Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you're upset that there are streets without sidewalks - I'm with you all the way.

If you're upset about the Seminary Road road diet? Nope, not with you on that.

I am upset that after years of under- or not funding sidewalk projects across the city, they are willing to go to bat for a $1m grant for this particular sidewalk. Look, someone nearly died in my neighborhood. Do you know how long we had to wait for the city to request a grant or even properly assess the issue? 4 years. Four years to get the grant and several more for any work to be done. And that was one of the most dangerous intersections in the city. So yeah, I am pissed. They can keep the stupid joint, protected path in place for a few years and focus time and money on real safety issues. And focus on getting grants to address real safety problems.

4 years for a sidewalk, better sidewalk, or safer intersection is speedy. Some people in Montgomery County have been waiting up to 20 years, including for places where people actually did die.

But the solution really can't be to fight against sidewalks projects there on grounds that you want sidewalks projects here. There need to be sidewalks everywhere. And don't let them tell you they don't have the money.

Anonymous wrote:If you're upset that there are streets without sidewalks - I'm with you all the way.

If you're upset about the Seminary Road road diet? Nope, not with you on that.

I am upset that after years of under- or not funding sidewalk projects across the city, they are willing to go to bat for a $1m grant for this particular sidewalk. Look, someone nearly died in my neighborhood. Do you know how long we had to wait for the city to request a grant or even properly assess the issue? 4 years. Four years to get the grant and several more for any work to be done. And that was one of the most dangerous intersections in the city. So yeah, I am pissed. They can keep the stupid joint, protected path in place for a few years and focus time and money on real safety issues. And focus on getting grants to address real safety problems.

If you're upset that there are streets without sidewalks - I'm with you all the way.

If you're upset about the Seminary Road road diet? Nope, not with you on that.

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]

So if the city has a list of sidewalk needs, they should be ranked based on a clear set of factors, including: the presence of other sidewalks, proximity to schools (elementary in particular), proximity to mass transit, etc.[/quote]

Leaving aside the color of money question (which means not all of these are interchangeable in terms of budget) I note that you do not mention the speed and volume of traffic on the road, the difficulty of crossing to a sidewalk on the opposite side, etc. The factors that were particularly present on pre-reconfiguration Seminary (and would be present again were it returned to four lanes) [/quote]

I did address it. They added four or five pedestrians islands and will install RFBs. Also, the speed limit on this road is the same as local roads. Cars don’t obey the speed limits on either the local roads or Seminary. In fact, the 85th percentile speed limits on lower Yale are only slightly lower than Seminary. But that’s public and affordable housing, not millionaire homeowners. [/quote]

How you get drivers to slow down: changes in road design. For example, road diets.[/quote]

What does that have to find with million dollar state funded grants for a 1/4 mile of sidewalk? What does that have to do with prioritizing locations that have no sidewalks over those that do? And what does that have to do with the fact that the non-tax paying entity which advocated for this sidewalk won’t grant an easement on their property so tax payers don’t have to fund it? [/quote]

Road diets typically include sidewalks - or better sidewalks, if there are already sidewalks. It's all part of a package of improving safety for all road users.[/quote]

But they did create a wide, shared sidewalk/bike lane on that side of the road. And are going to pay to install fence like barriers. And then, when they get the million dollar grant, they are going to rip to the new asphalt, stripping and barriers to put in a sidewalk. All street without sidewalks go unfunded. [/quote]

Sorry, that should say “all while street without sidewalks have their requests go unfunded.”

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]

So if the city has a list of sidewalk needs, they should be ranked based on a clear set of factors, including: the presence of other sidewalks, proximity to schools (elementary in particular), proximity to mass transit, etc.[/quote]

Leaving aside the color of money question (which means not all of these are interchangeable in terms of budget) I note that you do not mention the speed and volume of traffic on the road, the difficulty of crossing to a sidewalk on the opposite side, etc. The factors that were particularly present on pre-reconfiguration Seminary (and would be present again were it returned to four lanes) [/quote]

I did address it. They added four or five pedestrians islands and will install RFBs. Also, the speed limit on this road is the same as local roads. Cars don’t obey the speed limits on either the local roads or Seminary. In fact, the 85th percentile speed limits on lower Yale are only slightly lower than Seminary. But that’s public and affordable housing, not millionaire homeowners. [/quote]

How you get drivers to slow down: changes in road design. For example, road diets.[/quote]

What does that have to find with million dollar state funded grants for a 1/4 mile of sidewalk? What does that have to do with prioritizing locations that have no sidewalks over those that do? And what does that have to do with the fact that the non-tax paying entity which advocated for this sidewalk won’t grant an easement on their property so tax payers don’t have to fund it? [/quote]

Road diets typically include sidewalks - or better sidewalks, if there are already sidewalks. It's all part of a package of improving safety for all road users.[/quote]

But they did create a wide, shared sidewalk/bike lane on that side of the road. And are going to pay to install fence like barriers. And then, when they get the million dollar grant, they are going to rip to the new asphalt, stripping and barriers to put in a sidewalk. All street without sidewalks go unfunded.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

So if the city has a list of sidewalk needs, they should be ranked based on a clear set of factors, including: the presence of other sidewalks, proximity to schools (elementary in particular), proximity to mass transit, etc.

