Bowser urges Biden to end telework policies for federal workers

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Lol what? She needs to clean up the tent cities, crack down in crime, and eliminate the damn bike lanes everywhere first. It’s a traffic and crime ridden ****hole now.

Maybe you'd be happier in Florida? As much as I dislike Bowser, at least she's not Desantis.

Is that your equivalent of telling someone to "go back to their home country?" Pitiful.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Oh yay, it's one-issue-Nick again. I forgot you're still alive.

I don’t know who that is, but please explain why this much touted economic benefit is not working in practice? Seriously, I want to hear the answer. Because I keep hearing this trotted out but here is a real world test and the mayor has not said one word about how bike lanes were going to stimulate the downtown DC economy. Why do you think that is?

I know who it is, and he's an angry, angry man.

Great, but do you have an explanation for why the mayor is not proposing bike lanes as a tool to revitalize the downtown DC economy?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Lol what? She needs to clean up the tent cities, crack down in crime, and eliminate the damn bike lanes everywhere first. It’s a traffic and crime ridden ****hole now.

It's a chicken and egg issue. Homelessness has gone up as many businesses that used to employ people on the lower end of the economic spectrum have gone out of business or reduced their staffing. One reason those businesses are struggling is the loss of the commuter workforce into the city every day. This leads to more homelessness, more tent cities. That makes parts of the city less pleasant to be in, which further harms the businesses currently operating. Increasing homelessness and decreasing business activity causes more crime. Crime is already up due to school closures which left a lot of MS and HS students at loose ends. Now those kids are 3 years older and there are fewer job opportunities for them due to telework and increasing crime. So they are more incentivized to commit crime. Meanwhile, the city is losing tax revenue from both loss of businesses and people leaving the city due to telework and rising crime. Meaning less money for both police and social services that might disrupt the increase criminality, especially among young people.

Bike lanes are irrelevant to this conversation, and there's genuine demand for bike lanes among city residents -- that's honestly a different conversation that doesn't have a ton to do with federal telework. I know you think bike lanes have substantively worsened commute times into the city, but the data doesn't back this up -- the city part of most commute has sped up do to a reduction in overall commuting, and the time increases have occurred on and surrounding the beltway, as teleworking employees are moving within suburbs more throughout the day instead of simply driving into and out of the city.

Anyway, you can't just magically solve homelessness, clean up the tent cities, and fix crime while the economy is floundering due to losing tens of thousands of consumers who used to come into the city daily. That's the whole point. I don't even like Bowser, but the loss of workers to telework and the hundreds of large office buildings now sitting idle in the middle of the city are in fact a major problem, and if something could be done to address them, it will actually enable the city to do more to combat homelessness and crime.

Bike lanes are not irrelevant if they are not increasing business in downtown DC, which is what proponents claim they are supposed to do because of “dozens of studies”.

Oh yay, it's one-issue-Nick again. I forgot you're still alive.

I don’t know who that is, but please explain why this much touted economic benefit is not working in practice? Seriously, I want to hear the answer. Because I keep hearing this trotted out but here is a real world test and the mayor has not said one word about how bike lanes were going to stimulate the downtown DC economy. Why do you think that is?

Maybe because the primary purpose of the bike lanes is not supposed to be economic development? Even the most ardent bike lane proponents don't argue that bike lanes are the key to stimulating the economy; they merely point out that the studies on the economic effects of bike lanes show that they have a (small) positive impact overall. You can run around pointing out that the bike lanes aren't fixing the economy all you want, but you're arguing with a straw man.

Here is a “study” from New York that claims that installation of a bike lane increased business sales on a street by 9% over baseline.
https://nyc.streetsblog.org/2022/09/30/business-grew-on-queens-street-after-controversial-bike-lane-installed-data-show/

Why wouldn’t the mayor want that for struggling downtown businesses?

If bike lanes are not for economic development, why are these “studies” being produced and touted as evidence of anything in the first place?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Lol what? She needs to clean up the tent cities, crack down in crime, and eliminate the damn bike lanes everywhere first. It’s a traffic and crime ridden ****hole now.

