Options for opposing Connecticut Avenue changes?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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 is that its an outdated design that tries to do two things at once and ends up doing neither particularly well.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

Its Ward 3, so yes it would be resisted. You can't do anything in Ward 3 without massive resistance. The question is if the pay-off is worth overcoming the resistance. It really depends on what Ward 3 residents want. Unfortunately, it seems what most Ward 3 residents want is for nothing to change until after they die.

[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.

Go to Union Market, the Wharf, City Center, or even some suburban places like Mosaic District. Walk around them, note what you see and what you don't see. How many people do you see out and about? Then go to Connecticut Avenue and do the same. Can you honestly say Connecticut Ave. is just as good? Should it be as good as those other places?

Do you think bike lanes can close the gap? If not, what else do you think needs to be done?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

"Vision Zero" is such a perfect summation of Mayor Bowser and her administration.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Its Ward 3, so yes it would be resisted. You can't do anything in Ward 3 without massive resistance. The question is if the pay-off is worth overcoming the resistance. It really depends on what Ward 3 residents want. Unfortunately, it seems what most Ward 3 residents want is for nothing to change until after they die.

It's not just Ward 3. There aren't many communities where folks would think it was a really good idea to take one of the most desirable residential streets in the city and convert them into a commercial district like Friendship Heights.

[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.

This is such a nutty idea, it's hard to take it as anything more than satire.

[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.

Go to Union Market, the Wharf, City Center, or even some suburban places like Mosaic District. Walk around them, note what you see and what you don't see. How many people do you see out and about? Then go to Connecticut Avenue and do the same. Can you honestly say Connecticut Ave. is just as good? Should it be as good as those other places?

Do you think bike lanes can close the gap? If not, what else do you think needs to be done?

It's not about the bike lanes closing the gap. It is about installing features that make the road less a highway and more of a main street, as it had been intended when built. This really isn't hard to grasp.

[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.

Go to Union Market, the Wharf, City Center, or even some suburban places like Mosaic District. Walk around them, note what you see and what you don't see. How many people do you see out and about? Then go to Connecticut Avenue and do the same. Can you honestly say Connecticut Ave. is just as good? Should it be as good as those other places?

Do you think bike lanes can close the gap? If not, what else do you think needs to be done?

It's not about the bike lanes closing the gap. It is about installing features that make the road less a highway and more of a main street, as it had been intended when built. This really isn't hard to grasp.

If people want to make the road less of a highway, maybe the bike lobby, the so-called Smart Growthers, and the city planners should stop calling Connecticut Avenue a "corridor"!

[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.

Go to Union Market, the Wharf, City Center, or even some suburban places like Mosaic District. Walk around them, note what you see and what you don't see. How many people do you see out and about? Then go to Connecticut Avenue and do the same. Can you honestly say Connecticut Ave. is just as good? Should it be as good as those other places?

Do you think bike lanes can close the gap? If not, what else do you think needs to be done?

It's not about the bike lanes closing the gap. It is about installing features that make the road less a highway and more of a main street, as it had been intended when built. This really isn't hard to grasp.

If people want to make the road less of a highway, maybe the bike lobby, the so-called Smart Growthers, and the city planners should stop calling Connecticut Avenue a "corridor"!

That is a DDOT and Traffic engineer term. Would you prefer arterial or boulevard?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Its Ward 3, so yes it would be resisted. You can't do anything in Ward 3 without massive resistance. The question is if the pay-off is worth overcoming the resistance. It really depends on what Ward 3 residents want. Unfortunately, it seems what most Ward 3 residents want is for nothing to change until after they die.

I think you may have missed the PPs irony, PP? But given so much horridly thought through development of late, yes, I'm totally ok with resisting. Good summation.

[Anonymous]

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

Beautiful

[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.

Go to Union Market, the Wharf, City Center, or even some suburban places like Mosaic District. Walk around them, note what you see and what you don't see. How many people do you see out and about? Then go to Connecticut Avenue and do the same. Can you honestly say Connecticut Ave. is just as good? Should it be as good as those other places?

Do you think bike lanes can close the gap? If not, what else do you think needs to be done?

Ward 3 dwellers are not bikers and not gonna become bikers. And there are already lanes in Rock Creek Park, Reno Road, Tilden Street, and very limited demand. We already have the metro and buses to reduce traffic. Adding bike lanes won't have any meaningful impact as evidenced by the bike lanes already in existence downtown. Union Market, the Wharf and City Center were redeveloped from ashes. The Connecticut Avenue corridor is not comparable.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

"Vision Zero" is such a perfect summation of Mayor Bowser and her administration.

This is just another push by the bike lobby to try to resuscitate something that no one but a small group of bike lobby bros wants. You can't have this and the mayor calling for the Federal Govt. to return to work. The two are diametrically opposed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

"Vision Zero" is such a perfect summation of Mayor Bowser and her administration.

This is just another push by the bike lobby to try to resuscitate something that no one but a small group of bike lobby bros wants. You can't have this and the mayor calling for the Federal Govt. to return to work. The two are diametrically opposed.

No one but a small group of bike lobbyists wants fewer car crashes? Wow.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

"Vision Zero" is such a perfect summation of Mayor Bowser and her administration.

This is just another push by the bike lobby to try to resuscitate something that no one but a small group of bike lobby bros wants. You can't have this and the mayor calling for the Federal Govt. to return to work. The two are diametrically opposed.

Tell that to the older lady who wrote the above referenced op ed???

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

"Vision Zero" is such a perfect summation of Mayor Bowser and her administration.

This is just another push by the bike lobby to try to resuscitate something that no one but a small group of bike lobby bros wants. You can't have this and the mayor calling for the Federal Govt. to return to work. The two are diametrically opposed.

The reality is that the CT Ave bike lanes were always an uphill battle, but they died the moment a group of ANC commissioners took a photo of themselves giving the middle finger to a business that was opposed.