Greater Greater Washington

Posts about DC Council

Bicycling


Letting cyclists yield at stop signs won't lead to chaos

An "Idaho Stop" is a law in some states that allows bicyclists to treat stop signs as if they were yield signs. DC Councilmember Mary Cheh recently proposed adopting the law in DC, but some people say it would turn traffic law on its head.


Photo by Shawn Hoke on Flickr.

There are a few reasons to support the Idaho Stop:

  1. It's important for cyclists to conserve momentum, since starting up a bike requires muscle power.
  2. The most dangerous place for bikes is at intersections with cars, so giving people on bikes permission to go through intersections when there are no cars nearby rather than forcing them wait (while one might pull up behind them) makes intersections safer for everyone. It also makes it less likely cars will get stuck behind bikes.
  3. Since bikes move at relatively slow speeds, people using them have plenty of time to gauge oncoming traffic. That means there's less need to stop and look around at every intersection; you can look around while moving slowly.
At yesterday's DC Council Transportation Committee hearing, in response to Cheh's proposal, police officers and representatives from the insurance industry said allowing Idaho Stops would lead to confusion. Specifically, DC Insurance Federation executive director Wayne McOwen said he thinks allowing Idaho Stops would confuse children.
We teach our children when the light is red we stop. We teach them when they see a sign that says stop to stop. We teach them to look both ways before they cross the street. We teach them to cross at the crosswalk. Now we are beginning to say follow those rules except if there's no one around, you can run across the street anyway.
Brian McEntee, a GGWash contributor who also writes the bike column Gear Prudence, explored McOwen's statement and the different situations that drivers face on the road.

Others pointed out that people walking don't have to stop at stop signs and that children aren't allowed to drive until they reach an age where they can think more critically. One Twitter commenter noted that the law already allows cyclists to proceed when the light is red and they are following the pedestrian signal.

Whether cyclists should have special rules is always a heated debate. For one, there are some cyclists who ride very fast and can keep up with drivers, while others tend to go at a slower pace.

At the hearing, cycling advocate David Cranor noted that allowing cyclists to yield at stop signs would send more cyclists on slower, safer, residential streets.

The Idaho Stop debate was only one part of the Transportation Committee hearing. If you want a good recap, Dave Salovesh live tweeted the hearing and posted a Storify of the twitter conversation.

Politics


A chat with DC Council candidate David Garber

David Garber, a former Navy Yard ANC commissioner and author of the And Now, Anacostia blog, is running for the at-large DC Council seat currently held by Vincent Orange. Already a popular voice of the District's revived urbanist crowd, Garber says he wants a more sustainable, inclusive, and safe city.


David Garber. Image from the candidate.

Really, Garber is running against Orange in the Democratic primary, which isn't until June. But his schedule is already packed with everything from visiting urban farms in Ward 7 to sharing his views on the RFK Stadium redevelopment. He recently set some time aside to chat with Greater Greater Washington about some of the issues facing the District.

On transportation: bike and bus lanes, the Streetcar, and cars

On transportation, Garber envisions a multimodal future where everything from improved buses to better dedicated bike and pedestrian infrastructure and cars has a place in the District.

"When we talk about actually putting dollars towards infrastructure, we have to remember that we get the city that we invest in and we get the modes that we put real dollars into," says Garber. "I know that there's interest in spreading [investment] to modes and infrastructure upgrades that promote a more efficient, healthier, and stronger city. And getting to that more sustainable place requires more investment in a built environment and in transportation modes that get us there."

Bus, bike, and pedestrian infrastructure are examples of such modes, he says.

"I think it's really important that we invest in things like better dedicated bus service and 16th Street NW is a great example of that," says Garber. "That's a corridor where improvements to the current status quo have been discussed for a number of years now and a lot of people have asked for more efficient bus service. It's one of those types of projects that feels like it gets studied and studied without actually ever moving forward. I'd love to see leadership take initiative to make it happen."

Better bus service on 16th Street may actually move forward before the 2016 election. DDOT announced that it was studying a variety of options, including dedicated bus lanes for the corridor, earlier in October.

Asked his view on DC's delay-plagued streetcar, Garber says: "[The streetcar] is something that I've been a supporter of and excited about but, unfortunately, like a lot of people around the city, I've been disappointed with the roll out and the way that it has been built. I don't think there was as much planning early on as could have happened."

