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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Here’s some actual evidence about traffic calming and the lack of harms to economic development:

https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/road_diets/resources/pdf/fhwasa17019.pdf

Hahaha

You don't even read your own glib two page public relations flyers. It specifically says INCREASING on street parking is needed. It also says the fear it's busting is less traffic while we are all worried about more congestion.

[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:Given that a few thousand businesses have left downtown D.C. over the past two years, you would think that the city would be exploring ways to encourage more people to return and spend their money.

It may pain some District residents to hear this, but the city needs the suburbs. At this point, making the city less accessible by car will only hurt the District and strengthen the cycle of economic disinvestment and rising crime.

public transport must be improved, not private transport, which makes the city a terrible place. And as everybody knows: a lot of busniesses had to close in the last two years beacuse of the pandemic. Bikers and pedestrians are not the cause.

It’s fascinating that you believe the city is so enthralling that people in the suburbs will willingly and in large numbers take public transit into the city for recreation and entertainment purposes over other options, if only public transit was better? This is seriously deluded thinking that is contradicted by the fact that people in the suburbs refuse to take transit today to go to the city for work. But sure, on a Saturday they’ll hop on the metro for shopping or a performance at the Shakespeare Theatre when the same stores or high quality theatre experiences are available more conveniently and closer to home.

The reality is that another sectoral shift has occurred (starting back in 2015) away from cities and these policies just accelerate the inevitable.

it’s fascinating that you think the economic welfare of the city rests on people being able to drive into downtown and park for free in front of Macy’s to go shopping.

In your view, so you agree that it’s important for Macy’s to continue to have a store downtown? What would you think are the economic conditions that allow Macy’s presence in DC to continue to be viable?

It’s always been hard to go there and park. Metro Center is right there, but people are not taking the Metro either in large numbers. No one from the suburbs needs to go there anyways because they are going to have a Macy’s closure to home that’s more convenient. Commercial office space is at less than 40% capacity. Not a lot of people live nearby. What would happen to downtown DC if Macys closed?

So what’s your plan for Macy’s? How do they stay in business and thrive given these conditions? Does it matter to you to make it easier for a DC resident to shop there versus choosing instead to go to a Macys in the suburbs?

What I see from you is a lot short sighted and frankly selfish advocacy that doesn’t look at the big picture and impacts of highly ideological desires actually affect your community.

The worst part about it is that I’m sure that once the city is destroyed, you’ll be off somewhere else leaving the wreckage behind and blaming your decision in a vaguely racist way on crime and public safety.

Say perhaps a resident of Brightwood that has a choice between Wheaton and Downtown DC. Do they take 16th out of the city or into downtown?

Your answer is that they'll take a bus downtown rather than drive to Wheaton. Decades of history tell us the opposite.

How many people go to Macy’s in person in the first place? Most people order online.

13% of purchases are online
56% of people prefer shopping in store
55% shop in person once a week
18% shop online once a week

The point also wasn't Macy's specific. For someone that lives in the heart of 16th Street every single choice is between going into the city or out of the city. If they want to go to a movie do they go to Silver Spring or Union Station? A lot of things go into that calculation, but, the most important ones are time and hassle. Intentionally increasing congestion and eliminating parking in the city swings the equation to Silver Spring.

union station doesn’t have a theater anymore … someone on 16th st who wants to go to the movies will probably go to Atlantic Plumbing. Have you been to U St in the past 10 years?

You are absurdly delusional. No one living in 16th Street Heights is doing anything on 9th and U Street for any reason. That’s why they live in 16th Street Heights.

There is a greater chance those folks get in their car and drive down to Georgetown for the AMC 14 than take a couple buses to go to a theatre in Shaw.

I’m sorry but it’s just impossible to take you seriously anymore.

Everyone understands very well what’s been going on on 9th Street in Shaw the last couple years.

Also, here’s a tip so that you don’t continue to expose yourself as an interloper to the area, just because the street says “U” doesn’t mean it’s the “U Street Neighborhood”. Jesus.

If someone choses to drive to Georgetown from 16th St Heights to go to the movies, that’s on them. The desire to create less traffic for that trip does not outweigh the far, far greater net benefit of 16th st bus lanes.

You’re completely impervious to any information that compromises they delicate pyramid of nonsense that you are balancing in your head.

Literally all you have been able to post is hypothetical scenarios about where someone wants to go to the movies. I’m begging you, make a coherent argument, with facts.

I am curious if you even bother to read the news? It’s super hilarious that you talk about facts but offer nothing yourself except opinions and ideology.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2022/05/24/dc-businesses-downtown-pandemic-suburbs/

does that article talk about bus lanes and Vision Zero causing economic harm?

