Anonymous wrote:The goal and purpose of our transportation resources should be moving as many people around the city as efficiently as possible.

Bike lanes do the opposite.

They help a tiny number of people who insist on using one form of transportation at the expense of everyone else who find it harder to move about the city. Economically, it’s pretty nutty.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just so you know. The owner of Bread Furst himself has said that the location was specifically picked because of parking, visibility and neighborhood household income. He would be the absolute last person to want to make Connecticut a one lane road without parking.

I can't speak for the owner of Bread Furst, but many business owners are in favor of traffic calming. They know that a lot of their business comes from people who arrive on foot, and they don't enjoy risking their own lives getting to work.

Oh please do share the names of these businesses that are clamoring for narrower streets, no parking and physical impediments.

Business owners hate it when it’s easy for people to come to their stores

Totally. I just dug up this really interesting research from NYC that is strong support for traffic calming being very good for local business.

https://www.nyc.gov/html/dot/downloads/pdf/dot-economic-benefits-of-sustainable-streets.pdf

This is a straw man. The issue is not how calm the traffic is, the issue is whether the traffic can stop and spend. TaKe away parking and take away curbside access (hello bike lane) and those businesses will fail.

Lol, bikers spend quite a bit and don't waste valuable parking spaces.

https://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/local/more-businesses-in-san-diego-begin-to-embrace-bike-lanes/2951045/

The only problem is that the number of bikers is tiny.

And they make it harder to walk around because they don't follow traffic rules

"There's so few of them that they make it hard to walk around, and I'm going to ignore the vehicles that actually kill pedestrians" is a very interesting take. Like, some real five dimensional logical. Or just pure BS. Yeah, pure BS. Thanks.

I know these are difficult concepts and helmet laws are a relatively new phenomenon but try and follow:

The argument you proferred was that bicylists and bike lanes would be economically beneficial to retail businesses. That they would make up any business lost due to lost parking etc. The problem with that argument is two fold and for two different reasons. Firstly there arent anywhere near enough bicyclists, especially yearround, to make up that volume and secondly, any benfits from increased pedestrianization due to less cars is completely offset by bike lanes due to bicyclists not stopping at lights and stop signs. In short, there are not enough bicyclists to make up lost demand AND pedestrian access is not improved.

1. You don't know how much business will be lost from removal of some parking. It's not 100% and it may not even be a large percent.
2. You don't know how much increased business comes from bicyclists and pedestrians.
You're just making stuff up to fit your narrative. Please go back to grade school for how to make an argument.

Really? Physician, heal thyself.

Narrower lanes, no parking, and physical impediments will not increase either density or business. Increased density requires wider not narrower lanes. Increased walkability requires no physical impediments and no bike thoroughfares. Parking is a function of density. If there is enough density, 300% more than now, then parking is less necessary but the catch-22 is that in order to get past the first stages of increased density there needs to be more parking.

That is the problem of using "pedestrian safety" and economic development as a stalking horse for bike lanes. Bike lanes do neither while the anti-car measures actively harm economic development by reducing access and demand. DC has nowhere near the level of population density for neighborhoods to be entirely self-sustaining.

Ok, more conjecture. Cool, thanks.

Oh sorry. Was the basic logic to complicated or are you just in the denial phase? It's basic economics. It's also all the pro-density arguments you make. The only problem you have is that the specific measures you want to implement - narrow roads, no parking and physical impediments - decrease rather than increase population density.

Oh, cool. City development is basic economics. Who knew it was so simple?

You're showing your ignorance here.

Isn't it. I mean all we have to do is increase congestion, remove parking and make walking more complicated. Once we reduce access and demand then we'll have an economic nirvana.

1. Remove sidewalks, bike lanes, bus stuff, add travel lanes and parking
2. ?
3. Profit!

Interesting that you say that. Nobody has proposed any of that. What is being demanded is eliminating roads, narrowing streets, removing parking, and adding physical impediments with the specific and stated goal of increasing congestion in order to reduce demand which will somehow miraculously result in more business and a population increase. This is a phenomenally stupid idea.

What is being "demanded" is traffic calming and creating space for other forms of transit - bus, pedestrian, bike. Traffic calming, by definition, slows down traffic. No, you do not have the right to drive through DC at 50MPH and block other forms of transit with your free parking.

