Options for opposing Connecticut Avenue changes?

[Anonymous]

It's true. One of the bike advocates has been visiting businesses that signed the petition and explaining the business consequences of doing so. A few have opted to take their names off and stay neutral after those visits. Total strongman tactics.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It's true. One of the bike advocates has been visiting businesses that signed the petition and explaining the business consequences of doing so. A few have opted to take their names off and stay neutral after those visits. Total strongman tactics.

As if getting a waiter to sign a petition on behalf of a business and then using that to show strength in numbers when the owners of said busineses support the bike lanes isn't strongman tactics?

I would also add, that in my talking to business owners, some of whom have signed the petition against the bike lanes, they admit that the want the parking on CT Ave for themselves or their employees and actually are fine with the bike lanes. So let's be honest, if parking is the issue for the business owners, then they should find parking and pay for it like everyone else. But let's not derail a major infrastructre project that impacts the quality of life for the people who actually live here over employee parking.

Because employee parking means no turnover, which means the residents who want to drive and park, can't, because the employees are parking there.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My vote personally would be ban bikes on Connecticut but ban cars on Reno and make it bikes only.

You realize the whole point is not only accessing downtown but for internneighborhood mobility, right? I mean, how does one get to a place like Vace if they don't ride on Connecticut Avenue? And all those houses that have driveways on Reno Road, how will that work?

Well, you could bike to the corner of Connecticut and Macomb, lock your bike there, and then walk across the street to Vace. The houses on Reno with driveways are more of an issue, but at least some of them also seem to have alley access behind the house.

And here I thought the bike lanes were bad because they would make it harder for people to patronize the stores and restaurants on Connecticut Ave...

Exactly, the opposition, many of them Maryland residents, want to make it easier for their commute and harder for those of us who live here to patronize our commercial areas.

Not to be too pendantic but keeping things the way they are does not make anything easier or harder. It makes it the same.

There's just not enough demand to support such a radical experiment. Less than 1% bike on Connecticut. We're shutting down circulator routes to save $7 million because not enough people use them. But its ridership numbers are exponentially higher and its cost is multiples less than the bike lane idea. It makes no logical sense.

We shouldn't build a bridge across the river because currently only a few people are swimming across it. Building a bridge would be a radical experiment. It makes no logical sense.

Bridges are built based on actual demand

Meaning, people demanding that a bridge be built? Similar to the way people are demanding that bike lanes be built?

No. Based on shown use and volume. Entrepreneurial ferry and boat crossings usually preceded bridges.

That isn't what got the Ellington, Klingle or Traft bridges built.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It's true. One of the bike advocates has been visiting businesses that signed the petition and explaining the business consequences of doing so. A few have opted to take their names off and stay neutral after those visits. Total strongman tactics.

Just you wait, Chairman Comer will soon be aware and may make these ANCs the national stars they’ve always wanted to be.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My vote personally would be ban bikes on Connecticut but ban cars on Reno and make it bikes only.

You realize the whole point is not only accessing downtown but for internneighborhood mobility, right? I mean, how does one get to a place like Vace if they don't ride on Connecticut Avenue? And all those houses that have driveways on Reno Road, how will that work?

Well, you could bike to the corner of Connecticut and Macomb, lock your bike there, and then walk across the street to Vace. The houses on Reno with driveways are more of an issue, but at least some of them also seem to have alley access behind the house.

And here I thought the bike lanes were bad because they would make it harder for people to patronize the stores and restaurants on Connecticut Ave...

Exactly, the opposition, many of them Maryland residents, want to make it easier for their commute and harder for those of us who live here to patronize our commercial areas.

Not to be too pendantic but keeping things the way they are does not make anything easier or harder. It makes it the same.

There's just not enough demand to support such a radical experiment. Less than 1% bike on Connecticut. We're shutting down circulator routes to save $7 million because not enough people use them. But its ridership numbers are exponentially higher and its cost is multiples less than the bike lane idea. It makes no logical sense.

We shouldn't build a bridge across the river because currently only a few people are swimming across it. Building a bridge would be a radical experiment. It makes no logical sense.

