We the undersigned organizations are writing in support of the proposal to include bike lanes and other traffic calming measures on Sherwood Hall Lane between Fort Hunt Road and Route 1 as part of the repaving project. The project is an excellent opportunity to improve safety for all users, including those who walk, bicycle and drive along Sherwood Hall Lane. Today the road offers overly wide travel lanes for extended stretches, inviting speeding and putting pedestrians, cyclists, joggers and other drivers at risk.
Category: Virginia
Are bike lanes safe?
WASHINGTON– After more than six hours of debate, the Alexandria City Council unanimously approved a plan to add bike lanes on King Street on Saturday.
The plan adds lanes west of the King Street Metro Station between West Cedar Street and Highland Place. The decision culminates months of hotly contested debates between bicyclist advocates, city planners, and local residents concerned about the impact on parking and access to their homes.
“It’s unfortunate that a topic of this sort has become so divisive. As Alexandria has committed itself to become an eco-city, we’ve always been attempting to identify opportunities to be more multi-modal, whether that means walking, biking, pushing strollers, jogging, cars, buses, light rail or all of the above,” says Alexandria Mayor Bill Euille.
The key issue that both sides debate was safety. Do bicycle-only lanes increase or decrease safety on King Street in this residential neighborhood? Should bicyclists ride on busy King Street, or use The George Washington Masonic National Memorial?
“Everybody agrees that there is a speeding problem. What we’ve heard is that the traffic is moving too fast. No one moves into Alexandria expecting to live on a street where we have speeding and we don’t address that issue,” says Rich Baier, Alexandria transportation director.
Transportation officials say the average speed on King Street between Cedar Street and Highland Place is 33 to 35 miles per hour, even though the speed limit is only 25 miles per hour. Baier says adding bicycle lanes will slow down drivers and add a buffer to keep pedestrians safe on the sidewalk.
“Bicycle lanes will go a long way towards making this more of a residential-based street than an arterial road,” he says.
Alexandria resident Sue Gunter agrees with the bike lanes because she thinks it will make pedestrians safer.
“Because there’s no bike lane on King Street right now, some bicyclists who ride down to the Metro station regularly use the sidewalk. While walking, I’ve frequently been startled by a bicyclists being behind me. A bike lane will solve this because bicyclists will no longer need to use the sidewalk,” she says.
Resident Scott Binde says he’s a bicyclist, but does not currently ride on King Street.
“This plan would change that. Bicycles, pedestrians and cars would each have their own space, making movement for all predictable and safe,” he says.
Patrick Earl, who teaches at T.C. Williams High School, says he drives and bikes to work from Takoma Park, Md.
“I see both perspectives and by far the safest situation for me as a biker is to have a dedicated bike lane. But also, I feel much more confident passing a biker who is in a bike lane than when there is a blurred area,” he says.
But Lisa Beyer Scanlon of the Taylor Run Citizens Association believes that bike lanes are a bad idea. She thinks only expert bicyclists should use King Street, and adding bicycle-only lanes could lead to more crashes.
“To use bikers as a buffer is just wrong. They’re people, they’re human beings. Having a car hit them first, so they don’t hit a pedestrian is not our idea of a buffer. Let’s say there’s a 100 bikes an hour. If we build these lanes and they do come, there’s never going to be a full lane of bikes going through there. So there will never be a complete buffer,” she says.
“Complete streets for our neighborhood include sharrows, they do not include dedicated bike lanes,” adds Scanlon.
Sharrows stand for shared arrows placed in the roadway to let drivers know that they need to share the road with bicyclists. Sharrows are popular in the District of Columbia, as well as Arlington. Montgomery County is also looking to add sharrows to help with their launch of Capital Bikeshare last fall.
Scanlon also opposes the plan because it would mean parking spaces would go away. Originally, about 27 spaces would have been removed, but a compromise to add sharrows between Highland Place and Janneys Lane mean that 10 of those spots can be saved.
“Instead of getting rid of the parking, we think that parking is the safest part of the street and provides a better buffer for people riding on the sidewalk,” she says.
