WAMU has some more reporting on TGCB 2013 and this brings Mayor Gray into the mix
To the Gray administration, the District Department of Transportation and a historic African-American church, changes to the proposed design of the M Street cycle track represent a win-win compromise. To cycling advocates and bike commuters, the move to turn a protected cycle track into a regular bike lane for less than one block is a blow to public safety.
In a win-win, no one is saying they lost. By definition, you can't have a one-sided win-win .
The Gray administration, however, is not inclined to pressure DDOT to change the cycle track design again. While expressing a willingness to talk to bicycling advocates about their concerns, Gray spokesman Pedro Ribeiro said DDOT’s new design represents the right compromise.
Emphasis above mine. Does that mean that the Gray administration doesn't want to pressure DDOT again, or that they don't want DDOT to change it again?
“We think that it is a balanced approach to addressing the needs of both the bicycling community and of a historic and historically significant D.C. church. You have to understand this church is over 150 years old,” Ribeiro said.
I guess I'm not getting what the age of the church has to do with the price of eggs in Morocco? No one is talking about knocking the church down or even changing the color of it's door frame. It's a cycle-track, across the street. Would things be different if the church were only 20 years old? If so, why?
In an interview with WAMU 88.5, the pastor Rev. Ronald Braxton said the original DDOT design would have been disruptive to the church’s functions.
“The original proposal was to put a bike lane across the street from the church and there would be no parking and would eliminate a travel lane,” said Rev. Braxton.
This is inaccurate. There was always parking on M Street, even on the side with the cycletrack and DDOT had several plans that included special Sunday parking - in the cycletrack (an accommodation that no one else in the city gets. If MAME is worried they're being treated differently because they're a church, they're right. They're being treated better).
“The church didn’t want the bike lane, period. The bicycling community wanted it and it didn’t seem to matter to them that it would eliminate a travel lane.”
I like how they didn't want it "Period" - as in without any concerns for cyclists or transportation or safety etc... - but it's cyclists who seemed unconcerned with the needs of others, because they did not care that it eliminated a travel lane.
“There is a major demand for traffic flow to go from one end to the next. There is a major demand for parking. I think some have reduced the whole issue to parking and the issue is larger than parking,” he added.
Met. A.M.E. spends about $25,000 per year so its congregants can use nearby parking garages, Rev. Braxton said. “The issue is larger than parking.”
Is this the First Church of Auto Mobility or what? Why are they so concerned with the number of travel lanes? If it's not about parking, then it seems that MAME is getting awful involved in something that has almost no impact on them.
When asked if he would be willing to sit and talk with DDOT again, he responded, “I think we’ve done that.”
After one has complained bitterly (and erroneously) about not being talked to about this project, the Christian thing to do is to abruptly decide that you're done talking to others and listening to others. As Jesus said "Blessed are those who stop discussions once they've gotten theirs. They surely know when to walk away, and know when to run."
I remember hearing during the contentious meeting at the West End library that the diagonal parking accommodation has only been in place for 4 years. Is that your recollection also? In that case, there may be an easy template for how the church operated before the diagonal parking.
Posted by: xmal | August 20, 2013 at 10:55 AM
I'm going to take a different approach to this with these two statements:
1) is the issue more of transparency and influence - the church used it to get what it wanted (sort of)
2) are cyclists focusing on what didn't happen instead of what did?
3) others may use the church action as a template for the future erosion of bike infrastructure.
I don't like how this all went down, losing this section of cycle track, but part of me understands that it's not the end of the world.
This is an issue of the use of political capital. The church used it and now bicyclists must decide if one block is worthy of its use. The risk is that we alienate a segment of the population that hasn't been particularly vocal against bicycling. Is it possible to look at this DDOT change as a future benefit for the next bike infrastructure project? In exchange for this loss, maybe it can be used as a rally cry for extending the 15th cycle track to the Tidal basin or a better solution to eliminate U-turns on Pennsylvania Avenue NW.
What I don't want to see is that elements in both camps make this a racial or a religious issue when it actually boils down to votes.
If bicyclists feel that using its political capital for this is wise, okay, fine. However, I'm not sure of the long-term benefit.
Posted by: Randall M. | August 20, 2013 at 10:58 AM
Randall M is making a good point. Is it worth the political capital. I'd register our disapproval, and follow up with studies that track injuries, usage etc.
Posted by: SJE | August 20, 2013 at 11:39 AM
I don't think its worth any political capital, because I think the die is cast. Two reversals is only going to make everyone angry. When was the last time you heard of two reversals even?
