed at DDOT meetings and various ANC meetings.

Sorry you didn't hear about it til now.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's in everyone's interest -- drivers, pedestrians, cyclists -- to have any much car traffic moving as efficiently as possible on major roads, ie any street named after a state. That's what they were designed for and that's where everyone expects there to be lots of traffic. When we force drivers to start cutting through neighborhoods on side streets because the main arteries are clogged, that's when we're asking for trouble.

+1. And it could be even worse on the weekends when tourists heading to the Zoo get routed by Waze onto Reno and into the neighborhoods. It’s completely foreseeable, sadly. Homeowners on side streets adjacent to Connecticut will get no relief.

It is frustrating how many people commenting on here and the local listserves have no idea what they are talking about - people who are clueless about both the current baseline and what the road will look like in the future.

On weekends CT Ave in the future will in fact not have the same car carrying capacity it has today - it will have a greater car carrying capacity.

Currently on weekends (and 90% of the entire week in fact and the way the road has been the last 50 years outside of rush hour) Connecticut has two travel lanes in each direction.

Under Concept C on weekends (and the remaining 10% of the week) the road will have two travel lanes in each direction.

But for the 90% of the week that is not rush hour the roads carrying capacity will actually be increasing because most intersections will now have queuing pockets for left hand turns which only exist today at a couple of intersections in the corridor.

So today if you drive on CT Ave on a Saturday afternoon even a single car waiting to turn left blocks the entire left lane until he can make a turn, effectively reducing the road to one lane.

If you are as familiar with CT Ave as I am you know that it is pretty common to have left hand turning cars queued up at every single intersection which means that it is common that only one lane of traffic is flowing through intersections and that behind that lane you have block by block clusterfu(ks of cars jumping in and out of the center lane to go around the queued cars and that lane jumping is one of the most common causes of accidents in urban areas.

If you are as familiar with CT Ave as I am you also know that even when there were reversible lanes cars were commonly illegally parked in the curb lane and other cars commonly ignored the rush hour left turn prohibitions and guess what that meant - it meant that even during rush hour CT Ave at intersections was commonly squeezed down to 2 lanes of traffic flowing in each direction.

Under the previous and current rush hour configurations left hand turns were prohibited which in fact made it harder to legally use CT Ave to get to the residential side streets effectively pushing some of those trips onto the side streets, at least for the handful of drivers who actually obeyed the turn restrictions.

In the future during rush hour not only will you be able to park on one-side of CT Ave (that has been prohibited on both sides 6 hours a day during rush hour)but you will be able to turn off of CT Ave to get to your home on a residential side street.

If any of you car dependent luddites had actually read the traffic study you would know that almost all of the projected increases in travel delays for drivers are projected to be on the E-W roads which again if you understood the baseline current conditions would not be a surprise because that is where the delays and subpar levels of service are today which again is not a surprise to anyone with a functioning brain because there is relatively little E-W capacity for moving people whether in cars or on public transportation (or even on bikes) because of the physical barrier of Rock Creek Park.

That is why so many of the car diversions happen outside the neighborhood (opponents keep saying 7000 cars will be diverted onto neighborhood streets but that is not what the traffic study says - it says 7000 cars will find other routes and it estimates the vast majority will find routes completely outside of the CT Ave corridor) and why the impacts on alternate N-S routes in the neighborhood are so minimal - the chokepoints are all for people going E-W and many of those drivers aren't originating near the corridor in the first place and will find an alternate N-S corridor.

In fact if any of you car zealots had read the traffic study you'd know that it actually predicts improved levels of service for almost all of the intersections along CT Avenue because the corridor will be moving fewer cars.

Or to put it in simpler terms this change will negatively impact suburban drivers while positively impacting DC residents, including those who still choose to drive.

thank you! the misinformation out there is astonishing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's in everyone's interest -- drivers, pedestrians, cyclists -- to have any much car traffic moving as efficiently as possible on major roads, ie any street named after a state. That's what they were designed for and that's where everyone expects there to be lots of traffic. When we force drivers to start cutting through neighborhoods on side streets because the main arteries are clogged, that's when we're asking for trouble.

It is also in everyone's interest to have roads where pedestrians, cyclists and drivers, can move about their business in a safe manner. When a road is designed such that someone operating a car can move fast enough that they overturn it, as happened on Connecticut Avenue earlier this month, that is problematic. I am not sure why anyone would defend the status quo, which is clearly unsafe.

We'd all be better off if the handful of dudes super into bikes would just take the subway.

If I want to go from Chevy Chase to Vace, the Metro isn't really going to help me.

How many people are going from Chevy Chase to Vace? Not many. Much better to make Vace’s block back into a neighborhood/tourist destination- which will be helped by traffic calming, not hurt. CT Ave retail is not like a strip mall you drive to.