I’m not sure how you are going to learn anything because you pointedly refuse to read any information that contradicts your world view. It’s like talking to a high school kid in Young Life about god. I get it, you’re on a messianic quest, so you’re just not going to assimilate anything that may cause you to confront your identity. The problem is just that the real world is completely at odds with you. Here’s another article I hope that you read and I hope you consider that no one is taking transit to the Mosiac District. You’re going to need to contend with that issue.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/comments/?storyUrl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.washingtonpost.com%2Ftransportation%2F2022%2F05%2F24%2Fpandemic-suburbs-downtown-retail%2F

I’m

Nobody takes transit to the Mosaic District because it is in the suburbs, and there is no transit. And again, the question here is whether bus lanes etc are economically harming DC as you claim. Not whether DC’s economy is changing. Your belief is that for DC to survive it has to become more like the suburbs in traffic. I am saying that you have yet to present any actual evidence that becoming more car dependent is necessary for DC. As far as people who actually live in DC pre-pandemic, the statistics were a clear trend away from car trips. And as for safety, you have not made any actual argument at all why safety has to be sacrificed for DC’s economic viability.

You keep spouting the same bs every single time. Nobody had ever said anything about making DC car dependent or making DC traffic more suburban. Those are the strawmen you created for yourself. What people have said is that intentionally increasing congestion is a bad idea. That increasing congestion in-organically tilts the balance in a negative direction which harms the sustainability of our economic growth.

Here’s basic facts this person is immune to:
1. The median DC resident works in VA and shops and MD
2. A substantial part of the DC tax base - and even the economic health of many neighborhood retail businesses - is premised on people from the suburbs coming into the city to spend money
3. People in the suburbs are not coming in large numbers anymore, particularly on transit
4. Since COVID, thousands of retail businesses have closed in the city and opened in the suburbs
5. The city is currently putting in place actual physical obstacles that would make it less convenient for not just people in the suburbs, but even DC residents to shop in city.
6. Every dollar not spent in DC is a drag in the city’s finances
7. The DC CFO is sending alarm bells about the medium term budget projections.

However, despite all of this and based on nothing but belief, good vibes, and some random stuff they found on google, they are undeterred. And in a few years, this person and their buddies will all be gone and in their wake a massive mess for someone else to clean up.

[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:Given that a few thousand businesses have left downtown D.C. over the past two years, you would think that the city would be exploring ways to encourage more people to return and spend their money.

It may pain some District residents to hear this, but the city needs the suburbs. At this point, making the city less accessible by car will only hurt the District and strengthen the cycle of economic disinvestment and rising crime.

public transport must be improved, not private transport, which makes the city a terrible place. And as everybody knows: a lot of busniesses had to close in the last two years beacuse of the pandemic. Bikers and pedestrians are not the cause.

It’s fascinating that you believe the city is so enthralling that people in the suburbs will willingly and in large numbers take public transit into the city for recreation and entertainment purposes over other options, if only public transit was better? This is seriously deluded thinking that is contradicted by the fact that people in the suburbs refuse to take transit today to go to the city for work. But sure, on a Saturday they’ll hop on the metro for shopping or a performance at the Shakespeare Theatre when the same stores or high quality theatre experiences are available more conveniently and closer to home.

The reality is that another sectoral shift has occurred (starting back in 2015) away from cities and these policies just accelerate the inevitable.

it’s fascinating that you think the economic welfare of the city rests on people being able to drive into downtown and park for free in front of Macy’s to go shopping.

In your view, so you agree that it’s important for Macy’s to continue to have a store downtown? What would you think are the economic conditions that allow Macy’s presence in DC to continue to be viable?

It’s always been hard to go there and park. Metro Center is right there, but people are not taking the Metro either in large numbers. No one from the suburbs needs to go there anyways because they are going to have a Macy’s closure to home that’s more convenient. Commercial office space is at less than 40% capacity. Not a lot of people live nearby. What would happen to downtown DC if Macys closed?

So what’s your plan for Macy’s? How do they stay in business and thrive given these conditions? Does it matter to you to make it easier for a DC resident to shop there versus choosing instead to go to a Macys in the suburbs?

What I see from you is a lot short sighted and frankly selfish advocacy that doesn’t look at the big picture and impacts of highly ideological desires actually affect your community.

The worst part about it is that I’m sure that once the city is destroyed, you’ll be off somewhere else leaving the wreckage behind and blaming your decision in a vaguely racist way on crime and public safety.

Say perhaps a resident of Brightwood that has a choice between Wheaton and Downtown DC. Do they take 16th out of the city or into downtown?

Your answer is that they'll take a bus downtown rather than drive to Wheaton. Decades of history tell us the opposite.

