Options for opposing Connecticut Avenue changes?

[Anonymous]

I drove from Cleveland Park to Bethesda yesterday via Conn Ave and Bradley Boulevard. This was 6:00PM - peak of rush Hour.

I made just about every light with zero back-up. Car traffic moved freely and I actually arrived at my destination 10 minutes early.

In other words, there is shockingly little car traffic these days. A bike lane should not be an issue.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://www.foresthillsconnection.com/news/ddot-considers-narrower-bike-lanes-more-parking-and-dropoff-spaces-for-next-connecticut-ave-safety-study-concept/

There’s an interesting juxtaposition in there between DDOT refusing to make Connecticut a transit corridor due to lack of current demand/ridership and the proponents rationale for the protected bike lanes inducing utilization despite limited current utilization. No, not inconsistent at all.

From having followed urbanists and other who tend to be in favor of bike lanes, most of those in favor of bike lanes are also in favor of increasing transport. There are six lanes right now on Connecticut Avenue dedicated to cars, I am sure most bike lane supporters would be in favor of two of those going to bikes, two going to buses and two staying with cars.

Can't more of the Connecticut car traffic be switched to Reno Rd? It's fairly parallel to Connecticut and can serve as the reliever route as Connecticut becomes a more vibrant urban boulevard.

And why can't bikers use the sidewalk or ride through the Rock Creek path? Both are already in place.

So if an individual mode of transport only needs one route through the city, then we can ban cars from all roads except Connecticut Ave? Connecticut Ave is already in place, seems like you wouldn't need Reno and Wisconsin as well.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://www.foresthillsconnection.com/news/ddot-considers-narrower-bike-lanes-more-parking-and-dropoff-spaces-for-next-connecticut-ave-safety-study-concept/

There’s an interesting juxtaposition in there between DDOT refusing to make Connecticut a transit corridor due to lack of current demand/ridership and the proponents rationale for the protected bike lanes inducing utilization despite limited current utilization. No, not inconsistent at all.

From having followed urbanists and other who tend to be in favor of bike lanes, most of those in favor of bike lanes are also in favor of increasing transport. There are six lanes right now on Connecticut Avenue dedicated to cars, I am sure most bike lane supporters would be in favor of two of those going to bikes, two going to buses and two staying with cars.

Can't more of the Connecticut car traffic be switched to Reno Rd? It's fairly parallel to Connecticut and can serve as the reliever route as Connecticut becomes a more vibrant urban boulevard.

And why can't bikers use the sidewalk or ride through the Rock Creek path? Both are already in place.

Why would you think it's beneficial for anybody (except motorists, of course) for people to bicycle on a sidewalk instead of in a bike lane?

As for Rock Creek, well, why do you drive on Connecticut Ave instead of Wisconsin Ave or 16th St?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I drove from Cleveland Park to Bethesda yesterday via Conn Ave and Bradley Boulevard. This was 6:00PM - peak of rush Hour.

I made just about every light with zero back-up. Car traffic moved freely and I actually arrived at my destination 10 minutes early.

In other words, there is shockingly little car traffic these days. A bike lane should not be an issue.

Liar, liar pants on fire

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I drove from Cleveland Park to Bethesda yesterday via Conn Ave and Bradley Boulevard. This was 6:00PM - peak of rush Hour.

I made just about every light with zero back-up. Car traffic moved freely and I actually arrived at my destination 10 minutes early.

In other words, there is shockingly little car traffic these days. A bike lane should not be an issue.

Liar, liar pants on fire

Monday is one of the lowest weekday traffic days. The Post reported that commuter traffic peaks Tuesday-Thursday.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I drove from Cleveland Park to Bethesda yesterday via Conn Ave and Bradley Boulevard. This was 6:00PM - peak of rush Hour.

I made just about every light with zero back-up. Car traffic moved freely and I actually arrived at my destination 10 minutes early.

In other words, there is shockingly little car traffic these days. A bike lane should not be an issue.

Liar, liar pants on fire

Monday is one of the lowest weekday traffic days. The Post reported that commuter traffic peaks Tuesday-Thursday.

So peak traffic on Connecticut Avenue occurs 6 hours a week? One hour in the morning, one hour in the evening, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday? And DC is supposed to keep Connecticut dangerous 24/7/365 based on 6 hours a week?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://www.foresthillsconnection.com/news/ddot-considers-narrower-bike-lanes-more-parking-and-dropoff-spaces-for-next-connecticut-ave-safety-study-concept/

There’s an interesting juxtaposition in there between DDOT refusing to make Connecticut a transit corridor due to lack of current demand/ridership and the proponents rationale for the protected bike lanes inducing utilization despite limited current utilization. No, not inconsistent at all.

From having followed urbanists and other who tend to be in favor of bike lanes, most of those in favor of bike lanes are also in favor of increasing transport. There are six lanes right now on Connecticut Avenue dedicated to cars, I am sure most bike lane supporters would be in favor of two of those going to bikes, two going to buses and two staying with cars.

Can't more of the Connecticut car traffic be switched to Reno Rd? It's fairly parallel to Connecticut and can serve as the reliever route as Connecticut becomes a more vibrant urban boulevard.

And why can't bikers use the sidewalk or ride through the Rock Creek path? Both are already in place.

Bikes can, but then the pedestrians complain. So they moved to the street, where they got hit and killed and car drivers complained. Hence the need for bike lanes.

