Options for opposing Connecticut Avenue changes?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Too bad there’s no money for an elevated bikeway above the street. Seems like it would be a win-win.

I like this. Time to start thinking three dimensionally. Bikeway wouldn’t have to be as wide as CT Ave, and could run above the middle of the road with frequent access points. Car capacity doesn’t have to be reduced. The typical cyclist’s paranoia of getting hit by a car goes away.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There are over 100 points along the proposed route where cars will need to cross over the bike lanes. Not just side streets, but alleys and building circle drives. This isn’t 15th street. This isn’t going to work like you think it will. Cyclists will get hit more often, traffic will be worse, businesses will struggle.

So somehow every other country in the world has figured this out but Connecticut Avenue is SOOOOO unique that bike lanes won't work because alleys and driveways.

Please.

They had to figure it out because they didn’t have a billion dollar world class subway directly below the corridor in question.

So if they can figure it out there, with or without a subway, why can't we figure it out here. Are we too stupid?

No, we’ve ALREADY figured it out. We’ve already created the solution at great cost. Let’s make metro better and more attractive to bike users instead of drawing more people away from it.

Metro needs to be more attractive to drivers, especially the majority of drivers using CT Ave who have no passengers.

This proposal doesn't do that. Even ddot acknowledges this.

If making metro more attractive to drivers is the goal then we should be all in on light rail/streetcar/tram from the purple line/beltway to van ness or 16th street to silver spring. This proposal not only doesn't do anything like that but it also effectively prevents anything like that from ever happening.

No, metro - you know, the subway already under the street - should be more attractive to drivers not a new public transport system. This proposal should be a part of a larger effort to reduce the number of single occupant vehicles which should also include metro.

Metro switches to Wisconsin at Van Ness. Purple line will be at Connecticut and 16th on the maryland side. If you want to encourage its use then you need to connect to it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There are over 100 points along the proposed route where cars will need to cross over the bike lanes. Not just side streets, but alleys and building circle drives. This isn’t 15th street. This isn’t going to work like you think it will. Cyclists will get hit more often, traffic will be worse, businesses will struggle.

So somehow every other country in the world has figured this out but Connecticut Avenue is SOOOOO unique that bike lanes won't work because alleys and driveways.

Please.

They had to figure it out because they didn’t have a billion dollar world class subway directly below the corridor in question.

So if they can figure it out there, with or without a subway, why can't we figure it out here. Are we too stupid?

No, we’ve ALREADY figured it out. We’ve already created the solution at great cost. Let’s make metro better and more attractive to bike users instead of drawing more people away from it.

Metro needs to be more attractive to drivers, especially the majority of drivers using CT Ave who have no passengers.

This proposal doesn't do that. Even ddot acknowledges this.

If making metro more attractive to drivers is the goal then we should be all in on light rail/streetcar/tram from the purple line/beltway to van ness or 16th street to silver spring. This proposal not only doesn't do anything like that but it also effectively prevents anything like that from ever happening.

No, metro - you know, the subway already under the street - should be more attractive to drivers not a new public transport system. This proposal should be a part of a larger effort to reduce the number of single occupant vehicles which should also include metro.

Metro switches to Wisconsin at Van Ness. Purple line will be at Connecticut and 16th on the maryland side. If you want to encourage its use then you need to connect to it.

And purple will connect to red at Bethesda and

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There are over 100 points along the proposed route where cars will need to cross over the bike lanes. Not just side streets, but alleys and building circle drives. This isn’t 15th street. This isn’t going to work like you think it will. Cyclists will get hit more often, traffic will be worse, businesses will struggle.

So somehow every other country in the world has figured this out but Connecticut Avenue is SOOOOO unique that bike lanes won't work because alleys and driveways.

Please.

They had to figure it out because they didn’t have a billion dollar world class subway directly below the corridor in question.

So if they can figure it out there, with or without a subway, why can't we figure it out here. Are we too stupid?

No, we’ve ALREADY figured it out. We’ve already created the solution at great cost. Let’s make metro better and more attractive to bike users instead of drawing more people away from it.

Metro needs to be more attractive to drivers, especially the majority of drivers using CT Ave who have no passengers.

This proposal doesn't do that. Even ddot acknowledges this.

