Options for opposing Connecticut Avenue changes?

[Anonymous]

Good good no. Today.

They’re rethinking the Champs Elysees completely and it’s only a mile long, and yet keeping 4 traffic lanes and adding essentially a park in the middle of the street.

What you’re doing is as stupid and shortsided and contrarian as everything else recently.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Good good no. Today.

They’re rethinking the Champs Elysees completely and it’s only a mile long, and yet keeping 4 traffic lanes and adding essentially a park in the middle of the street.

What you’re doing is as stupid and shortsided and contrarian as everything else recently.

"The plans include reducing space for vehicles by half, turning roads into pedestrian and green areas, and creating tunnels of trees to improve air quality."

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/jan/10/paris-approves-plan-to-turn-champs-elysees-into-extraordinary-garden-anne-hidalgo

[Anonymous]

It’s a 1 mile long world heritage site, not a major artery commuter road. In Germany and Sweden and most of the Europe, bike paths in the city center are on the pavements.

On the sidewalk in order to:

Provide bike paths everywhere
Make biking safer
Not choke off the traffic so people can get places
Not erase the parking so commerce can continue

[Anonymous]

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It’s a 1 mile long world heritage site, not a major artery commuter road. In Germany and Sweden and most of the Europe, bike paths in the city center are on the pavements.

On the sidewalk in order to:

Provide bike paths everywhere
Make biking safer
Not choke off the traffic so people can get places
Not erase the parking so commerce can continue

So, actually, not like the Champs Elysees, after all?

I think the bike infrastructure you're referring to in "Germany and Sweden and most of the Europe" is: raised bike lanes. I'd be totally in favor of that on Connecticut Avenue. One lane each way for cars, one lane each way for buses, an elevated bike lane each way (at sidewalk level) for bikes, an elevated sidewalk each way for feet, wheelchairs, strollers, etc.

[Anonymous]

Sure, take it from the ginormous sidewalks.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Sure, take it from the ginormous sidewalks.

Alternatively (and better): sure, take it from the ginormous road lane width.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It’s a 1 mile long world heritage site, not a major artery commuter road. In Germany and Sweden and most of the Europe, bike paths in the city center are on the pavements.

On the sidewalk in order to:

Provide bike paths everywhere
Make biking safer
Not choke off the traffic so people can get places
Not erase the parking so commerce can continue

Connecticut and Wisconsin Avenues are not interstate highways. They do serve as principal arterials/radial routes from the suburbs and the NW edge of Washington to the center of the city. In the 1960s/early 1970s, DC and the federal government planned to build more interstate highways through NW Washington, including an extension of I-270 through Tenleytown, Van Ness and Rock Creek Park; a highway from I-66 via a Three Sisters Bridge and through Georgetown; and an inner loop/beltway that would have roughly followed Military Road to Nebraska and then paralleled Wisconsin Avenue through Glover Archibold Park. Thankfully, these and other major highways were not built and substantial funds were added to build Metro. But Connecticut and Wisconsin serve as these radial routes today. Squeezing them significantly means that some other road, or roads, will have to serve this purpose (like Reno/34th St/Cleveland Ave., or Nebraska and Massachusetts Aves) and handle the capacity needs from traffic diversion.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s a 1 mile long world heritage site, not a major artery commuter road. In Germany and Sweden and most of the Europe, bike paths in the city center are on the pavements.

On the sidewalk in order to:

Provide bike paths everywhere
Make biking safer
Not choke off the traffic so people can get places
Not erase the parking so commerce can continue

Connecticut and Wisconsin Avenues are not interstate highways. They do serve as principal arterials/radial routes from the suburbs and the NW edge of Washington to the center of the city. In the 1960s/early 1970s, DC and the federal government planned to build more interstate highways through NW Washington, including an extension of I-270 through Tenleytown, Van Ness and Rock Creek Park; a highway from I-66 via a Three Sisters Bridge and through Georgetown; and an inner loop/beltway that would have roughly followed Military Road to Nebraska and then paralleled Wisconsin Avenue through Glover Archibold Park. Thankfully, these and other major highways were not built and substantial funds were added to build Metro. But Connecticut and Wisconsin serve as these radial routes today. Squeezing them significantly means that some other road, or roads, will have to serve this purpose (like Reno/34th St/Cleveland Ave., or Nebraska and Massachusetts Aves) and handle the capacity needs from traffic diversion.

No, it doesn't mean that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s a 1 mile long world heritage site, not a major artery commuter road. In Germany and Sweden and most of the Europe, bike paths in the city center are on the pavements.

On the sidewalk in order to:

Provide bike paths everywhere
Make biking safer
Not choke off the traffic so people can get places
Not erase the parking so commerce can continue

Connecticut and Wisconsin Avenues are not interstate highways. They do serve as principal arterials/radial routes from the suburbs and the NW edge of Washington to the center of the city. In the 1960s/early 1970s, DC and the federal government planned to build more interstate highways through NW Washington, including an extension of I-270 through Tenleytown, Van Ness and Rock Creek Park; a highway from I-66 via a Three Sisters Bridge and through Georgetown; and an inner loop/beltway that would have roughly followed Military Road to Nebraska and then paralleled Wisconsin Avenue through Glover Archibold Park. Thankfully, these and other major highways were not built and substantial funds were added to build Metro. But Connecticut and Wisconsin serve as these radial routes today. Squeezing them significantly means that some other road, or roads, will have to serve this purpose (like Reno/34th St/Cleveland Ave., or Nebraska and Massachusetts Aves) and handle the capacity needs from traffic diversion.

No, it doesn't mean that.

