I'm so over Reno

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Fabulous, so our traffic calming tactics are finally working on OP.

Honestly, Wisconsin is better than Reno. I live on Reno and I use Wisconsin Ave. because at every hour traffic moves better there.

The thing is, OP and especially clueless 10:01, Reno is a residential road, and there are students crossing it to get to approximately 25 different schools from nursery to college, and to access more than a dozen parks, playgrounds, and trails. Many have been hit by commuters. There are have been far too many car accidents and car versus bike accidents. You call it unnecessary, but people who live here know that the danger has been unacceptable for some time now and is increasing.

+1. Take the metro OP. Reno is a residential road. Wisconsin and Connecticut are also residential roads that have students, locals, etc crossing them daily so please SLOW DOWN and stop treating DC streets like race tracks.

This NIMBY attitude reminds me of those naysayers who don't want a pool built at Hearst because it might disturb the tranquility of "their" neighborhood park. Reno isn't some private road in a gated community. It's a major arterial that already carries a lot of traffic and needs to be upgraded. Yesterday, in fact. Reno belongs to all of us, not to a few. There's more traffic and we need more road capacity, and if serving the greater public interest means that D.C. needs to widen your "residential road," then I'm sorry. You don't get a greater say because you live there. D.C. Is One City. And you can always move.

I am the PP and I actually live nowhere near Reno Road; I live elsewhere in DC. So this is not a NIMBY thing. Additionally, I clearly included students in my original post as users that I think should be protected, many of whom do not live in the neighborhood. I do not think that the solution to more traffic is to widen roads. If you widen roads then you have to take away land from another stakeholder- pedestrians, residents, etc. As a person who does sometimes drive on Reno, I would prefer that residents retain thier lawns as I get more value out of seeing green space and well maintained houses then I do out of being able to get to my destination five minutes faster.

And yes, I agree that DC in One City- which is why I am defending a neighborhood that I have very little stake in as I believe that transit besides cars has been prioritized for far too long and contributes to a car-centric culture in this city. If the culture is changed so that people do not think that the have a right to speed through the city, and alternative modes of transportation are encouraged and invested in, then I believe this will trickle down and benefit the city as a whole. I do not think that there should be any roads in DC (besides 395/695 etc) that drivers feel the right to speed on, including Connecticut Ave, Wisconsin Ave, NY Ave. I think that these roads belong to all users, including pedestrians, drivers, bikers, buses, and scooters and that the culture of cars taking them over is something that will be looked back on in 100 years as antiquated.


Thankfully, there are others that agree with me- see, e.g. the recent widening of the sidewalks in Georgetown shows a step in the right direction towards acknowledging that pedestrians are roadusers, too.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I just want them to fix the gd potholes. Lost a hubcap the other day

The one by Murch is astounding.

Part of our traffic calming. We go out at night and make it bigger.

You're welcome.

Haha. Thanks for doing your part!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:God suburban people are annoying. I live in Woodley Park and drive on Reno fairly frequently, and I absolutely relish when a nasty person gets stuck behind me while I drive at a safe speed.

What causes you to sssume that only "suburban" drivers want to upgrade Reno? I doubt that the Hearst pool mom who wants better roads in that vicinity lives in Bethesda.

There is a difference between wanting potholes fixed and wanting a road widened.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They should at least widen Reno to 4 travel lanes between Military and Porter. That would be so convenient. And get rid of those stupid speed bumps on Quebec St.

No to both. I live on Quebec. Put in more speed humps to deter cutting through. We have two schools on our road. There are tons of kids. Slow down. It's a residential street.

Quebec is a necessary east-west connector from Reno to Wisconsin. The parents at Hearst school use it twice a day and don't appreciate coffee spilling and car damage as we go over the humps. The planned outdoor pool at Hearst will mean that more people will want to drive and park on Quebec. The pool will be for the use of all D.C. residents, not just the select few. This is a public right of way not a private road.

I'm going to go ahead and laugh at this in the context of all the people in the pool thread proclaiming they want to walk to a pool at Hearst.

[Anonymous]

And if you slow down, you can avoid the damage and save your coffee.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They should at least widen Reno to 4 travel lanes between Military and Porter. That would be so convenient. And get rid of those stupid speed bumps on Quebec St.