It's a chicken and egg issue. Homelessness has gone up as many businesses that used to employ people on the lower end of the economic spectrum have gone out of business or reduced their staffing. One reason those businesses are struggling is the loss of the commuter workforce into the city every day. This leads to more homelessness, more tent cities. That makes parts of the city less pleasant to be in, which further harms the businesses currently operating. Increasing homelessness and decreasing business activity causes more crime. Crime is already up due to school closures which left a lot of MS and HS students at loose ends. Now those kids are 3 years older and there are fewer job opportunities for them due to telework and increasing crime. So they are more incentivized to commit crime. Meanwhile, the city is losing tax revenue from both loss of businesses and people leaving the city due to telework and rising crime. Meaning less money for both police and social services that might disrupt the increase criminality, especially among young people.

Bike lanes are irrelevant to this conversation, and there's genuine demand for bike lanes among city residents -- that's honestly a different conversation that doesn't have a ton to do with federal telework. I know you think bike lanes have substantively worsened commute times into the city, but the data doesn't back this up -- the city part of most commute has sped up do to a reduction in overall commuting, and the time increases have occurred on and surrounding the beltway, as teleworking employees are moving within suburbs more throughout the day instead of simply driving into and out of the city.

Anyway, you can't just magically solve homelessness, clean up the tent cities, and fix crime while the economy is floundering due to losing tens of thousands of consumers who used to come into the city daily. That's the whole point. I don't even like Bowser, but the loss of workers to telework and the hundreds of large office buildings now sitting idle in the middle of the city are in fact a major problem, and if something could be done to address them, it will actually enable the city to do more to combat homelessness and crime.

Bike lanes are not irrelevant if they are not increasing business in downtown DC, which is what proponents claim they are supposed to do because of “dozens of studies”.

Oh yay, it's one-issue-Nick again. I forgot you're still alive.

I don’t know who that is, but please explain why this much touted economic benefit is not working in practice? Seriously, I want to hear the answer. Because I keep hearing this trotted out but here is a real world test and the mayor has not said one word about how bike lanes were going to stimulate the downtown DC economy. Why do you think that is?

Maybe because the primary purpose of the bike lanes is not supposed to be economic development? Even the most ardent bike lane proponents don't argue that bike lanes are the key to stimulating the economy; they merely point out that the studies on the economic effects of bike lanes show that they have a (small) positive impact overall. You can run around pointing out that the bike lanes aren't fixing the economy all you want, but you're arguing with a straw man.

Here is a “study” from New York that claims that installation of a bike lane increased business sales on a street by 9% over baseline.
https://nyc.streetsblog.org/2022/09/30/business-grew-on-queens-street-after-controversial-bike-lane-installed-data-show/

Why wouldn’t the mayor want that for struggling downtown businesses?

If bike lanes are not for economic development, why are these “studies” being produced and touted as evidence of anything in the first place?

Such studies are being done because every time anyone proposes putting a bike lane anywhere, people start shrieking about how it's going to kill all the businesses nearby. It turns out that isn't actually the case. But the point of bike lanes is to make biking easier and safer and to diversify transportation options (and to get bikes out of the way of cars, also, which you'd think most drivers would support). I have never seen anyone suggest that the primary point of bike lanes is economic development.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Lol what? She needs to clean up the tent cities, crack down in crime, and eliminate the damn bike lanes everywhere first. It’s a traffic and crime ridden ****hole now.

It's a chicken and egg issue. Homelessness has gone up as many businesses that used to employ people on the lower end of the economic spectrum have gone out of business or reduced their staffing. One reason those businesses are struggling is the loss of the commuter workforce into the city every day. This leads to more homelessness, more tent cities. That makes parts of the city less pleasant to be in, which further harms the businesses currently operating. Increasing homelessness and decreasing business activity causes more crime. Crime is already up due to school closures which left a lot of MS and HS students at loose ends. Now those kids are 3 years older and there are fewer job opportunities for them due to telework and increasing crime. So they are more incentivized to commit crime. Meanwhile, the city is losing tax revenue from both loss of businesses and people leaving the city due to telework and rising crime. Meaning less money for both police and social services that might disrupt the increase criminality, especially among young people.