Explain yourself. Even Beach Drive will be closed now. (DDOT's study assumed that it would be an alternative commuter route.)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The recent accident was tragic but could have happened anywhere and no pedestrians have been killed.

It happened because someone thought they could make a u-turn. Take away that ability with a 6 lane road, and you get a road where cars cannot make U turns.

If people keep driving badly and the roads have to be adjusted to make them safer, then get mad at the other drivers who are ruining it for you. Stop getting made at people who are trying to bike and walk.

You don’t need to take stuff away; you need to enforce the laws! People will still make u-turns but they will be 16 point u-turns. You have to enforce the laws.

You are so stubborn that we are a national laughing stock today. You’re making an enemy out of well inclined people.

Tell Frumin, an electric bike makes him a SLUG not even a MAMIL.

If they cannot physically make a uturn, then won't try. And if they do, they don't deserve to be able to operate a vehicle legally.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Good good no. Today.

They’re rethinking the Champs Elysees completely and it’s only a mile long, and yet keeping 4 traffic lanes and adding essentially a park in the middle of the street.

What you’re doing is as stupid and shortsided and contrarian as everything else recently.

"The plans include reducing space for vehicles by half, turning roads into pedestrian and green areas, and creating tunnels of trees to improve air quality."

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/jan/10/paris-approves-plan-to-turn-champs-elysees-into-extraordinary-garden-anne-hidalgo

Excellent, let's do that for CT Ave!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s a 1 mile long world heritage site, not a major artery commuter road. In Germany and Sweden and most of the Europe, bike paths in the city center are on the pavements.

On the sidewalk in order to:

Provide bike paths everywhere
Make biking safer
Not choke off the traffic so people can get places
Not erase the parking so commerce can continue

Connecticut and Wisconsin Avenues are not interstate highways. They do serve as principal arterials/radial routes from the suburbs and the NW edge of Washington to the center of the city. In the 1960s/early 1970s, DC and the federal government planned to build more interstate highways through NW Washington, including an extension of I-270 through Tenleytown, Van Ness and Rock Creek Park; a highway from I-66 via a Three Sisters Bridge and through Georgetown; and an inner loop/beltway that would have roughly followed Military Road to Nebraska and then paralleled Wisconsin Avenue through Glover Archibold Park. Thankfully, these and other major highways were not built and substantial funds were added to build Metro. But Connecticut and Wisconsin serve as these radial routes today. Squeezing them significantly means that some other road, or roads, will have to serve this purpose (like Reno/34th St/Cleveland Ave., or Nebraska and Massachusetts Aves) and handle the capacity needs from traffic diversion.

No, it doesn't mean that.

Explain yourself. Even Beach Drive will be closed now. (DDOT's study assumed that it would be an alternative commuter route.)

Beach Drive will be open. Just not for driving your car on.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s a 1 mile long world heritage site, not a major artery commuter road. In Germany and Sweden and most of the Europe, bike paths in the city center are on the pavements.

On the sidewalk in order to:

Provide bike paths everywhere
Make biking safer
Not choke off the traffic so people can get places
Not erase the parking so commerce can continue

Connecticut and Wisconsin Avenues are not interstate highways. They do serve as principal arterials/radial routes from the suburbs and the NW edge of Washington to the center of the city. In the 1960s/early 1970s, DC and the federal government planned to build more interstate highways through NW Washington, including an extension of I-270 through Tenleytown, Van Ness and Rock Creek Park; a highway from I-66 via a Three Sisters Bridge and through Georgetown; and an inner loop/beltway that would have roughly followed Military Road to Nebraska and then paralleled Wisconsin Avenue through Glover Archibold Park. Thankfully, these and other major highways were not built and substantial funds were added to build Metro. But Connecticut and Wisconsin serve as these radial routes today. Squeezing them significantly means that some other road, or roads, will have to serve this purpose (like Reno/34th St/Cleveland Ave., or Nebraska and Massachusetts Aves) and handle the capacity needs from traffic diversion.

No, it doesn't mean that.

Explain yourself. Even Beach Drive will be closed now. (DDOT's study assumed that it would be an alternative commuter route.)

Moms and dads will trade their minivans and CRVs for cargo bikes. Lots of divers will switch to Lime scooters. Imagine pedicabs peddled by baristas who can prepare your personalized coffee order. And in 5 years, we'll also have flying Ubers and personal jetpacks. Problem solved.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s a 1 mile long world heritage site, not a major artery commuter road. In Germany and Sweden and most of the Europe, bike paths in the city center are on the pavements.

On the sidewalk in order to:

Provide bike paths everywhere
Make biking safer
Not choke off the traffic so people can get places
Not erase the parking so commerce can continue

Connecticut and Wisconsin Avenues are not interstate highways. They do serve as principal arterials/radial routes from the suburbs and the NW edge of Washington to the center of the city. In the 1960s/early 1970s, DC and the federal government planned to build more interstate highways through NW Washington, including an extension of I-270 through Tenleytown, Van Ness and Rock Creek Park; a highway from I-66 via a Three Sisters Bridge and through Georgetown; and an inner loop/beltway that would have roughly followed Military Road to Nebraska and then paralleled Wisconsin Avenue through Glover Archibold Park. Thankfully, these and other major highways were not built and substantial funds were added to build Metro. But Connecticut and Wisconsin serve as these radial routes today. Squeezing them significantly means that some other road, or roads, will have to serve this purpose (like Reno/34th St/Cleveland Ave., or Nebraska and Massachusetts Aves) and handle the capacity needs from traffic diversion.

No, it doesn't mean that.

Explain yourself. Even Beach Drive will be closed now. (DDOT's study assumed that it would be an alternative commuter route.)

Beach Drive will be open. Just not for driving your car on.

Such a relief!