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

[Anonymous]

20 years— mistyped.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ugh— I cannot sleep currently due to the constant drag racing in front of ky house. We live on a state Ave, and have for nearly 20 years. This drag raving, as well as the ATV militias that take over the streets, are going to push our family out. No, dc should not be more car friendly. There should be tool booths and police guards surrounding the city so we keep these law breakers and freeloaders out! DC is not just a city, or the capital, it’s our home. The people who choose to live here get no respect. If half of the parking ticket writing force (that victimizes solely dc residents by the way, since out of towners dont pay) were deployed to deter speeding vehicles, we wouldnt be in this bind!

I’m sorry but you are lying. You must read about the ATVs on Reddit or something. But I can assure you that there are no big groups out riding ATBs anywhere in this city at 3 AM. You must be on the West Coast pretending to live here.

No im not. I live near U street and wide awake. There are atv militias all over downtown. But right now it’s vehicles with souped up engines racing through. The atvs like to come out during rush hour. More pedestrians and commuters to terrify.

Are you telling me that you consider U Street “downtown”? You also said that you live on a “state Avenue”. Now which one would that be with ATV riders around U street?

Not PP, but Florida or Georgia.

Georgia Avenue at U St is the Shaw neighborhood. The only “state Avenues” in the U St neighborhood are Florida and New Hampshire and I’d recommend checking the location of the police station.

So we have a liar and a person covering for a liar. Good times on DCUM.

I live on nj ave. wtf with calling me a troll? are you a lobbyist for the atv riders? what's your angle, exactly? You're telling me I don't hear insane amounts of noise in my house and that I don't live downtown? OK?

What’s the relationship between NJ Ave and U St? You said that you lived in U St neighborhood. If you said that you lived NOMA or near Eckington or something, then there would be some credibility. U St is a completely different neighborhood.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:+1000 we cant let the bridge and tunnel people determine our city’s policies and infrastructure either.

Way to show that you’re not from around here and have never lived here. “Bridge and tunnel” LOL.

Ive lived here for 25 years, and was making a reference that former nyers will get. We have a blue and orange line crowd—is that better?

You've lived near U Street since the early-90's and think things have gotten worse? Lol, sure ya have.

I have no idea what motivates people to go on the internet to anonymously lie about stuff, but it’s just so patently absurd it’s making me laugh.

They just long for the days when one could take a casual stroll down 14th Street

The good old days, when 14 St was free of anti-social behavior and I LeDroit Park, Eckington and NOMA we’re safe and crime free. Those were the days. I cannot believe the city has allowed these neighborhoods to deteriorate due to lax enforcement of quality of life crimes.

[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.

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

You’re starting to get it. Congratulations.

Manhattan level density is only possible because Manhattan has a resilient road network that covers 36% of its land area. Once DC meets a compatible level of road infrastructure then it will also achieve Manhattan level density.

You are absolutely bonkers.

[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?

Every avenue is Manhattan is 5 or 6 lanes wide. DC is not comparable. They should be widening roads, not taking lanes away.

Huh because right now NYC is adding bus-only lanes. So.

[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:
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?

It’s incredible that you have come to this. The entirety of this thread is replete with calls for the city to be hostile to cars and the city itself is implementing policies to directly do that (hello Connecticut Ave and 16th St). While it seems the impetus of a lot of the politics behind this is to stick it to Maryland commuters. I will tell you that you are only hurting yourselves. The upcoming stagflation/recession will not be very kind to this city if it’s transportation policy is to make it inconvenient for people to come into the city and it’s neighborhoods. Good luck!

Once more with brio: CARS ARE NOT THE ONLY WAY TO GET INTO THE CITY.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ugh— I cannot sleep currently due to the constant drag racing in front of ky house. We live on a state Ave, and have for nearly 20 years. This drag raving, as well as the ATV militias that take over the streets, are going to push our family out. No, dc should not be more car friendly. There should be tool booths and police guards surrounding the city so we keep these law breakers and freeloaders out! DC is not just a city, or the capital, it’s our home. The people who choose to live here get no respect. If half of the parking ticket writing force (that victimizes solely dc residents by the way, since out of towners dont pay) were deployed to deter speeding vehicles, we wouldnt be in this bind!