"That said, I don't think that the hurdles and hiccups are a reason to not do more of it in the future," he adds. "Just that we have to take a step back, rebuild the public trust, and learn lessons for next time."


Maybe we'll get the next one right. Photo by Dan Malouff.

Garber is supportive of dedicated bike and pedestrian infrastructure but feels the District could take more of a lead in developing these amenities in outlying neighborhoods.

"With any changes to infrastructure, you often have the lead with real investment before people take a chance on it or believe in it," he says. "People feel safest taking a chance on a new transportation mode when the infrastructure is in place and they feel protected in it. And if we're truly committed to upping the sustainability ante, we have to be consistently investing in the infrastructure that will get us there."

While a clear advocate of transit, cycling and walking, Garber contends that personal vehicles have a place in the city's transportation infrastructure.

"A lot of communities east of the river and closer to the city's edges are less dense, have fewer local amenities currently than areas closer to the center of the city and a lot of people do rely on personal vehicles," he says. "I think [it's important] that we consider that there are a lot of different types of built environments, that this is a diverse city, and that for many, vehicles are a big part of the equation when we're thinking about the city as a whole."

On changing neighborhoods and housing supply

Housing affordability is an ever-growing point of contention in the District. While new construction continues apace, well-established communities are increasingly being displaced by newcomers as prices rise driving fervent calls for more affordable housing in popular neighborhoods.

"The city's growing and I've been a big booster of a lot of that growth, as long as it's done well," says Garber. "But if we grow as a city and we don't take care to include the diversity that exists [today], and don't, from an economic development perspective, invest equitably across the entire geography of the District, then we'll have failed at the end of the day."


Photo by NCinDC on Flickr.

Putting more money into the city's affordable housing trust fund and making sure a variety of affordable units are included in new developments are two examples of ways to maintain the city's diversity, he says.

Garber is a big proponent of making sure affordable housing goes into neigborhoods where people want to live. He cites the new development at 965 Florida Avenue NW as an example of affordable housing being included in a new development in popular neighborhood.

"These places are attractive because they're close to transit and they're close to amenities," he says. "Too much of the time we only put affordable housing where it's least expensive to do so... We need to do a better and more intentional job of spreading housing for earners of all levels across the city."

The neighborhood-supported 965 Florida Ave project has also been a point of contention for the DC Council. Earlier this year, the council dragged its feet approving the project due to the cost of the affordable component.

"I do think that in some circumstances it's worth exploring the possibility of selling some of our District-owned properties and parcels outright and using that money in more targeted ways for affordable housing across the District as long as, via a comprehensive analysis, we're able to get more money for affordable housing at the end of the day," says Garber.

At market rate, the land at 965 Florida Avenue was appraised at nearly $27 million dollars. A law requiring 20-30% of units in public land deals to be affordable to people making 30-50% of the Area Median Income brought estimates of a fair price down to just under $6 million (the difference going to affordable units that the District would otherwise be building), but the city wound up selling the land for only $400,000.

The DC Council approved the project in September.

On fighting the surge in violent crime, and supporting police

With the alarming rise in deadly shootings in the District over the summer, residents have taken a renewed interest in public safety in the city.

"I've had a lot of conversations with residents and community leaders, and I've spent a lot of time around the District riding along with police officers, and there are a couple of things I consistently hear," says Garber. "Leadership could probably do a better job at listening to the on-the-ground experiences of the officers that are working in neighborhoods across the District and implementing strategies based on that input."


Photo by Elvert Barnes on Flickr.

Garber wants to bring back plainclothes vice units around the District, attract new officers to the force especially as retirements climb as well as improve and increase access to vocational training for city residents, a campaign video shows.

"On council, I would absolutely be having a conversation with the mayor and the [police] chief about whether or not that is something we need to look at again," says Garber on disbanding the vice units. "I do think it's important to have people in positions of public safety around the city who are really tied to the specific communities they're working in. If everything's centralized, you lose some of that institutional knowledge of who the players are in a community, where the hotspots are, and creating a culture of safety."

There's a long road ahead

Garber faces a tough campaign. Vincent Orange, who has been on the council for more than a decade 12 years (though non-consecutively), will likely be a formidable opponent despite his admonishment by the ethics board for intervening to stop public health officials from shutting down a wholesale food business with a rat infestation in 2013.

