Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not PP, but how privileged it is of you to place the burden for figuring out how to get back and forth to work without a car on employees when it is the employers who dictate whether WFH is an option. Many folks don't have the option to telecommute 2-3 days/week. Many folks cannot just "get a job closer to where they live." Many folks cannot "move closer to where they live." Many folks don't live near viable public commuting options. This may come as a surprise to you. Perhaps you are young, white and earn more than $75K/year and are in a position to make these choices. Many of the rest of us simply aren't.

Many folks cannot physically ride a bike many miles to work. Many of us have to pick up kids, groceries, and other heavy things on the way home. It is unrealistic and naive of you to think that all of this can be done on a bike -- particularly in the rain, on ice, or in the snow. That you yourself manage to do it does not mean that everyone else should be expected to do so.

So, please take your messaging and advocacy for a car-less society to the appropriate audience: employers who dictate that folks must commute in; city planners who failed to put in adequate, wide-spread, and affordable public transportation (a $12/day round-trip bus-Metro commute that eats up 2 hours/day is not going to meet this criteria, BTW, for somene who's paid $75K/year before taxes which is approx. $56K net); and employers who keep getting away with discriminatory hiring practices (e.g., ageism, racism, sexism) that prevent true job mobility (ever tried to get hired as a 55-year-old black man?).

In the meantime, please leave all of us who are struggling to make ends meet, who are digging quarters out of the dryer to add to a Metro card just to get back and forth to work, who have kids to pick up at camp, at school, from the babysitter, from a friend's house, who need to shop for more than a couple days' worth of groceries, who need to lug home several pounds of books, sports equipment, laptops, and whatnot home in backpacks and briefcases, or who need to take groceries to elderly parents after work or take them or kids to the doctor's, dentist's, or Target to get supplies for a school project, etc. on a weeknight already filled with errands -- ALONE!

Agree with all of this, which is why the people who ARE dependent on cars should advocate for others to ride bikes, walk and take mass transit.

But how can we help people who are bike dependent? When I see someone pedaling away on a busy street, with children on their bike, I just think: How can anyone be so stupid? How can someone who is a parent be so irresponsible?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

But how can we help people who are bike dependent? When I see someone pedaling away on a busy street, with children on their bike, I just think: How can anyone be so stupid? How can someone who is a parent be so irresponsible?

By building safe, convenient bike routes. For example, protected bike lanes on Connecticut Ave. Then you won't have to worry anymore.

We'll support bike lanes when bikers actually stop at stop signs and red lights and yield to pedestrians. Otherwise, keep you training wheels on.

Do I ever have news for you about drivers.

Also, who's "we"?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

But how can we help people who are bike dependent? When I see someone pedaling away on a busy street, with children on their bike, I just think: How can anyone be so stupid? How can someone who is a parent be so irresponsible?

By building safe, convenient bike routes. For example, protected bike lanes on Connecticut Ave. Then you won't have to worry anymore.

We'll support bike lanes when bikers actually stop at stop signs and red lights and yield to pedestrians. Otherwise, keep you training wheels on.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

But how can we help people who are bike dependent? When I see someone pedaling away on a busy street, with children on their bike, I just think: How can anyone be so stupid? How can someone who is a parent be so irresponsible?

By building safe, convenient bike routes. For example, protected bike lanes on Connecticut Ave. Then you won't have to worry anymore.

Anonymous wrote:

But how can we help people who are bike dependent? When I see someone pedaling away on a busy street, with children on their bike, I just think: How can anyone be so stupid? How can someone who is a parent be so irresponsible?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not PP, but how privileged it is of you to place the burden for figuring out how to get back and forth to work without a car on employees when it is the employers who dictate whether WFH is an option. Many folks don't have the option to telecommute 2-3 days/week. Many folks cannot just "get a job closer to where they live." Many folks cannot "move closer to where they live." Many folks don't live near viable public commuting options. This may come as a surprise to you. Perhaps you are young, white and earn more than $75K/year and are in a position to make these choices. Many of the rest of us simply aren't.

Many folks cannot physically ride a bike many miles to work. Many of us have to pick up kids, groceries, and other heavy things on the way home. It is unrealistic and naive of you to think that all of this can be done on a bike -- particularly in the rain, on ice, or in the snow. That you yourself manage to do it does not mean that everyone else should be expected to do so.

So, please take your messaging and advocacy for a car-less society to the appropriate audience: employers who dictate that folks must commute in; city planners who failed to put in adequate, wide-spread, and affordable public transportation (a $12/day round-trip bus-Metro commute that eats up 2 hours/day is not going to meet this criteria, BTW, for somene who's paid $75K/year before taxes which is approx. $56K net); and employers who keep getting away with discriminatory hiring practices (e.g., ageism, racism, sexism) that prevent true job mobility (ever tried to get hired as a 55-year-old black man?).