I’m sorry but you are lying. You must read about the ATVs on Reddit or something. But I can assure you that there are no big groups out riding ATBs anywhere in this city at 3 AM. You must be on the West Coast pretending to live here.

No im not. I live near U street and wide awake. There are atv militias all over downtown. But right now it’s vehicles with souped up engines racing through. The atvs like to come out during rush hour. More pedestrians and commuters to terrify.

Are you telling me that you consider U Street “downtown”? You also said that you live on a “state Avenue”. Now which one would that be with ATV riders around U street?

Not PP, but Florida or Georgia.

Georgia Avenue at U St is the Shaw neighborhood. The only “state Avenues” in the U St neighborhood are Florida and New Hampshire and I’d recommend checking the location of the police station.

So we have a liar and a person covering for a liar. Good times on DCUM.

I live on nj ave. wtf with calling me a troll? are you a lobbyist for the atv riders? what's your angle, exactly? You're telling me I don't hear insane amounts of noise in my house and that I don't live downtown? OK?

This is no doubt the same PP who claims:
1. Nobody ever speeds excessively in DC
2. The only way to create urban density and a strong economy is through more roads and more car dependence, just like Manhattan, that well-known car-dependent city
3. Pedestrianized areas spell doom for the city. The Wharf is just single-handedly killing DC retail.

[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:
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?

It’s incredible that you have come to this. The entirety of this thread is replete with calls for the city to be hostile to cars and the city itself is implementing policies to directly do that (hello Connecticut Ave and 16th St). While it seems the impetus of a lot of the politics behind this is to stick it to Maryland commuters. I will tell you that you are only hurting yourselves. The upcoming stagflation/recession will not be very kind to this city if it’s transportation policy is to make it inconvenient for people to come into the city and it’s neighborhoods. Good luck!

Once more with brio: CARS ARE NOT THE ONLY WAY TO GET INTO THE CITY.

Cars are the most convenient and efficient way to get into, around, and out of the city for a majority of people.

[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:
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?

It’s incredible that you have come to this. The entirety of this thread is replete with calls for the city to be hostile to cars and the city itself is implementing policies to directly do that (hello Connecticut Ave and 16th St). While it seems the impetus of a lot of the politics behind this is to stick it to Maryland commuters. I will tell you that you are only hurting yourselves. The upcoming stagflation/recession will not be very kind to this city if it’s transportation policy is to make it inconvenient for people to come into the city and it’s neighborhoods. Good luck!

Once more with brio: CARS ARE NOT THE ONLY WAY TO GET INTO THE CITY.

Cars are the most convenient and efficient way to get into, around, and out of the city for a majority of people.

Which is true BECAUSE DC is already too car friendly and this is at the expenses of people who don't want to drive right to downtown offices and back out. The PP who argued that DC was going to lose out on vasts amounts of business by making it harder for people to drive from MD to their offices in downtown DC completely ignore the fact that they are driving by many businesses that are much harder to access because of car volumes. Live near Connecticut Avenue and want to pop across the street to Bread Furst? Well, first you have to cross six lanes of traffic, four of which are headed downtown and only care about getting to their offices as fast as possible. None of them are stopping at Bread Furst and the difficulty of crossing is going to deter some locals from going as well. Put half the people on cars in buses and you have maybe ten buses instead of hundreds of cars.

[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:
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?

It’s incredible that you have come to this. The entirety of this thread is replete with calls for the city to be hostile to cars and the city itself is implementing policies to directly do that (hello Connecticut Ave and 16th St). While it seems the impetus of a lot of the politics behind this is to stick it to Maryland commuters. I will tell you that you are only hurting yourselves. The upcoming stagflation/recession will not be very kind to this city if it’s transportation policy is to make it inconvenient for people to come into the city and it’s neighborhoods. Good luck!

