Chevy Chase Community Center Redevelopment

[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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Chevy Chase DC on Connecticut Avenue is almost the perfect village shopping district in the city. Its mixture of neighborhood-serving retail and dining options is quite nice, as is the pedestrian scale. I don’t understand the imperative of downtown DC planners to turn this attractive area in to Friendship Heights East. Is their planning goal that every Washington neighborhood should become a generic riff on the Navy Yard?

The city wants to take its own property and put it to better use for more people that includes housing, a new community center and new library. Why is this a bad thing?

Because people who live in the area don't want it. We like our neighborhood village feel and don't need some developer to come in and turn it into some generic soulless development that mainly benefits the developers themselves. The Connecticut Ave apartments are teeming with vacancies. There's not housing shortage in Ward 3. Turn those into affordable housing. More people equals a more polluted city. Residential buildings are the second largest contributor to greenhouse gases (after commercial buildings) in DC. Single family housing is greener for DC.

https://doee.dc.gov/service/greenhouse-gas-inventories

*some* people who live in the area don't want it

there are plenty of people who live in the area who do want it

More people does not equal a more polluted city, particularly if said people are walking, bikin or using mass transit to get to work

but nice coded racist language to assume that the "poors" who would be living there are "dirty" - that is a you problem.

Ah, yes, if the facts are against you, pound the table and yell like hell. And your implicit assumption about my race is off the mark too.

Since you can't deal with the evidence-based link that actually shows that commercial and residential buildings are the biggest contributors to greenhouse gas emissions in the district (by far outstripping that produced by passenger vehicles for those reading along), you tried to throw in some sort of misguided race card because you have no facts on which to hang your argument.

On your comment about "many" wanting bike lanes. It seems that those who don't want the bike lanes outstrip those who do, given the plan to go back to the drawing board on the lanes. The is little to no bike traffic on Connecticut Ave NW at any given time, suggesting the demand for the bike lanes is largely rooted in the figments of the bike lobby members' imaginations (and let's add the GGW ANC members for good measure).


I won't even address your malicious attempt to twist words, so let's again stick to facts. The biggest greenhouse gas emitters in DC are commercial and residential buildings. So yeah, more people does equal to more pollution. And I don't think the Chevy Chase Library site is a realistic site for people to walk to work, as you suggest.

Since when does affordable housing = "poors?" Affordable housing differs from low-income housing, which is apparently what you were referring to in very pejorative terms. Since when does "poors" = race? Your assumptions say so much about your own twisted biases. But again, when the facts don't o your way, pound the table and yell like hell.

There is little bike traffic on CT Ave because it is a dangerous as EFF road to ride on.

There is also little bike traffic because there is little bike traffic.

If people felt safe to rid on it, they would. It isn't safe, ergo...

Serious question, if it’s as unsafe as you claim (BTW, zero recorded deaths along the project area) would a six inch piece of concrete make it materially safer?

4 people have died north of calvert in the last two years. one of them was in a car at the zoo, the other 3 were not - one walking across the road in a cross walk and the other two eating lunch at a greek restaurant.

Here's a video for you on the high speed road bollards that the PP above is referring to.

So ZERO cynical deaths. Thank you for that.

It's already been mentioned in this thread. Cyclist use of Conn Ave is seriously suppressed, because of legitimate safety concerns. There have been 6 crashes involving automobiles and bikes with injuries that were reported by the cyclists in that same time period.

Do we have pay for a cycle lane with the blood of a dead cyclist now?

Wouldn't it be smarter -- and safer -- to move the bike lanes (and cyclists) to Reno Road, instead of diverting Connecticut Avenue to Reno?

This has been suggested a million times. Please see the multi-hundred page thread on the topic:

https://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/1081657.page

The answer to your question is in there about 50 times.

The Smart Growth Urbanists apparently don't like the idea.

It isn't about smart growth urbanists. the retail is on the Avenue. That is where people want to go. Diverting cyclists to go up and down the hills in Cleveland Park to get from one commercial area to another is plain stupid. Add to it, are you taking 1.5 lanes from Reno to do this? How will that work?

It'd work very easily. Just take away the turning lane down the middle. Of course it wouldn't be as prestigious but it would be more widely used.

Just like Pennsylvania Ave. A bike lane doesn’t get more prestigious (and performative) than that!

[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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Chevy Chase DC on Connecticut Avenue is almost the perfect village shopping district in the city. Its mixture of neighborhood-serving retail and dining options is quite nice, as is the pedestrian scale. I don’t understand the imperative of downtown DC planners to turn this attractive area in to Friendship Heights East. Is their planning goal that every Washington neighborhood should become a generic riff on the Navy Yard?

The city wants to take its own property and put it to better use for more people that includes housing, a new community center and new library. Why is this a bad thing?

Because people who live in the area don't want it. We like our neighborhood village feel and don't need some developer to come in and turn it into some generic soulless development that mainly benefits the developers themselves. The Connecticut Ave apartments are teeming with vacancies. There's not housing shortage in Ward 3. Turn those into affordable housing. More people equals a more polluted city. Residential buildings are the second largest contributor to greenhouse gases (after commercial buildings) in DC. Single family housing is greener for DC.

https://doee.dc.gov/service/greenhouse-gas-inventories

*some* people who live in the area don't want it

there are plenty of people who live in the area who do want it

More people does not equal a more polluted city, particularly if said people are walking, bikin or using mass transit to get to work

but nice coded racist language to assume that the "poors" who would be living there are "dirty" - that is a you problem.

Ah, yes, if the facts are against you, pound the table and yell like hell. And your implicit assumption about my race is off the mark too.

Since you can't deal with the evidence-based link that actually shows that commercial and residential buildings are the biggest contributors to greenhouse gas emissions in the district (by far outstripping that produced by passenger vehicles for those reading along), you tried to throw in some sort of misguided race card because you have no facts on which to hang your argument.

On your comment about "many" wanting bike lanes. It seems that those who don't want the bike lanes outstrip those who do, given the plan to go back to the drawing board on the lanes. The is little to no bike traffic on Connecticut Ave NW at any given time, suggesting the demand for the bike lanes is largely rooted in the figments of the bike lobby members' imaginations (and let's add the GGW ANC members for good measure).


I won't even address your malicious attempt to twist words, so let's again stick to facts. The biggest greenhouse gas emitters in DC are commercial and residential buildings. So yeah, more people does equal to more pollution. And I don't think the Chevy Chase Library site is a realistic site for people to walk to work, as you suggest.

Since when does affordable housing = "poors?" Affordable housing differs from low-income housing, which is apparently what you were referring to in very pejorative terms. Since when does "poors" = race? Your assumptions say so much about your own twisted biases. But again, when the facts don't o your way, pound the table and yell like hell.

There is little bike traffic on CT Ave because it is a dangerous as EFF road to ride on.

There is also little bike traffic because there is little bike traffic.

If people felt safe to rid on it, they would. It isn't safe, ergo...

Serious question, if it’s as unsafe as you claim (BTW, zero recorded deaths along the project area) would a six inch piece of concrete make it materially safer?

4 people have died north of calvert in the last two years. one of them was in a car at the zoo, the other 3 were not - one walking across the road in a cross walk and the other two eating lunch at a greek restaurant.

