Posts by David Cranor
|David Cranor is an operations engineer. A former Peace Corps Volunteer and former Texan (where he wrote for the Daily Texan), he's lived in the DC area since 1997. David is a cycling advocate who serves on the Bicycle Advisory Committee for DC.|
Mayor Gray has proposed requiring large businesses to provide their employees with a commuter benefit and that benefit could include the cost of bicycling to work. While it's a good move, it doesn't cover bikesharing, and DC has yet to extend this benefit to its own employees.
At the beginning of this month, Mayor Gray submitted a package of 11 bills as part of the Sustainable DC Act of 2013. Included in this is the Transit Benefit Establishment Act of 2013, which would require that employers with 50 or more workers provide their minimum wage-eligible staff with some form of transit benefit.
Employers will have three choices. They can give their employees pre-tax benefits, to be used however they like, that are at least as high as the maximum amount that can be deducted from the employee's gross income. They can also supply each employee a transit pass or reimburse them for vanpool cost. Finally, the employer can provide vanpool or bus transportation to work at no cost to employees.
The first option could include the bicycle commuter benefit, if the employer chooses to offer it, because the Internal Revenue Service considers it a qualified mode of transportation. The second option does not include bikesharing as a public transit system that employees can choose, but it should. And employers would likely support that, since it is surely much cheaper than any of the other options. And the third option does not relate to cyclists.
This is a good bill that could be made a little bit better if it included bikesharing as transit. (The federal government could decide to call bikesharing transit if it passed the Commuter Parity Act of 2013, but why wait?)
In addition, DC does not currently offer its employees the option to choose the bicycle commuter benefit in place of a transit benefit. Gray claims that this bill will move the District "even further along on the path to becoming an international destination for people and investment, and a model of innovative policies and practices that improve the quality of life and economic opportunity for all District residents."
Expanding the commuter benefits of DC employees to include the bicycle commuter benefit would help with that too, and at almost no cost to the District.
Crossposted from theWashCycle.
ANC1B asked DDOT to explore ways to fill a gap in the 11th Street NW bike lane between Florida and Vermont avenues and held a meeting Thursday to talk about it. Many neighbors along 11th Street are strongly opposed to the bike lanes, primarily because it would require removing about 30 parking spaces.
DDOT also provided information about crashes along the section of 11th Street. Officials reported that there were more crashes on that section of 11th than on similar sections of 10th and 12th streets. When asked who was to blame, DDOT representatives noted that some of the crashes were due to cyclists running stop signs, but many more were from right hooks or doorings.
DDOT presented 4 alternatives. In Alternative 1, parking would be taken out on the east side and replaced with a one-way buffered bike lane going north. Alternative 3 was much the same, except the parking was replaced with larger lanes in each direction, each with sharrows down the middle.
Alternative 2 did not remove parking, but it did change 11th to a one-way, one-lane street with bike lanes in each direction. This would require rerouting buses and much more analysis. Alternative 4 replaced the east side parking with a two-way cycletrack down the center. This would require cyclists to move to the left to get into the cycletrack on one end and to the right to get out of it at the other.
Opposition mostly centered around removing the parking. "I am opposed to removing any parking at all. Period," said one woman. "11th Street is too narrow for two-way traffic and bikes" another added. Many of these same critics sought other, less intrusive, options.
One suggestion was to reroute cyclists instead of buses. "You could remove the bike lanes from where they are now and move them to another street," said a speaker. "There's room on 13th."
DDOT transportation planner Jim Sebastian replied that bikes have a right to the street. "There's bikes on every street and, where ever we can, we put bike lanes in," he said. "It would be almost impossible to reroute bikes because they're legal on every street and they use every street. They're going to go where they're going to go. There isn't room on 13th and if there were, we would put bike lanes there also because we have bikes on every street in this area."
Audience suggestions included signs, enforcement, education, rumble strips, bicycle priority lights, and lower speed limits. Some audience members suggested a two-way cycletrack like on 15th Street, and center bike lanes like on Pennsylvania Ave NW. Others suggested continuous green shared lanes, which are shown to have limited effectiveness, though a study in California finds they reduce bicycle crashes.
Sebastian agreed that there were many options, but pointed out that the best success is found when engineering, education and enforcement were all used. DDOT did shoot down one suggestion for reversible, rush-hour traffic lanes because, as a matter of policy, the agency is moving away from that kind of design.
In addition to complaining about the loss of parking, many complained about scofflaw cycling behavior. One person criticized DC for allowing sidewalk cycling, which is legal on this stretch, and told stories about the one time they saw a tourist on a bike cut off a bus. Sebastian noted that adding bike lanes has been found to discourage sidewalk cycling. The committee chair tried to direct the conversation away from this issue, since DDOT was the wrong agency to deal with it.