Leaving aside the color of money question (which means not all of these are interchangeable in terms of budget) I note that you do not mention the speed and volume of traffic on the road, the difficulty of crossing to a sidewalk on the opposite side, etc. The factors that were particularly present on pre-reconfiguration Seminary (and would be present again were it returned to four lanes)

I did address it. They added four or five pedestrians islands and will install RFBs. Also, the speed limit on this road is the same as local roads. Cars don’t obey the speed limits on either the local roads or Seminary. In fact, the 85th percentile speed limits on lower Yale are only slightly lower than Seminary. But that’s public and affordable housing, not millionaire homeowners.

How you get drivers to slow down: changes in road design. For example, road diets.

What does that have to find with million dollar state funded grants for a 1/4 mile of sidewalk? What does that have to do with prioritizing locations that have no sidewalks over those that do? And what does that have to do with the fact that the non-tax paying entity which advocated for this sidewalk won’t grant an easement on their property so tax payers don’t have to fund it?

Road diets typically include sidewalks - or better sidewalks, if there are already sidewalks. It's all part of a package of improving safety for all road users.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

So if the city has a list of sidewalk needs, they should be ranked based on a clear set of factors, including: the presence of other sidewalks, proximity to schools (elementary in particular), proximity to mass transit, etc.

Leaving aside the color of money question (which means not all of these are interchangeable in terms of budget) I note that you do not mention the speed and volume of traffic on the road, the difficulty of crossing to a sidewalk on the opposite side, etc. The factors that were particularly present on pre-reconfiguration Seminary (and would be present again were it returned to four lanes)

I did address it. They added four or five pedestrians islands and will install RFBs. Also, the speed limit on this road is the same as local roads. Cars don’t obey the speed limits on either the local roads or Seminary. In fact, the 85th percentile speed limits on lower Yale are only slightly lower than Seminary. But that’s public and affordable housing, not millionaire homeowners.

How you get drivers to slow down: changes in road design. For example, road diets.

What does that have to find with million dollar state funded grants for a 1/4 mile of sidewalk? What does that have to do with prioritizing locations that have no sidewalks over those that do? And what does that have to do with the fact that the non-tax paying entity which advocated for this sidewalk won’t grant an easement on their property so tax payers don’t have to fund it?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

So if the city has a list of sidewalk needs, they should be ranked based on a clear set of factors, including: the presence of other sidewalks, proximity to schools (elementary in particular), proximity to mass transit, etc.

Leaving aside the color of money question (which means not all of these are interchangeable in terms of budget) I note that you do not mention the speed and volume of traffic on the road, the difficulty of crossing to a sidewalk on the opposite side, etc. The factors that were particularly present on pre-reconfiguration Seminary (and would be present again were it returned to four lanes)

I did address it. They added four or five pedestrians islands and will install RFBs. Also, the speed limit on this road is the same as local roads. Cars don’t obey the speed limits on either the local roads or Seminary. In fact, the 85th percentile speed limits on lower Yale are only slightly lower than Seminary. But that’s public and affordable housing, not millionaire homeowners.

How you get drivers to slow down: changes in road design. For example, road diets.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

So if the city has a list of sidewalk needs, they should be ranked based on a clear set of factors, including: the presence of other sidewalks, proximity to schools (elementary in particular), proximity to mass transit, etc.

Leaving aside the color of money question (which means not all of these are interchangeable in terms of budget) I note that you do not mention the speed and volume of traffic on the road, the difficulty of crossing to a sidewalk on the opposite side, etc. The factors that were particularly present on pre-reconfiguration Seminary (and would be present again were it returned to four lanes)

I did address it. They added four or five pedestrians islands and will install RFBs. Also, the speed limit on this road is the same as local roads. Cars don’t obey the speed limits on either the local roads or Seminary. In fact, the 85th percentile speed limits on lower Yale are only slightly lower than Seminary. But that’s public and affordable housing, not millionaire homeowners.

Anonymous wrote:

Actually I think the Safe Routes to Schools project comes from a specific pot of money, mostly from federal funds. Putting in a a real sidewalk on the north side of Seminary (where the protected street level sidewalk is now) would come from a state grant. I doubt the state would give a grant for projects for which there is a pool of federal money, so actually I don't think the SRTS projects being discussed above would compete with the state grant being discussed.

