Well, it looks like I was right. As soon as LivingSocial plays the District like a bunch of chumps and threatens DC taxpayers that he will take his business elsewhere if we don't pay him to stay, he sells his house in U Street to look for better options in VA.

Well done...the only LivingSocial employee it would have made sense for DC to keep as a taxpaying resident is giving us all the bird after the millions we have him and taking his enormous future taxable earnings elsewhere.

by livingsocial on Oct 17, 2012 8:53 am • link • report

"Metro's federal funding is not in jeopardy yet, though. The agency was given a reprieve until March 27 by a congressional resolution last month. And local lawmakers plan to push for an additional extension."

So, the deadline was really March 27.

by charlie on Oct 17, 2012 9:11 am • link • report

Fairfax county continues, slowly and painfully, to move into the future.

by AWalkerInTheCity on Oct 17, 2012 9:25 am • link • report

Lol at a battle over four parking spaces that shut down a restaurant. Because parking is something a restaraunteur should be concerned about more than the quality of his food and the hygeine of his employees.

Re: Tysons, hard to feel bad about a marginal increase in property taxes while the county is literally devoting Billions to improve the area that has already had billions spent on providing metro rail. If you have to move because of the taxes then at least the value in your property has shot way up to compensate for that.

Re: Bethesda bike share.

Others questioned whether Montgomery County would be held liable for accidents, why many Bikeshare users in Washington, D.C., and Arlington, Va., don’t use helmets, if there would be enough room on sidewalks for pedestrians and if drunk bar patrons might steal the bikes from docking stations after a night on the town.

Good thing all of these have been answered by the other three jurisdictions who have it. As to the rest of the article. It's a shame that the world we live in means that people have to prove that riding a bike is legitimate and that a cyclist has to tread a political line just to have a chance to suggest safety improvements.

by drumz on Oct 17, 2012 9:25 am • link • report

From a link: “You can throw in all the bike lanes in the world,” Bleakley said, “but if you don’t explain why you’re doing it and what goes along with that, a lot of motorists are just going to see that as, ‘Oh, great, they’re taking away my lane,’ and there’s just gonna be more anger toward cyclists.”

It is sad to see yet another article not explaining why extra biking is good while complaining that is not explained. #cognitive_dissonance.

by Jasper on Oct 17, 2012 9:46 am • link • report

Re the Capital Bikeshare article, I don't have a problem with the first guy's desire to keep bikes from being ridden on the sidewalk. Sidewalk space is already at a premium in much of downtown Bethesda as it is. Just guessing due to lack of context, but maybe he misunderstood the proposal for bike stations on the sidewalk as a proposal for bike riding on the sidewalk?

I'm not sure why so many people are so hung up about bicyclists riding without helmets. It comes up in online discussions all the time too. (For just one example: Remember the "how to share the road" column Alpert did with Dr. Gridlock? In the followup webchat, somebody an office at 16th and Q felt the need to point out how few of the Capital Bikeshare users had helmets on.) I suspect that a lot of people are under the mistaken impression that riding helmetless is illegal and just another example of cyclists being "scofflaws". When reading that column I was wishing Dr. Gridlock had pointed out that it is legal.

by iana on Oct 17, 2012 10:00 am • link • report

@ iana:I'm not sure why so many people are so hung up about bicyclists riding without helmets.

It's just one of many things that non-bikers think they know about bikers. It's much easier to complain about bikers without helmets than to admit you text while driving.

The most important things people need to know about bikers are:

* Bikers are allowed both on the road and on the side-walk (except in downtown DC). Bikers are treated as drivers when in the road, and as pedestrians when on the side-walk.

* The rules are rather complex, but generally, bikers (and pedestrians) generally have the right of way at intersections.

* Bikers should not be driving in the gutter of the road. They have the right to take the lane, as much they see fit for their safety.

* It is not ok to use your car as a weapon to intimidate bikers (and pedestrians).