The committee chair wanted to have a vote on a preference among one of the existing proposals, but ANC 1B02 representative Jeremy Leffler argued that any vote on the issue needed to be postponed. "We have too many issues with parking, so taking 30-40 spaces away is just a non-starter," said Leffler. "Any option is going to have to not effect parking."
Leffler complained that cyclists coming down 11th Street don't stop at the stop signs, but motorists do and so this committee needs to talk with the Public Safety Committee and the MPD before proceeding.
When asked to give a show of hands, 13 out of 25 people opposed removing parking. Leffler suggested that only people who live on 11th Street should vote. Had that actually happened, it might have showed that the only people who wanted to retain their parking were those who live on 11th.
In the end, the ANC decided to send DDOT back to the drawing board and to discuss it again at the end of September. Leffler also wanted to invite abutting ANCs and more ANC 1B representatives to the next meeting.
"The problem is not ANC 1B people, it's the people coming out of Columbia Heights, going 40mph, joyriding into our community and not stopping," he said.
A version of this post appeared at The WashCycle.
Last week, we looked at how much DC taxpayers have paid to build and maintain Nationals Park. What are they getting in return? And will the city's deal to build a new soccer stadium be worth it?
In 2003, baseball boosters hired consulting firm Brailsford & Dunlavey to estimate the benefits of a Major League Baseball team in DC. Later, they would help manage the design and construction of the stadium. They determined that the construction of a $272 million stadium would result in $5 million in one-time tax revenues. The stadium cost over twice as much, so if the same ratio holds, it produced $12.9 million in tax benefits.
But supporters also cite external benefits. Tourism would create jobs and tax revenue. Baseball and the stadium would be a cultural amenity, attracting concerts and other events. The stadium would also spur the redevelopment of Capitol Riverfront. But there just isn't any hard evidence that Nationals Park has led to any development.
The stadium didn't cause development
There were many other factors at play in Near Southeast that led to redevelopment, much of which occurred before the stadium site was selected. If the stadium truly were a catalyst, development would have occurred around it first, rather than scattered throughout the neighborhood.
On the 10 squares immediately adjacent to the stadium, only 2 smaller projects have broken ground: the Camden South Capitol apartment complex across the street and 55 M Street, whose main tenant DDOT moved there because of its proximity to the US Department of Transportation. Meanwhile, NoMa, where the stadium was originally supposed to be built, has experienced rapid development without one.
Research shows that stadiums do not spur development. In a survey of the economics of sports facilities, Siegfried and Zimbalist concluded that there is "no statistically significant positive correlation between sports facility construction and economic development." Even Brailsford & Dunlavey didn't assign a value to it at Nationals Park.
The stadium doesn't produce a lot of tax revenue
The stadium also generates some tax revenue, through hotel and restaurant taxes and income taxes from newly created jobs. Councilmember Jack Evans estimates the stadium produces up to $500,000 in tax revenue per game during the playoffs, which would require visitors to spend at least $3.5 million at hotels and restaurants.
Where Evans got that number is anyone's guess, but economists with the Kansas City Federal Reserve estimate that the average imported tax revenue for a MLB stadium is about $1.5 million a year. However, that includes tickets and parking, which we've already counted, and it assumes that 20% of fans are from outside of the metro area. But 85% of Nationals fans come from Virginia and Maryland.
Assuming there are 2.5 million tickets sold each year and each ticketholder spends an average of $33 outside the stadium, we get a total imported tax of ~$5.6 million. It's worth noting that that number is probably higher than it should be, because much of it represents hotel spending, but fans from Northern Virginia or Maryland are unlikely to rent a hotel room. It's also higher than Brailsford & Dunlavey's $4.7 million estimate.
The same study estimates the job creation and income tax benefits of a MLB stadium at $1.365 million a year. It's possible that DC's income tax take would be lower since, like its fan base, its employees are more likely to live in Virginia or Maryland.
Brailsford & Dunlavey also estimated that the city would collect $4.2 million in increased business franchise taxes from baseball-related activities, though it's unclear how they determined this and the city does not report it separately.
Is Nationals Park a cultural asset?
Stadium supporters say that venues and sports teams provide a significant cultural amenity in the form of entertainment, local unity, prestige, and civic pride. Having a sports team makes people happy, and a city has a legitimate role in helping people to be happy and making a city appealing. But what is this worth?
A 2001 study of the Pittsburgh Penguins' contributions to the public good tried to answer that question and put the value of the team between $4.20 and $6.94 per household. If we multiply $6.94 by DC's 260,136 households, we get a value of $1.81 million in public good benefits.
That value is for the team alone, not the stadium, which may add some cultural benefits by hosting concerts, weddings, and other events. So I'll round up to $2 million a year.
DC also spent $82.6 million for transportation infrastructure to support Nationals Park, but it has limited value outside of baseball. A second, $20 million entrance for the Navy Yard Metro station is nice, but is probably unnecessary outside of event days. Most of the $27 million spent on rebuilding the Frederick Douglass Bridge next to the stadium was to improve its aesthetics. But DDOT also resurfaced the bridge, did structural work, and added new streetlights and guardrails, extending its life and usefulness to travelers.
