[lordofthemark]

@consularrider 63817 wrote:

No physical vandalism needed. Just follow Fred’s (from Yehuda Moon) example with ball bearings. The series is near the end of the year.

Oh dear how sad.

Thats not me. Fairfax County keeps radicalizing me, but not that way.

[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.

[lordofthemark]

https://www.google.com/#q=external+airbags

[lordofthemark]

od lo ahavti dai haruach v’ hashemesh, al panai

I have not yet spent enough time loving the wind and the sun on my face

[lordofthemark]

“Its not DC, buddy”

This AM, walking (can I include these here?) across Little River at Hummer. There was a huge gardening truck in the crosswalk. Not a foot or two into the crosswalk, but blocking the entire crosswalk. I told the guy he can’t block the crosswalk like that. If I heard right (and I think I did) he said “Its not DC buddy”

I took a pic of his license plate.

I can A. Call the gardening co that employs him and complain about him in particular – but they might not do anything, and if they did, he might come after me B. I can call them and complain without being specific, and hope they lecture all their drivers – probably will do zero good C. I can call the Fairfax County Police with details – at least in that case if he comes after me, theres a police record. Probably the police will do nothing D. I can all community relations cop and ask about crosswalk enforcement generally – probably will do no good E. I can call Penny Gross’s office (supervisor for Mason District) and kvetch about ped unfriendliness in FFX county generally, and how do you think you will ever make that Tysons project work if the County has a reputation as being weak on enforcing ped protections – but as a FABB member, and on other grounds I have other priorities with Penny – and after all we DID just get those nice new sidewalks, and I even got FCDOT to put in some of those yellow diamond signs with a stick figure of a ped on it on Hummer Road.

Or I can kvetch here.

[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.

[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)

[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?

[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.

[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:

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 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.

[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 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]

@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.

[Author]

Posts