No to both. I live on Quebec. Put in more speed humps to deter cutting through. We have two schools on our road. There are tons of kids. Slow down. It's a residential street.

Quebec is a necessary east-west connector from Reno to Wisconsin. The parents at Hearst school use it twice a day and don't appreciate coffee spilling and car damage as we go over the humps. The planned outdoor pool at Hearst will mean that more people will want to drive and park on Quebec. The pool will be for the use of all D.C. residents, not just the select few. This is a public right of way not a private road.

I'm going to go ahead and laugh at this in the context of all the people in the pool thread proclaiming they want to walk to a pool at Hearst.

Must be a different thread - can you link to it? The Hearst thread lists the option of walking to the pool as just one of many good reasons for putting a pool there. Just because you wouldn't walk there doesn't mean others won't.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They should at least widen Reno to 4 travel lanes between Military and Porter. That would be so convenient. And get rid of those stupid speed bumps on Quebec St.

No to both. I live on Quebec. Put in more speed humps to deter cutting through. We have two schools on our road. There are tons of kids. Slow down. It's a residential street.

Quebec is a necessary east-west connector from Reno to Wisconsin. The parents at Hearst school use it twice a day and don't appreciate coffee spilling and car damage as we go over the humps. The planned outdoor pool at Hearst will mean that more people will want to drive and park on Quebec. The pool will be for the use of all D.C. residents, not just the select few. This is a public right of way not a private road.

I'm going to go ahead and laugh at this in the context of all the people in the pool thread proclaiming they want to walk to a pool at Hearst.

Must be a different thread - can you link to it? The Hearst thread lists the option of walking to the pool as just one of many good reasons for putting a pool there. Just because you wouldn't walk there doesn't mean others won't.

I'm not going to pull links to all the posts in the 200+ page thread where people dismiss concerns about additional traffic and parking that would come with at pool at Hearst. Suffice it to say that my reading of the dismissal of those concerns is that it is a "neighborhood" pool that will be for walking so no need to worry about cars and parking, etc. This person upthread here is specifically stating people will want to drive and park by the pool. What happened to all the "I need a pool at Hearst because I need to be able to walk to a pool, it's too much trouble to drive 10-15 minutes to one of the other close-by pools."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They should at least widen Reno to 4 travel lanes between Military and Porter. That would be so convenient. And get rid of those stupid speed bumps on Quebec St.

No to both. I live on Quebec. Put in more speed humps to deter cutting through. We have two schools on our road. There are tons of kids. Slow down. It's a residential street.

Quebec is a necessary east-west connector from Reno to Wisconsin. The parents at Hearst school use it twice a day and don't appreciate coffee spilling and car damage as we go over the humps. The planned outdoor pool at Hearst will mean that more people will want to drive and park on Quebec. The pool will be for the use of all D.C. residents, not just the select few. This is a public right of way not a private road.

I'm going to go ahead and laugh at this in the context of all the people in the pool thread proclaiming they want to walk to a pool at Hearst.

Must be a different thread - can you link to it? The Hearst thread lists the option of walking to the pool as just one of many good reasons for putting a pool there. Just because you wouldn't walk there doesn't mean others won't.

I'm not going to pull links to all the posts in the 200+ page thread where people dismiss concerns about additional traffic and parking that would come with at pool at Hearst. Suffice it to say that my reading of the dismissal of those concerns is that it is a "neighborhood" pool that will be for walking so no need to worry about cars and parking, etc. This person upthread here is specifically stating people will want to drive and park by the pool. What happened to all the "I need a pool at Hearst because I need to be able to walk to a pool, it's too much trouble to drive 10-15 minutes to one of the other close-by pools."

You have trouble seeing the forest for the trees.

No one ever said people were not going to drive to a pool at Hearst or that everyone would walk.

There will certainly be people who can walk or bike or take transit to the pool who currently can't or don't do those things because the pool will be much closer to where they live.

And for the people who still drive for many it will be a much shorter trip because they will live closer to the pool and that too is a good thing.

There will clearly be more traffic around a pool and more parking demand - I'd be very surprised if you can find a single post in that 200 page thread that states otherwise. How bad that additional demand will be is up for debate but there are other neighborhoods with similar sized pools and it has not led to a diminution of anyone's quality of life.

