Options for opposing Connecticut Avenue changes?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:After reading the comments on the upzoning post here as well as on my neighborhood email list about the changes that have been approved for Connecticut Avenue, I'm frustrated that I wasn't aware that the city was considering such significant changes. Now that I know about it, I'm wondering if there is a chance the decision could be reversed or greatly modified? For those of us who are just now realizing what's planned and are very concerned about how the changes will affect daily life for nearby residents and for commuters trying to get downtown or to schools, what's the best way to ask to have the decision reconsidered? Straight to the Mayor? To City Council reps? Who are the decisionmakers that need to be reached? I'm not looking to debate the issue here. If the neighborhood email discussion is any model, it won't be productive. Instead I'm asking for direction on who you should talk to if you oppose the plan and whether it's too late to make any difference. Please no comments about how I should have known about it sooner. Over the past two years I've been keeping a small business going while trying to manage two kids under 6 during COVID and caring for a terminally ill parent. While I wish I could have been following local issues more closely, I couldn't until now.

There were over 50 public meetings, almost all of them were announced on the neighborhood listservs, both by DDOT and the ANCs over the course of two plus years. These meetings had an aggregate of thousands of participants. The overwhelming majority of these people support the changes. The ANCs up and down Connecticut Avenue overwhelmingly support the changes. The current councilmember, Mary Cheh, supports the changes and with oversight of DDOT, obtained funding for the changes. The Democratic nominee for Ward 3, Matthew Frumin, supports the changes. These changes are fully in line with the Biden Administration in terms sustainability, environmental protecttion, transportation policy, etc.

The only people who oppose the changes are the cranky old people on the Cleveland Park and Chevy Chase email discussion groups. I suppose if you want to try to change the course of this, you could support the republican in the Ward 3 race, a person who saw 1/6 and said "yes, I want to be a part of THAT GOP" and changed to become a republican. So if you want to support a member of the GOP that opposes women's right to choose, that supports radical Christian fundementalism and everything else that MAGA/Trumpism supports, then support the republican who, not surprisingly, opposes the changes on Connecticut Avenue.

It is hard for me to fathom how we can two people killed a month ago as a result of a car on Connexticut Avenue driving onto a sidewalk cafe, how we can see a car flipped on Connecticu Avenue as recently as last week and say, yes, this is a safe and wonderful Avenue, let's keep it the way it is.

The bottom line, the current mode is not healthy and not safe. We have to make changes, and what is proposes helps maintain traffic flow, provides a safe haven for bikes and pedestrians while tansforming a de facto urban highway into a pleasant boulevard.

So you’re telling me there was no public input at all? Totally outrageous how they are trying to just sneak this in under the radar.

While it is true that there have been ANC meetings it is also true that those meetings were performative at best and the legitimate concerns raised were ignored.

But since you seem to have inside knowledge. Please let us know which ANC commissioners have been pushing this plan.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I guess what I don’t understand is that if you scroll through the Twitter feeds of the pro bike lane crowd it’s filled with hysterical, border line self congratulatory “gotcha” tweets filled with pics cars, contractors, construction workers, first responders, etc. parked illegally in bike lanes all over the city. Along with pictures of broken and blighted bike lane infrastructure and desperate calls for 311 to fix things. But you somehow think CT will be any different? Thanks to your good reporting we already know how this will go. No thank you.

That is on DDOT and DPW to maintain infrastructure. Why is this hard to understand?

So your theory is, the city won't take care of it and drivers will just park in it, so don't bother?

If that is the case, we may as well let all the roads and sidewalks, all the water and gas pipes and utility poles deteriorate as well.

I’m 100% certain the city won't take care of it and drivers will just park in it.

Kinda hard when there is a concrete barrier between the travel lanes and the bike lanes, but try again.

The snow plows, buses, and delivery trucks will destroy these barriers in fairly short order.

You realize we have these in other parts of the city and it works fine, right? Also, there are specific snow removal apparatus for the bike lanes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I guess what I don’t understand is that if you scroll through the Twitter feeds of the pro bike lane crowd it’s filled with hysterical, border line self congratulatory “gotcha” tweets filled with pics cars, contractors, construction workers, first responders, etc. parked illegally in bike lanes all over the city. Along with pictures of broken and blighted bike lane infrastructure and desperate calls for 311 to fix things. But you somehow think CT will be any different? Thanks to your good reporting we already know how this will go. No thank you.

What it proves is that curb access is actually very important to economic activity in the city and taking this important public resource and giving it over to a small handful of cyclists doesn’t seem very wise.