But I'm not sure that complaining about this, making our case and highlighting the unreasonableness of the opposition expends capital. I think it might even gain us some.
Posted by: washcycle | August 20, 2013 at 11:44 AM
It's bad process, but not terrible results. We have to be able to distinguish between those two.
Register the objection on the correct grounds and move on to the next issue, having armed drones patrol the MBT.
Posted by: Crickey7 | August 20, 2013 at 11:53 AM
If you want to concede and move on how about extracting something in return? I propose getting a commitment of zero tolerance for parking in the bike lane from the city.
After all one of the benefits of protected tracks over bike lanes is making it difficult for cars to park there.
Maybe we could even get the city to enforce this restriction in other parts of the city. My daily commute uses several bike lanes and i find that at least half the blocks have one or more parked cars in the lanes.
Posted by: JeffB | August 20, 2013 at 12:39 PM
Words like "balanced approach" are the sort of double-speak that people use when political influence is being wielded.
Posted by: contrarian | August 20, 2013 at 01:20 PM
Randall, it's more that this exposes just how few votes cyclists can actually swing - given a choice between DC's "bike lobby" (including those millions of bikeshare rides, the bike rental and tourist industry, the bicycle businesses, all the progressive bike-friendly workplaces, and folks who just like to ride) and one church, nobody thought there was value in risking good relations with the church. Cyclists on the other hand...
If the latest configuration doesn't change - and the chances for change already look dim - DDOT will have traded a single protected cycletrack for two segments. Not the end of the world, but not the world we were hoping to live in either. And if we DON'T treat it like a dream deferred, where will we draw the line next time? Where will they?
Posted by: DaveS | August 20, 2013 at 01:59 PM
its not that cyclists voters are unimportant in general. The question is, are they important to the Mayor, in a four candidate race? Is it more likely that he will win over cyclists (many of whom are young, educated, and among those unenthused about the recent "scandals") away from Wells, or that by siding with MAME he can hold onto votes that might go to Bowser?
Posted by: ACyclistInTheSuburbs | August 20, 2013 at 02:11 PM
Rev. Braxton's quote cracks me up. It removes parking and a travel lane! But if we were parking in the travel lane, wouldn't that have the same effect? (On one, if not two lanes given the angle they park at?)
As for the use of political capital, I would argue if you allow one church to bully you and bend the DDOT rules to their favor then what's stopping anyone else (business, well off homeowner, cabs, businesses, etc)? You don't have to necessarily win the fight, but you have make those observing realize it's a fight so they think about whether it's worth it for them to engage you in the future.
Taking it a step too far would be staging a slow ride down M Street during the leadup to congregations. You would infurtiate the church and make your point, but arguably at a cost to a bunch of people who didn't really care one way or the other.
Posted by: T | August 20, 2013 at 02:15 PM
T: Gotta listen to the audio of Rev. Braxton to get the full effect of how high his head is up in his... clouds. No connection at all with the worldly concerns of people who actually need to use that street for its intended purpose.
Posted by: DaveS | August 20, 2013 at 02:31 PM
The mayor's decision seems to suggest that a) he's probably going to run and b) the political calculus shown supports his perception that the church, and those associated with them, are best connected and will likely generate votes. That calculus may be a little old, but it probably still works.
I'm not even going to blame the Mayor on this. If there is anyone to blame, DDOT could have foreseen some of this and fixed it before the May meeting at the West End Library. This is all water under the bridge.
While bicyclists should be upset, I mean I am, I'm not sure it's beneficial to agonize over this loss or expect a change in the outcome. As washcycle says, that die is cast.
I'd like this to be a teachable moment, I'd like the hyperbole on both sides to change to bridge bridge building. I'd like to see the church and cyclists celebrate the opening of the cycle track / lane this fall. We may not agree with the church on the particulars of lave vs cycle track. One the lane is in, however, cyclists can demonstrate, in person, the benefits of a track over lanes. Perhaps we can go on a ride with it's members and show them personally - working with the church to change its opinion. After all, its paint and bollards.
The point is, there are much bigger issues that we could use our capital on: gaps in bikeshare, the deplorable conditions along the Suitland Parkway trail, a crosstown bike route uptown or finishing the MetBranch Trail. If bicyclists were a tenth as concerned about those issues and used its political capital in those places, we'd be one step closer to having a continuous integrated bicycle transportation system.
