Biking is an option

A letter writer complains that the new Department of Homeland Security will be far from transit (buses - which he calls unreliable - and the new light rail will run along side it) and thus is not inline with Obama's desire to see fewer people drive to work. Dale Murad adds in

Many people would ride bicycles -- if it were safe. But Washington isn't Amsterdam.

No, but biking is still a safe option. If you use lights at night, ride with traffic and signal it's probably safer than driving. He lives in the bike and transit capitol of the DC area - McLean, VA - so he knows what he's talking about. 

Mostly it seems he wants more parking.

Comments

[Angela Koch]

This is a classic case of someone having no clue whatsoever of the data that supports cycling as beneficial to the community and individuals in it. The more people that ride, the safer it is. FACT. For him to say many people would ride but it's not safe is just plain silly. Be a part of the solution mister.

[SJE]

Whether he correctly assessed the risk is not the whole story: he FEELS unsafe. Perhaps we should ask what needs to be done to make him feel safer.

[Chris]

Safety is sooooo relative, isn't it? Truth be told, I think there's no ultimately safe mode of transportation, especially in our urban environment. Driving, public transit, cycling, and walking across the street all have inherent risks. To make matters worse, what level of risk is inherent in each of those modes is hard to assess, as demonstrated by the recent post on this blog the limits of which was pointed out in the comments section. We all look at the cost-benefit in our own minds, and make transportation decisions accordingly.

[Washcycle]

True, But notice how he blames the government for placing DHS in a place where one can only drive. Of course, they can "only drive" because he dismisses every other mode (Metro is crowded, Buses are unreliable, biking is unsafe). So if you can't use any of those modes (when it is absolutely clear that you can, most DC residents use one of those), which location isn't one where you can only drive?

Also, if buses are unreliable, driving isn't much more so.

[SJE]

Washcycle: I find buses far less reliable than cars or biking, overall. Yes, a bus will get me there, but if I have to connect, and/or do it in a reasonable time, not so good. Just my experience.

[Chris]

I'm afraid that's the case with me on buses too. But, more to the point on this matter, where IS the new headquarters? I thought it was that big ugly federal building off New York Avenue, which is right around the corner from the New York Avenue Metro stop...?

[SJE]

Which particular big ugly federal building? There are so many.

[Dr Pangloss]

I'm scared of taking the bus. Or the train.

Perhaps you should ask what needs to be done to make me feel safer.

[Jim Titus]

The middle of St. E's is about a mile walk from Anacostia or Congress Heights metro stations. I bet they'll have a dedicated shuttle to one or both. And it's a safe bike ride from Congress Heights metro. Within a decade, the nearby homes will probably be largely occupied by DHS employees, making walking a viable option as well.

[Chris]

SJE: Ha! So true! I meant the big ugly one that's being constructed at New York Avenue and Florida Avenue. But, if it's at St. E's, that answers that question - a mile walk isn't so far, but I think it's possible there's other kinds of issues in this letter that aren't spelled out so much, as the word "Anacostia" scares a lot of people (ie, "safe" isn't about traffic dangers).

[washcycle]

Chris. That's ATF. Not sure if they are part of DHS. But DHS will be at st. E's.

[Blue-eyed Devil]

They will have a dedicated shuttle to/from the St. E's building and a metro station, as they do now for the Coast Guard HQ.

[bikermark]

" ...as the word "Anacostia" scares a lot of people (ie, "safe" isn't about traffic dangers)."

The sweet, sweet irony of putting the Department of Homeland Security there.

[Chris]

How appropriate that ATF is in a building that looks like a bunker.