What would it ACTUALLY take for you to consider biking or taking the bus, in lieu of motoring?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I sweat profusely. Been that way all my life. I sweat at the drop of a hat even a teen and 20-something multi-sport athlete. Cultural norms and acceptance around sweat and resulting odor would have to change.

Also, speed limits on bike routes would have to be imposed and low enough to accommodate walkers and children.

Why do walkers and children need to be on bike routes?

Is this a serious question? Most off road bike trails are multi-use, meaning for pedestrians too. I mean the ones that go through parks or on the sides of roads separated by grass, not bike lanes within the roadway. And children bike places for transportation, too.

Yeah, those aren't really bike routes. With the "shared use" paths, the shared use is non-ideal for both pedestrians and bicyclists.

Hmm. My co-workers must’ve taken some fictional W&OD trail to/from work. Those are literally the ones that are most direct for them. If bike lanes created on streets become the norm, the entitlement of the cyclists on the W&OD will only increase.

But there are also cyclists who don't live anywhere near a trail, for whom bike lanes on streets are the most direct paths. So you do sort of need to have both. Unless your idea is that only people who live near bike paths should bike to work?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Everyone has summed up the very reasonable objections. No way any of these can be fixed

Yes, boomers and gen X'ers must keep polluting the planet relentlessly with their personal automobile addiction until they push daisies, because their hubris won't let them admit that the way they architected things led to the current toxic built environment and relentless global warming. Got it.

Don’t blame Gen X for setting things up this way. Honestly, some of the build architecture choices around our cities and suburbs aren’t even Boomers’ fault — the interstate highway system and the development of car-friendly suburbs was the result of choices their parents’ generation made.

+1. I'm Gen-X. For most of my time in the DC area, I've taken public transport to work (bus or metro, depending on where I was living). But things change when you have kids or marry someone that (gasp) works on the opposite side of the city as you. Seems like some Gen-Zers haven't had to grapple with those realities yet.

The oldest Gen Zers are 24, so there are many realities that they have yet to confront.

That said, why on Earth are we planning cities around them? What if they get over their anxiety and learn to drive and talk on the phone? Why should we have to plan around their inability to function in society?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Everyone has summed up the very reasonable objections. No way any of these can be fixed

Yes, boomers and gen X'ers must keep polluting the planet relentlessly with their personal automobile addiction until they push daisies, because their hubris won't let them admit that the way they architected things led to the current toxic built environment and relentless global warming. Got it.

Don’t blame Gen X for setting things up this way. Honestly, some of the build architecture choices around our cities and suburbs aren’t even Boomers’ fault — the interstate highway system and the development of car-friendly suburbs was the result of choices their parents’ generation made.

+1. I'm Gen-X. For most of my time in the DC area, I've taken public transport to work (bus or metro, depending on where I was living). But things change when you have kids or marry someone that (gasp) works on the opposite side of the city as you. Seems like some Gen-Zers haven't had to grapple with those realities yet.

+2 DC's suburbs and freeways were designed in the 1950s, when the boomers were children. For many who commute by car, it's because biking 15+ miles isn't realistic and public transportation from their suburb would take 2-3x as long as driving.

[Anonymous]

I would bike more if there wasn't an expectation in my office of not being a sweaty mess.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Everyone has summed up the very reasonable objections. No way any of these can be fixed

Yes, boomers and gen X'ers must keep polluting the planet relentlessly with their personal automobile addiction until they push daisies, because their hubris won't let them admit that the way they architected things led to the current toxic built environment and relentless global warming. Got it.

Don’t blame Gen X for setting things up this way. Honestly, some of the build architecture choices around our cities and suburbs aren’t even Boomers’ fault — the interstate highway system and the development of car-friendly suburbs was the result of choices their parents’ generation made.

+1. I'm Gen-X. For most of my time in the DC area, I've taken public transport to work (bus or metro, depending on where I was living). But things change when you have kids or marry someone that (gasp) works on the opposite side of the city as you. Seems like some Gen-Zers haven't had to grapple with those realities yet.

The oldest Gen Zers are 24, so there are many realities that they have yet to confront.

That said, why on Earth are we planning cities around them? What if they get over their anxiety and learn to drive and talk on the phone? Why should we have to plan around their inability to function in society?

I agree that there's a lot Gen Z still has to learn. But is there an urban planning and management consensus among Gen Z?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I would bike more if there wasn't an expectation in my office of not being a sweaty mess.

Workplace access to showers would solve this challenge.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I sweat profusely. Been that way all my life. I sweat at the drop of a hat even a teen and 20-something multi-sport athlete. Cultural norms and acceptance around sweat and resulting odor would have to change.

Also, speed limits on bike routes would have to be imposed and low enough to accommodate walkers and children.

Why do walkers and children need to be on bike routes?

Is this a serious question? Most off road bike trails are multi-use, meaning for pedestrians too. I mean the ones that go through parks or on the sides of roads separated by grass, not bike lanes within the roadway. And children bike places for transportation, too.

Yeah, those aren't really bike routes. With the "shared use" paths, the shared use is non-ideal for both pedestrians and bicyclists.

Hmm. My co-workers must’ve taken some fictional W&OD trail to/from work. Those are literally the ones that are most direct for them. If bike lanes created on streets become the norm, the entitlement of the cyclists on the W&OD will only increase.

