Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What if the goal was a safe and thriving neighborhood? If you want a dedicated tunnel to downtown then take Metro.

If the goal is a safe and thriving neighborhood then the impact of any plan on accidents and traffic volume within the neighborhood is vitally important.

If your goal is to ban cars that's simply not happening.

A safe and vibrant neighborhood has bike lanes.

Pretty sure there are many, many safe and vibrant neighborhoods that don’t have bike lanes.

But how many neighborhoods have bike lanes that aren't safe and vibrant?

Lots. You especially see this in other cities that haven’t been overrun with gentrification.

If there's one thing we can take off the table absolutely when it comes to this particular bike lane debate, it's gentrification. You can't gentrify out the landed gentry.

Bike lanes are not about gentrification but they are about density, vibrancy and smart growth. Connecticut Ave has had the reputation of being rather boring and, well, old. Bike lanes add a certain hipness factor to attract younger buyers and renters. This is the group that developers who want to build dense housing need to attract.

Uh rent is expensive. Owning and storing a car is expensive. Younger people who have lower disposable income depend on biking to get around. So if the city wants to continue to attract these post-college younger residents, bike lanes is a great way to do it.

DC attracts plenty of single post-college younger residents (and in any case it’s doubtful that many want to live in Chevy Chase DC or Cleveland Park vs U St or Petworth). DC needs to do more to retain families who otherwise move to the suburbs better quality public schools and overall public services. Conn. ave. Bike lanes aren’t at the top of their priority list.

For a lot of younger families who are car free or car-light, yes they are. You clearly have no idea of the demographic shift away from the Boomer-led car era.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What if the goal was a safe and thriving neighborhood? If you want a dedicated tunnel to downtown then take Metro.

If the goal is a safe and thriving neighborhood then the impact of any plan on accidents and traffic volume within the neighborhood is vitally important.

If your goal is to ban cars that's simply not happening.

A safe and vibrant neighborhood has bike lanes.

Pretty sure there are many, many safe and vibrant neighborhoods that don’t have bike lanes.

But how many neighborhoods have bike lanes that aren't safe and vibrant?

Lots. You especially see this in other cities that haven’t been overrun with gentrification.

If there's one thing we can take off the table absolutely when it comes to this particular bike lane debate, it's gentrification. You can't gentrify out the landed gentry.

Bike lanes are not about gentrification but they are about density, vibrancy and smart growth. Connecticut Ave has had the reputation of being rather boring and, well, old. Bike lanes add a certain hipness factor to attract younger buyers and renters. This is the group that developers who want to build dense housing need to attract.

Uh rent is expensive. Owning and storing a car is expensive. Younger people who have lower disposable income depend on biking to get around. So if the city wants to continue to attract these post-college younger residents, bike lanes is a great way to do it.

DC attracts plenty of single post-college younger residents (and in any case it’s doubtful that many want to live in Chevy Chase DC or Cleveland Park vs U St or Petworth). DC needs to do more to retain families who otherwise move to the suburbs better quality public schools and overall public services. Conn. ave. Bike lanes aren’t at the top of their priority list.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What if the goal was a safe and thriving neighborhood? If you want a dedicated tunnel to downtown then take Metro.

If the goal is a safe and thriving neighborhood then the impact of any plan on accidents and traffic volume within the neighborhood is vitally important.

If your goal is to ban cars that's simply not happening.

A safe and vibrant neighborhood has bike lanes.

Pretty sure there are many, many safe and vibrant neighborhoods that don’t have bike lanes.

But how many neighborhoods have bike lanes that aren't safe and vibrant?

Lots. You especially see this in other cities that haven’t been overrun with gentrification.

If there's one thing we can take off the table absolutely when it comes to this particular bike lane debate, it's gentrification. You can't gentrify out the landed gentry.

Bike lanes are not about gentrification but they are about density, vibrancy and smart growth. Connecticut Ave has had the reputation of being rather boring and, well, old. Bike lanes add a certain hipness factor to attract younger buyers and renters. This is the group that developers who want to build dense housing need to attract.

