The Bike Lobby is too powerful in DC...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's funny how cyclists go on and on about how dangerous the roads are, and how we have to spend billions of dollars to protect cyclists, but when you look at the stats, you see that on average there's *one* cyclist death in DC per year.

And then when you point out that, so far this year, there are 259 murders and 5,125 violent crimes, and both of those are up by one third from last year, they say "oh well, that's city living for you. Crime is rare anyway."

I guess the difference is the cyclist killed is white and the people murdered mostly are black.

Why do people constantly make this weird comparison? Yes, crime is bad and mostly affects black people. I, a white person who rides a bike to get to work and do errands, don't want people to be victims of crime, nor do I want them to be hit by a car. (Whether they're hit by a car and killed or hit by a car without being killed.) I don't understand what one policy has to do with the other except that people seem to think that the existence of crime means the city can't possibly spend any money on anything else (a theory that apparently only actually comes into play when the "anything else" is bike lanes).

Why don't you use Rock Creek Park where a bike path that runs parallel to CT Ave NW is already in place?

There is a multi-hundred page thread about this already. Rock Creek is great, but if one is going neighborhood to neighborhood, going into Rock Creek and then back out is way out of the way, particularly if you live west of CT Ave. The shops and stores we want to support are on CT Ave, not in Rock Creek. Don't assume this is all about commuting downtown, though a CT Ave bike lane helps with that, but it is also about people going to school, to shop etc.

The businesses need customer parking. They don’t want bike lanes that would displace parking.

Every study has shown that bike lanes are good for businesses, not bad, but maybe Cleveland Park is uniquely different among all places in the world, because reasons.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's funny how cyclists go on and on about how dangerous the roads are, and how we have to spend billions of dollars to protect cyclists, but when you look at the stats, you see that on average there's *one* cyclist death in DC per year.

And then when you point out that, so far this year, there are 259 murders and 5,125 violent crimes, and both of those are up by one third from last year, they say "oh well, that's city living for you. Crime is rare anyway."

I guess the difference is the cyclist killed is white and the people murdered mostly are black.

Why do people constantly make this weird comparison? Yes, crime is bad and mostly affects black people. I, a white person who rides a bike to get to work and do errands, don't want people to be victims of crime, nor do I want them to be hit by a car. (Whether they're hit by a car and killed or hit by a car without being killed.) I don't understand what one policy has to do with the other except that people seem to think that the existence of crime means the city can't possibly spend any money on anything else (a theory that apparently only actually comes into play when the "anything else" is bike lanes).

Why don't you use Rock Creek Park where a bike path that runs parallel to CT Ave NW is already in place?

There is a multi-hundred page thread about this already. Rock Creek is great, but if one is going neighborhood to neighborhood, going into Rock Creek and then back out is way out of the way, particularly if you live west of CT Ave. The shops and stores we want to support are on CT Ave, not in Rock Creek. Don't assume this is all about commuting downtown, though a CT Ave bike lane helps with that, but it is also about people going to school, to shop etc.

The businesses need customer parking. They don’t want bike lanes that would displace parking.

Every study has shown that bike lanes are good for businesses, not bad, but maybe Cleveland Park is uniquely different among all places in the world, because reasons.

We should assume that the local businesses know their customers. What do the bike lobby or the middle finger gang on the ANC know about their businesses? Do they think they’re McKinsey or something?!

[Anonymous]

Here’s why the development industry lobby is pushing the Connecticut Ave bike lanes so hard. Developers want to build dense and tall up and down the avenue but also want exemption from DC zoning rules that require them to provide some modest amount of offstreet parking in their buildings (rules in place to mitigate the parking impact of their developments on the surrounding area). Of course, the avoided cost of providing offstreet parking drops right to their bottom line. It will be easier to get the Bd of Zoning Adjustment to waive parking requirements if developers can point to dedicated bike lanes outside their projects.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's funny how cyclists go on and on about how dangerous the roads are, and how we have to spend billions of dollars to protect cyclists, but when you look at the stats, you see that on average there's *one* cyclist death in DC per year.

