Options for opposing Connecticut Avenue changes?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Reno Rd would be a perfect spot for dedicated bike lanes. Get rid of the center turn lane and there's room to put bike lanes on the sides. Cylists can then take east-west streets to easily reach destinations in Tenleytown, Cleveland Park, Cathedral Heights, etc.

It is hillier than Conn Ave, there are no stores on it, so people trying to go shopping would still need to ride to CT Ave, and not having left turn lanes will turn Reno into a parking lot for cars.

Reno doesn't have turn lanes north of Murch or south of the Cathedral. In any case, DC needs to focus on moving vehicle traffic off of Reno. It's lined with houses and schools very close to the roadway, and is not well-suited to be an arterial road.

So is Connecticut Avenue. Homes, schools, stores, libraries, the zoo, Metro stations... Connecticut Avenue is really not well-suited to be an arterial road.

Then is it time to build an inside the Beltway interstate from 270 to downtown through Upper Northwest Washington? If traffic is pushed off Connecticut and Wisconsin Aves, what is the alternative?

Car brain truly makes people stupid.

If only there were some alternatives in the Connecticut Avenue corridor to driving.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Reno Rd would be a perfect spot for dedicated bike lanes. Get rid of the center turn lane and there's room to put bike lanes on the sides. Cylists can then take east-west streets to easily reach destinations in Tenleytown, Cleveland Park, Cathedral Heights, etc.

It is hillier than Conn Ave, there are no stores on it, so people trying to go shopping would still need to ride to CT Ave, and not having left turn lanes will turn Reno into a parking lot for cars.

Reno doesn't have turn lanes north of Murch or south of the Cathedral. In any case, DC needs to focus on moving vehicle traffic off of Reno. It's lined with houses and schools very close to the roadway, and is not well-suited to be an arterial road.

So is Connecticut Avenue. Homes, schools, stores, libraries, the zoo, Metro stations... Connecticut Avenue is really not well-suited to be an arterial road.

Then is it time to build an inside the Beltway interstate from 270 to downtown through Upper Northwest Washington? If traffic is pushed off Connecticut and Wisconsin Aves, what is the alternative?

No.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Reno Rd would be a perfect spot for dedicated bike lanes. Get rid of the center turn lane and there's room to put bike lanes on the sides. Cylists can then take east-west streets to easily reach destinations in Tenleytown, Cleveland Park, Cathedral Heights, etc.

It is hillier than Conn Ave, there are no stores on it, so people trying to go shopping would still need to ride to CT Ave, and not having left turn lanes will turn Reno into a parking lot for cars.

Reno doesn't have turn lanes north of Murch or south of the Cathedral. In any case, DC needs to focus on moving vehicle traffic off of Reno. It's lined with houses and schools very close to the roadway, and is not well-suited to be an arterial road.

So is Connecticut Avenue. Homes, schools, stores, libraries, the zoo, Metro stations... Connecticut Avenue is really not well-suited to be an arterial road.

Then is it time to build an inside the Beltway interstate from 270 to downtown through Upper Northwest Washington? If traffic is pushed off Connecticut and Wisconsin Aves, what is the alternative?

No.

+1. Traffic isn't being pushed off the avenues; people are choosing to be in traffic. Just like others will choose to bike, or bus, or metro

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Reno Rd would be a perfect spot for dedicated bike lanes. Get rid of the center turn lane and there's room to put bike lanes on the sides. Cylists can then take east-west streets to easily reach destinations in Tenleytown, Cleveland Park, Cathedral Heights, etc.

It is hillier than Conn Ave, there are no stores on it, so people trying to go shopping would still need to ride to CT Ave, and not having left turn lanes will turn Reno into a parking lot for cars.

Reno doesn't have turn lanes north of Murch or south of the Cathedral. In any case, DC needs to focus on moving vehicle traffic off of Reno. It's lined with houses and schools very close to the roadway, and is not well-suited to be an arterial road.

So is Connecticut Avenue. Homes, schools, stores, libraries, the zoo, Metro stations... Connecticut Avenue is really not well-suited to be an arterial road.

Then is it time to build an inside the Beltway interstate from 270 to downtown through Upper Northwest Washington? If traffic is pushed off Connecticut and Wisconsin Aves, what is the alternative?

