Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

This is tangential, but when does “history” start and when does it end?

Georgetown was originally a swamp.

The C&O canal, completed in 1850, is a travesty that despoils the natural and historic character of the neighborhood. The real and true Georgetown is the swamp and everything that came after is a disgrace.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Georgetown died when the city restricted off-campus undergrad housing and killed off the college bar scene.

Yup. Where do young people have fun in DC anymore? With the Georgetown bar scene long dead and Navy Yard and Ivy City nightclubs gone, DC is not looking like the premier place for young people anymore. Pretty sad.

The 14/U corridor, Shaw, and Clarendon as of late (due to no masks during the aughts of the pandemic), but I don't think any of those areas is as exciting as it was pre-pandemic.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Georgetown died when the city restricted off-campus undergrad housing and killed off the college bar scene.

Yup. Where do young people have fun in DC anymore? With the Georgetown bar scene long dead and Navy Yard and Ivy City nightclubs gone, DC is not looking like the premier place for young people anymore. Pretty sad.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

This is tangential, but when does “history” start and when does it end?

Georgetown was originally a swamp.

Anonymous wrote:

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

This is tangential, but when does “history” start and when does it end?

Anonymous wrote:Man, Georgetown is so much more pleasant with the wider sidewalks. I think they should get rid of all cars, except those making deliveries to the local businesses.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Please post some of that research showing that jersey barriers protecting sidewalks encourage drivers to go faster, thanks.

Still waiting on some of that research. Thanks!

This study found that jersey barriers protecting construction workers on arterial roads did indeed cause drivers to drive faster. Whether it's an apples-to-apples comparison could be questioned, but the jersey barriers in Georgetown serve the same purpose as jersey barriers on arterial roads: protecting pedestrians and construction workers. The study also said the research confirms earlier studies that found the same thing.

"The study results indicated that drivers tend to increase speed alongside concrete jersey barriers, which corresponds with prior research. An interesting observation was that drivers tend
to deviate from the center of the lane, away from the barrier, while driving alongside concrete jersey barriers."

http://www.jtle.net/uploadfile/2018/1112/20181112023204849.pdf

From the article:

"The study arterial is a 1-mile stretch on Hillen Road in Baltimore, Maryland . . . The section of the road used in this study has three lanes with the extreme right lane blocked for construction and not available to the traffic stream. The speed limit in the study area is 50 mph."

You're comparing a three-lane road with a 50 mph limit to . . . Georgetown? Where there's a traffic light virtually every block, and enough traffic that speeding is vanishingly rare?

That's not even apples to oranges, that's apples to locomotives.

Critical thinking is not your strong suit, huh?

No, it quite clearly isn't.

But let's give them another chance. After all, did say that there was plenty of research showing that extending sidewalks with jersey barriers made roads more dangerous for everyone. Since there's plenty of research, it shouldn't be too hard for them to post a few more articles, should it?

Are you sock puppeting about Jersey barriers on DCUM? Wow!

It's pretty pathetic that you think it's impossible that more than one person could possibly disagree with you on this.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Please post some of that research showing that jersey barriers protecting sidewalks encourage drivers to go faster, thanks.

Still waiting on some of that research. Thanks!

This study found that jersey barriers protecting construction workers on arterial roads did indeed cause drivers to drive faster. Whether it's an apples-to-apples comparison could be questioned, but the jersey barriers in Georgetown serve the same purpose as jersey barriers on arterial roads: protecting pedestrians and construction workers. The study also said the research confirms earlier studies that found the same thing.

"The study results indicated that drivers tend to increase speed alongside concrete jersey barriers, which corresponds with prior research. An interesting observation was that drivers tend
to deviate from the center of the lane, away from the barrier, while driving alongside concrete jersey barriers."

http://www.jtle.net/uploadfile/2018/1112/20181112023204849.pdf

From the article:

"The study arterial is a 1-mile stretch on Hillen Road in Baltimore, Maryland . . . The section of the road used in this study has three lanes with the extreme right lane blocked for construction and not available to the traffic stream. The speed limit in the study area is 50 mph."

You're comparing a three-lane road with a 50 mph limit to . . . Georgetown? Where there's a traffic light virtually every block, and enough traffic that speeding is vanishingly rare?

That's not even apples to oranges, that's apples to locomotives.

Critical thinking is not your strong suit, huh?

