Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:That's city living.

Sounds like you would be happier in a suburb.

This sounds like the usual rhetoric from the Smart Growth lobby and some of the lobby's lapdogs on the local ANC.

Ohhh... Ohhh... boogeyman is here!!!

Anonymous wrote:This is really the crux of it. Elected officials who have distain for people who own homes and pay taxes.

When these electeds say they are socialists, they actually kind of mean it. Vote better next time.

Anonymous wrote:That's city living.

Sounds like you would be happier in a suburb.

This sounds like the usual rhetoric from the Smart Growth lobby and some of the lobby's lapdogs on the local ANC.

Anonymous wrote:I agree about raising RPP stickers, especially on the second, third, fourth car in a household.

A progressively rising fee for multiple vehicles registered to the same address is already part of the RPP pricing structure.

Anonymous wrote:I agree about raising RPP stickers, especially on the second, third, fourth car in a household.

DC already did exactly that, in 2021. It also raised the annual registration fee for larger vehicles by 52 percent or 62 percent (depending on how big your car is) last year.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm fine with shrinking the zones, but getting rid of parking in residential neighborhoods? I hope people would object to that. People can't feed the meters in front of their own homes all day.

There is no "right" to a free parking space in front of your home. It is public space and there should be a public benefit for ALL residents for those who use it.

I'm OK with rich gentrifiers feeding the meter in front of their home so the less fortunate in the city can finally eat. That's why I only have a bike you might want to try it sometime.

Do you even live here? The DC government is drowning in tax dollars paid almost entirely by rich people. Bicyclists can thank them for the *billions* of dollars the city has spent on biking infrastructure.

Or, they can thank the Federal DOT block grants, which more likely paid for them.

DOT block grants that are paid for …..wait for it…. the gas tax?

Only about a third funding of the DDOT projects are paid for by the taxes collected via tag/title/gas. The rest is picked up by Joe Taxpayer. So no. AUTOMOBILE OWNERSHIP is subsidized by the residents.

Does Joe get deliveries, wish to have police/EMS/fire services, or enjoy modern sanitary sewer systems? Then Joe has to pay for the roads just like those mean drivers.

Joe does pay for the roads. Everyone pays for the roads. If the only people who used the roads in motor vehicles were making deliveries, providing police/EMS/fire services, or maintaining water and sewer systems, there would be a lot fewer motor vehicles on the roads.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:That's city living.

Sounds like you would be happier in a suburb.

This is what I don’t understand about cyclists. If you want to ride your bike on the street, move to the suburbs or a small town.

Jobs and opportunity are in the city. It is where young people go after college. If you want to continue to attract top talent to your city,you need to have things like bike share and bike lanes, electric scooter share etc because that is how the kids are coming up.

Every year legions of over educated public policy and international studies majors descend on DC hoping to get one of the few jobs they are actually qualified for. They are literally unemployable 90% of the rest of the country. They will come whether there are scooters or not.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm fine with shrinking the zones, but getting rid of parking in residential neighborhoods? I hope people would object to that. People can't feed the meters in front of their own homes all day.

There is no "right" to a free parking space in front of your home. It is public space and there should be a public benefit for ALL residents for those who use it.

I'm OK with rich gentrifiers feeding the meter in front of their home so the less fortunate in the city can finally eat. That's why I only have a bike you might want to try it sometime.

Do you even live here? The DC government is drowning in tax dollars paid almost entirely by rich people. Bicyclists can thank them for the *billions* of dollars the city has spent on biking infrastructure.

Or, they can thank the Federal DOT block grants, which more likely paid for them.

DOT block grants that are paid for …..wait for it…. the gas tax?

Only about a third funding of the DDOT projects are paid for by the taxes collected via tag/title/gas. The rest is picked up by Joe Taxpayer. So no. AUTOMOBILE OWNERSHIP is subsidized by the residents.

Does Joe get deliveries, wish to have police/EMS/fire services, or enjoy modern sanitary sewer systems? Then Joe has to pay for the roads just like those mean drivers.

I agree about raising RPP stickers, especially on the second, third, fourth car in a household.

This is a lot of posts drawing very sweeping conclusions about a proposal that (if it's even been proposed) has virtually no chance of ever being implemented.

I do think they should raise the price of RPP stickers, though. It's insanely cheap to park my car on the street.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:That's city living.

Sounds like you would be happier in a suburb.

This is what I don’t understand about cyclists. If you want to ride your bike on the street, move to the suburbs or a small town.

This is what I don't understand about people who oppose bicycles. (Actually, another thing I don't understand is just plain opposing bicycles.) Who thinks that suburbs are for bikes but cities are for cars? It's the other way around.

There’s 700,000 cars in the district on any given day. How many people on bikes? 300?

Vision-impaired people, like you, should not be allowed to drive.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:That's city living.

Sounds like you would be happier in a suburb.

This is what I don’t understand about cyclists. If you want to ride your bike on the street, move to the suburbs or a small town.

This is what I don't understand about people who oppose bicycles. (Actually, another thing I don't understand is just plain opposing bicycles.) Who thinks that suburbs are for bikes but cities are for cars? It's the other way around.

There’s 700,000 cars in the district on any given day. How many people on bikes? 300?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:That's city living.

Sounds like you would be happier in a suburb.

This is what I don’t understand about cyclists. If you want to ride your bike on the street, move to the suburbs or a small town.

This is what I don't understand about people who oppose bicycles. (Actually, another thing I don't understand is just plain opposing bicycles.) Who thinks that suburbs are for bikes but cities are for cars? It's the other way around.

Common sense (and your mother) tells you it’s not a very smart idea to ride your bike where there’s a bajillion people moving around.

I drive and have never been in an accident in my life but I fully expect to be in one sooner or later because statistics.

As a cyclist, you should expect to be hit by a car for the same reason.

It's perfectly safe to ride a bike where there are a bajillion people moving around. The danger comes from cars, not from people. Especially cars moving fast. Everyone will be safer - including you - when there are more people getting around on bikes and fewer people getting around in cars.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:That's city living.

Sounds like you would be happier in a suburb.

This is what I don’t understand about cyclists. If you want to ride your bike on the street, move to the suburbs or a small town.

This is what I don't understand about people who oppose bicycles. (Actually, another thing I don't understand is just plain opposing bicycles.) Who thinks that suburbs are for bikes but cities are for cars? It's the other way around.

Common sense (and your mother) tells you it’s not a very smart idea to ride your bike where there’s a bajillion people moving around.

I drive and have never been in an accident in my life but I fully expect to be in one sooner or later because statistics.

As a cyclist, you should expect to be hit by a car for the same reason.

This is really the crux of it. Elected officials who have distain for people who own homes and pay taxes.