Alexandria Bike Lobby wins again

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I believe the percentage I read on one of the articles was that at least 40% of traffic driving through Alexandria were people passing through, people who's trip neither commenced nor would end in Alexandria, point A and point B were both somewhere else. Waze is kicking these drivers off 495/395/ GW Parkway/ Route 1 into the streets of Alexandria for their commutes or wherever it is they want to go. You are not going to efficiently reduce a "driving majority" by adding bike lanes and bigger sidewalks in Alexandria when almost 1/2 of the drivers in Alexandria aren't leaving or going to Alexandria. They are using the streets of Alexandria as a short cut. Stop with the nonsense, it is what it is.

This is a heavily populated area with people dispersed in large geographic areas. You cannot convert these people to bike the 15-20 miles in one direction. Enough already.

I live and work in Alexandria near one of the locations a road diet was used a few years ago. The traffic is obscene now. I hate it.

Why should the priority in Alexandria road design be the people who drive through Alexandria from somewhere else to somewhere else, over people who live in Alexandria? Drivers will use the streets of Alexandria as a short cut if that works for them. So Alexandria should stop making it work for them.

Whatever, always missing the point. Move to Holland if the only answer is bikes everywhere.

Yeah, only Holland should have nice things, not us.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I believe the percentage I read on one of the articles was that at least 40% of traffic driving through Alexandria were people passing through, people who's trip neither commenced nor would end in Alexandria, point A and point B were both somewhere else. Waze is kicking these drivers off 495/395/ GW Parkway/ Route 1 into the streets of Alexandria for their commutes or wherever it is they want to go. You are not going to efficiently reduce a "driving majority" by adding bike lanes and bigger sidewalks in Alexandria when almost 1/2 of the drivers in Alexandria aren't leaving or going to Alexandria. They are using the streets of Alexandria as a short cut. Stop with the nonsense, it is what it is.

This is a heavily populated area with people dispersed in large geographic areas. You cannot convert these people to bike the 15-20 miles in one direction. Enough already.

I live and work in Alexandria near one of the locations a road diet was used a few years ago. The traffic is obscene now. I hate it.

Why should the priority in Alexandria road design be the people who drive through Alexandria from somewhere else to somewhere else, over people who live in Alexandria? Drivers will use the streets of Alexandria as a short cut if that works for them. So Alexandria should stop making it work for them.

Whatever, always missing the point. Move to Holland if the only answer is bikes everywhere.

Holland didn't used to have bikes everywhere. They used to have cars everywhere. Holland got to having bikes everywhere by adding bike infrastructure; then more people rode; then they added bike infrastructure; then more people rode...

Two more things that Holland has that we don't have:

1. a much lower rate of traffic deaths (Holland is 3.8 deaths per 100,000 people and 4.7 deaths per billion vehicle km traveled; US is 12.4 deaths per 100,000 people and 7.3 deaths per billion vehicle km traveled)
2. much lower CO2 emissions per capita (Holland is 9.9 metric tons of CO2 per capita, US is 16.5)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:They need to ban motorised bikes from the bike paths and bike lanes. They belong in the street with the other motorised vehicles, not in the dedicated lanes for those who labour manually to move their bikes

No, e-bikes are fine. E-bikes enable people to bike who wouldn't otherwise bike. That's a good thing. Bike lanes aren't for rewarding physical effort, they're for enabling people to go places by bike.

[Anonymous]

All I know is that there used to be four vehicle lanes between Janney's Lane and Kenwood Street, and now there are two vehicle lanes and bike lanes. I drive that area at least twice every day to and from work. You would think this would be prime time for bike commuting. In the two years or so since the bike lanes were installed, I have NEVER seen one bicyclist in a bike lane. On a Saturday or Sunday, I have seen a very occasional runner in the bike lanes. This has added 5 frustrating minutes to my commute because I am invariably stuck behind cars at the stop light who want to go straight and I cannot turn right.

Don't get me started on the pinhead who made Quaker Lane 25 miles an hour. From 395 to King Street, it is either ParkFairfax or Fairlington and commercial. None are adversely affected by a 35 mph speed limit. From King Street to Duke Street, where Quaker terminates, the land of the Episcopal Seminary takes up blocks and then there are a few houses scattered on either side of Quaker Lane and they sit well off the street.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:When should the convenience of a few bikers outweigh the safety and efficiency of the driving majority? Putting bike lanes on Seminary Rd. is a stupid idea.