Orange won his last primary in 2012 with just a 42% plurality of the vote while respected councilmembers Sekou Biddle and Peter Shapiro, along with other opponents, split the remaining votes.

Outside observers fear a repeat of the split vote, especially if Andy Shallal and Robert White enter the race. Garber is, so far, nonplussed at the prospect.

"Right now I am just focusing on my campaign," he says. "I know I'm going to run a viable campaign and I've gotten a lot of enthusiasm and support from all corners of the District."

Asked why he decided to run for the at-large council seat, Garber says: "I want to take more of a leadership role citywide so that I can serve the District as a more effective advocate on issues that really matter to people from the council level."

"I loved being in the position of an ANC commissioner," he continues. "It really taught me a lot about getting community input and feedback, and it engaged me with a lot of the issues that neighborhoods go through when they're growing or changing. I'm running for council because I'm invested in taking that same communities-first focus city-wide."

Poverty


DC's family leave bill may need work, but kneejerk reactions won't make it better

DC's proposed Family Leave Act, if adopted, would be the nation's most ambitious paid leave program for workers. The Washington Post recently published a kneejerk opposition to it that's based on several flawed understandings of the bill, and it's important to set the record straight.


DC's Family Leave Act would help make sure little ones like these don't become regular fixtures at the office. Photo by Jen Kim on Flickr.

Last week, the Washington Post editorial board said the bill, drafted by Councilmembers Elissa Silverman and David Grosso, would go unnecessarily further than similar bills around the country, that jobs would leave DC because of it, and that it wouldn't help those who need it most.

In brief, the proposed paid leave program would replace all or part of a worker's salary for up to 16 weeks for leave associated with certain qualifying circumstances. The most obvious qualifying circumstance would be maternity or paternity leave, but leave to care for a sick or elderly family member would also be covered. The program would provide up to $1,000 per week to match a worker's salary up to $52,000 a year. Salary above that level would be matched at 50% up to a $3,000 per week cap.

The bill proposes to pay for the program from a fund generated by a .5%-1% payroll tax on employers for all their employees (not just District residents). It would operate much like unemployment insurance: When you go on leave you would apply for benefits, which would be paid from the fund. Your employer would not be obligated to pay you.

There are a lot of questions that still need answers regarding how the program will work and what changes the proposed bill might need. How would it interact with existing paid leave programs offered by private employers? How would "double dipping" be prevented? Would the fund be solvent?

There should certainly be a productive conversation between policy makers, the public, and business owners to refine the bill into its final form. All of these questions are more must be addressed before the final bill is adopted and—in some ways more importantly—before the regulations go into effect. Unfortunately, the Post editorial detracts from the potential for future discourse.

The DC Council is not out of control, nor is it crazy for proposing this

The opening premise of the Post editorial is that the DC Council is deep into a bender of naively progressive legislation that is overwhelming the District's business community. But there isn't all that much evidence to back this stance up:

Witness the burst of legislation in the past three years requiring employers to pay higher salaries, provide new benefits and face new regulations . Now, with the ink barely dry on those laws, a majority of the council wants to put an additional burden on employers with a tax that would allow workers to take up to 16 weeks of paid family leave annually.
If you click on those examples, the first is a link to an article on the District's newly-higher minimum wage (a change the Post editorial board itself admitted was necessary, even if it disagreed with the timing and degree).

The second link is to an article about the Paid Family Leave bill itself, and the third is to a proposal to require personal trainers to register and meet certain certification requirements. Notably it was a proposed regulation, not a law, and one that was gutted before adoption.

The above is all the editorial could come up with to demonstrate how out of control the Council is.

The Post actually doesn't have its facts straight

The end of the excerpt really shows how flawed the board's position is. The proposed bill will not allow workers to take up to 16 weeks of family leave per year. They already have that right. Since 1991, under the DC Family Medical Leave Act DC workers have been entitled to take the 16 weeks. The only change that the new bill would make is that people without the economic security of, say, a law firm associate, will actually be able to afford to take the leave they already have the right to take.

