The Bike Lobby is too powerful in DC...
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}
Anonymous
| I sometimes wonder if WABA is a true bike lobby as opposed to a “Smart Growth” development lobby. On Connecticut Avenue it is many of the same people who are pushing bike lanes and who also are pushing ever denser market-rate mixed-use development. |
Anonymous
You are not the brightest bulb on the string. Smart growth and multi-modality are inextricably linked - density that is car oriented is a nightmare (or to be more exact Montgomery County) - so of course the people who are advocating for smart growth are also advocating for public transit, safe walkable neighborhoods, high quality bike infra etc - neither makes sense or works without the other. |
Anonymous
In what way do suburbs subsidize cities? The infrastructure to build a road that goes to ten houses is the same as a road that leads to ten apartments but the one with the apartments has a much higher tax base. I don't have a hatred towards rural or suburban areas- I just think that they should pay the cost that it takes to provide roads, utilities, etc to them. Roads are financed mostly through state and local and federal taxes, not through gas tax or registration. |
Anonymous
You don’t know how infrastructure in the suburbs is financed, which is funny for someone making policy recommendations based on that ignorance of suburban infrastructure financing. |
Anonymous
It appears you don't either, since you're laboring under the misconception that suburbs subsidize cities. Here is the first of a series that is a decent primer on the issue, PP: https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2011/6/13/the-growth-ponzi-scheme-part-1.html |
Anonymous
| Agreed! |
Anonymous
I’m a different poster so I have no clue what you are referring to. I would suggest that instead of reading that propaganda you instead read about impact taxes and fees. For example, here is the “Growth and Infrastructure Policy” for Montgomery County, MD that defines the schedule of taxes and fees that are to be paid for infrastructure for new development based on impact. They can also require developers to pay directly for the full costs of roads and other infrastructure related to their developments. https://montgomeryplanning.org/planning/countywide/growth-and-infrastructure-policy/ Second, I thought the issue with suburbs was that they are too small rich and exclusionary. Now that they are a financial disaster? How many suburbs have gone bankrupt? I can name two cities off the top of my head: Detroit, MI and Vallejo, CA. The only suburban bankruptcy I can think of is Orange County, CA. Which one of these municipalities is in better shape today? The cities or the so-called ponzi-scheme suburb? Stop reading stupid stuff online. It’s making you dumber. |
Anonymous
Baltimore subsidizes Bethesda? Richmond subsidizes Clarendon? You're in a radicalized bubble and it's clouding your judgement. |
Anonymous
The framing in this discussion hasn't accurately reflected the real issue which is that older & denser areas subsidize newer less dense areas. It is enormously expensive to build the infra to support new suburbs and to support the services once they are built. Maybe someone can find some citations but I seriously doubt user fees on new developments even come close to covering their costs - sure maybe they cover the new utility infra but I would be shocked if they cover the costs of road infra which usually runs into the billions - if you are skeptical go and look at not just what has already been spent on I-270 but what is proposed to be spent to expand it yet again. And on-going operation costs for a lot of municipal services in the suburbs are much more expensive in the low density suburbs than they are in denser areas - this includes infra stuff like road maintenance and services like police and Fire/EMS which are a function of area as much as population. So in your example yes the dense parts of Arlington almost certainly are subsidizing the low density parts which require much greater public expenditures. And one of the tragedies of the last 75 years is that at some point when people fled cities like DC and Baltimore for the suburbs that white flight was heavily subsidized by the Federal Government mostly in the form of massive road subsidies that came at the expense of other funding and of course those same urban highways built to serve suburbanites in a lot of cases destroyed the very same neighborhoods they ran thru further exacerbating the problem. So yeah in net cities & denser areas have subsidized and suffered because of car dependent suburbs. |
Anonymous
This is a good explanation. It’s always amazing to read the nonsense that suburbanites tell themselves while to defend policies that support their lifestyles but are very damaging to almost everyone else in the world. |
Anonymous
