Upper Beach Drive to Remain Closed to Cars Year Round

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

No, there really isn't. How much suburban auto-dependent development should DC try to accommodate?

[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!

Right, so NPS built a ROADWAY that wasn't meant for vehicle traffic. Uh huh, sure. And whose dollars did NPS spend doing that?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

No, there really isn't. How much suburban auto-dependent development should DC try to accommodate?

There is if you care about traffic, congestion, and safety in the neighborhoods. This isn't about accomodating anything. It's about having good data on what the impact of a decision to reduce capacity will be. Bad data leads to bad decisions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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!

Right, so NPS built a ROADWAY that wasn't meant for vehicle traffic. Uh huh, sure. And whose dollars did NPS spend doing that?

Of course it was meant for motor vehicle traffic when it was built, but that's very different than suggesting it was designed for commuter traffic. In fact, the majority of the roads in the park are and will be open and accessible to motor vehicles. The closures just mean you can't drive the length of the park on Beach Drive as you once could, hence no thru traffic/commuters.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:No need to keep the road open 24/7, but I think it would been more reasonable, as well as more fair to the some of the surrounding neighborhoods now dealing with spillover traffic, to keep it open during rush hour times on weekdays.

6:30 to 9:30 in the mornings
3:30 to 6:30 in the evenings

+1

This.

[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.

You incorrectly assume traffic volumes aren’t going to increase as more people return to an office, even if only part-time.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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!

Right, so NPS built a ROADWAY that wasn't meant for vehicle traffic. Uh huh, sure. And whose dollars did NPS spend doing that?

Beach drive was completed in 1900 when 0.011% of people in the US owned cars.

[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.

You incorrectly assume traffic volumes aren’t going to increase as more people return to an office, even if only part-time.

They can take public transit or bike if the new traffic patterns are that big of a problem for them.

This thread is filling me full of schadenfreude knowing that all the car addicts are seething with impotent rage, grasping at "but what if!" straws when in reality that road is closed for good and it's never coming back.

Cope.

[Anonymous]

16th St is a sh*tshow with all the commuter traffic. I worry about the Deal and JR kids who wait for buses. There have been reports of cars jumping the sidewalks near the synagogues on 16th.

[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.

You incorrectly assume traffic volumes aren’t going to increase as more people return to an office, even if only part-time.

They can take public transit or bike if the new traffic patterns are that big of a problem for them.

This thread is filling me full of schadenfreude knowing that all the car addicts are seething with impotent rage, grasping at "but what if!" straws when in reality that road is closed for good and it's never coming back.

Cope.

Says the person who doesn’t live near the park.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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!

Right, so NPS built a ROADWAY that wasn't meant for vehicle traffic. Uh huh, sure. And whose dollars did NPS spend doing that?

Beach drive was completed in 1900 when 0.011% of people in the US owned cars.

So you're either proving that NPS had foresight or you're proving that you're completely ignorant of how goods were transported in DC in the 1900s.

Which is it?

[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.

You incorrectly assume traffic volumes aren’t going to increase as more people return to an office, even if only part-time.

They can take public transit or bike if the new traffic patterns are that big of a problem for them.

This thread is filling me full of schadenfreude knowing that all the car addicts are seething with impotent rage, grasping at "but what if!" straws when in reality that road is closed for good and it's never coming back.

Cope.

If Trump gets elected again (highly probable), reopening Beach Drive is totally something he'd do just to piss of Ds.

You be sure to cope then.

[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.

I believe both Mayor Bowser and Robert White live in Colonial Village. I am interested to hear their views.

[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.

You incorrectly assume traffic volumes aren’t going to increase as more people return to an office, even if only part-time.

They can take public transit or bike if the new traffic patterns are that big of a problem for them.

This thread is filling me full of schadenfreude knowing that all the car addicts are seething with impotent rage, grasping at "but what if!" straws when in reality that road is closed for good and it's never coming back.

Cope.

If Trump gets elected again (highly probable), reopening Beach Drive is totally something he'd do just to piss of Ds.

You be sure to cope then.

What are you talking about?! I’m a D and want it open. I think the breakdown of supporting reopening is if you live near RCP with kids. Not a single neighbor with kids supports this because of the increase car traffic in the neighborhoods.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I believe both Mayor Bowser and Robert White live in Colonial Village. I am interested to hear their views.

It is brutal now!! I hate the traffic.