[Lincolnparkdc] lincolnparkdc Digest, Vol 25, Issue 54
Tim Dube
timothydube at gmail.com
Sat Oct 17 13:00:16 EDT 2020
The bike lanes around LP are in fact heavily used. It’s hard to remember
that since the people who usually bike to work and school aren’t doing so
right now. The lanes are also heavily obstructed by double parked cars
illegally at all times. The policy fallacy here is the presumption that the
streets are for cars. They are for all users equally. Bike lanes provide
safety for the 20 pound vehicle vs the 2,000 pound one. Please don’t treat
bikers as “less thans.”
Our neigbborhood’s streets were laid out when most people walked and a few
rode horses or in carriages. Then came the bikes. The cars were last.
On Sat, Oct 17, 2020 at 11:56 AM <lincolnparkdc-request at lincolnparkdc.info>
wrote:
> Send lincolnparkdc mailing list submissions to
> lincolnparkdc at lincolnparkdc.info
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
>
> http://lincolnparkdc.info/mailman/listinfo/lincolnparkdc_lincolnparkdc.info
>
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> lincolnparkdc-request at lincolnparkdc.info
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> lincolnparkdc-owner at lincolnparkdc.info
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of lincolnparkdc digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
> 1. Re: Reducing Number of Flexipodts 1 (Demetri Papademetriou)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Sat, 17 Oct 2020 15:55:53 +0000
> From: Demetri Papademetriou <DPapademetriou at MigrationPolicy.Org>
> To: "lincolnparkdc at lincolnparkdc.info"
> <lincolnparkdc at lincolnparkdc.info>
> Cc: Will Handsfield <will.handsfield at dc.gov>, Pat Carlucci
> <pcarlucci at allenaustin.com>, Charles Allen <callen at dccouncil.us>,
> Kirsten Oldenburg <6b04 at anc.dc.gov>, Chander Jayaraman
> <6b08 at anc.dc.gov>
> Subject: Re: [Lincolnparkdc] Reducing Number of Flexipodts 1
> Message-ID:
> <
> BL0PR1501MB2147D974442BC0EA2B832985DA000 at BL0PR1501MB2147.namprd15.prod.outlook.com
> >
>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> David, I couldn?t agree with you more?especially your reference to the
> unfortunately common intellectual and logical fallacy of confusing ?the
> general with the particular.?!
>
> And Mark, it is simply not true that this is an ?either/or? proposition. I
> usually don?t enter into these discussions but the thinking of the ANC on
> bike infrastructure seems to be little more than plain advocacy for a point
> of view that is what bike lane activists spout.
>
> It seems to me that policymaking bodies must always consider what is in
> the best interest of the broader community, not act as clients for
> activists or pretend that if more bike paths are built, ?bikers will
> somehow come.? And essentially dismissing safety concerns for those who
> would have to walk a block or two in the later evening hours because of
> fewer parking slots is simply not right.
>
> The bike lanes on 13 St and around the park are hardly used.
>
> Why doesn?t the city run an audit on this!
>
> Thanks for listening!
>
> Demetri (126 13th St.)
>
>
> From: lincolnparkdc <lincolnparkdc-bounces at lincolnparkdc.info> On Behalf
> Of David Morris
> Sent: Saturday, October 17, 2020 1:10 AM
> To: lincolnparkdc at lincolnparkdc.info
> Cc: Will Handsfield <will.handsfield at dc.gov>; Pat Carlucci <
> pcarlucci at allenaustin.com>; Charles Allen <callen at dccouncil.us>; Kirsten
> Oldenburg <6b04 at anc.dc.gov>; Chander Jayaraman <6b08 at anc.dc.gov>
> Subject: Re: [Lincolnparkdc] Reducing Number of Flexipodts 1
>
> Mark, I think this reasoning is flawed. Even if we all agree that improved
> bike infrastructure is a good thing generally, it does not necessarily
> follow that it is a good thing in a particular case such as this
> intersection. And even if we agree that it is a good thing in this case, it
> does not necessarily follow that DDOT's plans are the right way to go about
> it.
>
> This confusion of the general with the particular carries an inherent
> insensitivity to local conditions which I have noticed in a lot of bike
> advocacy. The people affected are expected to readjust their routines, make
> new arrangements, and deal with it. Their criticisms and concerns are
> discredited by appeals to the general goal of better bike infrastructure.
> But it is precisely these local effects that ANC commissioners and other
> local leaders are elected to hear and incorporate into their
> decision-making, even if people agree that improved bike infrastructure is
> generally good.
>
> Many residents near this intersection have given direct and personal views
> on how these plans would affect their daily lives. These local and
> closely-felt effects are the proper focus of this debate. They need to be
> heard, and they should be the focus of DDOT's and elected leaders' review
> of this plan--not general notions of bike vs. car.
