christians have been allowed to double park here for years:
http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/display.php?id=34683
I don't think a bike lane will change anything. Any politician who would come out in support of enforcing parking laws against these folks would be voted out of office so fast their heads would spin.

by ontarioroader on Sep 4, 2009 3:39 pm  

It's pretty bad on 9th Street, particularly with the Scripture Cathedral. They park at 45-degree angles across the bike lane and regular traffic lanes.

by J.D. Hammond on Sep 4, 2009 3:55 pm  

@ontarioroader: voted out by whom? Last time I checked, PG residents not named "Bishop Harry Jackson" couldn't vote in DC...

...but yeah, be that as it may, no politician is gonna mess with the churches and their god-given right to double-park.

by EdTheRed on Sep 4, 2009 3:58 pm  

I'm a regular bike commuter through downtown. Everyday there are at least three cars idling in the bike lane on G Street between 13th and 15th. I've complained to the city about enforcement, but never got a response. Lately, I've been taking pictures of the license plates, cars and sometimes, drivers, just to make me smile. I've considered starting a blog where people can submit pictures of cars, trucks, bikes, etc. that are parked in places that impede other peoples rights and safety.

And for the record (since I know a lot of drivers complain about cyclists not following the rules either), I stop at all stop lights, signal whenever I can and do my best to follow the law. They should too. In my daily rides, I estimate that a full 50% of drivers are parked or driving in bike lanes, talking on the phone, changing lanes without signaling, stopping in crosswalks instead of at stop lines, or doing some other unsafe, illegal activity.

by Howard on Sep 4, 2009 4:00 pm  

This is all the more reason to advocate for cycle tracks. You can't double park in one of those (well, at least not a decently designed one).

by Reid on Sep 4, 2009 4:03 pm  

You're being tacky complaining about this one.

by mch on Sep 4, 2009 4:16 pm  

I'd like to get some of those stickers that are adhesive on the front side, print up a message about bike lanes, and slap them on the windshields of cars that sit in them. I don't think there's a Fedex driver in the fleet who would hesitate to do it.

by mark on Sep 4, 2009 4:17 pm  

@Howard: No need to start your own blog, my friend:
http://dc.mybikelane.com/

by EdTheRed on Sep 4, 2009 4:29 pm  

@EdTheRed, you just made my week.

by Howard on Sep 4, 2009 4:32 pm  

@Howard: you can thank me by posting all those photos! :)

And for the record, my spam-preventing code for this post? "Howard phobic." Heh.

by EdTheRed on Sep 4, 2009 4:36 pm  

when bicycle tracks are designed to take up the space between the curb/sidewalk with the parked cars on the outside , this problem does not happen.
However, in much of the USA and in DC, the planners have obviously NEVER studied the bike infrastructure as it is done in other countries - or even in the USA- places like NYC, Saint Petersburg , Fla, or Portland, where new bike tracks as I m describing are being put in.

We are doing bike lanes here on the absolute CHEAP and it shows.

If the city really wants safe , and serious bike infrastructure, it would put in separated tracks and be done with it.

by w on Sep 4, 2009 4:39 pm  

When a shared use path is in place, it's still preferable to have in-street bike lanes. This provides for those with a "bike as ped" mentality as well as a "bike as vehicle" mentality.

However, if there are cycle tracks which are separated from both peds & cars: is there still a desire to have in-street bike lanes? I seem to recall hearing that WABA prefers both, though I'm not sure I quite agree with that.

by Bossi on Sep 4, 2009 6:01 pm  

I have lived in Shaw for 20 years. Whenever anyone complains about church parking to the police, they site some vague law dating back to 1800 about parking for church. One can say that church is a social affair, or a non profit event. I have volunteered for many non profits and was never able to park illegally while doing my volunteer work. When I visit friends for social affairs, I can not park illegally. The whole church parking thing is a political hot potato and indeed, it does no good to complain because it goes in one ear and out the other of all police and political people.