Lol Does Baltimore subsidize Bethesda today? Does Richmond subsidize Clarendon today? Yes or no. Reality matters. |
Anonymous
| I don't care if WABA is organized and powerful. What bugs me is that the DC government is using our tax money to subsidize WABA to then distort the public process. No wonder many people feel misled and surprised by the far-reaching scope and impact of "Option C." |
Anonymous
This is silly and dishonest. There have literally been dozens and dozens of public meetings and there are going to be many future public meetings. But don't take my word for it - here is what Nancy MacWood who is the queen bee of the NIMBY's posted on the CP Listserve on 9/8/22 on the process to date: Nancy MacWood Sep 8 #191910 It is really alarming that residents are feeling blindsided or uninformed about DDOT's decisions regarding the Conn. Ave. Reversible Lane and Safety Study. Here is a link https://ddot.dc.gov/page/connecticut-avenue-nw-reversible-lane-safety-and-operations-study to the June 28, 2022 DDOT presentation that includes a concept map for Conn. Ave. between Porter and Macomb Streets (Map #4). It shows that there are 52 metered parking spaces in that area now. The proposal is to eliminate all parking on the west side and retain 25 spaces on the east side. The on street loading area is currently 162 ft. The proposal would eliminate all loading on the west side and retain 47 ft. on the east side. The map referenced above shows where these areas are currently and where they would be per the proposal. DDOT held two redundant public meetings in 2021 ( March 30 and April 1) and two redundant public meetings in 2022 (June 28 and June 29). In addition, DDOT presented to a public ANC 3C meeting July 20, 2020, February 23, 2021, and June 22, 2022. DDOT also presented at a CPCA meeting July 29, 2020 and CPCA co-sponsored the Feb. 23, 2021 DDOT presentation to 3C. DDOT presented to the WPCA on July 23, 2020 and Feb. 25, 2021. The comment period to DDOT on preferred study options was April 1 - May 8, 2021. I posted a summary of how the study options would affect Conn. Ave. in Cleveland Park to the listserv on April 13, 2021 and asked for comments prior to ANC 3C considering a resolution at the April 19, 2021 public meeting. I have ten emails from that period in my inbox sent to all 3C commissioners that supported Concept C. I also have emails primarily sent to me that voiced concerns and issues with the study and did not support any particular study option. A prominent concern was the effect of diverting a projected total daily diversion of 7,000 vehicles to other roadways. In addition to asking the sponsors of the 3C resolution to amend it to urge DDOT to immediately end the reversible lane configuration and to lower the speed limit to 25mph, I asked that the John Eaton School community be given an additional week to comment because DDOT had not briefed them on the potential impacts of bike lanes and diverted traffic on school safety. The Eaton amendment was readily accepted by one co-sponsor but not by the main drafter. At the ANC meeting I repeated the request and Comm. Siddiqui continued to object to the necessity or propriety of extending the comment period by one week, which would allow DDOT to schedule a briefing, until Principal Anderson spoke in favor of the amendment. An additional amendment to urge DDOT to continue to study diversion patterns and volumes while considering biking infrastructure changes was accepted at the ANC meeting. DDOT plans to perform traffic calming reviews and conduct parking/loading "optimization" studies through 2022. The traffic calming exercise will include examination of cut through traffic, speeding, and traffic violation patterns. I have requested that DDOT include 34th St. from Porter St. to Woodley Rd. with an emphasis on school safety, and I recommend that residents contact Edward.Stollof@dc.gov [Edward.Stollof @ dcw dot gov] ho is the project manager with any suggested blocks or streets that should be considered for traffic calming. Nancy MacWood ANC 3C09 There have been additional public meetings since this post and construction is still not slated to start until 2025 - if anything there has been a ridiculous amount of public process and unless I missed it no representing WABA has ever complained during this long planning process that there are too many public meetings - in fact since neighborhood pro-bike people have out numbered opponents at every single meeting I've attended WABA is probably happy to keep having meetings. |
Anonymous
It’s is not even just today. Neither Baltimore, nor its residents ever subsidized Bethesda or even Baltimore county, right across the border. It’s really dumb taking points. |
Anonymous
That’s an interesting debating strategy. Do you find they it usually works for you? Your supposed counter-examples demonstrate that you don’t understand the argument. |