What you're claiming (in the absence of all evidence) is that traffic calming ruins business.

Come on say what you mean instead of hiding behind euphemisms. The traffic "calming" proposals are narrowing streets, removing parking, and adding physical impediments.

The big irony is that none of that calms anything. Instead it increases frustration and congestion. That is your stated goal. To make driving so bad and inconvenient that they look for alternatives. The problem with that is that those alternatives will be other areas.



People do not drive through DC at 50mph. There is too much traffic to do that.

I'm not trying to hide anything - traffic calming means what it says on the tin. traffic calming. SLOWING DOWN traffic. Yes, one way to do that is by removing travel lanes. If people decide to metro instead of having to drive safetly through my neighborhood, fine by me.

As for speeding - they speed everywhere in DC. I'm not sure why you or another PP tries to claim that there is no speeding in DC. And it's not only speeding, but also things like unsafe turns, unsafe passing, blocking crosswalks, etc.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Claustrophobia 😂. I thought you were being serious, sorry.

Really, because that is the actual stated goal. Reduce the physical space in order to force people to pay more attention.

Yes, how terrible that you have to pay attention at intersections. HOW TERRIBLE.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Claustrophobia 😂. I thought you were being serious, sorry.

Really, because that is the actual stated goal. Reduce the physical space in order to force people to pay more attention.

Anonymous wrote:Claustrophobia 😂. I thought you were being serious, sorry.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just so you know. The owner of Bread Furst himself has said that the location was specifically picked because of parking, visibility and neighborhood household income. He would be the absolute last person to want to make Connecticut a one lane road without parking.

I can't speak for the owner of Bread Furst, but many business owners are in favor of traffic calming. They know that a lot of their business comes from people who arrive on foot, and they don't enjoy risking their own lives getting to work.

Oh please do share the names of these businesses that are clamoring for narrower streets, no parking and physical impediments.

Business owners hate it when it’s easy for people to come to their stores

Totally. I just dug up this really interesting research from NYC that is strong support for traffic calming being very good for local business.

https://www.nyc.gov/html/dot/downloads/pdf/dot-economic-benefits-of-sustainable-streets.pdf

This is a straw man. The issue is not how calm the traffic is, the issue is whether the traffic can stop and spend. TaKe away parking and take away curbside access (hello bike lane) and those businesses will fail.

Lol, bikers spend quite a bit and don't waste valuable parking spaces.

https://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/local/more-businesses-in-san-diego-begin-to-embrace-bike-lanes/2951045/

The only problem is that the number of bikers is tiny.

And they make it harder to walk around because they don't follow traffic rules

"There's so few of them that they make it hard to walk around, and I'm going to ignore the vehicles that actually kill pedestrians" is a very interesting take. Like, some real five dimensional logical. Or just pure BS. Yeah, pure BS. Thanks.

I know these are difficult concepts and helmet laws are a relatively new phenomenon but try and follow:

The argument you proferred was that bicylists and bike lanes would be economically beneficial to retail businesses. That they would make up any business lost due to lost parking etc. The problem with that argument is two fold and for two different reasons. Firstly there arent anywhere near enough bicyclists, especially yearround, to make up that volume and secondly, any benfits from increased pedestrianization due to less cars is completely offset by bike lanes due to bicyclists not stopping at lights and stop signs. In short, there are not enough bicyclists to make up lost demand AND pedestrian access is not improved.

1. You don't know how much business will be lost from removal of some parking. It's not 100% and it may not even be a large percent.
2. You don't know how much increased business comes from bicyclists and pedestrians.
You're just making stuff up to fit your narrative. Please go back to grade school for how to make an argument.

Really? Physician, heal thyself.

Narrower lanes, no parking, and physical impediments will not increase either density or business. Increased density requires wider not narrower lanes. Increased walkability requires no physical impediments and no bike thoroughfares. Parking is a function of density. If there is enough density, 300% more than now, then parking is less necessary but the catch-22 is that in order to get past the first stages of increased density there needs to be more parking.

That is the problem of using "pedestrian safety" and economic development as a stalking horse for bike lanes. Bike lanes do neither while the anti-car measures actively harm economic development by reducing access and demand. DC has nowhere near the level of population density for neighborhoods to be entirely self-sustaining.