by Nick the Greek on Sep 4, 2009 6:07 pm  

http://www.fixmycitydc.com/

"a web-based application that allows users to submit service requests by problem type, and check their status via an interactive map. The app also offers the option of a phone call to the user when the problem has been resolved."

http://www.appsfordemocracy.org/dc-awards-10000-final-prize-to-iphone-facebook-app-combo/

"app that enables iPhone access (download from iTunes) to the District’s 311 city service site, coupled with a supporting Facebook App. Users can submit and view service requests by category, view service requests by location on an interactive map, provide details on their requests through an interactive Q&A feature, and even visit a “Hall of Fame” to see who has submitted the most requests.

The ability to use the iPhone’s GPS capabilities and built in camera to map specific issues (like potholes, broken parking meters etc.) is very promising from both a city management, and citizen service perspective."

by F. Catoe on Sep 4, 2009 7:10 pm  

For years I've been aware of a vociferous debate between vehicular cyclists who eschew bike lanes and those who want specific accommodation on the road.

I was pretty much neutral never having had any exposure to bike lanes. But in the year since they have painted the lanes downtown I've personally come to despise them.

Why do we seek to corral the cyclist into the most dangerous 3 feet of road surface?

Why do we place him in a spot guaranteed to render him all but invisible to motorists?

Why do we confine him so he has no room to maneuver in an emergency?

Truly, the people who advocate for bike lanes must all drive SUVs.

by JeffB on Sep 4, 2009 10:12 pm  

It's a funeral get over it.

by TiffanyW on Sep 5, 2009 6:21 am  

If DC police can't even enforce double parking (M St NW in Golden Triangle/Foggy Bottom is a virtual double parking lot in the mornings), then there is no hope of enforcing cars in bike lanes.

by TJ on Sep 5, 2009 11:22 am  

Folks, next time you see something like this, e-mail Chief Cathy Lanier a brief e-mail with a photo: cathy.lanier@dc.gov. She will get back to you, believe it or not. You can also copy the director of public works, william howland: william.howland@dc.gov. Politeness and persistence (and being in the right) go a long way.

I hardly ever ride a bike these days, but I find it infuriating that a governmental authority (MPD) is practicing religious discrimination by allowing church parkers to park wherever they want. And it's not just for funerals; there was an article in the City Paper a while back about the nearby residents who have their driveways blocked by churchgoers! (I'm not sure why those residents can't just have those cars towed, as in other areas of the region.)

by XR on Sep 5, 2009 11:38 am  

TiffanyW - would you have the same "get over it" attitude if the funeral vehicles were parked in a car lane? I suspect not. Traffic laws are not suspended for funerals.

by Erica on Sep 5, 2009 12:15 pm  

I used to live in the 1300 block of Maryland Ave, NE, across the street from Purity Baptist Church. The church would double park the entire, lengthy, 1300 block on both sides for weddings and funerals. At one point when i had a car, i drove up the curb and down the sidewalk to the street because they did that, for after asking, i found they had no one available to move vehicles as needed during such events.

This behavior on the part of the church infuriated us every time it happened, but neither Metropolitan Police nor DMV were wiling to do anything about it, even when called about it. Very frustrating.

by dcseain on Sep 5, 2009 1:48 pm  

man, reading comments on this site makes me like bikes less and less. and i ride even.

by twofeet on Sep 5, 2009 2:18 pm  

Agreed, this wouldn't happen with cycle tracks. My feeling is that if this was just a car lane, the city would allow it also because its a multi-lane road - but whatever.

The more I think about 14th street, the more I think bus service should be radically improved, a cycle track built, parking scaled back and traffic lanes reduced to one lane each way, with a center turn lane. Its busy during rush hour, but its not the rest of the time. And half that rush hour traffic from the north can be eliminated. Bus service would be better so those living in the north could take that to work.

