Lincoln Park Bikeshare Opposition

Here's a letter from one opponent that appeared on the New Hill East listserv:

I am writing this email to address the issues we have with the DC Bikeshare placement of bikes on the triangle area directly in front of our homes. Please understand, we are not against the Bikeshare program, just this location. We are, and many of our neighbors on adjacent blocks are, concerned about the use of this triangle for this purpose. We hope you can understand our concerns. Below we have also addressed two alternative locations that better mitigate or deal with the concerns discussed below.

Safety

This is our primary concern. As residents of this block we are constantly under the threat of aggressive drivers, mostly but not all, from Maryland. As you may know, the Massachusetts Ave portion (right side of the triangle) is a single lane of traffic. The only parking available to residents, guests, restaurant patrons and Lincoln Park families have are street parking on the residential side of the street. Frequently, if not daily, we are harassed by speeding drivers trying to make the light. Drivers do not allow us the time to parallel park, often honking horns or trying to squeeze by.

Cars frequently misread the stop lights as the timing and structure of these lights are not your standard intersection. Oncoming traffic from Mass Ave (heading west) does not have the same green light as east bound traffic. Traffic turning north on 13^th from East Capitol leg (left side of triangle) is not green the entire time the east bound Mass Ave traffic has a green light (resulting in frustrated drivers again, trying to weave in and out traffic to get to that single lane of Mass Ave east bound traffic. Frequently, especially with Virginia drivers, cars make a left on red, from East Capitol leg onto 13^th street. While left on red, from a one-way street onto a one-way street is legal in Virginia, it is not in DC.

We have asked for traffic calming features and have been promised solutions this year, twice with deadlines missed and nothing ever done.

We sadly report one to two dogs killed or injured each year. We recently had a 70 year old neighbor on 12^th street get hit by a car and seriously injured. The near misses we currently endure to dogs and their owners, kids, families and strollers are unacceptable. We feel adding bikes to this triangle would only further add chaos to this intersection and would hate to see a biker injured or killed or even hit a pedestrian or child trying to avoid the traffic. As you know, a bike ride starting from that triangle MUST cross a busy road just to make it to safety.

I tend to belive that a little chaos will slow drivers down and make things safer, but I'm not sure how having a bike share station that will be used around 50 times a day will actually cause chaos. Nor do I see why a cyclist MUST cross a busy road to get to safety. Merging into East Capitol of Mass Avenue seems pretty safe. What does this person think is "safety".

You should also be aware that the reason for this and the other triangle being bricked over was to remove the visual impediments drivers face from trees.

That was probably a mistake.

Recently we have had discussions on the tree boxes at East Capitol and Kentucky Ave. The city has cut down any trees planted either by city workers or residents as they have impaired driver’s vision and have resulted in near misses. We were told there would not be signage at the Bikeshare locations to create a visual impairment. As you can all see, this is not the case and a large 9 foot sign would create a visual block for approaching traffic.

Some of our neighbors have expressed concern their children would be tempted to run out to the shiny red bikes in front of their home right into oncoming traffic. As a destination for children to play, and the increasingly large number of parents who drive their kids to the park, this is a concern.

Finally, we should point out tractor trailers, trying to turn left onto 13^th street and heading east bound on East Capitol, frequently use part of the triangle to make the turn onto 13^th street. The bikes would clearly be in danger of being hit during these maneuvers.

I'm pretty sure that's illegal. Should we be coddling this?

We feel these issues can be easily addressed by using either of the two alternative locations we propose.

Maintenance

We were told trash cans would be placed by the bike locations to deal with the issue of casual riders having paper and plastic bottle trash either beginning or ending their rides. As far as we can see, no trash cans are placed by any bike sharing locations. It has taken a concerted effort by our neighbors to actively stop and confront pedestrians who just drop their trash on the sidewalks and tree boxes. While we still get beer bottles and soda bottles in our flower beds and tree boxes, we have made progress. People are simply unwilling to walk to the trash containers at the nearby bus stops or in Lincoln Park. We feel this can be easily addressed by using either of the two alternative locations we propose.

"People bring trash. We don't want trash so we don't want people."

Quality of Life

We were told vans will be stopping by the bike locations every two to four hours to perform maintenance or rebalance the bike inventory. In addition we were told they simply block traffic for a short time to carry out this function if the bikes don’t have parking spaces adjacent to their curb. This will disrupt and cause further aggression as well as inconvenience anyone coming into the neighborhood. Having a Bikeshare setup with the ability of the maintenance crews to not block 100% of the traffic is a much better idea.

