Anonymous wrote:I can't imagine biking to work in a skirt suit in 98 degree summer weather after dropping kids at school at 8, and looking remotely presentable when I arrive at 10 (and ready for a nap). Then I think about explaining why I have to leave at 1 to get my kids from school at 3.

Shhh! You’re not allowed to talk about how the vast majority of people really live.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Obviously unless you add a denominator of trips to work in the region, this is a pointless stat.

100% this.
A lot of bike commuters are not coming in to office as much now, so fewer trips. Also more telecommuting has resulted in generally less traffic and easier parking, so for some commuters the convenience advantage of biking has decreased.

I agree that if there is big and successful RTO push, we will see more bike commuters.

There is nothing more full of excuses than cycling advocates force to look at data confirming that their hobby is exactly as popular as it appears to be.

And the number of bike commuters started falling a couple years *before* the pandemic.

Other transportation surveys show driving is becoming a lot more popular in DC.

VMT is still down in DC proper since the pandemic. Traffic just seems worse because drivers have gotten worse.

Nothing to do with less road capacity in what is an ongoing failed experiment in online transportation meme turned policy “reduced demand”.

The whole point of DDOT's policy has been a deliberate effort to increase congestion under the miaguided theory that doing so makes roads safer.

Traffic is worse now because DDOT tried to make it worse.

It’s dumber than that. They think that by intentionally increasing traffic congestion they can force people to switch to cycling or transit. They read a book by Malcolm Gladwell and saw some urbanism memes online so they know it works.

What they don’t factor into the equation is the idea of choice. Like people choosing not to come into DC at all or employers choosing to move jobs outside of DC due to the inconvenience.

In fact, DC has basically given up on attracting private sector employers into the city. The strategy now basically revolves around turning downtown into a college town.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The ideas of biking to work and urbanism sound really good on their face when planning departments pitch them. Maybe the problem is the planners are incompetent and the advocates are pushing the wrong things. At some point you have to take a step back and wonder why your policies are failing.

They do sound good, but only if you are in your 20s and have abundant free time and limited responsibilities to other people, particularly childcare responsibilities. Then the calculus changes.

i bike commuted when I had a newborn. It cured my PPD.

Did you bike commute with your 5th grader?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Most people don’t want to live in overcrowded/overpriced apartments when they wfh half the week or more. They would rather have a nicer house in the suburbs and drive to to the office. This is a structural change in the economy. In most areas, Transit ridership and bike commuting will never recover to what they were before Covid.

counterpoint: most people don’t have a million dollars to buy a close-in SFH and don’t want a 90 minute commute.

There are plenty of SFH and townhouses for less than a million dollars in most metro areas. If you don't want to live there because it is not Mclean or Bethesda, that is your problem.

way to miss the point but again thanks for the ever nimble NIMBY pivot to the next specious argument.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Obviously unless you add a denominator of trips to work in the region, this is a pointless stat.

100% this.
A lot of bike commuters are not coming in to office as much now, so fewer trips. Also more telecommuting has resulted in generally less traffic and easier parking, so for some commuters the convenience advantage of biking has decreased.

I agree that if there is big and successful RTO push, we will see more bike commuters.

There is nothing more full of excuses than cycling advocates force to look at data confirming that their hobby is exactly as popular as it appears to be.

And the number of bike commuters started falling a couple years *before* the pandemic.

Other transportation surveys show driving is becoming a lot more popular in DC.

I think we can all agree that this a problem, for many reasons.

The logical policy response is to make driving less convenient and/or more expensive.

Or would you prefer that we do as they did in the sixties and bulldoze neighborhoods to make way for wider highways?

That will kill off DC even more than COVID already has. This will further incentivize office relocations to the suburbs.

It's also not the logical response.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Obviously unless you add a denominator of trips to work in the region, this is a pointless stat.

100% this.
A lot of bike commuters are not coming in to office as much now, so fewer trips. Also more telecommuting has resulted in generally less traffic and easier parking, so for some commuters the convenience advantage of biking has decreased.