If making metro more attractive to drivers is the goal then we should be all in on light rail/streetcar/tram from the purple line/beltway to van ness or 16th street to silver spring. This proposal not only doesn't do anything like that but it also effectively prevents anything like that from ever happening.

No, metro - you know, the subway already under the street - should be more attractive to drivers not a new public transport system. This proposal should be a part of a larger effort to reduce the number of single occupant vehicles which should also include metro.

Metro switches to Wisconsin at Van Ness. Purple line will be at Connecticut and 16th on the maryland side. If you want to encourage its use then you need to connect to it.

And purple connects to red at Bethesda and Silver Spring, yes?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There are over 100 points along the proposed route where cars will need to cross over the bike lanes. Not just side streets, but alleys and building circle drives. This isn’t 15th street. This isn’t going to work like you think it will. Cyclists will get hit more often, traffic will be worse, businesses will struggle.

So somehow every other country in the world has figured this out but Connecticut Avenue is SOOOOO unique that bike lanes won't work because alleys and driveways.

Please.

They had to figure it out because they didn’t have a billion dollar world class subway directly below the corridor in question.

So if they can figure it out there, with or without a subway, why can't we figure it out here. Are we too stupid?

No, we’ve ALREADY figured it out. We’ve already created the solution at great cost. Let’s make metro better and more attractive to bike users instead of drawing more people away from it.

Metro needs to be more attractive to drivers, especially the majority of drivers using CT Ave who have no passengers.

This proposal doesn't do that. Even ddot acknowledges this.

If making metro more attractive to drivers is the goal then we should be all in on light rail/streetcar/tram from the purple line/beltway to van ness or 16th street to silver spring. This proposal not only doesn't do anything like that but it also effectively prevents anything like that from ever happening.

No, metro - you know, the subway already under the street - should be more attractive to drivers not a new public transport system. This proposal should be a part of a larger effort to reduce the number of single occupant vehicles which should also include metro.

Metro switches to Wisconsin at Van Ness. Purple line will be at Connecticut and 16th on the maryland side. If you want to encourage its use then you need to connect to it.

And purple connects to red at Bethesda and Silver Spring, yes?

Yes but it leaves a huge gap in between and the eastern branch of the red line takes an outward curve into town. That is why cars take Connecticut and 16th. This is also why the plan to get rid of two lanes of Connecticut will be so bad traffic wise north of Porter. 16th desperately needs a light rail connection. Connecticut does not unless the Avenue gets downgraded to a Street then it does.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Yes, I remember the hundreds of pages Hearst Pool thread where people vilified Cheh, called DOOM on parking and "people from across the city" coming to Hearst.

What happened?

Pool was a little late in opening and was packed every.single.day.with people from the neighborhood who LOVE their new neighborhood pool that they can walk anbd bike to.

Same thing with Cathedral Commons - this was going to be the end of the historic district. Instead, there is minimal parking impact and the restaurants are busy every night, mostly with people from the neighborhood.

When Babes was being redeveloped into Tenley View, the neighbors went crazy over the idea that the building wouldn't have very many parking spots. Impact? None, but the three quick food places that are well supported by the neighborhood and AU students.

So much complaining about change which has translated to...a better quality of life.

Same thing with this. Just watch.

It's outrageous that the city responded at all to the BS concerns by making Hearst a smaller pool. These people are holding the neighborhood back for the next generation. We don't want to live car-centric, dangerous for pedestrians, private school lives where we only socialize with white people and eat mediocre food.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes, I remember the hundreds of pages Hearst Pool thread where people vilified Cheh, called DOOM on parking and "people from across the city" coming to Hearst.

What happened?

Pool was a little late in opening and was packed every.single.day.with people from the neighborhood who LOVE their new neighborhood pool that they can walk anbd bike to.

Same thing with Cathedral Commons - this was going to be the end of the historic district. Instead, there is minimal parking impact and the restaurants are busy every night, mostly with people from the neighborhood.

When Babes was being redeveloped into Tenley View, the neighbors went crazy over the idea that the building wouldn't have very many parking spots. Impact? None, but the three quick food places that are well supported by the neighborhood and AU students.

So much complaining about change which has translated to...a better quality of life.

Same thing with this. Just watch.

