Slow Streets is over! Yay!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Except that's not how it works. Slow Streets just push a lot more traffic onto neighboring streets, regardless of whether they were built for that. There's no free lunch here. The people who benefit from Slow Streets do it by making life worse for everyone else.

Do you have any data to support this assertion?

It's what happened in our neighborhood. Do you think Slow Streets just magically made traffic disappear?

That's anecdote, not data.

And in general, yes, the model is that traffic expands to fill the space available. There is less traffic when there is less space available, because people choose to postpone their trips, or combine trips, or use a different non-car transportation mode for trips. That's why, for example, "Carmageddon" didn't happen in Los Angeles

And that's aphorism, not data. You think Slow Streets is going to make people give up driving? I mean, that's 100 percent nuts. That's like saying if DC raises taxes on the rich by one dollar, rich people will move away.

No, there are actually a lot of data to support that model. Slow Streets is not going to make people give up all driving forevermore, but it might cause them to make different travel choices.This actually happens all the time. Assuming that Slow Streets actually did produce slow streets, and people didn't just ignore them. Either Slow Streets were enough to make people change their driving habits - which is what you (or whoever) was saying when you said there was more traffic on your (or whoever's) street - or they weren't.

This sounds like the epitome of junk science.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Except that's not how it works. Slow Streets just push a lot more traffic onto neighboring streets, regardless of whether they were built for that. There's no free lunch here. The people who benefit from Slow Streets do it by making life worse for everyone else.

Do you have any data to support this assertion?

It's what happened in our neighborhood. Do you think Slow Streets just magically made traffic disappear?

That's anecdote, not data.

And in general, yes, the model is that traffic expands to fill the space available. There is less traffic when there is less space available, because people choose to postpone their trips, or combine trips, or use a different non-car transportation mode for trips. That's why, for example, "Carmageddon" didn't happen in Los Angeles

And that's aphorism, not data. You think Slow Streets is going to make people give up driving? I mean, that's 100 percent nuts. That's like saying if DC raises taxes on the rich by one dollar, rich people will move away.

No, there are actually a lot of data to support that model. Slow Streets is not going to make people give up all driving forevermore, but it might cause them to make different travel choices.This actually happens all the time. Assuming that Slow Streets actually did produce slow streets, and people didn't just ignore them. Either Slow Streets were enough to make people change their driving habits - which is what you (or whoever) was saying when you said there was more traffic on your (or whoever's) street - or they weren't.

OK show me the data that supports that model in DC during Slow Streets. Did it specifically -- and not the pandemic -- cause people to make different travel choices?

I'll wait.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

OK show me the data that supports that model in DC during Slow Streets. Did it specifically -- and not the pandemic -- cause people to make different travel choices?

I'll wait.

A PP said it did - specifically, that it caused people to choose to drive on Street B instead of Street A.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Except that's not how it works. Slow Streets just push a lot more traffic onto neighboring streets, regardless of whether they were built for that. There's no free lunch here. The people who benefit from Slow Streets do it by making life worse for everyone else.

Do you have any data to support this assertion?

It's what happened in our neighborhood. Do you think Slow Streets just magically made traffic disappear?

That's anecdote, not data.

And in general, yes, the model is that traffic expands to fill the space available. There is less traffic when there is less space available, because people choose to postpone their trips, or combine trips, or use a different non-car transportation mode for trips. That's why, for example, "Carmageddon" didn't happen in Los Angeles

And that's aphorism, not data. You think Slow Streets is going to make people give up driving? I mean, that's 100 percent nuts. That's like saying if DC raises taxes on the rich by one dollar, rich people will move away.

No, there are actually a lot of data to support that model. Slow Streets is not going to make people give up all driving forevermore, but it might cause them to make different travel choices.This actually happens all the time. Assuming that Slow Streets actually did produce slow streets, and people didn't just ignore them. Either Slow Streets were enough to make people change their driving habits - which is what you (or whoever) was saying when you said there was more traffic on your (or whoever's) street - or they weren't.

OK show me the data that supports that model in DC during Slow Streets. Did it specifically -- and not the pandemic -- cause people to make different travel choices?

I'll wait.

Still waiting.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Except that's not how it works. Slow Streets just push a lot more traffic onto neighboring streets, regardless of whether they were built for that. There's no free lunch here. The people who benefit from Slow Streets do it by making life worse for everyone else.

