I don't take public transportation due to covid and logistics. We don't live close enough to access the bus or metro to go most places. However, I only drive a few thousand miles at most a year. How many do you drive?

Anonymous wrote:I strongly support metro and use it to commute.

The problem with bike and bus lanes is taking away lanes from already congested streets. People are still going to drive. We need solutions that are less zero-sum.

This is a nonsensical argument usually made by people who want public infrastructure to serving them exclusively and not the greater interest. Most people in the DMV have options - driving the whole way, park-and-ride, bike-and-ride, walk-and-ride, work from home - when it comes to their mode of commuting. The relative attractiveness of the various options in terms of time, cost, and safety dictates their choice. People also have a choice as to where to live. A congested commute causes people to live closer to their work and drives a demand for density. I love to live in Frederick or Annapolis, for instance. I don't because there isn't reliable public transportation to either place and I don't want to deal with the traffic on that commute.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People will always drive. Encouraging bike fanatics to share road space during peak traffic times - and I am talking specifically about bike fanatics, this is a nuisance and dangerous IMO. If you live in DC, take metro and/or walk to work. Bike miles on a bike path.

My vision is also to stop unchecked growth. Stop building and building more density that cannot be supported by current transportation and school systems and other government services.

So expand outward into suburbs/exurbs rather than increase density and then we all drive?

What are your thoughts on how that impacts the environment?

Adding high density housing doesn't magically transform anyplace into a car-less paradise. It adds more cars and smog

Ok I'm still trying to understand what happens to the environment in your vision. Or are you not concerned about climate change?

My vision is not make believe where we can add more people without adding impact.

My vision is also not make believe about, for example, receding ice. It's been receding for thousands of years and we cannot stop it. We should instead plan for it to happen. What will we do?

Finally, I am an environmental activist. I don't just virtue signal here or on FB. I'm boots on the ground, ok? I have major wins. So you can sit down with your snark

I strongly support metro and use it to commute.

The problem with bike and bus lanes is taking away lanes from already congested streets. People are still going to drive. We need solutions that are less zero-sum.

Buses make sense but I would personally like to see smaller ones - preferably automated - that do designated routes through the city.

Bikes don’t make sense in the city bc the city was not set up to accommodate. Shoe horning them in now doesn’t work bc it makes no sense and is a waste of resources. We keep trying to pretend the DMV can be changed into a non car based society. It can’t. To do that you would have to tear it all down and start over and that can’t happen.

What about the pro-bike / anti-bus people? Seems to be the main category of cycling advocates in the area.

Is it okay if someone is anti-bike / pro-bus? That seems to be the main category of anti-bike people in the area.

Anonymous wrote:For CT Ave, I don't think the bike lines are a great idea, but I'm pro-bus. In terms of sheer numbers, if you have dedicated bus lanes with more frequent buses, that would move the most people around with the least impact to the climate. I also think they should make the bus free or nearly free for DC residents to encourage using the bus. IMHO I don't think that many people will use CT Ave bike lanes (it's too steep for most of it) and it will be a net climate negative, as it creates more car congestion so cars are idling longer and creating more pollution. I also think a lot of traffic will be diverted to side streets which could lead to pedestrians being hit. (There are already many drivers who zoom down these streets.)

Thanks for that perspective. I think a city-wide bus lane network that prioritizes frequent and efficient bus transport would be pretty cool. It might have a secondary effect of creating a place where people can bike more safely, but would emphasize the bus piece.

For CT Ave, I don't think the bike lines are a great idea, but I'm pro-bus. In terms of sheer numbers, if you have dedicated bus lanes with more frequent buses, that would move the most people around with the least impact to the climate. I also think they should make the bus free or nearly free for DC residents to encourage using the bus. IMHO I don't think that many people will use CT Ave bike lanes (it's too steep for most of it) and it will be a net climate negative, as it creates more car congestion so cars are idling longer and creating more pollution. I also think a lot of traffic will be diverted to side streets which could lead to pedestrians being hit. (There are already many drivers who zoom down these streets.)

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People will always drive. Encouraging bike fanatics to share road space during peak traffic times - and I am talking specifically about bike fanatics, this is a nuisance and dangerous IMO. If you live in DC, take metro and/or walk to work. Bike miles on a bike path.

My vision is also to stop unchecked growth. Stop building and building more density that cannot be supported by current transportation and school systems and other government services.

People need to live somewhere. If current areas don't become more dense, then we either have to build new dense areas, or encourage continued sprawl. It's possible to argue for the latter two - I don't agree with it, but you can argue for it - but don't pretend that people will just disappear if we don't increase density.

Unless they argue for eco-fascism

Anonymous wrote:People will always drive. Encouraging bike fanatics to share road space during peak traffic times - and I am talking specifically about bike fanatics, this is a nuisance and dangerous IMO. If you live in DC, take metro and/or walk to work. Bike miles on a bike path.

My vision is also to stop unchecked growth. Stop building and building more density that cannot be supported by current transportation and school systems and other government services.

People need to live somewhere. If current areas don't become more dense, then we either have to build new dense areas, or encourage continued sprawl. It's possible to argue for the latter two - I don't agree with it, but you can argue for it - but don't pretend that people will just disappear if we don't increase density.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People will always drive. Encouraging bike fanatics to share road space during peak traffic times - and I am talking specifically about bike fanatics, this is a nuisance and dangerous IMO. If you live in DC, take metro and/or walk to work. Bike miles on a bike path.

My vision is also to stop unchecked growth. Stop building and building more density that cannot be supported by current transportation and school systems and other government services.

So expand outward into suburbs/exurbs rather than increase density and then we all drive?

What are your thoughts on how that impacts the environment?

Adding high density housing doesn't magically transform anyplace into a car-less paradise. It adds more cars and smog

Ok I'm still trying to understand what happens to the environment in your vision. Or are you not concerned about climate change?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People will always drive. Encouraging bike fanatics to share road space during peak traffic times - and I am talking specifically about bike fanatics, this is a nuisance and dangerous IMO. If you live in DC, take metro and/or walk to work. Bike miles on a bike path.

My vision is also to stop unchecked growth. Stop building and building more density that cannot be supported by current transportation and school systems and other government services.

So expand outward into suburbs/exurbs rather than increase density and then we all drive?

What are your thoughts on how that impacts the environment?

Adding high density housing doesn't magically transform anyplace into a car-less paradise. It adds more cars and smog

Anonymous wrote:People will always drive. Encouraging bike fanatics to share road space during peak traffic times - and I am talking specifically about bike fanatics, this is a nuisance and dangerous IMO. If you live in DC, take metro and/or walk to work. Bike miles on a bike path.

My vision is also to stop unchecked growth. Stop building and building more density that cannot be supported by current transportation and school systems and other government services.

So expand outward into suburbs/exurbs rather than increase density and then we all drive?

What are your thoughts on how that impacts the environment?

People will always drive. Encouraging bike fanatics to share road space during peak traffic times - and I am talking specifically about bike fanatics, this is a nuisance and dangerous IMO. If you live in DC, take metro and/or walk to work. Bike miles on a bike path.

My vision is also to stop unchecked growth. Stop building and building more density that cannot be supported by current transportation and school systems and other government services.

Are you really interested in the status quo (or how it was 20 years ago)? Everyone drives everywhere? I'm having a hard time understanding how that works out from a space / traffic / environment standpoint. What's your vision?