Which leads to another baffling argument that the editorial makes:

this broad-brushed approach doesn't target resources to the workers who are most in need. Low-income and minority groups have the least access to paid leave options, so it would be far more sensible for the city to design a program that helped them most. That would be the truly progressive option.
The proposed bill would provide 100% income-replacement for workers making $52,000 or less. How does that not target low-income and minority groups? Would they prefer the program pay people even more than their salaries on leave? How in the world can the editorial criticize the bill for being alarmingly radical and yet not progressive enough in the same breath?

Poverty


I'm an employer, and I support DC's family leave bill

Employees who work in DC could soon be entitled to 16 weeks of paid time off for the birth of a child, to care for a sick family member, or recover from illness, under a bill introduced this week.

As someone who runs a small nonprofit that will soon employ three people, I think this is a great idea. As someone who writes about the forces that affect where people live, I also think it's a great idea.


This isn't easy. Working mom with infant photo from Shutterstock.

I want to give employees family and medical leave

Greater Greater Washington started out as an all-volunteer project, but as we've grown, we've developed into a nonprofit organization with full-time staff. We have one employee now, our staff editor, and thanks to a grant we received this summer, we're working to hire two more employees.

If one of them were to have a baby or get very sick, I'd want them to be able to take time off. Unfortunately, we just couldn't realistically afford to do that right now. Our grant just barely lets us hire all three of them, and we need to raise more money on our own as well. (If you want to help, you can contribute here!)

To lose our editor for up to four months but be able to pay someone else during that time would put massive strain on our ability to run the blog; to lose one of the two people we're hiring and not have the money to use for alternatives would make it very hard to achieve the goals we've set in our grant. It would be difficult to do without them no matter what, for sure, but much harder if it also cost us money.


This is not how it should have to be. New mom working photo from Shutterstock.

People should spend time with their children

But being able to have time off for the birth of a child shouldn't be just a luxury (and certainly isn't luxurious). When our daughter was born, I took about two months off, and my wife, who works for the federal government, was able to use her vacation and sick leave and then take a small amount of unpaid leave to have four months to spend with her.

We're fortunate that her agency is flexible and that we could afford the short time without pay, because caring for our daughter was all-consuming. As any parent can tell you, it was exhausting and massively frustrating while also being enormously joyful.

Contrary to some portrayals, a new parent is not lounging around while the baby sleeps all the time. Many babies might sleep during the daytime, but they're up every few hours all night.

The chance to bond with a new life in this world isn't a life experience parents should skip, and the work of caring for this helpless person is not something they can easily delegate. Besides nobody else being able to handle nighttime feeding, it's not that easy to get into a daycare within a few months of birth in many parts of DC.

Sure, many people do without parental leave today, but people should not have to choose between covering basic living expenses and being there for a new child. Nor should they have to neglect an ailing family member.


This should happen. Fathers walking photo from Shutterstock.

How this bill works

The bill, written by at-large councilmembers Elissa Silverman and David Grosso and cosponsored by Brianne Nadeau (Ward 1), Mary Cheh (Ward 3), Kenyan McDuffie (Ward 5), Charles Allen (Ward 6), and LaRuby May (Ward 8), would set up a fund where employers pay on a sliding scale up to 1% of an employee's salary.

When the employee needs to take leave, the fund would cover the first $1,000 a week of salary and half of the next $4,000. Basically, an employee making $52,000 a year would get 100% reimbursement while an employee making $156,000 would get 2/3 of his or her salary covered.

It would apply to non-federal DC employers and their employees, regardless of whether those employees live in the District. DC residents who work for the federal government or employers outside DC would be required to pay into the fund and be covered.

For Greater Greater Washington, this reduces a lot of our risk. Sure, having the employee out would be difficult, but at least we would not be using up as much as 1/6 of our grant money for it at the same time. If one of our staff were out for four months, it wouldn't be easy and maybe impossible to find a replacement, but it's a better alternative than either of the current choices: Offer leave and maybe lose a lot of grant money, or be a crummy boss.

Yes, it will cost us and we don't have a lot of budget to spare, but for that hypothetical $52,000-a-year employee (sorry, we're a nonprofit; again, you can help grow our budget), this "insurance" costs about $400-500 a year. That's doable.

I don't know what it's like to run a restaurant, or a dentist's office, or one of a thousand other kinds of small businesses. People who run those will surely speak up in the time to come. But for myself, I don't want to have to put our employees in the position of having to miss a child's infancy or care for a sick parent if they want to keep working here.

