Will DC resume commuter traffic patterns in the fall?

[Anonymous]

I love the people who think the NPS will simply just keep Beach Drive closed so people can enjoy a road without cars. If you are familiar with the Park Service at all the first thing they will do after permanently closing it is to rip it up and return the park to being a park. The bikers will then have to go back to using bike paths and fighting about it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:CT lanes study will be out next week and we will know more. I think it is hard to close Beach and not reopen reversible lanes on CT.

Disagree, they are two separate decisions made by two separate entities.

In the case of Beach Drive, it is the national park service, whose mission it is to administer national parks. Having a park used as a daily commuter route with impacts on the plants and animals, and the air in the park is simply a bad idea.

For CT Ave, the residents up and down the Avenue would prefer a vibrant and walkable public space rather than a commuter highway.

There is overwhelming support for both proposals.

"Vibrant, walkable..." sounds like a Greater Greater Washington talking point.

I love bike lanes and national parks. But one can' just assume away traffic. Fortunately, Washington DC wasn't sliced up by expressways the way that most U.S. cities were, but major streets like Connecticut Avenue serve as the arterial routes, carrying traffic from far upper Northwest and parts of Montgomery County to downtown Washington, DC. Constrain Connecticut Ave and keep Beach Drive closed, and where exactly will the traffic go? Cutting through a Waze maze on 0ur residential size streets?

Which is exactly why the bike lanes on Connecticut Avenue will be really helpful.

You're assuming that the volume of traffic will be constant, but that's a false assumption. People make different transportation decisions all the time, based on different conditions. For example, if the driving route via Connecticut Ave becomes more than you can stand, then you might choose to drive at a different time, or choose to drive a different route, or choose to use a different mode of transportation.

Exactly. But with Beach Drive closed, Connecticut Ave. potentially reduced from 4 lanes to 2 lanes at rush hour, Wisconsin Ave. constrained by lanes closed for "streeteries" and the induced traffic of a new magnet town center, including DC's only Wegman's, what will the "different route" be? Will commuter traffic be flushed through neighborhood streets even more than before, so that you can have your "vibrant" Connecticut Avenue? And speaking of "walkable," its not very walkable when some lycra-clad cyclist, pretending he's in the Tour de France rather than in Chevy Chase or Cleveland Park, hits a pedestrian who walks across "his" bike lane.

Well, let's put it this way. When Beach Drive was under construction, Eveeyone complained there would be huge traffic issues. There weren't. When Oregon Ave was and is under construction, everyone said there would be huge traffic issues. There aren't. Every time there is a new development proposal, everyone complains that traffic and parking will be impacted. They aren't.

Encouraging biking gets cars off the road, making it easier for you to drive. Encouraging Metro and bus usage gets cars off the road so it is easier for you to drive. You shold be the biggest proponent of more funding for metro and bike lanes.

Reno/34th St. was gridlocked then. Traffic spiked to 17,000 cars/day next to John Eaton school, which a lot of kid walk to.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think we will reach a new normal. Many office workers will have the choice to telework 2-3 days per week or more.

Connecticut Avenue is not going to revert back. The reversible lanes are permanently gone. The only question at this point is if there will be bike lanes or not.

And Beach Drive will remain as it currently is. there is no reason for a national park to be opened to polluting cars for single occupancy access during rush hour. All of the parking areas there are open as they always are, so if anyone wants to visit, they can via the south. They just cannot drive through it.

So if Connecticut Avenue will be effectively narrowed, and Beach Drive will be closed. what is DC's plan to move traffic to and from downtown? Reno Road?

There is traffic with or without Beach Drive or bike lanes. How much do we want to surrender our quality of life to commuters and cars? It will work out. It always does. It has in other places and it will here.

This view calls to mind one of columnists Courtand Milloy's most famous lines: (speaking of DC's one-issue bike lane activists, BTW): "Myopic little twits."