Here's a video for you on the high speed road bollards that the PP above is referring to.

And not a single small business to be seen in that video. Hmmmm.

And not a single home or apartment building in that video that requires regular deliveries or drop off. Hmmmm.

DDOT didn't have a goddamn youtube video for freaking 14th street or 19th street or 15th street or I would have used that instead of the one I did. The youtube video was to show you what the bollards looked like. You people and your goddamn whataboutism.

"You people" ?

Give you a hint - they wear Yellow Shirts with grammatically incorrect slogans on them.

I don't think the yellow shirts have grammatically incorrect slogans. I think the yellow shirts were designed by an incompetent designer. Somebody (erroneously) thought those yellow shirts were a good idea. Or maybe it's a false flag operation?

[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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Chevy Chase DC on Connecticut Avenue is almost the perfect village shopping district in the city. Its mixture of neighborhood-serving retail and dining options is quite nice, as is the pedestrian scale. I don’t understand the imperative of downtown DC planners to turn this attractive area in to Friendship Heights East. Is their planning goal that every Washington neighborhood should become a generic riff on the Navy Yard?

The city wants to take its own property and put it to better use for more people that includes housing, a new community center and new library. Why is this a bad thing?

Because people who live in the area don't want it. We like our neighborhood village feel and don't need some developer to come in and turn it into some generic soulless development that mainly benefits the developers themselves. The Connecticut Ave apartments are teeming with vacancies. There's not housing shortage in Ward 3. Turn those into affordable housing. More people equals a more polluted city. Residential buildings are the second largest contributor to greenhouse gases (after commercial buildings) in DC. Single family housing is greener for DC.

https://doee.dc.gov/service/greenhouse-gas-inventories

*some* people who live in the area don't want it

there are plenty of people who live in the area who do want it

More people does not equal a more polluted city, particularly if said people are walking, bikin or using mass transit to get to work

but nice coded racist language to assume that the "poors" who would be living there are "dirty" - that is a you problem.

Ah, yes, if the facts are against you, pound the table and yell like hell. And your implicit assumption about my race is off the mark too.

Since you can't deal with the evidence-based link that actually shows that commercial and residential buildings are the biggest contributors to greenhouse gas emissions in the district (by far outstripping that produced by passenger vehicles for those reading along), you tried to throw in some sort of misguided race card because you have no facts on which to hang your argument.

On your comment about "many" wanting bike lanes. It seems that those who don't want the bike lanes outstrip those who do, given the plan to go back to the drawing board on the lanes. The is little to no bike traffic on Connecticut Ave NW at any given time, suggesting the demand for the bike lanes is largely rooted in the figments of the bike lobby members' imaginations (and let's add the GGW ANC members for good measure).


I won't even address your malicious attempt to twist words, so let's again stick to facts. The biggest greenhouse gas emitters in DC are commercial and residential buildings. So yeah, more people does equal to more pollution. And I don't think the Chevy Chase Library site is a realistic site for people to walk to work, as you suggest.

Since when does affordable housing = "poors?" Affordable housing differs from low-income housing, which is apparently what you were referring to in very pejorative terms. Since when does "poors" = race? Your assumptions say so much about your own twisted biases. But again, when the facts don't o your way, pound the table and yell like hell.

There is little bike traffic on CT Ave because it is a dangerous as EFF road to ride on.

There is also little bike traffic because there is little bike traffic.

If people felt safe to rid on it, they would. It isn't safe, ergo...

Serious question, if it’s as unsafe as you claim (BTW, zero recorded deaths along the project area) would a six inch piece of concrete make it materially safer?

4 people have died north of calvert in the last two years. one of them was in a car at the zoo, the other 3 were not - one walking across the road in a cross walk and the other two eating lunch at a greek restaurant.

Here's a video for you on the high speed road bollards that the PP above is referring to.

So ZERO cynical deaths. Thank you for that.

It's already been mentioned in this thread. Cyclist use of Conn Ave is seriously suppressed, because of legitimate safety concerns. There have been 6 crashes involving automobiles and bikes with injuries that were reported by the cyclists in that same time period.

Do we have pay for a cycle lane with the blood of a dead cyclist now?

Wouldn't it be smarter -- and safer -- to move the bike lanes (and cyclists) to Reno Road, instead of diverting Connecticut Avenue to Reno?

This has been suggested a million times. Please see the multi-hundred page thread on the topic:

https://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/1081657.page

The answer to your question is in there about 50 times.

The Smart Growth Urbanists apparently don't like the idea.

It isn't about smart growth urbanists. the retail is on the Avenue. That is where people want to go. Diverting cyclists to go up and down the hills in Cleveland Park to get from one commercial area to another is plain stupid. Add to it, are you taking 1.5 lanes from Reno to do this? How will that work?

It would be better for pedestrian safety in the neighborhood for cyclists to go up and down the (modest) hills in Cleveland Park than to divert a lot of car and truck traffic up and down the side streets and Reno Rd, because Connecticut Ave traffic is gridlocked.

[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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Chevy Chase DC on Connecticut Avenue is almost the perfect village shopping district in the city. Its mixture of neighborhood-serving retail and dining options is quite nice, as is the pedestrian scale. I don’t understand the imperative of downtown DC planners to turn this attractive area in to Friendship Heights East. Is their planning goal that every Washington neighborhood should become a generic riff on the Navy Yard?

The city wants to take its own property and put it to better use for more people that includes housing, a new community center and new library. Why is this a bad thing?

Because people who live in the area don't want it. We like our neighborhood village feel and don't need some developer to come in and turn it into some generic soulless development that mainly benefits the developers themselves. The Connecticut Ave apartments are teeming with vacancies. There's not housing shortage in Ward 3. Turn those into affordable housing. More people equals a more polluted city. Residential buildings are the second largest contributor to greenhouse gases (after commercial buildings) in DC. Single family housing is greener for DC.

https://doee.dc.gov/service/greenhouse-gas-inventories

*some* people who live in the area don't want it

there are plenty of people who live in the area who do want it

More people does not equal a more polluted city, particularly if said people are walking, bikin or using mass transit to get to work

but nice coded racist language to assume that the "poors" who would be living there are "dirty" - that is a you problem.

Ah, yes, if the facts are against you, pound the table and yell like hell. And your implicit assumption about my race is off the mark too.

Since you can't deal with the evidence-based link that actually shows that commercial and residential buildings are the biggest contributors to greenhouse gas emissions in the district (by far outstripping that produced by passenger vehicles for those reading along), you tried to throw in some sort of misguided race card because you have no facts on which to hang your argument.

On your comment about "many" wanting bike lanes. It seems that those who don't want the bike lanes outstrip those who do, given the plan to go back to the drawing board on the lanes. The is little to no bike traffic on Connecticut Ave NW at any given time, suggesting the demand for the bike lanes is largely rooted in the figments of the bike lobby members' imaginations (and let's add the GGW ANC members for good measure).


I won't even address your malicious attempt to twist words, so let's again stick to facts. The biggest greenhouse gas emitters in DC are commercial and residential buildings. So yeah, more people does equal to more pollution. And I don't think the Chevy Chase Library site is a realistic site for people to walk to work, as you suggest.