Without this bill, though, to be perfectly honest, I'd have little choice right now given our small organization and tight budget. That's why I hope it passes as soon as possible.


In real life, people juggling work and kids don't look this relaxed (or have professional makeup). Working mom photo from Shutterstock.

This bill is good for strengthening urban communities

From a broader urbanist standpoint, this bill is also smart policy. Proponents argue that there are other cases where the value will sway an employer's choice as well. They suggest that working for DC companies will be more appealing for workers who have many choices, making it easier to attract talent to the District.

However, this is just one of many factors that could attract or repel employers. I just don't think many employers choose to locate in DC because of the level of taxes. If just looking at pure costs, a suburban sprawl office park is going to beat out a walkable urban place almost every time, as it did for Northrop Grumman. Those office parks are cheaper, but less pleasant for employees, and they push a lot of costs onto the publicly-funded transportation network (and on employees directly).

Many employers are seeing things differently. They want to be in DC, or Arlington or Bethesda or Silver Spring, to attract workers who want to live in urban places and don't want a long slog in the car every day. They want employees to have appealing choices for lunch. They want to be in a place with some energy. Marriott CEO Arne Sorenson wants to move the company's headquarters to a Metro station area for that reason, not to the cheapest office space he can find.

The same applies for costs beyond real estate. DC is not going to compete with other jurisdictions to be the lowest cost, but rather, the highest value. Meanwhile, a lot of low-wage work that doesn't need to be in DC already isn't; a telemarketing call center already isn't in DC, and isn't even in Virginia or Maryland, probably. A store or restaurant has to be where it is for the customers.

Certainly there are employers on the margins where this will make a difference. But we also just can't allow every issue to be a race to the bottom. Everyone deserves to be able to take some time for their health and for their families. A bill that reduces the cost to an employer when this happens is a good idea.

I have one request: Please, DC government, make the paperwork as easy as possible. Maybe it can be combined with the existing unemployment insurance forms or some other filing, so that we don't have to fill out any new forms? Thanks. And pass the bill.

Corrections/updates: The initial version of this post had an error in the way it described what happens to DC residents who work for the federal government or non-DC employers; they would have to pay into the program and would be covered. Also, the wording of a paragraph about the impact on Greater Greater Washington of losing staff has been edited for clarity.

Politics


Will vote-splitting help Vincent Orange win again?

Vincent Orange has been a terrible at-large member of the DC Council. David Garber is running to unseat him in the coming Democratic primary, and now there are reports that Robert White will jump in as well. Can DC avoid the vote-splitting that has stymied reformers' past electoral efforts?


Photo by Sheila Sund on Flickr.

In his last primary in 2012, Orange faced a crowded field of challengers. In the end, Orange won the nomination with 42% of the vote. Sekou Biddle got 39%, Peter Shapiro 11%, and E. Gail Anderson Holness 8%.

Many voters, including a lot from the Greater Greater Washington community, were torn between Biddle and Shapiro, both of whom would have been good councilmembers in their own right, not to mention far better than Orange.

The same thing happened in the special election the previous year, when Orange got into office with 29% of the vote versus 25% for Patrick Mara, 20% for Sekou Biddle, and 13% for Bryan Weaver, all of whom, again, would have been good councilmembers.

What's so bad about Orange?

Vincent Orange made headlines in 2013 for intervening to stop public health officials from shutting down a wholesale food business with a rat infestation.

Orange was admonished by the then-new ethics board. He was the first public official to face sanction by the board, which was created after multiple councilmembers resigned for ethical issues spanning a spectrum up to outright corruption.

Orange has a poor record on housing and transportation as well. He rushed to propose a blanket moratorium on homeowners adding onto their homes or renting out parts of their houses in row house zones. His overly broad (and likely illegal) bill would have exacerbated DC's housing crunch and shut the doors to new residents.

When the council was hotly debating whether to tax out-of-state bonds, Orange agreed to support an amendment by Tommy Wells on the condition that Wells would agree to set aside $500,000 for an Emancipation Day parade at the Lincoln Theatre, whose board Orange serves on.


David Garber. Image from the candidate's website.

Will the field narrow before the primary?

At David Garber's campaign kickoff, supporters likened him to Brianne Nadeau, who took out long-serving Ward 1 member Jim Graham in part by focusing on Graham's scrapes with ethics issues.

