Draft ANC 3C Resolution to support Concept C for DDOT Study on Connecticut Avenue


 

Hi Everyone,
 
Thank you for the vibrant and informative discussion about the future of Connecticut Avenue on the listserv. I received a lot of comments and ideas from you all, which I followed up on with DDOT and other community representatives. As a result of all this discussion, I am attaching a draft resolution that I have co-written with Commissioners Lee Brian Reba and Adam Hoyt that we will present for a vote during our April 19th ANC 3C meeting. Mary Cheh has publicly supported the implementation of Concept C and the latest presentation from DDOT's study is available here along with recordings on their Facebook page. I encourage you all to provide feedback and ideas for this resolution before our ANC 3C meeting in 12 days and also to DDOT before their 30-day comment period ends. 
 
The resolution supports Vision Zero and the implementation of Complete Streets for Connecticut Avenue and other parts of Ward 3, which is "a policy by which streets are designed, operated, and maintained to accommodate safe and convenient access and mobility for all users of the District's transportation system, including pedestrians, bicyclists, users of mass transit, motorists, emergency responders, and persons of all ages and abilities” (DC Code § 50–2381). Here are some updated reasons that we came to this draft based on the questions raised on the listserv:
 
1) Safety: This should be our number one priority. Concept C is the safest option for everyone, including pedestrians and motorists. Bicyclists and scooter riders have space in the protected bicycle lane so they avoid conflict with pedestrians as well as cars, and we reduce the number of cars on Connecticut Avenue, and thereby the number of crashes. Pedestrians would only need to cross four lanes of cars with improved visibility as opposed to six lanes during rush hour. Concept C supports the reduction of the CT Ave speed limit from 30 to 25 MPH and a series of safety advantages such as pedestrian refuges and dedicated left turn lanes that don't exist in other concepts.
 
2) Loading and Unloading for Businesses: After your feedback, DDOT conducted a thorough analysis of loading/unloading for businesses, as evidenced at the public meetings last week. Concept C significantly improves the current loading and unloading situation on Connecticut Avenue by introducing 24-hour loading and unloading, something not provided by other concepts DDOT is considering. Further, it helps our businesses by providing 24-hours pick-up/drop-off zones, which will especially help dry cleaners and restaurants doing takeout. The addition of 24-hour parking is another great feature in Concept C. None of these options are included in the other concepts put forward by DDOT.
 
3) Concept C decreases traffic on some of our side streets, including Porter St. NW and Macomb St. NW. There is a minor increase in traffic on Reno Rd. NW compared to other options, which is less than 2 cars for each peak hour commute, but that increase also exists in other concepts put forward by DDOT. If we want to get rid of reversible lanes on Connecticut Avenue, our worst-case scenario is a minor increase in traffic on Reno Rd. 
 
4) Concept C brings over 3000 bicyclists a day to the neighborhood. That type of boom will be not only beneficial for our businesses but increase the vibrancy and sustainability of our community.
 
5) You'll see in the resolution, we ask for more dedicated parking spots for the disabled and elder members of our community. If we are redesigning our public space, we should prioritize it for those who need it the most. We finally have the opportunity to have parking on Connecticut Avenue during rush hour, which will really help our community members who depend on cars.
 
I think this answers all of the concerns raised by people who provided feedback. We looked deeply into loading and unloading issues, and because of your suggestions, DDOT has now made it a priority in the next phase of their design process. We look forward to hearing from you all regarding the resolution and any other comments you might have. Please feel free to reach out to me with comments and suggestions and email all@... to let us know your opinion about this resolution before April 18th, 2021 and email Conn-Ave-revstudy@... by April 28th, 2021 with your comments as well. 
 
Sauleh

Sauleh Siddiqui
 
Commissioner, ANC 3C05
Email: 3C05@...
Twitter: @saulehforanc


Andrew Shapiro
 

Thank you for this analysis.

Have I missed what hard evidence proves concept C will bring 3000 bicyclists a day to the neighborhood? Is this from within the neighborhood/nearby neighborhoods or other parts of the city?

