The Bike Lobby is too powerful in DC...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is the argument that protected bike lanes destroy commerce, or all bike lanes? Because there are almost no protected bike lanes downtown, except on 15th street and Pennsylvania Avenue (which never had any commerce anyway, it’s almost all federal offices). There are plenty of non-protected bike lanes downtown, most of which predated the pandemic, and also a lot of those near Navy Yard, which also predated the pandemic and which certainly don’t appear to have prevented massive amounts of development near there.

Seems pretty obvious that the existence of a bike lane does not, in and of itself, make it so no one wants to go to a given neighborhood.

I don't get the hullabaloo about bike lanes and I don't even bike. If bike lanes separate bicyclists from my car, good. Just seems like some small group of cranky people who hate any change ever.

I’ve always found the bikers to be the cranky ones. Sure there are some cute crunchy older bikers in it for environmental reasons, but the majority bikers I have encountered are what you might call the perpetually or professionally aggrieved. Always angry about some perceived slight. Definitely not the prom king/queen. Too poor to buy a house in upper NW and too scared to ride a bike at night in Shaw. They’ve used the pandemic to effectively advance their political agenda though.

+10000

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is the argument that protected bike lanes destroy commerce, or all bike lanes? Because there are almost no protected bike lanes downtown, except on 15th street and Pennsylvania Avenue (which never had any commerce anyway, it’s almost all federal offices). There are plenty of non-protected bike lanes downtown, most of which predated the pandemic, and also a lot of those near Navy Yard, which also predated the pandemic and which certainly don’t appear to have prevented massive amounts of development near there.

Seems pretty obvious that the existence of a bike lane does not, in and of itself, make it so no one wants to go to a given neighborhood.

I don't get the hullabaloo about bike lanes and I don't even bike. If bike lanes separate bicyclists from my car, good. Just seems like some small group of cranky people who hate any change ever.

I’ve always found the bikers to be the cranky ones. Sure there are some cute crunchy older bikers in it for environmental reasons, but the majority bikers I have encountered are what you might call the perpetually or professionally aggrieved. Always angry about some perceived slight. Definitely not the prom king/queen. Too poor to buy a house in upper NW and too scared to ride a bike at night in Shaw. They’ve used the pandemic to effectively advance their political agenda though.

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is the argument that protected bike lanes destroy commerce, or all bike lanes? Because there are almost no protected bike lanes downtown, except on 15th street and Pennsylvania Avenue (which never had any commerce anyway, it’s almost all federal offices). There are plenty of non-protected bike lanes downtown, most of which predated the pandemic, and also a lot of those near Navy Yard, which also predated the pandemic and which certainly don’t appear to have prevented massive amounts of development near there.

Seems pretty obvious that the existence of a bike lane does not, in and of itself, make it so no one wants to go to a given neighborhood.

I don't get the hullabaloo about bike lanes and I don't even bike. If bike lanes separate bicyclists from my car, good. Just seems like some small group of cranky people who hate any change ever.

I’ve always found the bikers to be the cranky ones. Sure there are some cute crunchy older bikers in it for environmental reasons, but the majority bikers I have encountered are what you might call the perpetually or professionally aggrieved. Always angry about some perceived slight. Definitely not the prom king/queen. Too poor to buy a house in upper NW and too scared to ride a bike at night in Shaw. They’ve used the pandemic to effectively advance their political agenda though.

Drivers on the other hand are a very calm, cool, and collected bunch. They never get ragey while driving. Scientists have proven that.

Also, there is no really obvious connection between insecurity and trying to make up for it with a "manly" car. And if there was it would a really healthy way to express male insecurity.

/s

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is the argument that protected bike lanes destroy commerce, or all bike lanes? Because there are almost no protected bike lanes downtown, except on 15th street and Pennsylvania Avenue (which never had any commerce anyway, it’s almost all federal offices). There are plenty of non-protected bike lanes downtown, most of which predated the pandemic, and also a lot of those near Navy Yard, which also predated the pandemic and which certainly don’t appear to have prevented massive amounts of development near there.

Seems pretty obvious that the existence of a bike lane does not, in and of itself, make it so no one wants to go to a given neighborhood.

I don't get the hullabaloo about bike lanes and I don't even bike. If bike lanes separate bicyclists from my car, good. Just seems like some small group of cranky people who hate any change ever.

I’ve always found the bikers to be the cranky ones. Sure there are some cute crunchy older bikers in it for environmental reasons, but the majority bikers I have encountered are what you might call the perpetually or professionally aggrieved. Always angry about some perceived slight. Definitely not the prom king/queen. Too poor to buy a house in upper NW and too scared to ride a bike at night in Shaw. They’ve used the pandemic to effectively advance their political agenda though.

No one is too scared to ride a bike in Shaw these days. Maybe 20 years ago (maybe?). But nice try!

Signed, upper NW homeowner who frequently bikes to work

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is the argument that protected bike lanes destroy commerce, or all bike lanes? Because there are almost no protected bike lanes downtown, except on 15th street and Pennsylvania Avenue (which never had any commerce anyway, it’s almost all federal offices). There are plenty of non-protected bike lanes downtown, most of which predated the pandemic, and also a lot of those near Navy Yard, which also predated the pandemic and which certainly don’t appear to have prevented massive amounts of development near there.

Seems pretty obvious that the existence of a bike lane does not, in and of itself, make it so no one wants to go to a given neighborhood.

I don't get the hullabaloo about bike lanes and I don't even bike. If bike lanes separate bicyclists from my car, good. Just seems like some small group of cranky people who hate any change ever.

I’ve always found the bikers to be the cranky ones. Sure there are some cute crunchy older bikers in it for environmental reasons, but the majority bikers I have encountered are what you might call the perpetually or professionally aggrieved. Always angry about some perceived slight. Definitely not the prom king/queen. Too poor to buy a house in upper NW and too scared to ride a bike at night in Shaw. They’ve used the pandemic to effectively advance their political agenda though.

No one is too scared to ride a bike in Shaw these days. Maybe 20 years ago (maybe?). But nice try!

Signed, upper NW homeowner who frequently bikes to work

I don't bike, just drive, but to say bikers are the cranky ones is just laughable. I'm quite cranky because of all the other crappy drivers, lack of enforcement in DC for those drivers, not because of bicyclists of all things!

[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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Still don't understand why bicyclists aren't required to wear helmets, or why they're allowed to put small children on bikes without helmets. If those kids were in cars, they'd be required to wear seat belts or be in car seats...

I mean, I'll care about this when the city actually does something about reciprocity with crappy drivers from M/VA, actually starts traffic enforcement for people who run stop signs and red lights without any enforcement (literally in front of police cars and nothing happens).

Or, actually puts in a crosswalk at one intersection in my neighborhood that we've been advocating for for a decade and it never happens.

You seriously MUST live in rich real estate if this is what is most top of mind to you to complain about. Just admit it. Take a drive to other parts of the city and tell me if bike helmets are really the bigger concern in terms of road safety.

Wow. It going to take an awful lot for you to start caring about the safety of small children.

I do. I have two of them myself. It's why I like safe road design, especially when I live in parts of the city that have crappy road design and it takes a decade of advocating for a simple crosswalk whereas those in the rich areas get one fairly quickly. Especially when safe road design also prevents criminals from barreling through neighborhoods shooting guns at a million miles per hour as we've actually dealt with.

You still didn't admit you live in rich NW where you aren't even dealing with much crime and your roads are designed better anyways, and having $$ has meant you got 311 requests more quickly and efficiently. It's ok. Just be honest.

You make a lot of weird assumptions. Also, don't you have anything better to do? It sounds like you spend your entire day on this stupid web site just waiting to jump down the throat of anyone who isn't into bicycles.

