Ward 3 virtual candidate forum tonight

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It is only objectively worse to people like you. Most people who have read the plan and understand the general framework of what is proposed understand how this will be at worse, neutral and in many cases and improvement, thanks to the left turn lanes.

The dedicated left turn lanes are one of the worst features of the Option C plan for area residents. When Connecticut Ave backs up at evening rush hour the turn channels will be tempting off-ramps for commuter traffic to turn left into side streets like Cathedral, Macomb, Porter, etc, as drivers seek a faster route around the Connecticut gridlock. This will worsen the safety situation on the smaller streets and Reno Rd, without doubt.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It is only objectively worse to people like you. Most people who have read the plan and understand the general framework of what is proposed understand how this will be at worse, neutral and in many cases and improvement, thanks to the left turn lanes.

The general framework of what is proposed is to make traffic and congestion so bad that people give up driving or take another route. I think that is a stupendously bad idea.

The seondary underlying framework is a desire to turn upper NW into a series of isolated villages rather than the integrated transitional borderlands of a regional metropolis. I similarly think that is an undesirable bad idea.

I also know where all the traffic will be pushed to because I already avoid Connecticut and use the side streets or walk to where I need to go.

You fell for a vaporware timeshare pitch.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It is only objectively worse to people like you. Most people who have read the plan and understand the general framework of what is proposed understand how this will be at worse, neutral and in many cases and improvement, thanks to the left turn lanes.

The general framework of what is proposed is to make traffic and congestion so bad that people give up driving or take another route. I think that is a stupendously bad idea.

The seondary underlying framework is a desire to turn upper NW into a series of isolated villages rather than the integrated transitional borderlands of a regional metropolis. I similarly think that is an undesirable bad idea.

I also know where all the traffic will be pushed to because I already avoid Connecticut and use the side streets or walk to where I need to go.

You fell for a vaporware timeshare pitch.

Let me also add one other thing.

This is all supposed to happen in conjuction with increasing population density in the very same areas. Which is just batty. How anyone could think that increasing congestion and reducing transportation capacity at the exact same time as increasing population density, thereby making it all doubly worse, is a good idea is beyond me.

[Anonymous]

The only way you're meaningfully increasing transportation capacity is by public transportation. Cars are woefully inefficient at large throughput.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
The role of ANC chair? Wild. I guess some of the older folks in the neighborhood are pissed their candidate who prevented change for decades was ousted by a majority.

He also said, in response to a question about what he sees as the role of an ANC chair: If I'm elected, I will act according to my own opinions, which you may or may not agree with. His opponent said: I see it as my role to listen to the opinions of my 2,000 constituents and act accordingly.

There is no jurisdiction in the US where a political office holder counts receipts from constituents and votes based on which way the wind is blowing.

I want an ANC representative to represent her constituents, know their concerns and follow the applicable legal standards in applying her best judgment. I don’t want ANC reps who are running on a group’s platform or agenda like Smart Growth, Greater Greater Washington or the Libertarian Tea Party and deciding issues according to a preconceived framework.

Yep, exactly.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It is only objectively worse to people like you. Most people who have read the plan and understand the general framework of what is proposed understand how this will be at worse, neutral and in many cases and improvement, thanks to the left turn lanes.

The dedicated left turn lanes are one of the worst features of the Option C plan for area residents. When Connecticut Ave backs up at evening rush hour the turn channels will be tempting off-ramps for commuter traffic to turn left into side streets like Cathedral, Macomb, Porter, etc, as drivers seek a faster route around the Connecticut gridlock. This will worsen the safety situation on the smaller streets and Reno Rd, without doubt.

And?

They already make these turns. Now, they won't be backing up a lane when they do it.

Why do you think it is ok to prevent cars from driving on your street?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It is only objectively worse to people like you. Most people who have read the plan and understand the general framework of what is proposed understand how this will be at worse, neutral and in many cases and improvement, thanks to the left turn lanes.

The general framework of what is proposed is to make traffic and congestion so bad that people give up driving or take another route. I think that is a stupendously bad idea.

The seondary underlying framework is a desire to turn upper NW into a series of isolated villages rather than the integrated transitional borderlands of a regional metropolis. I similarly think that is an undesirable bad idea.

I also know where all the traffic will be pushed to because I already avoid Connecticut and use the side streets or walk to where I need to go.

You fell for a vaporware timeshare pitch.

Let me also add one other thing.

This is all supposed to happen in conjuction with increasing population density in the very same areas. Which is just batty. How anyone could think that increasing congestion and reducing transportation capacity at the exact same time as increasing population density, thereby making it all doubly worse, is a good idea is beyond me.

Uh, more population density in a walkable neighborhood leads to more people walking to support the very stores that need more customers. That is kind of the point. Just because YOU need a car, not everyone does, or can afford it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The only way you're meaningfully increasing transportation capacity is by public transportation. Cars are woefully inefficient at large throughput.

