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

[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.

This is completely nonsensical. We don't need wider roads or things to speed up car traffic for buses. We need modifications to speed up buses (which will slow down cars!)

Have you ... ever been to Manhattan?

[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).

LOL. WABA would never let that happen. It’s not a question of whether there will continue to be roads, the question is whether one group of users, cyclists, can exclude all others.

The reality is that without vehicles, the road will fall into disrepair eventually so no one will get to use it.

[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.

This is completely nonsensical. We don't need wider roads or things to speed up car traffic for buses. We need modifications to speed up buses (which will slow down cars!)

Have you ... ever been to Manhattan?

I think it’s pretty clear that you’ve never been to Manhattan. 36% of the land area in Manhattan is roads.

[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.

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?

physical density reduces car dependence. compare NYC to DC. I think you're mistaken to believe that "congestion" per se is the issue. greater density means more people take subway to work in NYC. for those who chose to drive, yes, there is more traffic in the core than in the suburbs. but on average, less traffic (ie car trips) per person due to density.

[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.

This is completely nonsensical. We don't need wider roads or things to speed up car traffic for buses. We need modifications to speed up buses (which will slow down cars!)

Have you ... ever been to Manhattan?

I think it’s pretty clear that you’ve never been to Manhattan. 36% of the land area in Manhattan is roads.

I think it's pretty clear you have an inane definition of "car friendly." The fact that Manhattan has roads does not mean that a successful city needs to become more car friendly like Manhattan. Yes, NYC, that place where everyone knows you need a car to survive

[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.

This is completely nonsensical. We don't need wider roads or things to speed up car traffic for buses. We need modifications to speed up buses (which will slow down cars!)

Have you ... ever been to Manhattan?

I think it’s pretty clear that you’ve never been to Manhattan. 36% of the land area in Manhattan is roads.

I think it's pretty clear you have an inane definition of "car friendly." The fact that Manhattan has roads does not mean that a successful city needs to become more car friendly like Manhattan. Yes, NYC, that place where everyone knows you need a car to survive

The land area of Manhattan is 36% road and the land area of DC is 25% road. I think that speaks for itself.

[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.

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?

physical density reduces car dependence. compare NYC to DC. I think you're mistaken to believe that "congestion" per se is the issue. greater density means more people take subway to work in NYC. for those who chose to drive, yes, there is more traffic in the core than in the suburbs. but on average, less traffic (ie car trips) per person due to density.

Density does not decrease car dependence. Look up any city in Asia not named Singapore.

DC used to have some of the highest transit ridership as a % of commuters than almost anywhere in the country. High quality, reliable and convenient service increased ridership. Not density. Anyone that commutes to Manhattan on Metro North or NJ Transit could explain that to you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

This is completely nonsensical. We don't need wider roads or things to speed up car traffic for buses. We need modifications to speed up buses (which will slow down cars!)

Have you ... ever been to Manhattan?

I think it’s pretty clear that you’ve never been to Manhattan. 36% of the land area in Manhattan is roads.

I think it's pretty clear you have an inane definition of "car friendly." The fact that Manhattan has roads does not mean that a successful city needs to become more car friendly like Manhattan. Yes, NYC, that place where everyone knows you need a car to survive

The land area of Manhattan is 36% road and the land area of DC is 25% road. I think that speaks for itself.

Yes, it absolutely speaks for itself in your bizarro world. Which, as far as I can tell, has the priors that: Manhattan, a very dense city where people use transit at 3x the rate as DC, proves that DC must become less dense and more car-friendly to be economically and culturally vibrant compared like Manhattan.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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?

physical density reduces car dependence. compare NYC to DC. I think you're mistaken to believe that "congestion" per se is the issue. greater density means more people take subway to work in NYC. for those who chose to drive, yes, there is more traffic in the core than in the suburbs. but on average, less traffic (ie car trips) per person due to density.

Density does not decrease car dependence. Look up any city in Asia not named Singapore.

DC used to have some of the highest transit ridership as a % of commuters than almost anywhere in the country. High quality, reliable and convenient service increased ridership. Not density. Anyone that commutes to Manhattan on Metro North or NJ Transit could explain that to you.

I honestly think you're just trolling now. Both easily observable facts and objective research show a clear link between density and transit use/car dependence.

"Cars have dominated the urban landscape over the past century. In this paper, we investigate the long-run impact of car ownership on urban form, in particular on population density, in an international sample of cities. Using the presence of a domestic car manufacturer in 1920 as a source of exogenous long-term variation in vehicle costs, our IV estimates indicate that higher car ownership rates, induced via lower ownership costs, substantially reduce densities. A one standard deviation increase in car ownership rates (or 20 cars per 100 inhabitants) causes a reduction in density of around 35% in the long-run. Disentangling this effect between population and city size suggests that the major driver of this reduction in urban density is via the city’s outward expansion as the size of urban areas increases. Furthermore, we find that the effects are larger in cities with more roads, highways and income, while they are lower in countries with French legal origins, which may have stricter vehicle taxation and land-use regulations."

https://academic.oup.com/joeg/advance-article/doi/10.1093/jeg/lbab047/6530672#333808167

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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?

physical density reduces car dependence. compare NYC to DC. I think you're mistaken to believe that "congestion" per se is the issue. greater density means more people take subway to work in NYC. for those who chose to drive, yes, there is more traffic in the core than in the suburbs. but on average, less traffic (ie car trips) per person due to density.

