Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Smart Growthers are trying to encourage more development that enables less car-dependence

Total BS. There's a new development going in on Connecticut Avenue with no off-street parking. The Smart Growth lobby said, no problem, this is smart infill growth, no one will have cars and will not need to park on the street. So Council Member Mary Cheh proposed legislation to enforce no-RPP promises made by the developer, so that street parking for nearby businesses would not be impacted. Then the same Smart Growthers turned around and opposed Cheh's legislation as being unfair to all those new residents who would never have cars and not park on the street.

Claiming that new development will not be car dependent is just a talking point so that developers don't have to build on-site parking and thereby make bigger profits. They just assume that people will own cars and park on the street.

Your issue is with car storage on public streets. That has nothing to do with what you claim to be complaining about. Would you agree that the RPP system is flawed and should be totally revamped and be much more expensive than it currently is? Or, are you one of those people who simply wants to pay $35/yr for the right to park in front of your own house, near the metro and near commercial areas in your ward without regard to anyone else?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In the name of a more vibrant Connecticut Avenue, why is it necessary to make such significant changes for bike lanes, when the effect will be to divert much commuter traffic on to local streets? This will make those streets less safe for people, especially kids, who bike on those streets.

The modelling shows very little diversion. Please look at the studies before making unfounded claims.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Smart Growthers are trying to encourage more development that enables less car-dependence

Total BS. There's a new development going in on Connecticut Avenue with no off-street parking. The Smart Growth lobby said, no problem, this is smart infill growth, no one will have cars and will not need to park on the street. So Council Member Mary Cheh proposed legislation to enforce no-RPP promises made by the developer, so that street parking for nearby businesses would not be impacted. Then the same Smart Growthers turned around and opposed Cheh's legislation as being unfair to all those new residents who would never have cars and not park on the street.

Claiming that new development will not be car dependent is just a talking point so that developers don't have to build on-site parking and thereby make bigger profits. They just assume that people will own cars and park on the street.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Making gridlock worse to improve pedestrian safety? Clever try. Butt then the frustrated drivers won't drive so slowly when they peel off onto side streets like Lowell, Macomb, Newark, Ordway, Porter, etc. looking for a faster route to bypass the gridlocked traffic on 34th/Reno, or to toggle between the arterial roads. That makes it less safe for pedestrians and bikers.

That's not the goal, but actually, yeah, it does.

Don't forget that 34th Street is a residential, not a commercial, street. Don't you care about the people living along the street (or students in classrooms 15 feet from the roadway) breathing in all of the exhaust from diverted traffic sitting in gridlock for more hours during the day - so that you can enjoy your Connecticut Ave bike lane?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:CT lanes study will be out next week and we will know more. I think it is hard to close Beach and not reopen reversible lanes on CT.

Disagree, they are two separate decisions made by two separate entities.

In the case of Beach Drive, it is the national park service, whose mission it is to administer national parks. Having a park used as a daily commuter route with impacts on the plants and animals, and the air in the park is simply a bad idea.

For CT Ave, the residents up and down the Avenue would prefer a vibrant and walkable public space rather than a commuter highway.

There is overwhelming support for both proposals.

"Vibrant, walkable..." sounds like a Greater Greater Washington talking point.

I love bike lanes and national parks. But one can' just assume away traffic. Fortunately, Washington DC wasn't sliced up by expressways the way that most U.S. cities were, but major streets like Connecticut Avenue serve as the arterial routes, carrying traffic from far upper Northwest and parts of Montgomery County to downtown Washington, DC. Constrain Connecticut Ave and keep Beach Drive closed, and where exactly will the traffic go? Cutting through a Waze maze on 0ur residential size streets?

Which is exactly why the bike lanes on Connecticut Avenue will be really helpful.

You're assuming that the volume of traffic will be constant, but that's a false assumption. People make different transportation decisions all the time, based on different conditions. For example, if the driving route via Connecticut Ave becomes more than you can stand, then you might choose to drive at a different time, or choose to drive a different route, or choose to use a different mode of transportation.

Exactly. But with Beach Drive closed, Connecticut Ave. potentially reduced from 4 lanes to 2 lanes at rush hour, Wisconsin Ave. constrained by lanes closed for "streeteries" and the induced traffic of a new magnet town center, including DC's only Wegman's, what will the "different route" be? Will commuter traffic be flushed through neighborhood streets even more than before, so that you can have your "vibrant" Connecticut Avenue? And speaking of "walkable," its not very walkable when some lycra-clad cyclist, pretending he's in the Tour de France rather than in Chevy Chase or Cleveland Park, hits a pedestrian who walks across "his" bike lane.

Well, let's put it this way. When Beach Drive was under construction, Eveeyone complained there would be huge traffic issues. There weren't. When Oregon Ave was and is under construction, everyone said there would be huge traffic issues. There aren't. Every time there is a new development proposal, everyone complains that traffic and parking will be impacted. They aren't.

Encouraging biking gets cars off the road, making it easier for you to drive. Encouraging Metro and bus usage gets cars off the road so it is easier for you to drive. You shold be the biggest proponent of more funding for metro and bike lanes.

