How can we make DC streets bicycle and pedestrian-only?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:very easy way for further economic declines in DC.

The city is funded by commuters/employers. Not everyone wants to take public transit, nor lives near public transit, to get to their job.

Let's life in our Unicorn land with no crime, no cars, no gangs, and no drugs. Just happy people!

Sheesh

Actually every study shows benefits to the economy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:very easy way for further economic declines in DC.

The city is funded by commuters/employers. Not everyone wants to take public transit, nor lives near public transit, to get to their job.

Let's life in our Unicorn land with no crime, no cars, no gangs, and no drugs. Just happy people!

Sheesh

My favorite people are the people who think DC should institute a commuter tax. Like a few hundred thousand Feds, including members of Congress, will voluntarily take a pay cut.

The only outcome to DC for discouraging people to come downtown is that they will stop coming entirely. That’s obviously not good for DC.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:very easy way for further economic declines in DC.

The city is funded by commuters/employers. Not everyone wants to take public transit, nor lives near public transit, to get to their job.

Let's life in our Unicorn land with no crime, no cars, no gangs, and no drugs. Just happy people!

Sheesh

My favorite people are the people who think DC should institute a commuter tax. Like a few hundred thousand Feds, including members of Congress, will voluntarily take a pay cut.

The only outcome to DC for discouraging people to come downtown is that they will stop coming entirely. That’s obviously not good for DC.

If only there ways for people to travel from Montgomery County, Maryland, to downtown DC, without driving in their cars on Connecticut Avenue.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:very easy way for further economic declines in DC.

The city is funded by commuters/employers. Not everyone wants to take public transit, nor lives near public transit, to get to their job.

Let's life in our Unicorn land with no crime, no cars, no gangs, and no drugs. Just happy people!

Sheesh

My favorite people are the people who think DC should institute a commuter tax. Like a few hundred thousand Feds, including members of Congress, will voluntarily take a pay cut.

The only outcome to DC for discouraging people to come downtown is that they will stop coming entirely. That’s obviously not good for DC.

If only there ways for people to travel from Montgomery County, Maryland, to downtown DC, without driving in their cars on Connecticut Avenue.

You must be a Communist

[Anonymous]

Have the fares on I66 curbed congestion? Would making pedestrian / bike lanes the standard in DC just push the problem to the neighboring communities where there weren’t problems? Have the congestion zone fares gone into effect in NYC? Are they working? How about in London? Has it curbed co festoon or spread it out?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The bottom line is that when commute times are less with public transportation, people will choose public transportation. When commute times are less with cars, people will use cars.

Eh, that depends on the time difference. My commute to work into DC is 25 minutes by car. If I could make that commute in 10 minutes by transit, I'd still take my car because I don't have to share my car with other people, some of whom may be drunk and/or potentially dangerous.

Places like New York and Tokyo are outliers, because transit is so much faster than driving. For most people, potentially shaving a few minutes off of a commute isn't worth it because of the negatives of public transit.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The bottom line is that when commute times are less with public transportation, people will choose public transportation. When commute times are less with cars, people will use cars.

Eh, that depends on the time difference. My commute to work into DC is 25 minutes by car. If I could make that commute in 10 minutes by transit, I'd still take my car because I don't have to share my car with other people, some of whom may be drunk and/or potentially dangerous.

Places like New York and Tokyo are outliers, because transit is so much faster than driving. For most people, potentially shaving a few minutes off of a commute isn't worth it because of the negatives of public transit.

If you prefer a longer commute, that's your choice. However, public policy does not have to enable your choice.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The bottom line is that when commute times are less with public transportation, people will choose public transportation. When commute times are less with cars, people will use cars.

Eh, that depends on the time difference. My commute to work into DC is 25 minutes by car. If I could make that commute in 10 minutes by transit, I'd still take my car because I don't have to share my car with other people, some of whom may be drunk and/or potentially dangerous.

Places like New York and Tokyo are outliers, because transit is so much faster than driving. For most people, potentially shaving a few minutes off of a commute isn't worth it because of the negatives of public transit.

If you prefer a longer commute, that's your choice. However, public policy does not have to enable your choice.

Ditto for bikes? Weird to me how much money the city spends building an entire separate infrastructure for a small number of people who refuse to take the subway or the bus.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The bottom line is that when commute times are less with public transportation, people will choose public transportation. When commute times are less with cars, people will use cars.

