Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm for options. Bike lanes, ample parking, safe pedestrian crossings, good public transport. The bikers and the greenies (who the development bros sometimes masquerade as) are never for options tho. They're just for "their way" of getting around. Alienating and annoying.

Options are fine. But what we DON'T need is more lanes for cars.

And you’ve just proved the PPPs point.

You want to live in a suburban cul-de-sac you can do that.

Manhattan is the greatest urban area in the world and 36% of its land area is road. It’s this resilient street grid and a resilient transit infrastructure that has created the conditions for NYC to flourish.

The goal of transportation infrastructure is to move the most people the most quickly and efficiently. And when cities do that well, that’s what makes them vibrant.

Right now there are restaurants closing in DC and opening in Pike & Rose and the Mosaic district. Maybe some reflection on transportation infrastructure could inform why that is.

You think driving in Manhattan is an example of... good?? Did you visit once on Thanksgiving day???

A huge percentage of New Yorkers don't drive and don't own cars. A big percentage of the cars on NYC streets are taxis and ubers. NYC has robust mass transit.
And, I'm not sure why you brought up Mosaic district - that place can be a traffic mess

45% of NYC households own a car. Specifically for Manhattan it’s 22% of households who own cars and 8% of Manhattan workers drive to work, which is over 100,000 people. Lots of car ownership in NYC, lots of cars in Manhattan and lots of Manhattanites commuting with cars.

A person who has never lived in Manhattan, or never lived in Manhattan without a doorman and a parking garage points out that the 22% of residents who have range rovers parked in their parking garages to avoid the jitney and see the grandparents in New Jersey count as driving. The fact that only 8% of those cars are used daily tells you a lot more... If you were capable of hearing it.

If we ever get back to normal, L Street NW will be a parking lot. 20th Street also. in many places there is only one lane that goes through, where there used to be 3 or 4 lanes. I drive kids to school in the morning and then proceed to my office downtown. Metro and biking are not an option.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:pp also seems quite confused about dc urban planning. Do they live in the suburbs? We have a grid. It’s tidily alphabetical and everything.

The DC grid is horrid. One of the reasons the NYC grid works so well is all the one way streets. And the associate lack of left hand cross traffic turns.

Oh! Sorry! I thought you were one of the rip-out-bike-lanes-for-more-private-cars posters! I agree that we should make the DC grid all one way with lots of stops and safe pedestrian crossings. Like Manhattan. Or L St and that general area of NW right now that someone upthread was bewailing as the worst urban planning choice in DC history.

Anonymous wrote:pp also seems quite confused about dc urban planning. Do they live in the suburbs? We have a grid. It’s tidily alphabetical and everything.

The DC grid is horrid. One of the reasons the NYC grid works so well is all the one way streets. And the associate lack of left hand cross traffic turns.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm for options. Bike lanes, ample parking, safe pedestrian crossings, good public transport. The bikers and the greenies (who the development bros sometimes masquerade as) are never for options tho. They're just for "their way" of getting around. Alienating and annoying.

Options are fine. But what we DON'T need is more lanes for cars.

And you’ve just proved the PPPs point.

You want to live in a suburban cul-de-sac you can do that.

Manhattan is the greatest urban area in the world and 36% of its land area is road. It’s this resilient street grid and a resilient transit infrastructure that has created the conditions for NYC to flourish.

The goal of transportation infrastructure is to move the most people the most quickly and efficiently. And when cities do that well, that’s what makes them vibrant.

Right now there are restaurants closing in DC and opening in Pike & Rose and the Mosaic district. Maybe some reflection on transportation infrastructure could inform why that is.

You think driving in Manhattan is an example of... good?? Did you visit once on Thanksgiving day???

A huge percentage of New Yorkers don't drive and don't own cars. A big percentage of the cars on NYC streets are taxis and ubers. NYC has robust mass transit.
And, I'm not sure why you brought up Mosaic district - that place can be a traffic mess

45% of NYC households own a car. Specifically for Manhattan it’s 22% of households who own cars and 8% of Manhattan workers drive to work, which is over 100,000 people. Lots of car ownership in NYC, lots of cars in Manhattan and lots of Manhattanites commuting with cars.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm for options. Bike lanes, ample parking, safe pedestrian crossings, good public transport. The bikers and the greenies (who the development bros sometimes masquerade as) are never for options tho. They're just for "their way" of getting around. Alienating and annoying.

Options are fine. But what we DON'T need is more lanes for cars.

And you’ve just proved the PPPs point.

You want to live in a suburban cul-de-sac you can do that.

Manhattan is the greatest urban area in the world and 36% of its land area is road. It’s this resilient street grid and a resilient transit infrastructure that has created the conditions for NYC to flourish.

