Fox Butterfield, Is That You?

George Mason Law Professor Frank H. Buckley had an opinion piece in the Wall Street Journal last week about the King Street bike lanes, and how the tactics used by bike advocates in Alexandria's "little squabble illustrates the tactics you can expect to see when the bike wars reach you."

Namely those tactics are to advocate for bike lanes in planning and for complete streets policies and laws; and then for those policies - once adopted through the normal democratic process - to be implemented. Scary stuff, I know. I'm not the law professor, so I could be wrong, but I don't think parking is immune to democracy's obnoxious habit of changing things.

[At this point, let me mention that I hate the trivial use of the term "war." Especially when we're still involved in an actual war where American troops are actually dying. It seems insulting to them to try and equate this with that.]

The preening activists who favor these lanes are in my town

Since this blog is mentioned in his piece, I assume Buckley is including me as one of these activists. Those of you who know me know I never preen. I barely groom. 

It's not as though local cyclists favor King Street.

Well, one count reportedly put it at 17 cyclists over a two-hour rush hour. But this is the old, "why do we need to make this road more appealing to cyclists, no one rides it" argument. That few ride it is kind of the point.

Still, even with 8 cyclists an hour there are certainly more cyclists who ride the road now, then there are drivers who park in the 37 parking spaces that would need to be removed.

Cars speed by, and city buses plow through our red lights at 40 miles per hour.

One of the goals of the bike lanes - which will narrow the traffic lanes - is to slow traffic down. And the speed limit is 25 mph, so if buses are really that dangerous, it sounds like we need to do more to make cyclists safe. If only there was a way....

The very few cyclists you do see on this thoroughfare use the sidewalk, as they are permitted to do. Coming up the hill, they rarely move faster than the very few pedestrians, so everyone's safe.

Suddenly, everyone is OK with cyclists on the sidewalk (I think sidewalk cycling is fine, but it's just odd to see non-cyclists advocating for cyclists to be there). And that is inaccurate. Cyclists do use the street.

Many people on our street are bicyclists, so we're not antibike. When bicycling, however, we never use King Street. We'll take the safe side streets that get us to wherever we want to go.

No you won't. As Jonathon Krall points out at GGW

this section of King Street is a bottleneck in the street network. Areas to the west consist mostly of cul-de-sacs, making it difficult to travel between the west end of Alexandria and Old Town without using King or one of three other arterial roads, Braddock Road, Duke Street or Eisenhower Avenue. 

I suspect Buckley doesn't do a lot of biking in the area. There is really no way to get from T.C. Williams H.S to Old Town,  for example, without using "safe side streets."

The problems of a few hundred Alexandria residents wouldn't deserve a great deal of attention

Again, it's 37 spaces, a fact he never mentions. The only way we get to a few hundred Alexandria residents is by including all the cyclists.

It happened in Washington, D.C., in 2011, when Adrian Fenty's support for bike lanes helped make him a one-term mayor

If it helped, it helped very very little. And it's not like DC isn't still building bike lanes or planning to build many more miles of them.

Bike wars have also broken out in Los Angeles, San Francisco, Berkeley, Seattle, Austin and elsewhere.

Wars!!! In the cities! Won't you send money to the refugees?

Cyclist-commuters may number no more than 2% of the adult American population according to a 2002 report by The Pedestrian and Bicycle Information Center, but they are the ones who go to city council meetings.

In Alexandria the rate of bike commuters is 1.3%, but roads aren't just for commuting. They're for transportation, and many more people than 2% will use a bike for transportation on any given day. And the goal is to make that number go up. Bike lanes help achieve this goal. This is the same argument as above - "very few people bike commute, so why do we need bike lanes? And why is there no parking and so much traffic?" And no one gets vaccinated for HIV, so clearly no one is interested in a vaccine?

But, this is the worst line of all.

Come to think of it, if you've ever been held up by a cyclist blocking traffic when there was plenty of space on the side of the road, you've already participated in the bike wars.

Yes, when a cyclist does what is pretty much accepted as the safest practice - one recommended by most state DOT's - by taking the lane, they aren't trying to get home from work without dying. They are personally attacking you in a method that can only be considered an act of war. So, if you kill them, it's just self-defense, because it's either you or them, right? I mean this is war. 

Of course, this isn't really about war or personal attacks or an effort to stand up for true democracy (instead of just listening to people who "go to city council meetings" - those monsters!) or a strike against the "anticar political agenda" or a class struggle. Here's what it's about:

As for the residents, we're really attached to our parking spots.

