lest it "add cyclists to this already precarious mix of traffic."

That's a concern I've heard from a lot of folks ... and it's a very valid concern. The argument is often made that by getting people out of cars and on to bikes, that the roads get less congested. But what doesn't get mentioned is that 'the precarious mix' also gets increased. As we've discussed before, bikes and cars don't necessarily follow the same rules ... Either 'per the law' or 'per necessity' ... (or 'per whatever'). When you mix different modes of traffic in the same space AND they're following different sets of rules, you increase the level of unpredictable actions/interactions ... and thus the level of chaos. So, adding more bikes to the mix may reduce the level of car traffic, but it replaces that positive with a far more danager negative: chaos.

So, like I've advocated before, the aim really should be to increase separated facilities for bicyclists vs. throwing them into car traffic. If it means closing a couple of north/south and a couple of east/west roads to motor traffic, so be it. Bicyclists don't need paths everywhere, they need safe paths. And because a bicyclist can very easily turn into a pedestrian pushing a bike (or maybe riding on a sidewalk where ped traffic is light), it's okay to have to walk (or bike slowly) the last quarter mile to your destination. The destination doesn't have to be immediately off the dedicated path.

Just my two cents towards safety and reason for cyclists and for drivers.

by Lance on Sep 27, 2010 9:03 am • link • report

Inclement weather aside, the tunnel between the proposed hotel and the Convention Center will only keep patrons off the street if they're led to believe that it is unsafe to walk around outside.

by Ron on Sep 27, 2010 9:04 am • link • report

Wait, Metro took away three trains (18 to 24 cars, depending on the configuration), but added only six cars to the remaining trains? How is that in any way good?

Where did the remaining 12 to 18 cars go? Why didn't they add those to other trains, making six to nine more 8-car trains?

by Tim on Sep 27, 2010 9:28 am • link • report

@Tim

No, Metro took away 3 6-car trains, but the total number of cars in use has increased, despite running on fewer trains.

There is a net gain in the number of cars in use. They did not add six cars to the remaining trains, they added 24 cars - that's where the net gain of six cars comes from.

284 cars, divided by 41 trains an hour means 6.9 cars per train - or, just about every other train is now an 8-car train on the Red Line. The old average was 6.3 cars per train.

by Alex B. on Sep 27, 2010 9:37 am • link • report

Yeah, I agree with Ron. There's a sort of "if you build it they will come" element. Once ninth street has restaurants and shops worth going to, people will ignore the tunnel. Of course there may be a chicken and the egg problem, but I suspect a vibrant block will eventually emerge.

I don't agree with Lance's broad comments, but in this particular case the objections from Chevy Chase don't seem so bad, even if they could've phrased it better. Their objection is that an intersection is already dangerous because it lacks a stop sign. Adding a bike lane, they argue, would increase the dangerousness. That's not so unreasonable. Plus they argue that the bike lane ends without a clear connection to another lane. Also a valid point. So long as these aren't paper arguments meant to cover up a latent objection to all bike lanes, I'm not bothered by them.

by Reid on Sep 27, 2010 9:39 am • link • report

I have the * opposite* apprehension that the author of the "Trash Free Anacostia" article does. What if there isn't enough trash to scoop out of the river, or if we have an unusually dry year (most of the trash that ends up in the river does so via runoff)?

Also, what happens once the (much-needed) sewer upgrades are complete? If the project is successful, and Tommy gets his way with the stryofoam cups, there won't be enough trash on the river to warrant things like skimmer boats.

("Everyday" trash in the river seems to be primarily composed of aluminum cans and water bottles. After rainstorms, the river becomes a sea of styrofoam cups and plastic bags. Lots of organic matter ends up in the river too, some naturally, but also through the sewer overflow.)

by andrew on Sep 27, 2010 9:54 am • link • report

I want my white male history museum. When is that coming? It better be on the mall or that's racism!

by Virginian on Sep 27, 2010 9:55 am • link • report

Wow, 600 tons of trash in the Anacostia each year!