The additional noise from cars honking horns or from the increased traffic is not something anyone wants outside their bedroom windows. We know of no other location with this placement right in front of residential area.

There are plenty actually

Destination for drivers to park and ride.  As we have seen with Metro stops, people drive their cars to the metro and then take the subway. This allows residents to avoid parking garages and still park within our zone. It was suggested that the same will happen with DC Bike share as long as there is ample parking around these locations. In addition, the city employee we spoke with also suggested this would be great for Lincoln Park to have it as a destination for people to arrive and then bike the city. While that sounds great, having the bikes in that destination or other location would be better. The last thing any of us need is the inability to park or have guests park close to our homes because of “destination riders” using our limited parking spaces. While no one is guaranteed parking in front of our homes, and frequently we have to park a block or three away, it is a safety concern for late night returning residents.

"People bring cars. We don't want cars, so we don't want people."

Solutions

We have proposed two locations for the DC Bikeshare – both would involve solving most, if not all these concerns. The most obvious would be to place the bikes in the park. As a recreational facility, with great visibility, this would be perfect. Unfortunately the park service likes to give long term concession agreements to any vendors (DC collects money for the bikes and that is only allowed by authorized vendors on park property). Since the White House has obtained and exception to this rule for the DC Bikeshare program on park property adjacent to the White House, there is a possibility this could be done. We are actively lobbying congress to help with this issue.

Another novel idea we have is to use a lane of road on the east side of the park. As you may know, the park lane of 13^th street from the East Capitol cut off to the light where East Capitol starts again (1/2 way up the east side of the park) used to be residential parking. While no one can explain why it was removed and cannot be returned as residential parking, we suggest they use that lane. It is on DC property, not park service, can have barrier posts installed just as they have done on 15^th Street NW between Rhode Island Ave and U Streets, and it will not impact traffic at all. Currently the lane is not used by oncoming traffic until it passes the center of the park. This solution was found to be “interesting” by the DC DOT. Trash cans are on the adjacent sidewalk, bikers can start or end their trips in a safe environment.  We hope this would work out if the park is not available.

I don't see how the second solution solves the "problems" they mention, it only moves them to someone else's front door.

Comments

[darren]

I don't live in Lincoln Park (and now I'm glad...), but if CaBi or the County wants to put a station in place of the two car parking spots directly in front of my house in Arlington, I would be overjoyed.

[CyclingFool]

NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY!!!

or in this case

NIMFY NIMFY NIMFY!!!

[Read Scott Martin, 13th Street NE]

Civility please. I think the original post was thoughtful and patiently constructed and merits a better thought out response than the commentary given here. The "we don't want people" comment is too flip and snarky by half. It misreads (I believe) what the original poster says, which I read more or less as "we don't want more people and pets being struck by Maryland drivers in front of our homes, address this first please." I do not think this is a baseless concern or an unreasonable request, based on my eight years living nearby. I do think the elimination of the parking lane on the east side of the park by persons unknown contributed to the creation of the race track effect that unsafe commuters have created. The "front door" where the BikeShare station could move (to which the snarky WABA editor alludes at the end) is a retail front door, not a residential one. That's not an unimportant piece of information. So move the BikeShare station around the corner for chrissakes and get on with it, or don't, but we can be a little more forgiving in our commentary here, can't we?

[SJE]

I think that the letter is reasonable and well written. A lot of the problems, however, are nothing to do with CaBi.
For example, I would hope that CaBi decreases the number of idiot drivers. What does the council rep say?

[dc]

The snarky sidenotes are totally uncalled for.

I saw the original post on newhilleast and the writer went out of their way to compose a thorough and non-inflammatory response to many of the questions surrounding potential locations. Clearly they are not opposed to putting the bikes at Lincoln Park, they were just sharing their direct and personal knowledge of the location. That they bothered to reach out in this way should be appreciated more and not dismissed in this juvenile fashion. It does nothing to further the debate and only alienates people further.

Personally I'm in favor of a bikestation(s) at lincoln park (and every 4-6 blocks for that matter) but would prefer to defer to the immediate neighbors as to the best placement. They know the traffic patterns and history best. But it should be _at_ the park -- as in within 1/2 block. Alternatives that some have mentioned - like the Safeway, RFK or 13th & D stations are worthy as locations, but it's ludicrous to suggest they could fill in for Lincoln Park.

