D.C. needs to get a lot more car friendly

[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:I think DC needs to be less car friendly and charge cars to enter DC like London. Maryland drivers cut through my neighborhood speeding and ignoring stop signs. F**k commuters!! You have zero respect for Dc residents.

I agree 100%. My kids and I almost get mowed down by these jacka$$es on the regular just trying to get to school, doesn’t matter that we always cross with the walk sign/in the crosswalk the MD drivers have no respect for traffuc laws and would happily run over my kids if it means getting to work 2 minutes faster. F these people I’m so sick of DC bending over backwards to make them happy

As someone who lives near NIH, let me assure you that there is no state monopoly on inconsiderate commuters. I see plenty of DC drivers who exhibit selfish dangerous behavior all the time.

And DC is responsible for funneling commuter traffic onto residential streets. You want to keep commuters off the back streets? Reopen Beach Drive, fine double-parkers who turn main thoroughfares into one-way roads, and bring back the rush hour shift for Connecticut Avenue, and most of us who drive into our DC offices will stay on the arterial roads.

LOL. No. I want you to ride the metro, WFH, or just take a lot longer to drive to your office because you have to do it slowly and safely. I don’t gaf about your convenience, deal with the consequences of your own choice to live far away from where you work. The entitlement and total lack of self awareness is unreal with you people

I am curious how much you will be LOLing as the commuters decide to stay away and the DC tax base suffers. The “rich” in DC just got one tax increase. That should give you a good indicator of where the DC government will make up shortfalls when revenues fall due to reduced commercial property tax revenue and lost sales tax.

What you will quickly learn is that it’s not just pedestrianized zones that cannot survive without people coming in regularly and spending their money, but this applies to whole cities too. Cities cannot survive without the daily free movement of goods, people and services that seem to offend your bourgeois liberal sensibilities.

You apocalyptic doom and gloomers are the best. Society isn’t going to collapse upon itself if cars can’t go 35 in a residential area

Driving arguments to extremes doesn’t seem like a great way to deal with issues. No, society will not collapse. What will happen is that you will be paying increasingly higher cost for worse services and poorer quality of life. I keep hearing this call for a “vibrant” city but the policy choices are really to suburbanize the city, which seems like the worst of both worlds.

When you say higher costs for worse services and poorer quality of life, that sounds like the deal we get with car dependency. You’re so close.

You must be a millennial because you clearly cannot imagine a low quality urban future of empty storefronts and low quality retail establishments.

What will be interesting is that it will be white flight to the cities that will destroy them. You want to turn your neighborhood into the cul de sac you grew up in. Cities however don’t work that way.

so let me get this straight: you need to be able to drive 60 MPH through DC’s residential neighborhoods, right to downtown, and then be able to roll up and park your car for free in front of Gallery Place to go to the movies? Or the zombie apocalypse will happen to DC?

Have you … even ever been to a city?

NP: There is no free parking (apart from Sundays) in DC. Parking is revenue generating for the city and it's now been vastly reduced. Who's driving 60 MPH. And if anyone ever does, why isn't it being enforced with points and tickets that would have a real impact on driving behavior (instead of cameras that don't issue any points for driving infractions)?

There are plenty of places where you can park free for a couple of hours. Do you ever leave K St?

And plenty of people hot 60 mph. Have you ever been on Georgia Ave? 16th St? The right hand parking lane when a responsible driver comes to a stop for a pedestrian in a crosswalk but the person behind them is too important to wait?

There is no police traffic enforcement. They don't care. The best way to slow things down is to build roads that don't look like 8 lane highways.

Do you even live here? There is nowhere in DC where you can go 60 mph

For a long time. You've never seen someone doing 60 on a city road? Have you even visited here?

Which road can you drive 60 MPH on that’s not an interstate highway?

Georgia Ave
South Dakota Ave
16th St
Minnesota Ave
Southern Ave

There's objective evidence from speed cameras that people are doing this of you're too lazy to open your eyes, or if your home in Iowa is too far away to know.

This is a joke. The only time of day this would be possible is 2 AM and your “objective evidence” is using your subjective eyes. LOL.

Speed cameras aren't objective anymore? Go back to kindergarten. You fail.

I’m not sure what you are taking about. Do you have evidence for your claims?

