Anonymous wrote:Maybe if commuters want a quick way downtown they can fund a set of Elon Musk tunnels to go under in a way that doesn't disturb the neighborhoods.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:That's what's so wrong about these efforts. Upper Connecticut will never be cool or hip. That's because it is the part of town that people move to when they start families and stop being cool or hip. It's a land of mom jeans and power walks. Conversations about schools and youth sports. Kid friendly restaurants and gardening. It's where Gen Z and Zoomers live at home with their parents. It's where Gen X moved when they had kids, just like the Boomers before them, and Millennials now.

To put it simply, there are too many kids and fuddy duddies to ever attract the trendy and childless.

It's the first I've ever heard that walking and riding a bike are things only done by the trendy and childless. I've been walking since I was 1, and riding a bike since I was 4, so this comes as quite a surprise.

That's why I want our neighborhood streets to be safe so that my kids can ride bikes there as they do now. More cars and trucks diverted from gridlocked Connecticut Avenue onto these streets will make them less safe.

Agreed! Neighborhood streets should be safe. All streets should be safe! Including Connecticut Avenue, which is also a neighborhood street and should also be safe.

How exactly will bike lanes make Connecticut Avenue safe, particularly when they squeeze capacity down? And Connecticut Avenue and the other major arterials are where the through traffic is supposed to go, because Upper Northwest Washington (Ward 3) lacks any of the radial freeways like in SE, SW, MoCo and Arlington.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:That's what's so wrong about these efforts. Upper Connecticut will never be cool or hip. That's because it is the part of town that people move to when they start families and stop being cool or hip. It's a land of mom jeans and power walks. Conversations about schools and youth sports. Kid friendly restaurants and gardening. It's where Gen Z and Zoomers live at home with their parents. It's where Gen X moved when they had kids, just like the Boomers before them, and Millennials now.

To put it simply, there are too many kids and fuddy duddies to ever attract the trendy and childless.

It's the first I've ever heard that walking and riding a bike are things only done by the trendy and childless. I've been walking since I was 1, and riding a bike since I was 4, so this comes as quite a surprise.

That's why I want our neighborhood streets to be safe so that my kids can ride bikes there as they do now. More cars and trucks diverted from gridlocked Connecticut Avenue onto these streets will make them less safe.

Anonymous wrote:The DC police union position against the Connecticut Avenue bike lane proposal apparently has prompted WABA to rush the release of a “Coalition Letter Regarding Connecticut Avenue Multimodal Project” in support of bike lanes. What’s noteworthy about the “coalition” should have seemed so obvious in hindsight, the active role of Greater Greater Washington and the various development lobby groups in the echo chamber in pushing the construction of the bike lanes. It’s clear that the Option C bike lane plan is not just about alternative transportation options, it’s a necessary ingredient, an enabling condition for the development lobby to realize its plans to redevelop all of Connecticut Avenue from the Taft Bridge up to Chevy Chase Circle as a much taller, denser, busier urban corridor. Maybe that’s even the primary reason driving bike lanes forward. One challenge that DC real estate developers and investors face is that Connecticut Ave and Ward 3 in general lack the “vibe” or coolness factor of U Street and other hot neighborhoods to attract the Millennial and Gen Z renters and purchasers that they desperately need. They believe that bike lanes will help to market the Connecticut corridor to this demographic. And just as bike lanes can help to support upzoned, upmarket development along the entire length of Connecticut, much more development is necessary to provide more bike riders to justify the cost and disruption and impact of Option C. That’s the real deal - bike lanes for greater, greater development.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:That's what's so wrong about these efforts. Upper Connecticut will never be cool or hip. That's because it is the part of town that people move to when they start families and stop being cool or hip. It's a land of mom jeans and power walks. Conversations about schools and youth sports. Kid friendly restaurants and gardening. It's where Gen Z and Zoomers live at home with their parents. It's where Gen X moved when they had kids, just like the Boomers before them, and Millennials now.

