Upper Beach Drive to Remain Closed to Cars Year Round

[Anonymous]

I used to live up there in Colonial Village. I feel sorry for those folks. What a nightmare. 16th street is going to be brutal.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Doesn’t DDOT need to re-do their traffic impact study of Connecticut Avenue Option C with the now-planned closure of Beach Drive? The Post article show Beach Drive as the closest N-S alternative to Connecticut Ave. But that won’t be an option going forward.

No, because Beach has been closed for over two years. We can see how it is going to be, which is not different than it is today.

Really a nothingburger.

But DDOT assumed that Beach Drivr would be an alternative to a Connecticut. What will be the substitute with Beach closed and Connecticut only with two rush hour lanes (to accommodate buses, trucks, commuters, etc)? DDOT’s prior “study” is useless now.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What a horrible decision. Just makes the upcoming Connecticut Ave induced traffic apocalypse worse by taking away one of the alternate routes.

*1000

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I used to live up there in Colonial Village. I feel sorry for those folks. What a nightmare. 16th street is going to be brutal.

Where is George? This decision really hurts Ward 4 on both sides of the park.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Doesn’t DDOT need to re-do their traffic impact study of Connecticut Avenue Option C with the now-planned closure of Beach Drive? The Post article show Beach Drive as the closest N-S alternative to Connecticut Ave. But that won’t be an option going forward.

No, because Beach has been closed for over two years. We can see how it is going to be, which is not different than it is today.

Really a nothingburger.

But DDOT assumed that Beach Drivr would be an alternative to a Connecticut. What will be the substitute with Beach closed and Connecticut only with two rush hour lanes (to accommodate buses, trucks, commuters, etc)? DDOT’s prior “study” is useless now.

We know what the subtitute will be. It will be Barnaby Woods, Hawthorne, Colonial Village and North Portal Estates. But they're all in Ward 4 so they don't count. The big irony is that this increases WOTP/EOTP segregation while claiming the opposite.

The DDOT study doesn't even include the big development happening at Chevy Chase Lake, the changes to 16th Street or the upcoming changes to Georgia Ave and focuses almost solely on the impact to Ward 3.

[Anonymous]

It's amazing to me that so much of the debate on this one centers around treating RCP as a commuter route. That may have been how many used it pre-pandemic, but that's not what the park is designed for nor it's intended use. There is nothing in the NPS mission that suggests that providing an alternative commuter route should at all be a factor in managing NPS assets. And for those suggesting that this is somehow disenfranchising disabled or mobility challenged park users, nothing could be further from the truth. Like any other citizen, they do not spend their entire lives in cars and now have better-protected pedestrian/wheelchair/walker/other accessibility measure-friendly routes to enjoy the beauty of the park. Bravo, NPS!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Lovely. So the rich people that paid to live in the parkway have lobbied hard enough to get it to stay shut.

Nobody lives on the Parkway.

That poster clearly has no idea what this thread is about since there is no parkway involved.

We’re talking about the road that runs through rock creek park right? If so, my comment stands - lots of rich people houses somehow managed to shut down a major commute artery.

We are talking about Beach Drive north of Broad Branch Road, not Rock Creek Parkway. I live in one of the neighborhoods closest to the road and the most vocal voices have opposed closing the road. Can you identify the "rich people houses" that supported closing the road, keeping in mind that houses are not normally known for their political lobbying?

ah - yup. You're right. I was wrong.

Actually, I think you are right. I live in Forest Hills - plenty of rich people around me actively campaigned to keep the road closed. Lots of celebrating on neighborhood list serves and Mary Cheh sent out a pat on the back email. I dislike it - definitely increased traffic through our neighborhoods. Instead of going down Beach - folks cross at Military, go down Grant to Broad Branch and up Davenport or Brandywine.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This sucks. When I bought my home, I looked at road options for commuting, and that was a major draw
Now, if there's a blockage of Military Rd after 14th st to StJohns, what do emergency vehicles do? Where's the workaround?
Very shortsighted decision

Well, hopefully cars get out of the way of the ambulance. Not entirely sure ambulances would have used Beach drive anyway

That's the issue, there's NO PLACE for cars to go. It's 2 lanes each way with walls on either side. Take a look at a map of the area

and turn lanes at many intersections, so, plenty of places for cars to get out of the way.

Wrong. Clearly you haven't actually driven that stretch. Some of the rods are underpasses to military, NOT intersections

I was referring to Connectucut Avenue, not Beach Drive.

Emergency vehices will always be able to access Beach Drive. This has never been controversial or a question.

Emergency vehicles will need to unlock the gates which block traffic Will all emergency vehicles have keys?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This sucks. When I bought my home, I looked at road options for commuting, and that was a major draw
Now, if there's a blockage of Military Rd after 14th st to StJohns, what do emergency vehicles do? Where's the workaround?
Very shortsighted decision

Well, hopefully cars get out of the way of the ambulance. Not entirely sure ambulances would have used Beach drive anyway

That's the issue, there's NO PLACE for cars to go. It's 2 lanes each way with walls on either side. Take a look at a map of the area

and turn lanes at many intersections, so, plenty of places for cars to get out of the way.

Wrong. Clearly you haven't actually driven that stretch. Some of the rods are underpasses to military, NOT intersections

I was referring to Connectucut Avenue, not Beach Drive.

