This led to a back
between him and Matthew Yglesias. Yglesias points out that though DeHaven says he denounces all of these things, in actuality he's only denounced the $4M Bikestation, not the hundreds of millions of federal dollars used to build parking garages.
I find it odd that he's specifically bothered that it's on non-federal property. It's in downtown DC. The whole area is practically federal property. Many, if not most, of the people who will use it will be federal employees. Is he saying that if were across the street on the parking lot between E and Massachusetts - a federally owned parking lot, he would have no problem with it? You know what, don't answer that, because the owner of the land that this bike parking facility IS on is - that's right - the good old United States of America (under the care of the Department of Transportation)*. So much for his Constitutional complaints.
So why again is he bothered that the Federal government paid for 80% of a Bikestation on a piece of land it owns, that will probably be used by a large number of its employees? He also thinks it's inefficient.
It's possible. Chicago's houses 300 bikes and cost $3.1 million. But they built it on parkland (and five years ago). DC went shopping around and this was the only piece of land they could find for free - and it was in a great location. Once they had it, they needed a design that satisfied the CFA so that drove up the cost somewhat. There was also interest in having it be a greener - which means no AC or heat but using passive thermal controls, and be a showpiece for the nation. Again it's possible DC could have built a bike station that parked more bikes or cost less and built it at a major transit hub like Union Station and at the terminus of a bike trail. I'm just not sure how. But then I'm not a budget expert.
*according to the DC GIS data
Photo by erin m