Slow Streets is over! Yay!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Big defeat for the anti-car folks.

Heh

I’m going to guess this was a typical DC outcome: someone important complained.

Not to say I don’t disagree with it. But if it wasn’t for that, those things would still be up partly just out of entropy but also because they originated from other people complaining.

The public hated it.

Over 300 residents signed a petition to designate just one street in Ward 3 as a Slow Strret. The program is very popular amd should be expanded.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Big defeat for the anti-car folks.

Heh

I’m going to guess this was a typical DC outcome: someone important complained.

Not to say I don’t disagree with it. But if it wasn’t for that, those things would still be up partly just out of entropy but also because they originated from other people complaining.

The public hated it.

Over 300 residents signed a petition to designate just one street in Ward 3 as a Slow Strret. The program is very popular amd should be expanded.

Do all of those 300 people actually live on the street in question?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Big defeat for the anti-car folks.

Heh

I’m going to guess this was a typical DC outcome: someone important complained.

Not to say I don’t disagree with it. But if it wasn’t for that, those things would still be up partly just out of entropy but also because they originated from other people complaining.

The public hated it.

Over 300 residents signed a petition to designate just one street in Ward 3 as a Slow Strret. The program is very popular amd should be expanded.

Do all of those 300 people actually live on the street in question?

That would be a very long street. My guess is none of the people who actually lived on the street signed the petition.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Big defeat for the anti-car folks.

Heh

I’m going to guess this was a typical DC outcome: someone important complained.

Not to say I don’t disagree with it. But if it wasn’t for that, those things would still be up partly just out of entropy but also because they originated from other people complaining.

The public hated it.

Over 300 residents signed a petition to designate just one street in Ward 3 as a Slow Strret. The program is very popular amd should be expanded.

Do all of those 300 people actually live on the street in question?

That would be a very long street. My guess is none of the people who actually lived on the street signed the petition.

And you would be incorrect. Residents believe in traffic calming and want a safe street. Let the fast cut-through traffic keep to the major arterials that were engineered to carry it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Big defeat for the anti-car folks.

Heh

I’m going to guess this was a typical DC outcome: someone important complained.

Not to say I don’t disagree with it. But if it wasn’t for that, those things would still be up partly just out of entropy but also because they originated from other people complaining.

The public hated it.

Over 300 residents signed a petition to designate just one street in Ward 3 as a Slow Strret. The program is very popular amd should be expanded.

Do all of those 300 people actually live on the street in question?

The vast majority. The street is over one mile long.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Big defeat for the anti-car folks.

Heh

I’m going to guess this was a typical DC outcome: someone important complained.

Not to say I don’t disagree with it. But if it wasn’t for that, those things would still be up partly just out of entropy but also because they originated from other people complaining.

The public hated it.

Over 300 residents signed a petition to designate just one street in Ward 3 as a Slow Strret. The program is very popular amd should be expanded.

Do all of those 300 people actually live on the street in question?

That would be a very long street. My guess is none of the people who actually lived on the street signed the petition.

And you would be incorrect. Residents believe in traffic calming and want a safe street. Let the fast cut-through traffic keep to the major arterials that were engineered to carry it.

Except that's not how it works. Slow Streets just push a lot more traffic onto neighboring streets, regardless of whether they were built for that. There's no free lunch here. The people who benefit from Slow Streets do it by making life worse for everyone else.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Except that's not how it works. Slow Streets just push a lot more traffic onto neighboring streets, regardless of whether they were built for that. There's no free lunch here. The people who benefit from Slow Streets do it by making life worse for everyone else.

Do you have any data to support this assertion?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Except that's not how it works. Slow Streets just push a lot more traffic onto neighboring streets, regardless of whether they were built for that. There's no free lunch here. The people who benefit from Slow Streets do it by making life worse for everyone else.

Do you have any data to support this assertion?

It's what happened in our neighborhood. Do you think Slow Streets just magically made traffic disappear?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Except that's not how it works. Slow Streets just push a lot more traffic onto neighboring streets, regardless of whether they were built for that. There's no free lunch here. The people who benefit from Slow Streets do it by making life worse for everyone else.

Do you have any data to support this assertion?

It's what happened in our neighborhood. Do you think Slow Streets just magically made traffic disappear?

Funny, it didn't happen in my neighborhood. It just made cars drive slower on the Slow Street.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Except that's not how it works. Slow Streets just push a lot more traffic onto neighboring streets, regardless of whether they were built for that. There's no free lunch here. The people who benefit from Slow Streets do it by making life worse for everyone else.

