Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The premise of a lot of cycling people is that there is pent up demand of people who want to bicycle but who don’t because they feel unsafe.

What if people just don’t like riding bicycles? It’s seems like an impossible thing for these pro-bike people to fathom.

One of the most supposedly most successful bike paths in the country is the CCT. Even on its best days of the year it’s a fraction of one lane of average daily traffic volume on any basic arterial road. The other successful bike in the city, the 15th Street cycletrack, on peak days does not even replace 25% of the average daily traffic volume of the one lane that it replaced. Meanwhile, cyclist complain that they feel unsafe because the two way traffic is too narrow and they are lobbying to widen it.

The fact is, even successful bicycle infrastructure is extremely inefficient and wasteful use of public resources in doing the thing that transportation infrastructure is supposed to do, move people around quickly.

Sooner or later smart cities will come to this conclusion too.

The proof is in the pudding. Look at bike lanes in the city. They're empty. People simply aren't using them. We can't dedicate all of our resources to the tiny number of white people who are really into bikes.

Clearly you don't actually live in DC and only know your commute and the immediate area around it. There are some bike corridors that do get a lot of use. Also, it's not just "white people" who bike in DC.

But whatever. Let's apply your own logic of "they aren't used, so the resources should go elsewhere" - the formerly-4-lane L St NW corridor that was lamented earlier in this thread is only that busy for a short period of time during rush hour. So why should we then put all the resources into it when that's not warranted 90% of the time? That's YOUR logic here after all...

The data is online. No one needs to guess. The number of people using bicycles right now is indistinguishable from zero. While it may go back up when the weather improves, it’s a terrible use of public resources.

One goal of devoting public resources to improving bike infrastructure is to make it easier for more people to bike to work, which would... increase the number. Cars driven by individual commuters are also a terrible use of public resources, for reasons other than just the sheer number of people who benefit, which probably should not be the sole determining factor.

But no one is biking to work right now. It’s a bad use of public resources to pay full cost to maintain roads and then force them sit idle for months. The government should prioritize use of public resources to ensure that their utility is maximized. I’m not arguing for cars. I’m arguing against setting aside scarce resources for bicycle lanes which have low capacity rates. Even bad transit serves more people, more efficiently than protected bicycle lanes. You want to save the climate? Even a few thousand people on bicycles isn’t going to do it. Turn protected bicycle lanes into protected transit lanes instead and run trolley buses along the same corridors. It will have a much larger impact.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The premise of a lot of cycling people is that there is pent up demand of people who want to bicycle but who don’t because they feel unsafe.

What if people just don’t like riding bicycles? It’s seems like an impossible thing for these pro-bike people to fathom.

One of the most supposedly most successful bike paths in the country is the CCT. Even on its best days of the year it’s a fraction of one lane of average daily traffic volume on any basic arterial road. The other successful bike in the city, the 15th Street cycletrack, on peak days does not even replace 25% of the average daily traffic volume of the one lane that it replaced. Meanwhile, cyclist complain that they feel unsafe because the two way traffic is too narrow and they are lobbying to widen it.

The fact is, even successful bicycle infrastructure is extremely inefficient and wasteful use of public resources in doing the thing that transportation infrastructure is supposed to do, move people around quickly.

Sooner or later smart cities will come to this conclusion too.

The proof is in the pudding. Look at bike lanes in the city. They're empty. People simply aren't using them. We can't dedicate all of our resources to the tiny number of white people who are really into bikes.

Clearly you don't actually live in DC and only know your commute and the immediate area around it. There are some bike corridors that do get a lot of use. Also, it's not just "white people" who bike in DC.

But whatever. Let's apply your own logic of "they aren't used, so the resources should go elsewhere" - the formerly-4-lane L St NW corridor that was lamented earlier in this thread is only that busy for a short period of time during rush hour. So why should we then put all the resources into it when that's not warranted 90% of the time? That's YOUR logic here after all...

The data is online. No one needs to guess. The number of people using bicycles right now is indistinguishable from zero. While it may go back up when the weather improves, it’s a terrible use of public resources.

One goal of devoting public resources to improving bike infrastructure is to make it easier for more people to bike to work, which would... increase the number. Cars driven by individual commuters are also a terrible use of public resources, for reasons other than just the sheer number of people who benefit, which probably should not be the sole determining factor.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The premise of a lot of cycling people is that there is pent up demand of people who want to bicycle but who don’t because they feel unsafe.

What if people just don’t like riding bicycles? It’s seems like an impossible thing for these pro-bike people to fathom.

One of the most supposedly most successful bike paths in the country is the CCT. Even on its best days of the year it’s a fraction of one lane of average daily traffic volume on any basic arterial road. The other successful bike in the city, the 15th Street cycletrack, on peak days does not even replace 25% of the average daily traffic volume of the one lane that it replaced. Meanwhile, cyclist complain that they feel unsafe because the two way traffic is too narrow and they are lobbying to widen it.

The fact is, even successful bicycle infrastructure is extremely inefficient and wasteful use of public resources in doing the thing that transportation infrastructure is supposed to do, move people around quickly.

Sooner or later smart cities will come to this conclusion too.

The proof is in the pudding. Look at bike lanes in the city. They're empty. People simply aren't using them. We can't dedicate all of our resources to the tiny number of white people who are really into bikes.

Clearly you don't actually live in DC and only know your commute and the immediate area around it. There are some bike corridors that do get a lot of use. Also, it's not just "white people" who bike in DC.

But whatever. Let's apply your own logic of "they aren't used, so the resources should go elsewhere" - the formerly-4-lane L St NW corridor that was lamented earlier in this thread is only that busy for a short period of time during rush hour. So why should we then put all the resources into it when that's not warranted 90% of the time? That's YOUR logic here after all...