Let's see. Supermarket bags seem to weigh about 6 lbs per 1,000 since the shipping weight of a case of 3,000 is 19 lbs. That means that if the bag tax kept 10 million of them out of the river, an insanely high estimate that assumes every single one that wasn't sold would have gone into the river, then the tax will remove 63,000 lbs. of trash from the river, or about 30 tons. So an absolute maximum of 5%. In reality, of course, most of them don't actually go directly into the sewer after they leave the grocery store, of course, so the effect of this tax will probably be almost zilch. And the better it works, the less actual money has been set aside for the real effort that is needed: cleanup.

I guess the bag tax isn't going to save the world after all. As it turns out, dealing with the problem requires something more than a feel-good tax.

by Jamie on Sep 27, 2010 10:15 am • link • report

Jamie: I hate the bag tax too, but one thing to watch out for.

We know a high VOLUME of trash being scooped up in Anacostia is/was plastic grocery bags. However, I suspect a very small weight of them -- as you illustrate actually are. Plastic bags also tend to float easily and are easy to skim.

Again, the plastic bags danger is they get into the storm sewers, block them up, so when it does rain, the storm sewers floods and then they have to dump everything into the river.

And we know the trash in the river is primarily coming in from Maryland.

I'm glad to see a river cleaned up - but the newer sewage plants will probably have the biggest change.

by charlie on Sep 27, 2010 10:21 am • link • report

@Jamie -- I'm not sure if it's included in the weight totals, but work crews regularly pull logs and trees out of the river when they get lodged along the banks, or against bridge piers.

No idea if this qualifies as trash, but it is indeed a navigational hazard, and I have no idea where it all comes from.

I'm also not sure if they regularly remove the silt that accumulates around the sewer overflow points, although that also does have a large effect on the river's ecology (and similarly creates a navigational and possible flooding hazard along the banks).

I also have no idea about the trash that sinks to the bottom (although one wonders how it even gets there in the first place -- stryo cups and plastic bags end up in the river, precisely because they float). The crews occasionally find a boat or a car, and pull those out too -- hopefully, most of those are gone by now.

by andrew on Sep 27, 2010 10:32 am • link • report

@charlie, actually it's the other way around. By weight they are supposedly 20-50% depending on where (more in the tributaries), but by volume they are probably much lower, since bags are very compressible compared to most other kinds of trash.

The problem with the analysis of trash in the river is that it's an analysis of trash at a snapshot in time - not an analysis of the trash that enters the river. From what I have read, bags get caught on branches and trees, so it stands to reason that over time they will accumulate much more than other kinds of trash which will move downstream.

Anyway, I actually don't really hate the bag tax in and of itself. I just think it's stupid: it's a minor nuisance, and it doesn't accomplish much. If you looked at it from the context of "benefit versus cost" it's got a very high burden per dollar. Even though the burden at a micro level isn't very high, it doesn't accomplish much either --- if we had a similar level of burden for every million bucks the city got, there'd be nobody living in this city.

We have a trash problem. I think we should deal with it, and that takes commitment and money. The bag tax squanders political capital and public goodwill for no benefit.

A bottle bill would do a lot more good, but the bag tax cost us some of that public goodwill that would have been needed for that.

So now everyone who accepted this bag tax is wondering why did we do that? Why do we have to pay for all this other stuff, I thought that's what the bag tax was for? It just makes it incrementally harder to get the real work done.

by Jamie on Sep 27, 2010 10:36 am • link • report

@Jamie; my bad.

And your reason for laying out the problems with the bag tax are very true. Much like Michelle Rhee, the bag tax is splitting the city. Supporters like it because it makes them more aware of the problem -- but I do think they will be less likely to deal with the real issue (combined sewers) in the future.

by charlie on Sep 27, 2010 10:45 am • link • report

@Lance:

And because a bicyclist can very easily turn into a pedestrian pushing a bike (or maybe riding on a sidewalk where ped traffic is light), it's okay to have to walk (or bike slowly) the last quarter mile to your destination. The destination doesn't have to be immediately off the dedicated path.

Of course, cars can very easily slow down to, say, 10 mph. It's ok to have to drive slowly the last half mile or so to your destination. Also, drivers of private automobiles can walk the last couple of hundred yards. Your destination doesn't have to be immediately adjacent to parking garage.

