Options for opposing Connecticut Avenue changes?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It is a good idea. I agree, we shouldn't have a 6 lane highway as our city street. Adding the parking back should be supported by the anti-bikelane people as it should help boost businesses, right?

It’s not a city street. It’s a major artery, a highway if you will.

No, it is a city street. It is where I walk my dog, get my food, socialize with my neighbors, etc. It is not a highway and shouldn't be treated as one.

Connecticut Avenue is actually part of the National Highway System”. Making it LITERALLY a Highway.

https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/planning/national_highway_system/nhs_maps/district_of_columbia/dc_districtofcolumbia.pdf

It's still not an interstate.

[Anonymous]

It’s enough for us to go to the Congress with and I don’t think Matt is in heir VIP list (any longer).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m ok w bike lanes, but frankly not that and parking. Also can’t we borrow some of that generous sidewalk like in Berlin, Amsterdam and Geneva?

The full parking is a temporary measure being proposed by Frumin in his letter. When DDOT finishes with the new configuraton, there would generally be parking on one side of the street, 24/7 - something that doesn't happen currently.

The Frumin proposal is actually smart. Consider it a pilot of what Connecticut Avenue will be like (and to measure resulting traffic diversion) if the two bike lanes and permanent narrowing of vehicle lanes from 6 to 4 takes place (Option C). If the pilot works out well and there is negligible impact, great. However, if there is more gridlock on Connecticut Ave and traffic diversion to the side streets, then we will know that also and DDOT can avert a costly disaster to implement Option C. The other reality is that if local businesses, residents and visitors come to expect more parking availability even at rush hours, it will be much harder for DDOT to take all that that away later for 2 bike lanes.

A pilot of the reduced lane capacity (2 lanes in each direction) on Connecticut Avenue is what ANC candidate Nick Ide called for last year. The Smart Growth bicycle lobby howled. It's interesting to see Mr Frumin basically propose the same thing now.

[Anonymous]

Congress! Congress!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It is a good idea. I agree, we shouldn't have a 6 lane highway as our city street. Adding the parking back should be supported by the anti-bikelane people as it should help boost businesses, right?

It’s not a city street. It’s a major artery, a highway if you will.

No, it is a city street. It is where I walk my dog, get my food, socialize with my neighbors, etc. It is not a highway and shouldn't be treated as one.

Why should Connecticut Ave be the "major artery." The logical solution is to shift the traffic to Reno Rd, which is less-densely populated and can be widened. It can be the main N-S route for thru traffic. This is a necessary transportation planning adjustment if Connecticut is to become a multi-modal vibrant urban "Main Street.}"

It cannot be widened, and what would happen at Western Ave? Sorry your idea makes zero sense.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It is a good idea. I agree, we shouldn't have a 6 lane highway as our city street. Adding the parking back should be supported by the anti-bikelane people as it should help boost businesses, right?

It’s not a city street. It’s a major artery, a highway if you will.

No, it is a city street. It is where I walk my dog, get my food, socialize with my neighbors, etc. It is not a highway and shouldn't be treated as one.

You have plenty of city streets right off it. This is a major in and out artery.

It is not a highway, it was not built as a highway and it shouldn't be one today. Just because some transportation officials decided in the 1950's to undo the streetcar and install reversible lanes to facilitate suburban cars doesn't mean that was the intent or the best use.

In that case let’s go back to the 1930s. Hope you enjoy your consumption. This is ridiculous

If that would mean reinstalling the streetcar, then I would heartily endorse.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It is a good idea. I agree, we shouldn't have a 6 lane highway as our city street. Adding the parking back should be supported by the anti-bikelane people as it should help boost businesses, right?

It’s not a city street. It’s a major artery, a highway if you will.

No, it is a city street. It is where I walk my dog, get my food, socialize with my neighbors, etc. It is not a highway and shouldn't be treated as one.

Connecticut Avenue is actually part of the National Highway System”. Making it LITERALLY a Highway.

https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/planning/national_highway_system/nhs_maps/district_of_columbia/dc_districtofcolumbia.pdf

That designation does not make it a part of the interstate highway system.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It is a good idea. I agree, we shouldn't have a 6 lane highway as our city street. Adding the parking back should be supported by the anti-bikelane people as it should help boost businesses, right?

It’s not a city street. It’s a major artery, a highway if you will.

No, it is a city street. It is where I walk my dog, get my food, socialize with my neighbors, etc. It is not a highway and shouldn't be treated as one.

