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][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][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][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]Just so you know.  The owner of Bread Furst himself has said that the location was specifically picked because of parking, visibility and neighborhood household income.  He would be the absolute last person to want to make Connecticut a one lane road without parking.[/quote]

I can't speak for the owner of  Bread Furst, but many business owners are in favor of traffic calming. They know that a lot of their business comes from people who arrive on foot, and they don't enjoy risking their own lives getting to work.  [/quote]

Oh please do share the names of these businesses that are clamoring for narrower streets, no parking and physical impediments.[/quote]

Business owners hate it when it’s easy for people to come to their stores[/quote]

Totally.  I just dug up this really interesting research from NYC that is strong support for traffic calming being very good for local business.

https://www.nyc.gov/html/dot/downloads/pdf/dot-economic-benefits-of-sustainable-streets.pdf

[/quote]
This is a straw man. The issue is not how calm the traffic is, the issue is whether the traffic can stop and spend. TaKe away parking and take away curbside access (hello bike lane) and those businesses will fail. [/quote]

Lol, bikers spend quite a bit and don't waste valuable parking spaces.

https://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/local/more-businesses-in-san-diego-begin-to-embrace-bike-lanes/2951045/[/quote]

The only problem is that the number of bikers is tiny. [/quote]

And they make it harder to walk around because they don't follow traffic rules[/quote]

"There's so few of them that they make it hard to walk around, and I'm going to ignore the vehicles that actually kill pedestrians" is a very interesting take.  Like, some real five dimensional logical.  Or just pure BS.  Yeah, pure BS.  Thanks.[/quote]

I know these are difficult concepts and helmet laws are a relatively new phenomenon but try and follow:

The argument you proferred was that bicylists and bike lanes would be economically beneficial to retail businesses.  That they would make up any business lost due to lost parking etc.  The problem with that argument is two fold and for two different reasons.  Firstly there arent anywhere near enough bicyclists, especially yearround, to make up that volume and secondly, any benfits from increased pedestrianization due to less cars is completely offset by bike lanes due to bicyclists not stopping at lights and stop signs.  In short, there are not enough bicyclists to make up lost demand AND pedestrian access is not improved.
[/quote]

1. You don't know how much business will be lost from removal of some parking.  It's not 100% and it may not even be a large percent.
2. You don't know how much increased business comes from bicyclists and pedestrians.
You're just making stuff up to fit your narrative.  Please go back to grade school for how to make an argument.[/quote]

Really?  Physician, heal thyself.

Narrower lanes, no parking, and physical impediments will not increase either density or business.  Increased density requires wider not narrower lanes.  Increased walkability requires no physical impediments and no bike thoroughfares.  Parking is a function of density.  If there is enough density, 300% more than now, then parking is less necessary but the catch-22 is that in order to get past the first stages of increased density there needs to be more parking.

That is the problem of using "pedestrian safety" and economic development as a stalking horse for bike lanes.  Bike lanes do neither while the anti-car measures actively harm economic development by reducing access and demand.  DC has nowhere near the level of population density for neighborhoods to be entirely self-sustaining.

[/quote]

Ok, more conjecture.  Cool, thanks.[/quote]

Oh sorry.  Was the basic logic to complicated or are you just in the denial phase?  It's basic economics. It's also all the pro-density arguments you make.  The only problem you have is that the specific measures you want to implement - narrow roads, no parking and physical impediments - decrease rather than increase population density.[/quote]

Oh, cool.  City development is basic economics.  Who knew it was so simple?

You're showing your ignorance here.[/quote]

Isn't it.  I mean all we have to do is increase congestion, remove parking and make walking more complicated.  Once we reduce access and demand then we'll have an economic nirvana. [/quote]

1. Remove sidewalks, bike lanes, bus stuff, add travel lanes and parking
2. ?
3. Profit![/quote]

Interesting that you say that.  Nobody has proposed any of that. What is being demanded is eliminating roads, narrowing streets, removing parking, and adding physical impediments with the specific and stated goal of increasing congestion in order to reduce demand which will somehow miraculously result in more business and a population increase.  This is a phenomenally stupid idea.[/quote]

What is being "demanded" is traffic calming and creating space for other forms of transit - bus, pedestrian, bike.  Traffic calming, by definition, slows down traffic.  No, you do not have the right to drive through DC at 50MPH and block other forms of transit with your free parking.

What you're claiming (in the absence of all evidence) is that traffic calming ruins business.  [/quote]

Come on say what you mean instead of hiding behind euphemisms.  The traffic "calming" proposals are narrowing streets, removing parking, and adding physical impediments.