Ok, more conjecture. Cool, thanks.

Oh sorry. Was the basic logic to complicated or are you just in the denial phase? It's basic economics. It's also all the pro-density arguments you make. The only problem you have is that the specific measures you want to implement - narrow roads, no parking and physical impediments - decrease rather than increase population density.

Oh, cool. City development is basic economics. Who knew it was so simple?

You're showing your ignorance here.

Isn't it. I mean all we have to do is increase congestion, remove parking and make walking more complicated. Once we reduce access and demand then we'll have an economic nirvana.

1. Remove sidewalks, bike lanes, bus stuff, add travel lanes and parking
2. ?
3. Profit!

Interesting that you say that. Nobody has proposed any of that. What is being demanded is eliminating roads, narrowing streets, removing parking, and adding physical impediments with the specific and stated goal of increasing congestion in order to reduce demand which will somehow miraculously result in more business and a population increase. This is a phenomenally stupid idea.

What is being "demanded" is traffic calming and creating space for other forms of transit - bus, pedestrian, bike. Traffic calming, by definition, slows down traffic. No, you do not have the right to drive through DC at 50MPH and block other forms of transit with your free parking.

What you're claiming (in the absence of all evidence) is that traffic calming ruins business.

Come on say what you mean instead of hiding behind euphemisms. The traffic "calming" proposals are narrowing streets, removing parking, and adding physical impediments.

The big irony is that none of that calms anything. Instead it increases frustration and congestion. That is your stated goal. To make driving so bad and inconvenient that they look for alternatives. The problem with that is that those alternatives will be other areas.



People do not drive through DC at 50mph. There is too much traffic to do that.

Anonymous wrote:Claustrophobia 😂. I thought you were being serious, sorry.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just so you know. The owner of Bread Furst himself has said that the location was specifically picked because of parking, visibility and neighborhood household income. He would be the absolute last person to want to make Connecticut a one lane road without parking.

I can't speak for the owner of Bread Furst, but many business owners are in favor of traffic calming. They know that a lot of their business comes from people who arrive on foot, and they don't enjoy risking their own lives getting to work.

Oh please do share the names of these businesses that are clamoring for narrower streets, no parking and physical impediments.

Business owners hate it when it’s easy for people to come to their stores

Totally. I just dug up this really interesting research from NYC that is strong support for traffic calming being very good for local business.

https://www.nyc.gov/html/dot/downloads/pdf/dot-economic-benefits-of-sustainable-streets.pdf

This is a straw man. The issue is not how calm the traffic is, the issue is whether the traffic can stop and spend. TaKe away parking and take away curbside access (hello bike lane) and those businesses will fail.

Lol, bikers spend quite a bit and don't waste valuable parking spaces.

https://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/local/more-businesses-in-san-diego-begin-to-embrace-bike-lanes/2951045/

The only problem is that the number of bikers is tiny.

And they make it harder to walk around because they don't follow traffic rules

"There's so few of them that they make it hard to walk around, and I'm going to ignore the vehicles that actually kill pedestrians" is a very interesting take. Like, some real five dimensional logical. Or just pure BS. Yeah, pure BS. Thanks.

I know these are difficult concepts and helmet laws are a relatively new phenomenon but try and follow:

The argument you proferred was that bicylists and bike lanes would be economically beneficial to retail businesses. That they would make up any business lost due to lost parking etc. The problem with that argument is two fold and for two different reasons. Firstly there arent anywhere near enough bicyclists, especially yearround, to make up that volume and secondly, any benfits from increased pedestrianization due to less cars is completely offset by bike lanes due to bicyclists not stopping at lights and stop signs. In short, there are not enough bicyclists to make up lost demand AND pedestrian access is not improved.

1. You don't know how much business will be lost from removal of some parking. It's not 100% and it may not even be a large percent.
2. You don't know how much increased business comes from bicyclists and pedestrians.
You're just making stuff up to fit your narrative. Please go back to grade school for how to make an argument.

Really? Physician, heal thyself.

Narrower lanes, no parking, and physical impediments will not increase either density or business. Increased density requires wider not narrower lanes. Increased walkability requires no physical impediments and no bike thoroughfares. Parking is a function of density. If there is enough density, 300% more than now, then parking is less necessary but the catch-22 is that in order to get past the first stages of increased density there needs to be more parking.