They like having government land that they can use to store their personal property for free. They like benefiting from this in a way that is inequitable. And by golly, if anyone tries to take that land that they don't own, away from them, then it is to the barricades they go.

Now let's look at some of the reasons that Alexandria is launching this "war".

• Removing on-street parking spaces will make it easier for all traffic to yield to emergency vehicles, and make it easier for emergency vehicles to access homes along King Street.
• The moving lanes will be narrowed with the installation of bike lanes.  This tends to reduce speeds by a few miles per hour. 
• The bike lanes will provide a buffer on both sides of the street and move cars away from the sidewalk.  
• They will also help keep cyclists on the street and reduce pedestrian/cyclists conflicts on the sidewalk.

So yes, the same reasons why Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait. 

Buckley likes his parking. He doesn't pay for it and he doesn't own it, but removing the free access he's enjoyed for years in the interest of safety and fairness is, to him, an act of war.

It's of course, ridiculous to equate the lawful removal of parking on public ROW to replace it with a bike lane with an unlawful act of war. But, as Buckley points out, such is the public discourse these days according to New York City Council Speaker Christine Quinn.  Still, as someone once wrote "Before adopting a fashionable idea, we ought first to inquire whether it twigs our sense of humor" otherwise "nonsensical theories that could not survive the test of ridicule" could be taken seriously.

Update: If this is a "war" I think we all know which side all the casualties are on.

Comments

[Early Man]

With jesters like Washcycle and butts like Buckley the risible inferiority of the war on parking meme is laid bare.

[Crickey7]

It's too late for the defenders of our right to be subsidized to choke the roads. Biking as an integral, growing part of the transportation mix is an irreversible fact.

The view that this is a zero sum game is frustrating and untrue. Parking may be lost, but if there are fewer people looking for parking, the net result may be easier parking. Although the notion that one will get street parking on King Street on any time you'd want to be there is a little amusing. Those few times it happens, you feel compelled to relate this astonishing accomplishment for days.

[ACyclistInTheSuburbs]

its absolutely understandable that someone who likes his parking space in front of his house will want to keep it, and will marshall any arguments, however weak, to defend it, and will grab on to all the war on cars memes out there.

What is reprehensible is that the WSJ keeps trying to make a national issue out of the war on cars meme, using the most obscure lcoal disagreements to push that forward.

There is a debate in FFX county about the number of car title lenders. Does anyone expect to see WSJ opeds on the national car title loan wars? About the bitter fights over local water system consolidations?

[Dave]

Not surprising this was in the WSJ. NYC is undergoing a backlash against Citibike, in part over loss of a few parking spaces. Real issue for King Street as well.

[Robert]

You should use blockquote for quotes instead of "padding-left: 30px;". It'll make your posts more readable in RSS readers that strip out CSS.

[John]

Well thank goodness that King Street is finally getting safer for bikes. It's about time. I've ridden that road any number of times on my way to meet friends and it's continuously one of the more harrowing roads I ride on due to the large amount of traffic and the fact that there's little to no room between the on-street parking and the driving space.

[SJE]

Bikesnob's rant today is priceless

[Tim H]

sigh.

I think if Mr. Buckly spent one hour biking King Street, or one hour watching how little the parking turns over, or visited one cyclist in the emergency room, he would be a believer.

[Catherine]

(1) Where are he and all his neighbors riding "anywhere they want using the safe side streets"? It's all dead ends and cul-de-sacs. This is *the only* way to get from the Metro and Old Town to basically the whole rest of the City, including the only high school and the main rec center.

(2) I very seriously want to know when and how these parking spaces got there in the first place. No one, including City Council, can or will answer that. It is beyond absurd--setting aside public space for de facto private use.

It is very clear that those spaces are not intended for the general public--they are in an extremely residential area, nowhere near public facilities. It appears as if this was done for the dozen or so homes that these spaces serve.

Worse, most of these homes *have* driveways. These are meant for visitors, either occasional visitors or routine workers (housekeepers, nannies etc). In either case, we should not be sacrificing public improvement for the convenience for a few individuals. There is pleanty of parking mere yards away on the side streets.

This is not only about bike lanes, this is about traffic calming along that whole stretch--trying to *end* the people blowing through at 40mph (something Mr. Buckley doesn't seem to mind?! I'd hate it if people were breaking the speed limit by 15+mph with regularity on my street).

[washcycle]

Good points Catherine. Buckley makes a big deal about how King Street is a highway (which is a bit disingenuous), but if it is, why is there street-side parking on a highway?