Thanks
Andrew Shapiro

The original message is available in full at Message https://groups.io/g/clevelandpark/message/172448


Eileen Davis
 

Mr. Siddiqui,
 
When you say that there will be “24-hour parking,” do you mean that we will be able to park on the avenue, go into a grocery store and shop, or go into a restaurant and have a meal, or into a hair salon for treatment, or into the library to spend an hour reading?  Or will it be a “fifteen-minute-parking,” mostly to be used for food truck and other quick pick-ups and deliveries? I mean, does this actually benefit the residents of the neighborhood, or is it just a convenience for food deliveries to stores? Because if we do not have real parking, we will not be able to shop here in our own neighborhood. We’ll have to drive over to Giant or up to Whole Foods, where we can actually park and shop.
 
Another question --- I see no mention in your report of parking space on the avenue in front of condos, co-ops and apartment buildings. These blocks are constantly used by delivery, repair and working people. I looked at my block a couple of days ago and there were six cars/trucks belonging to a plumber, two electricians, a real estate lady, a telephone company and a cleaning service. During daytime/working hours, we need such parking, as there are no designated spaces for all of these service people on our property.
 
Please address these issues which are real issues for people who actually live on Connecticut Avenue and will not just be biking in, and then out of, town.
 
Thank you,
Eileen Davis
Connecticut Avenue


David Cristeal
 

Commissioner Siddiqui,
 
Thank you for posting ANC 3C's draft resolution to support Concept C for DDOT Study on Connecticut Avenue.  
 
ANC 3F's Streets & Sidewalk Committee drafted a resolution also supporting Concept C (attached).  Like ANC 3C, we too have received a range of feedback - both support for the protected bike lanes and concerns raised on the potential consequences - parking and diverted traffic.  
 
ANC 3F will vote on this resolution at its Tuesday, April 20th meeting.  
 
We encourage people interested in this matter to attend this meeting (agenda will be posted by the 12th).
 
David Cristeal, Chair
ANC 3F
-----------
The original message is available in full at https://groups.io/g/clevelandpark/message/172448  


Karen Davis
 


When did the proposed plans for re-envisioning Connecticut Ave come to include removal of the CP service lane on its east side? Hadn't our businesses always asked that we keep it? Hasn't it provided useful parking during rush hour? And been useful for drop-offs and deliveries?
 
Doing away with it has been debated at length on this listserv over the years, and the neighborhood always came away supporting it. Now its removal is on this survey as a done deal with a clever name?
 
Karen Davis
Connecticut Ave 
------------
Previous discussion is accessible through message  


 

Mr. Shapiro,

These bicyclists are from the neighborhood and outside the neighborhood. The analysis assumptions and methodlogy was provided by DDOT in their presentation. You can see slide 72 here for details:
https://ddot.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/ddot/page_content/attachments/03_Conn%20Ave_GA_Public%20Meeting_FINAL_04012021.pdf

From my own research on this topic, I believe this to be an underestimate given assumptions on bicycle use and infrastructure and recent trends. 

Ms. Davis,

Yes, the plan right now is that the 24-hour parking will include long-term parking, short-term parking, pick-up drop-off zones, and loading/unloading. The exact mixture of these are the next stage of DDOT's design process, and we should discuss as a community what mixture we will want. I'm glad to hear your feedback that you would like the longer-term incorporated. We as a neighborhood should discuss this in the next steps of DDOT's process.

As far as parking goes in front of apartment buildings and non-commercial areas, that is also something part of the next steps. The nice thing is that Concept C will provide us with the flexibility of actually having these 24-hour parking/loading zones where we need them. Some buildings have these in the back or side, so they are not always needed, but this is where we can give ourselves the option of having this in places we want it while balancing the needs of everyone who uses the road.

And to your final comment, I completely agree that we should plan for the people who live here and not the people who live outside our neighborhood. According to DDOT's numbers, pre-COVID, around 45% of all peak hour car trips originated and concluded outside of Connecticut Avenue. Concept C redesigns this avenue for people and families who live here. Most bicyclists, according to my own research, will be people who live in the immediate neighborhood.