That is the problem of using "pedestrian safety" and economic development as a stalking horse for bike lanes. Bike lanes do neither while the anti-car measures actively harm economic development by reducing access and demand. DC has nowhere near the level of population density for neighborhoods to be entirely self-sustaining.

Ok, more conjecture. Cool, thanks.

Oh sorry. Was the basic logic to complicated or are you just in the denial phase? It's basic economics. It's also all the pro-density arguments you make. The only problem you have is that the specific measures you want to implement - narrow roads, no parking and physical impediments - decrease rather than increase population density.

Oh, cool. City development is basic economics. Who knew it was so simple?

You're showing your ignorance here.

Isn't it. I mean all we have to do is increase congestion, remove parking and make walking more complicated. Once we reduce access and demand then we'll have an economic nirvana.

1. Remove sidewalks, bike lanes, bus stuff, add travel lanes and parking
2. ?
3. Profit!

Interesting that you say that. Nobody has proposed any of that. What is being demanded is eliminating roads, narrowing streets, removing parking, and adding physical impediments with the specific and stated goal of increasing congestion in order to reduce demand which will somehow miraculously result in more business and a population increase. This is a phenomenally stupid idea.

Traffic calming is to create safer streets.

Life & limb >> profits

Then why do you all claim it's economically beneficial?

Narrowing streets and installing physical impediments does not create safer streets. It increases congestion, which makes things less safe for pedestrians, and induces claustrophobia, which makes people more frustrated.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just so you know. The owner of Bread Furst himself has said that the location was specifically picked because of parking, visibility and neighborhood household income. He would be the absolute last person to want to make Connecticut a one lane road without parking.

I can't speak for the owner of Bread Furst, but many business owners are in favor of traffic calming. They know that a lot of their business comes from people who arrive on foot, and they don't enjoy risking their own lives getting to work.

Oh please do share the names of these businesses that are clamoring for narrower streets, no parking and physical impediments.

Business owners hate it when it’s easy for people to come to their stores

Totally. I just dug up this really interesting research from NYC that is strong support for traffic calming being very good for local business.

https://www.nyc.gov/html/dot/downloads/pdf/dot-economic-benefits-of-sustainable-streets.pdf

This is a straw man. The issue is not how calm the traffic is, the issue is whether the traffic can stop and spend. TaKe away parking and take away curbside access (hello bike lane) and those businesses will fail.

Lol, bikers spend quite a bit and don't waste valuable parking spaces.

https://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/local/more-businesses-in-san-diego-begin-to-embrace-bike-lanes/2951045/

The only problem is that the number of bikers is tiny.

And they make it harder to walk around because they don't follow traffic rules

"There's so few of them that they make it hard to walk around, and I'm going to ignore the vehicles that actually kill pedestrians" is a very interesting take. Like, some real five dimensional logical. Or just pure BS. Yeah, pure BS. Thanks.

I know these are difficult concepts and helmet laws are a relatively new phenomenon but try and follow:

The argument you proferred was that bicylists and bike lanes would be economically beneficial to retail businesses. That they would make up any business lost due to lost parking etc. The problem with that argument is two fold and for two different reasons. Firstly there arent anywhere near enough bicyclists, especially yearround, to make up that volume and secondly, any benfits from increased pedestrianization due to less cars is completely offset by bike lanes due to bicyclists not stopping at lights and stop signs. In short, there are not enough bicyclists to make up lost demand AND pedestrian access is not improved.

1. You don't know how much business will be lost from removal of some parking. It's not 100% and it may not even be a large percent.
2. You don't know how much increased business comes from bicyclists and pedestrians.
You're just making stuff up to fit your narrative. Please go back to grade school for how to make an argument.

Really? Physician, heal thyself.

Narrower lanes, no parking, and physical impediments will not increase either density or business. Increased density requires wider not narrower lanes. Increased walkability requires no physical impediments and no bike thoroughfares. Parking is a function of density. If there is enough density, 300% more than now, then parking is less necessary but the catch-22 is that in order to get past the first stages of increased density there needs to be more parking.

That is the problem of using "pedestrian safety" and economic development as a stalking horse for bike lanes. Bike lanes do neither while the anti-car measures actively harm economic development by reducing access and demand. DC has nowhere near the level of population density for neighborhoods to be entirely self-sustaining.