* Worry about your own errors before pointing out those of others.

by Jasper on Oct 17, 2012 10:20 am • link • report

Wait, so the normal black car Über service will still remain in NYC? I was pleasantly surprised when I exited Penn Station a couple weeks ago and found that I could use it. I was even more pleased when the bill for the half hour ride down to TriBeCa (it was rush hour) was even less than a yellow can would be.

The CEO of Über is obnoxious, but damn is it a good service.

by TM on Oct 17, 2012 10:49 am • link • report

The more bicycling is viewed as a dangerous activity (i.e. you NEED A HELMET!!!! OMG!!!) the harder it is to turn it into a viable commuting option. It is a chicken/egg thing though. The infrastructure for bikes is really weak compared to Denmark/Netherlands/etc. which makes the perceived need for helmets much diminished there. According to copenhagenize.com, it is Denmark's equivalent to AAA that is pushing for helmet laws because studies show that requiring helmets will lessen ridership and push more people to cars.

by NikolasM on Oct 17, 2012 11:44 am • link • report

It's just one of many things that non-bikers think they know about bikers. It's much easier to complain about bikers without helmets than to admit you text while driving.
...
Worry about your own errors before pointing out those of others.

I'm not sure what one has to do with the other regarding cyclists wearing helmets and the irrelevant claim that the driver is texting. Some drivers are bikers and have the same concerns. Credentials shouldn't be necessary to observe something and make it an issue. I'm sure we wouldn't appreciate a press release from WMATA that explicitly gave us the finger with "Blue Line Rush+" as the caption.

by selxic on Oct 17, 2012 11:50 am • link • report

@ NikolasM:According to copenhagenize.com, it is Denmark's equivalent to AAA that is pushing for helmet laws because studies show that requiring helmets will lessen ridership and push more people to cars.

I will admit that the phrase "start wearing a helmet on your bike" in Holland has the same political suicidal note as when an American politician would say "let's double taxes, triple the deficit and quadruple the gas tax".

The Dutch (yours truly included) are much more anti-helmet than other Europeans. They stubbornly demand safe bikeways everywhere. I also agree that it does impede making biking a normal way of tranportion.

These people will stop biking if they're required to wear a helmet.

I also think it does not jive with the sense that bikes are means of transportation for short distances. The Dutch shop on bikes like Americans with cars. You move your bike from store to store, lock and walk in. It is hard to imagine doing that with a helmet.

by Jasper on Oct 17, 2012 11:59 am • link • report

Yeah, I figure that's a big thing regarding helmet use on Capital Bikeshare, since bikeshare lends itself so well to spontaneity and carrying a helmet around is the opposite of that. Most of the times I use bikeshare it's an unplanned trip when I'd otherwise been walking somewhere, e.g. I decided on a whim to go farther than I had originally planned, or maybe it looked like it was fixin' to rain and I wanted to get home faster.

Is there any good information out there about how safe or unsafe cycling in DC is compared to walking in DC and taking the bus and Metro (which are the other three ways I get around the city)? I admit the main thing that holds me back from cycling more often is it does viscerally feel a lot more dangerous than those other three modes, but whenever I wonder about the danger level of cycling I can only find comparisons between cycling and driving, which aren't relevant for me.

by iana on Oct 17, 2012 12:55 pm • link • report

For whatever it's worth, helmet usage among urban cyclists is virtually nonexistent in Europe, and I believe that their accident stats are actually a bit better than ours.

It's also worth mentioning that a helmet only protects you from a very specific kind of accident.

by andrew on Oct 17, 2012 1:10 pm • link • report

(I should read better. Jasper already said the same thing)

That said, did anybody take Metro after the Nats' final game? I'm curious how it went.

15,700 is a lot of people to jam through a single Metro Station. I seem to remember that studies about the feasibility of running large(r) events at RFK noted that the capacity of a single Metro Station had a firm upper limit of around 15-20000 people per hour hour.

by andrew on Oct 17, 2012 1:12 pm • link • report

I'm not sure what one has to do with the other regarding cyclists wearing helmets and the irrelevant claim that the driver is texting. Some drivers are bikers and have the same concerns.