How many people go to Macy’s in person in the first place? Most people order online.

13% of purchases are online
56% of people prefer shopping in store
55% shop in person once a week
18% shop online once a week

The point also wasn't Macy's specific. For someone that lives in the heart of 16th Street every single choice is between going into the city or out of the city. If they want to go to a movie do they go to Silver Spring or Union Station? A lot of things go into that calculation, but, the most important ones are time and hassle. Intentionally increasing congestion and eliminating parking in the city swings the equation to Silver Spring.

union station doesn’t have a theater anymore … someone on 16th st who wants to go to the movies will probably go to Atlantic Plumbing. Have you been to U St in the past 10 years?

You are absurdly delusional. No one living in 16th Street Heights is doing anything on 9th and U Street for any reason. That’s why they live in 16th Street Heights.

There is a greater chance those folks get in their car and drive down to Georgetown for the AMC 14 than take a couple buses to go to a theatre in Shaw.

I’m sorry but it’s just impossible to take you seriously anymore.

Everyone understands very well what’s been going on on 9th Street in Shaw the last couple years.

Also, here’s a tip so that you don’t continue to expose yourself as an interloper to the area, just because the street says “U” doesn’t mean it’s the “U Street Neighborhood”. Jesus.

If someone choses to drive to Georgetown from 16th St Heights to go to the movies, that’s on them. The desire to create less traffic for that trip does not outweigh the far, far greater net benefit of 16th st bus lanes.

You’re completely impervious to any information that compromises they delicate pyramid of nonsense that you are balancing in your head.

Literally all you have been able to post is hypothetical scenarios about where someone wants to go to the movies. I’m begging you, make a coherent argument, with facts.

I am curious if you even bother to read the news? It’s super hilarious that you talk about facts but offer nothing yourself except opinions and ideology.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2022/05/24/dc-businesses-downtown-pandemic-suburbs/

does that article talk about bus lanes and Vision Zero causing economic harm?

I’m not sure how you are going to learn anything because you pointedly refuse to read any information that contradicts your world view. It’s like talking to a high school kid in Young Life about god. I get it, you’re on a messianic quest, so you’re just not going to assimilate anything that may cause you to confront your identity. The problem is just that the real world is completely at odds with you. Here’s another article I hope that you read and I hope you consider that no one is taking transit to the Mosiac District. You’re going to need to contend with that issue.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/comments/?storyUrl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.washingtonpost.com%2Ftransportation%2F2022%2F05%2F24%2Fpandemic-suburbs-downtown-retail%2F

I’m

Nobody takes transit to the Mosaic District because it is in the suburbs, and there is no transit. And again, the question here is whether bus lanes etc are economically harming DC as you claim. Not whether DC’s economy is changing. Your belief is that for DC to survive it has to become more like the suburbs in traffic. I am saying that you have yet to present any actual evidence that becoming more car dependent is necessary for DC. As far as people who actually live in DC pre-pandemic, the statistics were a clear trend away from car trips. And as for safety, you have not made any actual argument at all why safety has to be sacrificed for DC’s economic viability.

You keep spouting the same bs every single time. Nobody had ever said anything about making DC car dependent or making DC traffic more suburban. Those are the strawmen you created for yourself. What people have said is that intentionally increasing congestion is a bad idea. That increasing congestion in-organically tilts the balance in a negative direction which harms the sustainability of our economic growth.

Here’s basic facts this person is immune to:
1. The median DC resident works in VA and shops and MD
2. A substantial part of the DC tax base - and even the economic health of many neighborhood retail businesses - is premised on people from the suburbs coming into the city to spend money
3. People in the suburbs are not coming in large numbers anymore, particularly on transit
4. Since COVID, thousands of retail businesses have closed in the city and opened in the suburbs
5. The city is currently putting in place actual physical obstacles that would make it less convenient for not just people in the suburbs, but even DC residents to shop in city.
6. Every dollar not spent in DC is a drag in the city’s finances
7. The DC CFO is sending alarm bells about the medium term budget projections.

However, despite all of this and based on nothing but belief, good vibes, and some random stuff they found on google, they are undeterred. And in a few years, this person and their buddies will all be gone and in their wake a massive mess for someone else to clean up.

Amen.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here’s some actual evidence about traffic calming and the lack of harms to economic development:

https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/road_diets/resources/pdf/fhwasa17019.pdf

Hahaha

You don't even read your own glib two page public relations flyers. It specifically says INCREASING on street parking is needed. It also says the fear it's busting is less traffic while we are all worried about more congestion.