For all these reasons. We should immediately designate all but a few streets in DC low-speed mixed-use streets. The maximum legal speed will be 15 mph, and anyone caught exceeding that goes to jail.

Of course, that would be insane. Everyone knows streets are for cars, and every other potential user must sacrifice in order to preserve the convenience of the driver. After all, that's the supreme public good.

by oboe on Sep 27, 2010 10:47 am • link • report

@jamie, charlie-

It's a rare case where I agree with you guys, but even as a bag tax supporter I do have to agree that it's tough to feel like there's much bang for the buck going on right now... and that's certainly going to erode any efforts for additional or alternative revenue sources.

by Bossi on Sep 27, 2010 10:51 am • link • report

@Virginian:
That museum already exists. It's the "American History Museum" on Constitution between 14th and 12 Streets. Nearest metro stop is Federal Triangle (Blue/Orange line). You're welcome. /sarcasm

Regarding the Women's History museum, It's not really "on the Mall" but a block below it, behind the Freer. However it's in the zone affected by the GSA moratorium. One issue I didn't see in the article is how will the Smithsonian fund these projects? Not just construction but maintenance and long term projects. Their budget is already tight, and will get tighter after the African American museum opens. Placing a Women's and Latino history museums on top will only futher exacerbate the problem.

by Smoke_Jaguar4 on Sep 27, 2010 10:54 am • link • report

That museum already exists. It's the "American History Museum" on Constitution between 14th and 12 Streets.

Damn you, you beat me to it. So nice when you can help out a stranger in town. Enjoy, Virginian! A journey of discovery of your people's heritage awaits!

by oboe on Sep 27, 2010 11:02 am • link • report

Re: bang for your buck on the bag tax -

What costs are you talking about? The whole point of the tax is that it is entirely avoidable.

by Alex B. on Sep 27, 2010 11:09 am • link • report

@Alex B-

I support the front-end in that it's reducing bag usage, which I do think is itself a benefit. However, there hasn't been much communication or visible benefit of where the revenue is going; that is: how it's being spent.

I'm not saying it *isn't* being spent well, and indeed sometimes it can take a very long time for benefits to be realised; but to my knowledge there hasn't been stellar outreach explaining what all it's going toward.

It's in that regard where I agree that opponents to alternative/additional taxing could yield some potent (and potentially valid) arguments.

by Bossi on Sep 27, 2010 11:17 am • link • report

Nuisance is a cost. You have to bring a bag with you. There is also a cost to businesses to implement it, which certainly results in incrementally higher costs for goods they sell. There is also possibly a cost to the environment since people will replace these bags with other, likely heavier-weight bags for trash, dog poop, and so on. Supposedly, in ireland, sales of trash bags went up almost 80% following their tax.

As I said, I don't think it's an especially high cost, but if there were 100 other taxes that required you to change a habit to avoid them, you might feel differently. And no effort has been made to study the consequences in terms of what people who are accustomed to a steady supply of lightweight, free bags will replace them with.

The common position in favor of the tax seems to be it's not a big deal. I agree, it isn't. But if you can't demonstrate that there's any measurable benefit, at the same time as you ignore the possible downsides, then how can you say it's a good thing?

Lots of things aren't a big deal, like potholes, trash on the sidewalks, and illegal campaign signs, yet we still don't want them in our lives. It's not enough to say "this tax isn't a big deal," you also have demonstrate that it provides a benefit that is at least as good as the nuisance and costs it imposes. It seems pretty clear that the benefit is almost insignificant.

by Jamie on Sep 27, 2010 11:20 am • link • report

The complaints mentioned the great cost of the bag tax - I'd argue that the cost isn't great at all - and it's also completely avoidable, which is the entire point.

If you want to argue about the revenue from that tax, that's a different argument - but 'cost' is not the right word to use.

Jamie made the argument that the bag tax hasn't saved the world yet. Of course it hasn't, primarily because the only people making that particular strawman argument were bag tax opponents.

