Connecticut Ave bike lanes are back!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:At the same time they are pushing to get rid of a significant amount of the bus service in the same area - re: the 96 and the L2. Buses are much more accessible to many people than the metro and bike lanes and should not be cut back

There is so much overlap with metrorail on this corridor that cutting the bus service actually makes sense.

Way to demonstrate your keen knowledge of the area. You must be local.

Van Ness -> Farragut/Dupont is all along CT ave. Not sure what that poster got incorrect.

The other half of the road.

Van Ness -> Chevy Chase Circle

Its less than a third of the distance and stops if we're being generous and assume no one can walk. A quarter if we assume people can walk a few blocks.

It's exactly half. It's 4 miles from Chevy Chase Circle to the Taft Bridge and Van Ness is the middle point.

The L2 doesn't stop at the Taft Bridge. The L2 is a route to downtown, just like the red line which it parallels for 2/3 to 3/4 of its route.

The L2 is the only mass transit from Chevy Chase Circle to Van Ness. A portion of Connecticut that is exactly half of the proposed bike lane route.

These are things you would know if you actually lived in the area and weren't so comfortable lying.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's time to make Connecticut avenue a grand boulevard that works for people living, working and being around it. Not the cars that drive through.

Right. More drive-through traffic can go on Porter Street or Reno Road.

DDOT proposed 24/7 parking on CT Ave. That would push more "cut through" traffic than Concept C.

Frumin is trying to avoid that.

Yeah, if your main objection to the bike lanes was that they would slow traffic on CT or force more cars off it to neighboring streets, you should not want parking, either. Bike lanes are a better choice from a driver's perspective than parking, because at least they also keep bikes out of the traffic lanes.

There are only 2 dozen bikes a day on Connecticut.

Not sure how you could possibly know that, but either way, you're better off with a bike lane that only 24 people use than you are with 24-hour-a-day parking on both sides of the street, which takes up more space than the bike lane would.

And eliminating parking on Connecticut will hurt the businesses there, from dry cleaners to restaurants.

With much greater density on the corridor, more patrons will live within walking distance which will reduce the need for customer parking. To be sure, some parking will need to be provided for UberEats and DoorDash vehicles and ride share drop-offs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's time to make Connecticut avenue a grand boulevard that works for people living, working and being around it. Not the cars that drive through.

Right. More drive-through traffic can go on Porter Street or Reno Road.

DDOT proposed 24/7 parking on CT Ave. That would push more "cut through" traffic than Concept C.

Frumin is trying to avoid that.

Yeah, if your main objection to the bike lanes was that they would slow traffic on CT or force more cars off it to neighboring streets, you should not want parking, either. Bike lanes are a better choice from a driver's perspective than parking, because at least they also keep bikes out of the traffic lanes.

There are only 2 dozen bikes a day on Connecticut.

Not sure how you could possibly know that, but either way, you're better off with a bike lane that only 24 people use than you are with 24-hour-a-day parking on both sides of the street, which takes up more space than the bike lane would.

And eliminating parking on Connecticut will hurt the businesses there, from dry cleaners to restaurants.

Do you people really drive and park in front of the business you are going to on CT ave?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's time to make Connecticut avenue a grand boulevard that works for people living, working and being around it. Not the cars that drive through.

Right. More drive-through traffic can go on Porter Street or Reno Road.

DDOT proposed 24/7 parking on CT Ave. That would push more "cut through" traffic than Concept C.

Frumin is trying to avoid that.

Yeah, if your main objection to the bike lanes was that they would slow traffic on CT or force more cars off it to neighboring streets, you should not want parking, either. Bike lanes are a better choice from a driver's perspective than parking, because at least they also keep bikes out of the traffic lanes.

There are only 2 dozen bikes a day on Connecticut.

Not sure how you could possibly know that, but either way, you're better off with a bike lane that only 24 people use than you are with 24-hour-a-day parking on both sides of the street, which takes up more space than the bike lane would.

And eliminating parking on Connecticut will hurt the businesses there, from dry cleaners to restaurants.

