It's not the taxes, it is the assessments. The new model they brought in a few years ago is a killer.

Although you have to wonder how healthy is the DC commercial real estate market? The height-nazis love to quote "DC is more expensive than NYC" which is only marginally true. But outside the feds, I don't much demand for office space.

by charlie on Sep 7, 2011 8:33 am • link • report

Here is the actual quote:

"We are not opposed to initiatives to repair and improve infrastructure, and believe there are reforms that can be implemented that would improve their effectiveness in a manner that supports economic growth. Current law requires that states set-aside 10 percent of their surface transportation funds for transportation enhancements, which must be used for items such as establishment of transportation museums, education activities for pedestrians and bicyclists, acquisition of scenic easements, historic preservation, operation of historic transportation facilities, etc. While many of the initiatives funded by this mandatory set-aside may be worthy projects, eliminating this required set-aside would allow states to devote more money to the types of infrastructure programs you are advocating without adding to the deficit. We believe such a reform would be consistent with your statement last week that we should “reform the way transportation money is invested, to eliminate waste, to give states more control over the projects that are right for them.”

What is the big deal? "Transportation enhancements" is a broad umbrella which includes not only bike and pedestrian improvements but all other sorts of nonsense that we don't need and we certainly don't need to mandate at the federal level. Why not let the states and municipalities decide what transportation funding should go to? If it is that good of an idea, an artificial mandate would not be needed to get it funded.

by movement on Sep 7, 2011 8:36 am • link • report

"Why not let the states and municipalities decide what transportation funding should go to? If it is that good of an idea, an artificial mandate would not be needed to get it funded."

Yeah...it could be just like civil rights in the south. I'm sure they would have come around eventually.

by thump on Sep 7, 2011 8:51 am • link • report

all other sorts of nonsense that we don't need

Examples, please?

by Neil Flanagan on Sep 7, 2011 8:52 am • link • report

We can afford $10B per month on the completely unnecessay Iraq war but we can't spend one cent on bicycle and pedestrian improvements? Perhaps it's time to plan a Critical Mass ride or other form of demonstration to protest the GO(B)P's addiction to oil and loyalty to petro-dictators while denying mobility to Americans.

by 202_cyclist on Sep 7, 2011 9:01 am • link • report

Some question if that's better than hiring more people on staff.

"Some" question? Really, it's the Union questioning. And I thought management decisions were left to management. Right, ATU?

by WRD on Sep 7, 2011 9:04 am • link • report

@Bike funding.
This is an arguement that Obama and Congress does not need to cave on, but they most likly will.
Cantor knows he can not repeal the gas tax becasue it will hurt republican states much more then democratic ones, but he feels like he needs to cut something. So he cuts this 10% out and then perhaps reduces the gas tax by 10% and is seen as a winner.

by Matt R on Sep 7, 2011 9:08 am • link • report

I'm with ya, 202_cyclist. This is beyond getting ridiculous.

Maybe we could coordinate something with BicycleSpace?

by Shipsa01 on Sep 7, 2011 9:10 am • link • report

@Bike Funding

Wasn't there a paper somewhere that calculated that bicyclists actually save the government money? Because they cause so little wear and tear on the roads compared to a car, and because a large chunk of roads are paid from not the gas tax, but other sources of revenue that come from everybody (including cyclists)

by ErikD on Sep 7, 2011 9:19 am • link • report

RE: Speed Cameras

I'm not necessarily against automated enforcement, but believe that they shouldn't be placed on roads with rather arbitrary speed limits. In those cases: I believe automated enforcement can be a greater distraction & induce sudden reactions where traffic may have otherwise been able to pay greater attention to the rest of the roadway environment; not to mention eroding public support even for locations where cameras are a more suitable fit.

Not to say I disagree with desiring lower-speed roads, but if that's what is really desired: many of these roads need to be redesigned for 30 MPH rather than being so easy to drive at 50 MPH before you even realise you're going so fast. Personally, I'd love to see automated enforcement revenue directed specifically toward funding the treatment of the very issues that prompt them in the first place, with the public goal of ideally earning zero revenue from each camera.

by Bossi on Sep 7, 2011 9:31 am • link • report

@Neil Flanagan - How about $28m for transportation museums?

http://coburn.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?a=Files.Serve&File_id=d03ae05b-3921-47e3-8c2f-b7dddcc7d360

(Yes, he also rails against bicycle safety improvements)

by ah on Sep 7, 2011 9:33 am • link • report

Totally anecdotal, but I regularly drive by one of the speed cameras that was established during the last expansion.

While the location I'm sure gets people when there is no traffic, I always drive by during rush hour when traffic is moving about 10mph. Meanwhile, the officer sits there in his (usually marked) car doing pretty much nothing and collecting I'm sure very limited revenue.

by ah on Sep 7, 2011 9:35 am • link • report

Regarding the attempt to defund bike/pedestrian infrastructure. spending on these projects is probably the most effective transportation investments we can make. It is estimated that 40% of our annual 400 billion trips are less than two miles, a distance that can easily be biked (http://www.intransitionmag.org/Winter_2011/electric_bikes.aspx).

