Question for the anti-bike / anti-bus people

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Buses make sense but I would personally like to see smaller ones - preferably automated - that do designated routes through the city.

Bikes don’t make sense in the city bc the city was not set up to accommodate. Shoe horning them in now doesn’t work bc it makes no sense and is a waste of resources. We keep trying to pretend the DMV can be changed into a non car based society. It can’t. To do that you would have to tear it all down and start over and that can’t happen.

The bolded is a political choice, and actually, paved streets were created for bikes, long before there were cars (and yes of course, there are cobblestone roads that predate paving, but those are generally not bike friendly)

It is easy to make a city accommodate bikes, except with NIMBYs oppose it at every turn.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I strongly support metro and use it to commute.

The problem with bike and bus lanes is taking away lanes from already congested streets. People are still going to drive. We need solutions that are less zero-sum.

Encouraging an ever growing region to have more people driving, when there is zero chance of additional road capacity is a losing proposition.

[Anonymous]

who opposes buses? bike lanes are stupid because they're a poor use of space. no one uses them and louse up traffic for everyone else. buses are a great use of resources because lots and lots of people use them. ditto even more so for the subway. the subway used to move more people around in a day than bike lanes do in a decade.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I strongly support metro and use it to commute.

The problem with bike and bus lanes is taking away lanes from already congested streets. People are still going to drive. We need solutions that are less zero-sum.

Encouraging an ever growing region to have more people driving, when there is zero chance of additional road capacity is a losing proposition.

Nobody has talked about expanding Connecricut Avenue. It is stupid irrelevant rhetorical strawman to try and create a false binary.

The bullcrap like this is one of the main reasons I am opposed to the bike lanes. Glomming onto buses and pedestrians makes it worse.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:who opposes buses? bike lanes are stupid because they're a poor use of space. no one uses them and louse up traffic for everyone else. buses are a great use of resources because lots and lots of people use them. ditto even more so for the subway. the subway used to move more people around in a day than bike lanes do in a decade.

Who opposes buses? The people who make bus riders in priority lanes wait behind bicycles. The people who prioritize bike lanes over bus lanes. Each and every instance like this where bicycles are prioritized over buses is an example opposing buses and being anti-transit.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:who opposes buses? bike lanes are stupid because they're a poor use of space. no one uses them and louse up traffic for everyone else. buses are a great use of resources because lots and lots of people use them. ditto even more so for the subway. the subway used to move more people around in a day than bike lanes do in a decade.

Then what you really advocate is all bus lanes with a small sliver of bike lanes and no car lanes, if you really want the most efficient use of space.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I strongly support metro and use it to commute.

The problem with bike and bus lanes is taking away lanes from already congested streets. People are still going to drive. We need solutions that are less zero-sum.

Encouraging an ever growing region to have more people driving, when there is zero chance of additional road capacity is a losing proposition.

Nobody has talked about expanding Connecricut Avenue. It is stupid irrelevant rhetorical strawman to try and create a false binary.

The bullcrap like this is one of the main reasons I am opposed to the bike lanes. Glomming onto buses and pedestrians makes it worse.

Of course not, but yet the region will continue to grow, and there will be ever more people with cars wanting to drive in. How do you accommodate those people without expanding the number of lanes?

You don't, you figure out other ways of getting people out of cars and on to bikes or buses so the people who need to drive, can.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I strongly support metro and use it to commute.

The problem with bike and bus lanes is taking away lanes from already congested streets. People are still going to drive. We need solutions that are less zero-sum.

Encouraging an ever growing region to have more people driving, when there is zero chance of additional road capacity is a losing proposition.

Nobody has talked about expanding Connecricut Avenue. It is stupid irrelevant rhetorical strawman to try and create a false binary.

The bullcrap like this is one of the main reasons I am opposed to the bike lanes. Glomming onto buses and pedestrians makes it worse.

Of course not, but yet the region will continue to grow, and there will be ever more people with cars wanting to drive in. How do you accommodate those people without expanding the number of lanes?

You don't, you figure out other ways of getting people out of cars and on to bikes or buses so the people who need to drive, can.

The answer is mass transit. The answer is always mass transit.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is a small group of people - and I think many of us know exactly who they are - who seem to think that the best way to preserve that which they hold dearest (and which they irrationally believe to be threatened by bike lanes) is to try to pit cyclists against bus riders, cyclists against disabled people, cyclists against black people and so on and so on. It has utterly no basis in reality whatsoever and is utterly pathetic. Sites like this debase themselves by permitting this nonsense.

There are two types of people. One type are people who think that the world revolves around them. The other type are people who try to figure out how we can all get along as best as possible together.

The bicylist holding up the bus “because they can” is the same person as the person who jogs in the middle of the street and the same person who doesn’t yield their car to pedestrians in cross walks. Same behavior, same person.

This is absolutely true.

I also agree that better bus service should be DC's priority for many reasons, including environmental. My personal preference for getting around is cycling, but I can't do that with my young kids, a ton of groceries, or for super long distances, and plenty of people can't or don't want to do that at all. Buses serve everyone much more effectively than bikes.