Since when does affordable housing = "poors?" Affordable housing differs from low-income housing, which is apparently what you were referring to in very pejorative terms. Since when does "poors" = race? Your assumptions say so much about your own twisted biases. But again, when the facts don't o your way, pound the table and yell like hell.

There is little bike traffic on CT Ave because it is a dangerous as EFF road to ride on.

There is also little bike traffic because there is little bike traffic.

If people felt safe to rid on it, they would. It isn't safe, ergo...

Serious question, if it’s as unsafe as you claim (BTW, zero recorded deaths along the project area) would a six inch piece of concrete make it materially safer?

4 people have died north of calvert in the last two years. one of them was in a car at the zoo, the other 3 were not - one walking across the road in a cross walk and the other two eating lunch at a greek restaurant.

Here's a video for you on the high speed road bollards that the PP above is referring to.

So ZERO cynical deaths. Thank you for that.

It's already been mentioned in this thread. Cyclist use of Conn Ave is seriously suppressed, because of legitimate safety concerns. There have been 6 crashes involving automobiles and bikes with injuries that were reported by the cyclists in that same time period.

Do we have pay for a cycle lane with the blood of a dead cyclist now?

Wouldn't it be smarter -- and safer -- to move the bike lanes (and cyclists) to Reno Road, instead of diverting Connecticut Avenue to Reno?

This has been suggested a million times. Please see the multi-hundred page thread on the topic:

https://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/1081657.page

The answer to your question is in there about 50 times.

The Smart Growth Urbanists apparently don't like the idea.

It isn't about smart growth urbanists. the retail is on the Avenue. That is where people want to go. Diverting cyclists to go up and down the hills in Cleveland Park to get from one commercial area to another is plain stupid. Add to it, are you taking 1.5 lanes from Reno to do this? How will that work?

It would be better for pedestrian safety in the neighborhood for cyclists to go up and down the (modest) hills in Cleveland Park than to divert a lot of car and truck traffic up and down the side streets and Reno Rd, because Connecticut Ave traffic is gridlocked.

Why would the CT Ave be gridlocked? There would be two dedicated lanes throughout in both directions. Currently, the left lane has turning vehicles and the right lane has cars parked on it. That won't be the case given turn lanes and Pick-up/drop off areas in the new configuration.

[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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Chevy Chase DC on Connecticut Avenue is almost the perfect village shopping district in the city. Its mixture of neighborhood-serving retail and dining options is quite nice, as is the pedestrian scale. I don’t understand the imperative of downtown DC planners to turn this attractive area in to Friendship Heights East. Is their planning goal that every Washington neighborhood should become a generic riff on the Navy Yard?

The city wants to take its own property and put it to better use for more people that includes housing, a new community center and new library. Why is this a bad thing?

Because people who live in the area don't want it. We like our neighborhood village feel and don't need some developer to come in and turn it into some generic soulless development that mainly benefits the developers themselves. The Connecticut Ave apartments are teeming with vacancies. There's not housing shortage in Ward 3. Turn those into affordable housing. More people equals a more polluted city. Residential buildings are the second largest contributor to greenhouse gases (after commercial buildings) in DC. Single family housing is greener for DC.

https://doee.dc.gov/service/greenhouse-gas-inventories

*some* people who live in the area don't want it

there are plenty of people who live in the area who do want it

More people does not equal a more polluted city, particularly if said people are walking, bikin or using mass transit to get to work

but nice coded racist language to assume that the "poors" who would be living there are "dirty" - that is a you problem.

Ah, yes, if the facts are against you, pound the table and yell like hell. And your implicit assumption about my race is off the mark too.

Since you can't deal with the evidence-based link that actually shows that commercial and residential buildings are the biggest contributors to greenhouse gas emissions in the district (by far outstripping that produced by passenger vehicles for those reading along), you tried to throw in some sort of misguided race card because you have no facts on which to hang your argument.

On your comment about "many" wanting bike lanes. It seems that those who don't want the bike lanes outstrip those who do, given the plan to go back to the drawing board on the lanes. The is little to no bike traffic on Connecticut Ave NW at any given time, suggesting the demand for the bike lanes is largely rooted in the figments of the bike lobby members' imaginations (and let's add the GGW ANC members for good measure).


I won't even address your malicious attempt to twist words, so let's again stick to facts. The biggest greenhouse gas emitters in DC are commercial and residential buildings. So yeah, more people does equal to more pollution. And I don't think the Chevy Chase Library site is a realistic site for people to walk to work, as you suggest.

Since when does affordable housing = "poors?" Affordable housing differs from low-income housing, which is apparently what you were referring to in very pejorative terms. Since when does "poors" = race? Your assumptions say so much about your own twisted biases. But again, when the facts don't o your way, pound the table and yell like hell.

There is little bike traffic on CT Ave because it is a dangerous as EFF road to ride on.

There is also little bike traffic because there is little bike traffic.

If people felt safe to rid on it, they would. It isn't safe, ergo...

Serious question, if it’s as unsafe as you claim (BTW, zero recorded deaths along the project area) would a six inch piece of concrete make it materially safer?

4 people have died north of calvert in the last two years. one of them was in a car at the zoo, the other 3 were not - one walking across the road in a cross walk and the other two eating lunch at a greek restaurant.

Here's a video for you on the high speed road bollards that the PP above is referring to.

So ZERO cynical deaths. Thank you for that.

It's already been mentioned in this thread. Cyclist use of Conn Ave is seriously suppressed, because of legitimate safety concerns. There have been 6 crashes involving automobiles and bikes with injuries that were reported by the cyclists in that same time period.

Do we have pay for a cycle lane with the blood of a dead cyclist now?

Wouldn't it be smarter -- and safer -- to move the bike lanes (and cyclists) to Reno Road, instead of diverting Connecticut Avenue to Reno?

This has been suggested a million times. Please see the multi-hundred page thread on the topic:

https://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/1081657.page

The answer to your question is in there about 50 times.

The Smart Growth Urbanists apparently don't like the idea.

It isn't about smart growth urbanists. the retail is on the Avenue. That is where people want to go. Diverting cyclists to go up and down the hills in Cleveland Park to get from one commercial area to another is plain stupid. Add to it, are you taking 1.5 lanes from Reno to do this? How will that work?

It would be better for pedestrian safety in the neighborhood for cyclists to go up and down the (modest) hills in Cleveland Park than to divert a lot of car and truck traffic up and down the side streets and Reno Rd, because Connecticut Ave traffic is gridlocked.

Why would the CT Ave be gridlocked? There would be two dedicated lanes throughout in both directions. Currently, the left lane has turning vehicles and the right lane has cars parked on it. That won't be the case given turn lanes and Pick-up/drop off areas in the new configuration.

No one who resides on the side streets off Connecticut Ave wants to have dedicated turn lanes into those streets. Turn lanes will be inviting off ramps for commuter traffic to divert to other routes when Conn Ave is slow. As a result, dedicated turn lanes are even less likely to happen than the dedicated bike lanes.

[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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Chevy Chase DC on Connecticut Avenue is almost the perfect village shopping district in the city. Its mixture of neighborhood-serving retail and dining options is quite nice, as is the pedestrian scale. I don’t understand the imperative of downtown DC planners to turn this attractive area in to Friendship Heights East. Is their planning goal that every Washington neighborhood should become a generic riff on the Navy Yard?