Bike lanes are irrelevant to this conversation, and there's genuine demand for bike lanes among city residents -- that's honestly a different conversation that doesn't have a ton to do with federal telework. I know you think bike lanes have substantively worsened commute times into the city, but the data doesn't back this up -- the city part of most commute has sped up do to a reduction in overall commuting, and the time increases have occurred on and surrounding the beltway, as teleworking employees are moving within suburbs more throughout the day instead of simply driving into and out of the city.

Anyway, you can't just magically solve homelessness, clean up the tent cities, and fix crime while the economy is floundering due to losing tens of thousands of consumers who used to come into the city daily. That's the whole point. I don't even like Bowser, but the loss of workers to telework and the hundreds of large office buildings now sitting idle in the middle of the city are in fact a major problem, and if something could be done to address them, it will actually enable the city to do more to combat homelessness and crime.

Bike lanes are not irrelevant if they are not increasing business in downtown DC, which is what proponents claim they are supposed to do because of “dozens of studies”.

Oh yay, it's one-issue-Nick again. I forgot you're still alive.

I don’t know who that is, but please explain why this much touted economic benefit is not working in practice? Seriously, I want to hear the answer. Because I keep hearing this trotted out but here is a real world test and the mayor has not said one word about how bike lanes were going to stimulate the downtown DC economy. Why do you think that is?

Maybe because the primary purpose of the bike lanes is not supposed to be economic development? Even the most ardent bike lane proponents don't argue that bike lanes are the key to stimulating the economy; they merely point out that the studies on the economic effects of bike lanes show that they have a (small) positive impact overall. You can run around pointing out that the bike lanes aren't fixing the economy all you want, but you're arguing with a straw man.

Here is a “study” from New York that claims that installation of a bike lane increased business sales on a street by 9% over baseline.
https://nyc.streetsblog.org/2022/09/30/business-grew-on-queens-street-after-controversial-bike-lane-installed-data-show/

Why wouldn’t the mayor want that for struggling downtown businesses?

If bike lanes are not for economic development, why are these “studies” being produced and touted as evidence of anything in the first place?

Such studies are being done because every time anyone proposes putting a bike lane anywhere, people start shrieking about how it's going to kill all the businesses nearby. It turns out that isn't actually the case. But the point of bike lanes is to make biking easier and safer and to diversify transportation options (and to get bikes out of the way of cars, also, which you'd think most drivers would support). I have never seen anyone suggest that the primary point of bike lanes is economic development.

So we shouldn’t rely on these studies after all? I’m confused because you seem to be saying that these studies are produced for the sole purpose of propaganda to justify bike lanes. Hmmmm.

What’s not propaganda is that when the policy is “reduced demand” traffic doesn’t evaporate. It just goes somewhere else. In this case, the traffic in the form of workers just stays in the suburbs, which DC should be happy with.

DC needs to decide what it wants. Since the city has been clear that it doesn’t want commuter traffic, then it needs to adjust to the economic ramifications of that choice.

[Anonymous]

There is a strong correlation between cities that are struggling to get workers back downtown and cities that have been the most aggressive about hating on car commuters and the current status of their downtowns. NYC, SF, and DC seem to have been the most aggressive and are hurting the worst. On the other hand, places like Tysons, Miami and Austin are booming without turning over critical CBD infrastructure solely to cyclists. You’d think that this might be something that should give folks pause. I guess not.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There is a strong correlation between cities that are struggling to get workers back downtown and cities that have been the most aggressive about hating on car commuters and the current status of their downtowns. NYC, SF, and DC seem to have been the most aggressive and are hurting the worst. On the other hand, places like Tysons, Miami and Austin are booming without turning over critical CBD infrastructure solely to cyclists. You’d think that this might be something that should give folks pause. I guess not.

