Will DC resume commuter traffic patterns in the fall?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

What makes you think that?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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."

Right. But the Capital Crescent Trail, RCP bike trail and the Mt. Vernon trail are basically one car lane wide. And bikes going in two directions share that lane, along with pedestrians runners, etc. So why should two lanes that currently serve to carry traffic be devoted to bike lanes? Sacrificing one should be sufficient, based on these examples, and the 'saved' lane can be devoted to rush hour traffic, streets parking that is crucial for small local businesses, etc. It seems selfish to use two whole lanes for bikes.

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:

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.

Right. But the Capital Crescent Trail, RCP bike trail and the Mt. Vernon trail are basically one car lane wide. And bikes going in two directions share that lane, along with pedestrians runners, etc. So why should two lanes that currently serve to carry traffic be devoted to bike lanes? Sacrificing one should be sufficient, based on these examples, and the 'saved' lane can be devoted to rush hour traffic, streets parking that is crucial for small local businesses, etc. It seems selfish to use two whole lanes for bikes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I can't speak for any other routes, but for the last few years I've "commuted" crosstown during the evening rush via 295/695/Rock Creek Parkway and 295/695/66 to host trivia in various bars in NW and NOVA. During the pandemic I continued to utilize those routes for various reasons despite trivia obviously not being a thing.

I can tell you that right now we're back to at least 70% of pre-pandemic traffic on those routes. We might get some lasting relief, but it'll be a minor improvement at best.

I'm wondering if this has to do with the demographics of the companies that choose to continue telework - perhaps the ones more likely to let their employees work from home are the newer, hipper, more tech-oriented companies that already attracted the kind of young, socially active, environmentally conscious employees who already eschewed cars in favor of Metro, bikes, and walking to work while the stodgy old companies that are forcing their employees back are by and large the ones where the car-obsessed suburban dwellers worked.

This is why there is no way that they can continue to keep Beach Drive closed, keep the Jersey barriers block traffic lanes on several main arterials and not re-implement the reversible lanes.

What do you mean, there's no way? Of course there's a way. All they have to do is not change what's there right now.

Anyway, Beach Drive is open, just not for people who want to drive cars on it.

Sure. They could just keep things as is. What you do you think will happen once traffic is 100% back to pre-pandemic levels if the current measures remain in place? Are there any other interests or considerations that the city government would want to take into account?

I think that people will make different transportation choices. What do you think will happen?

I am asking you what you think direct and anticipated results of your proposal would be. You say that people would make different choices. That's good. Any other consequences?

DP. People making different choices is a consequence.

What do you think will happen? Don't just beat around the bush, say what you mean.

Not PP, but how privileged it is of you to place the burden for figuring out how to get back and forth to work without a car on employees when it is the employers who dictate whether WFH is an option. Many folks don't have the option to telecommute 2-3 days/week. Many folks cannot just "get a job closer to where they live." Many folks cannot "move closer to where they live." Many folks don't live near viable public commuting options. This may come as a surprise to you. Perhaps you are young, white and earn more than $75K/year and are in a position to make these choices. Many of the rest of us simply aren't.

Many folks cannot physically ride a bike many miles to work. Many of us have to pick up kids, groceries, and other heavy things on the way home. It is unrealistic and naive of you to think that all of this can be done on a bike -- particularly in the rain, on ice, or in the snow. That you yourself manage to do it does not mean that everyone else should be expected to do so.

So, please take your messaging and advocacy for a car-less society to the appropriate audience: employers who dictate that folks must commute in; city planners who failed to put in adequate, wide-spread, and affordable public transportation (a $12/day round-trip bus-Metro commute that eats up 2 hours/day is not going to meet this criteria, BTW, for somene who's paid $75K/year before taxes which is approx. $56K net); and employers who keep getting away with discriminatory hiring practices (e.g., ageism, racism, sexism) that prevent true job mobility (ever tried to get hired as a 55-year-old black man?).

In the meantime, please leave all of us who are struggling to make ends meet, who are digging quarters out of the dryer to add to a Metro card just to get back and forth to work, who have kids to pick up at camp, at school, from the babysitter, from a friend's house, who need to shop for more than a couple days' worth of groceries, who need to lug home several pounds of books, sports equipment, laptops, and whatnot home in backpacks and briefcases, or who need to take groceries to elderly parents after work or take them or kids to the doctor's, dentist's, or Target to get supplies for a school project, etc. on a weeknight already filled with errands -- ALONE!

I think the idea is that the people who can afford to walk or bike, or have no kids or fewer errands will be more likely to get off the roads, and people who have no choice will stay on them. This is a way of shifting culture away from car dependancy. It happens in fits and starts, some more painful than others. This is the way.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

I think the idea is that the people who can afford to walk or bike, or have no kids or fewer errands will be more likely to get off the roads, and people who have no choice will stay on them. This is a way of shifting culture away from car dependancy. It happens in fits and starts, some more painful than others. This is the way.

