Absolutely terrible article on the scofflaw cyclists in Philly. I'm looking forward to w scream about rapscallion reporters with windshield perspective, because, for once, I'll agree 100 percent.

I'm not even going to get into the whole 'the real news story is that drunk drivers in PA killed 500 people last year' thing, because at this point it goes without saying that the MSM isn't interested in covering the real story. Just anomalies like this.

Also, I'm surprised that police would only charge these cyclists with 'leaving the scene of an accident,' and not some sort of vehicular homicide charge. If the law views bikes and cars as equals on the street, you'd think that they'd be viewed equally in court as well. hmm.

Those 'tips' for responsible riding clearly show that Breen Goodwin is a vehicular cyclist advocate. Philadelphia is not a good town for bikes (even though it could be - and for way less effort than DC will need to put into it). His tips need to be more reasonable and inclusive.

by JTS on Nov 17, 2009 9:39 am  

I totally disagree about the Tweed event- it was NOT well posted in advance and a LOT OF PEOPLE didnt know about it at all.

I was with 2 transportation planners Sunday evening , both everyday bicyclists, and another avid cyclist- two of these fellows do not own cars and bikes are their primary transportation- and we were sitting adjacent to the Capitol Hill Bikes [ which is either going out of business or moving]
no one among us was aware of this event- no one had communicated.No one seemed to know what was going on.

Do these people know that not everyone on the planet is twittering or has a hand held computer?

They did a PISS POOR job of getting the word out- and all 4 of us would have participated if we had known.

by w on Nov 17, 2009 9:39 am  

Easy there, W.

They'll be doing it again, I promise.

If anything, the viral nature of the thing was part of what made it 'work.'

by Alex B. on Nov 17, 2009 9:50 am  

Concerning parking at Fort Totten and Brookland, I think this quote from the developer is probably pretty accurate:

Abdo: "As much as we are huge proponents of smart growth and we'd just as soon never build housing for cars and just build housing for people, the reality is that people, particularly if you're going into a for-sale condominium development, really demand that there is. Even if they don't have a car, they want to buy a condominium knowing that they have a set aside space for a car to insure that they're maintaining their values going forward."

I don't actually know how parking at places that like that tends to work. Presumably when you buy a condo you're also buying a parking spot. Maybe it makes sense to separate the two, and have someone buy a parking spot separately from condo unit itself. But, that doesn't necessarily solve this problem either. I think it is the case that parking adds to the value of the condo units. Inadequate parking, or really just the mere appearance of inadequate parking, would reduce the value of the units. If you're shelling out several hundred thousand dollars on a condo it's probably not that hard to imagine having a car, even if you don't immediately have one.

by Andy R on Nov 17, 2009 10:00 am  

Well, not all parking spaces are created equal. If the developers won't give up the spaces, then perhaps they should be forced to un-bundle them from the purchase price of the condo units. Unbundle the parking, and then see what kind of value the free market places on that parking space alone - not just the condo.

by Alex B. on Nov 17, 2009 10:18 am  

W: I don't twitter or have a hand-held computer, yet I still knew about the event ahead of time.

by Froggie on Nov 17, 2009 10:26 am  

w, I'm not sure what kind of notification you wanted. Did you want someone to walk up and tell you personally?

It was posted all over this blog as well as dcist and washcycle and other dc blogs. Maybe they could have put up flyers at dc bike shops, but it's not like this was not advertised.

by Matt on Nov 17, 2009 10:31 am  

Alex B.-

I think the potential problem with doing something like that is with the resale value of the condo. Even if a current owner doesn't want/need to buy a parking space, they don't know what potential buyers in the future will be looking for. In a lot of ways, unbundling them is probably more fair, so people without cars aren't subsidizing parking costs. But, I suspect the amount of money people are willing to pay for a condo plus the cost of parking is less than people are willing to pay for a condo that includes parking. That basically means lost revenue for the developers.

Either way, I think there's still a big incentive for the developer to estimate high. A small number of available spaces for purchase would drive up the cost of parking, which in turns would drive down the cost of the condo units. If a parking space jumps from from $X to $Y, the value of the condo would probably correspondingly drop by $(Y-X).

by Andy R on Nov 17, 2009 10:37 am  

I've got no problem if a buyer wants to get a space for resale value. That's their value judgment at work - but there's no reason to force everyone to make that choice.

I also don't doubt that developers would estimate demand on the high side. I also think they don't want to forgo that revenue, as you note - but that's the whole point of the exercise, isn't it? You have to force the developer's hand to show what the true cost of parking is, as well as the fact that there's a market for units without parking out there.

