Privatizing DC roads?!: Chain Bridge Rd and University Terr

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am so sick of all of these people saying their streets need to be treated differently because they are "cut through" - no, these are all public spaces and should be accessible by and for the public at all times. It really isn't fair to push traffic on to other streets because you don't like it on yours. Buy a house on a different street out in the country. We live in a city. Tough it out.

+100

I live on a major road out of Rock Creek Park - most of the time its pretty quiet but it can be busy during rush hours. It's fine. I also hate speed bumps with a passion or roads that are one way without a corresponding one way in the other direction. Let's not turn into Chevy Chase Maryland where all the traffic is forced onto major roads which become insanely busy. Traffic works best in a grid-like, open design. If you want rules like (and no sidewalks!) move out of DC.

I agree. They are ruining DC with these traffic calming. Putting up permanent cement middle barriers
Turning streets one way. Adding bike lanes that bikers won’t use because they want to go the most efficient route for them even if it’s sidewalks going down one way the wrong way.

This is not traffic calming. This is traffic road rage. Don’t we want these cars to get out of the city as fast as possible? And get DC residents home?
They block intersections, blow red lights, spreed through alleys, it’s a mess. NE DC changes to roads is creating tons of back ups and now folks are looking for shorts cuts and speeding down the quieter blocks. The ANC A/B are making a mess.

+1,000,000

They are not making us safer or improving our quality of life with any of this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am so sick of all of these people saying their streets need to be treated differently because they are "cut through" - no, these are all public spaces and should be accessible by and for the public at all times. It really isn't fair to push traffic on to other streets because you don't like it on yours. Buy a house on a different street out in the country. We live in a city. Tough it out.

+100

I live on a major road out of Rock Creek Park - most of the time its pretty quiet but it can be busy during rush hours. It's fine. I also hate speed bumps with a passion or roads that are one way without a corresponding one way in the other direction. Let's not turn into Chevy Chase Maryland where all the traffic is forced onto major roads which become insanely busy. Traffic works best in a grid-like, open design. If you want rules like (and no sidewalks!) move out of DC.

I agree. They are ruining DC with these traffic calming. Putting up permanent cement middle barriers
Turning streets one way. Adding bike lanes that bikers won’t use because they want to go the most efficient route for them even if it’s sidewalks going down one way the wrong way.

This is not traffic calming. This is traffic road rage. Don’t we want these cars to get out of the city as fast as possible? And get DC residents home?
They block intersections, blow red lights, spreed through alleys, it’s a mess. NE DC changes to roads is creating tons of back ups and now folks are looking for shorts cuts and speeding down the quieter blocks. The ANC A/B are making a mess.

I live in DC and no, I do not want cars to get out of the city as fast as possible, putting pedestrians, kids, and other residents at risk. If you want to live in MD or VA and drive through DC that is fine but the speed limit is 20 mph on all non arterial roads so please leave earlier and drive the speed limit, yield to pedestrians, and make complete stops at stop signs. If everyone did this 100% of theme there would be no need for traffic calming. So if you hate traffic calming then please rail against the speeders and stop-sign runners and not the residents of the streets. Try taking the bus or the metro, you can sit back and listed to a podcast and not have to drive.

After some digging it sounds like this wasn't even requested by the all the residents of the street anyway. I live on a street with speed bumps that were put in before I moved in. I chatted with a neighbor about it and he said people used to go 30-40 mph routinely (past a school!) because the street worked as a cut through when people hit ill-times lights. People still drive through and I don't care about that but am glad that people before me advocated to get people to sloe down and actually have to drive the speed limit (they still run stop signs though).

[Anonymous]

"After some digging it sounds like this wasn't even requested by the all the residents of the street anyway."

Care to share your source?

[Anonymous]

There are streets with speed humps in Cleveland Park and folks would like to see more of them!

[Anonymous]

It’s the suburbanization of the city, which is pretty funny.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It’s the suburbanization of the city, which is pretty funny.

So your opinion is that city residence are not entitled to safe streets?! Is that only a suburban privilege?

[Anonymous]

No, it’s really what the headline says. It’s privatization, it’s not enforceable. There was minimum traffic, now there’ll be a lot more even just out of spite or because 3,000 plus eyeballs were on it.

The lawsuits this neighborhood has been bringing and the rules they’ve been writing for themselves are despicable. It’s really abhorrent to the point that I don’t even begrudge the low flying planes, and 70+dbs every 90 seconds. The streets are holding on to the last vestiges their historical reputation while being victims of their own legend — park your millions in Woodland, Woodley, Mass Ave Heights

The overbuilding, the flight path, the sewage problem, the run off, the no sidewalks… more is the pity

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s the suburbanization of the city, which is pretty funny.

So your opinion is that city residence are not entitled to safe streets?! Is that only a suburban privilege?

This has nothing to do with safety. It's about putting the convenience of the street's residence above the convenience of their neighbors.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:No, it’s really what the headline says. It’s privatization, it’s not enforceable. There was minimum traffic, now there’ll be a lot more even just out of spite or because 3,000 plus eyeballs were on it.