They were also cities that had Covid restrictions for the longest.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Lol what? She needs to clean up the tent cities, crack down in crime, and eliminate the damn bike lanes everywhere first. It’s a traffic and crime ridden ****hole now.

It's a chicken and egg issue. Homelessness has gone up as many businesses that used to employ people on the lower end of the economic spectrum have gone out of business or reduced their staffing. One reason those businesses are struggling is the loss of the commuter workforce into the city every day. This leads to more homelessness, more tent cities. That makes parts of the city less pleasant to be in, which further harms the businesses currently operating. Increasing homelessness and decreasing business activity causes more crime. Crime is already up due to school closures which left a lot of MS and HS students at loose ends. Now those kids are 3 years older and there are fewer job opportunities for them due to telework and increasing crime. So they are more incentivized to commit crime. Meanwhile, the city is losing tax revenue from both loss of businesses and people leaving the city due to telework and rising crime. Meaning less money for both police and social services that might disrupt the increase criminality, especially among young people.

Bike lanes are irrelevant to this conversation, and there's genuine demand for bike lanes among city residents -- that's honestly a different conversation that doesn't have a ton to do with federal telework. I know you think bike lanes have substantively worsened commute times into the city, but the data doesn't back this up -- the city part of most commute has sped up do to a reduction in overall commuting, and the time increases have occurred on and surrounding the beltway, as teleworking employees are moving within suburbs more throughout the day instead of simply driving into and out of the city.

Anyway, you can't just magically solve homelessness, clean up the tent cities, and fix crime while the economy is floundering due to losing tens of thousands of consumers who used to come into the city daily. That's the whole point. I don't even like Bowser, but the loss of workers to telework and the hundreds of large office buildings now sitting idle in the middle of the city are in fact a major problem, and if something could be done to address them, it will actually enable the city to do more to combat homelessness and crime.

Bike lanes are not irrelevant if they are not increasing business in downtown DC, which is what proponents claim they are supposed to do because of “dozens of studies”.

Oh yay, it's one-issue-Nick again. I forgot you're still alive.

I don’t know who that is, but please explain why this much touted economic benefit is not working in practice? Seriously, I want to hear the answer. Because I keep hearing this trotted out but here is a real world test and the mayor has not said one word about how bike lanes were going to stimulate the downtown DC economy. Why do you think that is?

Maybe because the primary purpose of the bike lanes is not supposed to be economic development? Even the most ardent bike lane proponents don't argue that bike lanes are the key to stimulating the economy; they merely point out that the studies on the economic effects of bike lanes show that they have a (small) positive impact overall. You can run around pointing out that the bike lanes aren't fixing the economy all you want, but you're arguing with a straw man.

Here is a “study” from New York that claims that installation of a bike lane increased business sales on a street by 9% over baseline.
https://nyc.streetsblog.org/2022/09/30/business-grew-on-queens-street-after-controversial-bike-lane-installed-data-show/

Why wouldn’t the mayor want that for struggling downtown businesses?

If bike lanes are not for economic development, why are these “studies” being produced and touted as evidence of anything in the first place?

Such studies are being done because every time anyone proposes putting a bike lane anywhere, people start shrieking about how it's going to kill all the businesses nearby. It turns out that isn't actually the case. But the point of bike lanes is to make biking easier and safer and to diversify transportation options (and to get bikes out of the way of cars, also, which you'd think most drivers would support). I have never seen anyone suggest that the primary point of bike lanes is economic development.

So we shouldn’t rely on these studies after all? I’m confused because you seem to be saying that these studies are produced for the sole purpose of propaganda to justify bike lanes. Hmmmm.

What’s not propaganda is that when the policy is “reduced demand” traffic doesn’t evaporate. It just goes somewhere else. In this case, the traffic in the form of workers just stays in the suburbs, which DC should be happy with.

DC needs to decide what it wants. Since the city has been clear that it doesn’t want commuter traffic, then it needs to adjust to the economic ramifications of that choice.

