‘Slow Streets’ is stupid

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This is what DC does. Pile on ever more laws. Enforce nothing. Laws are almost symbolic in DC.

This

[Anonymous]

From dc website

DC Slow Streets will NOT:
Limit access for people who need to use the street to access a final destination; emergency vehicles; deliveries; or trash collection.
Seek to ticket or otherwise target enforcement toward those who use the corridors.
Affect bus routes – streets with bus routes will not be Slow Streets.
Encourage gathering or events. Residents will be reminded to always maintain at least 6 feet of physical space from others and roadways are intended for through travel, not gathering in the street.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you want children playing kickball in the street, move to the suburbs. Seriously, you’re in the wrong place. Do you think kids should be able to play in the streets of Manhattan? If you let your kids play in the street in DC, you should have your head examined.

I don’t understand this mentality of “if you don’t like X then move to Y.” A city and its government should be responsive to the different needs of its citizens. If some residents of a citizen want to advocate for bike lanes and some want to advocate for higher speed limits for cars so they can get to their destination, the result should reflect in some way what the citizens want and what helps the city grow. 50 years ago many circles were cut down to provide more car lanes- why didn’t the people who wanted that just move instead of trying to change the city to suit them?

People are free to lobby for whatever stupid thing they want. But if you want kids playing in the streets — and huge yards and you want to live in a McMansion — then you should move because city living isn’t for you.

See, that's really weird, because until recently (= cars), here's where city kids played: in the streets.

I’ve been in DC for 25 years and I don’t remember kids ever playing the streets. Good way of getting yourself killed.

Who lets their kids play in the streets?

It used to be really common before cars. It's declined because cars turn otherwise normal people into sociopaths who can't be expected not to run over children and it's a loss for our kids.

Before cars? You mean the 1800s?

Try to come up with a less stupid argument.

Cars really came to dominate the urban landscape in the '20s as another user pointed out, but even then the effects are gradual. Street games were still a feature of life in American cities well into the 20th century. What your dismissing out of hand as ludicrous was a regular part of life for our grandparents.

Children playing in the streets of major American cities are a major feature in poorly informed twentysomethings’ imaginings of what the past was probably like.

Here are some sources, interviews and pictures mostly:

In New York: https://nypost.com/2010/05/09/what-happened-to-new-yorks-storied-street-games/ (there's a whole documentary there if you're genuinely curious)
More photos of New York:
https://images.nypl.org/index.php?id=5761811&t=w
https://ephemeralnewyork.files.wordpress.com/2019/04/playstreettheatlantic.png
That last one is attached to an interesting story of a time when New York set aside specific streets for playing, not unlike what DC is doing (https://ephemeralnewyork.wordpress.com/2019/04/15/when-play-streets-let-new-york-kids-run-free/)

Philly: https://www.inquirer.com/philly/news/philly-pimpleball-stickball-wallball-wireball-buckbuck-street-games-20181107.html?outputType=amp

In London: https://www.museumoflondon.org.uk/discover/time-to-play-street-was-our-playground

I don't have all night to find you sources, but that's I'm basing my opinion on; photographs and interviews with people who lived back then. I'm pretty well informed. I'm also 40.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you want children playing kickball in the street, move to the suburbs. Seriously, you’re in the wrong place. Do you think kids should be able to play in the streets of Manhattan? If you let your kids play in the street in DC, you should have your head examined.

I don’t understand this mentality of “if you don’t like X then move to Y.” A city and its government should be responsive to the different needs of its citizens. If some residents of a citizen want to advocate for bike lanes and some want to advocate for higher speed limits for cars so they can get to their destination, the result should reflect in some way what the citizens want and what helps the city grow. 50 years ago many circles were cut down to provide more car lanes- why didn’t the people who wanted that just move instead of trying to change the city to suit them?

People are free to lobby for whatever stupid thing they want. But if you want kids playing in the streets — and huge yards and you want to live in a McMansion — then you should move because city living isn’t for you.

See, that's really weird, because until recently (= cars), here's where city kids played: in the streets.

The kkk was in its heyday in the 1920’s.

Do you want to bring that back too?

Probably, I’m betting.

I’ve been in DC for 25 years and I don’t remember kids ever playing the streets. Good way of getting yourself killed.

Who lets their kids play in the streets?