Reno/34th St. was gridlocked then. Traffic spiked to 17,000 cars/day next to John Eaton school, which a lot of kid walk to.

Good thing they have sidewalks there.

Now it's clear that you are unfamiliar with the neighborhoods along Connecticut Avenue and don't have any idea what the impact of closing lanes on Connecticut Avenue would be. Otherwise you'd realize that the absolute last place where a rational person would want to divert traffic is 34th Street. The sidewalks along several blocks are only two to three feet wide in places, sometimes blocked by utility poles, and in some locations (including by Eaton), there is no tree box as a safety buffer between the sidewalk and the moving traffic lanes. And kids try to use these sidewalks, to get to Eaton, the Cathedral schools, etc.

I actually grew up across the street from John Eaton. You are barking up the wrong tree. I know the sidewalks are narrow, but they are there. The issue is making sure the cars stay on the road and not the sidewalks. I know that is a challenge in some places, so actually having more cars on 34th force the drivers to operate their vehicles more slowly. Win-win.

Making gridlock worse to improve pedestrian safety? Clever try. Butt then the frustrated drivers won't drive so slowly when they peel off onto side streets like Lowell, Macomb, Newark, Ordway, Porter, etc. looking for a faster route to bypass the gridlocked traffic on 34th/Reno, or to toggle between the arterial roads. That makes it less safe for pedestrians and bikers.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Making gridlock worse to improve pedestrian safety? Clever try. Butt then the frustrated drivers won't drive so slowly when they peel off onto side streets like Lowell, Macomb, Newark, Ordway, Porter, etc. looking for a faster route to bypass the gridlocked traffic on 34th/Reno, or to toggle between the arterial roads. That makes it less safe for pedestrians and bikers.

That's not the goal, but actually, yeah, it does.

Anonymous wrote:Smart Growthers are trying to encourage more development that enables less car-dependence

Anonymous wrote:
Making gridlock worse to improve pedestrian safety? Clever try. Butt then the frustrated drivers won't drive so slowly when they peel off onto side streets like Lowell, Macomb, Newark, Ordway, Porter, etc. looking for a faster route to bypass the gridlocked traffic on 34th/Reno, or to toggle between the arterial roads. That makes it less safe for pedestrians and bikers.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:CT lanes study will be out next week and we will know more. I think it is hard to close Beach and not reopen reversible lanes on CT.

Disagree, they are two separate decisions made by two separate entities.

In the case of Beach Drive, it is the national park service, whose mission it is to administer national parks. Having a park used as a daily commuter route with impacts on the plants and animals, and the air in the park is simply a bad idea.

For CT Ave, the residents up and down the Avenue would prefer a vibrant and walkable public space rather than a commuter highway.

There is overwhelming support for both proposals.

"Vibrant, walkable..." sounds like a Greater Greater Washington talking point.

I love bike lanes and national parks. But one can' just assume away traffic. Fortunately, Washington DC wasn't sliced up by expressways the way that most U.S. cities were, but major streets like Connecticut Avenue serve as the arterial routes, carrying traffic from far upper Northwest and parts of Montgomery County to downtown Washington, DC. Constrain Connecticut Ave and keep Beach Drive closed, and where exactly will the traffic go? Cutting through a Waze maze on 0ur residential size streets?

Which is exactly why the bike lanes on Connecticut Avenue will be really helpful.

You're assuming that the volume of traffic will be constant, but that's a false assumption. People make different transportation decisions all the time, based on different conditions. For example, if the driving route via Connecticut Ave becomes more than you can stand, then you might choose to drive at a different time, or choose to drive a different route, or choose to use a different mode of transportation.

Exactly. But with Beach Drive closed, Connecticut Ave. potentially reduced from 4 lanes to 2 lanes at rush hour, Wisconsin Ave. constrained by lanes closed for "streeteries" and the induced traffic of a new magnet town center, including DC's only Wegman's, what will the "different route" be? Will commuter traffic be flushed through neighborhood streets even more than before, so that you can have your "vibrant" Connecticut Avenue? And speaking of "walkable," its not very walkable when some lycra-clad cyclist, pretending he's in the Tour de France rather than in Chevy Chase or Cleveland Park, hits a pedestrian who walks across "his" bike lane.

Well, let's put it this way. When Beach Drive was under construction, Eveeyone complained there would be huge traffic issues. There weren't. When Oregon Ave was and is under construction, everyone said there would be huge traffic issues. There aren't. Every time there is a new development proposal, everyone complains that traffic and parking will be impacted. They aren't.

Encouraging biking gets cars off the road, making it easier for you to drive. Encouraging Metro and bus usage gets cars off the road so it is easier for you to drive. You shold be the biggest proponent of more funding for metro and bike lanes.

Reno/34th St. was gridlocked then. Traffic spiked to 17,000 cars/day next to John Eaton school, which a lot of kid walk to.

Good thing they have sidewalks there.

