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:

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.

This. 100%

Nobody is going to switch to bikes because traffic is bad. That’s laughable. One thing that will definitely happen is people will circulate less. They won’t move about the city as much and stay closer to home. Hard to see how that’s in anyone interest. But our city is ruled by people who are not just ignorant of economics but actively hostile to it.

This is happening in other cities as well. Museums in San Francisco struggle to survive with the reduced flow of people that has come with closing roads to car traffic. It’s really terrible.

A lot of businesses are leaving DC for the suburbs. There aren’t enough people to sustain their businesses when you take away all the parking, make it too difficult to drive, etc. My guess is that at some point, the city will have to tear out a lot of the bike infrastructure because it hurts businesses (and tax revenue) so much. It’s just not economically viable.

You’re funny!!!!

NP, here. A few years ago, DC changed the lane patterns of Wisconsin Ave near Glover Park. They basically made Wisconsin two lanes rather than four lanes through Glover Park. It created a horrific traffic bottleneck and they had to undo -- at taxpayer expense - everything and go back to the original configuration. This is what's going to happen downtown. It just hasn't been tested yet because people aren't fully. back to working in offices. Once traffic returns all hell will break lose and this experiment will need to be undone.

Smaller, walkable/bikeable streets are better for business than multi lane thoroughfares. Those wanting multi lane throughfares aren’t stopping to shop, they are speeding through as quickly as possible. Foot traffic and bike traffic = customers for businesses on smaller streets.

I don’t think this is true. The Wharf, Pike and Rose and the Mosaic district are doing very well by providing a walkable destination that’s conveniently accessible with abundant parking. Take away the accessibility and parking and the best case result is Georgetown, which is aided by a waterfront, university and historic district.

Just explain where this foot traffic with disposable income is supposed to come from.

Parking at the wharf is one of the greatest nightmares of my life.

The anti-car brigade thought there should be even fewer parking spaces when in fact they should have built more. Less parking than present would make it not worthwhile to visit.

There aren't parking spaces. There's (over) paid garage parking. I much prefer riding my bike over and locking it up, or alternatively taking metro.

Garage parking spaces are still parking spaces.

I agree about the cost and that's going to be a problem for the development long term as the initial shine continues to wear off. But, pricing is something they can adjust. Access is what's important.

I mean, surrounding the Wharf with free public parking lots (presumably what you wanted?) would have been impossible. Access is a better connection from L'Enfant and Waterfront metros, not more parking.

Huh? What's with the weird attenpt at spinning motivation. Is it some sort of projection?

People won't utilize shuttles in large numbers. Parking, whether garages or on the street, provides access. Cost of parking is a separate variable that impacts frequency of visits.

What makes you think that people drive (and WANT to drive) to urban entertainment centers? Do you honestly think the only way to make the Wharf successful is to make sure people can drive in from Vienna?

Yes, although the Wharf needs Alexandria more. That is why it was built where it was. That is the business model. On site and nearby apartments form a base but Virginians, tourists, and theatre going inner suburbanites make it profitable.

There isn't a large enough DC urban core only population to make it self-sustainable. It, like all entertainment centers, relies on "outside" visitors to create demand.

I mean, I trust the people who developed the Wharf knew what they were doing ... I don't see free parking everywhere, and I do see a pedestrianized space, and a location accessible to 2 metros and bikes, as well as multiple on-site hotels. The Wharf is obviously planned & intended to be a urban place people can arrive to in a variety of ways. If the developers wanted people to drive from Alexandria, they would have built it downriver south of Alexandria. Instead what they did was identify a prime bit of URBAN waterfront and develop it into an URBAN entertainment space that people arrive to from the city in a variety of ways other than car.

I'm not sure if it's possible, but the relevant comparison would be National Harbor.

The Wharf is also not an urban style entertainment center. It's a suburban style entertainment center in an urban are. It's the same model as Mosaic and Pike&Rose.

As for National Harbor, its problem is that it has only one major road connection and is not near a metro. It is isolated and out of the way. Its model is dependent on conventions and "captured" tourists.

Have you been to the Wharf? Parking costs like $10/hr on a weekday morning. During weekend nights and special events, there is often no parking at all (and it costs significantly more). People can and do drive there but it does not encourage it at all. You also cannot drive right up to any of the venues there. The closest you can get is valet at some of the hotels.

Compare this to Mosaic where you can park in a garage for free. Mosaic also has a lot of retail that is designed to attract people who drive (i.e. Target), whereas the Wharf has no big box stores, it's retail is extremely limited, and the main draws are the entertainment venues and restaurants. It's a different deal.

I think the fact that you think the Wharf was built near major roads to accommodate suburban visitors is interesting and shows your bias. The main reason the Wharf was built where it is? It was underdeveloped waterfront near two metros, and close enough to Navy Yard (also built as an urban destination that is not very car friendly and relies much more on alternative forms of transportation) for investors to be confident the concept would attract a high-income demographic.

The Wharf is happy to take money from people coming in from NoVa, but it's not willing to accommodate them. You want to drive there? Fine, get ready to spend $100 just to park, on top of your concert tickets and your dinner and bar tabs.

Parking cost and availibility is goin to be a problem their long term, especially when the initial shine wears off.