Sauleh

------------
The referenced messages are available in full at Message  and Message  


nrgross
 


DDOT provided public information sessions on 3/31 and 4/1. I attended the 4/1 evening sessions including the intro/learning hours from 5-6 and 6-7 prior to the general presentation 7-8:30, which largely covered what was already covered previously.

I will make only one comment here relative to the issue of parking needs that Eileen addressed. Option C essentially eliminates all effective on-street curbside parking everywhere there is to be a bike lane and buffer. Since there is to be one such lane on each side, the net result after losing most if not all effective parking is that one third of the entire currently available roadway surface will be lost to multi-passenger vehicular traffic. DDOT has calculated that an INCREASE in hours available for parking will result from the removal of all residential zone parking and converting whatever reserved spaces for parking remain into short term occupancy by automobiles and trucks.

Eileen is right to point out that so many of these are service persons doing work for residents along Connecticut Ave. But how, you might ask, will the result of removing residential parking be an increase of about 17% of hours available for parking for service vehicles? The answer is simple math:  for every residential parking permitted space that is removed 24 hours of provisionally available parking is created. So if 400 or 600 or whatever number of parking spaces get eliminated, multiply the total number of spaces lost by 24 to calculate the total number of hours of temporary parking that suddenly becomes available as a gift of “free lunch”.

What DDOT did not make clear is that at 2am or 3am or 4am, the “increase in available hours of street parking” becomes of questionable value, especially when traded off against a complete prohibition of residential parking that residents along Connecticut Ave have become used to. This is only simple math: lose all residential/reserved parking, but gain lots of hours of free and open usage of the same physical space along Connecticut Ave, and you can see that this is an enormous boon to vehicular parking, not at all to be regretted as any sort of loss.

I leave it to the readers to evaluate the fundamental value of this mathematical approach. Just know that DDOT considers this an “increase”, not any form of loss.

Neal Gross
CP neighbor
---------
The referenced message and other messages in the thread are available from Message #  


Eleanor
 

Dear Neighbors,

The last time a meeting on this issue was held at the former Library, 500 people showed up to voice their opposition to closing the service lane. If you go around to the thriving commercial areas in the area, they all have plenty of (free or minimal cost) parking. That service lane was put in at the demand of the shop keepers in the 3300 -3400 block on Connecticut who noticed that the shops in the Park & Shop block were doing far more business because they had parking available.  
 
If you want to kill the commercial viability of an area get rid of its parking. It might be a nice place to set up an outdoor restaurant, but how many customers will it attract night after night (on evenings when it doesn’t rain or get too cold and windy) if that restaurant has to depend on pedestrian customers only?  Cleveland Park may be too small a community to sustain a useful collection of businesses if some of their customers cannot drive in from a wider area.  

Does the Cleveland Park community want to cut off its nose to spite its face? I don’t think so. 

Eleanor O

- previous message -
When did the proposed plans for re-envisioning Connecticut Ave come to include removal of the CP service lane on its east side? Hadn't our businesses always asked that we keep it? Hasn't it provided useful parking during rush hour? And been useful for drop-offs and deliveries?
Doing away with it has been debated at length on this listserv over the years, and the neighborhood always came away supporting it. Now its removal is on this survey as a done deal with a clever name?

------------
Previous discussion is accessible through message  #172448  


Sauleh Siddiqui
 


Just want to clarify one issue: The service lane has nothing to do with this resolution at all. This resolution only deals with the six traffic lanes of Connecticut Avenue.

Sauleh Siddiqui
Commissioner, ANC 3C05
Email: 3C05@...
www.saulehanc.com

-- previous message --
When did the proposed plans for re-envisioning Connecticut Ave come to include removal of the CP service lane on its east side? Hadn't our businesses always asked that we keep it? Hasn't it provided useful parking during rush hour? And been useful for drop-offs and deliveries?
Doing away with it has been debated at length on this listserv over the years, and the neighborhood always came away supporting it. Now its removal is on this survey as a done deal with a clever name?


