Options for opposing Connecticut Avenue changes?

[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.

Or, since more people are working from home or not commuting 5 days a week, the current road capacity is fine, as evidenced by the lack of impact the construction in Cleveland Park is having on "traffic"

[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

That's just totally false.

[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.

Geez, we really dodged a bullet in the 60s.

I'm not sure about traffic volumes, but the protected bike lanes installed in C St NE have made an incredible, positive difference in the streetscape. Anyone who is concerned about Conn Ave should come see them. I swear it probably has raised the value of the homes on C St by at least 20%. They used to be on a 6 lane highway, and now are on a lovely urban street. And bonus, you can cross C st to get to the RFK Fields without having to take your life into your hands.

[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.

Or, since more people are working from home or not commuting 5 days a week, the current road capacity is fine, as evidenced by the lack of impact the construction in Cleveland Park is having on "traffic"

Exactly. It's funny that the lesson PP would try to take from the decision not to completely ruin NW DC with car infrastructure in the 60s is that we should further allow car infrastructure to ruin NW DC.

[Anonymous]

The vision is for Connecticut Avenue to be a vibrant, dense, mixed-use, urbanist Main Street with far fewer cars and many more cyclists. If that's a problem for you, then you sell your expensive, oversized single family house and move yourself and your car out to Leisure World.

[Anonymous]

Not going to. I don’t need to use the Connecticut because I have a gorgeous central oversized SFH with a huge lot. Now leave me alone to count my property windfall

[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.

Or, since more people are working from home or not commuting 5 days a week, the current road capacity is fine, as evidenced by the lack of impact the construction in Cleveland Park is having on "traffic"

Exactly. It's funny that the lesson PP would try to take from the decision not to completely ruin NW DC with car infrastructure in the 60s is that we should further allow car infrastructure to ruin NW DC.

Just wait boomer. The idiot DC council has just opened up the floodgates. Congresspeople live here. Police reform is next. Then they’ll come for your traffic calming crap and you’ll end up doing what I’ve been telling you which is safer and better for cyclists anyway

[Anonymous]

Axios just reported so you don’t think this is just the wishful thinking of reasonable people

[Anonymous]

Link please?

[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.

Or, since more people are working from home or not commuting 5 days a week, the current road capacity is fine, as evidenced by the lack of impact the construction in Cleveland Park is having on "traffic"

Exactly. It's funny that the lesson PP would try to take from the decision not to completely ruin NW DC with car infrastructure in the 60s is that we should further allow car infrastructure to ruin NW DC.

Just wait boomer. The idiot DC council has just opened up the floodgates. Congresspeople live here. Police reform is next. Then they’ll come for your traffic calming crap and you’ll end up doing what I’ve been telling you which is safer and better for cyclists anyway

If Congresspeople want to weigh in on road safety projects where they live, why don't they run for mayor back home in Alabama or Idaho or Colorado or wherever?

[Anonymous]

Go on Axios Twitter.
I think we want the same to an extent but disagree on how. I’d say it would be hubris not to listed to the people and to give more ammunition to the Congress.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Go on Axios Twitter.
I think we want the same to an extent but disagree on how. I’d say it would be hubris not to listed to the people and to give more ammunition to the Congress.

Oh look, some guy from rural northern Georgia wants to be in charge of the DC police.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Go on Axios Twitter.
I think we want the same to an extent but disagree on how. I’d say it would be hubris not to listed to the people and to give more ammunition to the Congress.

Oh look, some guy from rural northern Georgia wants to be in charge of the DC police.

Yeah well FAFO

You got what you wanted and lost the support of the electorate too

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The vision is for Connecticut Avenue to be a vibrant, dense, mixed-use, urbanist Main Street with far fewer cars and many more cyclists. If that's a problem for you, then you sell your expensive, oversized single family house and move yourself and your car out to Leisure World.

Ageist much?

[Anonymous]

These are the little demagogue's that will get crushed by life soon enough. I just hope not to have to foot their mental health bills.