I agree that if there is big and successful RTO push, we will see more bike commuters.

There is nothing more full of excuses than cycling advocates force to look at data confirming that their hobby is exactly as popular as it appears to be.

And the number of bike commuters started falling a couple years *before* the pandemic.

Other transportation surveys show driving is becoming a lot more popular in DC.

I think we can all agree that this a problem, for many reasons.

The logical policy response is to make driving less convenient and/or more expensive.

Or would you prefer that we do as they did in the sixties and bulldoze neighborhoods to make way for wider highways?

That will kill off DC even more than COVID already has. This will further incentivize office relocations to the suburbs.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Most people don’t want to live in overcrowded/overpriced apartments when they wfh half the week or more. They would rather have a nicer house in the suburbs and drive to to the office. This is a structural change in the economy. In most areas, Transit ridership and bike commuting will never recover to what they were before Covid.

counterpoint: most people don’t have a million dollars to buy a close-in SFH and don’t want a 90 minute commute.

There are plenty of SFH and townhouses for less than a million dollars in most metro areas. If you don't want to live there because it is not Mclean or Bethesda, that is your problem.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The ideas of biking to work and urbanism sound really good on their face when planning departments pitch them. Maybe the problem is the planners are incompetent and the advocates are pushing the wrong things. At some point you have to take a step back and wonder why your policies are failing.

They do sound good, but only if you are in your 20s and have abundant free time and limited responsibilities to other people, particularly childcare responsibilities. Then the calculus changes.

i bike commuted when I had a newborn. It cured my PPD.

Anonymous wrote:Most people don’t want to live in overcrowded/overpriced apartments when they wfh half the week or more. They would rather have a nicer house in the suburbs and drive to to the office. This is a structural change in the economy. In most areas, Transit ridership and bike commuting will never recover to what they were before Covid.

counterpoint: most people don’t have a million dollars to buy a close-in SFH and don’t want a 90 minute commute.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Europe, Europe, Europe. Yawn.

The United States is vastly more wealthy than Europe. Automobiles are a sign of that affluence. In poorer countries people own and use more bicycles, scooters, mopeds and motorbikes because it’s cheaper transportation. In more affluent countries more households own cars.

You may want to check your assumptions:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP)_per_capita

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_and_territories_by_motor_vehicles_per_capita

There are plenty of countries that are more affluent than the US and have much lower levels of car ownership. Singapore is but one case in point.

Singapore has a population density 238x higher than the U.S. People there don’t necessarily want to live like that, there is just no space for a lower density lifestyle. This is a terrible example and it is not remotely comparable to the U.S. this country also charges people a $100k+ fee for the privilege of owning a vehicle.

The claim was that households in more affluent countries own more cars. That claim is demonstrably false.

But, to your point, a large part of the reason that Singapore is so wealthy is that their government implements sensible policies. And setting high vehicle ownership taxes to encourage other modes is just one example.

It's also illegal to chew gum and/or not flush the toilet while petty crime is punished by whipping. Those are only a few of the many WTF parts of Singaporean governance. Why are you bringing up Singapore?

I was about to say this! Not to mention compulsory rehab for all drug use including Marijuana and the death penalty for drug trafficking.

Given the notorious crime hotspots on the MBT, Singapore-style justice might increase biking in DC.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Europe, Europe, Europe. Yawn.

The United States is vastly more wealthy than Europe. Automobiles are a sign of that affluence. In poorer countries people own and use more bicycles, scooters, mopeds and motorbikes because it’s cheaper transportation. In more affluent countries more households own cars.

You may want to check your assumptions:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP)_per_capita

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_and_territories_by_motor_vehicles_per_capita

There are plenty of countries that are more affluent than the US and have much lower levels of car ownership. Singapore is but one case in point.

Singapore has a population density 238x higher than the U.S. People there don’t necessarily want to live like that, there is just no space for a lower density lifestyle. This is a terrible example and it is not remotely comparable to the U.S. this country also charges people a $100k+ fee for the privilege of owning a vehicle.

