Rosemary's Bistro Blocking Connecticut Avenue

[Anonymous]

By what mechanism can we get this blockage removed?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In any case, the backups during a.m. rush hour created by the streatery are getting bad as more people head back into the office, and they're only going to get worse. Terrible Traffic Tuesday in a couple days could be a horror show.

DC wants 2 contradictory things. It wants people to return to the office, and it wants to reduce the use of cars. Both are not really possible.

Sure they are. People can walk, bike, bus and metro to work. No need for a car.

Only works realistically for a small percentage of people. Stop acting dumb.

It works realistically for anyone who wants to make it work.

Sure, it doesn't work for people who choose to live in the far suburbs away from public transit, but that's their choice and we don't need to accommodate their bad decisions. That's the best part about making commutes car-unfriendly, instead of having to spend huge money extending metro lines and expanding bus service, if you make it inconvenient enough to drive to work, people will move themselves to places where transit makes sense and developers will create more housing around transit hubs to accommodate the increased demand. Then you can simply improve frequency and capacity on exiting lines instead of creating entirely new ones.

What DC should do is extend the sidewalks and streeteries on every major corridor into downtown, convert existing car lanes into physically separated BRT and bike lanes, and leave only a single lane in either direction for cars. Don't want to take the Metro or bus to work? Cool, you don't have to, but you'll be sitting in traffic for hours while the buses and bikes fly by you!

You’re an f’ing idiot.

I would live to live in one to two million dollar house in Chevy chase dc or Cleveland park. We can’t afford it so yeah we live in the suburbs.

Plus my husband works in an industry where most of the jobs are in Rockville so it’s better for the environment for us to live near there.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In any case, the backups during a.m. rush hour created by the streatery are getting bad as more people head back into the office, and they're only going to get worse. Terrible Traffic Tuesday in a couple days could be a horror show.

DC wants 2 contradictory things. It wants people to return to the office, and it wants to reduce the use of cars. Both are not really possible.

Sure they are. People can walk, bike, bus and metro to work. No need for a car.

Only works realistically for a small percentage of people. Stop acting dumb.

It works realistically for anyone who wants to make it work.

Sure, it doesn't work for people who choose to live in the far suburbs away from public transit, but that's their choice and we don't need to accommodate their bad decisions. That's the best part about making commutes car-unfriendly, instead of having to spend huge money extending metro lines and expanding bus service, if you make it inconvenient enough to drive to work, people will move themselves to places where transit makes sense and developers will create more housing around transit hubs to accommodate the increased demand. Then you can simply improve frequency and capacity on exiting lines instead of creating entirely new ones.

What DC should do is extend the sidewalks and streeteries on every major corridor into downtown, convert existing car lanes into physically separated BRT and bike lanes, and leave only a single lane in either direction for cars. Don't want to take the Metro or bus to work? Cool, you don't have to, but you'll be sitting in traffic for hours while the buses and bikes fly by you!

You’re an f’ing idiot.

I would live to live in one to two million dollar house in Chevy chase dc or Cleveland park. We can’t afford it so yeah we live in the suburbs.

Plus my husband works in an industry where most of the jobs are in Rockville so it’s better for the environment for us to live near there.

So you live near Rockville which is close to where your spouse works and you want a say in how DC controls its streets?

Ok, should I get a say in how your Maryland community operates?

[Anonymous]

Personally I think we need our ANCs and planning officials to better consider how we handle streetscapes to include enough space for outdoor dining so that it doesn't have to intrude into the street.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:By what mechanism can we get this blockage removed?

Well, in about a year or so it'll be removed for the bike lanes, so then I guess its gone from your sight.

