Options for opposing Connecticut Avenue changes?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Honestly, it seems like the only place where the bike-lane opponents are winning is on DCUM.

Nobody is completely opposed to bike lanes. There are appropriate places for bike lanes and inappropriate places for bike lanes. The minority of people who demand that their every whims are catered to are the ones who are now thankfully losing and it is good to see that the city is pulling back towards more sane policies that benefit the greater good. I would suggest to all of the cyclists that some introspection about their behavior may go a long way towards building coalitions for better transportation policy. “Do what I want or else you are murdering me and I will try to economically harm you” is not effective communication, particularly when you are a loud but ultimately very small minority of people.

You sound exactly like the people who say, I don't oppose newdevelopment/affordablehousing/nameyourissue but it should be built in Ward7/somewhereelse/nothere.

We get it.

[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:

because there's no reason that our neighborhoods should mostly be zoned only for $1 million-plus single family homes, especially near transit and commercial corridors.

No reason, really now? One reason off the top of my head is that SFH owners like me really like living in SFH neighborhoods! They're pretty, they have beautiful yards here in Ward 3. It's relatively quiet. We have big trees in our own yards, that play host to urban wildlife. Kids can play soccer in the backyard. I have a giant wraparound porch that isn't possible in a rowhouse or condo. We have big gardens in our big yards. We can pull up in front of our house and unload heavy groceries, animals coming home from the vet, an elderly relative ...

Did I mention it's quieter than Shaw?

There are very few poor people who've made poor life choices wandering on the streets. Or living on the streets. Our dogs have big green lush yards to play in. Many of us have pools and climbing structures. More flowering trees than in dense neighborhoods.

People who've made a lifetime of bad choices are priced out of the vicinity! So their drama doesn't spill over into our lives, much. Making Conn Ave the new Welfare Valley is changing that for those who live close to the Ave, though. Some of us prefer civility over diversity if forced to choose a type of neighbor you want.

Mostly, it's quieter, calmer, more lush and greener than DC's dense neighborhoods.

Believe it or not, changing the zoning in currently SFH-only neighborhoods would not mean your existing SFH with a giant porch has to suddenly turn into an apartment building! I like living in a house with a yard, too. But I don’t see how having a small apartment building or rowhouse nearby would be a problem. (Also, my SFH neighborhood has semi-detached row houses already.) Also, there’s no reason you need to cut down trees to build apartment buildings if the trees are, say, between the curb and the sidewalk, where a huge number of trees in Ward 3 already are. This isn’t about making you change your current life at all; it’s about making it possible for people to buy or rent a small apartment somewhere near you if they want to.

Did you just respond to yourself?

No, I responded to the person who objected to densifying Ward 3 because they like their current house.

I object to radical densification of Ward 3. A few more condos or apartment buildings along Connect, Mass, or Wisconsin would be fine. But reducing or eliminating or discouraging SFH is unnecessary and counterproductive. It will simply drive people out of DC. DC has lost population over the last several years, and DC has never recovered from the early 1950s when DC had roughly 800K residents. DC needs residents who can afford to buy SFHs. They are the tax base, and are why DC has thrived economically over the last few decades.

Data released earlier this week by the U.S. Census shows that D.C. took in 103,982 new residents between April 2010 and July 2019, growing by more than 17% over the decade — faster than any of the 50 states or Puerto Rico.

The data shows that in April 2010 there were 601,723 residents in the city. By July 2019, the population grew to 705,749. That’s higher than at any point since the 1970s, when D.C.’s population started a swift decline from its historic high of more than 800,000 residents in the 1950s. By 2000, there were just over 570,000 residents in the city.
https://wamu.org/story/20/01/03/d-c-added-100000-residents-over-the-last-decade-but-growth-is-slowing/

DC is forecasted to increase to 987,200 residents by 2045.

Come on. It does not help anyone to pretend that known outdated projections mean anything. 2019 was pre-pandemic and DC has not rebounded because of work from home. 2010-2019 was also an era of unprecedented economic growth spurred by 0% interest rates. Now we have 5% interest rates and a pending recession. Lastly that projection assumes the same rate of growth as 2010-2019 but growth is not linear and there are serious barriers to increased growth, among them the lack of quality secondary schools. 2023 is not 2019.

