Re: taxis

I can see the arguments on both sides of this issue. On the one hand, if taxis are afraid they'll go out of business if the government doesn't squash the competition, then there is obviously something fundamentally wrong with the service they are providing. Maybe we should just let business Darwinism take its course here.

On the other hand, you could argue that the service the taxis provide is essential, so although the DC taxi system is neither efficient nor convenient (try getting a cab from Union Station to downtown Silver Spring at 1 am - HA), it should be preserved in some form.

Personally I lean more towards the first argument. If you could solve the smartphone access issue (i.e., what about people who don't have or can't afford smartphones), I think services like Uber are the way to go. If competition is allowed to develop, these services will come down in price to where they are the same cost, and possibly even cheaper, than cabs are now.

by silver springer on Jul 18, 2012 8:40 am • link • report

Regulation of cabs makes sense in many ways. But it still needs to be effective regulation, which it hasn't been.

One advantage of this area is that there are lots of nearby jurisdictions dealing with the same issues. Why do we hear fewer complaints from both riders and drivers regarding cabs from Alexandria, Arlington, and MoCo? How hard would it be to more closely emulate those systems?

by Gray on Jul 18, 2012 8:47 am • link • report

Your "The Silver Line reaches the beltway in Tyson's Corner"
should read "The Silver Line reaches the Dulles Access Road west of Tyson's Corner" The spans over the Capitol Beltway were finished last year.

by Sand Box John on Jul 18, 2012 8:47 am • link • report

On the taxi piece, it would be nice if you would link to page 1 of the article.

by David on Jul 18, 2012 9:14 am • link • report

Taxi drivers are concerned they may go out of business

Hmmm. Do I or do I not hear the tiniest violin in the world playing there. Nup, I don't. It's too small.

Why we should stop talking about a bus stigma.

From the article:If we adopt this [bus]plan of yours, does that mean I’m going to leave my BMW in the driveway

No, but it will help people who can not afford a BMW, or a driveway.

We should not stop talking about the bus stigma. That way, it will persist. It is partially true after all. However, we should make it clear that buses belong to the transportation mix, just as cul-de-sacs do.

Also, I strongly favor not providing car-transportation to transit leadership. In fact, if you accept a leadership role in a transit organization, you should be required to use transit to come to all of its events [unless you live within walking distance]. And honestly, this should be a requirement for all government personnel that deals with transit as well.

by Jasper on Jul 18, 2012 9:16 am • link • report

The taxi article makes clear that there's much more than Uber that's causing problems for independent taxi drivers.

One major problem is regulations that may be well-meaning, but are imposed either corruptly or without regard for common sense.

For example, requiring the taxi driver who already has a credit card reader to pay for a second one to be installed because the city negotiated a sole-source contract that doesn't permit exceptions. How does this help taxi riders? And requiring taxis not only to pass inspections, but to be replaced in a certain number of years regardless of whether they pass inspection.

by Arl Fan on Jul 18, 2012 9:19 am • link • report

...but taxi drivers are often their own worst enemies, too. How much better would people's opinions of our current system be if: 1) they kept the interiors clean and smoke-free (no cash cost to drivers/owners, minor time cost); and 2) five out of six drivers weren't yammering loudly on cell phones the entire time passengers are in the vehicle.

by Arl Fan on Jul 18, 2012 9:21 am • link • report

silver springer wrote:

I can see the arguments on both sides of this issue. On the one hand, if taxis are afraid they'll go out of business if the government doesn't squash the competition, then there is obviously something fundamentally wrong with the service they are providing. Maybe we should just let business Darwinism take its course here.

Remove all economic regulation of taxicabs.

On the other hand, you could argue that the service the taxis provide is essential, so although the DC taxi system is neither efficient nor convenient (try getting a cab from Union Station to downtown Silver Spring at 1 am - HA), it should be preserved in some form.

Sounds (to me) like the fare (and profit to earned by a hacker for working then) for a trip from Union Station to Silver Spring at 1 A.M. is not high enough.

by C. P. Zilliacus on Jul 18, 2012 9:23 am • link • report

Bikes should not be allowed on the roadway in Rock Creek, especially during rush hours. A. There's a bike trail. B. They back up traffic to a ridiculous degree. Rock Creek is a major commuting thoroughfare, whether we acknowledge it officially or not. The reality is what it is.

Bikes have no place blocking traffic. It's dangerous to cyclists and drivers alike.

by Redline SOS on Jul 18, 2012 9:37 am • link • report

@redline - its not a bike trail, its a multiuse trail, with lots of pedestrians, esp on weekends. Its not suitable for the fastest cyclists. As we have seen in Arlington recently, bike-ped conflicts can be fatal.

I strongly suggest reading the comments on the WABA site, they address these issues in more detail.

by AWalkerInTheCity on Jul 18, 2012 9:43 am • link • report

@Redline SOS:
Cars should not be allowed on the roadway in Rock Creek, especially during rush hours. A. The bike trail is not completed through the park. B. They intimidate cyclists to a ridiculous degree. Rock Creek is a major commuting thoroughfare, whether we acknowledge it officially or not. The reality is what it is.

Cars have no place intimidating cyclists. It's dangerous to cyclists and drivers alike.

by Matt Johnson on Jul 18, 2012 9:45 am • link • report

@Redline SOS- Ten Reasons to Limit Automobile Traffic in Rock Creek Park

http://www.well.com/~kjcole/Bike/rockcreek3.html

I used to use it a lot when I lived out in Gaithersburg, but I always felt bad doing it...and I was a very frequent speeder myself.

by thump on Jul 18, 2012 10:10 am • link • report

@Arl Fan

Completely agree on your taxi points. I've been wondering for the better part of a year now how the city can negotiate things like binding contracts on behalf of private companies (ie, owner-operator taxis) -- that seems to go far beyond regulation (such as, have a credit card reader).