[Anonymous]

In addition to blocking traffic, Rosemary’s Bistro is an eyesore and dangerous to bikers and buses. It’s also dangerous to diners who could be hit by cars and pedestrians trying to navigate the sidewalk. DC government says they have a permit but even so we agree with the person saying we should not allow businesses to be able to privatize public spaces without people weighing in on it. We wonder how long the permit is for and what do the traffic people have to say about this. Rosemary’s Bistro seems to be the only business on Connecticut Avenue taking up a lane like this. In summary, what is the justification for allowing this one business to block a lane on a major street like Connecticut Avenue.
Cynthia and Andy

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:In addition to blocking traffic, Rosemary’s Bistro is an eyesore and dangerous to bikers and buses. It’s also dangerous to diners who could be hit by cars and pedestrians trying to navigate the sidewalk. DC government says they have a permit but even so we agree with the person saying we should not allow businesses to be able to privatize public spaces without people weighing in on it. We wonder how long the permit is for and what do the traffic people have to say about this. Rosemary’s Bistro seems to be the only business on Connecticut Avenue taking up a lane like this. In summary, what is the justification for allowing this one business to block a lane on a major street like Connecticut Avenue.
Cynthia and Andy

The bistro's streetery isn't dangerous to cyclists or pedestrians. That intersection at nebraska and conn is a major merge intersection where the outside lane is *almost always* (partially because of the very visible streetery less than a block away) turning right onto Nebraska, so as a cyclist I just zip merge in between the middle lane cars. Easy peasy. As a pedestrian, the sidewalk space is nearly fully unimpeded - the streetery, after all, is in the street.

It is a pain in the ass for the L2 though. You are right on there. Bus has a lot harder time zip merging than a nimble cyclist does.

[Anonymous]

If DC puts Connecticut Ave on a road diet, we can have both bike lanes and streeteries. Eat your cake and work it off, too.

[Anonymous]

ANC 3F voted on this a year ago..its been a year and they meet again in a few weeks. There are clear rules for obtaining a permit and compliance. Not clear at all if they were met.

There are clear rules/conditions most likely for revocation of a permit.

These can be found online and someone with time on their hands should check to see what that entails and put a petition together to revoke.

This restaurant has not been a friendly addition to an area that has been marked by a unique sense of caring for others and community.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Personally I think we need our ANCs and planning officials to better consider how we handle streetscapes to include enough space for outdoor dining so that it doesn't have to intrude into the street.

Just make the street smaller, problem solved.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:ANC 3F voted on this a year ago..its been a year and they meet again in a few weeks. There are clear rules for obtaining a permit and compliance. Not clear at all if they were met.

There are clear rules/conditions most likely for revocation of a permit.

These can be found online and someone with time on their hands should check to see what that entails and put a petition together to revoke.

This restaurant has not been a friendly addition to an area that has been marked by a unique sense of caring for others and community.

I actually think the restaurant has been a great addition to the neighborhood. The proprietor is very friendly and the food and service are just fine. It is well supported.

[Anonymous]

I don't understand how restaurants are allowed to commandeer public property. This is nothing more than squatting. At the very least, the city should be charging them rent.

[Anonymous]

I think if restaurants are taking up table space in the road - they should USE those tables. Or at least allow customers to sit outside if they want to sit outside.

If they aren't using the tables or letting customers to use the tables and instead only using them if all inside tables are full, they should lose the permit.

I am immunocompromised and wanted to eat outdoors at a restaurant with tons of outdoor tables, including in the street. They said no because there were tables indoors. The point of allowing outdoor tables was to make it safer health wise for people to eat inside. If they aren't allowing immunocompromised people to eat outside, or anyone else for that matter, and are instead stuffing everyone indoors first instead - then they are losing their big argument for the extra tables, which is to make it safer health wise for people to eat out by allowing them to eat outdoors.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Curious if anyone knows why Rosemary's Bistro has been allowed to keep up its tent that blocks a lane of Connecticut Avenue? No other restaurants or stores have a tent up in a lane on Connecticut. Is it just that no one else wants one or does Rosemary's Bistro have special dispensation? It creates a traffic backup every morning at the light at Nebraska and is something of an eyesore. It also doesn't seem very safe because cars come through the intersection in that lane and then have to quickly move over mid-block. Maybe the concrete barriers give a sense of protection, but why not just move the tent to the sidewalk so people aren't dining in the middle of traffic?

I have no idea how this bistro gets away here. It really is outrageous. The owner no doubt feels entitled or something. Frankly, the bistro can't be any good given the look of its tents.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don't understand how restaurants are allowed to commandeer public property. This is nothing more than squatting. At the very least, the city should be charging them rent.

Aside from being eyesores, outdoor seating that no one is using is really bad advertising for the restaurant. Makes it look like no one wants to go there.