Density does not decrease car dependence. Look up any city in Asia not named Singapore.

DC used to have some of the highest transit ridership as a % of commuters than almost anywhere in the country. High quality, reliable and convenient service increased ridership. Not density. Anyone that commutes to Manhattan on Metro North or NJ Transit could explain that to you.

I honestly think you're just trolling now. Both easily observable facts and objective research show a clear link between density and transit use/car dependence.

"Cars have dominated the urban landscape over the past century. In this paper, we investigate the long-run impact of car ownership on urban form, in particular on population density, in an international sample of cities. Using the presence of a domestic car manufacturer in 1920 as a source of exogenous long-term variation in vehicle costs, our IV estimates indicate that higher car ownership rates, induced via lower ownership costs, substantially reduce densities. A one standard deviation increase in car ownership rates (or 20 cars per 100 inhabitants) causes a reduction in density of around 35% in the long-run. Disentangling this effect between population and city size suggests that the major driver of this reduction in urban density is via the city’s outward expansion as the size of urban areas increases. Furthermore, we find that the effects are larger in cities with more roads, highways and income, while they are lower in countries with French legal origins, which may have stricter vehicle taxation and land-use regulations."

https://academic.oup.com/joeg/advance-article/doi/10.1093/jeg/lbab047/6530672#333808167

Congratulations, you know how to use google. Unfortunately your citation is totally irrelevant to the question at hand. Thanks for playing though.

Now if you are really google at Googling academic research, check out anything that discusses the ERR of roads and direct and secondary economic effects of road transport connectivity for cities.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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?

physical density reduces car dependence. compare NYC to DC. I think you're mistaken to believe that "congestion" per se is the issue. greater density means more people take subway to work in NYC. for those who chose to drive, yes, there is more traffic in the core than in the suburbs. but on average, less traffic (ie car trips) per person due to density.

Density does not decrease car dependence. Look up any city in Asia not named Singapore.

DC used to have some of the highest transit ridership as a % of commuters than almost anywhere in the country. High quality, reliable and convenient service increased ridership. Not density. Anyone that commutes to Manhattan on Metro North or NJ Transit could explain that to you.

I honestly think you're just trolling now. Both easily observable facts and objective research show a clear link between density and transit use/car dependence.

"Cars have dominated the urban landscape over the past century. In this paper, we investigate the long-run impact of car ownership on urban form, in particular on population density, in an international sample of cities. Using the presence of a domestic car manufacturer in 1920 as a source of exogenous long-term variation in vehicle costs, our IV estimates indicate that higher car ownership rates, induced via lower ownership costs, substantially reduce densities. A one standard deviation increase in car ownership rates (or 20 cars per 100 inhabitants) causes a reduction in density of around 35% in the long-run. Disentangling this effect between population and city size suggests that the major driver of this reduction in urban density is via the city’s outward expansion as the size of urban areas increases. Furthermore, we find that the effects are larger in cities with more roads, highways and income, while they are lower in countries with French legal origins, which may have stricter vehicle taxation and land-use regulations."

https://academic.oup.com/joeg/advance-article/doi/10.1093/jeg/lbab047/6530672#333808167

Congratulations, you know how to use google. Unfortunately your citation is totally irrelevant to the question at hand. Thanks for playing though.

Now if you are really google at Googling academic research, check out anything that discusses the ERR of roads and direct and secondary economic effects of road transport connectivity for cities.

Seriously, wtf are you trying to argue? That we need more car trips per person to ensure DC's economic success? That car traffic needs to flow (even faster than it already does) through DC to be economically successful? That we need less investment in bike, buses and metro so that people can get to work more quickly in cars? That we need more free parking? That we need to halt all development of urban amenities like the Wharf that are pedestrian focused? That all roads should be exclusively designed to move cars as quickly as possible through DC, with no other consideration? What exactly are you trying to say?

NOBODY is arguing that the city needs to go car free that that we don't need roads. Are you honestly trying to create that strawman?

[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:
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?

physical density reduces car dependence. compare NYC to DC. I think you're mistaken to believe that "congestion" per se is the issue. greater density means more people take subway to work in NYC. for those who chose to drive, yes, there is more traffic in the core than in the suburbs. but on average, less traffic (ie car trips) per person due to density.

Density does not decrease car dependence. Look up any city in Asia not named Singapore.

