Eastern Dowtown Protected Bike Lane meeting do-over much less contentious

On Saturday, DDOT held a 2nd meeting on the Eastern Downtown Protected Bike Lane Study in which they offered a formal no-build option and had a more controlled meeting than the last. I missed the first half, which consisted of an open house and then a presentation, but I was there in time for the public comments. DDOT brought moderators, had a sign-up for speakers and posted rules which kept it from turning into the raucous meeting that the October one turned into.  You can see the presentation boards from the meeting here, and the media coverage at these links (WAMU, WJLA, NBC4, City Paper, and WTOP). This is, in my opinion, the most important slide showing the impact to be about 10 lost spaces on Sunday.

My thoughts are that, in addition to being a boring (that's good) and civil meeting, this was a demonstration of strong and wide-ranging support for some kind of bike facility here.

I sat next to someone who was counting the pro vs. con comments and it was running strongly in favor or Pro. Perhaps 2-1 or 3-1. To be fair, it appears that many of the people who supported the Con side chose not to speak - perhaps choosing to allow the church leadership to speak for them, so that's not necessarily indicative of the crowd's opinion. Nor is the crowd's opinion indicative of public opinion - being able to organize better means that you win a lot, but it doesn't necessarily mean that you should. I believe that everyone opposed to the bike lanes were somehow affiliated with one off the neighborhood churches, while those in favor lived in, worked in or biked through the neighborhood. At least a few also went to traditionally African-American churches in the area. 

The speakers from the churches often spoke of their church's history and the contributions they made to the neighborhood before jumping to a statement about how they would not allow their church to be destroyed. Usually they skipped the step about how the bike lanes would do that. At least one person did mention that the parking made it possible for elderly suburban members to continue to go to a church that was in their community - even if it wasn't in their neighborhood. The most memorable line, based on the response (both pro and con) and the media coverage, was from UHOP's Apostle Robert Price who said that "We're not going to let someone's pastime destroy our lifeline." Many people pointed out that biking was not a pastime for them, and that safe roads were as much a lifeline as convenient parking. Price also argued that they were not going to give up what they had for the convenience of others, which several speakers pushed back on as well. William Lamar IV, pastor at the Metropolitan AME Church was the only person to speak specifically of gentrification and how "the city is being made over for the convenience of newcomers." Another opponent claimed that there was no problem with bike crashes until the city started building bike lanes "go ride in the parks"  she said "that's what they're there for." UHOP recommended the no-build option.

Those in favor of bike lanes tended to speak more about safety and the benefits of cycling. One woman in support of the bike lanes pointed out that her church lost parking when the nearby Convention Center was built, but that they were still there and that they weren't going anywhere. Many talked about how they biked because it was the only form of transportation they could afford. People told stories of crashes or near misses.

In general, I think that the meeting showed that support of the protected bike lanes is pretty broad while the opposition comes almost exclusively from a handful (perhaps 2-4) of churches, and perhaps not even a majority of predominantly African-American churches in Shaw. It remains to be seen which side made the more compelling argument. 

Comments

[contrarian]

William Lamar IV, pastor at the Metropolitan AME Church was the only person to speak specifically of gentrification and how "the city is being made over for the convenience of newcomers."

A little quick googling tells me that Lamar:
* Is a native of Macon, GA
* Is a graduate of Florida A&M and Duke Divinity School
* Has served as pastor of three churches in Florida and one in Maryland
* Came to Washington, DC in 2014

So if anyone understands newcomers it would be him.

The reason that I thought to google him is that guys like him are never, ever, DC natives. Virtually to a man they are outsiders. In particular UHOP has never had a leader who was from DC, and the founder was born outside of the US.

Shaw has always been a very transitory place. When I lived there, I had a history prepared of my house. My house was built around 1870, and I had lived in it longer than any previous tenant, seven years. In the 1990 census 55% of Shaw residents had been at their current address for five years or less. The whole narrative of "recent newcomers" lacks any basis in historical reality.

[Ampersand]

For those who, like me, were unable to attend, the project team still wants your feedback! Just fill out the details here: http://dccycletrack.com/get-involved.html

[Brett Young]

It was a very well run meeting by DDOT.
And its the way more of these type of meetings should be run.
Hopefully compromise can be achieved.

[T]

The UHOP guys are funny. They're huge developers who charge their tenants for parking, but can't be bothered to build any for their parishioners. Bunch of hypocrites.