To put this in Chris Leinberger's terms, this is about making the 'right' thing easy. Building excess parking is the default because it's easy. So, make the 'right' decision easy - force them to unbundle parking and make a tough choice about how much to build and what price point to sell it at.

Likewise, there's an affordable housing argument to be made here. If the cost of each unit drops when you unbundle parking, that's a good thing.

by Alex B. on Nov 17, 2009 10:47 am  

With most condos you can sell the parking space in fee simple to someone else. The reason to bundle them, among other things, is that the buyer can include the purchase price in the mortgage rather than getting a separate mortgage or having to pay cash. It reduces transactions costs and allows the mortgage interest deduction.

I don't see why condo developers have an incentive to build more spaces than likely demand or to increase the prices of the condos unnecesssarily by bundling parking. Sure, zoning regs may do that, but why would a condo developer. Do you think Abdo hasn't figured out that their sales are better if they include a parking space than if they don't, or offer it as a separate purchase? I imagine they have.

by ah on Nov 17, 2009 11:19 am  

From the developer's view, this is an asymmetric situation - and from the lender's view, even more so. If there are too many spaces, the developer loses the cost of the parking spaces, and the lender probably loses nothing. If there are too few spaces and the condos don't sell, the developer potentially loses the entire cost of the condo and the lender's money is at risk.

From the public perspective, on the other hand, too few spaces is as much a benefit as a loss (eventually the apartments get sold or rented at a low price to someone who doesn't want to drive), while the public loses significantly from continued overbuilding of parking.

by Ben Ross on Nov 17, 2009 11:47 am  

I know there's a real strong pro-bike bias here, but it's probably worth noting that even if bike-pedestrian collisions seldom result in death, or law enforcement action, they still can be pretty serious, and anecdotal evidence suggests they're not uncommon.

Quite frankly, I get tired of being buzzed by bike-riders on the sidewalk. The sidewalk is for pedestrians only. If you don't have the courage to bike on the street, then put your bike away and lace up your walking shoes like me.

by Matt W on Nov 17, 2009 12:02 pm  

Using the pedestrian death of a 76 year old man to make a snarky comment about management of the Mall is pretty low, even for this blog. You should be ashamed.

by grumpy on Nov 17, 2009 12:31 pm  

W:

We did plenty of pre- and post-coverage. And they did a very good job of promoting. They we expecting over 100... WELL OVER 300 riders participated.

Video here of how successful it was:

http://readysetdc.com/2009/11/17/video-feature-dc-tweed-ride/

by Justin from ReadysetDC on Nov 17, 2009 12:58 pm  

I saw nothing on this blog or the others about the Tweed ride posted in advance.
The fact that professional bike planners and a transportation planner did not know about this shows how badly they got the word out.

And Matt- as for "not having the courage" to cycle with cars- just wait- heaven forbid- until you get struck by a car while you are pretending to "share the road".

This is BS

A bicycle is not a car- and EVERY regular vehicular cyclist that I know of has been injured in road accidents- most often by cars or motorcycles.

Matt- how about the people that would ordinarily bicycle but do not because it is pretty darned obvious to any thinking & mentally competent human being with a snese of self -presevation that it is DANGEROUS to "share the road" with auto traffic?

So you are basically excluding just about everyone from your vehicular cycling utopia- old people, most women, kids, and people who might be casually cycling.

Sounds dammned elitist and exclusionary to me.

by w on Nov 17, 2009 1:25 pm  

w, cars don't belong on bike paths. Pedestrians don't belong on highways. Bikes don't belong on sidewalks.

I would also submit that if the sidewalks are crowded with bicycles weaving in and out of foot traffic, that tells drivers that bikes are more like pedestrians than they are like cars, and if that's the attitude of drivers, things will never improve for cyclists on the street.

by Matt W on Nov 17, 2009 1:45 pm  

The Park Police blog has a bit more info on the crash on the Mall -- and refers to it as a "crash," not an "accident."

http://uspppressroom.blogspot.com/

"As I went walking that ribbon of highway,
I saw above me that endless skyway
I saw below me that golden valley
This land was made for you and me."

-- Woody Guthrie

by Eileen on Nov 17, 2009 1:58 pm  

w, seriously what would you have had them do? they were doing this as a pure grassroots volunteer effort and devoted a lot of time and energy into it. I think direct-mail, or a television spot or whatever you seem to have in mind was a little out of reach.

Further, this was EVERYWHERE. I personally saw it in two different places (Cycle Jerk and Wash Cycle). I had two different friends (who don't know each other and who aren't regular cyclists) email me to let me know about it--one read about it in the City Paper, the other, I don't know. You read Wash Cycle, I know you do. We had this same conversation over there yesterday. Wash Cycle mentioned this ride at least twice in the lead-up to it.