[b]The big irony is that none of that calms anything.  Instead it increases frustration and congestion.  That is your stated goal.  To make driving so bad and inconvenient that they look for alternatives.  The problem with that is that those alternatives will be other areas.[/b]

People do not drive through DC at 50mph.  There is too much traffic to do that.[/quote]
This. 100%[/quote]

Nobody is going to switch to bikes because traffic is bad. That’s laughable. One thing that will definitely happen is people will circulate less. They won’t move about the city as much and stay closer to home. Hard to see how that’s in anyone interest. But our city is ruled by people who are not just ignorant of economics but actively hostile to it.[/quote]

This is happening in other cities as well. Museums in San Francisco struggle to survive with the reduced flow of people that has come with closing roads to car traffic. It’s really terrible.[/quote]

A lot of businesses are leaving DC for the suburbs. There aren’t enough people to sustain their businesses when you take away all the parking, make it too difficult to drive, etc. My guess is that at some point, the city will have to tear out a lot of the bike infrastructure because it hurts businesses (and tax revenue) so much.  It’s just not economically viable.[/quote]

You’re funny!!!! [/quote]

NP, here. A few years ago, DC changed the lane patterns of Wisconsin Ave near Glover Park. They basically made Wisconsin two lanes rather than four lanes through Glover Park. It created a horrific traffic bottleneck and they had to undo -- at taxpayer expense - everything and go back to the original configuration. This is what's going to happen downtown. It just hasn't been tested yet because people aren't fully. back to working in offices. Once traffic returns all hell will break lose and this experiment will need to be undone.[/quote]

Smaller, walkable/bikeable streets are better for business than multi lane thoroughfares.  Those wanting multi lane throughfares aren’t stopping to shop, they are speeding through as quickly as possible.  Foot traffic and bike traffic = customers for businesses on smaller streets.  [/quote]
I don’t think this is true. The Wharf, Pike and Rose and the Mosaic district are doing very well by providing a walkable destination that’s conveniently accessible with abundant parking. Take away the accessibility and parking and the best case result is Georgetown, which is aided by a waterfront, university and historic district.

Just explain where this foot traffic with disposable income is supposed to come from. [/quote]

Parking at the wharf is one of the greatest nightmares of my life.[/quote]
The anti-car brigade thought there should be even fewer parking spaces when in fact they should have built more. Less parking than present would make it not worthwhile to visit. [/quote]

There aren't parking spaces. There's (over) paid garage parking. I much prefer riding my bike over and locking it up, or alternatively taking metro. [/quote]

Garage parking spaces are still parking spaces.

I agree about the cost and that's going to be a problem for the development long term as the initial shine continues to wear off.  But, pricing is something they can adjust.  Access is what's important.[/quote]

I mean, surrounding the Wharf with free public parking lots (presumably what you wanted?) would have been impossible.  Access is a better connection from L'Enfant and Waterfront metros, not more parking.  [/quote]

Huh?  What's with the weird attenpt at spinning motivation.  Is it some sort of projection?

People won't utilize shuttles in large numbers.  Parking, whether garages or on the street, provides access.  Cost of parking is a separate variable that impacts frequency of visits. [/quote]

What makes you think that people drive (and WANT to drive) to urban entertainment centers?  Do you honestly think the only way to make the Wharf successful is to make sure people can drive in from Vienna?  [/quote]

Yes, although the Wharf needs Alexandria more.  That is why it was built where it was.  That is the business model.   On site and nearby apartments form a base but Virginians, tourists, and theatre going inner suburbanites make it profitable.

There isn't a large enough DC urban core only population to make it self-sustainable.  It, like all entertainment centers, relies on "outside" visitors to create demand.  [/quote]

I mean, I trust the people who developed the Wharf knew what they were doing ... I don't see free parking everywhere, and I do see a pedestrianized space, and a location accessible to 2 metros and bikes, as well as multiple on-site hotels.  The Wharf is obviously planned & intended to be a urban place people can arrive to in a variety of ways.  If the developers wanted people to drive from Alexandria, they would have built it downriver south of Alexandria. Instead what they did was identify a prime bit of URBAN waterfront and develop it into an URBAN entertainment space that people arrive to from the city in a variety of ways other than car.

I'm not sure if it's possible, but the relevant comparison would be National Harbor.   [/quote]

The Wharf is also not an urban style entertainment center.  It's a suburban style entertainment center in an urban are.  It's the same model as Mosaic and Pike&Rose.

As for National Harbor, its problem is that it has only one major road connection and is not near a metro.  It is isolated and out of the way.  Its model is dependent on conventions and "captured" tourists.[/quote]

Have you been to the Wharf? Parking costs like $10/hr on a weekday morning. During weekend nights and special events, there is often no parking at all (and it costs significantly more). People can and do drive there but it does not encourage it at all. You also cannot drive right up to any of the venues there. The closest you can get is valet at some of the hotels.

Compare this to Mosaic where you can park in a garage for free. Mosaic also has a lot of retail that is designed to attract people who drive (i.e. Target), whereas the Wharf has no big box stores, it's retail is extremely limited, and the main draws are the entertainment venues and restaurants. It's a different deal.

I think the fact that you think the Wharf was built near major roads to accommodate suburban visitors is interesting and shows your bias. The main reason the Wharf was built where it is? It was underdeveloped waterfront near two metros, and close enough to Navy Yard (also built as an urban destination that is not very car friendly and relies much more on alternative forms of transportation) for investors to be confident the concept would attract a high-income demographic.