The goal of transportation infrastructure is to move the most people the most quickly and efficiently. And when cities do that well, that’s what makes them vibrant.

Right now there are restaurants closing in DC and opening in Pike & Rose and the Mosaic district. Maybe some reflection on transportation infrastructure could inform why that is.

You think driving in Manhattan is an example of... good?? Did you visit once on Thanksgiving day???

A huge percentage of New Yorkers don't drive and don't own cars. A big percentage of the cars on NYC streets are taxis and ubers. NYC has robust mass transit.
And, I'm not sure why you brought up Mosaic district - that place can be a traffic mess

pp also seems quite confused about dc urban planning. Do they live in the suburbs? We have a grid. It’s tidily alphabetical and everything.

What frightens me is that the PPs posting above in complete ignorance unfortunately share the views that are in ascendancy right now but are completely ahistorical. It’s like there is a whole group of people that read some blogs and social media posts and fancy themselves urban planners but haven’t actually done the reading.

Let me help you.

The street grid is a defining element of Manhattan. Established in 1811 to blanket the island when New York was a compact town at the southern tip, the grid was the city’s first great civic enterprise and a vision of brazen ambition. It is also a milestone in the history of city planning and sets a standard to think just as boldly about New York’s future.

https://thegreatestgrid.mcny.org/greatest-grid/

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm for options. Bike lanes, ample parking, safe pedestrian crossings, good public transport. The bikers and the greenies (who the development bros sometimes masquerade as) are never for options tho. They're just for "their way" of getting around. Alienating and annoying.

Options are fine. But what we DON'T need is more lanes for cars.

And you’ve just proved the PPPs point.

You want to live in a suburban cul-de-sac you can do that.

Manhattan is the greatest urban area in the world and 36% of its land area is road. It’s this resilient street grid and a resilient transit infrastructure that has created the conditions for NYC to flourish.

The goal of transportation infrastructure is to move the most people the most quickly and efficiently. And when cities do that well, that’s what makes them vibrant.

Right now there are restaurants closing in DC and opening in Pike & Rose and the Mosaic district. Maybe some reflection on transportation infrastructure could inform why that is.

You think driving in Manhattan is an example of... good?? Did you visit once on Thanksgiving day???

That’s the whole point. You seem to miss it. Manhattan is the most successful urban area in the world because of good planning (1811 street grid) and resilient and efficient transportation options. The chaos, the crowds, the noise, the traffic, the people, all of it is what makes NYC such a vibrant and dynamic city. That’s the attraction. That’s what drives the economy.

You on the other hand want to turn a city into a suburban cup-de-sac and what I will tell you is that you may get your wish, but you will also lose the amenities that city living provided. You cannot have it all. It doesn’t work that way.

Oh, I'm a different poster. I think Manhattan needs more car exclusion areas. It's so much better without. Traffic there is awful. Driving into Manhattan is nuts.

Yup the earlier poster is delusional and misinformed. The car ownership rates in Manhattan are the lowest in the country and people who live there are at their wits end about traffic and all of the noise and pollution that comes with it, much of it (as in DC) caused by non-residents. The only vehicles that should be on the streets of Manhattan are public transportation, deliveries and taxi/ride share vehicles. Luckily the city is finally moving ahead with a congestion tax which should hopefully discourage idiots from the suburbs and other boroughs from driving in and making the city a daily nightmare of honking, air pollutin and blocked intersections. Hopefully DC will have the good sense to do the same.

And BTW the earlier posters suggestion that the street grid has anything to do with NYCs success is laughable - all of New York's neighborhoods north of Canal Street were built after the subway lines opened.

No, a grid does help. A lot.

Suburban neighborhoods aren't walkable because they're not designed in a grid. Most areas surrounding DC are designed to keep non-residents out. The streets wind around and it's rare you can walk anywhere directly. Even in DC the main arteries are built for rapid traffic, and there are blocks and blocks of nothing but houses. Brooklyn, Queens, and the Bronx (most areas of them) are all functional carless because of effective transit and local retail. You are rarely not within ten blocks of a grocery store or laundromat, as an example. DC doesn't have this density in most of its neighborhoods. Would that it did. Further complicating matters, most of DC has permitted parking. Most of New York has free for all street parking except for street cleaning rules. Again, discouraging car ownership, but also reducing the insularity of its neighborhoods.

In DC, your neighbors will literally call the police to report a "strange car" parked on their block. And yet, you all demand the right to drive everywhere.

As long as no one drives in your own neighborhoods.

The surrounding burbs aren't any better. You've got heavily trafficked main arteries that are unpleasant to walk on and deserted side roads that wind in circles before going anywhere. Add to that hills and crime, and I understand why no one leaves their cars. I get it, I really do. But how can it be fixed? Thats the question I'd like to consider.