[Catherine]

Not trying to be snarky here, but does the letter writer realize that things like trees and the absence of Interstate-like wide fields of vision make roads "feel" like slower-moving roads to drivers? The removal of the trees was likely a huge mistake.

And please. Seriously, please. The children might be tempted to run over to the red shiny bikes? Is this in earnest or are we just trying to find a way to throw "and kids might get killed" into the argument? First step: watch your children (or, ahem, trust the skills of those you pay to watch your children a bit more). Second step: teach children about not running into streets, ever. Third step: go show them the bikes, up close and personal when they arrive. Once they're no longer new, the children won't be tempted to run to them across multiple lanes of traffic with reckless abandon. Forth step: please, please stop coming up with INSANE arguments against something that you just plain ol' don't want in "your" front yard (you know, that public property over there?).

Thanks.

Oh and PS--why drive your kids to the park? Why not stop being part of the problem (motor vehicle traffic in this neighborhood) and become part of the solution? There are many, many, easy and safe ways to transport kids on foot and on bike. Set an example.

[kt]

While the letter was thoughtfully written, and I do appreciate these folks taking the time to spell out their position on everything, I don't see how not having a CaBi station is going to help any solve of their issues. They are punishing bikers for everyone else's bad behavior. I appreciate that they are proposing solutions, but I don't know the area well enough to know if the alternative site is feasible.

[J]

The letter was thoughtfully written. That is, much thought was put into making it follow the gold standard for NIMBYism.

1)Make what appear to be reasonable complaints, but in reality have nothing to do with the issue at hand. Like the whole tree thing.
2)Throw children in. Always make mention of children being killed.
3)Layer in distractions (trash, seriously?)
4)Provide what appears to be a reasonable option, but is either a)impossible or b)moves the "problem" to another persons area.

I see this all the time with rail projects.

"We'd LOVE to have the rail project but we're worried it will cause congestion (1). The thing is, if we build the rail line as planned, children will be killed (2). And there will be hobos (3). So all we're saying is that if you want to build the rail line, PLEASE do so, but locate it 1 mile that way, and underground (4)."

[Daniel W]

The letter was not thoughtfully written, unless you mean thoughtfully written in bad faith. "Kids might get killed," "Maryland drivers", and "Too much trash"? Please. The tone is reasonable enough, but the content belies a total lack of any motive other than NIMFY. Not a single issue raised had anything specific or unique to do with the placement of bikes on the triangle.

[John]

Let's drop the anonymous attacks on the letter writer and think about the bigger picture: the bikes should be *IN* Lincoln Park, not shoved into tiny median parks on its periphery. There is no excuse for the NPS's mismanagement of our green spaces and the inability of our citizens to claim control over the neighborhoods where we live.

[contrarian]

What does this person think is "safety".

Surely after five years you know that when talking about transportation issues the word "safety" means "convenience." Specifically, the convenience of the person writing.

[Daniel W]

@ John. You are absolutely correct that the NPS bungled this one. And it should be fixed. In the meantime, stations should go as close to parks as possible and in a place that's good for everyone - not the loudest NIMBYers.

[cr]

The nice thing about the stations is that once NPS agrees, the station could be moved into the park. There is no need to wait on placement. Place it and use it now, improve the location later.

After the hand-wringing about bad drivers and safety, I don't see how putting the station in the street would be safer. Even if there are some barriers on either side of the station, the user will still be docking from an active traffic lane or from a sidewalk that is more heavily used by pedestrians, joggers, etc than the refuge. Those pedestrian islands at the NE and SE corners are ideal.

[Christopher Fotos]

Washcycle's comments, in this case, are Exhibit A for the prosecution in making the case against smug, holier-than-thou bike advocates. With friends like you...

I'm overjoyed with what appears to be CaBi's early success, even though as a resident of Manassas, Va. I am unlikely to use it anytime soon. I could think of areas of disagreement with the letter-writer but it's a thoughtful, constructive effort that deserves a thoughtful and constructive response.

[Wil]

Another issue with placement in the park is the solar array. With the dense tree canopy, the station wouldn't be able to be viable in many of the on the ground locations that I would choose. The traffic triangles don't have any problems with solar placement. If the letter writer's complaints are sincere, I don't believe they rise to the level of "don't do it at this location". DDOT should proceed as planned. I hear there's some new petition going around the neighborhood about using that site, hope it works.

