Options for opposing Connecticut Avenue changes?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is there any mode of transportation that is *less* popular in Washington D.C. than biking?

People are more likely to drive or take the metro or take the bus or walk or carpool or take commuter rail or take a cab than they are to ride a bike.

And yet it's biking, the city's least popular way of getting around, that sponges up such a massive share of our transportation resources. It's bizarre.

Consider maybe that it’s not popular because it only has a tiny fraction of the infrastructure dedicated to cars and pedestrians?

The notion that DC is spending billions building bike lanes is absurd. The figure probably doesn’t exceed a few million annually, most of which is accounted for by hopeless community consultations in which crusty NIMBYs roll out fantastical nonsense to safeguard a selfish way of life that is doing immense damage to future generations.

If you want to talk about billions in subsidies, check out everything related to building and maintaining automotive infrastructure that gas taxes and car registrations don’t cover. Drivers are some of the biggest welfare queens around.

The popularity of cycling has not increased in any measurable way as a mode share of commuters since 1970. There is literally zero evidence that bicycle infrastructure induces more bicycling as a mode of transportation for commuting to work.

Great. Here is but one study that proves you are wrong: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0001457517301021. Will you please shut up now?

In case you have not noticed, Seville is in Spain and is not Washington, D.C. where the number of cyclists commuting to work is barely measurable despite significant investment in cycling infrastructure.

https://www.centerforwashingtonareastudies.org/state_of_the_capital_region/2022/_book/Intro.html

It’s cute how you think you can convince people that cycling in DC hasn’t increased by presenting statistics that don’t even disaggregate cycling as a category. In fact, the proportion of the population who cycle almost doubled from 2010 to 2015: https://wtop.com/local/2017/05/many-people-really-bike-work-around-dc-surprising-stats/

You argument is that if you removed taxis and motorcycles that it would make the bicycle mode share larger? It’s barely measurable combined. Did you bother to check the numbers in the article you posted? It says 4% cycle to work. 4 percent! 80% use cars. Sure, going from 2 to 4 is doubling, but when starting from such a small base its rather meaningless.

Run a calculation of how much public space - and funds - are devoted to vehicle infrastructure and how much is dedicated to bike infrastructure. The ratio of those two numbers is going to be a lot larger than 80/4.

Once again that’s not the correct metric. A large portion of vehicle traffic is not commuters. It’s delivery trucks, contractors, tourists, first responders, taxis, buses, trash removal, etc. None of those things can be done on a bike but all will be hurt by these bougie bike lanes.

Tourists? God forbid we might deter a few tourists. The others will be fine.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is there any mode of transportation that is *less* popular in Washington D.C. than biking?

People are more likely to drive or take the metro or take the bus or walk or carpool or take commuter rail or take a cab than they are to ride a bike.

And yet it's biking, the city's least popular way of getting around, that sponges up such a massive share of our transportation resources. It's bizarre.

Consider maybe that it’s not popular because it only has a tiny fraction of the infrastructure dedicated to cars and pedestrians?

The notion that DC is spending billions building bike lanes is absurd. The figure probably doesn’t exceed a few million annually, most of which is accounted for by hopeless community consultations in which crusty NIMBYs roll out fantastical nonsense to safeguard a selfish way of life that is doing immense damage to future generations.

If you want to talk about billions in subsidies, check out everything related to building and maintaining automotive infrastructure that gas taxes and car registrations don’t cover. Drivers are some of the biggest welfare queens around.

The popularity of cycling has not increased in any measurable way as a mode share of commuters since 1970. There is literally zero evidence that bicycle infrastructure induces more bicycling as a mode of transportation for commuting to work.

Great. Here is but one study that proves you are wrong: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0001457517301021. Will you please shut up now?

In case you have not noticed, Seville is in Spain and is not Washington, D.C. where the number of cyclists commuting to work is barely measurable despite significant investment in cycling infrastructure.

https://www.centerforwashingtonareastudies.org/state_of_the_capital_region/2022/_book/Intro.html

It’s cute how you think you can convince people that cycling in DC hasn’t increased by presenting statistics that don’t even disaggregate cycling as a category. In fact, the proportion of the population who cycle almost doubled from 2010 to 2015: https://wtop.com/local/2017/05/many-people-really-bike-work-around-dc-surprising-stats/

You argument is that if you removed taxis and motorcycles that it would make the bicycle mode share larger? It’s barely measurable combined. Did you bother to check the numbers in the article you posted? It says 4% cycle to work. 4 percent! 80% use cars. Sure, going from 2 to 4 is doubling, but when starting from such a small base its rather meaningless.

Run a calculation of how much public space - and funds - are devoted to vehicle infrastructure and how much is dedicated to bike infrastructure. The ratio of those two numbers is going to be a lot larger than 80/4.

