Harry Jaffe has re-booted the bike lanes=war on cars meme in his latest column.
here's something almost quaint about four-wheeled, internal-combustion vehicles plying the streets of the nation's capital. Lane by lane, politicians, city planners and transportation officials are squeezing cars out of downtown.
Not really. I suspect that over the last decade, the lane-miles available to cars are down about 0.1%. So if that's squeezing, it's like a python attacking a blue whale. But even if it were true, isn't squeezing cars to make room for people a good policy?
This will become abundantly clear to drivers who depend on L Street to maneuver east from Georgetown to the heart of the city on 12th Street. Starting this week, the city will begin a three-week project to repave the one-way thoroughfare. When work is done, bicyclists will have a separate lane on the north side of the street. The bike lane, separated by plastic posts, will consume the parking spaces.
This is good for bikers and parking lot owners but not so for those of us who need to park on L Street. Drivers will lose a lane during rush hour.
It's true that 150 on-street parking spaces will be lost (or at least, that's what the Examiner is reporting elsewhere). But people will still be able to park. They will just have to do so more often in a parking garage where the price is not subsidized. Alternatively, there should be less motor vehicle traffic in general and so less competition for the on-street parking that does exist.
I am of two minds on the L Street project, which could become a battleground between cyclists and drivers.
You mean like it didn't, in the end, on 15th Street? Yes, the Examiner would love a good old-fashioned bike/car war to give them something to write about, but will it happen - unlikely.
As a cyclist, I am overjoyed. When the city creates a matching bike lane on M Street, perhaps in early 2013, I will be able to commute from home to work in dedicated bike lanes. But as a driver, I question whether it's fair to autos.
Right. It hardly seems fair to give one whole east-west lane to cyclists and leave them with only 20-30 for themselves.
I see it creating miles of traffic if cops allow double parking, and I fear accidents if cyclists and drivers don't respect one another. Bikers always lose.
How is that any different than the status quo? The only way I can see, is that the cycletracks will make cyclists safer and make them less dependent on the whims of drivers to give respect. Let's face it, cyclists failing to respect drivers isn't really the issue.
"You can't assume people are going to be reasonable, rational or responsible," says AAA Mid-Atlantic spokesman John Townsend.
That's a good point. But nonetheless, we should let pretty much everyone get behind the wheel of a moving bullet anyway - and then limit enforcement.
"I'm not saying it's a war on motorists, but it fails to recognize that the vast majority of people still rely on cars."
Not in DC they don't. And the point is to make those who depend on cars, less dependent on them.
D.C. Planning Director Harriet Tregoning says more and more D.C. residents are going carless. From 2006 to 2011, 40,000 people moved into the city, which created 60,000 jobs, "but we saw the same rate of car ownership. We are shrinking in terms of cars in D.C."
Tregoning -- a true believer in biking, walking and public transportation -- says D.C. weathered the recession in part because many new residents are attracted to the city so they can be carless, pay off student loans, work and throw cash into the economy.
"It's not even remotely radical to strike a balance between transportation choices," she says.
With the reconstruction of L Street, the balance is tipping toward two wheels.
True, but only if going from 98.42% of the street space dedicated to cars, to 98.39% of it is tipping towards two wheels.
Of course there is heavy reliance on cars: we have built them paths and acted as if they are special "car paths".
The economic and legal reality is that the road are owned by everyone. While cars are meant to share the road, we all know that they are not very good at that. Whenever there is a community resource, and one group refuses to share with others, a simple solution is to take some of the resource and allocate it to others. Giving bikes a few extra miles out of the hundreds in the city is not a war on cars- failing to create lanes is a war on cyclists.
Posted by: SJE | October 25, 2012 at 03:09 PM
Funny how all these yahoos who dislike cyclists always seem to manage to throw the ol' "as a cyclist" bullsh!t preface somewhere into their vitriolic rant in a patent attempt to appear balanced. It is always--always--followed closely by a "but" statement.
*Sigh* So many self-hating cyclists, ha.
Posted by: BlooEyedDevil | October 25, 2012 at 03:35 PM
"Avid cyclist" is code for weekend rider, often one who pops his or her bike on the rack to go riding where cars are infrequent. Riding is recreation to them, not transportation. They believe transportation is cars, and that the road belongs first and foremost to cars.
I have no issue with that as a lifestyle choice, but to think it gives one any insight on the real life, daily battle for road space is mistaken. Case in point, an off-duty cop in DC this week pulling his DC-issued vehicle to within inches of me as I was riding to lecture me repeatedly about traffic laws that existed only in his mind.
Posted by: Crikey7 | October 25, 2012 at 03:49 PM
"You can't assume people are going to be reasonable, rational or responsible,"
In other words "it's not the driver's fault he intentionally ran you off the road. Your presence sent him into a gasoline-fueled rage that was beyond his control...if you would just stay off the road in the first place, this type of thing wouldn't happen....shithead."
Posted by: MM | October 25, 2012 at 04:44 PM
To be fair, the argument that 98.some percent of space is dedicated to cars is a misnomer. Officially speaking, the only lanes that are dedicated to cars are those on the freeways, where bikes are prohibited. That said, agree that this article is blowing smoke in the wrong direction.
(Yes, I was able to get to WashCycle. At sea. Heart rate starting to come down now.)
Posted by: Froggie | October 25, 2012 at 11:46 PM
"people are attracted to the city ... to throw cash in the economy"?? Weird.
Drivers complain about cyclists on their bicycles, but they also complain about trucks and buses and other cars, too. With many of the same complaints of slowness.
Posted by: just another rider | October 26, 2012 at 03:37 AM
...if cyclists and drivers don't respect one another. Bikers always lose.
...and remember, we can't ever talk about these issues without the implied threat of violence from drivers towards everyone else.
Posted by: oboe | October 26, 2012 at 09:15 AM
Froggie, maybe not a misnomer, but better stated as 98% of the roadway is available to cars, and about 95% of it is available to bikes.
Posted by: washcycle | October 26, 2012 at 09:40 AM
I think what you meant was that 99 percent of the roadway is designed for cars, and less than 1 percent is designed for bicycles.
Hurray! I'm a 1-percenter!
Posted by: Jonathan Krall | October 26, 2012 at 06:13 PM
I'll be nostalgic for the days when I could compete with cars on L St. not by having my own lane but by using the ones already there, which were designed for fast travel. I must be a dying breed. I love the elimination of parking though... why do cars need to be stored in the middle of the road? We don't put bike racks in the roadway.
Posted by: Jack | October 27, 2012 at 12:59 PM
"You can't assume people are going to be reasonable, rational or responsible," says AAA Mid-Atlantic spokesman John Townsend.
How in the fucking hell can ANY tractable definition of democracy be offered that DOESN'T assume the citizens to be rational, responsible, or reasonable?
We truly are in the Age of the Moron...the Idiocracy is live.
Posted by: Ken | November 20, 2012 at 02:25 PM