Biking and walking helps reduce the $300B we spend each year on foreign oil. helps reduce diabetes, heart disease, and other illness caused by obesity, and helps to reduce congestion. Clearly, cutting funding for bicycle and pedestrian investments does not create jobs and arguably, if we're concerned about the budget deficit, we should be spending more on this highly cost-effective mode of transportation. This is 100% red-meat cultural jihad by the RepuB(P)lican party.

by 202_cyclist on Sep 7, 2011 9:54 am • link • report

Contractors will fix escalators

They can start in Rosslyn, today please. This morning ALL escalators were out. People were huffing and puffing up the escalators, some nearly keeling over. This is simply waiting for a fatal incident. ALL 4 BROKEN. Metro, get your act together.

by Jasper on Sep 7, 2011 10:01 am • link • report

Speeders beware

I love how lay WTOP is, just copying the rather unreadable list of locations, in stead of providing a map that you can read.

by Jasper on Sep 7, 2011 10:01 am • link • report

Screw the speed cameras. Put up red light cameras, which actually target a much more dangerous behavior -- red light running.

As happens way too often, had I crossed when given a walk signal this morning on Constitution Ave., I would have been runover by a white work van that ran a red light a good 2-3 seconds after it had changed. But I've learned to watch drivers instead of traffic signals.

by aaa on Sep 7, 2011 10:04 am • link • report

RE: Bike/Ped Funding

This prompted a trio of tweets to Eric Cantor which I intend to turn into a more formal letter requesting a response. I may also send copies to John Boehner, Tom Coburn, Kay Bailey Hutchison, and John Mica. I certainly encourage others to do likewise.

by Bossi on Sep 7, 2011 10:08 am • link • report

@bossi; zero revenue for speed/red light cameras would not make much financial sense for the companies that fund them.

by charlie on Sep 7, 2011 10:11 am • link • report

@ah

Yes, but that's over four years and 55 different museums. Now I think people can disagree over whether that is the best use of funds, but the fact is $7 million a year is not even worth Congress's time. And everything else on the list seems like worthy transportation projects.

by Steven Yates on Sep 7, 2011 10:12 am • link • report

@charlie-

Agreed 100%, hence why I'm not a big fan of privatising automated enforcement on a per-citation basis.

by Bossi on Sep 7, 2011 10:12 am • link • report

Yeah...it could be just like civil rights in the south.

Can we stop with the hyperbole? Bike/ped funding is largely an economic question, not a moral question like civil rights. I'm sure people will argue that minorities/disadvantaged are more likely to use bike/ped, but that's stretching the issue.

Wasn't there a paper somewhere that calculated that bicyclists actually save the government money

So, then why are people so worried that if the federal government doesn't mandate that they use their funding for bike/ped, then they won't? Ok, clearly some states like Oklahoma, they'll stop spending on bike/ped. And, in other places like DC and MD, they'll continue spending the same portion of their federal dollars on bike/ped. Won't it prove useful to the bike/ped cause to show how Oklahoma will eventually suffer due to their shortsightedness while MD/DC prosper?

This is 100% red-meat cultural jihad

Why can't we live in a country where people can be free to choose their culture? If you want to live somewhere where your state gov't chooses to spend its federal money on bike/ped, then you can live in that kind of culture. If you want to live someplace where driving is the only option, then you can live in that culture. Why must we force cultural homogeneity across the country?

I say all this as someone who strongly supports bike/ped but I believe that forcing the rest of the country to support our way of life is counterproductive in the long run. It just brings about a backlash.

I know some will say that the bike/ped lifestyle is better for the environment and has positive externalities, so it should be mandated as an option. However, using this issue to help the environment is an uphill battle because it's viewed largely as cultural and is small beans.

by Falls Church on Sep 7, 2011 10:17 am • link • report

Ah, Yeah I had heard about that. The problem with removing all improvements is that those improvements include noise barriers, crosswalks, some kinds of environmental impact reduction, and obviously, anything that could make infrastructure look attractive.

A progressive step would be to amend the DOT regs to consider cycling to be a form of transportation.

by Neil Flanagan on Sep 7, 2011 10:20 am • link • report

Screw the speed cameras. Put up red light cameras, which actually target a much more dangerous behavior -- red light running.

This is actually a pretty interesting Rorshack: red light running is "much more dangerous" because there's a threat of auto-to-auto collisions. Speeding endangers pedestrians and non-auto traffic. Historically we've trivialized the latter and focused solely on the former.

Interesting 20 year study out of the UK shows "The introduction of 20 mph zones was associated with a 41.9% (95% confidence interval 36.0% to 47.8%) reduction in road casualties, after adjustment for underlying time trends. The percentage reduction was greatest in younger children and greater for the category of killed or seriously injured casualties than for minor injuries. There was no evidence of casualty migration to areas adjacent to 20 mph zones, where casualties also fell slightly by an average of 8.0% (4.4% to 11.5%)."