Nadeau also had one more advantage: a clearer field. She was able to build up a strong enough campaign that others decided not to run as well.

That's now not going to be the case. Personally, I like both Garber and White and would love to see both on the council. But I worry that both will draw from overlapping, though not identical, bases of support, again threatening a vote split.


Robert White. Image from the candidate's Facebook page.

Absent technology to fuse the two into a super duper "Dobert Warber," either one of them would have to singlehandedly amass more votes than Orange, or convince the other to drop out of the race either early or late in the process. (Or the DC Council could institute instant runoff voting or some similar system, though that's very unlikely to happen in time, if at all.)

In places with real competition between two parties, primaries serve this role. There's a vote, and most of the time the loser of a primary goes and supports the winner in that same party. But everyone's a Democrat this time. In some places, like California, the primary is nonpartisan, and the top two winners go on to the general even if both are Democrats or Republicans. We don't have that either.

In a presidential primary, the series of state primaries and caucuses helps winnow the field by demonstrating which candidates have real electoral strength and which don't. DC also does not have any kind of rotating set of ward primaries.

What could narrow the field?

What to do? We need some sort of mechanism for fairly identifying one who has the better electoral strength, whether through polls or some other method. Both candidates should then take a pledge that whichever one wins this kind of pre-primary will go up against Orange one-on-one.

To get candidates to sign on, voters, volunteers, and donors also need to agree only to support a candidate who himself signs the pledge and/or to ultimately support the pre-primary winner.

If I had more time, I'd try to meet with candidates, political operatives, big donors, and others behind the scenes to push this idea. But I don't, so I'll just write it on a blog. What do you think?

Bicycling


Which DC Councilmembers support fully protecting the Pennsylvania Avenue bikeway?

To stop drivers from making dangerous U-turns across the Pennsylvania Avenue bikeway, DC has installed physical barriers—except on two blocks right where DC councilmembers park. Are councilmembers the obstacle? We asked them if they support completing the barriers.


A U-turning driver strikes a cyclist. Image from David Garber on Twitter.

From the moment the bikeway opened on Pennsylvania Avenue, there were problems with drivers parking in the lanes and making U-turns mid-block. U-turns are very dangerous, as drivers often do not see cyclists riding in the lanes.

It took three years and a mayoral order to even confirm that these U-turns were actually illegal. During this time, many cyclists were struck by drivers, and 12 of Capital Bikeshare's first 14 crashes happened on Pennsylvania Avenue.


Wheel stops on Pennsylvania Avenue. Photo by the author.

After almost two years of experiments with tools like "zebras," the District Department of Transportation started lining the lanes with rubber curb stops. At Bike to Work Day in May, officials announced plans to install them all the way from 3rd Street NW to 13th Street NW.

But curiously, that announcement omitted the two westernmost blocks, from 13th Street NW to 15th Street NW. DDOT spokesperson Keith St. Clair said in an earlier statement to Greater Greater Washington, "In the immediate future, DDOT will not be installing the park-its between 13th and 15th streets, NW, on Pennsylvania Avenue. The agency still needs to analyze those blocks along with several mitigating factors that it must take into consideration."

Are politicians one "mitigating factor"? Along that stretch is the John A. Wilson Building, which houses the executive and legislative offices of the District of Columbia government. Councilmembers park in front of the Wilson Building, and many make U-turns to either get to the parking space or leave.

I reached out to all 13 members of the DC Council for comment. Here's the scorecard.


Top from left to right: Vincent Orange, Elissa Silverman, David Grosso, LaRuby May, Brianne Nadeau, Brandon Todd, Anita Bonds, Charles Allen. Bottom from left to right: Yvette Alexander, Jack Evans, Chairman Phil Mendelson, Kenyan McDuffie, Mary Cheh.
Green circles denote members who stated they support barriers, question marks show members who did not reply, and X's show those who made negative statements. Image by Greater Greater Washington from base image by the DC Council.

I got supportive comments from at-large councilmembers Anita Bonds, David Grosso, and Elissa Silverman, and ward members Brianne Nadeau (Ward 1), Jack Evans (Ward 2), Mary Cheh (Ward 3), Brandon Todd (Ward 4), Kenyan McDuffie (Ward 5), Charles Allen (Ward 6), and LaRuby May (Ward 8).

