Chevy Chase Community Center Redevelopment

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Fine. Let’s enforce traffic laws. Let’s enforce all laws. Take away licenses. Impound cars. Dock pay checks. Put people in jail. Don’t make life harder on responsible drivers.

[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.

What if your in the back of an ambulance?

Have you ever been driving, at an intersection with a traffic signal, when an ambulance is trying to get through?

Not to mention that you are less likely to be in the back of an ambulance, when roads are safer.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Such restrictions already exist in Connecticut Avenue in Chevy Chase and at certain DC intersections among Reno, Western, etc. It’s possible to make a turn at a few streets so that people in the neighborhood can get home but it greatly restricts commuter and cut-thru traffic into side streets.

The objective is to keep through traffic on the Connecticut arterial, right?

[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:

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.

Fine. Let’s enforce traffic laws. Let’s enforce all laws. Take away licenses. Impound cars. Dock pay checks. Put people in jail. Don’t make life harder on responsible drivers.

When streets are safer for everyone, how does that "make life harder on responsible drivers"?

[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.

I don't know why you think every traffic study around the world for the last 100 years is wrong but that's what every traffic study from around the world for the past 100 years says. Increasing congestion increases accidents.

But I'm glad that you are acknowledging that increasing congestion is the whole point of the plan.

[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.

I don't know why you think every traffic study around the world for the last 100 years is wrong but that's what every traffic study from around the world for the past 100 years says. Increasing congestion increases accidents.

But I'm glad that you are acknowledging that increasing congestion is the whole point of the plan.

Oh, it's one of the "I'm glad you're agreeing with" [claim the PP was disagreeing with] posters.

[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.

I don't know why you think every traffic study around the world for the last 100 years is wrong but that's what every traffic study from around the world for the past 100 years says. Increasing congestion increases accidents.

But I'm glad that you are acknowledging that increasing congestion is the whole point of the plan.

Oh, it's one of the "I'm glad you're agreeing with" [claim the PP was disagreeing with] posters.

Oh, I'm sorry. I didn't realize that "backed up" instead of "free flowing" does not mean congestion.

[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:

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.

Fine. Let’s enforce traffic laws. Let’s enforce all laws. Take away licenses. Impound cars. Dock pay checks. Put people in jail. Don’t make life harder on responsible drivers.

When streets are safer for everyone, how does that "make life harder on responsible drivers"?

Don't be obtuse. People are driving to get from Point A to Point B. Don't make it harder and slower to make that happen.

[Anonymous]

There also may be misguided “equity” notion at play here with the Connecticut Ave plan. Why should commuter traffic be directed primarily to use major avenues like Connecticut Ave which tend to have more renters who live in multifamily buildings? Why not spread the traffic burden more equitably including to streets where more single family homeowners live?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There also may be misguided “equity” notion at play here with the Connecticut Ave plan. Why should commuter traffic be directed primarily to use major avenues like Connecticut Ave which tend to have more renters who live in multifamily buildings? Why not spread the traffic burden more equitably including to streets where more single family homeowners live?

LOL this wins the idiocy prize.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There also may be misguided “equity” notion at play here with the Connecticut Ave plan. Why should commuter traffic be directed primarily to use major avenues like Connecticut Ave which tend to have more renters who live in multifamily buildings? Why not spread the traffic burden more equitably including to streets where more single family homeowners live?

LOL this wins the idiocy prize.

Sounds like some of of the “middle finger” ANCers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There also may be misguided “equity” notion at play here with the Connecticut Ave plan. Why should commuter traffic be directed primarily to use major avenues like Connecticut Ave which tend to have more renters who live in multifamily buildings? Why not spread the traffic burden more equitably including to streets where more single family homeowners live? [/quote

There are some really idiotic posts on here from the anti-bike lane crowd who frankly are only thinking about their own desire to drive aggressively.

What alternative residential side streets would ever be faster than Connecticut Avenue?

Even allowing for the fact that there is a lot of aggressive driving and rolling of stop signs there is no scenario/combo of alternate north south streets that would ever match the carrying capacity or speed of driving on Connecticut Avenue.

But again what is weird about this is the roadway capacity is barely cut during rush hour and will be improved outside of rush hour because there will be queuing lanes at most intersections.

And if you've spent any time on our streets during the AM & PM rush hours the last year you'd know that traffic volumes are still way down during rush hour but are up outside of rush hour - and wow guess what - the proposed changes to Connecticut Avenue perfectly match that change in driving patterns.

[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.

Which faster way?

[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:

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.

Fine. Let’s enforce traffic laws. Let’s enforce all laws. Take away licenses. Impound cars. Dock pay checks. Put people in jail. Don’t make life harder on responsible drivers.

When streets are safer for everyone, how does that "make life harder on responsible drivers"?

Don't be obtuse. People are driving to get from Point A to Point B. Don't make it harder and slower to make that happen.

Slower, yes. Harder, no, unless you're Sammy Hagar.

[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.

Which faster way?

Albermarle, Van Ness, Porter, Ordway, Macomb, Reno and others duh