I can think of few things more myopic than opposing bike lanes because you'll sit in traffic for four minutes fewer.

If Beach Drive is permanently closed so that there is a bike route from the north that connects to the Rock Creek bike trail, then why also remove two traffic lanes of Connecticut Ave. for bike lanes. This would seem like an acceptable compromise.

If I live in Van Ness and want to go to Woodley Park, why should I have to bike into the park to do it? All of the shops and restaurants are on Connecticut Ave - that is why it makes sense for te bike lanes to be there.

Two bike lanes on Conn Ave would be overkill. Just use one traffic lane for bikes, for north and south bound bikes to share, like with most bike trails. There is no need to take two traffic lanes for a bike lane on the east and one on the west side of Connecticut.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think we will reach a new normal. Many office workers will have the choice to telework 2-3 days per week or more.

Connecticut Avenue is not going to revert back. The reversible lanes are permanently gone. The only question at this point is if there will be bike lanes or not.

And Beach Drive will remain as it currently is. there is no reason for a national park to be opened to polluting cars for single occupancy access during rush hour. All of the parking areas there are open as they always are, so if anyone wants to visit, they can via the south. They just cannot drive through it.

So if Connecticut Avenue will be effectively narrowed, and Beach Drive will be closed. what is DC's plan to move traffic to and from downtown? Reno Road?

DC's plans should be about moving people, not about moving traffic (cars).

The vast majority of people in DC travel by car.

The vast majority in the region, sure. In DC Proper? No not really. I mean, 30% of households don't even own a car.

Well, there's 400,000 cars in the District so if your 30 percent statistic was accurate (it's not), that would mean basically everyone else, on average, would own two cars. Also, don't forget that half people commuting in DC are from VA and MD (who are more likely to drive) so if you look at DC-only statistics, you're only looking at half the picture.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I love the people who think the NPS will simply just keep Beach Drive closed so people can enjoy a road without cars. If you are familiar with the Park Service at all the first thing they will do after permanently closing it is to rip it up and return the park to being a park. The bikers will then have to go back to using bike paths and fighting about it.

No they won't. Why should they? They understand there are scores of people who are pushing strollers, wheelchairs and yes, biking, scootering etc in the park.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:CT lanes study will be out next week and we will know more. I think it is hard to close Beach and not reopen reversible lanes on CT.

Disagree, they are two separate decisions made by two separate entities.

In the case of Beach Drive, it is the national park service, whose mission it is to administer national parks. Having a park used as a daily commuter route with impacts on the plants and animals, and the air in the park is simply a bad idea.

For CT Ave, the residents up and down the Avenue would prefer a vibrant and walkable public space rather than a commuter highway.

There is overwhelming support for both proposals.

"Vibrant, walkable..." sounds like a Greater Greater Washington talking point.

I love bike lanes and national parks. But one can' just assume away traffic. Fortunately, Washington DC wasn't sliced up by expressways the way that most U.S. cities were, but major streets like Connecticut Avenue serve as the arterial routes, carrying traffic from far upper Northwest and parts of Montgomery County to downtown Washington, DC. Constrain Connecticut Ave and keep Beach Drive closed, and where exactly will the traffic go? Cutting through a Waze maze on 0ur residential size streets?

Which is exactly why the bike lanes on Connecticut Avenue will be really helpful.

You're assuming that the volume of traffic will be constant, but that's a false assumption. People make different transportation decisions all the time, based on different conditions. For example, if the driving route via Connecticut Ave becomes more than you can stand, then you might choose to drive at a different time, or choose to drive a different route, or choose to use a different mode of transportation.

Exactly. But with Beach Drive closed, Connecticut Ave. potentially reduced from 4 lanes to 2 lanes at rush hour, Wisconsin Ave. constrained by lanes closed for "streeteries" and the induced traffic of a new magnet town center, including DC's only Wegman's, what will the "different route" be? Will commuter traffic be flushed through neighborhood streets even more than before, so that you can have your "vibrant" Connecticut Avenue? And speaking of "walkable," its not very walkable when some lycra-clad cyclist, pretending he's in the Tour de France rather than in Chevy Chase or Cleveland Park, hits a pedestrian who walks across "his" bike lane.