It's outrageous that the city responded at all to the BS concerns by making Hearst a smaller pool. These people are holding the neighborhood back for the next generation. We don't want to live car-centric, dangerous for pedestrians, private school lives where we only socialize with white people and eat mediocre food.

they really hoisted themselves on their own petard with the small pool.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes, I remember the hundreds of pages Hearst Pool thread where people vilified Cheh, called DOOM on parking and "people from across the city" coming to Hearst.

What happened?

Pool was a little late in opening and was packed every.single.day.with people from the neighborhood who LOVE their new neighborhood pool that they can walk anbd bike to.

Same thing with Cathedral Commons - this was going to be the end of the historic district. Instead, there is minimal parking impact and the restaurants are busy every night, mostly with people from the neighborhood.

When Babes was being redeveloped into Tenley View, the neighbors went crazy over the idea that the building wouldn't have very many parking spots. Impact? None, but the three quick food places that are well supported by the neighborhood and AU students.

So much complaining about change which has translated to...a better quality of life.

Same thing with this. Just watch.

It's outrageous that the city responded at all to the BS concerns by making Hearst a smaller pool. These people are holding the neighborhood back for the next generation. We don't want to live car-centric, dangerous for pedestrians, private school lives where we only socialize with white people and eat mediocre food.

Then why did you move to Cleveland Park. White people and mediocre restaurants is what it is. And your idea to eliminate two lanes and replace them with bikes just increases all of that.

Traffic is bad. Let's increase congestion and make it worse.
There are too many white people (not including us - we're good white people). Let's make it whiter by adding bike lanes.
The restaurants are mediocre. We need a Red Lobster.

[Anonymous]

Exactly how does adding bike lanes make a place whiter?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Exactly how does adding bike lanes make a place whiter?

Because that's mainly who bikes. And to be even more precise, the majority of cyclists commuting are white males. Reducing car lanes actually affects lower income families (who don't live on metro lines) negatively because they aren't going to bike.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Exactly how does adding bike lanes make a place whiter?

Because that's mainly who bikes. And to be even more precise, the majority of cyclists commuting are white males. Reducing car lanes actually affects lower income families (who don't live on metro lines) negatively because they aren't going to bike.

Didn’t this argument get shot down by Black cyclists in that other thread about bike lanes EOTR?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Yes, I remember the hundreds of pages Hearst Pool thread where people vilified Cheh, called DOOM on parking and "people from across the city" coming to Hearst.

What happened?

Pool was a little late in opening and was packed every.single.day.with people from the neighborhood who LOVE their new neighborhood pool that they can walk anbd bike to.

Same thing with Cathedral Commons - this was going to be the end of the historic district. Instead, there is minimal parking impact and the restaurants are busy every night, mostly with people from the neighborhood.

When Babes was being redeveloped into Tenley View, the neighbors went crazy over the idea that the building wouldn't have very many parking spots. Impact? None, but the three quick food places that are well supported by the neighborhood and AU students.

So much complaining about change which has translated to...a better quality of life.

Same thing with this. Just watch.

What is the plan to restore the Hearst Park tree canopy? Who thought it was a good idea to cut down so many of the trees?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Exactly how does adding bike lanes make a place whiter?

Because that's mainly who bikes. And to be even more precise, the majority of cyclists commuting are white males. Reducing car lanes actually affects lower income families (who don't live on metro lines) negatively because they aren't going to bike.

You don't get around much if you truly believe this.

[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:At the ANC 3/4G candidate forum, the commissioners describe the bike lanes as a done deal. There wasn't a lot of room for the candidates to distinguish themselves on this issue, and in fact, none of them came out abjectly against them.

Two of the candidates were painfully non-committal, retreating to the 'we need to improve engagement' argument.

So they were embarrassed that this was caught out before they broke ground and think it's just a pr problem.

Let us all remember the names of the people responsible for our impending traffic nightmare. DDOT came up with the plan but those ANC commissioners are the ones that own it.

You are missing the point. The decision has been made. The bike lanes are going in. There are no options for reversing the decision.

If you want to hold anyone accountable, it is the Mayor. So if you want to vote against her, she will only get 80% of the vote instead of 81%.