Once again that’s not the correct metric. A large portion of vehicle traffic is not commuters. It’s delivery trucks, contractors, tourists, first responders, taxis, buses, trash removal, etc. None of those things can be done on a bike but all will be hurt by these bougie bike lanes.

Tourists? God forbid we might deter a few tourists. The others will be fine.

The 60,000 of your neighbors who depend on the tourism industry may differ with you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is not 1922, people. We have decades of data now to have a complete picture of how subsidizing car dependence affects cities and their inhabitants.

No one who is remotely informed and objective could argue that it is in the interests of a city like DC to subsidize an activity that reduces urban property values, destroys civic culture, pollutes the air, accelerates climate change, kills and maims pedestrians, cyclists, and drivers alike, fuels political polarization, and wastes hours upon hours of commuter’s time on this earth.

We get it that some of you are hopelessly addicted to your cars and the suburban lifestyles they support, but trying to disguise the fact that you think public policy should be made to serve your interests and not the greater good by making baselessly claims and fat-shaming people is a little pathetic.

I mean, there are a lot of things I’d like that I wish the government would just give me, but I’m not silly enough to go on public forums and whine about not getting them.

Let me guess: You're a senior in high school? This sounds like something a senior in high school would say.

Cognitive skills and social consciousness decline from about age 18 on, so thanks for the compliment. Maybe you should start listening to more HS seniors.

But practical experience about how people respond to stimuli in real life goes through the roof. You know, the ability to predict outcomes. That's what everyone is pointing out. Vehicles will not magically disappear from the road. Thousands won't start biking on Connecticut Avenue. It will be a cluster...

And btw cognitive skills dont start declining until the 30's.

Induced demand is a pretty simple concept and the evidence for it is fairly clear. If you can’t grasp basic principles of transportation analysis, it’s maybe time to start worrying about your own cognitive decline rather than spending your time constructing straw men.

Induced demand is about congestion, which is effectively a measure of throughput. It holds that demand for an unpriced public good will exceed supply of that good, which is only natural. It is not a bi-directional concept that reduced supply of that good reduces demand. In any case, you also seem to fail to grasp that while the rate of throughput decreases over time, actual capacity is higher. Induced demand is not a collection of magic words that allow you wave a wand and pretend that your favored policy for this road will not have obvious negative externalities. The most obvious of which is the increased total capacity will mean people going elsewhere. Maybe that is a good trade off for you, but it is a real economic tradeoff. Close the street entirely to cars and you will see further changes to economic patterns. Nothing just magically disappears. But keep up the magical thinking.

So the reduction in lanes will impose negative externalities on those generating negative externalities for everyone else? Well, oh dear! Stop the presses!

Your analysis doesn’t make a lot of sense to me. People like to drive when they can get to their destination quickly because there are massive and empty roads, but less so when they can’t because the roads are congested. Traffic calming measures reduce traffic speeds and discourage vehicle trips. Some people will stay home, while others will adopt other modes that are relatively faster. You can find evidence out there documenting this phenomenon if you need it.

You then fall back on the assertion that CT Ave is about to be “closed entirely” and no one will be able to drive into DC anymore. I’m not sure what your objective is but I find it hard to understand how such ridiculous positions further it.

You clearly have used induced demand plenty of times without knowing what the concept is and are now making things up to cover up for the embarrassment.

Can you explain what induced demand has to do with removing a traffic lane and how?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Dc resident here. This won’t affect my commute at all. I still won’t bike to work (too far and would take too long), and I will either take the bus or the metro to get downtown, or drive during non rush hour

I do feel for Maryland commuters

And anyone on a north south side street. Or a cut thru between conn and reno. Yes traffic will calm. But if that becomes gridlock things could get stupid pretty fast.

Yes yes, cars are bad. I agree! And we are in a new age where many office workers can be more flexible in their routines. But roads do help hundreds of thousands of people get to their jobs, prop up the tax base, allow families to get activities. So it is an important balance.

hope I am wrong and tons of people do bike conn ave. And traffic adjusts and a new safer equilibrium reached. Bookmarking this thread for review later …

The biggest problem with those cut throughs is the number of parks and schools, from nursery to college, along that road with students who mostly walk to school, many of whom cross Reno. I can think of 15 schools off the top of my head. There are not crossing lights at all of these intersections (only a few), unlike along Connecticut and Wisconsin. I'm glad they are finally putting speed bumps near the schools, but there are so many accidents at the Reno intersections as it is. Cars belong on the main roads of Connecticut and Wisconsin. Even there, we have a lot of schools and parks: 9 along upper Connecticut and 8 along upper Wisconsin.

