Comments on Breakfast links: Get transit-oriented - Greater Greater Washington

Comment by Jason

Fri, 30 Oct 2009 02:33:56 EDT

Froggie, If they are trying to stop HOT Lanes from being built along I-270 then why should they continue to build HOT Lanes along I-95/395 and VA I-495?????

Comment by Zac

Thu, 29 Oct 2009 14:57:48 EDT

Other than rehabilitating some of the interchanges along the Beltway where the HOT Lanes will go, will those lanes actually do good once their finished? Or will more cars and congestion lurk?

Comment by w

Thu, 29 Oct 2009 13:26:49 EDT

w/ a cargo bicycle I can get two weeks worth or more full of groceries safely balanced to fill my fridge & freezer units.

I have seen what people can get into their cars- and it really is not that much of a difference.

When I was in Germany I saw grandmoms loading up their cargo bikes with more than most 20 year olds here would dare to carry. It is all a matter of working it into your life. It does not have to be some kind of "hardship".
People do this- that is- live car -free- all over the world and make out quite well.

You can save a boatload of money by going car-free.

Everything else is a side benefit resulting from this decision/action.

Comment by Matt

Thu, 29 Oct 2009 12:53:04 EDT

Sounds like a niche for a pumpkin delivery service.

When I went carless, I found that I spent less on groceries because I was weighing the necessity of the purchase (literally). And also that I went grocery-shopping more frequently. And that I really dread when the box of cat sand starts getting low.

Comment by a

Thu, 29 Oct 2009 12:28:33 EDT

i didn't see any "cons" in the capitol hill dudes article.

Comment by w

Thu, 29 Oct 2009 11:40:31 EDT

I can easily carry home a large pumpkin and I have no car & live in the same neighborhood as the Detroit guy does-

answer;

cargo bicycle.

Comment by J.D. Hammond

Thu, 29 Oct 2009 11:19:58 EDT

TM/Tim: Actually, I own a car (not that I usually use it to commute), but I've had to rent trucks and vans from Enterprise or ZipCar to move things before. So he may have access to a car but needs specialty vehicles for special tasks.

Comment by Tim

Thu, 29 Oct 2009 11:08:17 EDT

@TM: Oh, that's strange. For some reason I could swear I read that, but it's obviously not there.

Comment by TM

Thu, 29 Oct 2009 11:02:39 EDT

Actually, the WSJ article doesn't mention anything about his wife owning a car. The fact he has to rent a truck to move boxes suggests that he doesn't have access to any car.

It would have been nice if they mentioned car sharing as a means to address the occasional need for a car. Maybe ZipCar could start offering Porsches for weekend jaunts.

Comment by Tim

Thu, 29 Oct 2009 10:50:45 EDT

I think that the point of the WSJ and Slate articles is that if you use transit to commute and do other things such as reducing the number of cars your family has, living closer to where you work, etc., you save a bunch of money, help out the environment and some other things.

But the bigger point of both of them is that you can still live that lifestyle and use cars. For WSJ, the editor and his wife still have one car for occasional use. For Slate, the author is planning to buy a Porsche for weekend joy rides.

So they're essentially saying that cars are useful, but if you don't need them to commute, don't use them for that.

Comment by J.D. Hammond

Thu, 29 Oct 2009 09:36:53 EDT

With all its naievete and quietly privileged attitudes, Prince of Petworth and its commenters can annoy the hell out of me sometimes. It's all kind of typified by the nonstop parade of $600,000 homes in their "Good Deal or Not?" series.

Comment by TM

Thu, 29 Oct 2009 09:31:03 EDT

A funny thing to note about the WSJ and Slate articles is that both journalists write about cars for their day job.

Comment by Froggie

Thu, 29 Oct 2009 09:18:59 EDT

Not surprised that Alexandria is now against the 95/395 HO/T lane project.

Though here's a thought: how about if the HO/T lane project continued, but stayed just 2 lanes north of the Beltway?