But that reality would undercut the narrative that the Seminary change is not about ped safety because the money (for the future sidewalk) could be better spent on other sidewalk projects.

It's federal funding that goes to the state to administer.

https://www.saferoutespartnership.org/healthy-communities/policy-change/state-implementation

Anonymous wrote:

So if the city has a list of sidewalk needs, they should be ranked based on a clear set of factors, including: the presence of other sidewalks, proximity to schools (elementary in particular), proximity to mass transit, etc.

Leaving aside the color of money question (which means not all of these are interchangeable in terms of budget) I note that you do not mention the speed and volume of traffic on the road, the difficulty of crossing to a sidewalk on the opposite side, etc. The factors that were particularly present on pre-reconfiguration Seminary (and would be present again were it returned to four lanes)

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OK, so for those of you who support sidewalks and increasing pedestrian infrastructure: are you OK with the City of Alexandria seeking a significant grant for a 1/4 mile sidewalk, or do you think those funds should be allocated to outstanding projects where there are no sidewalks on either side of the road within a school walk zone?

I'm ok with the City of Alexandria reallocating funding from road construction/expansion projects to sidewalk projects. How about you?

I'm not ok with you pitting one sidewalk project against other sidewalk projects. It's not this one OR that one. It's this one AND that one AND that one AND...

Depends on the project and it depends on how you define construction. Do you mean the transit corridor projects? Or the new road construction in Potomac Yard?

I am completely ok with pitting sidewalk projects against one another and so is the city. I absolutely believe that transportation projects should be prioritized based on the safety benefit, especially when the funds allocated for these projects are limited. I live in reality, where - between the combined sewer project and the CIP for ACPS - Alexandria needs to prioritize every project of every type. When I live in a utopia where AND and AND and AND are possible, I will absolutely agree that we shouldn't pit sidewalk projects against each other.

Nope, when you favor "prioritizing every project of every type", then you don't prioritize pedestrian safety (let alone bicyclist safety). Because that always comes last.

I meant within a category, not across the board. I thought that was clear because we are talking about sidewalk projects, particularly those for which the city seeks huge grant for 1/4 of a mile when other areas that desperately need even one sidewalk.

So if the city has a list of sidewalk needs, they should be ranked based on a clear set of factors, including: the presence of other sidewalks, proximity to schools (elementary in particular), proximity to mass transit, etc. The City of Alexandria does have a missing sidewalk list, but unfortunately who put it together and how it was ranked is very unclear, including to members of city council.

Also, you keep conflating cycling needs with pedestrian needs. They are not one and the same, and I personally believe (as a pedestrian but not a cyclist) that doing so can be a detriment to pedestrians. The city has ranked the needs of pedestrians above the needs of cyclists (which are both ranked above cars), and I would personally like to see more resources allocated toward projects that place the highest value on pedestrian safety (with the greatest need being streets with no sidewalks and pedestrian activity).

That's exactly the point.

All of the sidewalk projects are competing for funding from the same small bucket of money for sidewalk projects.

That's what needs to change. Prioritize sidewalks, full stop.

Mind you, people on bikes are going to ride on those sidewalks - which is not good for pedestrians or bicyclists - unless you also prioritize infrastructure for people on bikes.

Actually I think the Safe Routes to Schools project comes from a specific pot of money, mostly from federal funds. Putting in a a real sidewalk on the north side of Seminary (where the protected street level sidewalk is now) would come from a state grant. I doubt the state would give a grant for projects for which there is a pool of federal money, so actually I don't think the SRTS projects being discussed above would compete with the state grant being discussed.

But that reality would undercut the narrative that the Seminary change is not about ped safety because the money (for the future sidewalk) could be better spent on other sidewalk projects.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OK, so for those of you who support sidewalks and increasing pedestrian infrastructure: are you OK with the City of Alexandria seeking a significant grant for a 1/4 mile sidewalk, or do you think those funds should be allocated to outstanding projects where there are no sidewalks on either side of the road within a school walk zone?

I'm ok with the City of Alexandria reallocating funding from road construction/expansion projects to sidewalk projects. How about you?

I'm not ok with you pitting one sidewalk project against other sidewalk projects. It's not this one OR that one. It's this one AND that one AND that one AND...

Depends on the project and it depends on how you define construction. Do you mean the transit corridor projects? Or the new road construction in Potomac Yard?

I am completely ok with pitting sidewalk projects against one another and so is the city. I absolutely believe that transportation projects should be prioritized based on the safety benefit, especially when the funds allocated for these projects are limited. I live in reality, where - between the combined sewer project and the CIP for ACPS - Alexandria needs to prioritize every project of every type. When I live in a utopia where AND and AND and AND are possible, I will absolutely agree that we shouldn't pit sidewalk projects against each other.