Well that confirms my assumption because you won't deny it. I assume you have to live in NW if bicyclists annoy you more than cars. You don't actually experience the day to day nuisance of bad road design. You don't experience things like criminals flying down your one way street the wrong way while you're trying to get your kids into the car (hey, no one died! I shouldn't care, right? I should care about the bicyclists, right!). You don't experience drivers running the red light at the end of your street At. Least. Once. Every. Single. Week. when you have the green and are turning left with your kids in the car. You don't even experience much of the crime you are pretending to be so concerned about while here in a forum about the bike lobby advocating for safer streets.

Also, apparently you don't have anything better to do either, you're here too?

I think the bolded seems to be what people are either obtusely or deliberately missing here. Safe street design isn't just to prevent people from dying or getting hit. There are so many close calls that never get reported and aren't in any statistics that still make it dangerous or unpleasant to walk or bike places in the city. If someone blows a stop sign and almost hits my kids that isn't going to be in a police report but it still has an effect on my day. It means I might be less likely to let my ten year old walk home so then I have to drive him.

There are people on this site who see to say that if people don't die then we shouldn't need to make changes to the street. That is fine if that is your position but know that other advocate for safe streets so that we can have higher quality of life, which for us includes walking or biking places. If that means that a person in a car gets someone five minutes later, I truly do not care. (and if it means that when I drive somewhere I get to my destination five minutes slower then I am all for it if it means that kids can cross streets safely). Transit isn't solely about getting people to their destinations as fast as possible while they re sitting in climate controlled, cushy metal boxes. There are other people who have different preferences than you and we are absolutely going to continue to advocate for them.

Or maybe you should just be more careful? You live in a big city, one of the most densely populated in North America. There's lots of people moving around and sh*t is going to happen. You'd probably be better off exercising a little common sense than putting all your hopes in a doomed-to-fail campaign to have the government try to engineer away accidents.

So you think it is ok to ask me and my children to be extremely careful (which we are, by the way) and not to ask drivers to be extremely careful? Drivers don't have to be aware of the fact that they are driving through densely populated areas but pedestrians do? Why the double standard?

Is yours just a "might makes right" argument that because someone chooses to drive a deadly vehicle then everyone has to get out of his way? This is WHY the streets need to be re-engineered. If there is a bollard in your way as you make a turn that slows you down or a speed bump or other traffic calming then you can't bully pedestrians as you run a stop sign.

Watch any intersection where there is a crosswalk and no stop sign or signal. Pedestrians legally have the right of way but they wait until cars full stop or there is no traffic (IOW they are being careful) because drivers are unable or unwilling to drive carefully and yield to the party that has the legal right of way.

Drivers are careful. People in this city probably take close to a billion car trips a year, and yet the number of people involved in accidents is tiny. That doesn't just happen unless people are trying to avoid running into each other. For those who aren't careful, we already have lots and lots of penalties (including sending them to prison).

There are over 3 billion VMT on DC roads each year. Annual car trips by DC residents (excluding MD and VA drivers) are estimated around 2.5 million. Accidents on DC roads are very rare and DC is one of the safest cities in the US for vehicle accidents.

Sure. And mass shootings are rare and devastating. But I'd also like more done to prevent them. Same concept. "These things are rare. Thoughts and prayers."

The issue is diminishing returns. Most people don't think it's worth spending billions of dollars and ruining traffic for hundreds of thousands of people so that we can reduce the number of traffic deaths from 24 to 22. The city has more important things to do.

It isn't just traffic deaths. It is injury, repairs to auto, maintenance on roads, pollution and corresponding health externalities as well as cost savings when more people are walking and biking.

More people aren't going to walk or bike. They'll just drive elsewhere. They'll avoid neighborhoods that are too hard to get to or they'll take side streets instead of main arteries designed for lots of traffic or they'll just sit in traffic longer.

You can see this happening downtown. The city conveniently used the pandemic to put bike lanes everywhere and now it's just really hard to get around. Not surprisingly, a lot fewer people are going downtown. It's not the only reason downtown is dying. But it's a big one.

The goal was to make it harder to drive so less people drive. The assumption was that if they don’t drive they would still come downtown but on bikes or transit. The reality is that they are just going somewhere else instead. In the meantime, retail vacancy in downtown is 20% and rising. One out of every five storefronts are vacant.

You are just making up bike lanes as a reason for decreased occupancy downtown. Sorry, that's not the reason.

I said nothing about bike lanes. There is nothing that I said that was inaccurate. This is “traffic calming”. Funny that you want to run away from and not defend your own agenda when its negative impacts are clear. If you reduce road capacity, the traffic does not magically disappear. It just goes somewhere else.

The reason that there are so many vacant storefronts downtown is that people are not coming back to work in large numbers. One reason why many people are choosing not to come back downtown is that DC had intentionally made it difficult to navigate with a car. That should be considered a policy victory. Right? I guess you don’t like the consequences.

Well at least you can now ride your bikes faster past those blighted downtown areas to reach your vibrant urban destination.

The main reason people are not coming back to work downtown in large numbers is that the federal government hasn't required it yet, and many other large employers haven't, either. Not because driving got harder.

If urbanism is so great, why are people not going back downtown on their own to enjoy the vibrancy? Why would they need to be forced? In the meantime, the city has made it less convenient for people who would otherwise choose to venture downtown voluntarily as a matter of policy. This is the expected result.

There are other urban parts of DC that are not downtown.

But downtown is definitionally the most urban part of DC and yet it’s the most avoided. Why does the city not want to make it easier for people to go there voluntarily? Why are you hoping to save it through compulsion? And it’s not just suburban commuters. They highest WFH % in the country is Ward 1 DC. Turns out not even the urbanists want to go experience the vibrant urban core of the city. No wonder you spend your time advocating bike lanes so that you can bypass what you clearly detest. Who could blame you.

It’s funny how people that live in the urban core of a vibrant city also prefer to drive. A higher percentage commute by driving alone than transit or walking. Cycling barely registers. Pretty clear who the small niche group is here.

+1

[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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Still don't understand why bicyclists aren't required to wear helmets, or why they're allowed to put small children on bikes without helmets. If those kids were in cars, they'd be required to wear seat belts or be in car seats...

I mean, I'll care about this when the city actually does something about reciprocity with crappy drivers from M/VA, actually starts traffic enforcement for people who run stop signs and red lights without any enforcement (literally in front of police cars and nothing happens).

Or, actually puts in a crosswalk at one intersection in my neighborhood that we've been advocating for for a decade and it never happens.

You seriously MUST live in rich real estate if this is what is most top of mind to you to complain about. Just admit it. Take a drive to other parts of the city and tell me if bike helmets are really the bigger concern in terms of road safety.

Wow. It going to take an awful lot for you to start caring about the safety of small children.

I do. I have two of them myself. It's why I like safe road design, especially when I live in parts of the city that have crappy road design and it takes a decade of advocating for a simple crosswalk whereas those in the rich areas get one fairly quickly. Especially when safe road design also prevents criminals from barreling through neighborhoods shooting guns at a million miles per hour as we've actually dealt with.

You still didn't admit you live in rich NW where you aren't even dealing with much crime and your roads are designed better anyways, and having $$ has meant you got 311 requests more quickly and efficiently. It's ok. Just be honest.

You make a lot of weird assumptions. Also, don't you have anything better to do? It sounds like you spend your entire day on this stupid web site just waiting to jump down the throat of anyone who isn't into bicycles.

Well that confirms my assumption because you won't deny it. I assume you have to live in NW if bicyclists annoy you more than cars. You don't actually experience the day to day nuisance of bad road design. You don't experience things like criminals flying down your one way street the wrong way while you're trying to get your kids into the car (hey, no one died! I shouldn't care, right? I should care about the bicyclists, right!). You don't experience drivers running the red light at the end of your street At. Least. Once. Every. Single. Week. when you have the green and are turning left with your kids in the car. You don't even experience much of the crime you are pretending to be so concerned about while here in a forum about the bike lobby advocating for safer streets.

Also, apparently you don't have anything better to do either, you're here too?