[Jonathan Krall]

FWIW, I preen. It's fun!

I also support the originally-proposed design with full bike lanes extending to Janneys Lane, with the compromise of a 5 foot bike lane on the north side of King St to assist residents with access to their driveways.

And it will all come down to this meeting of the Traffic and Parking Board (why not call it the Citizen's Transportation Safety Board?)

Monday November 25, 7:30 pm,
Council Chambers, City Hall (Market Square, King St at Royal St).

This is the big meeting where we need a huge turnout by those that support making our streets useable and safe for all.

http://www.alexandriava.gov/TrafficParkingBoard

[Jonathan Krall]

@Catherine "Worse, most of these homes *have* driveways."

Small correction: they *all* have driveways that can hold at least two cars each.

[Catherine]

@Jonathan Krall--I didn't realize that. I thought that from my memory and google streetview that some on the south side of the street don't have spaces. But I could be wrong, and it only makes my point better.

I've submitted a request for information to the City that could really clear this up--let's see if I actually get a response. I'm still not sure how to go about figuring out the when and why of the establishment of these spaces, but I'm sure I'll get there eventually.

[kellie Meehan]

Mr. Krall,
Mr. Krall,
I live in the area, just off King St and the homes along King St. do not "all have driveways that hold at least 2 cars".
These homes were built in the 1920's and 30's., some earlier, and some later, most have space for 1 small car, a few may have a bigger parking area.
This isn't like Quaker Lane or Seminary Road where the homes have 2+ car driveways and garages and where there is no off street parking.
It is more like Braddock Road near Scroggins, where the homes have 1 small space of off street parking and the residents use the street spaces as primary parking.
(The city's count of parking space usage isn't an accurate count - when City staff took the count there were two homes that were empty and for sale, one resident had just passed away and the home was empty, and one home was a rental, that was empty. I believe one home is still for sale and is unoccupied.)
Another portion of this stretch of King St. is actually the back of homes on North View Terrace. Those residents don't use the “on street” parking spaces on King St. regularly because that is at the back of their homes and isn't easily accessible, and just like most residents of Alexandria, they park on the street in front of their home.

The homes along the other side of King St. have an alley with some off street parking. Some of the homes have enough space to handle 2 cars, some have a space for 1 car, some don't have a space at all and park on the street in the neighborhood or at the end of the alley.

The parking lane along King Street helps serve as a buffer for the residents to get into and out of their driveways because King St. is such a busy road, they need that buffer to slowly inch out of the driveway to get into King St. without being plowed into by the traffic.

The residents of the homes along one side of King do not have a way to park in the neighborhood on the other side of King (where it is already crowded). The homes are not near a cross walk and some are not near a cross street to access the neighborhood.

The homes along King St. have elderly residents, small children, families, couples, and so on. We have many residents who cycle to and from work, into DC and Old Town, many who walk to the Metro, and use public transportation. Basically a neighborhood like the rest of the city of Alexandria, diverse.

So now I hope that you have a clearer picture of the neighborhood.

I think that the issue isn't really bikes vs. parking. or bikes vs. elitist residents, or the like, which you have contended.
I think what this comes down to is that the road is not safe as it is and that it is heavily congested most of the day and night.
King St. was never built for nor meant to handle the amount of traffic that currently use it. (I remember before the 1970's when trucks were banned on this portion of King St.)
I bet most people don't know that the speed limit is 25 on this part of King St. That is a residential, neighborhood, speed limit. This is a residential neighborhood used as a major artery into and out of Old Town.
Of course not very many vehicles actually go 25 miles an hour and I don't believe adding bike lanes or buffer lanes will do anything to slow traffic down.

Those of us that live in the area and witness the congestion, deal with the traffic as we try to get into and out of our neighborhood, witness the number of serious accidents, see the police set up radar and hand out tickets, count the large number of buses and trucks that use this street, and hear the number of emergency vehicles that traverse King St. regularly; we wonder why would anyone want to add bikes to an already dangerous road. Even if you add designated lanes, it's a dangerous road that is too narrow.

If you ask most people in and around Alexandria about cycling on King St. their response is “why would anyone want to do it, it's too narrow and too steep”.
If you watch the cyclists that currently use King St. (there aren't as many as you and BPAC contend on this stretch of the road - there may be 11 an hour near the King St. Metro or near TC Williams H.S. but there are not 11 cyclists an hour at the traffic light at Highland St.), most will tell you they go down Walnut to connect to Commonwealth or Mt. Vernon Avenue. They do this because Walnut doesn't have traffic, it's a residential street that dead ends at King Street. And Commonwealth and Mt. Vernon are wider and have the room for bike lanes, parking and motor vehicles, giving every mode of transportation ample space.