But there are also cyclists who don't live anywhere near a trail, for whom bike lanes on streets are the most direct paths. So you do sort of need to have both. Unless your idea is that only people who live near bike paths should bike to work?

Perhaps. Like look at the ratio. Hundreds of cars today on OGR and 0 (zero) bikes.

For your logic, I don't live near a ferry and thus don't take one to work.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:When you can guarantee it never rains, snows, and the temperature not drop below 65 degrees.

You could also, like, Metro or bike on days when it's not raining or snowing, and drive when the weather is bad. Does it have to be all or nothing?

Planning your life around the weather is very silly and inefficient.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I would bike more if there wasn't an expectation in my office of not being a sweaty mess.

Workplace access to showers would solve this challenge.

So even more wasted time...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I would bike more if there wasn't an expectation in my office of not being a sweaty mess.

Workplace access to showers would solve this challenge.

Not completely. I mean, maybe you can stuff a suit in a backpack and have that be acceptable at your office, but not mine.

Maybe a courier that could bring an entire work wardrobe to the office for a week, each weekend? You'd need some secure storage area at the office. Plus that would seem to be adding to vehicular use, not lessening it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I would bike more if there wasn't an expectation in my office of not being a sweaty mess.

Workplace access to showers would solve this challenge.

Not completely. I mean, maybe you can stuff a suit in a backpack and have that be acceptable at your office, but not mine.

Maybe a courier that could bring an entire work wardrobe to the office for a week, each weekend? You'd need some secure storage area at the office. Plus that would seem to be adding to vehicular use, not lessening it.

In order for this to work you would need a wardrobe with a lock at the office. Perhaps also dry clean at the office. Maybe every Monday you bring fresh undies and every Friday you bring them home. The costs and needs rapidly multiply. Maybe this works for some people but it could not work in my office. There is a locker room with tiny lockers which is only enough for shoes and underwear and the office itself is open plan so there is no place to store clean clothes. It wouldn’t be acceptable to stuff wool slacks and a blazer in a backpack because it would be wrinkled and unprofessional when you arrive.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:As we all know, the use of personal vehicles has a significant impact on the environment and presents safety issues to others in the public space, such as pedestrians and bicyclists. For everyone's benefit, it's going to become increasingly important to explore alternative modes of transportation as we get deeper into the 21st century.

To that end, DC and many other big cities are beginning to implement more pedestrian-friendly street and intersection designs, in addition to dedicated spaces for other modes of transportation such bikes and buses over the exclusive use of personal vehicles. I'm familiar with the pushback that a small but vocal minority has made in framing this as a 'war on cars', as they feel their entitlement to exclusive use of the right-of-way is being threatened.

What I find interesting in all of this is that many of these skeptics look at the installation of bus-only lanes or protected bike lanes and NEVER seriously consider personally switching to those other modes now that they are faster, safer, or more convenient. Instead, many seem to express antagonism or cynicism reflexively, possibly because they 'identify' as motorists and would never stoop so low as to take the bus or bike?

Ok, perhaps I'm projecting a bit. But for many of these skeptical folks evidently these measures are not far enough to overcome the legacy car culture this country has, or the perceived convenience or benefits of driving. So I am curious to know what it would realistically take for DC motorists to consider walking, riding a bike or taking the bus to get to work, run errands, etc.

For instance:
What if work or shops were closer to homes?
What if bus stops were located on your residential corner and came every 5-7 minutes dependably?
What if the roads were redesigned so that the bike lanes were universal and protected, or adjacent to sidewalks (not in the roadway)?
What if stores provided free and secured bike parking/valeting?
What if buses were free, and the purchase of e-bikes/cargo bikes was heavily subsidized?

I'm interested in hearing the DCUM community's thoughts and ideas on the matter.

There is a new trend in public discourse to artfully couch an opinion as fact.
I don't agree with your premise in the bolded--see how easy that is?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I would bike more if there wasn't an expectation in my office of not being a sweaty mess.

And super smelly. Thank you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Everyone has summed up the very reasonable objections. No way any of these can be fixed

Yes, boomers and gen X'ers must keep polluting the planet relentlessly with their personal automobile addiction until they push daisies, because their hubris won't let them admit that the way they architected things led to the current toxic built environment and relentless global warming. Got it.

Don’t blame Gen X for setting things up this way. Honestly, some of the build architecture choices around our cities and suburbs aren’t even Boomers’ fault — the interstate highway system and the development of car-friendly suburbs was the result of choices their parents’ generation made.

+1. I'm Gen-X. For most of my time in the DC area, I've taken public transport to work (bus or metro, depending on where I was living). But things change when you have kids or marry someone that (gasp) works on the opposite side of the city as you. Seems like some Gen-Zers haven't had to grapple with those realities yet.

The oldest Gen Zers are 24, so there are many realities that they have yet to confront.

That said, why on Earth are we planning cities around them? What if they get over their anxiety and learn to drive and talk on the phone? Why should we have to plan around their inability to function in society?

Why can’t Gen Xers function in society? Why are they too scared of public transit?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I would bike more if there wasn't an expectation in my office of not being a sweaty mess.

And super smelly. Thank you.

I bike 8 miles each way to work. I manage this without being a sweaty or smelly mess