I think the bolded seems to be what people are either obtusely or deliberately missing here. Safe street design isn't just to prevent people from dying or getting hit. There are so many close calls that never get reported and aren't in any statistics that still make it dangerous or unpleasant to walk or bike places in the city. If someone blows a stop sign and almost hits my kids that isn't going to be in a police report but it still has an effect on my day. It means I might be less likely to let my ten year old walk home so then I have to drive him.

There are people on this site who see to say that if people don't die then we shouldn't need to make changes to the street. That is fine if that is your position but know that other advocate for safe streets so that we can have higher quality of life, which for us includes walking or biking places. If that means that a person in a car gets someone five minutes later, I truly do not care. (and if it means that when I drive somewhere I get to my destination five minutes slower then I am all for it if it means that kids can cross streets safely). Transit isn't solely about getting people to their destinations as fast as possible while they re sitting in climate controlled, cushy metal boxes. There are other people who have different preferences than you and we are absolutely going to continue to advocate for them.

Or maybe you should just be more careful? You live in a big city, one of the most densely populated in North America. There's lots of people moving around and sh*t is going to happen. You'd probably be better off exercising a little common sense than putting all your hopes in a doomed-to-fail campaign to have the government try to engineer away accidents.

So you think it is ok to ask me and my children to be extremely careful (which we are, by the way) and not to ask drivers to be extremely careful? Drivers don't have to be aware of the fact that they are driving through densely populated areas but pedestrians do? Why the double standard?

Is yours just a "might makes right" argument that because someone chooses to drive a deadly vehicle then everyone has to get out of his way? This is WHY the streets need to be re-engineered. If there is a bollard in your way as you make a turn that slows you down or a speed bump or other traffic calming then you can't bully pedestrians as you run a stop sign.

Watch any intersection where there is a crosswalk and no stop sign or signal. Pedestrians legally have the right of way but they wait until cars full stop or there is no traffic (IOW they are being careful) because drivers are unable or unwilling to drive carefully and yield to the party that has the legal right of way.

Drivers are careful. People in this city probably take close to a billion car trips a year, and yet the number of people involved in accidents is tiny. That doesn't just happen unless people are trying to avoid running into each other. For those who aren't careful, we already have lots and lots of penalties (including sending them to prison).

There are over 3 billion VMT on DC roads each year. Annual car trips by DC residents (excluding MD and VA drivers) are estimated around 2.5 million. Accidents on DC roads are very rare and DC is one of the safest cities in the US for vehicle accidents.

Sure. And mass shootings are rare and devastating. But I'd also like more done to prevent them. Same concept. "These things are rare. Thoughts and prayers."

The issue is diminishing returns. Most people don't think it's worth spending billions of dollars and ruining traffic for hundreds of thousands of people so that we can reduce the number of traffic deaths from 24 to 22. The city has more important things to do.

It isn't just traffic deaths. It is injury, repairs to auto, maintenance on roads, pollution and corresponding health externalities as well as cost savings when more people are walking and biking.

More people aren't going to walk or bike. They'll just drive elsewhere. They'll avoid neighborhoods that are too hard to get to or they'll take side streets instead of main arteries designed for lots of traffic or they'll just sit in traffic longer.

You can see this happening downtown. The city conveniently used the pandemic to put bike lanes everywhere and now it's just really hard to get around. Not surprisingly, a lot fewer people are going downtown. It's not the only reason downtown is dying. But it's a big one.

The goal was to make it harder to drive so less people drive. The assumption was that if they don’t drive they would still come downtown but on bikes or transit. The reality is that they are just going somewhere else instead. In the meantime, retail vacancy in downtown is 20% and rising. One out of every five storefronts are vacant.

You are just making up bike lanes as a reason for decreased occupancy downtown. Sorry, that's not the reason.

I said nothing about bike lanes. There is nothing that I said that was inaccurate. This is “traffic calming”. Funny that you want to run away from and not defend your own agenda when its negative impacts are clear. If you reduce road capacity, the traffic does not magically disappear. It just goes somewhere else.

The reason that there are so many vacant storefronts downtown is that people are not coming back to work in large numbers. One reason why many people are choosing not to come back downtown is that DC had intentionally made it difficult to navigate with a car. That should be considered a policy victory. Right? I guess you don’t like the consequences.

Well at least you can now ride your bikes faster past those blighted downtown areas to reach your vibrant urban destination.

The main reason people are not coming back to work downtown in large numbers is that the federal government hasn't required it yet, and many other large employers haven't, either. Not because driving got harder.

If urbanism is so great, why are people not going back downtown on their own to enjoy the vibrancy? Why would they need to be forced? In the meantime, the city has made it less convenient for people who would otherwise choose to venture downtown voluntarily as a matter of policy. This is the expected result.

There are other urban parts of DC that are not downtown.

But downtown is definitionally the most urban part of DC and yet it’s the most avoided. Why does the city not want to make it easier for people to go there voluntarily? Why are you hoping to save it through compulsion? And it’s not just suburban commuters. They highest WFH % in the country is Ward 1 DC. Turns out not even the urbanists want to go experience the vibrant urban core of the city. No wonder you spend your time advocating bike lanes so that you can bypass what you clearly detest. Who could blame you.

It’s funny how people that live in the urban core of a vibrant city also prefer to drive. A higher percentage commute by driving alone than transit or walking. Cycling barely registers. Pretty clear who the small niche group is here.

+1

just to correct the misinformation here - in the urban core, more people walk, bike and take transit than drive. And biking is a growing share: https://ggwash.org/view/amp/80233

[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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Still don't understand why bicyclists aren't required to wear helmets, or why they're allowed to put small children on bikes without helmets. If those kids were in cars, they'd be required to wear seat belts or be in car seats...

I mean, I'll care about this when the city actually does something about reciprocity with crappy drivers from M/VA, actually starts traffic enforcement for people who run stop signs and red lights without any enforcement (literally in front of police cars and nothing happens).

Or, actually puts in a crosswalk at one intersection in my neighborhood that we've been advocating for for a decade and it never happens.

You seriously MUST live in rich real estate if this is what is most top of mind to you to complain about. Just admit it. Take a drive to other parts of the city and tell me if bike helmets are really the bigger concern in terms of road safety.

Wow. It going to take an awful lot for you to start caring about the safety of small children.

I do. I have two of them myself. It's why I like safe road design, especially when I live in parts of the city that have crappy road design and it takes a decade of advocating for a simple crosswalk whereas those in the rich areas get one fairly quickly. Especially when safe road design also prevents criminals from barreling through neighborhoods shooting guns at a million miles per hour as we've actually dealt with.

You still didn't admit you live in rich NW where you aren't even dealing with much crime and your roads are designed better anyways, and having $$ has meant you got 311 requests more quickly and efficiently. It's ok. Just be honest.

You make a lot of weird assumptions. Also, don't you have anything better to do? It sounds like you spend your entire day on this stupid web site just waiting to jump down the throat of anyone who isn't into bicycles.

Well that confirms my assumption because you won't deny it. I assume you have to live in NW if bicyclists annoy you more than cars. You don't actually experience the day to day nuisance of bad road design. You don't experience things like criminals flying down your one way street the wrong way while you're trying to get your kids into the car (hey, no one died! I shouldn't care, right? I should care about the bicyclists, right!). You don't experience drivers running the red light at the end of your street At. Least. Once. Every. Single. Week. when you have the green and are turning left with your kids in the car. You don't even experience much of the crime you are pretending to be so concerned about while here in a forum about the bike lobby advocating for safer streets.

Also, apparently you don't have anything better to do either, you're here too?

I think the bolded seems to be what people are either obtusely or deliberately missing here. Safe street design isn't just to prevent people from dying or getting hit. There are so many close calls that never get reported and aren't in any statistics that still make it dangerous or unpleasant to walk or bike places in the city. If someone blows a stop sign and almost hits my kids that isn't going to be in a police report but it still has an effect on my day. It means I might be less likely to let my ten year old walk home so then I have to drive him.