Nope. I blame the ANC commissioners in our neighborhood. It is they who deserve our ire. It is they who should have known better. It is they who need to accept that their own responsibility will last and that people will not forget.

Actually, you are responsible. You and anyone else who failed to keep up with local community development initiatives. Failed to attend meetings and voice your concerns. Failed to answer surveys. If all these folks on these 120 pages had gotten off their couches and participated in democracy, this may have turned out differently. Go ahead and complain but don’t say you never had your chance. You blew it. It’s on you.

People have lives. Also, the D.C. government tries to sneak things like this by the public because they know people will hate it and kill it. You're dreaming if you think this project is actually going to happen.

"People have lives." You are completely off your rocker. Many ANC reps hold down busy jobs and have families and yet still find time to not only participate in the meetings but organize and lead them. The "D.C. government" held multiple virtual public meetings to present their plans and receive feedback from the community. The plans have been revised on account of that feedback. The local community not only likes this plan, but has endorsed it. Please get over it and stop insulting the rest of us by posting such bovine excreta.

The local community clearly does not like this plan. The amount of messages on the listserv and posts on this thread are quite telling.

I live on Connecticut Avenue. I am the local community. I like this plan. Just because you don't., please don't speak for the rest of us.

The ANC Commissioners up and down the Avenue LISTENED to their constituents and voted for a plan the majority of their constituents support. Why is this so hard to believe? Get out of your single family home bubble.

Please stop with the “single family home” nonsense. You’re sowing divisiveness for no reason. There is nothing wrong with living in a single family home and there’s nothing wrong with living in a multi-unit dwelling. There are people in both who support Concept C and people in both who oppose it or have serious concerns that they want to make sure are addressed. Stop stereotyping.

The claim that “the majority” of constituents support Concept C is not valid as it has never been placed on a ballot. It may be true that it’s supported by the majority of people who went to the meetings, but that’s not evidence of a majority of constituents.

In our political system, each action by the government doesn't get put to a popular vote. The way the majority can register their approval or disapproval is by voting. And all the ANC members and mayor were duly elected. SO.

Stiop pretending that ANCs are more than they are. ANC commissioners are not legislators.

Great, but the D.C. Council isn't against these bike lanes, either.

The expression of the council is through the budget. They have not yet approved the funds for this bike lane. Maybe they still will. Maybe they will consider it too expensive for now with other priorities more pressing.

The council has been, with the exception of Trayon White, in support of multi-modal transportation enhancements like bike lanes. Everyone understands how important Connecticut Avenue is to the city wide network.

Back to the dog whistles and euphemisms.

Being in favor of bike lanes does not equal being in favor of permanently shutting down two lanes of Connecticut Avenue
Being against permanently shutting down two lanes of Connecticut Avenue does not equal being against bike lanes or being anti-semitic.

It does not appear that propoenents are aware of how important Connecticut Avenue is to the regional transportation network.

They are well aware. They just think this will prompt everyone to discover a love for biking.

They assume that half of the traffic from constraining Connecticut Ave will be diverted onto bicycles. What a fantasy. Far more likely that the traffic gets diverted to Reno-34th St and Wisconsin Ave, with lots of frustrated drivers toggling back and forth on side streets between them and Connecticut on a Waze-craze to find the fastest route. Remember DDOT’s cluster-f fiasco in Glover Park 8 or 10 years ago, which they had to rip out. Connecticut will be that on steroids but far more difficult and costly to undo once the impact are felt.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:"placing it on a ballot" isn't how our city works. Otherwise, we would have every stop sign and speed hump on ballots too.

And I make the point about SFH versus apartment dwellers because, according to OP, 20% of the people live on 80% of the land in SFH areas and 80% of the people live on 20% of the land right on the Avenue.

As such, when the pearl clutchers on the listservs and here complain they didn't know, and "everyone" is opposed, it isn't reality. It is their reality, but that is the tell.

Maybe the Single Family homeowners should stop being divisive about insisting that their way of life is the ideal and we should all have a degraded experience on Connecticut Avenue to maintain their auto-centric lifestyle.

My kid walks along 34th St to school (Eaton). I would be very alarmed if “squeezing the balloon” by cutting Connecticut Ave to two traffic lanes in each direction makes 34th more dangerous than it is already.