No, the District is not lying to us about bike lanes

Marc Fisher wrote an opinion piece in the Washington Post late last year that got some attention. I mostly ignored it because I just feel like the Post has to drop an anti-bike lane article every so often just to remind us that they're there. But in the new political climate I'm a little more interested in punching people, especially when they're being dishonest and more so when that dishonesty is in the Washington Freaking Post. Fisher more recently went on a City Cast DC podcast to repeat and expand on his dishonest piece. Right now, I personally have no patience for the Post publishing things that are so riddled with falsehoods when what we clearly need is unvarnished truth and lots of it. The Washington Times? Sure I expect dishonesty from them, but the Post needs to be better. So here I am coming out of semi-retirement to respond. 

We're not talking about getting a few facts wrong, the very thesis at the heart of it is wild and Fisher presents no evidence that it's true. His claim is that the people in the District who are responsible for planning and/or building bike lanes are lying to us about why they're building them. That it is neither about making streets safer nor encouraging cycling. He makes two claims about what the REAL reasons are. One, is that they are doing it "to gum up traffic to discourage people from driving." The other is to "encourage a wholesale shift in race and class in certain neighborhoods." These are two extraordinary claims and, as Carl Sagan often put it, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

Sadly, Fisher provides no extraordinary evidence. He also provides no ordinary evidence. What he lacks in evidence though he makes up for with innuendo and conspiracy theory.

The only "evidence" he cites - in the podcast, not in the article - is off-the-record statements by unknown "people in power" that he says backs up his claim, but for us to believe that we'd need to believe HIM. Here's why believing him is a bad idea: Fisher gets a lot of things wrong. Is it because he's too sloppy and/or stupid to find the truth or is he dishonest enough to present falsehoods as truth. Normally I assume ignorance instead of malice, but he's a journalist. Finding out the truth and reporting it is his job (admittedly, this is an opinion piece, but he claims to do reporting here), and he works for the Washington Post - which is one of the country's most highly regarded papers, so I'm going to be generous and assume he's good at his job. Which means he's lying. But feel free to join team stupid - it is also a strong team

***

Fisher states in the article that D.C. will never be Amsterdam or Portland which IS factually correct, but it is incorrect that we will never be LIKE them. He says it again in the podcast claiming that time that we're not going to be "like" them. "That's not going to happen. This is a suburban-oriented metropolitan area where a lot of people drive in the suburbs" Well Marc Fisher, Surprise! We're practically Portland now.

Furthermore our bike commute rates from 2012-2019 were above where Portland's were in 2023, so we were Portland for the better part of a decade. In the podcast he calls trying to match Portland unrealistic and antagonistic, but getting to 3.7% hardly seems unrealistic - we've been there before. And what's antagonistic about trying to marginally increase our bike commute rates? What's antagonistic about trying to reach the District's stated bike mode share goals?

He also claims that we will never be one of those college towns with more bicycles than cars - which is not actually a thing I am aware of. Which college town is he referring too? Not even Davis, CA (11.7%) is like that.

It's dishonest as hell to kick off the article by setting an unrealistic goal (more cars than bikes) that no one involved in bike advocacy has set and then using that to imply that bike lanes have failed; and to simultaneously claim like we can't reach achievable goals like matching Portland. But that's how he starts it - with dishonesty.

At least it tells you right away what this article is going to be by using a tired, old anti-urbanist trope. Break out your Bingo Card.

***

At one point he cites a stat that's more wrong than right, and entirely deceptive "the portion of D.C. residents who bike to work peaked in 2017 and has decreased each year since, falling from 5 percent to 3 percent." First of all it has not decreased each year. It bottomed out in 2021 and then increased in each year since then. Second, it peaked at 4.96% and is now 3.46%. "5%" and "3%" are correct by rounding, but it would be more accurate to say it is down by 1.5% not the 2% he has chosen to present it as. In that time span people changed the way they "commute" to work - in that many people don't, and it's deceptive to include them.

In 2017 of the people who physically went to work - which is what we care about in this case - 5.35% of them did so by bike. In 2023, that number was down to 4.76%. In other words, the drop from 2017 of people commuting to work by bike as percentage of people who are COMMUTING to work is down by only 0.59% (or from 5% in 2017 to 5% in 2023 if we want to round like Fisher does). In 2023 DC's bike commute share was the 3rd highest on record - if we ignore work from home people, as we should. And it has grown each of the last 3 years. Looking at commuting across the pandemic is interesting, but I doubt it tells us much about how DC's efforts to make bike transportation better are working. 

Is getting all of that wrong sloppy or deceptive?

***

He then cites a 2008 study on biking in "DC" showing that 88% of cyclists are White, but that study is actually of the DC Metro area.

BikinginLA does a good job of debunking this so I'm not going to repeat it all here: 

Is he too dumb to get this right, or is he trying to trick his readers?