[nookie]

Yeah, WashCycle only illustrated yet again what kind of petulant child he is. Well done with the completely adolescent snarkyness.

This indignant "my way or the highway" attitude he takes on most things is completely hilarious considering it mirrors the same "nimbyism" he loves to ridicule.

[Read Scott Martin, 13th Street NE]

I don't think hiding behind pseudonyms is helping the tone of the debate here. Washcycle, what do you say?

[Fred]

Yes the tone of the debate definitely could be better. Some people seem to enjoy using the comments section just to try to push people's buttons.

[washcycle]

Wow, I don't know if I've ever had such a negative reaction to so little actual writing (and from so many seemingly new readers).

1. A lot of people seem to be bothered by the tone of my comments. I disagree that they were snide, smug or uncivil, but I guess that is in the eyes of the reader. I was in a hurry and I kept my comments brief. That may be interpreted as snide, but it was not my intent. Regardless, I don't really see how my tone or style matters. It doesn't change any of the facts.

2. I agree that the original letter was thoughtful. It takes a lot of thought to come up with so many paper-thin reasons to oppose a bike station there, while avoiding the real reason. It had the appearance of reasonableness, but I don't find it to be a resonable case for moving the bike station 40 feet to the east. It felt more like a legal brief that tries to throw every possible reason out there (including the magnetic powers of red bikes on children) to see what the judge will allow. I can't imagine that anyone heard about the CaBi station and came up with all of these reasons. There is probably one reason that is the real one (and that may not be listed here), and all of the others are just filler.

3. [The "we don't want people" comment] misreads (I believe) what the original poster says, which I read more or less as "we don't want more people and pets being struck by Maryland drivers in front of our homes, address this first please." That is not what he said - not when I referred to not wanting people. The first time he said that the CaBi station would bring people to the triangle. That people are "simply unwilling to walk to the trash containers at the nearby bus stops or in Lincoln Park." And thus the station should be moved elsewhere. I feel my assement was accurate.

The second time he said that CaBi would do "the same thing" as Metro stops, i.e. encourage "people drive their cars" to the station [People bring cars]. Then he said "The last thing any of us need is the inability to park or have guests park close to our homes because of “destination riders” using our limited parking spaces." [We don't want cars] And then he proposed moving the station, and the people who would drive there, farther away [so we don't want people]. He actualy never mentioned pets, Maryland drivers, safety or which order to address improvements in, in the sections where I made the "we don't want people" comments. Again, I feel that I have more accurately assesed his statements.

4. I do not think this is a baseless concern or an unreasonable request, based on my eight years living nearby. It is an unreasonable request in that it is wholly unrelated. Moving the bike station will do nothing to address the safety concerns he and you have, since those concerns exist now. Demanding the changes first sounds more like ransom, which I don't find reasonable.

5. which the snarky WABA editor alludes at the end I don't work for WABA.

6. The "front door" where the BikeShare station could move is a retail front door, not a residential one. That's not an unimportant piece of information. OK why isn't that a trivial fact? Do business owners enjoy watching pets and people being struck by Maryland drivers in front of their businesses? [Now that is snarky.]

7. we can be a little more forgiving in our commentary here, can't we? Where is forgiveness needed?

8. My feelings on the proposition that we should move the bike station to be nearer existing garbage cans rather than install a new garbage can is best exemplified by an old vaudeville sketch.

A man stands in the spot light looking at the ground like he is looking for something and another man walks up and asks "What are you looking for?
Man 1: "My wallet."
Man 2, after looking for some time: "Where did you drop it"
Man 1, pointing across the stage: "Over there, by the organist"
Man 2, angrily: "Well then, why are you looking over here?'
Man 1: "The lighting is better"

9. That they bothered to reach out in this way should be appreciated more and not dismissed in this juvenile fashion. I appreciate it, as opposed to continuing to operate in the dark. It was not dismissed in a juvenile fashion. It was dismissed quickly and accurately.

10. Personally I'm in favor of a bikestation(s) at lincoln park but would prefer to defer to the immediate neighbors as to the best placement. That is deciding to live in the tragedy of the anti-commons. I'd prefer to defer to the experts in the DOT and CaBi with experience in bike sharing to a handful of people who think that moving the bike station 40 feet is going to solve the parking problems they ridiculously think the station will bring.