Baier says on average, only three out of the 27 spots are filled at a time on the street. He says the spots are underutilized and thus do not create a buffer. He adds that removing the parking spots should not create a parking problem for residents in the area. Scanlon agrees parking is underutilized, but recommends throwing out the resident-only parking rules and opening the spots to the general public.
Other residents like Amy Lehmkuhler and Lynn Lawrence, are also worried that it will be more dangerous to pull in and out of their driveways with bicycle lanes, especially with fewer parking spots.
“In order to safely access our home on the hill, we must back into the driveway, so that we can face the speeding traffic when entering onto King Street. If this is passed, we the people, when we pull out, we will be in both of these lanes,” says Lehmkuhler.
“I’ve watched as neighbors have tried to negotiate getting in and out of their driveways in heavy traffic. I just cannot imagine how bike lanes would be an improvement at this location. These lanes will make an already difficult stretch of road even more hazardous to navigate, resulting in potential injuries to bicyclists and residents alike,” says Lawrence.
Resident Louise Welch says the bicycle lanes will make life more difficult for her and her husband.
“My husband is disabled and on oxygen. Taking away this 7 foot lane and replacing it with a 5 foot bike lane means he cannot even picked up in front of our own home, where we have lived for 35 years,” says Welch.
Others like Jake Jakubek believe the bicycle lanes are important for attracting new business and younger residents. Jakubek is the Vice Chair of the Alexandria Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee.
“If people are demanding better pedestrian infrastructure, better bike lanes and better transit, then we need to cater to those demands. If we don’t provide for the amenities that this generation of people feels is important, we will be left behind. Public transit use is at the highest level it’s been since 1956,” says Jakubek.
Stewart Schwartz of the Coalition for Smarter Growth, also testified in favor of the plan, calling it a sensible way to promote commuters not to use their cars.
“The consensus among elected officials and the business leaders is one of transit- oriented, walkable and bikeable communities. It is the most feasible and effective means for managing our region’s growth and traffic that is only getting worse. Certainly this is really key to Alexandria’s competitiveness in the future,” says Schwartz.
In the end, the Council unanimously approved the bike lanes proposal. Transportation officials will update the Council on the progress of the project in 2015.
King Street Bike Lanes testimony to Alexandria City Council
Thank you. My name is Stewart Schwartz, and I am the Executive Director of the Coalition for Smarter Growth. We are a 17-year-old non-profit and the leading voice for smart growth in the DC region, with expertise in transportation, land use and affordable housing. As a professional, and as a full-time resident of Alexandria for over 20 years and part-time for a few more, I have participated extensively in Alexandria planning including Potomac Yard, the Wilson Bridge, Beauregard, Braddock Metro, and more. I am very familiar with the stretch of King Street in question.
Update on The Bi-County Parkway: A Chance to “Take a Second Look”
During his campaign, Governor McAuliffe said he would take a hard-look at the controversial $440 million Bi-County Parkway, reevaluating this project and others proposed by VDOT. In his campaign platform, under the section titled “Pick the right projects; build the best ones,” he stated:
Letter of support for Alexandria’s King Street Bike Lanes
Mayor Euille and Members of Council: I have been quite surprised and concerned that opponents to safe, connected bike lanes on King Street between the Metro and Janneys Lane have elevated the issue to make it a national cause célèbre in conservative circles with extremely hostile OpEds in the Wall Street Journal and the American Spectator. They are bringing negative publicity upon Alexandria and threaten the ability of our city to attract young, well-educated, creative, entrepreneurial workers that are so critical to the future of our economy and tax base. Alexandria has been making great progress in bringing sustainable new development, investing in new transit, setting up bike-sharing, and more, but this particular debate is casting a shadow on that progress and will chase away the creative economy workforce and the businesses they attract…
Group appeals 460 plan
Representatives from nine groups opposed to the new Route 460 have put their names on a letter to governor-elect Terry McAuliffe, calling on him to halt the project immediately.
The Southern Environmental Law Center, Virginia League of Conservation Voters, Sierra Club-Virginia Chapter, Virginia Conservation Network, The Piedmont Environmental Council, The Coalition for Smarter Growth, Blackwater Nottoway Riverkeeper Program, Partnership for Smarter Growth and Wetlands Watch sent the letter to McAuliffe on Dec. 18.
