Options for opposing Connecticut Avenue changes?

[Anonymous]

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.

I and my family regularly eat at the restaurants along the Avenue in DC. If we can't drive and park, we are eating elsewhere. Pretty simple. I hear MD and VA have some good restaurants.

[Anonymous]

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.

I and my family regularly eat at the restaurants along the Avenue in DC. If we can't drive and park, we are eating elsewhere. Pretty simple. I hear MD and VA have some good restaurants.

OK, so go eat elsewhere. DC shouldn't base its transportation policy on your personal preferences.

[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.

Precisely. At least one of the commissioners is doing it from his "Commissioner" Twitter account. I find it unfathomable that anyone finds this acceptable. It was only a few months ago that a resolution was passed that said in part "Be It Further Resolved that ANC 3C will strive to act professionally and respectfully in service to the community." [italics added] Steering neighbors toward a competing business because you don't like what a business owner in your community had to say is the antithesis of professional and respectful as neighborhood representatives. I hope this Commission can get it together and stop using the office as their personal bully pulpit.

[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

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

Expand the comments and find out.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Just because they could doesn't mean they would?

That logic doesn't fly in any harassment or extortion case and doubt you were saying that about the first impeachment of TFG. It's about the underlying power dynamic and that behavior, if true, most definitely crosses a major line.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Just because they could doesn't mean they would?

That logic doesn't fly in any harassment or extortion case and doubt you were saying that about the first impeachment of TFG. It's about the underlying power dynamic and that behavior, if true, most definitely crosses a major line.

This week multiple ANC Commissioners once again violated DC Board of Ethics and Government Accountability guidelines for impartiality and retaliation. They should finally be appropriately admonished and sanctioned.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Just because they could doesn't mean they would?

That logic doesn't fly in any harassment or extortion case and doubt you were saying that about the first impeachment of TFG. It's about the underlying power dynamic and that behavior, if true, most definitely crosses a major line.

This week multiple ANC Commissioners once again violated DC Board of Ethics and Government Accountability guidelines for impartiality and retaliation. They should finally be appropriately admonished and sanctioned.

They should also be sanctioned for their bad taste. Anyone who claims that Indique is better than Rasika is a fool. And attacking Comet which isn't even in his neighborhood. What the frick. Why are the other ANC's letting that fool lead them around?

[Anonymous]

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.

I and my family regularly eat at the restaurants along the Avenue in DC. If we can't drive and park, we are eating elsewhere. Pretty simple. I hear MD and VA have some good restaurants.

How often do you park on CT Ave proper? That is the real question. And I can say from decades of living in Ward 3 and supporting businesses on CT Ave, that I never park ON CT Ave to support those businesses.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Just because they could doesn't mean they would?

That logic doesn't fly in any harassment or extortion case and doubt you were saying that about the first impeachment of TFG. It's about the underlying power dynamic and that behavior, if true, most definitely crosses a major line.

I don't think ABRA is going to take the comments of a hypotehtical ANC opposition to a iiquor license because of an owner's stance on bike lanes. Your projection of ANC actual power is lacking.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Just because they could doesn't mean they would?

That logic doesn't fly in any harassment or extortion case and doubt you were saying that about the first impeachment of TFG. It's about the underlying power dynamic and that behavior, if true, most definitely crosses a major line.

This week multiple ANC Commissioners once again violated DC Board of Ethics and Government Accountability guidelines for impartiality and retaliation. They should finally be appropriately admonished and sanctioned.

They should also be sanctioned for their bad taste. Anyone who claims that Indique is better than Rasika is a fool. And attacking Comet which isn't even in his neighborhood. What the frick. Why are the other ANC's letting that fool lead them around?

Supporting the local restaurant in the SMD over another restaurant in a different part of the city is not a violation of BEGA guidelines, no matter how much you try to claim otherwise.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Just because they could doesn't mean they would?

That logic doesn't fly in any harassment or extortion case and doubt you were saying that about the first impeachment of TFG. It's about the underlying power dynamic and that behavior, if true, most definitely crosses a major line.

This week multiple ANC Commissioners once again violated DC Board of Ethics and Government Accountability guidelines for impartiality and retaliation. They should finally be appropriately admonished and sanctioned.

They should also be sanctioned for their bad taste. Anyone who claims that Indique is better than Rasika is a fool. And attacking Comet which isn't even in his neighborhood. What the frick. Why are the other ANC's letting that fool lead them around?

Supporting the local restaurant in the SMD over another restaurant in a different part of the city is not a violation of BEGA guidelines, no matter how much you try to claim otherwise.

Lol, hello commissioner and his friends. Harassing businesses under his jurisdiction because they signed an open letter is.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Just because they could doesn't mean they would?

That logic doesn't fly in any harassment or extortion case and doubt you were saying that about the first impeachment of TFG. It's about the underlying power dynamic and that behavior, if true, most definitely crosses a major line.

I don't think ABRA is going to take the comments of a hypotehtical ANC opposition to a iiquor license because of an owner's stance on bike lanes. Your projection of ANC actual power is lacking.

Maybe yes. Maybe no. But not many small restaurants are going to take that risk. Alcohol sales are basically the the profit margin. It’s not surprising that a larger restaurant group owner is the public face of the opposition to these bullies. He can take the heat.

[Anonymous]

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.

I and my family regularly eat at the restaurants along the Avenue in DC. If we can't drive and park, we are eating elsewhere. Pretty simple. I hear MD and VA have some good restaurants.

How often do you park on CT Ave proper? That is the real question. And I can say from decades of living in Ward 3 and supporting businesses on CT Ave, that I never park ON CT Ave to support those businesses.

I often walk to the Conn Ave strip for dinner, but I usually drive if I'm picking up takeout, buying groceries, buying lasagne from Vace's, and I almost always park on CT. I like to patronize local stores, but if I can't park, I'll have to drive elsewhere.

[Anonymous]

I will add that before I lived in Cleveland Park, I always drove to the restaurants here. I would not take a whole family with kids on bikes to drive 2-3 miles at night. I'm sure some others would, but not me.

[Anonymous]

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.

I and my family regularly eat at the restaurants along the Avenue in DC. If we can't drive and park, we are eating elsewhere. Pretty simple. I hear MD and VA have some good restaurants.

How often do you park on CT Ave proper? That is the real question. And I can say from decades of living in Ward 3 and supporting businesses on CT Ave, that I never park ON CT Ave to support those businesses.

I often walk to the Conn Ave strip for dinner, but I usually drive if I'm picking up takeout, buying groceries, buying lasagne from Vace's, and I almost always park on CT. I like to patronize local stores, but if I can't park, I'll have to drive elsewhere.

+1.