Now it's clear that you are unfamiliar with the neighborhoods along Connecticut Avenue and don't have any idea what the impact of closing lanes on Connecticut Avenue would be. Otherwise you'd realize that the absolute last place where a rational person would want to divert traffic is 34th Street. The sidewalks along several blocks are only two to three feet wide in places, sometimes blocked by utility poles, and in some locations (including by Eaton), there is no tree box as a safety buffer between the sidewalk and the moving traffic lanes. And kids try to use these sidewalks, to get to Eaton, the Cathedral schools, etc.

I actually grew up across the street from John Eaton. You are barking up the wrong tree. I know the sidewalks are narrow, but they are there. The issue is making sure the cars stay on the road and not the sidewalks. I know that is a challenge in some places, so actually having more cars on 34th force the drivers to operate their vehicles more slowly. Win-win.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:CT lanes study will be out next week and we will know more. I think it is hard to close Beach and not reopen reversible lanes on CT.

Disagree, they are two separate decisions made by two separate entities.

In the case of Beach Drive, it is the national park service, whose mission it is to administer national parks. Having a park used as a daily commuter route with impacts on the plants and animals, and the air in the park is simply a bad idea.

For CT Ave, the residents up and down the Avenue would prefer a vibrant and walkable public space rather than a commuter highway.

There is overwhelming support for both proposals.

"Vibrant, walkable..." sounds like a Greater Greater Washington talking point.

I love bike lanes and national parks. But one can' just assume away traffic. Fortunately, Washington DC wasn't sliced up by expressways the way that most U.S. cities were, but major streets like Connecticut Avenue serve as the arterial routes, carrying traffic from far upper Northwest and parts of Montgomery County to downtown Washington, DC. Constrain Connecticut Ave and keep Beach Drive closed, and where exactly will the traffic go? Cutting through a Waze maze on 0ur residential size streets?

Which is exactly why the bike lanes on Connecticut Avenue will be really helpful.

You're assuming that the volume of traffic will be constant, but that's a false assumption. People make different transportation decisions all the time, based on different conditions. For example, if the driving route via Connecticut Ave becomes more than you can stand, then you might choose to drive at a different time, or choose to drive a different route, or choose to use a different mode of transportation.

Exactly. But with Beach Drive closed, Connecticut Ave. potentially reduced from 4 lanes to 2 lanes at rush hour, Wisconsin Ave. constrained by lanes closed for "streeteries" and the induced traffic of a new magnet town center, including DC's only Wegman's, what will the "different route" be? Will commuter traffic be flushed through neighborhood streets even more than before, so that you can have your "vibrant" Connecticut Avenue? And speaking of "walkable," its not very walkable when some lycra-clad cyclist, pretending he's in the Tour de France rather than in Chevy Chase or Cleveland Park, hits a pedestrian who walks across "his" bike lane.

Well, let's put it this way. When Beach Drive was under construction, Eveeyone complained there would be huge traffic issues. There weren't. When Oregon Ave was and is under construction, everyone said there would be huge traffic issues. There aren't. Every time there is a new development proposal, everyone complains that traffic and parking will be impacted. They aren't.

Encouraging biking gets cars off the road, making it easier for you to drive. Encouraging Metro and bus usage gets cars off the road so it is easier for you to drive. You shold be the biggest proponent of more funding for metro and bike lanes.

Reno/34th St. was gridlocked then. Traffic spiked to 17,000 cars/day next to John Eaton school, which a lot of kid walk to.

Good thing they have sidewalks there.

Now it's clear that you are unfamiliar with the neighborhoods along Connecticut Avenue and don't have any idea what the impact of closing lanes on Connecticut Avenue would be. Otherwise you'd realize that the absolute last place where a rational person would want to divert traffic is 34th Street. The sidewalks along several blocks are only two to three feet wide in places, sometimes blocked by utility poles, and in some locations (including by Eaton), there is no tree box as a safety buffer between the sidewalk and the moving traffic lanes. And kids try to use these sidewalks, to get to Eaton, the Cathedral schools, etc.

Anonymous wrote:In the name of a more vibrant Connecticut Avenue, why is it necessary to make such significant changes for bike lanes, when the effect will be to divert much commuter traffic on to local streets? This will make those streets less safe for people, especially kids, who bike on those streets.

Anonymous wrote:

Only if bikers ride so fast and recklessly and act like they're in the Tour de friggin' France. The Rock Creek Park, W&OD and Mt Verson Trail are not particularly dangerous to cyclists, and they have to share the road with walkers and runners. Will runners be able to use the bike lanes on Connecticut Ave as a running trail?

Anonymous wrote:

I think the idea is that the people who can afford to walk or bike, or have no kids or fewer errands will be more likely to get off the roads, and people who have no choice will stay on them. This is a way of shifting culture away from car dependancy. It happens in fits and starts, some more painful than others. This is the way.

It's pretty clear that the view of many Smart Growthers on how to "shift the culture" in DC is to have fewer older residents in the District. They call them NIMBYs and pearl clutches, and mock them for depending on cars for nobility. Density Bros are a very ageist bunch.