You seem to be surprised how many people who live up and down Connecticut Avenue, travel up and down Connecticut Avenue to the different neighborhoods by foot and bike. That you say not too many people do that is, well shocking and undermines the idea that you think it is only commuters who use the Avenue. Strange.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So many excuses for not getting your way.

Such a strange mentality that reveals so much. This isn't a discussion of what movie to watch or what to have for dinner. It's a discussion of a very important and very localized long term public policy proposal. A policy discussion that for whatever reason did not actually occur prior to the decision being made.

Yes it did, for over 2 years, this was hashed and re-hashed at DDOT meetings and various ANC meetings.

Sorry you didn't hear about it til now.

they were too busy being a SFH owner with kids! All SFH owners are entitled to being personally contacted by a DDOT representative for a 1:1 briefing, and their views must be given ginormous weight. it’s in the DC Code, just check.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's in everyone's interest -- drivers, pedestrians, cyclists -- to have any much car traffic moving as efficiently as possible on major roads, ie any street named after a state. That's what they were designed for and that's where everyone expects there to be lots of traffic. When we force drivers to start cutting through neighborhoods on side streets because the main arteries are clogged, that's when we're asking for trouble.

It is also in everyone's interest to have roads where pedestrians, cyclists and drivers, can move about their business in a safe manner. When a road is designed such that someone operating a car can move fast enough that they overturn it, as happened on Connecticut Avenue earlier this month, that is problematic. I am not sure why anyone would defend the status quo, which is clearly unsafe.

We'd all be better off if the handful of dudes super into bikes would just take the subway.

If I want to go from Chevy Chase to Vace, the Metro isn't really going to help me.

How many people are going from Chevy Chase to Vace? Not many. Much better to make Vace’s block back into a neighborhood/tourist destination- which will be helped by traffic calming, not hurt. CT Ave retail is not like a strip mall you drive to.

I think you misunderstood...I bike from Chevy Chase to Vace, and the suggestion from someone else that I should take the Metro was...stupid.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's in everyone's interest -- drivers, pedestrians, cyclists -- to have any much car traffic moving as efficiently as possible on major roads, ie any street named after a state. That's what they were designed for and that's where everyone expects there to be lots of traffic. When we force drivers to start cutting through neighborhoods on side streets because the main arteries are clogged, that's when we're asking for trouble.

It is also in everyone's interest to have roads where pedestrians, cyclists and drivers, can move about their business in a safe manner. When a road is designed such that someone operating a car can move fast enough that they overturn it, as happened on Connecticut Avenue earlier this month, that is problematic. I am not sure why anyone would defend the status quo, which is clearly unsafe.

We'd all be better off if the handful of dudes super into bikes would just take the subway.

If I want to go from Chevy Chase to Vace, the Metro isn't really going to help me.

How many people are going from Chevy Chase to Vace? Not many. Much better to make Vace’s block back into a neighborhood/tourist destination- which will be helped by traffic calming, not hurt. CT Ave retail is not like a strip mall you drive to.

You seem to be surprised how many people who live up and down Connecticut Avenue, travel up and down Connecticut Avenue to the different neighborhoods by foot and bike. That you say not too many people do that is, well shocking and undermines the idea that you think it is only commuters who use the Avenue. Strange.

I’m not sure what you’re trying to say. My point is that urban retail generally has a large proportion of people arriving on foot. other city’s projects to calm traffic have resulted in increased local business, not decreased. The idea that the best business model for Vace is for people to drive from the suburbs and park right in front is just … not in accord with reality.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's in everyone's interest -- drivers, pedestrians, cyclists -- to have any much car traffic moving as efficiently as possible on major roads, ie any street named after a state. That's what they were designed for and that's where everyone expects there to be lots of traffic. When we force drivers to start cutting through neighborhoods on side streets because the main arteries are clogged, that's when we're asking for trouble.

It is also in everyone's interest to have roads where pedestrians, cyclists and drivers, can move about their business in a safe manner. When a road is designed such that someone operating a car can move fast enough that they overturn it, as happened on Connecticut Avenue earlier this month, that is problematic. I am not sure why anyone would defend the status quo, which is clearly unsafe.

We'd all be better off if the handful of dudes super into bikes would just take the subway.

If I want to go from Chevy Chase to Vace, the Metro isn't really going to help me.

How many people are going from Chevy Chase to Vace? Not many. Much better to make Vace’s block back into a neighborhood/tourist destination- which will be helped by traffic calming, not hurt. CT Ave retail is not like a strip mall you drive to.

You seem to be surprised how many people who live up and down Connecticut Avenue, travel up and down Connecticut Avenue to the different neighborhoods by foot and bike. That you say not too many people do that is, well shocking and undermines the idea that you think it is only commuters who use the Avenue. Strange.

