Options for opposing Connecticut Avenue changes?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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 is that its an outdated design that tries to do two things at once and ends up doing neither particularly well.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.

Are you saying to shift the business district west to Reno Rd?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

Are you saying to shift the business district west to Reno Rd?

The key would be to have the major roads be a boundary of the district rather than cutting through it. You could do this by rezoning a few blocks between Connecticut and 36th. You already have high density apartments and businesses on the west side of Connecticut, so you extend the mixed use zone one and a half blocks. Redevelop the area to orient to the West. You can have one entrance from CT, but businesses shouldn't front that street or have street parking there. Rinse and repeat up and down CT as needed.

Doing it on Reno means a lot more resistance and a lot more land acquisition for a developer. Its probably best to leave it residential. But that's really the problem with Ward 3 as a whole, you can't really do anything so it just all ages in place until its too decrepit to do much anymore.

[Anonymous]

I have a simpler idea: bike lanes on Connecticut Ave.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

What made it outdated was ripping out the streetcars (and the neighborhood centric commercial areas they serve) and trying to turn it into a highway for suburban commuters in the era of white flight. Your solutions do not take into account the reality of metro stations and investments into multi-family and single family properties that are already there, not to mention the topography south of Nebraska Avenue.

Wisconsin Avenue is actually the long linear commercial district, as it has an almost continuous run of commercial from Georgetown to Sack Fifth Avenue in Chevy Chase. Connecticut Avenue has commercial hubs: Woodley Park, Cleveland Park, Van Ness, Forest Hills and Chevy Chase, which has very high density apartments and condos between each commercial area, which you refer to as dead zones. Anyone who walks or bikes those dead zones know that they actually aren't dead - there are A LOT of people who walk, bike and scooter between and among the commercial areas.

The traffic lights don't induce congestion. People driving on the Avenue ARE the congestion. The traffic lights simply make it easier for pedestrians (and people driving on side streets) to cross the Avenue. It is rather ironic that you cite average speeds as being high single digit. How do you account for the various accidents where cars are flipped going at those speeds in the middle of the day? You can't because it isn't reality. Sure, there are a few chronic spots of back-ups - most particularly Van Ness and Nebraska intersections, but other than that, there is seldom much off peak congestion and thus, speeds are MUCH higher, which is the whole reason these safety changes need to be implemented.

I would suggest you stick to your nirvana of Dakota Crossing and let the century+ development pattern on Connecticut Avenue stand for itself, but you do make a great argument for reverting the road into a Boulevard rather than highway.

If NY Ave were so successful, you would see the commercial rents and housing prices exceed that of Connecticut Avenue. It isn't close.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I have a simpler idea: bike lanes on Connecticut Ave.

Bike lanes on the runways at National airport!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

What made it outdated was ripping out the streetcars (and the neighborhood centric commercial areas they serve) and trying to turn it into a highway for suburban commuters in the era of white flight. Your solutions do not take into account the reality of metro stations and investments into multi-family and single family properties that are already there, not to mention the topography south of Nebraska Avenue.

Wisconsin Avenue is actually the long linear commercial district, as it has an almost continuous run of commercial from Georgetown to Sack Fifth Avenue in Chevy Chase. Connecticut Avenue has commercial hubs: Woodley Park, Cleveland Park, Van Ness, Forest Hills and Chevy Chase, which has very high density apartments and condos between each commercial area, which you refer to as dead zones. Anyone who walks or bikes those dead zones know that they actually aren't dead - there are A LOT of people who walk, bike and scooter between and among the commercial areas.

The traffic lights don't induce congestion. People driving on the Avenue ARE the congestion. The traffic lights simply make it easier for pedestrians (and people driving on side streets) to cross the Avenue. It is rather ironic that you cite average speeds as being high single digit. How do you account for the various accidents where cars are flipped going at those speeds in the middle of the day? You can't because it isn't reality. Sure, there are a few chronic spots of back-ups - most particularly Van Ness and Nebraska intersections, but other than that, there is seldom much off peak congestion and thus, speeds are MUCH higher, which is the whole reason these safety changes need to be implemented.

I would suggest you stick to your nirvana of Dakota Crossing and let the century+ development pattern on Connecticut Avenue stand for itself, but you do make a great argument for reverting the road into a Boulevard rather than highway.

If NY Ave were so successful, you would see the commercial rents and housing prices exceed that of Connecticut Avenue. It isn't close.

Yes, its unfortunate that the Streetcar was abandoned in 1935. But that was 88 years ago and no one is seriously trying to bring it back. Especially now in the wake of the H-Street Folley. One of the key things to avoid here is creating a boondoggle, like bike lanes on CT that no one uses because they don't feel safe, that set good urbanism back a generation on that front. And regardless of its origin, CT is now primarily a commuter thoroughfare. Way back someone showed that roughly 75% of traffic in the study area is through-traffic.

So the question is, what do you do with all those commuters? Since the Mayor and the Administration seem to want "Butts in seats" downtown, you're going to have commuters. The reality is they aren't going to go away any time soon, and there is no other route that makes as much sense as a commuter route west of the park. So you either embrace the commuters and let CT go low rent, or you move the businesses off the commuter route. You're not going to magically wish away the commuters.

Anyone who has ever watched CT at rush hour should know that you can have low average speed of traffic while some vehicles are hitting 45+MPH as they race to the next stop light and swerve through traffic. This is exactly what makes CT unpleasant and dangerous to anyone outside a car.