And then when you point out that, so far this year, there are 259 murders and 5,125 violent crimes, and both of those are up by one third from last year, they say "oh well, that's city living for you. Crime is rare anyway."

I guess the difference is the cyclist killed is white and the people murdered mostly are black.

Why do people constantly make this weird comparison? Yes, crime is bad and mostly affects black people. I, a white person who rides a bike to get to work and do errands, don't want people to be victims of crime, nor do I want them to be hit by a car. (Whether they're hit by a car and killed or hit by a car without being killed.) I don't understand what one policy has to do with the other except that people seem to think that the existence of crime means the city can't possibly spend any money on anything else (a theory that apparently only actually comes into play when the "anything else" is bike lanes).

Why don't you use Rock Creek Park where a bike path that runs parallel to CT Ave NW is already in place?

There is a multi-hundred page thread about this already. Rock Creek is great, but if one is going neighborhood to neighborhood, going into Rock Creek and then back out is way out of the way, particularly if you live west of CT Ave. The shops and stores we want to support are on CT Ave, not in Rock Creek. Don't assume this is all about commuting downtown, though a CT Ave bike lane helps with that, but it is also about people going to school, to shop etc.

The businesses need customer parking. They don’t want bike lanes that would displace parking.

Every study has shown that bike lanes are good for businesses, not bad, but maybe Cleveland Park is uniquely different among all places in the world, because reasons.

We should assume that the local businesses know their customers. What do the bike lobby or the middle finger gang on the ANC know about their businesses? Do they think they’re McKinsey or something?!

Why should we assume that local business owners know how their customers arrive at their business, or what the effect would be if it were easier/safer for customers to arrive at their business via walking, bicycling/scootering, or transit?

And, again: Every study, from everywhere, has shown that bike lanes are good for businesses, not bad. Why would Cleveland Park be uniquely different among all places in the world?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Here’s why the development industry lobby is pushing the Connecticut Ave bike lanes so hard. Developers want to build dense and tall up and down the avenue but also want exemption from DC zoning rules that require them to provide some modest amount of offstreet parking in their buildings (rules in place to mitigate the parking impact of their developments on the surrounding area). Of course, the avoided cost of providing offstreet parking drops right to their bottom line. It will be easier to get the Bd of Zoning Adjustment to waive parking requirements if developers can point to dedicated bike lanes outside their projects.

sounds good to me.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's funny how cyclists go on and on about how dangerous the roads are, and how we have to spend billions of dollars to protect cyclists, but when you look at the stats, you see that on average there's *one* cyclist death in DC per year.

And then when you point out that, so far this year, there are 259 murders and 5,125 violent crimes, and both of those are up by one third from last year, they say "oh well, that's city living for you. Crime is rare anyway."

I guess the difference is the cyclist killed is white and the people murdered mostly are black.

Why do people constantly make this weird comparison? Yes, crime is bad and mostly affects black people. I, a white person who rides a bike to get to work and do errands, don't want people to be victims of crime, nor do I want them to be hit by a car. (Whether they're hit by a car and killed or hit by a car without being killed.) I don't understand what one policy has to do with the other except that people seem to think that the existence of crime means the city can't possibly spend any money on anything else (a theory that apparently only actually comes into play when the "anything else" is bike lanes).

Why don't you use Rock Creek Park where a bike path that runs parallel to CT Ave NW is already in place?

There is a multi-hundred page thread about this already. Rock Creek is great, but if one is going neighborhood to neighborhood, going into Rock Creek and then back out is way out of the way, particularly if you live west of CT Ave. The shops and stores we want to support are on CT Ave, not in Rock Creek. Don't assume this is all about commuting downtown, though a CT Ave bike lane helps with that, but it is also about people going to school, to shop etc.

The businesses need customer parking. They don’t want bike lanes that would displace parking.

Every study has shown that bike lanes are good for businesses, not bad, but maybe Cleveland Park is uniquely different among all places in the world, because reasons.

