Ward 3 virtual candidate forum tonight

[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.

Kids walk to two schools along Macomb St, with several more within a few blocks of Macomb. As for preventing a drastic increase in cars on the side streets, commuter traffic is supposed to go on the principal arterial Connecticut Ave - not to cut through narrow side streets. But Option C moves car traffic off of the arterial onto the lesser streets. From traffic planning and safety standpoints, that’s nuts.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Somehow “extremist” is not a term that one usually associates with historic preservation. Absolutist property rights Libertarianism, more likely.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

No, but if the traffic is all moving at a safe, slow speed, then the increased traffic volume is not a problem for the pedestrians or bike riders.

[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.

Kids walk to two schools along Macomb St, with several more within a few blocks of Macomb. As for preventing a drastic increase in cars on the side streets, commuter traffic is supposed to go on the principal arterial Connecticut Ave - not to cut through narrow side streets. But Option C moves car traffic off of the arterial onto the lesser streets. From traffic planning and safety standpoints, that’s nuts.

"cut through" ius like if someone drives through a farm or back yard,. A city street is a city street meant to be used by the public for mobility. If you don't want people on your street, move to a farm or a cul de sac.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

No, but if the traffic is all moving at a safe, slow speed, then the increased traffic volume is not a problem for the pedestrians or bike riders.

It is a major problem for emergency vehicles. Which is why our neighbors successfully fought against them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Speed humps are meant to control speed - that is the thing that causes most injury. Control the speed and all of the sudden, the street is much safer, thus addressing the concern you epxres about people riding bikes and walking to schools.

Increased traffic is a result of higehr population and more people owning and operating cars. Unless population shrinks, there will be more cars and thus more traffic. There is no cutting that.

What we can do is encourage people to use other modes of transportation, like biking, if we can make it safe and accessible, like protected bike lanes.

But nothing will address the increase in population and follow on increase in number of cars using the roads.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

No, but if the traffic is all moving at a safe, slow speed, then the increased traffic volume is not a problem for the pedestrians or bike riders.

It is a major problem for emergency vehicles. Which is why our neighbors successfully fought against them.

Almost every street in Cleveland Park has speed humps now. The emergency personnel are no longer opposing these in residential areas.

[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.

Kids walk to two schools along Macomb St, with several more within a few blocks of Macomb. As for preventing a drastic increase in cars on the side streets, commuter traffic is supposed to go on the principal arterial Connecticut Ave - not to cut through narrow side streets. But Option C moves car traffic off of the arterial onto the lesser streets. From traffic planning and safety standpoints, that’s nuts.

The traffic projections do not support this argument. And nothing does, except your opinion. The willingness of certain NIMBYs to misrepresent basic facts in support of arguments against infrastructure that will make cycling safer in DC is nothing short of sickening.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Kids walk to two schools along Macomb St, with several more within a few blocks of Macomb. As for preventing a drastic increase in cars on the side streets, commuter traffic is supposed to go on the principal arterial Connecticut Ave - not to cut through narrow side streets. But Option C moves car traffic off of the arterial onto the lesser streets. From traffic planning and safety standpoints, that’s nuts.

The traffic projections do not support this argument. And nothing does, except your opinion. The willingness of certain NIMBYs to misrepresent basic facts in support of arguments against infrastructure that will make cycling safer in DC is nothing short of sickening.

The traffic projections are bunk. They are pre pandemic. Transit ridership is now under 50% of pre COVID levels. We need updated data. This is ready, fire, aim.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Kids walk to two schools along Macomb St, with several more within a few blocks of Macomb. As for preventing a drastic increase in cars on the side streets, commuter traffic is supposed to go on the principal arterial Connecticut Ave - not to cut through narrow side streets. But Option C moves car traffic off of the arterial onto the lesser streets. From traffic planning and safety standpoints, that’s nuts.

The traffic projections do not support this argument. And nothing does, except your opinion. The willingness of certain NIMBYs to misrepresent basic facts in support of arguments against infrastructure that will make cycling safer in DC is nothing short of sickening.

The traffic projections are bunk. They are pre pandemic. Transit ridership is now under 50% of pre COVID levels. We need updated data. This is ready, fire, aim.

The fact that there are fewer people driving into DC than before hardly supports the argument that the spillover will be worse than it would have been pre-COVID.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Kids walk to two schools along Macomb St, with several more within a few blocks of Macomb. As for preventing a drastic increase in cars on the side streets, commuter traffic is supposed to go on the principal arterial Connecticut Ave - not to cut through narrow side streets. But Option C moves car traffic off of the arterial onto the lesser streets. From traffic planning and safety standpoints, that’s nuts.

The traffic projections do not support this argument. And nothing does, except your opinion. The willingness of certain NIMBYs to misrepresent basic facts in support of arguments against infrastructure that will make cycling safer in DC is nothing short of sickening.

Making cycling safer is a good thing. Making it less safe on residential cross streets like Porter and Macomb is not good.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

No, but if the traffic is all moving at a safe, slow speed, then the increased traffic volume is not a problem for the pedestrians or bike riders.

It is a major problem for emergency vehicles. Which is why our neighbors successfully fought against them.

Yes, you are right. The drivers are the problem. Drivers who speed down residential streets. Drivers who don’t pull over for emergency vehicles. Drivers who don’t obey the traffic laws.

So we have speed bumps and bump outs to control the drivers who just can’t help themselves.

We support the CT Ave proposal and will be requesting speed bumps on our street next year.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

No, but if the traffic is all moving at a safe, slow speed, then the increased traffic volume is not a problem for the pedestrians or bike riders.

It is a major problem for emergency vehicles. Which is why our neighbors successfully fought against them.

Yes, you are right. The drivers are the problem. Drivers who speed down residential streets. Drivers who don’t pull over for emergency vehicles. Drivers who don’t obey the traffic laws.

So we have speed bumps and bump outs to control the drivers who just can’t help themselves.

We support the CT Ave proposal and will be requesting speed bumps on our street next year.

What about no through traffic/local traffic only restrictions with enforcement teeth like ticketing?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

No, but if the traffic is all moving at a safe, slow speed, then the increased traffic volume is not a problem for the pedestrians or bike riders.

It is a major problem for emergency vehicles. Which is why our neighbors successfully fought against them.

Yes, you are right. The drivers are the problem. Drivers who speed down residential streets. Drivers who don’t pull over for emergency vehicles. Drivers who don’t obey the traffic laws.

So we have speed bumps and bump outs to control the drivers who just can’t help themselves.

We support the CT Ave proposal and will be requesting speed bumps on our street next year.

Well I hope you’ll volunteer to have the bump installed in front of your house and enjoy the nightly concert of squeaking breaks, accelerating engines, and loss of parking.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Will be interesting to see how the traffic coming off rock creek at cathedral will back up on woodley and cathedral aves to get to reno with all of the school pick up the same time from Oyster, Maret and WIS. It is going to turn residential streets into a parking lot of idling cars

They already are, and if you posting this as some future doom and gloom scenario, then you are clearly not familiar with the car back-ups on Woodley, Macomb, Catherdral, 29th etc between 2:30 and 3:30 every day.

I live on one of those roads so yes - I am familiar - but they will get considerably worse as the traffic forced off CT Ave diverts to these streets which are not meant for that level of traffic - narrower side walks than Conn Ave, cross walks and stop signs instead of lights, etc...