***

The article really could've benefitted from talking to someone at DDOT or DC Planning. When he mentions the suggestion of local anti-bike lade advocate Rodney Foxworth to use "less intrusive tools to slow traffic, such as better signage and adding more bus routes to the avenue" someone from DDOT could address them. Is signage very effective (my experience with speed limit signs says no)? How do they compare on a cost/benefit basis? Can we simply "add bus routes" to every road with high amounts of dangerous driving - seems complicated and possibly bad for transit? How well does THAT work?

***

So Fisher either doesn't know what he's talking about or he's trying to fool his readers or both. Nonetheless he makes his claims often, writing once that "[Bike lanes] are often installed not to satisfy the... residents who pedal to work but mainly to make car traffic worse enough that people will be discouraged from driving." But the claim is undermined shortly thereafter when he notes that the road diets would "induce slower driving — and maybe more bike riding" which are the actual stated goals. Either of his two "secret" goals would be quite a story, but trying to claim it's both? That feels like he's just throwing all the mud he can to see which one sticks (which I know is the culture of the day, but I don't have to respect it). Further, they seem contradictory - does Fisher think that the kinds of wealthier people who move into low-income urban neighborhoods are looking for "traffic constipation"?

Here are things Fisher doesn't show, or even try to show, but really should in this piece:

1. That bike lanes lead to gentrification - or that planners believe they do.
2. That bike lanes gum up traffic - or that planners believe they do.
2. That people in the District government are stating that this is the reason for installing them, or even ONE reason for doing so.

At one point he writes that "Whether the intention behind bike lanes is to alter population it’s the effect that matters." I disagree - they both matter, at least to this article. Whether that's the intention is the difference between this article being truth and make-believe. I would think that would matter to him and the Post. And as a journalist he should've tried to answer it rather then hanging it out there like both possibilities are equally valid. It's the basis of his whole theory and he's just "people are saying" it like a dishonest politician.

To make such inflammatory claims without proof is wildly irresponsible and downright unprofessional. The Post should be ashamed of itself. That sure as hell isn't journalism.

Not only is the claim made without evidence, it also doesn't make any sense. If the point were gentrification why would the District be building bike lanes on Arizona Ave, Columbia Road or M Street SE/SW - those areas are already wealthy?

Further, we'd have to believe that they don't know that most of the literature shows that bike lanes DON'T cause gentrification and are hoping it will work anyway.

Likewise they'd have to believe that road diets are "a recipe for traffic constipation and commuter headaches" even though this has been widely studied (even by DDOT), and those studies show they are not.

Again stupid or dishonest? You make the call.

Near the end of the article Fisher writes "What doesn’t make sense is to hand car lanes over to cyclists when your real motive is to gum up traffic to discourage people from driving. That’s not an honest way for government to push its goals." You know what else isn't honest? Fisher's framing of the issue in this way. Making such a statement repeatedly without evidence, well, it’s just trickery.

If Fisher had wanted to talk about mobility justice that would've been great. If the article was about how having advocates present themselves as laser-focused on bike facilities creates a negative response in neighborhoods where people think they have other more serious problems is counter-productive, that would've been a good discussion. As would a piece on how to improve a neighborhood (Foxworthy's claim that "fighting crime or providing services more efficiently" would be better) WITHOUT it leading to gentrification. If he was concerned that DDOT came in and started telling the people in NE what they needed for safe mobility instead of starting by listening to them about their concerns and building a plan to match that then that would be a story - and one that surprised me. But DDOT has been discussing this in the neighborhood for months, so that also doesn't seem likely.

But instead he went with this crap. Nice job Washington Post.

*** My Thoughts on the City Cast DC podcast ***

The podcast is entitled "Is the City Lying to us About Bike Lanes?" and the usual rule about journalism titles that ask a question is that the answer is almost always "No" and that's true here. Or at least Fisher never proves they are. He does assert that people told him this - off the record. Which is convenient for his argument, but inconvenient for the rest of us.

Listening to this, I think it would be fair to wonder if host Michael Schaffer actually read the article before doing this interview because at times it seems like he did not. For example he says that Fisher did a "bunch of reporting" on it all we can see is that Fisher read a few articles and interviewed two people. And, as I showed above, got several key facts wrong. He states that Fisher showed that people saw the SD bike lanes as an effort to push them out, but Fisher didn't show that at all. He refers to a road diet as a "car diet". When Fischer says things that are factually untrue, Schaffer is not prepared to push back - although that may not be how the show works either.

To his credit he does get in a couple of very good questions and comments, like pointing out that the bike lanes on Connecticut Avenue were stopped by rich, white people. Fisher quickly recognizes that this undermines his thesis so he pivots to saying that it was also the merchants, who don't live in DC, who helped kill it.

On that Fisher also says that they were "correct" in their claim that the road diet would be bad for business and kill the mom and pop shops there. This is, of course, wrong. Many studies show that road diets are good for business. But it also shows him taking contradictory positions that bike lanes are bad for business AND they cause gentrification. I would say, and the data backs me up, that road diets are good/neutral for business, don't cause congestion and don't cause gentrification but they do improve safety. And I'd say those things because they are true and I don't want to lie.