The claim was that households in more affluent countries own more cars. That claim is demonstrably false.

But, to your point, a large part of the reason that Singapore is so wealthy is that their government implements sensible policies. And setting high vehicle ownership taxes to encourage other modes is just one example.

It's also illegal to chew gum and/or not flush the toilet while petty crime is punished by whipping. Those are only a few of the many WTF parts of Singaporean governance. Why are you bringing up Singapore?

I was about to say this! Not to mention compulsory rehab for all drug use including Marijuana and the death penalty for drug trafficking.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Europe, Europe, Europe. Yawn.

The United States is vastly more wealthy than Europe. Automobiles are a sign of that affluence. In poorer countries people own and use more bicycles, scooters, mopeds and motorbikes because it’s cheaper transportation. In more affluent countries more households own cars.

You may want to check your assumptions:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP)_per_capita

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_and_territories_by_motor_vehicles_per_capita

There are plenty of countries that are more affluent than the US and have much lower levels of car ownership. Singapore is but one case in point.

Singapore has a population density 238x higher than the U.S. People there don’t necessarily want to live like that, there is just no space for a lower density lifestyle. This is a terrible example and it is not remotely comparable to the U.S. this country also charges people a $100k+ fee for the privilege of owning a vehicle.

The claim was that households in more affluent countries own more cars. That claim is demonstrably false.

But, to your point, a large part of the reason that Singapore is so wealthy is that their government implements sensible policies. And setting high vehicle ownership taxes to encourage other modes is just one example.

It's also illegal to chew gum and/or not flush the toilet while petty crime is punished by whipping. Those are only a few of the many WTF parts of Singaporean governance. Why are you bringing up Singapore?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Europe, Europe, Europe. Yawn.

The United States is vastly more wealthy than Europe. Automobiles are a sign of that affluence. In poorer countries people own and use more bicycles, scooters, mopeds and motorbikes because it’s cheaper transportation. In more affluent countries more households own cars.

You may want to check your assumptions:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP)_per_capita

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_and_territories_by_motor_vehicles_per_capita

There are plenty of countries that are more affluent than the US and have much lower levels of car ownership. Singapore is but one case in point.

Singapore has a population density 238x higher than the U.S. People there don’t necessarily want to live like that, there is just no space for a lower density lifestyle. This is a terrible example and it is not remotely comparable to the U.S. this country also charges people a $100k+ fee for the privilege of owning a vehicle.

The claim was that households in more affluent countries own more cars. That claim is demonstrably false.

But, to your point, a large part of the reason that Singapore is so wealthy is that their government implements sensible policies. And setting high vehicle ownership taxes to encourage other modes is just one example.

This does not prove anything. Singapore implemented these policies because the population density is so high. The policies are not needed here because there is a lot more land. All else equal wealthier countries own more cars. Per household. Even in China, more than 50% of households own a car. The car ownership rate in South Korea and Japan is even high (average 1 car per household). Most people want a car even in density bro utopias.

Since when is the “League of American Cyclists” a DC Bike Group. So much idiocy in this thread.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Europe, Europe, Europe. Yawn.

The United States is vastly more wealthy than Europe. Automobiles are a sign of that affluence. In poorer countries people own and use more bicycles, scooters, mopeds and motorbikes because it’s cheaper transportation. In more affluent countries more households own cars.

You may want to check your assumptions:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP)_per_capita

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_and_territories_by_motor_vehicles_per_capita

There are plenty of countries that are more affluent than the US and have much lower levels of car ownership. Singapore is but one case in point.

Singapore has a population density 238x higher than the U.S. People there don’t necessarily want to live like that, there is just no space for a lower density lifestyle. This is a terrible example and it is not remotely comparable to the U.S. this country also charges people a $100k+ fee for the privilege of owning a vehicle.

The claim was that households in more affluent countries own more cars. That claim is demonstrably false.

But, to your point, a large part of the reason that Singapore is so wealthy is that their government implements sensible policies. And setting high vehicle ownership taxes to encourage other modes is just one example.