Carren Kaston
 


I want to be sure I understand Message   [posted April 7 by Sauleh Siddiqui]. Does it say that there's a new Concept C, one that DDOT created based on feedback from ANC 3C?

The previous DDOT diagram showed an option C that did not offer parking, etc. See below. 
[Editor's note: If the graphic below appears in your email as a blank frame, it is accessible by clicking on the attachment link]

Re-imagining Transit & Reversible Lanes Along Connecticut Ave

 

·         Concept B eliminates reversible lanes and includes parking on both sides of the avenue, but only during off-peak hours. There are no bike lanes.  
·         Concept C does away with reversible lane and includes a bike lane on both sides and no parking at any time. This concept could also accommodate floating bus islands and left-turn lanes.

DDOT has also suggested modifying Concept C to include loading and pick-up/drop-off zones to accommodate the needs of businesses. ANC 3F hopes in addition that pedestrian “refuge islands” would be added to Conn. Ave under Concept C.

I have questions about some of the comments below that summarize ANC 3C's draft resolution, based on the new Concept C:

3) "Concept C decreases traffic on some of our side streets, including Porter St. NW and Macomb St. NW. There is a minor increase in traffic on Reno Rd. NW compared to other options, which is less than 2 cars for each peak hour commute, but that increase also exists in other concepts put forward by DDOT. If we want to get rid of reversible lanes on Connecticut Avenue, our worst-case scenario is a minor increase in traffic on Reno Rd."

MY QUESTION: Previously the estimate was that elimination of the reversible lanes would result in up to 60 additional cars per hour on Reno Road during peak hours. Is that "minor"? How did 60 cars per hour suddenly turn into 2 per hour? And Reno Road wasn't built to be a heavy-use thoroughfare. And it has only one lane in each direction.

In addition, how will traffic on Porter St. and Macomb St. be decreased? Cars will need some way to get over to Reno Road.

4) "Concept C brings over 3000 bicyclists a day to the neighborhood. That type of boom will be not only beneficial for our businesses but increase the vibrancy and sustainability of our community." 

MY QUESTION:
3,000 bicyclists per day to our neighborhood sounds hellish, even if they are separated from everyone else in protected bike lanes. It'll be like the descent of the locusts. And then at some point, the bike riders will get off their bikes. There will hardly be room for people in the stores or on the sidewalks. Are the sidewalks where the bikes will be parked?

In addition, I have questions about two of the Whereas's in the actual draft resolution:

WHEREAS, from 2015-2019, Connecticut Avenue had 1507 crashes, 44% of which occurred during reversible lane operation

MY QUESTION: Footnotes are offered for many of the statistics and statements in the draft resolution. Where does this statistic come from?

WHEREAS, per the findings of the 2003 DDOT study on Connecticut Avenue, there is renewed community interest in reviewing the reversible lane system and exploring concepts for other mobility options such as bike lanes;

MY QUESTION: Doesn't this seem like an awfully old study (2003) on which to base the conclusion that "there is renewed community interest in reviewing the reversible lane system"?

Thank you.

Carren Kaston
----------------------

ANC3CSupportConceptCResolution.pdf
 
Attachments:



Mark Rosenman
 


As Commissioner Siddiqui is aware, just a few weeks ago over 75% of the businesses on Connecticut Avenue (between Macomb and Porter) signed a petition asking that the service lane be reopened to regular vehicle parking as soon as possible post-pandemic. Our neighborhood-serving businesses have long reported that adequate street parking is vital to them, as the Deputy Mayor found in a 2016 study of their concerns when it ranked twice as high as their next most pressing issue. 

In fact, the recent business petition – which was submitted to a “roundtable” conducted by Councilmember Mary Cheh on DDOT’s post-pandemic plans – also asked councilmembers to “remain vigilant about other District efforts that might remove Connecticut Avenue street parking.”  That mirrored another missive that Connecticut Avenue business owners were reported to have sent to ANCs several months ago.