I would think streetcar lines down the middle of some of the main arteries might work, but I don't have a lot of faith in your ability to get them built. For obvious reasons.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm for options. Bike lanes, ample parking, safe pedestrian crossings, good public transport. The bikers and the greenies (who the development bros sometimes masquerade as) are never for options tho. They're just for "their way" of getting around. Alienating and annoying.

Options are fine. But what we DON'T need is more lanes for cars.

And you’ve just proved the PPPs point.

You want to live in a suburban cul-de-sac you can do that.

Manhattan is the greatest urban area in the world and 36% of its land area is road. It’s this resilient street grid and a resilient transit infrastructure that has created the conditions for NYC to flourish.

The goal of transportation infrastructure is to move the most people the most quickly and efficiently. And when cities do that well, that’s what makes them vibrant.

Right now there are restaurants closing in DC and opening in Pike & Rose and the Mosaic district. Maybe some reflection on transportation infrastructure could inform why that is.

You think driving in Manhattan is an example of... good?? Did you visit once on Thanksgiving day???

That’s the whole point. You seem to miss it. Manhattan is the most successful urban area in the world because of good planning (1811 street grid) and resilient and efficient transportation options. The chaos, the crowds, the noise, the traffic, the people, all of it is what makes NYC such a vibrant and dynamic city. That’s the attraction. That’s what drives the economy.

You on the other hand want to turn a city into a suburban cup-de-sac and what I will tell you is that you may get your wish, but you will also lose the amenities that city living provided. You cannot have it all. It doesn’t work that way.

Oh, I'm a different poster. I think Manhattan needs more car exclusion areas. It's so much better without. Traffic there is awful. Driving into Manhattan is nuts.

Yup the earlier poster is delusional and misinformed. The car ownership rates in Manhattan are the lowest in the country and people who live there are at their wits end about traffic and all of the noise and pollution that comes with it, much of it (as in DC) caused by non-residents. The only vehicles that should be on the streets of Manhattan are public transportation, deliveries and taxi/ride share vehicles. Luckily the city is finally moving ahead with a congestion tax which should hopefully discourage idiots from the suburbs and other boroughs from driving in and making the city a daily nightmare of honking, air pollutin and blocked intersections. Hopefully DC will have the good sense to do the same.

And BTW the earlier posters suggestion that the street grid has anything to do with NYCs success is laughable - all of New York's neighborhoods north of Canal Street were built after the subway lines opened.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm for options. Bike lanes, ample parking, safe pedestrian crossings, good public transport. The bikers and the greenies (who the development bros sometimes masquerade as) are never for options tho. They're just for "their way" of getting around. Alienating and annoying.

Options are fine. But what we DON'T need is more lanes for cars.

And you’ve just proved the PPPs point.

You want to live in a suburban cul-de-sac you can do that.

Manhattan is the greatest urban area in the world and 36% of its land area is road. It’s this resilient street grid and a resilient transit infrastructure that has created the conditions for NYC to flourish.

The goal of transportation infrastructure is to move the most people the most quickly and efficiently. And when cities do that well, that’s what makes them vibrant.

Right now there are restaurants closing in DC and opening in Pike & Rose and the Mosaic district. Maybe some reflection on transportation infrastructure could inform why that is.

You think driving in Manhattan is an example of... good?? Did you visit once on Thanksgiving day???

That’s the whole point. You seem to miss it. Manhattan is the most successful urban area in the world because of good planning (1811 street grid) and resilient and efficient transportation options. The chaos, the crowds, the noise, the traffic, the people, all of it is what makes NYC such a vibrant and dynamic city. That’s the attraction. That’s what drives the economy.

You on the other hand want to turn a city into a suburban cup-de-sac and what I will tell you is that you may get your wish, but you will also lose the amenities that city living provided. You cannot have it all. It doesn’t work that way.

Oh, I'm a different poster. I think Manhattan needs more car exclusion areas. It's so much better without. Traffic there is awful. Driving into Manhattan is nuts.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm for options. Bike lanes, ample parking, safe pedestrian crossings, good public transport. The bikers and the greenies (who the development bros sometimes masquerade as) are never for options tho. They're just for "their way" of getting around. Alienating and annoying.

Options are fine. But what we DON'T need is more lanes for cars.

And you’ve just proved the PPPs point.

You want to live in a suburban cul-de-sac you can do that.

Manhattan is the greatest urban area in the world and 36% of its land area is road. It’s this resilient street grid and a resilient transit infrastructure that has created the conditions for NYC to flourish.