What's more, the entire thing is premised on these things being part of revitalization efforts for dying neighborhoods and towns. Trees in the median, streetlights, adding parking. Basic beautify the street and decrease the hassle of going there type of stuff. Guess what, making a place more inviting and less of a pain does indeed work. The only problem is that that is the exact opposite of what you are pushing.

One of the examples is indeed downsizing a 2 lane road to 1 plus a turning lane plus a bike lane. But what you skipped over was that they downsized the road because it had low volume, they increased the width of the lanes, and they added parking. In DC they are doing this on high volume roads, decreasing lane width, and taking away parking spots. It's almost as if you are using these examples to justify actions after the fact instead of using them to learn from before the fact.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here’s some actual evidence about traffic calming and the lack of harms to economic development:

https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/road_diets/resources/pdf/fhwasa17019.pdf

Hahaha

You don't even read your own glib two page public relations flyers. It specifically says INCREASING on street parking is needed. It also says the fear it's busting is less traffic while we are all worried about more congestion.

It would be funny if it wasn’t so sad.

Advocating destroying ones community out of a ignorant fetish is actually not that funny.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here’s some actual evidence about traffic calming and the lack of harms to economic development:

https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/road_diets/resources/pdf/fhwasa17019.pdf

Hahaha

You don't even read your own glib two page public relations flyers. It specifically says INCREASING on street parking is needed. It also says the fear it's busting is less traffic while we are all worried about more congestion.

What's more, the entire thing is premised on these things being part of revitalization efforts for dying neighborhoods and towns. Trees in the median, streetlights, adding parking. Basic beautify the street and decrease the hassle of going there type of stuff. Guess what, making a place more inviting and less of a pain does indeed work. The only problem is that that is the exact opposite of what you are pushing.

One of the examples is indeed downsizing a 2 lane road to 1 plus a turning lane plus a bike lane. But what you skipped over was that they downsized the road because it had low volume, they increased the width of the lanes, and they added parking. In DC they are doing this on high volume roads, decreasing lane width, and taking away parking spots. It's almost as if you are using these examples to justify actions after the fact instead of using them to learn from before the fact.

It’s incredible, right? I’m just going to quote the fact sheet here, because it’s a reiteration of what people have been saying in this thread pretty consistently about why what DC is doing lacks common sense.

Replacing vehicle travel lanes with on-street parking options, walking areas, and bicycle lanes can make the street a more attractive “park once” area. With these improved facilities, a motorist is more likely to park, walk around, visit restaurants or shops, and enjoy the setting, benefiting the economy and public safety of the neighborhood.

I just got done looking at DC population trends and while the city is certainly fairing better than SF, the reality is that the future looks pretty bleak. This type of stuff will just accelerate the exodus. The future for DC, generally, does not look that promising.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here’s some actual evidence about traffic calming and the lack of harms to economic development:

https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/road_diets/resources/pdf/fhwasa17019.pdf

Hahaha

You don't even read your own glib two page public relations flyers. It specifically says INCREASING on street parking is needed. It also says the fear it's busting is less traffic while we are all worried about more congestion.

What's more, the entire thing is premised on these things being part of revitalization efforts for dying neighborhoods and towns. Trees in the median, streetlights, adding parking. Basic beautify the street and decrease the hassle of going there type of stuff. Guess what, making a place more inviting and less of a pain does indeed work. The only problem is that that is the exact opposite of what you are pushing.

One of the examples is indeed downsizing a 2 lane road to 1 plus a turning lane plus a bike lane. But what you skipped over was that they downsized the road because it had low volume, they increased the width of the lanes, and they added parking. In DC they are doing this on high volume roads, decreasing lane width, and taking away parking spots. It's almost as if you are using these examples to justify actions after the fact instead of using them to learn from before the fact.

It’s incredible, right? I’m just going to quote the fact sheet here, because it’s a reiteration of what people have been saying in this thread pretty consistently about why what DC is doing lacks common sense.

Replacing vehicle travel lanes with on-street parking options, walking areas, and bicycle lanes can make the street a more attractive “park once” area. With these improved facilities, a motorist is more likely to park, walk around, visit restaurants or shops, and enjoy the setting, benefiting the economy and public safety of the neighborhood.

I just got done looking at DC population trends and while the city is certainly fairing better than SF, the reality is that the future looks pretty bleak. This type of stuff will just accelerate the exodus. The future for DC, generally, does not look that promising.

um … nothing you wrote there negates traffic calming. For wide roads with less volume, the “road diet” calms traffic by removing travel lanes so people can’t speed as easily. that can be by adding on street parking, bike lanes, medians, wider sidewalks … traffic calming does not require removing all street parking. some bike lane solutions might, but not traffic calming.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here’s some actual evidence about traffic calming and the lack of harms to economic development:

https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/road_diets/resources/pdf/fhwasa17019.pdf

Hahaha

You don't even read your own glib two page public relations flyers. It specifically says INCREASING on street parking is needed. It also says the fear it's busting is less traffic while we are all worried about more congestion.