We should assume that the local businesses know their customers. What do the bike lobby or the middle finger gang on the ANC know about their businesses? Do they think they’re McKinsey or something?!

I would assume they don't, given that eve studies in Cleveland Park show that most of the people patronizing the shops there are coming on foot or bike, and not driving.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's funny how cyclists go on and on about how dangerous the roads are, and how we have to spend billions of dollars to protect cyclists, but when you look at the stats, you see that on average there's *one* cyclist death in DC per year.

And then when you point out that, so far this year, there are 259 murders and 5,125 violent crimes, and both of those are up by one third from last year, they say "oh well, that's city living for you. Crime is rare anyway."

I guess the difference is the cyclist killed is white and the people murdered mostly are black.

Why do people constantly make this weird comparison? Yes, crime is bad and mostly affects black people. I, a white person who rides a bike to get to work and do errands, don't want people to be victims of crime, nor do I want them to be hit by a car. (Whether they're hit by a car and killed or hit by a car without being killed.) I don't understand what one policy has to do with the other except that people seem to think that the existence of crime means the city can't possibly spend any money on anything else (a theory that apparently only actually comes into play when the "anything else" is bike lanes).

Why don't you use Rock Creek Park where a bike path that runs parallel to CT Ave NW is already in place?

There is a multi-hundred page thread about this already. Rock Creek is great, but if one is going neighborhood to neighborhood, going into Rock Creek and then back out is way out of the way, particularly if you live west of CT Ave. The shops and stores we want to support are on CT Ave, not in Rock Creek. Don't assume this is all about commuting downtown, though a CT Ave bike lane helps with that, but it is also about people going to school, to shop etc.

The businesses need customer parking. They don’t want bike lanes that would displace parking.

Except the parking is mostly used by people who work in those stores, not customers as evidenced by the same cars being parked there all day, every day.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Here’s why the development industry lobby is pushing the Connecticut Ave bike lanes so hard. Developers want to build dense and tall up and down the avenue but also want exemption from DC zoning rules that require them to provide some modest amount of offstreet parking in their buildings (rules in place to mitigate the parking impact of their developments on the surrounding area). Of course, the avoided cost of providing offstreet parking drops right to their bottom line. It will be easier to get the Bd of Zoning Adjustment to waive parking requirements if developers can point to dedicated bike lanes outside their projects.

parking attracts cars. we don't need more cars, there are plenty of them as it is. Renters don't want to pay for parking sots they don't need or use nor should they be asked for their rent to subsidize the costs associated with building parking spots. If someone has a car, they will choose to rent in a place where they can also park their car as part of the lease or for an additional fee.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here’s why the development industry lobby is pushing the Connecticut Ave bike lanes so hard. Developers want to build dense and tall up and down the avenue but also want exemption from DC zoning rules that require them to provide some modest amount of offstreet parking in their buildings (rules in place to mitigate the parking impact of their developments on the surrounding area). Of course, the avoided cost of providing offstreet parking drops right to their bottom line. It will be easier to get the Bd of Zoning Adjustment to waive parking requirements if developers can point to dedicated bike lanes outside their projects.

sounds good to me.

DP - agreed

More bike lanes means more bakfiets like 🇳🇱

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here’s why the development industry lobby is pushing the Connecticut Ave bike lanes so hard. Developers want to build dense and tall up and down the avenue but also want exemption from DC zoning rules that require them to provide some modest amount of offstreet parking in their buildings (rules in place to mitigate the parking impact of their developments on the surrounding area). Of course, the avoided cost of providing offstreet parking drops right to their bottom line. It will be easier to get the Bd of Zoning Adjustment to waive parking requirements if developers can point to dedicated bike lanes outside their projects.

parking attracts cars. we don't need more cars, there are plenty of them as it is. Renters don't want to pay for parking sots they don't need or use nor should they be asked for their rent to subsidize the costs associated with building parking spots. If someone has a car, they will choose to rent in a place where they can also park their car as part of the lease or for an additional fee.