The history of the Wharf redevelopment is much longer than you realize. It was part of the same re-development push as Navy Yard and the Georgetown waterfront. All were begun by Anthony Williams. The Wharf got delayed because the initial developer went under during the financial crisis. The fact that Maine Ave easily connects to 395 and Rock Creek extended was indeed a major draw.

I don't think anyone disputes that accesibility to Virginia is one factor for the Wharf. But it's only one. Again the premise of OP is that "we need to be car friendly or DC will whither economically" plus some other weird fulminating about "pedestrianized" areas. The Wharf is a great example of a pedestrianized, multi-modal transit development that appears to be economically thriving, no car-friendliness enhancements needed.

I don't think you've read some of the posts because people are indeed disputing that. They are also disputing that it's multi-modal.

I happen to agree with you but would add that while we don't need car friendly enhancements we also can't afford car hostile enhancements. We had a good blend.

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:

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.

This. 100%

Nobody is going to switch to bikes because traffic is bad. That’s laughable. One thing that will definitely happen is people will circulate less. They won’t move about the city as much and stay closer to home. Hard to see how that’s in anyone interest. But our city is ruled by people who are not just ignorant of economics but actively hostile to it.

This is happening in other cities as well. Museums in San Francisco struggle to survive with the reduced flow of people that has come with closing roads to car traffic. It’s really terrible.

A lot of businesses are leaving DC for the suburbs. There aren’t enough people to sustain their businesses when you take away all the parking, make it too difficult to drive, etc. My guess is that at some point, the city will have to tear out a lot of the bike infrastructure because it hurts businesses (and tax revenue) so much. It’s just not economically viable.

You’re funny!!!!

NP, here. A few years ago, DC changed the lane patterns of Wisconsin Ave near Glover Park. They basically made Wisconsin two lanes rather than four lanes through Glover Park. It created a horrific traffic bottleneck and they had to undo -- at taxpayer expense - everything and go back to the original configuration. This is what's going to happen downtown. It just hasn't been tested yet because people aren't fully. back to working in offices. Once traffic returns all hell will break lose and this experiment will need to be undone.

Smaller, walkable/bikeable streets are better for business than multi lane thoroughfares. Those wanting multi lane throughfares aren’t stopping to shop, they are speeding through as quickly as possible. Foot traffic and bike traffic = customers for businesses on smaller streets.

I don’t think this is true. The Wharf, Pike and Rose and the Mosaic district are doing very well by providing a walkable destination that’s conveniently accessible with abundant parking. Take away the accessibility and parking and the best case result is Georgetown, which is aided by a waterfront, university and historic district.

Just explain where this foot traffic with disposable income is supposed to come from.

Parking at the wharf is one of the greatest nightmares of my life.

The anti-car brigade thought there should be even fewer parking spaces when in fact they should have built more. Less parking than present would make it not worthwhile to visit.

There aren't parking spaces. There's (over) paid garage parking. I much prefer riding my bike over and locking it up, or alternatively taking metro.

Garage parking spaces are still parking spaces.

I agree about the cost and that's going to be a problem for the development long term as the initial shine continues to wear off. But, pricing is something they can adjust. Access is what's important.

I mean, surrounding the Wharf with free public parking lots (presumably what you wanted?) would have been impossible. Access is a better connection from L'Enfant and Waterfront metros, not more parking.

Huh? What's with the weird attenpt at spinning motivation. Is it some sort of projection?

People won't utilize shuttles in large numbers. Parking, whether garages or on the street, provides access. Cost of parking is a separate variable that impacts frequency of visits.

What makes you think that people drive (and WANT to drive) to urban entertainment centers? Do you honestly think the only way to make the Wharf successful is to make sure people can drive in from Vienna?

Yes, although the Wharf needs Alexandria more. That is why it was built where it was. That is the business model. On site and nearby apartments form a base but Virginians, tourists, and theatre going inner suburbanites make it profitable.

There isn't a large enough DC urban core only population to make it self-sustainable. It, like all entertainment centers, relies on "outside" visitors to create demand.

I mean, I trust the people who developed the Wharf knew what they were doing ... I don't see free parking everywhere, and I do see a pedestrianized space, and a location accessible to 2 metros and bikes, as well as multiple on-site hotels. The Wharf is obviously planned & intended to be a urban place people can arrive to in a variety of ways. If the developers wanted people to drive from Alexandria, they would have built it downriver south of Alexandria. Instead what they did was identify a prime bit of URBAN waterfront and develop it into an URBAN entertainment space that people arrive to from the city in a variety of ways other than car.

I'm not sure if it's possible, but the relevant comparison would be National Harbor.

The Wharf is also not an urban style entertainment center. It's a suburban style entertainment center in an urban are. It's the same model as Mosaic and Pike&Rose.

As for National Harbor, its problem is that it has only one major road connection and is not near a metro. It is isolated and out of the way. Its model is dependent on conventions and "captured" tourists.

Have you been to the Wharf? Parking costs like $10/hr on a weekday morning. During weekend nights and special events, there is often no parking at all (and it costs significantly more). People can and do drive there but it does not encourage it at all. You also cannot drive right up to any of the venues there. The closest you can get is valet at some of the hotels.

Compare this to Mosaic where you can park in a garage for free. Mosaic also has a lot of retail that is designed to attract people who drive (i.e. Target), whereas the Wharf has no big box stores, it's retail is extremely limited, and the main draws are the entertainment venues and restaurants. It's a different deal.