Connecticut Avenue is actually part of the National Highway System”. Making it LITERALLY a Highway.

https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/planning/national_highway_system/nhs_maps/district_of_columbia/dc_districtofcolumbia.pdf

Can we start a legal challenge in Congress? Seeing how it’s a federal highway

Anyone with insight on this? They are well primed after the fiasco of the century.

There were a lot of other fiascos of the century - the Giant on Wisconsin Ave, the addition of the NCS Gym, the lack of parking at what is now Tenley View and scores of other changes over the past 20 years and you now what? Not a single thing has materially changed. And nothing will materially change when Connecticut Avenue is transformed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It is a good idea. I agree, we shouldn't have a 6 lane highway as our city street. Adding the parking back should be supported by the anti-bikelane people as it should help boost businesses, right?

It’s not a city street. It’s a major artery, a highway if you will.

No, it is a city street. It is where I walk my dog, get my food, socialize with my neighbors, etc. It is not a highway and shouldn't be treated as one.

Connecticut Avenue is actually part of the National Highway System”. Making it LITERALLY a Highway.

https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/planning/national_highway_system/nhs_maps/district_of_columbia/dc_districtofcolumbia.pdf

That designation does not make it a part of the interstate highway system.

Right. Every interstate is a highway. But not every Highway is an interstate.

[Anonymous]

I think we have enough to appeal to the Congress. It’s a thing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m ok w bike lanes, but frankly not that and parking. Also can’t we borrow some of that generous sidewalk like in Berlin, Amsterdam and Geneva?

The full parking is a temporary measure being proposed by Frumin in his letter. When DDOT finishes with the new configuraton, there would generally be parking on one side of the street, 24/7 - something that doesn't happen currently.

The Frumin proposal is actually smart. Consider it a pilot of what Connecticut Avenue will be like (and to measure resulting traffic diversion) if the two bike lanes and permanent narrowing of vehicle lanes from 6 to 4 takes place (Option C). If the pilot works out well and there is negligible impact, great. However, if there is more gridlock on Connecticut Ave and traffic diversion to the side streets, then we will know that also and DDOT can avert a costly disaster to implement Option C. The other reality is that if local businesses, residents and visitors come to expect more parking availability even at rush hours, it will be much harder for DDOT to take all that that away later for 2 bike lanes.

A pilot of the reduced lane capacity (2 lanes in each direction) on Connecticut Avenue is what ANC candidate Nick Ide called for last year. The Smart Growth bicycle lobby howled. It's interesting to see Mr Frumin basically propose the same thing now.

Lol. Not at all the same. Also, hi Nick.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m ok w bike lanes, but frankly not that and parking. Also can’t we borrow some of that generous sidewalk like in Berlin, Amsterdam and Geneva?

The full parking is a temporary measure being proposed by Frumin in his letter. When DDOT finishes with the new configuraton, there would generally be parking on one side of the street, 24/7 - something that doesn't happen currently.

The Frumin proposal is actually smart. Consider it a pilot of what Connecticut Avenue will be like (and to measure resulting traffic diversion) if the two bike lanes and permanent narrowing of vehicle lanes from 6 to 4 takes place (Option C). If the pilot works out well and there is negligible impact, great. However, if there is more gridlock on Connecticut Ave and traffic diversion to the side streets, then we will know that also and DDOT can avert a costly disaster to implement Option C. The other reality is that if local businesses, residents and visitors come to expect more parking availability even at rush hours, it will be much harder for DDOT to take all that that away later for 2 bike lanes.

No it’s not. The man has turned out to be an idiot. Eric will get my vote.
It’s a highway.

Eric supported the bike lane, not the pilot.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It is a good idea. I agree, we shouldn't have a 6 lane highway as our city street. Adding the parking back should be supported by the anti-bikelane people as it should help boost businesses, right?

It’s not a city street. It’s a major artery, a highway if you will.

No, it is a city street. It is where I walk my dog, get my food, socialize with my neighbors, etc. It is not a highway and shouldn't be treated as one.

You have plenty of city streets right off it. This is a major in and out artery.

In and out of what, for whom?

[Anonymous]

Not the street car that’s for sure.

The city. A modern one.

Honestly, I hope the Congress intervenes again.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Not the street car that’s for sure.

The city. A modern one.

Honestly, I hope the Congress intervenes again.

Oh, I like that idea. Where streets are for people, not cars. Roads-are-for-cars is so 20th century.