Of course, nothing near this will be done when they rebuild 14th. Bus service and bike facilities will continue to suck. They can't even turn 15th into a two way!

by Ned on Sep 5, 2009 6:55 pm  

Actually traffic rules are often suspended for funerals, most often for funeral processions. This is a pretty petty complaint. I suggest maybe a little more neighborly compassion and focus on actual problems on your part.

by James on Sep 5, 2009 11:41 pm  

Really? You're raising a stink about cars double parked for a funeral? And this is after such a stink was raised about the removal of the year-old ghost bike in Dupont?

Seriously?

by Fritz on Sep 6, 2009 9:24 am  

When considering the "what if they did this to cars" thought...

On the one hand, blocking a lane is generally legal in most states and I believe the district also permits it, so long as traffic is capable of passing in the remaining lane(s) without significant delay. And funerals already tend to be given a bit of slack... they even run red lights & stop signs (oftentimes this is permitted by law).

On the other hand, if you think of a bike lane as the bike's roadway: blocking that one lane could be considered to be equivalent to blocking an entire roadway. That leaves cars either in queue or driving onto the sidewalk... just as bikes would either drive onto the road or onto the sidewalk. Now the comparison breaks down, since bikes are allowed onto the road & sometimes onto the sidewalks... but in most places cars don't have the same privileges.

I have no particular intent with this post; just a Saturday morning thought from finger to keyboard to blog.

by Bossi on Sep 6, 2009 10:55 am  

Here's the solution. Next time WABA is present at the funeral of a biker, just park your bikes in the regular travel lanes and see how that is received.

My advise: don't take your new bike.

by Jasper on Sep 6, 2009 1:31 pm  

This blog is a perfect example of why non-bikers don't think too kindly of bikers. I'm a biker myself and I try to dissociate myself from people like this all the time. Shoot, I wouldn't be throw a temper-tantrum if I ran into this.

by Zac on Sep 6, 2009 2:21 pm  

At 2:30 pm today (Sunday) I spotted a DDOT worker ticketing cars on 800 block of G St NW. Angle parking is allowed on this street until 2 pm, presumably aimed a churchgoers. I'm glad he was ticketing those who overstayed their welcome.

by Monumentality on Sep 6, 2009 7:41 pm  

Blocking the bike lane is a good way to make another funeral necessary.

by Azher on Sep 7, 2009 2:00 am  

When was the last time you saw a DC church that had a bike rack? Those churches are worse than Hitler, or the devil, or something.

by monkeyrotica on Sep 7, 2009 9:57 am  

"Blocking the bike lane is a good way to make another funeral necessary."

Azher is EXACTLY right here. It really is a safety issue.

by Sean Robertson on Sep 7, 2009 12:10 pm  

@Erica- "Traffic laws are not suspended for funerals."

Wrong. Funeral processions get to do all sorts of things that would ordinarily be prohibited by traffic laws.

This isn't really a bike lane issue. It's a church double parking issue; it just so happens that the lane adjacent the parking lane in front of this church is a bike lane. On one hand, it seems unfair to me to make special exceptions for churches. But on the other, churches are an unusual land use that have a once-weekly peak usage pattern.

How should we deal with the once-a-week spike in parking needs at churches? We could require the churches to provide sufficient off-street parking to handle the peak need, but that doesn't seem like a very efficient option. Many black churches in DC these days now have congregations that are increasingly spread throughout PG County, so lots of parishioners don't have transit options that are very viable. If we ended the option to double park, we might lead some of these churches to choose to relocate to PG County, and I'm not sure that's a good outcome for the District.

Ultimately I think the double parking ends up looking relatively good compared to other options. It might make sense to avoid running bike lanes alongside parking lanes down streets with particularly large congregations of churches-- I wouldn't put one on upper 16th, for example.

by Josh B on Sep 7, 2009 3:50 pm  

I was nearly hit Saturday night when riding on G St NW when I had to swerve out of the bike lane because the valet parking for Proof was using it as their parking lot for nearly two blocks.

by Laura Walsh on Sep 7, 2009 5:51 pm  

I'm continually surprised by the commentators (like "w") who argue that DC is being "cheap" or somehow deviant in its form of bike lane installation.