And I guess it's moot now, but I've also been wondering why more cab drivers don't use Square readers to take credit cards. The transaction costs are much lower than traditional readers and are used widely by other small businesses in the area.

But mostly, I really don't like the current taxi debate being framed as Uber v. the hard-working taxi driver. If anything it should be Uber v. the incompetence of the Taxi Commission.

by Elle on Jul 18, 2012 10:17 am • link • report

@thump

A non-car owner here, but I do occasionally take cabs or rent/borrow a car when necessary. I think we all speed on Rock Creek. That link says 98% of people speed; if that is the case then it's a sign the speed limits are too low, not that 98% of people are wrong, so you shouldn't feel bad.

Regardless of what it was designed to be, Rock Creek has become a highway. Going to the same place via surface streets can triple or quadruple the travel time. Accepting that reality and planning around it, by spending money on safety improvements and enhancing the trail alongside it is (IMO) the best way to handle it.

by JW on Jul 18, 2012 10:30 am • link • report

@ Arl Fan:And requiring taxis not only to pass inspections, but to be replaced in a certain number of years regardless of whether they pass inspection.

That's how NYC got itself hybrid cabs in 5 years. There's a requirement that cabs are no older than5 years. All Bloomberg needed to do a require cabs to be hybrids, and in 5 years, the city got a lot cleaner.

There are very good reasons to put an age limit on cabs. It keeps the rolling stock fresh. It actually also puts an incentive on cabbies to keep their car in decent shape, because they will get a better resale value. If they ride until it dies, they do not have that incentive.

@ Matt: +1

by Jasper on Jul 18, 2012 10:30 am • link • report

The NYT bikesharing link is broken for me...

by andrew on Jul 18, 2012 10:32 am • link • report

@Jasper

Actually, starting next year, the new standardized NYC Taxis will not be hybrids, and the current hybrids will actually be prohibited for new purchases.

Huge screw up by the Bloomberg administration if you ask me.

by andrew on Jul 18, 2012 10:38 am • link • report

That taxi article has in it the explanation for all our taxi problems: we have far too many taxis, because we have too many taxis than we need, the only way running a can can be economically viable is with the imposition of an expensive fare system and BS surcharges. Once we finally started to get rid of those, the underlying disconnect between supply and demand has turned against the cabbies.

The reality is that it would be better for all the customers to have few overall taxis run by fewer but larger companies (thus introducing more standardization and the benefits of scale). But that's not what's in the best interest of those that want the cab system to continue as a state-subsidized small business program.

Ultimately, I believe the former interests will prevail over the later, but it will take time and will result in a lot of conflict.

by TM on Jul 18, 2012 10:45 am • link • report

Taxi drivers are concerned they may go out of business

Doesn't DC have more taxis per capita than most other major cities? In a changing environment, not all taxi businesses are going to be viable.

I'm not going to go to bat for some of the city council's stupid taxi regulations (single suppliers for meters and credit card readers? Ridiculous.), but this is like personal chefs complaining that they might go out of business because of the proliferation of restaurants.

by JustMe on Jul 18, 2012 10:53 am • link • report

The taxi system is so broken now that hitting bottom (if that's far) may be the best thing. Not only is there the normal regulatory capture of DC agencies, but there's also the vertical monopoly that Mamo has over cabs and gas.

Ideally we could get to a London-type system of both highly regulated cabs cruising the streets and fairly unregulated private cars on call which are often cheaper and better.

As it is, Uber and car2go are the main alternatives. I think car2go is still under the taxi industry's radar, but I'm sure DC will go after tough regulation (read harassment) of Uber. Car2go is supposed to be adding 100 new cars and more parking locations soon and as DC makes $3K/yr. per car off their parking rights they may be the primary competition. I know I use them now over taxi service 50% of the time.

But anyone thinking DC cabs are shrinking in number only has to head to DCA and see the huge garage full of waiting cabs there.

by Tom Coumaris on Jul 18, 2012 10:53 am • link • report

While it would be politically impossible, I'd favor tolling the Rock Creek Pkwy during rush times, using the money to build a bike only trail through the park, and ban bikes from the road during rush times. While people will howl in protest about the toll, the money is worth the time savings of using the RCP vs. local streets or even using the RCP w/o bikes vs. the RCP with bikes causing backups (if you don't agree with that, imagine in a few years when there will likely be double or trips the bike volume on the RCP road).

by Falls Church on Jul 18, 2012 11:22 am • link • report

@JW-I don't agree that the speed limit should be raised. I think it should be harder to use RCP as a commuter route and like @Falls Church's idea. We could use to money to build a cycling superhighway, like they're doing in Denmark. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/18/world/europe/in-denmark-pedaling-to-work-on-a-superhighway.html?_r=1&smid=tw-share

by thump on Jul 18, 2012 11:32 am • link • report

It actually also puts an incentive on cabbies to keep their car in decent shape, because they will get a better resale value. If they ride until it dies, they do not have that incentive.

@Jasper: True. However, because the taxicab resale market is largely an international one, this regulation strongly favors fleet operators of taxicabs who have enough regularity in taxicab retirement to build shipping and resale relationships (and can arrange better financing or can self-finance the new taxi purchase while awaiting the proceeds of the resale).

by Arl Fan on Jul 18, 2012 11:35 am • link • report

Car2go is supposed to be adding ... more parking locations soon

@Tom: Interesting - will this be off-street? Or the NPS areas? Haven't ever had trouble finding a parking spot for Car2Go yet -- much more difficult to find a car when I need one.

