Let's keep the outdoor dining, the streets reserved for walking, and the new bike lanes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Real blasé attitudes about economic development. Clearly people that haven’t lived in the area for a long time. It’s important to always remember that what giveth can also be taken away.

Who's givething what, here?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why spend tax dollars on additional bicycle infrastructure when bikers disdain the existing infrastructure?

Dude. There is no such thing as "bikers". A bicyclist is anybody who rides a bicycle. And study after study after study shows that people are more likely to ride a bicycle when there is good, connected bicycle infrastructure.

If you drive, then you should SUPPORT good bicycle infrastructure. Why would you want more people in more cars getting in your way more?

Ok fair enough. Tell me why some of the people who ride bicycles don't use off road paths that are adjacent to road? I support bicycle infrastructure but it might not be prudent to act like it exist where it doesn't.

Because they're sidewalks, and people are walking on them.

I apologize. I am speaking more for the outlying suburbs. Sorry if I derailed the discussion in terms of locality. (Side note-bikers don't like to use paths with peds cuz it slows them down)

(Side note - drivers don't like guys struggling to ride at 10 mph using a 45 mph road because it slows them down.)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Real blasé attitudes about economic development. Clearly people that haven’t lived in the area for a long time. It’s important to always remember that what giveth can also be taken away.

Who's givething what, here?

Exactly what I’m talking about. If you were here in the 90s you wouldn’t be so flip about the possibility of significant street level retail/restaurant closures across the city. The idea that they will just be replaced by a new magic business is not consistent with how these things usually play out.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Real blasé attitudes about economic development. Clearly people that haven’t lived in the area for a long time. It’s important to always remember that what giveth can also be taken away.

Who's givething what, here?

Exactly what I’m talking about. If you were here in the 90s you wouldn’t be so flip about the possibility of significant street level retail/restaurant closures across the city. The idea that they will just be replaced by a new magic business is not consistent with how these things usually play out.

So DC has to enable non-DC residents to drive into DC because otherwise street-level retail and restaurants will close? Huh.

Cities chased the suburban drive-into-the-city market for nearly a century, and all it did was harm the cities. It's time for a new model.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
(Side note - drivers don't like guys struggling to ride at 10 mph using a 45 mph road because it slows them down.)

Generally, people who struggle to ride at 10 mph don't ride in the road on 45 mph roads, because it's too scary dangerous. People who ride in the road on 45 mph roads are generally fast and experienced road bicyclists.

In addition, please don't generalize about "drivers." When I'm driving, and I get behind a bicyclist, I wait patiently until it's safe to pass. I know that a posted speed limit of 45 mph doesn't mean I get to drive 45 mph everywhere, and I also know that a delay of 30 seconds or even a minute just isn't meaningful. It's just like when I'm driving at the speed limit, and a driver behind me can't stand it and roars past me, only to get held up right in front of me at the next red light.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Real blasé attitudes about economic development. Clearly people that haven’t lived in the area for a long time. It’s important to always remember that what giveth can also be taken away.

Who's givething what, here?

Exactly what I’m talking about. If you were here in the 90s you wouldn’t be so flip about the possibility of significant street level retail/restaurant closures across the city. The idea that they will just be replaced by a new magic business is not consistent with how these things usually play out.

So DC has to enable non-DC residents to drive into DC because otherwise street-level retail and restaurants will close? Huh.

Cities chased the suburban drive-into-the-city market for nearly a century, and all it did was harm the cities. It's time for a new model.

Wow you're really putting that PhD in economics to work

[Anonymous]

Muriel Bowser was literally doing COVID briefings from WeWork for native marketing, because she’s so worried about DC CRE she became a free brand ambassador and there are people who claim to care about DC shrugging their shoulders and saying good riddance. Well, at least your mayor disagrees and you might want to curious to find out what she knows that you don’t.

In any case, I feel like I’m arguing against interest here anyway trying to convince DC people about the importance of economic development. While the last decade belonged to the city, the next decade will belong to the suburbs. Good luck.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So bikes don't belong in the category of everyone-except-cars? I see people biking on side paths and they don't seem to have a problem.

Yes, of course bicycles belong in the category of everyone-except-cars. That category is the problem. Like, here's lots of space for drivers, and over there is a narrow space for everyone else to try to share. It's not comfortable walking on a "sidepath" where lots of people are bicycling, and it's not comfortable bicycling on a "sidepath" where lots of people are walking. The only group that "sidepaths" really work for is drivers.

Just tell the truth-bikers don't like the paths because the peds slow them down so they bike on the road and slow down the cars. Got it. It has nothing to do with comfort level. It's just that common it's-all-about-me biker mentality.

Just tell the truth, drivers don't like bikes because they slow them down. Am I doing this right?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To all the NIMBYs saying we should just keep cars out of the city and do WFH forever, you guys are living in an economic fantasy world. The population of DC DOUBLES during the day with the influx of workers (historically). Did you really think that your residential population can support all these restaurants, coffee shops, etc.? No freaking way. Your businesses will shutter without all the terrible "commuters." Your sales tax revenues will plummet. The commuters keep your city alive

Yes, the people do. The cars don't.

Thanks for demonstrating that you do, in fact, live in an alternate reality. Probably only maximum 20% of workers in DC could feasibly live near a metro station or bike in even if we tore up and redid all of the development in VA/MD. There simply is not enough housing or even enough space for housing (in the best case scenario if we tore down all the houses and built communist style high rises around all VA/MD metro stations). I know people who commute into DC from Springfield and Gaithersburg to jobs that aren't even within walking distance of a metro. So you want them to drive half an hour to a metro station WITH THEIR BIKE, pay to park, metro in with their freaking bike, oftentimes switch a metro line, then when they're done with that bike another 10 minutes to the office? Yeah... say goodbye to your economy

The reality is that the metro area is continuing to grow, but road capacity, particularly inside the beltway, is not. So either get used to massive car based traffic jams for the decades ahead, or else figure out another way of getting into DC. That is reality. Not alternate reality.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So bikes don't belong in the category of everyone-except-cars? I see people biking on side paths and they don't seem to have a problem.