Therefore, in return for their investment, DC taxpayers get ~$11.2 million in jobs and tax benefits, another ~$2 million in public goods benefits, some development benefits, and a grab-bag of transportation improvements.
It's possible that the team's future success will lead to greater attendance and thus greater revenue to offset the stadium debt. But for now, DC is out $127.9 million and losing at least another $10.735 million every year on its stadium investment. Even Brailsford & Dunleavy's estimate, which stadium boosters used to justify the stadium, predicted the 30-year net present value of the stadium, which cost $670 million, to be just $526 million.
What about DC United?
DC pays $150 million for land and infrastructure improvements. DC United pays the same amount to build the stadium. If the team makes a high enough profit, then the city would get a cut. Much of the land is unused right now, so there would be less use of eminent domain.
But it's hard to see DC United Stadium providing as much in external benefits that Nationals Park does.
Major League Soccer just isn't as popular as baseball and it plays fewer games, so per team attendance is about one-eighth as high as baseball's. Assuming that visitors spend the same amount of money, the amount of expected tax revenue falls to just $2.9 million. That includes public good of the team, even though it's not a given that DC United would leave the DC area if they didn't get a stadium. It also includes sales taxes, even though there doesn't appear to be any plans for a special soccer tax.
The rent DC United will pay will be $1 a year, though DC United will pay up to $6 million a year in property tax, and any sales tax collected at the stadium could be paid back to DC United if they don't make a "reasonable profit."
This is not quite the same as guaranteeing DC United's profit, as the DC Fiscal Policy Institute has been saying, but it is a pretty sweet deal, and one that any other business in the city would love to have.
Meanwhile, DC is also contributing about twice as much for its stadium as the average MLS city does. As DCFPI points out, there is no cap on the land acquisition costs, so the price could easily go up, just as it did with the baseball stadium. The whole thing will be funded by complicated land swaps that lack transparency or the assurance that DC is getting the best possible price for its assets.
Though the costs of this stadium deal will be far lower, it is likely the benefits will be too. Those benefits would need to amount to at least $9.5 million a year to cover the $150 million price tag. In order for that to happen, the $150 million price to DC would have to hold steady and DC United would need to be successful enough to pay its entire property tax and generate revenue per attendee similar to the Nationals, while paying DC an additional $600,000 from profit sharing and covering its own security.
While DC stands to benefit if soccer does well, they're at risk to lose money if soccer does poorly. There may be a deal out there that can make breaking even a likelihood, but so far, this doesn't appear to be it.
E Street NW in front of the White House was closed to traffic after 9/11. While car traffic is banned, bicyclists face barriers to using it as well. A new plan by the National Park Service could push cyclists off the street entirely.
Back in early July, the NPS and the Secret Service held a public open house on the joint-agency President's Park South Project. This project will redesign the park immediately south of the White House, including E Street NW between 15th and 17th streets. E Street was closed after 9/11 and has never been reopened. Unlike Pennsylvania Avenue, which is also closed to car traffic, pedestrians can usually use E Street but not bicyclists, for whom the street is a barrier.
In 2011, the National Capital Planning Commission held a design competition for the park and selected five finalists, some of whom recommended putting bike lanes on E Street. But NCPC's chosen entry proposed keeping the street closed unless security threat conditions change in the future.
NCPC's contest was non-binding, but it "informed" the eventual design process. The four new alternatives NPS and the Secret Service presented at the July meeting are very different from the ones in the NCPC contest.
Alternative 1 is a no-build option. Alternatives 2 and 3 include a bicycle path along the southern edge of E Street, and Alternatives 4 and 5 route bicyclists around the existing perimeter streets, 15th Street, Constitution Avenue, and 17th Street. The latter two do this to create an expanded viewing area south of the existing fence, shown as the shaded purple area on the image below.
I think it would be a shame if this project didn't include a space for a bike path on E Street. I don't see why they can't expand the viewing area and include the bike path, as the two do not seem mutually exclusive. Isn't that what we have on the north side of the White House?
If you'd like to comment to that effect, public comments are being accepted until September 12th at the NPS website. Comment early and often.
A version of this was crossposted at the Washcycle.
DC has proposed building a new soccer stadium at Buzzard Point with help from public funds. The city already did this for Nationals Park, but did it work? We can find out by doing a cost-benefit analysis.
Building Nationals Park cost $701.3 million, according to a 2008 estimate. DC contributed $670.3 million, paying $135 million upfront and borrowing another $535 million. In addition, the city spent $82.6 million of federal money on upgrades to the Navy Yard Metro station, South Capitol Street and the Douglass Bridge. That doesn't account for all the costs, but it's the final dollar cost.
In this post, we'll look at money spent on the stadium and how much the Nationals contributed. Later, we'll look at the externalities caused by the stadium and what they mean for DC United.
What the stadium cost
In addition to the costs noted above, the District lost some existing revenue. Of the $670.3 million DC paid for the stadium, $57 million went to buying and cleaning up the land for the stadium. At that price, the land likely generated as much as $200,000-$500,000 in property taxes each year, but now it's been moved off of the property tax roll. Several of the displaced businesses have left town, as did some of the residents there.
There were some additional one time costs that are hard to quantify. The city took the land by eminent domain, which Jim Titus noted carries a social cost. District employees spent time and resources preparing for baseball, not all of which were billed to the stadium.
There are also continuing costs from the stadium and baseball. Paying for the stadium pushed the District to its debt limit, which means the city can't borrow money for anything else, including the new soccer stadium. That's why the District has offered to trade the land for a soccer stadium for the city-owned Reeves Center at 14th & U streets. The games have traffic and parking impacts that would not exist otherwise, and the District often spends tens of thousands of dollars per game for security. The DC Sports and Entertainment Commission must pay $1.5 million every year to maintain and enhance the stadium, and set aside another $5 million for a Contingency Reserve Fund.
Aside for the maintenance fund, none of these other costs have been accounted for. Ignoring those, a conservative estimate is that DC paid $675 million for the stadium, $82 million for transportation upgrades to support it, and another $1.5 million a year for maintenance.
How DC pays for it
DC's budget paid for the $135 million in upfront costs for Nationals Park, but Major League Baseball (MLB) could have paid for this. MLB bought the Expos in 2001 for $120 million and then sold them in 2006 for $450 million, turning a cool profit that would have easily covered this expense. But MLB only kicked in $20 million. The Nationals paid another $11 million.
To pay the bonds it issued to cover the $535 million stadium debt, the city created four sources of revenue: A gross receipts tax on businesses that make more than $5 million a year, a share of the utility taxes paid by every non-residential taxpayer, a 4.25% special sales tax on stadium sales, and rent paid by the Nationals.
The first two are just untargeted taxes on DC businesses, and are thus related to baseball only in that the revenue is dedicated to paying for the stadium. But the sales tax is a user tax on baseball fans and the rent is obviously a direct payment by the Nationals, so those can reasonably be counted as annual baseball contributions.
Unfortunately, when DC reports sales taxes from Nationals Park, they combine the special sales tax with the regular sales tax, which is currently 6% on the same items, and the 10% tax on concessions. Is this fair? All taxpayers pay the regular sales tax and concessions tax, which pay for things like roads, schools, and other things the DC government does. This approach to calculation suggests that baseball doesn't contribute to schools or roads.
I'm sure every business would like to dedicate their sales tax to paying off their construction debt, but that isn't how anyone else gets to do things. How much of the total sales tax is the special sales tax? According to Jonah
Kerry Keri in his book Baseball Between The Numbers, concession revenue is about 30% the size of ticket revenue and merchandise is about 10%. So, we could estimate the amount of the reported sales tax that is from the special baseball tax only at about 30% of the total sales tax.
In addition, much of this sales tax revenue comes from entertainment spending that would have happened without baseball. This is what economists call the substitution effect. "As sport- and stadium-related activities increase, other spending declines because people substitute spending on sports for other spending," sports economist Brad Humphreys said. "If the stadium simply displaces dollar-for-dollar spending that would have occurred otherwise, there are no net benefits generated."
Rent for the ballpark started at $3.5 million in 2009 and climbed to $5.5 million this year. From now on, rent goes up by a little less than 1.9% per year, which is below the 3.22% average rate of inflation over the last 100 years. That means that rent in real dollars will likely go down.
In addition, the Nationals would pay an extra $1 for every full price ticket sold after the first 2.5 million. So far, that's never happened. Meanwhile, property taxes on a $500 million stadium, which the Nationals don't pay, would total more than $9 million.
The total amount paid in baseball sales tax and rent for 2008-11 averaged $14.2 million, well below the $30 million a year total estimated in 2005 and the $23.5 million estimated in 2008. It would go up to $15.6 million if the Nationals were paying the full $5.5 million rent.
The debt service on Nationals Park costs the District $38 million, meaning that city taxpayers are paying between $22.4 and $23.8 million a year just on the bonds, or $30.8 million if we use only the special baseball tax. And then there's an additional $1.5 million a year in maintenance and more still on security.
Again, the Nationals could pay this. In 2010, the team made $36.6 million dollars in operating income, which means they could pay the additional bonds and the maintenance costs and still have $11.3 million in profit. Even if we use the discounted baseball sales tax and add in security costs, the Nationals would still be able to keep whatever part of $4.3 million they don't need for security. And of course, after 30 years, they would own the stadium outright. But that isn't how the deal was cut.
So far, DC taxpayers have paid $140 million to build and maintain the stadium, $82.6 million for stadium-related transportation upgrades, and another $24-32 million a year to pay off the debt and maintain the stadium. In the next segment, we'll look at the external benefits to see if DC is getting a return on such a large investment.