Here's the relevance: we wouldn't dream of not building car infrastructure because some drivers text. That would be absurd. Similarly, we shouldn't fail to build bike infrastructure because some bikers don't wear helmets.

Or should we remove the parking garages in downtown Bethesda because some bar patrons may drink and drive? Actually, that would make more sense then not building Cabi because we're worried that drunk bar patrons may steal a bike from a docking station (which A) is extremely rare if it's ever happened, and B) would we rather have those drunkards driving home instead?).

by Falls Church on Oct 17, 2012 1:37 pm • link • report

@andrew
That said, did anybody take Metro after the Nats' final game? I'm curious how it went.

I took Metro after the game on Friday (Saturday early morning). It took longer to get in the station than it usually does after a game, but the trains were all lined up and ready to go so the platform was clearing quite quickly - faster than usual since the trains filled up fast. Many more people used the NJ Ave entrance than usually do on game night.

There was an issue at the NJ Ave entrance when I was walking down the (stopped) escalator - the working escalator next to me accelerated for 2-3 seconds before stopping. Didn't look like anybody was hurt but startling for people.

It was very crowded on the mezzanines but overall I would say a huge success for Metro.

by MLD on Oct 17, 2012 2:19 pm • link • report

It's just one of many things that non-bikers think they know about bikers. It's much easier to complain about bikers without helmets than to admit you text while driving.

This, plus it's a way drivers can absolve themselves of exercising due care: "Hey, if this chucklehead doesn't care enough about his life to even wear a helmet, why should I??"

(Never mind that, in most cases, the only significant danger is drivers who don't exercise due care.)

by oboe on Oct 17, 2012 3:16 pm • link • report

I'd say that three million, mostly un-helmeted CaBi trips without a single serious head injury is pretty good empirical evidence to counter carheads' feigned concern over our brains. I almost always ride with a helmet, but I don't go around clucking "gee, that driver's totally antiquated 2009 car doesn't have daytime running lights* or knee airbags, she obviously is completely reckless and has no business even breathing on a public street."

@iana: The problem with comparing safety rates for different modes is that crashes (the numerator in that fraction) are under-reported, and the denominator is anyone's guess -- we only have a rough notion of how much biking, or walking, or bus riding, is going on, and even if we knew it would be perfectly valid to measure in a lot of different ways (per hour, per trip, per mile). It's also not entirely fair to measure only injuries without evaluating the health benefits, or lack thereof, of different modes. So, I'm afraid that the answer to your question will have to be "no" for now.

* CaBi comes with DRLs, standard, so HA.

by Payton on Oct 17, 2012 3:36 pm • link • report

Oh, and the folks in Bethesda were worried about CaBi theft? That's rich: again, 3,000,000+ rides, including many in neighborhoods where Bethesdans would never deign to visit, and zero thefts.

by Payton on Oct 17, 2012 3:41 pm • link • report

@iana, while Payton is right considering the information we have, using the vague information we have, it seems that biking is a smidge safer than walking, and taking the Metro is pretty darn safe.

But there are a lot of compounding factors. Cyclists sometimes wreck all by themselves, and those accidents are unlikely to be reported. Even the very bad bike accident I had as a teenager wouldn't have shown up in any statistics, because it was not reported to the police (I wrecked all by myself, so there was nothing to report) and I only received medical attention from my regular doctor and dentist the next day, since I was not injured to the point of needing more than home care in the immediate aftermath (the fact that my mother is a medical professional means that others would probably have sought emergency treatment, since they wouldn't have the expertise to know that, overall, I was okay, if very banged up, for the night). Metro injures people in ways that are not often reported (I have sustained some bumps and bruises and strains from herky-jerky rides and/or inconsiderate riders). And even drivers under-report injuries...if you sprain a shoulder in a car accident, it's unlikely you'll ask for medical assistance on the spot, just go to the doctor the next day or ice it and pop and ibuprofen, for example. Overall, though, we hear about people dying/being severely injured while driving/riding in a car all the time; while walking occasionally; while riding a bike rarely; and while riding Metro almost never (despite Metro's issues, having professional drivers leads to a low incidence of major accidents).

