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.

Actually, if you were going to attack the problem, you would either eliminate cars or put mandatory speed limiters on them, that were GPS based to make it impossible to exceed the speed limit.

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.

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:

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?

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: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.

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.

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: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.

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.

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 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.

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 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.

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

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.

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 wrote:

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.