I'd support a bottle deposit, too - but that presents more logistical challenges. Given the border effects, you'd probably need MD and VA on board with it, too. The Bag Tax is effective precisely because it's a low-hanging fruit.

by Alex B. on Sep 27, 2010 11:22 am • link • report

"great cost of the bag tax"

I've never said the cost is great.

"The Bag Tax is effective precisely because it's a low-hanging fruit."

But that's the whole point. It's not effective.

"but that presents more logistical challenges."

Indeed it does. That's why we shouldn't have wasted political capital on a bag tax that has very low benefit, yet annoys a lot of people and undermines your ability to pass legislation that actually could have a significant impact.

by Jamie on Sep 27, 2010 11:25 am • link • report

Jamie:

But that's the whole point. It's not effective.

What are you basing this on? The tax has massively reduced the number of plastic bags used. Seems pretty damned effective to me.

by Alex B. on Sep 27, 2010 11:29 am • link • report

@Alex B. The tax has massively reduced the number of plastic bags used. Seems pretty damned effective to me.

So, was the aim of this tax to keep people from using plastic bags? ... or to clean up the Anacostia River? If it's the former (as you're implying), than I've been correct all along is saying this tax wasn't to really accomplish anything other than for give some people an excuse for pushing other people around without good cause. If it was the latter, than the negligible small amount of plastic bags that can be removed doesn't do much to 'clean up' the river. Either way, it's a bad tax.

by Lance on Sep 27, 2010 11:44 am • link • report

@Alex B., did you miss my original comment?

If your goal is to reduce the number of plastic bags handed out by supermarkets, then it has been effective.

I thought the goal was to clean up the Anacostia, though, and it's clear that there is very little correlation between these two things.

What do you disagree with? The 600 tons of trash in the river each year, per the link? The weight of a plastic bag?

I'm giving you every benefit of every doubt - that every single bag that would have been sold, would have ended up in the river, and still the impact is barely 5% of the trash. If you use any kind of sane estimate, say one in ten of them ends up in the river, it's inconsequential.

by Jamie on Sep 27, 2010 11:46 am • link • report

I thought the goal was to clean up the Anacostia, though, and it's clear that there is very little correlation between these two things.

Sure, that's part of the goal. However, if you're arguing that a bag tax law will somehow magically prevent an old car or a sunken boat from ending up in the river, I don't think a dose of common sense is going to help.

You're confusing the political narrative of the bill with the actual policy. While the narrative indeed focused on cleaning the Anacostia, that is not the only reason why reducing bag usage is a good thing.

You're the one arguing that the bag tax was the solution to cleaning the Anacostia - neither the actual legislation nor those who supported it make that claim.

by Alex B. on Sep 27, 2010 11:53 am • link • report

"You're the one arguing that the bag tax was the solution to cleaning the Anacostia"

No. That is what the proponents of the bag tax argued.

http://www.trashfreeanacostia.com/

"This January, DC became the first city in the nation to implement a fee on disposable plastic and paper bags. It's an innovative solution to a growing problem — tons of trash, particularly plastics, polluting our rivers and environment."

That seems pretty clear to me. It does not say "the tax will remove as much as 5% of the trash." It does not say "it's a first step towards a much bigger problem." It says it's a solution.

I am really not sure why you show so much resistance to a dose of common sense. Common sense solves problems.

You have ignored every bit of reality I've presented while continuing to just say "well it's good."

Why would you not be interested in facts? Why do you think that just because something feels good to you, that it actually is effective?

Aren't you interested in knowing exactly what effect the tax will have, and deciding based on facts whether it makes sense?

Likewise, if you think "reducing bag usage is a good thing" generally, then wouldn't you like to understand if this measure actually does that? Are people replacing them with heavier, bigger bags that took a lot more oil to make?

I am interested in the environment, not feel-good legislation that imposes burden and may very well accomplish nothing at all or even cause harm to the environment. I am interested in facts, yet they seem hard to come by even as people are willing to write laws without any effort to understand their impact.

I am also interested in the long term consequences of imposing an annoying tax in terms of the harm it may cause to implementing legislation that actually could be effective.