Just because YOU and your friends somehow managed to miss it does not mean that they did a "piss poor" job of getting the word out. Personally, I think that pulling together something with such a niche following in only three weeks AND getting 300+ people out to it AND having the whole thing run smoothly (volunteer mechanics, portraits, media involvement, sponsors) is amazing. I just don't know how the word could have gotten out better, without getting into paid advertising.

Finally, when you saw those riders you could have asked THEM, and then just jumped on (or gone and gotten) your bikes and joined in. You may not have had time to don tweed but you'd have been there. Several people who just happened to be out and about that afternoon just joined on in for the heck of it.

And, for what it's worth, CHB is going out of business and is hoping to reopen elsewhere. I think it's really strange you don't know that because that news has been kind of all over, too. I could have sworn that I saw you somewhere on the bike blogs singing the praises of City Bikes over CHB and pointing to that difference as instrumental to the downfall of CHB.

by Catherine on Nov 17, 2009 2:21 pm  

Parking spots are treated as separate properties in DC now, although they typically are bundled in property sales, even for existing units like mine. I'm one of those people who owns a parking space--I rent it out and it pays most of my condo fee. Some day, I may use it. My guess is that Brookland and Fort Totten are not perceived by buyers as being as carfree-feasible as, say, Logan Circle or even Silver Spring. Few conveniences in walking distance. It will be interesting to see if the people who buy actually use their parking spaces. If there are renters in the neighborhood and places used as multi-family housing, there will be demand for parking.

by Rich on Nov 17, 2009 6:24 pm  

@ Rich

Ft. Totten & Brookland plus most of DC outside of
Eastern Market, Tenleytown, Georgetown, Friendship Heights, Naylor Gardens, Union Station, the area from the mall up to about columbia heights isnt.

No matter how people put it the areas outside of those stuff is not in walking distance plain and simple and most people will not walk more than 1 1/2 miles on average.

All areas of DC arent transit friendly and some have more bus/train service than they need while others have none or tiny amounts.

In most places in DC it is a pain to go to the grocery store, school if you have children, work, other stores for shopping, doctor etc because it is not transit feasible.

Just because people do it does not mean its not without problems or they do it because its the only option.

All of the transit in the area is halfassed done and does not provide complete service to there jurisdictions; most of the area has there bus routes traveling on or crossing the same damn major roads; if they want people to use transit and get out of cars or live car free they need more transit that goes deep into areas not covered and to areas of interest which should include, stores, schools, other transit.

Metrorail is basically a glorified commuter train that just happens to be the only way to get around besides taking a bus/cab/privatecar/walk+bike+skate etc because the city has no true subway which serves the purpose of getting the residents of the city around.

by kk on Nov 17, 2009 9:48 pm  

We here in Dallas knew about the DC Tweed ride and based ours on yours. I had a gig and couldn't make it, not sure how my semi-recumbent bicycle and full-face helmet would have gone over at any rate.

by Opus the Poet on Nov 18, 2009 1:26 am  

W: as with Catherine, I read about the Tweed ride on WashCycle before the event.

by Froggie on Nov 18, 2009 7:17 am  

I'd like to hear more comments about the FTA proposal - it sounds like it could be a Big Deal in terms of road vs pedestrian vs bus vs rail funding. Half a mile instead of 1500 feet means more than 3x as much real estate will be considered within the 'structural envelope' of a transit stop even if they ignore bike riders.

What is the significance of this change?

by Squalish on Nov 18, 2009 7:27 am  

"Quite frankly, I get tired of being buzzed by bike-riders on the sidewalk. The sidewalk is for pedestrians only. If you don't have the courage to bike on the street, then put your bike away and lace up your walking shoes like me."

Call me crazy, but I like to be guided in these matters by, well, THE LAW. And in DC it is legal to ride on the sidewalk everywhere but the central business district.

Few cyclists do this by choice (w is an exception), only briefly in select areas where the vehicle traffic is so fast and heavy that riding in traffic is a suicide mission. For me, that's 5 blocks on 16th street during my morning commute. I live on 16th street so it's impossible to avoid.

It's kind of absurd to argue that, because there is inadequate cycling infrastructure for 5 blocks of a 3 mile commute, I should just ditch the whole idea and spend an extra hour walking to work. So often these arguments - "don't ride on the sidewalk! don't ride on the road!" boil down to "Don't ride anywhere!"

Sorry, but that's not going to happen. If you want cyclists off the sidewalk, advocate for decent bike lanes and we will be only too happy to use them.

by Erica on Nov 20, 2009 3:43 pm