Do you have any data to support this assertion?

It's what happened in our neighborhood. Do you think Slow Streets just magically made traffic disappear?

That's anecdote, not data.

And in general, yes, the model is that traffic expands to fill the space available. There is less traffic when there is less space available, because people choose to postpone their trips, or combine trips, or use a different non-car transportation mode for trips. That's why, for example, "Carmageddon" didn't happen in Los Angeles

And that's aphorism, not data. You think Slow Streets is going to make people give up driving? I mean, that's 100 percent nuts. That's like saying if DC raises taxes on the rich by one dollar, rich people will move away.

No, there are actually a lot of data to support that model. Slow Streets is not going to make people give up all driving forevermore, but it might cause them to make different travel choices.This actually happens all the time. Assuming that Slow Streets actually did produce slow streets, and people didn't just ignore them. Either Slow Streets were enough to make people change their driving habits - which is what you (or whoever) was saying when you said there was more traffic on your (or whoever's) street - or they weren't.

OK show me the data that supports that model in DC during Slow Streets. Did it specifically -- and not the pandemic -- cause people to make different travel choices?

I'll wait.

Still waiting.

DP, I'm not sure what you expect. Previous work has shown that street diets encourage drivers to go slower and divert from neighborhood roads to arterials. Of course there isn't a model of every single implementation of everything. When your doctor prescribes you statins, do you demand models that they are 100% effective in 54 year-old left-handed balding men with brown hair, green eyes, a mole above their nipple and who sunburn easily? No, that would be absurd.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Except that's not how it works. Slow Streets just push a lot more traffic onto neighboring streets, regardless of whether they were built for that. There's no free lunch here. The people who benefit from Slow Streets do it by making life worse for everyone else.

Do you have any data to support this assertion?

It's what happened in our neighborhood. Do you think Slow Streets just magically made traffic disappear?

That's anecdote, not data.

And in general, yes, the model is that traffic expands to fill the space available. There is less traffic when there is less space available, because people choose to postpone their trips, or combine trips, or use a different non-car transportation mode for trips. That's why, for example, "Carmageddon" didn't happen in Los Angeles

And that's aphorism, not data. You think Slow Streets is going to make people give up driving? I mean, that's 100 percent nuts. That's like saying if DC raises taxes on the rich by one dollar, rich people will move away.

No, there are actually a lot of data to support that model. Slow Streets is not going to make people give up all driving forevermore, but it might cause them to make different travel choices.This actually happens all the time. Assuming that Slow Streets actually did produce slow streets, and people didn't just ignore them. Either Slow Streets were enough to make people change their driving habits - which is what you (or whoever) was saying when you said there was more traffic on your (or whoever's) street - or they weren't.

Basically Slow Streets was intended a forcing mechanism so that non-local street traffic (i.e, through traffic or vehicles going to destinations other than the local street or immediately off of it) should take arterial and collector streets. That's the intent of the federal street classification systems, which DC follows. Local streets should carry basically only destination traffic, and can be a haven for walking, biking and other activity that benefits from vehicle volume and speed reduction on the street.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Except that's not how it works. Slow Streets just push a lot more traffic onto neighboring streets, regardless of whether they were built for that. There's no free lunch here. The people who benefit from Slow Streets do it by making life worse for everyone else.

Do you have any data to support this assertion?

It's what happened in our neighborhood. Do you think Slow Streets just magically made traffic disappear?

That's anecdote, not data.

And in general, yes, the model is that traffic expands to fill the space available. There is less traffic when there is less space available, because people choose to postpone their trips, or combine trips, or use a different non-car transportation mode for trips. That's why, for example, "Carmageddon" didn't happen in Los Angeles

And that's aphorism, not data. You think Slow Streets is going to make people give up driving? I mean, that's 100 percent nuts. That's like saying if DC raises taxes on the rich by one dollar, rich people will move away.

No, there are actually a lot of data to support that model. Slow Streets is not going to make people give up all driving forevermore, but it might cause them to make different travel choices.This actually happens all the time. Assuming that Slow Streets actually did produce slow streets, and people didn't just ignore them. Either Slow Streets were enough to make people change their driving habits - which is what you (or whoever) was saying when you said there was more traffic on your (or whoever's) street - or they weren't.

