Proposed Capital Bikeshare Locations opposed by Bluemont Civic Association – vote

[dasgeh]

@DismalScientist 114092 wrote:

Why doesn’t anyone propose moving the Harrison St. station to the cul-de-sac on Frederick on the Custis trail?

Personally, I’d want it on Harrison because it’s a better bike connection both north and south.

[baiskeli]

@DismalScientist 114092 wrote:

Why doesn’t anyone propose moving the Harrison St. station to the cul-de-sac on Frederick on the Custis trail?

I was thinking that too. On the other hand, the Westover Park locastion makes more sense to me because it’s a destination.

I’ll certainly try to remember to make it to the next BCA meeting.

[DismalScientist]

I thought they wanted to serve St. Ann’s. Frederick and Harrison are equally good substitutes. I don’t get the north/south connection argument. There aren’t CaBi stations to the north or south. And then there is the difficulty of crossing Washington Blvd at Harrison. And also that god-awful hill going northbound on Harrison.:rolleyes:

[dasgeh]

@DismalScientist 114100 wrote:

I thought they wanted to serve St. Ann’s. Frederick and Harrison are equally good substitutes. I don’t get the north/south connection argument. There aren’t CaBi stations to the north or south. And then there is the difficulty of crossing Washington Blvd at Harrison. And also that god-awful hill going northbound on Harrison.:rolleyes:

There will be CaBi at Lee/Harrison IIRC. There’s no southern connection from Frederick, so all of the CaBi stations south of I66 (and west-ish of this location) are better served by Harrison.

[83b]

@jrenaut 114089 wrote:

Pretty sure this has consistently been the way it goes. Announcement -> the sky is falling -> oh wait this is kind of nice.

Conforms to my experience. Our “sky is falling” stage included “Rabble, rabble, rabble…” shouting at public meetings, hurling curses afterwards, near fisticuffs, and hysterical crying.

Hopefully it was just proximity to Congress rubbing off, and the good folks of Bluemont will outclass Capitol Hill and prove that a reasonable debate about where to locate CaBi stations is possible!

[baiskeli]

@83(b) 114105 wrote:

Conforms to my experience. Our “sky is falling” stage included “Rabble, rabble, rabble…” shouting at public meetings, hurling curses afterwards, near fisticuffs, and hysterical crying.

Hopefully it was just proximity to Congress rubbing off, and the good folks of Bluemont will outclass Capitol Hill and prove that a reasonable debate about where to locate CaBi stations is possible!

Yes, reasonable debate is desirable. That would include not assuming the absolute worst in those you disagree with or belittling their concerns.

[Kolohe]

Quote:

Well, yeah, they aren’t going to oppose (or support, or otherwise comment on) stations that aren’t in their neighborhood.

They *did* support a station in another neighborhood. The one they want to move from St Ann’s to down to the valley. They didn’t say, hey Harrison might be a little tight, why not move it around the corner? Or closer to the trail? Or a half-block away from the school? No, it’s in a completely different neighborhood.

The one on the Bluemont trail? They didn’t offer any alternative at all, only a big no-go zone.

@baiskeli 114085 wrote:

No, the “close proximity” to homes, not just the general nature of the neighborhood.

This is what they said, taken from the newsletter: http://www.bluemontcivic.org/newsletters/BCA_News_201504.pdf

Quote:

The BCA is also opposed to the location based on its close proximity to single family residences, the change in the neighborhood appearance, and potential parking complications.

Quote:

The stretch of the Bluemont Junction Park between N. Emerson and N. Jefferson traverses a narrow area that is close to single family homes which will be disproportionately affected by the look, use, and truck servicing of the station.

Every part of Bluemont is either in close proximity to single family residences, or in the no-go area of the old rail right away green space. Every. Square. Inch.

“Change in neighborhood appearance”. *That’s* the general nature of the neighborhood. I also suppose that nobody in Bluemont has ever had their garbage or yard waste picked up since county incorporation, since they don’t like “trucks” servicing their neighborhood.

Meanwhile, why do single family residences get a pass on a panel van, but not multifamily residences? Van parked by the poors, who cares? Van by my McMansion (which, btw, had its construction materials carried in on the back of ants, because absolutely no big trucks were apparently involved.) May not be racism, but there’s something of a class privilege thing there.

Quote:

No, it’s not. Harrison is a major thoroughfare, despite being narrow, because it has a bridge over I-66 and connects to Lee Highway. It’s a legitimate concern, especially at that particular spot.

My favorite thing from the newsletter is this

Quote:

BCA neighbors have made constructive suggestions and offered to work with BikeShare on reasonable alternative locations, including along Wilson Boulevard, where bike lanes will be created this Spring.

So Harrison is a no good terrible very bad road. But Wilson Boulevard? Sure why not! even though the sidewalks are still going to be narrow, and the bike lane unprotected.

So tell me again how awsomesauce the bluemont civic association is? Again, the same peeps that opposed the W&OD connection 15 years ago? “Oh, but we didn’t like it because it wasn’t perfect” is the excuse now for that. What will be the excuse 15 years from now?

[dasgeh]

I think a big question here is how you can be constructive with people who, yes, seem to be resorting to NIMBYism in response to a proposed change. Here’s my suggestion:

– Trot out examples of other, similar neighborhoods who have already had the change and for whom the sky hasn’t fallen. (I can name two: Lyon Park and more recently, Cherrydale)

– Clearly explain the direct benefits of the change (you connect your house/neighborhood to Ballston/Metro/Wilson Blvd/Lee Harrison/the hospital/Cherrydale ; some evidence housing values go up; you get your visitors off your couch)

– Explain indirect benefits of the change (You give employees and visitors to St. Ann’s a non-motorized way to get there; you put more bikes on your streets, calming traffic)

Get the civic association on board with the fact that they want CaBi. Then, talk about the specific locations.