That's pretty stupid then. The desirability, clearly measured in housing prices, is directly related to wearing mom jeans. Parents don't want hip. That's what we grew out of and why we moved there. Stop trying to be something we're not instead embrace who we are because there's a lot of good things about that, not least of which is our taste in music because modern music really sucks.

Connecticut has always had the odd juxtaposition of million dollar homes a block from struggling shops. The houses are desirable, but the business strip is not. This is largely because Connecticut is a traffic sewer and most people using it are just trying to go somewhere else as fast as physics allows. The entire design of the commercial strip reflects an old suburban form, where you let the high-volume road bisect the business district, which really disrupts business synergy and creates a place few would want to linger. Some think you can slap a bike lane on this design and "save" it.

But its doomed to a slow and steady decay, as people with choice seek out places like the Wharf and Union Market for their discretionary dollars. Places that don't have an arterial running right through the middle of it.

So the key should be to transform Connecticut Avenue from a "traffic sewer" to a boulevard that is more neighborhood serving. that is what Concept C attempted to do, but the more suburban, car-dependent DC and MD residents lobbied the Mayor to kill it for their own selfishness.

It's always amazing when people think the mayor listens to Maryland residents. Come on, you're better than this.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What if the goal was a safe and thriving neighborhood? If you want a dedicated tunnel to downtown then take Metro.

If the goal is a safe and thriving neighborhood then the impact of any plan on accidents and traffic volume within the neighborhood is vitally important.

If your goal is to ban cars that's simply not happening.

A safe and vibrant neighborhood has bike lanes.

Pretty sure there are many, many safe and vibrant neighborhoods that don’t have bike lanes.

But how many neighborhoods have bike lanes that aren't safe and vibrant?

Lots. You especially see this in other cities that haven’t been overrun with gentrification.

If there's one thing we can take off the table absolutely when it comes to this particular bike lane debate, it's gentrification. You can't gentrify out the landed gentry.

Bike lanes are not about gentrification but they are about density, vibrancy and smart growth. Connecticut Ave has had the reputation of being rather boring and, well, old. Bike lanes add a certain hipness factor to attract younger buyers and renters. This is the group that developers who want to build dense housing need to attract.

That's pretty stupid then. The desirability, clearly measured in housing prices, is directly related to wearing mom jeans. Parents don't want hip. That's what we grew out of and why we moved there. Stop trying to be something we're not instead embrace who we are because there's a lot of good things about that, not least of which is our taste in music because modern music really sucks.

Connecticut has always had the odd juxtaposition of million dollar homes a block from struggling shops. The houses are desirable, but the business strip is not. This is largely because Connecticut is a traffic sewer and most people using it are just trying to go somewhere else as fast as physics allows. The entire design of the commercial strip reflects an old suburban form, where you let the high-volume road bisect the business district, which really disrupts business synergy and creates a place few would want to linger. Some think you can slap a bike lane on this design and "save" it.

But its doomed to a slow and steady decay, as people with choice seek out places like the Wharf and Union Market for their discretionary dollars. Places that don't have an arterial running right through the middle of it.

So the key should be to transform Connecticut Avenue from a "traffic sewer" to a boulevard that is more neighborhood serving. that is what Concept C attempted to do, but the more suburban, car-dependent DC and MD residents lobbied the Mayor to kill it for their own selfishness.

By making it an even worse traffic sewer? You all make absolutely no sense. Your entire plan increases congestion.

It also reduces safety by increasing accidents and cut through traffic.

The cut through traffic you deride is the same either with the current DDOT proposal and the Concept C proposal.

That's why they are both horrible poorly thought out ideas that make things worse on almost every metric they claim to be trying to improve.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What if the goal was a safe and thriving neighborhood? If you want a dedicated tunnel to downtown then take Metro.