Once more with brio: CARS ARE NOT THE ONLY WAY TO GET INTO THE CITY.

Cars are the most convenient and efficient way to get into, around, and out of the city for a majority of people.

Not in NYC. And 35% of people in DC don't commute by car alone, which is a lot of people, and can hopefully grow even more. And in the city core, the percentages reverse, with only about 35% of trips being by car. The percentage of people eschewing personal cars with in core DC is growing, as they opt for bikes, walking, and taxis. What's really interesting to see is that the number of car poolers has dropped a lot in the inner & outer suburbs. That's sad!

https://ggwash.org/view/80233/the-bike-boom-is-real-says-new-mode-share-data-regional-travel-survey

[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:
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?

It’s incredible that you have come to this. The entirety of this thread is replete with calls for the city to be hostile to cars and the city itself is implementing policies to directly do that (hello Connecticut Ave and 16th St). While it seems the impetus of a lot of the politics behind this is to stick it to Maryland commuters. I will tell you that you are only hurting yourselves. The upcoming stagflation/recession will not be very kind to this city if it’s transportation policy is to make it inconvenient for people to come into the city and it’s neighborhoods. Good luck!

Once more with brio: CARS ARE NOT THE ONLY WAY TO GET INTO THE CITY.

Cars are the most convenient and efficient way to get into, around, and out of the city for a majority of people.

Which is true BECAUSE DC is already too car friendly and this is at the expenses of people who don't want to drive right to downtown offices and back out. The PP who argued that DC was going to lose out on vasts amounts of business by making it harder for people to drive from MD to their offices in downtown DC completely ignore the fact that they are driving by many businesses that are much harder to access because of car volumes. Live near Connecticut Avenue and want to pop across the street to Bread Furst? Well, first you have to cross six lanes of traffic, four of which are headed downtown and only care about getting to their offices as fast as possible. None of them are stopping at Bread Furst and the difficulty of crossing is going to deter some locals from going as well. Put half the people on cars in buses and you have maybe ten buses instead of hundreds of cars.

Why do you lie about everything?

I hope you get the help you need.

[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:
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?

It’s incredible that you have come to this. The entirety of this thread is replete with calls for the city to be hostile to cars and the city itself is implementing policies to directly do that (hello Connecticut Ave and 16th St). While it seems the impetus of a lot of the politics behind this is to stick it to Maryland commuters. I will tell you that you are only hurting yourselves. The upcoming stagflation/recession will not be very kind to this city if it’s transportation policy is to make it inconvenient for people to come into the city and it’s neighborhoods. Good luck!

Once more with brio: CARS ARE NOT THE ONLY WAY TO GET INTO THE CITY.

Cars are the most convenient and efficient way to get into, around, and out of the city for a majority of people.

Which is true BECAUSE DC is already too car friendly and this is at the expenses of people who don't want to drive right to downtown offices and back out. The PP who argued that DC was going to lose out on vasts amounts of business by making it harder for people to drive from MD to their offices in downtown DC completely ignore the fact that they are driving by many businesses that are much harder to access because of car volumes. Live near Connecticut Avenue and want to pop across the street to Bread Furst? Well, first you have to cross six lanes of traffic, four of which are headed downtown and only care about getting to their offices as fast as possible. None of them are stopping at Bread Furst and the difficulty of crossing is going to deter some locals from going as well. Put half the people on cars in buses and you have maybe ten buses instead of hundreds of cars.

Why do you lie about everything?

I hope you get the help you need.

What is PP lying about? That it's hard to cross Connecticut? That buses carry more people than cars?

What exactly do you think drivers are entitle to in DC? Can you please name the vibrant, growing city with a dense urban core that meets your criteria for "car friendliness"?

[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:
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?

It’s incredible that you have come to this. The entirety of this thread is replete with calls for the city to be hostile to cars and the city itself is implementing policies to directly do that (hello Connecticut Ave and 16th St). While it seems the impetus of a lot of the politics behind this is to stick it to Maryland commuters. I will tell you that you are only hurting yourselves. The upcoming stagflation/recession will not be very kind to this city if it’s transportation policy is to make it inconvenient for people to come into the city and it’s neighborhoods. Good luck!

