Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Transit surveys show biking is becoming less popular in DC. The government is spending more and more money on fewer and fewer people.

Which, you know, is kind of weird, because year by year, I see more people biking in DC. Well, who am I going to trust, some anonymous rando on DCUM or my lying eyes?

Neither! You could just look at the data. It's not that hard. The Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments puts out an annual transit report. TL;DR: Every form of transportation is becoming less popular, except driving, which is way up. It also says cyclists are exactly who you'd think: white, young, upper income and (because of that) they live close to wear they work. Drivers are disproportionately Black and Hispanic.

This isn't in and of itself a reason to oppose bike lanes, though. And actually, people who live near to where they work are a good universe to target with policies that might get them not to drive, because then they're not adding to congestion on the roads (if they're in a protected bike lane, they are not interfering with car trips by people driving from farther away) and it may not be a significantly longer commute to bike rather than drive. Obviously, the main users of bike lanes are not going to be people coming from 15 or 20 miles away, it's going to be people who live and work relatively near where they're biking.

Basically you're saying we should spend billions of dollars building up an entirely separate transportation system for white cyclists who are rich enough to live in the most desirable parts of the city, and if that makes car traffic a whole lot worse for predominantly black and brown drivers who don't live within such easy distance of their jobs and other places they need to go, then I guess you'd just say that's too bad. Seems kind of racist, doesn't it?

It’s not a coincidence that the biggest advocates of bike lanes on the city council represent lily white neighborhoods and the biggest critics of bike lanes come from wards 7 and 8

Vince Grey supports bike lanes. The majority of Ward 8 residents want more bike infrastructure despite their councilmember.

This debate shouldn’t be about pro bike lanes or anti bike lanes. People may support bike lanes in many places but location and context matters. Constraining Northwest Washington’s major arterial road and diverting traffic into lesser capacity streets is simply not smart transportation planning.

I love the cyclists who continue to weave through traffic on 9th St south of Mt. Vernon Square even though there are separate bike lanes with dedicated signals.

You can't win with these people.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A driver, bicyclist and pedestrian walk into a bakery. The baker brings them a plate of 12 cookies. The driver quickly snatches up 11 cookies, turns to the pedestrian and says, “Watch out! The bicyclist is going to steal your cookie!”

The bakery closed because there was nowhere to park. Now no one gets a cookie.

Baked By Yael seems to be doing just fine, Mark.

Because it is located across the street from the 1000 parking spots at the zoo with its 1.5 million annual visitors who drive to get there.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A driver, bicyclist and pedestrian walk into a bakery. The baker brings them a plate of 12 cookies. The driver quickly snatches up 11 cookies, turns to the pedestrian and says, “Watch out! The bicyclist is going to steal your cookie!”

The bakery closed because there was nowhere to park. Now no one gets a cookie.

Baked By Yael seems to be doing just fine, Mark.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Transit surveys show biking is becoming less popular in DC. The government is spending more and more money on fewer and fewer people.

Which, you know, is kind of weird, because year by year, I see more people biking in DC. Well, who am I going to trust, some anonymous rando on DCUM or my lying eyes?

Neither! You could just look at the data. It's not that hard. The Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments puts out an annual transit report. TL;DR: Every form of transportation is becoming less popular, except driving, which is way up. It also says cyclists are exactly who you'd think: white, young, upper income and (because of that) they live close to wear they work. Drivers are disproportionately Black and Hispanic.

This isn't in and of itself a reason to oppose bike lanes, though. And actually, people who live near to where they work are a good universe to target with policies that might get them not to drive, because then they're not adding to congestion on the roads (if they're in a protected bike lane, they are not interfering with car trips by people driving from farther away) and it may not be a significantly longer commute to bike rather than drive. Obviously, the main users of bike lanes are not going to be people coming from 15 or 20 miles away, it's going to be people who live and work relatively near where they're biking.