It used to be really common before cars. It's declined because cars turn otherwise normal people into sociopaths who can't be expected not to run over children and it's a loss for our kids.

Before cars? You mean the 1800s?

Try to come up with a less stupid argument.

DP. No, the 1920s. It's a historical fact.

[Anonymous]

Slow streets just seems selfish. It doesn’t change the total amount of traffic. It just forces more traffic onto neighboring streets so people on the chosen streets get less. What does that accomplish?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Slow streets just seems selfish. It doesn’t change the total amount of traffic. It just forces more traffic onto neighboring streets so people on the chosen streets get less. What does that accomplish?

It establishes places that everyone in the neighborhood can engage in outdoor recreation. It's not like they're limited to people who live on those blocks. People on the streets where traffic is (hypothetically) increased can still use the Slow Streets; they're open to the public provided you're not driving. That's even assuming that traffic is increased. Traffic levels were down at the beginning of the pandemic. I know they're come back in some places, but I don't see as much traffic as I'm used to.

Also as someone whose commute is impacted by Slow Streets, it's moved me from cutting through a short stretch of residential street onto a larger street that can handle the traffic better.

[Anonymous]

Tell yourself what you want but slow streets unjustly benefit the few that live on the slow street. You live in the city not on a suburban cul de sac except you now want to reconfigure the city to benefit you.

Entitlement at its finest.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

They are roads, not sidewalks. They were built for car traffic. Are you on one of those blocks who just blocked it off yourselves with cones last year, thinking the pandemic somehow just changed all the rules? If you don't like the way your street works, move. It is not up to you to alter DC traffic. You should have done the homework about traffic in your neighborhood before you moved in.

No, they weren't. Streets are for everyone. ESPECIALLY city streets. If you want to live somewhere where roads are for cars, don't live in DC. Actually, don't live anywhere in the DC area.

Streets are for everyone, but their purpose is transportation. We have other public spaces for recreation.

[Anonymous]

Walking and biking is transportation

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Tell yourself what you want but slow streets unjustly benefit the few that live on the slow street. You live in the city not on a suburban cul de sac except you now want to reconfigure the city to benefit you.

Entitlement at its finest.

I don’t live on a slow street but use them in my neighborhood often. When I go for a run or am out walking with my young child, I gravitate to slow street corridors because I know I’ll be able to relax a little about traffic. And slow streets are busy! Just with pedestrians, kids, cyclists, joggers, instead of cars. It’s great to have areas of the neighborhood where I live dedicated to these activities. Especially because my neighborhood (H Street NE) is a common route for commuters, which often means people who don’t live in the neighborhood will try to speed through it, putting people in danger. This is a nice effort to balance the scales.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you want children playing kickball in the street, move to the suburbs. Seriously, you’re in the wrong place. Do you think kids should be able to play in the streets of Manhattan? If you let your kids play in the street in DC, you should have your head examined.

I don’t understand this mentality of “if you don’t like X then move to Y.” A city and its government should be responsive to the different needs of its citizens. If some residents of a citizen want to advocate for bike lanes and some want to advocate for higher speed limits for cars so they can get to their destination, the result should reflect in some way what the citizens want and what helps the city grow. 50 years ago many circles were cut down to provide more car lanes- why didn’t the people who wanted that just move instead of trying to change the city to suit them?

People are free to lobby for whatever stupid thing they want. But if you want kids playing in the streets — and huge yards and you want to live in a McMansion — then you should move because city living isn’t for you.

If you think that people should be able to lobby for whatever they want then they should be able to lobby for public space (streets) being shared by users other than cars.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If you want children playing kickball in the street, move to the suburbs. Seriously, you’re in the wrong place. Do you think kids should be able to play in the streets of Manhattan? If you let your kids play in the street in DC, you should have your head examined.

I wish it was safe for my kids to play in the street (in NW D.C.). Unfortunately, people refuse to drive more slowly or accept any fractional inconvenience for their car trips, so it isn’t.

[Anonymous]

I like the idea. They are not perfect, but I do slow down when I go through the sign.

Get over yourselves people. You criticize everything.

[Anonymous]

Actually dense urban places should be the easiest places to remove cars and prioritize people.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Slow streets just seems selfish. It doesn’t change the total amount of traffic. It just forces more traffic onto neighboring streets so people on the chosen streets get less. What does that accomplish?

The whole thing is dumb. It accomplishes nothing.