King Street Bike Lanes

[DismalScientist]

@MattAune 63721 wrote:

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

There are a number of drivers who seem to think in this situation that you should be in the bike lane even if you are traveling at the speed limit.

I had an “interesting experience” going downhill on Virginia Lane traveling 25 (the speed limit) and making a high speed turn onto the W&OD. This driver honked at me after this maneuver as if he thought he should pass me even though I had no stop sign and he had to stop 100 feet after my turn at Shreve Road. Why this guy thought he needed to pass me here is beyond my comprehension.

[lordofthemark]

@MattAune 63721 wrote:

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?

I don’t mind Hummer so much. Its Annandale Road I mind. Is that really 15 feet, in the travel lane, excluding the parking lane (where there WERE parked cars each and every time I’ve ridden it) ? Any way, I hardly call myself a vehicular cyclist – I admit to cowering in cycle tracks, bike lanes, multi use paths and other such segregated infra. The question I am exploring with DS is not should there be a bike lane southbound (as proposed) instead of a wide lane. (were I citizen of Alexandria, I would probably support that option) It is if, GIVEN that there will be no bike lane southbound, and either no infra, or only a sharrows, its better to have a 15 ft lane or the existing 11.5 ft lane. Given that choice on Annandale Rd, I would hardly pick the narrower lane – if I want to be passed, I want as wide a lane as possible right? DS is suggesting, if I understand him correctly, that the narrower lane is better precisely because cars are LESS likely to try pass him.

As for why not stripe the bike lane? That is indeed the proposal. While I personally prefer the bike lane, I understand that some cyclists prefer not to have bike lanes striped for a variety of reasons – and IIUC there are studies suggesting a wide lane is effectively as safe as a bike lane (though thats for the average bike lane I guess, which includes some that have issues)

[DismalScientist]

On downhill runs, I would prefer a narrow lane as I don’t want cars to pass me when I am traveling near the speed limit. With a bike lane, some drivers seem to think that I should stay in the bike lane even at high speeds, which I consider to be unsafe. That said, I don’t think that bicycle infrastructure should be built to my tastes. If the infrastructure doesn’t suit my riding style, I will take the lane an act as a vehicular rider.

That said, I worry that bicycle infrastructure sometimes causes more problems than it solves. In particular, lanes are often too narrow and too close to parked cars and gutters for safe riding. Bike lanes may encourage right hooks at intersections.

On the point of underutilized parking lanes, if there are too many parked cars making it an ineffective climbing lane, then I wouldn’t call the parking lane underutilized.

[lordofthemark]

@DismalScientist 63734 wrote:

On downhill runs, I would prefer a narrow lane as I don’t want cars to pass me when I am traveling near the speed limit.

Then it seems I have understood you correctly. Thanks for your point, its something for me to reflect on.

On the point of underutilized parking lanes, if there are too many parked cars making it an ineffective climbing lane, then I wouldn’t call the parking lane underutilized.

It only takes one or two parked cars to be a problem (esp as swerving from the parking lane into the travel lane is problematic – having done precisely that on Annandale and on Hummer, I am all too aware of that). Now if there are going to be very few cyclists using a striped climbing lane, due to the existence of alternate routes, than that might be enough utilization to justify keeping the parking. I do not know how many cyclists would use this route. But the small number of cars parked suggests that, despite it being enough cars to interfere with the climbing lane, its few enough that the cost of giving up parking is less than the benefit of the climbing lane – and the existence of alternate on street spots on the side streets suggests the marginal cost of losing those spots may be particularly low.

It would be nice to shadow price on street spots – but AFAIK there aren’t any paid lots on that side of the tracks, and spots in Old Town are more valuable. One could I suppose estimate the time to walk to those houses from the side streets, and multiply by standard BCA values of time. In addition one could do a value of time for cyclists taking less direct alternate routes.

I would add – its unlikely that, in the absence of zoning, those would still be single family houses. I don’ think that block is in a historic district, and I don’t think all the houses are historic landmarks. Given the location so close to Old Town, and to King Street Station (which has 2 metro lines, VRE, Amtrak, and multiple bus lines) the market would make those blocks high density mixed use faster than you can say TOD or ‘highest and best use”, were the market allowed to operate. Far more people would be able to live a short walk and short bike ride from their destinations (work, transit, retail, etc) than is the case now.

But prevailing use zoning is a reality and has arguments (based on externalities, mostly) for it. We are where we are.

[bobco85]

The choice between using a wider lane with sharrows and using a separate bike lane for the downhill portion is really racking my brain right now, but i think I’m leaning more toward the use of sharrows. I would prefer sharrows with the use of “Cyclists may use full lane” signs (even though we shouldn’t have to use the signs at all, but that’s a different story) because they give drivers a clear indication that the road is a bicycle route and therefore cyclists will be present. Caveat: because there is no parking (we’re only talking downhill here) the sharrows will likely be placed close to the gutter like on Walter Reed Dr between Four Mile Run and Route 7.