LOL, that idea was proposed and rejected in the 1950's and 1960's. It was a bad idea then and a worse idea now. You chose to live out there, deal with it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Reno Rd would be a perfect spot for dedicated bike lanes. Get rid of the center turn lane and there's room to put bike lanes on the sides. Cylists can then take east-west streets to easily reach destinations in Tenleytown, Cleveland Park, Cathedral Heights, etc.

It is hillier than Conn Ave, there are no stores on it, so people trying to go shopping would still need to ride to CT Ave, and not having left turn lanes will turn Reno into a parking lot for cars.

Reno doesn't have turn lanes north of Murch or south of the Cathedral. In any case, DC needs to focus on moving vehicle traffic off of Reno. It's lined with houses and schools very close to the roadway, and is not well-suited to be an arterial road.

So is Connecticut Avenue. Homes, schools, stores, libraries, the zoo, Metro stations... Connecticut Avenue is really not well-suited to be an arterial road.

Then is it time to build an inside the Beltway interstate from 270 to downtown through Upper Northwest Washington? If traffic is pushed off Connecticut and Wisconsin Aves, what is the alternative?

LOL, that idea was proposed and rejected in the 1950's and 1960's. It was a bad idea then and a worse idea now. You chose to live out there, deal with it.

Good way to finish off downtown DC, when Bowser is frantically exhorting employers to force people back to DC offices. When employers and employee are told to "deal with it" some will deal by choosing to locate their workplaces and themselves outside the District and in the suburbs. DC can't sustain an economy on Bike Bros and baristas alone.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Reno Rd would be a perfect spot for dedicated bike lanes. Get rid of the center turn lane and there's room to put bike lanes on the sides. Cylists can then take east-west streets to easily reach destinations in Tenleytown, Cleveland Park, Cathedral Heights, etc.

It is hillier than Conn Ave, there are no stores on it, so people trying to go shopping would still need to ride to CT Ave, and not having left turn lanes will turn Reno into a parking lot for cars.

Reno doesn't have turn lanes north of Murch or south of the Cathedral. In any case, DC needs to focus on moving vehicle traffic off of Reno. It's lined with houses and schools very close to the roadway, and is not well-suited to be an arterial road.

So is Connecticut Avenue. Homes, schools, stores, libraries, the zoo, Metro stations... Connecticut Avenue is really not well-suited to be an arterial road.

Then is it time to build an inside the Beltway interstate from 270 to downtown through Upper Northwest Washington? If traffic is pushed off Connecticut and Wisconsin Aves, what is the alternative?

LOL, that idea was proposed and rejected in the 1950's and 1960's. It was a bad idea then and a worse idea now. You chose to live out there, deal with it.

Good way to finish off downtown DC, when Bowser is frantically exhorting employers to force people back to DC offices. When employers and employee are told to "deal with it" some will deal by choosing to locate their workplaces and themselves outside the District and in the suburbs. DC can't sustain an economy on Bike Bros and baristas alone.

If only there were ways to get downtown without driving on Connecticut Avenue.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So you are pinning all your hope on the “If you build it, they will come” fairytale?

Lol.

Good luck with that.

If these lanes are ever built, they will rarely be used.

Know your audience: the fine citizens of upper NW who live on or near CT Ave tend to work from home most days. And those that venture downtown take the bus or drive their Audis or Teslas.

Well, since this entire debate is comprised of argument by anecdote: I live in upper NW, work from the office at least 60 percent of the time, don't own an Audi or a Tesla, and basically never take the buses on Connecticut. I do, however, bike to work once or twice a week, when I'm not riding Metro. (I also frequently bike around upper NW to do errands, or to take my kids to school, but since we've been assured that no one bikes to do errands or bikes once they have kids, I guess that's not relevant here.)

I don't live that near Connecticut Avenue, but when I bike downtown, I still take that, because it's the straightest route for me to get from upper Wisconsin Avenue to near Metro Center. Every single time I bike to or from work, I see more cyclists on Connecticut than the counts that drivers claim they're making, which either means the drivers don't see the others or I'm just riding in during ... bike hour? or something.

It seems ridiculous to assert that a major road that already has people bicycling on it would have LESS bike usage if protected bike lanes were installed, but if that's the position you want to take here, I guess go ahead!