No, hence, the need for wider paths in RC park. I am confident that there are far more cars using Conn Ave than pedestrians using RC Park.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A lane of CT Ave is closed for construction and yet...

Where are the 3000 bikers? Where is the 1 biker?

They are waiting for bike lanes so it'll be safe to ride.

The reference to Field of Dreams is appropriate here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://www.foresthillsconnection.com/news/ddot-considers-narrower-bike-lanes-more-parking-and-dropoff-spaces-for-next-connecticut-ave-safety-study-concept/

There’s an interesting juxtaposition in there between DDOT refusing to make Connecticut a transit corridor due to lack of current demand/ridership and the proponents rationale for the protected bike lanes inducing utilization despite limited current utilization. No, not inconsistent at all.

From having followed urbanists and other who tend to be in favor of bike lanes, most of those in favor of bike lanes are also in favor of increasing transport. There are six lanes right now on Connecticut Avenue dedicated to cars, I am sure most bike lane supporters would be in favor of two of those going to bikes, two going to buses and two staying with cars.

Can't more of the Connecticut car traffic be switched to Reno Rd? It's fairly parallel to Connecticut and can serve as the reliever route as Connecticut becomes a more vibrant urban boulevard.

And why can't bikers use the sidewalk or ride through the Rock Creek path? Both are already in place.

So if an individual mode of transport only needs one route through the city, then we can ban cars from all roads except Connecticut Ave? Connecticut Ave is already in place, seems like you wouldn't need Reno and Wisconsin as well.

+1 I'd be perfectly happy to ban bikes from Connecticut Avenue entirely if we ban cars from Reno and make it bike-only.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://www.foresthillsconnection.com/news/ddot-considers-narrower-bike-lanes-more-parking-and-dropoff-spaces-for-next-connecticut-ave-safety-study-concept/

There’s an interesting juxtaposition in there between DDOT refusing to make Connecticut a transit corridor due to lack of current demand/ridership and the proponents rationale for the protected bike lanes inducing utilization despite limited current utilization. No, not inconsistent at all.

From having followed urbanists and other who tend to be in favor of bike lanes, most of those in favor of bike lanes are also in favor of increasing transport. There are six lanes right now on Connecticut Avenue dedicated to cars, I am sure most bike lane supporters would be in favor of two of those going to bikes, two going to buses and two staying with cars.

Can't more of the Connecticut car traffic be switched to Reno Rd? It's fairly parallel to Connecticut and can serve as the reliever route as Connecticut becomes a more vibrant urban boulevard.

And why can't bikers use the sidewalk or ride through the Rock Creek path? Both are already in place.

So if an individual mode of transport only needs one route through the city, then we can ban cars from all roads except Connecticut Ave? Connecticut Ave is already in place, seems like you wouldn't need Reno and Wisconsin as well.

+1 I'd be perfectly happy to ban bikes from Connecticut Avenue entirely if we ban cars from Reno and make it bike-only.

Except people on bikes would still go to Connecticut Avenue because that is where the stores and amenities are. So sure, close Reno for bikes, but expect bikers to go to where the shops are.

[Anonymous]

so much traffic

[Anonymous]

If there are going to be bike lanes, can someone come up with a design that makes them visually attractive and not just spiky poles stuck in the ground? Connecticut Avenue looks terrible right now and should get new asphalt from Chevy Chase to Woodley Park. All of the concrete barriers need to be removed too, especially those blocking things off on the block with Rosemary’s Bistro and the block with the old service lane. Connecticut Avenue could be a nice road into the city, but right now it’s an eyesore. If we’re going to tear it all up to add bike lanes, let’s at least use it as an opportunity to make it beautiful.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I drove from Cleveland Park to Bethesda yesterday via Conn Ave and Bradley Boulevard. This was 6:00PM - peak of rush Hour.

I made just about every light with zero back-up. Car traffic moved freely and I actually arrived at my destination 10 minutes early.

In other words, there is shockingly little car traffic these days. A bike lane should not be an issue.

You just got lucky. This is extremely rare. It can take 20 minutes to get to Cleveland park from chevy chase dc. Ugh

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If there are going to be bike lanes, can someone come up with a design that makes them visually attractive and not just spiky poles stuck in the ground? Connecticut Avenue looks terrible right now and should get new asphalt from Chevy Chase to Woodley Park. All of the concrete barriers need to be removed too, especially those blocking things off on the block with Rosemary’s Bistro and the block with the old service lane. Connecticut Avenue could be a nice road into the city, but right now it’s an eyesore. If we’re going to tear it all up to add bike lanes, let’s at least use it as an opportunity to make it beautiful.

Something like the lane in this article where the barrier is made from stone planters: https://www.bostonmagazine.com/news/2016/01/07/cambridge-best-new-bike-lane/" target="_new" rel="nofollow"> https://www.bostonmagazine.com/news/2016/01/07/cambridge-best-new-bike-lane/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If there are going to be bike lanes, can someone come up with a design that makes them visually attractive and not just spiky poles stuck in the ground? Connecticut Avenue looks terrible right now and should get new asphalt from Chevy Chase to Woodley Park. All of the concrete barriers need to be removed too, especially those blocking things off on the block with Rosemary’s Bistro and the block with the old service lane. Connecticut Avenue could be a nice road into the city, but right now it’s an eyesore. If we’re going to tear it all up to add bike lanes, let’s at least use it as an opportunity to make it beautiful.

The whole road is being rethought and rebuilt, and yes, the "streeeteries" are going away too.