Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

DCmetrosexual1 OP t1_j5z0yxi wrote

Someone needs to tell the post that they don’t need to publish this shit.

97

LilInterweb t1_j5z3urp wrote

Was this article written by a third grader? “Streets are for cars” “white cones are bad for the environment (plastic).” Lol

This article sounds like something my Republican uncle would try to write only diving into the shallowest of concepts to try to make his point. It’s lazy, uneducated, shallow, and biased. NEXT

73

NorseTikiBar t1_j5z42gt wrote

Oh, letters to the editor. If there was a limit to how dumb you can be, we haven't found it yet.

11

johnbrownbody t1_j5z598z wrote

> It is encroachment, just as the many pandemic-era on-street cafes are just private property encroaching on public spaces

What is street parking if not private property encroaching on public spaces?

26

speedymcpot t1_j5z9k9z wrote

Yeah but not with ugly tents that all they do is sell expensive alcohol. If you going to go the “oh the people have the right to reclaim the streets” then this is not the way to turn it into a money cow for alcohol and Vice.

−21

ofriendly t1_j5za0q6 wrote

Area man angry he can’t drive car wherever he wants and people keep walking on crosswalks. Film at 11.

18

johnbrownbody t1_j5zaur3 wrote

> Yeah but not with ugly tents that all they do is sell expensive alcohol.

Lots of businesses and cafes have streeteries.

> If you going to go the “oh the people have the right to reclaim the streets” then this is not the way to turn it into a money cow for alcohol and Vice.

It's a cash cow for the city and for small businesses, and it's great for people to enjoy spending time outside in the open air.

We should definitely also reclaim parking spots with more bike lanes, enforced bus lanes, and green spaces, but to claim that "all they do is sell expensive alcohol... and vice" is ridiculous and factually incorrect.

6

Gumburcules t1_j5zbliq wrote

This is the worst take I've ever seen.

The sticks are there because it's illegal to be there in a car but idiots in cars insist on being there anyway.

The pylons are a constant source of outrage on my local nextdoor and it honestly makes me furious how stupid and selfish people are. I have seen several people angry at the pylons for "taking away their parking" when the pylons were literally installed in the illegal parking area next to the intersection because assholes like those posters kept parking there and obscuring drivers' view of the intersection.

125

GuyNoirPI t1_j5zcslo wrote

> It is encroachment, just as the many pandemic-era on-street cafes are just private property encroaching on public spaces.

As opposed to parked cars, which everyone can enter.

41

not_a_gumby t1_j5zgp10 wrote

its a conservative opinion columnist, the lowest of the lowest rungs in society. what else do you expect? these people actively want and desire the worst outcomes in all categories. this shouldn't surprise anyone

13

TheCoelacanth t1_j5ziwd5 wrote

I agree. Just ban all cars and we won't need that bullshit.

3

CannaVet t1_j5zrshs wrote

"I can't drive across pedestrian spaces and try to kill somebody waaahhhhhhh"

2

campbeer t1_j5zwcub wrote

I googled the name, and it is either a priest from the 1800, or an editor from the GW school for International Affairs.

19

Evaderofdoom t1_j600fhw wrote

Terrible article. In 2017 visited Montreal and they had converted a ton of parking spaces like that but used a lot of wood decking material. I thought it was a great idea then and hope we keep expanding it here.

3

swampoodler t1_j604vwh wrote

Still looks better than cars parked everywhere.

3

jaco1001 t1_j60938o wrote

the purpose of the plastic stick at intersections, often bumping out the corners of the blocks that make up the intersection, is to force cars to pull up further into the box before they turn. This stops them from slamming through bikes and pedestrians, gives everyone more time to make eye contact, and generally forces people to slow down and not slam it around the corner. what a fucking joke from the post, it's really going to the dogs.

2

Rooster_Ties t1_j60960r wrote

Of course the one photo in the article doesn’t even show what they’re talking about.

What the hell does this look like? I live here (up in Columbia Heights), and work downtown — and I can’t figure out what they’re even talking about that’s such an outrage.

10

Sheol t1_j60xf85 wrote

Yes, flexposts are super ugly, but they could have been avoided if people in cars stopped parking in bike lanes. Unfortunately, the only sightly option is installing real curbs but that would cost many multiples of what flexposts do.

1

Blackice1625 t1_j61apgq wrote

It’s just funny cuz dc will be experience actual issues and WaPO will find time to have an Op Ed like this posted like we not dying out here.

3

CanaKitty t1_j61ecw6 wrote

Obviously a republican who hates outdoor dining and has zero respect for people who prefer to minimize their Covid risk.

0

turnip-taker t1_j61whtt wrote

Bollards all the way! They look way sleeker, actually protect lanes, and don’t need to be replaced anywhere near as often as flexiposts. DDOT needs to deliver the 21st century, and public roads built for the public are the way to go.

10

MrDickford t1_j620f4k wrote

It’s going to bring together the demographic that wishes DC was more like the wealthy suburb they grew up in and the demographic that wishes it was still 2000, when a million fewer people lived in the DC metro area and they could do three point turns on 14th street at rush hour without getting honked at.

