D.C. needs to get a lot more car friendly

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There are many European cities where you cannot bring your personal car into the downtown area or have limited schedules where it's allowed, as measures to reduce rush hour congestion, improve safety, improve air quality and promote bicycling, pedestrian and mass transit. They've been doing it for decades. And they are not "cratering" as a result.

This is false.

Paris is doing it big time now.

The other PP said “decades”. Which is false.

Netherlands was also quite car-centric till the 70's. Several deaths, including of children, galvanized a movement and they went a different direction for "decades."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There are many European cities where you cannot bring your personal car into the downtown area or have limited schedules where it's allowed, as measures to reduce rush hour congestion, improve safety, improve air quality and promote bicycling, pedestrian and mass transit. They've been doing it for decades. And they are not "cratering" as a result.

This is false.

Paris is doing it big time now.

The other PP said “decades”. Which is false.

Netherlands was also quite car-centric till the 70's. Several deaths, including of children, galvanized a movement and they went a different direction for "decades."

Pedestrians going to pedestrian, maybe correcting that smug look off your face as you stare down the 3800 pound missile barreling your way might help. Your self-righteousofway matters not to physics and as long as the driver is sober and not egregiously speeding, they will be fine. Bikers I’m talking to you

[Anonymous]

I chuckle when my friends in AU park brag on one hand about their proximity and urban like grid pattern streets and then talk out the other side of their mouths about all the people cutting through their neighborhood on those grid streets to get downtown. What did they think would happen? That’s why cul-de-sacs cost more right?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There are many European cities where you cannot bring your personal car into the downtown area or have limited schedules where it's allowed, as measures to reduce rush hour congestion, improve safety, improve air quality and promote bicycling, pedestrian and mass transit. They've been doing it for decades. And they are not "cratering" as a result.

This is false.

Paris is doing it big time now.

The other PP said “decades”. Which is false.

Netherlands was also quite car-centric till the 70's. Several deaths, including of children, galvanized a movement and they went a different direction for "decades."

Pedestrians going to pedestrian, maybe correcting that smug look off your face as you stare down the 3800 pound missile barreling your way might help. Your self-righteousofway matters not to physics and as long as the driver is sober and not egregiously speeding, they will be fine. Bikers I’m talking to you

This is the sound of me not caring about you idling in traffic.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I chuckle when my friends in AU park brag on one hand about their proximity and urban like grid pattern streets and then talk out the other side of their mouths about all the people cutting through their neighborhood on those grid streets to get downtown. What did they think would happen? That’s why cul-de-sacs cost more right?

This is what I don't get. I prefer 100% the grid layout. But then I see all these articles about how they need to reduce or cut traffic because people drive down the streets. That's the point!

I feel like a lot of these people want to live like they're on a cul de sac but still have the grid.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I chuckle when my friends in AU park brag on one hand about their proximity and urban like grid pattern streets and then talk out the other side of their mouths about all the people cutting through their neighborhood on those grid streets to get downtown. What did they think would happen? That’s why cul-de-sacs cost more right?

Through-traffic commuters are a menace. They dangerously speed through residential neighborhoods like they were on a highway.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I chuckle when my friends in AU park brag on one hand about their proximity and urban like grid pattern streets and then talk out the other side of their mouths about all the people cutting through their neighborhood on those grid streets to get downtown. What did they think would happen? That’s why cul-de-sacs cost more right?

This is what I don't get. I prefer 100% the grid layout. But then I see all these articles about how they need to reduce or cut traffic because people drive down the streets. That's the point!

I feel like a lot of these people want to live like they're on a cul de sac but still have the grid.

Just because it's a grid pattern doesn't mean you should be flying through those neighborhoods like a maniac.

It also doesn't help that navigation apps like Waze and Google Maps don't do an adequately good enough jobs at discriminating between arterials which can handle traffic volumes versus residential side streets. That also happens in the suburbs, too. So now the trend is to add speed bumps everywhere.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There are many European cities where you cannot bring your personal car into the downtown area or have limited schedules where it's allowed, as measures to reduce rush hour congestion, improve safety, improve air quality and promote bicycling, pedestrian and mass transit. They've been doing it for decades. And they are not "cratering" as a result.

This is false.

Paris is doing it big time now.

The other PP said “decades”. Which is false.

Netherlands was also quite car-centric till the 70's. Several deaths, including of children, galvanized a movement and they went a different direction for "decades."

Pedestrians going to pedestrian, maybe correcting that smug look off your face as you stare down the 3800 pound missile barreling your way might help. Your self-righteousofway matters not to physics and as long as the driver is sober and not egregiously speeding, they will be fine. Bikers I’m talking to you

Netherlands has been heavily encouraging cycling for decades with no intention to reverse, and it certainly hasn't "cratered" them. The PP was way off base.

[Anonymous]

You're legally required to be in full control of that 3800 pound missile at all times and to yield right of way to pedestrians and cyclists. You threaten to run over or so much as graze them with your car and you are likely going to be in deep caca.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Forcing people into buses to commute to DC will just end up with people not commuting to DC. This may be fine, but don't think people these days no longer have any choice. They'll just say no, WFH. And that will be the end of it.

Ok, so? Are you threatening us with a few vacant offices? We could use slightly lower real estate prices. Maybe some conversions to affordable housing.

You might be the only person that I’ve ever heard of cheer on a glut of commercial office space. You realize that’s not a good thing, right?

From whose standpoint? Not everyone benefits from an overpriced city designed to exclude them.

Why would you want the commercial office market to crater? How would that positively influence your quality of life?

Please stop with the hyperbolic alarmism. This is all hypothetical talk anyhow and even so, DC would not "crater" as a result of supporting mass transit and bike lanes.

