King Street bike lane debate will drag into spring

From the Patch

Alexandria announced Wednesday it will hold two more public hearings concerning its plan for bike laneson a segment of King Street after receiving citizen requests to appeal a decision from the city’s transportation director to implement the controversial traffic-calming strategy.

The city’s Traffic and Parking Board, which voted to defer the project at a November hearing, will receive an update from city staff on the project at its next hearing, scheduled for 7:30 p.m. Monday, Jan. 27 at City Hall.

Following a recommendation from City Attorney Jim Banks, the Traffic and Parking Board will then hold a full-fledged hearing on the project on Monday, Feb. 24 as part of a review of Baier’s decision. The board will then make a recommendation to City Council, which will consider the issue at its Saturday, March 15 public hearing.

The city said there is no direct procedure that provides for an appeal, but Banks deemed a section of city code concerning traffic controlling devices applicable in this circumstance. 

So, it would be good to have some turnout for these meetings, where possible. 

Comments

[Brendan]

They should call their bluff. Ditch the bike lane and just take away the parking and restripe the road. Dare the opponents to cling to their parking spots then. Then it's either 100% about parking or it's not. Then a year later put the bike lanes in, because after all it's not about the bike lanes.

[Daniel]

To be fair to opponents, most agree that this is about parking. And a few residents, Mr. F.H. Buckley in particular, would be affected by removed parking for the days when he throws parties and wants to bring a lot of people into his home. The parking he has through the compromise proposal is indeed less convenient than the parking he has now.

Mr. F.H. Buckley has really thrown us off the rails here in Alexandria. What was a plodding series of meetings and compromises blew up when he wrote his "and another thing!" letter to the Wall Street Journal. It's just the kind of thing you expect from Lawyers Who Lobby.

He helped his side, but put a knife in the back of the people working toward compromise, one that was really written with him in mind. He took and olive branch, fashioned it into a spear, and poked the community.

I don't think I'm overstating the matter. The compromise proposal could be called the "Buckley Compromise" because it is essentially written with him in mind. And then he wrote the letter, which is really disappointing. He's like a Tea Party activist: compromise, trying to find pragmatic solutions to problems, is seen as a weakness, not as a point of civic pride.

You can call it the "Buckley Compromise" because Mr. F.H. Buckley lives across from Highland, right at the "transition zone" from lanes to sharrows, where the city kept parking because it was more than 3% utilized. That was the first compromise: it kept Mr. Buckley's parking just west of his house. The second part of the compromise is that it adds better crossing at both Upland and Highland so that Mr. Buckley's party guests can park across King Street and more safely cross at the light. Finally, Mr. Buckley and other residents were concerned about getting delivery vehicles in front of their houses. To meet that, the bike lanes were widened to 5 feet allowing that stop-and-deliver scenario in the bike lane. Remember, this is like having a bus lane in front of your house.

Mr. Buckley is adept and using distraction to win arguments, and that's what he's doing. But if you engage other residents, you find that they really are concerned about parking. Unfortunately, the loudest are the craziest.

[washcycle]

OK. So a little game theory.

Original proposal make cyclists very happy and Mr. Buckley unhappy.

The compromise makes cyclists less happy and still leaves Mr. Buckley unhappy.

Which option should be chosen?