Basically you're saying we should spend billions of dollars building up an entirely separate transportation system for white cyclists who are rich enough to live in the most desirable parts of the city, and if that makes car traffic a whole lot worse for predominantly black and brown drivers who don't live within such easy distance of their jobs and other places they need to go, then I guess you'd just say that's too bad. Seems kind of racist, doesn't it?

It’s not a coincidence that the biggest advocates of bike lanes on the city council represent lily white neighborhoods and the biggest critics of bike lanes come from wards 7 and 8

Vince Grey supports bike lanes. The majority of Ward 8 residents want more bike infrastructure despite their councilmember.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Transit surveys show biking is becoming less popular in DC. The government is spending more and more money on fewer and fewer people.

Which, you know, is kind of weird, because year by year, I see more people biking in DC. Well, who am I going to trust, some anonymous rando on DCUM or my lying eyes?

Neither! You could just look at the data. It's not that hard. The Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments puts out an annual transit report. TL;DR: Every form of transportation is becoming less popular, except driving, which is way up. It also says cyclists are exactly who you'd think: white, young, upper income and (because of that) they live close to wear they work. Drivers are disproportionately Black and Hispanic.

This isn't in and of itself a reason to oppose bike lanes, though. And actually, people who live near to where they work are a good universe to target with policies that might get them not to drive, because then they're not adding to congestion on the roads (if they're in a protected bike lane, they are not interfering with car trips by people driving from farther away) and it may not be a significantly longer commute to bike rather than drive. Obviously, the main users of bike lanes are not going to be people coming from 15 or 20 miles away, it's going to be people who live and work relatively near where they're biking.

Basically you're saying we should spend billions of dollars building up an entirely separate transportation system for white cyclists who are rich enough to live in the most desirable parts of the city, and if that makes car traffic a whole lot worse for predominantly black and brown drivers who don't live within such easy distance of their jobs and other places they need to go, then I guess you'd just say that's too bad. Seems kind of racist, doesn't it?

It’s not a coincidence that the biggest advocates of bike lanes on the city council represent lily white neighborhoods and the biggest critics of bike lanes come from wards 7 and 8

Back on topic, it's hard to see the Connecticut Avenue corridor being viable without parking until you get down to Dupont Circle because the walkshed/bikeshed doesn't have enough people in it to support what's there. South of the Florida Ave, there are enough people to support.

This is why it’s essential to add height, density and vibrant mixed-use development along the entire Connecticut corridor to Chevy Chase Cir.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Transit surveys show biking is becoming less popular in DC. The government is spending more and more money on fewer and fewer people.

Which, you know, is kind of weird, because year by year, I see more people biking in DC. Well, who am I going to trust, some anonymous rando on DCUM or my lying eyes?

Neither! You could just look at the data. It's not that hard. The Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments puts out an annual transit report. TL;DR: Every form of transportation is becoming less popular, except driving, which is way up. It also says cyclists are exactly who you'd think: white, young, upper income and (because of that) they live close to wear they work. Drivers are disproportionately Black and Hispanic.

This isn't in and of itself a reason to oppose bike lanes, though. And actually, people who live near to where they work are a good universe to target with policies that might get them not to drive, because then they're not adding to congestion on the roads (if they're in a protected bike lane, they are not interfering with car trips by people driving from farther away) and it may not be a significantly longer commute to bike rather than drive. Obviously, the main users of bike lanes are not going to be people coming from 15 or 20 miles away, it's going to be people who live and work relatively near where they're biking.

Basically you're saying we should spend billions of dollars building up an entirely separate transportation system for white cyclists who are rich enough to live in the most desirable parts of the city, and if that makes car traffic a whole lot worse for predominantly black and brown drivers who don't live within such easy distance of their jobs and other places they need to go, then I guess you'd just say that's too bad. Seems kind of racist, doesn't it?

It's interesting that you only see people on bikes when they are white and in Ward 3.

Bike lanes with concrete blocks make it super easy to be blocked in for robberies and assaults.

Oh dear.

