Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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

Really? Please name all the streets in Cleveland Park with speed humps.

ordway, macomb, quebec rodman, 36th, shoud I keep going?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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

Really? Please name all the streets in Cleveland Park with speed humps.

ordway, macomb, quebec rodman, 36th, shoud I keep going?

Macomb has zero speed humps. DDOT refuses to put them in despite location of playground and schools along Macomb. Cleveland Park could use a lot more speed humps.

See, this is typical liberal thinking. Rather than attack the actual problem by enforcing the traffic laws with stiff penalties on the actual driver. Their solution instead is to make everyone suffer, to bring everyone down. You see this crazy thinking in all areas of policy.

speed humps make everyone drive the speed limit. How is this typical liberal thinking?

It’s more government control instead of personal responsibility. You see this everywhere. It’s a race to the bottom.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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

Really? Please name all the streets in Cleveland Park with speed humps.

ordway, macomb, quebec rodman, 36th, shoud I keep going?

Macomb has zero speed humps. DDOT refuses to put them in despite location of playground and schools along Macomb. Cleveland Park could use a lot more speed humps.

See, this is typical liberal thinking. Rather than attack the actual problem by enforcing the traffic laws with stiff penalties on the actual driver. Their solution instead is to make everyone suffer, to bring everyone down. You see this crazy thinking in all areas of policy.