The city wants to take its own property and put it to better use for more people that includes housing, a new community center and new library. Why is this a bad thing?

Because people who live in the area don't want it. We like our neighborhood village feel and don't need some developer to come in and turn it into some generic soulless development that mainly benefits the developers themselves. The Connecticut Ave apartments are teeming with vacancies. There's not housing shortage in Ward 3. Turn those into affordable housing. More people equals a more polluted city. Residential buildings are the second largest contributor to greenhouse gases (after commercial buildings) in DC. Single family housing is greener for DC.

https://doee.dc.gov/service/greenhouse-gas-inventories

*some* people who live in the area don't want it

there are plenty of people who live in the area who do want it

More people does not equal a more polluted city, particularly if said people are walking, bikin or using mass transit to get to work

but nice coded racist language to assume that the "poors" who would be living there are "dirty" - that is a you problem.

Ah, yes, if the facts are against you, pound the table and yell like hell. And your implicit assumption about my race is off the mark too.

Since you can't deal with the evidence-based link that actually shows that commercial and residential buildings are the biggest contributors to greenhouse gas emissions in the district (by far outstripping that produced by passenger vehicles for those reading along), you tried to throw in some sort of misguided race card because you have no facts on which to hang your argument.

On your comment about "many" wanting bike lanes. It seems that those who don't want the bike lanes outstrip those who do, given the plan to go back to the drawing board on the lanes. The is little to no bike traffic on Connecticut Ave NW at any given time, suggesting the demand for the bike lanes is largely rooted in the figments of the bike lobby members' imaginations (and let's add the GGW ANC members for good measure).


I won't even address your malicious attempt to twist words, so let's again stick to facts. The biggest greenhouse gas emitters in DC are commercial and residential buildings. So yeah, more people does equal to more pollution. And I don't think the Chevy Chase Library site is a realistic site for people to walk to work, as you suggest.

Since when does affordable housing = "poors?" Affordable housing differs from low-income housing, which is apparently what you were referring to in very pejorative terms. Since when does "poors" = race? Your assumptions say so much about your own twisted biases. But again, when the facts don't o your way, pound the table and yell like hell.

There is little bike traffic on CT Ave because it is a dangerous as EFF road to ride on.

There is also little bike traffic because there is little bike traffic.

If people felt safe to rid on it, they would. It isn't safe, ergo...

Serious question, if it’s as unsafe as you claim (BTW, zero recorded deaths along the project area) would a six inch piece of concrete make it materially safer?

4 people have died north of calvert in the last two years. one of them was in a car at the zoo, the other 3 were not - one walking across the road in a cross walk and the other two eating lunch at a greek restaurant.

Here's a video for you on the high speed road bollards that the PP above is referring to.

So ZERO cynical deaths. Thank you for that.

It's already been mentioned in this thread. Cyclist use of Conn Ave is seriously suppressed, because of legitimate safety concerns. There have been 6 crashes involving automobiles and bikes with injuries that were reported by the cyclists in that same time period.

Do we have pay for a cycle lane with the blood of a dead cyclist now?

Wouldn't it be smarter -- and safer -- to move the bike lanes (and cyclists) to Reno Road, instead of diverting Connecticut Avenue to Reno?

This has been suggested a million times. Please see the multi-hundred page thread on the topic:

https://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/1081657.page

The answer to your question is in there about 50 times.

The Smart Growth Urbanists apparently don't like the idea.

It isn't about smart growth urbanists. the retail is on the Avenue. That is where people want to go. Diverting cyclists to go up and down the hills in Cleveland Park to get from one commercial area to another is plain stupid. Add to it, are you taking 1.5 lanes from Reno to do this? How will that work?

It would be better for pedestrian safety in the neighborhood for cyclists to go up and down the (modest) hills in Cleveland Park than to divert a lot of car and truck traffic up and down the side streets and Reno Rd, because Connecticut Ave traffic is gridlocked.

Why would the CT Ave be gridlocked? There would be two dedicated lanes throughout in both directions. Currently, the left lane has turning vehicles and the right lane has cars parked on it. That won't be the case given turn lanes and Pick-up/drop off areas in the new configuration.

Because one lane in each direction will constantly be taken up by delivery vehicles of all sorts, ride shares, and normal lazy people. Until the City gets serious about enforcement of any law, traffic or criminal, the bike lane project is just a pipe dream. I think most anti-bike lane people are pro traffic enforcement. This is an area where both sides could work together on. Imagine the crazy purple haired bike riders and the goofy yellow shirts joining forces. Us normal people could even help!

[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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Chevy Chase DC on Connecticut Avenue is almost the perfect village shopping district in the city. Its mixture of neighborhood-serving retail and dining options is quite nice, as is the pedestrian scale. I don’t understand the imperative of downtown DC planners to turn this attractive area in to Friendship Heights East. Is their planning goal that every Washington neighborhood should become a generic riff on the Navy Yard?

The city wants to take its own property and put it to better use for more people that includes housing, a new community center and new library. Why is this a bad thing?

Because people who live in the area don't want it. We like our neighborhood village feel and don't need some developer to come in and turn it into some generic soulless development that mainly benefits the developers themselves. The Connecticut Ave apartments are teeming with vacancies. There's not housing shortage in Ward 3. Turn those into affordable housing. More people equals a more polluted city. Residential buildings are the second largest contributor to greenhouse gases (after commercial buildings) in DC. Single family housing is greener for DC.

https://doee.dc.gov/service/greenhouse-gas-inventories

*some* people who live in the area don't want it

there are plenty of people who live in the area who do want it

More people does not equal a more polluted city, particularly if said people are walking, bikin or using mass transit to get to work

but nice coded racist language to assume that the "poors" who would be living there are "dirty" - that is a you problem.

Ah, yes, if the facts are against you, pound the table and yell like hell. And your implicit assumption about my race is off the mark too.

Since you can't deal with the evidence-based link that actually shows that commercial and residential buildings are the biggest contributors to greenhouse gas emissions in the district (by far outstripping that produced by passenger vehicles for those reading along), you tried to throw in some sort of misguided race card because you have no facts on which to hang your argument.

On your comment about "many" wanting bike lanes. It seems that those who don't want the bike lanes outstrip those who do, given the plan to go back to the drawing board on the lanes. The is little to no bike traffic on Connecticut Ave NW at any given time, suggesting the demand for the bike lanes is largely rooted in the figments of the bike lobby members' imaginations (and let's add the GGW ANC members for good measure).


I won't even address your malicious attempt to twist words, so let's again stick to facts. The biggest greenhouse gas emitters in DC are commercial and residential buildings. So yeah, more people does equal to more pollution. And I don't think the Chevy Chase Library site is a realistic site for people to walk to work, as you suggest.

Since when does affordable housing = "poors?" Affordable housing differs from low-income housing, which is apparently what you were referring to in very pejorative terms. Since when does "poors" = race? Your assumptions say so much about your own twisted biases. But again, when the facts don't o your way, pound the table and yell like hell.

There is little bike traffic on CT Ave because it is a dangerous as EFF road to ride on.

There is also little bike traffic because there is little bike traffic.