I'm saying that bike lanes may or may not be good for economic development (it appears that virtually anyone who has studied the question says they're good), but that isn't their primary purpose. So the fact that the mayor isn't now proposing more bike lanes downtown isn't a gotcha, despite what you seem to be suggesting. (Of course, there are already a lot of bike lanes downtown, which I think is probably the main reason the mayor isn't proposing more.)

I have no idea what you're talking about with your "reduced demand" policy stuff, so I have nothing to say in response to that. The main reason workers are staying in the suburbs is that their employers have not required them to return to the office. I live in the city, but I only go to my office on the minimum required number of days per week, too. That has nothing to do with how easy or hard it is for me to commute --- I never commute by car, anyway -- and it has almost nothing to do with any D.C. policy choices, it's entirely due to my employer's rules.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Lol what? She needs to clean up the tent cities, crack down in crime, and eliminate the damn bike lanes everywhere first. It’s a traffic and crime ridden ****hole now.

It's a chicken and egg issue. Homelessness has gone up as many businesses that used to employ people on the lower end of the economic spectrum have gone out of business or reduced their staffing. One reason those businesses are struggling is the loss of the commuter workforce into the city every day. This leads to more homelessness, more tent cities. That makes parts of the city less pleasant to be in, which further harms the businesses currently operating. Increasing homelessness and decreasing business activity causes more crime. Crime is already up due to school closures which left a lot of MS and HS students at loose ends. Now those kids are 3 years older and there are fewer job opportunities for them due to telework and increasing crime. So they are more incentivized to commit crime. Meanwhile, the city is losing tax revenue from both loss of businesses and people leaving the city due to telework and rising crime. Meaning less money for both police and social services that might disrupt the increase criminality, especially among young people.

Bike lanes are irrelevant to this conversation, and there's genuine demand for bike lanes among city residents -- that's honestly a different conversation that doesn't have a ton to do with federal telework. I know you think bike lanes have substantively worsened commute times into the city, but the data doesn't back this up -- the city part of most commute has sped up do to a reduction in overall commuting, and the time increases have occurred on and surrounding the beltway, as teleworking employees are moving within suburbs more throughout the day instead of simply driving into and out of the city.

Anyway, you can't just magically solve homelessness, clean up the tent cities, and fix crime while the economy is floundering due to losing tens of thousands of consumers who used to come into the city daily. That's the whole point. I don't even like Bowser, but the loss of workers to telework and the hundreds of large office buildings now sitting idle in the middle of the city are in fact a major problem, and if something could be done to address them, it will actually enable the city to do more to combat homelessness and crime.

Bike lanes are not irrelevant if they are not increasing business in downtown DC, which is what proponents claim they are supposed to do because of “dozens of studies”.

Oh yay, it's one-issue-Nick again. I forgot you're still alive.

I don’t know who that is, but please explain why this much touted economic benefit is not working in practice? Seriously, I want to hear the answer. Because I keep hearing this trotted out but here is a real world test and the mayor has not said one word about how bike lanes were going to stimulate the downtown DC economy. Why do you think that is?

Maybe because the primary purpose of the bike lanes is not supposed to be economic development? Even the most ardent bike lane proponents don't argue that bike lanes are the key to stimulating the economy; they merely point out that the studies on the economic effects of bike lanes show that they have a (small) positive impact overall. You can run around pointing out that the bike lanes aren't fixing the economy all you want, but you're arguing with a straw man.

Here is a “study” from New York that claims that installation of a bike lane increased business sales on a street by 9% over baseline.
https://nyc.streetsblog.org/2022/09/30/business-grew-on-queens-street-after-controversial-bike-lane-installed-data-show/

Why wouldn’t the mayor want that for struggling downtown businesses?

If bike lanes are not for economic development, why are these “studies” being produced and touted as evidence of anything in the first place?

