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

Forum Index » Metropolitan DC Local Politics

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

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]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[/quote]

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.[/quote]

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.[/quote]
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.

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

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.

[/quote]

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. [/quote]
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. [/quote]

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. [/quote]
You’re not trying to make the city “better” in any objective sense. You are trying to implement a very specific outcome based on an ideological agenda that will have the effect of decreasing the quality of life of tens of thousands living in the city, harm the city’s finances and over the long-term make the city less livable. Post by post, you are shredding your credibility and harming your cause in the process.

Within 5 years a lot of this nonsense will be undone, but unfortunately it will take decades to repair the damage. [/quote]

ok …? that was a very useful and fact-filled contribution.

speed bumps = economic destruction!!![/quote]

? Where do all these non-sequitors come from?

But, to state the obvious, yes, speed bumps on Wisconsin, Connecticut, Georgia, North Capitol, Rhode Island, New York, Maryland, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania and 16th would be disastrous.[/quote]

Speed humps are just one piece of traffic calming and they have a specific set of technical requirements, including that they are generally not installed on heavy traffic arterials. But an arterial can and should absolutely be made safer for all users with traffic calming techniques like bumpouts, protected crosswalks, appropriate setbacks for visibility, no right on red, etc. [/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics