Proposed Capital Bikeshare Locations opposed by Bluemont Civic Association – vote

[Steve O]

@bobco85 114195 wrote:

Over time, I think the real value of the locations will be found in the fact that there will be more places where one won’t be very far from a CaBi station, making it always an option for transportation.

Imagine if one were never more than a 5-minute walk from a CaBi–anywhere in the county.
And imagine that your kid could go over and get one to ride to her friend’s house a mile away.
And imagine that the infrastructure were such that your kid could do this without your batting an eye regarding her safety.

And imagine a CPS department that wouldn’t arrest you for it.

[DismalScientist]

Kids can’t use CaBis.

Know many people interested in riding living in single family homes without bicycles?

[dasgeh]

@DismalScientist 114222 wrote:

Kids can’t use CaBis.

They can if they’re 16. Much rather send mine out on bikeshare than in cars.

@DismalScientist 114222 wrote:

Know many people interested in riding living in single family homes without bicycles?

Me, when I want a one-way trip.
My mother-in-law (ok, pretty much anyone related to my husband), when she comes to visit.
Our two-down neighbors who are 20-something renters and occasionally use CaBi.

[mstone]

@DismalScientist 114222 wrote:

Know many people interested in riding living in single family homes without bicycles?

I live in a SFH, have many bicycles, and would consider cabi as an option for making a random trip without having to worry about locking the bike up at the end of the trip. (If I lived remotely near the cabi network.) I actually consider that a more sustainable use of the system than regular commuting.

[PotomacCyclist]

The 2014 CaBi survey has more info about who is using CaBi and why:

http://mobilitylab.org/2015/04/21/how-capital-bikeshare-members-use-system-is-becoming-clearer/

A quote near the bottom of the article:

“And a high percentage of members would like more docks at existing stations, more stations in residential neighborhoods, and expansion in areas where Capital Bikeshare is already operating.”

[invisiblehand]

@DismalScientist 114119 wrote:

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?

I saw the newsletter. To be honest, I don’t see what their complaints are about with respect to the St. Ann’s location since there is a decent amount of space with the Custis extension and Harrison St. bridge over I-66. I assumed that the location was to serve the church and school which does get a decent amount of foot traffic.

[lordofthemark]

To follow up on our talk at HDCC this AM, Dismal, here is some material on optimal station spacing

http://greatergreaterwashington.org/post/25056/capital-bikeshare-needs-smaller-stations-but-more-of-them/

The reason for lots of stations is to be close to destinations, but also the related issue of dock blocking.

Most bikeshare trips cover short distances, so the closer stations are to cyclists’ final destinations, the better. Conversely, it’s a major disincentive if riders have to walk more than a block or two to get to a station, and dockblocking is much more painful when the next closest station is many blocks away instead of right around the corner.

But as we also discussed, the density of stations is still dependent on usage, which depends on density of development.

Since there are destinations on every block, the ideal bikeshare network would have stations on every block. That’s probably not practical even in the densest part of the city, but the best bikesharing networks seem to be those that come the closest. ITDP’s guide says to shoot for 10-16 stations per square kilometer.

That is why in a generally low density area, conventional bike share is simply impractical (GPS based dockless bike share may be a different story). Bike share is an urban (and high density suburban) thing. But the legacy of Arlington planning (concentrate density near metros, preserve traditional suburban character elsewhere) and similar issues in Alexandria, MoCo, parts of Fairfax will lead to difficult trade-offs at the edges of higher density areas, at least in some instances. I will leave the application of that in this particular case to those who know the geography better than I do.

[baiskeli]

@DismalScientist 114222 wrote:

Know many people interested in riding living in single family homes without bicycles?

I know I would use it if it were near my house, though not that often.

[arlmom]

The resolution passed at the meeting last night. But, the BCA is open to forming a committee to help the association membership better understand bikesharing. At least that is what I understand second-hand since I wasn’t able to attend the meeting.

I think it passed 31-14. I heard that most of the opposition was targeted toward the site on the Bluemont Trail, not as much on the site at N. Harrison Street.

I hope to participate in the new committee. We’ll see if time and information might change any opinions or get others involved that are open to bikeshare in the neighborhood.