“The proposed new U.S. Route 460 is one project that does not make sense economically or environmentally, and we agree with your recent statements about the wisdom of halting further spending on this project pending careful consideration of its merits,” the groups wrote.
“We believe the new Route 460 proposal is clearly not in the best interests of the commonwealth, and therefore urge you to take the further step of terminating this project.”
The groups claim the limited-access toll road would run parallel to an existing 460 that is underutilized to begin with, and note the $1.4-billion cost hits taxpayers for almost $1.2 billion while the rest comes from tolls.
Taxpayers will have to pay to maintain both new and existing roads, they say, and the project “would cause significant environmental harm, yet it would do little to address the critical transportation needs of the Hampton Roads region.”
Money earmarked for the project would be better spent on upgrading the existing Route 460, rail in the 460 corridor, Interstate 64 or U.S. Route 58, building the I-564 to I-664 connector, or extending light rail to Virginia Beach, they say.
Also, transportation officials should consider “buying down” the cost of coming tolls on the Midtown and Downtown tunnels, the groups write.
The letter goes on to cite a recent sizeable expansion in estimated wetlands impacts, describing the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ concerns regarding the environmental cost versus public benefit, as well as mentioning impacts on farms and open space, habitat of endangered species, and air and water quality.
The project would “spur inefficient development along its lengthy route,” the groups wrote.
Arguments for the project proffered by the Virginia Department of Transportation and the outgoing Gov. Bob McDonnell, including freight and economic development, traffic and safety, hurricane evacuation and military connectivity, are criticized in the letter.
“Every one of the justifications for the proposed new Route 460 can be more effectively accomplished at lower cost to taxpayers by investing in other alternatives,” the groups state.
Finally, the groups call upon McAuliffe to request the McDonnell administration halt work on the project both ongoing and planned, including engineering, design, and right-of-way acquisition.
“We hope you will agree that this project is unnecessary and would waste scarce resources that should instead be invested in projects that can do far more to address Hampton Roads’ critical transportation needs,” the letter concludes.
Prince William’s reexamination of the Bi-County Parkway comes at important moment
Prince William County’s Dec. 3 decision to reexamine its position on the Bi-County Parkway comes at an important moment in the long, contentious debate over whether the road should be built, opponents say.
The parkway, a controversial 10-mile road that would connect Interstate 66 in Prince William and Route 50 in Loudoun County, faces several hurdles in the coming months, said Stewart Schwartz, the executive director of the Coalition for Smarter Growth, which opposes the project.
Federal transportation authorities are examining the parkway proposal, but the final outcome probably rests with the administration of Gov.-elect Terry McAuliffe (D), Schwartz said. McAuliffe said during his campaign that he would study the issue, and it’s unclear whether his administration would push the Bi-County Parkway when his term begins Jan. 11.
Schwartz said he hopes that state and federal transportation officials consider the board’s recent decision. “The new governor will hopefully ask for a major reevaluation,” Schwartz said. “The views of local elected officials . . . can carry weight.”
In a 7 to 1 vote, the Prince William Board of County Supervisors agreed to conduct a $100,000 study of the project to determine whether it should remain part of the county’s Comprehensive Plan, it’s long-term planning document. Supervisor W.S. Covington III (R-Brentsville), a supporter of the parkway, was the only vote against the move.
It’s unclear whether the board’s study will have any effect on the process. Supervisor Peter K. Candland (R-Gainesville) said supervisors should hold a simple up or down vote on the parkway itself.
The Bi-County Parkway has been the subject of much heated discussion over the past year. Supporters say the road is necessary to bolster economic development and connect two of the fastest-growing counties in the country. Opponents — particularly those who live in the path of the proposed route — say that the road would affect their property and way of life, as well as the county’s federally protected Rural Crescent and the historic Civil War grounds near Manassas National Battlefield Park.