The data is online. No one needs to guess. The number of people using bicycles right now is indistinguishable from zero. While it may go back up when the weather improves, it’s a terrible use of public resources.

Anonymous wrote:If the subway is going to be unusable, and everyone is fine with that, then we need to accommodate people where they are -- in cars.

There are going to be far more people on the roads and that means we need a lot more parking, more emphasis on easing traffic, etc. Ridership on the subway is down 75 percent from pre-pandemic levels.

I didnt used to drive all that much, but now with the subway basically in moth balls, I drive everywhere.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Lol all six rush hour bike riders in DC showed up to this thread

I count at least as many cyclists on this thread as commuters. And, we're voting, taxpaying DC residents. You aren't.

LOL. The DCUM ballot is not a real thing.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Lol all six rush hour bike riders in DC showed up to this thread

I count at least as many cyclists on this thread as commuters. And, we're voting, taxpaying DC residents. You aren't.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If the subway is going to be unusable, and everyone is fine with that, then we need to accommodate people where they are -- in cars.

There are going to be far more people on the roads and that means we need a lot more parking, more emphasis on easing traffic, etc. Ridership on the subway is down 75 percent from pre-pandemic levels.

I didnt used to drive all that much, but now with the subway basically in moth balls, I drive everywhere.

You know what frees up parking and reduces car traffic? More transit.

Exactly. And because public right of way is limited and digging holes in the ground is expensive, that transit should go where these underutilized bike lines are.

Okay, do you have a half width bus to sell the city that fits in bike lanes? Or do you want to take all the parking out too? Maybe we can get all the car people to yell at you for a change. I think we should prioritize spending on mass public transit but I’m super confused as to why any thread about DC traffic devolves into drivers yelling about cyclists as if all their problems started and ended with the (apparently nonexistent?) DC bicycles.

Anonymous wrote:Lol, OP just move to LA. You can sit in traffic and stew about it no matter what you build. It's been tried and it sucks.

Anonymous wrote:Lol all six rush hour bike riders in DC showed up to this thread

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If the subway is going to be unusable, and everyone is fine with that, then we need to accommodate people where they are -- in cars.

There are going to be far more people on the roads and that means we need a lot more parking, more emphasis on easing traffic, etc. Ridership on the subway is down 75 percent from pre-pandemic levels.

I didnt used to drive all that much, but now with the subway basically in moth balls, I drive everywhere.

You know what frees up parking and reduces car traffic? More transit.

Exactly. And because public right of way is limited and digging holes in the ground is expensive, that transit should go where these underutilized bike lines are.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If the subway is going to be unusable, and everyone is fine with that, then we need to accommodate people where they are -- in cars.

There are going to be far more people on the roads and that means we need a lot more parking, more emphasis on easing traffic, etc. Ridership on the subway is down 75 percent from pre-pandemic levels.

I didnt used to drive all that much, but now with the subway basically in moth balls, I drive everywhere.

You know what frees up parking and reduces car traffic? More transit.

Exactly. And because public right of way is limited and digging holes in the ground is expensive, that transit should go where these underutilized bike lines are.

No. Since you're a commuter who doesn't live in DC, don't tell us how we should live.

Anonymous wrote:Lol all six rush hour bike riders in DC showed up to this thread

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think we should do the opposite. Discourage car use. I am serious.

100% agree
-- bike commuter

As if everyone can ride a bike, lol.

Most people can

Sure, most people can ride a bike, but that doesn't mean a bike is the preferred means of transportation for most people, especially those with families who often have to make multi-stop errands.

Most of the bicycle people don’t have young kids, know people with disabilities, etc. They don’t envisage that there are people that have very different transportation needs than they do.

I'm the original bike commuter PP and I have a 2.5yo.

So do many of the parents at my kid's daycare. Several drop their kids off with bike trailers.

I don't think everyone should cycle, but making it easier, safer and more accessible for everyone would be a good thing.

Congratulations. Now try that when your kid is in 6th grade and you need to drop them off at school with their science fair poster, lunch and gym clothes.

Is it possible for you to understand that people have very different needs than you do right at this very moment?

At DS's middle school there were dozens and dozens of kids riding there by bike every morning, along with dozens of parents riding with them.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The premise of a lot of cycling people is that there is pent up demand of people who want to bicycle but who don’t because they feel unsafe.

What if people just don’t like riding bicycles? It’s seems like an impossible thing for these pro-bike people to fathom.

One of the most supposedly most successful bike paths in the country is the CCT. Even on its best days of the year it’s a fraction of one lane of average daily traffic volume on any basic arterial road. The other successful bike in the city, the 15th Street cycletrack, on peak days does not even replace 25% of the average daily traffic volume of the one lane that it replaced. Meanwhile, cyclist complain that they feel unsafe because the two way traffic is too narrow and they are lobbying to widen it.

The fact is, even successful bicycle infrastructure is extremely inefficient and wasteful use of public resources in doing the thing that transportation infrastructure is supposed to do, move people around quickly.

Sooner or later smart cities will come to this conclusion too.

The proof is in the pudding. Look at bike lanes in the city. They're empty. People simply aren't using them. We can't dedicate all of our resources to the tiny number of white people who are really into bikes.

Clearly you don't actually live in DC and only know your commute and the immediate area around it. There are some bike corridors that do get a lot of use. Also, it's not just "white people" who bike in DC.

But whatever. Let's apply your own logic of "they aren't used, so the resources should go elsewhere" - the formerly-4-lane L St NW corridor that was lamented earlier in this thread is only that busy for a short period of time during rush hour. So why should we then put all the resources into it when that's not warranted 90% of the time? That's YOUR logic here after all...