To put it simply, there are too many kids and fuddy duddies to ever attract the trendy and childless.

It's the first I've ever heard that walking and riding a bike are things only done by the trendy and childless. I've been walking since I was 1, and riding a bike since I was 4, so this comes as quite a surprise.

It's ok, you got old and are no longer hip or cool. There's no shame in that. It's the circle of life. Remember, there is nothing less cool than a parent trying to pretend that they are. So it was and so shall it be.

I'm the PP you're responding to, and I have never even aspired to be hip or cool, before, during, or after kids in the house. What does that have to do with walking and riding a bike?

You seem not to have read the post immediately above the one you responded to.

Everyone already bikes and walks within the neighborhoods on the side streets. The very places you seemingly wish to divert traffic to.

Maybe that's "equitable" because that's where more of the single family houses are?

I mean, let's take a look at that. People live on Ordway, people live on Connecticut, so why is Ordway a "neighborhood street" and there shouldn't be cars, but Connecticut isn't a "neighborhood street" and there should be cars?

Connecticut is a truck route and Ordway isn't for one: https://ddot.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/ddot/service_content/attachments/DC%20Truck%20Map%20Brochure_12.10.20_web.pdf

Ordway isn't a straight shot from the beltway to downtown either.

You're just explaining that what is, is. Everyone knows that.

Instead, please explain why people who live on one street (Connecticut) should have to live with noise, pollution, and danger from cars, so that people who live on a different street (for example, Ordway) can be protected from noise, pollution, and danger from cars.

I'll be glad to once you admit that your idea increases congestion and makes those other streets less safe for pedestrians and bikers.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:That's what's so wrong about these efforts. Upper Connecticut will never be cool or hip. That's because it is the part of town that people move to when they start families and stop being cool or hip. It's a land of mom jeans and power walks. Conversations about schools and youth sports. Kid friendly restaurants and gardening. It's where Gen Z and Zoomers live at home with their parents. It's where Gen X moved when they had kids, just like the Boomers before them, and Millennials now.

To put it simply, there are too many kids and fuddy duddies to ever attract the trendy and childless.

It's the first I've ever heard that walking and riding a bike are things only done by the trendy and childless. I've been walking since I was 1, and riding a bike since I was 4, so this comes as quite a surprise.

It's ok, you got old and are no longer hip or cool. There's no shame in that. It's the circle of life. Remember, there is nothing less cool than a parent trying to pretend that they are. So it was and so shall it be.

I'm the PP you're responding to, and I have never even aspired to be hip or cool, before, during, or after kids in the house. What does that have to do with walking and riding a bike?

You seem not to have read the post immediately above the one you responded to.

Everyone already bikes and walks within the neighborhoods on the side streets. The very places you seemingly wish to divert traffic to.

Maybe that's "equitable" because that's where more of the single family houses are?

I mean, let's take a look at that. People live on Ordway, people live on Connecticut, so why is Ordway a "neighborhood street" and there shouldn't be cars, but Connecticut isn't a "neighborhood street" and there should be cars?

Connecticut is a truck route and Ordway isn't for one: https://ddot.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/ddot/service_content/attachments/DC%20Truck%20Map%20Brochure_12.10.20_web.pdf

Ordway isn't a straight shot from the beltway to downtown either.

You're just explaining that what is, is. Everyone knows that.

Instead, please explain why people who live on one street (Connecticut) should have to live with noise, pollution, and danger from cars, so that people who live on a different street (for example, Ordway) can be protected from noise, pollution, and danger from cars.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:That's what's so wrong about these efforts. Upper Connecticut will never be cool or hip. That's because it is the part of town that people move to when they start families and stop being cool or hip. It's a land of mom jeans and power walks. Conversations about schools and youth sports. Kid friendly restaurants and gardening. It's where Gen Z and Zoomers live at home with their parents. It's where Gen X moved when they had kids, just like the Boomers before them, and Millennials now.

