Options for opposing Connecticut Avenue changes?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There's nothing normal about someone who brags about hauling lumber from Home Depot on his bike (actually saw this on NextDoor).

On the other hand, it's totally normal to drive your $50,000 extended-cab F150 pick-up truck to the Giant a half mile away to buy a gallon of milk, but it's nothing to brag about.

It is totally normal to efficiently use the transportation that is available to you. It would be totally abnormal to go out and buy a $6000 bicycle just to make that one trip when you already have a vehicle.

There's nothing efficient about using a $50,000, 5,000-pound motor vehicle to transport one person 2,500 ft and then transport one person plus a gallon of milk another 2,500 feet.

If you have already own the vehicle then maximizing its use is the very definition of efficient. Buying a vehicle and not using is inefficient and wasteful.

I assume you live in your vehicle, to maximize its use.

Some vehicles are designed for dual use as a home and transportation, in which case using it for both is indeed efficiency maximizing. The vehicle you referenced, a F150, is for transportation and not residence. It is similarly efficient to only have one residence and to maximize its use.

A missed and inefficient opportunity. You should give up your separate residence, move into an RV, and drive it half a mile for a gallon of milk. Or, actually, you should park your RV at a Walmart and just cross the parking lot on foot for your milk. That would be even more efficient.

That would be very efficient, yes. Then in the morning they would drive the RV to work.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There's nothing normal about someone who brags about hauling lumber from Home Depot on his bike (actually saw this on NextDoor).

On the other hand, it's totally normal to drive your $50,000 extended-cab F150 pick-up truck to the Giant a half mile away to buy a gallon of milk, but it's nothing to brag about.

It is totally normal to efficiently use the transportation that is available to you. It would be totally abnormal to go out and buy a $6000 bicycle just to make that one trip when you already have a vehicle.

There's nothing efficient about using a $50,000, 5,000-pound motor vehicle to transport one person 2,500 ft and then transport one person plus a gallon of milk another 2,500 feet.

If you have already own the vehicle then maximizing its use is the very definition of efficient. Buying a vehicle and not using is inefficient and wasteful.

Even if you the vehicle, the sum total of the mileage depreciation, fuel costs, and additional maintenance render it an inefficient option for anything that can be practically be done on a bike or by bus. And that’s only considering the internal costs to the user. Once you factor in the various negative externalities that driving a massive, massively heavy, and carbon-emitting vehicle around, you have an option that is a disaster not just for yourself but for everyone else in the world as well. It’s sad that this still needs to be spelled out in this day and age.

Can you develop a model to demonstrate your theory? What would by your discount rate and depreciation schedule? How would these theorized cost factors apply or not apply for someone who pays significant capital costs for an additional redundant form of transportation?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There's nothing normal about someone who brags about hauling lumber from Home Depot on his bike (actually saw this on NextDoor).

On the other hand, it's totally normal to drive your $50,000 extended-cab F150 pick-up truck to the Giant a half mile away to buy a gallon of milk, but it's nothing to brag about.

It is totally normal to efficiently use the transportation that is available to you. It would be totally abnormal to go out and buy a $6000 bicycle just to make that one trip when you already have a vehicle.

There's nothing efficient about using a $50,000, 5,000-pound motor vehicle to transport one person 2,500 ft and then transport one person plus a gallon of milk another 2,500 feet.

If you have already own the vehicle then maximizing its use is the very definition of efficient. Buying a vehicle and not using is inefficient and wasteful.

Even if you the vehicle, the sum total of the mileage depreciation, fuel costs, and additional maintenance render it an inefficient option for anything that can be practically be done on a bike or by bus. And that’s only considering the internal costs to the user. Once you factor in the various negative externalities that driving a massive, massively heavy, and carbon-emitting vehicle around, you have an option that is a disaster not just for yourself but for everyone else in the world as well. It’s sad that this still needs to be spelled out in this day and age.

Can you develop a model to demonstrate your theory? What would by your discount rate and depreciation schedule? How would these theorized cost factors apply or not apply for someone who pays significant capital costs for an additional redundant form of transportation?

Like, a second car?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There's nothing normal about someone who brags about hauling lumber from Home Depot on his bike (actually saw this on NextDoor).

On the other hand, it's totally normal to drive your $50,000 extended-cab F150 pick-up truck to the Giant a half mile away to buy a gallon of milk, but it's nothing to brag about.

It is totally normal to efficiently use the transportation that is available to you. It would be totally abnormal to go out and buy a $6000 bicycle just to make that one trip when you already have a vehicle.