What's more, the entire thing is premised on these things being part of revitalization efforts for dying neighborhoods and towns. Trees in the median, streetlights, adding parking. Basic beautify the street and decrease the hassle of going there type of stuff. Guess what, making a place more inviting and less of a pain does indeed work. The only problem is that that is the exact opposite of what you are pushing.

One of the examples is indeed downsizing a 2 lane road to 1 plus a turning lane plus a bike lane. But what you skipped over was that they downsized the road because it had low volume, they increased the width of the lanes, and they added parking. In DC they are doing this on high volume roads, decreasing lane width, and taking away parking spots. It's almost as if you are using these examples to justify actions after the fact instead of using them to learn from before the fact.

It’s incredible, right? I’m just going to quote the fact sheet here, because it’s a reiteration of what people have been saying in this thread pretty consistently about why what DC is doing lacks common sense.

Replacing vehicle travel lanes with on-street parking options, walking areas, and bicycle lanes can make the street a more attractive “park once” area. With these improved facilities, a motorist is more likely to park, walk around, visit restaurants or shops, and enjoy the setting, benefiting the economy and public safety of the neighborhood.

I just got done looking at DC population trends and while the city is certainly fairing better than SF, the reality is that the future looks pretty bleak. This type of stuff will just accelerate the exodus. The future for DC, generally, does not look that promising.

um … nothing you wrote there negates traffic calming. For wide roads with less volume, the “road diet” calms traffic by removing travel lanes so people can’t speed as easily. that can be by adding on street parking, bike lanes, medians, wider sidewalks … traffic calming does not require removing all street parking. some bike lane solutions might, but not traffic calming.

Downtown isn't where traffic needs calming. Ward 1 has some of the lowest rates of pedestrian accidents (if that is indeed the main argument here) when compared to other wards. Ward 1 needs street parking and routes that allows traffic to flow. DC needs to better enforce traffic laws.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here’s some actual evidence about traffic calming and the lack of harms to economic development:

https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/road_diets/resources/pdf/fhwasa17019.pdf

Hahaha

You don't even read your own glib two page public relations flyers. It specifically says INCREASING on street parking is needed. It also says the fear it's busting is less traffic while we are all worried about more congestion.

What's more, the entire thing is premised on these things being part of revitalization efforts for dying neighborhoods and towns. Trees in the median, streetlights, adding parking. Basic beautify the street and decrease the hassle of going there type of stuff. Guess what, making a place more inviting and less of a pain does indeed work. The only problem is that that is the exact opposite of what you are pushing.

One of the examples is indeed downsizing a 2 lane road to 1 plus a turning lane plus a bike lane. But what you skipped over was that they downsized the road because it had low volume, they increased the width of the lanes, and they added parking. In DC they are doing this on high volume roads, decreasing lane width, and taking away parking spots. It's almost as if you are using these examples to justify actions after the fact instead of using them to learn from before the fact.

So why not keep the parking lanes and the previous driving lanes and just add speed bumps?
It’s incredible, right? I’m just going to quote the fact sheet here, because it’s a reiteration of what people have been saying in this thread pretty consistently about why what DC is doing lacks common sense.

Replacing vehicle travel lanes with on-street parking options, walking areas, and bicycle lanes can make the street a more attractive “park once” area. With these improved facilities, a motorist is more likely to park, walk around, visit restaurants or shops, and enjoy the setting, benefiting the economy and public safety of the neighborhood.

I just got done looking at DC population trends and while the city is certainly fairing better than SF, the reality is that the future looks pretty bleak. This type of stuff will just accelerate the exodus. The future for DC, generally, does not look that promising.

um … nothing you wrote there negates traffic calming. For wide roads with less volume, the “road diet” calms traffic by removing travel lanes so people can’t speed as easily. that can be by adding on street parking, bike lanes, medians, wider sidewalks … traffic calming does not require removing all street parking. some bike lane solutions might, but not traffic calming.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here’s some actual evidence about traffic calming and the lack of harms to economic development:

https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/road_diets/resources/pdf/fhwasa17019.pdf

Hahaha

You don't even read your own glib two page public relations flyers. It specifically says INCREASING on street parking is needed. It also says the fear it's busting is less traffic while we are all worried about more congestion.

What's more, the entire thing is premised on these things being part of revitalization efforts for dying neighborhoods and towns. Trees in the median, streetlights, adding parking. Basic beautify the street and decrease the hassle of going there type of stuff. Guess what, making a place more inviting and less of a pain does indeed work. The only problem is that that is the exact opposite of what you are pushing.