The problem with the cut throughs is the drivers driving too fast and badly.

So we should intentionally triple the amount of them?

No, we should install more speed bumps and deploy cameras pointed at intersections. Punish the bad drivers and force them to slow down until they follow the law. Or go drive on CT Ave.

If we all chip in and buy you and your 10 friends condos downtown will you just go away? This is a shakedown right? Parents spent 1.5 years distracted during the pandemic trying to homeschool their kids and meanwhile like 20 renters along Connecticut Ave and their ANC pals are pushing through bike lanes and weed dispensaries while no one is looking.

What does this have to do with school closures during the pandemic?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is there any mode of transportation that is *less* popular in Washington D.C. than biking?

People are more likely to drive or take the metro or take the bus or walk or carpool or take commuter rail or take a cab than they are to ride a bike.

And yet it's biking, the city's least popular way of getting around, that sponges up such a massive share of our transportation resources. It's bizarre.

Consider maybe that it’s not popular because it only has a tiny fraction of the infrastructure dedicated to cars and pedestrians?

The notion that DC is spending billions building bike lanes is absurd. The figure probably doesn’t exceed a few million annually, most of which is accounted for by hopeless community consultations in which crusty NIMBYs roll out fantastical nonsense to safeguard a selfish way of life that is doing immense damage to future generations.

If you want to talk about billions in subsidies, check out everything related to building and maintaining automotive infrastructure that gas taxes and car registrations don’t cover. Drivers are some of the biggest welfare queens around.

The popularity of cycling has not increased in any measurable way as a mode share of commuters since 1970. There is literally zero evidence that bicycle infrastructure induces more bicycling as a mode of transportation for commuting to work.

Great. Here is but one study that proves you are wrong: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0001457517301021. Will you please shut up now?

In case you have not noticed, Seville is in Spain and is not Washington, D.C. where the number of cyclists commuting to work is barely measurable despite significant investment in cycling infrastructure.

https://www.centerforwashingtonareastudies.org/state_of_the_capital_region/2022/_book/Intro.html

It’s cute how you think you can convince people that cycling in DC hasn’t increased by presenting statistics that don’t even disaggregate cycling as a category. In fact, the proportion of the population who cycle almost doubled from 2010 to 2015: https://wtop.com/local/2017/05/many-people-really-bike-work-around-dc-surprising-stats/

You argument is that if you removed taxis and motorcycles that it would make the bicycle mode share larger? It’s barely measurable combined. Did you bother to check the numbers in the article you posted? It says 4% cycle to work. 4 percent! 80% use cars. Sure, going from 2 to 4 is doubling, but when starting from such a small base its rather meaningless.

You were claiming that cycling hadn’t increased in spite of all the new infrastructure. You were presented with statistics showing that cyclists in DC had doubled over just 5 years. Now you are claiming that the change doesn’t matter anyway. You are pathetic. Please just give up.

You think an increase of bicycle share from 2 to 4 percent is significant? It is barely measureable. Back out measurement error and it may not even be a statistically significant increase. I am sorry that facts make you so angry.

Oh, so you took a statistics class once, did you? If you bothered to read the article, you would learn about the source for the statistic. That is the American Community Survey, which polls 3.5 million households. That makes it probably the largest household survey in the world. I haven’t run the test, but I’ll go out on a limb and say that the increase is significant. The trend in DC also parallels increases in other cities, so making the case that it’s just random noise is a tough one.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is not 1922, people. We have decades of data now to have a complete picture of how subsidizing car dependence affects cities and their inhabitants.

No one who is remotely informed and objective could argue that it is in the interests of a city like DC to subsidize an activity that reduces urban property values, destroys civic culture, pollutes the air, accelerates climate change, kills and maims pedestrians, cyclists, and drivers alike, fuels political polarization, and wastes hours upon hours of commuter’s time on this earth.

We get it that some of you are hopelessly addicted to your cars and the suburban lifestyles they support, but trying to disguise the fact that you think public policy should be made to serve your interests and not the greater good by making baselessly claims and fat-shaming people is a little pathetic.

I mean, there are a lot of things I’d like that I wish the government would just give me, but I’m not silly enough to go on public forums and whine about not getting them.

Let me guess: You're a senior in high school? This sounds like something a senior in high school would say.

Cognitive skills and social consciousness decline from about age 18 on, so thanks for the compliment. Maybe you should start listening to more HS seniors.

But practical experience about how people respond to stimuli in real life goes through the roof. You know, the ability to predict outcomes. That's what everyone is pointing out. Vehicles will not magically disappear from the road. Thousands won't start biking on Connecticut Avenue. It will be a cluster...

And btw cognitive skills dont start declining until the 30's.