If the goal is a safe and thriving neighborhood then the impact of any plan on accidents and traffic volume within the neighborhood is vitally important.

If your goal is to ban cars that's simply not happening.

A safe and vibrant neighborhood has bike lanes.

Pretty sure there are many, many safe and vibrant neighborhoods that don’t have bike lanes.

But how many neighborhoods have bike lanes that aren't safe and vibrant?

Lots. You especially see this in other cities that haven’t been overrun with gentrification.

If there's one thing we can take off the table absolutely when it comes to this particular bike lane debate, it's gentrification. You can't gentrify out the landed gentry.

Bike lanes are not about gentrification but they are about density, vibrancy and smart growth. Connecticut Ave has had the reputation of being rather boring and, well, old. Bike lanes add a certain hipness factor to attract younger buyers and renters. This is the group that developers who want to build dense housing need to attract.

Uh rent is expensive. Owning and storing a car is expensive. Younger people who have lower disposable income depend on biking to get around. So if the city wants to continue to attract these post-college younger residents, bike lanes is a great way to do it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What if the goal was a safe and thriving neighborhood? If you want a dedicated tunnel to downtown then take Metro.

If the goal is a safe and thriving neighborhood then the impact of any plan on accidents and traffic volume within the neighborhood is vitally important.

If your goal is to ban cars that's simply not happening.

A safe and vibrant neighborhood has bike lanes.

Pretty sure there are many, many safe and vibrant neighborhoods that don’t have bike lanes.

But how many neighborhoods have bike lanes that aren't safe and vibrant?

Lots. You especially see this in other cities that haven’t been overrun with gentrification.

If there's one thing we can take off the table absolutely when it comes to this particular bike lane debate, it's gentrification. You can't gentrify out the landed gentry.

Bike lanes are not about gentrification but they are about density, vibrancy and smart growth. Connecticut Ave has had the reputation of being rather boring and, well, old. Bike lanes add a certain hipness factor to attract younger buyers and renters. This is the group that developers who want to build dense housing need to attract.

That's pretty stupid then. The desirability, clearly measured in housing prices, is directly related to wearing mom jeans. Parents don't want hip. That's what we grew out of and why we moved there. Stop trying to be something we're not instead embrace who we are because there's a lot of good things about that, not least of which is our taste in music because modern music really sucks.

Connecticut has always had the odd juxtaposition of million dollar homes a block from struggling shops. The houses are desirable, but the business strip is not. This is largely because Connecticut is a traffic sewer and most people using it are just trying to go somewhere else as fast as physics allows. The entire design of the commercial strip reflects an old suburban form, where you let the high-volume road bisect the business district, which really disrupts business synergy and creates a place few would want to linger. Some think you can slap a bike lane on this design and "save" it.

But its doomed to a slow and steady decay, as people with choice seek out places like the Wharf and Union Market for their discretionary dollars. Places that don't have an arterial running right through the middle of it.

So the key should be to transform Connecticut Avenue from a "traffic sewer" to a boulevard that is more neighborhood serving. that is what Concept C attempted to do, but the more suburban, car-dependent DC and MD residents lobbied the Mayor to kill it for their own selfishness.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What if the goal was a safe and thriving neighborhood? If you want a dedicated tunnel to downtown then take Metro.

If the goal is a safe and thriving neighborhood then the impact of any plan on accidents and traffic volume within the neighborhood is vitally important.

If your goal is to ban cars that's simply not happening.

A safe and vibrant neighborhood has bike lanes.

Pretty sure there are many, many safe and vibrant neighborhoods that don’t have bike lanes.

But how many neighborhoods have bike lanes that aren't safe and vibrant?

Lots. You especially see this in other cities that haven’t been overrun with gentrification.

If there's one thing we can take off the table absolutely when it comes to this particular bike lane debate, it's gentrification. You can't gentrify out the landed gentry.