This is all correct. And it’s important to point out that the population growth rate has been slowing significantly over the past decade even prior to the pandemic. Slow and anemic population growth should already have been expected and anticipated.

yes and it’s all due to traffic calming! lol.

listen. there are definitely questions to ask about DDOT plans. But when anti-reform advocates (aka NIMBY) make absurd arguments and giant leaps of logic, you do nothing to convince anyone. unsafe streets are not going to reverse population declines.

Bike lanes are great, but is it the smartest concept to put one of the most major arterial routes between Maryland and downtown Washington on a "road diet" and significantly constrain vehicle capacity? The reality is that will divert thru-traffic to other north-side like Reno-34th and also flush more traffic through side streets like Albermarle, Porter, Macomb, etc. Is it really fair to dismiss and denigrate DC residents who live on those streets, whose kids walk and bike along them, as "anti-reform advocates" and NIMBYs?

It may be one of YOUR most major routes but there are many routes in. And yes, having a bike lane where the businesses are so the customers can safely access said businesses are seen by cities all over the world as a good thing. It is only CT Ave which is somehow so unique, that this is an issue.

It is hilarious to me that you are out here still posting generic talking points arguing about this like it matters. No one cares about your opinions. Not even the city. LOL.

Yes you’re right, the only way to run a city is to prioritize cars and never change anything.

Cry more. I am sure that will help.

Cry more?

We have a transportation paradigm and related allocation of public space based on urban planning models from 1955. It is clear the aut-based model is not sustainable and hasn't been for decades. Tome for a change, like all the other countries in the world have done. We need more sustainable transportation options and to get away from the single occupancy car dominating our public space - from a land use and mobility perspective. I get you don;t like change, but there is only so much public space, and with more people coming to the DC region, we have to do better to enable people to get around. Cars simply take up too much space to be efficient.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Honestly, it seems like the only place where the bike-lane opponents are winning is on DCUM.

Nobody is completely opposed to bike lanes. There are appropriate places for bike lanes and inappropriate places for bike lanes. The minority of people who demand that their every whims are catered to are the ones who are now thankfully losing and it is good to see that the city is pulling back towards more sane policies that benefit the greater good. I would suggest to all of the cyclists that some introspection about their behavior may go a long way towards building coalitions for better transportation policy. “Do what I want or else you are murdering me and I will try to economically harm you” is not effective communication, particularly when you are a loud but ultimately very small minority of people.

The thing you’re missing is that most anti-bike advocates are completely uninterested in the public good. They are resistant to any change, and are personally offended that they don’t have control over “their” neighborhood. And for the millionth time: this is NOT only about bike lanes. It’s traffic calming and transit. And DC will address Conn Ave in a major redesign of some sort. Don’t be fooled about it.

I’ll never totally understand why exactly bike lanes trigger some people in such an exaggerated manner.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Honestly, it seems like the only place where the bike-lane opponents are winning is on DCUM.

Nobody is completely opposed to bike lanes. There are appropriate places for bike lanes and inappropriate places for bike lanes. The minority of people who demand that their every whims are catered to are the ones who are now thankfully losing and it is good to see that the city is pulling back towards more sane policies that benefit the greater good. I would suggest to all of the cyclists that some introspection about their behavior may go a long way towards building coalitions for better transportation policy. “Do what I want or else you are murdering me and I will try to economically harm you” is not effective communication, particularly when you are a loud but ultimately very small minority of people.

"I support bike lanes! Just not here. Or there. Or there. Also not there. Nope, not there either. Oh, and not there. And definitely not here. Also not that one. Or that one. Or any of those over there." It would be interesting to know which real-life bike lane proposals you have supported, if any, ever.

There is broad support for safer streets, and there is broad support for transportation choices., You might consider some introspection about your dislike of "cyclists", who are people in your community. It might go a long way towards building coalitions for safer streets and transportation choices, assuming that's what you want.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Honestly, it seems like the only place where the bike-lane opponents are winning is on DCUM.