(http://www.bmj.com/content/339/bmj.b4469.full)

by oboe on Sep 7, 2011 10:20 am • link • report

@Falls Church:

There are national policy reasons to support a federal commitment to bicycle/pedestrian investments rather than a state-by-state approach:

1) Air pollution isn't contained within the borders of one state
2) All taxpayers and the federal government help pay for Medicare costs that are higher because of inactive lifestyles and the inability to walk or bike safely in many communities.
3) The national security of the US is harmed by giving countries like Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, and Russia hundreds of billions of dollars in oil revenue each year.
4) Many metro regions span several states.

by 202_cyclist on Sep 7, 2011 10:23 am • link • report

@Bossi,

Your argument seems to hinge on the idea that folks like Cantor hold any sort of core principles (i.e. free-market, small-government, etc...). That does not seem to be the case. Nor is it the case with the vast majority of those who vote for them.

by oboe on Sep 7, 2011 10:24 am • link • report

Re: Contractors

Did anybody catch this gem? Of the people who work for Metro's escalator-elevator division, there are 147 mechanics but 49 people in management and support, and 12 "supervisors." I'm not sure if those 60+ support staff and supervisors ever actually touch an escalator, but if not, then I've identified Metro's problem.

by Adam L on Sep 7, 2011 10:25 am • link • report

@bossi; but how many municipally owned red light cameras are out there? Speed cameras? There's a lot of money to be made on those systems, which is the biggest reason they are pushed.

contra, however, could DC bikeshare be run as a private company. I suspect the numbers work -- you're looking at a basic break even point this year. That is assuming some sort of profit for Alta at $150/M. Financing seems harder than operating expenses.

I've noticed the bike share bikes are looking very ragged.

by charlie on Sep 7, 2011 10:25 am • link • report

@bike ped funding

Thank you, movement, for clarifying. I wish that the author was more fair in his portrayal of the GOP. It was blatantly misleading. The issue is not what funding is used for but rather the ability of some guys in Washington to mandate how our transportation system is run. The more these decisions are made locally, the more I think it would benefit bike/ped infrastructure. Neither political party is even remotely honest in this regard.

by Pat on Sep 7, 2011 10:30 am • link • report

@oboe-

Agreed- but always worth a shot. I also like writing letters where I sound like a crazy person and often play the race card about denigrating the Italians, Irish, Germans... whatever suits my mood. I love reading those responses whenever I actually get one back; especially the occasional cases where they agree with my crazy-person letters.

@charlie-

You actually need look no further than Maryland for a case where the gov is responsible for operations & per-citation payments are not permitted. Granted, there was a fiasco earlier in its run as it was defined what degree of operation & payment system necessarily fits within those lines; but compared to other jurisdictions in the country: I'm rather fond of Maryland's laws in that regard. Though that's not to say the law isn't without its criticisms or that all public jurisdictions necessarily have the public benefit in mind.

by Bossi on Sep 7, 2011 10:31 am • link • report

Nicely put, 202_cyclist.

IMHO, allowing states to opt in or out of bike/ped programs won't mean that people ideologically opposedto these programs (typically GOPers) will leave them alone in the states that wish to continue them.

The GOP has shown their commitment to "State's Rahhhts" is usually just a smokescreen that means "state governments should be able to do as they wish as long as they do something we approve of, if not, and we control the policy at the federal level, the federal policy should take precedent."

Bike/ped programs will continue to be attacked as wasteful with the rationale that money spend building a bike path in Maryland could have been spent on something useful like adding another highway lane in rural Oklahoma. We have a one size fits all policy with highways and the federal funding of those, until that changes, we should have a national policy with bike/ped programs, backlash or no.

by Barry on Sep 7, 2011 10:41 am • link • report

@Falls Church-But it IS a moral question! Why should we value someone more because they can buy a $30,000 car vs. someone who can only by a $30 bike? Don't they have just as much right to safe ways to get to their homes, schools and work places?

by thump on Sep 7, 2011 10:55 am • link • report

@Bossi, thanks, didn't know that.

@thump; the civil rights rhetoric does wonder for bike advocates, but back in the real world transportation isn't a civil right.

@Jasper; WMATA should start a program called "escalator-free diet" and offer incentives and prizes for people who walk up.

by charlie on Sep 7, 2011 10:59 am • link • report

Pat: It would be clarifying, if Cantor's speechwriter was not quite so crafty:

which must be used for items such as establishment of transportation museums, education activities for pedestrians and bicyclists, acquisition of scenic easements, historic preservation, operation of historic transportation facilities, etc.

There are twelve eligible activities, of which he listed those that seem the most frivolous, and used the word "must" to make it sound like a brutal onerous requirement.

I would believe it has more to do with increasing local control if he wanted to disband all formula grants, but he doesn't seem to want to.

by Neil Flanagan on Sep 7, 2011 11:01 am • link • report

@202_cyclist

Are those the real reasons why you are fired up on this issue or are they a smokescreen. Were you equally as fired up about issues that have a much bigger impact on obesity, air pollution, and reliance on Mideast oil? I have a feeling you weren't looking to organize demonstrations on trans fat labeling, the recent relaxation of smog standards, and CAFE standards.

Overall, if you're aim is to reduce oil or air pollution, a much better policy response is to mandate reduced oil consumption or air pollution and leave it up to gov't and private industry to figure out how best to meet those mandates. You don't need to prescribe the precise solutions and enforce those same solutions across every culture and geography.

by Falls Church on Sep 7, 2011 11:05 am • link • report

Will the mobile speed cameras be operated by MPD officers like they currently are? This is a massive waste of money. In MD the construction zone mobile speed cameras are operated by contractors who make less than police officers (not to mention the costs of training the officers, etc).

by seeaster on Sep 7, 2011 11:35 am • link • report

@oboe And if the speed limit were *one* mph, dangers would fall even more. So what? Look, I'd prefer a less car-centric world altogether, but if we're going to have cars, here's the thing: Speed limits are arbitrary numbers. And for better or worse, the numbers usually do not represent either a realistic speed or the enforced speed limit. It might be better if they were absolute, but they're not. Red-light runners are deliberately breaking the law and unquestionably creating a danger; with speeding, there is much more of a judgment call involved. To ticket somebody for doing 46 mph ON A FREEWAY, as the District might do, when no police officer in the world would enforce such a ridiculous law, is absurd.

by Mr. Carlin on Sep 7, 2011 11:35 am • link • report

re: WMATA elevator contractors

The exact line is:

147 mechanics; 49 people who work in management, inspections and support; and 12 maintenance supervisors

If Metro's like other technical organizations, the 49 are responsible for activities like quality assurance, warehouse operations, administration, and training, ones that are necessary but that you don't want mechanics performing.

