‘Slow Streets’ is stupid

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

There’s parks everywhere. DC has more green space than any other big city in America. This idea that kids need to play in the streets because there’s nowhere for them to go is very strange. Nearly everyone in the entire city is within a 10 minute walk to a park.

Who has said that? The idea is not that kids must play in the streets because there's nowhere else to play. The idea is that streets are for everyone, including for kids who are playing.

This "roads are for cars, everyone else GTFOOMW" belief is inappropriate almost everywhere, but it's especially inappropriate in cities.

[Anonymous]

All of this would be solved with a ban on privately owned non-commercial vehicles in the city.

You can still get a taxi, bus or Uber, and still have delivery vehicles and govt vehicles like police cars and fire trucks and work vehicles.

Other cities in other countries figured this out in the 50’s

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:All of this would be solved with a ban on privately owned non-commercial vehicles in the city.

You can still get a taxi, bus or Uber, and still have delivery vehicles and govt vehicles like police cars and fire trucks and work vehicles.

Other cities in other countries figured this out in the 50’s

Such a white statement.

But go ahead and be proud of how woke you think you are.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:All of this would be solved with a ban on privately owned non-commercial vehicles in the city.

You can still get a taxi, bus or Uber, and still have delivery vehicles and govt vehicles like police cars and fire trucks and work vehicles.

Other cities in other countries figured this out in the 50’s

Can we just take out all the bike lanes? Since no one uses them? People actually use cars.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:All of this would be solved with a ban on privately owned non-commercial vehicles in the city.

You can still get a taxi, bus or Uber, and still have delivery vehicles and govt vehicles like police cars and fire trucks and work vehicles.

Other cities in other countries figured this out in the 50’s

Such a white statement.

But go ahead and be proud of how woke you think you are.

I get that y'all think this is a clever argument, but it's not. Non-white households are significantly more likely than white households not to have a car. 41% of DC non-white households don't own a car, compared to 28% of white households. It the metro area, it's 14% and 6%, but it's still much more common for non-white households to be without a car.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:All of this would be solved with a ban on privately owned non-commercial vehicles in the city.

You can still get a taxi, bus or Uber, and still have delivery vehicles and govt vehicles like police cars and fire trucks and work vehicles.

Other cities in other countries figured this out in the 50’s

Can we just take out all the bike lanes? Since no one uses them? People actually use cars.

It's seriously weird that there is someone out there (unless it's a bot) who obsessively posts on DCUM about their inability to see people when they're on bikes in DC.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:All of this would be solved with a ban on privately owned non-commercial vehicles in the city.

You can still get a taxi, bus or Uber, and still have delivery vehicles and govt vehicles like police cars and fire trucks and work vehicles.

Other cities in other countries figured this out in the 50’s

Such a white statement.

But go ahead and be proud of how woke you think you are.

I get that y'all think this is a clever argument, but it's not. Non-white households are significantly more likely than white households not to have a car. 41% of DC non-white households don't own a car, compared to 28% of white households. It the metro area, it's 14% and 6%, but it's still much more common for non-white households to be without a car.

Completely made up statistics. But you probably think that throwing in the folks y'all will make people overlook your white privilege.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:All of this would be solved with a ban on privately owned non-commercial vehicles in the city.

You can still get a taxi, bus or Uber, and still have delivery vehicles and govt vehicles like police cars and fire trucks and work vehicles.

Other cities in other countries figured this out in the 50’s

Such a white statement.

But go ahead and be proud of how woke you think you are.

I get that y'all think this is a clever argument, but it's not. Non-white households are significantly more likely than white households not to have a car. 41% of DC non-white households don't own a car, compared to 28% of white households. It the metro area, it's 14% and 6%, but it's still much more common for non-white households to be without a car.

Completely made up statistics. But you probably think that throwing in the folks y'all will make people overlook your white privilege.

The statistics are real, from here: https://nationalequityatlas.org/indicators/Car_access#/?geo=02000000000011000

I say y'all because I'm from North Carolina.

[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.

I have a 6500 square foot house on a 25000 square foot yard and I want slower traffic on my street! In fact, I have achieved it via calming measures and the now nearly constant presence of police nabbing people for speeding and blowing through stop signs - and I LIVE IN DC! We didn’t have a ton of traffic in the first place but I will be damned if folks try to ignore the rules on my block.

[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.

The city put these in place! I don't think anyone petitioned to get slow streets, they just started setting them up. Didn't they? I haven't seen any requests for public comment on this or anything. It's hardly entitlement to say you like this thing that the municipal government did on its own.

[Anonymous]

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.

I have a 6500 square foot house on a 25000 square foot yard and I want slower traffic on my street! In fact, I have achieved it via calming measures and the now nearly constant presence of police nabbing people for speeding and blowing through stop signs - and I LIVE IN DC! We didn’t have a ton of traffic in the first place but I will be damned if folks try to ignore the rules on my block.

Why do you need such a massive house? Do you have 3 generations of family living with you, or like 8 kids? Because unless you do, how can you justify such as large house for a regular size family???

Do you have any idea the amount of energy or electricity required to keep a house that size working? It’s literally 3 times larger than the average American home - which itself is much more consumptive than most homes in the rest of the world. Not too mention the whole privilege aspect of flaunting such wealth in a city where so many are barely scraping by.

You are the reason DC and most other coastal cities will be under water in our lifetimes.

Thanks a lot.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:


Why do you need such a massive house? Do you have 3 generations of family living with you, or like 8 kids? Because unless you do, how can you justify such as large house for a regular size family???

Do you have any idea the amount of energy or electricity required to keep a house that size working? It’s literally 3 times larger than the average American home - which itself is much more consumptive than most homes in the rest of the world. Not too mention the whole privilege aspect of flaunting such wealth in a city where so many are barely scraping by.

You are the reason DC and most other coastal cities will be under water in our lifetimes.

Thanks a lot.

DP. Focus, please. One issue at a time.

[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?

I’m going to get the city to ban people from driving, riding bikes, walking or anything else just in front of my house.

[Anonymous]

There are 600,000 people who live in the city. There are 6.5 million people in the suburbs. We do need to worry about safety, but the convenience for the vast majority of people also needs to be considered.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There are 600,000 people who live in the city. There are 6.5 million people in the suburbs. We do need to worry about safety, but the convenience for the vast majority of people also needs to be considered.

The DC government should make decisions based on the convenience of Maryland commuters? I am a Maryland commuters and even I think that's dumb.