Ok, more conjecture. Cool, thanks.

Oh sorry. Was the basic logic to complicated or are you just in the denial phase? It's basic economics. It's also all the pro-density arguments you make. The only problem you have is that the specific measures you want to implement - narrow roads, no parking and physical impediments - decrease rather than increase population density.

Oh, cool. City development is basic economics. Who knew it was so simple?

You're showing your ignorance here.

Isn't it. I mean all we have to do is increase congestion, remove parking and make walking more complicated. Once we reduce access and demand then we'll have an economic nirvana.

1. Remove sidewalks, bike lanes, bus stuff, add travel lanes and parking
2. ?
3. Profit!

Interesting that you say that. Nobody has proposed any of that. What is being demanded is eliminating roads, narrowing streets, removing parking, and adding physical impediments with the specific and stated goal of increasing congestion in order to reduce demand which will somehow miraculously result in more business and a population increase. This is a phenomenally stupid idea.

Traffic calming is to create safer streets.

Life & limb >> profits

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just so you know. The owner of Bread Furst himself has said that the location was specifically picked because of parking, visibility and neighborhood household income. He would be the absolute last person to want to make Connecticut a one lane road without parking.

I can't speak for the owner of Bread Furst, but many business owners are in favor of traffic calming. They know that a lot of their business comes from people who arrive on foot, and they don't enjoy risking their own lives getting to work.

Oh please do share the names of these businesses that are clamoring for narrower streets, no parking and physical impediments.

Business owners hate it when it’s easy for people to come to their stores

Totally. I just dug up this really interesting research from NYC that is strong support for traffic calming being very good for local business.

https://www.nyc.gov/html/dot/downloads/pdf/dot-economic-benefits-of-sustainable-streets.pdf

This is a straw man. The issue is not how calm the traffic is, the issue is whether the traffic can stop and spend. TaKe away parking and take away curbside access (hello bike lane) and those businesses will fail.

Lol, bikers spend quite a bit and don't waste valuable parking spaces.

https://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/local/more-businesses-in-san-diego-begin-to-embrace-bike-lanes/2951045/

The only problem is that the number of bikers is tiny.

And they make it harder to walk around because they don't follow traffic rules

"There's so few of them that they make it hard to walk around, and I'm going to ignore the vehicles that actually kill pedestrians" is a very interesting take. Like, some real five dimensional logical. Or just pure BS. Yeah, pure BS. Thanks.

I know these are difficult concepts and helmet laws are a relatively new phenomenon but try and follow:

The argument you proferred was that bicylists and bike lanes would be economically beneficial to retail businesses. That they would make up any business lost due to lost parking etc. The problem with that argument is two fold and for two different reasons. Firstly there arent anywhere near enough bicyclists, especially yearround, to make up that volume and secondly, any benfits from increased pedestrianization due to less cars is completely offset by bike lanes due to bicyclists not stopping at lights and stop signs. In short, there are not enough bicyclists to make up lost demand AND pedestrian access is not improved.

1. You don't know how much business will be lost from removal of some parking. It's not 100% and it may not even be a large percent.
2. You don't know how much increased business comes from bicyclists and pedestrians.
You're just making stuff up to fit your narrative. Please go back to grade school for how to make an argument.

Really? Physician, heal thyself.

Narrower lanes, no parking, and physical impediments will not increase either density or business. Increased density requires wider not narrower lanes. Increased walkability requires no physical impediments and no bike thoroughfares. Parking is a function of density. If there is enough density, 300% more than now, then parking is less necessary but the catch-22 is that in order to get past the first stages of increased density there needs to be more parking.

That is the problem of using "pedestrian safety" and economic development as a stalking horse for bike lanes. Bike lanes do neither while the anti-car measures actively harm economic development by reducing access and demand. DC has nowhere near the level of population density for neighborhoods to be entirely self-sustaining.

Ok, more conjecture. Cool, thanks.

Oh sorry. Was the basic logic to complicated or are you just in the denial phase? It's basic economics. It's also all the pro-density arguments you make. The only problem you have is that the specific measures you want to implement - narrow roads, no parking and physical impediments - decrease rather than increase population density.

Oh, cool. City development is basic economics. Who knew it was so simple?