There's nothing efficient about using a $50,000, 5,000-pound motor vehicle to transport one person 2,500 ft and then transport one person plus a gallon of milk another 2,500 feet.

If you have already own the vehicle then maximizing its use is the very definition of efficient. Buying a vehicle and not using is inefficient and wasteful.

Even if you the vehicle, the sum total of the mileage depreciation, fuel costs, and additional maintenance render it an inefficient option for anything that can be practically be done on a bike or by bus. And that’s only considering the internal costs to the user. Once you factor in the various negative externalities that driving a massive, massively heavy, and carbon-emitting vehicle around, you have an option that is a disaster not just for yourself but for everyone else in the world as well. It’s sad that this still needs to be spelled out in this day and age.

Can you develop a model to demonstrate your theory? What would by your discount rate and depreciation schedule? How would these theorized cost factors apply or not apply for someone who pays significant capital costs for an additional redundant form of transportation?

What is the depreciation schedule of a $4000 e-bike? What is the financial cost for each ride? What is the opportunity cost for each ride?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There's nothing normal about someone who brags about hauling lumber from Home Depot on his bike (actually saw this on NextDoor).

On the other hand, it's totally normal to drive your $50,000 extended-cab F150 pick-up truck to the Giant a half mile away to buy a gallon of milk, but it's nothing to brag about.

It is totally normal to efficiently use the transportation that is available to you. It would be totally abnormal to go out and buy a $6000 bicycle just to make that one trip when you already have a vehicle.

There's nothing efficient about using a $50,000, 5,000-pound motor vehicle to transport one person 2,500 ft and then transport one person plus a gallon of milk another 2,500 feet.

If you have already own the vehicle then maximizing its use is the very definition of efficient. Buying a vehicle and not using is inefficient and wasteful.

Even if you the vehicle, the sum total of the mileage depreciation, fuel costs, and additional maintenance render it an inefficient option for anything that can be practically be done on a bike or by bus. And that’s only considering the internal costs to the user. Once you factor in the various negative externalities that driving a massive, massively heavy, and carbon-emitting vehicle around, you have an option that is a disaster not just for yourself but for everyone else in the world as well. It’s sad that this still needs to be spelled out in this day and age.

Can you develop a model to demonstrate your theory? What would by your discount rate and depreciation schedule? How would these theorized cost factors apply or not apply for someone who pays significant capital costs for an additional redundant form of transportation?

What is the depreciation schedule of a $4000 e-bike? What is the financial cost for each ride? What is the opportunity cost for each ride?

Batteries in electric cargo bikes last about 5 years and replacements can cost about $1000. If you buy an electric cargo bike today for $4000 and use it for 10 years total cost is $5000. If you use it twice a week for shopping so you can leave your car at home, that’s 100 trips per year or 1,000 trips over the life of the bike. Without factoring in anything else, at a basic level, each trip costs $5. If you already own a vehicle, that’s an additional $5 that you otherwise would not have needed to spend and it is inefficient to pay an additional $5 to acquire $5 worth of milk.

[Anonymous]

What if I'm buying two gallons of milk?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What if I'm buying two gallons of milk?

You’d be better off taking your car. Even if you have to pay a carbon tax, which recent studies estimate to be $185 per ton, that half mile round trip would cost you 0.12 cents in gas and 0.05 cents in carbon tax. Electric cargo bikes are luxury items that are financially wasteful.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There's nothing normal about someone who brags about hauling lumber from Home Depot on his bike (actually saw this on NextDoor).

On the other hand, it's totally normal to drive your $50,000 extended-cab F150 pick-up truck to the Giant a half mile away to buy a gallon of milk, but it's nothing to brag about.

It is totally normal to efficiently use the transportation that is available to you. It would be totally abnormal to go out and buy a $6000 bicycle just to make that one trip when you already have a vehicle.

There's nothing efficient about using a $50,000, 5,000-pound motor vehicle to transport one person 2,500 ft and then transport one person plus a gallon of milk another 2,500 feet.

If you have already own the vehicle then maximizing its use is the very definition of efficient. Buying a vehicle and not using is inefficient and wasteful.

Even if you the vehicle, the sum total of the mileage depreciation, fuel costs, and additional maintenance render it an inefficient option for anything that can be practically be done on a bike or by bus. And that’s only considering the internal costs to the user. Once you factor in the various negative externalities that driving a massive, massively heavy, and carbon-emitting vehicle around, you have an option that is a disaster not just for yourself but for everyone else in the world as well. It’s sad that this still needs to be spelled out in this day and age.