Such studies are being done because every time anyone proposes putting a bike lane anywhere, people start shrieking about how it's going to kill all the businesses nearby. It turns out that isn't actually the case. But the point of bike lanes is to make biking easier and safer and to diversify transportation options (and to get bikes out of the way of cars, also, which you'd think most drivers would support). I have never seen anyone suggest that the primary point of bike lanes is economic development.

So we shouldn’t rely on these studies after all? I’m confused because you seem to be saying that these studies are produced for the sole purpose of propaganda to justify bike lanes. Hmmmm.

What’s not propaganda is that when the policy is “reduced demand” traffic doesn’t evaporate. It just goes somewhere else. In this case, the traffic in the form of workers just stays in the suburbs, which DC should be happy with.

DC needs to decide what it wants. Since the city has been clear that it doesn’t want commuter traffic, then it needs to adjust to the economic ramifications of that choice.

I'm saying that bike lanes may or may not be good for economic development (it appears that virtually anyone who has studied the question says they're good), but that isn't their primary purpose. So the fact that the mayor isn't now proposing more bike lanes downtown isn't a gotcha, despite what you seem to be suggesting. (Of course, there are already a lot of bike lanes downtown, which I think is probably the main reason the mayor isn't proposing more.)

I have no idea what you're talking about with your "reduced demand" policy stuff, so I have nothing to say in response to that. The main reason workers are staying in the suburbs is that their employers have not required them to return to the office. I live in the city, but I only go to my office on the minimum required number of days per week, too. That has nothing to do with how easy or hard it is for me to commute --- I never commute by car, anyway -- and it has almost nothing to do with any D.C. policy choices, it's entirely due to my employer's rules.

Are bike lanes good for economic development or not? If they are good (and good for transportation too) then why isn’t Bowser talking about more bike lanes for economic development downtown? You refuse to address that question.

[Anonymous]

[+quote=Anonymous]
Are bike lanes good for economic development or not? If they are good (and good for transportation too) then why isn’t Bowser talking about more bike lanes for economic development downtown? You refuse to address that question.

DP. Good bike lanes are good for transportation. Notwithstanding dire warnings that bike lanes kill business, good bike lanes also have the additional benefit of increasing spending at retail places on streets that have good bike lanes. People on bikes are more likely to stop and shop along the way than people in cars. But bike lanes are a transportation policy, not an economic development policy.

So, why isn't Mayor Bowser talking about bike lanes as an economic development policy? Because bike lanes are not an economic development policy, they are a transportation policy. And also because she really isn't big on bike lanes. DDOT has been doing quite a bit, but they would be doing a lot more, if she were.

[Anonymous]

Thanks for clarifying that bike lanes have nothing to do with economic development and when it is touted as such it’s bs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Lol what? She needs to clean up the tent cities, crack down in crime, and eliminate the damn bike lanes everywhere first. It’s a traffic and crime ridden ****hole now.

It's a chicken and egg issue. Homelessness has gone up as many businesses that used to employ people on the lower end of the economic spectrum have gone out of business or reduced their staffing. One reason those businesses are struggling is the loss of the commuter workforce into the city every day. This leads to more homelessness, more tent cities. That makes parts of the city less pleasant to be in, which further harms the businesses currently operating. Increasing homelessness and decreasing business activity causes more crime. Crime is already up due to school closures which left a lot of MS and HS students at loose ends. Now those kids are 3 years older and there are fewer job opportunities for them due to telework and increasing crime. So they are more incentivized to commit crime. Meanwhile, the city is losing tax revenue from both loss of businesses and people leaving the city due to telework and rising crime. Meaning less money for both police and social services that might disrupt the increase criminality, especially among young people.

Bike lanes are irrelevant to this conversation, and there's genuine demand for bike lanes among city residents -- that's honestly a different conversation that doesn't have a ton to do with federal telework. I know you think bike lanes have substantively worsened commute times into the city, but the data doesn't back this up -- the city part of most commute has sped up do to a reduction in overall commuting, and the time increases have occurred on and surrounding the beltway, as teleworking employees are moving within suburbs more throughout the day instead of simply driving into and out of the city.

