Breakfast links: The way you get to work

by David Alpert • May 18, 2009 9:30 am

Photo from ReadySetDC.

Thousands bike to work: Over 8,000 people registered for Bike to Work Day last week, and many more biked to work on their own. Energy Secretary Steven Chu and many local leaders attended nearby events. Metblogs has some pictures and highlights.

Bike here: The Golden Triangle BID unveiled a new "Bike Here" bike rack at the Dupont Circle south Metro entrance. The Swiss also donated some Switzerland-themed bike racks to DC for Bike to Work Day. (ReadySetDC, WashCycle)

Reshaping Portland: Portland, Maine demolished many buildings to create a big expressway right through historic neighborhoods in the 1960s. Now, they're reexamining that disastrous choice and trying to restore life to the area. (Portland Press Herald)

Next they'll give them away for free: Congress is considering yet another tax break for buying cars. At least this time it's for energy-efficient ones. However, the bill gives no credit for the most energy efficient choice of all, not driving one. FiveThirtyEight also recommends a gas tax hike to pay for the program, which would be a good step.

Off the MARC: Maryland was already underinvesting in MARC. Now, its improvements and other transit projects are on the back burner thanks to Maryland's bankrupt transportation fund and previous funding decisions. (Gazette)

Red Line convert: Evan of Friends of White Flint explains his evolution from driving everywhere to relying primarily on Metro to commute between DC and stations along Rockville Pike. His commute is now more enjoyable. (FLOG)

Leesburg ready for bikes and pedestrians: Leesburg officials now realize that gridlock like Fairfax's is in their future. They are looking for ideas to make it easier for people to drive less or not drive at all, including policies that facilitate bicycling and walking. (Post, Chris R)

Debating walkability: For those of you who missed the articles discussed in last week's open thread: Various experts debate car-free living in the Times. Witold Rybczynski thinks only five cities are dense enough for mass transit, but DC isn't among them. Christopher Leinberger explains that cars are just expensive for society and individuals. Meanwhile, Volokh asks if government planning is the way to make places more walkable. (Dale, Jaime, Steve)

Have a tip for the links? Submit it here.

14 comments

Tags: links

David Alpert is the Founder and Editor-in-Chief of Greater Greater Washington and Greater Greater Education. He worked as a Product Manager for Google for six years and has lived in the Boston, San Francisco, and New York metro areas in addition to Washington, DC. He loves the area which is, in many ways, greater than those others, and wants to see it become even greater.

Comments
Add a comment »

It looks as if Feinstein killed the current cash for clunkers deal.

If you're going to do it, there should be only one deal on the table: turn in a SUV for a small car. Limited number of people would take you up but the savings would be huge.

And we agree: the best option would be one or two year tax credits for people NOT to drive. Hard to set up that system (imagine college students collecting it for driving their parents cars) but not impossible.

Targeted programs like that, with the promise of raising the gas tax in two years, could help do enough demand destruction that we keep gasoline cheap for the rest of us.

by charlie on May 18, 2009 10:03 am • link • report

Thanks to Leona and the folks at GT BID for turning a mess of newspaper condos into a wonderful and stylish bike rack!

Looks great and highly useful.

by Mike Silverstein on May 18, 2009 10:52 am • link • report

The only way I can square Rybczynski's perception with reality is if I assume that his definition of carlessness removes delivery vehicles from the equation.

I've lived in the DC area for nearly a decade without a car, and while I live very close to Metro now, even when I used to live a mile away from one of the outer stations of the Orange Line, it was no big deal.

The secret to car-free living for me is a combination of walking/biking, delivery of large items, and planning. I have regular grocery delivery which for a nominal fee saves me the hassle of owning a car and spending hours shopping. When I do shop for smaller items, I coordinate several trips together: drugstore, post office, barber, mall, etc. Moreover, I have no problem looking unconventional. For example, if I have to stop at a store for non-perishable items and plan to go to the movies in one trip, then I take my shopping into the theater with me.

I suspect that Rybczynski would find such behaviors unacceptable or that he sees Americans as unable to achieve that level of planning and therefore overestimates how tightly packed they have to live.

by Craig on May 18, 2009 11:04 am • link • report

Any gas tax hike should go towards transportation infrastructure, not for car-trading-in programs.

by Froggie on May 18, 2009 11:06 am • link • report

@ Froggie: Any gas tax hike should just go into the Treasury. Earmarking government income is as dumb and even more inefficient than earmarking government spending.

@ Craig/Rybczynski: I think the problem is what "living car-free" means. Are you car free when you still own your old car, but only use it for out-of-town trips and rare emergencies? Are you car-free when you are a Zipcar member?

Quite frankly, I think living totally car-free is too difficult. That really might only be possible in those five cities. I also think it's not something that's a reasonable and practical goal. How would you visit your ageing parents who live in central PA?

I think it is smarter to convince folks to find alternative means of transportation. Use transit more. Expand transit. encourage biking. Make it possible. Design cities so that living with low car usage becomes possible, and importantly, pleasant.

by Jasper on May 18, 2009 12:06 pm • link • report

'They're making us live in the city! But we don't wanna live in the city! Leave us alone! Leave. Us. Alone!!!'

How many more times I'm I going to have to hear that argument over the next ten years?

Ilya (@Volokh, but not Volokh) has got that whole libertarian-free-market-is-god thing going on -- if some law is regulating corporate behavior, it needs to be done away with, or at least not enforced. it's a boring point of view -- hardly worth talking about.

the more interesting question is, 'What is Ilya so afraid of?'

government interventionistas! they will destroy us all!

Ilya doesn't want to fix the zoning laws -- he just wants to fire the planners and not rehire them so corporations can continue to have free reign. hey, i know -- our legal system is broken, so let's fire all the cops! sweet!

developers forcing local city governments to compete against one another, so the taxpayers are forced to give away free land, only to be forced to subsidize those sprawled communities later? yep -- brilliant idea.

it's an emergency situation for our libertarian and Republican friends. with more and more Americans living in more-dense cities and towns, fewer people will be driving, which means fewer people getting taught from the radio how to be racist/fearful/angry. they may actually run into their neighbors once in a while, so they might actually get to think for themselves. it's pathetic culture-war-mongering -- these folks actually seem to be afraid of other people. fine by me, but there's no need to take them seriously. if someone wants to live out in the sticks, then they should have to pay the increased costs of maintaining public infrastructure so far out -- water, electric, roads, police, fire, emergency, etc. i'm tired of subsidizing these folks' lavish lifestyles -- trying to pretend like manicured lawns == 'nature'.

and Ilya uses the same old caricature of the hippie-latte-drinking-liberal-city-dwellers argument -- we don't take into account, apparently, that not everyone loves to live in walkable neighborhoods. so it isn't so, Ilya?! brilliant. why not just argue against the sun? -- it would be just as productive.

of course, some decent state-wide smart growth laws would do a world of good.

i, for one, can't wait until our libertarian friends start paying $4/gal., again. then they can yell at the sky to their hearts' content -- no sweat off my back.

finally, am i supposed to believe that the author actually walked around Leesburg and enjoyed his experience dodging cars? silly.

by Peter Smith on May 18, 2009 12:13 pm • link • report

Jasper,

Please lets try and keep away from things approaching personal attacks. Why do you think that earmarking government income and spending are "dumb"?

by Art on May 18, 2009 1:52 pm • link • report

@ Art:

1) Where's the personal attack in calling an accounting practice dumb?

2) I do not think this is the place for an elaborate discussion on earmarking. See the election websites of Obama and McCain for an explanation.

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=arguments+against+earmarks

by Jasper on May 18, 2009 2:03 pm • link • report

Peter

Welcome to GGW.

3/10. Next time you troll, try to be more witty and incorporate more zeitgeist buzzwords. If you look at, for example, my posts you'll find out that I'm much more subtle in my trolling.

Those buzzwords, you see, act as anchors. Otherwise, most people are just going to gloss over the paragraph.

by MPC on May 18, 2009 2:45 pm • link • report

@MPC - i've been coming here a long time, thanks.

i don't know what '3/10' means.

i don't know what is supposed to be 'troll' about my comment.

i wasn't trying to be witty.

i don't know what a zeitgeist is.

i don't know what you mean by 'anchors'.

thanks, i guess.

by Peter Smith on May 18, 2009 2:52 pm • link • report

The libertarian thing is somewhat of a non sequitur because sprawl is the result of government regulation and highway subsidies. As a number of people pointed out on the Volokh blog, the point is to change or remove the regulations that get in the way of walkable places, and rethink what gets subsidized.

It reminds me of a Richmond Business Journal article about Virginia's new connectivity requirements. Developers were praising the free market and decrying this new, as they see it, government intervention, when in fact the rule change removes a SUBSIDY for cul-de-sacs (essentially private drives).

I don't think libertarianism is ultimately the answer at a local level. But, regardless, this idea that "sprawl = freedom, urban planning = socialism" is pure nonsense. If you favor sprawl, but prefer the status quo of not paying for your own infrastructure (including highways), you're not a libertarian.

by Scott F on May 18, 2009 3:42 pm • link • report

@ Scott: Why would it be relevant whether a new law is libertarian, republican, democrat, liberal or conservative?

It's not about what your political preferences are. It's about solving problems. Unfortunately, politicians have become masterful in not doing anything and then crying uncle when sh!t hits the fan.

Having lived in Europe and the US for a while, I am noticing more and more that it doesn't really matter how things are solved. Left-way around, or right-way around. It does not matter. What matters is whether the problem gets solved.

by Jasper on May 18, 2009 4:17 pm • link • report

Jasper: I fully disagree (on your reply to me), not the least of which being because the gas tax is as close to a systemwide user fee as we have.

by Froggie on May 18, 2009 6:24 pm • link • report

@Jasper: Actually, I neither own a car nor ever have, but I do agree that there are practical limits to carfreeness. I just think they're further than Rybczynski would allow.

I tend to think that regular subscribers to Zipcar probably use the vehicles less than they would use a vehicle that they personally own, and I agree that people who retain a car strictly for emergency/out-of-town travel are nearly at the ideal already. For myself, when I travel, I am occasionally forced to use cabs at my final destination, simply because the local transit is otherwise non-existent.

by Craig on May 19, 2009 2:45 am • link • report