[Henry]

I was at the meeting. The resolutions opposing the bikeshare sites were the main agenda items.

The president opened by trying to depressurize the debate a bit by announcing the BCA and Bikeshare had already agreed that a subcommittee would be established to work on alternate locations. (So yes, Arlmom please get on the committee). Some residents insisted anyway that a vote be taken as advertised to “prevent Bikeshare from coming back later and putting the stations in those locations.”

Comments were restricted to BCA members only, and for only 30-seconds each. Debate broke along 3 lines: Those opposed to bikeshare in general, those opposed to the specific locations but in support of bikeshare in principle, and those in favor of bikeshare and in favor of the specific locations. The resolutions opposing each site were voted on separately and each passed by a roughly 30-10 margin.

There is some mistrust among a few of the members about “Bikeshare” (“They can’t be trusted”), and a good bit of misunderstanding about bikeshare in general (one comment was that funding for bikeshare stations was taking away from other more important bike infrastructure).

I sense this is a good opportunity for us engage the community and get buy-in up front. They won’t review the issue again until at least September. There is a lot of support and desire for bikeshare in Bluemont and I am confident we will build on that in the coming months.

Henry

[baiskeli]

@Henry 114413 wrote:

I sense this is a good opportunity for us engage the community and get buy-in up front. They won’t review the issue again until at least September. There is a lot of support and desire for bikeshare in Bluemont and I am confident we will build on that in the coming months.

That’s good advice in general, for any project in any neighborhood.

Reminds me of an incident a while back when a private company came to BCA to do a presentation about proposed development. The map included 3 or 4 houses that would need to be bought and torn down. Some of the homeowners were at the meeting and learned of the idea of tearing down their homes for the first time there at the meeting. Needless to say, they were a bit shocked. (The proposal went nowhere).

[lordofthemark]

@baiskeli 114421 wrote:

That’s good advice in general, for any project in any neighborhood.

Within reasonable limits. Is a presentation to a local community group and “buy in” needed when a sharrows or bike lane is striped for a couple of blocks as part of a repaving (AFAIK repavings generally do not require community buy in) For an added pedestrian signal? Adding ADA compliant curb cuts? I mean in the case above you are talking a couple of bike share stations hardly a major project. City of Alex, if it gets funding together, is going to do 16 next year. Does each and every one require community outreach?

In this case, where there was some strong opposition, getting buy in is helpful. But having an outreach process for every tiny improvement, even when there is no reason to expect opposition, seems like the kind of thing that gives US infrastructure (in general) much higher costs than in the rest of the world.

I mean we do bike/ped master plans to get community by in all at once, do we not? Alexandria is going through that process now, with an ad hoc comm that includes CA reps, and with meetings open to the general public as well.

[baiskeli]

@lordofthemark 114429 wrote:

Within reasonable limits. Is a presentation to a local community group and “buy in” needed when a sharrows or bike lane is striped for a couple of blocks as part of a repaving (AFAIK repavings generally do not require community buy in) For an added pedestrian signal? Adding ADA compliant curb cuts? I mean in the case above you are talking a couple of bike share stations hardly a major project. City of Alex, if it gets funding together, is going to do 16 next year. Does each and every one require community outreach?

No, of course not. Didn’t say that. Just the ones that are going to get attention – which may be hard to predict, of course. I doubt CaBi anticipated BCA’s opposition.

[rcannon100]

I am still not understanding why CABI would work hard to install a station in a ‘hood that doesnt want it ~ when so many other ‘hoods are begging for stations. Go after the low hanging fruit first. If they dont want it, others do. Why would $1 of effort be spent on outreach or anything at this point for a ‘hood that says they dont want it?

[lordofthemark]

AFAIK “CaBi” does not select stations. Each jurisdiction does, and pays for them with their own funds. The 16 new station locations proposed for Alexandria were selected by the City’s dept of T&ES, with public input from wuthin the City. I wa onky joking above about wanting Arlington to finance some Alexandria stations. In reality the only places that these could be shifted to from Bluemont woukd be elsewhere in Arlington. I am not sure which areas in Arlington are begging for stations.

[Author]

Posts