I think the fact that you think the Wharf was built near major roads to accommodate suburban visitors is interesting and shows your bias. The main reason the Wharf was built where it is? It was underdeveloped waterfront near two metros, and close enough to Navy Yard (also built as an urban destination that is not very car friendly and relies much more on alternative forms of transportation) for investors to be confident the concept would attract a high-income demographic.

The Wharf is happy to take money from people coming in from NoVa, but it's not willing to accommodate them. You want to drive there? Fine, get ready to spend $100 just to park, on top of your concert tickets and your dinner and bar tabs.

Parking cost and availibility is goin to be a problem their long term, especially when the initial shine wears off.

The history of the Wharf redevelopment is much longer than you realize. It was part of the same re-development push as Navy Yard and the Georgetown waterfront. All were begun by Anthony Williams. The Wharf got delayed because the initial developer went under during the financial crisis. The fact that Maine Ave easily connects to 395 and Rock Creek extended was indeed a major draw.

I don't think anyone disputes that accesibility to Virginia is one factor for the Wharf. But it's only one. Again the premise of OP is that "we need to be car friendly or DC will whither economically" plus some other weird fulminating about "pedestrianized" areas. The Wharf is a great example of a pedestrianized, multi-modal transit development that appears to be economically thriving, no car-friendliness enhancements needed.

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:

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.

This. 100%

Nobody is going to switch to bikes because traffic is bad. That’s laughable. One thing that will definitely happen is people will circulate less. They won’t move about the city as much and stay closer to home. Hard to see how that’s in anyone interest. But our city is ruled by people who are not just ignorant of economics but actively hostile to it.

This is happening in other cities as well. Museums in San Francisco struggle to survive with the reduced flow of people that has come with closing roads to car traffic. It’s really terrible.

A lot of businesses are leaving DC for the suburbs. There aren’t enough people to sustain their businesses when you take away all the parking, make it too difficult to drive, etc. My guess is that at some point, the city will have to tear out a lot of the bike infrastructure because it hurts businesses (and tax revenue) so much. It’s just not economically viable.

You’re funny!!!!

NP, here. A few years ago, DC changed the lane patterns of Wisconsin Ave near Glover Park. They basically made Wisconsin two lanes rather than four lanes through Glover Park. It created a horrific traffic bottleneck and they had to undo -- at taxpayer expense - everything and go back to the original configuration. This is what's going to happen downtown. It just hasn't been tested yet because people aren't fully. back to working in offices. Once traffic returns all hell will break lose and this experiment will need to be undone.

Smaller, walkable/bikeable streets are better for business than multi lane thoroughfares. Those wanting multi lane throughfares aren’t stopping to shop, they are speeding through as quickly as possible. Foot traffic and bike traffic = customers for businesses on smaller streets.

I don’t think this is true. The Wharf, Pike and Rose and the Mosaic district are doing very well by providing a walkable destination that’s conveniently accessible with abundant parking. Take away the accessibility and parking and the best case result is Georgetown, which is aided by a waterfront, university and historic district.

Just explain where this foot traffic with disposable income is supposed to come from.

Parking at the wharf is one of the greatest nightmares of my life.

The anti-car brigade thought there should be even fewer parking spaces when in fact they should have built more. Less parking than present would make it not worthwhile to visit.

There aren't parking spaces. There's (over) paid garage parking. I much prefer riding my bike over and locking it up, or alternatively taking metro.

Garage parking spaces are still parking spaces.

I agree about the cost and that's going to be a problem for the development long term as the initial shine continues to wear off. But, pricing is something they can adjust. Access is what's important.

I mean, surrounding the Wharf with free public parking lots (presumably what you wanted?) would have been impossible. Access is a better connection from L'Enfant and Waterfront metros, not more parking.

Huh? What's with the weird attenpt at spinning motivation. Is it some sort of projection?

People won't utilize shuttles in large numbers. Parking, whether garages or on the street, provides access. Cost of parking is a separate variable that impacts frequency of visits.

What makes you think that people drive (and WANT to drive) to urban entertainment centers? Do you honestly think the only way to make the Wharf successful is to make sure people can drive in from Vienna?

Yes, although the Wharf needs Alexandria more. That is why it was built where it was. That is the business model. On site and nearby apartments form a base but Virginians, tourists, and theatre going inner suburbanites make it profitable.

There isn't a large enough DC urban core only population to make it self-sustainable. It, like all entertainment centers, relies on "outside" visitors to create demand.

I mean, I trust the people who developed the Wharf knew what they were doing ... I don't see free parking everywhere, and I do see a pedestrianized space, and a location accessible to 2 metros and bikes, as well as multiple on-site hotels. The Wharf is obviously planned & intended to be a urban place people can arrive to in a variety of ways. If the developers wanted people to drive from Alexandria, they would have built it downriver south of Alexandria. Instead what they did was identify a prime bit of URBAN waterfront and develop it into an URBAN entertainment space that people arrive to from the city in a variety of ways other than car.

I'm not sure if it's possible, but the relevant comparison would be National Harbor.

Do you even know where the Wharf is in relation to major thoroughfares? It connects to 395 and Rock Creek Parkway as well as the metro. It is an ideal location because of its transportation infrastructure connections.