Bike lanes are not about gentrification but they are about density, vibrancy and smart growth. Connecticut Ave has had the reputation of being rather boring and, well, old. Bike lanes add a certain hipness factor to attract younger buyers and renters. This is the group that developers who want to build dense housing need to attract.

That's pretty stupid then. The desirability, clearly measured in housing prices, is directly related to wearing mom jeans. Parents don't want hip. That's what we grew out of and why we moved there. Stop trying to be something we're not instead embrace who we are because there's a lot of good things about that, not least of which is our taste in music because modern music really sucks.

Connecticut has always had the odd juxtaposition of million dollar homes a block from struggling shops. The houses are desirable, but the business strip is not. This is largely because Connecticut is a traffic sewer and most people using it are just trying to go somewhere else as fast as physics allows. The entire design of the commercial strip reflects an old suburban form, where you let the high-volume road bisect the business district, which really disrupts business synergy and creates a place few would want to linger. Some think you can slap a bike lane on this design and "save" it.

But its doomed to a slow and steady decay, as people with choice seek out places like the Wharf and Union Market for their discretionary dollars. Places that don't have an arterial running right through the middle of it.

So the key should be to transform Connecticut Avenue from a "traffic sewer" to a boulevard that is more neighborhood serving. that is what Concept C attempted to do, but the more suburban, car-dependent DC and MD residents lobbied the Mayor to kill it for their own selfishness.

By making it an even worse traffic sewer? You all make absolutely no sense. Your entire plan increases congestion.

It also reduces safety by increasing accidents and cut through traffic.

The cut through traffic you deride is the same either with the current DDOT proposal and the Concept C proposal.

That's why they are both horrible poorly thought out ideas that make things worse on almost every metric they claim to be trying to improve.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What if the goal was a safe and thriving neighborhood? If you want a dedicated tunnel to downtown then take Metro.

If the goal is a safe and thriving neighborhood then the impact of any plan on accidents and traffic volume within the neighborhood is vitally important.

If your goal is to ban cars that's simply not happening.

A safe and vibrant neighborhood has bike lanes.

Pretty sure there are many, many safe and vibrant neighborhoods that don’t have bike lanes.

But how many neighborhoods have bike lanes that aren't safe and vibrant?

Lots. You especially see this in other cities that haven’t been overrun with gentrification.

If there's one thing we can take off the table absolutely when it comes to this particular bike lane debate, it's gentrification. You can't gentrify out the landed gentry.

Bike lanes are not about gentrification but they are about density, vibrancy and smart growth. Connecticut Ave has had the reputation of being rather boring and, well, old. Bike lanes add a certain hipness factor to attract younger buyers and renters. This is the group that developers who want to build dense housing need to attract.

That's pretty stupid then. The desirability, clearly measured in housing prices, is directly related to wearing mom jeans. Parents don't want hip. That's what we grew out of and why we moved there. Stop trying to be something we're not instead embrace who we are because there's a lot of good things about that, not least of which is our taste in music because modern music really sucks.

Connecticut has always had the odd juxtaposition of million dollar homes a block from struggling shops. The houses are desirable, but the business strip is not. This is largely because Connecticut is a traffic sewer and most people using it are just trying to go somewhere else as fast as physics allows. The entire design of the commercial strip reflects an old suburban form, where you let the high-volume road bisect the business district, which really disrupts business synergy and creates a place few would want to linger. Some think you can slap a bike lane on this design and "save" it.

But its doomed to a slow and steady decay, as people with choice seek out places like the Wharf and Union Market for their discretionary dollars. Places that don't have an arterial running right through the middle of it.

So the key should be to transform Connecticut Avenue from a "traffic sewer" to a boulevard that is more neighborhood serving. that is what Concept C attempted to do, but the more suburban, car-dependent DC and MD residents lobbied the Mayor to kill it for their own selfishness.

By making it an even worse traffic sewer? You all make absolutely no sense. Your entire plan increases congestion.

It also reduces safety by increasing accidents and cut through traffic.