Yeah, once you pay me a research salary I'll do your googling for you. Like I said, of you pay attention to road safety you'd have seen plenty of reports of excessive speeding with speed camera citations for evidence.

So to confirm, your claim that people are regularly going 60 MPH on DC roads is something that you just made up because you think it’s true but have no evidence that it’s true.

DP. I have the evidence of my own eyes. I see people speeding "normally" (like 50) all the freakin' time. And then some yahoo every so often who just wants to gun it. Sometimes people end up dead.

[Anonymous]

https://www.popville.com/2022/02/car-driving-107mph-dc-9th-street-nw-shaw/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And wouldn't it better for the environment for all that pollution to be emitted in an area surrounded by trees rather than houses? Wouldn't it be better for that speeding to happen in an area without people rather than one with?

Only a fool would believe that that traffic just magically disappears now that the road is closed off. The traffic always goes somewhere. It's like a river in that regard. In this case that traffic has gone into the residential neighborhoods abutting the Park.

Definitely better for everyone to turn one of our areas most beautiful public space into a commuter speedway. You car people are outrageous

But Beach Drive has had cars on it for decades. And it's still a beautiful public space.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And wouldn't it better for the environment for all that pollution to be emitted in an area surrounded by trees rather than houses? Wouldn't it be better for that speeding to happen in an area without people rather than one with?

Only a fool would believe that that traffic just magically disappears now that the road is closed off. The traffic always goes somewhere. It's like a river in that regard. In this case that traffic has gone into the residential neighborhoods abutting the Park.

Definitely better for everyone to turn one of our areas most beautiful public space into a commuter speedway. You car people are outrageous

But Beach Drive has had cars on it for decades. And it's still a beautiful public space.

Much better without cars!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And wouldn't it better for the environment for all that pollution to be emitted in an area surrounded by trees rather than houses? Wouldn't it be better for that speeding to happen in an area without people rather than one with?

Only a fool would believe that that traffic just magically disappears now that the road is closed off. The traffic always goes somewhere. It's like a river in that regard. In this case that traffic has gone into the residential neighborhoods abutting the Park.

Definitely better for everyone to turn one of our areas most beautiful public space into a commuter speedway. You car people are outrageous

Ooh, it's a double lie followed by an insult. Is there some reason why you can't tell the truth while trying to make your argument?

Beach Drive has been an integral road as long as any of us have been alive. It is also one of the few connectors bringing the east and west sides of the park together. Displacement of those cars just leads to increased congestion, increased pollution, and less pedestrian friendly neighborhoods. Restoring its pre-covid status is an important part of returning to normal and as such it would still be closed on weekends. Now that work from home is ending it is barely used during the weekdays.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
LOL. No. I want you to ride the metro, WFH, or just take a lot longer to drive to your office because you have to do it slowly and safely. I don’t gaf about your convenience, deal with the consequences of your own choice to live far away from where you work. The entitlement and total lack of self awareness is unreal with you people

100%

It's like when drivers slam Muriel Bowser as being, get this, too soft on violent crime because unenforced bike lanes are being installed. All because drivers are bitter that DC's transportation policy is no longer 100% focused on increasing convenience for metro area drivers while reducing costs and responsibility.

This is misguided and not business friendly. People will leave DC and downtown businesses will be hurt. It's also a policy that hurts middle and lower income workers who don't live on the metro line/live far out from DC.

lower income workers are not driving into DC and paying $30 to park.You’re making an argument for better buses and metro.

Buses that need these roads to connect their routes. Buses that are larger than cars and need wider lanes and broader turn zones to function. Subways that need greater population density to be economical. Greater population density that needs more land to build on. Greater population density that leads to more traffic.

You've really not thought any of this through. PP is right, your idea is to turn the city into the suburban cul de sac of your childhood. That's a really bad long term idea.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
LOL. No. I want you to ride the metro, WFH, or just take a lot longer to drive to your office because you have to do it slowly and safely. I don’t gaf about your convenience, deal with the consequences of your own choice to live far away from where you work. The entitlement and total lack of self awareness is unreal with you people

100%

It's like when drivers slam Muriel Bowser as being, get this, too soft on violent crime because unenforced bike lanes are being installed. All because drivers are bitter that DC's transportation policy is no longer 100% focused on increasing convenience for metro area drivers while reducing costs and responsibility.