Bob Chase, president of the Northern Virginia Transportation Alliance, which supports the road, told supervisors before the vote that nothing has changed despite the ongoing debate. Northern Virginia is growing, and new transportation infrastructure is needed for traffic and job growth, he said.
“As John Adams said, facts are stubborn things,” Chase told the board. “There are certainly a lot of wishes, inclinations, surrounding these issues. . . . The need for the Bi-County Parkway is well documented.”
Candland, a vocal road opponent, said supervisors chose the easy way out by appearing to take action without actually staking out their position. Because the vote was technically on a study to determine whether the parkway should be removed from the county’s Comprehensive Plan, Candland said the action meant little.
“Certain individuals don’t want to take a straight up-or-down vote on the Bi-County Parkway,” Candland said. “Enough is enough. We’ve talked about this issue ad nauseam.”
Candland said time is of the essence because the Virginia Department of Transportation is moving forward on an agreement with federal transportation authorities, upon whose approval the project is contingent. Once that agreement is signed, supervisors may no longer have a voice on the issue, Candland said.
Supervisor Martin E. Nohe (R-Coles) said supervisors might have more time than they think as McAuliffe considers his position on the subject.
County staff members plan to study the parkway and other area roads in a comprehensive traffic, road and land-use analysis. That study would then go to the Prince William County Planning Commission, and supervisors would have a final vote on the Bi-County Parkway and other area improvements, a process expected to take about a year.
Testimony to Alexandria Traffic & Parking Board Re: King St Bike Lanes
In the most recent version of the King Street Bicycle and Pedestrian Improvements proposal, we are concerned by the removal of a continuous bicycle lane from Cedar Street to Janneys Lane. Alexandria adopted a Complete Streets policy almost three years ago to ensure balance in planning for the transportation needs of its residents. A key part of this should be a King Street that allows cyclists and pedestrians to travel through the neighborhood more safely.
Express lane future paved with gold?
During a meeting last month in Falmouth, a Virginia Department of Transportation official was asked a probing question about the Interstate 95 express-lanes project.
Rupert Farley of Spotsylvania County wanted to know what would happen if the high-occupancy toll lanes attract so many vehicles that are allowed to use them free that the company building them doesn’t recoup the money it expects.
“Maybe you can refresh my memory on a point that you did not bring up tonight,” started Rupert Farley, a Spotsylvania resident well known in transportation circles. “If this project is so widely successful that it gets used …by HOV free [traffic], that means Fluor[–Transurban] doesn’t get any income and they start losing money.“At that point, do the taxpayers of Virginia have to start kicking in out of their pockets to subsidize the project?” asked Farley, who is a member of the Fredericksburg Area Metropolitan Area Planning Organization’s Transportation Advisory Group.
“No,” said Toymeika Braithwaite, VDOT Megaproject’s express lanes public affairs manager.
“That’s not what I’ve been told,” said Farley, who is also a member of the Fredericksburg Area Metropolitan Area Planning Organization’s Transportation Advisory Group.
“If Transurban doesn’t make the money they want to make, it is not up to Virginia taxpayers to subsidize that,” said Toymeika Braithwaite, VDOT Megaproject’s express-lanes public affairs manager.
However, the public–private project contract signed with Transurban Group and Fluor Corp. includes stipulations that could force Virginians to pay the companies if non-toll-paying HOV traffic reach certain thresholds.
The threshold is based on a complicated formula comparing the percentage of free HOV traffic to toll-paying drivers. If the HOV traffic reaches the threshold, the state has to pay the companies 70 percent of the toll rate.
That agreement is no secret; it’s in the contract, which has been online since the summer of 2012.
But those details have flown under the radar since the state struck the deal with Transurban and Fluor on the massive I–95 express-lanes project. And those who attended that October meeting in Stafford County likely had no idea about that part of the contract, which is what Farley was alluding to.
Under the agreement, the companies are paying for most of the nearly $1 billion project, which will extend the current HOV lanes in the median of I–95 to Garrisonville.
State officials have said that without the agreement the express lanes wouldn’t have been built because the state funds weren’t available.
The same has been said of the Interstate 495 express lanes, which have been open for more than a year. The state has the same deal with Transurban and Fluor on those new lanes.