Posted by: Randall M. | August 20, 2013 at 02:45 PM
As for use of bicyclists political capital, I disagree that it would cost nothing if we push this.
The people that we could alienate are those who go to church, those helped by the church and African Americans. I've talked to people across the spectrum - those in the administration and in the church - some feel that bike lanes illustrate the impact of gentrification and the pushing of a particular agenda. Their feelings may not be rational but this is what they have conveyed. I don't want bicycling in anyway associated with "the G word".
Does it mean that we give up and never put down another lane? No. It does mean that the bicycling community has to me more inclusive and understanding of concerns of others. This cycle track issue is a setback but it could also be an opportunity to work more closely with people in areas that are resistant to bike infrastructure.
Posted by: Randall M. | August 20, 2013 at 02:58 PM
The gentrification debate is stoked by gossip columnists like Courtland Malloy who have nothing better to write about. They have conceived of a whole conspiracy on par with the level of the birthers conspiracy about Pres. Obama. Although you raise an interesting point--it's surprising Courtland hasn't wandered the 100 feet from his desk to the church yet.
These megachurchs became powerful--for better or for worse--by using clout, not by seeking out teachable moments. Let's see Rev. Braxton out joining cyclists on M Street. I'll take him for a spin on the city's cycletracks at lunch one day and even treat him to lunch nearby. Standing offer and we can meet out front of his church. But it won't happen because he won't do it.
It's nice to think if we kowtow to these folks then maybe they will help us say complete the MBT, but we both know that will never happen.
So your choice is really to simply let the church have it's way without a voice of opposition (and only embolden them and others more) or say something. In the end of the day, with a contentious election coming up, we will lose, but we won't be marked as an easy target.
Posted by: T | August 20, 2013 at 04:12 PM
Great points, T.
Although it's much more complicated than race, people gravitate to the racial components of gentrification. The way to dispel it is through positive and continuous interaction. I think something positive can come of this, if we all keep our heads and focus.
By the way if it's any indication of the political capital of churches, most elected officials have been pretty quiet about M street since last Wednesday. Not saying stop trying, just saying the silence it kind of loud. Contact your Council member.
Posted by: Randall M. | August 20, 2013 at 06:00 PM
1. WABA offered to meet with the church to talk. Thats hardly being confrontational. IIUC the church declined. I'm not sure that promises much for bridge building
2. The most important destination for cyclists is downtown, with its high concentration of workplaces (as well as other amenities) and its also an intimidating place for the interested but concerned to ride without protected infrastructure. Im not sure the other projects Randall mentions are as important as this.
Posted by: ACyclistInTheSuburbs | August 21, 2013 at 09:27 AM
Randall M. is on target. And my best hope is that Gray can see the opportunity to say "I agree that cycling safety is important, and that's why we are not only going to build M Street, but we're also going to build lanes and trails in Wards 5, 7, and 8 where there are gaps or missing infrastructure so everyone in the city can bicycle safely, and meet my 2032 goal of 75% of trips being made by biking, walking, and transit."
-Drops the mike, walks offstage.
Posted by: M-Kay | August 21, 2013 at 09:45 AM
I don't think the Mayor's actions demonstrate he is going to run. Its just as likely that he is trying to shore up friends in advance of a criminal trial. My money is that the feds will pull the trigger if he tries to run again, but drop it if he decides to "spend more time with his family"
Posted by: SJE | August 21, 2013 at 10:51 AM
Vincent Orange for mayor! At least we'll know that City governance is being sold to the highest bidder.
Posted by: Crickey7 | August 21, 2013 at 12:13 PM
Sometimes I fear we'll not have a decent bike infrastructure in this town until the last stone from the last church falls on the last priest.
Posted by: oboe | August 22, 2013 at 02:52 PM
I am of two minds on this fight with Metropolian AME. As a practical political matter, the bikies are not likely to win this one. Nor do I believe there is the slippery slope some worry about. Sure, it is terrible that AME did not weigh in till late although I understand they had plenty of opportunities. Is the DC govt the least bad solution?
Posted by: Marchant Wentworth | August 22, 2013 at 06:37 PM
So,if I'm riding in the bike lane that should have been a cycletrack,and get doored,can I sue the church because it's their fault the blocked the track? Or in addition to everything else are they immunized from lawsuits?
Posted by: dynaryder | August 23, 2013 at 08:20 PM
'they blocked the track'
Posted by: dynaryder | August 23, 2013 at 08:22 PM