If people felt safe to rid on it, they would. It isn't safe, ergo...

Serious question, if it’s as unsafe as you claim (BTW, zero recorded deaths along the project area) would a six inch piece of concrete make it materially safer?

4 people have died north of calvert in the last two years. one of them was in a car at the zoo, the other 3 were not - one walking across the road in a cross walk and the other two eating lunch at a greek restaurant.

Here's a video for you on the high speed road bollards that the PP above is referring to.

So ZERO cynical deaths. Thank you for that.

It's already been mentioned in this thread. Cyclist use of Conn Ave is seriously suppressed, because of legitimate safety concerns. There have been 6 crashes involving automobiles and bikes with injuries that were reported by the cyclists in that same time period.

Do we have pay for a cycle lane with the blood of a dead cyclist now?

Wouldn't it be smarter -- and safer -- to move the bike lanes (and cyclists) to Reno Road, instead of diverting Connecticut Avenue to Reno?

This has been suggested a million times. Please see the multi-hundred page thread on the topic:

https://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/1081657.page

The answer to your question is in there about 50 times.

The Smart Growth Urbanists apparently don't like the idea.

It isn't about smart growth urbanists. the retail is on the Avenue. That is where people want to go. Diverting cyclists to go up and down the hills in Cleveland Park to get from one commercial area to another is plain stupid. Add to it, are you taking 1.5 lanes from Reno to do this? How will that work?

It would be better for pedestrian safety in the neighborhood for cyclists to go up and down the (modest) hills in Cleveland Park than to divert a lot of car and truck traffic up and down the side streets and Reno Rd, because Connecticut Ave traffic is gridlocked.

Why would the CT Ave be gridlocked? There would be two dedicated lanes throughout in both directions. Currently, the left lane has turning vehicles and the right lane has cars parked on it. That won't be the case given turn lanes and Pick-up/drop off areas in the new configuration.

The stated plan is to increase congestion and gridlock in the misguided and erroneous belief that that will make things "safer".

[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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Chevy Chase DC on Connecticut Avenue is almost the perfect village shopping district in the city. Its mixture of neighborhood-serving retail and dining options is quite nice, as is the pedestrian scale. I don’t understand the imperative of downtown DC planners to turn this attractive area in to Friendship Heights East. Is their planning goal that every Washington neighborhood should become a generic riff on the Navy Yard?

The city wants to take its own property and put it to better use for more people that includes housing, a new community center and new library. Why is this a bad thing?

Because people who live in the area don't want it. We like our neighborhood village feel and don't need some developer to come in and turn it into some generic soulless development that mainly benefits the developers themselves. The Connecticut Ave apartments are teeming with vacancies. There's not housing shortage in Ward 3. Turn those into affordable housing. More people equals a more polluted city. Residential buildings are the second largest contributor to greenhouse gases (after commercial buildings) in DC. Single family housing is greener for DC.

https://doee.dc.gov/service/greenhouse-gas-inventories

*some* people who live in the area don't want it

there are plenty of people who live in the area who do want it

More people does not equal a more polluted city, particularly if said people are walking, bikin or using mass transit to get to work

but nice coded racist language to assume that the "poors" who would be living there are "dirty" - that is a you problem.

Ah, yes, if the facts are against you, pound the table and yell like hell. And your implicit assumption about my race is off the mark too.

Since you can't deal with the evidence-based link that actually shows that commercial and residential buildings are the biggest contributors to greenhouse gas emissions in the district (by far outstripping that produced by passenger vehicles for those reading along), you tried to throw in some sort of misguided race card because you have no facts on which to hang your argument.

On your comment about "many" wanting bike lanes. It seems that those who don't want the bike lanes outstrip those who do, given the plan to go back to the drawing board on the lanes. The is little to no bike traffic on Connecticut Ave NW at any given time, suggesting the demand for the bike lanes is largely rooted in the figments of the bike lobby members' imaginations (and let's add the GGW ANC members for good measure).


I won't even address your malicious attempt to twist words, so let's again stick to facts. The biggest greenhouse gas emitters in DC are commercial and residential buildings. So yeah, more people does equal to more pollution. And I don't think the Chevy Chase Library site is a realistic site for people to walk to work, as you suggest.

Since when does affordable housing = "poors?" Affordable housing differs from low-income housing, which is apparently what you were referring to in very pejorative terms. Since when does "poors" = race? Your assumptions say so much about your own twisted biases. But again, when the facts don't o your way, pound the table and yell like hell.

There is little bike traffic on CT Ave because it is a dangerous as EFF road to ride on.

There is also little bike traffic because there is little bike traffic.

If people felt safe to rid on it, they would. It isn't safe, ergo...

Serious question, if it’s as unsafe as you claim (BTW, zero recorded deaths along the project area) would a six inch piece of concrete make it materially safer?

4 people have died north of calvert in the last two years. one of them was in a car at the zoo, the other 3 were not - one walking across the road in a cross walk and the other two eating lunch at a greek restaurant.

Here's a video for you on the high speed road bollards that the PP above is referring to.

So ZERO cynical deaths. Thank you for that.

It's already been mentioned in this thread. Cyclist use of Conn Ave is seriously suppressed, because of legitimate safety concerns. There have been 6 crashes involving automobiles and bikes with injuries that were reported by the cyclists in that same time period.

Do we have pay for a cycle lane with the blood of a dead cyclist now?

Wouldn't it be smarter -- and safer -- to move the bike lanes (and cyclists) to Reno Road, instead of diverting Connecticut Avenue to Reno?

This has been suggested a million times. Please see the multi-hundred page thread on the topic:

https://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/1081657.page

The answer to your question is in there about 50 times.

The Smart Growth Urbanists apparently don't like the idea.

It isn't about smart growth urbanists. the retail is on the Avenue. That is where people want to go. Diverting cyclists to go up and down the hills in Cleveland Park to get from one commercial area to another is plain stupid. Add to it, are you taking 1.5 lanes from Reno to do this? How will that work?

It would be better for pedestrian safety in the neighborhood for cyclists to go up and down the (modest) hills in Cleveland Park than to divert a lot of car and truck traffic up and down the side streets and Reno Rd, because Connecticut Ave traffic is gridlocked.

Why would the CT Ave be gridlocked? There would be two dedicated lanes throughout in both directions. Currently, the left lane has turning vehicles and the right lane has cars parked on it. That won't be the case given turn lanes and Pick-up/drop off areas in the new configuration.

No one who resides on the side streets off Connecticut Ave wants to have dedicated turn lanes into those streets. Turn lanes will be inviting off ramps for commuter traffic to divert to other routes when Conn Ave is slow. As a result, dedicated turn lanes are even less likely to happen than the dedicated bike lanes.

Cars already turn. The turn lanes make it so they aren't backing up other cars. There aren't new turn signals being proposed. Just paint on a street.

[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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Chevy Chase DC on Connecticut Avenue is almost the perfect village shopping district in the city. Its mixture of neighborhood-serving retail and dining options is quite nice, as is the pedestrian scale. I don’t understand the imperative of downtown DC planners to turn this attractive area in to Friendship Heights East. Is their planning goal that every Washington neighborhood should become a generic riff on the Navy Yard?