I agree Car2Go is as-yet unrecognized taxi competition. CaBi, too.

by Arl Fan on Jul 18, 2012 11:40 am • link • report

Multi use implies bikes. Roadways are for cars. Bikes block the flow of traffic. On the weekends...reserve it for recreational cycling. During the week...use bike lanes or city streets. One person should not hold up 50. the sense of entitlement by some bicyclists is beyond ridiculous.

by Redline SOS on Jul 18, 2012 11:43 am • link • report

Nice link, Thump! That's an awesome list.

In my major triathlon training days I used the entirety of the Rock Creek and Potomac Parkways as part of my training route. It was nice when I could get a partner to ride with me down from the Beach Drive portion to Hanes Point. When I was on my own, I could generally hold ~25mph but drivers would BLOW past me... more enforcement would make it safer for everyone!

Okay, I'm sick of complaining about the captchas on GGW. Can GGW PLEASE use something usable? How about this:
http://vimeo.com/user4748906/solve-media-capthca-type-ins
I would even re-type an advertisement into the 'prove you're not a robot' field if it meant not having to ask myself does that say 'ditcovered.' or 'difcoverd.' or does it mean to use the word 'discovered.'? ARRRGG. Please please please. It's gotten so bad that I don't even want to READ GGW anymore. PLEASE FIX. now... really.... what does that say down there?

by David F-H on Jul 18, 2012 11:43 am • link • report

@thump: I agree with both aspects of Falls Church's proposal, it would be a good idea and it's politically impossible.

As for the speed limit, I generally think people drive too fast on RCP, but I don't think unenforced and unnaturally-low speed limits help anyone. I would prefer raising the speed limit to 45 mph, and putting in speed cameras to rigorously enforce those limits. Maybe the money from the cameras could go towards bike/ped improvements.

by JW on Jul 18, 2012 11:46 am • link • report

@ andrew:Huge screw up by the Bloomberg administration if you ask me.

Which way? Go to or from hybrids.

Personally, I think the focus on hybrids is silly. The focus should be on fuel efficiency. It bothers me that people can get a "clean fuel" car tag for a hybrid that has a lower fuel efficiency than my old Civic.

Governments should mandate that cabs are very fuel efficient. If big cities could coordinate their mandates, that would provide an opportunity for the car industry to create special cab models that are spacious but fuel efficient. Perhaps electrical vehicles with changeable batteries are a good solution for cabs. Don't know. Just let the market decide.

by Jasper on Jul 18, 2012 11:47 am • link • report

"Multi use implies bikes."

Bikes which move at a speed compatible with pedestrians. IE some, but not all.

"Roadways are for cars" Designated highways are for cars AND trucks. Roads with 35 MPH limits are for cars and those cyclist for whom they are most suitable.

by AWalkerIntheCity on Jul 18, 2012 11:51 am • link • report

At David F-H:I'm sick of complaining about the captchas on GGW,

Check the box next to: Save my name and email address on this computer so I don't have to enter it next time

by Jasper on Jul 18, 2012 12:07 pm • link • report

Governments should mandate that cabs are very fuel efficient.

Now I see the point, that such regs go too far.

Fuel economy is only one consideration of many. Let the cab companies and operators figure out which cab they buy, based on operating costs as a whole, comfort, practicability, and appeal to customers. Some people will want to hail a hybrid; some would rather ride a Crown Vic. There is a trade-off between economy and performance, and since government does not operate the cabs, it has no idea what the fuel economy should be to provide the best service to customers.

by goldfish on Jul 18, 2012 12:10 pm • link • report

@JW-Roads are for vehicles, which include bicycles. My guess is that many that use RCP during the week are doing it for the same reason you are, it takes less time than using city streets. It also has the added benefit of being safer since there are fewer intersections, and it's also fairly flat. My guess is that most of those cyclists using the road are also fairly experienced and probably move at a pretty good clip. I also disagree that it's politically impossible. More and more people are using two wheels to get around and enjoying it, and those people will want safe, accessible routes for work and commerce. Also, if we, as a country, were to start taking a hard look at the number of fatalities and injuries caused every day by motor vehicle travel or were confronted with another energy shortage, there might finally be serious political will for alternative transportation needs. I'm not saying it would be easy, I just don't think it's impossible.

by thump on Jul 18, 2012 12:24 pm • link • report

@thump: In regards to your broader point about the need for non-car transportation I don't disagree at all, as I said I don't own a car. Nor do I have an issue with bicycles being on city streets.

However, as you said, Rock Creek is a fairly flat road with relatively few intersections. In practice, that makes it a highway. That's how drivers view it and use it. Bicycles shouldn't be on highways, especially not when there is a trail alongside, and especially not during rush hour. Now, I'm not thrilled with this law, just because I really hate it when Congress legislates local law in this city; but substantively, I can't say I disagree with the idea that RCP is not a road that bicycles should be on.

by JW on Jul 18, 2012 12:37 pm • link • report

@ Arl Fan:the taxicab resale market is largely an international one,

Really? What sad country gets stuck with abandoned DC gas guzzling cabs?

by Jasper on Jul 18, 2012 1:17 pm • link • report

@Jasper; the market decides that old ford v8 are the best solution. Why? Extremely cheap maintenance, parts and upkeep.