Cyclists never hold up buses in DC. This is absolutely garbage. Please move on to the next fabricated bogeyman. I can't wait to see what it will be next. Cyclists versus necrophiliacs?

Except for the guy who admitted it of course?

Timestamp? All I see is someone who said it's easy to move over for buses and that parked/standing cars hold them up.

I wouldn’t hold your breath waiting for a response. No one gaslights quite like the Nickster.

The fact that you think you are in a conversation with a fictional character you have dubbed “the Nickster” is unqualified proof you are insane.

Oh how I wish he were fictional . . .

. . . and it's a very good thing no one held their breath waiting for that timestamp.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is a small group of people - and I think many of us know exactly who they are - who seem to think that the best way to preserve that which they hold dearest (and which they irrationally believe to be threatened by bike lanes) is to try to pit cyclists against bus riders, cyclists against disabled people, cyclists against black people and so on and so on. It has utterly no basis in reality whatsoever and is utterly pathetic. Sites like this debase themselves by permitting this nonsense.

There are two types of people. One type are people who think that the world revolves around them. The other type are people who try to figure out how we can all get along as best as possible together.

The bicylist holding up the bus “because they can” is the same person as the person who jogs in the middle of the street and the same person who doesn’t yield their car to pedestrians in cross walks. Same behavior, same person.

This is absolutely true.

I also agree that better bus service should be DC's priority for many reasons, including environmental. My personal preference for getting around is cycling, but I can't do that with my young kids, a ton of groceries, or for super long distances, and plenty of people can't or don't want to do that at all. Buses serve everyone much more effectively than bikes.

Cyclists never hold up buses in DC. This is absolutely garbage. Please move on to the next fabricated bogeyman. I can't wait to see what it will be next. Cyclists versus necrophiliacs?

Except for the guy who admitted it of course?

Timestamp? All I see is someone who said it's easy to move over for buses and that parked/standing cars hold them up.

I wouldn’t hold your breath waiting for a response. No one gaslights quite like the Nickster.

The fact that you think you are in a conversation with a fictional character you have dubbed “the Nickster” is unqualified proof you are insane.

Oh how I wish he were fictional . . .

. . . and it's a very good thing no one held their breath waiting for that timestamp.

It sounds like you’ve got someone living rent free in your head. Therapy or perhaps mediation might help improve your mental health.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Are you really interested in the status quo (or how it was 20 years ago)? Everyone drives everywhere? I'm having a hard time understanding how that works out from a space / traffic / environment standpoint. What's your vision?

I have had a child injured at ES (to the point of having to go pick them up and take them directly to the doctor - ambulance not necessary). I will never bike or take metro or take a bus, because none of those things will help me get to my child quickly in an emergency. Also not interest in density everywhere/urbanization of close in suburbs. I moved to the suburbs from the city because I want to live in the suburbs, where my kids have a yard to play in, a playground/field at the nearby school, and many friends nearby, and, I can easily get to work

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Are you really interested in the status quo (or how it was 20 years ago)? Everyone drives everywhere? I'm having a hard time understanding how that works out from a space / traffic / environment standpoint. What's your vision?

I have had a child injured at ES (to the point of having to go pick them up and take them directly to the doctor - ambulance not necessary). I will never bike or take metro or take a bus, because none of those things will help me get to my child quickly in an emergency. Also not interest in density everywhere/urbanization of close in suburbs. I moved to the suburbs from the city because I want to live in the suburbs, where my kids have a yard to play in, a playground/field at the nearby school, and many friends nearby, and, I can easily get to work

You made your choice. You don't live in DC and don't get to tell us how to program our public space. It just may be that it is a little harder for you to use a car by yourself and get to your downtown office. Other people made different decisions about priorities and tradeoffs between location and convenience and transportation modes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Are you really interested in the status quo (or how it was 20 years ago)? Everyone drives everywhere? I'm having a hard time understanding how that works out from a space / traffic / environment standpoint. What's your vision?

I have had a child injured at ES (to the point of having to go pick them up and take them directly to the doctor - ambulance not necessary). I will never bike or take metro or take a bus, because none of those things will help me get to my child quickly in an emergency. Also not interest in density everywhere/urbanization of close in suburbs. I moved to the suburbs from the city because I want to live in the suburbs, where my kids have a yard to play in, a playground/field at the nearby school, and many friends nearby, and, I can easily get to work

You made your choice. You don't live in DC and don't get to tell us how to program our public space. It just may be that it is a little harder for you to use a car by yourself and get to your downtown office. Other people made different decisions about priorities and tradeoffs between location and convenience and transportation modes.

What does this thread have to do with DC specifically?

I think you need to get over yourself.

DP

[Anonymous]

If you choose to live in a car-dependent area, you can't then complain about traffic or how other people choose to get from one place to another.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If you choose to live in a car-dependent area, you can't then complain about traffic or how other people choose to get from one place to another.

You are making a fool of yourself. The PP doesn’t mention DC at all. There is a whole world that exists that is not DC and it seems that you are surprised to learn that people are very happy there.