Can you develop a model to demonstrate your theory? What would by your discount rate and depreciation schedule? How would these theorized cost factors apply or not apply for someone who pays significant capital costs for an additional redundant form of transportation?

What is the depreciation schedule of a $4000 e-bike? What is the financial cost for each ride? What is the opportunity cost for each ride?

Batteries in electric cargo bikes last about 5 years and replacements can cost about $1000. If you buy an electric cargo bike today for $4000 and use it for 10 years total cost is $5000. If you use it twice a week for shopping so you can leave your car at home, that’s 100 trips per year or 1,000 trips over the life of the bike. Without factoring in anything else, at a basic level, each trip costs $5. If you already own a vehicle, that’s an additional $5 that you otherwise would not have needed to spend and it is inefficient to pay an additional $5 to acquire $5 worth of milk.

Hey everyone! Some financial advice from DCUM: don't buy a $4,000 electric cargo bike for the exclusive purpose of buying one gallon of milk 100 times a year!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There's nothing normal about someone who brags about hauling lumber from Home Depot on his bike (actually saw this on NextDoor).

On the other hand, it's totally normal to drive your $50,000 extended-cab F150 pick-up truck to the Giant a half mile away to buy a gallon of milk, but it's nothing to brag about.

It is totally normal to efficiently use the transportation that is available to you. It would be totally abnormal to go out and buy a $6000 bicycle just to make that one trip when you already have a vehicle.

There's nothing efficient about using a $50,000, 5,000-pound motor vehicle to transport one person 2,500 ft and then transport one person plus a gallon of milk another 2,500 feet.

If you have already own the vehicle then maximizing its use is the very definition of efficient. Buying a vehicle and not using is inefficient and wasteful.

Even if you the vehicle, the sum total of the mileage depreciation, fuel costs, and additional maintenance render it an inefficient option for anything that can be practically be done on a bike or by bus. And that’s only considering the internal costs to the user. Once you factor in the various negative externalities that driving a massive, massively heavy, and carbon-emitting vehicle around, you have an option that is a disaster not just for yourself but for everyone else in the world as well. It’s sad that this still needs to be spelled out in this day and age.

Can you develop a model to demonstrate your theory? What would by your discount rate and depreciation schedule? How would these theorized cost factors apply or not apply for someone who pays significant capital costs for an additional redundant form of transportation?

What is the depreciation schedule of a $4000 e-bike? What is the financial cost for each ride? What is the opportunity cost for each ride?

Batteries in electric cargo bikes last about 5 years and replacements can cost about $1000. If you buy an electric cargo bike today for $4000 and use it for 10 years total cost is $5000. If you use it twice a week for shopping so you can leave your car at home, that’s 100 trips per year or 1,000 trips over the life of the bike. Without factoring in anything else, at a basic level, each trip costs $5. If you already own a vehicle, that’s an additional $5 that you otherwise would not have needed to spend and it is inefficient to pay an additional $5 to acquire $5 worth of milk.

Hey everyone! Some financial advice from DCUM: don't buy a $4,000 electric cargo bike for the exclusive purpose of buying one gallon of milk 100 times a year!

Owning an electric cargo bike in addition to a car for the purpose of replacing car trips is financially wasteful and so it can only be considered an unnecessary luxury item.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There's nothing normal about someone who brags about hauling lumber from Home Depot on his bike (actually saw this on NextDoor).

On the other hand, it's totally normal to drive your $50,000 extended-cab F150 pick-up truck to the Giant a half mile away to buy a gallon of milk, but it's nothing to brag about.

It is totally normal to efficiently use the transportation that is available to you. It would be totally abnormal to go out and buy a $6000 bicycle just to make that one trip when you already have a vehicle.

There's nothing efficient about using a $50,000, 5,000-pound motor vehicle to transport one person 2,500 ft and then transport one person plus a gallon of milk another 2,500 feet.

If you have already own the vehicle then maximizing its use is the very definition of efficient. Buying a vehicle and not using is inefficient and wasteful.

Even if you the vehicle, the sum total of the mileage depreciation, fuel costs, and additional maintenance render it an inefficient option for anything that can be practically be done on a bike or by bus. And that’s only considering the internal costs to the user. Once you factor in the various negative externalities that driving a massive, massively heavy, and carbon-emitting vehicle around, you have an option that is a disaster not just for yourself but for everyone else in the world as well. It’s sad that this still needs to be spelled out in this day and age.

Can you develop a model to demonstrate your theory? What would by your discount rate and depreciation schedule? How would these theorized cost factors apply or not apply for someone who pays significant capital costs for an additional redundant form of transportation?

