Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
That’s the point. The jersey barriers make drivers think they are on a race course, promote a false sense of security and encourage them to speed.

I think you're the only person who has this opinion.

Anonymous wrote:
That’s the point. The jersey barriers make drivers think they are on a race course, promote a false sense of security and encourage them to speed.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I was through M Street this AM and was surprised. Pretty awful aesthetically and functionally, unless the goal is to discourage people from coming to Georgetown? If that’s the case, they’ve don’t a great job.

I completely disagree. Georgetown is much more pleasant with wider sidewalks. It seems most others agree, as it feels busier than ever.

Unfortunately, it’s not “busier than ever”. Do historic streets lined with depression grey-painted jersey barriers provide a welcoming aesthetic for a neighborhood highly dependent on attracting people to come and spend money? It looks it it’s working for you personally but it seems that you are not representative of general consumers.

https://dcist.com/story/21/03/11/georgetown-pushes-to-overcome-its-flurry-of-closures/

DP. I agree that the streets of Georgetown would be much more attractive with permanently wider sidewalks and fewer cars, driving or parked. The jersey walls should only be a temporary solution.

They could commission artists to paint them. They could instead use different materials in keeping with the historic character of the neighborhood, like iron. They could extend the sidewalk. They could go back to way it used to be. Instead they have chosen to make Georgetown look like it’s under military occupation, which is absolutely the worst possible choice for this historic neighborhood.

Actually I think that the omnipresent, unhistorical cars have a far bigger aesthetic and functional impact than the jersey walls on the historic character of Georgetown.

I am not sure what you are advocating, unless less safe streets and a return to horses and buggies (notably automobiles were originally called horseless carriages afterall).

The unpleasant aesthetics aside, particularly on the quality of the streetscape, the jersey barriers make the neighborhood less safe. Research demonstrates that barriers, and a jersey barrier is the most extreme, create less safe road conditions. Shared streets, particularly removing barriers, is the safest approach that would improve safety and the quality of the neighborhood.

Sorry, but I would highly prefer walking next to a jersey barrier than on the same street as VA drivers racing down M street

That’s the point. The jersey barriers make drivers think they are on a race course, promote a false sense of security and encourage them to speed.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Georgetown peaked in the 60s and had a little bump in the 80s but overall it’s pretty bad. It’s for tourists and suburban folks who don’t know where else to go in dc. I grew up here and there has always been a sad mix of sketchy stores, the worst rats in the city and petty crime.

There's petty crime everywhere in DC, especially high-density retail places like Georgetown. So I'm not sure that's a realistic complaint. But I do agree with you that Georgetown is no longer a destination and hasn't been for decades (the jersey barriers don't really change this). Mediocre restaurants, retail that you can find in any suburban shopping mall (or sketchy-ass clothing stores that never have any customers and clearly are fronts for something), no mass transit apart from buses that take 20 minutes to go two blocks: there's no reason to go there. There's certainly no reason to go through the hassle that is driving there.

I agree it's for tourists and suburbanite rubes only these days.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I was through M Street this AM and was surprised. Pretty awful aesthetically and functionally, unless the goal is to discourage people from coming to Georgetown? If that’s the case, they’ve don’t a great job.

I completely disagree. Georgetown is much more pleasant with wider sidewalks. It seems most others agree, as it feels busier than ever.

Unfortunately, it’s not “busier than ever”. Do historic streets lined with depression grey-painted jersey barriers provide a welcoming aesthetic for a neighborhood highly dependent on attracting people to come and spend money? It looks it it’s working for you personally but it seems that you are not representative of general consumers.

https://dcist.com/story/21/03/11/georgetown-pushes-to-overcome-its-flurry-of-closures/

DP. I agree that the streets of Georgetown would be much more attractive with permanently wider sidewalks and fewer cars, driving or parked. The jersey walls should only be a temporary solution.

They could commission artists to paint them. They could instead use different materials in keeping with the historic character of the neighborhood, like iron. They could extend the sidewalk. They could go back to way it used to be. Instead they have chosen to make Georgetown look like it’s under military occupation, which is absolutely the worst possible choice for this historic neighborhood.

Actually I think that the omnipresent, unhistorical cars have a far bigger aesthetic and functional impact than the jersey walls on the historic character of Georgetown.

I am not sure what you are advocating, unless less safe streets and a return to horses and buggies (notably automobiles were originally called horseless carriages afterall).

The unpleasant aesthetics aside, particularly on the quality of the streetscape, the jersey barriers make the neighborhood less safe. Research demonstrates that barriers, and a jersey barrier is the most extreme, create less safe road conditions. Shared streets, particularly removing barriers, is the safest approach that would improve safety and the quality of the neighborhood.