All you can say is that the tax makes you feel good. I am interested in solving a problem, not feeling good.

by Jamie on Sep 27, 2010 12:10 pm • link • report

Jamie,

The bag tax reduces bag use and uses any revenue generated for cleanup. We also know that trash in the river involves a lot more than just bags. The bill has never purported to be the sole, lone solution to the Anacostia's trash problem. The link you cite says no such thing.

I find the fact that you keep pushing this falsehood, while simultaneously chastising me and others for not seeing the 'facts' and encouraging a little 'common sense' to be hilarious. I'll leave it at that.

by Alex B. on Sep 27, 2010 12:26 pm • link • report

@Alex, come on. You are staring at the words "it's a solution" in black and white, and you are trying to tell me it was sold as anything other than "a solution?"

How popular do you think the bag tax would have been if they said "it's estimated it will reduce trash by 1%" when pitching it?

Montgomery County alone is looking at $80 million in upgrades to their sewer system which will also surely only solve a small part of the problem, how does that $1 million sound now?

You still keep missing the only thing that's relevant: how much does it help?

It's obvious that perception matters to you much more than reality. You have systematically ignored every single fact I've presented about the scope of the problem and the impact of the bag tax. If you aren't interested in facts, then there's not much more to discuss.

by Jamie on Sep 27, 2010 12:47 pm • link • report

I remember my college economy classes focusing on the minimum wage act -- how it was largely just noise. I am starting to think bag acts are sort of the 21st century equivalent -- a lot of bark, very little bite, and perhaps more important for political signaling than actual policy.

by charlie on Sep 27, 2010 1:19 pm • link • report

Prior to the bag tax, there were a lot of plastic bags floating on the surface of the Anacostia. Now, there are less.

by andrew on Sep 27, 2010 1:32 pm • link • report

@andrew, reference please?

by Jamie on Sep 27, 2010 1:36 pm • link • report

aren't the stores reporting theyve used 3 million bags ytd compared to 22 million last year before the fee or tax? Isn't 19 million of anything a lot by any metric, but especially 19 million fewer disposable non-biodegrading plastic bags in one city in one year? I don't understand the perspective "it's not working". It (the fee or tax) reduced by 19 million the number of peices of trash in one city in one year. Whats wrong with that? Would our city be better if it had those 19 million bags?

by Tina on Sep 27, 2010 1:37 pm • link • report

Seems pretty clear to me that the proponents of the bag tax knew that it would be unpopular to the point of political infeasibility had they told the truth about it from the beginning. Instead they promoted it as "a solution" to the problem of trash in the river and claimed it was about cleaning up the Anacostia rather than reducing bag use and generating revenue. Now the 'success' of the tax is (quite fairly) being judged against the standard of did it do what Wells, et al said it would. For course, it didn't (just like everyone who paid attention to the issue knew it wouldn't) because tax promoters set unreasonably high exceptions for political reasons. The result of this is that tax supporters are left to argue that the bag tax accomplished its real objective (reducing bag usage) and, essentially, are forced to admit that they lied in order to push through a tax that would never have passed had they told the truth about it.

by Jacob on Sep 27, 2010 1:41 pm • link • report

@Tina the number is complete fiction.

The reduction now being cited is 60%.

The number of bags "saved" is mis-calculated as 22 million - (bag tax revenue) / 5 cents.

There are so many problems with this estimate that it's hard to know where to begin.

First, the bag tax revenue is not 5 cents per bag, it's 3 or 4 cents per bag. It's only 4 cents no matter what, and stores get a 1 cent credit per bag if they offer a discount to customers for using their own bag. Both safeway and giant, the two biggest distributors, do offer this.

Right there, you can almost double the number of bags that were sold compared to what is commonly reported.

Second, the 22 million is not based on any actual figures from the businesses affected by the bag tax. It's a national average of 360 per person, times 600,000 residents of DC.

As you are aware, only places that sell food are subject to the bag tax to begin with, so the number of bags potentially affected is far lower than 22 million to begin with.