Nobody is completely opposed to bike lanes. There are appropriate places for bike lanes and inappropriate places for bike lanes. The minority of people who demand that their every whims are catered to are the ones who are now thankfully losing and it is good to see that the city is pulling back towards more sane policies that benefit the greater good. I would suggest to all of the cyclists that some introspection about their behavior may go a long way towards building coalitions for better transportation policy. “Do what I want or else you are murdering me and I will try to economically harm you” is not effective communication, particularly when you are a loud but ultimately very small minority of people.

"I support bike lanes! Just not here. Or there. Or there. Also not there. Nope, not there either. Oh, and not there. And definitely not here. Also not that one. Or that one. Or any of those over there." It would be interesting to know which real-life bike lane proposals you have supported, if any, ever.

There is broad support for safer streets, and there is broad support for transportation choices., You might consider some introspection about your dislike of "cyclists", who are people in your community. It might go a long way towards building coalitions for safer streets and transportation choices, assuming that's what you want.

Lol, you all just can't help yourself with the lying. Pretty much everyone is in support of bike lanes on Rock Creek and Beach while many have suggested Reno as an additional alternative. Yet the response from the cyclists is always Connecticut or bust followed by a bunch of projection.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Honestly, it seems like the only place where the bike-lane opponents are winning is on DCUM.

Nobody is completely opposed to bike lanes. There are appropriate places for bike lanes and inappropriate places for bike lanes. The minority of people who demand that their every whims are catered to are the ones who are now thankfully losing and it is good to see that the city is pulling back towards more sane policies that benefit the greater good. I would suggest to all of the cyclists that some introspection about their behavior may go a long way towards building coalitions for better transportation policy. “Do what I want or else you are murdering me and I will try to economically harm you” is not effective communication, particularly when you are a loud but ultimately very small minority of people.

"I support bike lanes! Just not here. Or there. Or there. Also not there. Nope, not there either. Oh, and not there. And definitely not here. Also not that one. Or that one. Or any of those over there." It would be interesting to know which real-life bike lane proposals you have supported, if any, ever.

There is broad support for safer streets, and there is broad support for transportation choices., You might consider some introspection about your dislike of "cyclists", who are people in your community. It might go a long way towards building coalitions for safer streets and transportation choices, assuming that's what you want.

Lol, you all just can't help yourself with the lying. Pretty much everyone is in support of bike lanes on Rock Creek and Beach while many have suggested Reno as an additional alternative. Yet the response from the cyclists is always Connecticut or bust followed by a bunch of projection.

Which actual bike lane projects do you/have you supported? "Put bike lanes on Reno Road instead of Connecticut Avenue" is not an actual bike lane project. "Why can't people just use Beach Drive instead of on Connecticut Avenue?" is also not an actual bike lane project.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Honestly, it seems like the only place where the bike-lane opponents are winning is on DCUM.

Nobody is completely opposed to bike lanes. There are appropriate places for bike lanes and inappropriate places for bike lanes. The minority of people who demand that their every whims are catered to are the ones who are now thankfully losing and it is good to see that the city is pulling back towards more sane policies that benefit the greater good. I would suggest to all of the cyclists that some introspection about their behavior may go a long way towards building coalitions for better transportation policy. “Do what I want or else you are murdering me and I will try to economically harm you” is not effective communication, particularly when you are a loud but ultimately very small minority of people.

"I support bike lanes! Just not here. Or there. Or there. Also not there. Nope, not there either. Oh, and not there. And definitely not here. Also not that one. Or that one. Or any of those over there." It would be interesting to know which real-life bike lane proposals you have supported, if any, ever.

There is broad support for safer streets, and there is broad support for transportation choices., You might consider some introspection about your dislike of "cyclists", who are people in your community. It might go a long way towards building coalitions for safer streets and transportation choices, assuming that's what you want.

Lol, you all just can't help yourself with the lying. Pretty much everyone is in support of bike lanes on Rock Creek and Beach while many have suggested Reno as an additional alternative. Yet the response from the cyclists is always Connecticut or bust followed by a bunch of projection.