I am the poster who is arguing about city priorities wrt traffic calming and safety. These types of comments are really not helpful to the conversation. We need to reduce the “driving majority”. You aren’t going to effectively argue against this road diet based on that. Focus on Alexandria’s backwards priorities, funding streams, shitty traffic analysis, the high ADT on Seminary, and lack of transparency re: Fire, police and hospital concerns. This road diet was not appropriate based available data and concerns regarding first responder access. And there are other, parallel roads that were much more appropriate for a road diet and provided higher connectivity. The fact is, this road was more about winning a battle than the appropriate allocation of road space. The prior, wholly dismissive poster I am debating with, who clearly knows nothing about this project, and isn’t from Alexandria, is an example of those who just want to win.

First-responder access benefits from traffic-calmed roads.

It's also possible to build first-responder access into bike lanes. Other places do it.

Is it really too much to ask that you profess to show SOME knowledge of the underlying project before you respond? Because this conversation isn’t about any road diet- it’s about a very specific one. Or do you just like mansplaining this things despite your clear lack of knowledge or any sense of thoughtfulness?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:When should the convenience of a few bikers outweigh the safety and efficiency of the driving majority? Putting bike lanes on Seminary Rd. is a stupid idea.

I am the poster who is arguing about city priorities wrt traffic calming and safety. These types of comments are really not helpful to the conversation. We need to reduce the “driving majority”. You aren’t going to effectively argue against this road diet based on that. Focus on Alexandria’s backwards priorities, funding streams, shitty traffic analysis, the high ADT on Seminary, and lack of transparency re: Fire, police and hospital concerns. This road diet was not appropriate based available data and concerns regarding first responder access. And there are other, parallel roads that were much more appropriate for a road diet and provided higher connectivity. The fact is, this road was more about winning a battle than the appropriate allocation of road space. The prior, wholly dismissive poster I am debating with, who clearly knows nothing about this project, and isn’t from Alexandria, is an example of those who just want to win.

First-responder access benefits from traffic-calmed roads.

It's also possible to build first-responder access into bike lanes. Other places do it.

Is it really too much to ask that you profess to show SOME knowledge of the underlying project before you respond? Because this conversation isn’t about any road diet- it’s about a very specific one. Or do you just like mansplaining this things despite your clear lack of knowledge or any sense of thoughtfulness?

You mean, this specific project, where the city report said that a road diet design opens a more predictable and practical path for emergency responders?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:All I know is that there used to be four vehicle lanes between Janney's Lane and Kenwood Street, and now there are two vehicle lanes and bike lanes. I drive that area at least twice every day to and from work. You would think this would be prime time for bike commuting. In the two years or so since the bike lanes were installed, I have NEVER seen one bicyclist in a bike lane. On a Saturday or Sunday, I have seen a very occasional runner in the bike lanes. This has added 5 frustrating minutes to my commute because I am invariably stuck behind cars at the stop light who want to go straight and I cannot turn right.

Don't get me started on the pinhead who made Quaker Lane 25 miles an hour. From 395 to King Street, it is either ParkFairfax or Fairlington and commercial. None are adversely affected by a 35 mph speed limit. From King Street to Duke Street, where Quaker terminates, the land of the Episcopal Seminary takes up blocks and then there are a few houses scattered on either side of Quaker Lane and they sit well off the street.

The same person spearheaded the changes to King, Janneys, Quaker and Seminary. Same person, this person lives right off of Seminary across from VTS. I don’t understand how this one individual, who is an avid cyclist, has so much influence over the city.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:All I know is that there used to be four vehicle lanes between Janney's Lane and Kenwood Street, and now there are two vehicle lanes and bike lanes. I drive that area at least twice every day to and from work. You would think this would be prime time for bike commuting. In the two years or so since the bike lanes were installed, I have NEVER seen one bicyclist in a bike lane. On a Saturday or Sunday, I have seen a very occasional runner in the bike lanes. This has added 5 frustrating minutes to my commute because I am invariably stuck behind cars at the stop light who want to go straight and I cannot turn right.

Don't get me started on the pinhead who made Quaker Lane 25 miles an hour. From 395 to King Street, it is either ParkFairfax or Fairlington and commercial. None are adversely affected by a 35 mph speed limit. From King Street to Duke Street, where Quaker terminates, the land of the Episcopal Seminary takes up blocks and then there are a few houses scattered on either side of Quaker Lane and they sit well off the street.

The same person spearheaded the changes to King, Janneys, Quaker and Seminary. Same person, this person lives right off of Seminary across from VTS. I don’t understand how this one individual, who is an avid cyclist, has so much influence over the city.