The cut through traffic you deride is the same either with the current DDOT proposal and the Concept C proposal.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What if the goal was a safe and thriving neighborhood? If you want a dedicated tunnel to downtown then take Metro.

If the goal is a safe and thriving neighborhood then the impact of any plan on accidents and traffic volume within the neighborhood is vitally important.

If your goal is to ban cars that's simply not happening.

A safe and vibrant neighborhood has bike lanes.

Pretty sure there are many, many safe and vibrant neighborhoods that don’t have bike lanes.

But how many neighborhoods have bike lanes that aren't safe and vibrant?

Lots. You especially see this in other cities that haven’t been overrun with gentrification.

If there's one thing we can take off the table absolutely when it comes to this particular bike lane debate, it's gentrification. You can't gentrify out the landed gentry.

Bike lanes are not about gentrification but they are about density, vibrancy and smart growth. Connecticut Ave has had the reputation of being rather boring and, well, old. Bike lanes add a certain hipness factor to attract younger buyers and renters. This is the group that developers who want to build dense housing need to attract.

That's pretty stupid then. The desirability, clearly measured in housing prices, is directly related to wearing mom jeans. Parents don't want hip. That's what we grew out of and why we moved there. Stop trying to be something we're not instead embrace who we are because there's a lot of good things about that, not least of which is our taste in music because modern music really sucks.

Connecticut has always had the odd juxtaposition of million dollar homes a block from struggling shops. The houses are desirable, but the business strip is not. This is largely because Connecticut is a traffic sewer and most people using it are just trying to go somewhere else as fast as physics allows. The entire design of the commercial strip reflects an old suburban form, where you let the high-volume road bisect the business district, which really disrupts business synergy and creates a place few would want to linger. Some think you can slap a bike lane on this design and "save" it.

But its doomed to a slow and steady decay, as people with choice seek out places like the Wharf and Union Market for their discretionary dollars. Places that don't have an arterial running right through the middle of it.

So the key should be to transform Connecticut Avenue from a "traffic sewer" to a boulevard that is more neighborhood serving. that is what Concept C attempted to do, but the more suburban, car-dependent DC and MD residents lobbied the Mayor to kill it for their own selfishness.

By making it an even worse traffic sewer? You all make absolutely no sense. Your entire plan increases congestion.

It also reduces safety by increasing accidents and cut through traffic.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What if the goal was a safe and thriving neighborhood? If you want a dedicated tunnel to downtown then take Metro.

If the goal is a safe and thriving neighborhood then the impact of any plan on accidents and traffic volume within the neighborhood is vitally important.

If your goal is to ban cars that's simply not happening.

A safe and vibrant neighborhood has bike lanes.

Pretty sure there are many, many safe and vibrant neighborhoods that don’t have bike lanes.

But how many neighborhoods have bike lanes that aren't safe and vibrant?

Lots. You especially see this in other cities that haven’t been overrun with gentrification.

If there's one thing we can take off the table absolutely when it comes to this particular bike lane debate, it's gentrification. You can't gentrify out the landed gentry.

Bike lanes are not about gentrification but they are about density, vibrancy and smart growth. Connecticut Ave has had the reputation of being rather boring and, well, old. Bike lanes add a certain hipness factor to attract younger buyers and renters. This is the group that developers who want to build dense housing need to attract.

That's pretty stupid then. The desirability, clearly measured in housing prices, is directly related to wearing mom jeans. Parents don't want hip. That's what we grew out of and why we moved there. Stop trying to be something we're not instead embrace who we are because there's a lot of good things about that, not least of which is our taste in music because modern music really sucks.

Connecticut has always had the odd juxtaposition of million dollar homes a block from struggling shops. The houses are desirable, but the business strip is not. This is largely because Connecticut is a traffic sewer and most people using it are just trying to go somewhere else as fast as physics allows. The entire design of the commercial strip reflects an old suburban form, where you let the high-volume road bisect the business district, which really disrupts business synergy and creates a place few would want to linger. Some think you can slap a bike lane on this design and "save" it.