11. the bikes should be *IN* Lincoln Park. ot shoved into tiny median parks on its periphery. Why is that? They won't be used in Lincoln Park. They'll be used in the road which is on the periphery. Why should we give up a piece of prime park space for this when we can use an oversized pedestrian island that is otherwise dead space? Also, what Wil said.

12. All this yelling about NPS is a red herring.

13. . It is on DC property, not park service, can have barrier posts installed just as they have done on 15th Street NW between Rhode Island Ave and U Streets, and it will not impact traffic at all. Currently [it] is not used by oncoming traffic This description of the on street solution, acurately describes the triangle. The only difference is that the trash cans, while not close, are closer. See point 8 on adding trash cans. Also, one great thing about CaBi is that they are so flexible. If a station isn't working, pick it up and move it (or shorten the size). Changing street design and adding facilities adds cost and should only be done when it is the only alternative. That is not the case here.

14. Washcycle's comments, in this case, are Exhibit A for the prosecution in making the case against smug, holier-than-thou bike advocates If after 5 years of blogging all they have is one exhibit, I'm doing well.

15. I don't think hiding behind pseudonyms is helping the tone of the debate here. Washcycle, what do you say? I don't think it's hurting it. Are you being nicer to me because I know your name? I have good reasons for using a pseudonym, which regular readers know, but you can probably find my real name online if you'd like. I guarantee you I'm not being rude because I can hide behind a pseudonym. I'm being rude because I only get 5 hours of sleep at night.

16, nookie, see my standard response to you here, item #1.

17. I love that someone used the word 'hobo'. Made my day.

[Read Scott Martin, 13th Street NE]

Now we know why you only get five hours of sleep. You're awesome. That's 17 points of devotion to the blog, which I totally respect.

But truly, wouldn't the whole comments section be chilled to a less-snarky degree if people wrote like they were speaking to you face to face, which happens more often when they have to put a verified name and address to their musings. I'm old, but editing letters to the editor taught me that much. If we knew who in the thread lived where we would know if, you know, they knew the difference between inbound traffic (NE corner of Lincoln Park, a.m.) and outbound (SE corner) psychotic auto traffic. If per your Point 13, the stations are so flexible, why go balls to the wall defending one spot in a 40-foot radius over another? That is all.

Ditto hobo.

Read

[washcycle]

It reminds me a bit of the Seinfeld episode when the Mayor suggested everyone wear name tags. Using real names and addresses might help with politeness, but people could just use fake "real names". For example, the new hill east listserv "requires" real names, but one persistent heckler uses a fake name.

[Read Scott Martin, 13th Street NE]

No offense: What does "Sponsored by Washington Area Bicycle Association" (photo credit, top of blog) mean?

[washcycle]

Oh, and in answer to your second question. One reason is that it appears CaBi has packed up their station and gone home. Which is exactly what I would do. I remember a state Rec Trails coordinator telling me "We have a hundred times as many requests for trails as we have money to build, so if we get ANY local opposition, we move on." DC has more CaBi location candidates, so they moved on. Second is that I don't like to see a few people exert an undue influence due to non-political power (location/wealth/influence), which is what it appears happened here. And I hope I'll remember that when it is my ox being gored.

[Read Scott Martin, 13th Street NE]

I thought of that Seinfeld bit. And no doubt, the hearing-less hearing process sucked. I do disagree though. Saying "it appears" CaBi has given up is presuming a lot. Play poker. There is a reason CaBi kicked off with that location. They think the system needs it. CaBi will get pulled right back in if it's the East end or the NE corner that houses that thing because it's millimeters away from their ideal. I actually wouldn't care if it was the current location, either, knowing the neighbors they might come around. I wouldn't value their view as much if they didn't put their name to it. That's just me.

[washcycle]

What does "Sponsored by Washington Area Bicycle Association" (photo credit, top of blog) mean? Five years ago they gave me the money to pay for the first year of the blog. I've been too busy to remove it since, and they've been too busy to ask me to.

[Christopher Fotos]

If after 5 years of blogging all they have is one exhibit, I'm doing well.

You're not doing well.

It's too bad, there's a lot of great work here--for example I've learned so much about the CaBi program, when you're not trashing residents who are concerned about safety in a neighborhood where dogs are killed every year and a 70-year-old got hit by a car. Well! Let us not permit a mere 70-year-old to stand in the way of my beautiful CaBi unicorn rainbow, now what was I saying...

Regardless, I don't really see how my tone or style matters. It doesn't change any of the facts.