Basically Slow Streets was intended a forcing mechanism so that non-local street traffic (i.e, through traffic or vehicles going to destinations other than the local street or immediately off of it) should take arterial and collector streets. That's the intent of the federal street classification systems, which DC follows. Local streets should carry basically only destination traffic, and can be a haven for walking, biking and other activity that benefits from vehicle volume and speed reduction on the street.

This is correct. The idea that it would reduce overall traffic volumes is bizarre.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Except that's not how it works. Slow Streets just push a lot more traffic onto neighboring streets, regardless of whether they were built for that. There's no free lunch here. The people who benefit from Slow Streets do it by making life worse for everyone else.

Do you have any data to support this assertion?

It's what happened in our neighborhood. Do you think Slow Streets just magically made traffic disappear?

That's anecdote, not data.

And in general, yes, the model is that traffic expands to fill the space available. There is less traffic when there is less space available, because people choose to postpone their trips, or combine trips, or use a different non-car transportation mode for trips. That's why, for example, "Carmageddon" didn't happen in Los Angeles

And that's aphorism, not data. You think Slow Streets is going to make people give up driving? I mean, that's 100 percent nuts. That's like saying if DC raises taxes on the rich by one dollar, rich people will move away.

No, there are actually a lot of data to support that model. Slow Streets is not going to make people give up all driving forevermore, but it might cause them to make different travel choices.This actually happens all the time. Assuming that Slow Streets actually did produce slow streets, and people didn't just ignore them. Either Slow Streets were enough to make people change their driving habits - which is what you (or whoever) was saying when you said there was more traffic on your (or whoever's) street - or they weren't.

OK show me the data that supports that model in DC during Slow Streets. Did it specifically -- and not the pandemic -- cause people to make different travel choices?

I'll wait.

Still waiting.

DP, I'm not sure what you expect. Previous work has shown that street diets encourage drivers to go slower and divert from neighborhood roads to arterials. Of course there isn't a model of every single implementation of everything. When your doctor prescribes you statins, do you demand models that they are 100% effective in 54 year-old left-handed balding men with brown hair, green eyes, a mole above their nipple and who sunburn easily? No, that would be absurd.

Well, it was the PP who was criticizing others for not having data to back up their arguments. So we asked to see the data the PP said repeatedly he/she had. We didnt think it actually existed, and turns out we were right. The only thing the PP had was wishful thinking and gauzy generalizations and analogies that weren't actually analogous.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Except that's not how it works. Slow Streets just push a lot more traffic onto neighboring streets, regardless of whether they were built for that. There's no free lunch here. The people who benefit from Slow Streets do it by making life worse for everyone else.

Do you have any data to support this assertion?

It's what happened in our neighborhood. Do you think Slow Streets just magically made traffic disappear?

That's anecdote, not data.

And in general, yes, the model is that traffic expands to fill the space available. There is less traffic when there is less space available, because people choose to postpone their trips, or combine trips, or use a different non-car transportation mode for trips. That's why, for example, "Carmageddon" didn't happen in Los Angeles

And that's aphorism, not data. You think Slow Streets is going to make people give up driving? I mean, that's 100 percent nuts. That's like saying if DC raises taxes on the rich by one dollar, rich people will move away.

No, there are actually a lot of data to support that model. Slow Streets is not going to make people give up all driving forevermore, but it might cause them to make different travel choices.This actually happens all the time. Assuming that Slow Streets actually did produce slow streets, and people didn't just ignore them. Either Slow Streets were enough to make people change their driving habits - which is what you (or whoever) was saying when you said there was more traffic on your (or whoever's) street - or they weren't.

OK show me the data that supports that model in DC during Slow Streets. Did it specifically -- and not the pandemic -- cause people to make different travel choices?

I'll wait.

Still waiting.

DP, I'm not sure what you expect. Previous work has shown that street diets encourage drivers to go slower and divert from neighborhood roads to arterials. Of course there isn't a model of every single implementation of everything. When your doctor prescribes you statins, do you demand models that they are 100% effective in 54 year-old left-handed balding men with brown hair, green eyes, a mole above their nipple and who sunburn easily? No, that would be absurd.

Well, it was the PP who was criticizing others for not having data to back up their arguments. So we asked to see the data the PP said repeatedly he/she had. We didnt think it actually existed, and turns out we were right. The only thing the PP had was wishful thinking and gauzy generalizations and analogies that weren't actually analogous.

The “show me the data” people never have data themselves. Just assertions they think are facts.