Back up there, please. A lot of the people who are biking, are biking because they can't afford a car.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Now it's clear that you are unfamiliar with the neighborhoods along Connecticut Avenue and don't have any idea what the impact of closing lanes on Connecticut Avenue would be. Otherwise you'd realize that the absolute last place where a rational person would want to divert traffic is 34th Street. The sidewalks along several blocks are only two to three feet wide in places, sometimes blocked by utility poles, and in some locations (including by Eaton), there is no tree box as a safety buffer between the sidewalk and the moving traffic lanes. And kids try to use these sidewalks, to get to Eaton, the Cathedral schools, etc.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Right. But the Capital Crescent Trail, RCP bike trail and the Mt. Vernon trail are basically one car lane wide. And bikes going in two directions share that lane, along with pedestrians runners, etc.So why should two lanes that currently serve to carry traffic be devoted to bike lanes? Sacrificing one should be sufficient, based on these examples, and the 'saved' lane can be devoted to rush hour traffic, streets parking that is crucial for small local businesses, etc. It seems selfish to use two whole lanes for bikes.

Actually you're making the case FOR separate northbound and southbound lanes, not against. One car lane is not wide enough for bicyclists in both directions.

Somebody else has already said it, but I'll repeat it: if you want to drive, then you should support MORE bicycling, not less. It's not people on bikes who really get in your way, it's other people in cars.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I think the idea is that the people who can afford to walk or bike, or have no kids or fewer errands will be more likely to get off the roads, and people who have no choice will stay on them. This is a way of shifting culture away from car dependancy. It happens in fits and starts, some more painful than others. This is the way.

Back up there, please. A lot of the people who are biking, are biking because they can't afford a car.

I agree! I don’t mean “afford” strictly financially. I also mean time, physical capacity and geographically. And some will move to the metro and buses, not just walking and biking.

[Anonymous]

In the name of a more vibrant Connecticut Avenue, why is it necessary to make such significant changes for bike lanes, when the effect will be to divert much commuter traffic on to local streets? This will make those streets less safe for people, especially kids, who bike on those streets.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Right. But the Capital Crescent Trail, RCP bike trail and the Mt. Vernon trail are basically one car lane wide. And bikes going in two directions share that lane, along with pedestrians runners, etc.So why should two lanes that currently serve to carry traffic be devoted to bike lanes? Sacrificing one should be sufficient, based on these examples, and the 'saved' lane can be devoted to rush hour traffic, streets parking that is crucial for small local businesses, etc. It seems selfish to use two whole lanes for bikes.

Actually you're making the case FOR separate northbound and southbound lanes, not against. One car lane is not wide enough for bicyclists in both directions.

Somebody else has already said it, but I'll repeat it: if you want to drive, then you should support MORE bicycling, not less. It's not people on bikes who really get in your way, it's other people in cars.

The RCP trail is definitely only one car lane wide.

[Anonymous]

I think the idea is that the people who can afford to walk or bike, or have no kids or fewer errands will be more likely to get off the roads, and people who have no choice will stay on them. This is a way of shifting culture away from car dependancy. It happens in fits and starts, some more painful than others. This is the way.

It's pretty clear that the view of many Smart Growthers on how to "shift the culture" in DC is to have fewer older residents in the District. They call them NIMBYs and pearl clutches, and mock them for depending on cars for nobility. Density Bros are a very ageist bunch.

[Anonymous]

Depending on cars for mobility. There is nothing noble about it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Right. But the Capital Crescent Trail, RCP bike trail and the Mt. Vernon trail are basically one car lane wide. And bikes going in two directions share that lane, along with pedestrians runners, etc. So why should two lanes that currently serve to carry traffic be devoted to bike lanes? Sacrificing one should be sufficient, based on these examples, and the 'saved' lane can be devoted to rush hour traffic, streets parking that is crucial for small local businesses, etc. It seems selfish to use two whole lanes for bikes.

Because DDOT determined that a shared lane with two-way bikes was going to be very dangerous.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Right. But the Capital Crescent Trail, RCP bike trail and the Mt. Vernon trail are basically one car lane wide. And bikes going in two directions share that lane, along with pedestrians runners, etc. So why should two lanes that currently serve to carry traffic be devoted to bike lanes? Sacrificing one should be sufficient, based on these examples, and the 'saved' lane can be devoted to rush hour traffic, streets parking that is crucial for small local businesses, etc. It seems selfish to use two whole lanes for bikes.

Because DDOT determined that a shared lane with two-way bikes was going to be very dangerous.

Only if bikers ride so fast and recklessly and act like they're in the Tour de friggin' France. The Rock Creek Park, W&OD and Mt Verson Trail are not particularly dangerous to cyclists, and they have to share the road with walkers and runners. Will runners be able to use the bike lanes on Connecticut Ave as a running trail?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

I think the idea is that the people who can afford to walk or bike, or have no kids or fewer errands will be more likely to get off the roads, and people who have no choice will stay on them. This is a way of shifting culture away from car dependancy. It happens in fits and starts, some more painful than others. This is the way.

It's pretty clear that the view of many Smart Growthers on how to "shift the culture" in DC is to have fewer older residents in the District. They call them NIMBYs and pearl clutches, and mock them for depending on cars for nobility. Density Bros are a very ageist bunch.

Wouldn't it be great if older residents had more options, so they wouldn't have to depend on cars for mobility? Especially the older residents who really shouldn't even be driving anymore.