The article also notes that major work is already performed by contractors, which would mean more people in QA and management roles.

by David R. on Sep 7, 2011 11:44 am • link • report

DC should just charge Maryland motorists a $1000 annual registration fee for the "privilege" of driving on DC commuter routes and just get the revenue matter out in the open and over with.

by ceefer66 on Sep 7, 2011 11:52 am • link • report

How much are DC police offcers being paid to nap in a city-owned police vehicle while they "monitor" a speed camera?

by ceefer66 on Sep 7, 2011 11:57 am • link • report

@FallsChurch - 202_cyclist is quite right in indicting the built environment and transportation policies over the last 50 years as a major contributor to the inactivity epidemipic and the accompanying diabesity epidemic, and the significant economic costs of that burden nationally to personally.

by Tina on Sep 7, 2011 12:03 pm • link • report

Bicycle and pedestrian issues ARE civil rights issues. There's no hyperbole here. Persons with disabilities rely on non-road transportation facilities for their mobility. Sidewalks that are "nice" for able-bodied are essential for those have physical challenges. Low income and minority groups, protected by Title VI, are those least likely to own private vehicles and rely on transit, and other "alternative" modes.

While conservatives are trying to protect their ideal "american dream" of two-car garages filled with gas guzzlers and no traffic and ample free parking at every destination, the rest of us are embracing transportation and mobility for everyone, including those who are least likely to participate in or achieve that ever-crumbling white-picketed-fence idea.

by MDE on Sep 7, 2011 12:10 pm • link • report

@Fall Church -P.S. transfat can significantly increase risk of cardiovascular disease. Thats why its an issue. Not b/c of its contribution to obesity. Overweight is caused, most of the time, by an imblance of energy intake to expenditure regardless of what the source of the energy is; twinkies or tofu w/o physical activity will both make you fat.

by Tina on Sep 7, 2011 12:19 pm • link • report

@Tina

It's not that I don't believe that increasing bike/ped would help control health problems at the margin. It's that I don't think that marginal benefit is worth the (admittedly small) loss of liberty from a federal mandate on how states should spend their money. I think a reasonably person would have to agree that both of our positions have validity and that neither is a cause for demonstrations in the street. When people have disproportional reactions (see: Tea Party), it weakens rather than strengthens their position in the long run.

by Falls Church on Sep 7, 2011 12:30 pm • link • report

Re: TE

There are 12 eligible programs:

1. Provision of facilities for pedestrians and bicycles.
2. Provision of safety and educational activities for pedestrians and bicyclists.
3. Acquisition of scenic easements and scenic or historic sites (including historic battlefields).
4. Scenic or historic highway programs (including the provision of tourist and welcome center facilities).
5. Landscaping and other scenic beautification.
6. Historic preservation.
7. Rehabilitation and operation of historic transportation buildings, structures, or facilities (including historic railroad facilities and canals).
8. Preservation of abandoned railway corridors (including the conversion and use of the corridors for pedestrian or bicycle trails).
9. Inventory, control, and removal of outdoor advertising.
10. Archaeological planning and research.
11. Environmental mitigation
to address water pollution due to highway runoff; or
reduce vehicle-caused wildlife mortality while maintaining habitat connectivity.
12. Establishment of transportation museums.

Now I don't love all of these. Some of them have only a tangential relationship to transportation (such as 10 and 12), but some of these are pretty good. In fact some of them should be mandated by themselves (11, for example).

The problem with getting rid of TE is that, without the program, states will choose to do less of these things. In addition, it isn't clear that they would be allow to do them without the program. Would they still be able to spend federal transportation money on billboard removal? It's unclear. And even if they legally could, they might not be politically able to.

Right now the answer to "why are you spending money on this instead of new roads?" is "we have to." But if they don't have to, but only want to, they might be under pressure to not do these things, even though DOT's might think they need to.

Why shouldn't guidance and planning for the national transportation network come from the federal government?

If states want more money for roads they can always raise taxes of cut spending elsewhere. They can also send TE money back unspent (and some do). So where is the problem?

by David C on Sep 7, 2011 12:43 pm • link • report

@Falls Church - are you refusing to accept that the built environment (which includes land use, zoning and transportation policies) is more than "marginal" in contributing to this major public health burden, this epidemic, that results in considerable economic burdens for communities as large as nationally as well as for individuals?

...not that I don't believe that increasing bike/ped would help control health problems at the margin.

Or are you saying that the reason this bike/ped funding may only have "marginal" impact on this burden is b/c its funding is such a small fraction of the overall transportation budget to begin with?