In any case there is another thread where this is being discussed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They should at least widen Reno to 4 travel lanes between Military and Porter. That would be so convenient. And get rid of those stupid speed bumps on Quebec St.

I hate the speed bumps on Newark St. Very unwelcoming.

+1. An accident closed part of Reno this evening, and the police were diverting traffic around on Newark to Woodley Rd. Just.Hate.Those.Speedbumps. You get the feeling that the neighborhood doesn't want people driving through.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They should at least widen Reno to 4 travel lanes between Military and Porter. That would be so convenient. And get rid of those stupid speed bumps on Quebec St.

I hate the speed bumps on Newark St. Very unwelcoming.

+1. An accident closed part of Reno this evening, and the police were diverting traffic around on Newark to Woodley Rd. Just.Hate.Those.Speedbumps. You get the feeling that the neighborhood doesn't want people driving through.

Because they don't? The whole point of the speed bumps is to slow or deter traffic. Newark isn't meant to be a main artery, there are only lights to make turning on a major street not a hazard on Wisconsin. Coming from Wisconsin on Newark and trying to turn left onto 34th is an accident waiting to happen. And does happen, frequently. Hardly a day goes by that I don't see an accident on the 4 blocks of 34th I walk to get my kids to and from school.

[Anonymous]

They need speed bumps ON Reno. The potholes can only do so much to calm traffic.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They should at least widen Reno to 4 travel lanes between Military and Porter. That would be so convenient. And get rid of those stupid speed bumps on Quebec St.

I hate the speed bumps on Newark St. Very unwelcoming.

+1. An accident closed part of Reno this evening, and the police were diverting traffic around on Newark to Woodley Rd. Just.Hate.Those.Speedbumps. You get the feeling that the neighborhood doesn't want people driving through.

Because they don't? The whole point of the speed bumps is to slow or deter traffic. Newark isn't meant to be a main artery, there are only lights to make turning on a major street not a hazard on Wisconsin. Coming from Wisconsin on Newark and trying to turn left onto 34th is an accident waiting to happen. And does happen, frequently. Hardly a day goes by that I don't see an accident on the 4 blocks of 34th I walk to get my kids to and from school.

Isn't Newark supposed to be an access road for Cathedral Commons?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They should at least widen Reno to 4 travel lanes between Military and Porter. That would be so convenient. And get rid of those stupid speed bumps on Quebec St.

I hate the speed bumps on Newark St. Very unwelcoming.

+1. An accident closed part of Reno this evening, and the police were diverting traffic around on Newark to Woodley Rd. Just.Hate.Those.Speedbumps. You get the feeling that the neighborhood doesn't want people driving through.

Because they don't? The whole point of the speed bumps is to slow or deter traffic. Newark isn't meant to be a main artery, there are only lights to make turning on a major street not a hazard on Wisconsin. Coming from Wisconsin on Newark and trying to turn left onto 34th is an accident waiting to happen. And does happen, frequently. Hardly a day goes by that I don't see an accident on the 4 blocks of 34th I walk to get my kids to and from school.

Isn't Newark supposed to be an access road for Cathedral Commons?

How so? One side of the parking garage entrance is on Newark, but the entry from Wisconsin to the portion of Newark is the one traffic light I mentioned, where it makes it not a hazard to try to dart into traffic from the side street onto a major street. So that issue is addressed for that purpose. There's no light to help make a turn in either direction from Newark onto to 34th. I see far fewer accidents on Macomb and 34 and Lowell and 34 where there are lights than on Newark and 34 or Ordway and 34. Accidents on those corners constantly.

[Anonymous]

DDOT doesn't plan for Ordway and Newark to carry much through traffic between Wisconsin and Connecticut. That's why Ordway has the "calmed" intersection at Idaho to discourage through traffic and why Newark has the series of speed humps. Macomb and Porter are the designated collector/connector streets and thus have lights at all of the major intersections. Lowell St. has a light at 34th because of Eaton, but none at Wisconsin because it doesn't continue across Wisconsin and of course doesn't extend to Conn. Ave., so it's not a potential cut through route.

[Anonymous]

You all should have been on Reno in the good old days when it was two lanes almost all the way northbound. You could go 55-60 along there then!