There are people on this site who see to say that if people don't die then we shouldn't need to make changes to the street. That is fine if that is your position but know that other advocate for safe streets so that we can have higher quality of life, which for us includes walking or biking places. If that means that a person in a car gets someone five minutes later, I truly do not care. (and if it means that when I drive somewhere I get to my destination five minutes slower then I am all for it if it means that kids can cross streets safely). Transit isn't solely about getting people to their destinations as fast as possible while they re sitting in climate controlled, cushy metal boxes. There are other people who have different preferences than you and we are absolutely going to continue to advocate for them.

Or maybe you should just be more careful? You live in a big city, one of the most densely populated in North America. There's lots of people moving around and sh*t is going to happen. You'd probably be better off exercising a little common sense than putting all your hopes in a doomed-to-fail campaign to have the government try to engineer away accidents.

So you think it is ok to ask me and my children to be extremely careful (which we are, by the way) and not to ask drivers to be extremely careful? Drivers don't have to be aware of the fact that they are driving through densely populated areas but pedestrians do? Why the double standard?

Is yours just a "might makes right" argument that because someone chooses to drive a deadly vehicle then everyone has to get out of his way? This is WHY the streets need to be re-engineered. If there is a bollard in your way as you make a turn that slows you down or a speed bump or other traffic calming then you can't bully pedestrians as you run a stop sign.

Watch any intersection where there is a crosswalk and no stop sign or signal. Pedestrians legally have the right of way but they wait until cars full stop or there is no traffic (IOW they are being careful) because drivers are unable or unwilling to drive carefully and yield to the party that has the legal right of way.

Drivers are careful. People in this city probably take close to a billion car trips a year, and yet the number of people involved in accidents is tiny. That doesn't just happen unless people are trying to avoid running into each other. For those who aren't careful, we already have lots and lots of penalties (including sending them to prison).

There are over 3 billion VMT on DC roads each year. Annual car trips by DC residents (excluding MD and VA drivers) are estimated around 2.5 million. Accidents on DC roads are very rare and DC is one of the safest cities in the US for vehicle accidents.

Sure. And mass shootings are rare and devastating. But I'd also like more done to prevent them. Same concept. "These things are rare. Thoughts and prayers."

The issue is diminishing returns. Most people don't think it's worth spending billions of dollars and ruining traffic for hundreds of thousands of people so that we can reduce the number of traffic deaths from 24 to 22. The city has more important things to do.

It isn't just traffic deaths. It is injury, repairs to auto, maintenance on roads, pollution and corresponding health externalities as well as cost savings when more people are walking and biking.

More people aren't going to walk or bike. They'll just drive elsewhere. They'll avoid neighborhoods that are too hard to get to or they'll take side streets instead of main arteries designed for lots of traffic or they'll just sit in traffic longer.

You can see this happening downtown. The city conveniently used the pandemic to put bike lanes everywhere and now it's just really hard to get around. Not surprisingly, a lot fewer people are going downtown. It's not the only reason downtown is dying. But it's a big one.

The goal was to make it harder to drive so less people drive. The assumption was that if they don’t drive they would still come downtown but on bikes or transit. The reality is that they are just going somewhere else instead. In the meantime, retail vacancy in downtown is 20% and rising. One out of every five storefronts are vacant.

You are just making up bike lanes as a reason for decreased occupancy downtown. Sorry, that's not the reason.

I said nothing about bike lanes. There is nothing that I said that was inaccurate. This is “traffic calming”. Funny that you want to run away from and not defend your own agenda when its negative impacts are clear. If you reduce road capacity, the traffic does not magically disappear. It just goes somewhere else.

The reason that there are so many vacant storefronts downtown is that people are not coming back to work in large numbers. One reason why many people are choosing not to come back downtown is that DC had intentionally made it difficult to navigate with a car. That should be considered a policy victory. Right? I guess you don’t like the consequences.

Well at least you can now ride your bikes faster past those blighted downtown areas to reach your vibrant urban destination.

The main reason people are not coming back to work downtown in large numbers is that the federal government hasn't required it yet, and many other large employers haven't, either. Not because driving got harder.

If urbanism is so great, why are people not going back downtown on their own to enjoy the vibrancy? Why would they need to be forced? In the meantime, the city has made it less convenient for people who would otherwise choose to venture downtown voluntarily as a matter of policy. This is the expected result.

There are other urban parts of DC that are not downtown.

But downtown is definitionally the most urban part of DC and yet it’s the most avoided. Why does the city not want to make it easier for people to go there voluntarily? Why are you hoping to save it through compulsion? And it’s not just suburban commuters. They highest WFH % in the country is Ward 1 DC. Turns out not even the urbanists want to go experience the vibrant urban core of the city. No wonder you spend your time advocating bike lanes so that you can bypass what you clearly detest. Who could blame you.

It’s funny how people that live in the urban core of a vibrant city also prefer to drive. A higher percentage commute by driving alone than transit or walking. Cycling barely registers. Pretty clear who the small niche group is here.

+1

just to correct the misinformation here - in the urban core, more people walk, bike and take transit than drive. And biking is a growing share: https://ggwash.org/view/amp/80233

I was going to say, who drives downtown for work? You have to be rich to do that with the cost of parking and that's been true for a looooong time.

[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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Still don't understand why bicyclists aren't required to wear helmets, or why they're allowed to put small children on bikes without helmets. If those kids were in cars, they'd be required to wear seat belts or be in car seats...

I mean, I'll care about this when the city actually does something about reciprocity with crappy drivers from M/VA, actually starts traffic enforcement for people who run stop signs and red lights without any enforcement (literally in front of police cars and nothing happens).

Or, actually puts in a crosswalk at one intersection in my neighborhood that we've been advocating for for a decade and it never happens.

You seriously MUST live in rich real estate if this is what is most top of mind to you to complain about. Just admit it. Take a drive to other parts of the city and tell me if bike helmets are really the bigger concern in terms of road safety.

Wow. It going to take an awful lot for you to start caring about the safety of small children.

I do. I have two of them myself. It's why I like safe road design, especially when I live in parts of the city that have crappy road design and it takes a decade of advocating for a simple crosswalk whereas those in the rich areas get one fairly quickly. Especially when safe road design also prevents criminals from barreling through neighborhoods shooting guns at a million miles per hour as we've actually dealt with.

You still didn't admit you live in rich NW where you aren't even dealing with much crime and your roads are designed better anyways, and having $$ has meant you got 311 requests more quickly and efficiently. It's ok. Just be honest.

You make a lot of weird assumptions. Also, don't you have anything better to do? It sounds like you spend your entire day on this stupid web site just waiting to jump down the throat of anyone who isn't into bicycles.

Well that confirms my assumption because you won't deny it. I assume you have to live in NW if bicyclists annoy you more than cars. You don't actually experience the day to day nuisance of bad road design. You don't experience things like criminals flying down your one way street the wrong way while you're trying to get your kids into the car (hey, no one died! I shouldn't care, right? I should care about the bicyclists, right!). You don't experience drivers running the red light at the end of your street At. Least. Once. Every. Single. Week. when you have the green and are turning left with your kids in the car. You don't even experience much of the crime you are pretending to be so concerned about while here in a forum about the bike lobby advocating for safer streets.

Also, apparently you don't have anything better to do either, you're here too?

I think the bolded seems to be what people are either obtusely or deliberately missing here. Safe street design isn't just to prevent people from dying or getting hit. There are so many close calls that never get reported and aren't in any statistics that still make it dangerous or unpleasant to walk or bike places in the city. If someone blows a stop sign and almost hits my kids that isn't going to be in a police report but it still has an effect on my day. It means I might be less likely to let my ten year old walk home so then I have to drive him.