My point was that it was designed to be accessible by metro, bike and foot (and boat!) as well as by car. The larger point being that no, DC does not need to become more “car friendly” to survive.

DC does not need to become more car friendly than it was in 2019. It needs to be more car friendly than it is being made to be in 2023.

That's the point. It is actively being made less car friendly now and those efforts are going to backfire. The appeal of DC has been its blend. Not dense enough to be purely urban and not sparse enough to feel suburban.

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:

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.

This. 100%

Nobody is going to switch to bikes because traffic is bad. That’s laughable. One thing that will definitely happen is people will circulate less. They won’t move about the city as much and stay closer to home. Hard to see how that’s in anyone interest. But our city is ruled by people who are not just ignorant of economics but actively hostile to it.

This is happening in other cities as well. Museums in San Francisco struggle to survive with the reduced flow of people that has come with closing roads to car traffic. It’s really terrible.

A lot of businesses are leaving DC for the suburbs. There aren’t enough people to sustain their businesses when you take away all the parking, make it too difficult to drive, etc. My guess is that at some point, the city will have to tear out a lot of the bike infrastructure because it hurts businesses (and tax revenue) so much. It’s just not economically viable.

You’re funny!!!!

NP, here. A few years ago, DC changed the lane patterns of Wisconsin Ave near Glover Park. They basically made Wisconsin two lanes rather than four lanes through Glover Park. It created a horrific traffic bottleneck and they had to undo -- at taxpayer expense - everything and go back to the original configuration. This is what's going to happen downtown. It just hasn't been tested yet because people aren't fully. back to working in offices. Once traffic returns all hell will break lose and this experiment will need to be undone.

Smaller, walkable/bikeable streets are better for business than multi lane thoroughfares. Those wanting multi lane throughfares aren’t stopping to shop, they are speeding through as quickly as possible. Foot traffic and bike traffic = customers for businesses on smaller streets.

I don’t think this is true. The Wharf, Pike and Rose and the Mosaic district are doing very well by providing a walkable destination that’s conveniently accessible with abundant parking. Take away the accessibility and parking and the best case result is Georgetown, which is aided by a waterfront, university and historic district.

Just explain where this foot traffic with disposable income is supposed to come from.

Parking at the wharf is one of the greatest nightmares of my life.

The anti-car brigade thought there should be even fewer parking spaces when in fact they should have built more. Less parking than present would make it not worthwhile to visit.

There aren't parking spaces. There's (over) paid garage parking. I much prefer riding my bike over and locking it up, or alternatively taking metro.

Garage parking spaces are still parking spaces.

I agree about the cost and that's going to be a problem for the development long term as the initial shine continues to wear off. But, pricing is something they can adjust. Access is what's important.

I mean, surrounding the Wharf with free public parking lots (presumably what you wanted?) would have been impossible. Access is a better connection from L'Enfant and Waterfront metros, not more parking.

Huh? What's with the weird attenpt at spinning motivation. Is it some sort of projection?

People won't utilize shuttles in large numbers. Parking, whether garages or on the street, provides access. Cost of parking is a separate variable that impacts frequency of visits.

What makes you think that people drive (and WANT to drive) to urban entertainment centers? Do you honestly think the only way to make the Wharf successful is to make sure people can drive in from Vienna?

Yes, although the Wharf needs Alexandria more. That is why it was built where it was. That is the business model. On site and nearby apartments form a base but Virginians, tourists, and theatre going inner suburbanites make it profitable.

There isn't a large enough DC urban core only population to make it self-sustainable. It, like all entertainment centers, relies on "outside" visitors to create demand.

I mean, I trust the people who developed the Wharf knew what they were doing ... I don't see free parking everywhere, and I do see a pedestrianized space, and a location accessible to 2 metros and bikes, as well as multiple on-site hotels. The Wharf is obviously planned & intended to be a urban place people can arrive to in a variety of ways. If the developers wanted people to drive from Alexandria, they would have built it downriver south of Alexandria. Instead what they did was identify a prime bit of URBAN waterfront and develop it into an URBAN entertainment space that people arrive to from the city in a variety of ways other than car.

I'm not sure if it's possible, but the relevant comparison would be National Harbor.

The Wharf is also not an urban style entertainment center. It's a suburban style entertainment center in an urban are. It's the same model as Mosaic and Pike&Rose.

As for National Harbor, its problem is that it has only one major road connection and is not near a metro. It is isolated and out of the way. Its model is dependent on conventions and "captured" tourists.

Have you been to the Wharf? Parking costs like $10/hr on a weekday morning. During weekend nights and special events, there is often no parking at all (and it costs significantly more). People can and do drive there but it does not encourage it at all. You also cannot drive right up to any of the venues there. The closest you can get is valet at some of the hotels.

Compare this to Mosaic where you can park in a garage for free. Mosaic also has a lot of retail that is designed to attract people who drive (i.e. Target), whereas the Wharf has no big box stores, it's retail is extremely limited, and the main draws are the entertainment venues and restaurants. It's a different deal.

I think the fact that you think the Wharf was built near major roads to accommodate suburban visitors is interesting and shows your bias. The main reason the Wharf was built where it is? It was underdeveloped waterfront near two metros, and close enough to Navy Yard (also built as an urban destination that is not very car friendly and relies much more on alternative forms of transportation) for investors to be confident the concept would attract a high-income demographic.