It doesn't matter if all you want to do is explain to the dense masses how misguided they are. In that case, have a ball. And thank you for staying away from WABA.

But if one of your goals is advocacy, then you must deal with people who are simultaneously concerned about trash, kids, dogs, cars, congestion, and trying to find a place to park near their own homes. People who have been promised traffic-calming measures that have never been delivered and then were suddenly faced with some trendy taxpayer-subsidized bike system they never asked for.

In the grand scheme of things, expanding bike use and the systems that make it possible will require persuading such people of its benefits and taking their concerns seriously, not mocking them and working from the premise that they're lying to you.

FWIW, there are exceptions that prove the rule but for the most part I have no problem with blogs (or commenters) using cybernyms, as long as they have a fixed identity (no sock puppets IOW).

[J]

Christopher, how does a bikeshare station make it more likely that a 70 year old will get hit by a car?

If the neighborhood is concerned about speeding cars, then they should be thrilled that less people will be driving.

There is no point in taking frivolous concerns seriously.

[Tom]

Hey guys, get of wash's back. Snarky, schmarky! Turn down your "tone meters" and enjoy the blog.

Keep it up Wash. Keep writing in you own voice and don't let these tourists tell you how to write your blog.

Personally, I'm keeping my ammunition dry for the next helmet debate.

[Tom]

Edit for my previous post "get off" rather than "get of"

[washcycle]

Christopher, I don't see where I trashed residents. Perhaps you'd like to show me that. I do not believe that the opposition of this CaBi location has anything to do with safety. Nor do I think this person is actually concerned with CaBi's impact on trash, kids, dogs, cars or congestion. I think it is all about this statement "We know of no other location with this placement right in front of residential area." I will gladly take their concerns seriously when they have serious concerns. I'm not interested in dealing with people who are concerned primarily with keeping everything away from their house, and who are furthermore dishonest about why they want that. [This letter writer sounds far too smart to be this ignorant].

[washcycle]

What's interesting is that amidst all the bellyaching about my "...so we don't want people" comments is that no one has really been able to contradict it, and only one person has even tried. So if anything, I think that comment has stung most because perhaps it was so accurate. Read the letter again, they aren't against the bike station, they're just against all the people it will bring.

[Read Scott Martin, 13th Street NE]

I mistook the blog for being WABA-sponsored. Thanks for clarifying, and by all means snark away, etc. Yours in tourism,

[thm]

If we're going to call out washcycle's comments as "snarky"--cast around much too casually as a pejorative these days--we've also got to appropriately label and call out the laundry list of red herrings and straw men that constituted the original letter, as "Passive aggressive and in bad faith" is a bit of a mouthful.

[washcycle]

It's also not fair to come to this blog and criticize it for snark. That's what I do. You don't hate a shark for killing...

[nookie]

Washy...

Considering you can't even differentiate between "Nations Capital" and "Nation’s Capitol" in the title header of your own “website”, I am not sure you are qualified to weigh in on anything more substantive than a flat tire, let alone what property tax paying residents feel is best in their own neighborhood, but it has been a source of laughter every time I’ve visited your snarkfest little corner of the intertubes.

You want to try acting like an adult, either crank down the whiney kid dial and try having a collaborative discussion with folks to find a usable solution (of which there are many, it’s only a bike rack ) to this problem, or buy a house in the neighborhood.

You stick to what you know best, Tilting at Windmills and embarrassing yourself with an error a 3rd grader knows not to make, the rest of us will concern ourselves with the tasks of being adults.

Cheers!

[SJE]

OK, so nookie gets a full refund

[Read Scott Martin, 13th Street NE]

I enjoy this blog and the opinions.

[Eric_W.]

Besides a full refund, nookie also receives the honorary title of "blog douchebag", not least for having, at a minimum, two orthographic mistakes in his response slamming washcycle for some error.

I still would like to know what the "Nations Capital" is...

On the actual topic. Most of the comments here (by people I have never seen commenting on the blog before) follow the same strategy as the Lincoln Park letter which is the subject of the blog post: Open up a completely off-subject discussion about some perceived problem(s) and avoid admitting the real motives of the opposition to the bike station.

Very weak and not at all productive.

Keep up the good work, washcycle.

[washcycle]

Normally nookie, I can't hear you over the sound of you not delivering the traffic report you long ago falsely said you would give me, but in this case you are right. Capitol is wrong, it should be Capital (I've already threatened to sue my friend who did the graphic for me, but he says since he did it for free, I'm unlikely to get anything from him). But the possessive "Nation's" is right, which you got wrong. Should we call it even? Find me a third grader who knows the difference between "Capitol" and "Capital".

Also, I already live in the neighborhood of which we are speaking.

[Read Scott Martin, 13th Street NE]

I want a Bikeshare station on any triangle in Lincoln Park, including the one in dispute. Taking down the writer of the list serv post and lighting him/her on fire in public is a weird way to get there. That's why I wrote. Some of the neighbors on that corner have ample resources to dig in. (Really ample.) If they are the opponents I don't support them either.

@ Eric W. This newbie commenter is here because Washcycle surfaced the opposition letter here, I misread this as a WABA site and I was not a member of New Hill East list serv.

[dynaryder]

nookie also receives the honorary title of "blog douchebag"

No fair! He already holds that title over on GGW.

I'm just happy the LP folks are blaming cars for their problems. In the past they've claimed it was the cyclists zooming around the circle that were causing issues.

And Washcycle,the proper responce to strawmen is snark. Shiny red bike kiddie magnets indeed.

[Eric_W.]

@dynarider: Maybe we can order the award trophies together and get a better deal?

@ Read Scott: Nothing wrong with new posters. We all were at one point. By now, many of us have met in person (actually just spoke to Blind Pilot on the trail this morning) and so, even though we may use a nick and/ or are not registered with some service, we are not anonymous to each other.

Regarding the letter: Sometimes, as in this case, one has to call a spade a spade.

Unreasonable and frivilous arguments have to be exposed as just that. Negotiating against oneself is not productive.

Finally, I did not find the tone to be snarky, condescending or otherwise offensive. Washcycle provided a general translation based on the intent of the letter and I generally agree with it.

[Dr Pangloss]

Just my two cents: this is absolutely a case of NIMBYism, and rationalization after-the-fact. The bottom line is, just as washcycle put his finger on, the Lincoln Park neighbors oppose *anything* that might bring more people to this area. They've fought any commercial ventures in the past, and they're fighting the CaBi station for the same reason.

What makes the argument so incoherent is that it uses "speeding auto traffic" as a reason *not* to build the bikeshare station, when in fact, it's opposition to things like the bikeshare station to enable the high-speed and reckless driving that exists.

You don't see folks driving 45 mph on the stretch of Mass Ave between Union station and Stanton Park. Nor on 8th Street along Barracks Row.

But it's NIMBY's like these Lincoln Park neighbors who fight to ensure that Mass is a speedway.

[Dr Pangloss]

@nookie
You stick to what you know best, Tilting at Windmills and embarrassing yourself with an error a 3rd grader knows not to make, the rest of us will concern ourselves with the tasks of being adults.

Why are you wasting time here? You should start your *own* blog. That way your fans will have a single-source repository for your various musings and observations.

Now run along! Get hopping!

[Chris]

The apparent fact that tractor trailers frequently use part of the triangle to make the turn onto 13th street is destressing to me. Not that I think that should be tolerated; I just find it distressing - images of large vehicles dragging struck cyclists without the driver realizing it comes to mind.

[Michael H.]

Why should we take any comments seriously from someone who uses the screen name "nookie"?

[nookie]

Michael H.

"Why should we take any comments seriously from someone (a DC resident who apparently lives on the hill which is more galling) who has had his little blog titled incorrectly for a year"?

See how easy that was? Sorta speaks volumes for everyone else who frequents this blog every day, looked at the title and didn't get it either.

And Dr. Pangloss, you've obviously taken the hilarious Bush-ian approach to life, that you are either "with us or against us". So disappointing.

I would suggest that if people cannot take valid criticism, then they refrain from saying anything at all.

And if someone is looking to simply be in a club where everyone around you simply blows smoke up your ass and agrees with everything you say...well then adulthood is going to be a very crushing experience for you.

Simple fact of the matter that "you" (and I'm speaking generally to the crowd) aren't always right about everything, and that your opinions are not more valid than mine, or anyone elses. This "my way or the highway" self obsessiveness of this blog does more damage to your cause than any of the good you could possibly do.

Your goal of promoting Cycling Advocacy (in a building, ha...couldn't stop myself) is completely lost in the your snarkiness and complete dismissal of everyone else.

You want to further cycling in DC? Try working "with" people instead of against them... ridiculing everyone who dares differ in opinion. You'll get much further.

[Christopher Fotos]

WashCycle, you are simultaneously saying you didn't snark, and that snark is what you do so you shouldn't be criticized for it (you don't hate a shark for killing--good line btw).

Anyway, your tone-o-meter needs to go back to the shop; hopefully it is under warranty. E.g. evidently you believe that saying the entire list of residents' concerns was a lie isn't equivalent to trashing them. Well sure, what reasonable person would take offense at that? I will gladly take their concerns seriously when they have serious concerns. Dear Lord.

Enjoy preaching to the choir my friend.

I remember a state Rec Trails coordinator telling me "We have a hundred times as many requests for trails as we have money to build, so if we get ANY local opposition, we move on." Now that is interesting. I almost always learn something when I come here. It's just that some bike advocates are so wrapped up in their own awesome goodness that they're kind of appalled when the entire world doesn't see the halo over their heads. Opposition must be ignorant, misguided or just plain deceitful because biking is just so darn nice.

Like kittens. How can any decent person oppose kittens?

Good blog overall, still worth it.

[guez]

Wow. A flame war and no one invited me.

[washcycle]

Christopher, I actually didn't say that I didn't snark (which I interpret as mere sarcasm), I said that I wasn't snide, smug or uncivil (which I interpret as having a nastiness to it - and not the good kind of nastiness). But now that I look up snark on urban dictionary I see that it means snide remark. So my error is in not being up on my street lingo. So, no, snark is not exactly what I do here. I am snarky at times. But I try to keep it in proportion to the power and influence of the person I'm writing about. John McCain gets a large dose. Letter writer on local listserve does not. There is noting in my original comments that I interpret as snarky.

evidently you believe that saying the entire list of residents' concerns was a lie isn't equivalent to trashing them. That is correct. I don't. I don't think calling someone disingenuous and then backing it up with your reasons for thinking that is "trashing" someone. Trashing someone is a more personal attack on them, it is not disagreeing with their ideas or questioning their motives. But again we're dealing in slang, so maybe your definition is different.

Enjoy preaching to the choir my friend. OK, well, someone's blog-o-meter needs to go to the shop. What do you think this blog is? It's not community outreach. And it's not make-nice time with those opposed to cycling. It's cycling advocacy in a building. The whole point is to bring the choir together and get them talking about local biking issues, giving them information and hoping they get charged up enough to do something. The only time non-cyclists come here is for a brief drop in. This blog is not written for people who will never get on a bike, and I couldn't give a flying fudge what they think about what I write.

It's just that some bike advocates are so wrapped up in their own awesome goodness that they're kind of appalled when the entire world doesn't see the halo over their heads. Opposition must be ignorant, misguided or just plain deceitful because biking is just so darn nice. So who's being smug now? I think this is wild mis-characterization. Look if they had a legitimate concern "DDOT wants to cut down the trees in our front yard to keep them from blocking the solar panels" I'd be right there with them. But you know what, quite often opposition is ignorant, misguided and just plain deceitful. It happens all the time and this is one of those cases. And I'm not going to waste my time negotiating with people who are being so ridiculous, same as that Rec Trails guy. Not one of the concerns they listed meets the sniff test. Which of these listed concerns do you think is valid with relation to CaBi?

Read is probably wrong. They are not going to put a station in the Lincoln Park area. They don't think the system needs it. They thought it was an easy spot. It isn't. There won't be a station within sight of Lincoln Park any time soon. I put the over-under at about a year (unless Tommy Wells can make it happen).

[washcycle]

guez, do you like snark? Because this is becoming all snark all the time!

[washcycle]

Also, "You don't hate a shark for killing, that's what sharks do" is what I said when my friend asked me if I was mad at my ex-girlfriend for cheating on me.

[Chris]

I'm with quez - why was I not invited to this flame war?

[Jim]

Gee, one day away from the itnernet and I missed all the fun too! But I am glad to hear Washcycle is up to 5 hours of sleep. Is the little pre-trailer sleeping through the night?

[Dr Pangloss]

Look if they had a legitimate concern "DDOT wants to cut down the trees in our front yard to keep them from blocking the solar panels" I'd be right there with them. But you know what, quite often opposition is ignorant, misguided and just plain deceitful.

Ah, but see, you can't actually say that. Unless a NIMBY literally has horns and is spitting venom, to call them out is the height of poor manners.

[washcycle]

Jim, Technically yes, but really no. He's sleeping for 6 hour blocks, but they start at 6:30 pm.