I understand the need to connect and have access for cyclists throughout Alexandria and I am all for getting cars off the roads and getting people cycling, walking and taking mass transit, but King St. just isn't the street for bicycle lanes.

[ACyclistInTheSuburbs]

I will allow Alexandria cyclists to respond to the detailed issues about King Street. Though I am not clear on why bike lanes, which have served to calm traffic on other regional roads, would not do so here.

I want to respond to this though:

"I think that the issue isn't really bikes vs. parking. or bikes vs. elitist residents, or the like, which you have contended. "

1. It certainly is about parking. You have extensively documented in your post the need for parking. Its parking that will disappear if the bike lane is put in. Putting in a bike lane will not make the road more dangerous, and you have not shown how it would do so for. Whether its worth it for cyclists to take this route, to avoid going out of their way, is something cyclists will determine themselves. They are adults and can make their own choices. But in fact some do ride it already.

2. Making it about bikes vs cars seems to me to not be what Mr Krall has done, but something one of your neighbors has done, going so far as to publish a piece in the WSJ adding to a national bikes vs cars meme. If you support "getting cars off the roads and getting people cycling, walking and taking mass transit" as you state, I would think you might be concerned about that.

[washcycle]

most have space for 1 small car, a few may have a bigger parking area.

Looking at the satellite view of the street, it looks like they all do have room for two cars. Some even have two cars parked in the driveway.

The parking lane along King Street helps serve as a buffer for the residents to get into and out of their driveways

So then, it sounds like many residents already park in their driveway. And as for the buffer, the bike lane will do this as well, except it will be easier to see traffic without parked cars in the way.

why would anyone want to add bikes to an already dangerous road.

To make it safer and to reduce congestion. Making more space for traffic and less for parking seems like a good way to reduce congestion. Also, bike lanes are expected to slow traffic a little.

Why would anyone oppose bike lanes on King Street?

most will tell you they go down Walnut to connect to Commonwealth or Mt. Vernon Avenue

Walnut is perpendicular to King Street. What you're saying is that under the current design cyclists go way out of their way to avoid King Street. It sounds like King Street needs some improvement. If I told you that when people want to go to Baltimore, they take US-301 and MD-2 because BW Parkway was too dangerous, would your response be, "oh that sounds like a good arrangement."?

And how do they get to Janneys Lane?

King St. just isn't the street for bicycle lanes.

It sounds like what you're really saying is that King Street just isn't the street for bicyclists. It's too dangerous to ride on now and we shouldn't put bike lanes on them because it will still be too dangerous.

Are you saying that cyclists should not ride on King Street - with or without bike lanes?

And Commonwealth and Mt. Vernon are wider and have the room for bike lanes, parking and motor vehicles, giving every mode of transportation ample space.

If Mt. Vernon is fine for biking, because it has room for bike lanes and motor vehicles then why wouldn't King Street be fine if it had room for bike lanes and motor vehicles? It sounds like the only difference is that Mt. Vernon has room for parking - which is not a mode of transportation, but rather a form of property storage? So if the only difference is that Mt. Vernon and Commonwealth - which are fine for cyclists in your opinion - have room for parking and King Street does not, then how is this not about bikes vs. parking?

[Jonathan Krall]

In response to Kellie Meehan...

"These homes were built in the 1920's and 30's., some earlier, and some later, most have space for 1 small car, a few may have a bigger parking area."

I respectfully disagree and invite people to go have a look for themselves.

"The city's count of parking space usage isn't an accurate count"

Every time I ride up King St, I see only 2-3 cars parked, so I believe that the counts, which were taken at various times and on various days over a lengthy period, are accurate (see the 10/18 public meeting linked near the bottom of this page: http://alexandriava.gov/localmotion/info/default.aspx?id=74320 )

"The homes along the other side of King St. have an alley with some off street parking. Some of the homes have enough space to handle 2 cars, some have a space for 1 car, some don't have a space at all and park on the street in the neighborhood or at the end of the alley."

Which is a lengthy way to say that these homes are not relevant to the discussion.

"The parking lane along King Street helps serve as a buffer for the residents to get into and out of their driveways because King St. is such a busy road, they need that buffer to slowly inch out of the driveway to get into King St. without being plowed into by the traffic."