It doesn't offer that much protection.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A driver, bicyclist and pedestrian walk into a bakery. The baker brings them a plate of 12 cookies. The driver quickly snatches up 11 cookies, turns to the pedestrian and says, “Watch out! The bicyclist is going to steal your cookie!”

The bakery closed because there was nowhere to park. Now no one gets a cookie.

2/3 of the bakery's customers arrive on foot or by bike. Why would it close due to lack of car parking?

66/100 arrive by foot and 1/100 arrives by bike. Your statement is still true. But the bakery lost 33/100 so it had to close.

Every study, everywhere, has shown that bike lanes benefit businesses.

And yet developers keep lobbying for parking because they know that people will travel farther in a car than they will on a bike or by foot, thus increasing the size of the customer base for retail.

??? Developers are not lobbying for parking. They would simply rather build parking where it rationally makes sense and not build parking where it doesn't, but zoning usually proscribes (too much) parking so buying/renting costs more.

Developers want parking. They want someone else to pay for it. When that happens, the money goes to profits and is not passed onto consumers. When they can't get someone else to build parking for them, they build it themselves. You don't really get how this works but you have very strong opinions about it.

Developers are perfectly happy to not build parking if it isn't needed. Not everyone has a car and thus not everyone renting needs to pay for a parking space in a building that they won't use.

They're perfectly happy to not build parking if it's not required to charge high prices for their units. It has nothing to do with whether an area has adequate parking. It's a very rare large project that can get funded and built in this area with no on-site parking. Again, the ideal is that the building have on-site parking and that someone else pay to build it, because whether the building has parking goes a long way to determining rental or sales prices. Also, parking is usually an add-on fee. It's not free unless the landlord is in a weak market and has to offer concessions.

Back on topic, it's hard to see the Connecticut Avenue corridor being viable without parking until you get down to Dupont Circle because the walkshed/bikeshed doesn't have enough people in it to support what's there. South of the Florida Ave, there are enough people to support.

I guess you are missing all of those 8-10 story buildings between each of the commercial areas and the high density around the Van Ness Metro station - which are all walkable/bikeable supporters of the commercial around them.

But, if you have facts to back up the statement, I am all eyes to see them.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Transit surveys show biking is becoming less popular in DC. The government is spending more and more money on fewer and fewer people.

Which, you know, is kind of weird, because year by year, I see more people biking in DC. Well, who am I going to trust, some anonymous rando on DCUM or my lying eyes?

Neither! You could just look at the data. It's not that hard. The Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments puts out an annual transit report. TL;DR: Every form of transportation is becoming less popular, except driving, which is way up. It also says cyclists are exactly who you'd think: white, young, upper income and (because of that) they live close to wear they work. Drivers are disproportionately Black and Hispanic.

This isn't in and of itself a reason to oppose bike lanes, though. And actually, people who live near to where they work are a good universe to target with policies that might get them not to drive, because then they're not adding to congestion on the roads (if they're in a protected bike lane, they are not interfering with car trips by people driving from farther away) and it may not be a significantly longer commute to bike rather than drive. Obviously, the main users of bike lanes are not going to be people coming from 15 or 20 miles away, it's going to be people who live and work relatively near where they're biking.

Basically you're saying we should spend billions of dollars building up an entirely separate transportation system for white cyclists who are rich enough to live in the most desirable parts of the city, and if that makes car traffic a whole lot worse for predominantly black and brown drivers who don't live within such easy distance of their jobs and other places they need to go, then I guess you'd just say that's too bad. Seems kind of racist, doesn't it?

+1

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A driver, bicyclist and pedestrian walk into a bakery. The baker brings them a plate of 12 cookies. The driver quickly snatches up 11 cookies, turns to the pedestrian and says, “Watch out! The bicyclist is going to steal your cookie!”

The bakery closed because there was nowhere to park. Now no one gets a cookie.

2/3 of the bakery's customers arrive on foot or by bike. Why would it close due to lack of car parking?

66/100 arrive by foot and 1/100 arrives by bike. Your statement is still true. But the bakery lost 33/100 so it had to close.

Every study, everywhere, has shown that bike lanes benefit businesses.

And yet developers keep lobbying for parking because they know that people will travel farther in a car than they will on a bike or by foot, thus increasing the size of the customer base for retail.

??? Developers are not lobbying for parking. They would simply rather build parking where it rationally makes sense and not build parking where it doesn't, but zoning usually proscribes (too much) parking so buying/renting costs more.

Developers want parking. They want someone else to pay for it. When that happens, the money goes to profits and is not passed onto consumers. When they can't get someone else to build parking for them, they build it themselves. You don't really get how this works but you have very strong opinions about it.

Developers are perfectly happy to not build parking if it isn't needed. Not everyone has a car and thus not everyone renting needs to pay for a parking space in a building that they won't use.

They're perfectly happy to not build parking if it's not required to charge high prices for their units. It has nothing to do with whether an area has adequate parking. It's a very rare large project that can get funded and built in this area with no on-site parking. Again, the ideal is that the building have on-site parking and that someone else pay to build it, because whether the building has parking goes a long way to determining rental or sales prices. Also, parking is usually an add-on fee. It's not free unless the landlord is in a weak market and has to offer concessions.

Back on topic, it's hard to see the Connecticut Avenue corridor being viable without parking until you get down to Dupont Circle because the walkshed/bikeshed doesn't have enough people in it to support what's there. South of the Florida Ave, there are enough people to support.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A driver, bicyclist and pedestrian walk into a bakery. The baker brings them a plate of 12 cookies. The driver quickly snatches up 11 cookies, turns to the pedestrian and says, “Watch out! The bicyclist is going to steal your cookie!”

The bakery closed because there was nowhere to park. Now no one gets a cookie.

2/3 of the bakery's customers arrive on foot or by bike. Why would it close due to lack of car parking?

66/100 arrive by foot and 1/100 arrives by bike. Your statement is still true. But the bakery lost 33/100 so it had to close.

Every study, everywhere, has shown that bike lanes benefit businesses.

And yet developers keep lobbying for parking because they know that people will travel farther in a car than they will on a bike or by foot, thus increasing the size of the customer base for retail.

??? Developers are not lobbying for parking. They would simply rather build parking where it rationally makes sense and not build parking where it doesn't, but zoning usually proscribes (too much) parking so buying/renting costs more.

Developers want parking. They want someone else to pay for it. When that happens, the money goes to profits and is not passed onto consumers. When they can't get someone else to build parking for them, they build it themselves. You don't really get how this works but you have very strong opinions about it.

Developers are perfectly happy to not build parking if it isn't needed. Not everyone has a car and thus not everyone renting needs to pay for a parking space in a building that they won't use.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A driver, bicyclist and pedestrian walk into a bakery. The baker brings them a plate of 12 cookies. The driver quickly snatches up 11 cookies, turns to the pedestrian and says, “Watch out! The bicyclist is going to steal your cookie!”

The bakery closed because there was nowhere to park. Now no one gets a cookie.

2/3 of the bakery's customers arrive on foot or by bike. Why would it close due to lack of car parking?

66/100 arrive by foot and 1/100 arrives by bike. Your statement is still true. But the bakery lost 33/100 so it had to close.

Every study, everywhere, has shown that bike lanes benefit businesses.

And yet developers keep lobbying for parking because they know that people will travel farther in a car than they will on a bike or by foot, thus increasing the size of the customer base for retail.

??? Developers are not lobbying for parking. They would simply rather build parking where it rationally makes sense and not build parking where it doesn't, but zoning usually proscribes (too much) parking so buying/renting costs more.

Developers want parking. They want someone else to pay for it. When that happens, the money goes to profits and is not passed onto consumers. When they can't get someone else to build parking for them, they build it themselves. You don't really get how this works but you have very strong opinions about it.