Even the bike lane plan didn't call for eliminating parking. It called for keeping it on one side of the street. The status quo doesn't allow 24-hour parking on both sides of the street — if it did, traffic would move even more slowly than it does now.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's time to make Connecticut avenue a grand boulevard that works for people living, working and being around it. Not the cars that drive through.

Right. More drive-through traffic can go on Porter Street or Reno Road.

DDOT proposed 24/7 parking on CT Ave. That would push more "cut through" traffic than Concept C.

Frumin is trying to avoid that.

Yeah, if your main objection to the bike lanes was that they would slow traffic on CT or force more cars off it to neighboring streets, you should not want parking, either. Bike lanes are a better choice from a driver's perspective than parking, because at least they also keep bikes out of the traffic lanes.

There are only 2 dozen bikes a day on Connecticut.

Not sure how you could possibly know that, but either way, you're better off with a bike lane that only 24 people use than you are with 24-hour-a-day parking on both sides of the street, which takes up more space than the bike lane would.

And eliminating parking on Connecticut will hurt the businesses there, from dry cleaners to restaurants.

I'll just leave it to the Council to respond to this inaccurate claim:

"The other major concern voiced by those in opposition to adding bicycle lanes on Connecticut Avenue NW is the impact on local businesses, with the logic being reduced vehicular flow and access results in fewer customers. But a literature review
on this suspected phenomenon suggests otherwise. Studies have found this not to be the case. On the contrary, “perhaps the best-known paper on the economic impacts of bicycle infrastructure, an intercept survey-based examination of various travel mode users in Portland, OR, showed that, on average, cyclists spent more at certain business types and patronized them more often.”48 In sum, the evidence actually suggest that bike lanes may actually decrease traffic congestion while also boosting local businesses."

[Anonymous]

What about the pickle ball courts?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's time to make Connecticut avenue a grand boulevard that works for people living, working and being around it. Not the cars that drive through.

Right. More drive-through traffic can go on Porter Street or Reno Road.

DDOT proposed 24/7 parking on CT Ave. That would push more "cut through" traffic than Concept C.

Frumin is trying to avoid that.

Yeah, if your main objection to the bike lanes was that they would slow traffic on CT or force more cars off it to neighboring streets, you should not want parking, either. Bike lanes are a better choice from a driver's perspective than parking, because at least they also keep bikes out of the traffic lanes.

There are only 2 dozen bikes a day on Connecticut.

Not sure how you could possibly know that, but either way, you're better off with a bike lane that only 24 people use than you are with 24-hour-a-day parking on both sides of the street, which takes up more space than the bike lane would.

And eliminating parking on Connecticut will hurt the businesses there, from dry cleaners to restaurants.

I'll just leave it to the Council to respond to this inaccurate claim:

"The other major concern voiced by those in opposition to adding bicycle lanes on Connecticut Avenue NW is the impact on local businesses, with the logic being reduced vehicular flow and access results in fewer customers. But a literature review
on this suspected phenomenon suggests otherwise. Studies have found this not to be the case. On the contrary, “perhaps the best-known paper on the economic impacts of bicycle infrastructure, an intercept survey-based examination of various travel mode users in Portland, OR, showed that, on average, cyclists spent more at certain business types and patronized them more often.”48 In sum, the evidence actually suggest that bike lanes may actually decrease traffic congestion while also boosting local businesses."

No one would cite Portland, Oregon anymore as a good example of urban planning, urban policing or urban policy.

[Anonymous]

Without bike lanes, what will happen to the Loggia Townes at Uptowne Plaza?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's time to make Connecticut avenue a grand boulevard that works for people living, working and being around it. Not the cars that drive through.

Right. More drive-through traffic can go on Porter Street or Reno Road.

DDOT proposed 24/7 parking on CT Ave. That would push more "cut through" traffic than Concept C.

Frumin is trying to avoid that.

Yeah, if your main objection to the bike lanes was that they would slow traffic on CT or force more cars off it to neighboring streets, you should not want parking, either. Bike lanes are a better choice from a driver's perspective than parking, because at least they also keep bikes out of the traffic lanes.