The Wharf is happy to take money from people coming in from NoVa, but it's not willing to accommodate them. You want to drive there? Fine, get ready to spend $100 just to park, on top of your concert tickets and your dinner and bar tabs.[/quote]

Parking cost and availibility is goin to be a problem their long term, especially when the initial shine wears off.

The history of the Wharf redevelopment is much longer than you realize.  It was part of the same re-development push as Navy Yard and the Georgetown waterfront.  All were begun by Anthony Williams.  The Wharf got delayed because the initial developer went under during the financial crisis.  The fact that Maine Ave easily connects to 395 and Rock Creek extended was indeed a major draw.[/quote]

I don't think anyone disputes that accesibility to Virginia is one factor for the Wharf.  But it's only one.  Again the premise of OP is that "we need to be car friendly or DC will whither economically" plus some other weird fulminating about "pedestrianized" areas.  The Wharf is a great example of a pedestrianized, multi-modal transit development that appears to be economically thriving, no car-friendliness enhancements needed.  [/quote]

I don't think you've read some of the posts because people are indeed disputing that.  They are also disputing that it's multi-modal.

I happen to agree with you but would add that while we don't need car friendly enhancements we also can't afford car hostile enhancements.  We had a good blend.[/quote]

making sure cars don't speed or run over people in the crosswalk is not "car hostile."  redesigning roads for better bus service is not "car hostile."  nobody said that nobody from Virginia comes into DC.  [/quote]

Lol.  Narrowing and eliminating lanes, eliminating parking, and putting up barriers to turns are indeed car hostile.  Increasing congestion in order to induce people to give up cars is extremely hostile.  People have literally stated that their goal is to make driving a car in the city so painful and such a hassle that they stop doing it.[/quote]

Lanes are narrowed or eliminated to enable wider sidewalks, bus lanes, and (yes, I know) bike lanes. Making streets safer for pedestrians, in particular, is a major goal of mine because my kids and I walk around this city. These changes are not meant to be "car hostile" -- they are meant to make it safe for human bodies to move around the city without getting run over by a car.

Same with putting up barriers to turn. This is most often done at dangerous intersections where pedestrians are often hit by cars turning without yielding. There's one of these near my house and we fought hard for it. I've lived here for almost 10 years and one pedestrians and two cyclists have been killed at that intersection. The barriers are not "car hostile". They are pedestrian protecting.

With parking it's just a resource issue. Street parking is an awful use of space and often makes it harder to have wide sidewalks OR wide traffic lanes. People complain about getting rid of parking lanes to accommodate bikes, but as a driver, do you know what? This often makes it easier to drive down these streets because in my NE DC neighborhood, this most often happens on two-lane residential streets where it is currently very hard to drive with cars parked on both sides. If you get rid of parking on one side and replace it with a protected bike lane, or make the street one way to do the same, it's actually easier to drive.

The problem is that a lot of drivers only conceive of "car friendly" in terms of shorter commutes. That's the only metric that matters to a lot of drivers -- please allow me to go as fast as possible along the most direct possible route. That's not reasonable. As someone who is a pedestrian and driver, my priorities are not just "speed". It's also safety, air quality, convenience, etc. [/quote]
It’s a lot of words to perpetuate strawmen and false dichotomies.

Your dream of a suburbanized urbanism is hollow. That’s just how it is. [/quote]

You really like the word “strawmen”.  Maybe it doesn’t mean what you think it does?

Also “suburbanized urbanism” is exactly what you want. You think you are entitled to an economically and culturally vibrant world capital, where you can also find free street parking wherever you want with no traffic straight to downtown. [/quote]

NP here. All I want is the old parking spots back that have been taken away. I pay taxes in the city and I want to be able to park in the city or be able to vote on changes that affect the way I move through the city. [/quote]

You want to vote on each stopsign?  Lol.  Well anyway, there already is a requirement that DDOT take public comments for any changes impacting parking.  Many of the parking spots "taken away" were likely for safety reasons to ensure sightlines at intersections anyway.  Not a conspiracy against drivers. [/quote]

I am talking about re-designing traffic patterns. And, yes, as a DC resident and taxpayer I want a say. When a major thoroughfare is constricted, it means more traffic will flow through residential areas. Entire blocks of parking have been removed. Why did all the parking on Connecticut alongside the National Zoo get removed, for example? No reason for that. Just maddening. [/quote]

You get a say. DDOT takes comments. [/quote]

After the fact[/quote]

No, before the fact.

And having every single public works project voted on would be an unmitigated disaster. The city is not your HOA. The more you types go on, the more it is apparent that your only interest is your own personal preferences. That’s not how public policy works. [/quote]

It's bad for business and it's bad for public safety because there's no evacuation route. Moreover, the bulk of DC traffic accidents and pedestrian fatalities historically have not been in Ward 1. That's not to say there aren't fatalities there but the intensity of the focus on Ward 1 may be misguided.  [/quote]

I just love the manic goal-post moving. Now it's evacuation routes, wheee! [/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