Well, let's put it this way. When Beach Drive was under construction, Eveeyone complained there would be huge traffic issues. There weren't. When Oregon Ave was and is under construction, everyone said there would be huge traffic issues. There aren't. Every time there is a new development proposal, everyone complains that traffic and parking will be impacted. They aren't.

Encouraging biking gets cars off the road, making it easier for you to drive. Encouraging Metro and bus usage gets cars off the road so it is easier for you to drive. You shold be the biggest proponent of more funding for metro and bike lanes.

Reno/34th St. was gridlocked then. Traffic spiked to 17,000 cars/day next to John Eaton school, which a lot of kid walk to.

Good thing they have sidewalks there.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:CT lanes study will be out next week and we will know more. I think it is hard to close Beach and not reopen reversible lanes on CT.

Disagree, they are two separate decisions made by two separate entities.

In the case of Beach Drive, it is the national park service, whose mission it is to administer national parks. Having a park used as a daily commuter route with impacts on the plants and animals, and the air in the park is simply a bad idea.

For CT Ave, the residents up and down the Avenue would prefer a vibrant and walkable public space rather than a commuter highway.

There is overwhelming support for both proposals.

"Vibrant, walkable..." sounds like a Greater Greater Washington talking point.

I love bike lanes and national parks. But one can' just assume away traffic. Fortunately, Washington DC wasn't sliced up by expressways the way that most U.S. cities were, but major streets like Connecticut Avenue serve as the arterial routes, carrying traffic from far upper Northwest and parts of Montgomery County to downtown Washington, DC. Constrain Connecticut Ave and keep Beach Drive closed, and where exactly will the traffic go? Cutting through a Waze maze on 0ur residential size streets?

Which is exactly why the bike lanes on Connecticut Avenue will be really helpful.

You're assuming that the volume of traffic will be constant, but that's a false assumption. People make different transportation decisions all the time, based on different conditions. For example, if the driving route via Connecticut Ave becomes more than you can stand, then you might choose to drive at a different time, or choose to drive a different route, or choose to use a different mode of transportation.

Exactly. But with Beach Drive closed, Connecticut Ave. potentially reduced from 4 lanes to 2 lanes at rush hour, Wisconsin Ave. constrained by lanes closed for "streeteries" and the induced traffic of a new magnet town center, including DC's only Wegman's, what will the "different route" be? Will commuter traffic be flushed through neighborhood streets even more than before, so that you can have your "vibrant" Connecticut Avenue? And speaking of "walkable," its not very walkable when some lycra-clad cyclist, pretending he's in the Tour de France rather than in Chevy Chase or Cleveland Park, hits a pedestrian who walks across "his" bike lane.

Well, let's put it this way. When Beach Drive was under construction, Eveeyone complained there would be huge traffic issues. There weren't. When Oregon Ave was and is under construction, everyone said there would be huge traffic issues. There aren't. Every time there is a new development proposal, everyone complains that traffic and parking will be impacted. They aren't.

Encouraging biking gets cars off the road, making it easier for you to drive. Encouraging Metro and bus usage gets cars off the road so it is easier for you to drive. You shold be the biggest proponent of more funding for metro and bike lanes.

Reno/34th St. was gridlocked then. Traffic spiked to 17,000 cars/day next to John Eaton school, which a lot of kid walk to.

I drove or biked this every day pre-pandemic, including when Beach Drive was under construction. It was hardly gridlocked. It was the same it always was and is.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think we will reach a new normal. Many office workers will have the choice to telework 2-3 days per week or more.

Connecticut Avenue is not going to revert back. The reversible lanes are permanently gone. The only question at this point is if there will be bike lanes or not.