I really don’t know why this issue needs to be relitigated every few years when the direct experience of businesses (for instance when parking was disrupted by installation of the mid-block crosswalk) has shown how critical regular customer parking is to their economic vitality and to the neighborhood’s residents and other shoppers. 

Mark Rosenman

- previous message - 

Just want to clarify one issue: The service lane has nothing to do with this resolution at all. This resolution only deals with the six traffic lanes of Connecticut Avenue.

Sauleh Siddiqui
Commissioner, ANC 3C05


Andrew Shapiro
 


How was 3,000 arrived at? Is this in ideal weather, or inclusive of rain, snow, cold temps, etc? I don't ask this blithely. I support protective bike infrastructure, but feel this project is being rammed down residents throats using the pandemic as cover while we do not know the full effects of how travel will change as a result, how many will commence working at home, etc. 
 
Andrew Shapiro 
 
-- from referenced message --
4) Concept C brings over 3000 bicyclists a day to the neighborhood. That type of boom will be not only beneficial for our businesses but increase the vibrancy and sustainability of our community.
[The referenced message is available in full at Message   


Linnea Warren
 


Here’s my reaction:

I agree that safety should be a primary concern but disagree with your assumption that adding dedicated bike lanes would provide it.

DC law does NOT require bicyclists to use bike lanes when provided, so bikers could still choose to ride in traffic or on sidewalks everywhere but downtown.  

Having been nearly hit (several times) by bicyclists moving quickly through red lights and crosswalks when I had the right of way, I’m skeptical that it’s safer for pedestrians to cross bike lanes than traffic. The idea of making buses stop in traffic and requiring passengers to cross the bike lane to board makes me shudder. What will happen when the ramp needs to be lowered for a disabled rider? I can envision bus riders gathering in the bike lane while waiting to board, bike riders quickly detouring onto the sidewalk to get past them, and traffic backing up behind the bus. That isn’t safe or good traffic management.      

Finally, if all those bike riders are going to save CP’s merchants by stopping to shop, where will they park? Our local sidewalks are already filling up with discarded rental scooters, outdoor eateries, and more.   

Concept C seems to me to be trying to do too many things at once, none of them well. 

Linnea Warren
--------------
The referenced message is available in full at Message 
   


Betty Sinowitz
 


I find bikes and scooters on roads, lanes, and sidewalks to be about as dangerous as cars, trucks, and buses for pedestrians. All fail to stop at stop signs and red lights.

Betty
Cathedral Avenue
 
- previous message -
Here’s my reaction:
I agree that safety should be a primary concern but disagree with your assumption that adding dedicated bike lanes would provide it.
DC law does NOT require bicyclists to use bike lanes when provided, so bikers could still choose to ride in traffic or on sidewalks everywhere but downtown.  
Having been nearly hit (several times) by bicyclists moving quickly through red lights and crosswalks when I had the right of way, I’m skeptical that it’s safer for pedestrians to cross bike lanes than traffic. The idea of making buses stop in traffic and requiring passengers to cross the bike lane to board makes me shudder. What will happen when the ramp needs to be lowered for a disabled rider? I can envision bus riders gathering in the bike lane while waiting to board, bike riders quickly detouring onto the sidewalk to get past them, and traffic backing up behind the bus. That isn’t safe or good traffic management.      
Finally, if all those bike riders are going to save CP’s merchants by stopping to shop, where will they park? Our local sidewalks are already filling up with discarded rental scooters, outdoor eateries, and more.   
Concept C seems to me to be trying to do too many things at once, none of them well. 


nrgross
 

SNIPPET OF PREVIOUS MESSAGE:  
"What will happen when the ramp needs to be lowered for a disabled rider? I can envision bus riders gathering in the bike lane while waiting to board, bike riders quickly detouring onto the sidewalk to get past them, and traffic backing up behind the bus. That isn’t safe or good traffic management."    

