Chevy Chase Community Center Redevelopment

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

Further evidence abounds all around DC. Just look at all the empty bike lanes. My favorite is in Germantown, near 355, where the narrow bike lane is sandwiched between three lanes of traffic on the left and a right turn lane on the right. Who in their right mind thought that was safe for bikes or cars?

I bike a lot in Germantown. I don't know which specific location you're talking about. But the answer is probably: nobody thinks it's safe for bicyclists. Including the State Highway Administration, which built it, but it meets the official minimum standards for a bike lane, so that's what they do. And including the bicyclists, who don't use it, but instead ride on the sidewalk. Maybe if every time you read "protected bike lane," you think "sidewalk," that will help you understand.

Now, as it happens, there actually are a lot of people getting around in Germantown on bikes, even though you probably don't see us, because we are mostly on the sidewalks. Which raises the question: if there are a lot of people getting around in Germantown on bikes, with almost zero good bike infrastructure, how many people would get around in Germantown on bikes if there were good bike infrastructure?

Also, it's very common for people to see me with my bike, like outside a store, and say, "Oh, I would love to bike to the store, but I'm afraid of the cars." or "Oh, I would love to bike to the store, but my husband say it isn't safe."

Nobody ever sees me with my car, outside a store, and says, "Oh, I would love to spend even more time driving and in parking lots!"

If a lot of people are already biking on sidewalks, then why do we need bike lanes?

The bike lane I was referring to is heading West crossing 355, right at that huge Patriot Urgent Care building.

Maybe you can ask some of your "bicyclists shouldn't be on the sidewalk" friends.

There are no bike lanes on Middlebrook east of 355, only west of 355. The speed limit on Middlebrook is 40 mph, and it's not surprising that nobody rides in a little strip of asphalt protected by a line of paint next to 3 lanes (each way) of cars going 45-55 mph. The main purpose of those bike lanes wasn't even bike lanes, it was to occupy the space when the county narrowed the driving lanes so that cars wouldn't go 60 mph, because Middlebrook had so many bad car crashes.

Uh, the poster I responded to said they bike on the sidewalk. Not sure how they are doing that if there are no sidewalks. And you are mistaken -- there is a bike lane between the left three lanes of traffic and the right turn lane.

Who said there aren't sidewalks? There definitely are sidewalks. I bike on them, and so does everybody else.

No, there are no bike lanes on Middlebrook east of 355. Only west of 355. The configuration you're talking about is west of 355. Patriot Urgent Care is east of 355. The bike lane on the west side of 355 is between the through lanes and the right-turn lane, because otherwise cars that are turning right would turn right across the path of bicyclists who are going straight. That is actually the good part of the bike lane design. The bad part of the bike lane design is everything else.

Again, respectfully, you are mistaken. There is a bike lane EAST of 355, facing the urgent care center. I don't really care, though -- I happened to be driving there the other day and noted how absurd it was to have a bike lane there, sandwiched between lanes on a busy road. Not sure why you have a stick up your butt about this -- oh yeah, you're a cyclist, so that's how you live. I forgot.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

Further evidence abounds all around DC. Just look at all the empty bike lanes. My favorite is in Germantown, near 355, where the narrow bike lane is sandwiched between three lanes of traffic on the left and a right turn lane on the right. Who in their right mind thought that was safe for bikes or cars?

I bike a lot in Germantown. I don't know which specific location you're talking about. But the answer is probably: nobody thinks it's safe for bicyclists. Including the State Highway Administration, which built it, but it meets the official minimum standards for a bike lane, so that's what they do. And including the bicyclists, who don't use it, but instead ride on the sidewalk. Maybe if every time you read "protected bike lane," you think "sidewalk," that will help you understand.

Now, as it happens, there actually are a lot of people getting around in Germantown on bikes, even though you probably don't see us, because we are mostly on the sidewalks. Which raises the question: if there are a lot of people getting around in Germantown on bikes, with almost zero good bike infrastructure, how many people would get around in Germantown on bikes if there were good bike infrastructure?

Also, it's very common for people to see me with my bike, like outside a store, and say, "Oh, I would love to bike to the store, but I'm afraid of the cars." or "Oh, I would love to bike to the store, but my husband say it isn't safe."

Nobody ever sees me with my car, outside a store, and says, "Oh, I would love to spend even more time driving and in parking lots!"

If a lot of people are already biking on sidewalks, then why do we need bike lanes?

The bike lane I was referring to is heading West crossing 355, right at that huge Patriot Urgent Care building.

Maybe you can ask some of your "bicyclists shouldn't be on the sidewalk" friends.