Yes, of course bicycles belong in the category of everyone-except-cars. That category is the problem. Like, here's lots of space for drivers, and over there is a narrow space for everyone else to try to share. It's not comfortable walking on a "sidepath" where lots of people are bicycling, and it's not comfortable bicycling on a "sidepath" where lots of people are walking. The only group that "sidepaths" really work for is drivers.

Just tell the truth-bikers don't like the paths because the peds slow them down so they bike on the road and slow down the cars. Got it. It has nothing to do with comfort level. It's just that common it's-all-about-me biker mentality.

Yes, you're right, one of the reasons I don't like bicycling on the sidewalk is that, even when I'm bicycling slowly (like 10 mph, which is a slow running pace), I'm still bicycling fast enough to make pedestrians uncomfortable. (Another reason I don't like bicycling on the sidewalk is that, on slower roads, it's less safe for me than bicycling in the road.)

In contrast, when I'm bicycling in the road, I'm not making drivers uncomfortable, though I may be annoying some drivers who don't understand that what's really slowing them down is other cars.

Regardless, the solution to both issues is bicycle infrastructure.

Other cars are able to maintain the speed limit. Bikers are not. You are not very bright.

When there are more cars than the road can handle, then no, cars cannot maintain the speed limit. YOU are not very bright.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So bikes don't belong in the category of everyone-except-cars? I see people biking on side paths and they don't seem to have a problem.

Yes, of course bicycles belong in the category of everyone-except-cars. That category is the problem. Like, here's lots of space for drivers, and over there is a narrow space for everyone else to try to share. It's not comfortable walking on a "sidepath" where lots of people are bicycling, and it's not comfortable bicycling on a "sidepath" where lots of people are walking. The only group that "sidepaths" really work for is drivers.

Just tell the truth-bikers don't like the paths because the peds slow them down so they bike on the road and slow down the cars. Got it. It has nothing to do with comfort level. It's just that common it's-all-about-me biker mentality.

Just tell the truth, drivers don't like bikes because they slow them down. Am I doing this right?

And pedestrians don’t like cyclists because we constantly worry about being run into. A street with no cars and just random bikes zipping around in every direction is even more chaotic/dangerous to walkers than a regular street with vehicular traffic. At least with cars the patterns are predictable.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So bikes don't belong in the category of everyone-except-cars? I see people biking on side paths and they don't seem to have a problem.

Yes, of course bicycles belong in the category of everyone-except-cars. That category is the problem. Like, here's lots of space for drivers, and over there is a narrow space for everyone else to try to share. It's not comfortable walking on a "sidepath" where lots of people are bicycling, and it's not comfortable bicycling on a "sidepath" where lots of people are walking. The only group that "sidepaths" really work for is drivers.

Just tell the truth-bikers don't like the paths because the peds slow them down so they bike on the road and slow down the cars. Got it. It has nothing to do with comfort level. It's just that common it's-all-about-me biker mentality.

Just tell the truth, drivers don't like bikes because they slow them down. Am I doing this right?

And pedestrians don’t like cyclists because we constantly worry about being run into. A street with no cars and just random bikes zipping around in every direction is even more chaotic/dangerous to walkers than a regular street with vehicular traffic. At least with cars the patterns are predictable.

A street with bicyclists and no cars is NOT actually more dangerous for pedestrians than a regular street with cars.

However, all of these are reasons why there should be good bicycle infrastructure. It benefits everyone, including pedestrians and drivers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So bikes don't belong in the category of everyone-except-cars? I see people biking on side paths and they don't seem to have a problem.

Yes, of course bicycles belong in the category of everyone-except-cars. That category is the problem. Like, here's lots of space for drivers, and over there is a narrow space for everyone else to try to share. It's not comfortable walking on a "sidepath" where lots of people are bicycling, and it's not comfortable bicycling on a "sidepath" where lots of people are walking. The only group that "sidepaths" really work for is drivers.

Just tell the truth-bikers don't like the paths because the peds slow them down so they bike on the road and slow down the cars. Got it. It has nothing to do with comfort level. It's just that common it's-all-about-me biker mentality.

Just tell the truth, drivers don't like bikes because they slow them down. Am I doing this right?

And pedestrians don’t like cyclists because we constantly worry about being run into. A street with no cars and just random bikes zipping around in every direction is even more chaotic/dangerous to walkers than a regular street with vehicular traffic. At least with cars the patterns are predictable.

A street with bicyclists and no cars is NOT actually more dangerous for pedestrians than a regular street with cars.

However, all of these are reasons why there should be good bicycle infrastructure. It benefits everyone, including pedestrians and drivers.

It is IF the car street is congested

[Anonymous]

Well, ok, yes, a parking lot with no cars moving is safer for pedestrian than a street with no cars and people moving on bicycles.

However, a parking lot where people are driving in and out, parking, and backing, is actually surprisingly dangerous for pedestrians.

[Anonymous]

As are streets with a lot of bicyclists ignoring traffic signs and signals.

Cars are more dangerous in low traffic density situations while bicycles are more dangerous in high traffic density situations. It all has to do with pedestrians being able to observe and predict the traffic situation. Hanoi is a famous example of that.