Emergency vehices will always be able to access Beach Drive. This has never been controversial or a question.

Emergency vehicles will need to unlock the gates which block traffic Will all emergency vehicles have keys?

They'll be able to drive around the gates just as the Park Police do currently

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I used to live up there in Colonial Village. I feel sorry for those folks. What a nightmare. 16th street is going to be brutal.

It already is brutal. This doesn't change anything.

You can't keep building more roads to accommodate more cars. At some point, there have to be reasonable alternatives like mass transit and bikes. It is simple physics.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Doesn’t DDOT need to re-do their traffic impact study of Connecticut Avenue Option C with the now-planned closure of Beach Drive? The Post article show Beach Drive as the closest N-S alternative to Connecticut Ave. But that won’t be an option going forward.

No, because Beach has been closed for over two years. We can see how it is going to be, which is not different than it is today.

Really a nothingburger.

But DDOT assumed that Beach Drivr would be an alternative to a Connecticut. What will be the substitute with Beach closed and Connecticut only with two rush hour lanes (to accommodate buses, trucks, commuters, etc)? DDOT’s prior “study” is useless now.

It won't be any different than it is today. Creating hysteria and anger where none is warranted is unproductive.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Doesn’t DDOT need to re-do their traffic impact study of Connecticut Avenue Option C with the now-planned closure of Beach Drive? The Post article show Beach Drive as the closest N-S alternative to Connecticut Ave. But that won’t be an option going forward.

No, because Beach has been closed for over two years. We can see how it is going to be, which is not different than it is today.

Really a nothingburger.

But DDOT assumed that Beach Drivr would be an alternative to a Connecticut. What will be the substitute with Beach closed and Connecticut only with two rush hour lanes (to accommodate buses, trucks, commuters, etc)? DDOT’s prior “study” is useless now.

We know what the subtitute will be. It will be Barnaby Woods, Hawthorne, Colonial Village and North Portal Estates. But they're all in Ward 4 so they don't count. The big irony is that this increases WOTP/EOTP segregation while claiming the opposite.

The DDOT study doesn't even include the big development happening at Chevy Chase Lake, the changes to 16th Street or the upcoming changes to Georgia Ave and focuses almost solely on the impact to Ward 3.

Should the DDOT study also include all of the new development in Frederick, Germantown, Ijamsville, etc?

At what point should DDOT stop considering what is happening across the region? West Virginia? Hagerstown?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It's amazing to me that so much of the debate on this one centers around treating RCP as a commuter route. That may have been how many used it pre-pandemic, but that's not what the park is designed for nor it's intended use. There is nothing in the NPS mission that suggests that providing an alternative commuter route should at all be a factor in managing NPS assets. And for those suggesting that this is somehow disenfranchising disabled or mobility challenged park users, nothing could be further from the truth. Like any other citizen, they do not spend their entire lives in cars and now have better-protected pedestrian/wheelchair/walker/other accessibility measure-friendly routes to enjoy the beauty of the park. Bravo, NPS!

+1000

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This sucks. When I bought my home, I looked at road options for commuting, and that was a major draw
Now, if there's a blockage of Military Rd after 14th st to StJohns, what do emergency vehicles do? Where's the workaround?
Very shortsighted decision

Well, hopefully cars get out of the way of the ambulance. Not entirely sure ambulances would have used Beach drive anyway

That's the issue, there's NO PLACE for cars to go. It's 2 lanes each way with walls on either side. Take a look at a map of the area

and turn lanes at many intersections, so, plenty of places for cars to get out of the way.

Wrong. Clearly you haven't actually driven that stretch. Some of the rods are underpasses to military, NOT intersections

I was referring to Connectucut Avenue, not Beach Drive.

Emergency vehices will always be able to access Beach Drive. This has never been controversial or a question.

Emergency vehicles will need to unlock the gates which block traffic Will all emergency vehicles have keys?

they aren't lock. Anyone can move them at any time, but most people understand that and leave them be

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Doesn’t DDOT need to re-do their traffic impact study of Connecticut Avenue Option C with the now-planned closure of Beach Drive? The Post article show Beach Drive as the closest N-S alternative to Connecticut Ave. But that won’t be an option going forward.

No, because Beach has been closed for over two years. We can see how it is going to be, which is not different than it is today.

Really a nothingburger.

But DDOT assumed that Beach Drivr would be an alternative to a Connecticut. What will be the substitute with Beach closed and Connecticut only with two rush hour lanes (to accommodate buses, trucks, commuters, etc)? DDOT’s prior “study” is useless now.

We know what the subtitute will be. It will be Barnaby Woods, Hawthorne, Colonial Village and North Portal Estates. But they're all in Ward 4 so they don't count. The big irony is that this increases WOTP/EOTP segregation while claiming the opposite.

The DDOT study doesn't even include the big development happening at Chevy Chase Lake, the changes to 16th Street or the upcoming changes to Georgia Ave and focuses almost solely on the impact to Ward 3.

Should the DDOT study also include all of the new development in Frederick, Germantown, Ijamsville, etc?

At what point should DDOT stop considering what is happening across the region? West Virginia? Hagerstown?

There's a huge difference between those examples/situations and you know that. A 1,000 unit development directly on Connecticut Avenue inside the beltway and only 3 miles from the proposed changes seems pretty darn relevant.