Bridges are built based on actual demand

Meaning, people demanding that a bridge be built? Similar to the way people are demanding that bike lanes be built?

No. Based on shown use and volume. Entrepreneurial ferry and boat crossings usually preceded bridges.

That isn't what got the Ellington, Klingle or Traft bridges built.

Very entrepreneurial ferry operators indeed, the ones who preceded those bridges.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It's true. One of the bike advocates has been visiting businesses that signed the petition and explaining the business consequences of doing so. A few have opted to take their names off and stay neutral after those visits. Total strongman tactics.

Visiting businesses to explain that customers might not like the position the businesses have chosen to take publicly - that's "strongman tactics"?!

[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:My vote personally would be ban bikes on Connecticut but ban cars on Reno and make it bikes only.

You realize the whole point is not only accessing downtown but for internneighborhood mobility, right? I mean, how does one get to a place like Vace if they don't ride on Connecticut Avenue? And all those houses that have driveways on Reno Road, how will that work?

Well, you could bike to the corner of Connecticut and Macomb, lock your bike there, and then walk across the street to Vace. The houses on Reno with driveways are more of an issue, but at least some of them also seem to have alley access behind the house.

And here I thought the bike lanes were bad because they would make it harder for people to patronize the stores and restaurants on Connecticut Ave...

Exactly, the opposition, many of them Maryland residents, want to make it easier for their commute and harder for those of us who live here to patronize our commercial areas.

Not to be too pendantic but keeping things the way they are does not make anything easier or harder. It makes it the same.

There's just not enough demand to support such a radical experiment. Less than 1% bike on Connecticut. We're shutting down circulator routes to save $7 million because not enough people use them. But its ridership numbers are exponentially higher and its cost is multiples less than the bike lane idea. It makes no logical sense.

We shouldn't build a bridge across the river because currently only a few people are swimming across it. Building a bridge would be a radical experiment. It makes no logical sense.

Bridges are built based on actual demand

Meaning, people demanding that a bridge be built? Similar to the way people are demanding that bike lanes be built?

No. Based on shown use and volume. Entrepreneurial ferry and boat crossings usually preceded bridges.

That isn't what got the Ellington, Klingle or Traft bridges built.

Very entrepreneurial ferry operators indeed, the ones who preceded those bridges.

None of those cross a river

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's true. One of the bike advocates has been visiting businesses that signed the petition and explaining the business consequences of doing so. A few have opted to take their names off and stay neutral after those visits. Total strongman tactics.

Visiting businesses to explain that customers might not like the position the businesses have chosen to take publicly - that's "strongman tactics"?!

It is when the person doing it is in charge of their licensing. But I'm sure it was a"perfect phonecall".

[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:My vote personally would be ban bikes on Connecticut but ban cars on Reno and make it bikes only.

You realize the whole point is not only accessing downtown but for internneighborhood mobility, right? I mean, how does one get to a place like Vace if they don't ride on Connecticut Avenue? And all those houses that have driveways on Reno Road, how will that work?

Well, you could bike to the corner of Connecticut and Macomb, lock your bike there, and then walk across the street to Vace. The houses on Reno with driveways are more of an issue, but at least some of them also seem to have alley access behind the house.

And here I thought the bike lanes were bad because they would make it harder for people to patronize the stores and restaurants on Connecticut Ave...

Exactly, the opposition, many of them Maryland residents, want to make it easier for their commute and harder for those of us who live here to patronize our commercial areas.

Not to be too pendantic but keeping things the way they are does not make anything easier or harder. It makes it the same.

There's just not enough demand to support such a radical experiment. Less than 1% bike on Connecticut. We're shutting down circulator routes to save $7 million because not enough people use them. But its ridership numbers are exponentially higher and its cost is multiples less than the bike lane idea. It makes no logical sense.

We shouldn't build a bridge across the river because currently only a few people are swimming across it. Building a bridge would be a radical experiment. It makes no logical sense.

Bridges are built based on actual demand

Meaning, people demanding that a bridge be built? Similar to the way people are demanding that bike lanes be built?

No. Based on shown use and volume. Entrepreneurial ferry and boat crossings usually preceded bridges.