In the meantime, please leave all of us who are struggling to make ends meet, who are digging quarters out of the dryer to add to a Metro card just to get back and forth to work, who have kids to pick up at camp, at school, from the babysitter, from a friend's house, who need to shop for more than a couple days' worth of groceries, who need to lug home several pounds of books, sports equipment, laptops, and whatnot home in backpacks and briefcases, or who need to take groceries to elderly parents after work or take them or kids to the doctor's, dentist's, or Target to get supplies for a school project, etc. on a weeknight already filled with errands -- ALONE!

Agree with all of this, which is why the people who ARE dependent on cars should advocate for others to ride bikes, walk and take mass transit.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not PP, but how privileged it is of you to place the burden for figuring out how to get back and forth to work without a car on employees when it is the employers who dictate whether WFH is an option. Many folks don't have the option to telecommute 2-3 days/week. Many folks cannot just "get a job closer to where they live." Many folks cannot "move closer to where they live." Many folks don't live near viable public commuting options. This may come as a surprise to you. Perhaps you are young, white and earn more than $75K/year and are in a position to make these choices. Many of the rest of us simply aren't.

Many folks don't have a car and/or can't drive. Specifically, low-income people (who generally have jobs they can't telecommute to) and people with disabilities. Is your need for a convenient peak-hour car commute more important than their need to be able to get to work and go other places safely on foot, by bike, or by bus?

I think you need to address all of their points instead of excerpting and trying to sea lion one issue. Otherwise you are showing a lot of disrespect and clearly setting up some debate club nonsense.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not PP, but how privileged it is of you to place the burden for figuring out how to get back and forth to work without a car on employees when it is the employers who dictate whether WFH is an option. Many folks don't have the option to telecommute 2-3 days/week. Many folks cannot just "get a job closer to where they live." Many folks cannot "move closer to where they live." Many folks don't live near viable public commuting options. This may come as a surprise to you. Perhaps you are young, white and earn more than $75K/year and are in a position to make these choices. Many of the rest of us simply aren't.

Many folks don't have a car and/or can't drive. Specifically, low-income people (who generally have jobs they can't telecommute to) and people with disabilities. Is your need for a convenient peak-hour car commute more important than their need to be able to get to work and go other places safely on foot, by bike, or by bus?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not PP, but how privileged it is of you to place the burden for figuring out how to get back and forth to work without a car on employees when it is the employers who dictate whether WFH is an option. Many folks don't have the option to telecommute 2-3 days/week. Many folks cannot just "get a job closer to where they live." Many folks cannot "move closer to where they live." Many folks don't live near viable public commuting options. This may come as a surprise to you. Perhaps you are young, white and earn more than $75K/year and are in a position to make these choices. Many of the rest of us simply aren't.

Many folks don't have a car and/or can't drive. Specifically, low-income people (who generally have jobs they can't telecommute to) and people with disabilities. Is your need for a convenient peak-hour car commute more important than their need to be able to get to work and go other places safely on foot, by bike, or by bus?

Anonymous wrote:Not PP, but how privileged it is of you to place the burden for figuring out how to get back and forth to work without a car on employees when it is the employers who dictate whether WFH is an option. Many folks don't have the option to telecommute 2-3 days/week. Many folks cannot just "get a job closer to where they live." Many folks cannot "move closer to where they live." Many folks don't live near viable public commuting options. This may come as a surprise to you. Perhaps you are young, white and earn more than $75K/year and are in a position to make these choices. Many of the rest of us simply aren't.

Anonymous wrote:Not PP, but how privileged it is of you to place the burden for figuring out how to get back and forth to work without a car on employees when it is the employers who dictate whether WFH is an option. Many folks don't have the option to telecommute 2-3 days/week. Many folks cannot just "get a job closer to where they live." Many folks cannot "move closer to where they live." Many folks don't live near viable public commuting options. This may come as a surprise to you. Perhaps you are young, white and earn more than $75K/year and are in a position to make these choices. Many of the rest of us simply aren't.

Many folks cannot physically ride a bike many miles to work. Many of us have to pick up kids, groceries, and other heavy things on the way home. It is unrealistic and naive of you to think that all of this can be done on a bike -- particularly in the rain, on ice, or in the snow. That you yourself manage to do it does not mean that everyone else should be expected to do so.