Early on, Fisher talks about how he got "ticked off" because planners were being sneaky, then he completely undermines his claim when he says "they didn't explicitly say 'We're going to gentrify your neighborhood'". Well then, what DID they explicitly say? If we're relying on Fischer to read between the lines for us, then what words were used become doubly important. He then says that the people living on SD Ave "felt double-crossed and tricked and... they're right" - but again, there's no evidence of either of those things.

Fisher says he talked to WABA people and asked them why they talk in combat terms like "traffic violence". He then says that to bike advocates "traffic violence" means "car drivers" which is hogwash. Is this a lie or is he stupid? It's gotta be a lie. That's not what bike advocates think it means - it refers to crashes that cause death or injury, especially those that result from dangerous driving. And anyone who's ever been hit by a car can tell you that it IS violent. Even non-injurious bad driving - like a punishing pass - can be violent in the same way that having a gun pointed at you is. There's no way that someone at WABA thinks the act of driving is inherently violent. 

Fisher brings in the scofflaw cyclist image as part of what drives people who are anti-bike lane, but he doesn't discuss if this is a rational position to take.

He goes back, at one point, to this question: "Is [DC] forever Chocolate City, proud capital of Black America, or is it a fast-morphing magnet for hyper-educated young people — most of them White — who migrate to the city to populate think tanks, law firms, nonprofits, and government and its contractors?" This is a false choice of course because we can have room for all of these people. It's irresponsible - and racist as fuck - to imply that EITHER the city can be the proud capital of Black America OR it can have educated young professionals and bike lanes. Turns out that black people can also be young, educated and professional. Black people can and do bike.

I do agree with Fischer that to some extent, bike advocates and DDOT have to have the same fights every time they want to put in a new bike lanes. What I don't agree with is that the problem is that we haven't "dealt with what is dividing people". What is dividing people is that some want more space dedicated to cars and some want less. And that's zero sum. I'd like to believe that providing data that shows that road diets don't increase congestion would help, but some people won't accept it.  And having people like Fischer give a megaphone to falsehoods about it doesn't help. The guy is literally part of the problem here. Nor do I agree that Arlington is doing anything significantly different than DC is - both are putting in PBLs and bump outs. The main difference is that Arlington is only 9% black, so there are few historically black neighborhoods to put bike lanes in.

Schaffer does ask the question - how do we make neighborhoods better without it looking like an attempt to gentrify neighborhoods? Which isn't really a bike lane thing but is a good question.

***My darlings I couldn't kill***

Fisher claims that "the people are winning" because the Mayor has caved to those who oppose a road diet on Conn Avenue. This ignores the fact that those who support the road diet on Conn are also people. In the podcast he calls this the "correct decision" without stating by what metric it is correct.

Near the end he gets the closest he ever does to giving some evidence when he states that "[Foxworth and ANC Rep VJ Kapur] agree that bike lanes can make neighborhoods more attractive to developers" I like bike lanes, but I doubt this is true. I can't imagine that bike lanes are driving any development decisions. Kapur represents the area of the South Dakota Ave Bike lane who is in favor of the road diet. That the road diet is supported by the ANC rep, the Ward 5 Council Member and some grassroots organizations sure seems to counter the thesis that this is being forced on people from outside.

There are other responses here:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2024/12/05/bike-lanes-washington-dc-fisher/

Comments

[VJ Kapur]

Hi. One of Fischer’s primary sources here. Thanks a lot of for this! And glad to see this blog back in action!

My interview by Fischer, which was 100% on the record, was about as densely packed with misleading multipart questions as one could expect, and I guess I should thank him for the practice on message discipline.

I’ll just note on the point about bike lanes attracting developers; to the degree that I indicated this at all, it would be:

- bike lanes create a more pleasant and livable environment which might marginally move the needle on private investment

- bike lanes are an argument for zoning relief on parking minimums which can make some projects more likely to pencil

I also noted outsized development of especially insular mansions occurs on SDA today because both zoning and the Comp Plan constrain what can be built, and turnover is higher than nearby in no small part due to folks not wanting crashed cars in their front yards anymore. This somehow got shimmed into his piece as something that might happen when it’s already happening? I dunno. It was not a good piece.

But it certainly rallied a lot of folks to push back, and for that we can thank him!

[Washcycle]

Thanks VJ, that's all good to know.

[Seth Grimes]

Rather than "What is dividing people is that some want more space dedicated to cars and some want less," I'd say that what the pro-driving people want is fast car trips and easy, free parking. Frame it this way and the debate isn't car vs. bicycle, and you have the opening to argue that more transit + cycling + walking means fewer drivers and less traffic congestion.

[Bill]

Thanks for this post. I share your frustration and I also now feel justified for keeping your site in my bookmarks and futilely checking for new posts far too often.

[Riley Casey]

A stellar return to the fray! Thanks for this dissection of Fisher's disingenuous screed.

[Shalom]

Thanks for the needed pushback, and for maintaining this space over the years. I regularly check your Bsky feed, but when you have more to say than a skeet or a few pictures can convey, it's easier to read it here.