That isn't what got the Ellington, Klingle or Traft bridges built.

Very entrepreneurial ferry operators indeed, the ones who preceded those bridges.

None of those cross a river

Yes, precisely.

[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:My vote personally would be ban bikes on Connecticut but ban cars on Reno and make it bikes only.

You realize the whole point is not only accessing downtown but for internneighborhood mobility, right? I mean, how does one get to a place like Vace if they don't ride on Connecticut Avenue? And all those houses that have driveways on Reno Road, how will that work?

Well, you could bike to the corner of Connecticut and Macomb, lock your bike there, and then walk across the street to Vace. The houses on Reno with driveways are more of an issue, but at least some of them also seem to have alley access behind the house.

And here I thought the bike lanes were bad because they would make it harder for people to patronize the stores and restaurants on Connecticut Ave...

Exactly, the opposition, many of them Maryland residents, want to make it easier for their commute and harder for those of us who live here to patronize our commercial areas.

Not to be too pendantic but keeping things the way they are does not make anything easier or harder. It makes it the same.

There's just not enough demand to support such a radical experiment. Less than 1% bike on Connecticut. We're shutting down circulator routes to save $7 million because not enough people use them. But its ridership numbers are exponentially higher and its cost is multiples less than the bike lane idea. It makes no logical sense.

We shouldn't build a bridge across the river because currently only a few people are swimming across it. Building a bridge would be a radical experiment. It makes no logical sense.

Bridges are built based on actual demand

Meaning, people demanding that a bridge be built? Similar to the way people are demanding that bike lanes be built?

No. Based on shown use and volume. Entrepreneurial ferry and boat crossings usually preceded bridges.

That isn't what got the Ellington, Klingle or Traft bridges built.

Very entrepreneurial ferry operators indeed, the ones who preceded those bridges.

None of those cross a river

Yes, precisely.

None of those cross anything that can be swum across either. You might want to read the comment it was in response to.

[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:My vote personally would be ban bikes on Connecticut but ban cars on Reno and make it bikes only.

You realize the whole point is not only accessing downtown but for internneighborhood mobility, right? I mean, how does one get to a place like Vace if they don't ride on Connecticut Avenue? And all those houses that have driveways on Reno Road, how will that work?

Well, you could bike to the corner of Connecticut and Macomb, lock your bike there, and then walk across the street to Vace. The houses on Reno with driveways are more of an issue, but at least some of them also seem to have alley access behind the house.

And here I thought the bike lanes were bad because they would make it harder for people to patronize the stores and restaurants on Connecticut Ave...

Exactly, the opposition, many of them Maryland residents, want to make it easier for their commute and harder for those of us who live here to patronize our commercial areas.

Not to be too pendantic but keeping things the way they are does not make anything easier or harder. It makes it the same.

There's just not enough demand to support such a radical experiment. Less than 1% bike on Connecticut. We're shutting down circulator routes to save $7 million because not enough people use them. But its ridership numbers are exponentially higher and its cost is multiples less than the bike lane idea. It makes no logical sense.

We shouldn't build a bridge across the river because currently only a few people are swimming across it. Building a bridge would be a radical experiment. It makes no logical sense.

Bridges are built based on actual demand

Meaning, people demanding that a bridge be built? Similar to the way people are demanding that bike lanes be built?

No. Based on shown use and volume. Entrepreneurial ferry and boat crossings usually preceded bridges.

That isn't what got the Ellington, Klingle or Traft bridges built.

Very entrepreneurial ferry operators indeed, the ones who preceded those bridges.

None of those cross a river

Yes, precisely.

None of those cross anything that can be swum across either. You might want to read the comment it was in response to.

But if you'd like to know why those were built the answer is relatively simple. They were built and paid for by a private light rail company as part of a real estate development scheme to create some of the country's first suburbs.

I don't think anyone would complain if private money was used to buy private land to build a public bike lane that would be fantastic.

[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:My vote personally would be ban bikes on Connecticut but ban cars on Reno and make it bikes only.