The city wants to take its own property and put it to better use for more people that includes housing, a new community center and new library. Why is this a bad thing?

Because people who live in the area don't want it. We like our neighborhood village feel and don't need some developer to come in and turn it into some generic soulless development that mainly benefits the developers themselves. The Connecticut Ave apartments are teeming with vacancies. There's not housing shortage in Ward 3. Turn those into affordable housing. More people equals a more polluted city. Residential buildings are the second largest contributor to greenhouse gases (after commercial buildings) in DC. Single family housing is greener for DC.

https://doee.dc.gov/service/greenhouse-gas-inventories

*some* people who live in the area don't want it

there are plenty of people who live in the area who do want it

More people does not equal a more polluted city, particularly if said people are walking, bikin or using mass transit to get to work

but nice coded racist language to assume that the "poors" who would be living there are "dirty" - that is a you problem.

Ah, yes, if the facts are against you, pound the table and yell like hell. And your implicit assumption about my race is off the mark too.

Since you can't deal with the evidence-based link that actually shows that commercial and residential buildings are the biggest contributors to greenhouse gas emissions in the district (by far outstripping that produced by passenger vehicles for those reading along), you tried to throw in some sort of misguided race card because you have no facts on which to hang your argument.

On your comment about "many" wanting bike lanes. It seems that those who don't want the bike lanes outstrip those who do, given the plan to go back to the drawing board on the lanes. The is little to no bike traffic on Connecticut Ave NW at any given time, suggesting the demand for the bike lanes is largely rooted in the figments of the bike lobby members' imaginations (and let's add the GGW ANC members for good measure).


I won't even address your malicious attempt to twist words, so let's again stick to facts. The biggest greenhouse gas emitters in DC are commercial and residential buildings. So yeah, more people does equal to more pollution. And I don't think the Chevy Chase Library site is a realistic site for people to walk to work, as you suggest.

Since when does affordable housing = "poors?" Affordable housing differs from low-income housing, which is apparently what you were referring to in very pejorative terms. Since when does "poors" = race? Your assumptions say so much about your own twisted biases. But again, when the facts don't o your way, pound the table and yell like hell.

There is little bike traffic on CT Ave because it is a dangerous as EFF road to ride on.

There is also little bike traffic because there is little bike traffic.

If people felt safe to rid on it, they would. It isn't safe, ergo...

Serious question, if it’s as unsafe as you claim (BTW, zero recorded deaths along the project area) would a six inch piece of concrete make it materially safer?

4 people have died north of calvert in the last two years. one of them was in a car at the zoo, the other 3 were not - one walking across the road in a cross walk and the other two eating lunch at a greek restaurant.

Here's a video for you on the high speed road bollards that the PP above is referring to.

So ZERO cynical deaths. Thank you for that.

It's already been mentioned in this thread. Cyclist use of Conn Ave is seriously suppressed, because of legitimate safety concerns. There have been 6 crashes involving automobiles and bikes with injuries that were reported by the cyclists in that same time period.

Do we have pay for a cycle lane with the blood of a dead cyclist now?

Wouldn't it be smarter -- and safer -- to move the bike lanes (and cyclists) to Reno Road, instead of diverting Connecticut Avenue to Reno?

This has been suggested a million times. Please see the multi-hundred page thread on the topic:

https://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/1081657.page

The answer to your question is in there about 50 times.

The Smart Growth Urbanists apparently don't like the idea.

It isn't about smart growth urbanists. the retail is on the Avenue. That is where people want to go. Diverting cyclists to go up and down the hills in Cleveland Park to get from one commercial area to another is plain stupid. Add to it, are you taking 1.5 lanes from Reno to do this? How will that work?

It would be better for pedestrian safety in the neighborhood for cyclists to go up and down the (modest) hills in Cleveland Park than to divert a lot of car and truck traffic up and down the side streets and Reno Rd, because Connecticut Ave traffic is gridlocked.

Why would the CT Ave be gridlocked? There would be two dedicated lanes throughout in both directions. Currently, the left lane has turning vehicles and the right lane has cars parked on it. That won't be the case given turn lanes and Pick-up/drop off areas in the new configuration.

Because one lane in each direction will constantly be taken up by delivery vehicles of all sorts, ride shares, and normal lazy people. Until the City gets serious about enforcement of any law, traffic or criminal, the bike lane project is just a pipe dream. I think most anti-bike lane people are pro traffic enforcement. This is an area where both sides could work together on. Imagine the crazy purple haired bike riders and the goofy yellow shirts joining forces. Us normal people could even help!

Currently there is a parking lane and then a lane taken by deliveries. And add to that the left turning cars. The proposed plan addresses a lot of this with turn lanes and pick-up/drop-off areas. Car traffic will flow better and with bike lanes, more people will be able to use biking rather than driving for short errands.

Seems like a win-win.

[Anonymous]

And what about the door dash/uber eats drivers? I've never seen one park legally. I assume they'll double park as they do now and take up one of those lanes in the commercial areas.

[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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Chevy Chase DC on Connecticut Avenue is almost the perfect village shopping district in the city. Its mixture of neighborhood-serving retail and dining options is quite nice, as is the pedestrian scale. I don’t understand the imperative of downtown DC planners to turn this attractive area in to Friendship Heights East. Is their planning goal that every Washington neighborhood should become a generic riff on the Navy Yard?

The city wants to take its own property and put it to better use for more people that includes housing, a new community center and new library. Why is this a bad thing?

Because people who live in the area don't want it. We like our neighborhood village feel and don't need some developer to come in and turn it into some generic soulless development that mainly benefits the developers themselves. The Connecticut Ave apartments are teeming with vacancies. There's not housing shortage in Ward 3. Turn those into affordable housing. More people equals a more polluted city. Residential buildings are the second largest contributor to greenhouse gases (after commercial buildings) in DC. Single family housing is greener for DC.

https://doee.dc.gov/service/greenhouse-gas-inventories

*some* people who live in the area don't want it

there are plenty of people who live in the area who do want it

More people does not equal a more polluted city, particularly if said people are walking, bikin or using mass transit to get to work

but nice coded racist language to assume that the "poors" who would be living there are "dirty" - that is a you problem.

Ah, yes, if the facts are against you, pound the table and yell like hell. And your implicit assumption about my race is off the mark too.

Since you can't deal with the evidence-based link that actually shows that commercial and residential buildings are the biggest contributors to greenhouse gas emissions in the district (by far outstripping that produced by passenger vehicles for those reading along), you tried to throw in some sort of misguided race card because you have no facts on which to hang your argument.

On your comment about "many" wanting bike lanes. It seems that those who don't want the bike lanes outstrip those who do, given the plan to go back to the drawing board on the lanes. The is little to no bike traffic on Connecticut Ave NW at any given time, suggesting the demand for the bike lanes is largely rooted in the figments of the bike lobby members' imaginations (and let's add the GGW ANC members for good measure).


I won't even address your malicious attempt to twist words, so let's again stick to facts. The biggest greenhouse gas emitters in DC are commercial and residential buildings. So yeah, more people does equal to more pollution. And I don't think the Chevy Chase Library site is a realistic site for people to walk to work, as you suggest.