Do you have any data to support this assertion?

It's what happened in our neighborhood. Do you think Slow Streets just magically made traffic disappear?

Funny, it didn't happen in my neighborhood. It just made cars drive slower on the Slow Street.

In my neighborhood, people just ignored the Slow Street signs or moved them out of the way.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Except that's not how it works. Slow Streets just push a lot more traffic onto neighboring streets, regardless of whether they were built for that. There's no free lunch here. The people who benefit from Slow Streets do it by making life worse for everyone else.

Do you have any data to support this assertion?

It's what happened in our neighborhood. Do you think Slow Streets just magically made traffic disappear?

That's anecdote, not data.

And in general, yes, the model is that traffic expands to fill the space available. There is less traffic when there is less space available, because people choose to postpone their trips, or combine trips, or use a different non-car transportation mode for trips. That's why, for example, "Carmageddon" didn't happen in Los Angeles

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Except that's not how it works. Slow Streets just push a lot more traffic onto neighboring streets, regardless of whether they were built for that. There's no free lunch here. The people who benefit from Slow Streets do it by making life worse for everyone else.

Do you have any data to support this assertion?

It's what happened in our neighborhood. Do you think Slow Streets just magically made traffic disappear?

That's anecdote, not data.

And in general, yes, the model is that traffic expands to fill the space available. There is less traffic when there is less space available, because people choose to postpone their trips, or combine trips, or use a different non-car transportation mode for trips. That's why, for example, "Carmageddon" didn't happen in Los Angeles

You’re argument is that it reduced and calmed traffic on one street with zero impacts to neighboring streets? The only way this would work is if total traffic volume declined. Otherwise, it’s like a balloon. You push down one side and it pops up on the other.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Except that's not how it works. Slow Streets just push a lot more traffic onto neighboring streets, regardless of whether they were built for that. There's no free lunch here. The people who benefit from Slow Streets do it by making life worse for everyone else.

Do you have any data to support this assertion?

It's what happened in our neighborhood. Do you think Slow Streets just magically made traffic disappear?

That's anecdote, not data.

And in general, yes, the model is that traffic expands to fill the space available. There is less traffic when there is less space available, because people choose to postpone their trips, or combine trips, or use a different non-car transportation mode for trips. That's why, for example, "Carmageddon" didn't happen in Los Angeles

You’re argument is that it reduced and calmed traffic on one street with zero impacts to neighboring streets? The only way this would work is if total traffic volume declined. Otherwise, it’s like a balloon. You push down one side and it pops up on the other.

Yes. Because there is less traffic when there is less space available, because people make different choices.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Except that's not how it works. Slow Streets just push a lot more traffic onto neighboring streets, regardless of whether they were built for that. There's no free lunch here. The people who benefit from Slow Streets do it by making life worse for everyone else.

Do you have any data to support this assertion?

It's what happened in our neighborhood. Do you think Slow Streets just magically made traffic disappear?

That's anecdote, not data.

And in general, yes, the model is that traffic expands to fill the space available. There is less traffic when there is less space available, because people choose to postpone their trips, or combine trips, or use a different non-car transportation mode for trips. That's why, for example, "Carmageddon" didn't happen in Los Angeles

And that's aphorism, not data. You think Slow Streets is going to make people give up driving? I mean, that's 100 percent nuts. That's like saying if DC raises taxes on the rich by one dollar, rich people will move away.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Except that's not how it works. Slow Streets just push a lot more traffic onto neighboring streets, regardless of whether they were built for that. There's no free lunch here. The people who benefit from Slow Streets do it by making life worse for everyone else.

Do you have any data to support this assertion?

It's what happened in our neighborhood. Do you think Slow Streets just magically made traffic disappear?

That's anecdote, not data.

And in general, yes, the model is that traffic expands to fill the space available. There is less traffic when there is less space available, because people choose to postpone their trips, or combine trips, or use a different non-car transportation mode for trips. That's why, for example, "Carmageddon" didn't happen in Los Angeles

And that's aphorism, not data. You think Slow Streets is going to make people give up driving? I mean, that's 100 percent nuts. That's like saying if DC raises taxes on the rich by one dollar, rich people will move away.

No, there are actually a lot of data to support that model. Slow Streets is not going to make people give up all driving forevermore, but it might cause them to make different travel choices.This actually happens all the time. Assuming that Slow Streets actually did produce slow streets, and people didn't just ignore them. Either Slow Streets were enough to make people change their driving habits - which is what you (or whoever) was saying when you said there was more traffic on your (or whoever's) street - or they weren't.