2

Rooster_Ties t1_j623omc wrote

Oh, those things. WTF?? They always seem highly effective at preventing exactly what they’re designed for. This seems like an example of GOOD and effective design, if you ask me. WTF??!!

3

ekkidee t1_j639ncf wrote

TIL WaPo still publishes letters to the editor.

1

pgm123 t1_j63v7h1 wrote

>Roads are for cars

Get the fuck out of here. I didn't make it through the first paragraph.

2

pgm123 t1_j63vs6i wrote

OK. I decided to keep reading. The fact that he's complaining about the fountain in McLean Gardens tells me where he owns his expensive condo. I guarantee very few people care about it who don't live there.

2

johnbrownbody t1_j64jh2o wrote

You can post up at a massively subsidized parking spot (or free in some spots) where your private property will sit on public space for a nominal and inexpensive fee when that land could be much more effectively used to generate tax revenue or beautify the city. Streeteries pay a nominal fee and generate a nice spot for people to spend money which generates tax revenue. Dedicated bus lanes instead of parking spots allow for the efficient movement of people to and from places of businesses. I can go on.

2

johnbrownbody t1_j64ro61 wrote

Businesses get that space for the cost of parking for the entire year AFAIK. That's how it worked during the pandemic.

There will / should still be disabled parking spots for accessibility purposes.

Now your argument is about accessibility not cost, which I pointed out is a bad one. Accessibility wise yes we should make the city accessible to all. Those who need to drive for disability purposes as well as those who cannot drive due to disabilities or other reasons. But the argument that streeteries or other uses for parking are somehow worse than your car getting a massive subsidy to sit in public spaces is easily refuted.

2

missjennielang t1_j64suba wrote

DC has given them millions of dollars towards outdoor dining but people who would pay to share parking are getting too subsidized? We don’t make money off the spots, the restaurants do and they’ve been given massive amounts of money to enable that.

0

johnbrownbody t1_j64uosj wrote

>people who would pay to share parking are getting too subsidized?

Yes they are, parking in cities is massively subsidized. If you want to park in a private lot you would pay significantly more than Street city parking. A good clue that parking is very subsidized.

>We don’t make money off the spots, the restaurants do

Do you think restaurants pay more tax if they make more money? They do. And yes, the restaurants also pay for the spots themselves.

2

hemlockone t1_j65chkf wrote

I think the distance that DC requires between parked cars and the crosswalk is a bit further than needed. I would have thought it was calculated based on the sight distance when braking from the speed limit. The default speed limit dropped from 25 to 20 last year.

That said, the rhetoric around putting street furniture and updates is insane. I live across from extension bioretention that's at the corner (#2 in the image at https://www.dcwater.com/whats-going-on/blog/working-together-build-sustainable-community). When a taxi took the turn too hard and grounded themselves, I made sure they were okay, but I couldn't help but silently think poorly of them because their inability to miss a giant concrete hole after a stop sign doesn't bode well for a small child.

1

hemlockone t1_j65dabi wrote

A car was disabled taking the curve too sharp across the street from me. I live at a 4-way stop where three of the corners have a bio-retention curb extension (https://www.dcwater.com/whats-going-on/blog/working-together-build-sustainable-community #2). When a taxi ran aground, I made sure everyone was physically OK, then walked away because I wasn't particularly sympathetic. If the driver couldn't miss a giant concrete ditch and curb, what's to stop them from missing a child or a person?

3

ertri t1_j661pby wrote

A bollard is stationary! Whatever’s behind it would get maximalist damage from a car going through it like what happens with plastic sticks!

I just think there should be consequences for maneuvering a multi thousand point piece of metal dangerously!

1

johnbrownbody t1_j66cycg wrote

Again, the city makes money off of the tax revenue and if your issue is that money was provided to businesses to help set up streeteries (if true), the alternative was that businesses would not exist because people were not doing indoor dining. Then you could have parked right next to these empty storefronts.

1

ertri t1_j66hlty wrote

Running into a bollard should have consequences because hitting a person behind that bollard sure as shit does!

Should people actively suffer because an idiot in a giant death machine was operating it poorly, or should the operator deal with the consequences?

1

missjennielang t1_j689xp1 wrote

You keep pretending the stuff taking up the parking isn’t subsidized. All you’re doing is showing a preference for wealthier residents.

The truth is everyone but the restaurants are harmed by the loss of parking, haven’t you listened to any of the other businesses?

1

johnbrownbody t1_j68aqpd wrote

>All you’re doing is showing a preference for wealthier residents

DC residents with cars are wealthier than those without. Giving cheap parking to car drivers instead of using public space for amenities that benefit the city in a variety of ways is what benefits wealthy residents who don't care if there is a bus lane because they don't take the bus. Etc.

1

ertri t1_j68bm15 wrote

What? People literally drive over flex posts constantly, including right into bike lanes that other people are in. That’s not a made up situation, it happens every day on any of the protected lanes the original article is bitching about!

2