The obstacle to this being used by all types of cyclists is that I think most people perceive separate bike lanes as much safer than sharrows. Because of that, I would expect more cyclists to use this route if bike lanes were there, especially since Janneys Lane has bike lanes, and I would expect them to install bike lanes for the downhill portion as a result.

[consularrider]

@bobco85 63757 wrote:

… Caveat: because there is no parking (we’re only talking downhill here) the sharrows will likely be placed close to the gutter like on Walter Reed Dr between Four Mile Run and Route 7 …

I think the local jurisdictions have finally learned the right place to put sharrows and I would expect any on the redesigned King St to be center of the lane. The Walter Reed ones are Arlington and are holdovers from an old redo.

[JorgeGortex]

@dasgeh 63661 wrote:

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

I’m not sure where you get the idea that their parking is subsidized? They pay taxes like everyone else, and thus for the street in front of their homes.

TwoWheelDC: I can’t comment on their other parking options… as I don’t live there. I think its unfair for most of to comment on their parking opportunities and what is right for them in their own community when we don’t know the full story. We don’t live there.

Related to what DismalScientist mentions in his reply, some of the road along this stretch is quite narrow. As someone who lives on a major two lane arterial road in Arlington, with no on street parking on my side of the street, I can tell you I wish I did. Getting out my driveway can raise the heart rate, IF I can get out. During rush hour I am stuck hoping for the good graces of a fellow human being to let me out so I can go to work. Whenever I come home and have to stop and wait to turn into my driveway I have to hope that no one rear ends me.

So, yes, I feel for the homeowners. Maybe all the spaces don’t get used all the time, but I only see them at certain times of day, so I feel I’d be even in less of a position to implicate them as being selfish for wanting a bit of a buffer between property and full on street proper. The last thing to consider is that these people bought their homes in good faith. Let’s not make it sound like they are rich land barons sucking up special favors just because they have parking.

JG

[lordofthemark]

@JorgeGortex 63848 wrote:

I’m not sure where you get the idea that their parking is subsidized? They pay taxes like everyone else, and thus for the street in front of their homes.

dasgeh may be referring to their getting to park their free, when the market clearing price for the spots migh be positive, and high.

I’m not convinced the market clearing price WOULD be high, or even significantly different from zero (and thats where the utilization level, and the alternatives come into play). In which case they are not being subsidized now – but the cost of losing the spots would be low.

The difficulty of pulling out is noted, but since the goal here is to calm traffic, that might improve that issue. Certainly the problem is that King Street became a high speed route over the years.

By the way one of the houses along there is currently listed for 2 and half million dollars. That does not mean the bike lane should be built, and there are certainly richer land barons around here – but buyers in good faith or not, they bought with no guarantee from the city that they would continue to have that on street parking.

On the other hand, if they were allowed to tear down their homes and sell them to developers of high density housing, they might well be richer. Which I would approve of, on the whole. Its just frustrating that the confluence of laws and attitudes come together to bias the outcome so much one way – on the one hand we constrain the property owners so that we can’t have several hundred more units in an ideal location near King Street Metro – but then we turn around and treat them as having property rights over their on street spaces – but sufficient property rights to keep a bike lane out – but NOT sufficient property rights to SELL the spots to the City for a bike lane. Net result – auto oriented low density housing kept. On street parking kept. Bike lanes prevented.

And its hardly the only place in the region (or the country) like that. I am going on so long, because I think there are similar issues in lots of places.

[jabberwocky]

@JorgeGortex 63848 wrote:

The last thing to consider is that these people bought their homes in good faith. Let’s not make it sound like they are rich land barons sucking up special favors just because they have parking.

Honestly? If they bought houses expecting free public spaces in front of their houses for perpetuity, screw ’em. I deal with people like that all the time (I’m an architect), and I’ve kinda lost patience with them. If you buy a house, don’t expect anything except what you actually own to stay the same. Vacant lot behind your house? Guess what, that lot is owned by somebody, and (given land values in the region) probably won’t be a vacant lot forever. Road easement along the front? Don’t pitch a fit when the county utilizes that easement for road widening. Parking lane? Don’t be shocked when a road redesign puts that to better public use. Etc, etc.

People definitely have a sense of entitlement to public resources that I find maddening. Its also common in the off-road world, where locals pitch a fit when a trail system is improved at a public park (that might bring more people to OUR TRAILS!).

[mstone]

@JorgeGortex 63848 wrote:

I’m not sure where you get the idea that their parking is subsidized? They pay taxes like everyone else, and thus for the street in front of their homes.

