Yep, putting parking meter maids on a bike is a great idea.

Not all things work better on a bike -- the bike messenger was a bad thing for almost everyone involved -- except the law firms that used them.

by charlie on Mar 1, 2012 8:32 am • link • report

@Charlie

I agree with you about the dangers of being a messenger - that's why I ultimately quit; I had one close call too many and realized I'd lost my "edge". When I quit, the dispatcher, a former courier himself, looked deeply into my eyes and said "You're doing the right thing. Not enough guys know when it's time to quit."

As a courier you know where you fall on the totem pole when it's sleeting in January and your biggest number of trips for the day is delivering lunch to the lawyers. But, there are few things sweeter than being a courier on a warm spring (or fall) afternoon. I'm just glad I lived to tell the tale...

by Former Messenger on Mar 1, 2012 9:33 am • link • report

You could reprint that mazda story in the Onion, word for word. I thought I'd seen the limits that some will stoop to sell something. I think if my kid came home and offered a test drive in exchange for school books I'm just gonna donate a check right then and there.

by Canaan on Mar 1, 2012 9:37 am • link • report

The cyclist has a broken pelvis? Wow! That sucks.

by HogWash on Mar 1, 2012 10:31 am • link • report

The Lorax car thing could be played if you have the time. If all those kids' parents show up at the local Mazda dealer, certificate in hand, take the test drive and leave, you've tied up the sales force all day/weekend and the school still gets it's books. There doesn't seem to be a requirement that you remain at the dealer for any particular length of time and you don't have to buy, so just go annoy.

by ksu499 on Mar 1, 2012 10:46 am • link • report

Higher than other transit agencies? I thought WMATA led the nation in transit crimes if I read the report correctly.

by Redline SOS on Mar 1, 2012 10:56 am • link • report

The Forbes article doesn't pass the smell test. Based on that theory, less developed places would have higher land prices than more developed places. If you think that's true, I'll trade you some land in West Virginia for your land in Dupont. Heck, I'll even trade you land in Takoma Park for land in downtown Silver Spring.

by Falls Church on Mar 1, 2012 11:08 am • link • report

@ falls church - land vs improvements. Development takes vacant (or in the urban context, underutilized) land and converts it to development. Land prices up, improvement prices down. Kind of like how building an oil refinery is good for you if you own crude oil, but not if you own a stockpile of gasoline.

That said, the article is FORBES more than GGW. 1. They overfocus on the leftwingness of TP - we at GGW are quite aware this kind behavior comes from conservative homeowners in Fairfax county just as quickly - we may have particular issues when it comes from progressives, but Forbes implication that nationally its mainly a liberal problem is false. 2. Forbes is applying this not only to urbanist redevelopment with the positive externalities we are aware of, but to sprawl with its negative externalities - see their comment on the Oregon Urban Growth Boundary - Forbes isnt interested in property rights in service to urbanism, but in property rights period, and will use what urbanists say to reinforce their case.

by AWalkerInTheCity on Mar 1, 2012 11:19 am • link • report

Digs at TP aside, the Forbes article is conceptually sound. It's not clear at all that the primary driving force behind resistance to development/higher density is increasing land values for the benefit of current residents. But the corollary--preventing what is feared to be a decrease in property values--is at least significant factor. As it then plays out, the effect of each is identical, namely a higher land value for the benefit of current residents at the expense of prospective ones than one would find in the absence of resistance.

The nominal goals of preserving neighborhood character, preserving the environment of the parcel in question (ignoring that some other parcel elsewhere may be developed to meet redirected demand) are worthy. That's how the laws that pursue these goals pass legal scrutiny. But to fail to balance the effect on affordability against these stated goals is to assume responsibility for the impact on affordability.

by Crickey7 on Mar 1, 2012 11:38 am • link • report

But the corollary--preventing what is feared to be a decrease in property values--is at least significant factor.

What are the examples of where residential development that's reasonably well planned has caused decreased property values? There are obviously many examples of the exact opposite.

by Falls Church on Mar 1, 2012 11:49 am • link • report

If only Arlington police would see the value in bikes, or maybe even a foot beat or two.

You're lucky to see them driving around with their windows down even on a nice spring day.

by ArlCoRes on Mar 1, 2012 11:54 am • link • report

I'm not speaking of objective proof, but subjective fears of a decline in values.

by Crickey7 on Mar 1, 2012 1:05 pm • link • report

It's only the 17th crash involving a CaBi bike.

Why is a crash total of 17 considered low? Not saying it's high, but nothing indicates what that number is benchmarked against.

by Cassidy on Mar 1, 2012 2:45 pm • link • report

@Cassidy:
There have been over 1,500,000 trips on bike share. With 17 accidents, that works out to be less than 0.0000113 accidents per trip.

by Matt Johnson on Mar 1, 2012 2:56 pm • link • report

Well it helps silence critics who predicted panic in the streets once CABI came online. The system broke 1M rides a while back and thats the number you're comparing it to.

by Canaan on Mar 1, 2012 2:58 pm • link • report

Yes, I remember all the commenters on various blogs saying "all those inexperienced riders will get killed or maimed left and right"!

by MrTinDC on Mar 1, 2012 4:17 pm • link • report

I agree there was a major problem with the Forbes article.

Intensified development increases local property values... increases amenities and transit options.

However, it can change the "character" of a neighborhood... I think that's what plenty of people oppose.

by Tim H on Mar 1, 2012 8:58 pm • link • report

Yeah, the Forbes article misses that the entire point of development is to take a property thats worth X and make it worth X+development cost+profit. Also, is the property being developed increases in value, that increases the value of all surrounding comparable properties.

by Falls Church on Mar 1, 2012 9:22 pm • link • report

You and I might know that development -- particularly that which adds amenities like walkable retail -- adds value to neighboring properties. Sadly, as Crickey7 points out, most neighbors fear that any development could lower their property values, and because humans are strongly loss-averse we'd rather avoid a loss than acquire a gain.

by Payton on Mar 2, 2012 12:46 pm • link • report

"residential development that's reasonably well planned has caused decreased property values"

To be fair, "reasonably well planned" sounds a bit like "no true scotsman" I'm sure someone could come up with examples of residential developments that have lowered property values - then we'd have to quibble about what is "well planned" if the criteria for being "well planned" are really objective, a priori, etc, and about realities and perceptions of how well planned future projects are.

also we need to distinguish exterality effects from supply effects. hirises in ballston that have positive externality effects should increase the value of SFHs near ballston, since their supply impact is very indirect (a 400k new 1BR condo being a poor substitute for a 700k old 4BR SFH). New hirises in Ballston SHOULD have a negative impact on prices of old condos near ballston - or what is the point? Supply is supposed to decrease price.

by AWalkerInTheCity on Mar 2, 2012 1:04 pm • link • report