Gas mileage is terrible, but then again it isn't born by the public, it is borne by the driver. And you can do a lot with thosse v8 based on driving style. A large part of the hatred people have for DC cabs is their tendancy to glide everywhere to save gas.

by charlie on Jul 18, 2012 1:25 pm • link • report

@charlie:

A large part of the hatred people have for DC cabs is their tendancy to glide everywhere to save gas.

Really? You think that rivals other sources of hatred, like that most drivers talk on cell phones, argue with riders, and fail to keep their cars clean or well maintained?

by Gray on Jul 18, 2012 1:29 pm • link • report

I always hear this argument over we have so many more cabs per capita than NYC or other locations but why do I always struggle to get a cab even in spots like dupont or columbia heights. Yet every time I'm in NYC or other cities I never struggle to get one right away? Let alone one that asks me where I'm going.

by jj on Jul 18, 2012 1:33 pm • link • report

Bikes should not be allowed on the roadway in Rock Creek, especially during rush hours. A. There's a bike trail.

As noted, it isn't a bike trail. And it is a bad bike trail. There is no way you can go 20mph on that trail on a bike, as you can in the road.

B. They back up traffic to a ridiculous degree.

Not true and irrelevant.

Rock Creek is a major commuting thoroughfare.

And some of those people commute by bike.

Bikes have no place blocking traffic.

They aren't blocking traffic, they are traffic.

It's dangerous to cyclists and drivers alike.

How so?

by David C on Jul 18, 2012 1:46 pm • link • report

That link says 98% of people speed; if that is the case then it's a sign the speed limits are too low, not that 98% of people are wrong

It's good to hear you agree that breaking the law isn't necessarily wrong. It's the same thing I say when people complain about cyclists running stop signs and stop lights.

Regardless of what it was designed to be, Rock Creek has become a highway.

No, highways have much higher speed limits and no stop signs.

by David C on Jul 18, 2012 1:50 pm • link • report

build a bike only trail through the park, and ban bikes from the road during rush times.

I don't support banning bikes on a parkway, but it doesn't matter because NPS will never let you pave more of the park for a separate bikeway.

by David C on Jul 18, 2012 1:53 pm • link • report

@Jasper: The operation I'm familiar with is in West Africa -- but it's basically an industrial chop shop, so there's not a fleet of ex-American taxis on the road there.

Some of the parts likely end up back in DC taxicabs!

by Arl Fan on Jul 18, 2012 1:54 pm • link • report

Multi use implies bikes.

It doesn't just imply it, it includes it. But bike path implies that it is ONLY for bikes. That was your mistake.

Roadways are for cars.

Actually, they aren't. That is a fact of both law and culture.

Bikes block the flow of traffic.

Bikes are traffic.

During the week...use bike lanes or city streets.

How can bikes use city streets if roadways are for cars. You're contradicting yourself.

One person should not hold up 50. the sense of entitlement by some bicyclists is beyond ridiculous.

The problem is that you believe that cyclists cause traffic congestion. Multiple studies show that they don't. What causes traffic congestion is cars. Cyclists spend much of their commutes on trails, in bike lanes, on back roads and moving in between the pulses between traffic. They don't circle the block looking for parking and they don't take a parking space away from you. Every cyclist you see on the road who slows you down, represents 5-10 drivers who aren't at the road in front of you. Drivers who aren't lined up at the stop sign slowing you and 49 other people down as they wait for a chance to turn. Drivers who aren't stopped at an intersection waiting to make a left turn holding you and 49 others up. Drivers who aren't breaking down in the road (cyclists can lift their car out of the road) and slowing you and 3000 others down. Imagine how easy it would be to get to work if everybody rode their bike to work but you. If avoiding congestion is your goal, you should be thanking every cyclist you see.

by David C on Jul 18, 2012 2:02 pm • link • report

Yet every time I'm in NYC or other cities I never struggle to get one right away?

I'd guess that while you are in NYC, you stay in the more touristy or populated parts in Manhattan or Brooklyn, where there are lots of cabs. In the middle-of-nowhere or down-and-out parts in the Bronx or Staten Island, cabs are tough to get (excepting for gypsy cabs).

BTW, those gypsy cabs in NYC are unlicensed and off the medallion system, and therefore, completely undermine the point that NYC has plenty of cabs.

by goldfish on Jul 18, 2012 2:04 pm • link • report

There's something really wrong with the cabs per capita comparison of DC and NYC. The NYC population counts all 5 boroughs, but the cabs are concentrated in Manhattan. Sure, its easy to hail a cab almost anywhere in Manhattan, but what about the far reaches of the Bronx or Staten Island?

by thm on Jul 18, 2012 2:07 pm • link • report

However, as you said, Rock Creek is a fairly flat road with relatively few intersections. In practice, that makes it a highway. That's how drivers view it and use it. Bicycles shouldn't be on highways

Or we should make changes to stop drivers from using it in a way for which is was not intended. It's not intended to be a highway. It should not be a highway. So, we should enforce the speed limit like crazy if you feel that the status quo is unsafe. It's not unsafe though.

by David C on Jul 18, 2012 2:08 pm • link • report

I'm not sure what all this discussion of RCP is about-- there are sidewalks and paths that run alongside it-- isn't this supposed to be where the bicycles go?

If you want to dismantle RCP because you don't think it belongs there, make that argument for it, but it is an urban parkway in the same model of the crosstown crossings that connect the east side and west side of manhattan that run through Central Park.

by JustMe on Jul 18, 2012 2:32 pm • link • report

there are sidewalks and paths that run alongside it-- isn't this supposed to be where the bicycles go?