Concept C doesn't do that. Instead it effectively prevents that from ever happening. Not only that, they all know that local bus routes are being reduced. It's not reflected in their projections, which are based on 2018/19 figures.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It was, and since the younger people are advocating for the world they want to live in and not the one of their grandparents, we should listen to them. They are more concerned about living healthy and climate change because they have more to lose.

Thank you for this. I know people of all generations support change in this neighborhood and are educating themselves about the issues, but it doesn't feel that way sometimes. Like the speaker running against Keith who literally said that the solution to the business struggles on Connecticut Avenue is creating more parking. I'm exhausted.

I don’t think you are talking about the Ward 3 candidate forum, but rather a Cleveland - Woolley forum for ANC races. If so, you are not reporting it accurately at all. The ANC candidate running against “Keith” pointed out a DC government survey of CP businesses where the businesses themselves identified their biggest challenge by far as customer parking. He did not say that the “solution” is that the city should build more parking. It was pointed out that Connecticut Ave Option C takes a clearly identified problem and makes it worse, by reducing already-scarce Connecticut Ave parking by 50 percent. That’s a lot of lost parking for local businesses.

Exactly, the candidate did not argue for more parking and he did not even argue against bike lanes. He simply said parking is one of the factors that needs to be considered. And "Keith" actually said that he is a "libertarian property rights" guy who thinks people should be able to do anything they want with their property as long as it's not dangerous. So he not only doesn't want historic preservation, he doesn't even want zoning. There was an audible gasp in the room.

An audible gasp!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
The role of ANC chair? Wild. I guess some of the older folks in the neighborhood are pissed their candidate who prevented change for decades was ousted by a majority.

He also said, in response to a question about what he sees as the role of an ANC chair: If I'm elected, I will act according to my own opinions, which you may or may not agree with. His opponent said: I see it as my role to listen to the opinions of my 2,000 constituents and act accordingly.

There is no jurisdiction in the US where a political office holder counts receipts from constituents and votes based on which way the wind is blowing.

I want an ANC representative to represent her constituents, know their concerns and follow the applicable legal standards in applying her best judgment. I don’t want ANC reps who are running on a group’s platform or agenda like Smart Growth, Greater Greater Washington or the Libertarian Tea Party and deciding issues according to a preconceived framework.

I want a Commissioner who doesn't promote some elitist group with an extremist agenda, which is why I won't vote for anyone who has ever been involved with the Cleveland Park Historic Society. What a bunch of clowns.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It is only objectively worse to people like you. Most people who have read the plan and understand the general framework of what is proposed understand how this will be at worse, neutral and in many cases and improvement, thanks to the left turn lanes.

The dedicated left turn lanes are one of the worst features of the Option C plan for area residents. When Connecticut Ave backs up at evening rush hour the turn channels will be tempting off-ramps for commuter traffic to turn left into side streets like Cathedral, Macomb, Porter, etc, as drivers seek a faster route around the Connecticut gridlock. This will worsen the safety situation on the smaller streets and Reno Rd, without doubt.

And?

They already make these turns. Now, they won't be backing up a lane when they do it.

Why do you think it is ok to prevent cars from driving on your street?

We don't want to make Connecticut Avenue safer at the expense of other streets where children are more likely to be riding bikings, playing, going to school. When my kids go to Connecticut Avenue, they know it's a busy street and take precautions. They probably don't have quite the same level of concern when crossing local streets like Macomb when going to school or the playground. Let's find a solution that makes all the streets safer.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It is only objectively worse to people like you. Most people who have read the plan and understand the general framework of what is proposed understand how this will be at worse, neutral and in many cases and improvement, thanks to the left turn lanes.

The general framework of what is proposed is to make traffic and congestion so bad that people give up driving or take another route. I think that is a stupendously bad idea.

The seondary underlying framework is a desire to turn upper NW into a series of isolated villages rather than the integrated transitional borderlands of a regional metropolis. I similarly think that is an undesirable bad idea.

I also know where all the traffic will be pushed to because I already avoid Connecticut and use the side streets or walk to where I need to go.

You fell for a vaporware timeshare pitch.

Let me also add one other thing.

This is all supposed to happen in conjuction with increasing population density in the very same areas. Which is just batty. How anyone could think that increasing congestion and reducing transportation capacity at the exact same time as increasing population density, thereby making it all doubly worse, is a good idea is beyond me.

Uh, more population density in a walkable neighborhood leads to more people walking to support the very stores that need more customers. That is kind of the point. Just because YOU need a car, not everyone does, or can afford it.

The neighborhood is currently extremely walkable. We all do it all the time. It's extremely walkable because congestion is concentrated on Connecticut. Concept C both increases congestion on Connecticut and traffic in the surrounding areas which makes the neighborhood less walkable. It's also pretty simple. More people equals more cars and more traffic. Increasing density will never be traffic neutral.