Induced demand is a pretty simple concept and the evidence for it is fairly clear. If you can’t grasp basic principles of transportation analysis, it’s maybe time to start worrying about your own cognitive decline rather than spending your time constructing straw men.

Induced demand is about congestion, which is effectively a measure of throughput. It holds that demand for an unpriced public good will exceed supply of that good, which is only natural. It is not a bi-directional concept that reduced supply of that good reduces demand. In any case, you also seem to fail to grasp that while the rate of throughput decreases over time, actual capacity is higher. Induced demand is not a collection of magic words that allow you wave a wand and pretend that your favored policy for this road will not have obvious negative externalities. The most obvious of which is the increased total capacity will mean people going elsewhere. Maybe that is a good trade off for you, but it is a real economic tradeoff. Close the street entirely to cars and you will see further changes to economic patterns. Nothing just magically disappears. But keep up the magical thinking.

So the reduction in lanes will impose negative externalities on those generating negative externalities for everyone else? Well, oh dear! Stop the presses!

Your analysis doesn’t make a lot of sense to me. People like to drive when they can get to their destination quickly because there are massive and empty roads, but less so when they can’t because the roads are congested. Traffic calming measures reduce traffic speeds and discourage vehicle trips. Some people will stay home, while others will adopt other modes that are relatively faster. You can find evidence out there documenting this phenomenon if you need it.

You then fall back on the assertion that CT Ave is about to be “closed entirely” and no one will be able to drive into DC anymore. I’m not sure what your objective is but I find it hard to understand how such ridiculous positions further it.

You clearly have used induced demand plenty of times without knowing what the concept is and are now making things up to cover up for the embarrassment.

Can you explain what induced demand has to do with removing a traffic lane and how?

If “induced demand” is what you apparently think it means, then no one in the world understands it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is not 1922, people. We have decades of data now to have a complete picture of how subsidizing car dependence affects cities and their inhabitants.

No one who is remotely informed and objective could argue that it is in the interests of a city like DC to subsidize an activity that reduces urban property values, destroys civic culture, pollutes the air, accelerates climate change, kills and maims pedestrians, cyclists, and drivers alike, fuels political polarization, and wastes hours upon hours of commuter’s time on this earth.

We get it that some of you are hopelessly addicted to your cars and the suburban lifestyles they support, but trying to disguise the fact that you think public policy should be made to serve your interests and not the greater good by making baselessly claims and fat-shaming people is a little pathetic.

I mean, there are a lot of things I’d like that I wish the government would just give me, but I’m not silly enough to go on public forums and whine about not getting them.

Let me guess: You're a senior in high school? This sounds like something a senior in high school would say.

Cognitive skills and social consciousness decline from about age 18 on, so thanks for the compliment. Maybe you should start listening to more HS seniors.

But practical experience about how people respond to stimuli in real life goes through the roof. You know, the ability to predict outcomes. That's what everyone is pointing out. Vehicles will not magically disappear from the road. Thousands won't start biking on Connecticut Avenue. It will be a cluster...

And btw cognitive skills dont start declining until the 30's.

Induced demand is a pretty simple concept and the evidence for it is fairly clear. If you can’t grasp basic principles of transportation analysis, it’s maybe time to start worrying about your own cognitive decline rather than spending your time constructing straw men.

Induced demand is about congestion, which is effectively a measure of throughput. It holds that demand for an unpriced public good will exceed supply of that good, which is only natural. It is not a bi-directional concept that reduced supply of that good reduces demand. In any case, you also seem to fail to grasp that while the rate of throughput decreases over time, actual capacity is higher. Induced demand is not a collection of magic words that allow you wave a wand and pretend that your favored policy for this road will not have obvious negative externalities. The most obvious of which is the increased total capacity will mean people going elsewhere. Maybe that is a good trade off for you, but it is a real economic tradeoff. Close the street entirely to cars and you will see further changes to economic patterns. Nothing just magically disappears. But keep up the magical thinking.

What the hell is this nonsense? The inverse of induced demand is, wait for it, reduced demand. As much as this poster doesn’t wish it to be so, it’s a thing: https://www.cnu.org/publicsquare/2021/03/19/reduced-demand-just-important-induced-demand

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is there any mode of transportation that is *less* popular in Washington D.C. than biking?

People are more likely to drive or take the metro or take the bus or walk or carpool or take commuter rail or take a cab than they are to ride a bike.

And yet it's biking, the city's least popular way of getting around, that sponges up such a massive share of our transportation resources. It's bizarre.

Consider maybe that it’s not popular because it only has a tiny fraction of the infrastructure dedicated to cars and pedestrians?