No, see points above.

by thump on Jul 18, 2012 2:38 pm • link • report

@David C: It's good to hear you agree that breaking the law isn't necessarily wrong. It's the same thing I say when people complain about cyclists running stop signs and stop lights.

My point was that if virtually everyone using a road violates a particular regulation, it's a sign the regulation should be changed. There are certainly particular roads and intersections where the regulations or structure should be altered for bikes, but that isn't the same as giving bikes free reign to disobey traffic laws everywhere.

Or we should make changes to stop drivers from using it in a way for which is was not intended. It's not intended to be a highway. It should not be a highway.

That is an option, and if you want people to actually go 25 mph on Rock Creek then you should make changes (more stops, speed bumps, more enforcement, etc). But the status quo is that people treat it as a bypass highway, and I think most users want to keep it that way.

by JW on Jul 18, 2012 2:39 pm • link • report

"I'm not sure what all this discussion of RCP is about-- there are sidewalks and paths that run alongside it-- isn't this supposed to be where the bicycles go? "

Not necessarily. That is what we are discussing.

"If you want to dismantle RCP because you don't think it belongs there, make that argument for it, but it is an urban parkway"

No one is suggesting RCP be dismantled - certainly no on the WABA site is, and I do not think David is. It is, as you say, an urban parkway. I think its generally agree that cyclcists have the right to ride in arterial roadways. They do not in grade seperated, limited access, 55MPH highways. Parkways occupy an intermediate situation, with mixed charecteristics. They are like that because, unlike either highways, OR (mostly) arterials, they were NOT built to expedite motor traffic, but to provide a way to enjoy nature. While we all accept that they are now used by commuters, there is legitimate disagreement about the rights of cyclists. Some of the points made against cyclists using them, which have been made in this thread, would seem to lead in the direction of banning cyclists from ALL roads, which would be quite a problem from both a safety and transportation POV. There ARE specific issues with parkways of this type, some of which are worth hashing out.

by AWalkerInTheCity on Jul 18, 2012 2:44 pm • link • report

But the status quo is that people treat it as a bypass highway, and I think most users want to keep it that way.

But the status quo is also that it is successfully shared by drivers and cyclists. And I think most cyclists want to keep it that way.

by David C on Jul 18, 2012 2:45 pm • link • report

"@David C: It's good to hear you agree that breaking the law isn't necessarily wrong. It's the same thing I say when people complain about cyclists running stop signs and stop lights.
My point was that if virtually everyone using a road violates a particular regulation, it's a sign the regulation should be changed. There are certainly particular roads and intersections where the regulations or structure should be altered for bikes, but that isn't the same as giving bikes free reign to disobey traffic laws everywhere."

I'm guessing David was not talking about giving bikes free reign, but more specifically issues like legalizing "Idaho stops"

by AWalkerInTheCity on Jul 18, 2012 2:48 pm • link • report

But the status quo is also that it is successfully shared by drivers and cyclists. And I think most cyclists want to keep it that way.

You likely have greater personal knowledge than I do here, so I won't argue it beyond making one point: if the linked article is true, and the new law was inserted by Congressional staffers who drive the parkway and hate dealing with cyclists on it, that is evidence that the status quo is not "successfully shared."

by JW on Jul 18, 2012 2:50 pm • link • report

Personally, I am definitely in favor of cabbies making a living wage. I hear all these complaints, but have taken cabs probably a thousand times over multiple cities I have only had a problem a couple of times.

Why should cabbies not be able to earn a living wage?

by H Street Landlord on Jul 18, 2012 2:54 pm • link • report

As a driver (of a compact sedan), I hate sharing the road with SUV's. I'm not sure that is evidence that sedans and SUV's do not successfully share roads.

by AWalkerInTheCity on Jul 18, 2012 2:54 pm • link • report

"if the linked article is true, and the new law was inserted by Congressional staffers"

and to quibble - the linked article does not say that that is the case. It says there are rumors that that is the case. the rumors could be false, and the article would still be true (it would be true that there are rumors, though false ones)

by AWalkerInTheCity on Jul 18, 2012 2:57 pm • link • report

As a driver (of a compact sedan), I hate sharing the road with SUV's. I'm not sure that is evidence that sedans and SUV's do not successfully share roads.

Good point.

by JW on Jul 18, 2012 3:02 pm • link • report

and to quibble - the linked article does not say that that is the case. It says there are rumors that that is the case. the rumors could be false, and the article would still be true (it would be true that there are rumors, though false ones)

Yes I know, I was a bit lazy when typing that.

by JW on Jul 18, 2012 3:03 pm • link • report

@H Street Landlord:

Personally, I am definitely in favor of cabbies making a living wage. . . . Why should cabbies not be able to earn a living wage?

Do you think that they are currently unable to do so? If you do, then how do you suggest that we change that?

by Gray on Jul 18, 2012 3:10 pm • link • report

No, see points above.

Your points are almost entirely inappropriate for RCP. Just formalize the arrangement of the side paths as bike lanes, or create separate bike lanes. I used to bike down TCP from Calvert Street down to Georgetown, and I never rode on the RCP road itself, and there's no reason to.

by JustMe on Jul 18, 2012 3:11 pm • link • report

there are sidewalks and paths that run alongside it-- isn't this supposed to be where the bicycles go?

As long as bicycles are going at or near the speed of pedestrians, then the trail is where they go. But if you want to ride faster than 8-10 mph then you need to be on the roadway. So, despite your later claim, there is a reason to ride in the road - namely that you want to go at a speed that would be inappropriate and unsafe on the trail. That's it in a nutshell.