[biketowork]

I thought the meeting went very well for the pro-bike lane side. I was worried that the turnout would be overwhelmingly anti-bike lane but I'd estimate the audience was maybe 60% anti, 40% pro. The speakers list, on the other hand, was much more lopsided on the pro- side, I'd say maybe 70%. (If anyone saw all the speakers, I was the tall guy bent over the microphone in a bright orange Bike to Work Day shirt).

In general there were so few arguments against a lane, and the ones that were expressed were so outrageously illogical, that I feel it could hardly have gone better.

Another of the anti-bike lane speakers, in addition to the ones listed above, said we should take a "macro" look at the issue, which to him meant starting with European colonization and slavery, and compared the taking of parking spaces for bike lanes to European taking of land in north america. I doubt DDOT found this a very compelling argument.

It seems very likely to me that DDOT will opt to build a lane; the clear preference of the audience was for Option 3 (both north and south bound lanes on east side of 6th street). Now my biggest worry is how long it will be before it actually gets built.

[washcycle]

biketowork, that person was William Lamar.

I also meant to say that the room sat 350 people and when I got there it was SRO. For an idea of turnout.

[darren]

room capacity is actually 374.

[washcycle]

I thought I was told 347 and then I rounded. Must have mixed it up. Middle-aged dyscalculia rear its ugly head.

[darren]

I made the exact same mistake at one point, only reason i remember the 374. Aging is contagious

[jeffB]

In my opinion DDOT had already made the decision to build a PBL back in October. That's why there was no formal no-build alternative presented then.

If there had been any meaningful traffic impediments to a PBL then DDOT never would have gotten this far. They simply are not that pro-bike.

The bike infrastructure the DDOT has given us, so far, has always tended to be the low hanging fruit. The EPBL is another perfect example of it. Some of these proposals wouldn't disturb a fly.

The churches opposed weren't there to speak with DDOT. They were speaking past DDOT to the sole person who will decide whether we get PBLs or not - Mayor Bowser.

This is no longer a reasoned rationalized process. It's a political decision.

[Crickey7]

Agreed, jeffB. DDOT is proceeding on the basis of what is, in their opinion, the best alternative. The churches went around them early on in a bid to make it political, which if you're a conscientious civil servant, irks you.

It's kind of clear that UHOP in particular overreached. Its participation at the hearings was so obviously staged, and the Freedom of Religion letter was so shockingly over the top. By and large, the Council and Mayor have ignored the issue as a political matter, which telegraphed to DDOT that it had a free hand here.

[Brett Young]

The fact that Leif A. Dormsjo showed up meant that this was a big deal. The Mayor probably talked to Leif and asked him to attend.

[Riley]

I was almost disappointed at how decorous the proceedings were. I came for the fireworks, well at least a little. The turn out initially appeared to favor very slightly the UHOP crowd on a very rough guesstimation but that crowd was largely in the seats early on while the pro bike lane crowd stayed in the hallway looking at the displays until shortly before the start time. One particularly interesting element was that as soon as the two featured UHOP speakers ( those apparently official spokesmen allotted five minutes each rather the the two minutes afforded the members of the public ) had finished close to half of the apparently pro UHOP audience departed. One might be inclined to think that a large part of the opposition is dictated from on high at the church as much if not more than a groundswell.

[ANC6E-ite]

In the WJLA segment noted above, Shaw's ANC6E Alex Padro, Vice Chair (6E01) who's commission includes the northern (north of Mass Ave) ends of all the routes in the study, clearly stated that there are BUSINESSES and RESIDENTS are also opposed to the bike lanes.

It's just easier for some to pick on black churches they don't attend than the much more influential corporate entities which they likely patronize regularly or occasionally and their well heeled homeowner and apartment dweller neighbors.

There is a largely white Catholic church smack dab in the middle of the study area which has not come out to publicly support bike lanes either. Do we interpret silence as opposition?

[Wash cycle]

Actually, Padro didn't say that. He didn't mention residents, and he said businesses had concerns. That's different from opposition.

When the influential corporate entities start packing public meetings or going to DDOT oversight hearings to oppose bike lanes, or threaten to fight them as a violation of their constitutional rights, I suspect they will endure some ridicule.

Personally, I don't interpret silence as opposition. Why would I.

[contrarian]

I wouldn't describe Immaculate Conception as "largely white."