The Bike Lobby is too powerful in DC...

[Anonymous]

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.

Bike lanes make it harder for people to circulate throughout a city. Hard to see how that would ever be good for a business.

How so? I see cities all over the world with bike lanes and people are able to circulate those cities without issue. Why would it be different here?

Obviously, you're completely wrong. Do you think that if we took traffic lanes away from cars and said only people who travel via roller skates can use them -- do you think that would increase or decrease the flow of people? It would be fantastic for the three Washingtonians who are really into roller skates but it would be a nightmare for the half million people who drive every day.

If only someone had thought to dig some tunnels under the streets of DC and run trains in them that come in from all of the suburbs.

[Anonymous]

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.

[Anonymous]

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.

Bike lanes make it harder for people to circulate throughout a city. Hard to see how that would ever be good for a business.

How so? I see cities all over the world with bike lanes and people are able to circulate those cities without issue. Why would it be different here?

Obviously, you're completely wrong. Do you think that if we took traffic lanes away from cars and said only people who travel via roller skates can use them -- do you think that would increase or decrease the flow of people? It would be fantastic for the three Washingtonians who are really into roller skates but it would be a nightmare for the half million people who drive every day.

Please show, in this specific proposal, where driving lanes are being taken away from cars.

[Anonymous]

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.

But when the developers get relief from zoning-mandated parking minimums do they pass on the cost savings to tenants and purchasers?

[Anonymous]

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.

But when the developers get relief from zoning-mandated parking minimums do they pass on the cost savings to tenants and purchasers?

In a competitive rental market they do which is why we need to build more housing.

There are buildings with lots of parking and buildings with no parking.

There are buildings in convenient locations with great access to retail, schools, parks and public transportation and buildings in locations with none of those things.

There are residents with lots of cars who need to do lots of driving, residents with 1 car who only occassionally drive and residents who don't need cars at all.

If the real estate market has adaquate supply landlords and sellers will have to price what they are offering for the demand because buyers will have options and the money saved in buildings that didn't include parking will get passed on to renters/owners.

In frantic markets where sellers dictate prices and there is little choice they will pocket the savings.

[Anonymous]

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.

But when the developers get relief from zoning-mandated parking minimums do they pass on the cost savings to tenants and purchasers?

In a competitive rental market they do which is why we need to build more housing.

There are buildings with lots of parking and buildings with no parking.

There are buildings in convenient locations with great access to retail, schools, parks and public transportation and buildings in locations with none of those things.

There are residents with lots of cars who need to do lots of driving, residents with 1 car who only occassionally drive and residents who don't need cars at all.

If the real estate market has adaquate supply landlords and sellers will have to price what they are offering for the demand because buyers will have options and the money saved in buildings that didn't include parking will get passed on to renters/owners.

In frantic markets where sellers dictate prices and there is little choice they will pocket the savings.

So then it's a fair trade off when Arlington County or DC imposes a condition on zoning relief for off street parking that the building will not be eligible for residential permit parking (RPP) on the adjacent streets? The reason that they do this is to mitigate the additional parking burden when local streets are already full, and to avoid a situation where the developer is foisting its external costs (added parking demand) onto the public. Some people claim that this is discriminatory against the exempted development's residents. However, others point out that the residents are getting cheaper units than otherwise because of the cost savings and are leasing or purchasing with full notice of the condition.

[Anonymous]

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.

[Anonymous]

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.

But when the developers get relief from zoning-mandated parking minimums do they pass on the cost savings to tenants and purchasers?

In a competitive rental market they do which is why we need to build more housing.

There are buildings with lots of parking and buildings with no parking.

There are buildings in convenient locations with great access to retail, schools, parks and public transportation and buildings in locations with none of those things.

There are residents with lots of cars who need to do lots of driving, residents with 1 car who only occassionally drive and residents who don't need cars at all.

If the real estate market has adaquate supply landlords and sellers will have to price what they are offering for the demand because buyers will have options and the money saved in buildings that didn't include parking will get passed on to renters/owners.

In frantic markets where sellers dictate prices and there is little choice they will pocket the savings.