One of the examples is indeed downsizing a 2 lane road to 1 plus a turning lane plus a bike lane. But what you skipped over was that they downsized the road because it had low volume, they increased the width of the lanes, and they added parking. In DC they are doing this on high volume roads, decreasing lane width, and taking away parking spots. It's almost as if you are using these examples to justify actions after the fact instead of using them to learn from before the fact.

So why not keep the parking lanes and the previous driving lanes and just add speed bumps?
It’s incredible, right? I’m just going to quote the fact sheet here, because it’s a reiteration of what people have been saying in this thread pretty consistently about why what DC is doing lacks common sense.

Replacing vehicle travel lanes with on-street parking options, walking areas, and bicycle lanes can make the street a more attractive “park once” area. With these improved facilities, a motorist is more likely to park, walk around, visit restaurants or shops, and enjoy the setting, benefiting the economy and public safety of the neighborhood.

I just got done looking at DC population trends and while the city is certainly fairing better than SF, the reality is that the future looks pretty bleak. This type of stuff will just accelerate the exodus. The future for DC, generally, does not look that promising.

um … nothing you wrote there negates traffic calming. For wide roads with less volume, the “road diet” calms traffic by removing travel lanes so people can’t speed as easily. that can be by adding on street parking, bike lanes, medians, wider sidewalks … traffic calming does not require removing all street parking. some bike lane solutions might, but not traffic calming.

So why not keep the parking lanes and the previous driving lanes and just add speed bumps? Done.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here’s some actual evidence about traffic calming and the lack of harms to economic development:

https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/road_diets/resources/pdf/fhwasa17019.pdf

Hahaha

You don't even read your own glib two page public relations flyers. It specifically says INCREASING on street parking is needed. It also says the fear it's busting is less traffic while we are all worried about more congestion.

What's more, the entire thing is premised on these things being part of revitalization efforts for dying neighborhoods and towns. Trees in the median, streetlights, adding parking. Basic beautify the street and decrease the hassle of going there type of stuff. Guess what, making a place more inviting and less of a pain does indeed work. The only problem is that that is the exact opposite of what you are pushing.

One of the examples is indeed downsizing a 2 lane road to 1 plus a turning lane plus a bike lane. But what you skipped over was that they downsized the road because it had low volume, they increased the width of the lanes, and they added parking. In DC they are doing this on high volume roads, decreasing lane width, and taking away parking spots. It's almost as if you are using these examples to justify actions after the fact instead of using them to learn from before the fact.

So why not keep the parking lanes and the previous driving lanes and just add speed bumps?
It’s incredible, right? I’m just going to quote the fact sheet here, because it’s a reiteration of what people have been saying in this thread pretty consistently about why what DC is doing lacks common sense.

Replacing vehicle travel lanes with on-street parking options, walking areas, and bicycle lanes can make the street a more attractive “park once” area. With these improved facilities, a motorist is more likely to park, walk around, visit restaurants or shops, and enjoy the setting, benefiting the economy and public safety of the neighborhood.

I just got done looking at DC population trends and while the city is certainly fairing better than SF, the reality is that the future looks pretty bleak. This type of stuff will just accelerate the exodus. The future for DC, generally, does not look that promising.

um … nothing you wrote there negates traffic calming. For wide roads with less volume, the “road diet” calms traffic by removing travel lanes so people can’t speed as easily. that can be by adding on street parking, bike lanes, medians, wider sidewalks … traffic calming does not require removing all street parking. some bike lane solutions might, but not traffic calming.

So why not keep the parking lanes and the previous driving lanes and just add speed bumps? Done.

Exactly. Speed bumps. Actually using police to enforce traffic laws. Lots and lots and lots of superior option other than to reduce street parking and overall capacity. What’s crazy to me is that this person looks at the obvious outcome of this and says “downtown is dying anyway”. How bleak and nihilistic.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here’s some actual evidence about traffic calming and the lack of harms to economic development:

https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/road_diets/resources/pdf/fhwasa17019.pdf

Hahaha

You don't even read your own glib two page public relations flyers. It specifically says INCREASING on street parking is needed. It also says the fear it's busting is less traffic while we are all worried about more congestion.

What's more, the entire thing is premised on these things being part of revitalization efforts for dying neighborhoods and towns. Trees in the median, streetlights, adding parking. Basic beautify the street and decrease the hassle of going there type of stuff. Guess what, making a place more inviting and less of a pain does indeed work. The only problem is that that is the exact opposite of what you are pushing.

