Forum Index
»
Metropolitan DC Local Politics
Options for opposing Connecticut Avenue changes?
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}
Anonymous
Tell me you never walk on Connecticut Avenue without telling me you never walk on Connecticut Avenue. There are significant stretches on Connecticut Avenue where there are not wide sidewalks - in fact for long stretches north of the Van Ness area the sidewalk is just 6 feet wide. To do what you are proposing you'd need to pave over the treeboxes and in some locations remove mature trees. For different reasons the sidewalks in Cleveland Park in many stretches are also very tight - the Metro entrances take up space, the sidewalk is narrow in front of the awful Park 'n' Shop, there are some various utility boxes etc. Alternately on an extra wide road on a residential boulevard with a high capacity subway line underneath it that has too much capacity and often has high travel speeds away from the traffic lights we could convert a lane to make the street safer for bicyclists, pedestrians and yes drivers. |
Anonymous
Now you're thinking! A Connecticut Avenue with better trees, bike lanes on either side, bus lanes in the middle, and the rest for pedestrians. That sounds lovely. Streetcars on rails in the middle would be even better, but we can't have everything. |
Anonymous
Connecticut Avenue is a major arterial road from downtown to the District line (and beyond). Because there are no expressways through Northwest DC (a good thing IMO), Connecticut has to carry significant traffic, unless the plan is to flush most of it, trucks included, through the narrower side streets. Are the bike lobby and DDOT ok with that? |
Anonymous
Don't you have better things to do on a rainy Saturday than try to engage in the same anonymous argument for the gazillionth time on an anonymous internet message board? Make tea and read a novel. Clean out those dust bunnies under the bed. Put on your yellow t-shirt and go cuss out some parents in the presence of their small children. Really, almost anything would be better than this. |
Anonymous
| Agreed, a waste of time. Bike lanes on Connecticut Ave are dead anyway. The business/political pressure on the mayor has been intense not to go forward and DC’s financial projections don’t look very good now. Imagine DC spending $$ on bike lanes but not enough on cops when crime has spiked or on reading teachers when DC0PS has one of nation’s biggest achievement gaps. |
Anonymous
It doesn't HAVE to. It is just designed to. How about we restore the Conn Ave streetcar as was historically intended? |
Anonymous
Says who? Last I spoke to anyone at the Mayor's office and DDOT, this was moving forward as already decided. Please stop posting fake news. |
Anonymous
Bowser is pumping the brakes on it. Anytime you see a plan in DC go into "revisions," as this plan is, means that it's going to die a slow death. https://www.washingtonpost.com/transportation/2023/04/20/dc-connecticut-avenue-bike-lane/ |
Anonymous
I would love that. But in protected right-of-way, so cars can't get in the way, this time. |
Anonymous
The revisions were requested by the Councilmember. |
Anonymous
Chrmn Mendelson is saying no Conn Ave bike lanes. |
Anonymous
Uh huh. |
Anonymous
Well it is a good thing the King NIMBY in DC is neither the Mayor nor the Ward 3 Councilmember. Historically the at-large Councilmembers including the Chair, are deferential to the Ward Councilmember on issues like this. Unless Mendelson is going to break his own protocol, his opinion doesn't matter. Plus, if it comes to a vote, there are many more Councilmembers who support micromobility and understand the value of the DDOT proposal for streets like this. |
Anonymous
|
The problem with Connecticut Ave. is that its an outdated design that tries to do two things at once and ends up doing neither particularly well. The solution to is to turn Connecticut Ave. into a better version of NY Ave. Both roads are straight shots from the beltway to downtown and are therefore primary commuting routes.
First, the problems with Connecticut is that it is a long linear business district bisected by a busy road. This is a mid-twentieth century model that is now shown to be obsolete. Businesses are road facing, and separated from each other by a busy street and "dead zones" between clusters. This limits strolling and multi-business trips. Being right on top of Connecticut also makes it an unpleasant place to linger, and limits outside dining. Connecticut will struggle to support anything beyond low-rent businesses with this design. If the area wants to be a destination, its going to have to change its design. Second is that Connecticut doesn't really do a great job of moving cars either, largely because of all the traffic light induced congestion. Play around with Google maps at various times of day, and you'll find average speed in this corridor ranges from high single digit to high teens. That is, cars aren't moving that much faster than biking speed and at times is slower than that. Contrast this to NY Ave., which has two newish and flourishing business districts. One at Union Market oriented to pedestrians, and the other at Dakota Crossing oriented to cars. The key to these districts is that they are both bounded by NY Ave., rather than bisected. Union Market in particular is a better place to linger than anything on Connecticut, and is a place you only need to arrive at once to experience the entire district. Business are much more able to support each other and the entire nature of the area lends itself to a multiple visit trip. This is all while preserving the ability of NY Ave. to move cars downtown. Cars aren't being stopped at Costco, then again at Lowes and again at Salt and Sundry, etc... Vehicle speed is generally 5-10 MPH faster in this corridor than on Connecticut. This is what needs to be done in Ward 3, to move the center of commerce from being bisected by Connecticut Ave., to being bounded by Connecticut Ave. Then you can create a business district that can be a destination, and be successful. Connecticut Ave. is going to become some version of NY Ave. inevitably. The only question is which version, how long it takes to get there and how much money is wasted in the process. Tweaking the streetscape of Connecticut won't change this reality, but it can waste a lot of money and political capital. Business districts bisected by busy commuter routes are struggling everywhere, and will do so even more as places like Union Market and the Wharf continue to get built. Places that don't leave you dodging high speed cars and dining on diesel fumes. Now that people have alternatives, Connecticut Ave. can no longer compete. Its time to get ahead of the inevitable and start shifting businesses off Connecticut. Its time Ward 3 had a destination business district. |
Anonymous
| tl;dr |