DP. Once again for the record. The bike lanes are part of an overall traffic calming plan for CT Ave. Even without them, the goal will be to make modifications to Ct Ave to make it safer, and likely also divert traffic onto other routes. This idea that DC is engaged in an effort solely to create bike lanes is incorrect.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Honestly, it seems like the only place where the bike-lane opponents are winning is on DCUM.

Nobody is completely opposed to bike lanes. There are appropriate places for bike lanes and inappropriate places for bike lanes. The minority of people who demand that their every whims are catered to are the ones who are now thankfully losing and it is good to see that the city is pulling back towards more sane policies that benefit the greater good. I would suggest to all of the cyclists that some introspection about their behavior may go a long way towards building coalitions for better transportation policy. “Do what I want or else you are murdering me and I will try to economically harm you” is not effective communication, particularly when you are a loud but ultimately very small minority of people.

"I support bike lanes! Just not here. Or there. Or there. Also not there. Nope, not there either. Oh, and not there. And definitely not here. Also not that one. Or that one. Or any of those over there." It would be interesting to know which real-life bike lane proposals you have supported, if any, ever.

There is broad support for safer streets, and there is broad support for transportation choices., You might consider some introspection about your dislike of "cyclists", who are people in your community. It might go a long way towards building coalitions for safer streets and transportation choices, assuming that's what you want.

Lol, you all just can't help yourself with the lying. Pretty much everyone is in support of bike lanes on Rock Creek and Beach while many have suggested Reno as an additional alternative. Yet the response from the cyclists is always Connecticut or bust followed by a bunch of projection.

DP. Once again for the record. The bike lanes are part of an overall traffic calming plan for CT Ave. Even without them, the goal will be to make modifications to Ct Ave to make it safer, and likely also divert traffic onto other routes. This idea that DC is engaged in an effort solely to create bike lanes is incorrect.

Which other routes will you divert traffic onto? Beach Drive is already closed. Reno is at capacity and has two elementary schools along it. The only option is local streets, and it's a terrible idea to put all that traffic on to local streets.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Honestly, it seems like the only place where the bike-lane opponents are winning is on DCUM.

Nobody is completely opposed to bike lanes. There are appropriate places for bike lanes and inappropriate places for bike lanes. The minority of people who demand that their every whims are catered to are the ones who are now thankfully losing and it is good to see that the city is pulling back towards more sane policies that benefit the greater good. I would suggest to all of the cyclists that some introspection about their behavior may go a long way towards building coalitions for better transportation policy. “Do what I want or else you are murdering me and I will try to economically harm you” is not effective communication, particularly when you are a loud but ultimately very small minority of people.

"I support bike lanes! Just not here. Or there. Or there. Also not there. Nope, not there either. Oh, and not there. And definitely not here. Also not that one. Or that one. Or any of those over there." It would be interesting to know which real-life bike lane proposals you have supported, if any, ever.

There is broad support for safer streets, and there is broad support for transportation choices., You might consider some introspection about your dislike of "cyclists", who are people in your community. It might go a long way towards building coalitions for safer streets and transportation choices, assuming that's what you want.

Lol, you all just can't help yourself with the lying. Pretty much everyone is in support of bike lanes on Rock Creek and Beach while many have suggested Reno as an additional alternative. Yet the response from the cyclists is always Connecticut or bust followed by a bunch of projection.

DP. Once again for the record. The bike lanes are part of an overall traffic calming plan for CT Ave. Even without them, the goal will be to make modifications to Ct Ave to make it safer, and likely also divert traffic onto other routes. This idea that DC is engaged in an effort solely to create bike lanes is incorrect.

Which other routes will you divert traffic onto? Beach Drive is already closed. Reno is at capacity and has two elementary schools along it. The only option is local streets, and it's a terrible idea to put all that traffic on to local streets.

This is all so tiring. DDOT provided a lot of information about traffic diversion. The plan would reduce traffic on some streets (mainly E-W I recall) but increase traffic on N-S routes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Honestly, it seems like the only place where the bike-lane opponents are winning is on DCUM.