The bus riders will be congregating on a “bus island,” a rather elaborate imposing structure of raised curb masonry surrounded by metal bars [presumably to protect waiting riders from exposure to bikes, scooters, and cars using all the lanes].  So the riders won’t congregate at all on the “sidewalk”, safer though it may now be. Rather, they will have had to cross the dedicated bike lanes to access the “bus island” which essentially takes up a good portion of the roadway surface and prevents the Metro Bus from pulling out of the lane when it stops to pick up or discharge. So the bus simply blocks the right driving lane entirely while doing its rider business. That means that the through lanes are reduced to one single lane, and you can imagine that drivers who are blocked behind a stopped bus in the right lane will be looking for a quick exit into the single remaining through lane, causing even more danger to all vehicles present.

Does reducing Connecticut Ave to one single lane in each direction no matter what time of day you choose seem to make sense to you? Not to me. I work on 14th St, and I see what the installation of bike lanes and buffer zones for bikes and scooters, and “bus islands” produces:  Oh, not merely entire loss of parking along the curb. Not merely the inability of the Metro Bus to pull over to the actual curb to get out of the way of ongoing vehicles. Not merely riders alighting and descending their bus being obliged to cross the scooter/bike lane [3000 bikes?] to access the safety of the curb. Not merely the invitation to delivery vehicles who have nowhere else to stop to do their business rather having to straddle the bike lanes and the right lane of traffic, causing the Bus and other ongoing traffic to have to pull around the stopped vehicle thus impeding traffic entirely and putting pedestrians, bus riders, bikers themselves, and anyone and everyone else at additional risk of injury. That is the lose-lose scenario from a project that has as its number 1 priority as stated to be the increased safety of all concerned.  

And we are expecting according to DDOT around 3000 bikes immediately, and I wonder how many realize that the assumed calendar period for this layout is targeted to be 2045. That is according to the fundamentals of this project.  So let’s see, if we make it virtually impossible for anyone, DC resident or MD commuter, to actually utilize Connecticut Ave as a main artery and we have posited 30,000 cars per day, then even if we assume a low number of 1 person per car, are we truly expecting 30,000 bikes and scooters to run from Legation to Calvert using the remaining single lane of through traffic roadway surface. Anybody wonder what it might be like in a true evacuation emergency for anyone trying to get away from danger, or even when we get some snow and ice and have that natural condition to add to the impediments?

Could someone please explain where these tens of thousands of bikers and scooter riders are going to come from? Not Kensington, not Aspen Hill, but is it Chevy Chase? And will they end their jaunt at Calvert, or as some have suggested, will we continue a Phase 2 of this project to move those 30,000 bikers down father into downtown or Adams Morgan or Kalorama across the bridges?

Thanks. This may be called a study for “lane reversal”, but it is far more than that.

Neal Gross
CP neighbor

-------
The referenced message is available in full at Message  


Sarah Brooks
 


Totally agree. I was one of the 33% who responded no to bike lanes.

Sarah on Macomb

- previous message -
I find bikes and scooters on roads, lanes, and sidewalks to be about as dangerous as cars, trucks, and buses for pedestrians. All fail to stop at stop signs and red lights.


James Linde
 


I personally detest an attitude that I am doing something good for the environment by riding a bike. On the sidewalk the pedestrian still has the right of way. Just this morning I had two different bicyclists ride past feeling that just because they use their bell we all magically move over. They then plow through the intersection. 

Jim

- previous message -
I find bikes and scooters on roads, lanes, and sidewalks to be about as dangerous as cars, trucks, and buses for pedestrians. All fail to stop at stop signs and red lights. 


Linnea Warren
 


DDOT’s illustrations of Concept C don’t show the kind of bus island Neal describes, though I’ve seen them on 14th Street and had the same reaction.  

Based on its sketches, DDOT seems to contemplate putting a ramp in the bike lane at sidewalk height that extends from the curb to the first vehicle lane. That’s why I imagine that bus riders waiting to board would end up gathering on the ramp, right in the bike lane.