You're showing your ignorance here.

Isn't it. I mean all we have to do is increase congestion, remove parking and make walking more complicated. Once we reduce access and demand then we'll have an economic nirvana.

1. Remove sidewalks, bike lanes, bus stuff, add travel lanes and parking
2. ?
3. Profit!

Interesting that you say that. Nobody has proposed any of that. What is being demanded is eliminating roads, narrowing streets, removing parking, and adding physical impediments with the specific and stated goal of increasing congestion in order to reduce demand which will somehow miraculously result in more business and a population increase. This is a phenomenally stupid idea.

Traffic calming is to create safer streets.

Life & limb >> profits

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just so you know. The owner of Bread Furst himself has said that the location was specifically picked because of parking, visibility and neighborhood household income. He would be the absolute last person to want to make Connecticut a one lane road without parking.

I can't speak for the owner of Bread Furst, but many business owners are in favor of traffic calming. They know that a lot of their business comes from people who arrive on foot, and they don't enjoy risking their own lives getting to work.

Oh please do share the names of these businesses that are clamoring for narrower streets, no parking and physical impediments.

Business owners hate it when it’s easy for people to come to their stores

Totally. I just dug up this really interesting research from NYC that is strong support for traffic calming being very good for local business.

https://www.nyc.gov/html/dot/downloads/pdf/dot-economic-benefits-of-sustainable-streets.pdf

This is a straw man. The issue is not how calm the traffic is, the issue is whether the traffic can stop and spend. TaKe away parking and take away curbside access (hello bike lane) and those businesses will fail.

Lol, bikers spend quite a bit and don't waste valuable parking spaces.

https://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/local/more-businesses-in-san-diego-begin-to-embrace-bike-lanes/2951045/

The only problem is that the number of bikers is tiny.

And they make it harder to walk around because they don't follow traffic rules

"There's so few of them that they make it hard to walk around, and I'm going to ignore the vehicles that actually kill pedestrians" is a very interesting take. Like, some real five dimensional logical. Or just pure BS. Yeah, pure BS. Thanks.

I know these are difficult concepts and helmet laws are a relatively new phenomenon but try and follow:

The argument you proferred was that bicylists and bike lanes would be economically beneficial to retail businesses. That they would make up any business lost due to lost parking etc. The problem with that argument is two fold and for two different reasons. Firstly there arent anywhere near enough bicyclists, especially yearround, to make up that volume and secondly, any benfits from increased pedestrianization due to less cars is completely offset by bike lanes due to bicyclists not stopping at lights and stop signs. In short, there are not enough bicyclists to make up lost demand AND pedestrian access is not improved.

1. You don't know how much business will be lost from removal of some parking. It's not 100% and it may not even be a large percent.
2. You don't know how much increased business comes from bicyclists and pedestrians.
You're just making stuff up to fit your narrative. Please go back to grade school for how to make an argument.

Really? Physician, heal thyself.

Narrower lanes, no parking, and physical impediments will not increase either density or business. Increased density requires wider not narrower lanes. Increased walkability requires no physical impediments and no bike thoroughfares. Parking is a function of density. If there is enough density, 300% more than now, then parking is less necessary but the catch-22 is that in order to get past the first stages of increased density there needs to be more parking.

That is the problem of using "pedestrian safety" and economic development as a stalking horse for bike lanes. Bike lanes do neither while the anti-car measures actively harm economic development by reducing access and demand. DC has nowhere near the level of population density for neighborhoods to be entirely self-sustaining.

Ok, more conjecture. Cool, thanks.

Oh sorry. Was the basic logic to complicated or are you just in the denial phase? It's basic economics. It's also all the pro-density arguments you make. The only problem you have is that the specific measures you want to implement - narrow roads, no parking and physical impediments - decrease rather than increase population density.

Oh, cool. City development is basic economics. Who knew it was so simple?

You're showing your ignorance here.

Isn't it. I mean all we have to do is increase congestion, remove parking and make walking more complicated. Once we reduce access and demand then we'll have an economic nirvana.

1. Remove sidewalks, bike lanes, bus stuff, add travel lanes and parking
2. ?
3. Profit!

Interesting that you say that. Nobody has proposed any of that. What is being demanded is eliminating roads, narrowing streets, removing parking, and adding physical impediments with the specific and stated goal of increasing congestion in order to reduce demand which will somehow miraculously result in more business and a population increase. This is a phenomenally stupid idea.