>
> David
>
> On Fri, Oct 16, 2020 at 10:42 PM Mark Jordan <mark at markjordan.me<mailto:
> mark at markjordan.me>> wrote:
> At the risk of beating this dead horse further, I shall weigh in for the
> defense. Also copying other elected representatives included on other
> strings so they can add this to their deliberations.
>
> I hear at least three distinct lines of arguments:
>
> (1) The proposal would reduce parking spaces;
>
> * Assuming no reduction in cars in the neighborhood, some people will
> have to park farther away.
> * For some people, lost parking spaces could make mobility / access
> issues more acute (i.e., grocery dropoffs, longer walks to a car);
> * A longer walk from one's car at night could lead to increased
> exposure to potential victimization.
> (2) The vertical plastic objects (by any name) are unsightly and don't
> last long; and
>
> (3) The proposal will reduce property values (perhaps more severely at
> houses with pylons in front of them).
>
> Here's how I think about these issues and how I would encourage the
> executive branch to think about them as they make their decision:
>
> As a policy matter, the city needs more bike infrastructure. including
> bike lanes. I don't think any policymaker in DC will dispute this at this
> point.
>
> * Bike lanes make bikers safer.
> * Inducing bike riding is better for the environment. California
> thanks you.
> * Streets are for all travellers. However, the current allocation of
> public resources to cars specifically is, to put it gently, absurd (how do
> we get essentially unlimited parking for $35 per car per year?). Detroit
> thanks you. Or at least they used to.
> * Bikes are a more affordable mode of transportation than cars.
> Subsidizing bikes rather than cars is an equity issue.
> * Having bikes in their own lanes is generally preferable to car
> drivers too, who don't have to slow down for bikers in the road.
> I think the only question for DDOT is where do additional bike lanes go
> and who will absorb the associated costs, like lost parking. For my part,
> I'd like Kentucky Ave (all eight blocks) to be part of the solution and if
> my neighbors are stuck with more of the cost I'd like to figure out how we
> can all chip in to mitigate it.
>
> To the specifics:
>
> (1) Parking
>
> * As has been said before, none of us is entitled to parking spaces
> anywhere near our house. Do I prefer them? I do. But you are all free to
> use them.
> * There are, to be sure, circumstances in which individuals with
> mobility limitations need a space very near their homes. The city has
> accomodations for that. There is at least one reserved spot on our block
> already.
>
> * If we need more restricted parking spaces on our block to
> accommodate those who need them, I'd be in favor of it. Yes, it would
> reduce parking even further, but that's what neighbors do for each other to
> make neighborhoods work. I'd be OK with walking farther for a good cause.
> I suspect there are many others on this block who would feel the same.
>
> * As to the increased safety risks associated with longer walks for
> those displaced by lost parking spots, I would just say you have to look at
> the other side of the ledger. How many bikers on Capitol Hill - of all
> ages - are at greater risk right now because of insufficient bike
> infrastructure and having to share roads with cars? I'd venture that there
> would be a net gain in human safety with the bike lanes.
> (2) The plastic pylons
>
> * Agreed, I don't love them. And if there's a way to reduce the
> number or use an alternative, that'd be great. But the aesthetic objection
> by itself I don't think outweigh the merits of the change overall.
> * I will say that I am reminded to some extent of the public
> discussions when Capitol Bikeshare was proposed for Lincoln Park. There
> was quite a bit of opposition for a range of reasons. Ultimately, when the
> station was installed, it seems to have been integrated seemlessly into the
> neighborhood and I think it's widely considered an asset.
> (3) Property Values
>
> * I actually think there's a good chance that if there's an impact on
> property values, having a street with bike lanes in both directions will
> increase values, particularly in a neighborhood as walkable / bikeable as
> ours.
> I recognize e-mail is not a great medium for public debates. (Twitter is
> really much better :) ). But it's what we've got right now. Thanks,
> neighbors, for a civil and thoughtful debate.
>
> Hopefully see many of you at tomorrow night's toast at 5:30.
>
> All the best.
>
> Mark
>
>
> On Fri, Oct 16, 2020 at 9:09 PM Sharon Raimo <SRaimo at stcoletta.org<mailto:
> SRaimo at stcoletta.org>> wrote:
> John? This is so well said. And you , like many of us, have raised
> children on the Hill and walked them through crowded intersections . This
> is one of the trade offs for living in a city. We do not need to barricade
> ourselves.
> Sent from my iPhone
>
>
> On Oct 16, 2020, at 8:37 PM, John Hirschmann <hirschj154 at gmail.com<mailto:
> hirschj154 at gmail.com>> wrote:
> ?
> ?
> Peter and Regina
>
> I have seen the messages you each sent to the LPDC earlier this evening on
> this general topic.