This is misguided and not business friendly. People will leave DC and downtown businesses will be hurt. It's also a policy that hurts middle and lower income workers who don't live on the metro line/live far out from DC.

lower income workers are not driving into DC and paying $30 to park.You’re making an argument for better buses and metro.

Buses that need these roads to connect their routes. Buses that are larger than cars and need wider lanes and broader turn zones to function. Subways that need greater population density to be economical. Greater population density that needs more land to build on. Greater population density that leads to more traffic.

You've really not thought any of this through. PP is right, your idea is to turn the city into the suburban cul de sac of your childhood. That's a really bad long term idea.

You lost me at the part about greater population density. Greater population density means less land devoted to housing. Greater population density means less traffic as people live closer to the places they need to go.

Oh, and buses use about 2% as much pavement per person transported as private automobiles.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
LOL. No. I want you to ride the metro, WFH, or just take a lot longer to drive to your office because you have to do it slowly and safely. I don’t gaf about your convenience, deal with the consequences of your own choice to live far away from where you work. The entitlement and total lack of self awareness is unreal with you people

100%

It's like when drivers slam Muriel Bowser as being, get this, too soft on violent crime because unenforced bike lanes are being installed. All because drivers are bitter that DC's transportation policy is no longer 100% focused on increasing convenience for metro area drivers while reducing costs and responsibility.

This is misguided and not business friendly. People will leave DC and downtown businesses will be hurt. It's also a policy that hurts middle and lower income workers who don't live on the metro line/live far out from DC.

lower income workers are not driving into DC and paying $30 to park.You’re making an argument for better buses and metro.

Buses that need these roads to connect their routes. Buses that are larger than cars and need wider lanes and broader turn zones to function. Subways that need greater population density to be economical. Greater population density that needs more land to build on. Greater population density that leads to more traffic.

You've really not thought any of this through. PP is right, your idea is to turn the city into the suburban cul de sac of your childhood. That's a really bad long term idea.

You lost me at the part about greater population density. Greater population density means less land devoted to housing. Greater population density means less traffic as people live closer to the places they need to go.

Oh, and buses use about 2% as much pavement per person transported as private automobiles.

This is not Sim City. Housing and roads already exist.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
LOL. No. I want you to ride the metro, WFH, or just take a lot longer to drive to your office because you have to do it slowly and safely. I don’t gaf about your convenience, deal with the consequences of your own choice to live far away from where you work. The entitlement and total lack of self awareness is unreal with you people

100%

It's like when drivers slam Muriel Bowser as being, get this, too soft on violent crime because unenforced bike lanes are being installed. All because drivers are bitter that DC's transportation policy is no longer 100% focused on increasing convenience for metro area drivers while reducing costs and responsibility.

This is misguided and not business friendly. People will leave DC and downtown businesses will be hurt. It's also a policy that hurts middle and lower income workers who don't live on the metro line/live far out from DC.

lower income workers are not driving into DC and paying $30 to park.You’re making an argument for better buses and metro.

Buses that need these roads to connect their routes. Buses that are larger than cars and need wider lanes and broader turn zones to function. Subways that need greater population density to be economical. Greater population density that needs more land to build on. Greater population density that leads to more traffic.

You've really not thought any of this through. PP is right, your idea is to turn the city into the suburban cul de sac of your childhood. That's a really bad long term idea.

You lost me at the part about greater population density. Greater population density means less land devoted to housing. Greater population density means less traffic as people live closer to the places they need to go.

Oh, and buses use about 2% as much pavement per person transported as private automobiles.

This is not Sim City. Housing and roads already exist.

And with higher density those buildings and roads can be used to house and transport more people.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
LOL. No. I want you to ride the metro, WFH, or just take a lot longer to drive to your office because you have to do it slowly and safely. I don’t gaf about your convenience, deal with the consequences of your own choice to live far away from where you work. The entitlement and total lack of self awareness is unreal with you people

100%

It's like when drivers slam Muriel Bowser as being, get this, too soft on violent crime because unenforced bike lanes are being installed. All because drivers are bitter that DC's transportation policy is no longer 100% focused on increasing convenience for metro area drivers while reducing costs and responsibility.