The parking lane is 7 feet wide. The proposed bike lane is 5 feet wide on the north side in the modified proposal from the city and in the suggestion that BPAC has been discussing (we want the originally-proposed through lanes, but with 5 feet on the north and 4 feet on the south). So we are arguing over 2 feet.

"The residents of the homes along one side of King do not have a way to park in the neighborhood on the other side of King (where it is already crowded)."

Yes they do. It is like everywhere else in the city, crowded but not packed. If you didn't want to live in a city you shouldn't have bought a house in a city. Have you even bothered to set up a neighborhood parking program to limit all-day or all-night parking by non-residents?

"The homes are not near a cross walk and some are not near a cross street to access the neighborhood."

All crosswalks are being improved as part of the originally-proposed project. Those improvements are going forward. Are you saying you cannot walk 50 feet to the nearest crosswalk? Have you considered using a wheelchair? We have heard reports from the police at BPAC meetings about the intersections that are most dangerous for pedestrians. None of them were on this section of King St.

"I think that the issue isn't really bikes vs. parking. or bikes vs. elitist residents, or the like, which you have contended."

This isn't bikes versus parking? Really???

"I think what this comes down to is that the road is not safe as it is and that it is heavily congested most of the day and night."

As others have said. the cyclists are asking for a modified King St because they want to ride on a modified King St. As stated in the public meeting, some currently ride in this area with their children. They are adults. They can make decisions about safety. The idea that they need to be protected by the likes of you is insulting in the extreme.

"If you ask most people in and around Alexandria about cycling on King St. their response is “why would anyone want to do it, it's too narrow and too steep”."

Most people do not ride bicycles often on the street. Most will also say that they cannot ride at night, in the rain, on cold days, or ride distances over 10 miles. I often hear that it is impossible to shop for groceries or to ride wearing a suit. I have no idea how we as a nation have become so out of touch with the idea of routine exercise or of routinely going out doors for more than a few minutes at a time.
The fact is that none of these things are impossible, all of them are reasonable, and many of them are routine for people who use bicycles for transportation. Further, I have bicycled up both King and your suggested alternative, Walnut, many times. Walnut is much steeper.

And this isn't mostly about cycling over epic distances up huge hills in the rain. The main effect of these lanes will be to connect the King Street Metro Station to residents less than one mile away. Many people who use them will wear regular clothes, will ride a short distance, will do so during a break in the rain if the day is rainy and, as soon as they park their bikes, will be assumed to be "people" instead of "cyclists."

Sadly for me, they will also be counted by the Census as commuting by transit instead of bicycle. But that is an issue for another day.

"If you watch the cyclists that currently use King St. (there aren't as many as you and BPAC contend on this stretch of the road - there may be 11 an hour near the King St. Metro or near TC Williams H.S. but there are not 11 cyclists an hour at the traffic light at Highland St.), most will tell you they go down Walnut to connect to Commonwealth or Mt. Vernon Avenue. They do this because Walnut doesn't have traffic, it's a residential street that dead ends at King Street."

Indeed. Many do exactly this and it sucks. They want something different. They want a direct route. They want a less-steep street. They are not children. They know exactly what they are asking for and are asking for exactly what they want.

"I understand the need to connect and have access for cyclists throughout Alexandria and I am all for getting cars off the roads and getting people cycling, walking and taking mass transit, but King St. just isn't the street for bicycle lanes. "

King St is the street that connects east to west in this area. Even the people who use Walnut street ride on a portion of King St. I get that you want to keep your convenience parking and that you want the cyclists to ride somewhere else. But the cyclists do not live somewhere else. They live in Alexandria.

[Catherine]

@Kellie Meehan

King St. was never built for nor meant to handle the amount of traffic that currently use it....

That is *precisely* why this portion of road was selected for traffic calming measures. Narrowing the travel lanes and adding bike lanes are part of traffic calming measures.

I don't believe adding bike lanes or buffer lanes will do anything to slow traffic down.

Well, you're wrong. Civil engineers don't go on "belief" they go on proven methods. Bike lanes and buffer lanes slow traffic.

The parking lane along King Street helps serve as a buffer for the residents to get into and out of their driveways because King St. is such a busy road, they need that buffer to slowly inch out of the driveway to get into King St. without being plowed into by the traffic.

I cannot believe that you willingly accept this as your status quo. I honestly truly can't. And that you're fighting measures aimed at improving this status quo. And you frame bike lanes as the menace in this situation.