Barracks Row Main Street is studying ways to redesign the public space around the Eastern Market Metro station. While many neighbors see the potential to make a great gathering place, others don't want anything to change at all.
Architect Amy Weinstein of Esocoff & Associates is leading the Congressionally-funded Eastern Market Metro Park study, which will explore ways "to renew and upgrade" the two trapezoid-shaped public plazas, medians and two smaller triangular plazas on Pennsylvania Avenue SE between 7th and 9th streets. Despite their location between busy Barracks Row and Eastern Market, the spaces are underused and poorly maintained.
Weinstein led another study in 2010 that explored ways to reroute Pennsylvania Avenue around the public space, making it a complete square. But that effort ran into stiff opposition from neighbors and those concerned about the plan's traffic impacts.
The new study will look at function, aesthetics, and the best way to accommodate all modes of transportation, including better pedestrian pathways, the location of the Capitol Bikeshare station and the Metrobus stops in the south plaza, and managing pedestrian/vehicular conflicts. It will also produce detailed designs for a children's play area in the north plaza, and look at an innovative storm water retention system as part of the effort to reduce combined sewer overflows into the Anacostia River.
Planners say that "nothing is off the table," except for consolidating the square by rerouting streets around it.
Will more activity mean more noise, or a better public space?
In July, Ward 6 Councilmember Tommy Wells hosted a pair of public meetings to hear about the types of changes residents would like to see around the Metro station. After a brief presentation, we broke into small groups where we discussed our thoughts on the current square and what we would and would not like to see in it in the future.
My group seemed opposed to any changes at all. They questioned why money was being spent on this, whether it was legal and who this was to help. Some people seemed mainly concerned about stoplight timing, which did not seem to allow for the speedy movement of cars and pedestrians through the area.
They scoffed at the idea that the project had the word "park" in it. "Who said they wanted a park here?" one person asked.
One major concern they voiced focused on the lack of maintenance within the existing plaza. Trees went unwatered, rats were allowed to nest and several items like benches and lights had fallen into disrepair. "Why not fix what we have first?" some asked. For the same reason, group members also opposed any kind of water feature, along with music, food trucks or eating areas, which would produce noise and trash.
Group members seemed resigned to the idea of a children's play area as long as it wouldn't kill any trees, but their primary point was that it should be "a park, not an amusement park." But we did find universal support of better storm water management, lots of trees, more benches and non-polluting lights.
How to embrace space's potential
While many residents place an emphasis on creating a quiet place that is easy to traverse, what the neighborhood really needs is to activate the Eastern Market Metro Park with an emphasis on creating a place for people to play, work, shop, eat, and rest. By making it into a great place, the kind that people wanted to stay in instead of pass through, it would have a greater constituency that could push for better maintenance.
It seems my group was the outlier, because when other groups reported what they had discussed, they strongly supported the idea of an interactive water feature like those at Yards Park or Canal Park. Several suggested adding a stage for live performances and various gatherings. Others mentioned food trucks and more dining tables. One group focused on tying the public space in with the library at 7th and Pennsylvania.
The meeting's organizers are collecting additional comments about what should happen here. In my comments, I suggested that an interactive water feature and playground area in the north plaza was a natural way to attract kids and families. It's also a perfect area for a statue of a local person. In the eastern median, I recommended installing a dog run.
The south plaza should become a space where people will linger. Furniture, like movable chairs, benches, and permanent fixtures like tables with chess boards on top, will help draw people. A low stage for music and events could support programming while doubling as a seating area the rest of the time. The city should allow food trucks to use the parking spaces along D Street.
We should also use the western median to connect Barracks Row and Eastern Market with a brick walkway down the middle and to add spaces for vendor booths on the weekends, creating a stronger connection between the two commercial areas. The smaller triangles could become larger by removing the sections of D Street that separate them and then improved by adding benches, more permeable surface, and rain gardens.
Finally, a mid-block crosswalk across Pennsylvania Avenue with an advanced stop line and even a traffic light will help people cross. People want to walk here, and we should let them do it safely.
Future meetings, design work planned
The meeting's organizers will put a recap of the meeting on their website, but it's not up as of yet. There are also several ways to offer comments, including an interactive map and a suggestion box at Eastern Market, though the deadline is today.
However, there are more public meetings planned for later this summer. Planners hope to complete two alternate master plan concepts for the Eastern Market Metro Park within 6 months.
Last night, DDOT presented their latest design for the new Frederick Douglass Bridge, where South Capitol Street crosses the Anacostia. While the racetrack ovals proposed for both ends of the bridge have drawn criticism, the bridge itself has the potential to be DC's best for bicyclists.
On the bridge itself, cyclists will have their own, 10-foot wide, two-way cycletrack, separate from the sidewalk and protected from auto traffic by some sort of barrier. And there will be one on each side of the bridge. Cyclists will get 20 feet of space on this bridge all to themselves, and that's kind of amazing. Pedestrians will get two 8-foot-wide sidewalks and occasional overlooks.
The new bridge will connect to portions of the existing or planned Anacostia Riverwalk Trails (ART). The South Capitol Street bridge and the area west of it constitutes one of the last major parts remaining, along with the Kenilworth Section, for which construction bids are due next week. After that, there's the Virginia Avenue Trail and a trail along 2nd St SE to connect to it.
Once off the bridge, cyclists will find pretty direct connections to the ART on both sides of the river and in both directions. On the east side, they'll also get a direct connection to the forthcoming South Capitol Street Trail.
On the southwest side, cyclists will ride off the cycletrack, onto the large mixing area, and then along the sidepath past the line of trees where they could U-turn down the ramp to the ART. Pedestrians would make a quicker turn to go downstairs to the ART. Or cyclists could continue along the sidepath along South Capitol.
On the northwest side, cyclists could also connect to the trail or follow the sidepath, but this rendering is probably unclear since the Florida Rock development will go in next door.
On the east side, pedestrians would again connect to the ART via stairs immediately alongside the bridge, but cyclists on the northeast side would ride along the oval and then head north along the Anacostia Drive Connector to connect to the trail near Poplar Point. On the southeast side, cyclists would follow the oval a short distance before turning
left right to connect to the ART. Or they could go straight to the South Capitol Street Trail or further up and to the right left to follow Suitland Parkway.
Below is a map of the bike network on the west side of the river. The blue lines show 18-foot-wide facilities for cyclists and pedestrians, while the orange lines show 12-foot-wide facilities. The purple lines along Potomac Avenue SW and R Street SW are bike lanes.
And on the east side, cyclists can continue north around the oval to Howard Road. There are more renderings at the project website.
There was no mention of or drawing showing a bike trail along the old Shepherd Branch rail line, not that I really expected to see that, though I did notice they were planning to buy the ROW under I-295, but that is likely for the streetcar.
There's not much to criticize here, at least from a biking standpoint at least. Some might wish there were more bike lanes for cyclists who don't want to ride on sidewalks, even really, really nice ones; but cyclists will be allowed to ride in the road if they choose.
It's a pretty nice setup though. The whole thing is estimated to cost $622 million using local and federal money. Work could begin in late 2014 and wrap up in 2018.
Cross-posted at the WashCycle.
Last night, DDOT representatives held a short presentation on the latest design for the M Street cycle track. They have improved the design further since we last saw it. Meanwhile, angry opponents of the cycle track, including members of a nearby church which may lose some on-street parking, dominated the question and answer period.
During the presentation, DDOT tried to explain the reasoning for the cycle track, how it would work and how it would benefit people. Jim Sebastian, Mike Goodno and Associate Director Sam Zimbabwe showed preliminary data from the ongoing L Street study that showed that over the last 6 months since the cycle-track was installed, biking on L Street was up 41% (560 cyclists during the 8 hours of rush hour, up from 396).
Over the same period bicycle and pedestrian crashes on L Street were both down a trivial amount. Meanwhile, travel time by car had increased by only 1 minute across the length of the cycletrack in the morning and by no measurable amount in the afternoon commute (using data after construction on Connecticut Avenue was complete).
They also discussed results of the completed 15th Street cycle-track showing that biking increased and that while crashes rose too, it was not by as much as biking.
Experience with L Street helps improve M Street design
They talked about lessons they learned on L street and how that influenced design on M. For example, the cycle-track will be narrower, with parking and loading zones adjacent to it. They'll put in more flexposts. And they're using a new "Yield to Bikes" sign.
Parking and loading would change very little. To deal with what lost parking there would be, they plan to take back some unused diplomatic parking spaces and replace some missing parking meters, as well as add better signage.
The schedule is to continue evaluating L Street until August and then install the tracks before the end of the summer. That process would take 3 weeks and be done in phases.
Other design features include the cycle-track diversion onto Rhode Island Avenue that may have a concrete barrier to protect cyclists from traffic.
Left turning cyclists can stop in queue areas within intersections to make a two-light turn.
The drawings included other design changes like a raised cycle track at a bus stop where the track passes behind the stop.
Angry audience comments almost derail the meeting
Before DDOT could discuss these things, the meeting got very heated. At one point, Zimbabwe threatened to end the meeting if people continued to be disrespectful with one another.
It started with a woman who asked why DDOT was going ahead with the M Street lane if the L street study wasn't complete. M Street, she was told, is a complement to L, so any study of L is incomplete without M. Originally they were to be built simultaneously.
But she was clearly opposed to the project regardless, she said with exasperation that "L didn't work," claiming that no one ever used it (despite the presentation she just saw showing that there were several hundred users each rush hour) and that traffic was a disaster. Why were we spending money on bike lanes when libraries are closing? She called the design confusing and asked who this lane is for.