What is being "demanded" is traffic calming and creating space for other forms of transit - bus, pedestrian, bike. Traffic calming, by definition, slows down traffic. No, you do not have the right to drive through DC at 50MPH and block other forms of transit with your free parking.

What you're claiming (in the absence of all evidence) is that traffic calming ruins business.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just so you know. The owner of Bread Furst himself has said that the location was specifically picked because of parking, visibility and neighborhood household income. He would be the absolute last person to want to make Connecticut a one lane road without parking.

I can't speak for the owner of Bread Furst, but many business owners are in favor of traffic calming. They know that a lot of their business comes from people who arrive on foot, and they don't enjoy risking their own lives getting to work.

Oh please do share the names of these businesses that are clamoring for narrower streets, no parking and physical impediments.

Business owners hate it when it’s easy for people to come to their stores

Totally. I just dug up this really interesting research from NYC that is strong support for traffic calming being very good for local business.

https://www.nyc.gov/html/dot/downloads/pdf/dot-economic-benefits-of-sustainable-streets.pdf

This is a straw man. The issue is not how calm the traffic is, the issue is whether the traffic can stop and spend. TaKe away parking and take away curbside access (hello bike lane) and those businesses will fail.

Lol, bikers spend quite a bit and don't waste valuable parking spaces.

https://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/local/more-businesses-in-san-diego-begin-to-embrace-bike-lanes/2951045/

The only problem is that the number of bikers is tiny.

And they make it harder to walk around because they don't follow traffic rules

"There's so few of them that they make it hard to walk around, and I'm going to ignore the vehicles that actually kill pedestrians" is a very interesting take. Like, some real five dimensional logical. Or just pure BS. Yeah, pure BS. Thanks.

I know these are difficult concepts and helmet laws are a relatively new phenomenon but try and follow:

The argument you proferred was that bicylists and bike lanes would be economically beneficial to retail businesses. That they would make up any business lost due to lost parking etc. The problem with that argument is two fold and for two different reasons. Firstly there arent anywhere near enough bicyclists, especially yearround, to make up that volume and secondly, any benfits from increased pedestrianization due to less cars is completely offset by bike lanes due to bicyclists not stopping at lights and stop signs. In short, there are not enough bicyclists to make up lost demand AND pedestrian access is not improved.

1. You don't know how much business will be lost from removal of some parking. It's not 100% and it may not even be a large percent.
2. You don't know how much increased business comes from bicyclists and pedestrians.
You're just making stuff up to fit your narrative. Please go back to grade school for how to make an argument.

Really? Physician, heal thyself.

Narrower lanes, no parking, and physical impediments will not increase either density or business. Increased density requires wider not narrower lanes. Increased walkability requires no physical impediments and no bike thoroughfares. Parking is a function of density. If there is enough density, 300% more than now, then parking is less necessary but the catch-22 is that in order to get past the first stages of increased density there needs to be more parking.

That is the problem of using "pedestrian safety" and economic development as a stalking horse for bike lanes. Bike lanes do neither while the anti-car measures actively harm economic development by reducing access and demand. DC has nowhere near the level of population density for neighborhoods to be entirely self-sustaining.

Ok, more conjecture. Cool, thanks.

Oh sorry. Was the basic logic to complicated or are you just in the denial phase? It's basic economics. It's also all the pro-density arguments you make. The only problem you have is that the specific measures you want to implement - narrow roads, no parking and physical impediments - decrease rather than increase population density.

Oh, cool. City development is basic economics. Who knew it was so simple?

You're showing your ignorance here.

Isn't it. I mean all we have to do is increase congestion, remove parking and make walking more complicated. Once we reduce access and demand then we'll have an economic nirvana.

1. Remove sidewalks, bike lanes, bus stuff, add travel lanes and parking
2. ?
3. Profit!

Interesting that you say that. Nobody has proposed any of that. What is being demanded is eliminating roads, narrowing streets, removing parking, and adding physical impediments with the specific and stated goal of increasing congestion in order to reduce demand which will somehow miraculously result in more business and a population increase. This is a phenomenally stupid idea.