Nobody is completely opposed to bike lanes. There are appropriate places for bike lanes and inappropriate places for bike lanes. The minority of people who demand that their every whims are catered to are the ones who are now thankfully losing and it is good to see that the city is pulling back towards more sane policies that benefit the greater good. I would suggest to all of the cyclists that some introspection about their behavior may go a long way towards building coalitions for better transportation policy. “Do what I want or else you are murdering me and I will try to economically harm you” is not effective communication, particularly when you are a loud but ultimately very small minority of people.

"I support bike lanes! Just not here. Or there. Or there. Also not there. Nope, not there either. Oh, and not there. And definitely not here. Also not that one. Or that one. Or any of those over there." It would be interesting to know which real-life bike lane proposals you have supported, if any, ever.

There is broad support for safer streets, and there is broad support for transportation choices., You might consider some introspection about your dislike of "cyclists", who are people in your community. It might go a long way towards building coalitions for safer streets and transportation choices, assuming that's what you want.

Lol, you all just can't help yourself with the lying. Pretty much everyone is in support of bike lanes on Rock Creek and Beach while many have suggested Reno as an additional alternative. Yet the response from the cyclists is always Connecticut or bust followed by a bunch of projection.

DP. Once again for the record. The bike lanes are part of an overall traffic calming plan for CT Ave. Even without them, the goal will be to make modifications to Ct Ave to make it safer, and likely also divert traffic onto other routes. This idea that DC is engaged in an effort solely to create bike lanes is incorrect.

It's actually comparable to the Old Georgetown Road project in Montgomery County, which is also a safety project. I almost think the truly committed bike lane haters on Old Georgetown Road would be happier with two car lanes each way, plus land mines in the new extra space between the car lanes and the curb, than with two car lanes each way, plus one bike lane each way in the new extra space between the car lanes and the curb.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Honestly, it seems like the only place where the bike-lane opponents are winning is on DCUM.

Nobody is completely opposed to bike lanes. There are appropriate places for bike lanes and inappropriate places for bike lanes. The minority of people who demand that their every whims are catered to are the ones who are now thankfully losing and it is good to see that the city is pulling back towards more sane policies that benefit the greater good. I would suggest to all of the cyclists that some introspection about their behavior may go a long way towards building coalitions for better transportation policy. “Do what I want or else you are murdering me and I will try to economically harm you” is not effective communication, particularly when you are a loud but ultimately very small minority of people.

"I support bike lanes! Just not here. Or there. Or there. Also not there. Nope, not there either. Oh, and not there. And definitely not here. Also not that one. Or that one. Or any of those over there." It would be interesting to know which real-life bike lane proposals you have supported, if any, ever.

There is broad support for safer streets, and there is broad support for transportation choices., You might consider some introspection about your dislike of "cyclists", who are people in your community. It might go a long way towards building coalitions for safer streets and transportation choices, assuming that's what you want.

Lol, you all just can't help yourself with the lying. Pretty much everyone is in support of bike lanes on Rock Creek and Beach while many have suggested Reno as an additional alternative. Yet the response from the cyclists is always Connecticut or bust followed by a bunch of projection.

DP. Once again for the record. The bike lanes are part of an overall traffic calming plan for CT Ave. Even without them, the goal will be to make modifications to Ct Ave to make it safer, and likely also divert traffic onto other routes. This idea that DC is engaged in an effort solely to create bike lanes is incorrect.

Which other routes will you divert traffic onto? Beach Drive is already closed. Reno is at capacity and has two elementary schools along it. The only option is local streets, and it's a terrible idea to put all that traffic on to local streets.

It's a terrible idea to put cars on local streets, but it's a good idea to put bikes on local streets, because why? Please explain.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Honestly, it seems like the only place where the bike-lane opponents are winning is on DCUM.

Nobody is completely opposed to bike lanes. There are appropriate places for bike lanes and inappropriate places for bike lanes. The minority of people who demand that their every whims are catered to are the ones who are now thankfully losing and it is good to see that the city is pulling back towards more sane policies that benefit the greater good. I would suggest to all of the cyclists that some introspection about their behavior may go a long way towards building coalitions for better transportation policy. “Do what I want or else you are murdering me and I will try to economically harm you” is not effective communication, particularly when you are a loud but ultimately very small minority of people.