Nope, when you favor "prioritizing every project of every type", then you don't prioritize pedestrian safety (let alone bicyclist safety). Because that always comes last.

I meant within a category, not across the board. I thought that was clear because we are talking about sidewalk projects, particularly those for which the city seeks huge grant for 1/4 of a mile when other areas that desperately need even one sidewalk.

So if the city has a list of sidewalk needs, they should be ranked based on a clear set of factors, including: the presence of other sidewalks, proximity to schools (elementary in particular), proximity to mass transit, etc. The City of Alexandria does have a missing sidewalk list, but unfortunately who put it together and how it was ranked is very unclear, including to members of city council.

Also, you keep conflating cycling needs with pedestrian needs. They are not one and the same, and I personally believe (as a pedestrian but not a cyclist) that doing so can be a detriment to pedestrians. The city has ranked the needs of pedestrians above the needs of cyclists (which are both ranked above cars), and I would personally like to see more resources allocated toward projects that place the highest value on pedestrian safety (with the greatest need being streets with no sidewalks and pedestrian activity).

That's exactly the point. All of the sidewalk projects are competing for funding from the same small bucket of money for sidewalk projects. That's what needs to change. Prioritize sidewalks, full stop.

Mind you, people on bikes are going to ride on those sidewalks - which is not good for pedestrians or bicyclists - unless you also prioritize infrastructure for people on bikes.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OK, so for those of you who support sidewalks and increasing pedestrian infrastructure: are you OK with the City of Alexandria seeking a significant grant for a 1/4 mile sidewalk, or do you think those funds should be allocated to outstanding projects where there are no sidewalks on either side of the road within a school walk zone?

I'm ok with the City of Alexandria reallocating funding from road construction/expansion projects to sidewalk projects. How about you?

I'm not ok with you pitting one sidewalk project against other sidewalk projects. It's not this one OR that one. It's this one AND that one AND that one AND...

Depends on the project and it depends on how you define construction. Do you mean the transit corridor projects? Or the new road construction in Potomac Yard?

I am completely ok with pitting sidewalk projects against one another and so is the city. I absolutely believe that transportation projects should be prioritized based on the safety benefit, especially when the funds allocated for these projects are limited. I live in reality, where - between the combined sewer project and the CIP for ACPS - Alexandria needs to prioritize every project of every type. When I live in a utopia where AND and AND and AND are possible, I will absolutely agree that we shouldn't pit sidewalk projects against each other.

Nope, when you favor "prioritizing every project of every type", then you don't prioritize pedestrian safety (let alone bicyclist safety). Because that always comes last.

I meant within a category, not across the board. I thought that was clear because we are talking about sidewalk projects, particularly those for which the city seeks huge grant for 1/4 of a mile when other areas that desperately need even one sidewalk.

So if the city has a list of sidewalk needs, they should be ranked based on a clear set of factors, including: the presence of other sidewalks, proximity to schools (elementary in particular), proximity to mass transit, etc. The City of Alexandria does have a missing sidewalk list, but unfortunately who put it together and how it was ranked is very unclear, including to members of city council.

Also, you keep conflating cycling needs with pedestrian needs. They are not one and the same, and I personally believe (as a pedestrian but not a cyclist) that doing so can be a detriment to pedestrians. The city has ranked the needs of pedestrians above the needs of cyclists (which are both ranked above cars), and I would personally like to see more resources allocated toward projects that place the highest value on pedestrian safety (with the greatest need being streets with no sidewalks and pedestrian activity).

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OK, so for those of you who support sidewalks and increasing pedestrian infrastructure: are you OK with the City of Alexandria seeking a significant grant for a 1/4 mile sidewalk, or do you think those funds should be allocated to outstanding projects where there are no sidewalks on either side of the road within a school walk zone?

I'm ok with the City of Alexandria reallocating funding from road construction/expansion projects to sidewalk projects. How about you?

I'm not ok with you pitting one sidewalk project against other sidewalk projects. It's not this one OR that one. It's this one AND that one AND that one AND...

Depends on the project and it depends on how you define construction. Do you mean the transit corridor projects? Or the new road construction in Potomac Yard?

I am completely ok with pitting sidewalk projects against one another and so is the city. I absolutely believe that transportation projects should be prioritized based on the safety benefit, especially when the funds allocated for these projects are limited. I live in reality, where - between the combined sewer project and the CIP for ACPS - Alexandria needs to prioritize every project of every type. When I live in a utopia where AND and AND and AND are possible, I will absolutely agree that we shouldn't pit sidewalk projects against each other.

Nope, when you favor "prioritizing every project of every type", then you don't prioritize pedestrian safety (let alone bicyclist safety). Because that always comes last.