The Wharf is happy to take money from people coming in from NoVa, but it's not willing to accommodate them. You want to drive there? Fine, get ready to spend $100 just to park, on top of your concert tickets and your dinner and bar tabs.

Parking cost and availibility is goin to be a problem their long term, especially when the initial shine wears off.

The history of the Wharf redevelopment is much longer than you realize. It was part of the same re-development push as Navy Yard and the Georgetown waterfront. All were begun by Anthony Williams. The Wharf got delayed because the initial developer went under during the financial crisis. The fact that Maine Ave easily connects to 395 and Rock Creek extended was indeed a major draw.

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:

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.

This. 100%

Nobody is going to switch to bikes because traffic is bad. That’s laughable. One thing that will definitely happen is people will circulate less. They won’t move about the city as much and stay closer to home. Hard to see how that’s in anyone interest. But our city is ruled by people who are not just ignorant of economics but actively hostile to it.

This is happening in other cities as well. Museums in San Francisco struggle to survive with the reduced flow of people that has come with closing roads to car traffic. It’s really terrible.

A lot of businesses are leaving DC for the suburbs. There aren’t enough people to sustain their businesses when you take away all the parking, make it too difficult to drive, etc. My guess is that at some point, the city will have to tear out a lot of the bike infrastructure because it hurts businesses (and tax revenue) so much. It’s just not economically viable.

You’re funny!!!!

NP, here. A few years ago, DC changed the lane patterns of Wisconsin Ave near Glover Park. They basically made Wisconsin two lanes rather than four lanes through Glover Park. It created a horrific traffic bottleneck and they had to undo -- at taxpayer expense - everything and go back to the original configuration. This is what's going to happen downtown. It just hasn't been tested yet because people aren't fully. back to working in offices. Once traffic returns all hell will break lose and this experiment will need to be undone.

16th Street is going to be an unholy mess once there's a full return.

Between induced congestion, the pandemic and inflation a decade of extraordinary growth is at risk.

The worst part is that the changes just punish the people who choose to live there. Why would they do that?

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:

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.

This. 100%

Nobody is going to switch to bikes because traffic is bad. That’s laughable. One thing that will definitely happen is people will circulate less. They won’t move about the city as much and stay closer to home. Hard to see how that’s in anyone interest. But our city is ruled by people who are not just ignorant of economics but actively hostile to it.

It’s a recipe for turning DC into enclaves, further entrenching socio-economic and racial divides in an already segregated city.

Suburbs only accessible by car we're literally set up to segregate us into racial and socio-economic enclaves. Suggest you learn some history first.

This is not about suburbs. The discussion is about DC. So you don’t disagree that the result of this policy which makes it harder for people to freely circulate throughout the city will further exacerbate inequality?

Hear! Hear! Also, take a look at how many cyclists you encounter/see any given day during your commute. On almost every occasion, I see fewer than 20 and typically fewer than 10. All this to benefit a superminority of mostly whiny virtue-signaling white folks in lycra. The vast majority of people are not going to drop their kids off to school and then continue on to work via bicycle. And the metro is in vast need of an overhaul and also is not exactly the transport of choice during a pandemic.

During my commute, I see about 10X the number of joggers as the number of cyclists. However, I don’t hear a lot about how we absolutely need jogging-specific infrastructure.

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:

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.

This. 100%

Nobody is going to switch to bikes because traffic is bad. That’s laughable. One thing that will definitely happen is people will circulate less. They won’t move about the city as much and stay closer to home. Hard to see how that’s in anyone interest. But our city is ruled by people who are not just ignorant of economics but actively hostile to it.

This is happening in other cities as well. Museums in San Francisco struggle to survive with the reduced flow of people that has come with closing roads to car traffic. It’s really terrible.

A lot of businesses are leaving DC for the suburbs. There aren’t enough people to sustain their businesses when you take away all the parking, make it too difficult to drive, etc. My guess is that at some point, the city will have to tear out a lot of the bike infrastructure because it hurts businesses (and tax revenue) so much. It’s just not economically viable.

You’re funny!!!!

NP, here. A few years ago, DC changed the lane patterns of Wisconsin Ave near Glover Park. They basically made Wisconsin two lanes rather than four lanes through Glover Park. It created a horrific traffic bottleneck and they had to undo -- at taxpayer expense - everything and go back to the original configuration. This is what's going to happen downtown. It just hasn't been tested yet because people aren't fully. back to working in offices. Once traffic returns all hell will break lose and this experiment will need to be undone.

Smaller, walkable/bikeable streets are better for business than multi lane thoroughfares. Those wanting multi lane throughfares aren’t stopping to shop, they are speeding through as quickly as possible. Foot traffic and bike traffic = customers for businesses on smaller streets.

I don’t think this is true. The Wharf, Pike and Rose and the Mosaic district are doing very well by providing a walkable destination that’s conveniently accessible with abundant parking. Take away the accessibility and parking and the best case result is Georgetown, which is aided by a waterfront, university and historic district.

Just explain where this foot traffic with disposable income is supposed to come from.

Parking at the wharf is one of the greatest nightmares of my life.

The anti-car brigade thought there should be even fewer parking spaces when in fact they should have built more. Less parking than present would make it not worthwhile to visit.