The NIH and manuscripts published in multiple widely respected peer-reviewed scienfic journals over many years conclude that the built environment is a major contributor to this epidemic, and thus, can be modified to significantly impact it. But it will take more than "none" or "marginal" funding from the transportation budget to do so.

by Tina on Sep 7, 2011 12:50 pm • link • report

@Falls Church-But it IS a moral question! Why should we value someone more because they can buy a $30,000 car vs. someone who can only by a $30 bike? Don't they have just as much right to safe ways to get to their homes, schools and work places?

Feh. You're falling into the same fallacy that caused so much mischief in the 1860s. If someone in the deep south wants to own a black man, who are you to second-guess his choices?

FREEDOM!

by oboe on Sep 7, 2011 12:56 pm • link • report

Speed limits are arbitrary numbers. And for better or worse, the numbers usually do not represent either a realistic speed or the enforced speed limit. It might be better if they were absolute, but they're not. Red-light runners are deliberately breaking the law and unquestionably creating a danger

Nonsense. The length of a green-light signal is every bit as arbitrary as a posted speed limit. Ignoring the posted speed limit is every bit as "intentional" as ignoring traffic signals. The reason red-light running is considered more egregious is that it endangers other drivers. Speeding in residential areas kills and injures people. But they're pedestrians (usually children) who should know enough to stay the heck out the drivers' way.

And no, that doesn't mean we should lower the posted speed limit on the Beltway to 40 mph. It means we should get serious about enforcement of speed laws on non-restricted roads and residential streets.

by oboe on Sep 7, 2011 1:03 pm • link • report

Speeding in residential areas kills and injures people. But they're pedestrians (usually children) who should know enough to stay the heck out the drivers' way.

...which is why parents don't let their kids walk or bike anywhere, which contributes to the childhood obesity epidemic...

by Tina on Sep 7, 2011 1:07 pm • link • report

While conservatives are trying to protect their ideal "american dream" of two-car garages filled with gas guzzlers and no traffic and ample free parking at every destination, the rest of us are embracing transportation and mobility for everyone, including those who are least likely to participate in or achieve that ever-crumbling white-picketed-fence idea.

The core value of modern "conservatives" is "Welfare for people like us." Doesn't matter if it's massive ag subsidies, the disproportionate subsidization of rural and exurban areas, or the insanely bloated defense budget.

"People who are not like us" on the other hand must be abandoned to the depredations of the naked free-market lest we risk corroding their morals.

by oboe on Sep 7, 2011 1:11 pm • link • report

"The core value of modern "conservatives" is "Welfare for people like us." Doesn't matter if it's massive ag subsidies, the disproportionate subsidization of rural and exurban areas, or the insanely bloated defense budget.

"People who are not like us" on the other hand must be abandoned to the depredations of the naked free-market lest we risk corroding their morals."

I may use this in the future, slightly modified to fit the audience. Just warning you.

by dcd on Sep 7, 2011 1:19 pm • link • report

@FallsChurch, keep on writing. Making a lot of sense here today!

@MDE..Bicycle and pedestrian issues ARE civil rights issues. There's no hyperbole here.

Sooooo...well...er, does that mean that automobile/driver issues are as well?

by HogWash on Sep 7, 2011 1:43 pm • link • report

Sooooo...well...er, does that mean that automobile/driver issues are as well?

...were you born owning a car, or with legs? Are there any special privliges and responsibilities generally associated with walking as there with driving and owning a car?

by natural born walker on Sep 7, 2011 1:51 pm • link • report

The length of a green-light signal is every bit as arbitrary as a posted speed limit. Ignoring the posted speed limit is every bit as "intentional" as ignoring traffic signals.

Neither is arbitrary, and given modern traffic design approaches, the timing of lights may be less arbitrary.

Anyway, I think what the original post was getting at was that red light running allows binary enforcement. Either the light was red or it was green/yellow. Pretty easy call, with perhaps the rare case of a short yellow possibly excusing it. And if you went through when it was green, it is presumptively safe, and red presumptively unsafe.

Speed limits can be enforced in a binary matter, but almost never have been. There is some degree of slack allowed, of varying degrees. What is more, the difference between 25mph (in a 25 zone) and 26mph is extremely minor with respect to safety, unlike red light/green light.

Thus, combined, enforcement of red light running provides a bright line rule with significant safety differences between compliance and non-compliance (even marginal non-compliance). The same is not so easily said for speeding laws.

by ah on Sep 7, 2011 2:12 pm • link • report

were you born owning a car, or with legs? Are there any special privliges and responsibilities generally associated with walking as there with driving and owning a car

By the same, were you born owning a bike or with legs? I believe it takes "legs" to operate both a car and bike does it not?

I'm not sure if I would consider the lack of bike lanes in Picayune, MS or Alabaster, AL as a "civil rights" issue.

by HogWash on Sep 7, 2011 2:15 pm • link • report

Why shouldn't guidance and planning for the national transportation network come from the federal government?

Actually, most of the planning comes from state governments already, who usually choose the projects and priorities. It is just money.

As for this list of projects, very few of them (whatever their merits) have a genuine need for centralized planning. Environmental mitigation is the closest, because of "race to the bottom" problems with externalities. Historic preservation *could* loosely qualify in a similar way, depending on the history. But most of the rest is primarily local (granted, the same is true of building roads, but that is already left to states to prioritize). For example, if one state wants to have more beautiful highways (free of billboards) than another, why should that be determined by the federal government? Perhaps the people of Wyoming, or New Hampshire, would prefer to have a new bridge over a removed billboard. What is the need for a federal mandate that money be spent on the latter?

by ah on Sep 7, 2011 2:16 pm • link • report

Speed limits can be enforced in a binary matter, but almost never have been.
---------------------------------------------------

Then the response is to do so, is it not?

