🚀 go-pugleaf

This followup below was e-mailed directly to me by Lawrence Bleau
<bleau@umdsp.umd.edu> because he was unable to post to dc.config.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
I, too, think dc.urban-planning is a good idea.  I frequent the
dc.biking newsgroup, and often have to wade through cross-posts of
what, to me, is only tangentally on topic.

Ex: National Harbor.  This is clearly a planning issue, a land use
issue, maybe a NIMBY issue as well.  There is nothing in it at this
stage that relates to bicycles (or to driving, for that matter!).  In
the design phase, when they're talking about infrastructure, a post to
dc.driving and dc.biking inviting folks to come over to
dc.urban-planning to ensure they are heard is appropriate, but
widening the debate to the other two groups would still be too much
cross-posting.

Another ex: Wilson Bridge.  If the topic is whether or not the WB
should have bicycle facilities at all, that's on topic for dc.biking,
but not for dc.driving.  If it's the number of lanes, it's okay for
dc.driving, but not for dc.biking.  Discussion of Alexandria's actions
is only marginally related to either.  Clearly this subject belongs
elsewhere.

That said, let me say that I sometimes enjoy planning issues, and may
subscribe to dc.urban-planning once it is (hopefully) created.  When
I'm browsing dc.biking for biking issues, though, I really prefer not
to wade through the clutter.

Oh yes, one more thing: There are some folks that are, like really,
anti-car.  I'd rather not have them posting anti-car rhetoric to
dc.biking and cross-posting it to dc.driving.  That's an invitation to
flame wars that annoy both groups, I'm sure.  That should either be
taken to dc.driving only, or moved to dc.urban-planning and refocused
on planning issues to reduce the number of cars on the roads.

Anyway, you now have my opinion and vote; I hope it gets approved.

Lawrence Bleau
bleau@umdsp.umd.edu


Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.