"I support bike lanes! Just not here. Or there. Or there. Also not there. Nope, not there either. Oh, and not there. And definitely not here. Also not that one. Or that one. Or any of those over there." It would be interesting to know which real-life bike lane proposals you have supported, if any, ever.

There is broad support for safer streets, and there is broad support for transportation choices., You might consider some introspection about your dislike of "cyclists", who are people in your community. It might go a long way towards building coalitions for safer streets and transportation choices, assuming that's what you want.

Lol, you all just can't help yourself with the lying. Pretty much everyone is in support of bike lanes on Rock Creek and Beach while many have suggested Reno as an additional alternative. Yet the response from the cyclists is always Connecticut or bust followed by a bunch of projection.

DP. Once again for the record. The bike lanes are part of an overall traffic calming plan for CT Ave. Even without them, the goal will be to make modifications to Ct Ave to make it safer, and likely also divert traffic onto other routes. This idea that DC is engaged in an effort solely to create bike lanes is incorrect.

It's actually comparable to the Old Georgetown Road project in Montgomery County, which is also a safety project. I almost think the truly committed bike lane haters on Old Georgetown Road would be happier with two car lanes each way, plus land mines in the new extra space between the car lanes and the curb, than with two car lanes each way, plus one bike lane each way in the new extra space between the car lanes and the curb.

Ha ha totally. Landmines and spikes. Anything to keep anyone except cars.

Anyway here’s the DDOT info on traffic diversion. People who legitimately want to understand can find the info:

https://ddot.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/ddot/page_content/attachments/02_Conn%20Ave_Public%20Meeting_LR%232-Traff-Parking_FINAL_04012021.pdf

[Anonymous]

Connecticut Ave is classified as a principal arterial, below that are minor arterials (reno, tilden, porter, military), collectors (macomb, woodley, van ness, albemarle), and local streets. Where would you suggest diverting the Connecticut Avenue traffic?

[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:

because there's no reason that our neighborhoods should mostly be zoned only for $1 million-plus single family homes, especially near transit and commercial corridors.

No reason, really now? One reason off the top of my head is that SFH owners like me really like living in SFH neighborhoods! They're pretty, they have beautiful yards here in Ward 3. It's relatively quiet. We have big trees in our own yards, that play host to urban wildlife. Kids can play soccer in the backyard. I have a giant wraparound porch that isn't possible in a rowhouse or condo. We have big gardens in our big yards. We can pull up in front of our house and unload heavy groceries, animals coming home from the vet, an elderly relative ...

Did I mention it's quieter than Shaw?

There are very few poor people who've made poor life choices wandering on the streets. Or living on the streets. Our dogs have big green lush yards to play in. Many of us have pools and climbing structures. More flowering trees than in dense neighborhoods.

People who've made a lifetime of bad choices are priced out of the vicinity! So their drama doesn't spill over into our lives, much. Making Conn Ave the new Welfare Valley is changing that for those who live close to the Ave, though. Some of us prefer civility over diversity if forced to choose a type of neighbor you want.

Mostly, it's quieter, calmer, more lush and greener than DC's dense neighborhoods.

Believe it or not, changing the zoning in currently SFH-only neighborhoods would not mean your existing SFH with a giant porch has to suddenly turn into an apartment building! I like living in a house with a yard, too. But I don’t see how having a small apartment building or rowhouse nearby would be a problem. (Also, my SFH neighborhood has semi-detached row houses already.) Also, there’s no reason you need to cut down trees to build apartment buildings if the trees are, say, between the curb and the sidewalk, where a huge number of trees in Ward 3 already are. This isn’t about making you change your current life at all; it’s about making it possible for people to buy or rent a small apartment somewhere near you if they want to.

Did you just respond to yourself?

No, I responded to the person who objected to densifying Ward 3 because they like their current house.