I used 10 million to be generous. Even using that, the savings to the river are inconsequential. In reality it's probably far less.

by Jamie on Sep 27, 2010 1:43 pm • link • report

@ Jamie The site you're linking to as proof that the bag tax was designed to be the solution to all of the Anacostia's ills is just a third party petition site. I'm not sure how that's indicative of the actual purpose of the legislation. Here's what the actual law says:

Sec. 2. Findings.
The Council of District of Columbia finds that:
(1) The widespread provision of carryout bags to consumers creates significant problems relating to their disposal and effect on the environment.
(2) Plastic carryout bags are the largest single source of trash in the Anacostia River tributaries and of the three largest sources in the entire river.
(3) Plastic carryout bags clog sewer systems, and pose a risk to marine animals that ingest them or become entangled in them along the River.
(4) The Anacostia River soon will be subject to an Environmental Protection Agency mandated Total Maximum Daily Load (TDML), which sets the level of allowable pollution; exceeding this figure will result in severe fines for the District.
(5) There exists a need to discourage the use of single-use, disposable plastic and paper bags and encourage the use of reusable bags by consumers and retailers in order to minimize the impact of disposable bags on the Anacostia River, on the health and environment of the District and its residents, and on the DistrictÂ’s fiscal welfare.
(6) Other jurisdictions worldwide have seen a dramatic decrease in disposable bag use when small fees have been implemented that encourage consumers to choose reusable shopping bags.

So yes, the purpose of the law was to reduce plastic bag usage, which it has done. Claiming it's a failure because you can't order fresh Anacostia trout at a restaurant totally misses the point.

by jcm on Sep 27, 2010 1:48 pm • link • report

@jcm, I'm glad we agree that the purpose of the law was to reduce plastic bag usage.

Nothing that you've said here, or that anyone else has said, provides any estimate whatsoever of what impact this tax will have on the river. Are you in the habit of supporting legislation without any effort to study its potential impact first, or after it has been implemented?

It's absurd to argue that it was not promoted as being of substantial benefit in reducing trash in the river. Yet analysis of the actual amount of trash, and the potential reduction, shows its virtually impossible for it to have even a tiny effect, and the revenue is a pittance compared to what's needed to clean things up and deal with the problems of our stormwater systems.

If the actual effect was on the order of one or two percent, do you think that the public has a right to know that? Why is everyone trying to hard to avoid understanding what the actual effect has been on pollution, not to mention possible consequences in an increase in overall petroleum product consumption as was seen in Ireland?

by Jamie on Sep 27, 2010 2:02 pm • link • report

@Jamie

I think you are confused by the use of articles in the following phrases:

"it's a solution" - one of many solutions

"it's the solution" - the only or the biggest solution

You are taking the phrase "it's a solution" and extrapolating that to mean that the bag tax was proposed as the be-all and end-all of trash management for the Anacostia. That's not at all what that phrase means.

by MLD on Sep 27, 2010 2:12 pm • link • report

I have yet to hear from anyone with actual knowledge of the health or cleanliness of the river either pre or post bag tax. One biologist, one habitual kayaker, anyone? Or a citation of the same? Absent such, both sides are simply speculating as to how much of a difference the fewer bags used in DC is making on the health / cleanliness of the Anacostia.

That being said, I think that Jamie is exhibiting a severe lack of imagination. There are many, many situations in nature where a marginal change in a given input can have a large change in the output. So, yes, the change in human behavior here may have only resulted in a seemingly small difference in the number of bags, but the important thing is clearly not how many fewer bags have been kept out of the river but what DIFFERENCE those fewer bags have made. Again, going back to what I said about a biologist weighing in here. Also, if the fewer bags that found their way into the river resulted in 10? 100? 1,000? fewer fish/birds/mammals dying (from whatever cause) would it be worth the cost to society? I didn't say worth it to you (or you, or you), worth it to society.

Looking beyond the Anacostia River, might it so that fewer plastic bags used means fewer produced? And I believe plastic comes from petroleum. I also believe that the extraction, transportation, refinement and use of petroleum is known to be harmful to humans and the environment. One might conclude, then, that to use fewer plastic bags is a positive gain for the environment, regardless of whether or not a particular river is made any cleaner or not.