There will be 24/7 curb access on one side of the street, something that doesn't exist today.

Almost all of the business have some form of alley or rear access, if needed. These days, those are barely used.

Both statements are ridiculous. Curb access currently exists on both sides of the street and will be removed. Additionally, “almost all” is a joke of a statement for business and also does not address deliveries to apartments or god forbid, emergency vehicle access.

Isn’t there no parking during rush hour?

Correct, but in the new configuration, there is 24/7 parking on one side.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Study after study of grid-connected cycling tracks and traffic calming suggests that this infrastructure is positive to businesses.

In NYC streets with bike lanes saw 24% higher retail sales growth than those without (http://www.nyc.gov/html/dot/downloads/pdf/2014-09-03-bicycle-path-data-analysis.pdf).

Salt Lake City experienced a 25% increase in sales tax revenue for areas with lanes vs those without (https://usa.streetsblog.org/2015/10/06/salt-lake-city-cuts-car-parking-adds-bike-lanes-sees-retail-boost/)

But sure, there are no studies.

You’re not doing yourself any favors by comparing central Manhattan to upper NW. There are almost zero single family homes in NYC and very few families as compared to Ward 3. Bike lanes are great if your young, childless, and live in a high rise.

What difference does it make whether a family lives in a single family house versus a high rise? (and guess what, there are SFH in NYC and magnitudes more families in NYC than DC)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think it will be the death knell for many of the businesses on Connecticut Avenue in Cleveland Park. I haven't eaten at a restaurant there since they closed the service road, because it is now impossible to park after 4 pm. When they take away the rest of the parking, it will also be impossible to patronize the dry cleaners or Yes or any of the other businesses there even during the day, for those of us who are elders, disabled, or otherwise unable to pedal a bike or walk a significant distance with groceries or packages. (Much of Cleveland Park is significantly uphill from the avenue, fwiw.) Meantime, the restaurants and other businesses at Cathedral Commons are thriving, because there is ample parking at any time of day. Bike lines are great in concept, but they definite preference the relatively few and able-bodied.

1) studies show businesses benefit from bike lanes, not suffer, so your supposition is anecdotal at best and
2) if you already don't go to Cleveland Park, then the addition of bike lanes won't impact whether you support those businesses, or not.

That said, do you know where most of the support to Conn Ave business come from? All the people who live in the immediate vicinity of Connecticut Avenue. All of those high density buildings from Woodley Park to Chevy Chase have tens of thousands of residents, many more than all of the single family homes that are adjacent to the Avenue. The businesses should be making it a priority to cater to those residents rather than submit to the Maryland commuters who never give a thought to stopping at the businesses on their way out of the city.

There are no studies that show that “business benefit from bike lanes”. It’s a claim that’s repeated but not supported by any academic study so far.

Re (2), if you read carefully you'll see I said that I do support those businesses during the day, when I can use the curbside metered parking on Conn. Ave., which is available until 4pm. Under the new plan, that parking will go away.

If there's enough demand then someone will build a parking garage. Why are you looking for a free handout?

Seriously? “Someone” will build a parking lot? And how is wanting a place to park in order to patronize a business looking for a free handout? I am happy to pay for parking, just as I do now at the meters. What I want is for my tax dollars to support the many and not the few.

There is plenty of parking, but you may need to walk a little more.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I guess what I don’t understand is that if you scroll through the Twitter feeds of the pro bike lane crowd it’s filled with hysterical, border line self congratulatory “gotcha” tweets filled with pics cars, contractors, construction workers, first responders, etc. parked illegally in bike lanes all over the city. Along with pictures of broken and blighted bike lane infrastructure and desperate calls for 311 to fix things. But you somehow think CT will be any different? Thanks to your good reporting we already know how this will go. No thank you.

What it proves is that curb access is actually very important to economic activity in the city and taking this important public resource and giving it over to a small handful of cyclists doesn’t seem very wise.

There will be 24/7 curb access on one side of the street, something that doesn't exist today.

Almost all of the business have some form of alley or rear access, if needed. These days, those are barely used.

Both statements are ridiculous. Curb access currently exists on both sides of the street and will be removed. Additionally, “almost all” is a joke of a statement for business and also does not address deliveries to apartments or god forbid, emergency vehicle access.

So you are saying you know better than traffic engineers worldwide who have cracked the code of how to solve for these questions?

After the disastrous redesign of Wisconsin Avenue in Glover Park that had to be redone because it caused a traffic nightmare, I have little faith in DDOT’s ability to reconfigure streets.