Since when does affordable housing = "poors?" Affordable housing differs from low-income housing, which is apparently what you were referring to in very pejorative terms. Since when does "poors" = race? Your assumptions say so much about your own twisted biases. But again, when the facts don't o your way, pound the table and yell like hell.

There is little bike traffic on CT Ave because it is a dangerous as EFF road to ride on.

There is also little bike traffic because there is little bike traffic.

If people felt safe to rid on it, they would. It isn't safe, ergo...

Serious question, if it’s as unsafe as you claim (BTW, zero recorded deaths along the project area) would a six inch piece of concrete make it materially safer?

4 people have died north of calvert in the last two years. one of them was in a car at the zoo, the other 3 were not - one walking across the road in a cross walk and the other two eating lunch at a greek restaurant.

Here's a video for you on the high speed road bollards that the PP above is referring to.

So ZERO cynical deaths. Thank you for that.

It's already been mentioned in this thread. Cyclist use of Conn Ave is seriously suppressed, because of legitimate safety concerns. There have been 6 crashes involving automobiles and bikes with injuries that were reported by the cyclists in that same time period.

Do we have pay for a cycle lane with the blood of a dead cyclist now?

Wouldn't it be smarter -- and safer -- to move the bike lanes (and cyclists) to Reno Road, instead of diverting Connecticut Avenue to Reno?

This has been suggested a million times. Please see the multi-hundred page thread on the topic:

https://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/1081657.page

The answer to your question is in there about 50 times.

The Smart Growth Urbanists apparently don't like the idea.

It isn't about smart growth urbanists. the retail is on the Avenue. That is where people want to go. Diverting cyclists to go up and down the hills in Cleveland Park to get from one commercial area to another is plain stupid. Add to it, are you taking 1.5 lanes from Reno to do this? How will that work?

It would be better for pedestrian safety in the neighborhood for cyclists to go up and down the (modest) hills in Cleveland Park than to divert a lot of car and truck traffic up and down the side streets and Reno Rd, because Connecticut Ave traffic is gridlocked.

Why would the CT Ave be gridlocked? There would be two dedicated lanes throughout in both directions. Currently, the left lane has turning vehicles and the right lane has cars parked on it. That won't be the case given turn lanes and Pick-up/drop off areas in the new configuration.

Because one lane in each direction will constantly be taken up by delivery vehicles of all sorts, ride shares, and normal lazy people. Until the City gets serious about enforcement of any law, traffic or criminal, the bike lane project is just a pipe dream. I think most anti-bike lane people are pro traffic enforcement. This is an area where both sides could work together on. Imagine the crazy purple haired bike riders and the goofy yellow shirts joining forces. Us normal people could even help!

Currently there is a parking lane and then a lane taken by deliveries. And add to that the left turning cars. The proposed plan addresses a lot of this with turn lanes and pick-up/drop-off areas. Car traffic will flow better and with bike lanes, more people will be able to use biking rather than driving for short errands.

Seems like a win-win.

Except that's not really true and it conflicts with the stated purpose of increasing congestion for safety.

[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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Chevy Chase DC on Connecticut Avenue is almost the perfect village shopping district in the city. Its mixture of neighborhood-serving retail and dining options is quite nice, as is the pedestrian scale. I don’t understand the imperative of downtown DC planners to turn this attractive area in to Friendship Heights East. Is their planning goal that every Washington neighborhood should become a generic riff on the Navy Yard?

The city wants to take its own property and put it to better use for more people that includes housing, a new community center and new library. Why is this a bad thing?

Because people who live in the area don't want it. We like our neighborhood village feel and don't need some developer to come in and turn it into some generic soulless development that mainly benefits the developers themselves. The Connecticut Ave apartments are teeming with vacancies. There's not housing shortage in Ward 3. Turn those into affordable housing. More people equals a more polluted city. Residential buildings are the second largest contributor to greenhouse gases (after commercial buildings) in DC. Single family housing is greener for DC.

https://doee.dc.gov/service/greenhouse-gas-inventories

*some* people who live in the area don't want it

there are plenty of people who live in the area who do want it

More people does not equal a more polluted city, particularly if said people are walking, bikin or using mass transit to get to work

but nice coded racist language to assume that the "poors" who would be living there are "dirty" - that is a you problem.

Ah, yes, if the facts are against you, pound the table and yell like hell. And your implicit assumption about my race is off the mark too.

Since you can't deal with the evidence-based link that actually shows that commercial and residential buildings are the biggest contributors to greenhouse gas emissions in the district (by far outstripping that produced by passenger vehicles for those reading along), you tried to throw in some sort of misguided race card because you have no facts on which to hang your argument.

On your comment about "many" wanting bike lanes. It seems that those who don't want the bike lanes outstrip those who do, given the plan to go back to the drawing board on the lanes. The is little to no bike traffic on Connecticut Ave NW at any given time, suggesting the demand for the bike lanes is largely rooted in the figments of the bike lobby members' imaginations (and let's add the GGW ANC members for good measure).


I won't even address your malicious attempt to twist words, so let's again stick to facts. The biggest greenhouse gas emitters in DC are commercial and residential buildings. So yeah, more people does equal to more pollution. And I don't think the Chevy Chase Library site is a realistic site for people to walk to work, as you suggest.

Since when does affordable housing = "poors?" Affordable housing differs from low-income housing, which is apparently what you were referring to in very pejorative terms. Since when does "poors" = race? Your assumptions say so much about your own twisted biases. But again, when the facts don't o your way, pound the table and yell like hell.

There is little bike traffic on CT Ave because it is a dangerous as EFF road to ride on.

There is also little bike traffic because there is little bike traffic.

If people felt safe to rid on it, they would. It isn't safe, ergo...

Serious question, if it’s as unsafe as you claim (BTW, zero recorded deaths along the project area) would a six inch piece of concrete make it materially safer?

4 people have died north of calvert in the last two years. one of them was in a car at the zoo, the other 3 were not - one walking across the road in a cross walk and the other two eating lunch at a greek restaurant.

Here's a video for you on the high speed road bollards that the PP above is referring to.

So ZERO cynical deaths. Thank you for that.

It's already been mentioned in this thread. Cyclist use of Conn Ave is seriously suppressed, because of legitimate safety concerns. There have been 6 crashes involving automobiles and bikes with injuries that were reported by the cyclists in that same time period.

Do we have pay for a cycle lane with the blood of a dead cyclist now?

Wouldn't it be smarter -- and safer -- to move the bike lanes (and cyclists) to Reno Road, instead of diverting Connecticut Avenue to Reno?

This has been suggested a million times. Please see the multi-hundred page thread on the topic:

https://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/1081657.page

The answer to your question is in there about 50 times.

The Smart Growth Urbanists apparently don't like the idea.

It isn't about smart growth urbanists. the retail is on the Avenue. That is where people want to go. Diverting cyclists to go up and down the hills in Cleveland Park to get from one commercial area to another is plain stupid. Add to it, are you taking 1.5 lanes from Reno to do this? How will that work?

It would be better for pedestrian safety in the neighborhood for cyclists to go up and down the (modest) hills in Cleveland Park than to divert a lot of car and truck traffic up and down the side streets and Reno Rd, because Connecticut Ave traffic is gridlocked.