Let's see....if I get in the habit of not relying on disposable plastic bags intended for one use and instead start using a cloth or even heavy duty plastic bag intended for reuse, is it possible that habit might stick with me even when I leave the place where I learned the habit? So in two years when I move out of DC (for example) and move to, I don't know - Dallas, let's say (not that it matters), I might continue using cloth bags for my shopping. I might even influence others to do the same. Wow, now a small tax imposed in one city is having impacts around the country and across time as well. Perhaps the dollars collected in DC or the number of bags diverted from the Anacostia are not the only ways to measure the impact of the tax?

Lastly, on the issue of how the bag tax was promoted by individual non-profit groups or even the politicians themselves - these reasons rarely reflect all of the impacts a given policy / plan / tax actually has. So to try to go back in time and single out a given special interest group statement as providing THE reason why the tax was passed in the first place and conclude the tax was bad because it may not be living up to what they said it would (especially when it's not clear that they said what you think they said ( **** cough cough "A solution" not "THE solution" cough cough)) is just plain silly and pointless. Especially when just a little imagination reveals additional factors in support of the policy / plan / tax.

by Josh S on Sep 27, 2010 2:13 pm • link • report

@ Jamie Sorry, which analysis shows that it's "virtually impossible for it to have even a tiny effect"? You've made lots of unsupported assertions, but I haven't seen you link to any actual analysis. It'd be great if you pointed to a study demonstrating the increase in overall petroleum product consumption in Ireland while you're at it.

by jcm on Sep 27, 2010 2:24 pm • link • report

The bag tax is pro-America. Anyone who doesn't support it clearly hates America.

by Fritz on Sep 27, 2010 3:10 pm • link • report

@Josh S

Well said.

To go off your point, I've found that when I am away from DC, I often turn down a bag if I don't need one. I didn't do that before the bag tax.

by Steven Yates on Sep 27, 2010 3:21 pm • link • report

If the Post is just now reporting this "news" about the P Street Beach, keep your eyes peeled -- maybe tomorrow the Post will catch up with the 1968 moon landing.

by Turnip on Sep 27, 2010 6:56 pm • link • report

I read all the noise about the bag tax, and really it's just an inducement not to get more crap that piles up around the house. You need a bag for your dog shit? Buy something biodegradeable, or eat it or do whatever, but the grocery store is not responsible for supplying you with anything for free. By implementing a forced price, consumers can ascribe a value to it. Now do I wish the grocery bags were not useless for carrying anything weighing less than an anorexic ham? Yes, yes I do, but that makes me miss them less with every moment.

In Sweden they cost about 50 cents, are certainly durable enough to haul home the groceries 10 blocks, and get saved for re-use and it's been that way for 20 plus years. I don't think I've ever seen a plastic bag littering a stream, or street, or choking a baby seal.

@Turnip: Awesome. Yes the WaPo must have had one of their editors secret lovers in a huff after a mistaken stumble after too many bottles of cheap wine and bad decisions, which led to a nasty fight and mailed evidence to the editor's wife.

by copperred on Sep 28, 2010 2:15 am • link • report

"You need a bag for your dog shit? Buy something biodegradeable, or eat it or do whatever, but the grocery store is not responsible for supplying you with anything for free."

You seem to be confused about the purpose of my pointing this out. It is not about "entitlement to free bags." It's about the simple reality that many people recycle them for these and other purposes, and when they are no longer available, will of course replace them with some alternative. In many cases the alternative bags are heavier and made with much more plastic, since supermarket-weight bags are not a generally-available consumer product.

I am not complaining about having to buy bags, I am simply pointing out that removing bags from the end-user supply chain by taxing them at Safeway doesn't actually remove one bag for every one that isn't handed out at Safeway. This seems to be a common misconception among people who tout the number of bags saved as a result of the tax.

by Jamie on Sep 28, 2010 7:12 am • link • report

The traffic introduced by the Alexandria BRAC is a mess. It's expected to add 1-1.5 hours of MORNING commute time, and another 1-1.5 hours of AFTERNOON commute time just to exit Mark Center.

Also -- when's the Orange Line going to get more cars and more frequent trains? The congestion at Rosslyn for the commutes is awful at peak-of-the-peak.

by Jonathan on Sep 29, 2010 7:20 pm • link • report