What is the depreciation schedule of a $4000 e-bike? What is the financial cost for each ride? What is the opportunity cost for each ride?

Batteries in electric cargo bikes last about 5 years and replacements can cost about $1000. If you buy an electric cargo bike today for $4000 and use it for 10 years total cost is $5000. If you use it twice a week for shopping so you can leave your car at home, that’s 100 trips per year or 1,000 trips over the life of the bike. Without factoring in anything else, at a basic level, each trip costs $5. If you already own a vehicle, that’s an additional $5 that you otherwise would not have needed to spend and it is inefficient to pay an additional $5 to acquire $5 worth of milk.

Hey everyone! Some financial advice from DCUM: don't buy a $4,000 electric cargo bike for the exclusive purpose of buying one gallon of milk 100 times a year!

Owning an electric cargo bike in addition to a car for the purpose of replacing car trips is financially wasteful and so it can only be considered an unnecessary luxury item.

Owning a $50,000 pick-up truck that you primarily use to drive to the grocery store is also financially wasteful and can only be considered an unnecessary luxury item. Your best bet, financially, is to have a $100 bike that you bought used, and a transit pass.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There's nothing normal about someone who brags about hauling lumber from Home Depot on his bike (actually saw this on NextDoor).

On the other hand, it's totally normal to drive your $50,000 extended-cab F150 pick-up truck to the Giant a half mile away to buy a gallon of milk, but it's nothing to brag about.

It is totally normal to efficiently use the transportation that is available to you. It would be totally abnormal to go out and buy a $6000 bicycle just to make that one trip when you already have a vehicle.

There's nothing efficient about using a $50,000, 5,000-pound motor vehicle to transport one person 2,500 ft and then transport one person plus a gallon of milk another 2,500 feet.

If you have already own the vehicle then maximizing its use is the very definition of efficient. Buying a vehicle and not using is inefficient and wasteful.

Even if you the vehicle, the sum total of the mileage depreciation, fuel costs, and additional maintenance render it an inefficient option for anything that can be practically be done on a bike or by bus. And that’s only considering the internal costs to the user. Once you factor in the various negative externalities that driving a massive, massively heavy, and carbon-emitting vehicle around, you have an option that is a disaster not just for yourself but for everyone else in the world as well. It’s sad that this still needs to be spelled out in this day and age.

Can you develop a model to demonstrate your theory? What would by your discount rate and depreciation schedule? How would these theorized cost factors apply or not apply for someone who pays significant capital costs for an additional redundant form of transportation?

What is the depreciation schedule of a $4000 e-bike? What is the financial cost for each ride? What is the opportunity cost for each ride?

Batteries in electric cargo bikes last about 5 years and replacements can cost about $1000. If you buy an electric cargo bike today for $4000 and use it for 10 years total cost is $5000. If you use it twice a week for shopping so you can leave your car at home, that’s 100 trips per year or 1,000 trips over the life of the bike. Without factoring in anything else, at a basic level, each trip costs $5. If you already own a vehicle, that’s an additional $5 that you otherwise would not have needed to spend and it is inefficient to pay an additional $5 to acquire $5 worth of milk.

Hey everyone! Some financial advice from DCUM: don't buy a $4,000 electric cargo bike for the exclusive purpose of buying one gallon of milk 100 times a year!

Owning an electric cargo bike in addition to a car for the purpose of replacing car trips is financially wasteful and so it can only be considered an unnecessary luxury item.

Owning a $50,000 pick-up truck that you primarily use to drive to the grocery store is also financially wasteful and can only be considered an unnecessary luxury item. Your best bet, financially, is to have a $100 bike that you bought used, and a transit pass.

Anyone who purchases a truck “principally drive to the grocery store” is not making prudent financial decisions. Are there people who do this?

[Anonymous]

let's maintain the status quo

[Anonymous]

4-car crash in the 3000 block of Connecticut Ave NW, 7 people injured, 3 with life-threatening injuries.

[Anonymous]

Honest question, how will the bike lanes prevent any of this? Connecticut Ave is a major commuter and tourist route into the city. It is always inherently going to be dangerous because you have people in a hurry combined with people who don’t know where they are going. If you add in 3000+ bicycles, you’re only going to end up with greater carnage.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Honest question, how will the bike lanes prevent any of this? Connecticut Ave is a major commuter and tourist route into the city. It is always inherently going to be dangerous because you have people in a hurry combined with people who don’t know where they are going. If you add in 3000+ bicycles, you’re only going to end up with greater carnage.

I'm really, really, really tired of hearing that our streets are inherently unsafe and there's nothing anybody can do about it.