And then get bicyclists off the sidewalks and into the roads where they belong. Vehicles do not belong on a sidewalk (children under 16 excluded).

by greent on Sep 7, 2011 2:20 pm • link • report

Here's why biking and walking are a civil right.

1. Owning and operating a car is expensive and exclusive. Not only can everyone not afford a car, but not everyone can get a driver's license (age, health, criminal background etc...), Still, everyone needs to get around.

2. Building a place that is ideally suited for driving everywhere has the unintended consequence of making walking and biking more difficult due to the barrier effect of roads and the way that surface parking can make things farther apart.

3. In order to meet the needs of all people, walking and biking need to be considered in transportation design.

Mobility is a civil right. And cars can not meet everyone's mobility needs. By the same token - yes, I suppose cars fit under the need for mobility. But I haven't heard of a lot of places where one can not drive or where driving is so inconvenient. Even Bertie espouses the superior convenience of driving. So just as it is wrong to discriminate against white people it is wrong to discriminate against those who can drive, but neither of those classes have historically been discriminated against.

by David C on Sep 7, 2011 2:23 pm • link • report

@ David C ; wow. You hit a new level today.

can you look up protected classes? I know you think just because you bike you are a protected class, but you're not.

Incidentally, you can discriminate against white people. And black people too. Yo u just need a really, really good reason.

by charlie on Sep 7, 2011 2:34 pm • link • report

@Hogwash -you conveniently ignored pedestrian in the statement you quoted: @MDE..Bicycle and pedestrian issues ARE civil rights issues. There's no hyperbole here.

Walking is the mobility we (and a bunch of other species) are born with. We learn to walk even before we learn to talk -thats how fundamental it is.

by Tina on Sep 7, 2011 2:36 pm • link • report

I don't David C meant to imply that Cyclists are a protected class (in the strict legal sense) but that rather why it makes sense to view mobility as a human rights issue vs. purely an economic one. Homosexuals aren't always a protected class either but discussion of gay rights issues falls under human rights.

Besides, I remember when I got my liscense when I was 16 and was repeatedly told that it was a privelege. Meanwhile the Magna Carta was written to ensure mobility.

by Canaan on Sep 7, 2011 2:43 pm • link • report

The problem with getting rid of TE is that, without the program, states will choose to do less of these things...If states want more money for roads they can always raise taxes of cut spending elsewhere. They can also send TE money back unspent (and some do). So where is the problem?

Let me try to draw an analogy with the loosening of divorce restrictions a few decades ago. Many people said that if we make it easier to get a divorce, more people will get a divorce and that will be bad for society. Saying it's bad for society and produces negative externalities is a reasonable position, so let's go with it for a moment.

I think most people would agree that regardless of whether divorce is bad for society and causes negative externalities, it's simply not worth the loss of liberty to restrict divorce to the extent we used to. People regardless of their political ideology can probably agree on that.

Similarly, just because loosening restrictions on how states spend transportation money may result in something bad for society doesn't make it necessarily the wrong thing to do because there is a tradeoff with liberty/local control.

Or are you saying that the reason THIS bike/ped funding may only have "marginal" impact on this burden is b/c its funding is such a small fraction of the overall transportation budget to begin with?

Sort of. I'm focusing on proportionality. The impact of this particular law is marginal while the loss of liberty can reasonably be considered to be proportionally larger. If this law was going to improve everything about the built environment that contributes to obesity/diabetes in one fell swoop, than the loss of liberty from this one fairly small budget item would seem small in comparison. However, the reality is that large-scale change like that in and of itself requires a much more substantial loss of local control, not to mention the loss of local control over how to spend transpo dollars.

by Falls Church on Sep 7, 2011 2:47 pm • link • report

can you look up protected classes?

I can, but since I never used that term, I don't see a reason to.

Incidentally, you can discriminate against white people.

Uh...OK? What is your point? If you're trying to say that sometimes it isn't wrong to discriminate against people because of race (without citing an example) I have to wonder what that (if true) would even have to do with the conversation. Are you just desperate to find some tiny little thing I got wrong? If so, focus on typos, misspellings and homophone replacement errors. I make those all the time.

by David C on Sep 7, 2011 2:52 pm • link • report

@DavidC, not everyone can afford to own a bike either. Maybe I'm not getting the real gist of your point.

2)You're right, there are unintended consequences of a having only an autofriendly focus. The same can also be said about having a "biking" single focus.

3)Of course, walking and biking need to be considered in transit design.

4) No, cars can not meet everyone's mobility needs. And neither can bikes or walking.

I guess it depends on our personal take on "convenience." I have a friend who (instead of hoping on the train) commutes by car from Largo to Tysons. It takes him longer by car than train..but he prefers the car.

Maybe it's "preference" over convenience for a lot of folk.

@Tina, there were two comparisons being made. Didn't think I had to focus on both in my own response.

by HogWash on Sep 7, 2011 2:55 pm • link • report

not everyone can afford to own a bike either.

That has not been my experience.

The same can also be said about having a "biking" single focus.

Such as?

And neither can bikes or walking.

