CriticalStrawberry

CriticalStrawberry t1_je4w04a wrote

Yeah... No. One look at OPs post history pretty clearly shows they're a troll.

>they're new to the city and have always been told to avoid SE

>claims to live in Anacostia in a previous post

>took like 7 comments to decide which quadrant of N St this happened in.

8

CriticalStrawberry t1_je4vi8j wrote

There was no attack and no getaway. OP saw a car circling and left the area. After that, they came here and posted that they got away from kidnapping and that DC has a huge sex trafficking problem, which it doesn't.

If you take a look at their post history, you'll quickly question the validity of any of this. Either they've been the unluckiest person on Earth to have directly witnessed so much crime in such a short period of time, they're hyper scared of cities and overreacting to small things, or they enjoy making up stories and posting them here for karma.

12

CriticalStrawberry t1_jdxtyo6 wrote

Best of luck! Landlords often take naive tenants for a ride every chance they get, especially large buildings where they know what they can get away with when tenants don't know any better. It's not your fault. Luckily, DC tenant rights are pretty strong and protective if you know better.

4

CriticalStrawberry t1_jdxsw2e wrote

Then it sounds like the landlord is trying to take advantage of your ignorance. You are in no way, shape, or form responsible for the repairs on that and likely entitled to compensation from them for the cost of moving, renting somewhere else, and any damage done to your personal property by the water leak. Them telling you to file a claim with your renter's insurance for something that they are likely liable for is a huge red flag.

Call and email DC OTA and find out your rights. They also have emergency resources and procedures for displacement cases like this.

24

CriticalStrawberry t1_jdoyggv wrote

The grid will adapt. I always like to remind people that we went from no one having A/C to basically everywhere having A/C running all hours of the day in just a couple decades. The power companies enjoy their legal monopolies, so they'll spend just enough to provide what's needed.

As far as transitioning to renewables for power generation. I have my doubts about that ever happening in my lifetime. American politics are too fucked up to make any meaningful progress.

2

CriticalStrawberry t1_jdj45ip wrote

It's one of the reasons that blanket policies requiring the use of a specific thing are generally bad. Often times, it's better to just have seperate systems to fill individual niches than it is to try to stretch one system to do 20 things.

MetroRail is a prime example of that. It's a system that is trying to be 3 things at once and doesn't do a stellar job at doing any of them individually. It wants to be suburban commuter rail shuttling workers in and out of the city with a focus on peak rush hour service. It wants to be a rapid transit system for the urban core. And it wants to be regional rail servings things that are really too far for subway style cars and seating like Dulles airport. It accomplishes all three but to a mediocre level.

Battery EV busses, and vehicles in general, are the same thing. They serve a niche and have their place where they win, but there are roles where Diesel or Trolley busses may be a better solution.

4

CriticalStrawberry t1_jdimsyn wrote

Throwing away working busses early in their life cycle to switch to electric is kinda the opposite of green. Use what we have till the wheels fall off and transition at the normal end of their life cycle. Which is exactly what it sounds like they're doing.

Same goes with cars. The lowest carbon footprint vehicle is a 1997 prius or camry, not a shiny new Tesla. Use existing vehicles until they die, but stop producing so many new ICE cars and slowly phase them out with natural life cycle.

Not to mention, until we figure out how to make high power, high capacity batteries without the use of Lithium, Cobalt, Nickel, and other very very dirty to mine metals, EVs aren't all that green anyways. They also do significantly more damage to roads due to weight, causing them to have to be repaved more often. Another environmental downside.

The electrification of transportation is inevitable, but I'm not sold that throwing away working hardware for super heavy battery busses is the answer. Honestly a lot of MetroBus routes would be well suited to become Trolleybuses with overhead lines. All the benefits of EV, without the weight and heavy metal mining, but you have to install wire infra.

32

CriticalStrawberry t1_jcp5192 wrote

>Empty speculation without evidence

>economic losses imposed by hours-long closures of major arteries

Your are correct, that is what you did there. The vast majority of economic activity in urban areas comes from local people walking, biking, and taking transit. Very few people in cars are actually stopping and spending money in the city. The only people in that group negatively effected by this are bus riders, which should be considered.

Businesses complain when cities want to remove street parking or pedestrianize the street they're on because they've been told that it will negatively effect their business and reduce the number of customers they get. The reality is the opposite. Removing cars from an area almost always increases economic activity for businesses. If you walk around coffee shops, retail, and restaurants downtown during events like this, it's pretty clear evidence that holds true.

10