So then it's a fair trade off when Arlington County or DC imposes a condition on zoning relief for off street parking that the building will not be eligible for residential permit parking (RPP) on the adjacent streets? The reason that they do this is to mitigate the additional parking burden when local streets are already full, and to avoid a situation where the developer is foisting its external costs (added parking demand) onto the public. Some people claim that this is discriminatory against the exempted development's residents. However, others point out that the residents are getting cheaper units than otherwise because of the cost savings and are leasing or purchasing with full notice of the condition.

This seems entirely fair to me — cost savings or no, if the idea behind the building is supposed to be that its residents won't need parking, they shouldn't be eligible for parking. If you don't like the provision, don't move there.

[Anonymous]

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.

I should add here that the cause-and-effect of who's using the bike lanes is not necessarily "people who bike have lots of money, and therefore, they live near where they work," it's probably that the fact that they live near where they work is why they bike in the first place. There are plenty of people who have more money than urban bike commuters who live farther from their jobs and drive instead of biking.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

That report is about COMMUTING. And there was this thing called COVID that happened in the meantime. The report says nothing of people who are working from home and want to go from one neighborhood to another to run an errand or grab coffee with a work colleague etc.

But sure, commuting to downtown may be down a little, but that has almost nothing to do with why the Connecticut Avenue safety plan is important.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

But when the developers get relief from zoning-mandated parking minimums do they pass on the cost savings to tenants and purchasers?

In a competitive rental market they do which is why we need to build more housing.

There are buildings with lots of parking and buildings with no parking.

There are buildings in convenient locations with great access to retail, schools, parks and public transportation and buildings in locations with none of those things.

There are residents with lots of cars who need to do lots of driving, residents with 1 car who only occassionally drive and residents who don't need cars at all.

If the real estate market has adaquate supply landlords and sellers will have to price what they are offering for the demand because buyers will have options and the money saved in buildings that didn't include parking will get passed on to renters/owners.

In frantic markets where sellers dictate prices and there is little choice they will pocket the savings.

So then it's a fair trade off when Arlington County or DC imposes a condition on zoning relief for off street parking that the building will not be eligible for residential permit parking (RPP) on the adjacent streets? The reason that they do this is to mitigate the additional parking burden when local streets are already full, and to avoid a situation where the developer is foisting its external costs (added parking demand) onto the public. Some people claim that this is discriminatory against the exempted development's residents. However, others point out that the residents are getting cheaper units than otherwise because of the cost savings and are leasing or purchasing with full notice of the condition.

This seems entirely fair to me — cost savings or no, if the idea behind the building is supposed to be that its residents won't need parking, they shouldn't be eligible for parking. If you don't like the provision, don't move there.

or lease a private spot to store the car

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

But when the developers get relief from zoning-mandated parking minimums do they pass on the cost savings to tenants and purchasers?

In a competitive rental market they do which is why we need to build more housing.

There are buildings with lots of parking and buildings with no parking.

There are buildings in convenient locations with great access to retail, schools, parks and public transportation and buildings in locations with none of those things.

There are residents with lots of cars who need to do lots of driving, residents with 1 car who only occassionally drive and residents who don't need cars at all.

If the real estate market has adaquate supply landlords and sellers will have to price what they are offering for the demand because buyers will have options and the money saved in buildings that didn't include parking will get passed on to renters/owners.

In frantic markets where sellers dictate prices and there is little choice they will pocket the savings.

So then it's a fair trade off when Arlington County or DC imposes a condition on zoning relief for off street parking that the building will not be eligible for residential permit parking (RPP) on the adjacent streets? The reason that they do this is to mitigate the additional parking burden when local streets are already full, and to avoid a situation where the developer is foisting its external costs (added parking demand) onto the public. Some people claim that this is discriminatory against the exempted development's residents. However, others point out that the residents are getting cheaper units than otherwise because of the cost savings and are leasing or purchasing with full notice of the condition.

This seems entirely fair to me — cost savings or no, if the idea behind the building is supposed to be that its residents won't need parking, they shouldn't be eligible for parking. If you don't like the provision, don't move there.

This.

[Anonymous]

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?

[Anonymous]

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 "racist." But it is fiscally irresponsible and bad transportation planning.

[Anonymous]

I love how the anti-woke people are suddenly up in arms about racism in bike lanes. So easy to take you seriously 🙄