Why would the CT Ave be gridlocked? There would be two dedicated lanes throughout in both directions. Currently, the left lane has turning vehicles and the right lane has cars parked on it. That won't be the case given turn lanes and Pick-up/drop off areas in the new configuration.

No one who resides on the side streets off Connecticut Ave wants to have dedicated turn lanes into those streets. Turn lanes will be inviting off ramps for commuter traffic to divert to other routes when Conn Ave is slow. As a result, dedicated turn lanes are even less likely to happen than the dedicated bike lanes.

Cars already turn. The turn lanes make it so they aren't backing up other cars. There aren't new turn signals being proposed. Just paint on a street.

No Left turn at rush hour restrictions would certainty help at many intersections

[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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Chevy Chase DC on Connecticut Avenue is almost the perfect village shopping district in the city. Its mixture of neighborhood-serving retail and dining options is quite nice, as is the pedestrian scale. I don’t understand the imperative of downtown DC planners to turn this attractive area in to Friendship Heights East. Is their planning goal that every Washington neighborhood should become a generic riff on the Navy Yard?

The city wants to take its own property and put it to better use for more people that includes housing, a new community center and new library. Why is this a bad thing?

Because people who live in the area don't want it. We like our neighborhood village feel and don't need some developer to come in and turn it into some generic soulless development that mainly benefits the developers themselves. The Connecticut Ave apartments are teeming with vacancies. There's not housing shortage in Ward 3. Turn those into affordable housing. More people equals a more polluted city. Residential buildings are the second largest contributor to greenhouse gases (after commercial buildings) in DC. Single family housing is greener for DC.

https://doee.dc.gov/service/greenhouse-gas-inventories

*some* people who live in the area don't want it

there are plenty of people who live in the area who do want it

More people does not equal a more polluted city, particularly if said people are walking, bikin or using mass transit to get to work

but nice coded racist language to assume that the "poors" who would be living there are "dirty" - that is a you problem.

Ah, yes, if the facts are against you, pound the table and yell like hell. And your implicit assumption about my race is off the mark too.

Since you can't deal with the evidence-based link that actually shows that commercial and residential buildings are the biggest contributors to greenhouse gas emissions in the district (by far outstripping that produced by passenger vehicles for those reading along), you tried to throw in some sort of misguided race card because you have no facts on which to hang your argument.

On your comment about "many" wanting bike lanes. It seems that those who don't want the bike lanes outstrip those who do, given the plan to go back to the drawing board on the lanes. The is little to no bike traffic on Connecticut Ave NW at any given time, suggesting the demand for the bike lanes is largely rooted in the figments of the bike lobby members' imaginations (and let's add the GGW ANC members for good measure).


I won't even address your malicious attempt to twist words, so let's again stick to facts. The biggest greenhouse gas emitters in DC are commercial and residential buildings. So yeah, more people does equal to more pollution. And I don't think the Chevy Chase Library site is a realistic site for people to walk to work, as you suggest.

Since when does affordable housing = "poors?" Affordable housing differs from low-income housing, which is apparently what you were referring to in very pejorative terms. Since when does "poors" = race? Your assumptions say so much about your own twisted biases. But again, when the facts don't o your way, pound the table and yell like hell.

There is little bike traffic on CT Ave because it is a dangerous as EFF road to ride on.

There is also little bike traffic because there is little bike traffic.

If people felt safe to rid on it, they would. It isn't safe, ergo...

Serious question, if it’s as unsafe as you claim (BTW, zero recorded deaths along the project area) would a six inch piece of concrete make it materially safer?

4 people have died north of calvert in the last two years. one of them was in a car at the zoo, the other 3 were not - one walking across the road in a cross walk and the other two eating lunch at a greek restaurant.

Here's a video for you on the high speed road bollards that the PP above is referring to.

So ZERO cynical deaths. Thank you for that.

It's already been mentioned in this thread. Cyclist use of Conn Ave is seriously suppressed, because of legitimate safety concerns. There have been 6 crashes involving automobiles and bikes with injuries that were reported by the cyclists in that same time period.

Do we have pay for a cycle lane with the blood of a dead cyclist now?

Wouldn't it be smarter -- and safer -- to move the bike lanes (and cyclists) to Reno Road, instead of diverting Connecticut Avenue to Reno?

This has been suggested a million times. Please see the multi-hundred page thread on the topic:

https://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/1081657.page

The answer to your question is in there about 50 times.

The Smart Growth Urbanists apparently don't like the idea.

It isn't about smart growth urbanists. the retail is on the Avenue. That is where people want to go. Diverting cyclists to go up and down the hills in Cleveland Park to get from one commercial area to another is plain stupid. Add to it, are you taking 1.5 lanes from Reno to do this? How will that work?

It would be better for pedestrian safety in the neighborhood for cyclists to go up and down the (modest) hills in Cleveland Park than to divert a lot of car and truck traffic up and down the side streets and Reno Rd, because Connecticut Ave traffic is gridlocked.

Why would the CT Ave be gridlocked? There would be two dedicated lanes throughout in both directions. Currently, the left lane has turning vehicles and the right lane has cars parked on it. That won't be the case given turn lanes and Pick-up/drop off areas in the new configuration.

Because one lane in each direction will constantly be taken up by delivery vehicles of all sorts, ride shares, and normal lazy people. Until the City gets serious about enforcement of any law, traffic or criminal, the bike lane project is just a pipe dream. I think most anti-bike lane people are pro traffic enforcement. This is an area where both sides could work together on. Imagine the crazy purple haired bike riders and the goofy yellow shirts joining forces. Us normal people could even help!

Currently there is a parking lane and then a lane taken by deliveries. And add to that the left turning cars. The proposed plan addresses a lot of this with turn lanes and pick-up/drop-off areas. Car traffic will flow better and with bike lanes, more people will be able to use biking rather than driving for short errands.

Seems like a win-win.

Except that's not really true and it conflicts with the stated purpose of increasing congestion for safety.

Does increasing congestion for safety always work? Sometimes drivers drive erratically and take more chances when they are trying to extricate themselves from traffic jams.

[Anonymous]

There is zero evidence that protected bike lanes induce cycling.

DDOT has bike counters throughout the district that they have now stopped operating because the results do not should increased utilization over time. What the data shows is that cycling is highly seasonal and many of the lanes have daily users in the tens during January. Second, the utilization that occurs on the first day is constant throughout time. This last point is critically important because what the lanes apparently do is collect existing cyclists that may be using different routes, but do not induce cycling.

As more evidence that more bike lanes don’t induce more cycling, surveys by MWCOG, USDOT and the Census Bureau are all consistent that there are fewer bike commuters now, as a percentage of total commuters, than in 2015.

Apparently, 2015 was peak cycling for most cities in America, including famously Portland, where bike commuting has also declined. NYC is basically a national outlier.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:And what about the door dash/uber eats drivers? I've never seen one park legally. I assume they'll double park as they do now and take up one of those lanes in the commercial areas.

What else are they supposed to do? Or do you want YOUR food delivery delayed by a driver circling around and around and around looking for a parking space that ends up being blocks away? Delivery drivers should have designated, 15 minute parking everywhere. They are parking for US not for themselves. We need them. We need to make their jobs as easy and cheap as possible, not hamper them with extra parking tickets.