There aren't parking spaces. There's (over) paid garage parking. I much prefer riding my bike over and locking it up, or alternatively taking metro.

Garage parking spaces are still parking spaces.

I agree about the cost and that's going to be a problem for the development long term as the initial shine continues to wear off. But, pricing is something they can adjust. Access is what's important.

I mean, surrounding the Wharf with free public parking lots (presumably what you wanted?) would have been impossible. Access is a better connection from L'Enfant and Waterfront metros, not more parking.

Huh? What's with the weird attenpt at spinning motivation. Is it some sort of projection?

People won't utilize shuttles in large numbers. Parking, whether garages or on the street, provides access. Cost of parking is a separate variable that impacts frequency of visits.

What makes you think that people drive (and WANT to drive) to urban entertainment centers? Do you honestly think the only way to make the Wharf successful is to make sure people can drive in from Vienna?

Yes, although the Wharf needs Alexandria more. That is why it was built where it was. That is the business model. On site and nearby apartments form a base but Virginians, tourists, and theatre going inner suburbanites make it profitable.

There isn't a large enough DC urban core only population to make it self-sustainable. It, like all entertainment centers, relies on "outside" visitors to create demand.

I mean, I trust the people who developed the Wharf knew what they were doing ... I don't see free parking everywhere, and I do see a pedestrianized space, and a location accessible to 2 metros and bikes, as well as multiple on-site hotels. The Wharf is obviously planned & intended to be a urban place people can arrive to in a variety of ways. If the developers wanted people to drive from Alexandria, they would have built it downriver south of Alexandria. Instead what they did was identify a prime bit of URBAN waterfront and develop it into an URBAN entertainment space that people arrive to from the city in a variety of ways other than car.

I'm not sure if it's possible, but the relevant comparison would be National Harbor.

Do you even know where the Wharf is in relation to major thoroughfares? It connects to 395 and Rock Creek Parkway as well as the metro. It is an ideal location because of its transportation infrastructure connections.

My point was that it was designed to be accessible by metro, bike and foot (and boat!) as well as by car. The larger point being that no, DC does not need to become more “car friendly” to survive.

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:

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.

This. 100%

Nobody is going to switch to bikes because traffic is bad. That’s laughable. One thing that will definitely happen is people will circulate less. They won’t move about the city as much and stay closer to home. Hard to see how that’s in anyone interest. But our city is ruled by people who are not just ignorant of economics but actively hostile to it.

This is happening in other cities as well. Museums in San Francisco struggle to survive with the reduced flow of people that has come with closing roads to car traffic. It’s really terrible.

A lot of businesses are leaving DC for the suburbs. There aren’t enough people to sustain their businesses when you take away all the parking, make it too difficult to drive, etc. My guess is that at some point, the city will have to tear out a lot of the bike infrastructure because it hurts businesses (and tax revenue) so much. It’s just not economically viable.

You’re funny!!!!

NP, here. A few years ago, DC changed the lane patterns of Wisconsin Ave near Glover Park. They basically made Wisconsin two lanes rather than four lanes through Glover Park. It created a horrific traffic bottleneck and they had to undo -- at taxpayer expense - everything and go back to the original configuration. This is what's going to happen downtown. It just hasn't been tested yet because people aren't fully. back to working in offices. Once traffic returns all hell will break lose and this experiment will need to be undone.

Smaller, walkable/bikeable streets are better for business than multi lane thoroughfares. Those wanting multi lane throughfares aren’t stopping to shop, they are speeding through as quickly as possible. Foot traffic and bike traffic = customers for businesses on smaller streets.

I don’t think this is true. The Wharf, Pike and Rose and the Mosaic district are doing very well by providing a walkable destination that’s conveniently accessible with abundant parking. Take away the accessibility and parking and the best case result is Georgetown, which is aided by a waterfront, university and historic district.

Just explain where this foot traffic with disposable income is supposed to come from.

Parking at the wharf is one of the greatest nightmares of my life.

The anti-car brigade thought there should be even fewer parking spaces when in fact they should have built more. Less parking than present would make it not worthwhile to visit.

There aren't parking spaces. There's (over) paid garage parking. I much prefer riding my bike over and locking it up, or alternatively taking metro.

Garage parking spaces are still parking spaces.

I agree about the cost and that's going to be a problem for the development long term as the initial shine continues to wear off. But, pricing is something they can adjust. Access is what's important.

I mean, surrounding the Wharf with free public parking lots (presumably what you wanted?) would have been impossible. Access is a better connection from L'Enfant and Waterfront metros, not more parking.

Huh? What's with the weird attenpt at spinning motivation. Is it some sort of projection?

People won't utilize shuttles in large numbers. Parking, whether garages or on the street, provides access. Cost of parking is a separate variable that impacts frequency of visits.

What makes you think that people drive (and WANT to drive) to urban entertainment centers? Do you honestly think the only way to make the Wharf successful is to make sure people can drive in from Vienna?

Yes, although the Wharf needs Alexandria more. That is why it was built where it was. That is the business model. On site and nearby apartments form a base but Virginians, tourists, and theatre going inner suburbanites make it profitable.

There isn't a large enough DC urban core only population to make it self-sustainable. It, like all entertainment centers, relies on "outside" visitors to create demand.