It wasn't disasterous. It added about 12 seconds of commuting time during Rush Hour...the rest of the time, it improved things significantly. The only reason it was an issue was because the implementation was timed with DDOT activity on 37th Street, thus pushing more cars to Wisconsin Avenue. If they had let it go for another month, it would have smoothed out.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Study after study of grid-connected cycling tracks and traffic calming suggests that this infrastructure is positive to businesses.

In NYC streets with bike lanes saw 24% higher retail sales growth than those without (http://www.nyc.gov/html/dot/downloads/pdf/2014-09-03-bicycle-path-data-analysis.pdf).

Salt Lake City experienced a 25% increase in sales tax revenue for areas with lanes vs those without (https://usa.streetsblog.org/2015/10/06/salt-lake-city-cuts-car-parking-adds-bike-lanes-sees-retail-boost/)

But sure, there are no studies.

You’re not doing yourself any favors by comparing central Manhattan to upper NW. There are almost zero single family homes in NYC and very few families as compared to Ward 3. Bike lanes are great if your young, childless, and live in a high rise.

What difference does it make whether a family lives in a single family house versus a high rise? (and guess what, there are SFH in NYC and magnitudes more families in NYC than DC)

That would be the fundental difference between an urban and a suburban area.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I guess what I don’t understand is that if you scroll through the Twitter feeds of the pro bike lane crowd it’s filled with hysterical, border line self congratulatory “gotcha” tweets filled with pics cars, contractors, construction workers, first responders, etc. parked illegally in bike lanes all over the city. Along with pictures of broken and blighted bike lane infrastructure and desperate calls for 311 to fix things. But you somehow think CT will be any different? Thanks to your good reporting we already know how this will go. No thank you.

What it proves is that curb access is actually very important to economic activity in the city and taking this important public resource and giving it over to a small handful of cyclists doesn’t seem very wise.

There will be 24/7 curb access on one side of the street, something that doesn't exist today.

Almost all of the business have some form of alley or rear access, if needed. These days, those are barely used.

Both statements are ridiculous. Curb access currently exists on both sides of the street and will be removed. Additionally, “almost all” is a joke of a statement for business and also does not address deliveries to apartments or god forbid, emergency vehicle access.

So you are saying you know better than traffic engineers worldwide who have cracked the code of how to solve for these questions?

Traffic engineers have not cracked the code. That's a ludicrous statement. And in this case it is clear that they did not take the entire consequences into account. For god's sake the only firehouse serving upper NW is on Connecticut.

There are TWO fired houses on CT and one on Wisc. They are fine and it won't be an issue. There is already traffic on CT Ave, much of it backed up at Military, Nebraska, Van Ness, Porter and in all of Woodley Park. It is already bad. This won't make it worse, and more likely, more people will feel safe to ride a bike in the new lanes and use their cars a little less. That would be a good result, right? Less pollution, more exercise and best of all, fewer cars means more people who are old and have to drive, will have more open lanes and more opportunity to park closer to where they are going.

Win-win.

It is clear that the planning mode of the last century doesn't work unless we invest in putting double decks on our avenues. That isn't feasible, so we need to think about other ways of getting people around.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I guess what I don’t understand is that if you scroll through the Twitter feeds of the pro bike lane crowd it’s filled with hysterical, border line self congratulatory “gotcha” tweets filled with pics cars, contractors, construction workers, first responders, etc. parked illegally in bike lanes all over the city. Along with pictures of broken and blighted bike lane infrastructure and desperate calls for 311 to fix things. But you somehow think CT will be any different? Thanks to your good reporting we already know how this will go. No thank you.

What it proves is that curb access is actually very important to economic activity in the city and taking this important public resource and giving it over to a small handful of cyclists doesn’t seem very wise.

There will be 24/7 curb access on one side of the street, something that doesn't exist today.

Almost all of the business have some form of alley or rear access, if needed. These days, those are barely used.

Both statements are ridiculous. Curb access currently exists on both sides of the street and will be removed. Additionally, “almost all” is a joke of a statement for business and also does not address deliveries to apartments or god forbid, emergency vehicle access.

So you are saying you know better than traffic engineers worldwide who have cracked the code of how to solve for these questions?

After the disastrous redesign of Wisconsin Avenue in Glover Park that had to be redone because it caused a traffic nightmare, I have little faith in DDOT’s ability to reconfigure streets.

It isn't actually a 50% in traffic lanes. There are still 2 through lanes at all times, with turn pockets at the intersections, which don't exist now.

