Speaking of issues where the opposition refuses to give up, there were some recent letters to the editor about bike lanes on King Street following Alexandria's decision to go ahead with the compromise. The first is from someone who, oddly, views the transfer of public space from one use (parking) to another (bike lanes) as a property rights issue for the people who live near that public space.
my love of cycling does not trump my interests as a property owner in the City of Alexandria.
When one of my bicycle advocacy organizations recently emailed me to support the proposed bike lanes on a stretch of King Street, I immediately shot back that removal of parking spaces in a residential area would devalue the properties.
But two others are supportive of the bike lanes. One, is in support of complete streets and the sacrifices necessary to make them.
The debate is about whether we will achieve the 2008 transportation master plan vision for “a transportation system that encourages the use of alternative modes of transportation, reducing dependence on the private automobile.” Achieving this goal will require removing parking spaces along the north side of King Street for several block
The other, advocates for a changed traffic and parking board
Why not create a board with responsibility “for the safe and convenient travel along and across streets for all users,” rather than retaining a board out of touch with city policies and not aligned with the city’s multimodal transportation and complete-streets objectives?
Because parking is a right, not a privilege. Dang socialist entitlements.
But seriously, there's some evidence starting to emerge that bike facilities increase property values. The first letter writer should rejoice.
Posted by: Greenbelt | January 07, 2014 at 12:33 PM
Just offer him the historic perspective. It's a city (well an "Old" town) not known for parking. If you want parking, then live in Fairfax County on quiet cul-de-sac.
I mean, it's like he's complaining about rodens in a 18th century OT home. Damn homes weren't built to modern standards--yes, of course not!
Posted by: T | January 07, 2014 at 02:48 PM
In nearly every public improvement project, some people will suffer a diminution in value, and others--usually a greater number--will see an increase, and the net result will be positive. This project will undoubtedly follow that rule. The letter writer focussed on less than half of the equation, and so painted a misleading picture.
Posted by: Crickey7 | January 07, 2014 at 02:55 PM
Off topic: Is m street done?
Posted by: JJJJJ | January 07, 2014 at 06:14 PM
I think we have found the new regional coordinator for the "Drive Your Bike to Work Day" campaign.
Posted by: Early Man | January 08, 2014 at 07:04 AM
JJJJ, not sure. The part near my office (by the evil church) was painted with the lines, but not the green boxes. I also haven't noticed the plastic flexible post-like bollard things on blocks right past us or before us (obviously they're not doing it by the hotel or church per DDOT capitulating to whiney brats).
Posted by: T | January 08, 2014 at 11:12 AM
Thanks T. I wonder what the delays are.
Posted by: JJJJJ | January 08, 2014 at 07:31 PM
Apparently they've lined King with signs about "no bikes on King". I wouldn't know because (a) was on vacation until Sunday (b) bike chain was frozen solid until today.
So I guess this is aimed at getting the drivers thinking that they're about to take away a travel lane (rather than the parking lane) to gather support for...what? Isn't it done? Or are they suing?
Posted by: Catherine | January 09, 2014 at 01:26 PM
Thanks for the coverage and comments. Unfortunately this isn't done yet. I am told to expect bike lane opponents to come out to the next City Council public hearing on Saturday January 25, 9:30 am (City Hall, 301 King St).
There is nothing up for a vote, but each City Council public hearing opens with a "Public Discussion Period" during which citizens can speak about anything they'd like. Bike lane supporters plan to show up in force to thank the City Council for their leadership on this issue.
Please attend if you can, even if you do not wish to speak. We will invite supporters to stand up and be counted. And please stay tuned.
Posted by: Jonathan Krall | January 10, 2014 at 09:34 PM
the signs, mostly, read "bike lanes unsafe". however, if you pay close attention to the sidewalks there are signs and very narrow sections that would make pedestrian and bike use extremely unsafe. what's even more confounding is that several of the signs are posted on the side of king street devoid of any parking spaces at all. add to that the occasional garbage can and old christmas tree ON the sidewalk, and you really don't have a contiguous open avenue of travel that isn't the actual traffic lane.
Posted by: jaime | January 11, 2014 at 04:18 AM
Right, jamie. that's why the parking "lane" will be removed, the double yellow line re-centered so there is room for bike lanes on both sides of the road.
The opponents are fighting to keep the status quo, because they like having dedicated parking in front of their homes, all of which have driveway and/or alley parking. Of the 30-some spaces slated for removal (there is a section where 5 spaces will be retained), on average, 3 are in use at any time.
Posted by: Catherine | January 13, 2014 at 09:19 AM