Look, the bike lane will do exactly what the parking lane does--provide some buffer (it won't be bumper to bumper bikes. Just make sure you look before pulling into the bike lane and you're good). And better than the parking lane...you won't have all those parked cars blocking your visibility of King Street.

most will tell you they go down Walnut to connect to Commonwealth or Mt. Vernon Avenue.

First, that route is terrible. Second, it only covers about half the area slated for the lanes.

And to your general point about who has driveway spaces, how many and where? I can't prove it one way or another and it's not the point anyway. The point is that your storage of your private property in the manner in which is more agreeable or convenient to you is not the public's problem. Your private use of public space was probably unfair to begin with and now that there is a demonstrated need to use the public space for public use, that's what has been planned. It's harsh, especially if you've been used to having it, but that's the truth. There are many viable alternatives available to you.

[D]

As a resident on Janney's Lane, I can attest that bike lanes do not calm traffic. Cars still drive in both directions at 40 plus MPH and continue this speed regardless if there is a cyclist or not. The entire street is 25 MPH as it is residential. Also the parking spaces on Janneys are considerable smaller leaving absolutely zero room for error. We often park one of our cars in the street because like many residents we have a small single driveway. The smaller space makes it unsafe entering and exiting the car and we do not own large cars either.

The driving lanes are considerably smaller as well making pulling out from the driveway more precarious than it was before bike lanes.

Regardless of the parking issue, bike lanes do not calm traffic.

[Crickey7]

If it were me being forced to give up a space I'd had for a long time, but that did not belong to me, I'd be unhappy. It wouldn't change the fact that it never was mine, and it could disappear at any time.

[Marjorie]

Those of us who live here - and probably those of us who bike here regularly, think That little stretch of King is way too dangerous for riding. Anyone who argues otherwise is sadly mistaken. As a rider, and a resident of the veryneighborhood in question, I avoid King st by riding the alley parallel to King. I run down the magnificent hill from the Masonic temple. I land where I need to be. King and Russell. Why are we putting one another in danger by sanctioning a ride on that treacherous part of King?

[washcycle]

Because King Street is not "too dangerous for riding", people ride it already and no one is dying. But it could be made safer and more comfortable (and in so doing make it even safer thanks to the Safety in Numbers effect). That you are scared to ride it is not evidence that it is too dangerous, and I'm not mistaken (sadly or otherwise). If you have any evidence of bike fatalities or crashes, I'd like to see that.

Nonetheless this street should be safe enough to ride. It's a 25mph road in a residential neighborhood. Why are you so willing to accept the status quo if the status quo is so dangerous?

[Catherine]

Marjorie--

Your arguement against putting in facilities to make the road safe for bikes is that the road is unsafe for bikes?

D--

Those lanes are relatively new and I'm guessing underutilized because once you get to King, you've really got nowhere to go unless you ride on the street, which everyone here agrees is unsafe (and is probably something the anti-bike crowd would complain about anyway).

Bike lanes have successfully been used as part of traffic calming plans all over the country and world. And in Alexandria already. There is nothing unique and special about this road, except to the people who want to continue to use it to store their personal property.

[Marjorie]

You miss the point. The street for just a few blocks is too narrow. It cannot be widened without tearing down homes. I happen to live in the neighborhood. I know how unsafe that stretch if road is and always will be. It is very narrow, cannot be widened, but is part of a major artery. The fact that some will not even consider that the parallel alley - not even a block away - might be a good, safer alternative speaks volumes to their desire to win, whatever that means. I live here and when I cycle, I avoid that stretch of King. Lots of easy ways to do it, including the parallel alley or even S View Terrace. There is no way to make cycling safe on that stretch.

[washcycle]

The street for just a few blocks is too narrow. It cannot be widened without tearing down homes.

No one is talking about tearing down homes. The road is plenty wide to support the current travel lanes with bike lanes.

It may be part of a major artery, but it is also a 25mph road in a residential neighborhood featuring "elderly residents, small children, families, couples, and so on." Don't you think that that is exactly the kind of street that should be safe for cycling?

If the alley is such a superior option, why doesn't everyone choose it?

Talk of how to avoid King Street is equivalent to admitting that the road needs to be made safer. That's what bike lanes will do.

[BlueEyedDevil]

Marjorie, if you need two spaces to park both of your cars, and you have "only" a one-car driveway, perhaps it's time to consider downsizing. It's all the rage nowadays, and you're very close to the metro, I'm guessing. Oh, and it looks like a nice bike lane may be going in on King sometime soon. So there you have it, incentive.