And despite the dreaming, you'll never be able to make a trail for which this isn't true. There will always be cyclists who are capable of going faster that the trail's safe top speed and they will want to do that. So, for them, the road will be the correct choice.

If NPS wants to put bike lanes on the road that would be great. But they don't, and almost surely won't.

Saying we should "just formalize the arrangement of the side paths as bike lanes, or create separate bike lanes" is like saying we should "just change our entire energy system to renewable energy." It is far easier said than done.

by David C on Jul 18, 2012 3:19 pm • link • report

Saying we should "just formalize the arrangement of the side paths as bike lanes, or create separate bike lanes" is like saying we should "just change our entire energy system to renewable energy." It is far easier said than done.

Maybe. But it's much easier for bicycles to stick to the trails (which, by and large, they do). Seriously, in all my years (granted, I don't drive on RCP during rush hour, ever), I don't think I've ever noted a bicyclist sharing the lane with me. Because most bicyclists have no interest in or need to ride on RCP directly: they use the trails.

by JustMe on Jul 18, 2012 4:19 pm • link • report

@ Gray - all I have is the drivers' accounts of their pay, which, of course, may be biased.

I think it is bad form for folks (mainly elsewhere, but sometimes here) to say cabbies should make minimum wage or whatever. By all accounts it is a tough business and I don't envy the damage their bodies must sustain doing all that damage.

With the DC area being one of the wealthiest regions in the world, everyone should share in the success. I agree that the DC Taxi commission are counterproductive though, they always look like a*holes.

by H Street Landlord on Jul 18, 2012 4:29 pm • link • report

*doing all that driving.

by H Street Landlord on Jul 18, 2012 4:29 pm • link • report

There will always be cyclists who are capable of going faster that the trail's safe top speed and they will want to do that. So, for them, the road will be the correct choice.

Why is it necessary that we must accommodate those cyclists who want to cycle faster than is safely possible on the bike path? I'm not saying that we necessarily shouldn't, rather we should optimize tradeoffs so transpo moves the greatest number of people in a safe manner.

Also, I don't understand your argument that bikes don't cause congestion on the RCP. If a bike is doing 15 mph on a free flowing road with a 35 mph speed limit and 50 cars are stacked up behind it, how is it not causing congestion?

I'm pro bike but I don't buy the argument that if bikes cause traffic congestion its "irrelevant".

by Falls Church on Jul 18, 2012 4:40 pm • link • report

@ Arl Fan:the taxicab resale market is largely an international one,

Not necessarily in the case of NYC cabs. NYC cabs are so regulated, with frequent inspections and maximum service life rules, that many end up in less regulated cities. There are always a lot of ex-NYC cabs lined up at the Metropark train station in NJ serving places like Edison and New Brunswick. You can still see where the NYC medallions have been removed.

There are currently at least 3 ex-NYC cabs, still with all the graphics, sitting a storage lot on NJ Ave SE, just south of the train tracks. Those cabs are no doubt destined to be "rehabbed" at a garage in Buzzard Point and then introduced into the DC fleet.

It is a sad indictment of DC's cab system that cabs that can't cut it in NY end up here.

For all the whining about DC cab drivers not able to earn a decent living, if every single one quit tomorrow, the city would replenish their ranks in a matter of weeks, if that long. So there is obviously demand for the job at that rate of pay, which is all that matters.

by dcdriver on Jul 18, 2012 5:20 pm • link • report

It is a sad indictment of DC's cab system that cabs that can't cut it in NY end up here.

You know, I see lots of complaints about the quality of the cabs in DC, and I have to ask: why does anyone care? As long as the car runs and the seatbelt buckles, why do you care how nice the cab is? Or what color they are? Honestly, these moves to increase the "quality" of the ride just seem like they are going to make rides more expensive.

by JW on Jul 18, 2012 5:39 pm • link • report

Seriously, in all my years (granted, I don't drive on RCP during rush hour, ever), I don't think I've ever noted a bicyclist sharing the lane with me.

So based on your experience, which is based 0% on times when transportational cyclists are most likely to be on the road, there are very few transportational cyclists on the road.

And I rarely see children in the park at 2am, so there must not be any children in the park ever.

Because most bicyclists have no interest in or need to ride on RCP directly: they use the trails.

Well, based on the number of people who complain about cyclists in the road, that can't be true. And I know several who ride in the road as well. I can assure you it is a major route for bike commuters.

by David C on Jul 18, 2012 6:04 pm • link • report

Why is it necessary that we must accommodate those cyclists who want to cycle faster than is safely possible on the bike path?

It's not necessary. It's not necessary to accomodate anyone. We could shut the whole thing down to bikes, peds and drivers.

But it's good policy. In part, for reasons of Transportation equity and also because DC and the federal government both have encouraging bike commuting as a stated goal. And forcing them off the road will push some of them onto 16th street which is only moving the problem elsewhere.

we should optimize tradeoffs so transpo moves the greatest number of people in a safe manner.

I disagree that speed and safety should be the only goals. I think environmental, health and equity are also goals. That may mean that people will get places less efficiently on average. Of course it won't, for all the reasons I mentioned above about how cyclists reduce congestion.

I don't understand your argument that bikes don't cause congestion on the RCP. If a bike is doing 15 mph on a free flowing road with a 35 mph speed limit and 50 cars are stacked up behind it, how is it not causing congestion?

Well, I doubt that ever happens for starters. And since many drivers have to stop at stop signs and stop lights anyway, the delay caused by a cyclist going 18 mph is trivial and often =0. Most cyclists can navigate the RCP from Maryland to Mass Ave faster or as fast as a car can.