I object to radical densification of Ward 3. A few more condos or apartment buildings along Connect, Mass, or Wisconsin would be fine. But reducing or eliminating or discouraging SFH is unnecessary and counterproductive. It will simply drive people out of DC. DC has lost population over the last several years, and DC has never recovered from the early 1950s when DC had roughly 800K residents. DC needs residents who can afford to buy SFHs. They are the tax base, and are why DC has thrived economically over the last few decades.

Data released earlier this week by the U.S. Census shows that D.C. took in 103,982 new residents between April 2010 and July 2019, growing by more than 17% over the decade — faster than any of the 50 states or Puerto Rico.

The data shows that in April 2010 there were 601,723 residents in the city. By July 2019, the population grew to 705,749. That’s higher than at any point since the 1970s, when D.C.’s population started a swift decline from its historic high of more than 800,000 residents in the 1950s. By 2000, there were just over 570,000 residents in the city.
https://wamu.org/story/20/01/03/d-c-added-100000-residents-over-the-last-decade-but-growth-is-slowing/

DC is forecasted to increase to 987,200 residents by 2045.

Come on. It does not help anyone to pretend that known outdated projections mean anything. 2019 was pre-pandemic and DC has not rebounded because of work from home. 2010-2019 was also an era of unprecedented economic growth spurred by 0% interest rates. Now we have 5% interest rates and a pending recession. Lastly that projection assumes the same rate of growth as 2010-2019 but growth is not linear and there are serious barriers to increased growth, among them the lack of quality secondary schools. 2023 is not 2019.

This is all correct. And it’s important to point out that the population growth rate has been slowing significantly over the past decade even prior to the pandemic. Slow and anemic population growth should already have been expected and anticipated.

yes and it’s all due to traffic calming! lol.

listen. there are definitely questions to ask about DDOT plans. But when anti-reform advocates (aka NIMBY) make absurd arguments and giant leaps of logic, you do nothing to convince anyone. unsafe streets are not going to reverse population declines.

Bike lanes are great, but is it the smartest concept to put one of the most major arterial routes between Maryland and downtown Washington on a "road diet" and significantly constrain vehicle capacity? The reality is that will divert thru-traffic to other north-side like Reno-34th and also flush more traffic through side streets like Albermarle, Porter, Macomb, etc. Is it really fair to dismiss and denigrate DC residents who live on those streets, whose kids walk and bike along them, as "anti-reform advocates" and NIMBYs?

It may be one of YOUR most major routes but there are many routes in. And yes, having a bike lane where the businesses are so the customers can safely access said businesses are seen by cities all over the world as a good thing. It is only CT Ave which is somehow so unique, that this is an issue.

It is hilarious to me that you are out here still posting generic talking points arguing about this like it matters. No one cares about your opinions. Not even the city. LOL.

Yes you’re right, the only way to run a city is to prioritize cars and never change anything.

Cry more. I am sure that will help.

Cry more?

We have a transportation paradigm and related allocation of public space based on urban planning models from 1955. It is clear the aut-based model is not sustainable and hasn't been for decades. Tome for a change, like all the other countries in the world have done. We need more sustainable transportation options and to get away from the single occupancy car dominating our public space - from a land use and mobility perspective. I get you don;t like change, but there is only so much public space, and with more people coming to the DC region, we have to do better to enable people to get around. Cars simply take up too much space to be efficient.

Several false assumptions here. First, DC is not growing. Second, DC still has fewer people than it did in the early 1950s. Third, DC white collar workers from the suburbs are no longer commuting into DC 5 days a week during rush hour. There is simply no need to change this allocation of public space. Lets not create a problem that does not exist.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Connecticut Ave is classified as a principal arterial, below that are minor arterials (reno, tilden, porter, military), collectors (macomb, woodley, van ness, albemarle), and local streets. Where would you suggest diverting the Connecticut Avenue traffic?

Why are you asking some random anonymous poster on DCUM for suggestions, when there are data and studies?

https://ddot.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/ddot/page_content/attachments/02_Conn%20Ave_Public%20Meeting_LR%232-Traff-Parking_FINAL_04012021.pdf