King Street Bike Lanes

[DismalScientist]

Why is “average” (defined how?) is the appropriate measure of parking space use rather than peak daily use? A quick look at Google street view shows 7 parked cars in these spaces.

[CaseyKane50]

The presentation does not include any methodology or explanation for the use of the word “average”. The presentation does note that 17 houses along this stretch of King actually face North View Terrace. Presentation also notes that the “adjacent neighborhood has under utilized parking for the displaced vehicles”.

Based on the information on the King Street project page, it seems as if the residents and civic associations have been involved in the development of this design.

[lordofthemark]

@DismalScientist 63670 wrote:

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.

I’m sure the prices most of them paid were considerably lower than the prices those houses sell for now, given recent RE trends. I’m not saying thats wrong – but its context before we cry for people who are losing their right to what was always legally a public space, that the City had the right to dispose of as it saw fit. I mean “government take it away from them” – the government ALWAYS owned the on street spots. That they paid a high price, gambling on policy continuing, does not establish private ownership. The tendency to privatize public spaces may be real, but I see no reason to give it moral weight.

As for calling it a perk – is it not a perk if all SFH owners get it (seeing how many residents of Arlington and Alexandria are not single family home owners? And of course many SFH owners live in places where the market clearing price for on street parking would be negligibly different from zero – apparently not the case here. Its not so much the on street parking thats the perk – its the on street parking that is priced at zero when the market clearing price is above zero.

OTOH, given the low utilization perhaps the market clearing price for these spaces IS close to zero – in which case perhaps we should not call it a perk – but then how much should we weight it in the cost benefit of the proposed bike lanes?

[lordofthemark]

note the benefiicaries are not only cyclists – the current configuration, which has parking on one side, has a general travel lane adjacent to the sidewalk on the other. The proposal would interpose a bike lane between the sidewalk and general travel on that side, which could make walking safer and more pleasant – and encourage a critical mass of pedestirans.

[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?

note that wouldn’t alter the need to remove the parking lane, in this particular instance. You could use the extra space from taking the parking lane, and striping only bike lane, to widen the downhill lane, I suppose.

[mstone]

@lordofthemark 63679 wrote:

note that wouldn’t alter the need to remove the parking lane, in this particular instance. You could use the extra space from taking the parking lane, and striping only bike lane, to widen the downhill lane, I suppose.

Since part of the rationale for the project is traffic calming, not widening the lane is probably a feature.

[DismalScientist]

What does one call an underutilized parking lane on the north side of King Street?

An unsigned bike climbing lane that is a lot wider than the signed bike lane you’ll get when this project is done!

On the perkiness of on-street parking: I think it would be an interesting experiment for Arlington to get rid of the permit system for parking on less trafficked streets around Metro stations and institute meters instead. This would both increase county revenue and promote use of Metro while using only public spaces.

[DismalScientist]

@lordofthemark 63679 wrote:

note that wouldn’t alter the need to remove the parking lane, in this particular instance. You could use the extra space from taking the parking lane, and striping only bike lane, to widen the downhill lane, I suppose.

Widening the downhill lane might inappropriately encourage drivers to pass cyclist likely moving near the speed limit.

[lordofthemark]

@DismalScientist 63681 wrote:

What does one call an underutilized parking lane on the north side of King Street?

An unsigned bike climbing lane that is a lot wider than the signed bike lane you’ll get when this project is done!

A climbing lane that may have a car in it (legally) when you need it. Underutilized doesn’t do you any good if there is one car in the lane and it prevents you from using it. See for example http://bikearlingtonforum.com/showthread.php?3153-Why-is-Annandale-Road-considered-a-good-route

[lordofthemark]

@DismalScientist 63683 wrote:

Widening the downhill lane might inappropriately encourage drivers to pass cyclist likely moving near the speed limit.

I thought people generally preferred wide lanes for sharrows – I guess not so much on a downhill where bikes can do the limit (whats the limit on this section, BTW?)

In which case, what do you do with the extra space after you get rid of the parking lane – add a buffer to the bike lane? Widen the sidewalk?

[lordofthemark]

@DismalScientist 63681 wrote:

On the perkiness of on-street parking: I think it would be an interesting experiment for Arlington to get rid of the permit system for parking on less trafficked streets around Metro stations and institute meters instead. This would both increase county revenue and promote use of Metro while using only public spaces.

I’m all for that.

For King Street near Janneys – how about, in memory of Prof Coase, we just privatize the on street spaces. I mean actually give deeds to them to adjacent homeowners. Then let the city buy them (invoking eminent domain, with compensation, if we have some abusive hold outs) to make the bike lane. That would surely compensate the homeowners for any loss of value to their property. It would also, of course, quantify and publicize the value of the commandeering of public property.

[americancyclo]

I would love to see where “On Street Parking Nearby” factors in on a real estate appraisal.

[Terpfan]

@DismalScientist 63683 wrote:

Widening the downhill lane might inappropriately encourage drivers to pass cyclist likely moving near the speed limit.

I would say it most likely will. I already encounter idiots trying to pass me when I teach Beacon Hill in the mornings sometimes. I swear these folks must be insane.

[lordofthemark]

the lane is currently 11 and a half feet. The parking lane is 7 feet and the proposed bike lanes are 4 and half feet. If you built only one bike lane, AND you narrowed the north bound lane to 10 and a half feet (as is proposed for both lanes currently) you could add 3.5 feet to the southbound lane – making it 15 feet.

AFAICT 14 ft is considered adequate to make a safe “wide lane” for passing in lane http://www.humantransport.org/bicycledriving/engineering/wols.htm

Now, I can see why its not warranted here – A. the downhill for the entire stretch and the low speed limit (?) make it possible for cyclists to ride at or close to the limit and B. The goal is traffic calming to benefit pedestrians, which the wide lane will not do.

But I am indeed confused if even vehicular cyclists are opposed to 14 ft lanes. I mean yeah, taking the lane and all that – but we ask for three foot rule for passing. For a standard width vehicle that should be possible in lane in a lane this wide, no?

[MattAune]

@lordofthemark 63711 wrote:

But I am indeed confused if even vehicular cyclists are opposed to 14 ft lanes. I mean yeah, taking the lane and all that – but we ask for three foot rule for passing. For a standard width vehicle that should be possible in lane in a lane this wide, no?

This basically describes the entire stretch of annandale rd. that you seem to dislike. Annadale/Hummer is wide enough for cars to pass me safely without crossing the center line. I never have to cross into the parking/shoulder area, which is good because its full of all sorts of debris.

My question is, if you have 14 ft. wide lanes why not just stipe a bike lane and make the vehicle lane 10 feet?

[Author]

Posts