That would be ridiculous if that's what they said. But they didn't say that. They said they will be hardly used. Even DDOT says that less than 100 use them per day compared to 30,000 cars. That's 1/3 of 1%.

No, you dummy. The 100 was the estimate of the number of cyclists using the corridor from the 2019 data. The estimate ddot provided after the bike lane installation is, just like with every other bike infrastructure project, many times higher at between 2k to 3k initially and growing over time as the network expands and more bikeshares are installed.

Exactly. And the fact is there are well more than 100 people cycling on CT Ave on a daily basis as is. I mean, even just the Capital Bikeshare Data shows that kind of usage before you get to cyclists with their own bikes.

No it doesn't. If it did you would have blared that to high heaven.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Reno Rd would be a perfect spot for dedicated bike lanes. Get rid of the center turn lane and there's room to put bike lanes on the sides. Cylists can then take east-west streets to easily reach destinations in Tenleytown, Cleveland Park, Cathedral Heights, etc.

It is hillier than Conn Ave, there are no stores on it, so people trying to go shopping would still need to ride to CT Ave, and not having left turn lanes will turn Reno into a parking lot for cars.

Reno doesn't have turn lanes north of Murch or south of the Cathedral. In any case, DC needs to focus on moving vehicle traffic off of Reno. It's lined with houses and schools very close to the roadway, and is not well-suited to be an arterial road.

So is Connecticut Avenue. Homes, schools, stores, libraries, the zoo, Metro stations... Connecticut Avenue is really not well-suited to be an arterial road.

Then is it time to build an inside the Beltway interstate from 270 to downtown through Upper Northwest Washington? If traffic is pushed off Connecticut and Wisconsin Aves, what is the alternative?

LOL, that idea was proposed and rejected in the 1950's and 1960's. It was a bad idea then and a worse idea now. You chose to live out there, deal with it.

Good way to finish off downtown DC, when Bowser is frantically exhorting employers to force people back to DC offices. When employers and employee are told to "deal with it" some will deal by choosing to locate their workplaces and themselves outside the District and in the suburbs. DC can't sustain an economy on Bike Bros and baristas alone.

Yes, DCUM is definitely the main driving factor in these decisions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Reno Rd would be a perfect spot for dedicated bike lanes. Get rid of the center turn lane and there's room to put bike lanes on the sides. Cylists can then take east-west streets to easily reach destinations in Tenleytown, Cleveland Park, Cathedral Heights, etc.

It is hillier than Conn Ave, there are no stores on it, so people trying to go shopping would still need to ride to CT Ave, and not having left turn lanes will turn Reno into a parking lot for cars.

Reno doesn't have turn lanes north of Murch or south of the Cathedral. In any case, DC needs to focus on moving vehicle traffic off of Reno. It's lined with houses and schools very close to the roadway, and is not well-suited to be an arterial road.

So is Connecticut Avenue. Homes, schools, stores, libraries, the zoo, Metro stations... Connecticut Avenue is really not well-suited to be an arterial road.

Then is it time to build an inside the Beltway interstate from 270 to downtown through Upper Northwest Washington? If traffic is pushed off Connecticut and Wisconsin Aves, what is the alternative?

No.

+1. Traffic isn't being pushed off the avenues; people are choosing to be in traffic. Just like others will choose to bike, or bus, or metro

This is like saying that Economy Class isn't crowed; people are just choosing to fly.

[Anonymous]

Connecticut Ave bike lanes will not happen. The DC budget is getting tighter because tax revenues are declining. If the choice is between funding bike lanes on Connecticut versus funding MPD police foot and bike patrols on Connecticut, guess which one wins?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Connecticut Ave bike lanes will not happen. The DC budget is getting tighter because tax revenues are declining. If the choice is between funding bike lanes on Connecticut versus funding MPD police foot and bike patrols on Connecticut, guess which one wins?

\

That's silly.

MPD has lots of budgeted and unfilled positions so shifting money from DDOT to MPD would have no impact whatsoever on MPD staffing. And LOL that you think MPD will be doing foot and bike patrols on Connecticut Avenue or anywhere else.

In fact your best bet for getting an MPD presence is to add a bike lane on Connecticut Avenue so MPD has somewhere to park their car while they stare at their phone all day.

