Reply to Alexandria Bike Lobby wins again

Forum Index » Metropolitan DC Local Politics

Reply to "Alexandria Bike Lobby wins again"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]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.[/quote]

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 [b]first responder access[/b]. 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. [/quote]

First-responder access benefits from traffic-calmed roads.

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

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?[/quote]

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?[/quote]

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. [/quote]

T&ES recommented 4 lanes ONLY because it was procedurally simpler to advance what the Traffic and Parking Board voted for (in a split decision). Had one vote on the T&PB gone the other way, they would have been recommending Option 3. At T&PB they  recommended a hybrid.

T&ES did say that that Option 3 was fine for emergency vehicles, citing FHWA documents.  Fire department explicitly said, at the Council hearing, that they had certain requirements and Option 3 met them.

The Hospital provided no statement.

Quotes of anonymous people were, properly, not taken into account.

[/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics