« VDOT seeks comments on bike map | Main | The gods must be crazy »


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

I (reluctantly) have to agree that eliminating protection from one block of a mile-long cycletrack is a relatively minor setback - though it means yet another bit of bikework for DC will be completed with an asterisk.

What IS significant is that even with all the growth in cycling globally, nationally, and locally, DC's version of the "bike lobby" is still up against obstacles that will not be moved. "Let's not build it" shouldn't be part of the catalog for mediation tactics.

I wonder what will happen if I start locking my bike up to the church's fence? I guess they would probably try to take it off there. But the sign in front I can definitely affix to. Since I can see it from my window, this may be a fun little protest to host.

Those church leaders are just being whining brats. Their parking scenario was destroyed years ago when the NEA, National Builders and others moved into the block. I mean the church is wedged between a building with Carribou coffee and the American Chemistry Council

And, it's not like those church congregants ever pause to consider other traffic on the road.

So, yah, I have 0 sympathy for them.

I see God's hand in this and I'm not happy about it.

It'll be fine. Chill.

Cthulhu wouldn't have an issue with a cycletrack going by one of his temples.

Jus sayin'.

It definitely sets a bad precedent but the church is lucky the cave-in is inconvenient but not disastrous. If the church had been located between 18th and 19th we'd be getting medieval rather than turning the other cheek.

Perhaps we could have a moratorium on the term "special interest." While I disagree with this decision, cyclists *are* a special interest: like other groups of citizens, we lobby for accommodations for ourselves. Certainly we believe that our interests align with the public welfare, but I'm pretty sure that churchgoers do too.

But "special interest" seems to always refer to *other* people...

It's not really fine because that church seems to think their rights supercede everyone else's rights. There is PLENTY of parking nearby on a weekend. They're just too damn lazy to walk more than one block or be dropped off. Literally from Logan Circle clear down to 17th St they can park on a weekend on both sides. Toss in 15th St spots and spots on 16th during the weekend and you should have parking for close to 1,000.

guez, I agree that cyclists are also a special interest group. But that doesn't make what I wrote any less accurate. How would you have phrased it?

bicycle advocates are a joke... people like SJE just talk out of their ass...the rest have no idea how power has or does work.

when is the north south route coming to NW DC?

when we getting buses off the mall?? etc..


and what kind of morons who run bike party DC invite the police to bike party??


My complaint is not that your post is factually inaccurate, but rather that it adopts a partisan and divisive tone. "Special interest group" is an expression that people use when they want to score political points.

If you wanted to be more neutral, you could go for something along the lines of: "It appears that Metro has made modifications to a planned cycletrack in response to concerns voiced by congregants of the AME Church...."

It really depends on what you want to accomplish. If you're preaching to the choir, then "special interest groups" it is. If you're aiming at dialogue, maybe a different tone would be more appropriate. My sense is that this blog isn't always sure whether to take the high ground or to score points.

This particular case is a tricky one because of the demographic, racial, and cultural issues involved. I, for one, think that cyclists should avoid fanning the flames of DC's culture wars.

Your post is generally pretty temperate (compared to some of the comments on GGW, for instance). But I don't think that applying the label of "special interest group" to the M Street AME Church really elevates the debate. It risks being understood as "code" for something else.

I heard my name called, but I have no idea what he is talking about since I havent made a comment for a while.


Ok, but I was trying to tie this redesign-under-pressure to the one done 4 years ago on Pennsylvania Ave. In that one AAA was the party that DDOT caved in to. So, other than being special interest groups, what do AAA and Metropolitan AME have in common?

"It appears that Metro has made modifications to a planned cycletrack in response to concerns voiced by congregants of the AME Church....""

How about "in response to concerns by patrons of just one of the dozens estabslishments that line M Street" In some respects this is a more aggressive power grab than even that by AAA. Do we really give individual institutions a veto over any road or transit line in front of their front door? I think its fair to point out that this is rather unusual. I fear that any pointing out of that fact will be seized on by some as a way to turn this into culture war.

Losing that exclusive lane and having to share the traffic lanes on Sunday seems like gracious little to ask of the bikers.

The church was located there for 175 years -- long before you got here with your bike lobby. Why should your desires supercede theirs?

Because our "desires" stem from a citywide goal to encourage more biking, one that is codified into law and agreed upon by many mayors and council members. It represents the goals of the people of this city. Why should the desires of the church superseded those of the majority of DC citizens?

If I may comment to Janzzz99, its not just the result, its the process. I don't see that the bikers are not willing to share with, or accomodate the church. The church hijacked the decision making at the last minute, and refused to even dialogue with e.g. WABA. The AME church got exactly what it wanted, without any demonstration that it actually needed it, or any balancing of interests or discussion of the matter.

Remember, we are talking about a bike lane ACROSS THE STREET, and no evidence that the bike lane would actually harm the church or its members.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Banner design by creativecouchdesigns.com

City Paper's Best Local Bike Blog 2009


 Subscribe in a reader