To put it simply, there are too many kids and fuddy duddies to ever attract the trendy and childless.

It's the first I've ever heard that walking and riding a bike are things only done by the trendy and childless. I've been walking since I was 1, and riding a bike since I was 4, so this comes as quite a surprise.

It's ok, you got old and are no longer hip or cool. There's no shame in that. It's the circle of life. Remember, there is nothing less cool than a parent trying to pretend that they are. So it was and so shall it be.

I'm the PP you're responding to, and I have never even aspired to be hip or cool, before, during, or after kids in the house. What does that have to do with walking and riding a bike?

You seem not to have read the post immediately above the one you responded to.

Everyone already bikes and walks within the neighborhoods on the side streets. The very places you seemingly wish to divert traffic to.

Maybe that's "equitable" because that's where more of the single family houses are?

I mean, let's take a look at that. People live on Ordway, people live on Connecticut, so why is Ordway a "neighborhood street" and there shouldn't be cars, but Connecticut isn't a "neighborhood street" and there should be cars?

Connecticut is a truck route and Ordway isn't for one: https://ddot.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/ddot/service_content/attachments/DC%20Truck%20Map%20Brochure_12.10.20_web.pdf

Ordway isn't a straight shot from the beltway to downtown either.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:That's what's so wrong about these efforts. Upper Connecticut will never be cool or hip. That's because it is the part of town that people move to when they start families and stop being cool or hip. It's a land of mom jeans and power walks. Conversations about schools and youth sports. Kid friendly restaurants and gardening. It's where Gen Z and Zoomers live at home with their parents. It's where Gen X moved when they had kids, just like the Boomers before them, and Millennials now.

To put it simply, there are too many kids and fuddy duddies to ever attract the trendy and childless.

It's the first I've ever heard that walking and riding a bike are things only done by the trendy and childless. I've been walking since I was 1, and riding a bike since I was 4, so this comes as quite a surprise.

It's ok, you got old and are no longer hip or cool. There's no shame in that. It's the circle of life. Remember, there is nothing less cool than a parent trying to pretend that they are. So it was and so shall it be.

I'm the PP you're responding to, and I have never even aspired to be hip or cool, before, during, or after kids in the house. What does that have to do with walking and riding a bike?

You seem not to have read the post immediately above the one you responded to.

Everyone already bikes and walks within the neighborhoods on the side streets. The very places you seemingly wish to divert traffic to.

Maybe that's "equitable" because that's where more of the single family houses are?

I mean, let's take a look at that. People live on Ordway, people live on Connecticut, so why is Ordway a "neighborhood street" and there shouldn't be cars, but Connecticut isn't a "neighborhood street" and there should be cars?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:That's what's so wrong about these efforts. Upper Connecticut will never be cool or hip. That's because it is the part of town that people move to when they start families and stop being cool or hip. It's a land of mom jeans and power walks. Conversations about schools and youth sports. Kid friendly restaurants and gardening. It's where Gen Z and Zoomers live at home with their parents. It's where Gen X moved when they had kids, just like the Boomers before them, and Millennials now.

To put it simply, there are too many kids and fuddy duddies to ever attract the trendy and childless.

It's the first I've ever heard that walking and riding a bike are things only done by the trendy and childless. I've been walking since I was 1, and riding a bike since I was 4, so this comes as quite a surprise.

It's ok, you got old and are no longer hip or cool. There's no shame in that. It's the circle of life. Remember, there is nothing less cool than a parent trying to pretend that they are. So it was and so shall it be.

I'm the PP you're responding to, and I have never even aspired to be hip or cool, before, during, or after kids in the house. What does that have to do with walking and riding a bike?

You seem not to have read the post immediately above the one you responded to.

Everyone already bikes and walks within the neighborhoods on the side streets. The very places you seemingly wish to divert traffic to.