The lawsuits this neighborhood has been bringing and the rules they’ve been writing for themselves are despicable. It’s really abhorrent to the point that I don’t even begrudge the low flying planes, and 70+dbs every 90 seconds. The streets are holding on to the last vestiges their historical reputation while being victims of their own legend — park your millions in Woodland, Woodley, Mass Ave Heights

The overbuilding, the flight path, the sewage problem, the run off, the no sidewalks… more is the pity

The worst part is that it still won't be self for children to walk independently because it still won't have sidewalks and it still will have at least a couple of landscaping or construction trucks on any given day.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No, it’s really what the headline says. It’s privatization, it’s not enforceable. There was minimum traffic, now there’ll be a lot more even just out of spite or because 3,000 plus eyeballs were on it.

The lawsuits this neighborhood has been bringing and the rules they’ve been writing for themselves are despicable. It’s really abhorrent to the point that I don’t even begrudge the low flying planes, and 70+dbs every 90 seconds. The streets are holding on to the last vestiges their historical reputation while being victims of their own legend — park your millions in Woodland, Woodley, Mass Ave Heights

The overbuilding, the flight path, the sewage problem, the run off, the no sidewalks… more is the pity

The worst part is that it still won't be self for children to walk independently because it still won't have sidewalks and it still will have at least a couple of landscaping or construction trucks on any given day.

There should be a rule that if a street does not have sidewalks, and is opposed to them, then any claims that something is needed for safety should be rejected out of hand.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No, it’s really what the headline says. It’s privatization, it’s not enforceable. There was minimum traffic, now there’ll be a lot more even just out of spite or because 3,000 plus eyeballs were on it.

The lawsuits this neighborhood has been bringing and the rules they’ve been writing for themselves are despicable. It’s really abhorrent to the point that I don’t even begrudge the low flying planes, and 70+dbs every 90 seconds. The streets are holding on to the last vestiges their historical reputation while being victims of their own legend — park your millions in Woodland, Woodley, Mass Ave Heights

The overbuilding, the flight path, the sewage problem, the run off, the no sidewalks… more is the pity

The worst part is that it still won't be self for children to walk independently because it still won't have sidewalks and it still will have at least a couple of landscaping or construction trucks on any given day.

There should be a rule that if a street does not have sidewalks, and is opposed to them, then any claims that something is needed for safety should be rejected out of hand.

The issue with sidewalks is that there are some in flexible bureaucrats in the DC government to take a very restricted view of what is required for a sidewalk. They insist for example that new sidewalks should be 7 or 8 feet wide to allow 2 wheelchairs to pass easily. While this may make sense on K Street it is ridiculous on a side street in Forest Hills or Palisades. There three or 4th foot sidewalks makes sense. Environmental considerations such as preserving the tree canopy and permeable space are also important.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
The issue with sidewalks is that there are some in flexible bureaucrats in the DC government to take a very restricted view of what is required for a sidewalk. They insist for example that new sidewalks should be 7 or 8 feet wide to allow 2 wheelchairs to pass easily. While this may make sense on K Street it is ridiculous on a side street in Forest Hills or Palisades. There three or 4th foot sidewalks makes sense. Environmental considerations such as preserving the tree canopy and permeable space are also important.

These "flexible bureaucrats" are right in this instance. You can't make space for three more feet?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
The issue with sidewalks is that there are some in flexible bureaucrats in the DC government to take a very restricted view of what is required for a sidewalk. They insist for example that new sidewalks should be 7 or 8 feet wide to allow 2 wheelchairs to pass easily. While this may make sense on K Street it is ridiculous on a side street in Forest Hills or Palisades. There three or 4th foot sidewalks makes sense. Environmental considerations such as preserving the tree canopy and permeable space are also important.

These "flexible bureaucrats" are right in this instance. You can't make space for three more feet?

It's the city's right of way/easement anyway. That's the other issue with UT, people building into the easement then complaining that DDOT will ruin their plantings.

And they've won so far!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s the suburbanization of the city, which is pretty funny.

So your opinion is that city residence are not entitled to safe streets?! Is that only a suburban privilege?

This has nothing to do with safety. It's about putting the convenience of the street's residence above the convenience of their neighbors.

Speed humps are about slowing cars that have been speeding on streets. There is nothing convenient about them, and they do not deter the volume of car traffic on the streets.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No, it’s really what the headline says. It’s privatization, it’s not enforceable. There was minimum traffic, now there’ll be a lot more even just out of spite or because 3,000 plus eyeballs were on it.

The lawsuits this neighborhood has been bringing and the rules they’ve been writing for themselves are despicable. It’s really abhorrent to the point that I don’t even begrudge the low flying planes, and 70+dbs every 90 seconds. The streets are holding on to the last vestiges their historical reputation while being victims of their own legend — park your millions in Woodland, Woodley, Mass Ave Heights

The overbuilding, the flight path, the sewage problem, the run off, the no sidewalks… more is the pity

The worst part is that it still won't be self for children to walk independently because it still won't have sidewalks and it still will have at least a couple of landscaping or construction trucks on any given day.

There should be a rule that if a street does not have sidewalks, and is opposed to them, then any claims that something is needed for safety should be rejected out of hand.

The issue with sidewalks is that there are some in flexible bureaucrats in the DC government to take a very restricted view of what is required for a sidewalk. They insist for example that new sidewalks should be 7 or 8 feet wide to allow 2 wheelchairs to pass easily. While this may make sense on K Street it is ridiculous on a side street in Forest Hills or Palisades. There three or 4th foot sidewalks makes sense. Environmental considerations such as preserving the tree canopy and permeable space are also important.

A wheelchair is not 4' wide. I don't believe you are being fully truthfull.