So, please take your messaging and advocacy for a car-less society to the appropriate audience: employers who dictate that folks must commute in; city planners who failed to put in adequate, wide-spread, and affordable public transportation (a $12/day round-trip bus-Metro commute that eats up 2 hours/day is not going to meet this criteria, BTW, for somene who's paid $75K/year before taxes which is approx. $56K net); and employers who keep getting away with discriminatory hiring practices (e.g., ageism, racism, sexism) that prevent true job mobility (ever tried to get hired as a 55-year-old black man?).

In the meantime, please leave all of us who are struggling to make ends meet, who are digging quarters out of the dryer to add to a Metro card just to get back and forth to work, who have kids to pick up at camp, at school, from the babysitter, from a friend's house, who need to shop for more than a couple days' worth of groceries, who need to lug home several pounds of books, sports equipment, laptops, and whatnot home in backpacks and briefcases, or who need to take groceries to elderly parents after work or take them or kids to the doctor's, dentist's, or Target to get supplies for a school project, etc. on a weeknight already filled with errands -- ALONE!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Smart Growthers are trying to encourage more development that enables less car-dependence

Total BS. There's a new development going in on Connecticut Avenue with no off-street parking. The Smart Growth lobby said, no problem, this is smart infill growth, no one will have cars and will not need to park on the street. So Council Member Mary Cheh proposed legislation to enforce no-RPP promises made by the developer, so that street parking for nearby businesses would not be impacted. Then the same Smart Growthers turned around and opposed Cheh's legislation as being unfair to all those new residents who would never have cars and not park on the street.

Claiming that new development will not be car dependent is just a talking point so that developers don't have to build on-site parking and thereby make bigger profits. They just assume that people will own cars and park on the street.

Your issue is with car storage on public streets. That has nothing to do with what you claim to be complaining about. Would you agree that the RPP system is flawed and should be totally revamped and be much more expensive than it currently is? Or, are you one of those people who simply wants to pay $35/yr for the right to park in front of your own house, near the metro and near commercial areas in your ward without regard to anyone else?

RPP already has progressive pricing, which I support. RPP needs to be revised further into micro-zones as in other cities, so that drivers who live in the same ward or even the same large ANC area, can't drive close a mile or two to a Metro stop and park all day for free on the street. That totally defeats the purpose of RPP. And I also believe in preserving street parking for business customers on Connecticut Avenue, which a DC survey showed is the #1 concern by far of local businesses on Connecticut Avenue. Yet the DDOT plan for reconfiguring Connecticut Ave. removes most of those vital commercial parking spots.

And people who have garages and driveways should not be eligible for RPP, particulrly if they live within a half mile of a metro station, because that defeats the purpose too.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Smart Growthers are trying to encourage more development that enables less car-dependence

Total BS. There's a new development going in on Connecticut Avenue with no off-street parking. The Smart Growth lobby said, no problem, this is smart infill growth, no one will have cars and will not need to park on the street. So Council Member Mary Cheh proposed legislation to enforce no-RPP promises made by the developer, so that street parking for nearby businesses would not be impacted. Then the same Smart Growthers turned around and opposed Cheh's legislation as being unfair to all those new residents who would never have cars and not park on the street.

Claiming that new development will not be car dependent is just a talking point so that developers don't have to build on-site parking and thereby make bigger profits. They just assume that people will own cars and park on the street.

Your issue is with car storage on public streets. That has nothing to do with what you claim to be complaining about. Would you agree that the RPP system is flawed and should be totally revamped and be much more expensive than it currently is? Or, are you one of those people who simply wants to pay $35/yr for the right to park in front of your own house, near the metro and near commercial areas in your ward without regard to anyone else?

RPP already has progressive pricing, which I support. RPP needs to be revised further into micro-zones as in other cities, so that drivers who live in the same ward or even the same large ANC area, can't drive close a mile or two to a Metro stop and park all day for free on the street. That totally defeats the purpose of RPP. And I also believe in preserving street parking for business customers on Connecticut Avenue, which a DC survey showed is the #1 concern by far of local businesses on Connecticut Avenue. Yet the DDOT plan for reconfiguring Connecticut Ave. removes most of those vital commercial parking spots.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Making gridlock worse to improve pedestrian safety? Clever try. Butt then the frustrated drivers won't drive so slowly when they peel off onto side streets like Lowell, Macomb, Newark, Ordway, Porter, etc. looking for a faster route to bypass the gridlocked traffic on 34th/Reno, or to toggle between the arterial roads. That makes it less safe for pedestrians and bikers.

That's not the goal, but actually, yeah, it does.

Don't forget that 34th Street is a residential, not a commercial, street. Don't you care about the people living along the street (or students in classrooms 15 feet from the roadway) breathing in all of the exhaust from diverted traffic sitting in gridlock for more hours during the day - so that you can enjoy your Connecticut Ave bike lane?