Report a Comment

Have you ever even been to King Street Station? Ridden a bike there?

Many times. I used to go to grad school there and took my folding bike on Metro every day.

, in my experience there is not a problem with bike theft or vandalism.

Well, WMATA disagrees with you. From a May 2011 meeting: "The location of bike parking might be shifted to provide more eyes on the parking spaces, since bicycle theft has been a problem at King Street." and there are others who have had less luck than you: "I had...a bike stolen from the king street metro-locked with 2 locks that time".

So imagine what going from $0 to $125 a year would do. Isn’t that one of cycling’s biggest selling points? It’s free?

I think everyone has pointed out that parking will still be free. They aren't getting rid of free parking. They're just adding this new option. Imagine what will happen for people who are uncomfortable with leaving their bike at the station now.

But they shouldn’t allow their experiment to take away what’s already there.

Once again, it won't.

I ask (again, for the third time), why not just plop down 50 more spaces?

Because that doesn't solve the problem they're trying to solve. The problem they're trying to solve is that some customers want parking that is more secure than an exposed inverted U bike rack, but easier to use than a locker. You're solution doesn't solve that problem.

I’d also like to know why (and no one has addressed) when the stated target population is people who drive and park to the station, why a station with no parking lot is being targeted?

Who said that was the target? The target is people who don't bike to metro now.

by David C on May 16, 2012 10:45 pm • link • report

Does this comment violate Greater Greater Washington's comment policy? If so, you can report it using this form and an editor will take a look.

What is the major reason you believe the comment violates the policy?
Comment is spam.
Comment attacks other individuals personally.
Comment criticizes the level of knowledge of another commenter or contributor.
Comment discourages others from posting their ideas.
Commenter is impersonating someone else.
Comment uses profanity or abusive language.
Comment advocates violent acts or harm to another.
Comment was posted in multiple areas of the site.
Comment is arguing about the comment policy.
Other:

Your name:
Your email:

Administrator page • spam