Anyway, you can't just magically solve homelessness, clean up the tent cities, and fix crime while the economy is floundering due to losing tens of thousands of consumers who used to come into the city daily. That's the whole point. I don't even like Bowser, but the loss of workers to telework and the hundreds of large office buildings now sitting idle in the middle of the city are in fact a major problem, and if something could be done to address them, it will actually enable the city to do more to combat homelessness and crime.

Bike lanes are not irrelevant if they are not increasing business in downtown DC, which is what proponents claim they are supposed to do because of “dozens of studies”.

Oh yay, it's one-issue-Nick again. I forgot you're still alive.

I don’t know who that is, but please explain why this much touted economic benefit is not working in practice? Seriously, I want to hear the answer. Because I keep hearing this trotted out but here is a real world test and the mayor has not said one word about how bike lanes were going to stimulate the downtown DC economy. Why do you think that is?

Maybe because the primary purpose of the bike lanes is not supposed to be economic development? Even the most ardent bike lane proponents don't argue that bike lanes are the key to stimulating the economy; they merely point out that the studies on the economic effects of bike lanes show that they have a (small) positive impact overall. You can run around pointing out that the bike lanes aren't fixing the economy all you want, but you're arguing with a straw man.

Here is a “study” from New York that claims that installation of a bike lane increased business sales on a street by 9% over baseline.
https://nyc.streetsblog.org/2022/09/30/business-grew-on-queens-street-after-controversial-bike-lane-installed-data-show/

Why wouldn’t the mayor want that for struggling downtown businesses?

If bike lanes are not for economic development, why are these “studies” being produced and touted as evidence of anything in the first place?

Such studies are being done because every time anyone proposes putting a bike lane anywhere, people start shrieking about how it's going to kill all the businesses nearby. It turns out that isn't actually the case. But the point of bike lanes is to make biking easier and safer and to diversify transportation options (and to get bikes out of the way of cars, also, which you'd think most drivers would support). I have never seen anyone suggest that the primary point of bike lanes is economic development.

So we shouldn’t rely on these studies after all? I’m confused because you seem to be saying that these studies are produced for the sole purpose of propaganda to justify bike lanes. Hmmmm.

What’s not propaganda is that when the policy is “reduced demand” traffic doesn’t evaporate. It just goes somewhere else. In this case, the traffic in the form of workers just stays in the suburbs, which DC should be happy with.

DC needs to decide what it wants. Since the city has been clear that it doesn’t want commuter traffic, then it needs to adjust to the economic ramifications of that choice.

DC doesn't want to make it easier for people to drive themselves from the suburbs into the city. Fortunately there are plenty of ways to get from the suburbs into the city that don't involve you driving yourself. I've lived in Maryland and worked in DC for 25 years, and I doubt I've driven into the city more than 10 times. Train, Metro, bus, and bike all work fine and don't involve the stress and expense of driving and parking.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Thanks for clarifying that bike lanes have nothing to do with economic development and when it is touted as such it’s bs.

Who has been touting it as such? Has the DC chamber of commerce been saying it? Otherwise I have no idea what you're referring to.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Bot up as much of the federal workforce as possible and then fire everyone else. Or better, build offices in International Falls Mn and El Paso and transfer all of them there, stat. Good riddance.

You do realize that the majority of feds don't work in DC right? Other areas have lots of feds.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Lol what? She needs to clean up the tent cities, crack down in crime, and eliminate the damn bike lanes everywhere first. It’s a traffic and crime ridden ****hole now.

It's a chicken and egg issue. Homelessness has gone up as many businesses that used to employ people on the lower end of the economic spectrum have gone out of business or reduced their staffing. One reason those businesses are struggling is the loss of the commuter workforce into the city every day. This leads to more homelessness, more tent cities. That makes parts of the city less pleasant to be in, which further harms the businesses currently operating. Increasing homelessness and decreasing business activity causes more crime. Crime is already up due to school closures which left a lot of MS and HS students at loose ends. Now those kids are 3 years older and there are fewer job opportunities for them due to telework and increasing crime. So they are more incentivized to commit crime. Meanwhile, the city is losing tax revenue from both loss of businesses and people leaving the city due to telework and rising crime. Meaning less money for both police and social services that might disrupt the increase criminality, especially among young people.