This is misguided and not business friendly. People will leave DC and downtown businesses will be hurt. It's also a policy that hurts middle and lower income workers who don't live on the metro line/live far out from DC.

lower income workers are not driving into DC and paying $30 to park.You’re making an argument for better buses and metro.

Buses that need these roads to connect their routes. Buses that are larger than cars and need wider lanes and broader turn zones to function. Subways that need greater population density to be economical. Greater population density that needs more land to build on. Greater population density that leads to more traffic.

You've really not thought any of this through. PP is right, your idea is to turn the city into the suburban cul de sac of your childhood. That's a really bad long term idea.

You lost me at the part about greater population density. Greater population density means less land devoted to housing. Greater population density means less traffic as people live closer to the places they need to go.

Oh, and buses use about 2% as much pavement per person transported as private automobiles.

Greater population density leads to more traffic?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
LOL. No. I want you to ride the metro, WFH, or just take a lot longer to drive to your office because you have to do it slowly and safely. I don’t gaf about your convenience, deal with the consequences of your own choice to live far away from where you work. The entitlement and total lack of self awareness is unreal with you people

100%

It's like when drivers slam Muriel Bowser as being, get this, too soft on violent crime because unenforced bike lanes are being installed. All because drivers are bitter that DC's transportation policy is no longer 100% focused on increasing convenience for metro area drivers while reducing costs and responsibility.

This is misguided and not business friendly. People will leave DC and downtown businesses will be hurt. It's also a policy that hurts middle and lower income workers who don't live on the metro line/live far out from DC.

lower income workers are not driving into DC and paying $30 to park.You’re making an argument for better buses and metro.

Buses that need these roads to connect their routes. Buses that are larger than cars and need wider lanes and broader turn zones to function. Subways that need greater population density to be economical. Greater population density that needs more land to build on. Greater population density that leads to more traffic.

You've really not thought any of this through. PP is right, your idea is to turn the city into the suburban cul de sac of your childhood. That's a really bad long term idea.

“Greater population density . . . leads to more traffic”? And you’re accusing other people of not thinking things through? The ignorance on display here is phenomenal.

Beach Drive (and the Rock Creek and Potomac Parkway) should never have been built. Not only should Beach Drive not be reopened to cars, but the road should be torn up and the area allowed to return to its natural state.

These roads were a product of an era that conflated asphalting with progress and which has now rendered many parts of the earth barely liveable. If you hanker after that era, you must really hate your kids (and particularly hate any grandkids or future grandkids).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
LOL. No. I want you to ride the metro, WFH, or just take a lot longer to drive to your office because you have to do it slowly and safely. I don’t gaf about your convenience, deal with the consequences of your own choice to live far away from where you work. The entitlement and total lack of self awareness is unreal with you people

100%

It's like when drivers slam Muriel Bowser as being, get this, too soft on violent crime because unenforced bike lanes are being installed. All because drivers are bitter that DC's transportation policy is no longer 100% focused on increasing convenience for metro area drivers while reducing costs and responsibility.

This is misguided and not business friendly. People will leave DC and downtown businesses will be hurt. It's also a policy that hurts middle and lower income workers who don't live on the metro line/live far out from DC.

lower income workers are not driving into DC and paying $30 to park.You’re making an argument for better buses and metro.

Buses that need these roads to connect their routes. Buses that are larger than cars and need wider lanes and broader turn zones to function. Subways that need greater population density to be economical. Greater population density that needs more land to build on. Greater population density that leads to more traffic.

You've really not thought any of this through. PP is right, your idea is to turn the city into the suburban cul de sac of your childhood. That's a really bad long term idea.

You lost me at the part about greater population density. Greater population density means less land devoted to housing. Greater population density means less traffic as people live closer to the places they need to go.

Oh, and buses use about 2% as much pavement per person transported as private automobiles.

Greater population density leads to more traffic?

Sprawl leads to more traffic.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
LOL. No. I want you to ride the metro, WFH, or just take a lot longer to drive to your office because you have to do it slowly and safely. I don’t gaf about your convenience, deal with the consequences of your own choice to live far away from where you work. The entitlement and total lack of self awareness is unreal with you people

100%

It's like when drivers slam Muriel Bowser as being, get this, too soft on violent crime because unenforced bike lanes are being installed. All because drivers are bitter that DC's transportation policy is no longer 100% focused on increasing convenience for metro area drivers while reducing costs and responsibility.