[kellie Meehan]

Adding a bike lane will make an already dangerous street more dangerous. The traffic along King St doesn’t go by the posted speed limit and adding a bike lane that won’t have a bike in it 24/7 will not slow cars down.
A parking lane, which is currently there, and has cars in it, should slow cars down but that hasn’t worked. So why would a resident of the area come to the conclusion that a line on the side of the road will slow cars down?

How will this reduce congestion – none of those cars with MD tags is going to say hey, I can now bike along this road and decide ditch the car for the bike. The traffic isn’t going anywhere.
Please tell me how you think a bike lane will reduce congestion? The road is only so big….

[ACyclistInTheSuburbs]

"Why are we putting one another in danger by sanctioning a ride on that treacherous part of King?"

just to note riding there is already sanctioned - riding on any non limited access road in Virginia is legal, AFAIK.

And there are many bike lanes being put in on roads that are posted at 25MPH where traffic goes faster. Indeed there are roads posted at 35MPH where cyclists ride even without bike lanes, and there are 45 MPH roads where there are bike lanes that folks use.

There are cyclists who are more cautious, and those who rely more on their own speed, visibility, ability to maneuver, etc. In general experts on biking support bike lanes on roads like that, precisely to make it safer and more inviting to folks who wouldn't ride on such a road without a lane - there will still be some riders who will go out of their way to ride on a quieter street, but suggesting that we should not invite folks to ride on such a street goes against all we know about biking safety and infrastructure.

[washcycle]

Adding a bike lane will make an already dangerous street more dangerous.

Every bit of data we have on bike lanes says that this statement is wrong.

So why would a resident of the area come to the conclusion that a line on the side of the road will slow cars down?

Because the traffic lane will be narrowed.

How will this reduce congestion – none of those cars with MD tags is going to say hey, I can now bike along this road and decide ditch the car for the bike.

Right now cars and bikes all have to use the same lane. But with bike lanes, bikes would use one lane and cars the other. By using more of the narrow road to move traffic, we can move more traffic which reduces congestion.

And not everyone on that road has Maryland plates. Of this I'm certain. Bike lanes will encourage more cycling at the margins and it does not take much of a change to reduce congestion.

In saying that bike lanes don't make cycling safer, don't encourage more cycling, don't slow down traffic and don't improve road safety you are rejecting a very large mountain of actual data and research. It's a climate denier argument.

[Rachel Malleck]

The fact is that the city's proposals (Concept 1 and Concept 2) are both unacceptable, for a variety of reasons on both sides of the issue. I think if we cut back on some of the extremism and name-calling and sat down at a table with a mix of city planners, residents, and cyclists, as the Taylor Run Civic Association recommended at their meeting last night, we could possibly come up with something better. This is a major change to a major artery and vibrant neighborhood and shouldn't be made on the city's whim. Just because they propose it doesn't mean we all have to live with it.
I bought my house on King in July. I have a truly cruddy driveway that will require significant renovations in order to get in and out safely (we would have to repair it eventually, but the city's decision will clearly force our hand), so yes, I do like being able to park on the street. That doesn't make me a terrible person or an entitled land baron. That doesn't mean I am against the safety of cyclists or pedestrians. It means I don't want my kids or dog or husband or self to die when I pull out of my cruddy driveway and some Maryland driver plows into me. I can't imagine bike lane proponents would feel any different if you lived on my street.
I just don't feel like the plan does enough about the terrible sidewalks or gives a clear picture of what pedestrian improvements are going to be made. The carryover parking solution is a neighborhood across King Street that has limited sidewalks and visibility--a neighborhood currently experiencing a rash of car break-ins and where a woman was attacked only a month ago.
I think we all deserve better.

[kellie Meehan]

I'm sorry, but studies show that parking lanes narrow the road as well and that slows traffic down. It doesn't work on King St. So you should be able to understand why the residents don't "buy into" the idea of a bike lane slowing traffic.

You really can't make the road more narrow than what it currently is. Buses and trucks don't seem to be able to stay in the lanes they currently have, many ride along the yellow center line.
The road is a narrow, residential street.

Have you seen the traffic on King St.?
No one is saying bikes/cyclists slow traffic. The vehicles most times can't go any slower. Bikes and pedestrians go faster than the cars.
It is bumper to bumper cars during rush hour and usually at other times throughout the day. If there is some other trouble spot in the area it's much worse for much longer.

And currently there aren't that many cyclists that use King St. to slow the traffic.

I don't understand the comment, "by using more of the narrow road to move traffic, we can move more traffic which reduces traffic."
Adding a bike lane is not going to remove enough cars from this road to reduce congestion.