Cycle tracks in most places are nothing more than paint. As are DC's bike lanes. There is nothing cheaper about painting the lines on the driver side vs. the passenger side of the parking lane for vehicles.

There are very few places in the country that have a curb-side cycle track. To claim that the District is negligent or not bike friendly when it has the same bike lanes as most places in the country is nothing but untruthful.

Exaggerations and false truths do nothing to advance the position of cyclists in our city.

by ogden on Sep 7, 2009 8:33 pm  

When you're doubleparking in a bike lane, you're doubleparking with Hitler.

by monkeyrotica on Sep 8, 2009 9:03 am  

http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/nationworld/sfl-bike-versus-car-b090809sbsep08,0,4910824.story

by Robert Nolin on Sep 8, 2009 10:01 am  

But on the other, churches are an unusual land use that have a once-weekly peak usage pattern.

I do get a little tired of churches (especially in Shaw) that use their political clout at the Wilson Building to carve out special privileges. One wonders how a synagogue blocking a travel lane on a Saturday, or a mosque blocking traffic on a Friday would be received. I seriously doubt they'd get the red-carpet treatment. To say nothing of all sorts of businesses (like bars and night clubs) that would love special parking privileges for their patrons. They have "unique" once- and twice-weekly peak usage patterns too. The city shouldn't be carving out exceptions for anyone.

by Paul on Sep 8, 2009 10:23 am  

Don't you know it's racist for (mostly) white gentrifiers to dare to criticize (mostly) black church-goers from PG County who double-park in city neighborhoods on Sunday?

by Tired on Sep 8, 2009 12:34 pm  

I also get tired of churches double parking. But really, it is a funeral. You wonder why city bikers have the reputation of being so self-absorbed?

by asdf@gmail.com on Sep 8, 2009 4:25 pm  

Erica, would you have the same attitude if you were attending the funeral? There is a long tradition of giving funeral attendees a "pass" on traffic laws. Nothing wrong with that. Suck it up.

by beatbox on Sep 8, 2009 4:29 pm  

Wow, this post is a new low for this site. I'm sorry the bereaved, likely grief-stricken mourners at the funeral were interrupting your precious bike lane. The nerve of those people.

Really, there's a time to push for a pro-cycling agenda, and there's a time to shelve it. It's a shame this site doesn't know when to show a little restraint. As many people have commented, it's posts like this that give DC cyclists their very deserved reputation as self-important, self-righteous jerks.

by longtimedcres on Sep 8, 2009 8:29 pm  

@ longtimedcres: it's posts like this that give DC cyclists their very deserved reputation as self-important, self-righteous jerks

And exactly how does that make them different from the bereaved, likely grief-stricken mourners at the funeral double-parking on front of a church?

Hmmm, what was that saying again? ...something with a pot, a kettle and black....

by Jasper on Sep 8, 2009 9:01 pm  

Grief is not self-absorbed, Jasper.

by ogden on Sep 8, 2009 9:06 pm  

I wasn't going to say anything, but the more mail about "It's not the funeral lane" that fills my inbox, the more the phrase reminds me of "It's not the snugglenets" - a pseudo-rigorous absolution from general empathy on the author's own part.

A fine internet service, indeed.

by J.D. Hammond on Sep 8, 2009 11:05 pm  

Jasper: Sorry your bike lane was interrupted for one block because some people felt the selfish need to grieve for a deceased loved one. I see it's really affecting you. Perhaps you should seek counseling.

I can't wait for the next story about this on this site. I'm guessing the headline will be something like: "Selfish Murder Victim Blocks Bike Lane" or "Injured Squirrel, Bike Lane Menace."