But that was just the appetizer. Many members and leaders of the Metropolitan African Methodist Episcopal Church were there and they were not happy about the cycle track or the way DDOT had informed them about it.
"When slaves built our church, they were not thinking about bike lanes," is how the first comment started.
There were many criticisms, some of them contradictory. No one rides on M Street. Senior citizens won't be able to cross the street to get to church because cyclists never yield to pedestrians (only a problem if people actually do bike on M). Senior citizens rely on the church for transportation. Other M Street businesses are not pleased either. The bike lane on the north side will block funeral access. "What percentage of taxpayer money is going to this?"
When asked if this was a done deal, Zimbabwe said it was and it wasn't. That there was going to be a cycle track on M, but what it would look like was still negotiable. Speakers proceeded to throw the "done deal" comment, which wasn't his wording, back at him several times. But he stuck to his guns. When asked if the debate was over, he said "for this street, yes." When asked if the 1500 block could be left out of the plans, he said that it would have too negative an impact on people trying to bike the road.
But the biggest issues were that the church would lose its angled parking on Sundays (which took them 3 years to get) and that no one talked to them about it until the day before.
A pastor for the church talked about the church's 175 year history, 87 of those years at this location. She noted that this church is tied to the struggles of the African-American people, so to not hear about something like this until after it was a "done deal" is very disturbing and insulting. The church had been offered $1 million to move out of the city in the past, but they had made a commitment to stay. Many of their members had moved to the counties but still made an effort to come to church here. "Is DC becoming a church-unfriendly place?" she asked.
On the first issue, DDOT created several alternatives for Sundays that would still allow 30-50 parking spaces, even one with angled parking and several that allowed parking in the cycletrack (which would shift in between two lanes of car parking) and promised to work on it with the church.
On the second issue, Jim Sebastian apologized and noted that he had met with church staff at the church in 2011. At least one person accused him of lying. Sebastian said he could pull the phone and email logs if needed. He also noted that they had started this process in 2009 with public meetings, and that DDOT staff have met with ANC's, BIDs, groups and individuals. He said they tried to reach the church, a comment that brought scoffs from the church's members.
I'll add that anyone on M Street who didn't know about this has not been paying attention. While I don't expect anyone to have read the 2005 Bicycle Master Plan, the addition of a cycle track on M Street has been reported in the Washington Post many times. In fact it's been mentioned in numerous news outlets on many many occasions over many years. DDOT has had meetings and press releases. It's not been kept a secret. That no one in the church had ever heard about it until this week seems incredible.
Zimbabwe tried to address all the concerns. The M Street lane would have better signage. DC does not intend to be church-unfriendly. There is no "rush" to complete this, but DDOT wants to make people safe now, not later. They're willing to work with the church to resolve its issues.
He could have mentioned that in many cases funding for bike lanes can't be moved over to libraries.
When one woman talked about how important biking was for our future, someone asked her "Do you expect senior citizens to bike." "Yes," I thought, "many already do now." In fact many senior citizens in the church had prefaced their comments with "I'm a cyclist."
Another speaker, opposed to the bike lane, asked "Who wants this?" and many hands shot up followed by applause.
"We're not taking a vote here or pitting one side against another," Zimbabwe said.
A restaurant/bar owner on M Street said that the street is already girdlocked (despite DDOT data presented earlier saying otherwise) and that eliminating a traffic lane was going to be a disaster for drivers and for his business. "I did find one friend who rides a bike and he says he'll never use it," he added, while noting that gridlock causes pollution and that snow removal is a problem as well. "Every merchant on M Street is concerned and in disbelief about this."
Zimbabwe pointed out that this is to get new riders to use bikes. Many tried to point to data in NYC showing that cycle tracks are good for business. One person thanked DDOT for putting the cycle track on L and opening her eyes to all the great businesses there.
A Georgetown ANC member took the opportunity to berate DDOT for not doing something about all the unsafe cyclists disregarding traffic laws. "It's a miracle that no one has been hurt," he noted, without realizing he was contradicting his whole position.
Finally, someone asked, "can't bike lanes go in AND angled parking be kept? Why does it have to be either/or?"
Zimbabwe promised to find a way to address the parking needs of church goers.
And they do have a plan for that. Below you can see Sunday parking on the bike lane as one alternative.
Sarah Goodyear of the Atlantic has an article for Bike to Work Week entitled "Cyclists Aren't 'Special', and They Shouldn't Play by Their Own Rules." The thesis seems to be that now that cycling is mainstream, cyclists need to behave better.
I would argue that whether or not cycling is mainstream you need to ride safely and courteously. In fact, an increase or decrease in cycling mode share shouldn't change the way you ride one iota.
Goodyear is asking cyclists to become footdroppers and thinks that more enforcement of cycling laws is what is needed for cycling to "get to the next level." I disagree which is easy to do since Goodyear offers no evidence, no data and no defense of her position. It appears to be 100% emotion-based opinion.
