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.

the only way to ease traffic in a compact city is to make driving harder not easier, We can't expand the DC road network.

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.

Instead we pour all our resources into bike lanes that almost no one even uses.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We need to make metro free, that’s its only hope.

Free public transit and more bus lanes. Or permanent telework.

There is no evidence that making metro transit free will save it. People don't use it because they don't want to. It will still suck if free. The DC area was built for cars in the post-war era. This is what it is.

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:

Anonymous wrote:

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

100% agree
-- bike commuter

+1 also agree. Commuter tax to fund and improve Metro!

Absolutely. Along with cutting off all but non-emergency/non-disabled private cars on downtown arteries, a la Slow Streets in San Francisco.

That's insane. Half the bars and restaurants and stores in Washington would close. Cities need people to circulate. If you make traffic impossible and the subway unusable, people will stop moving around. That's what happened in San Francisco. Museums there are worried there are going to have to close because no one uses Slow Streets.

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/08/08/arts/design/san-francisco-bikes-cars-museum.html

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

100% agree
-- bike commuter

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We need to make metro free, that’s its only hope.

Free public transit and more bus lanes. Or permanent telework.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

People in the Netherlands bike with young kids all the time.

People in th US do to, but not with 4 kids and all their hockey equipment, or the child's expensive double bass, or lugging thier child's wheelchair which they'll need at their destination, etc etc. etc.

Ah good point. If everyone can’t use alternative transport in every single situation then we should not offer any alternative transportation at all. I can walk my kids the theee blocks to school but because their teacher lives in the suburbs and drives there shouldn’t be any sidewalks at all. And I can bike my kid in a cargo bike five miles away but I shouldn’t buy a cargo bike because he might have hockey practice at soem point in the future.

Do you understand that you are proposing exactly the opposite for which you are criticizing? Have some self-awareness.

Yes, I was being sarcastic. I am sick of the argument that because someone might need to use a wheelchair or someone might need to lug hockey equipment or someone might need to move a couch once a year then that means that people who advocate for cycling, transit and walking infrastructure are out of touch or that such infrastructure should not exist. There are many. many trips that do not require cars. We don't have to get the number of trips requiring cars to zero in order to have infrastructure for other users.

Anonymous wrote:

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.

People in the Netherlands bike with young kids all the time.

People in th US do to, but not with 4 kids and all their hockey equipment, or the child's expensive double bass, or lugging thier child's wheelchair which they'll need at their destination, etc etc. etc.

Ah good point. If everyone can’t use alternative transport in every single situation then we should not offer any alternative transportation at all. I can walk my kids the theee blocks to school but because their teacher lives in the suburbs and drives there shouldn’t be any sidewalks at all. And I can bike my kid in a cargo bike five miles away but I shouldn’t buy a cargo bike because he might have hockey practice at soem point in the future.

Do you understand that you are proposing exactly the opposite for which you are criticizing? Have some self-awareness.

Anonymous wrote:We need to make metro free, that’s its only hope.

Anonymous wrote:Sorry - "provide amazing, alluring alternatives"

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

+1 also agree. Commuter tax to fund and improve Metro!

Absolutely. Along with cutting off all but non-emergency/non-disabled private cars on downtown arteries, a la Slow Streets in San Francisco.

That's insane. Half the bars and restaurants and stores in Washington would close. Cities need people to circulate. If you make traffic impossible and the subway unusable, people will stop moving around. That's what happened in San Francisco. Museums there are worried there are going to have to close because no one uses Slow Streets.

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/08/08/arts/design/san-francisco-bikes-cars-museum.html

It’s quite fascinating how impervious their ideas are to basic foundations of economics and thanks for pointing it out.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's weird how much time and energy the city puts into bike lanes that hardly anyone uses, but no one cares that the subway has become basically unusable.

More people used to use the subway in a single day than people who use bike lanes in a year. The subway got far more cars off the streets than all this wishful thinking about bike lanes.

If we cared about the environment, we would focus on fixing the subway.

I agree with this, even though I ride a bike with some frequency and appreciate protected bike lanes. I think it's an example of how policy often flows to the noisiest constituency. Cyclists in DC are very noisy in terms of agitating for bike infrastructure. That's partly due to a safety issue -- people have died cycling in this city, and it's often due to infrastructure that does nothing to slow or deter dangerous driving. So drivers in this city do absolutely insane things, with impunity, and it's very dangerous to pedestrians and people on bikes. When you fear for your life, you tend to get really loud.

But another reason cyclists are noisy is privilege. The cyclists in DC skew male, white, and well-educated. I happen to agree with a lot of their policy proposals so it's hard to criticize this, but I can't ignore the fact that most of the cycling advocates I know in DC are speaking from a place of privilege. Whereas metro serves a broader constituency, and the people who benefit most from a reliable, affordable, convenient metro network are much poorer and browner than the average DC cyclist.

I wish cyclists in DC would practice more self-awareness about this fact. I'm all for protected bike lanes and street scoping that slows down drivers and protects both pedestrians and cyclists. But I also wish that cycling advocates in the city would speak more about multi-modal infrastructure instead of just focusing on bikes. It's better for cyclists in the end anyway. If you can get more people out of cars and not metro cars or buses, the streets will be safer for cyclists and pedestrians. It's a win-win. You do not need to convince everyone to do a bike commute in order to make cyclists safer, and making cycling safer will also make it more appealing to more people.

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

+1 also agree. Commuter tax to fund and improve Metro!

Absolutely. Along with cutting off all but non-emergency/non-disabled private cars on downtown arteries, a la Slow Streets in San Francisco.

That's insane. Half the bars and restaurants and stores in Washington would close. Cities need people to circulate. If you make traffic impossible and the subway unusable, people will stop moving around. That's what happened in San Francisco. Museums there are worried there are going to have to close because no one uses Slow Streets.

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/08/08/arts/design/san-francisco-bikes-cars-museum.html