Bike lanes are irrelevant to this conversation, and there's genuine demand for bike lanes among city residents -- that's honestly a different conversation that doesn't have a ton to do with federal telework. I know you think bike lanes have substantively worsened commute times into the city, but the data doesn't back this up -- the city part of most commute has sped up do to a reduction in overall commuting, and the time increases have occurred on and surrounding the beltway, as teleworking employees are moving within suburbs more throughout the day instead of simply driving into and out of the city.

Anyway, you can't just magically solve homelessness, clean up the tent cities, and fix crime while the economy is floundering due to losing tens of thousands of consumers who used to come into the city daily. That's the whole point. I don't even like Bowser, but the loss of workers to telework and the hundreds of large office buildings now sitting idle in the middle of the city are in fact a major problem, and if something could be done to address them, it will actually enable the city to do more to combat homelessness and crime.

Bike lanes are not irrelevant if they are not increasing business in downtown DC, which is what proponents claim they are supposed to do because of “dozens of studies”.

Oh yay, it's one-issue-Nick again. I forgot you're still alive.

I don’t know who that is, but please explain why this much touted economic benefit is not working in practice? Seriously, I want to hear the answer. Because I keep hearing this trotted out but here is a real world test and the mayor has not said one word about how bike lanes were going to stimulate the downtown DC economy. Why do you think that is?

Maybe because the primary purpose of the bike lanes is not supposed to be economic development? Even the most ardent bike lane proponents don't argue that bike lanes are the key to stimulating the economy; they merely point out that the studies on the economic effects of bike lanes show that they have a (small) positive impact overall. You can run around pointing out that the bike lanes aren't fixing the economy all you want, but you're arguing with a straw man.

Here is a “study” from New York that claims that installation of a bike lane increased business sales on a street by 9% over baseline.
https://nyc.streetsblog.org/2022/09/30/business-grew-on-queens-street-after-controversial-bike-lane-installed-data-show/

Why wouldn’t the mayor want that for struggling downtown businesses?

If bike lanes are not for economic development, why are these “studies” being produced and touted as evidence of anything in the first place?

Such studies are being done because every time anyone proposes putting a bike lane anywhere, people start shrieking about how it's going to kill all the businesses nearby. It turns out that isn't actually the case. But the point of bike lanes is to make biking easier and safer and to diversify transportation options (and to get bikes out of the way of cars, also, which you'd think most drivers would support). I have never seen anyone suggest that the primary point of bike lanes is economic development.

So we shouldn’t rely on these studies after all? I’m confused because you seem to be saying that these studies are produced for the sole purpose of propaganda to justify bike lanes. Hmmmm.

What’s not propaganda is that when the policy is “reduced demand” traffic doesn’t evaporate. It just goes somewhere else. In this case, the traffic in the form of workers just stays in the suburbs, which DC should be happy with.

DC needs to decide what it wants. Since the city has been clear that it doesn’t want commuter traffic, then it needs to adjust to the economic ramifications of that choice.

DC doesn't want to make it easier for people to drive themselves from the suburbs into the city. Fortunately there are plenty of ways to get from the suburbs into the city that don't involve you driving yourself. I've lived in Maryland and worked in DC for 25 years, and I doubt I've driven into the city more than 10 times. Train, Metro, bus, and bike all work fine and don't involve the stress and expense of driving and parking.

Exactly. DC doesn’t want suburban commuters and the feeling is reciprocated. So it comes as a surprise that DC demands that they be forcibly returned. The city wants its cake and to eat it too. It needs to get used to the fact that it doesn’t dictate terms anymore. People that are staying home are speaking with their feet.

The choice for DC is to either swallow some pride and improve the value proposition for these commuters or adjust to a new economic reality with a hollowed out CBD and lower tax base. There’s no free lunch.