Goodness, the pro-cycling crowd on this site is obnoxious.

by longtimedcres on Sep 9, 2009 8:16 am  

Why is it so difficult to park to the left of the bike lane, blocking the traffic lane? Problem solved...

by ibc on Sep 9, 2009 10:54 am  

ibc: You know, maybe they should have closed the street altogether. Somehow I doubt that was the response you were fishing for, but....

by J.D. Hammond on Sep 9, 2009 11:42 am  

@ibc-
Then you'd have passenger doors to your left *and* drivers' side doors to the right :)

@everyone...
This has been a fiery debate, but nonetheless an interesting one to follow along. The short of it is that there really isn't a good answer: special events have special needs, but special needs may conflict with the interests of others... that's always been the great trouble with the allotment of resources.

However, rather than criticise, I'd now ask that people offer alternatives. The only one I've heard thus far is essentially a request for funeral parking... and I'm sure there's a large enough audience of Shoupistas here that that alternative is not preferable -- perhaps not even to the cycling crowd.

by Bossi on Sep 9, 2009 12:55 pm  

The answer is that the status quo is fine. Cops don't ticket double parkers in front of funerals. So the bike lane blocked for a few hours. Big whoop. No need to add any bureaucracy to the issue. I was held up a few months ago for a few minutes as a funeral procession passed by. Did I complain? No. I sat silently for a few minutes and then went on my way.

I am just really surprised that someone would even complain about this.

by blogo on Sep 9, 2009 2:09 pm  

So the bike lane blocked for a few hours. Big whoop.

Right, but I think the unexamined point here is that it's no "big whoop" when the bike lane is blocked for a few hours--forcing cyclists out into traffic--but that your average auto driver would practically shit themselves with indignation if funeral-goers chose to leave the bike lane open, and parked in the traffic lane.

Personally, I look ahead and if I see the bike lane blocked, I just ride in the traffic lane starting a block ahead of the obstruction.

As it is, I don't have a problem with double-parking, just with the double-standard of auto-driver entitlement.

by ibc on Sep 9, 2009 2:23 pm  

ibc said

that your average auto driver would practically shit themselves with indignation if funeral-goers chose to leave the bike lane open, and parked in the traffic lane.

Funeral goers block the traffic lane all the time. What do you think happened at this church before the bike lane was painted. There is no double standard here. Funeral parking is an inconvenience for everyone, but one I don't mind putting up with.

by blogo on Sep 9, 2009 2:40 pm  

Riding up Vermont Avenue from Thomas Circle on my way home last Friday, I saw a long line of funeral cars double-parked in the oncoming bicycle lane. My first thought was that I wished I had my camera because I could take a picture of this travesty and send it to dc.mybikelane.com, which posts pictures of cars parking or standing in bicycle lanes. When I came abreast of the cars, however, I saw that each of them had a bright green sign on the dashboard with “FUNERAL” printed in big black letters. That seemed like a fair use of the bicycle lane and I quickly forgot about it .

Fast forward to Tuesday morning and I see on both dc.mybikelane.com and Greater Greater Washington the same picture of a line of funeral cars blocking a bike lane. Oddly enough, it was a different funeral, although it was only a couple blocks away on 14th Street.

On the dc.mybikelane.com site, the photo was accompanied by,

"Not one, not two or even three, but at least half a dozen drivers decided they had the right to take over the entire bike lane for a full block just because someone died."

Greater Greater Washington was only marginally more understanding:

"While my condolences go to the family, that doesn’t constitute an exception to the rule against parking in the bike lane."

Come on. Did these guys think before they wrote? Or are they so far gone into protecting their rights that they have no understanding that extremism in support of anything is ugly and misguided?

Certainly those cars could block the bike lane for an hour or so “just because someone died.” And allowing cars in the funeral train to park in a line in front of the church rather than requiring them to individually park anywhere they could find a space seems like a nice, tangible way to offer “condolences” to the family.

Bike lanes are an important component of urban transportation. They offer some measure of protection to bicyclists who otherwise are left to the often not-so-tender mercies of motorists. But let’s have some perspective. We want cars to share the road with us. Every so often, in extenuating circumstances–LIKE WHEN SOMEONE HAS DIED–maybe we can share our bicycle lanes with them.

by Gerry on Sep 9, 2009 8:58 pm