There are only 2 dozen bikes a day on Connecticut.

Not sure how you could possibly know that, but either way, you're better off with a bike lane that only 24 people use than you are with 24-hour-a-day parking on both sides of the street, which takes up more space than the bike lane would.

And eliminating parking on Connecticut will hurt the businesses there, from dry cleaners to restaurants.

Do you people really drive and park in front of the business you are going to on CT ave?

Seems like that would seriously limit the number of customers who can patronize the business, especially if the business owner also wants to park there.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Without bike lanes, what will happen to the Loggia Townes at Uptowne Plaza?

The Uptown Theater owners oppose bike lanes on Connecticut because it will take away customer parking.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's time to make Connecticut avenue a grand boulevard that works for people living, working and being around it. Not the cars that drive through.

Right. More drive-through traffic can go on Porter Street or Reno Road.

DDOT proposed 24/7 parking on CT Ave. That would push more "cut through" traffic than Concept C.

Frumin is trying to avoid that.

Yeah, if your main objection to the bike lanes was that they would slow traffic on CT or force more cars off it to neighboring streets, you should not want parking, either. Bike lanes are a better choice from a driver's perspective than parking, because at least they also keep bikes out of the traffic lanes.

There are only 2 dozen bikes a day on Connecticut.

Not sure how you could possibly know that, but either way, you're better off with a bike lane that only 24 people use than you are with 24-hour-a-day parking on both sides of the street, which takes up more space than the bike lane would.

And eliminating parking on Connecticut will hurt the businesses there, from dry cleaners to restaurants.

I'll just leave it to the Council to respond to this inaccurate claim:

"The other major concern voiced by those in opposition to adding bicycle lanes on Connecticut Avenue NW is the impact on local businesses, with the logic being reduced vehicular flow and access results in fewer customers. But a literature review
on this suspected phenomenon suggests otherwise. Studies have found this not to be the case. On the contrary, “perhaps the best-known paper on the economic impacts of bicycle infrastructure, an intercept survey-based examination of various travel mode users in Portland, OR, showed that, on average, cyclists spent more at certain business types and patronized them more often.”48 In sum, the evidence actually suggest that bike lanes may actually decrease traffic congestion while also boosting local businesses."

No one would cite Portland, Oregon anymore as a good example of urban planning, urban policing or urban policy.

It's also not weighted for volume. I don't care how long bicyclists linger at a coffee shop, 24 of them cannot outspend 30,000.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

The Uptown Theater owners oppose bike lanes on Connecticut because it will take away customer parking.

Are we really supposed to give a shlt about the feelings of the owner of a drastically underused theater regarding city transportation policy? Why doesn't anyone ask owner of the Takoma Theater about transportation policy in Ward 4?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

The Uptown Theater owners oppose bike lanes on Connecticut because it will take away customer parking.

Are we really supposed to give a shlt about the feelings of the owner of a drastically underused theater regarding city transportation policy? Why doesn't anyone ask owner of the Takoma Theater about transportation policy in Ward 4?

The Uptown is one of the most important buildings in Cleveland Park, which locals fervently hope will be reopened as a theater or arts venue. The owner has been vocal that parking is important. Who would want to see the Uptown be lost to just more mixed-use generica?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

The Uptown Theater owners oppose bike lanes on Connecticut because it will take away customer parking.

Are we really supposed to give a shlt about the feelings of the owner of a drastically underused theater regarding city transportation policy? Why doesn't anyone ask owner of the Takoma Theater about transportation policy in Ward 4?

Did the ANC gang raise their middle fingers in front of the Uptown, too?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

The Uptown Theater owners oppose bike lanes on Connecticut because it will take away customer parking.

Are we really supposed to give a shlt about the feelings of the owner of a drastically underused theater regarding city transportation policy? Why doesn't anyone ask owner of the Takoma Theater about transportation policy in Ward 4?

The Uptown is one of the most important buildings in Cleveland Park, which locals fervently hope will be reopened as a theater or arts venue. The owner has been vocal that parking is important. Who would want to see the Uptown be lost to just more mixed-use generica?

The bike bros of Navy Yard