>
> I think you have seriously missed the primary concern that is being
> raised. It has to do with the inability to longer to be able to park in
> front of your home, even stop a few minutes to carry packages into your
> home, and having in all likelihood to park further from your home. But
> most importantly regardless of the design or the exact number of flex
> posts used, it will require the residents of these homes to incur greater
> risk of being harmed, particularly if they need to return to their home
> after dark.
>
> Other messages today to LPDC have detailed the fact the vast majority of
> thes residents are elderly and many are widows. They don?t have people to
> make sure they have gotten from their car to their home safely. Have you
> asked yourselves whether the greater risk your asking them to incur is
> somehow offset by the greater security or view others will gain. There are
> important tradeoffs to be seriously thought about.
>
> Have you also thought how you would feel if the city announced it was
> taking away your parking space (assuming you don?t have off street parking)
> and the spaces for 4-5 homes to your right or left.
>
> It just happens that almost all those most directly impacted have lived
> here many years. We?ve seen the neighborhood through many challenging
> years. You have residential parking program to thank. It was created to
> combat all the traffic at most hours of the day that was created by many
> homes in the 1200 block of Massachusetts renting their rooms by the hour.
> There were also the homes mid block on the 100 block of 13th that the
> police visited frequently and referred to as the drug stores.
>
> Many of us would like to live the last years of lives in our current
> homes. Being able to easily access either your vehicle or others providing
> you a ride becomes increasingly important.
>
> John
> John F Hirschmann
> hirschj154 at gmail.com<mailto:hirschj154 at gmail.com>
> Sent from my iPad
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> LincolnParkDC mailing list
>
> To post to the list address your message to:
> LincolnParkDC at lincolnparkdc.info<mailto:LincolnParkDC at lincolnparkdc.info>
> When replying, please consider whether to reply to the sender only, or to
> the list, which is the default.
> Not all replies are appropriate for the entire list.
>
> Please do not send administrative requests to the list. Please click on
> the following link to
> switch to digest mode, change your password, or otherwise manage your
> subscription:
> https://vps.woteki.com/mailman/listinfo/lincolnparkdc_lincolnparkdc.info
>
> If you need assistance managing your subscription, please address your
> request to: towncrier at lincolnparkdc.info<mailto:
> towncrier at lincolnparkdc.info>
> Please do not address assistance requests to the list. Thank you for your
> cooperation.
> _______________________________________________
> LincolnParkDC mailing list
>
> To post to the list address your message to:
> LincolnParkDC at lincolnparkdc.info<mailto:LincolnParkDC at lincolnparkdc.info>
> When replying, please consider whether to reply to the sender only, or to
> the list, which is the default.
> Not all replies are appropriate for the entire list.
>
> Please do not send administrative requests to the list. Please click on
> the following link to
> switch to digest mode, change your password, or otherwise manage your
> subscription:
> https://vps.woteki.com/mailman/listinfo/lincolnparkdc_lincolnparkdc.info
>
> If you need assistance managing your subscription, please address your
> request to: towncrier at lincolnparkdc.info<mailto:
> towncrier at lincolnparkdc.info>
> Please do not address assistance requests to the list. Thank you for your
> cooperation.
> _______________________________________________
> LincolnParkDC mailing list
>
> To post to the list address your message to:
> LincolnParkDC at lincolnparkdc.info<mailto:LincolnParkDC at lincolnparkdc.info>
> When replying, please consider whether to reply to the sender only, or to
> the list, which is the default.
> Not all replies are appropriate for the entire list.
>
> Please do not send administrative requests to the list. Please click on
> the following link to
> switch to digest mode, change your password, or otherwise manage your
> subscription:
> https://vps.woteki.com/mailman/listinfo/lincolnparkdc_lincolnparkdc.info
>
> If you need assistance managing your subscription, please address your
> request to: towncrier at lincolnparkdc.info<mailto:
> towncrier at lincolnparkdc.info>
> Please do not address assistance requests to the list. Thank you for your
> cooperation.
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <
> http://lincolnparkdc.info/pipermail/lincolnparkdc_lincolnparkdc.info/attachments/20201017/e17882b5/attachment.html
> >
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Subject: Digest Footer
>
> lincolnparkdc mailing list
> lincolnparkdc at lincolnparkdc.info
> http://lincolnparkdc.info/mailman/listinfo/lincolnparkdc_lincolnparkdc.info
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> End of lincolnparkdc Digest, Vol 25, Issue 54
> *********************************************
>
--
*____________________*
*Tim Dube*
m: (202) 487-8875
www.linkedin.com/in/timdube/ <http://www.linkedin.com/in/timdube/>
M www.facebook.com/CHOutfitters
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lincolnparkdc.info/pipermail/lincolnparkdc_lincolnparkdc.info/attachments/20201017/5596b14d/attachment.htm>
More information about the lincolnparkdc
mailing list