The notion that DC is spending billions building bike lanes is absurd. The figure probably doesn’t exceed a few million annually, most of which is accounted for by hopeless community consultations in which crusty NIMBYs roll out fantastical nonsense to safeguard a selfish way of life that is doing immense damage to future generations.

If you want to talk about billions in subsidies, check out everything related to building and maintaining automotive infrastructure that gas taxes and car registrations don’t cover. Drivers are some of the biggest welfare queens around.

The popularity of cycling has not increased in any measurable way as a mode share of commuters since 1970. There is literally zero evidence that bicycle infrastructure induces more bicycling as a mode of transportation for commuting to work.

Great. Here is but one study that proves you are wrong: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0001457517301021. Will you please shut up now?

In case you have not noticed, Seville is in Spain and is not Washington, D.C. where the number of cyclists commuting to work is barely measurable despite significant investment in cycling infrastructure.

https://www.centerforwashingtonareastudies.org/state_of_the_capital_region/2022/_book/Intro.html

It’s cute how you think you can convince people that cycling in DC hasn’t increased by presenting statistics that don’t even disaggregate cycling as a category. In fact, the proportion of the population who cycle almost doubled from 2010 to 2015: https://wtop.com/local/2017/05/many-people-really-bike-work-around-dc-surprising-stats/

You argument is that if you removed taxis and motorcycles that it would make the bicycle mode share larger? It’s barely measurable combined. Did you bother to check the numbers in the article you posted? It says 4% cycle to work. 4 percent! 80% use cars. Sure, going from 2 to 4 is doubling, but when starting from such a small base its rather meaningless.

You were claiming that cycling hadn’t increased in spite of all the new infrastructure. You were presented with statistics showing that cyclists in DC had doubled over just 5 years. Now you are claiming that the change doesn’t matter anyway. You are pathetic. Please just give up.

You think an increase of bicycle share from 2 to 4 percent is significant? It is barely measureable. Back out measurement error and it may not even be a statistically significant increase. I am sorry that facts make you so angry.

Oh, so you took a statistics class once, did you? If you bothered to read the article, you would learn about the source for the statistic. That is the American Community Survey, which polls 3.5 million households. That makes it probably the largest household survey in the world. I haven’t run the test, but I’ll go out on a limb and say that the increase is significant. The trend in DC also parallels increases in other cities, so making the case that it’s just random noise is a tough one.

You are getting increasingly angry and hostile to facts that contravene your beliefs. I am familiar with ACS, please explain what 3.5 million has to do with the sub population of DC respondents? Are you claiming that adds statistical power?

Again, when starting from a low base, “big increases” can still be insignificant in the broader context. You start with 1 penny and add another penny, you’ve doubled your pennies. You still have only 2 pennies.

Also, and this is critically important. Because the share of car users has not changed. Any increase in bike share would be cannibalizing transit share. So its all pretty self defeating in the end.

But anyway, sounds like CT Ave from Calvert to Military is going to be a blast. Decreased mobility in the only area of the city that lacks a major grocery store. Doesn’t sound very appealing and if a basic person like me can understand that, then the city does too.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is not 1922, people. We have decades of data now to have a complete picture of how subsidizing car dependence affects cities and their inhabitants.

No one who is remotely informed and objective could argue that it is in the interests of a city like DC to subsidize an activity that reduces urban property values, destroys civic culture, pollutes the air, accelerates climate change, kills and maims pedestrians, cyclists, and drivers alike, fuels political polarization, and wastes hours upon hours of commuter’s time on this earth.

We get it that some of you are hopelessly addicted to your cars and the suburban lifestyles they support, but trying to disguise the fact that you think public policy should be made to serve your interests and not the greater good by making baselessly claims and fat-shaming people is a little pathetic.

I mean, there are a lot of things I’d like that I wish the government would just give me, but I’m not silly enough to go on public forums and whine about not getting them.

Let me guess: You're a senior in high school? This sounds like something a senior in high school would say.

Cognitive skills and social consciousness decline from about age 18 on, so thanks for the compliment. Maybe you should start listening to more HS seniors.

But practical experience about how people respond to stimuli in real life goes through the roof. You know, the ability to predict outcomes. That's what everyone is pointing out. Vehicles will not magically disappear from the road. Thousands won't start biking on Connecticut Avenue. It will be a cluster...

And btw cognitive skills dont start declining until the 30's.

Induced demand is a pretty simple concept and the evidence for it is fairly clear. If you can’t grasp basic principles of transportation analysis, it’s maybe time to start worrying about your own cognitive decline rather than spending your time constructing straw men.

