King Street Bike Lanes

[chris_s]

http://www.alexandrianews.org/new-bicycle-facilities-and-street-resurfacing-planned-on-king-street/

The City’s Department of Transportation and Environmental Services, Maintenance Division plans to repave portions of King Street from Callahan Drive to Janney’s Lane early this fall. In conjunction with this project, and consistent with the Pedestrian and Bicycle Mobility Plan, which calls for bicycle facilities on King Street, the T&ES’ Transportation Planning Division is proposing to install bike lanes for this portion of the roadway, connecting the King Street Metro with the new bike lanes on Janneys Lane. The proposal includes removal of parking in order to install the bike facilities.

On Sept. 18 at 7 pm, a public meeting will be held in the cafeteria at Maury Elementary, 600 Russell Road, to get community feedback on the project proposal and design The project will also be presented and a public hearing will be held at the City’s Traffic and Parking Board on Sept. 23, at 7:30 pm in City Hall (Council Chambers), 301 King Street.

Expect some opposition since “The proposal includes removal of parking in order to install the bike facilities.”

Topic

[consularrider]

@chris_s 63551 wrote:

http://www.alexandrianews.org/new-bicycle-facilities-and-street-resurfacing-planned-on-king-street/

… Expect some opposition [emphasis added] since “The proposal includes removal of parking in order to install the bike facilities.”

That’s an understatement!

[Terpfan]

@consularrider 63556 wrote:

That’s an understatement!

I was about to say the same. I do not think this one will go over very well. Are they doing actual lanes or just sharrows?

[scorchedearth]

They will be actual lanes.

[ShawnoftheDread]

That’s quite a narrow , crowded, and steep section of road. I’d prefer the Masonic Temple access road/parking lot to Hilltop Terrace, then Putnam to Janneys.

[bobco85]

First impression: “Awesome!”

But, that quickly turns to (as the rest of the commenters on this thread have said): “Oh boy, the parking thing. I’m getting a headache already.”

If they are able to have bike lanes on this stretch, I think that would be awesome. If not, I think they could incorporate a climbing lane for those headed northbound while using sharrows for those heading southbound. I fully agree with removing the parking lane as it isn’t always there on that stretch, leaving empty space that could be better utilized.

I put this into StreetMix to try and see what the different plans could look like (NOTE: I do not know the actual dimensions, so I estimated what the lane widths are using Google Street View) (NOTE 2: these are all facing northwest, so you’d be looking up the hill towards Janney’s Lane)

Currently
[ATTACH=CONFIG]3654[/ATTACH]
Link: http://streetmix.net/bobco85/15/king-street-now

If they put bike lanes in, removing the parking lane
[ATTACH=CONFIG]3655[/ATTACH]
Link: http://streetmix.net/bobco85/16/king-street-bike-lanes-remix

If they put a climbing lane in with sharrows, removing the parking lane
[ATTACH=CONFIG]3656[/ATTACH]
Link: http://streetmix.net/bobco85/17/king-street-climbing-lane-remix

[CaseyKane50]

From Local Motion, here are before and after photos showing the proposed change.

[ATTACH=CONFIG]3659[/ATTACH]

[DismalScientist]

I’ve always thought that on hills the configuration should be bike lane uphill and sharrows downhill (on a street with reasonable speed limits). Think Wilson and Clarendon, or Virginia Lane, or Walter Reed near 4MR. Is this implemented anywhere?

[cyclingfool]

@CaseyKane50 63596 wrote:

From Local Motion, here are before and after photos showing the proposed change.

[ATTACH=CONFIG]3659[/ATTACH]

But look how many cars are parked there! How dare they remove that highly utilized parking for some piddly bike lanes! :rolleyes:

[lordofthemark]

@DismalScientist 63614 wrote:

I’ve always thought that on hills the configuration should be bike lane uphill and sharrows downhill (on a street with reasonable speed limits). Think Wilson and Clarendon, or Virginia Lane, or Walter Reed near 4MR. Is this implemented anywhere?

My understanding is that the Fairfax County bike plan (still unofficial at this point in time – awaiting BOS approval) includes some streets with “climbing lanes” – IE a bike lane uphill, and no seperate bike real estate downhill. I don’t think thats been implemented anywhere yet.

[mstone]

@lordofthemark 63635 wrote:

My understanding is that the Fairfax County bike plan (still unofficial at this point in time – awaiting BOS approval) includes some streets with “climbing lanes” – IE a bike lane uphill, and no seperate bike real estate downhill. I don’t think thats been implemented anywhere yet.

yes, that is (or was) in the plan

[JorgeGortex]

I’d have to vote against this. Not in favor of cars, or against cyclist (I am both a driver, every day I’m not on my bike, of this section), but in support of the homeowners who live along here. The parking for these people is almost non-existent as it is. I’d have to support them, and say that cyclists just take the lane until the road widens at Janey’s. I’ve seen plenty of cyclists do it. I also think, practically speaking, the majority of cyclists are going to avoid this hill, outside of the harcore commuter, person looking for a challenge, or racer out on a training ride.

JG

[dasgeh]

@JorgeGortex 63650 wrote:

I’d have to vote against this. Not in favor of cars, or against cyclist (I am both a driver, every day I’m not on my bike, of this section), but in support of the homeowners who live along here. The parking for these people is almost non-existent as it is. I’d have to support them, and say that cyclists just take the lane until the road widens at Janey’s. I’ve seen plenty of cyclists do it. I also think, practically speaking, the majority of cyclists are going to avoid this hill, outside of the harcore commuter, person looking for a challenge, or racer out on a training ride.

JG

Your other arguments make sense, but is there a reason why these homeowners should have their parking subsidized?

[TwoWheelsDC]

@dasgeh 63661 wrote:

Your other arguments make sense, but is there a reason why these homeowners should have their parking subsidized?

Particularly since it looks as if most of the homes on that stretch have parking in the alleys and in their front/backyards, in addition to the parking on the side streets. The street parking spaces are a de facto “perk” exclusive to the residents of that section, but building a more complete street benefits a much larger share of the population.

[CaseyKane50]

According to the presentation made to the Traffic and Parking Board on July 22, 2013, there will be a total of 37 parking spaces removed on the east side of King Street, “on Average, less than 3 are being utilized”.

[DismalScientist]

Before calling on-street parking a perk, I would like to know what percentage of single family homeowners in Arlington and Alexandria do not enjoy this perk. I certainly would not like to back out of a driveway onto an arterial like King Street where there is no buffer that a space for onstreet parking allows. King Street was one of the first streets built in Alexandria and there are areas where houses are quite close to the road. Real estate pricing is determined somewhat by the parking amenities that come with houses and I would imagine that folks who paid a high price for a home thinking that they would have onstreet parking would be quite perturbed if the government would take it away from them during a street redesign.

[Author]

Replies