It's not like traffic is already backed up past the border during rush hour. What could go wrong with a 50% reduction in traffic lanes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I guess what I don’t understand is that if you scroll through the Twitter feeds of the pro bike lane crowd it’s filled with hysterical, border line self congratulatory “gotcha” tweets filled with pics cars, contractors, construction workers, first responders, etc. parked illegally in bike lanes all over the city. Along with pictures of broken and blighted bike lane infrastructure and desperate calls for 311 to fix things. But you somehow think CT will be any different? Thanks to your good reporting we already know how this will go. No thank you.

What it proves is that curb access is actually very important to economic activity in the city and taking this important public resource and giving it over to a small handful of cyclists doesn’t seem very wise.

There will be 24/7 curb access on one side of the street, something that doesn't exist today.

Almost all of the business have some form of alley or rear access, if needed. These days, those are barely used.

Both statements are ridiculous. Curb access currently exists on both sides of the street and will be removed. Additionally, “almost all” is a joke of a statement for business and also does not address deliveries to apartments or god forbid, emergency vehicle access.

So you are saying you know better than traffic engineers worldwide who have cracked the code of how to solve for these questions?

After the disastrous redesign of Wisconsin Avenue in Glover Park that had to be redone because it caused a traffic nightmare, I have little faith in DDOT’s ability to reconfigure streets.

It isn't actually a 50% in traffic lanes. There are still 2 through lanes at all times, with turn pockets at the intersections, which don't exist now.

It's not like traffic is already backed up past the border during rush hour. What could go wrong with a 50% reduction in traffic lanes.

2/4 = 50%

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:After reading the comments on the upzoning post here as well as on my neighborhood email list about the changes that have been approved for Connecticut Avenue, I'm frustrated that I wasn't aware that the city was considering such significant changes. Now that I know about it, I'm wondering if there is a chance the decision could be reversed or greatly modified? For those of us who are just now realizing what's planned and are very concerned about how the changes will affect daily life for nearby residents and for commuters trying to get downtown or to schools, what's the best way to ask to have the decision reconsidered? Straight to the Mayor? To City Council reps? Who are the decisionmakers that need to be reached? I'm not looking to debate the issue here. If the neighborhood email discussion is any model, it won't be productive. Instead I'm asking for direction on who you should talk to if you oppose the plan and whether it's too late to make any difference. Please no comments about how I should have known about it sooner. Over the past two years I've been keeping a small business going while trying to manage two kids under 6 during COVID and caring for a terminally ill parent. While I wish I could have been following local issues more closely, I couldn't until now.

There were over 50 public meetings, almost all of them were announced on the neighborhood listservs, both by DDOT and the ANCs over the course of two plus years. These meetings had an aggregate of thousands of participants. The overwhelming majority of these people support the changes. The ANCs up and down Connecticut Avenue overwhelmingly support the changes. The current councilmember, Mary Cheh, supports the changes and with oversight of DDOT, obtained funding for the changes. The Democratic nominee for Ward 3, Matthew Frumin, supports the changes. These changes are fully in line with the Biden Administration in terms sustainability, environmental protecttion, transportation policy, etc.

The only people who oppose the changes are the cranky old people on the Cleveland Park and Chevy Chase email discussion groups. I suppose if you want to try to change the course of this, you could support the republican in the Ward 3 race, a person who saw 1/6 and said "yes, I want to be a part of THAT GOP" and changed to become a republican. So if you want to support a member of the GOP that opposes women's right to choose, that supports radical Christian fundementalism and everything else that MAGA/Trumpism supports, then support the republican who, not surprisingly, opposes the changes on Connecticut Avenue.

It is hard for me to fathom how we can two people killed a month ago as a result of a car on Connexticut Avenue driving onto a sidewalk cafe, how we can see a car flipped on Connecticu Avenue as recently as last week and say, yes, this is a safe and wonderful Avenue, let's keep it the way it is.

The bottom line, the current mode is not healthy and not safe. We have to make changes, and what is proposes helps maintain traffic flow, provides a safe haven for bikes and pedestrians while tansforming a de facto urban highway into a pleasant boulevard.

So you’re telling me there was no public input at all? Totally outrageous how they are trying to just sneak this in under the radar.

While it is true that there have been ANC meetings it is also true that those meetings were performative at best and the legitimate concerns raised were ignored.

But since you seem to have inside knowledge. Please let us know which ANC commissioners have been pushing this plan.