I got no response from Chairman Phil Mendelson or at-large member Vincent Orange.

Ward 7 representative Yvette Alexander's office did not reply to my request for comment, but I had the opportunity to speak with her during a recent rally in support of adding barriers to the rest of the bikeway.

At first she equated cycling with lawbreaking, complaining that bicycles need to get off sidewalks and follow the same laws that apply to drivers. I explained that better bike lanes means more people will use them and follow the laws, a statement which she found funny for some reason. She then complained that the demonstrators were blocking the U-turn she wanted to make that day.

Update: Yvette Alexander says on Twitter that yes, she does in fact support barriers for the Pennsylvania Avenue bikeway. She has not yet responded to GGW's request for clarification that she supports barriers specifically between 13th and 15th Streets.
Below are the full comments from each councilmember's office who responded.

Anita Bonds (At Large): "Councilmember Bonds supports the completion throughout PA Avenue. Additionally, she prefers the usage of 'sticks' as she calls them to create a visible barrier on as many bike lanes possible throughout the city."

David Grosso (At Large): "As you know, Councilmember Grosso joined the protest a few weeks ago on the 1300 block of Pennsylvania regarding protected bike lanes on that block and the 1400 block. The Councilmember is very supportive of increasing DC's bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure, including moving forward as quickly as possible on planning that has already been done. Grosso [has met] with DDOT director Dormsjo to discuss these issues more in-depth. And he has been biking to work on a regular basis, which gives him a firsthand look at the issues facing bicyclists in DC."

Elissa Silverman (At Large): "I support extending the existing wheel stops through 15th Street. They are in place to protect both cyclists and car drivers. I biked to work on Pennsylvania Avenue this morning, and I was behind a mom commuting with her toddler in a seat on the front handlebars. As we encourage people to get out of their cars and use alternate transportation—walking, biking, subway, bus, even Segway—we need to keep everyone safe. Installing the wheels stops between 13th and 15th will do that. And, by the way, I also drive that route—and when I park in front of the Wilson Building I make a left turn at the light and drive around it to get back on Pennsylvania. It does take an extra minute or two—and I've been late to a meeting to do it!—but it is worth the time."

Brianne Nadeau (Ward 1): "Councilmember Nadeau is a strong supporter of building more protected bike lanes throughout the District, including along this section of Pennsylvania Ave where it's especially important to prevent illegal U turns. She is currently working with WABA on a letter to DDOT requesting the prioritization of several protected bike lane projects in Ward 1, and also secured a commitment from the Director of the DMV to provide drivers with information about bike lanes. Recently, she also joined Bike Ambassadors in Columbia Heights and participated in Bike to Work Day."

Jack Evans (Ward 2): "Councilmember Evans supports protecting the Pennsylvania Avenue cycletrack between 13th and 14th."

Mary Cheh (Ward 3): "The Councilmember feels that as long as safety equipment isn't affected, the curbs should be added now."

Brandon Todd (Ward 4): "Councilmember Todd fully supports improving bicycle safety along Pennsylvania Avenue, including adding curbs wherever necessary along the bike path. He would like to see those safety improvements implemented as quickly as possible, especially in those areas where bicyclists are particularly vulnerable and currently unprotected."

Kenyan McDuffie (Ward 5): "Councilmember McDuffie is in support of installing curbs between 15th and 13th streets on Pennsylvania Ave."

Charles Allen (Ward 6): "The Pennsylvania Avenue cycletrack is an important east-west connective link in the District's bicycle infrastructure. Protecting these bike lanes with parking curbs, while not a perfect solution to dangerous illegal U-turns, is an important means of improving safety for cyclists. Leaving two blocks unprotected is, frankly, baffling and unacceptable. A physical barrier to deter illegal U-turns is needed the full length of the corridor."

LaRuby May (Ward 8): "Councilmember May absolutely supports protecting the Pennsylvania Avenue cycletrack between 13th and 14th and is a strong supporter of more protected bike lanes in Ward 8 and across the District."

We will update this post if other councilmembers respond with comments.

Update: Councilmembers Kenyan McDuffie (Ward 5), LaRuby May (Ward 8), and Yvette Alexander (Ward 7) followed up soon after this article was published to state their support for protecting the Pennsylvania Avenue lanes. The graphic and post have been updated to reflect their positions.

Support Us