And Beach Drive will remain as it currently is. there is no reason for a national park to be opened to polluting cars for single occupancy access during rush hour. All of the parking areas there are open as they always are, so if anyone wants to visit, they can via the south. They just cannot drive through it.

So if Connecticut Avenue will be effectively narrowed, and Beach Drive will be closed. what is DC's plan to move traffic to and from downtown? Reno Road?

There is traffic with or without Beach Drive or bike lanes. How much do we want to surrender our quality of life to commuters and cars? It will work out. It always does. It has in other places and it will here.

This view calls to mind one of columnists Courtand Milloy's most famous lines: (speaking of DC's one-issue bike lane activists, BTW): "Myopic little twits."

I can think of few things more myopic than opposing bike lanes because you'll sit in traffic for four minutes fewer.

If Beach Drive is permanently closed so that there is a bike route from the north that connects to the Rock Creek bike trail, then why also remove two traffic lanes of Connecticut Ave. for bike lanes. This would seem like an acceptable compromise.

If I live in Van Ness and want to go to Woodley Park, why should I have to bike into the park to do it? All of the shops and restaurants are on Connecticut Ave - that is why it makes sense for te bike lanes to be there.

Two bike lanes on Conn Ave would be overkill. Just use one traffic lane for bikes, for north and south bound bikes to share, like with most bike trails. There is no need to take two traffic lanes for a bike lane on the east and one on the west side of Connecticut.

It is a northbound lane on one side and a southbound lane on the other. Take a look at the drawings.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Two bike lanes on Conn Ave would be overkill. Just use one traffic lane for bikes, for north and south bound bikes to share, like with most bike trails. There is no need to take two traffic lanes for a bike lane on the east and one on the west side of Connecticut.

I have the same opinion about two lanes for cars. Northbound and southbound drivers can share one lane. There are plenty of one-lane roads in the world, which demonstrates that there is no need for two lanes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think we will reach a new normal. Many office workers will have the choice to telework 2-3 days per week or more.

Connecticut Avenue is not going to revert back. The reversible lanes are permanently gone. The only question at this point is if there will be bike lanes or not.

And Beach Drive will remain as it currently is. there is no reason for a national park to be opened to polluting cars for single occupancy access during rush hour. All of the parking areas there are open as they always are, so if anyone wants to visit, they can via the south. They just cannot drive through it.

So if Connecticut Avenue will be effectively narrowed, and Beach Drive will be closed. what is DC's plan to move traffic to and from downtown? Reno Road?

DC's plans should be about moving people, not about moving traffic (cars).

The vast majority of people in DC travel by car.

The vast majority in the region, sure. In DC Proper? No not really. I mean, 30% of households don't even own a car.

Well, there's 400,000 cars in the District so if your 30 percent statistic was accurate (it's not), that would mean basically everyone else, on average, would own two cars. Also, don't forget that half people commuting in DC are from VA and MD (who are more likely to drive) so if you look at DC-only statistics, you're only looking at half the picture.

You are making my point. Why should the residents of the District degrade their quality of life so commuters can have highways on our main streets?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think we will reach a new normal. Many office workers will have the choice to telework 2-3 days per week or more.

Connecticut Avenue is not going to revert back. The reversible lanes are permanently gone. The only question at this point is if there will be bike lanes or not.

And Beach Drive will remain as it currently is. there is no reason for a national park to be opened to polluting cars for single occupancy access during rush hour. All of the parking areas there are open as they always are, so if anyone wants to visit, they can via the south. They just cannot drive through it.

So if Connecticut Avenue will be effectively narrowed, and Beach Drive will be closed. what is DC's plan to move traffic to and from downtown? Reno Road?

DC's plans should be about moving people, not about moving traffic (cars).

The vast majority of people in DC travel by car.

The vast majority in the region, sure. In DC Proper? No not really. I mean, 30% of households don't even own a car.