Exactly: they pay taxes like everyone else, don’t pay more because there are parking spots, and won’t pay less if they go away. I think it’s plausible to call free parking a subsidy.

[DismalScientist]

These parking spaces aren’t assigned to anyone. Bike lanes would be subsidized infrastructure to bicyclists who may not reside in Alexandria and therefore not pay relevant taxes.

Changing government policies over parking or anything else allows for government opportunism in support of whatever faction controls government. Would one argue that being in a prime school district is a subsidy to a particular resident? School quality is reflected in home prices and therefore leads to higher taxes. Would you argue that government should be able to easily redistrict since buying a home does not give the new resident property rights in a particular district? Fixed government policy promotes economic development.

These arguments seem to depend on it being OK to gore someone else’s ox. I one really believes we live in an autocentric society, one should not be surprised if that ox being gored generally belongs to the bicyclist. As a bicyclist, I would not advocate government policy allowing for a general increase in ox goring.

[Amalitza]

@DismalScientist 63886 wrote:

Would one argue that being in a prime school district is a subsidy to a particular resident? School quality is reflected in home prices and therefore leads to higher taxes. Would you argue that government should be able to easily redistrict since buying a home does not give the new resident property rights in a particular district?

Yes. I would argue that, and further, I would argue that government *should* redistrict if it allows them to best provide for the greater good– a good education for all children. I would argue that one person’s child does not have a **right** to a better education than someone else’s child just because they were able to afford a house in a “better” school district. (I realize that in the real world, they are probably going to get a better education, I am not living in lala land, but making sure they can should not be a government goal.)

I am sympathetic to people who buy a house in a neighborhood which then changes in ways they didn’t predict and don’t like, but that happens to many people for many different reasons. I do not believe the government should be in the business of preserving a status quo that benefits some people when different choices could be made for greater societal benefit. I don’t think it’s goring anyone’s ox to make decisions based on best benefit rather than based on benefit to the people who prefer the status quo. I have no strong feelings one way or the other about parking on this section of King Street, but I do have strong feelings on this basic principle.

Anyway, we’re not really talking about preserving the status quo here. If part of the impetus for the change is traffic calming, that’s being done for the **benefit** of the people who live there. It probably should be done (1), but I don’t know how you argue for preserving the status quo in the context of making changes. By your argument, don’t the people who bought a particular house a few blocks up or down knowing they could commute through this section of the street have an equal claim to not wanting the change of traffic calming?

(1) note: by “greater good” I don’t mean benefiting the most people. Greatly increasing safety for a few who live along the corridor by slightly decreasing convenience for the many that drive through meets my definition of “greater good”, (as a safety vs convenience value judgement) and is presumably the goal of traffic calming

[mstone]

@DismalScientist 63886 wrote:

These parking spaces aren’t assigned to anyone….gore someone else’s ox.

I honestly don’t even understand your rant. Either the ROW is public land to be dispositioned according to the greatest public good, or it isn’t. You seem to say it is public land (“spots aren’t assigned to anyone”) but then start on these weird ox metaphors over the possibility that the unassigned spots be used for any purpose other than the narrow benefit of the people who live in front of them. Is your position simply that the status quo can never change? Because, reality.

[DismalScientist]

Frankly, I don’t give a damn about the parking spaces. I just don’t like people blithely making arguments that government should do something for the “public good” by attacking some “subsidy” to one group or another. Perhaps I am overly jaded, but there are these government “subsidies” everywhere and these arguments can be used to screw over small groups of citizens on almost any issue. When the government gets into the business of redistributing these subsidies (and how can it not?) I tend to doubt that the subsidies go where they do the most public good. (Note that whatever is the public good cannot really be defined–see the Arrow Impossibility Theorem in Economics.) Instead subsidies will go to those with the most political power, often due to connections unavailable to the average system. (After all, its the Arlington Way.)

On a related topic: Do you really think the proposed configuration will calm traffic? Before, one has a narrow, shoulderless two lane street with parking on one side. With bike lanes (when no bikes are present), this is transformed into something looking more like a narrow two lane street with shoulders. Which would you rather speed on?

[mstone]

@DismalScientist 63899 wrote:

Do you really think the proposed configuration will calm traffic? Before, one has a narrow, shoulderless two lane street with parking on one side. With bike lanes (when no bikes are present), this is transformed into something looking more like a narrow two lane street with shoulders. Which would you rather speed on?

Each lane is cut by 1-1.5 feet. Yes, psychologically, that tends to make drivers go slower, whereas a wider lane signals that drivers should go faster. It also means that the cars speeding down the hill are about 5 feet away from the sidewalk, making it less stressful for pedestrians. Seems like a public good to me. :p

[Author]

Posts