Eh, that depends on the time difference. My commute to work into DC is 25 minutes by car. If I could make that commute in 10 minutes by transit, I'd still take my car because I don't have to share my car with other people, some of whom may be drunk and/or potentially dangerous.

Places like New York and Tokyo are outliers, because transit is so much faster than driving. For most people, potentially shaving a few minutes off of a commute isn't worth it because of the negatives of public transit.

If you prefer a longer commute, that's your choice. However, public policy does not have to enable your choice.

Ditto for bikes? Weird to me how much money the city spends building an entire separate infrastructure for a small number of people who refuse to take the subway or the bus.

No, not ditto for bikes. When people choose to walk, bike, or take transit, their choices also benefit others. When people choose to drive, their choice harms others. Encouraging driving over other transportation modes is bad transportation policy.

I also don't know why you think bikes and transit are mutually exclusive. They're actually mutually beneficial. When you can combine bike and bus/Metro, you can reach a lot more places conveniently than you can by bike alone or bus/Metro alone.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The bottom line is that when commute times are less with public transportation, people will choose public transportation. When commute times are less with cars, people will use cars.

Eh, that depends on the time difference. My commute to work into DC is 25 minutes by car. If I could make that commute in 10 minutes by transit, I'd still take my car because I don't have to share my car with other people, some of whom may be drunk and/or potentially dangerous.

Places like New York and Tokyo are outliers, because transit is so much faster than driving. For most people, potentially shaving a few minutes off of a commute isn't worth it because of the negatives of public transit.

If you prefer a longer commute, that's your choice. However, public policy does not have to enable your choice.

You missed my point.

Given the current state of Metro, you're going to have a tough time getting people out of their cars unless you can significantly shorten their commute. And, for most people commuting into DC, Metro would make their commute longer, not shorter. I mean, I live in north Arlington, and trying to take public transit would double my commute, at least. The calculus for people living even further out is worse.

If the public policy you're pushing doesn't make sense to the majority of people, you'll get huge pushback.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The bottom line is that when commute times are less with public transportation, people will choose public transportation. When commute times are less with cars, people will use cars.

Eh, that depends on the time difference. My commute to work into DC is 25 minutes by car. If I could make that commute in 10 minutes by transit, I'd still take my car because I don't have to share my car with other people, some of whom may be drunk and/or potentially dangerous.

Places like New York and Tokyo are outliers, because transit is so much faster than driving. For most people, potentially shaving a few minutes off of a commute isn't worth it because of the negatives of public transit.

If you prefer a longer commute, that's your choice. However, public policy does not have to enable your choice.

Ditto for bikes? Weird to me how much money the city spends building an entire separate infrastructure for a small number of people who refuse to take the subway or the bus.

It is amazing that, in a city with a poverty rate that rivals West Virginia's, a small number of white guys from Ward 3 can get the city to spend billions of dollars to subsidize their hobby. Take the subway! Take the bus! Walk! You have plenty of other options!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The bottom line is that when commute times are less with public transportation, people will choose public transportation. When commute times are less with cars, people will use cars.

Eh, that depends on the time difference. My commute to work into DC is 25 minutes by car. If I could make that commute in 10 minutes by transit, I'd still take my car because I don't have to share my car with other people, some of whom may be drunk and/or potentially dangerous.

Places like New York and Tokyo are outliers, because transit is so much faster than driving. For most people, potentially shaving a few minutes off of a commute isn't worth it because of the negatives of public transit.

If you prefer a longer commute, that's your choice. However, public policy does not have to enable your choice.

Ditto for bikes? Weird to me how much money the city spends building an entire separate infrastructure for a small number of people who refuse to take the subway or the bus.

It is amazing that, in a city with a poverty rate that rivals West Virginia's, a small number of white guys from Ward 3 can get the city to spend billions of dollars to subsidize their hobby. Take the subway! Take the bus! Walk! You have plenty of other options!

It is amazing that, in a city with a poverty rate that rivals West Virginia's, a few affluent white guys from Ward 3 can insist that the city continue to prioritize their hobby (hating on bike lanes). Take the subway! Take the bus! Walk! Bike! You have plenty of other options!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The bottom line is that when commute times are less with public transportation, people will choose public transportation. When commute times are less with cars, people will use cars.