I'm not saying bike lanes don't make it safer, or encourage cycling. What I am saying is that King St is an already narrow, dangerous, congested road.

[washcycle]

It doesn't work on King St.

It doesn't get it to the speed limit, but that doesn't mean it doesn't slow traffic down.

Adding a bike lane is not going to remove enough cars from this road to reduce congestion.

It will remove some cars and in so doing will reduce traffic.

I'm not saying bike lanes don't make it safer, or encourage cycling.

Than we're in agreement, bike lanes would make the road safer and so we should add them.

What I am saying is that King St is an already narrow, dangerous, congested road.

And bike lanes will make it safer and less congested.

[washcycle]

I don't want my kids or dog or husband or self to die when I pull out of my cruddy driveway and some Maryland driver plows into me.

I don't see any reason to believe that curbside parking is safer than driveway parking.

Your argument is basically "I want to be able to park here and so I don't want to give that up for bike lanes." That doesn't make you a bad person, but that does mean the city should just ignore you, because your desire to use city land for free should not outweigh the goals of the city to increase the use of sustainable transportation and to make roads safer.

[Crickey7]

I honestly cannot believe someone is suggesting cyclists be forced to use an alley instead of a 25 mph road.

[Laura Sesana]

Loved your piece, I quoted you in my piece in the Communities section of The Washington Times. I'd love to hear your feedback http://bit.ly/HPrO5h

[washcycle]

Laura, that is a great article. Bravo.

[cyclistinthecity]

'The fact that some will not even consider that the parallel alley '

You mean the ones that don't connect to anything? Shall we go through people's backyards?

'or even S View Terrace.'

That still leaves us with at least a quarter mile of riding on King Street which you claim 'is unsafe for cycling' and by your determination, unfit for bike lanes. Thanks.

The point still remains that we are trying to build connecting routes for bicycles in Alexandria from one end of the city to the other in all directions. Your suggestions leave us at dead ends or going to places other than our destinations or making our trips longer for the sake of your convenience.

Let's look at the north side of King Street now. There are no connecting parallel routes that form possible alternatives. I suspect that the residents on those roads displayed NIMBY attitudes when those roads were built to prevent anyone but themselves from using them by virtue of them not connecting with the rest of the street network.

So we have nothing on the north side and a marginal number of winding, connecting roads which only take us part way up King Street. What if we wanted to get to Fairlington? Or the Alexandria Pastry Shop? Or the Burke Branch Library? Or the Great Harvest Bakery? We have few options except to go out of our way in order to preserve some parking spots for 30 property owners.

The amount of whining here is incredible. Bring on the full bike lanes.

[ACyclistInTheSuburbs]

Ms Meehan

I am confused, before you said that King Street is too dangerous for biking because cars speed along at well above the limit. Now you are saying the road is so congested the traffic cannot go any slower. Which is it?

Ms Malleck - my sympathies go out to you, as you were sold a house with a cruddy driveway, probably at a very considerable price. Your realtor may not have told you that King Street is a designated bike route on Alexandria's official bike map, or about the discussions for a bike lane.

For all the references to Md plates - I used to live in NW alexandria and sometimes commuted to old town by car - I am quite sure most of the folks driving down King Street had Va plates, and were, indeed, residents of Alexandria. I also at one time commuted from Md to Old Town, and I always took the beltway - there is no reason I would have crossed through congested DC to get to King Street at 395 if I did not have to.

[ACyclistInTheSuburbs]

"What I am saying is that King St is an already narrow, dangerous, congested road. "

well if you put in a bike lane, that makes it easier for cyclists, since they now no longer have to be in the narrow general travel lane. and it doesnt make the general travel lane slower, since the bike lane space comes not from the general travel lane, but from the parking lane.

So I do not see how that is a case for keeping the parking lane.

[kellie Meehan]

A Cyclist in VA - --
You apparently haven't seen King St. have you?
During rush hour, cars are bumper to bumper going into Old Town. The other lane is not as congested, and cars, buses, trucks, speed along.
Like wise in the afternoons and evenings.

[ACyclistInTheSuburbs]

Not only have I seen King street, I used to live in NW Alexandria and work in Old Town. I drove down king street on the days I didnt take the bus. I did this back in the early 1990s - did you live there then?

So, if cars are speeding in the direction opposite to rush hour, it sounds like bike lanes COULD calm traffic in that direction. And it seems like the bike lane would enable cylists to get ahead of stuck traffic in the other direction. I am still not clear, aside from the parking spaces, whats lost by having bike lanes there.