I mean, I trust the people who developed the Wharf knew what they were doing ... I don't see free parking everywhere, and I do see a pedestrianized space, and a location accessible to 2 metros and bikes, as well as multiple on-site hotels. The Wharf is obviously planned & intended to be a urban place people can arrive to in a variety of ways. If the developers wanted people to drive from Alexandria, they would have built it downriver south of Alexandria. Instead what they did was identify a prime bit of URBAN waterfront and develop it into an URBAN entertainment space that people arrive to from the city in a variety of ways other than car.

I'm not sure if it's possible, but the relevant comparison would be National Harbor.

The Wharf is also not an urban style entertainment center. It's a suburban style entertainment center in an urban are. It's the same model as Mosaic and Pike&Rose.

As for National Harbor, its problem is that it has only one major road connection and is not near a metro. It is isolated and out of the way. Its model is dependent on conventions and "captured" tourists.

Have you been to the Wharf? Parking costs like $10/hr on a weekday morning. During weekend nights and special events, there is often no parking at all (and it costs significantly more). People can and do drive there but it does not encourage it at all. You also cannot drive right up to any of the venues there. The closest you can get is valet at some of the hotels.

Compare this to Mosaic where you can park in a garage for free. Mosaic also has a lot of retail that is designed to attract people who drive (i.e. Target), whereas the Wharf has no big box stores, it's retail is extremely limited, and the main draws are the entertainment venues and restaurants. It's a different deal.

I think the fact that you think the Wharf was built near major roads to accommodate suburban visitors is interesting and shows your bias. The main reason the Wharf was built where it is? It was underdeveloped waterfront near two metros, and close enough to Navy Yard (also built as an urban destination that is not very car friendly and relies much more on alternative forms of transportation) for investors to be confident the concept would attract a high-income demographic.

The Wharf is happy to take money from people coming in from NoVa, but it's not willing to accommodate them. You want to drive there? Fine, get ready to spend $100 just to park, on top of your concert tickets and your dinner and bar tabs.

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:

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.

This. 100%

Nobody is going to switch to bikes because traffic is bad. That’s laughable. One thing that will definitely happen is people will circulate less. They won’t move about the city as much and stay closer to home. Hard to see how that’s in anyone interest. But our city is ruled by people who are not just ignorant of economics but actively hostile to it.

This is happening in other cities as well. Museums in San Francisco struggle to survive with the reduced flow of people that has come with closing roads to car traffic. It’s really terrible.

A lot of businesses are leaving DC for the suburbs. There aren’t enough people to sustain their businesses when you take away all the parking, make it too difficult to drive, etc. My guess is that at some point, the city will have to tear out a lot of the bike infrastructure because it hurts businesses (and tax revenue) so much. It’s just not economically viable.

You’re funny!!!!

NP, here. A few years ago, DC changed the lane patterns of Wisconsin Ave near Glover Park. They basically made Wisconsin two lanes rather than four lanes through Glover Park. It created a horrific traffic bottleneck and they had to undo -- at taxpayer expense - everything and go back to the original configuration. This is what's going to happen downtown. It just hasn't been tested yet because people aren't fully. back to working in offices. Once traffic returns all hell will break lose and this experiment will need to be undone.

Smaller, walkable/bikeable streets are better for business than multi lane thoroughfares. Those wanting multi lane throughfares aren’t stopping to shop, they are speeding through as quickly as possible. Foot traffic and bike traffic = customers for businesses on smaller streets.

I don’t think this is true. The Wharf, Pike and Rose and the Mosaic district are doing very well by providing a walkable destination that’s conveniently accessible with abundant parking. Take away the accessibility and parking and the best case result is Georgetown, which is aided by a waterfront, university and historic district.

Just explain where this foot traffic with disposable income is supposed to come from.

Parking at the wharf is one of the greatest nightmares of my life.

The anti-car brigade thought there should be even fewer parking spaces when in fact they should have built more. Less parking than present would make it not worthwhile to visit.

There aren't parking spaces. There's (over) paid garage parking. I much prefer riding my bike over and locking it up, or alternatively taking metro.

Garage parking spaces are still parking spaces.

I agree about the cost and that's going to be a problem for the development long term as the initial shine continues to wear off. But, pricing is something they can adjust. Access is what's important.

I mean, surrounding the Wharf with free public parking lots (presumably what you wanted?) would have been impossible. Access is a better connection from L'Enfant and Waterfront metros, not more parking.

Huh? What's with the weird attenpt at spinning motivation. Is it some sort of projection?

People won't utilize shuttles in large numbers. Parking, whether garages or on the street, provides access. Cost of parking is a separate variable that impacts frequency of visits.

What makes you think that people drive (and WANT to drive) to urban entertainment centers? Do you honestly think the only way to make the Wharf successful is to make sure people can drive in from Vienna?

Yes, although the Wharf needs Alexandria more. That is why it was built where it was. That is the business model. On site and nearby apartments form a base but Virginians, tourists, and theatre going inner suburbanites make it profitable.

There isn't a large enough DC urban core only population to make it self-sustainable. It, like all entertainment centers, relies on "outside" visitors to create demand.

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:

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.

This. 100%

Nobody is going to switch to bikes because traffic is bad. That’s laughable. One thing that will definitely happen is people will circulate less. They won’t move about the city as much and stay closer to home. Hard to see how that’s in anyone interest. But our city is ruled by people who are not just ignorant of economics but actively hostile to it.