One of the examples is indeed downsizing a 2 lane road to 1 plus a turning lane plus a bike lane. But what you skipped over was that they downsized the road because it had low volume, they increased the width of the lanes, and they added parking. In DC they are doing this on high volume roads, decreasing lane width, and taking away parking spots. It's almost as if you are using these examples to justify actions after the fact instead of using them to learn from before the fact.

It’s incredible, right? I’m just going to quote the fact sheet here, because it’s a reiteration of what people have been saying in this thread pretty consistently about why what DC is doing lacks common sense.

Replacing vehicle travel lanes with on-street parking options, walking areas, and bicycle lanes can make the street a more attractive “park once” area. With these improved facilities, a motorist is more likely to park, walk around, visit restaurants or shops, and enjoy the setting, benefiting the economy and public safety of the neighborhood.

I just got done looking at DC population trends and while the city is certainly fairing better than SF, the reality is that the future looks pretty bleak. This type of stuff will just accelerate the exodus. The future for DC, generally, does not look that promising.

um … nothing you wrote there negates traffic calming. For wide roads with less volume, the “road diet” calms traffic by removing travel lanes so people can’t speed as easily. that can be by adding on street parking, bike lanes, medians, wider sidewalks … traffic calming does not require removing all street parking. some bike lane solutions might, but not traffic calming.

You’re such a pathetic person. You post a link to a DOT fact sheet to “prove” that traffic claiming doesn’t harm businesses. What that fact sheet actually says is that abundant street parking is important to the economic vitality of business.

In page after page you’ve been screaming about why the city shouldn’t have street parking. Now you are arguing what exactly?

It would be funny if your behavior wasn’t so common among advocates in the area. Your goal is to eliminate cars and then you will back-fill any shifting rationale to defend that goal, even if you contradict yourself in the process.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here’s some actual evidence about traffic calming and the lack of harms to economic development:

https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/road_diets/resources/pdf/fhwasa17019.pdf

Hahaha

You don't even read your own glib two page public relations flyers. It specifically says INCREASING on street parking is needed. It also says the fear it's busting is less traffic while we are all worried about more congestion.

What's more, the entire thing is premised on these things being part of revitalization efforts for dying neighborhoods and towns. Trees in the median, streetlights, adding parking. Basic beautify the street and decrease the hassle of going there type of stuff. Guess what, making a place more inviting and less of a pain does indeed work. The only problem is that that is the exact opposite of what you are pushing.

One of the examples is indeed downsizing a 2 lane road to 1 plus a turning lane plus a bike lane. But what you skipped over was that they downsized the road because it had low volume, they increased the width of the lanes, and they added parking. In DC they are doing this on high volume roads, decreasing lane width, and taking away parking spots. It's almost as if you are using these examples to justify actions after the fact instead of using them to learn from before the fact.

It’s incredible, right? I’m just going to quote the fact sheet here, because it’s a reiteration of what people have been saying in this thread pretty consistently about why what DC is doing lacks common sense.

Replacing vehicle travel lanes with on-street parking options, walking areas, and bicycle lanes can make the street a more attractive “park once” area. With these improved facilities, a motorist is more likely to park, walk around, visit restaurants or shops, and enjoy the setting, benefiting the economy and public safety of the neighborhood.

I just got done looking at DC population trends and while the city is certainly fairing better than SF, the reality is that the future looks pretty bleak. This type of stuff will just accelerate the exodus. The future for DC, generally, does not look that promising.

um … nothing you wrote there negates traffic calming. For wide roads with less volume, the “road diet” calms traffic by removing travel lanes so people can’t speed as easily. that can be by adding on street parking, bike lanes, medians, wider sidewalks … traffic calming does not require removing all street parking. some bike lane solutions might, but not traffic calming.

Downtown isn't where traffic needs calming. Ward 1 has some of the lowest rates of pedestrian accidents (if that is indeed the main argument here) when compared to other wards. Ward 1 needs street parking and routes that allows traffic to flow. DC needs to better enforce traffic laws.

No, this isn’t only about Ward 1.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here’s some actual evidence about traffic calming and the lack of harms to economic development:

https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/road_diets/resources/pdf/fhwasa17019.pdf

Hahaha

You don't even read your own glib two page public relations flyers. It specifically says INCREASING on street parking is needed. It also says the fear it's busting is less traffic while we are all worried about more congestion.

What's more, the entire thing is premised on these things being part of revitalization efforts for dying neighborhoods and towns. Trees in the median, streetlights, adding parking. Basic beautify the street and decrease the hassle of going there type of stuff. Guess what, making a place more inviting and less of a pain does indeed work. The only problem is that that is the exact opposite of what you are pushing.