But using your example, that is a case of a bicyclist causing congestion in one spot, which is different than bikes causing congestion. On average, the gains from having people choose bikes (and thus ride places where people don't drive, not take up parking etc...) exceeds the few times that drivers are actually slowed down. It's just nobody notices the car that isn't in line in front of them, or the cyclist that is on a different road. They do notice the cyclist who actually is in front of them. So it creates the illusion that cyclists are only in the way.

I'm pro bike but I don't buy the argument that if bikes cause traffic congestion its "irrelevant".

It's irrelevant because we don't ban bicycles for slowing down cars. If we did, than we'd just ban bicycles. But we'd also ban other cars, because sometimes other cars slow down cars. And we'd ban pedestrians because sometimes pedestrians slow down cars. But we don't do that, so that bikes slow down cars is irrelevant.

It's like saying we should ban bicyclists because they have body hair. We don't ban people from using the road because they have body hair, so having body hair is irrelevant.

by David C on Jul 18, 2012 6:20 pm • link • report

@Arl Fan- I understand car2go is going to get parking privileges at a number of private lots. At least Giant, HD, etc.

by Tom Coumaris on Jul 18, 2012 9:23 pm • link • report

I disagree that speed and safety should be the only goals. I think environmental, health and equity are also goals

I really don't think at the social needs of bicyclists, who have a desperate need to feel "included" on the street of RCP is at all relevant or anything wor caring about for a single second. Equity is a 100% irrelevant concern to the priority of keeping traffic moving on RCP. Whining "it is for me too! I want it!" is childish. Better to have a separate bike trail alongside RCP or not use it at all if you're a bicyclist.

If it is in feasible politically to have a separate trail for bicyclists, then you will have to abide by the rule of "tough noogies." Bicyclists don't get to use a parkway wi a 35mph posted limit when their so-called "vehicles" are incapable of going more than 15mph at most. Use the trail like I do when bicycling,

by Tyro on Jul 18, 2012 11:42 pm • link • report

Whining "it is for me too! I want it!" is childish

Whining "it is for me only! I want it!" is even more so.

Bicyclists don't get to use a parkway wi a 35mph posted limit when their so-called "vehicles" are incapable of going more than 15mph at most.

Actually, we do get to - that's the law. So, if anyone has to live by the rule of "tough noogies" it's those who want otherwise.

by David C on Jul 19, 2012 3:04 am • link • report

Most cyclists can navigate the RCP from Maryland to Mass Ave faster or as fast as a car can.

Undoubtedly, there are some bikers who can maintain speeds of 25mph on RCP. But it's an exaggeration to say that most can.

by Falls Church on Jul 19, 2012 7:12 am • link • report

It's irrelevant because we don't ban bicycles for slowing down cars. If we did, than we'd just ban bicycles. But we'd also ban other cars, because sometimes other cars slow down cars

First off we do ban bikes and peds from some roads like highways. Second, it's bad policy to say we should never ban bikes from a road regardless of the availability of other options and the impact on traffic. There should be some point where the needs of the few (regardless of how environmentally and socially correct they are) are outweighed by the needs of the many. I'm not saying we're at that point on RCP necessarily but to say that the impact on traffic congestion is irrelevant is bad policy.

Also, we do limit cars on the road when it makes sense to reduce traffic congestion. It's called metering cars on a highway. Also, it may make sense to ban cars from some roads to create pedestrian plazas where they would impede ped traffic too greatly. it's a case of the needs of the many peds oitweighing the needs of the few cars.

by Falls Church on Jul 19, 2012 7:24 am • link • report

"Bicyclists don't get to use a parkway wi a 35mph posted limit when their so-called "vehicles" are incapable of going more than 15mph at most. Use the trail like I do when bicycling,"

would you ban bikes from suburban arterials with 35 MPH posted speed limits? From side streets with 25 MPH posted speed limit? that would make biking anywhere other than a trail or sidewalk virtually impossible - it would kill transportation cycling, and most adult casual recreational cycling.

by AWalkerInTheCity on Jul 19, 2012 9:02 am • link • report

"Undoubtedly, there are some bikers who can maintain speeds of 25mph on RCP. But it's an exaggeration to say that most can."

Its also irrelevant, since most if not all of those who cannot use the multiuse path. Thats why providing side paths appropriate for cyclists (as many sidewalks are not) in terms of width and paving, and ALSO allowing bikes in roads is, in general, a good idea - it accommodates cyclists of different abilities.

There are certainly places where NO cyclists can be safely, reasonably accommodated. Grade seperated interstate highways, with posted limits of 55 MPH or higher, whose design is specifically such as to allow drivers to NOT focus on anything other than traffic ahead of them , by the absence of conventional intersections, stop signs, traffic lights, etc, are, I think, such places. But when we start to extend that ban to roads that do not share those charectferistics, it seems wise to be very careful about the specifics, to avoid missing details, acting out of ignorance, and especially to avoid a slippery slope to banning bikes from almost all roads (which some people are eager to do). The specifics of THIS road are that 1. It was not designed for commuters when built 2. It does not have the operating charecteristics of a completely limited access highway. 3. The current average speed is well above posted 4 The cyclists who use it are a self selected minority of faster cyclists 5. Most of those would likely go to side streets instead, not to the multi use path (from what I am told) 6. The multi use path is heavily used by pedestrians (something that is not the case for such paths throughout the metro area) 7. This is NPS property, and building a new bike only path is not politically feasible.