Induced demand is about congestion, which is effectively a measure of throughput. It holds that demand for an unpriced public good will exceed supply of that good, which is only natural. It is not a bi-directional concept that reduced supply of that good reduces demand. In any case, you also seem to fail to grasp that while the rate of throughput decreases over time, actual capacity is higher. Induced demand is not a collection of magic words that allow you wave a wand and pretend that your favored policy for this road will not have obvious negative externalities. The most obvious of which is the increased total capacity will mean people going elsewhere. Maybe that is a good trade off for you, but it is a real economic tradeoff. Close the street entirely to cars and you will see further changes to economic patterns. Nothing just magically disappears. But keep up the magical thinking.

What the hell is this nonsense? The inverse of induced demand is, wait for it, reduced demand. As much as this poster doesn’t wish it to be so, it’s a thing: https://www.cnu.org/publicsquare/2021/03/19/reduced-demand-just-important-induced-demand

You guys are so corny. Probably explains why the planning profession lacks rigor.

Here’s an intellectual exercise, take away all of the lanes and then ponder the implications of “reduced demand”.

I cannot believe you think this is real.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is not 1922, people. We have decades of data now to have a complete picture of how subsidizing car dependence affects cities and their inhabitants.

No one who is remotely informed and objective could argue that it is in the interests of a city like DC to subsidize an activity that reduces urban property values, destroys civic culture, pollutes the air, accelerates climate change, kills and maims pedestrians, cyclists, and drivers alike, fuels political polarization, and wastes hours upon hours of commuter’s time on this earth.

We get it that some of you are hopelessly addicted to your cars and the suburban lifestyles they support, but trying to disguise the fact that you think public policy should be made to serve your interests and not the greater good by making baselessly claims and fat-shaming people is a little pathetic.

I mean, there are a lot of things I’d like that I wish the government would just give me, but I’m not silly enough to go on public forums and whine about not getting them.

Let me guess: You're a senior in high school? This sounds like something a senior in high school would say.

Cognitive skills and social consciousness decline from about age 18 on, so thanks for the compliment. Maybe you should start listening to more HS seniors.

But practical experience about how people respond to stimuli in real life goes through the roof. You know, the ability to predict outcomes. That's what everyone is pointing out. Vehicles will not magically disappear from the road. Thousands won't start biking on Connecticut Avenue. It will be a cluster...

And btw cognitive skills dont start declining until the 30's.

Induced demand is a pretty simple concept and the evidence for it is fairly clear. If you can’t grasp basic principles of transportation analysis, it’s maybe time to start worrying about your own cognitive decline rather than spending your time constructing straw men.

Induced demand is about congestion, which is effectively a measure of throughput. It holds that demand for an unpriced public good will exceed supply of that good, which is only natural. It is not a bi-directional concept that reduced supply of that good reduces demand. In any case, you also seem to fail to grasp that while the rate of throughput decreases over time, actual capacity is higher. Induced demand is not a collection of magic words that allow you wave a wand and pretend that your favored policy for this road will not have obvious negative externalities. The most obvious of which is the increased total capacity will mean people going elsewhere. Maybe that is a good trade off for you, but it is a real economic tradeoff. Close the street entirely to cars and you will see further changes to economic patterns. Nothing just magically disappears. But keep up the magical thinking.

You thought this was an "own" by using wikipedia or something, but induced demand has nothing to do with the situation on Connecticut Avenue.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anony CB mous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This will push more commuting cars onto reno road and wisconsin who then will cut through neighborhoods to get to rock creek, you are just "calming" traffic (e.g. creating gridlock) on Conn Ave and pumping tons of cars onto peoples residential streets, which are not made for it, which is worse for the environment and the city - but you can now feel superior coasting down your bike lane on Conn Ave. There is no reason bikes can't use the sinf Louisburgide streets, they are safer - it just takes longer and the bike's want to hijack a lane on the most direct route (signed a pedestrian, not a driver)

Sign it however you want. This tired line has been disproven over and over on this thread.

Signed, doesn’t really matter bc the majority of ppl clearly support this and it’s already happening so too bad

No it hasn't and no they don't. All you say is that by eliminating traffic lanes traffic will magically disappear. That ten thousand people per day will instantly start bicycling. Meanwhile DDOT says 7,000 vehicles per day will use cut throughs. Tripling neighborhood traffic. Cutting through the very areas that everyone walks and bikes in.

At the same time every time someone new finds out about this plan they're up in arms about the lunacy of it. Almost everyone supporting it on this thread is not local to the area and is just generally supporting the idea of bike lanes. Almost everyone opposed is local to the area and opposing this specific plan not bike lanes in general.

What happened to the 80,000 cars that used the West Side Highway prior to its collapse? https://www.rochestersubway.com/topics/2016/02/gridlock-sam-schwartz-at-the-little-theatre-224/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Dc resident here. This won’t affect my commute at all. I still won’t bike to work (too far and would take too long), and I will either take the bus or the metro to get downtown, or drive during non rush hour

I do feel for Maryland commuters

And anyone on a north south side street. Or a cut thru between conn and reno. Yes traffic will calm. But if that becomes gridlock things could get stupid pretty fast.