Once more with brio: CARS ARE NOT THE ONLY WAY TO GET INTO THE CITY.

Cars are the most convenient and efficient way to get into, around, and out of the city for a majority of people.

Which is true BECAUSE DC is already too car friendly and this is at the expenses of people who don't want to drive right to downtown offices and back out. The PP who argued that DC was going to lose out on vasts amounts of business by making it harder for people to drive from MD to their offices in downtown DC completely ignore the fact that they are driving by many businesses that are much harder to access because of car volumes. Live near Connecticut Avenue and want to pop across the street to Bread Furst? Well, first you have to cross six lanes of traffic, four of which are headed downtown and only care about getting to their offices as fast as possible. None of them are stopping at Bread Furst and the difficulty of crossing is going to deter some locals from going as well. Put half the people on cars in buses and you have maybe ten buses instead of hundreds of cars.

Why do you lie about everything?

I hope you get the help you need.

What is PP lying about? That it's hard to cross Connecticut? That buses carry more people than cars?

What exactly do you think drivers are entitle to in DC? Can you please name the vibrant, growing city with a dense urban core that meets your criteria for "car friendliness"?

Everything to do with crossing the street at Connecticut and Albermarle.

They (you) have lied in every single post they have made. I truly hope they find the help they need.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
I think this is well stated! I bike and use public transit and I just don’t see the advocacy for transit that I do for bikes even though a functional and affordable metro and bus system would keep cyclists much safer by decreasing the total cars on the road and consequently the frustration levels of the people forced to drive. But people who rely on public transit are tired and/or less privileged which is a pity.

People who complain that promoters of bike lanes are too vocal relative to Metro should realize that bike lanes are a local issue. It's far more difficult to advocate for Metro and Metrobus, which span 3 states, all looking out for their own interests. DC created the Circulator for this reason--the Metro bureaucracy is unresponsive to local issues, though local funding has sometimes induce Metro to accommodate specific things.

[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:
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?

It’s incredible that you have come to this. The entirety of this thread is replete with calls for the city to be hostile to cars and the city itself is implementing policies to directly do that (hello Connecticut Ave and 16th St). While it seems the impetus of a lot of the politics behind this is to stick it to Maryland commuters. I will tell you that you are only hurting yourselves. The upcoming stagflation/recession will not be very kind to this city if it’s transportation policy is to make it inconvenient for people to come into the city and it’s neighborhoods. Good luck!

Once more with brio: CARS ARE NOT THE ONLY WAY TO GET INTO THE CITY.

Cars are the most convenient and efficient way to get into, around, and out of the city for a majority of people.

Which is true BECAUSE DC is already too car friendly and this is at the expenses of people who don't want to drive right to downtown offices and back out. The PP who argued that DC was going to lose out on vasts amounts of business by making it harder for people to drive from MD to their offices in downtown DC completely ignore the fact that they are driving by many businesses that are much harder to access because of car volumes. Live near Connecticut Avenue and want to pop across the street to Bread Furst? Well, first you have to cross six lanes of traffic, four of which are headed downtown and only care about getting to their offices as fast as possible. None of them are stopping at Bread Furst and the difficulty of crossing is going to deter some locals from going as well. Put half the people on cars in buses and you have maybe ten buses instead of hundreds of cars.

Why do you lie about everything?

I hope you get the help you need.

What is PP lying about? That it's hard to cross Connecticut? That buses carry more people than cars?

What exactly do you think drivers are entitle to in DC? Can you please name the vibrant, growing city with a dense urban core that meets your criteria for "car friendliness"?

Everything to do with crossing the street at Connecticut and Albermarle.

They (you) have lied in every single post they have made. I truly hope they find the help they need.

Where is the lie? Intersection of Ct and Albermarle is indeed a 6-lane, fast-moving arterial at rush hour. I don't live up there, but I can absolutely say that heavy, fast traffic on the arterial where I live makes me avoid crossing the street unless necessary.