DDOT has about a 650 million dollar annual budget, only a tiny percentage of which is spent on bike and pedestrian facilities and the Connecticut Avenue Project (which again is about a lot more than bike lanes) is only estimated to cost about $8 million.

So nice try but that's a fail.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Connecticut Ave bike lanes will not happen. The DC budget is getting tighter because tax revenues are declining. If the choice is between funding bike lanes on Connecticut versus funding MPD police foot and bike patrols on Connecticut, guess which one wins?

Two different parts of the budget. Spending on one doesn’t crowd the other out.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Good way to finish off downtown DC, when Bowser is frantically exhorting employers to force people back to DC offices. When employers and employee are told to "deal with it" some will deal by choosing to locate their workplaces and themselves outside the District and in the suburbs. DC can't sustain an economy on Bike Bros and baristas alone.

Very true!

Were the not so big on bike lanes people having a demo today? Saw something from the bus going through Cleveland Park and thought that's what signs said. Did something happen to cause this timing, if so? Some new development? I thought there were "studies" ongoing? Bowserspeak for memory holing things but time will tell.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Reno Rd would be a perfect spot for dedicated bike lanes. Get rid of the center turn lane and there's room to put bike lanes on the sides. Cylists can then take east-west streets to easily reach destinations in Tenleytown, Cleveland Park, Cathedral Heights, etc.

It is hillier than Conn Ave, there are no stores on it, so people trying to go shopping would still need to ride to CT Ave, and not having left turn lanes will turn Reno into a parking lot for cars.

Reno doesn't have turn lanes north of Murch or south of the Cathedral. In any case, DC needs to focus on moving vehicle traffic off of Reno. It's lined with houses and schools very close to the roadway, and is not well-suited to be an arterial road.

So is Connecticut Avenue. Homes, schools, stores, libraries, the zoo, Metro stations... Connecticut Avenue is really not well-suited to be an arterial road.

Then is it time to build an inside the Beltway interstate from 270 to downtown through Upper Northwest Washington? If traffic is pushed off Connecticut and Wisconsin Aves, what is the alternative?

No.

+1. Traffic isn't being pushed off the avenues; people are choosing to be in traffic. Just like others will choose to bike, or bus, or metro

This is like saying that Economy Class isn't crowed; people are just choosing to fly.

No, it's not. There's a cap on the number of ppl that can sit on any section of a flight. There's no such cap on the road.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Reno Rd would be a perfect spot for dedicated bike lanes. Get rid of the center turn lane and there's room to put bike lanes on the sides. Cylists can then take east-west streets to easily reach destinations in Tenleytown, Cleveland Park, Cathedral Heights, etc.

It is hillier than Conn Ave, there are no stores on it, so people trying to go shopping would still need to ride to CT Ave, and not having left turn lanes will turn Reno into a parking lot for cars.

Reno doesn't have turn lanes north of Murch or south of the Cathedral. In any case, DC needs to focus on moving vehicle traffic off of Reno. It's lined with houses and schools very close to the roadway, and is not well-suited to be an arterial road.

So is Connecticut Avenue. Homes, schools, stores, libraries, the zoo, Metro stations... Connecticut Avenue is really not well-suited to be an arterial road.

Then is it time to build an inside the Beltway interstate from 270 to downtown through Upper Northwest Washington? If traffic is pushed off Connecticut and Wisconsin Aves, what is the alternative?

LOL, that idea was proposed and rejected in the 1950's and 1960's. It was a bad idea then and a worse idea now. You chose to live out there, deal with it.

Good way to finish off downtown DC, when Bowser is frantically exhorting employers to force people back to DC offices. When employers and employee are told to "deal with it" some will deal by choosing to locate their workplaces and themselves outside the District and in the suburbs. DC can't sustain an economy on Bike Bros and baristas alone.

If only there were ways to get downtown without driving on Connecticut Avenue.

Right?? What a joke. Downtowns you can drive to easily tend to be total wastelands. The vibrancy of downtown DC actually needs bike bros and baristas, not GS-14s driving in their Toyotas.

I think people have forgotten that cities need transit. I just had an appointment cancelled today because the person got stuck in transit - the locations are easily metro accessible. As downtown DC comes back, non-car transit is more important, not less.