As far as wearing a helmet, I'm torn. I don't, but I also know that if I was wearing a helmet when I had my bad accident, which was 100% my fault/random happenstance, my injuries would have been less severe. It's not drivers that scare me as much as big bumps or a klutzy moment. But I figure, riding a Bikeshare bike (heavy, slow, well-balanced, and sturdy) and being careful will mitigate or eliminate injuries of a severe level caused by me or road conditions. I'm no longer racing down hills at over 20 MPH (I have no clue exactly how fast I was going, but I know it was fast and the hill was big...we have very few hills of that magnitude in DC..and I know I was capable of riding *my* road bike at well over 20 MPH at that time). Despite the vitriol, and SOME rude/inconsiderate/inattentive drivers, I have found most drivers in DC to be perfectly fine when sharing the road with a bike. The issues I have had are more often annoying than dangerous (parking in the bike lane, not knowing how to merge for a turn, waving me ahead at lights such that they have to pass me a few seconds later, etc.). Education, enforcement, and courtesy could be BETTER, but, overall, my experiences have been positive. Pedestrians (mostly tourists) are far more annoying to me than most drivers (standing in the bike lane, crossing in front of my when I have the right-of-way (jaywalking in front of me because, apparently, I don't "count" as a vehicle), taking up the entire path where bikes are allowed, etc.). All in all, I suppose if I were biking faster on routes where I felt I was more likely to crash and burn (worse road conditions, more time sharing lanes with cars, faster traffic, etc.), I'd probably decide a helmet was worth it. No matter how hard I push the CaBi bike, I can't really get it much above 10 MPH, and my regular trips feature slow-ish or sparse traffic, good road conditions, and lots of bike lanes/trails.

by Ms. D on Oct 17, 2012 9:01 pm • link • report

D'oh...also, w/r/t Friday night's Nats game (as much as I'm trying to forget it...) the boarding pattern indicates that, for the future, Metro should keep SEVERAL stations open for late weeknight games. 1/5 of riders, 20%, about 3K people, boarded somewhere other than Navy Yard, and that is an EXCELLENT way for Metro to manage crowds at Navy Yard. I will often walk to L'Enfant, or if I'm going with a friend who lives nearby, walk with them and then head on over to a place like Capitol South to board, knowing the crowding will be reduced. Navy Yard, Waterfront, L'Enfant, Federal Center, and Capitol South should be kept open. If that means a higher bond, fine. It's clear that the ridership far exceeds the numbers necessary to cover the costs (hopefully the Nats organization will recognize this and pony up for the bond next season). Yes, this was the playoffs, but attendance regularly reaches 3/4 of capacity, and will likely be higher next year given the Nats' stellar run this year.

by Ms. D on Oct 17, 2012 9:23 pm • link • report

@iana Is there any good information out there about how safe or unsafe cycling in DC is compared to walking in DC and taking the bus and Metro (which are the other three ways I get around the city)?

Others have kind of answered your question with the reply that no, we don't have much data on which is safest among walking, biking and transit. Based on what we have transit is safer than biking which is slightly safer than walking.

But, I remember reading once that the most dangerous trip you make is probably the walk across a parking lot after you park your car. Parking lots are very unkind to people. And those "walks" show up as pedestrian accidents, even though it's really related to driving. So do you include those? I don't know.

by David C on Oct 18, 2012 4:14 pm • link • report

David C...as someone who walks across a parking lot twice a day to get to and fro the Metro, I couldn't agree more. Now, certain national chains are not helping my situation (despite many conversations with them), and local elected officials (who are all now in jail...hmmm) allowed that to happen, but, yes, the parking lot is the biggest obstacle for me. People drive haphazardly, park carelessly, and the store itself doesn't help, blocking what safe passageway I *might* have with displays, carts, planters, and the like. I have far less trouble and feel far less at risk crossing the *3* major thoroughfares between my house and my job than I do crossing the parking lot. That is sad.

by Ms. D on Oct 19, 2012 12:54 am • link • report