Eh, that depends on the time difference. My commute to work into DC is 25 minutes by car. If I could make that commute in 10 minutes by transit, I'd still take my car because I don't have to share my car with other people, some of whom may be drunk and/or potentially dangerous.

Places like New York and Tokyo are outliers, because transit is so much faster than driving. For most people, potentially shaving a few minutes off of a commute isn't worth it because of the negatives of public transit.

If you prefer a longer commute, that's your choice. However, public policy does not have to enable your choice.

You missed my point.

Given the current state of Metro, you're going to have a tough time getting people out of their cars unless you can significantly shorten their commute. And, for most people commuting into DC, Metro would make their commute longer, not shorter. I mean, I live in north Arlington, and trying to take public transit would double my commute, at least. The calculus for people living even further out is worse.

If the public policy you're pushing doesn't make sense to the majority of people, you'll get huge pushback.

Plenty of people are already out of their cars. And plenty of other people don't even have cars.

Drive if you want to drive. Nobody's stopping you. But there's no reason why the DC government should make it easy for north Arlington residents to drive.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The bottom line is that when commute times are less with public transportation, people will choose public transportation. When commute times are less with cars, people will use cars.

Eh, that depends on the time difference. My commute to work into DC is 25 minutes by car. If I could make that commute in 10 minutes by transit, I'd still take my car because I don't have to share my car with other people, some of whom may be drunk and/or potentially dangerous.

Places like New York and Tokyo are outliers, because transit is so much faster than driving. For most people, potentially shaving a few minutes off of a commute isn't worth it because of the negatives of public transit.

If you prefer a longer commute, that's your choice. However, public policy does not have to enable your choice.

You missed my point.

Given the current state of Metro, you're going to have a tough time getting people out of their cars unless you can significantly shorten their commute. And, for most people commuting into DC, Metro would make their commute longer, not shorter. I mean, I live in north Arlington, and trying to take public transit would double my commute, at least. The calculus for people living even further out is worse.

If the public policy you're pushing doesn't make sense to the majority of people, you'll get huge pushback.

Plenty of people are already out of their cars. And plenty of other people don't even have cars.

Drive if you want to drive. Nobody's stopping you. But there's no reason why the DC government should make it easy for north Arlington residents to drive.

DC needs people to come in from Virginia and Maryland to spend money in the District in order to fill the DC government's tax coffers. You may have noticed that downtown is half-full on a good day, and mostly empty on Mondays and Fridays. This is a major concern for the DC government.

If your plan is to make it less attractive for suburban residents to come into the District by making driving more of a hassle, you're proposing putting the city into a fiscal death spiral.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The bottom line is that when commute times are less with public transportation, people will choose public transportation. When commute times are less with cars, people will use cars.

Eh, that depends on the time difference. My commute to work into DC is 25 minutes by car. If I could make that commute in 10 minutes by transit, I'd still take my car because I don't have to share my car with other people, some of whom may be drunk and/or potentially dangerous.

Places like New York and Tokyo are outliers, because transit is so much faster than driving. For most people, potentially shaving a few minutes off of a commute isn't worth it because of the negatives of public transit.

If you prefer a longer commute, that's your choice. However, public policy does not have to enable your choice.

You missed my point.

Given the current state of Metro, you're going to have a tough time getting people out of their cars unless you can significantly shorten their commute. And, for most people commuting into DC, Metro would make their commute longer, not shorter. I mean, I live in north Arlington, and trying to take public transit would double my commute, at least. The calculus for people living even further out is worse.

If the public policy you're pushing doesn't make sense to the majority of people, you'll get huge pushback.

Plenty of people are already out of their cars. And plenty of other people don't even have cars.

Drive if you want to drive. Nobody's stopping you. But there's no reason why the DC government should make it easy for north Arlington residents to drive.

DC needs people to come in from Virginia and Maryland to spend money in the District in order to fill the DC government's tax coffers. You may have noticed that downtown is half-full on a good day, and mostly empty on Mondays and Fridays. This is a major concern for the DC government.

If your plan is to make it less attractive for suburban residents to come into the District by making driving more of a hassle, you're proposing putting the city into a fiscal death spiral.

If only there were ways to get from Virginia and Maryland to DC without driving.

DC needs to prioritize its own residents, not convenient driving in DC for people who don't live in DC.