A 9th Street bikeway will get a vote Tuesday amid church opposition. Ask the council to un-stall the project.
Man riding a bike near Shaw-Howard U Metro station by Elvert Barnes licensed under Creative Commons.
A proposed protected bikeway on 9th Street NW has been quietly stalled for years by Mayor Muriel Bowser, but on Tuesday, the DC Council will take a vote on an “emergency” bill to compel forward progress.
The Washington Area Bicyclist Association has an action alert to call or write the council asking them to pass the legislation and get 9th Street built.
The bikeway was the subject of a 2015 study looking at how to create a safe bicycle route along the east side of downtown. It would connect Pennsylvania to Florida avenues NW and run on either 9th or 6th street; the District Department of Transportation settled on 9th, but then the project disappeared into a void.
Churches oppose the plan
According to reporting by Gordon Chaffin and Martin di Caro, a group of long-standing black churches in the area had allegedly been quietly pushing to block the lane, which passes near Shiloh Baptist Church, New Bethel Baptist Church, and The United House of Prayer for All People. Now, a group representing Baptist ministers in the area sent a formal letter opposing the bikeway. They argue that the bikeway, would affect parishioners’ ability to park on Sundays.
It’s indeed true that most of the congregants at these churches drive. Much of this comes from forces beyond their control and which have often been deeply unfair to the communities these churches serve, having the effect of pushing residents out of increasingly expensive central areas where they have little choice left but to drive.
In response to their concerns over the past few years, DDOT planned for angled Sunday-only parking which would ensure there are the same number of parking spaces on Sundays as there are today.
Image by DDOT.
However, the letter from the churches goes beyond that and says that “Any plan by DDOT to installing a bike lane/track along this thoroughfare would represent a substantial and egregious encroachment on Churches.” It says:
If this design is implemented, it would severely restrict the already limited parking for Churches, leaving them with nowhere to park to attend services and other Church functions. As such, the planned bike lane will create a permanent and untenable burden on members’ ability to attend religious services. This is another example of the city imposing their will at the expense of a community that has been a vital part of the neighborhood and without any input.
We further submit, historically, transportation is an issue that has been the responsibility of the Executive Branch not the Legislative Branch. Where transportation rules have been imposed through the Executive Branch [I think they mean Legislative here], it’s been at the expense of marginalized communities. This is another example of the same without justification or need other than further support to gentrify our community, culture and churches.
Councilmember Robert White (at-large) said late last year he’d try to meet with the ministers, but was unable to schedule the meeting. Chaffin reports that the bill’s primary sponsor, Ward 1 councilmember Brianne Nadeau, will be meeting with them Monday.
Many councilmembers, Advisory Neighborhood Commissioners, and businesses in the area have voiced support for the project:
Official and business support for the 9th Street bikeway by WABA.
One role of legislators is to help find common ground and compromise. From the perspective of safe transportation advocates, there have been changes to try to accommodate the churches, and for them to say it will interfere with parking when many changes were made to preserve it leaves little opportunity to find a constructive path forward.
Chaffin notes that “The 2017 feasibility study does modify several dozen parking spots in the project’s 1.7 miles, but does not remove parking spaces in the blocks where affected church-goers park.”
Is this a fight over the place of the church in the community or is this a fight over parking spaces?
The churches have chosen to draw this particular line, but it’s important to remember that there are black people dying in other parts of the city, and there are black people who come into those neighborhoods, to work or for other reasons, get injured, and then can’t work, can’t worship.
This is a question that black religious leaders need to reckon with.
We should talk about displacement and all the things that have contributed to the fact that congregants have been pushed farther from their home churches. We should talk about the lack of viable alternatives for churchgoers to get to their places of worship. But we can’t keep having this conversation where improved safety now, given the dynamics of the city, could be held up even if those improvements a net positive for everyone.
We should have a meaningful dialogue about the power of local black institutions in neighborhoods that have seen demographic change in a short span of time, but we shouldn’t use opposition to basic improvements to the streetscape that will undeniably make all people feel safer as they traverse the city.
Advocates, though, also need to be mindful of this. They need to be aware of how church-goers and their leaders feel about this issue, and move with sensitivity and understanding. Is there intentionality in building relationships with people wary of the changes being proposed? Are steps being taken to ensure that people being impacted have a viable alternative and that those alternatives will be delivered thoroughly?
Change is difficult, but it is especially challenging when government appears to be acting for some and actively, intentionally neglecting others. Advocates have an obligation to see that the solutions that are alleged to work for everyone actually work.
Still this isn’t only a question of who’s the bikeway for. We know that any mechanism to slow down traffic on 9th Street is better for everyone, even people who are driving, whether to church or work or anywhere else.