Currently, the community overwhelmingly supports the proposed Quinn Street extention, as reflected in the above poll. I notice that one person recently voted against the idea, while the remainder have voted in favor. Since all of the arguments I have heard thus far support the idea, I would be curious to hear what the contrary arguments are. If the opponent (or opponents) of the idea could explain the downside to the proposal, I think that would be very helpful to the community.
Ken Marcus asks why there could be any opposition to this proposal.
I find myself barely in favor of this proposal. In general I'm opposed to anything that makes automobile circulation any easier. Cars and their supporting infrastructure are THE major cause of air pollution in this area, they are big contributors to other types of pollution, and they are just terrible in terms of their effect on land use patterns. I only support this proposal because it will improve pedestrian access between South and North Rosslyn.
I think it is a very good proposal. People like me who are living at N. Clonial Ter., and those who live on the north side of Clarendon Blv. won't have to go unnecessary extra blocks around Down town ROSSLYN. Plus no other commuters from that point of Clarendon have to go all the way down through down town ROSSLYN to reach 66, or lee Highway. Since Clarendon is a one way Blv.?, this plan will only decrease the pollution, and the unnecessary traffic, and will not increase the commuters around ROSSLN.
When I first heard of this idea, I thought it was fine since it would simplify going north from Clarendon Avenue. But now I've heard that the proposed extension is not a straight line extension, but that the new part of Quinn would be west of the existing Quinn Street - thereby preventing us from driving north past Wilson Blvd. because Wilson is one-way going west. In other words, we would still have to do the current jog around the block between Clarendon and Wilson to get to Quinn going north. Is this information correct?? It may be why at least one County Board member was critical of the proposal.