Options for opposing Connecticut Avenue changes?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Was that in Cleveland Park? I don't recognize the office building in the background.

The building in the background is infill development where the 4P's parking lot once lay.

Why are they building a new office building on Connecticut Avenue when the Intelsat building a few blocks away is completely empty?

I've been in the Intelsat building quite a few times. One portion of it was renovated to house a school/classrooms. The other portion remains un-renovated. In either section, there would be significant work needed to make it habitable and functional for a modern office. There would also be added costs given there is some historic significance to the site -- I don't recall all of the details but there were internal structures that had to be maintained that added restrictions on how the building could be used/rebuilt.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Was that in Cleveland Park? I don't recognize the office building in the background.

The building in the background is infill development where the 4P's parking lot once lay.

Why are they building a new office building on Connecticut Avenue when the Intelsat building a few blocks away is completely empty?

It is a residential building, not an office building.

[Anonymous]

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Was that in Cleveland Park? I don't recognize the office building in the background.

The building in the background is infill development where the 4P's parking lot once lay.

Why are they building a new office building on Connecticut Avenue when the Intelsat building a few blocks away is completely empty?

The Chinese conglomerate who owns it wants a few hundred million for it and owns multiple billions of dollars of real estate globally. I.E., they aren't in a rush to sell.

[Anonymous]

The sign that said Parking > People was put up by an employee of WABA who was disguised as a protester.

WABA is a sketchy, well funded organization and pulls off lots of sneaky tactics like this. They had several members of their paid staff mix in with the anti bike lane protesters—who are civic-minded volunteers—and hold up offensive signs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Studies in Cleveland Park specifically show that a very small number of customers actually drive to support these businesses.

What are those studies and the links to them?

Turns out most Cleveland Park businesses get 30-40% of their customers from parking. 7-11 even gets 42%. Businesses can afford to lose 15% of their customers—much less 30% or 40%.

There was a June meeting between CP business owners and Matt Frumin. There isn’t a single CP business that supports the bike lanes. The business owners and disabled CP residents were beyond furious and met a tone deaf response from Councilman Frumin.

WABA is a well funded organization that deploys sketchy tactics. None of their employees or funders even live or commute along the Connecticut Ave corridor.

I encourage anyone interested in this topic to visit saveconnecticutave.org to learn web

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Studies in Cleveland Park specifically show that a very small number of customers actually drive to support these businesses.

What are those studies and the links to them?

So what’s funny is that DDOT’s own studies show that an absurdly low number of cyclists would actually use the bike lanes. This entire project is being pushed by the well funded WABA lobby and real estate developers using a Trump’s pollster (Bob Ward) to get handouts from DC.

Here’s a link to DDOT’s own survey about how few cyclists bike between Chevy chase and Calvert Street(18/day vs 30,000+ cars)

https://saveconnecticutave.org/f/only-handful-of-cyclists-use-conn-ave-each-day?blogcategory=DDOT

ANC commissioners have been sneaking these plans through the last few years. Last weekend they even had the nerve to schedule a meeting during the first Commanders game of the season to decrease turnout.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They really had a sign that said Parking > People


Crazy.

Was that in Cleveland Park? I don't recognize the office building in the background.

Yeah, the young guy holding the Parking > People sign is a WABA contractor who lives in the other side of the park who lives in a fantasy land.

The guy is basically a useful idiot.

[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?

Car brain truly makes people stupid.

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

100%. NW DC already has excellent bike infrastructure. Reno Road is obviously a better alternative for bike lanes than Connecticut Ave. The reality is Connecticut Ave already has excellent alternatives to driving—we have the metro and bus. Also, anyone who bikes knows it’s actually.

Rock creek park is also just a block away.

Put plain and simple, there’s zero need for bike lanes on Connecticut Ave.

The Bike Lane lobby also forgets to mention that the Conn Ave bike lanes would push 7,000 cars daily onto already congested side streets.

The people who want the bike lanes don’t live alongside Conn Ave or commute through it. The proponents are well funded bicycle activists and real estate developers that pay shady pollsters. None of the residents or businesses want these bike lanes.

[Anonymous]

Civic-minded local volunteers for more speeding Maryland drivers on Connecticut Ave!!!!

(Gotta watch out for those sneaky outside agitators, especially the ones dressed up in mascot costumes.)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Civic-minded local volunteers for more speeding Maryland drivers on Connecticut Ave!!!!

(Gotta watch out for those sneaky outside agitators, especially the ones dressed up in mascot costumes.)

^^^It's even more civic-minded when you hold your demonstration on pedestrian space whose creation you opposed because it removed parking!!!!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The sign that said Parking > People was put up by an employee of WABA who was disguised as a protester.

WABA is a sketchy, well funded organization and pulls off lots of sneaky tactics like this. They had several members of their paid staff mix in with the anti bike lane protesters—who are civic-minded volunteers—and hold up offensive signs.

they were counter protesting. not sure what’s so bad about that?

are you a Tesla shill or something?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Studies in Cleveland Park specifically show that a very small number of customers actually drive to support these businesses.

What are those studies and the links to them?

Turns out most Cleveland Park businesses get 30-40% of their customers from parking. 7-11 even gets 42%. Businesses can afford to lose 15% of their customers—much less 30% or 40%.

There was a June meeting between CP business owners and Matt Frumin. There isn’t a single CP business that supports the bike lanes. The business owners and disabled CP residents were beyond furious and met a tone deaf response from Councilman Frumin.

WABA is a well funded organization that deploys sketchy tactics. None of their employees or funders even live or commute along the Connecticut Ave corridor.

I encourage anyone interested in this topic to visit saveconnecticutave.org to learn web

saveconnecticutave.com is a sketchy organization funded by Elon Musk! Musk is on the record complaining about how bike lanes make Tesla autopilot confused. He is behind all these efforts to stop bikelanes. Because the Ct Ave proposals AFAIK *do not get rid of parking*.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The sign that said Parking > People was put up by an employee of WABA who was disguised as a protester.

WABA is a sketchy, well funded organization and pulls off lots of sneaky tactics like this. They had several members of their paid staff mix in with the anti bike lane protesters—who are civic-minded volunteers—and hold up offensive signs.

So you and your fellow civic-minded volunteers believe people are more important than parking? That's good to know! I look forward to never again hearing that parking spaces for cars are more important than safety improvements for people.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Civic-minded local volunteers for more speeding Maryland drivers on Connecticut Ave!!!!

(Gotta watch out for those sneaky outside agitators, especially the ones dressed up in mascot costumes.)

^^^It's even more civic-minded when you hold your demonstration on pedestrian space whose creation you opposed because it removed parking!!!!

You think this is a “gotcha” argument, but it’s not. If the lane were open to traffic, they would be standing on the sidewalk and in the buffer strip bw the lane and the street. The lane now being closed did nothing to facilitate their protest, but makes you look ridiculous for trumpeting it all over X and now here. Also, not every person who opposes the bike lanes opposed closing the service lane. I know lots of people who oppose or are skeptical about the bike lanes, but supported the service lane closure.