Sorry, but I would highly prefer walking next to a jersey barrier than on the same street as VA drivers racing down M street

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I was through M Street this AM and was surprised. Pretty awful aesthetically and functionally, unless the goal is to discourage people from coming to Georgetown? If that’s the case, they’ve don’t a great job.

I completely disagree. Georgetown is much more pleasant with wider sidewalks. It seems most others agree, as it feels busier than ever.

Unfortunately, it’s not “busier than ever”. Do historic streets lined with depression grey-painted jersey barriers provide a welcoming aesthetic for a neighborhood highly dependent on attracting people to come and spend money? It looks it it’s working for you personally but it seems that you are not representative of general consumers.

https://dcist.com/story/21/03/11/georgetown-pushes-to-overcome-its-flurry-of-closures/

DP. I agree that the streets of Georgetown would be much more attractive with permanently wider sidewalks and fewer cars, driving or parked. The jersey walls should only be a temporary solution.

They could commission artists to paint them. They could instead use different materials in keeping with the historic character of the neighborhood, like iron. They could extend the sidewalk. They could go back to way it used to be. Instead they have chosen to make Georgetown look like it’s under military occupation, which is absolutely the worst possible choice for this historic neighborhood.

Actually I think that the omnipresent, unhistorical cars have a far bigger aesthetic and functional impact than the jersey walls on the historic character of Georgetown.

I am not sure what you are advocating, unless less safe streets and a return to horses and buggies (notably automobiles were originally called horseless carriages afterall).

The unpleasant aesthetics aside, particularly on the quality of the streetscape, the jersey barriers make the neighborhood less safe. Research demonstrates that barriers, and a jersey barrier is the most extreme, create less safe road conditions. Shared streets, particularly removing barriers, is the safest approach that would improve safety and the quality of the neighborhood.

Anonymous wrote:Georgetown peaked in the 60s and had a little bump in the 80s but overall it’s pretty bad. It’s for tourists and suburban folks who don’t know where else to go in dc. I grew up here and there has always been a sad mix of sketchy stores, the worst rats in the city and petty crime.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
So I guess you are arguing for the sake of arguing? Otherwise I don’t understand your point. No one should support streets lined with jersey barriers. M Street is not an interstate highway.

No, I am saying that wider sidewalks protected by jersey jersey walls are better than narrower sidewalks and more car lanes. Jersey walls are a quick, low-cost way to protect ped/bike facilities while we're waiting for more permanent changes.

Research is very clear that this makes M Street less safe, not more safe.

What research? Less safe for whom?

Less safe for everyone. There’s a lot of information out there in shared space and curbless street design that you can read if you are inclined. The jersey barriers encourage drivers to go faster which decreases safety.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
So I guess you are arguing for the sake of arguing? Otherwise I don’t understand your point. No one should support streets lined with jersey barriers. M Street is not an interstate highway.

No, I am saying that wider sidewalks protected by jersey jersey walls are better than narrower sidewalks and more car lanes. Jersey walls are a quick, low-cost way to protect ped/bike facilities while we're waiting for more permanent changes.

Research is very clear that this makes M Street less safe, not more safe.

What research? Less safe for whom?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I was through M Street this AM and was surprised. Pretty awful aesthetically and functionally, unless the goal is to discourage people from coming to Georgetown? If that’s the case, they’ve don’t a great job.

I completely disagree. Georgetown is much more pleasant with wider sidewalks. It seems most others agree, as it feels busier than ever.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
So I guess you are arguing for the sake of arguing? Otherwise I don’t understand your point. No one should support streets lined with jersey barriers. M Street is not an interstate highway.

No, I am saying that wider sidewalks protected by jersey jersey walls are better than narrower sidewalks and more car lanes. Jersey walls are a quick, low-cost way to protect ped/bike facilities while we're waiting for more permanent changes.

Research is very clear that this makes M Street less safe, not more safe.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
So I guess you are arguing for the sake of arguing? Otherwise I don’t understand your point. No one should support streets lined with jersey barriers. M Street is not an interstate highway.

No, I am saying that wider sidewalks protected by jersey jersey walls are better than narrower sidewalks and more car lanes. Jersey walls are a quick, low-cost way to protect ped/bike facilities while we're waiting for more permanent changes.

Anonymous wrote:To the person posting old photos: now go look for historic photos from 1800 that have cars.

Anonymous wrote:
So I guess you are arguing for the sake of arguing? Otherwise I don’t understand your point. No one should support streets lined with jersey barriers. M Street is not an interstate highway.