Probably because it isn't actually only one individual advocating for these changes.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/virginia-politics/battle-over-bike-lanes-alexandria-council-to-vote-saturday-on-seminary-road-plan/2019/09/13/e5382b8e-d56c-11e9-9343-40db57cf6abd_story.html

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:When should the convenience of a few bikers outweigh the safety and efficiency of the driving majority? Putting bike lanes on Seminary Rd. is a stupid idea.

I am the poster who is arguing about city priorities wrt traffic calming and safety. These types of comments are really not helpful to the conversation. We need to reduce the “driving majority”. You aren’t going to effectively argue against this road diet based on that. Focus on Alexandria’s backwards priorities, funding streams, shitty traffic analysis, the high ADT on Seminary, and lack of transparency re: Fire, police and hospital concerns. This road diet was not appropriate based available data and concerns regarding first responder access. And there are other, parallel roads that were much more appropriate for a road diet and provided higher connectivity. The fact is, this road was more about winning a battle than the appropriate allocation of road space. The prior, wholly dismissive poster I am debating with, who clearly knows nothing about this project, and isn’t from Alexandria, is an example of those who just want to win.

First-responder access benefits from traffic-calmed roads.

It's also possible to build first-responder access into bike lanes. Other places do it.

Is it really too much to ask that you profess to show SOME knowledge of the underlying project before you respond? Because this conversation isn’t about any road diet- it’s about a very specific one. Or do you just like mansplaining this things despite your clear lack of knowledge or any sense of thoughtfulness?

You mean, this specific project, where the city report said that a road diet design opens a more predictable and practical path for emergency responders?

Ugh. Forget it. You are just making shit up now.

The city recommended 4 lanes and the fire department asked for 4 lanes until they were clearly strong armed and sent a last minute (redacted) email that they “could consider [a road diet]”. The hospital asked for two westbound lanes. Fire union members, who could not provide a public statement, wanted 4 lanes. And the fire department is still doesn’t support the pedestrian refuge islands because the fire truck can’t get over them. This isn’t any road. It is a heavily traveled arterial with the city’s busiest fire station and only hospital on it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:All I know is that there used to be four vehicle lanes between Janney's Lane and Kenwood Street, and now there are two vehicle lanes and bike lanes. I drive that area at least twice every day to and from work. You would think this would be prime time for bike commuting. In the two years or so since the bike lanes were installed, I have NEVER seen one bicyclist in a bike lane. On a Saturday or Sunday, I have seen a very occasional runner in the bike lanes. This has added 5 frustrating minutes to my commute because I am invariably stuck behind cars at the stop light who want to go straight and I cannot turn right.

Don't get me started on the pinhead who made Quaker Lane 25 miles an hour. From 395 to King Street, it is either ParkFairfax or Fairlington and commercial. None are adversely affected by a 35 mph speed limit. From King Street to Duke Street, where Quaker terminates, the land of the Episcopal Seminary takes up blocks and then there are a few houses scattered on either side of Quaker Lane and they sit well off the street.

The same person spearheaded the changes to King, Janneys, Quaker and Seminary. Same person, this person lives right off of Seminary across from VTS. I don’t understand how this one individual, who is an avid cyclist, has so much influence over the city.

Probably because it isn't actually only one individual advocating for these changes.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/virginia-politics/battle-over-bike-lanes-alexandria-council-to-vote-saturday-on-seminary-road-plan/2019/09/13/e5382b8e-d56c-11e9-9343-40db57cf6abd_story.html

I stated that the same person spearheaded all these changes and he did. I didn't say he was the only one advocating them, but he spearheaded it and is the ringleader. I know him well personally for years. He is a nice person with a nice family. He wanted bike lanes because he volunteers with the blind to ride bikes. He got his neighbors to sign petitions to say they can't back out of their driveways to get the speed limit changed. He has had his family members testify to say they can't walk to their grandparents house without wider sidewalks (even though there are sidewalks there already). I don't need a WaPo article citation. If you don't know to whom I am referring then I doubt very highly you know much about any of these projects.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Ugh. Forget it. You are just making shit up now.

The city recommended 4 lanes and the fire department asked for 4 lanes until they were clearly strong armed and sent a last minute (redacted) email that they “could consider [a road diet]”. The hospital asked for two westbound lanes. Fire union members, who could not provide a public statement, wanted 4 lanes. And the fire department is still doesn’t support the pedestrian refuge islands because the fire truck can’t get over them. This isn’t any road. It is a heavily traveled arterial with the city’s busiest fire station and only hospital on it.

Nope. Quoting.