Which is almost entirely due to our autocentric design.

by David C on Sep 7, 2011 2:58 pm • link • report

Not an issue of rights

We are not entitled to roads, bike lanes, sidewalks, or much else in terms of transportation or any government spending for that matter. To call it a right means that there is a moral imperative for others to be taxed to spend money on getting you around town. Please, please don't call it a "right" because that debases the value of that word. It is not on par with the right to life or the right to freedom. There is no right to federal funding for my sidewalk! You can't force somebody else to spend money on you. Whether they choose to or not or whether society sets up means for this is a different issue. That is an election of society, not a right. Stop throwing words around that are completely out of place.

by Pat on Sep 7, 2011 3:02 pm • link • report

@DavidC; oh, I don't know. Minority district under the VRA. Affirmative action in certain cases, although if you do by diversity it isn't meant to harm white people.

The larger point is civil rights is a legal term, with specific meanings, and throwing it around when it comes to mobility makes you look very stupid. Is mobility a protected class -- no. Disability, under the ADA, yes, but in certain circumstances (employment, public accommodations).

Although I'd love to see WABA complain about an influx of electric wheelchair users on the MVT....

by charlie on Sep 7, 2011 3:06 pm • link • report

@Falls Church - The large-scale change in the built environment needed to impact the diabesity epidemic can not happen "in one fell swoop". The environment we have today was not created "in one fell swoop" and it can't be changed "in one fell swoop" either. The change can only happen incrementally over years.

Thats why even a small budget item like this bike/ped program is so important. Any change in the right direction -is change in the right direction and, if the trend is continued, the incremental changes will eventually accummulate to the point where, taken together, they are substantially contributing to intervention in the epidemic.

I consider it a loss of liberty that we, as a nation, pay about $147million/year in obesity related healthcare expenditures alone, about 10% of all healthcare costs for a condition that is preventable in 95% of cases. Biologically our population ought to have no more than 5% obese. Its 1/3 and projected to be 1/2 obese by 2025 if the current trend continues unabated.

by Tina on Sep 7, 2011 3:16 pm • link • report

@Hogwash- natural born walker specifically focused on walking. Your response ignored walking.

by Tina on Sep 7, 2011 3:18 pm • link • report

"Homosexuals aren't always a protected class either but discussion of gay rights issues falls under human rights. "

Actually, outside of DC, I do not think teh gheys are protected class anywhere else.

by greent on Sep 7, 2011 3:39 pm • link • report

It is not on par with the right to life or the right to freedom.

I'd be interested to hear what your "right to freedom" entails.

To address your point, no, there may be no right to a federally funded sidewalk, but at the end of the day, one of the fundamental rights is freedom of movement. In other words, the right of citizens to move through the public spaces.

If you lay eight lanes of asphalt down over every public thoroughfare, and set the speed limit to 60 mph, you are effectively banning foot traffic from the public thoroughfares--whether you put up a "no pedestrians" sign or not.

Drivers have laid claim to all but the tiniest sliver of our public spaces thereby curtailing everyone else's freedom to move about. They fund sidewalks because otherwise pedestrians would be walking in the road. So, no, there's no right to a sidewalk, but most folks prefer them to sharing their massively subsidized car-only roads with walkers and other folks.

But, yes, if you're going to drive walkers, cyclists, etc... off the public thoroughfares, you have a moral obligation to provide some facilities for them. Such language is absolutely appropriate.

by oboe on Sep 7, 2011 3:40 pm • link • report

The larger point is civil rights is a legal term, with specific meanings, and throwing it around when it comes to mobility makes you look very stupid. Is mobility a protected class -- no.

It is a legal term. It is also a social term. Here's a definition:

1. (Law) the personal rights of the individual citizen, in most countries upheld by law, as in the US
2. (Government, Politics & Diplomacy) (modifier) of, relating to, or promoting equality in social, economic, and political rights.

So I'm using a broader term. Not looking up a word you're trying to criticize someone else for misusing makes you look stupid.

Again, I never said "protected class."

Besides, the courts have repeatedly upheld the "rights" of cyclists to use roads. So that sounds like something having to do with the law. Besides many of the groups that we need bike and pedestrian facilities (the poor and the disabled) are protected classes.

I still don't know what your obsession with discrimination against whites has to do with this.

Pat, no one is saying we have a right to roads. We have a right to use public roads. We don't have a right to airplanes, but the blind have a right that the safety material on-board be made available in Braille. In addition there is a right to mobility. For example, if you buy all the land around someone's property they have the right to cross it to access that property.

So, that's kind of a stawman.

by David C on Sep 7, 2011 3:41 pm • link • report

It is not on par with the right to life or the right to freedom.

Who says that is the standard? It may be a lessor right, but one nonetheless.

by David C on Sep 7, 2011 3:42 pm • link • report

I thought that between 25 and 35 mph there was an exponential rate of death in cases of drivers hitting pedestrians. Is that incorrect?

by m on Sep 7, 2011 4:15 pm • link • report

The speed cameras on that stretch of Connecticut Avenue are desperately needed. I've been in my car going about 35 (which is still high for such a densely populated, pedestrian-heavy area) and had drivers pass me at what appear to be speeds of 45-50 miles per hour. These drivers are also more likely to run red lights, which is why I doubt it's any coincidence that the signaled intersections at the 4700 and 4500 blocks see many accidents. A friend who used to work from home witnessed at least two fender-benders, or worse, per week.

The eastbound camera at Military Road is more a "revenue enhancer." I see the need for the westbound one, though. That merge off of 16th street is pretty scary when cars are zipping by.