But its doomed to a slow and steady decay, as people with choice seek out places like the Wharf and Union Market for their discretionary dollars. Places that don't have an arterial running right through the middle of it.

So the key should be to transform Connecticut Avenue from a "traffic sewer" to a boulevard that is more neighborhood serving. that is what Concept C attempted to do, but the more suburban, car-dependent DC and MD residents lobbied the Mayor to kill it for their own selfishness.

By making it an even worse traffic sewer? You all make absolutely no sense. Your entire plan increases congestion.

It also reduces safety by increasing accidents and cut through traffic.

This is the fundamental problem of Connecticut. The mayor and the feds want people downtown. For most of Western Montgomery, Connecticut is the best path downtown. There is no "better" place to put those commuters. You're going to have an easier time moving the businesses than you are moving the commuters.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What if the goal was a safe and thriving neighborhood? If you want a dedicated tunnel to downtown then take Metro.

If the goal is a safe and thriving neighborhood then the impact of any plan on accidents and traffic volume within the neighborhood is vitally important.

If your goal is to ban cars that's simply not happening.

A safe and vibrant neighborhood has bike lanes.

Pretty sure there are many, many safe and vibrant neighborhoods that don’t have bike lanes.

But how many neighborhoods have bike lanes that aren't safe and vibrant?

Lots. You especially see this in other cities that haven’t been overrun with gentrification.

If there's one thing we can take off the table absolutely when it comes to this particular bike lane debate, it's gentrification. You can't gentrify out the landed gentry.

Bike lanes are not about gentrification but they are about density, vibrancy and smart growth. Connecticut Ave has had the reputation of being rather boring and, well, old. Bike lanes add a certain hipness factor to attract younger buyers and renters. This is the group that developers who want to build dense housing need to attract.

That's pretty stupid then. The desirability, clearly measured in housing prices, is directly related to wearing mom jeans. Parents don't want hip. That's what we grew out of and why we moved there. Stop trying to be something we're not instead embrace who we are because there's a lot of good things about that, not least of which is our taste in music because modern music really sucks.

Connecticut has always had the odd juxtaposition of million dollar homes a block from struggling shops. The houses are desirable, but the business strip is not. This is largely because Connecticut is a traffic sewer and most people using it are just trying to go somewhere else as fast as physics allows. The entire design of the commercial strip reflects an old suburban form, where you let the high-volume road bisect the business district, which really disrupts business synergy and creates a place few would want to linger. Some think you can slap a bike lane on this design and "save" it.

But its doomed to a slow and steady decay, as people with choice seek out places like the Wharf and Union Market for their discretionary dollars. Places that don't have an arterial running right through the middle of it.

So the key should be to transform Connecticut Avenue from a "traffic sewer" to a boulevard that is more neighborhood serving. that is what Concept C attempted to do, but the more suburban, car-dependent DC and MD residents lobbied the Mayor to kill it for their own selfishness.

By making it an even worse traffic sewer? You all make absolutely no sense. Your entire plan increases congestion.

It also reduces safety by increasing accidents and cut through traffic.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What if the goal was a safe and thriving neighborhood? If you want a dedicated tunnel to downtown then take Metro.

If the goal is a safe and thriving neighborhood then the impact of any plan on accidents and traffic volume within the neighborhood is vitally important.

If your goal is to ban cars that's simply not happening.

A safe and vibrant neighborhood has bike lanes.

Pretty sure there are many, many safe and vibrant neighborhoods that don’t have bike lanes.

But how many neighborhoods have bike lanes that aren't safe and vibrant?

Lots. You especially see this in other cities that haven’t been overrun with gentrification.

If there's one thing we can take off the table absolutely when it comes to this particular bike lane debate, it's gentrification. You can't gentrify out the landed gentry.