You realize the whole point is not only accessing downtown but for internneighborhood mobility, right? I mean, how does one get to a place like Vace if they don't ride on Connecticut Avenue? And all those houses that have driveways on Reno Road, how will that work?

Well, you could bike to the corner of Connecticut and Macomb, lock your bike there, and then walk across the street to Vace. The houses on Reno with driveways are more of an issue, but at least some of them also seem to have alley access behind the house.

And here I thought the bike lanes were bad because they would make it harder for people to patronize the stores and restaurants on Connecticut Ave...

Exactly, the opposition, many of them Maryland residents, want to make it easier for their commute and harder for those of us who live here to patronize our commercial areas.

Not to be too pendantic but keeping things the way they are does not make anything easier or harder. It makes it the same.

There's just not enough demand to support such a radical experiment. Less than 1% bike on Connecticut. We're shutting down circulator routes to save $7 million because not enough people use them. But its ridership numbers are exponentially higher and its cost is multiples less than the bike lane idea. It makes no logical sense.

We shouldn't build a bridge across the river because currently only a few people are swimming across it. Building a bridge would be a radical experiment. It makes no logical sense.

Bridges are built based on actual demand

Meaning, people demanding that a bridge be built? Similar to the way people are demanding that bike lanes be built?

No. Based on shown use and volume. Entrepreneurial ferry and boat crossings usually preceded bridges.

That isn't what got the Ellington, Klingle or Traft bridges built.

Very entrepreneurial ferry operators indeed, the ones who preceded those bridges.

None of those cross a river

They all cross Rock Creek or its tributaries. So, technically not a river, but what is your point?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's true. One of the bike advocates has been visiting businesses that signed the petition and explaining the business consequences of doing so. A few have opted to take their names off and stay neutral after those visits. Total strongman tactics.

Visiting businesses to explain that customers might not like the position the businesses have chosen to take publicly - that's "strongman tactics"?!

It is when the person doing it is in charge of their licensing. But I'm sure it was a"perfect phonecall".

ANC Commissioners are not "in charge" if licensing. And further, no one, even those ANC Commissioners, would vote against a renewal based on a position related to bike lanes. Stop being hyperbolic.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's true. One of the bike advocates has been visiting businesses that signed the petition and explaining the business consequences of doing so. A few have opted to take their names off and stay neutral after those visits. Total strongman tactics.

Visiting businesses to explain that customers might not like the position the businesses have chosen to take publicly - that's "strongman tactics"?!

It is when the person doing it is in charge of their licensing. But I'm sure it was a"perfect phonecall".

ANC Commissioners are not "in charge" if licensing. And further, no one, even those ANC Commissioners, would vote against a renewal based on a position related to bike lanes. Stop being hyperbolic.

They’ve begun a coordinated effort to steer business away from these restaurants because they disagree on a campaign issue. That’s literally what they are literally doing. In plain sight.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's true. One of the bike advocates has been visiting businesses that signed the petition and explaining the business consequences of doing so. A few have opted to take their names off and stay neutral after those visits. Total strongman tactics.

Visiting businesses to explain that customers might not like the position the businesses have chosen to take publicly - that's "strongman tactics"?!

It is when the person doing it is in charge of their licensing. But I'm sure it was a"perfect phonecall".

ANC Commissioners are not "in charge" if licensing. And further, no one, even those ANC Commissioners, would vote against a renewal based on a position related to bike lanes. Stop being hyperbolic.

They’ve begun a coordinated effort to steer business away from these restaurants because they disagree on a campaign issue. That’s literally what they are literally doing. In plain sight.

DP -- that seems true, yes, and it's ill-considered, at best, but it's not the same as taking action against the businesses' liquor licenses over it. Even people who strongly support the bike lanes, like I do, would surely agree that would be a significant step well over the line of appropriate behavior for an ANC commissioner.

However, it's also true that -- while I think they should not try to take any official action against the businesses based on the businesses' position on bike lanes -- the ANC is not in charge of liquor licensing. If the ANC voted against a liquor license renewal on some pretextual reason in this case, it'd be pretty obvious, and there's a decent chance the city would ignore their recommendation, "great weight" notwithstanding.