King Street Bike Lanes
Our Community › Forums › General Discussion › King Street Bike Lanes
- This topic has 111 replies, 26 voices, and was last updated 9 years, 4 months ago by
lordofthemark.
-
AuthorPosts
-
September 9, 2013 at 7:56 pm #980704
consularrider
Participant@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!
September 9, 2013 at 8:08 pm #980705Terpfan
Participant@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?
September 10, 2013 at 12:23 am #980719scorchedearth
ParticipantThey will be actual lanes.
September 10, 2013 at 12:38 am #980722ShawnoftheDread
ParticipantThat’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.
September 10, 2013 at 1:52 am #980724bobco85
ParticipantFirst 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-nowIf they put bike lanes in, removing the parking lane
[ATTACH=CONFIG]3655[/ATTACH]
Link: http://streetmix.net/bobco85/16/king-street-bike-lanes-remixIf 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-remixSeptember 10, 2013 at 12:22 pm #980739CaseyKane50
ParticipantFrom Local Motion, here are before and after photos showing the proposed change.
[ATTACH=CONFIG]3659[/ATTACH]
September 10, 2013 at 1:31 pm #980756DismalScientist
ParticipantI’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?
September 10, 2013 at 2:05 pm #980773cyclingfool
Participant@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:
September 10, 2013 at 2:10 pm #980776lordofthemark
Participant@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.
September 10, 2013 at 2:22 pm #980785mstone
Participant@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
September 10, 2013 at 2:41 pm #980791JorgeGortex
ParticipantI’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
September 10, 2013 at 3:51 pm #980802dasgeh
Participant@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?
September 10, 2013 at 4:20 pm #980807TwoWheelsDC
Participant@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.
September 10, 2013 at 4:34 pm #980809CaseyKane50
ParticipantAccording 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”.
September 10, 2013 at 4:44 pm #980811DismalScientist
ParticipantBefore 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.
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.