This is misguided and not business friendly. People will leave DC and downtown businesses will be hurt. It's also a policy that hurts middle and lower income workers who don't live on the metro line/live far out from DC.

lower income workers are not driving into DC and paying $30 to park.You’re making an argument for better buses and metro.

Buses that need these roads to connect their routes. Buses that are larger than cars and need wider lanes and broader turn zones to function. Subways that need greater population density to be economical. Greater population density that needs more land to build on. Greater population density that leads to more traffic.

You've really not thought any of this through. PP is right, your idea is to turn the city into the suburban cul de sac of your childhood. That's a really bad long term idea.

You lost me at the part about greater population density. Greater population density means less land devoted to housing. Greater population density means less traffic as people live closer to the places they need to go.

Oh, and buses use about 2% as much pavement per person transported as private automobiles.

1. I would hope that you can provide evidence that density reduces physical distance to employment.

2. I thought induced demand is what created congestion and it was independent of density. Are you saying that if we added more density then that solves congestion?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
LOL. No. I want you to ride the metro, WFH, or just take a lot longer to drive to your office because you have to do it slowly and safely. I don’t gaf about your convenience, deal with the consequences of your own choice to live far away from where you work. The entitlement and total lack of self awareness is unreal with you people

100%

It's like when drivers slam Muriel Bowser as being, get this, too soft on violent crime because unenforced bike lanes are being installed. All because drivers are bitter that DC's transportation policy is no longer 100% focused on increasing convenience for metro area drivers while reducing costs and responsibility.

This is misguided and not business friendly. People will leave DC and downtown businesses will be hurt. It's also a policy that hurts middle and lower income workers who don't live on the metro line/live far out from DC.

lower income workers are not driving into DC and paying $30 to park.You’re making an argument for better buses and metro.

Buses that need these roads to connect their routes. Buses that are larger than cars and need wider lanes and broader turn zones to function. Subways that need greater population density to be economical. Greater population density that needs more land to build on. Greater population density that leads to more traffic.

You've really not thought any of this through. PP is right, your idea is to turn the city into the suburban cul de sac of your childhood. That's a really bad long term idea.

You lost me at the part about greater population density. Greater population density means less land devoted to housing. Greater population density means less traffic as people live closer to the places they need to go.

Oh, and buses use about 2% as much pavement per person transported as private automobiles.

Greater population density leads to more traffic?

Sprawl leads to more traffic.

Economic activity also leads to more traffic.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
LOL. No. I want you to ride the metro, WFH, or just take a lot longer to drive to your office because you have to do it slowly and safely. I don’t gaf about your convenience, deal with the consequences of your own choice to live far away from where you work. The entitlement and total lack of self awareness is unreal with you people

100%

It's like when drivers slam Muriel Bowser as being, get this, too soft on violent crime because unenforced bike lanes are being installed. All because drivers are bitter that DC's transportation policy is no longer 100% focused on increasing convenience for metro area drivers while reducing costs and responsibility.

This is misguided and not business friendly. People will leave DC and downtown businesses will be hurt. It's also a policy that hurts middle and lower income workers who don't live on the metro line/live far out from DC.

lower income workers are not driving into DC and paying $30 to park.You’re making an argument for better buses and metro.

Buses that need these roads to connect their routes. Buses that are larger than cars and need wider lanes and broader turn zones to function. Subways that need greater population density to be economical. Greater population density that needs more land to build on. Greater population density that leads to more traffic.

You've really not thought any of this through. PP is right, your idea is to turn the city into the suburban cul de sac of your childhood. That's a really bad long term idea.

“Greater population density . . . leads to more traffic”? And you’re accusing other people of not thinking things through? The ignorance on display here is phenomenal.

Beach Drive (and the Rock Creek and Potomac Parkway) should never have been built. Not only should Beach Drive not be reopened to cars, but the road should be torn up and the area allowed to return to its natural state.

These roads were a product of an era that conflated asphalting with progress and which has now rendered many parts of the earth barely liveable. If you hanker after that era, you must really hate your kids (and particularly hate any grandkids or future grandkids).

It’s good to know that you have extremely fringe views. Thanks for sharing.