All but one ANC Commissioner in the entirety of Conn Ave - that is 3C, 3D, 3E, 3F and 3/4G, supported this plan. They are elected individuals and almost unanimously supported the plan. Add to it the elected mayor, the eleted Ward member and the winner of the 2022 Dem primary, all supporting this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Study after study of grid-connected cycling tracks and traffic calming suggests that this infrastructure is positive to businesses.

In NYC streets with bike lanes saw 24% higher retail sales growth than those without (http://www.nyc.gov/html/dot/downloads/pdf/2014-09-03-bicycle-path-data-analysis.pdf).

Salt Lake City experienced a 25% increase in sales tax revenue for areas with lanes vs those without (https://usa.streetsblog.org/2015/10/06/salt-lake-city-cuts-car-parking-adds-bike-lanes-sees-retail-boost/)

But sure, there are no studies.

You’re not doing yourself any favors by comparing central Manhattan to upper NW. There are almost zero single family homes in NYC and very few families as compared to Ward 3. Bike lanes are great if your young, childless, and live in a high rise.

What difference does it make whether a family lives in a single family house versus a high rise? (and guess what, there are SFH in NYC and magnitudes more families in NYC than DC)

That would be the fundental difference between an urban and a suburban area.

Uh, last time I checked, DC was a city and urban. Please explain.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I guess what I don’t understand is that if you scroll through the Twitter feeds of the pro bike lane crowd it’s filled with hysterical, border line self congratulatory “gotcha” tweets filled with pics cars, contractors, construction workers, first responders, etc. parked illegally in bike lanes all over the city. Along with pictures of broken and blighted bike lane infrastructure and desperate calls for 311 to fix things. But you somehow think CT will be any different? Thanks to your good reporting we already know how this will go. No thank you.

What it proves is that curb access is actually very important to economic activity in the city and taking this important public resource and giving it over to a small handful of cyclists doesn’t seem very wise.

There will be 24/7 curb access on one side of the street, something that doesn't exist today.

Almost all of the business have some form of alley or rear access, if needed. These days, those are barely used.

Both statements are ridiculous. Curb access currently exists on both sides of the street and will be removed. Additionally, “almost all” is a joke of a statement for business and also does not address deliveries to apartments or god forbid, emergency vehicle access.

So you are saying you know better than traffic engineers worldwide who have cracked the code of how to solve for these questions?

Traffic engineers have not cracked the code. That's a ludicrous statement. And in this case it is clear that they did not take the entire consequences into account. For god's sake the only firehouse serving upper NW is on Connecticut.

There are TWO fired houses on CT and one on Wisc. They are fine and it won't be an issue. There is already traffic on CT Ave, much of it backed up at Military, Nebraska, Van Ness, Porter and in all of Woodley Park. It is already bad. This won't make it worse, and more likely, more people will feel safe to ride a bike in the new lanes and use their cars a little less. That would be a good result, right? Less pollution, more exercise and best of all, fewer cars means more people who are old and have to drive, will have more open lanes and more opportunity to park closer to where they are going.

Win-win.

It is clear that the planning mode of the last century doesn't work unless we invest in putting double decks on our avenues. That isn't feasible, so we need to think about other ways of getting people around.

How in any seblence of truth can you claim that cutting the amount of rush hour lanes in half won't increase congestion on both Connecticut amd those side streets?

You analysis is delusional. Traffic will be magically reduced?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

2/4 = 50%

In all practicality, is is 2 through lanes now and will be 2 through lanes in the future.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Study after study of grid-connected cycling tracks and traffic calming suggests that this infrastructure is positive to businesses.

In NYC streets with bike lanes saw 24% higher retail sales growth than those without (http://www.nyc.gov/html/dot/downloads/pdf/2014-09-03-bicycle-path-data-analysis.pdf).

Salt Lake City experienced a 25% increase in sales tax revenue for areas with lanes vs those without (https://usa.streetsblog.org/2015/10/06/salt-lake-city-cuts-car-parking-adds-bike-lanes-sees-retail-boost/)

But sure, there are no studies.

You’re not doing yourself any favors by comparing central Manhattan to upper NW. There are almost zero single family homes in NYC and very few families as compared to Ward 3. Bike lanes are great if your young, childless, and live in a high rise.

What difference does it make whether a family lives in a single family house versus a high rise? (and guess what, there are SFH in NYC and magnitudes more families in NYC than DC)

That would be the fundental difference between an urban and a suburban area.

Uh, last time I checked, DC was a city and urban. Please explain.

Really?