So you’re saying that renters and purchasers in buildings that have been exempted from DC minimum parking requirements get a substantial benefit in the form of more affordable rents and purchase prices?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's funny how cyclists go on and on about how dangerous the roads are, and how we have to spend billions of dollars to protect cyclists, but when you look at the stats, you see that on average there's *one* cyclist death in DC per year.

And then when you point out that, so far this year, there are 259 murders and 5,125 violent crimes, and both of those are up by one third from last year, they say "oh well, that's city living for you. Crime is rare anyway."

I guess the difference is the cyclist killed is white and the people murdered mostly are black.

Why do people constantly make this weird comparison? Yes, crime is bad and mostly affects black people. I, a white person who rides a bike to get to work and do errands, don't want people to be victims of crime, nor do I want them to be hit by a car. (Whether they're hit by a car and killed or hit by a car without being killed.) I don't understand what one policy has to do with the other except that people seem to think that the existence of crime means the city can't possibly spend any money on anything else (a theory that apparently only actually comes into play when the "anything else" is bike lanes).

Why don't you use Rock Creek Park where a bike path that runs parallel to CT Ave NW is already in place?

There is a multi-hundred page thread about this already. Rock Creek is great, but if one is going neighborhood to neighborhood, going into Rock Creek and then back out is way out of the way, particularly if you live west of CT Ave. The shops and stores we want to support are on CT Ave, not in Rock Creek. Don't assume this is all about commuting downtown, though a CT Ave bike lane helps with that, but it is also about people going to school, to shop etc.

The businesses need customer parking. They don’t want bike lanes that would displace parking.

Every study has shown that bike lanes are good for businesses, not bad, but maybe Cleveland Park is uniquely different among all places in the world, because reasons.

We should assume that the local businesses know their customers. What do the bike lobby or the middle finger gang on the ANC know about their businesses? Do they think they’re McKinsey or something?!

I would assume they don't, given that eve studies in Cleveland Park show that most of the people patronizing the shops there are coming on foot or bike, and not driving.

Cites to studies?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's funny how cyclists go on and on about how dangerous the roads are, and how we have to spend billions of dollars to protect cyclists, but when you look at the stats, you see that on average there's *one* cyclist death in DC per year.

And then when you point out that, so far this year, there are 259 murders and 5,125 violent crimes, and both of those are up by one third from last year, they say "oh well, that's city living for you. Crime is rare anyway."

I guess the difference is the cyclist killed is white and the people murdered mostly are black.

Why do people constantly make this weird comparison? Yes, crime is bad and mostly affects black people. I, a white person who rides a bike to get to work and do errands, don't want people to be victims of crime, nor do I want them to be hit by a car. (Whether they're hit by a car and killed or hit by a car without being killed.) I don't understand what one policy has to do with the other except that people seem to think that the existence of crime means the city can't possibly spend any money on anything else (a theory that apparently only actually comes into play when the "anything else" is bike lanes).

Why don't you use Rock Creek Park where a bike path that runs parallel to CT Ave NW is already in place?

There is a multi-hundred page thread about this already. Rock Creek is great, but if one is going neighborhood to neighborhood, going into Rock Creek and then back out is way out of the way, particularly if you live west of CT Ave. The shops and stores we want to support are on CT Ave, not in Rock Creek. Don't assume this is all about commuting downtown, though a CT Ave bike lane helps with that, but it is also about people going to school, to shop etc.

The businesses need customer parking. They don’t want bike lanes that would displace parking.

Every study has shown that bike lanes are good for businesses, not bad, but maybe Cleveland Park is uniquely different among all places in the world, because reasons.

We should assume that the local businesses know their customers. What do the bike lobby or the middle finger gang on the ANC know about their businesses? Do they think they’re McKinsey or something?!

Why should we assume that local business owners know how their customers arrive at their business, or what the effect would be if it were easier/safer for customers to arrive at their business via walking, bicycling/scootering, or transit?