Well, D.C. is already playing second fiddle to NoVa in terms of jobs and population.

Keep telling yourself that. If DC were to be relocated somewhere else, NoVa would implode.

NoVA exists because DC exists.

True, but NoVa left DC in the dust a long time ago. But that’s fine. If DC wants to become even more hostile to commuters, then more and more jobs will simply move across the river. Just like more and more people have.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There are many European cities where you cannot bring your personal car into the downtown area or have limited schedules where it's allowed, as measures to reduce rush hour congestion, improve safety, improve air quality and promote bicycling, pedestrian and mass transit. They've been doing it for decades. And they are not "cratering" as a result.

This is false.

Paris is doing it big time now.

The other PP said “decades”. Which is false.

Netherlands was also quite car-centric till the 70's. Several deaths, including of children, galvanized a movement and they went a different direction for "decades."

The Netherlands is still “quite car-centric”. More vehicles per capita than the UK, Ireland or France. Social media has really caused people to understand less and be even more out of step with how average people live the world over.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I chuckle when my friends in AU park brag on one hand about their proximity and urban like grid pattern streets and then talk out the other side of their mouths about all the people cutting through their neighborhood on those grid streets to get downtown. What did they think would happen? That’s why cul-de-sacs cost more right?

This is what I don't get. I prefer 100% the grid layout. But then I see all these articles about how they need to reduce or cut traffic because people drive down the streets. That's the point!

I feel like a lot of these people want to live like they're on a cul de sac but still have the grid.

Absolutely 100%. Could not agree more. They want to suburbanize urban living. It’s weird and I suspect a lot of the impetus behind this are people who grew up in the suburbs who moved to the city and now have kids and are having a hard time reconciling living in the city versus wanting to provide their kids the suburban environment they grew up with.

I think there has been so much ink spilled about “white flight” that people seem to have forgotten that suburban subdivisions actually have a very high functional value as a great place for kids to play outdoors safely. The trade off is that your life is less convenient, but people knowingly make that choice and it’s fine.

The idea that you can have the best of both without trade offs does not make sense and it’s for a good reason.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There are many European cities where you cannot bring your personal car into the downtown area or have limited schedules where it's allowed, as measures to reduce rush hour congestion, improve safety, improve air quality and promote bicycling, pedestrian and mass transit. They've been doing it for decades. And they are not "cratering" as a result.

This is false.

Paris is doing it big time now.

The other PP said “decades”. Which is false.

It's not false. There were vehicle restrictions in some parts of German cities all the way back in the 1980s when I lived there. That's decades. London and other cities began putting emissions-specific restrictions in place beginning in the early 2000s. Either way, dozens and dozens of European cities have definitely had various types of vehicle restrictions in place for 5-10 or more years or more and there's no "cratering" trend in those cities as the pp claimed would happen.

It’s hard to take these kinds of sentiments seriously. Yes, Frankfurt restricts traffic in the Old Town. It’s not designed for cars. No, Frankfurt does not close or remove lanes to cars in the business district, except for maybe a block or two near the central plaza.

Similarly DC has closed Pennsylvania Avenue in front of the White House for decades. It doesn’t prove any point and I guess that you understand this? As I said, it’s not clear.

What DC is doing is unique and unprecedented.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Forcing people into buses to commute to DC will just end up with people not commuting to DC. This may be fine, but don't think people these days no longer have any choice. They'll just say no, WFH. And that will be the end of it.

Ok, so? Are you threatening us with a few vacant offices? We could use slightly lower real estate prices. Maybe some conversions to affordable housing.

You might be the only person that I’ve ever heard of cheer on a glut of commercial office space. You realize that’s not a good thing, right?

From whose standpoint? Not everyone benefits from an overpriced city designed to exclude them.

Why would you want the commercial office market to crater? How would that positively influence your quality of life?

Please stop with the hyperbolic alarmism. This is all hypothetical talk anyhow and even so, DC would not "crater" as a result of supporting mass transit and bike lanes.

Well, D.C. is already playing second fiddle to NoVa in terms of jobs and population.

Keep telling yourself that. If DC were to be relocated somewhere else, NoVa would implode.

NoVA exists because DC exists.

True, but NoVa left DC in the dust a long time ago. But that’s fine. If DC wants to become even more hostile to commuters, then more and more jobs will simply move across the river. Just like more and more people have.

Sure hun. Maybe you don't realize it's only a matter of time before Arlington also starts pushing back on cars.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There are many European cities where you cannot bring your personal car into the downtown area or have limited schedules where it's allowed, as measures to reduce rush hour congestion, improve safety, improve air quality and promote bicycling, pedestrian and mass transit. They've been doing it for decades. And they are not "cratering" as a result.

This is false.

Paris is doing it big time now.

The other PP said “decades”. Which is false.

It's not false. There were vehicle restrictions in some parts of German cities all the way back in the 1980s when I lived there. That's decades. London and other cities began putting emissions-specific restrictions in place beginning in the early 2000s. Either way, dozens and dozens of European cities have definitely had various types of vehicle restrictions in place for 5-10 or more years or more and there's no "cratering" trend in those cities as the pp claimed would happen.

It’s hard to take these kinds of sentiments seriously. Yes, Frankfurt restricts traffic in the Old Town. It’s not designed for cars. No, Frankfurt does not close or remove lanes to cars in the business district, except for maybe a block or two near the central plaza.

Similarly DC has closed Pennsylvania Avenue in front of the White House for decades. It doesn’t prove any point and I guess that you understand this? As I said, it’s not clear.

What DC is doing is unique and unprecedented.

No, it isn't unique or unprecedented.