No, it quite clearly isn't.

But let's give them another chance. After all, did say that there was plenty of research showing that extending sidewalks with jersey barriers made roads more dangerous for everyone. Since there's plenty of research, it shouldn't be too hard for them to post a few more articles, should it?

Are you sock puppeting about Jersey barriers on DCUM? Wow!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Please post some of that research showing that jersey barriers protecting sidewalks encourage drivers to go faster, thanks.

Still waiting on some of that research. Thanks!

This study found that jersey barriers protecting construction workers on arterial roads did indeed cause drivers to drive faster. Whether it's an apples-to-apples comparison could be questioned, but the jersey barriers in Georgetown serve the same purpose as jersey barriers on arterial roads: protecting pedestrians and construction workers. The study also said the research confirms earlier studies that found the same thing.

"The study results indicated that drivers tend to increase speed alongside concrete jersey barriers, which corresponds with prior research. An interesting observation was that drivers tend
to deviate from the center of the lane, away from the barrier, while driving alongside concrete jersey barriers."

http://www.jtle.net/uploadfile/2018/1112/20181112023204849.pdf

From the article:

"The study arterial is a 1-mile stretch on Hillen Road in Baltimore, Maryland . . . The section of the road used in this study has three lanes with the extreme right lane blocked for construction and not available to the traffic stream. The speed limit in the study area is 50 mph."

You're comparing a three-lane road with a 50 mph limit to . . . Georgetown? Where there's a traffic light virtually every block, and enough traffic that speeding is vanishingly rare?

That's not even apples to oranges, that's apples to locomotives.

Critical thinking is not your strong suit, huh?

No, it quite clearly isn't.

But let's give them another chance. After all, did say that there was plenty of research showing that extending sidewalks with jersey barriers made roads more dangerous for everyone. Since there's plenty of research, it shouldn't be too hard for them to post a few more articles, should it?

Anonymous wrote:Wow, somebody was triggered!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Please post some of that research showing that jersey barriers protecting sidewalks encourage drivers to go faster, thanks.

Still waiting on some of that research. Thanks!

This study found that jersey barriers protecting construction workers on arterial roads did indeed cause drivers to drive faster. Whether it's an apples-to-apples comparison could be questioned, but the jersey barriers in Georgetown serve the same purpose as jersey barriers on arterial roads: protecting pedestrians and construction workers. The study also said the research confirms earlier studies that found the same thing.

"The study results indicated that drivers tend to increase speed alongside concrete jersey barriers, which corresponds with prior research. An interesting observation was that drivers tend
to deviate from the center of the lane, away from the barrier, while driving alongside concrete jersey barriers."

http://www.jtle.net/uploadfile/2018/1112/20181112023204849.pdf

From the article:

"The study arterial is a 1-mile stretch on Hillen Road in Baltimore, Maryland . . . The section of the road used in this study has three lanes with the extreme right lane blocked for construction and not available to the traffic stream. The speed limit in the study area is 50 mph."

You're comparing a three-lane road with a 50 mph limit to . . . Georgetown? Where there's a traffic light virtually every block, and enough traffic that speeding is vanishingly rare?

That's not even apples to oranges, that's apples to locomotives.

Critical thinking is not your strong suit, huh?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Please post some of that research showing that jersey barriers protecting sidewalks encourage drivers to go faster, thanks.

Still waiting on some of that research. Thanks!

This study found that jersey barriers protecting construction workers on arterial roads did indeed cause drivers to drive faster. Whether it's an apples-to-apples comparison could be questioned, but the jersey barriers in Georgetown serve the same purpose as jersey barriers on arterial roads: protecting pedestrians and construction workers. The study also said the research confirms earlier studies that found the same thing.

"The study results indicated that drivers tend to increase speed alongside concrete jersey barriers, which corresponds with prior research. An interesting observation was that drivers tend
to deviate from the center of the lane, away from the barrier, while driving alongside concrete jersey barriers."

http://www.jtle.net/uploadfile/2018/1112/20181112023204849.pdf

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

In both instances, the jersey barriers serve to protect non-drivers along the road from passing cars and trucks so ... yes? Do they not do that?

Absolutely, and similarly, my bathroom door is identical to the doors to the cathedral in Florence in that both serve to allow entry.

Are you okay? It doesn’t seem like it so I thought I’d ask.