The goal of transportation infrastructure is to move the most people the most quickly and efficiently. And when cities do that well, that’s what makes them vibrant.

Right now there are restaurants closing in DC and opening in Pike & Rose and the Mosaic district. Maybe some reflection on transportation infrastructure could inform why that is.

You think driving in Manhattan is an example of... good?? Did you visit once on Thanksgiving day???

That’s the whole point. You seem to miss it. Manhattan is the most successful urban area in the world because of good planning (1811 street grid) and resilient and efficient transportation options. The chaos, the crowds, the noise, the traffic, the people, all of it is what makes NYC such a vibrant and dynamic city. That’s the attraction. That’s what drives the economy.

You on the other hand want to turn a city into a suburban cup-de-sac and what I will tell you is that you may get your wish, but you will also lose the amenities that city living provided. You cannot have it all. It doesn’t work that way.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm for options. Bike lanes, ample parking, safe pedestrian crossings, good public transport. The bikers and the greenies (who the development bros sometimes masquerade as) are never for options tho. They're just for "their way" of getting around. Alienating and annoying.

Options are fine. But what we DON'T need is more lanes for cars.

And you’ve just proved the PPPs point.

You want to live in a suburban cul-de-sac you can do that.

Manhattan is the greatest urban area in the world and 36% of its land area is road. It’s this resilient street grid and a resilient transit infrastructure that has created the conditions for NYC to flourish.

The goal of transportation infrastructure is to move the most people the most quickly and efficiently. And when cities do that well, that’s what makes them vibrant.

Right now there are restaurants closing in DC and opening in Pike & Rose and the Mosaic district. Maybe some reflection on transportation infrastructure could inform why that is.

You think driving in Manhattan is an example of... good?? Did you visit once on Thanksgiving day???

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:NP, just jumping in to add that a major benefit of bike infrastructure isn't just that it provides space for cyclists. It's that it slows drivers down to a speed that is appropriate for environments with pedestrians and others.

Drivers on overbuilt roads kill far too many people, and reckless driving is a serious problem in this town that also causes injuries and property damage and just makes places unpleasant. Maybe when self-driving cars finally pry the steering wheels from our hands that will change, and we can talk. In the meantime, I think bike lanes just make city neighborhoods a lot more pleasant to spend time in.

- person who uses all the modes including driving and who had a bike lane built in front of their house

This is super important- and if you slow down drivers then people are more likely to bike and walk places rather than drive. I sometimes drive a routine one mile trip I need to do, not because I don't want to walk it but because the walk is incredibly unpleasant because of how much cars speed, fail to yield to pedestrians at turns, etc. If you built an environment where cars are able and allowed to go 30MPH then they will go 40 and be extremely hostile to anyone not in a car. I walk more than any other mode and always support bike lanes if they will slow cars down (I hate the painted bike lanes with no bollards etc because they are basically just more space for cars to speed; I think bike lane advocates hate them as well)

Providing infrastructure that lets people speed induces more car trips; slowing down cars induces more people to walk, bike, scoot, etc. If I can safely cross the major street near me I am more likely to take the bus which picks up across the street.

I know that it is easier to dismiss ideas like this by saying that they are just the ideas of only white tech bros but that is simply a false narrative.

There is absolutely no evidence this is true. This is just wishful thinking. These nutty bikers always think that if the government just does this one thing, then suddenly everyone will discover the joys of bicycle riding and we won't have all these bike lanes going unused.

Actually, if you cut the speed limit, you know what happens? People ignore the speed limit. I'm living proof.

That is why cutting the speed limit isn’t enough. You need road designs and lane narrowing. This can have the added benefit of giving pedestrians shorter crossings. Or you add bollards at an intersection to harden the turn and slow drivers down and you might have a spot for a bike rack.

While I admire the bold vision, I don’t think it will achieve the utopian end state you desire.

Are you talking about PP's specific road modifications? Because this past year, DC has installed a bunch of bollards at dangerous intersections and I have seen first hand how much safer it makes the road for pedestrians.

I understand the goal, however it’s a bit underwear gnomes innit? Step one, reduce capacity for cars. Step two ????? Step three cars magically disappear.

Well, step three is sort of true but not in the way imagined. Instead what happens is that by reducing road capacity you decrease the volume of cars but increase congestion. You might feel safer, but you’re now adding significant externalities to living in your neighborhood which also has public health consequences. Meanwhile, the the % of vehicles that are squeezed out will avoid your street which also mean avoiding the restaurants and retail in your neighborhood which increases the likelihood that these business will not be sustainable.

If you value the commercial and retail parts of your neighborhood you should be supporting efforts that make it easier for people to want to come there instead of proposing measures with the net effect of discouraging them.

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

So a family of five on one bike?