CT has been struggling for a while, and post-covid it hit a tipping point. You can feel the decay in the air. Its too far gone for minor tweaks to save it now. You can deny this reality for 20 years or start working on an actual fix now. You're going to get to the same point eventually.

[Anonymous]

It's bonkers that someone has written many hundreds of words advocating for moving the entire Connecticut Avenue business district, based on the belief that this is somehow a better policy than bike lanes on Connecticut Avenue.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

Are you saying to shift the business district west to Reno Rd?

The key would be to have the major roads be a boundary of the district rather than cutting through it. You could do this by rezoning a few blocks between Connecticut and 36th. You already have high density apartments and businesses on the west side of Connecticut, so you extend the mixed use zone one and a half blocks. Redevelop the area to orient to the West. You can have one entrance from CT, but businesses shouldn't front that street or have street parking there. Rinse and repeat up and down CT as needed.

Doing it on Reno means a lot more resistance and a lot more land acquisition for a developer. Its probably best to leave it residential. But that's really the problem with Ward 3 as a whole, you can't really do anything so it just all ages in place until its too decrepit to do much anymore.

You don't think that people would resist turning several blocks of residential Macomb and Newark Sts in an historic district into a mixed-use commercial area?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It's bonkers that someone has written many hundreds of words advocating for moving the entire Connecticut Avenue business district, based on the belief that this is somehow a better policy than bike lanes on Connecticut Avenue.

Sure. It’s also bonkers that folks are still flogging this hobby horse when the city is amidst a violent crime crisis and facing a fiscal cliff. It’s not really a priority.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's bonkers that someone has written many hundreds of words advocating for moving the entire Connecticut Avenue business district, based on the belief that this is somehow a better policy than bike lanes on Connecticut Avenue.

Sure. It’s also bonkers that folks are still flogging this hobby horse when the city is amidst a violent crime crisis and facing a fiscal cliff. It’s not really a priority.

Transportation isn't a priority for a city? Public safety isn't a priority for a city? Huh.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's bonkers that someone has written many hundreds of words advocating for moving the entire Connecticut Avenue business district, based on the belief that this is somehow a better policy than bike lanes on Connecticut Avenue.

Sure. It’s also bonkers that folks are still flogging this hobby horse when the city is amidst a violent crime crisis and facing a fiscal cliff. It’s not really a priority.

Transportation isn't a priority for a city? Public safety isn't a priority for a city? Huh.

The CT Ave bike lanes are projected to serve 100 people a day. This is not a priority for limited transportation resources. What is a priority for limited transportation resources is negotiating with MD, VA and the Federal government a $750 million bailout to WMATA who provide serve about 500,000 people a day.

In terms of public safety, a grand total of 1 cyclist has died in a traffic accident DC this year. Compare that to the 225 homicides, 800 carjackings, 1200 assaults with a deadly weapon, and 2800 robberies so far this year and I don’t think it’s too much of a stretch to say that the city has other public safety priorities.

So yeah, it’s not a priority.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's bonkers that someone has written many hundreds of words advocating for moving the entire Connecticut Avenue business district, based on the belief that this is somehow a better policy than bike lanes on Connecticut Avenue.

Sure. It’s also bonkers that folks are still flogging this hobby horse when the city is amidst a violent crime crisis and facing a fiscal cliff. It’s not really a priority.

Transportation isn't a priority for a city? Public safety isn't a priority for a city? Huh.

The CT Ave bike lanes are projected to serve 100 people a day. This is not a priority for limited transportation resources. What is a priority for limited transportation resources is negotiating with MD, VA and the Federal government a $750 million bailout to WMATA who provide serve about 500,000 people a day.

In terms of public safety, a grand total of 1 cyclist has died in a traffic accident DC this year. Compare that to the 225 homicides, 800 carjackings, 1200 assaults with a deadly weapon, and 2800 robberies so far this year and I don’t think it’s too much of a stretch to say that the city has other public safety priorities.

So yeah, it’s not a priority.

You're wrong about the projections.

In terms of public safety, EMS and police spend a big chunk of their resources responding to car crashes. That's resources they can't devote to the public safety priorities. Reducing car crashes is easy, and we know how to do it. If you don't think it would serve public safety overall to have fewer car crashes on Connecticut Avenue, I don't know what to say.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

Are you saying to shift the business district west to Reno Rd?

The key would be to have the major roads be a boundary of the district rather than cutting through it. You could do this by rezoning a few blocks between Connecticut and 36th. You already have high density apartments and businesses on the west side of Connecticut, so you extend the mixed use zone one and a half blocks. Redevelop the area to orient to the West. You can have one entrance from CT, but businesses shouldn't front that street or have street parking there. Rinse and repeat up and down CT as needed.

Doing it on Reno means a lot more resistance and a lot more land acquisition for a developer. Its probably best to leave it residential. But that's really the problem with Ward 3 as a whole, you can't really do anything so it just all ages in place until its too decrepit to do much anymore.

Sorry but this is an awful idea. Connecticut Avenue is also a place that pedestrians need to cross, which people need to to to get to schools, Metro etc. NY Ave is awful for pedestrians to cross even if it does move cars faster than Connecticut Ave.

[Anonymous]

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anyone who has ever watched CT at rush hour should know that you can have low average speed of traffic while some vehicles are hitting 45+MPH as they race to the next stop light and swerve through traffic. This is exactly what makes CT unpleasant and dangerous to anyone outside a car.

This is exactly why the safety measures proposed under Concept C need to be adopted. Thanks for making the point.