First responders generally want bigger equipment and bigger roads to drive their bigger equipment on, and they generally object to traffic calming and road diets. Which is ironic, because traffic calming and road diets make roads safer, i.e., less need for first responders.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Ugh. Forget it. You are just making shit up now.

The city recommended 4 lanes and the fire department asked for 4 lanes until they were clearly strong armed and sent a last minute (redacted) email that they “could consider [a road diet]”. The hospital asked for two westbound lanes. Fire union members, who could not provide a public statement, wanted 4 lanes. And the fire department is still doesn’t support the pedestrian refuge islands because the fire truck can’t get over them. This isn’t any road. It is a heavily traveled arterial with the city’s busiest fire station and only hospital on it.

Nope. Quoting.

First responders generally want bigger equipment and bigger roads to drive their bigger equipment on, and they generally object to traffic calming and road diets. Which is ironic, because traffic calming and road diets make roads safer, i.e., less need for first responders.

Cite? It better be an actual report and not one of the presentations that were created before this specific issue came up.

And yes, those horrible first responders. Really how much more selfish can they be?
FWIW, in Alexandria they aren’t objecting to traffic calming or road diets in general. The issue was this specific road diet. Again, you are applying broad principles to this specific project.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Ugh. Forget it. You are just making shit up now.

The city recommended 4 lanes and the fire department asked for 4 lanes until they were clearly strong armed and sent a last minute (redacted) email that they “could consider [a road diet]”. The hospital asked for two westbound lanes. Fire union members, who could not provide a public statement, wanted 4 lanes. And the fire department is still doesn’t support the pedestrian refuge islands because the fire truck can’t get over them. This isn’t any road. It is a heavily traveled arterial with the city’s busiest fire station and only hospital on it.

Nope. Quoting.

First responders generally want bigger equipment and bigger roads to drive their bigger equipment on, and they generally object to traffic calming and road diets. Which is ironic, because traffic calming and road diets make roads safer, i.e., less need for first responders.

Cite? It better be an actual report and not one of the presentations that were created before this specific issue came up.

And yes, those horrible first responders. Really how much more selfish can they be?
FWIW, in Alexandria they aren’t objecting to traffic calming or road diets in general. The issue was this specific road diet. Again, you are applying broad principles to this specific project.

Maybe they're special, unique first responders who don't object to traffic calming or road diets except for this one specific project.

In any case, the problem with the big equipment isn't that it's selfish. It's that then you have to have big transportation infrastructure to accommodate the big equipment, and the bigger the transportation infrastructure, the more dangerous it is to everyone - pedestrians, bicyclists, drivers, and even first responders.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They need to ban motorised bikes from the bike paths and bike lanes. They belong in the street with the other motorised vehicles, not in the dedicated lanes for those who labour manually to move their bikes

No, e-bikes are fine. E-bikes enable people to bike who wouldn't otherwise bike. That's a good thing. Bike lanes aren't for rewarding physical effort, they're for enabling people to go places by bike.

Cyclist here: absolutely NOT! I positively HATE ebikes, and the dbags that ride them. There is no functional difference between a ebike and a motorcycle, the only distinction is what kind of engine is moving it. So if ebikes are allowed to keep using bike lanes, it’s only a matter of time before mopeds, scooters and motorcycles all start using the lane, and forcing actual bikes off the lane, or just running us down.

The ebikes have to go. No way, no how, can they be allowed to use the lanes. No F’ing way.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They need to ban motorised bikes from the bike paths and bike lanes. They belong in the street with the other motorised vehicles, not in the dedicated lanes for those who labour manually to move their bikes

No, e-bikes are fine. E-bikes enable people to bike who wouldn't otherwise bike. That's a good thing. Bike lanes aren't for rewarding physical effort, they're for enabling people to go places by bike.

Cyclist here: absolutely NOT! I positively HATE ebikes, and the dbags that ride them. There is no functional difference between a ebike and a motorcycle, the only distinction is what kind of engine is moving it. So if ebikes are allowed to keep using bike lanes, it’s only a matter of time before mopeds, scooters and motorcycles all start using the lane, and forcing actual bikes off the lane, or just running us down.

The ebikes have to go. No way, no how, can they be allowed to use the lanes. No F’ing way.

There are actually a lot of functional differences between an ebike and a motorcycle. And if your objection to ebikes is that it's a slippery slope from ebikes to mopeds, scooters, and motorcycles - save your energy to fight proposals to allow mopeds, scooters, and motorcycles, when and if any such proposals are actually made.

The fact is that e-bikes lead to more people biking. Old people, people with disabilities, people whose trips involve steep hills, etc. That's a good thing. More ebikes, more biking, fewer cars.