This is happening in other cities as well. Museums in San Francisco struggle to survive with the reduced flow of people that has come with closing roads to car traffic. It’s really terrible.

A lot of businesses are leaving DC for the suburbs. There aren’t enough people to sustain their businesses when you take away all the parking, make it too difficult to drive, etc. My guess is that at some point, the city will have to tear out a lot of the bike infrastructure because it hurts businesses (and tax revenue) so much. It’s just not economically viable.

You’re funny!!!!

NP, here. A few years ago, DC changed the lane patterns of Wisconsin Ave near Glover Park. They basically made Wisconsin two lanes rather than four lanes through Glover Park. It created a horrific traffic bottleneck and they had to undo -- at taxpayer expense - everything and go back to the original configuration. This is what's going to happen downtown. It just hasn't been tested yet because people aren't fully. back to working in offices. Once traffic returns all hell will break lose and this experiment will need to be undone.

16th Street is going to be an unholy mess once there's a full return.

Between induced congestion, the pandemic and inflation a decade of extraordinary growth is at risk.

The worst part is that the changes just punish the people who choose to live there. Why would they do that?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To be clear. It's a neo-suburban homage to a sanitized urban landscape that's a very trendy style of development throughout the country that blends urban style mixed use compactness with suburban style transportation access and covenience.

I’m not sure what your point is. It’s a unique public space in a densely populated area of one of the denser US cities.

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:

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.

This. 100%

Nobody is going to switch to bikes because traffic is bad. That’s laughable. One thing that will definitely happen is people will circulate less. They won’t move about the city as much and stay closer to home. Hard to see how that’s in anyone interest. But our city is ruled by people who are not just ignorant of economics but actively hostile to it.

It’s a recipe for turning DC into enclaves, further entrenching socio-economic and racial divides in an already segregated city.

Suburbs only accessible by car we're literally set up to segregate us into racial and socio-economic enclaves. Suggest you learn some history first.

This is not about suburbs. The discussion is about DC. So you don’t disagree that the result of this policy which makes it harder for people to freely circulate throughout the city will further exacerbate inequality?

Hear! Hear! Also, take a look at how many cyclists you encounter/see any given day during your commute. On almost every occasion, I see fewer than 20 and typically fewer than 10. All this to benefit a superminority of mostly whiny virtue-signaling white folks in lycra. The vast majority of people are not going to drop their kids off to school and then continue on to work via bicycle. And the metro is in vast need of an overhaul and also is not exactly the transport of choice during a pandemic.

During my commute, I see about 10X the number of joggers as the number of cyclists. However, I don’t hear a lot about how we absolutely need jogging-specific infrastructure.

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:

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.

This. 100%

Nobody is going to switch to bikes because traffic is bad. That’s laughable. One thing that will definitely happen is people will circulate less. They won’t move about the city as much and stay closer to home. Hard to see how that’s in anyone interest. But our city is ruled by people who are not just ignorant of economics but actively hostile to it.

This is happening in other cities as well. Museums in San Francisco struggle to survive with the reduced flow of people that has come with closing roads to car traffic. It’s really terrible.

A lot of businesses are leaving DC for the suburbs. There aren’t enough people to sustain their businesses when you take away all the parking, make it too difficult to drive, etc. My guess is that at some point, the city will have to tear out a lot of the bike infrastructure because it hurts businesses (and tax revenue) so much. It’s just not economically viable.

You’re funny!!!!

NP, here. A few years ago, DC changed the lane patterns of Wisconsin Ave near Glover Park. They basically made Wisconsin two lanes rather than four lanes through Glover Park. It created a horrific traffic bottleneck and they had to undo -- at taxpayer expense - everything and go back to the original configuration. This is what's going to happen downtown. It just hasn't been tested yet because people aren't fully. back to working in offices. Once traffic returns all hell will break lose and this experiment will need to be undone.

16th Street is going to be an unholy mess once there's a full return.

Between induced congestion, the pandemic and inflation a decade of extraordinary growth is at risk.

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:

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.

This. 100%

Nobody is going to switch to bikes because traffic is bad. That’s laughable. One thing that will definitely happen is people will circulate less. They won’t move about the city as much and stay closer to home. Hard to see how that’s in anyone interest. But our city is ruled by people who are not just ignorant of economics but actively hostile to it.

It’s a recipe for turning DC into enclaves, further entrenching socio-economic and racial divides in an already segregated city.

Suburbs only accessible by car we're literally set up to segregate us into racial and socio-economic enclaves. Suggest you learn some history first.

This is not about suburbs. The discussion is about DC. So you don’t disagree that the result of this policy which makes it harder for people to freely circulate throughout the city will further exacerbate inequality?

Hear! Hear! Also, take a look at how many cyclists you encounter/see any given day during your commute. On almost every occasion, I see fewer than 20 and typically fewer than 10. All this to benefit a superminority of mostly whiny virtue-signaling white folks in lycra. The vast majority of people are not going to drop their kids off to school and then continue on to work via bicycle. And the metro is in vast need of an overhaul and also is not exactly the transport of choice during a pandemic.

Anonymous wrote:To be clear. It's a neo-suburban homage to a sanitized urban landscape that's a very trendy style of development throughout the country that blends urban style mixed use compactness with suburban style transportation access and covenience.