Bike lanes are not about gentrification but they are about density, vibrancy and smart growth. Connecticut Ave has had the reputation of being rather boring and, well, old. Bike lanes add a certain hipness factor to attract younger buyers and renters. This is the group that developers who want to build dense housing need to attract.

That's pretty stupid then. The desirability, clearly measured in housing prices, is directly related to wearing mom jeans. Parents don't want hip. That's what we grew out of and why we moved there. Stop trying to be something we're not instead embrace who we are because there's a lot of good things about that, not least of which is our taste in music because modern music really sucks.

Connecticut has always had the odd juxtaposition of million dollar homes a block from struggling shops. The houses are desirable, but the business strip is not. This is largely because Connecticut is a traffic sewer and most people using it are just trying to go somewhere else as fast as physics allows. The entire design of the commercial strip reflects an old suburban form, where you let the high-volume road bisect the business district, which really disrupts business synergy and creates a place few would want to linger. Some think you can slap a bike lane on this design and "save" it.

But its doomed to a slow and steady decay, as people with choice seek out places like the Wharf and Union Market for their discretionary dollars. Places that don't have an arterial running right through the middle of it.

So the key should be to transform Connecticut Avenue from a "traffic sewer" to a boulevard that is more neighborhood serving. that is what Concept C attempted to do, but the more suburban, car-dependent DC and MD residents lobbied the Mayor to kill it for their own selfishness.

By making it an even worse traffic sewer? You all make absolutely no sense. Your entire plan increases congestion.

It also reduces safety by increasing accidents and cut through traffic.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What if the goal was a safe and thriving neighborhood? If you want a dedicated tunnel to downtown then take Metro.

If the goal is a safe and thriving neighborhood then the impact of any plan on accidents and traffic volume within the neighborhood is vitally important.

If your goal is to ban cars that's simply not happening.

A safe and vibrant neighborhood has bike lanes.

Pretty sure there are many, many safe and vibrant neighborhoods that don’t have bike lanes.

But how many neighborhoods have bike lanes that aren't safe and vibrant?

Lots. You especially see this in other cities that haven’t been overrun with gentrification.

If there's one thing we can take off the table absolutely when it comes to this particular bike lane debate, it's gentrification. You can't gentrify out the landed gentry.

Bike lanes are not about gentrification but they are about density, vibrancy and smart growth. Connecticut Ave has had the reputation of being rather boring and, well, old. Bike lanes add a certain hipness factor to attract younger buyers and renters. This is the group that developers who want to build dense housing need to attract.

That's pretty stupid then. The desirability, clearly measured in housing prices, is directly related to wearing mom jeans. Parents don't want hip. That's what we grew out of and why we moved there. Stop trying to be something we're not instead embrace who we are because there's a lot of good things about that, not least of which is our taste in music because modern music really sucks.

Connecticut has always had the odd juxtaposition of million dollar homes a block from struggling shops. The houses are desirable, but the business strip is not. This is largely because Connecticut is a traffic sewer and most people using it are just trying to go somewhere else as fast as physics allows. The entire design of the commercial strip reflects an old suburban form, where you let the high-volume road bisect the business district, which really disrupts business synergy and creates a place few would want to linger. Some think you can slap a bike lane on this design and "save" it.

But its doomed to a slow and steady decay, as people with choice seek out places like the Wharf and Union Market for their discretionary dollars. Places that don't have an arterial running right through the middle of it.

So the key should be to transform Connecticut Avenue from a "traffic sewer" to a boulevard that is more neighborhood serving. that is what Concept C attempted to do, but the more suburban, car-dependent DC and MD residents lobbied the Mayor to kill it for their own selfishness.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What if the goal was a safe and thriving neighborhood? If you want a dedicated tunnel to downtown then take Metro.

If the goal is a safe and thriving neighborhood then the impact of any plan on accidents and traffic volume within the neighborhood is vitally important.

If your goal is to ban cars that's simply not happening.

A safe and vibrant neighborhood has bike lanes.