There are people on this site who see to say that if people don't die then we shouldn't need to make changes to the street. That is fine if that is your position but know that other advocate for safe streets so that we can have higher quality of life, which for us includes walking or biking places. If that means that a person in a car gets someone five minutes later, I truly do not care. (and if it means that when I drive somewhere I get to my destination five minutes slower then I am all for it if it means that kids can cross streets safely). Transit isn't solely about getting people to their destinations as fast as possible while they re sitting in climate controlled, cushy metal boxes. There are other people who have different preferences than you and we are absolutely going to continue to advocate for them.

Or maybe you should just be more careful? You live in a big city, one of the most densely populated in North America. There's lots of people moving around and sh*t is going to happen. You'd probably be better off exercising a little common sense than putting all your hopes in a doomed-to-fail campaign to have the government try to engineer away accidents.

So you think it is ok to ask me and my children to be extremely careful (which we are, by the way) and not to ask drivers to be extremely careful? Drivers don't have to be aware of the fact that they are driving through densely populated areas but pedestrians do? Why the double standard?

Is yours just a "might makes right" argument that because someone chooses to drive a deadly vehicle then everyone has to get out of his way? This is WHY the streets need to be re-engineered. If there is a bollard in your way as you make a turn that slows you down or a speed bump or other traffic calming then you can't bully pedestrians as you run a stop sign.

Watch any intersection where there is a crosswalk and no stop sign or signal. Pedestrians legally have the right of way but they wait until cars full stop or there is no traffic (IOW they are being careful) because drivers are unable or unwilling to drive carefully and yield to the party that has the legal right of way.

Drivers are careful. People in this city probably take close to a billion car trips a year, and yet the number of people involved in accidents is tiny. That doesn't just happen unless people are trying to avoid running into each other. For those who aren't careful, we already have lots and lots of penalties (including sending them to prison).

There are over 3 billion VMT on DC roads each year. Annual car trips by DC residents (excluding MD and VA drivers) are estimated around 2.5 million. Accidents on DC roads are very rare and DC is one of the safest cities in the US for vehicle accidents.

Sure. And mass shootings are rare and devastating. But I'd also like more done to prevent them. Same concept. "These things are rare. Thoughts and prayers."

The issue is diminishing returns. Most people don't think it's worth spending billions of dollars and ruining traffic for hundreds of thousands of people so that we can reduce the number of traffic deaths from 24 to 22. The city has more important things to do.

It isn't just traffic deaths. It is injury, repairs to auto, maintenance on roads, pollution and corresponding health externalities as well as cost savings when more people are walking and biking.

More people aren't going to walk or bike. They'll just drive elsewhere. They'll avoid neighborhoods that are too hard to get to or they'll take side streets instead of main arteries designed for lots of traffic or they'll just sit in traffic longer.

You can see this happening downtown. The city conveniently used the pandemic to put bike lanes everywhere and now it's just really hard to get around. Not surprisingly, a lot fewer people are going downtown. It's not the only reason downtown is dying. But it's a big one.

The goal was to make it harder to drive so less people drive. The assumption was that if they don’t drive they would still come downtown but on bikes or transit. The reality is that they are just going somewhere else instead. In the meantime, retail vacancy in downtown is 20% and rising. One out of every five storefronts are vacant.

You are just making up bike lanes as a reason for decreased occupancy downtown. Sorry, that's not the reason.

I said nothing about bike lanes. There is nothing that I said that was inaccurate. This is “traffic calming”. Funny that you want to run away from and not defend your own agenda when its negative impacts are clear. If you reduce road capacity, the traffic does not magically disappear. It just goes somewhere else.

The reason that there are so many vacant storefronts downtown is that people are not coming back to work in large numbers. One reason why many people are choosing not to come back downtown is that DC had intentionally made it difficult to navigate with a car. That should be considered a policy victory. Right? I guess you don’t like the consequences.

Well at least you can now ride your bikes faster past those blighted downtown areas to reach your vibrant urban destination.

The main reason people are not coming back to work downtown in large numbers is that the federal government hasn't required it yet, and many other large employers haven't, either. Not because driving got harder.

If urbanism is so great, why are people not going back downtown on their own to enjoy the vibrancy? Why would they need to be forced? In the meantime, the city has made it less convenient for people who would otherwise choose to venture downtown voluntarily as a matter of policy. This is the expected result.

There are other urban parts of DC that are not downtown.

But downtown is definitionally the most urban part of DC and yet it’s the most avoided. Why does the city not want to make it easier for people to go there voluntarily? Why are you hoping to save it through compulsion? And it’s not just suburban commuters. They highest WFH % in the country is Ward 1 DC. Turns out not even the urbanists want to go experience the vibrant urban core of the city. No wonder you spend your time advocating bike lanes so that you can bypass what you clearly detest. Who could blame you.

It’s funny how people that live in the urban core of a vibrant city also prefer to drive. A higher percentage commute by driving alone than transit or walking. Cycling barely registers. Pretty clear who the small niche group is here.

+1

just to correct the misinformation here - in the urban core, more people walk, bike and take transit than drive. And biking is a growing share: https://ggwash.org/view/amp/80233

I was going to say, who drives downtown for work? You have to be rich to do that with the cost of parking and that's been true for a looooong time.

Not really. There are currently early bird specials for $12 per day within blocks of the White House. Monthly parking can be had for less than $250. Compare that to a RT rush hour fare + parking if you’re going from Shady Grove to Metro Center. That’s a $12 per day fare plus $5.20 for parking.

The economics only work out if you have the generous Fed transit subsidy or if you have an ICE car and factor in the depreciation + maintenance due to the additional marginal increase in mileage that you would accrue from driving yourself in. Otherwise, on a direct cash outlay basis driving can be cheaper for many.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is the argument that protected bike lanes destroy commerce, or all bike lanes? Because there are almost no protected bike lanes downtown, except on 15th street and Pennsylvania Avenue (which never had any commerce anyway, it’s almost all federal offices). There are plenty of non-protected bike lanes downtown, most of which predated the pandemic, and also a lot of those near Navy Yard, which also predated the pandemic and which certainly don’t appear to have prevented massive amounts of development near there.

Seems pretty obvious that the existence of a bike lane does not, in and of itself, make it so no one wants to go to a given neighborhood.

I don't get the hullabaloo about bike lanes and I don't even bike. If bike lanes separate bicyclists from my car, good. Just seems like some small group of cranky people who hate any change ever.

I’ve always found the bikers to be the cranky ones. Sure there are some cute crunchy older bikers in it for environmental reasons, but the majority bikers I have encountered are what you might call the perpetually or professionally aggrieved. Always angry about some perceived slight. Definitely not the prom king/queen. Too poor to buy a house in upper NW and too scared to ride a bike at night in Shaw. They’ve used the pandemic to effectively advance their political agenda though.

Beware Big Bike and it’s political agenda of promoting safer streets! Slow down, observe signs snd signals and give bikers at lest 3 feet and they won’t feel slighted by someone of your means who chooses to brag about home ownership on an anonymous forum.

[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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Still don't understand why bicyclists aren't required to wear helmets, or why they're allowed to put small children on bikes without helmets. If those kids were in cars, they'd be required to wear seat belts or be in car seats...

I mean, I'll care about this when the city actually does something about reciprocity with crappy drivers from M/VA, actually starts traffic enforcement for people who run stop signs and red lights without any enforcement (literally in front of police cars and nothing happens).

Or, actually puts in a crosswalk at one intersection in my neighborhood that we've been advocating for for a decade and it never happens.

You seriously MUST live in rich real estate if this is what is most top of mind to you to complain about. Just admit it. Take a drive to other parts of the city and tell me if bike helmets are really the bigger concern in terms of road safety.

Wow. It going to take an awful lot for you to start caring about the safety of small children.

I do. I have two of them myself. It's why I like safe road design, especially when I live in parts of the city that have crappy road design and it takes a decade of advocating for a simple crosswalk whereas those in the rich areas get one fairly quickly. Especially when safe road design also prevents criminals from barreling through neighborhoods shooting guns at a million miles per hour as we've actually dealt with.

