Connecticut Ave bike lanes are back!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Yeah, clearly people who owned a movie theater for decades have no idea about their customers.

The Uptown holds several hundred patrons at a time. Please show where, if everyone drove, they could all park on Connecticut Avenue at the same time?

When the blockbusters were there, particularly Star Wars, you would have a full theater, and then a full line of ticketholders waiting for the length of the movie to get in. That is about 1400 people. Are y9ou suggesting they all parked on the Avenue, all while the restaurants and other shops were being patronized at the same time?

The times I went there, I took Metro. Because what sane person wants to drive around searching for parking for 5-10 minutes when you can just take the freaking subway system????

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Probably Bob Ward, who is a pollster for a living and an advocate for bike lanes and dense development.

[Anonymous]

[mastodon]

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.

Here he goes again. Defund Pedestrian Safety.

Withholding funds is pretty much the Charles Allen brand,

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Probably Bob Ward, who is a pollster for a living and an advocate for bike lanes and dense development.

The Trumper who stumps for smart growth?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Uh, the community fought hard for those turn lanes for the better part of 20 years. Maybe check with some of your older neighbors before you spout off about a part of neighborhood history you know nothing about.

The neighborhoods fought to eliminate a reversible traffic lane, which presented a safety challenge just like the former reversible lane on Conn Ave. Most of Reno Rd doesn’t have turn lanes.[/quote]

Every single intersection from Cleveland Ave to Fessenden Street has turn lanes.

Would you like to revise that false statement?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

The neighborhoods fought to eliminate a reversible traffic lane, which presented a safety challenge just like the former reversible lane on Conn Ave. Most of Reno Rd doesn’t have turn lanes.

Every single intersection from Cleveland Ave to Fessenden Street has turn lanes.

Would you like to revise that false statement?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

The neighborhoods fought to eliminate a reversible traffic lane, which presented a safety challenge just like the former reversible lane on Conn Ave. Most of Reno Rd doesn’t have turn lanes.

Every single intersection from Cleveland Ave to Fessenden Street has turn lanes.

Would you like to revise that false statement?

Diverting traffic from a major road to what is obviously a smaller road that runs through multiple neighborghoods and past several schools may not make sense.

[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.

The bikers who patron the local businesses can use the sidewalks, as they have been for decades. If you are concern is the safety of children biking to school, please explain how diverting traffic to side streets and past several schools increases the safety of children biking. It does not.

[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?

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.

I did and do. Regularly park on the Avenue to patron the local businesses.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

The bikers who patron the local businesses can use the sidewalks, as they have been for decades. If you are concern is the safety of children biking to school, please explain how diverting traffic to side streets and past several schools increases the safety of children biking. It does not.

1) pedestrians complain about the cyclists on sidewalks. There is plenty of space to create room for pedestrians, cyclists and cars/trucks/buses. And in doing so, th latter only loses one lane. It isn't a big ask.
2) cars are already driving/diverted on to those side street, because they are roads people drive on. Actually sending more cars on them will slow them down and make them safer for pedestrians, if you want to think about it.
3) DDOT studies indicated that the traffic diversion would result in more metro ridership and people choosing other access points into the city, not necessarily diversion on the local side streets. The study is online if you actually want to read it rather than repeating the BS lies others have represented about it.

[Anonymous]

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.

There will be accidents and very likely a death or two if CT Ave traffic ends up on the side streets and Reno Rd. Guaranteed! The side streets are far more dangerous for pedestrians than CT. Not even close.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

The bikers who patron the local businesses can use the sidewalks, as they have been for decades. If you are concern is the safety of children biking to school, please explain how diverting traffic to side streets and past several schools increases the safety of children biking. It does not.

Well, yes, they CAN, but sidewalks are primarily for pedestrians. Bicycles on sidewalks don't work for pedestrians or bicyclists, they're only good for drivers who want bicyclists (and pedestrians) to be Somewhere Else, Over There, I Don't Really Care Where As Long As It's Out Of My Way. Sidewalks for pedestrians, bike lanes for people on bikes. This is basic.

[Anonymous]

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.

There will be accidents and very likely a death or two if CT Ave traffic ends up on the side streets and Reno Rd. Guaranteed! The side streets are far more dangerous for pedestrians than CT. Not even close.

I do not think that word means what you think it means.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Yeah, clearly people who owned a movie theater for decades have no idea about their customers.

The Uptown holds several hundred patrons at a time. Please show where, if everyone drove, they could all park on Connecticut Avenue at the same time?

When the blockbusters were there, particularly Star Wars, you would have a full theater, and then a full line of ticketholders waiting for the length of the movie to get in. That is about 1400 people. Are y9ou suggesting they all parked on the Avenue, all while the restaurants and other shops were being patronized at the same time?

The times I went there, I took Metro. Because what sane person wants to drive around searching for parking for 5-10 minutes when you can just take the freaking subway system????

Me too, for exactly that reason.

[Anonymous]

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: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.

The bikers who patron the local businesses can use the sidewalks, as they have been for decades. If you are concern is the safety of children biking to school, please explain how diverting traffic to side streets and past several schools increases the safety of children biking. It does not.

Well, yes, they CAN, but sidewalks are primarily for pedestrians. Bicycles on sidewalks don't work for pedestrians or bicyclists, they're only good for drivers who want bicyclists (and pedestrians) to be Somewhere Else, Over There, I Don't Really Care Where As Long As It's Out Of My Way. Sidewalks for pedestrians, bike lanes for people on bikes. This is basic.

Luckily, there aren't enough bicyclists on either Connecticut or its sidewalks for this to have any relevance.