There are no bike lanes on Middlebrook east of 355, only west of 355. The speed limit on Middlebrook is 40 mph, and it's not surprising that nobody rides in a little strip of asphalt protected by a line of paint next to 3 lanes (each way) of cars going 45-55 mph. The main purpose of those bike lanes wasn't even bike lanes, it was to occupy the space when the county narrowed the driving lanes so that cars wouldn't go 60 mph, because Middlebrook had so many bad car crashes.

Uh, the poster I responded to said they bike on the sidewalk. Not sure how they are doing that if there are no sidewalks. And you are mistaken -- there is a bike lane between the left three lanes of traffic and the right turn lane.

Who said there aren't sidewalks? There definitely are sidewalks. I bike on them, and so does everybody else.

No, there are no bike lanes on Middlebrook east of 355. Only west of 355. The configuration you're talking about is west of 355. Patriot Urgent Care is east of 355. The bike lane on the west side of 355 is between the through lanes and the right-turn lane, because otherwise cars that are turning right would turn right across the path of bicyclists who are going straight. That is actually the good part of the bike lane design. The bad part of the bike lane design is everything else.

Again, respectfully, you are mistaken. There is a bike lane EAST of 355, facing the urgent care center. I don't really care, though -- I happened to be driving there the other day and noted how absurd it was to have a bike lane there, sandwiched between lanes on a busy road. Not sure why you have a stick up your butt about this -- oh yeah, you're a cyclist, so that's how you live. I forgot.

You may have noted it while driving, but it wasn't where you think it is. Which is not surprising about something you saw while you were driving by.

Now, if your point is that the Middlebrook bike lanes near 355 are trash, and people don't use them - I agree. People don't use them, because they're trash bike lanes. People bike on the sidewalk. On Middlebrook, and on 355. In fact, someone was killed crossing 355 a few months ago, biking home from the store.

https://www.wusa9.com/article/news/local/maryland/fatal-germantown-bike-crash-other-cars-may-have-left-scene/65-f2661a4a-1e27-403b-a9d0-c520c1bc66bb

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

Further evidence abounds all around DC. Just look at all the empty bike lanes. My favorite is in Germantown, near 355, where the narrow bike lane is sandwiched between three lanes of traffic on the left and a right turn lane on the right. Who in their right mind thought that was safe for bikes or cars?

I bike a lot in Germantown. I don't know which specific location you're talking about. But the answer is probably: nobody thinks it's safe for bicyclists. Including the State Highway Administration, which built it, but it meets the official minimum standards for a bike lane, so that's what they do. And including the bicyclists, who don't use it, but instead ride on the sidewalk. Maybe if every time you read "protected bike lane," you think "sidewalk," that will help you understand.

Now, as it happens, there actually are a lot of people getting around in Germantown on bikes, even though you probably don't see us, because we are mostly on the sidewalks. Which raises the question: if there are a lot of people getting around in Germantown on bikes, with almost zero good bike infrastructure, how many people would get around in Germantown on bikes if there were good bike infrastructure?

Also, it's very common for people to see me with my bike, like outside a store, and say, "Oh, I would love to bike to the store, but I'm afraid of the cars." or "Oh, I would love to bike to the store, but my husband say it isn't safe."

Nobody ever sees me with my car, outside a store, and says, "Oh, I would love to spend even more time driving and in parking lots!"

If a lot of people are already biking on sidewalks, then why do we need bike lanes?

The bike lane I was referring to is heading West crossing 355, right at that huge Patriot Urgent Care building.

Maybe you can ask some of your "bicyclists shouldn't be on the sidewalk" friends.

There are no bike lanes on Middlebrook east of 355, only west of 355. The speed limit on Middlebrook is 40 mph, and it's not surprising that nobody rides in a little strip of asphalt protected by a line of paint next to 3 lanes (each way) of cars going 45-55 mph. The main purpose of those bike lanes wasn't even bike lanes, it was to occupy the space when the county narrowed the driving lanes so that cars wouldn't go 60 mph, because Middlebrook had so many bad car crashes.

Uh, the poster I responded to said they bike on the sidewalk. Not sure how they are doing that if there are no sidewalks. And you are mistaken -- there is a bike lane between the left three lanes of traffic and the right turn lane.

Who said there aren't sidewalks? There definitely are sidewalks. I bike on them, and so does everybody else.

No, there are no bike lanes on Middlebrook east of 355. Only west of 355. The configuration you're talking about is west of 355. Patriot Urgent Care is east of 355. The bike lane on the west side of 355 is between the through lanes and the right-turn lane, because otherwise cars that are turning right would turn right across the path of bicyclists who are going straight. That is actually the good part of the bike lane design. The bad part of the bike lane design is everything else.