You still didn't admit you live in rich NW where you aren't even dealing with much crime and your roads are designed better anyways, and having $$ has meant you got 311 requests more quickly and efficiently. It's ok. Just be honest.

You make a lot of weird assumptions. Also, don't you have anything better to do? It sounds like you spend your entire day on this stupid web site just waiting to jump down the throat of anyone who isn't into bicycles.

Well that confirms my assumption because you won't deny it. I assume you have to live in NW if bicyclists annoy you more than cars. You don't actually experience the day to day nuisance of bad road design. You don't experience things like criminals flying down your one way street the wrong way while you're trying to get your kids into the car (hey, no one died! I shouldn't care, right? I should care about the bicyclists, right!). You don't experience drivers running the red light at the end of your street At. Least. Once. Every. Single. Week. when you have the green and are turning left with your kids in the car. You don't even experience much of the crime you are pretending to be so concerned about while here in a forum about the bike lobby advocating for safer streets.

Also, apparently you don't have anything better to do either, you're here too?

I think the bolded seems to be what people are either obtusely or deliberately missing here. Safe street design isn't just to prevent people from dying or getting hit. There are so many close calls that never get reported and aren't in any statistics that still make it dangerous or unpleasant to walk or bike places in the city. If someone blows a stop sign and almost hits my kids that isn't going to be in a police report but it still has an effect on my day. It means I might be less likely to let my ten year old walk home so then I have to drive him.

There are people on this site who see to say that if people don't die then we shouldn't need to make changes to the street. That is fine if that is your position but know that other advocate for safe streets so that we can have higher quality of life, which for us includes walking or biking places. If that means that a person in a car gets someone five minutes later, I truly do not care. (and if it means that when I drive somewhere I get to my destination five minutes slower then I am all for it if it means that kids can cross streets safely). Transit isn't solely about getting people to their destinations as fast as possible while they re sitting in climate controlled, cushy metal boxes. There are other people who have different preferences than you and we are absolutely going to continue to advocate for them.

Or maybe you should just be more careful? You live in a big city, one of the most densely populated in North America. There's lots of people moving around and sh*t is going to happen. You'd probably be better off exercising a little common sense than putting all your hopes in a doomed-to-fail campaign to have the government try to engineer away accidents.

So you think it is ok to ask me and my children to be extremely careful (which we are, by the way) and not to ask drivers to be extremely careful? Drivers don't have to be aware of the fact that they are driving through densely populated areas but pedestrians do? Why the double standard?

Is yours just a "might makes right" argument that because someone chooses to drive a deadly vehicle then everyone has to get out of his way? This is WHY the streets need to be re-engineered. If there is a bollard in your way as you make a turn that slows you down or a speed bump or other traffic calming then you can't bully pedestrians as you run a stop sign.

Watch any intersection where there is a crosswalk and no stop sign or signal. Pedestrians legally have the right of way but they wait until cars full stop or there is no traffic (IOW they are being careful) because drivers are unable or unwilling to drive carefully and yield to the party that has the legal right of way.

Drivers are careful. People in this city probably take close to a billion car trips a year, and yet the number of people involved in accidents is tiny. That doesn't just happen unless people are trying to avoid running into each other. For those who aren't careful, we already have lots and lots of penalties (including sending them to prison).

There are over 3 billion VMT on DC roads each year. Annual car trips by DC residents (excluding MD and VA drivers) are estimated around 2.5 million. Accidents on DC roads are very rare and DC is one of the safest cities in the US for vehicle accidents.

Sure. And mass shootings are rare and devastating. But I'd also like more done to prevent them. Same concept. "These things are rare. Thoughts and prayers."

The issue is diminishing returns. Most people don't think it's worth spending billions of dollars and ruining traffic for hundreds of thousands of people so that we can reduce the number of traffic deaths from 24 to 22. The city has more important things to do.

It isn't just traffic deaths. It is injury, repairs to auto, maintenance on roads, pollution and corresponding health externalities as well as cost savings when more people are walking and biking.

More people aren't going to walk or bike. They'll just drive elsewhere. They'll avoid neighborhoods that are too hard to get to or they'll take side streets instead of main arteries designed for lots of traffic or they'll just sit in traffic longer.

You can see this happening downtown. The city conveniently used the pandemic to put bike lanes everywhere and now it's just really hard to get around. Not surprisingly, a lot fewer people are going downtown. It's not the only reason downtown is dying. But it's a big one.

The goal was to make it harder to drive so less people drive. The assumption was that if they don’t drive they would still come downtown but on bikes or transit. The reality is that they are just going somewhere else instead. In the meantime, retail vacancy in downtown is 20% and rising. One out of every five storefronts are vacant.

You are just making up bike lanes as a reason for decreased occupancy downtown. Sorry, that's not the reason.

I said nothing about bike lanes. There is nothing that I said that was inaccurate. This is “traffic calming”. Funny that you want to run away from and not defend your own agenda when its negative impacts are clear. If you reduce road capacity, the traffic does not magically disappear. It just goes somewhere else.

The reason that there are so many vacant storefronts downtown is that people are not coming back to work in large numbers. One reason why many people are choosing not to come back downtown is that DC had intentionally made it difficult to navigate with a car. That should be considered a policy victory. Right? I guess you don’t like the consequences.

Well at least you can now ride your bikes faster past those blighted downtown areas to reach your vibrant urban destination.

The main reason people are not coming back to work downtown in large numbers is that the federal government hasn't required it yet, and many other large employers haven't, either. Not because driving got harder.

If urbanism is so great, why are people not going back downtown on their own to enjoy the vibrancy? Why would they need to be forced? In the meantime, the city has made it less convenient for people who would otherwise choose to venture downtown voluntarily as a matter of policy. This is the expected result.

There are other urban parts of DC that are not downtown.

But downtown is definitionally the most urban part of DC and yet it’s the most avoided. Why does the city not want to make it easier for people to go there voluntarily? Why are you hoping to save it through compulsion? And it’s not just suburban commuters. They highest WFH % in the country is Ward 1 DC. Turns out not even the urbanists want to go experience the vibrant urban core of the city. No wonder you spend your time advocating bike lanes so that you can bypass what you clearly detest. Who could blame you.

It’s funny how people that live in the urban core of a vibrant city also prefer to drive. A higher percentage commute by driving alone than transit or walking. Cycling barely registers. Pretty clear who the small niche group is here.

+1

just to correct the misinformation here - in the urban core, more people walk, bike and take transit than drive. And biking is a growing share: https://ggwash.org/view/amp/80233

I was going to say, who drives downtown for work? You have to be rich to do that with the cost of parking and that's been true for a looooong time.

Not really. There are currently early bird specials for $12 per day within blocks of the White House. Monthly parking can be had for less than $250. Compare that to a RT rush hour fare + parking if you’re going from Shady Grove to Metro Center. That’s a $12 per day fare plus $5.20 for parking.

The economics only work out if you have the generous Fed transit subsidy or if you have an ICE car and factor in the depreciation + maintenance due to the additional marginal increase in mileage that you would accrue from driving yourself in. Otherwise, on a direct cash outlay basis driving can be cheaper for many.

Most people working downtown get transit benefits. And you forgot about gas, insurance, and car payments. And, this post was about urban core mode share, not Shady Grove.

[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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Still don't understand why bicyclists aren't required to wear helmets, or why they're allowed to put small children on bikes without helmets. If those kids were in cars, they'd be required to wear seat belts or be in car seats...

I mean, I'll care about this when the city actually does something about reciprocity with crappy drivers from M/VA, actually starts traffic enforcement for people who run stop signs and red lights without any enforcement (literally in front of police cars and nothing happens).

Or, actually puts in a crosswalk at one intersection in my neighborhood that we've been advocating for for a decade and it never happens.

You seriously MUST live in rich real estate if this is what is most top of mind to you to complain about. Just admit it. Take a drive to other parts of the city and tell me if bike helmets are really the bigger concern in terms of road safety.