And david C makes a good and interesting point - even ignoring cyclist benefits, ignoring health and enviro concerns, and looking ONLY at impacts on motor vehicle congestion, looking only at the impacts of cyclists on one road, holding the amount of cycling constant, probably overstates the negative impact on congestion, because it neglects the impact of fewer vehicles.

I mean having buses, which have to slow down for frequent stops, often have difficulties with tight turns, etc on our roads also adds to congestion - IF you ignore the people taking them who would have used autos in their absence/

by AWalkerInTheCity on Jul 19, 2012 9:16 am • link • report

Hey folks, the maximum speed limit on RCP is 35mph. This is not the minimum speed limit, it's a limit not to exceed. It is legal to drive slower than the maximum speed limit, in fact it's impossible to drive the exact maximum posted speed all the time, so for much of the time a legal driver would be driving slower than the maximum posted speed, and that's okay. If you find yourself regularly exceeding the maximum posted speed, I would suggest better planning and leaving a few minutes earlier rather than selfishly breaking the law and endangering others while gambling on the odds of getting caught by the authorities. Remember, driving on public property is a privilege; please do so responsibly and legally.

by Erik on Jul 19, 2012 12:09 pm • link • report

First off we do ban bikes and peds from some roads like highways.

Not for slowing down cars we don't. We ban them for safety reasons.

it's bad policy to say we should never ban bikes from a road regardless of the availability of other options and the impact on traffic.

I disagree.

we do limit cars on the road when it makes sense to reduce traffic congestion. It's called metering cars on a highway.

limit does not equal ban. In that case we aren't discriminating against one group or another.

by David C on Jul 19, 2012 12:28 pm • link • report

That link says 98% of people speed; if that is the case then it's a sign the speed limits are too low, not that 98% of people are wrong, so you shouldn't feel bad.

This is one of my pet peeves (okay, maybe I have a lot of them). The entire point of the conversation is whether different modes should be required to share scarce resources. The rampant disregard for speed limits is one of the reasons you don't see many cyclists on the RCP. So to turn around and say "Well, there aren't many cyclists anyway, and the 'natural' speed limit is 60. So have at it!"

I guarantee that if the speed limit were actually enforced on RCP, there would be a much higher number of cyclists out there. And then "everyone" wouldn't be agreed that the natural speed limit was 60. Certainly not the cyclists. And probably a good portion of responsible adult drivers.

There's a stretch of sidewalk between the north end of the 14th street bridge and the intersection of Maine Ave and 15th St that runs past the Jefferson Memorial. It's a pinch-point where most of the bike traffic from Alexandria enters and exits DC. Cyclists drive very, very fast. And there are few pedestrians--because it's a bit remote, and also incredibly unpleasant. What with the reckless cyclists speeding around through there.

I suppose I could argue that pedestrians should be banned from that sidewalk, since speeds are "just too high" and there's no point for a pedestrian to be there in any case, what with other alternate routes. Of course, I don't argue that because I'm not a sociopath.

by oboe on Jul 19, 2012 2:18 pm • link • report

Of course, I don't argue that because I'm not a sociopath.

First of all, please don't insinuate I'm a sociopath. I don't appreciate it, and it's uncalled for.

Second, speed limits should make sense given the structure and use of the road. It's one thing when some people break the speed limit some of the time. But the vast majority of drivers on Rock Creek break the speed limit, usually by a significant amount. That is an indication that the limit is wrong.

Would more cyclists use RCP if everyone was going the speed limit? Probably. But most drivers follow the speed of traffic and the speed they innately feel is appropriate for the road, and if 98% of people are breaking the speed limit on RCP, I believe that means the limit is too low.

If it's too fast for most cyclists, that's too bad. But given the law passed, that may not be a problem for long.

by JW on Jul 19, 2012 7:52 pm • link • report

I'm pretty sure I've been on highways where a very large percentage of people are going to fast for the limit and the limit correct. On the parkways around here, its so uncomfortable driving the limit cause of the other drivers, to some extent you feel pressured to either drive above, or find a different route - GW Parkway north or Rosslyn is particularly bad that way.

As for the law, I again suggest reading the discussion at Wash Cycle. It seems that Interior Dept has room to determine that cyclists could still be allowed.

by AWalkerInTheCity on Jul 19, 2012 9:53 pm • link • report

@JW
But most drivers follow the speed of traffic and the speed they innately feel is appropriate for the road, and if 98% of people are breaking the speed limit on RCP, I believe that means the limit is too low.

Or people don't have any idea how to judge a "safe" driving speed. 30 is an appropriate speed for RCP given the sightlines, lack of shoulder, etc.

by MLD on Jul 20, 2012 7:56 am • link • report

This is one of the many reasons I believe non-motorized boats should be banned from the Potomac River. They're just not able to keep up with motor boats, and pose a hazard to themselves and others. Oh, sure, we could pass laws to require the operators of motor boats to pass safely, and maintain a speed that allows them to control their craft. But that would be unfair to them. After all, the "safe" speed is whatever the Hell motor boat operators say it is.

And of course, the fact that no one would want to take a sailboat on the Potomac could then be used as evidence that a) no one wants to; and b) the Potomac is "for" motor boats.

As I said, this kind of reasoning is quit literally crazy. If you want to make an argument as to why bikes should not be allowed on the RCP, you should make one. The fact that it would impinge on drivers' desire to break the law with impunity doesn't qualify. And to argue that their illegal behavior has successfully forced all other users off the road, therefore "it's for cars" is just perverse.

by oboe on Jul 20, 2012 11:43 am • link • report

The fact that 98% of drivers are speeding kind of disproves the notion that cyclists are slowing drivers down.

by David C on Jul 20, 2012 12:01 pm • link • report