And, again: Every study, from everywhere, has shown that bike lanes are good for businesses, not bad. Why would Cleveland Park be uniquely different among all places in the world?

Mayor thought she understood the professional sports business. She probably had lots of studies too. How’s that going?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here’s why the development industry lobby is pushing the Connecticut Ave bike lanes so hard. Developers want to build dense and tall up and down the avenue but also want exemption from DC zoning rules that require them to provide some modest amount of offstreet parking in their buildings (rules in place to mitigate the parking impact of their developments on the surrounding area). Of course, the avoided cost of providing offstreet parking drops right to their bottom line. It will be easier to get the Bd of Zoning Adjustment to waive parking requirements if developers can point to dedicated bike lanes outside their projects.

parking attracts cars. we don't need more cars, there are plenty of them as it is. Renters don't want to pay for parking sots they don't need or use nor should they be asked for their rent to subsidize the costs associated with building parking spots. If someone has a car, they will choose to rent in a place where they can also park their car as part of the lease or for an additional fee.

So you’re saying that renters and purchasers in buildings that have been exempted from DC minimum parking requirements get a substantial benefit in the form of more affordable rents and purchase prices?

DP. Eventually yes, that is what should happen. Fewer zoning restrictions, cheaper housing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here’s why the development industry lobby is pushing the Connecticut Ave bike lanes so hard. Developers want to build dense and tall up and down the avenue but also want exemption from DC zoning rules that require them to provide some modest amount of offstreet parking in their buildings (rules in place to mitigate the parking impact of their developments on the surrounding area). Of course, the avoided cost of providing offstreet parking drops right to their bottom line. It will be easier to get the Bd of Zoning Adjustment to waive parking requirements if developers can point to dedicated bike lanes outside their projects.

parking attracts cars. we don't need more cars, there are plenty of them as it is. Renters don't want to pay for parking sots they don't need or use nor should they be asked for their rent to subsidize the costs associated with building parking spots. If someone has a car, they will choose to rent in a place where they can also park their car as part of the lease or for an additional fee.

So you’re saying that renters and purchasers in buildings that have been exempted from DC minimum parking requirements get a substantial benefit in the form of more affordable rents and purchase prices?

DP. Eventually yes, that is what should happen. Fewer zoning restrictions, cheaper housing.

So when DC grants zoning relief from parking requirements for a new project but then requires the developer to ensure that residents do not seek RPP stickers for street parking, that’s fair and not “discriminatory” as some claim. After all, the exempted developer is passing along its cost savings from not having to build parking in the form of cheaper rents to the tenants. Everyone benefits then.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here’s why the development industry lobby is pushing the Connecticut Ave bike lanes so hard. Developers want to build dense and tall up and down the avenue but also want exemption from DC zoning rules that require them to provide some modest amount of offstreet parking in their buildings (rules in place to mitigate the parking impact of their developments on the surrounding area). Of course, the avoided cost of providing offstreet parking drops right to their bottom line. It will be easier to get the Bd of Zoning Adjustment to waive parking requirements if developers can point to dedicated bike lanes outside their projects.

parking attracts cars. we don't need more cars, there are plenty of them as it is. Renters don't want to pay for parking sots they don't need or use nor should they be asked for their rent to subsidize the costs associated with building parking spots. If someone has a car, they will choose to rent in a place where they can also park their car as part of the lease or for an additional fee.

So you’re saying that renters and purchasers in buildings that have been exempted from DC minimum parking requirements get a substantial benefit in the form of more affordable rents and purchase prices?

DP. Eventually yes, that is what should happen. Fewer zoning restrictions, cheaper housing.

So when DC grants zoning relief from parking requirements for a new project but then requires the developer to ensure that residents do not seek RPP stickers for street parking, that’s fair and not “discriminatory” as some claim. After all, the exempted developer is passing along its cost savings from not having to build parking in the form of cheaper rents to the tenants. Everyone benefits then.

Do you understand basic economics?