Wow. It going to take an awful lot for you to start caring about the safety of small children.

I do. I have two of them myself. It's why I like safe road design, especially when I live in parts of the city that have crappy road design and it takes a decade of advocating for a simple crosswalk whereas those in the rich areas get one fairly quickly. Especially when safe road design also prevents criminals from barreling through neighborhoods shooting guns at a million miles per hour as we've actually dealt with.

You still didn't admit you live in rich NW where you aren't even dealing with much crime and your roads are designed better anyways, and having $$ has meant you got 311 requests more quickly and efficiently. It's ok. Just be honest.

You make a lot of weird assumptions. Also, don't you have anything better to do? It sounds like you spend your entire day on this stupid web site just waiting to jump down the throat of anyone who isn't into bicycles.

Well that confirms my assumption because you won't deny it. I assume you have to live in NW if bicyclists annoy you more than cars. You don't actually experience the day to day nuisance of bad road design. You don't experience things like criminals flying down your one way street the wrong way while you're trying to get your kids into the car (hey, no one died! I shouldn't care, right? I should care about the bicyclists, right!). You don't experience drivers running the red light at the end of your street At. Least. Once. Every. Single. Week. when you have the green and are turning left with your kids in the car. You don't even experience much of the crime you are pretending to be so concerned about while here in a forum about the bike lobby advocating for safer streets.

Also, apparently you don't have anything better to do either, you're here too?

I think the bolded seems to be what people are either obtusely or deliberately missing here. Safe street design isn't just to prevent people from dying or getting hit. There are so many close calls that never get reported and aren't in any statistics that still make it dangerous or unpleasant to walk or bike places in the city. If someone blows a stop sign and almost hits my kids that isn't going to be in a police report but it still has an effect on my day. It means I might be less likely to let my ten year old walk home so then I have to drive him.

There are people on this site who see to say that if people don't die then we shouldn't need to make changes to the street. That is fine if that is your position but know that other advocate for safe streets so that we can have higher quality of life, which for us includes walking or biking places. If that means that a person in a car gets someone five minutes later, I truly do not care. (and if it means that when I drive somewhere I get to my destination five minutes slower then I am all for it if it means that kids can cross streets safely). Transit isn't solely about getting people to their destinations as fast as possible while they re sitting in climate controlled, cushy metal boxes. There are other people who have different preferences than you and we are absolutely going to continue to advocate for them.

Or maybe you should just be more careful? You live in a big city, one of the most densely populated in North America. There's lots of people moving around and sh*t is going to happen. You'd probably be better off exercising a little common sense than putting all your hopes in a doomed-to-fail campaign to have the government try to engineer away accidents.

So you think it is ok to ask me and my children to be extremely careful (which we are, by the way) and not to ask drivers to be extremely careful? Drivers don't have to be aware of the fact that they are driving through densely populated areas but pedestrians do? Why the double standard?

Is yours just a "might makes right" argument that because someone chooses to drive a deadly vehicle then everyone has to get out of his way? This is WHY the streets need to be re-engineered. If there is a bollard in your way as you make a turn that slows you down or a speed bump or other traffic calming then you can't bully pedestrians as you run a stop sign.

Watch any intersection where there is a crosswalk and no stop sign or signal. Pedestrians legally have the right of way but they wait until cars full stop or there is no traffic (IOW they are being careful) because drivers are unable or unwilling to drive carefully and yield to the party that has the legal right of way.

Drivers are careful. People in this city probably take close to a billion car trips a year, and yet the number of people involved in accidents is tiny. That doesn't just happen unless people are trying to avoid running into each other. For those who aren't careful, we already have lots and lots of penalties (including sending them to prison).

There are over 3 billion VMT on DC roads each year. Annual car trips by DC residents (excluding MD and VA drivers) are estimated around 2.5 million. Accidents on DC roads are very rare and DC is one of the safest cities in the US for vehicle accidents.

Sure. And mass shootings are rare and devastating. But I'd also like more done to prevent them. Same concept. "These things are rare. Thoughts and prayers."

The issue is diminishing returns. Most people don't think it's worth spending billions of dollars and ruining traffic for hundreds of thousands of people so that we can reduce the number of traffic deaths from 24 to 22. The city has more important things to do.

It isn't just traffic deaths. It is injury, repairs to auto, maintenance on roads, pollution and corresponding health externalities as well as cost savings when more people are walking and biking.

More people aren't going to walk or bike. They'll just drive elsewhere. They'll avoid neighborhoods that are too hard to get to or they'll take side streets instead of main arteries designed for lots of traffic or they'll just sit in traffic longer.

You can see this happening downtown. The city conveniently used the pandemic to put bike lanes everywhere and now it's just really hard to get around. Not surprisingly, a lot fewer people are going downtown. It's not the only reason downtown is dying. But it's a big one.

The goal was to make it harder to drive so less people drive. The assumption was that if they don’t drive they would still come downtown but on bikes or transit. The reality is that they are just going somewhere else instead. In the meantime, retail vacancy in downtown is 20% and rising. One out of every five storefronts are vacant.

You are just making up bike lanes as a reason for decreased occupancy downtown. Sorry, that's not the reason.

I said nothing about bike lanes. There is nothing that I said that was inaccurate. This is “traffic calming”. Funny that you want to run away from and not defend your own agenda when its negative impacts are clear. If you reduce road capacity, the traffic does not magically disappear. It just goes somewhere else.

The reason that there are so many vacant storefronts downtown is that people are not coming back to work in large numbers. One reason why many people are choosing not to come back downtown is that DC had intentionally made it difficult to navigate with a car. That should be considered a policy victory. Right? I guess you don’t like the consequences.

Well at least you can now ride your bikes faster past those blighted downtown areas to reach your vibrant urban destination.

The main reason people are not coming back to work downtown in large numbers is that the federal government hasn't required it yet, and many other large employers haven't, either. Not because driving got harder.

If urbanism is so great, why are people not going back downtown on their own to enjoy the vibrancy? Why would they need to be forced? In the meantime, the city has made it less convenient for people who would otherwise choose to venture downtown voluntarily as a matter of policy. This is the expected result.

There are other urban parts of DC that are not downtown.

But downtown is definitionally the most urban part of DC and yet it’s the most avoided. Why does the city not want to make it easier for people to go there voluntarily? Why are you hoping to save it through compulsion? And it’s not just suburban commuters. They highest WFH % in the country is Ward 1 DC. Turns out not even the urbanists want to go experience the vibrant urban core of the city. No wonder you spend your time advocating bike lanes so that you can bypass what you clearly detest. Who could blame you.

It’s funny how people that live in the urban core of a vibrant city also prefer to drive. A higher percentage commute by driving alone than transit or walking. Cycling barely registers. Pretty clear who the small niche group is here.

+1

just to correct the misinformation here - in the urban core, more people walk, bike and take transit than drive. And biking is a growing share: https://ggwash.org/view/amp/80233

I was going to say, who drives downtown for work? You have to be rich to do that with the cost of parking and that's been true for a looooong time.

Not really. There are currently early bird specials for $12 per day within blocks of the White House. Monthly parking can be had for less than $250. Compare that to a RT rush hour fare + parking if you’re going from Shady Grove to Metro Center. That’s a $12 per day fare plus $5.20 for parking.

The economics only work out if you have the generous Fed transit subsidy or if you have an ICE car and factor in the depreciation + maintenance due to the additional marginal increase in mileage that you would accrue from driving yourself in. Otherwise, on a direct cash outlay basis driving can be cheaper for many.

Most people working downtown get transit benefits. And you forgot about gas, insurance, and car payments. And, this post was about urban core mode share, not Shady Grove.

“Most people who work downtown are Federal employees”

That is not the point. The point is that contrary to the PP, you don’t have to be rich to drive and park downtown and its also very price competitive for certain individuals.

