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

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.[/quote]

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. [/quote]

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

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.[/quote]

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. [/quote]
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?[/quote]

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.  [/quote]
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. [/quote]

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

[/quote]
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. [/quote]

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?  [/quote]
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![/quote]

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

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