Yes yes, cars are bad. I agree! And we are in a new age where many office workers can be more flexible in their routines. But roads do help hundreds of thousands of people get to their jobs, prop up the tax base, allow families to get activities. So it is an important balance.

hope I am wrong and tons of people do bike conn ave. And traffic adjusts and a new safer equilibrium reached. Bookmarking this thread for review later …

The biggest problem with those cut throughs is the number of parks and schools, from nursery to college, along that road with students who mostly walk to school, many of whom cross Reno. I can think of 15 schools off the top of my head. There are not crossing lights at all of these intersections (only a few), unlike along Connecticut and Wisconsin. I'm glad they are finally putting speed bumps near the schools, but there are so many accidents at the Reno intersections as it is. Cars belong on the main roads of Connecticut and Wisconsin. Even there, we have a lot of schools and parks: 9 along upper Connecticut and 8 along upper Wisconsin.

And yet, people on these "cut through" streets also opposed putting sidewalks in. Look, you can't have it both ways.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is not 1922, people. We have decades of data now to have a complete picture of how subsidizing car dependence affects cities and their inhabitants.

No one who is remotely informed and objective could argue that it is in the interests of a city like DC to subsidize an activity that reduces urban property values, destroys civic culture, pollutes the air, accelerates climate change, kills and maims pedestrians, cyclists, and drivers alike, fuels political polarization, and wastes hours upon hours of commuter’s time on this earth.

We get it that some of you are hopelessly addicted to your cars and the suburban lifestyles they support, but trying to disguise the fact that you think public policy should be made to serve your interests and not the greater good by making baselessly claims and fat-shaming people is a little pathetic.

I mean, there are a lot of things I’d like that I wish the government would just give me, but I’m not silly enough to go on public forums and whine about not getting them.

Let me guess: You're a senior in high school? This sounds like something a senior in high school would say.

Cognitive skills and social consciousness decline from about age 18 on, so thanks for the compliment. Maybe you should start listening to more HS seniors.

But practical experience about how people respond to stimuli in real life goes through the roof. You know, the ability to predict outcomes. That's what everyone is pointing out. Vehicles will not magically disappear from the road. Thousands won't start biking on Connecticut Avenue. It will be a cluster...

And btw cognitive skills dont start declining until the 30's.

Induced demand is a pretty simple concept and the evidence for it is fairly clear. If you can’t grasp basic principles of transportation analysis, it’s maybe time to start worrying about your own cognitive decline rather than spending your time constructing straw men.

Induced demand is about congestion, which is effectively a measure of throughput. It holds that demand for an unpriced public good will exceed supply of that good, which is only natural. It is not a bi-directional concept that reduced supply of that good reduces demand. In any case, you also seem to fail to grasp that while the rate of throughput decreases over time, actual capacity is higher. Induced demand is not a collection of magic words that allow you wave a wand and pretend that your favored policy for this road will not have obvious negative externalities. The most obvious of which is the increased total capacity will mean people going elsewhere. Maybe that is a good trade off for you, but it is a real economic tradeoff. Close the street entirely to cars and you will see further changes to economic patterns. Nothing just magically disappears. But keep up the magical thinking.

So the reduction in lanes will impose negative externalities on those generating negative externalities for everyone else? Well, oh dear! Stop the presses!

Your analysis doesn’t make a lot of sense to me. People like to drive when they can get to their destination quickly because there are massive and empty roads, but less so when they can’t because the roads are congested. Traffic calming measures reduce traffic speeds and discourage vehicle trips. Some people will stay home, while others will adopt other modes that are relatively faster. You can find evidence out there documenting this phenomenon if you need it.

You then fall back on the assertion that CT Ave is about to be “closed entirely” and no one will be able to drive into DC anymore. I’m not sure what your objective is but I find it hard to understand how such ridiculous positions further it.

You clearly have used induced demand plenty of times without knowing what the concept is and are now making things up to cover up for the embarrassment.

Can you explain what induced demand has to do with removing a traffic lane and how?

If “induced demand” is what you apparently think it means, then no one in the world understands it.

Do you not understand what congestion pricing is and how it is supposed to work?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Dc resident here. This won’t affect my commute at all. I still won’t bike to work (too far and would take too long), and I will either take the bus or the metro to get downtown, or drive during non rush hour

I do feel for Maryland commuters

And anyone on a north south side street. Or a cut thru between conn and reno. Yes traffic will calm. But if that becomes gridlock things could get stupid pretty fast.

Yes yes, cars are bad. I agree! And we are in a new age where many office workers can be more flexible in their routines. But roads do help hundreds of thousands of people get to their jobs, prop up the tax base, allow families to get activities. So it is an important balance.

hope I am wrong and tons of people do bike conn ave. And traffic adjusts and a new safer equilibrium reached. Bookmarking this thread for review later …

The biggest problem with those cut throughs is the number of parks and schools, from nursery to college, along that road with students who mostly walk to school, many of whom cross Reno. I can think of 15 schools off the top of my head. There are not crossing lights at all of these intersections (only a few), unlike along Connecticut and Wisconsin. I'm glad they are finally putting speed bumps near the schools, but there are so many accidents at the Reno intersections as it is. Cars belong on the main roads of Connecticut and Wisconsin. Even there, we have a lot of schools and parks: 9 along upper Connecticut and 8 along upper Wisconsin.

The problem with the cut throughs is the drivers driving too fast and badly.

So we should intentionally triple the amount of them?

No, we should install more speed bumps and deploy cameras pointed at intersections. Punish the bad drivers and force them to slow down until they follow the law. Or go drive on CT Ave.

If we all chip in and buy you and your 10 friends condos downtown will you just go away? This is a shakedown right? Parents spent 1.5 years distracted during the pandemic trying to homeschool their kids and meanwhile like 20 renters along Connecticut Ave and their ANC pals are pushing through bike lanes and weed dispensaries while no one is looking.

The bike lane proposal is wildly popular to most everyone it has been presented to. There are like 20 people on two listserve and now this thread, who are opposed to them, oh and the GOP candidate for Ward 3. I guess you should go support him and his anti-Choice, pro-Christian agenda.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is not 1922, people. We have decades of data now to have a complete picture of how subsidizing car dependence affects cities and their inhabitants.

No one who is remotely informed and objective could argue that it is in the interests of a city like DC to subsidize an activity that reduces urban property values, destroys civic culture, pollutes the air, accelerates climate change, kills and maims pedestrians, cyclists, and drivers alike, fuels political polarization, and wastes hours upon hours of commuter’s time on this earth.

We get it that some of you are hopelessly addicted to your cars and the suburban lifestyles they support, but trying to disguise the fact that you think public policy should be made to serve your interests and not the greater good by making baselessly claims and fat-shaming people is a little pathetic.

I mean, there are a lot of things I’d like that I wish the government would just give me, but I’m not silly enough to go on public forums and whine about not getting them.

Let me guess: You're a senior in high school? This sounds like something a senior in high school would say.

Cognitive skills and social consciousness decline from about age 18 on, so thanks for the compliment. Maybe you should start listening to more HS seniors.

But practical experience about how people respond to stimuli in real life goes through the roof. You know, the ability to predict outcomes. That's what everyone is pointing out. Vehicles will not magically disappear from the road. Thousands won't start biking on Connecticut Avenue. It will be a cluster...

And btw cognitive skills dont start declining until the 30's.

Induced demand is a pretty simple concept and the evidence for it is fairly clear. If you can’t grasp basic principles of transportation analysis, it’s maybe time to start worrying about your own cognitive decline rather than spending your time constructing straw men.

Induced demand is about congestion, which is effectively a measure of throughput. It holds that demand for an unpriced public good will exceed supply of that good, which is only natural. It is not a bi-directional concept that reduced supply of that good reduces demand. In any case, you also seem to fail to grasp that while the rate of throughput decreases over time, actual capacity is higher. Induced demand is not a collection of magic words that allow you wave a wand and pretend that your favored policy for this road will not have obvious negative externalities. The most obvious of which is the increased total capacity will mean people going elsewhere. Maybe that is a good trade off for you, but it is a real economic tradeoff. Close the street entirely to cars and you will see further changes to economic patterns. Nothing just magically disappears. But keep up the magical thinking.

What the hell is this nonsense? The inverse of induced demand is, wait for it, reduced demand. As much as this poster doesn’t wish it to be so, it’s a thing: https://www.cnu.org/publicsquare/2021/03/19/reduced-demand-just-important-induced-demand

You guys are so corny. Probably explains why the planning profession lacks rigor.

Here’s an intellectual exercise, take away all of the lanes and then ponder the implications of “reduced demand”.

I cannot believe you think this is real.

It doesn’t need to be an intellectual exercise. There are actual real world examples that have been extensively studied. The collapse of the West Side Highway. The dismantling of the Embacadero in San Francisco. And so on. And the lesson from all those who have studied what happened in the aftermath of these events is that you have absolutely no freaking idea what you are talking about. But by all means keep making stuff up. You might even fool the odd NIMBY or two and win yourself a gram cracker.