Maybe that's "equitable" because that's where more of the single family houses are?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Maybe if commuters want a quick way downtown they can fund a set of Elon Musk tunnels to go under in a way that doesn't disturb the neighborhoods.

There already is a set of tunnels to transport commuters in a quick way downtown!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:That's what's so wrong about these efforts. Upper Connecticut will never be cool or hip. That's because it is the part of town that people move to when they start families and stop being cool or hip. It's a land of mom jeans and power walks. Conversations about schools and youth sports. Kid friendly restaurants and gardening. It's where Gen Z and Zoomers live at home with their parents. It's where Gen X moved when they had kids, just like the Boomers before them, and Millennials now.

To put it simply, there are too many kids and fuddy duddies to ever attract the trendy and childless.

It's the first I've ever heard that walking and riding a bike are things only done by the trendy and childless. I've been walking since I was 1, and riding a bike since I was 4, so this comes as quite a surprise.

It's ok, you got old and are no longer hip or cool. There's no shame in that. It's the circle of life. Remember, there is nothing less cool than a parent trying to pretend that they are. So it was and so shall it be.

I'm the PP you're responding to, and I have never even aspired to be hip or cool, before, during, or after kids in the house. What does that have to do with walking and riding a bike?

You seem not to have read the post immediately above the one you responded to.

Everyone already bikes and walks within the neighborhoods on the side streets. The very places you seemingly wish to divert traffic to.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:That's what's so wrong about these efforts. Upper Connecticut will never be cool or hip. That's because it is the part of town that people move to when they start families and stop being cool or hip. It's a land of mom jeans and power walks. Conversations about schools and youth sports. Kid friendly restaurants and gardening. It's where Gen Z and Zoomers live at home with their parents. It's where Gen X moved when they had kids, just like the Boomers before them, and Millennials now.

To put it simply, there are too many kids and fuddy duddies to ever attract the trendy and childless.

It's the first I've ever heard that walking and riding a bike are things only done by the trendy and childless. I've been walking since I was 1, and riding a bike since I was 4, so this comes as quite a surprise.

It's ok, you got old and are no longer hip or cool. There's no shame in that. It's the circle of life. Remember, there is nothing less cool than a parent trying to pretend that they are. So it was and so shall it be.

I'm the PP you're responding to, and I have never even aspired to be hip or cool, before, during, or after kids in the house. What does that have to do with walking and riding a bike?

You seem not to have read the post immediately above the one you responded to.

Everyone already bikes and walks within the neighborhoods on the side streets. The very places you seemingly wish to divert traffic to.

Anonymous wrote:Maybe if commuters want a quick way downtown they can fund a set of Elon Musk tunnels to go under in a way that doesn't disturb the neighborhoods.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:That's what's so wrong about these efforts. Upper Connecticut will never be cool or hip. That's because it is the part of town that people move to when they start families and stop being cool or hip. It's a land of mom jeans and power walks. Conversations about schools and youth sports. Kid friendly restaurants and gardening. It's where Gen Z and Zoomers live at home with their parents. It's where Gen X moved when they had kids, just like the Boomers before them, and Millennials now.

To put it simply, there are too many kids and fuddy duddies to ever attract the trendy and childless.

It's the first I've ever heard that walking and riding a bike are things only done by the trendy and childless. I've been walking since I was 1, and riding a bike since I was 4, so this comes as quite a surprise.

That's why I want our neighborhood streets to be safe so that my kids can ride bikes there as they do now. More cars and trucks diverted from gridlocked Connecticut Avenue onto these streets will make them less safe.

Agreed! Neighborhood streets should be safe. All streets should be safe! Including Connecticut Avenue, which is also a neighborhood street and should also be safe.

How exactly will bike lanes make Connecticut Avenue safe, particularly when they squeeze capacity down? And Connecticut Avenue and the other major arterials are where the through traffic is supposed to go, because Upper Northwest Washington (Ward 3) lacks any of the radial freeways like in SE, SW, MoCo and Arlington.