So what other benefits are there to having bikeshare in your ‘hood?

[DismalScientist]

Well, I don’t have a dog in this fight, but I’ll bite. As far as I can tell, all Arlington CaBi stations have been located in commercial districts, places with high residential density, at schools, and at “major” parks. The station on the Bluemont trail will be one of the first in an area of just single family houses. The only other future stations in purely residential areas I could find on the map are at Pershing and Jackson, Ohio and 14th, and Roosevelt and 12th. Do these place have enough population density to support stations? Do you think that people will be walking from their houses to hop on a CaBi? How many people in single family houses that are interested in riding likely already have their own bikes?

As far as the station at St. Ann’s, who is better determined to pick the better location: The Arlington bicycle lobby or the local residents?

[Steve O]

the potential safety hazard to the St. Ann elementary school children by increasing access to school grounds by bike renters,

Really!? Let’s see. Literally thousands of cyclists ride right by the St. Ann’s parking lot–close enough to spit on it, and even while the kids are out there playing during recess–every week on the Custis Trail. Thousands. Every single one of those cyclists could just make a little bitty turn right onto their grounds. What is the “safety hazard” they are talking about? And if it exists, why have they not shut down the Custis Trail alongside the school and church already?
You’ve got to be joking.

[83b]

@baiskeli 114107 wrote:

Yes, reasonable debate is desirable. That would include not assuming the absolute worst in those you disagree with or belittling their concerns.

I generally agree wholeheartedly, but I also think that there is a strong tendency among clever individuals (or at least individuals who think they’re being clever) to dress up NIMBYism with very reasonable sounding complaints that are, in actuality, distractions and wholly unrelated to the issue at hand. Our fight over bikeshare on Capitol Hill had a number of these, such as concerns that:

• “children would be tempted to run out to the shiny red bikes in front of their home right into oncoming traffic”;
• the stations would attract trash and vandals;
• a station could attract other mischief, nuisance, or criminal behavior;
• stations in front of residential homes would subject those homes to honking and other noise from the rebalancing vans and any drivers they might aggravate (this was in a letter that spent a solid 50+% of its words talking about the totally unrelated problems (Maryland!) drivers visit on this block);
• ‘”double wide strollers” would not be able to squeeze by the obnoxiously large bike stand’;
• concerns that people driving to and parking on that block in order to use the station would steal all the resident’s parking;

So sometimes I think that you just have to refuse to engage with people, or even engage with them harshly, because they’re not really participating in a debate in good faith. I now count one of the people who was adamantly opposed to the Lincoln Park station as a friend, and he has privately admitted to me that he was dressing up his opposition in any terms he could think of because he just didn’t want an ugly station in front of his house.

I’ve run into a variation on this problem several times during negotiations with lawyers and business people in a particular country. First you’re presented a detailed issues list. As those issues get negotiated and resolved, the other side starts raising unrelated new issues. The tactic is clearly designed to wear down opposition and run out the clock until you concede on key deal points. There aren’t always easy answers for how to handle them, but I do know (from bitter experience) that you don’t win by mudwrestling with pigs…

[rcannon100]

@Steve O 114121 wrote:

You’ve got to be joking.

[Steve O]

@83(b) 114122 wrote:

I’ve run into a variation on this problem several times during negotiations with lawyers and business people in a particular country. First you’re presented a detailed issues list. As those issues get negotiated and resolved, the other side starts raising unrelated new issues. The tactic is clearly designed to wear down opposition and run out the clock until you concede on key deal points. There aren’t always easy answers for how to handle them, but I do know (from bitter experience) that you don’t win by mudwrestling with pigs…

I have watched people who are very good at this (not me) deal with this this way:

“I understand you have outlined four issues that concern you about this ________ issue. If those four issues were addressed to your satisfaction, would this issue be resolved for you?”
When they say yes, then hold them to it. If they say no, then ask what are the other issues that would need to be resolved. Finalize the list: “If these issues were addressed to your satisfaction, would you then be willing to move forward?”.

If you are able to resolve all of the issues, then they have no room to throw out new red herrings, because they already agreed that those issues comprised the totality of their concerns.

Of course, it may be impossible to “resolve to their satisfaction,” since they won’t be satisfied with anything. But at least with this strategy you can expose any hypocrisy they may have.

[OneEighth]

The way forward is simple and self-evident. Thunderdome.

[mstone]

@Steve O 114128 wrote:

I have watched people who are very good at this (not me) deal with this this way:

“I understand you have outlined four issues that concern you about this ________ issue. If those four issues were addressed to your satisfaction, would this issue be resolved for you?”
When they say yes, then hold them to it. If they say no, then ask what are the other issues that would need to be resolved. Finalize the list: “If these issues were addressed to your satisfaction, would you then be willing to move forward?”.

If you are able to resolve all of the issues, then they have no room to throw out new red herrings, because they already agreed that those issues comprised the totality of their concerns.

Of course, it may be impossible to “resolve to their satisfaction,” since they won’t be satisfied with anything. But at least with this strategy you can expose any hypocrisy they may have.

That can work in a bilateral negotiation, but not in a public debate like this–there will always be another person who can claim they weren’t part of that deal. Also, it only works if the points are things you can give up and still have a viable project.

[Author]

Posts