The I–95 express lanes are on target to open by early 2015.
Like the I–495 express lanes, the new I–95 lanes will be electronically tolled. Buses, motorcycles and vehicles carrying at least three people will be able to use them for free.
The companies hope to take in the toll revenues from other motorists and use them first to pay off loans used to build the projects.
After that, the companies hope to ring up profits. The state eventually would also get a percentage of any profits.
Usage of the lanes is no guarantee, though.
The I–495 express lanes, for instance, haven’t drawn much traffic so far. While it was expected to take up to three years for traffic to consistently use the I–495 lanes, thus far they haven’t produced the traffic, or revenue, Transurban expected.
With constant congestion problems on I–95, it’s a good bet drivers who don’t qualify to use free HOV lanes will be open to paying a toll in order to move.
Still, there could be a significant amount of HOV commuter traffic using the lanes. And the more free traffic there is on the express lanes, the lower the profit.
VDOT doesn’t think there will be a problem.
Tamara Rollison, VDOT’s division administrator of communications, said in an email that the companies bear the “risk of traffic volume and revenue. VDOT is not responsible for making up any shortfall that may occur if traffic volume and revenue are below 95 Express’ forecasts.”
She acknowledged the agreement on the HOV threshold, but said it is unlikely to be met.
“Should that happen—VDOT is prepared to compensate 95 Express Lanes LLC,” she said. “While we expect HOV use to grow over time, we don’t think it will climb to the point that the threshold will be exceeded, triggering compensation.”
If HOV traffic does exceed the threshold, Rollison said that would mean the lanes would be “moving tremendously more people than ever expected, which would greatly help ease congestion on the general purpose lanes.”
Another part of the I–95 express-lanes project includes the expansion of bus service and the addition of 3,000 new commuter parking spaces along the corridor.
Despite the benefits of the project, there are still critics of the public–private deals for the express lanes.
Farley is a fan of toll roads, especially those that manage congestion like the express lanes are designed to do.
But he thinks the state got a raw deal.
“It’s unconscionable that they’d sign a contract so one-sided,” he said.
Stewart Schwartz, executive director for Coalition for Smarter Growth, also doesn’t like the express lane deals.
“We have long argued that the closed-door deals by VDOT under the Public–Private Transportation Act for the HOT lanes have compromised good planning, prevented effective analysis of alternatives, and failed to evaluate all of the impacts,” he said in an email. “In addition, the requirement that the taxpayer reimburse the private toll road operator for too many HOV users is counter to the goal we should have of moving more people in the peak hour. In fact, instead of encouraging HOV use, at a certain point VDOT will now have an incentive to discourage HOV use.”
Peter Samuel, who writes for the website TollRoadsNews.com, doesn’t see the express lanes as such a bad deal.
“I don’t think it’s too risky,” he said. “I doubt there’s going to be a huge increase in carpooling.”
He believes the companies are taking the bulk of the risk. If the express lanes aren’t profitable, they lose, not the state.
Transurban has already experienced failure with another Virginia toll road.
The Australia-based company lost more than $100 million on the Pocahontas Parkway, Interstate 895, according to TollRoadsNews and other reports.
The toll road failed to generate enough money to cover Transurban’s debt, and earlier this year a consortium of European banks holding that debt became the state’s new partner with the toll road.
Officials said the change wouldn’t affect the toll-road operations.
Regardless of the Pocahontas Parkway problems, Samuel says the I–95 express lanes will be a “good thing for motorists.”
“It gives them another option,” he said. “How well it’ll work out for the investors is another question.”
The same could be said for Virginia taxpayers.
Joint Environmental Groups’ Letter to Terry McAuliffe against Bi-County Parkway
Dear Governor-Elect McAuliffe: Congratulations on your victory and thank you for your support for so many of our conservation and smart growth priorities. With regard to transportation, we are particularly pleased with your support for building sustainable communities, seeking the least intrusive solutions, adapting infrastructure to serve community needs, and commitment to “pulling the plug” on transportation projects that fail to meet these standards. In keeping with those priorities…