Again, respectfully, you are mistaken. There is a bike lane EAST of 355, facing the urgent care center. I don't really care, though -- I happened to be driving there the other day and noted how absurd it was to have a bike lane there, sandwiched between lanes on a busy road. Not sure why you have a stick up your butt about this -- oh yeah, you're a cyclist, so that's how you live. I forgot.

You may have noted it while driving, but it wasn't where you think it is. Which is not surprising about something you saw while you were driving by.

Now, if your point is that the Middlebrook bike lanes near 355 are trash, and people don't use them - I agree. People don't use them, because they're trash bike lanes. People bike on the sidewalk. On Middlebrook, and on 355. In fact, someone was killed crossing 355 a few months ago, biking home from the store.

https://www.wusa9.com/article/news/local/maryland/fatal-germantown-bike-crash-other-cars-may-have-left-scene/65-f2661a4a-1e27-403b-a9d0-c520c1bc66bb

Holy crap, you are unreal. I was at a red light, in the lanes getting ready to cross 355, facing the urgent care center when I saw the ridiculous bike lane, next to my car and left of the right turn lane. I said, out loud, "Who would bike there???" Even though I am saying the bike lane like is ridiculous and dangerously placed in the roadway, which is something I imagine cyclists would agree with, you are focused on proving me wrong, somehow, some way. Ridiculous. Is it the chemicals of those moisture wicking bike shorts? What?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

Further evidence abounds all around DC. Just look at all the empty bike lanes. My favorite is in Germantown, near 355, where the narrow bike lane is sandwiched between three lanes of traffic on the left and a right turn lane on the right. Who in their right mind thought that was safe for bikes or cars?

I bike a lot in Germantown. I don't know which specific location you're talking about. But the answer is probably: nobody thinks it's safe for bicyclists. Including the State Highway Administration, which built it, but it meets the official minimum standards for a bike lane, so that's what they do. And including the bicyclists, who don't use it, but instead ride on the sidewalk. Maybe if every time you read "protected bike lane," you think "sidewalk," that will help you understand.

Now, as it happens, there actually are a lot of people getting around in Germantown on bikes, even though you probably don't see us, because we are mostly on the sidewalks. Which raises the question: if there are a lot of people getting around in Germantown on bikes, with almost zero good bike infrastructure, how many people would get around in Germantown on bikes if there were good bike infrastructure?

Also, it's very common for people to see me with my bike, like outside a store, and say, "Oh, I would love to bike to the store, but I'm afraid of the cars." or "Oh, I would love to bike to the store, but my husband say it isn't safe."

Nobody ever sees me with my car, outside a store, and says, "Oh, I would love to spend even more time driving and in parking lots!"

If a lot of people are already biking on sidewalks, then why do we need bike lanes?

The bike lane I was referring to is heading West crossing 355, right at that huge Patriot Urgent Care building.

Maybe you can ask some of your "bicyclists shouldn't be on the sidewalk" friends.

There are no bike lanes on Middlebrook east of 355, only west of 355. The speed limit on Middlebrook is 40 mph, and it's not surprising that nobody rides in a little strip of asphalt protected by a line of paint next to 3 lanes (each way) of cars going 45-55 mph. The main purpose of those bike lanes wasn't even bike lanes, it was to occupy the space when the county narrowed the driving lanes so that cars wouldn't go 60 mph, because Middlebrook had so many bad car crashes.

Uh, the poster I responded to said they bike on the sidewalk. Not sure how they are doing that if there are no sidewalks. And you are mistaken -- there is a bike lane between the left three lanes of traffic and the right turn lane.

Who said there aren't sidewalks? There definitely are sidewalks. I bike on them, and so does everybody else.

No, there are no bike lanes on Middlebrook east of 355. Only west of 355. The configuration you're talking about is west of 355. Patriot Urgent Care is east of 355. The bike lane on the west side of 355 is between the through lanes and the right-turn lane, because otherwise cars that are turning right would turn right across the path of bicyclists who are going straight. That is actually the good part of the bike lane design. The bad part of the bike lane design is everything else.

Again, respectfully, you are mistaken. There is a bike lane EAST of 355, facing the urgent care center. I don't really care, though -- I happened to be driving there the other day and noted how absurd it was to have a bike lane there, sandwiched between lanes on a busy road. Not sure why you have a stick up your butt about this -- oh yeah, you're a cyclist, so that's how you live. I forgot.

You may have noted it while driving, but it wasn't where you think it is. Which is not surprising about something you saw while you were driving by.