Bicycles are certainly better than cars for the environment, but they aren’t a good way to transport all of the people going into and out of DC. They are still basically single-passenger vehicles that can only be used by the able-bodied; they aren’t ideal in bad weather or well-suited to the blind, the very young, groups, most seniors, those who live farther from their destination than they can pedal, etc.    

Has anyone noticed how slowly traffic has been moving through CP recently while the gas line under the curb lane is being replaced?  What do you think it will be like after the pandemic is over, when commuters start to return to work downtown and visitors come back to the Zoo? I’ve read that some people who used to use public transportation are nervous about it and plan to drive instead. Unless we make it expensive for people to use their cars to get downtown, traffic on this street is only going to get worse. So taking away vehicle lanes on Connecticut Avenue for the convenience of 3,000 bikers doesn’t make sense overall. 

This proposal doesn’t respond to everyone’s concerns – as I’ve said before, Connecticut Avenue is designated a major arterial, which means it’s intended to move people in and out of downtown. You may be able to figure out a way to do that while setting aside two lanes for bicycle users, but Concept C doesn’t do it.  

I’m afraid I agree that the original task – deciding whether to keep Connecticut Avenue’s reversible lanes, which have proved to be a safety issue – has been converted by the bicycle lobby into something quite different. And DDOT’s proposed solution, as usual, may be clever but would be expensive without solving the basic problem.   

Linnea Warren

----------
The referenced message is available in full at Message 
  


Martha Buckley
 


Unfortunately the facts do not back up your opinions. Bicyclists and scooters are not as dangerous as cars (simple physics--they go slower and are less massive). Consider the number of pedestrians that are killed by cars vs those killed by bikes/scooters (essentially none). It is a fact that riding a bike is better for the environment than driving a car. That is why cities are pushing to try to get more folks to choose bikes for transportation.  
 
I also strongly object to posters making statements like "all cyclists fail to stop at red lights". I can't believe that this sort of inaccurate and divisive rhetoric is allowed by the moderator.  

Martha
--
----
Editor's note: The poster who complained earlier today about cyclists who fail to stop at red lights was generalizing -- with hyperbole, no doubt -- but the other poster who complained today about bad behavior from cyclists specifically cited two incidents that he observed today. That's hardly "inaccurate and divisive rhetoric." Rather than trying to stir up anti-bicyclist fervor, these posts struck me as expressing the posters' frustration -- and a bit of fear -- about their personal safety while out walking as they observe bicyclists doing things that would result in traffic tickets, if done by drivers. Believe me when I say that I'm working full-time to keep really divisive rhetoric off the listserv -- but those two posters are not the problem!

The two referenced messages are Message  and Message  


Richard Hoffman
 


Carren Kaston's post raises all the right questions.
 
When did Concept C get revised to include parking and what parking does it propose? This makes a huge difference because all these proposals diminish parking, which is vitally needed in the business blocks.
 
And the statistics all lack either clear references or credibility: hardly any impact on Reno Rd.? 3,000 bicyclists--first of all, where did that figure come from since no one has ever seen 3,000 bicyclists on any route or bike lane here.
 
And the number given for reversible lane crashes--also without any reference. In this effort to punish motorists, this proposal will result in total gridlock at rush hours. I doubt that residents will be thrilled to have cars stuck in that, with the resulting emissions and blocking of intersections and crosswalks. The reversible lanes are a device that has functioned well. Now that traffic is starting to come back to pre-pandemic levels, there already are backups in the business blocks and elsewhere during rush hours.
 
The service lane may not be part of the resolution or proposal but it is certainly relevant to any consideration of Connecticut Avenue traffic, and especially parking. It should obviously be part of the plan and the consideration of any changes. Also, those pushing Concept C ignore the long-expressed desire of the stores to maintain the service lane as another access and parking component.
 
Lastly, the survey results are not drawn from a statistically-valid sample, which others have already pointed out here is weighted with pro-ANC resolution backers.
 
Richard Hoffman
28th Street
---------

The referenced message is available in full at Message