Well, there's 400,000 cars in the District so if your 30 percent statistic was accurate (it's not), that would mean basically everyone else, on average, would own two cars. Also, don't forget that half people commuting in DC are from VA and MD (who are more likely to drive) so if you look at DC-only statistics, you're only looking at half the picture.

You're totally right! The 30 percent statistic is not accurate. It's actually closer to 35 percent: https://data.census.gov/cedsci/table?q=ACSDT1Y2019.B08201&g=0400000US11&tid=ACSDT1Y2019.B08201&hidePreview=true

The DC DMV shows about 350,000 active registrations, but you're ignoring the fact that there are thousands of taxis, rental cars, Zipcars, delivery vehicles, etc, that are counted in active registrations but are not personal vehicles for obvious reasons.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

The vast majority in the region, sure. In DC Proper? No not really. I mean, 30% of households don't even own a car.

Well, there's 400,000 cars in the District so if your 30 percent statistic was accurate (it's not), that would mean basically everyone else, on average, would own two cars. Also, don't forget that half people commuting in DC are from VA and MD (who are more likely to drive) so if you look at DC-only statistics, you're only looking at half the picture.

When some random on the Internet thinks they know more about household access to cars in DC than the US Census Bureau...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think we will reach a new normal. Many office workers will have the choice to telework 2-3 days per week or more.

Connecticut Avenue is not going to revert back. The reversible lanes are permanently gone. The only question at this point is if there will be bike lanes or not.

And Beach Drive will remain as it currently is. there is no reason for a national park to be opened to polluting cars for single occupancy access during rush hour. All of the parking areas there are open as they always are, so if anyone wants to visit, they can via the south. They just cannot drive through it.

So if Connecticut Avenue will be effectively narrowed, and Beach Drive will be closed. what is DC's plan to move traffic to and from downtown? Reno Road?

DC's plans should be about moving people, not about moving traffic (cars).

The vast majority of people in DC travel by car.

The vast majority in the region, sure. In DC Proper? No not really. I mean, 30% of households don't even own a car.

Well, there's 400,000 cars in the District so if your 30 percent statistic was accurate (it's not), that would mean basically everyone else, on average, would own two cars. Also, don't forget that half people commuting in DC are from VA and MD (who are more likely to drive) so if you look at DC-only statistics, you're only looking at half the picture.

You're totally right! The 30 percent statistic is not accurate. It's actually closer to 35 percent: https://data.census.gov/cedsci/table?q=ACSDT1Y2019.B08201&g=0400000US11&tid=ACSDT1Y2019.B08201&hidePreview=true

The DC DMV shows about 350,000 active registrations, but you're ignoring the fact that there are thousands of taxis, rental cars, Zipcars, delivery vehicles, etc, that are counted in active registrations but are not personal vehicles for obvious reasons.

Ah, yes, but they're out there on DC roads for even more hours per day than personal vehicles. So please answer the question, when the carrying capacity is constrained so substantially, as is proposed for
Connecticut Avenue, where exactly will traffic be diverted?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I love the people who think the NPS will simply just keep Beach Drive closed so people can enjoy a road without cars. If you are familiar with the Park Service at all the first thing they will do after permanently closing it is to rip it up and return the park to being a park. The bikers will then have to go back to using bike paths and fighting about it.

No they won't. Why should they? They understand there are scores of people who are pushing strollers, wheelchairs and yes, biking, scootering etc in the park.

National parks limit the roads through the park. Not only is this to keep the site natural but maintaining roads is not what the Park Service does. They are more than happy to close it, not police it and definitely not maintain it. You can't have it both ways.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Ah, yes, but they're out there on DC roads for even more hours per day than personal vehicles. So please answer the question, when the carrying capacity is constrained so substantially, as is proposed for
Connecticut Avenue, where exactly will traffic be diverted?

You're assuming that the number of cars on the road at any given time is a constant that can't be changed. Stop assuming that. It's not true.