Now, if your point is that the Middlebrook bike lanes near 355 are trash, and people don't use them - I agree. People don't use them, because they're trash bike lanes. People bike on the sidewalk. On Middlebrook, and on 355. In fact, someone was killed crossing 355 a few months ago, biking home from the store.

https://www.wusa9.com/article/news/local/maryland/fatal-germantown-bike-crash-other-cars-may-have-left-scene/65-f2661a4a-1e27-403b-a9d0-c520c1bc66bb

Holy crap, you are unreal. I was at a red light, in the lanes getting ready to cross 355, facing the urgent care center when I saw the ridiculous bike lane, next to my car and left of the right turn lane. I said, out loud, "Who would bike there???" Even though I am saying the bike lane like is ridiculous and dangerously placed in the roadway, which is something I imagine cyclists would agree with, you are focused on proving me wrong, somehow, some way. Ridiculous. Is it the chemicals of those moisture wicking bike shorts? What?

Yes, you did see that, and what you saw is WEST of 355. The urgent care center is EAST of 355. You were getting ready to cross 355 from west to east. Look at a map.

And, again, that part that you consider "dangerous placement", with the bike lane to the left of the right turn lane? That's the only NON-bad part of the bike lane.

[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:

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.

No. In point of fact it almost always has the opposite effect. Increasing congestion increases accidents across the board. The only benefit increasing congestion ever has is that when going from medium congestion to high congestion it can sometimes reduce accident fatalities. Not accidents, it still increases those.

[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:

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.

No. In point of fact it almost always has the opposite effect. Increasing congestion increases accidents across the board. The only benefit increasing congestion ever has is that when going from medium congestion to high congestion it can sometimes reduce accident fatalities. Not accidents, it still increases those.

You're just plain wrong about that. Roads are safer with backed-up cars than with free-flowing car traffic.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

Further evidence abounds all around DC. Just look at all the empty bike lanes. My favorite is in Germantown, near 355, where the narrow bike lane is sandwiched between three lanes of traffic on the left and a right turn lane on the right. Who in their right mind thought that was safe for bikes or cars?

I bike a lot in Germantown. I don't know which specific location you're talking about. But the answer is probably: nobody thinks it's safe for bicyclists. Including the State Highway Administration, which built it, but it meets the official minimum standards for a bike lane, so that's what they do. And including the bicyclists, who don't use it, but instead ride on the sidewalk. Maybe if every time you read "protected bike lane," you think "sidewalk," that will help you understand.

Now, as it happens, there actually are a lot of people getting around in Germantown on bikes, even though you probably don't see us, because we are mostly on the sidewalks. Which raises the question: if there are a lot of people getting around in Germantown on bikes, with almost zero good bike infrastructure, how many people would get around in Germantown on bikes if there were good bike infrastructure?

Also, it's very common for people to see me with my bike, like outside a store, and say, "Oh, I would love to bike to the store, but I'm afraid of the cars." or "Oh, I would love to bike to the store, but my husband say it isn't safe."

Nobody ever sees me with my car, outside a store, and says, "Oh, I would love to spend even more time driving and in parking lots!"

If a lot of people are already biking on sidewalks, then why do we need bike lanes?

The bike lane I was referring to is heading West crossing 355, right at that huge Patriot Urgent Care building.

Maybe you can ask some of your "bicyclists shouldn't be on the sidewalk" friends.

There are no bike lanes on Middlebrook east of 355, only west of 355. The speed limit on Middlebrook is 40 mph, and it's not surprising that nobody rides in a little strip of asphalt protected by a line of paint next to 3 lanes (each way) of cars going 45-55 mph. The main purpose of those bike lanes wasn't even bike lanes, it was to occupy the space when the county narrowed the driving lanes so that cars wouldn't go 60 mph, because Middlebrook had so many bad car crashes.

Uh, the poster I responded to said they bike on the sidewalk. Not sure how they are doing that if there are no sidewalks. And you are mistaken -- there is a bike lane between the left three lanes of traffic and the right turn lane.

Who said there aren't sidewalks? There definitely are sidewalks. I bike on them, and so does everybody else.

No, there are no bike lanes on Middlebrook east of 355. Only west of 355. The configuration you're talking about is west of 355. Patriot Urgent Care is east of 355. The bike lane on the west side of 355 is between the through lanes and the right-turn lane, because otherwise cars that are turning right would turn right across the path of bicyclists who are going straight. That is actually the good part of the bike lane design. The bad part of the bike lane design is everything else.

Again, respectfully, you are mistaken. There is a bike lane EAST of 355, facing the urgent care center. I don't really care, though -- I happened to be driving there the other day and noted how absurd it was to have a bike lane there, sandwiched between lanes on a busy road. Not sure why you have a stick up your butt about this -- oh yeah, you're a cyclist, so that's how you live. I forgot.