I’m not sure what you’re trying to say. My point is that urban retail generally has a large proportion of people arriving on foot. other city’s projects to calm traffic have resulted in increased local business, not decreased. The idea that the best business model for Vace is for people to drive from the suburbs and park right in front is just … not in accord with reality.

This exact issue was studied by DDOT in Cleveland Park for the service lane study - only 10% of the customers to retail in CP are driving - 80% were walking and 10% were talking public transit. The same survey also found very low turnover rates for the parking spaces which means they were being used by relatively small numbers of people, presumably in many cases by staff of businesses instead of their customers.

So on an unpleasant car dominated traffic sewer like CT even there most customers are not driving - I think it is fair to assume if you made the corridor better for walking, biking and public transportation even fewer people would drive which seems like a win win.

As for me I love biking and love Vace but am happy to have a shorter bike ride to Mamma Lucia when I need a slice.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's in everyone's interest -- drivers, pedestrians, cyclists -- to have any much car traffic moving as efficiently as possible on major roads, ie any street named after a state. That's what they were designed for and that's where everyone expects there to be lots of traffic. When we force drivers to start cutting through neighborhoods on side streets because the main arteries are clogged, that's when we're asking for trouble.

It is also in everyone's interest to have roads where pedestrians, cyclists and drivers, can move about their business in a safe manner. When a road is designed such that someone operating a car can move fast enough that they overturn it, as happened on Connecticut Avenue earlier this month, that is problematic. I am not sure why anyone would defend the status quo, which is clearly unsafe.

We'd all be better off if the handful of dudes super into bikes would just take the subway.

If I want to go from Chevy Chase to Vace, the Metro isn't really going to help me.

How many people are going from Chevy Chase to Vace? Not many. Much better to make Vace’s block back into a neighborhood/tourist destination- which will be helped by traffic calming, not hurt. CT Ave retail is not like a strip mall you drive to.

You seem to be surprised how many people who live up and down Connecticut Avenue, travel up and down Connecticut Avenue to the different neighborhoods by foot and bike. That you say not too many people do that is, well shocking and undermines the idea that you think it is only commuters who use the Avenue. Strange.

I’m not sure what you’re trying to say. My point is that urban retail generally has a large proportion of people arriving on foot. other city’s projects to calm traffic have resulted in increased local business, not decreased. The idea that the best business model for Vace is for people to drive from the suburbs and park right in front is just … not in accord with reality.

This exact issue was studied by DDOT in Cleveland Park for the service lane study - only 10% of the customers to retail in CP are driving - 80% were walking and 10% were talking public transit. The same survey also found very low turnover rates for the parking spaces which means they were being used by relatively small numbers of people, presumably in many cases by staff of businesses instead of their customers.

So on an unpleasant car dominated traffic sewer like CT even there most customers are not driving - I think it is fair to assume if you made the corridor better for walking, biking and public transportation even fewer people would drive which seems like a win win.

As for me I love biking and love Vace but am happy to have a shorter bike ride to Mamma Lucia when I need a slice.

Vace >>>>> Mama Lucia

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's in everyone's interest -- drivers, pedestrians, cyclists -- to have any much car traffic moving as efficiently as possible on major roads, ie any street named after a state. That's what they were designed for and that's where everyone expects there to be lots of traffic. When we force drivers to start cutting through neighborhoods on side streets because the main arteries are clogged, that's when we're asking for trouble.

It is also in everyone's interest to have roads where pedestrians, cyclists and drivers, can move about their business in a safe manner. When a road is designed such that someone operating a car can move fast enough that they overturn it, as happened on Connecticut Avenue earlier this month, that is problematic. I am not sure why anyone would defend the status quo, which is clearly unsafe.

We'd all be better off if the handful of dudes super into bikes would just take the subway.

If I want to go from Chevy Chase to Vace, the Metro isn't really going to help me.

How many people are going from Chevy Chase to Vace? Not many. Much better to make Vace’s block back into a neighborhood/tourist destination- which will be helped by traffic calming, not hurt. CT Ave retail is not like a strip mall you drive to.

You seem to be surprised how many people who live up and down Connecticut Avenue, travel up and down Connecticut Avenue to the different neighborhoods by foot and bike. That you say not too many people do that is, well shocking and undermines the idea that you think it is only commuters who use the Avenue. Strange.

I’m not sure what you’re trying to say. My point is that urban retail generally has a large proportion of people arriving on foot. other city’s projects to calm traffic have resulted in increased local business, not decreased. The idea that the best business model for Vace is for people to drive from the suburbs and park right in front is just … not in accord with reality.

We are arguing the same thing. I was vilifying the person who suggested I take the metro.