Pretty sure there are many, many safe and vibrant neighborhoods that don’t have bike lanes.

But how many neighborhoods have bike lanes that aren't safe and vibrant?

Lots. You especially see this in other cities that haven’t been overrun with gentrification.

If there's one thing we can take off the table absolutely when it comes to this particular bike lane debate, it's gentrification. You can't gentrify out the landed gentry.

Bike lanes are not about gentrification but they are about density, vibrancy and smart growth. Connecticut Ave has had the reputation of being rather boring and, well, old. Bike lanes add a certain hipness factor to attract younger buyers and renters. This is the group that developers who want to build dense housing need to attract.

That's pretty stupid then. The desirability, clearly measured in housing prices, is directly related to wearing mom jeans. Parents don't want hip. That's what we grew out of and why we moved there. Stop trying to be something we're not instead embrace who we are because there's a lot of good things about that, not least of which is our taste in music because modern music really sucks.

Connecticut has always had the odd juxtaposition of million dollar homes a block from struggling shops. The houses are desirable, but the business strip is not. This is largely because Connecticut is a traffic sewer and most people using it are just trying to go somewhere else as fast as physics allows. The entire design of the commercial strip reflects an old suburban form, where you let the high-volume road bisect the business district, which really disrupts business synergy and creates a place few would want to linger. Some think you can slap a bike lane on this design and "save" it.

But its doomed to a slow and steady decay, as people with choice seek out places like the Wharf and Union Market for their discretionary dollars. Places that don't have an arterial running right through the middle of it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What if the goal was a safe and thriving neighborhood? If you want a dedicated tunnel to downtown then take Metro.

If the goal is a safe and thriving neighborhood then the impact of any plan on accidents and traffic volume within the neighborhood is vitally important.

If your goal is to ban cars that's simply not happening.

A safe and vibrant neighborhood has bike lanes.

Pretty sure there are many, many safe and vibrant neighborhoods that don’t have bike lanes.

But how many neighborhoods have bike lanes that aren't safe and vibrant?

Lots. You especially see this in other cities that haven’t been overrun with gentrification.

If there's one thing we can take off the table absolutely when it comes to this particular bike lane debate, it's gentrification. You can't gentrify out the landed gentry.

Bike lanes are not about gentrification but they are about density, vibrancy and smart growth. Connecticut Ave has had the reputation of being rather boring and, well, old. Bike lanes add a certain hipness factor to attract younger buyers and renters. This is the group that developers who want to build dense housing need to attract.

That's pretty stupid then. The desirability, clearly measured in housing prices, is directly related to wearing mom jeans. Parents don't want hip. That's what we grew out of and why we moved there. Stop trying to be something we're not instead embrace who we are because there's a lot of good things about that, not least of which is our taste in music because modern music really sucks.

Connecticut has always had the odd juxtaposition of million dollar homes a block from struggling shops. The houses are desirable, but the business strip is not. This is largely because Connecticut is a traffic sewer and most people using it are just trying to go somewhere else as fast as physics allows. The entire design of the commercial strip reflects an old suburban form, where you let the high-volume road bisect the business district, which really disrupts business synergy and creates a place few would want to linger. Some think you can slap a bike lane on this design and "save" it.

But its doomed to a slow and steady decay, as people with choice seek out places like the Wharf and Union Market for their discretionary dollars. Places that don't have an arterial running right through the middle of it.

Maine Ave with I-395 adjacent is not exactly a country lane at the Washington Wharf.

And Maine doesn't go through the district either, it acts as a boundary. Most business entrances, outdoor seating, amenities open onto 7th or Wharf Street, which is often inaccessible to cars entirely. The businesses that do open to Maine are buffered by the cycle track... Oh wait.

You can't see how that's different from Connecticut where half the businesses are on the east and the other half on the west and both open to face a never ending parade of cars honking and revving at each other?

Who is frequenting the businesses on Connecticut other than locals?