Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Thank you OP! I commute along Conn Ave and have wondered about this for the past two years. Many of the pandemic streeteries have been adjusted or taken down entirely now that indoor dining is no longer a concern and traffic has returned. This is the only restaurant that using a lane of a major artery for its business - why? If it's such a great idea, why not give a lane to the Politics & Prose cafe on the other side of the street? Or the dozens of other restaurants that have real estate up and down Conn Ave? Does Rosemary's Bistro pay rent for that space? Does the restaurant even get enough patronage for this extra space?

And why would anyone think it's a smart idea to stick a street shed in the middle of a major intersection that also happens to have a lot of kids and families walking to/from area schools? It's bizarre and dangerous.

These are the questions that go through my mind every day when I see near accidents and sit in unnecessary gridlock as cars try to merge around this stupidity.

Great idea. If we're going to turn over public space to private property, restaurants are a much better use than cars.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You’re an f’ing idiot.

DP. Nope. It’s all very reasonable.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You’re an f’ing idiot.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Anonymous wrote:Are Rosemary’s bistro’s owner on here?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No one has answered the original questions - why is Rosemary's Bistro taking a lane of Connecticut Avenue? Who approved this? Is there any community input? Does the restaurant pay for the space? Can any restaurant claim public space for outdoor dining? Does RB actually fill its entire space on a regular basis?

I would like to know this, too, as a nearby resident of a road just north of that intersection. It's bad for car drivers, and it's also bad for cyclists.

One restaurant is permitted to take a public space for its own use and profit. Why? Why does this one business get to create a dangerous bottleneck every morning when it is not even open. for business at that time?

Can Bread Furst just do this same thing with a bunch of tables in a drive lane just south of another busy Connecticut intersection? Can I, as a DC taxpayer, set up my own chairs or sports equipment in a lane of traffic and block out all other uses by the public by using Jersey barriers? Where can I apply to do this?

Should Surfside be allowed to do this on Wisconsin? How about a non-profit such as a church -- why not seat overflow parishioners in the northbound lane of Connecticut just south of the Circle (and permanently block out cyclists and drivers by, again, using concrete barriers) ?

Where can I apply for this private taking of public property? Surfside? Blessed Sacrament? Hm?

I mean, a quick google search revealed this... literally the number one result. https://ddot.dc.gov/page/dc-streatery-frequently-asked-questions

“Beginning Friday, May 29, 2020, food establishments are eligible to temporarily have outdoor dining in public space through compliance with the temporary Streatery Guidelines.”

It’s time to revisit the meaning of temporary and the process and grounds for approval.

+1

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No one has answered the original questions - why is Rosemary's Bistro taking a lane of Connecticut Avenue? Who approved this? Is there any community input? Does the restaurant pay for the space? Can any restaurant claim public space for outdoor dining? Does RB actually fill its entire space on a regular basis?

I would like to know this, too, as a nearby resident of a road just north of that intersection. It's bad for car drivers, and it's also bad for cyclists.

One restaurant is permitted to take a public space for its own use and profit. Why? Why does this one business get to create a dangerous bottleneck every morning when it is not even open. for business at that time?

Can Bread Furst just do this same thing with a bunch of tables in a drive lane just south of another busy Connecticut intersection? Can I, as a DC taxpayer, set up my own chairs or sports equipment in a lane of traffic and block out all other uses by the public by using Jersey barriers? Where can I apply to do this?

Should Surfside be allowed to do this on Wisconsin? How about a non-profit such as a church -- why not seat overflow parishioners in the northbound lane of Connecticut just south of the Circle (and permanently block out cyclists and drivers by, again, using concrete barriers) ?

Where can I apply for this private taking of public property? Surfside? Blessed Sacrament? Hm?

I mean, a quick google search revealed this... literally the number one result. https://ddot.dc.gov/page/dc-streatery-frequently-asked-questions

“Beginning Friday, May 29, 2020, food establishments are eligible to temporarily have outdoor dining in public space through compliance with the temporary Streatery Guidelines.”

It’s time to revisit the meaning of temporary and the process and grounds for approval.

+1

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No one has answered the original questions - why is Rosemary's Bistro taking a lane of Connecticut Avenue? Who approved this? Is there any community input? Does the restaurant pay for the space? Can any restaurant claim public space for outdoor dining? Does RB actually fill its entire space on a regular basis?