What galls me so much about the ANCs on this is that this is what they picked. The Mayor's Office was pretty clear on forcing through a population density increase no matter what the ANCs did or said. Instead of demanding more schools, mass transit, or proper emergency services coverage to handle that increase they went with bike lanes and are know desperately trying to justify it by claiming that they will magically solve every buzz phrase in the book. Bike lanes the solution to and cause of all of life's problems.

Gentrification problem? Get some bike lanes in there. Bike lanes, they make plants grow.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It is only objectively worse to people like you. Most people who have read the plan and understand the general framework of what is proposed understand how this will be at worse, neutral and in many cases and improvement, thanks to the left turn lanes.

The dedicated left turn lanes are one of the worst features of the Option C plan for area residents. When Connecticut Ave backs up at evening rush hour the turn channels will be tempting off-ramps for commuter traffic to turn left into side streets like Cathedral, Macomb, Porter, etc, as drivers seek a faster route around the Connecticut gridlock. This will worsen the safety situation on the smaller streets and Reno Rd, without doubt.

And?

They already make these turns. Now, they won't be backing up a lane when they do it.

Why do you think it is ok to prevent cars from driving on your street?

We don't want to make Connecticut Avenue safer at the expense of other streets where children are more likely to be riding bikings, playing, going to school. When my kids go to Connecticut Avenue, they know it's a busy street and take precautions. They probably don't have quite the same level of concern when crossing local streets like Macomb when going to school or the playground. Let's find a solution that makes all the streets safer.

People already drive on the side streets where people are riding bikes, playing and going to school. Why do you assume that more cars on those streets will make them less safe? If they are unsafe now, then ask to add speed humps and bulb-outs.

This isn't hard.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It is only objectively worse to people like you. Most people who have read the plan and understand the general framework of what is proposed understand how this will be at worse, neutral and in many cases and improvement, thanks to the left turn lanes.

The general framework of what is proposed is to make traffic and congestion so bad that people give up driving or take another route. I think that is a stupendously bad idea.

The seondary underlying framework is a desire to turn upper NW into a series of isolated villages rather than the integrated transitional borderlands of a regional metropolis. I similarly think that is an undesirable bad idea.

I also know where all the traffic will be pushed to because I already avoid Connecticut and use the side streets or walk to where I need to go.

You fell for a vaporware timeshare pitch.

Let me also add one other thing.

This is all supposed to happen in conjuction with increasing population density in the very same areas. Which is just batty. How anyone could think that increasing congestion and reducing transportation capacity at the exact same time as increasing population density, thereby making it all doubly worse, is a good idea is beyond me.

Uh, more population density in a walkable neighborhood leads to more people walking to support the very stores that need more customers. That is kind of the point. Just because YOU need a car, not everyone does, or can afford it.

The neighborhood is currently extremely walkable. We all do it all the time. It's extremely walkable because congestion is concentrated on Connecticut. Concept C both increases congestion on Connecticut and traffic in the surrounding areas which makes the neighborhood less walkable. It's also pretty simple. More people equals more cars and more traffic. Increasing density will never be traffic neutral.


What galls me so much about the ANCs on this is that this is what they picked. The Mayor's Office was pretty clear on forcing through a population density increase no matter what the ANCs did or said. Instead of demanding more schools, mass transit, or proper emergency services coverage to handle that increase they went with bike lanes and are know desperately trying to justify it by claiming that they will magically solve every buzz phrase in the book. Bike lanes the solution to and cause of all of life's problems.

Gentrification problem? Get some bike lanes in there. Bike lanes, they make plants grow.

So you are claiming this is gentrification?

Hoo boy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It is only objectively worse to people like you. Most people who have read the plan and understand the general framework of what is proposed understand how this will be at worse, neutral and in many cases and improvement, thanks to the left turn lanes.

The dedicated left turn lanes are one of the worst features of the Option C plan for area residents. When Connecticut Ave backs up at evening rush hour the turn channels will be tempting off-ramps for commuter traffic to turn left into side streets like Cathedral, Macomb, Porter, etc, as drivers seek a faster route around the Connecticut gridlock. This will worsen the safety situation on the smaller streets and Reno Rd, without doubt.

And?

They already make these turns. Now, they won't be backing up a lane when they do it.

Why do you think it is ok to prevent cars from driving on your street?

We don't want to make Connecticut Avenue safer at the expense of other streets where children are more likely to be riding bikings, playing, going to school. When my kids go to Connecticut Avenue, they know it's a busy street and take precautions. They probably don't have quite the same level of concern when crossing local streets like Macomb when going to school or the playground. Let's find a solution that makes all the streets safer.

People already drive on the side streets where people are riding bikes, playing and going to school. Why do you assume that more cars on those streets will make them less safe? If they are unsafe now, then ask to add speed humps and bulb-outs.

This isn't hard.

Speed humps and bulb outs won’t cut increased traffic volume when Wazey-crazy drivers are cutting through to avoid Connecticut Ave.