You may have noted it while driving, but it wasn't where you think it is. Which is not surprising about something you saw while you were driving by.

Now, if your point is that the Middlebrook bike lanes near 355 are trash, and people don't use them - I agree. People don't use them, because they're trash bike lanes. People bike on the sidewalk. On Middlebrook, and on 355. In fact, someone was killed crossing 355 a few months ago, biking home from the store.

https://www.wusa9.com/article/news/local/maryland/fatal-germantown-bike-crash-other-cars-may-have-left-scene/65-f2661a4a-1e27-403b-a9d0-c520c1bc66bb

Holy crap, you are unreal. I was at a red light, in the lanes getting ready to cross 355, facing the urgent care center when I saw the ridiculous bike lane, next to my car and left of the right turn lane. I said, out loud, "Who would bike there???" Even though I am saying the bike lane like is ridiculous and dangerously placed in the roadway, which is something I imagine cyclists would agree with, you are focused on proving me wrong, somehow, some way. Ridiculous. Is it the chemicals of those moisture wicking bike shorts? What?

Yes, you did see that, and what you saw is WEST of 355. The urgent care center is EAST of 355. You were getting ready to cross 355 from west to east. Look at a map.

And, again, that part that you consider "dangerous placement", with the bike lane to the left of the right turn lane? That's the only NON-bad part of the bike lane.

You're right, I was traveling West to East. I apologize.

[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:

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.

No. In point of fact it almost always has the opposite effect. Increasing congestion increases accidents across the board. The only benefit increasing congestion ever has is that when going from medium congestion to high congestion it can sometimes reduce accident fatalities. Not accidents, it still increases those.

You're just plain wrong about that. Roads are safer with backed-up cars than with free-flowing car traffic.

Backed up Connecticut Ave will make Albemarle, Van Ness, Porter, Ordway, Macomb, Reno LES SAFE for kids walking to school, bike riders, and residents as vehicles divert on to side streets to find a faster way.

[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.

Look at the plans. There are short term "pick-up/drop off" spaces. Please stop trying to create a false narrative.

[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.

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

So how will residents get home?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Look at the plans. There are "pick-up/Drop-off" spaces designated for just this purpose.

[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:

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.

No. In point of fact it almost always has the opposite effect. Increasing congestion increases accidents across the board. The only benefit increasing congestion ever has is that when going from medium congestion to high congestion it can sometimes reduce accident fatalities. Not accidents, it still increases those.

You're just plain wrong about that. Roads are safer with backed-up cars than with free-flowing car traffic.

Backed up Connecticut Ave will make Albemarle, Van Ness, Porter, Ordway, Macomb, Reno LES SAFE for kids walking to school, bike riders, and residents as vehicles divert on to side streets to find a faster way.

What makes the roads less safe are drivers driving fast, which happens now, and the crash data backs that up. The people who have been maimed and killed eating or walking on CT Ave test that out. It needs to change.

[Anonymous]

COVID really messed up driving, walking and biking. It's like the roads were filled with 16 year old new drivers. And pedestrians lurch into the road staring at their phones, ignoring nearby crosswalks. And cyclists -- well, they've always been bad. But be patient. Make temporary laws until people get their brains back.

[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:

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.

No. In point of fact it almost always has the opposite effect. Increasing congestion increases accidents across the board. The only benefit increasing congestion ever has is that when going from medium congestion to high congestion it can sometimes reduce accident fatalities. Not accidents, it still increases those.

You're just plain wrong about that. Roads are safer with backed-up cars than with free-flowing car traffic.

Backed up Connecticut Ave will make Albemarle, Van Ness, Porter, Ordway, Macomb, Reno LES SAFE for kids walking to school, bike riders, and residents as vehicles divert on to side streets to find a faster way.

What makes the roads less safe are drivers driving fast, which happens now, and the crash data backs that up. The people who have been maimed and killed eating or walking on CT Ave test that out. It needs to change.

Reno Rd has more accidents per lane/mile that Connecticut Avenue. Even if you are correct that constraining capacity on Connecticut could increase safety (a big if), why should people who live or walk along other streets pay the price of worsening safety conditions from Connecticut traffic diversion? Is that fair?

[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:

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.

No. In point of fact it almost always has the opposite effect. Increasing congestion increases accidents across the board. The only benefit increasing congestion ever has is that when going from medium congestion to high congestion it can sometimes reduce accident fatalities. Not accidents, it still increases those.

You're just plain wrong about that. Roads are safer with backed-up cars than with free-flowing car traffic.

What if your in the back of an ambulance?