One of the examples is indeed downsizing a 2 lane road to 1 plus a turning lane plus a bike lane. But what you skipped over was that they downsized the road because it had low volume, they increased the width of the lanes, and they added parking. In DC they are doing this on high volume roads, decreasing lane width, and taking away parking spots. It's almost as if you are using these examples to justify actions after the fact instead of using them to learn from before the fact.

So why not keep the parking lanes and the previous driving lanes and just add speed bumps?
It’s incredible, right? I’m just going to quote the fact sheet here, because it’s a reiteration of what people have been saying in this thread pretty consistently about why what DC is doing lacks common sense.

Replacing vehicle travel lanes with on-street parking options, walking areas, and bicycle lanes can make the street a more attractive “park once” area. With these improved facilities, a motorist is more likely to park, walk around, visit restaurants or shops, and enjoy the setting, benefiting the economy and public safety of the neighborhood.

I just got done looking at DC population trends and while the city is certainly fairing better than SF, the reality is that the future looks pretty bleak. This type of stuff will just accelerate the exodus. The future for DC, generally, does not look that promising.

um … nothing you wrote there negates traffic calming. For wide roads with less volume, the “road diet” calms traffic by removing travel lanes so people can’t speed as easily. that can be by adding on street parking, bike lanes, medians, wider sidewalks … traffic calming does not require removing all street parking. some bike lane solutions might, but not traffic calming.

So why not keep the parking lanes and the previous driving lanes and just add speed bumps? Done.

Exactly. Speed bumps. Actually using police to enforce traffic laws. Lots and lots and lots of superior option other than to reduce street parking and overall capacity. What’s crazy to me is that this person looks at the obvious outcome of this and says “downtown is dying anyway”. How bleak and nihilistic.

speed bumps alone don’t work to slow traffic.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here’s some actual evidence about traffic calming and the lack of harms to economic development:

https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/road_diets/resources/pdf/fhwasa17019.pdf

Hahaha

You don't even read your own glib two page public relations flyers. It specifically says INCREASING on street parking is needed. It also says the fear it's busting is less traffic while we are all worried about more congestion.

What's more, the entire thing is premised on these things being part of revitalization efforts for dying neighborhoods and towns. Trees in the median, streetlights, adding parking. Basic beautify the street and decrease the hassle of going there type of stuff. Guess what, making a place more inviting and less of a pain does indeed work. The only problem is that that is the exact opposite of what you are pushing.

One of the examples is indeed downsizing a 2 lane road to 1 plus a turning lane plus a bike lane. But what you skipped over was that they downsized the road because it had low volume, they increased the width of the lanes, and they added parking. In DC they are doing this on high volume roads, decreasing lane width, and taking away parking spots. It's almost as if you are using these examples to justify actions after the fact instead of using them to learn from before the fact.

It’s incredible, right? I’m just going to quote the fact sheet here, because it’s a reiteration of what people have been saying in this thread pretty consistently about why what DC is doing lacks common sense.

Replacing vehicle travel lanes with on-street parking options, walking areas, and bicycle lanes can make the street a more attractive “park once” area. With these improved facilities, a motorist is more likely to park, walk around, visit restaurants or shops, and enjoy the setting, benefiting the economy and public safety of the neighborhood.

I just got done looking at DC population trends and while the city is certainly fairing better than SF, the reality is that the future looks pretty bleak. This type of stuff will just accelerate the exodus. The future for DC, generally, does not look that promising.

um … nothing you wrote there negates traffic calming. For wide roads with less volume, the “road diet” calms traffic by removing travel lanes so people can’t speed as easily. that can be by adding on street parking, bike lanes, medians, wider sidewalks … traffic calming does not require removing all street parking. some bike lane solutions might, but not traffic calming.

You’re such a pathetic person. You post a link to a DOT fact sheet to “prove” that traffic claiming doesn’t harm businesses. What that fact sheet actually says is that abundant street parking is important to the economic vitality of business.

In page after page you’ve been screaming about why the city shouldn’t have street parking. Now you are arguing what exactly?

It would be funny if your behavior wasn’t so common among advocates in the area. Your goal is to eliminate cars and then you will back-fill any shifting rationale to defend that goal, even if you contradict yourself in the process.

Unlike you, I am here to actually improve things and discuss changes … but yeah since now you are a believer in road diets, can we also talk about narrowing traffic lanes, adding bike lanes, walking areas? slowing speeds? The premise that “DC needs to get more car friendly to stave off economic decline” is as unsupported as ever.

Here’s another fantastic report from NYC on traffic calming and economic vitality: https://www.nyc.gov/html/dot/downloads/pdf/dot-economic-benefits-of-sustainable-streets.pdf

In short, traffic calming attracts business in dense urban areas.