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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Congratulations neighbors, you made the press:
https://washingtoncitypaper.com/article/566081/a-classic-ward-3-dispute-is-playing-out-in-palisades-as-neighbors-battle-over-sidewalks-and-street-closures/

It’s a funny article because clearly this issue puts these young urbanists* in a bind. The war on cars is good after all but explicit benefits for rich people are bad. Is closure with no public access at all better than the status quo? Why does everyone hate the favored urbanist policy, “traffic calming”?

It’s pretty funny all around reading how the WCP and his activist ANC-rep buddy who seems to dislike his own neighbors are trying to square this circle.

This is just silly. No one - except the residents of UT/CB - opposes actual traffic calming measures such as speed bumps, narrowing of the road through putting in sidewalks, and a one way designation. What people are frustrated by is that a handful of extremely rich people are opposing these standard responses to traffic safety issues and instead asking the city to give them a private street so that they can be free of the crazy driving the rest of us have to deal with. It’s not the proposal of traffic calming measures that have upset people; it’s DDOT’s strange eschewing of them in this case. This whole episode stinks to high heaven.

LOL. No one is basically everyone except you and your fellow progressive urbanists*, who turn out to occupy a lot of space on social media but very little out of it.

Find a better way to spend your day troll. Your sh*t is worn and tiresome.

Sorry that facts seem to have hurt your fragile ego. The reality that you seem incapable of understanding is that you have fringe opinions. Hopefully you can one day get over yourself and understand that the world is bigger than just you?

You have fri

[Anonymous]

Well we won. DDOT received so many comments against they turned down the no thru traffic proposal. You tried your best, but the times, they’re a changing!

[Anonymous]

Source?

[Anonymous]

DDOT
Check it

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OOB families need University term to get their kids to Key Public Elementary school. That street is despicable. Not a sidewalk in sight. On any given day, every third property has construction or landscaping going on. Rather than offering sidewalks within two blocks of a public elementary school, they got all these flashy signage screaming about a 20 MPH limit, with angry people walking their dogs in the middle of the road. Note that the properties are enormous and could host 4+ vehicles in their driveway instead of in front of their property, their road-facing landscaping is enormous and could easily host walkways, and the road itself can have, in most places, parked car on both sides AND a lane of traffic in each direction.

Thank you for calling out the insane amount of construction/landscaping on University Terrace. The route to my kids' school along Univ Terrace and all huge trucks make it near impossible to see cars coming in the opposite direction. The alternative is Chain Bridge Rd which, as many posters have pointed out, is even more dangerous.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Well we won. DDOT received so many comments against they turned down the no thru traffic proposal. You tried your best, but the times, they’re a changing!

What gave the game away that they didn't really care about safety is that when people suggested changes that would actually lead to safety -- speed bumps, speed cameras, and above all sidewalks -- they were rejected because they would inconvenience the residents too much!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Well we won. DDOT received so many comments against they turned down the no thru traffic proposal. You tried your best, but the times, they’re a changing!

What gave the game away that they didn't really care about safety is that when people suggested changes that would actually lead to safety -- speed bumps, speed cameras, and above all sidewalks -- they were rejected because they would inconvenience the residents too much!

Thank goodness. Roads are a public good and should be open to all.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Well we won. DDOT received so many comments against they turned down the no thru traffic proposal. You tried your best, but the times, they’re a changing!

What gave the game away that they didn't really care about safety is that when people suggested changes that would actually lead to safety -- speed bumps, speed cameras, and above all sidewalks -- they were rejected because they would inconvenience the residents too much!

I'd love sidewalks on that street. Nice stroll back after going one way up Battery Kimble.

[Anonymous]

Ah, yes. Giving you the benefit of a doubt, aren’t your lucky that the proles are capable of complex reasoning? Were they meant to be distracted by the August heat and the TV in their non-leafy residencies?
Anyway, this one’s DOA. Won’t take eyes of it come September either. Just don’t waste your energy on rolling back the democracy in DC. Streets belong to (all) the people.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Well we won. DDOT received so many comments against they turned down the no thru traffic proposal. You tried your best, but the times, they’re a changing!

What gave the game away that they didn't really care about safety is that when people suggested changes that would actually lead to safety -- speed bumps, speed cameras, and above all sidewalks -- they were rejected because they would inconvenience the residents too much!

Reading the City Paper article, it seems that the residents only requested no-thru-traffic restrictions at rush hour. There is precedent for this in DC and it's not an unreasonable request on a narrowish, residential side street. It seems DDOT misunderstood and overreacted to the request. This whole thing has been over-hyped.

[Anonymous]

That’s what the CBR-UT Preservation Committee wants you to believe. Those of us personally involved in this issue know that the leaders have been privately (and, sometimes reluctantly, publicly) pushing for this closure for years. They’ve also opposed sidewalks and speed humps for years.

This is not overblown. Be a more skeptical reader.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Well we won. DDOT received so many comments against they turned down the no thru traffic proposal. You tried your best, but the times, they’re a changing!

What gave the game away that they didn't really care about safety is that when people suggested changes that would actually lead to safety -- speed bumps, speed cameras, and above all sidewalks -- they were rejected because they would inconvenience the residents too much!

Reading the City Paper article, it seems that the residents only requested no-thru-traffic restrictions at rush hour. There is precedent for this in DC and it's not an unreasonable request on a narrowish, residential side street. It seems DDOT misunderstood and overreacted to the request. This whole thing has been over-hyped.

It's not a side street. It's always been a through way. It's called "Chain Bridge Road" for a reason.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:That’s what the CBR-UT Preservation Committee wants you to believe. Those of us personally involved in this issue know that the leaders have been privately (and, sometimes reluctantly, publicly) pushing for this closure for years. They’ve also opposed sidewalks and speed humps for years.

This is not overblown. Be a more skeptical reader.

Exactly. And it was the arrogant public rants of one of their mainstays that prompted the outrage and backlash. Should have kept quiet. Look them up; they’ve been embroiled in a lawsuit after lawsuit, most recently to prevent beehives.

This was an attempt to privatize the roads and block out the riff raff; the irony of course being that these streets have lost their charm through uncontrolled overdevelopment and expansion of a flight path. With a plane overhead every 90 seconds, they are fighting the neighbors and other DMV folk driving through?!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Well we won. DDOT received so many comments against they turned down the no thru traffic proposal. You tried your best, but the times, they’re a changing!

What gave the game away that they didn't really care about safety is that when people suggested changes that would actually lead to safety -- speed bumps, speed cameras, and above all sidewalks -- they were rejected because they would inconvenience the residents too much!

Reading the City Paper article, it seems that the residents only requested no-thru-traffic restrictions at rush hour. There is precedent for this in DC and it's not an unreasonable request on a narrowish, residential side street. It seems DDOT misunderstood and overreacted to the request. This whole thing has been over-hyped.

It's not a side street. It's always been a through way. It's called "Chain Bridge Road" for a reason.

Amen. Streets belong to the people

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:That’s what the CBR-UT Preservation Committee wants you to believe. Those of us personally involved in this issue know that the leaders have been privately (and, sometimes reluctantly, publicly) pushing for this closure for years. They’ve also opposed sidewalks and speed humps for years.

This is not overblown. Be a more skeptical reader.

Exactly right.