DC used to have some of the highest transit ridership as a % of commuters than almost anywhere in the country. High quality, reliable and convenient service increased ridership. Not density. Anyone that commutes to Manhattan on Metro North or NJ Transit could explain that to you.

I honestly think you're just trolling now. Both easily observable facts and objective research show a clear link between density and transit use/car dependence.

"Cars have dominated the urban landscape over the past century. In this paper, we investigate the long-run impact of car ownership on urban form, in particular on population density, in an international sample of cities. Using the presence of a domestic car manufacturer in 1920 as a source of exogenous long-term variation in vehicle costs, our IV estimates indicate that higher car ownership rates, induced via lower ownership costs, substantially reduce densities. A one standard deviation increase in car ownership rates (or 20 cars per 100 inhabitants) causes a reduction in density of around 35% in the long-run. Disentangling this effect between population and city size suggests that the major driver of this reduction in urban density is via the city’s outward expansion as the size of urban areas increases. Furthermore, we find that the effects are larger in cities with more roads, highways and income, while they are lower in countries with French legal origins, which may have stricter vehicle taxation and land-use regulations."

https://academic.oup.com/joeg/advance-article/doi/10.1093/jeg/lbab047/6530672#333808167

Congratulations, you know how to use google. Unfortunately your citation is totally irrelevant to the question at hand. Thanks for playing though.

Now if you are really google at Googling academic research, check out anything that discusses the ERR of roads and direct and secondary economic effects of road transport connectivity for cities.

Seriously, wtf are you trying to argue? That we need more car trips per person to ensure DC's economic success? That car traffic needs to flow (even faster than it already does) through DC to be economically successful? That we need less investment in bike, buses and metro so that people can get to work more quickly in cars? That we need more free parking? That we need to halt all development of urban amenities like the Wharf that are pedestrian focused? That all roads should be exclusively designed to move cars as quickly as possible through DC, with no other consideration? What exactly are you trying to say?

NOBODY is arguing that the city needs to go car free that that we don't need roads. Are you honestly trying to create that strawman?

Um yes, somebody is arguing that DC should be actively hostile to cars

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

This is completely nonsensical. We don't need wider roads or things to speed up car traffic for buses. We need modifications to speed up buses (which will slow down cars!)

Have you ... ever been to Manhattan?

I think it’s pretty clear that you’ve never been to Manhattan. 36% of the land area in Manhattan is roads.

I think it's pretty clear you have an inane definition of "car friendly." The fact that Manhattan has roads does not mean that a successful city needs to become more car friendly like Manhattan. Yes, NYC, that place where everyone knows you need a car to survive

The land area of Manhattan is 36% road and the land area of DC is 25% road. I think that speaks for itself.

Manhattan density: 67,000 people per square mile
DC density: 10,000 people per square mile

[Anonymous]

Also, absolutely nobody has made the arguments allege. What is with you all and your repeated blatant blanket lying? It's the strangest thing I've ever seen.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

This is completely nonsensical. We don't need wider roads or things to speed up car traffic for buses. We need modifications to speed up buses (which will slow down cars!)

Have you ... ever been to Manhattan?

I think it’s pretty clear that you’ve never been to Manhattan. 36% of the land area in Manhattan is roads.

I think it's pretty clear you have an inane definition of "car friendly." The fact that Manhattan has roads does not mean that a successful city needs to become more car friendly like Manhattan. Yes, NYC, that place where everyone knows you need a car to survive

The land area of Manhattan is 36% road and the land area of DC is 25% road. I think that speaks for itself.

Yes, it absolutely speaks for itself in your bizarro world. Which, as far as I can tell, has the priors that: Manhattan, a very dense city where people use transit at 3x the rate as DC, proves that DC must become less dense and more car-friendly to be economically and culturally vibrant compared like Manhattan.

My god you’re dumb. How do you think in that dense landscape do people get access to products and services? Do the vegetables and meats for all of the restaurants in Manhattan get delivered by public transit?

In addition, it’s just hard for me to believe that you’ve been to NYC or were paying much attention when you were there. All of the avenues in Manhattan are 5 or 6 lanes wide. There is no equivalence in DC and it’s bizarre to not understand the lesson that more resilient and higher capacity road networks are needed to foster the growth and density you seem to want. You believe in a utopian aesthetic divorced from the real world.

What’s funny to me is that you don’t even seem to understand the basic dynamics that underlie this aesthetic that you cherish. Like for example, following Haussmann's renovation of Paris the city’s population grew dramatically and it became one of the great global cities. What Napoleon did was demolish old medieval quarters that were the prototypical “dense” and “walkable” because the streets were too narrow for carriages. The city was transformed and grew dramatically.

It’s weird that I have to give you these lessons like this. But I do recommend that you educate yourself more if you actually believe in this subject. Unfortunately, it seems that whatever superficial knowledge you have gleaned over Twittter and GGWash has unfortunately miseducated you.