[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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Still don't understand why bicyclists aren't required to wear helmets, or why they're allowed to put small children on bikes without helmets. If those kids were in cars, they'd be required to wear seat belts or be in car seats...

I mean, I'll care about this when the city actually does something about reciprocity with crappy drivers from M/VA, actually starts traffic enforcement for people who run stop signs and red lights without any enforcement (literally in front of police cars and nothing happens).

Or, actually puts in a crosswalk at one intersection in my neighborhood that we've been advocating for for a decade and it never happens.

You seriously MUST live in rich real estate if this is what is most top of mind to you to complain about. Just admit it. Take a drive to other parts of the city and tell me if bike helmets are really the bigger concern in terms of road safety.

Wow. It going to take an awful lot for you to start caring about the safety of small children.

I do. I have two of them myself. It's why I like safe road design, especially when I live in parts of the city that have crappy road design and it takes a decade of advocating for a simple crosswalk whereas those in the rich areas get one fairly quickly. Especially when safe road design also prevents criminals from barreling through neighborhoods shooting guns at a million miles per hour as we've actually dealt with.

You still didn't admit you live in rich NW where you aren't even dealing with much crime and your roads are designed better anyways, and having $$ has meant you got 311 requests more quickly and efficiently. It's ok. Just be honest.

You make a lot of weird assumptions. Also, don't you have anything better to do? It sounds like you spend your entire day on this stupid web site just waiting to jump down the throat of anyone who isn't into bicycles.

Well that confirms my assumption because you won't deny it. I assume you have to live in NW if bicyclists annoy you more than cars. You don't actually experience the day to day nuisance of bad road design. You don't experience things like criminals flying down your one way street the wrong way while you're trying to get your kids into the car (hey, no one died! I shouldn't care, right? I should care about the bicyclists, right!). You don't experience drivers running the red light at the end of your street At. Least. Once. Every. Single. Week. when you have the green and are turning left with your kids in the car. You don't even experience much of the crime you are pretending to be so concerned about while here in a forum about the bike lobby advocating for safer streets.

Also, apparently you don't have anything better to do either, you're here too?

I think the bolded seems to be what people are either obtusely or deliberately missing here. Safe street design isn't just to prevent people from dying or getting hit. There are so many close calls that never get reported and aren't in any statistics that still make it dangerous or unpleasant to walk or bike places in the city. If someone blows a stop sign and almost hits my kids that isn't going to be in a police report but it still has an effect on my day. It means I might be less likely to let my ten year old walk home so then I have to drive him.

There are people on this site who see to say that if people don't die then we shouldn't need to make changes to the street. That is fine if that is your position but know that other advocate for safe streets so that we can have higher quality of life, which for us includes walking or biking places. If that means that a person in a car gets someone five minutes later, I truly do not care. (and if it means that when I drive somewhere I get to my destination five minutes slower then I am all for it if it means that kids can cross streets safely). Transit isn't solely about getting people to their destinations as fast as possible while they re sitting in climate controlled, cushy metal boxes. There are other people who have different preferences than you and we are absolutely going to continue to advocate for them.

Or maybe you should just be more careful? You live in a big city, one of the most densely populated in North America. There's lots of people moving around and sh*t is going to happen. You'd probably be better off exercising a little common sense than putting all your hopes in a doomed-to-fail campaign to have the government try to engineer away accidents.

So you think it is ok to ask me and my children to be extremely careful (which we are, by the way) and not to ask drivers to be extremely careful? Drivers don't have to be aware of the fact that they are driving through densely populated areas but pedestrians do? Why the double standard?

Is yours just a "might makes right" argument that because someone chooses to drive a deadly vehicle then everyone has to get out of his way? This is WHY the streets need to be re-engineered. If there is a bollard in your way as you make a turn that slows you down or a speed bump or other traffic calming then you can't bully pedestrians as you run a stop sign.

Watch any intersection where there is a crosswalk and no stop sign or signal. Pedestrians legally have the right of way but they wait until cars full stop or there is no traffic (IOW they are being careful) because drivers are unable or unwilling to drive carefully and yield to the party that has the legal right of way.

Drivers are careful. People in this city probably take close to a billion car trips a year, and yet the number of people involved in accidents is tiny. That doesn't just happen unless people are trying to avoid running into each other. For those who aren't careful, we already have lots and lots of penalties (including sending them to prison).

There are over 3 billion VMT on DC roads each year. Annual car trips by DC residents (excluding MD and VA drivers) are estimated around 2.5 million. Accidents on DC roads are very rare and DC is one of the safest cities in the US for vehicle accidents.

Sure. And mass shootings are rare and devastating. But I'd also like more done to prevent them. Same concept. "These things are rare. Thoughts and prayers."

The issue is diminishing returns. Most people don't think it's worth spending billions of dollars and ruining traffic for hundreds of thousands of people so that we can reduce the number of traffic deaths from 24 to 22. The city has more important things to do.

It isn't just traffic deaths. It is injury, repairs to auto, maintenance on roads, pollution and corresponding health externalities as well as cost savings when more people are walking and biking.

More people aren't going to walk or bike. They'll just drive elsewhere. They'll avoid neighborhoods that are too hard to get to or they'll take side streets instead of main arteries designed for lots of traffic or they'll just sit in traffic longer.

You can see this happening downtown. The city conveniently used the pandemic to put bike lanes everywhere and now it's just really hard to get around. Not surprisingly, a lot fewer people are going downtown. It's not the only reason downtown is dying. But it's a big one.

The goal was to make it harder to drive so less people drive. The assumption was that if they don’t drive they would still come downtown but on bikes or transit. The reality is that they are just going somewhere else instead. In the meantime, retail vacancy in downtown is 20% and rising. One out of every five storefronts are vacant.

You are just making up bike lanes as a reason for decreased occupancy downtown. Sorry, that's not the reason.

I said nothing about bike lanes. There is nothing that I said that was inaccurate. This is “traffic calming”. Funny that you want to run away from and not defend your own agenda when its negative impacts are clear. If you reduce road capacity, the traffic does not magically disappear. It just goes somewhere else.

The reason that there are so many vacant storefronts downtown is that people are not coming back to work in large numbers. One reason why many people are choosing not to come back downtown is that DC had intentionally made it difficult to navigate with a car. That should be considered a policy victory. Right? I guess you don’t like the consequences.

Well at least you can now ride your bikes faster past those blighted downtown areas to reach your vibrant urban destination.

The main reason people are not coming back to work downtown in large numbers is that the federal government hasn't required it yet, and many other large employers haven't, either. Not because driving got harder.

If urbanism is so great, why are people not going back downtown on their own to enjoy the vibrancy? Why would they need to be forced? In the meantime, the city has made it less convenient for people who would otherwise choose to venture downtown voluntarily as a matter of policy. This is the expected result.

There are other urban parts of DC that are not downtown.

But downtown is definitionally the most urban part of DC and yet it’s the most avoided. Why does the city not want to make it easier for people to go there voluntarily? Why are you hoping to save it through compulsion? And it’s not just suburban commuters. They highest WFH % in the country is Ward 1 DC. Turns out not even the urbanists want to go experience the vibrant urban core of the city. No wonder you spend your time advocating bike lanes so that you can bypass what you clearly detest. Who could blame you.

It’s funny how people that live in the urban core of a vibrant city also prefer to drive. A higher percentage commute by driving alone than transit or walking. Cycling barely registers. Pretty clear who the small niche group is here.

+1

just to correct the misinformation here - in the urban core, more people walk, bike and take transit than drive. And biking is a growing share: https://ggwash.org/view/amp/80233

I was going to say, who drives downtown for work? You have to be rich to do that with the cost of parking and that's been true for a looooong time.

Obviously, tons and tons of people drove downtown, at least before they put in all the bike lanes. Also, newsflash: people here are rich. They have money for friggin parking.

[Anonymous]

I hate the bike lobby in this city

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I hate the bike lobby in this city

Sounds unhealthy. Have you tried setting a therapist?