And points on the Mall and downtown are crying out for red light cameras. I'm at Connecticut and K every day, and every day I count to 3 before crossing with the walk signal. I'm surprised I don't hear of more crashes at that intersection.

by TJ on Sep 7, 2011 4:18 pm • link • report

@David, it makes sense that we speak from our own personal experiences. You haven't personally have experienced those who can't afford a bike. I have...which is why I made the statement.

To sum it up, this site is known for having people w/technical experience in various areas..many times focusing on the actualities rather than perception. That said, I don't believe there is a "legal" argument bolstering the belief that biking/walking (as discussed here) is a civil rights issue.

Not having that bike lane in Picayune is not an infringement on anyone's basic civil right. I agree w/the poster about who took issue with the term "civil rights" being used to describe the lack of biking infrastructure. It's too casual a use for such an important (and sometimes political) term.

by HogWash on Sep 7, 2011 4:33 pm • link • report

Not having a bike lane on a particular street is not equal to systematically building a transportation system/road network that is inhospitable to all modes except cars. And your basing your criteria as what constitutes a right based on your experience. However, there are several real world examples (provided within these comments) that show that there is an implicit right to mobility. I (and others) think that this extends to considering all users of a roadway not just those in the car. If its significantly more dangerous for someone on a bike to use a road than someone in a car then yes I think it is perfectly alright to say that maybe the cyclists rights are in some way being impeded even if its not spelled out in the constitution.

by Canaan on Sep 7, 2011 4:45 pm • link • report

You haven't personally have experienced those who can't afford a bike.

Not here in the States no. I know homeless guys who have bikes. But sure, it's possible that there are some people who can't afford bikes (though it's very easy to find places to legally get one for free). Still that isn't because bikes are expensive which was my primary point. There are people who can't afford shoes either.

Not having that bike lane in Picayune is not an infringement on anyone's basic civil right.

Again, no one said it was. But building cities that are unwalkable and unbikeable is.

by David C on Sep 7, 2011 4:46 pm • link • report

@m -yes. This is based on memory but IIRC -- at 20mph ped has a 95% survival rate. That decreases exponentionally as mph goes up so that by 35mph ped has about 80% death rate (20% survival).

by Tina on Sep 7, 2011 4:47 pm • link • report

@ charlie:WMATA should start a program called "escalator-free diet" and offer incentives and prizes for people who walk up.

I walk up, and many do. But those 400 lbs pound 5'5" ladies on the stairs are not gonna be able to anytime soon. I would love if WMATA started such a program, but until then, I just hope none of them keels over an plunges towards me from higher up the escalator stairs.

by Jasper on Sep 7, 2011 5:06 pm • link • report

@David, well of course it's something that some here "in the states" can't afford. I'm sorta shocked that you're sorta arguing the merits of what people can afford. No, all bikes aren't expensive..and neither are cars. That's why I mentioned to you that it's based on our own experiences. I personally know people who can't "afford" both..and they're not homeless.

by HogWash on Sep 7, 2011 5:12 pm • link • report

Forgot to add, you gave reasons why biking and walking are civil rights issues. I simply disagreed.

by HogWash on Sep 7, 2011 5:15 pm • link • report

@Hogwash-I was the first today to talk about it in terms of civil rights. I didn't call it a civil right, I compared it to civil rights, though I do think mobility is a right and shouldn't be confined to those able to afford a motor vehicle. That being said, I think an economic argument is the way to go.
Incidentally, a quick search on craigslist came up with a number of bikes $40 or under. I bought my vintage cruiser for $45. Cheap bikes at Walmart start at $80. Also, as David pointed out, there are places to get bikes for free if you barter your time or another service. Our bike coop in Mt. Rainier does this.
@Tina-just a quick search, but this is what I found: http://humantransport.org/sidewalks/SpeedKills.htm

by thump on Sep 7, 2011 6:57 pm • link • report

Of course many people can't afford basic healthcare either but I think that should be considered a right as well.

by Canaan on Sep 7, 2011 7:00 pm • link • report

@Hogwash @Falls Church

The built environment is a significant modifiable risk factor for obesity. Given obesity's annual price tag of $150 billion or so in direct medical costs, I'd say targeting significant determinants would be an appropriate policy response.

Also, transportation equity is a civil rights issue. PolicyLink, Prevention Institute and the Convergence Partnership have done tremendous work in this area - I suggest looking into it. I should add that they've had support from Rep. Oberstar (former chair of house transportation and infrastructure committee).

by Sameer on Sep 7, 2011 8:44 pm • link • report

@ Speed Cameras:

Those locations are great. I see so many MD commuters using RI Ave NE as a speedway. Ditto Missouri Ave, Military Rd, etc.

by Brookland Rez on Sep 8, 2011 11:26 am • link • report

@HogWash,

@DavidC, not everyone can afford to own a bike either. Maybe I'm not getting the real gist of your point.

http://washingtondc.craigslist.org/mld/bik/2587997523.html

You must know some truly impoverished folks. Of course, given that you can buy a used bike for less than $20, the same problem arises with walking--they wouldn't be able to afford shoes.

You should Google environmental justice some time.

by oboe on Sep 8, 2011 11:38 am • link • report

There are people who can't afford shoes either.

"David C: Making Me Irrelevant Since 2003"

by oboe on Sep 8, 2011 11:40 am • link • report