I would like to know this, too, as a nearby resident of a road just north of that intersection. It's bad for car drivers, and it's also bad for cyclists.

One restaurant is permitted to take a public space for its own use and profit. Why? Why does this one business get to create a dangerous bottleneck every morning when it is not even open. for business at that time?

Can Bread Furst just do this same thing with a bunch of tables in a drive lane just south of another busy Connecticut intersection? Can I, as a DC taxpayer, set up my own chairs or sports equipment in a lane of traffic and block out all other uses by the public by using Jersey barriers? Where can I apply to do this?

Should Surfside be allowed to do this on Wisconsin? How about a non-profit such as a church -- why not seat overflow parishioners in the northbound lane of Connecticut just south of the Circle (and permanently block out cyclists and drivers by, again, using concrete barriers) ?

Where can I apply for this private taking of public property? Surfside? Blessed Sacrament? Hm?

I mean, a quick google search revealed this... literally the number one result. https://ddot.dc.gov/page/dc-streatery-frequently-asked-questions

“Beginning Friday, May 29, 2020, food establishments are eligible to temporarily have outdoor dining in public space through compliance with the temporary Streatery Guidelines.”

It’s time to revisit the meaning of temporary and the process and grounds for approval.

Anonymous wrote:I regularly visit P&P and the nearby restaurants. I will never visit this Bistro. Its arrogance in blocking a lane on Conn is amazing.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No one has answered the original questions - why is Rosemary's Bistro taking a lane of Connecticut Avenue? Who approved this? Is there any community input? Does the restaurant pay for the space? Can any restaurant claim public space for outdoor dining? Does RB actually fill its entire space on a regular basis?

I would like to know this, too, as a nearby resident of a road just north of that intersection. It's bad for car drivers, and it's also bad for cyclists.

One restaurant is permitted to take a public space for its own use and profit. Why? Why does this one business get to create a dangerous bottleneck every morning when it is not even open. for business at that time?

Can Bread Furst just do this same thing with a bunch of tables in a drive lane just south of another busy Connecticut intersection? Can I, as a DC taxpayer, set up my own chairs or sports equipment in a lane of traffic and block out all other uses by the public by using Jersey barriers? Where can I apply to do this?

Should Surfside be allowed to do this on Wisconsin? How about a non-profit such as a church -- why not seat overflow parishioners in the northbound lane of Connecticut just south of the Circle (and permanently block out cyclists and drivers by, again, using concrete barriers) ?

Where can I apply for this private taking of public property? Surfside? Blessed Sacrament? Hm?

I mean, a quick google search revealed this... literally the number one result. https://ddot.dc.gov/page/dc-streatery-frequently-asked-questions

“Beginning Friday, May 29, 2020, food establishments are eligible to temporarily have outdoor dining in public space through compliance with the temporary Streatery Guidelines.”

It’s time to revisit the meaning of temporary and the process and grounds for approval.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No one has answered the original questions - why is Rosemary's Bistro taking a lane of Connecticut Avenue? Who approved this? Is there any community input? Does the restaurant pay for the space? Can any restaurant claim public space for outdoor dining? Does RB actually fill its entire space on a regular basis?

I would like to know this, too, as a nearby resident of a road just north of that intersection. It's bad for car drivers, and it's also bad for cyclists.

One restaurant is permitted to take a public space for its own use and profit. Why? Why does this one business get to create a dangerous bottleneck every morning when it is not even open. for business at that time?

Can Bread Furst just do this same thing with a bunch of tables in a drive lane just south of another busy Connecticut intersection? Can I, as a DC taxpayer, set up my own chairs or sports equipment in a lane of traffic and block out all other uses by the public by using Jersey barriers? Where can I apply to do this?

Should Surfside be allowed to do this on Wisconsin? How about a non-profit such as a church -- why not seat overflow parishioners in the northbound lane of Connecticut just south of the Circle (and permanently block out cyclists and drivers by, again, using concrete barriers) ?

Where can I apply for this private taking of public property? Surfside? Blessed Sacrament? Hm?

I mean, a quick google search revealed this... literally the number one result. https://ddot.dc.gov/page/dc-streatery-frequently-asked-questions

“Beginning Friday, May 29, 2020, food establishments are eligible to temporarily have outdoor dining in public space through compliance with the temporary Streatery Guidelines.”

It’s time to revisit the meaning of temporary and the process and grounds for approval.