When I look at great cycling cities in Europe it doesn't appear to me that there is some point where increased enforcement is needed to keep growth going. Growth is fueled by better designed streets, laws that protect cyclists, and increasing the costs of driving. If anything, what I've read about Amsterdam and Copenhagen is that they don't tolerate the kinds of bad driving that are considered normal here. I don't read about ticketing blitzes.
She makes the point that many cyclists are rude or ride dangerously and that she'd like to see such behavior ticketed. I have no problem with ticketing dangerous behavior - though if we're really going to focus on the MOST dangerous behavior, that will rarely mean ticketing cyclists. And if law enforcement were to blitz cyclsits, it would likely not be for their most dangerous behavior (riding at night without lights or too fast on the sidewalk or against traffic) but rather not coming to a complete stop at a stop sign during a charity ride or at some out-of-the way intersection.
Writing about wrong-way cycling she adds,
It makes all of us look terrible and it's a real hazard. Same goes for blowing through a stop sign or red light, or blocking the crosswalk when you're impatiently waiting for the light to change. Not to mention shouting at pedestrians to get out of the way when they are crossing legally. I saw someone yell at an old lady the other day.I again assert that few cyclists actually "blow through" stop signs and lights. Yes, cyclists run them - even Goodyear - but not blowing through them.
She sees herself as an ambassador. But does anyone see themselves as a pedestrian ambassador when walking or as a driving ambassador when driving? No. Biking is not foreign, and maybe to "get to the next level" we need to stop presenting it as though it is. It is funny that she sees it this way, that she has to behave hyper-legally and as a role model only to follow it up with.
You're going to have to give up your identity as a special person who does some special activity known as cycling.Ok, if I'm not so special any longer, then how come I have to behave differently - squeaky clean - than everyone else?
You're not so special any longer.
I agree that cyclists should be safe and courteous (because I think EVERYONE should be), but not that they need to be hyper-legal in the hope that it will soothe everyone else. Because it won't. And it won't take cycling to the next level.
What will help is changing the law where it currently doesn't make sense, such as with the Idaho Stop - exactly the kind of "Special Treatment" and "own rules" that Goodyear seems to be arguing against. What will help is treating cycling as special by creating special facilities to help them get around - like bi-directional cycletracks on one-way streets or cycle-tracks. What will help is bike sharing, on street bike parking, unique zoning regulations related to bike parking, special commuter benefits for bike commuters, etc...
We're going to have to treat cyclists better and let them play by their own rules if we want to "get ot the next level."
Is it fair if bikers get benefits when motorists don't? Nope. You know what else isn't fair? Everything. Deal with it.
Cross-posted at the WashCycle.
There is much hand-wringing over the proposed Maryland gas sales tax, but when you adjust for inflation and look at the costs to drivers per mile, the taxes the government collects on gas will still remain very near their historical low.
We charge a gas tax, ostensibly to pay for transportation, that you pay based on how much driving you do. But because of increased fuel efficiency in cars and an unwillingness to tie the tax to inflation, the tax is not consistent per mile of driving every year.
In fact, after an initial increase in the gasoline tax's first years in Maryland, the tax was consistently above $0.03 per mile (all values in 2009 dollars) for 50 years. In the 1970's however, rapid increases in fuel efficiency and inflation rates cut that in half by 1981. It would never go above $0.025 again. This year, the tax is lower than it's been in 90 years: $0.01233.
But wait, there's more to this bargain: the federal gas tax this year is below a penny per mile for only the 8th time in history.
The proposed tax increase could "add 20 cents" to a gallon of gas, but that wouldn't even double the tax per mile of driving. In 2016, the year the tax would fully phase in, the tax per mile would be only $0.02113. This would be the highest rate since 1978, but well below the historic high of $0.04684 per mile. And also below the historic average of $0.02759. (Note: After publishing, numbers in this paragraph were modified to address a transcription error)
For future years it assumes a worst-case tax increase, expected inflation, and fuel efficiency increasing each year at the same pace as the preceding 10 years. The final assumption is likely a conservative estimate due to new CAFE standards set to go in effect by 2017. Furthermore, the tax would look even cheaper, compared to historic averages, for those who drive cars as opposed to light trucks because the fuel efficiency of cars has increased faster.
The federal tax is far below its average as well.
So while the increase in the gasoline tax might seem large per gallon, the tax drivers pay per mile is still an incredible bargain compared to what drivers paid as recently as the 1990's. Claims that Maryland is "pricing middle-class families, and certainly the working-class poor, out of" the state are clearly overblown.
- You don't need a car to run a successful small business
- It wouldn't cost much to make this Prince George's road safer for everyone
- Think you know Metro's neighborhoods? This quiz might surprise you
- A bikeable suburban highway? One Ohio town pulled it off
- Topic of the week: Our favorite projects (from other places)
- Tax benefit changes and better options are hurting transit ridership
- Cities Skylines takes over SimCity's mantle as top city-builder