I rarely write about cycling any more and don’t have time to do so right now, but thankfully I came across a recent post by another blogger which captures, very insightfully, all of the problems with this facility except for the “hundreds of pedestrians crossing the bike lane to get to their bus stop” issue.
It’s from a blogger I never read before: Off The Beaten Path, excerpt:
Any barrier that separates the cyclist visually from other traffic effectively hides the cyclist. This is counterproductive to safety. Moving cyclists out of the roadway altogether, on separate bike paths, is even more dangerous, because drivers don’t look for (or cannot see) cyclists off to the side.
There’s much more, including great images which really make the point well.
Article link here: Bike To Work 3: Separate Or Equal?
In today’s Letters, allowed to be published uncritically and without challenge:
Bicycle lanes are dangerous on Austin roads for both drivers and bikers. Burleson Road is a classic example of where the car lanes were narrowed to accommodate bikers. Bikers should have to purchase an annual permit that has toll tag technology.
Since they pay no gas tax, this fee should pay for their road use. These tags should be able to be read by police to identify if their tag is current, and they could also identify the bikers, should they be involved in an accident.
My response on the way to them via various intertubes:
Anne Clark, in her letter on 10/27/2011, is woefully misinformed. Most roads in our area, even most major arterials, receive no funding from the gasoline tax, as the state prohibits its portion of the gas tax from being used outside the state highway system, and most federal gas taxes are similarly directed only to roads with a route shield on them. In fact, since some local (general) funds are also used for state and federal highways, it is likely cyclists who are subsidizing motorists in Austin, not the other way around.
City of Austin Urban Transportation Commission 2000-2005
My most recent Austin Sierran arrived (guess what? M1EK is a life member!) and as I usually do, I read the minutes from the monthly meeting. In it, I learned that the board apparently opposes plans to build a bike/pedestrian bridge across Barton Creek (to fill a huge gap in the bicycle commuting infrastructure in that part of town – where the frontage roads end on either side of the creek). They oppose this bridge because the construction of the pilings would likely impact the creekfloor and a few other features – in a part of the watershed that’s very close-in already (arguably not contributing to the springs at all) – a likely one-time disturbing-the-sediment impact akin to the kinds of floods we see ten times a year in a rainy year.
The geniuses behind this decision suggested more improvements to South Lamar, which is only a couple of miles, a couple of extra hills, and another freakin’ expressway out of the way for cyclists trying to commute to the center-city from points far southwest and west. Yes, there are people who commute from this far out – not as many as we would like, of course, hence the issue.
Continue reading Austin environmentalists continue proud tradition of harming the environment
Just fired this off to the UTC. All I can do given my commitments. Minor edits for grammar only.
My name’s Mike Dahmus, and I served on your commission from 2000-2005 (my only contemporary still with you would be Mr. Lockler). I’m writing today to urge you to reject the city staff proposal for the project formerly known as the Nueces Bike Boulevard.
While on the commission, I often served the role of an intermediary between bicyclists and motorists (and urban and suburban); since I was a frequent bicycle commuter but not car-free like some of my colleagues (I’d drive to work about half the time). Since then, a chronic illness has forced me to drive exclusively, but I still maintain an interest in bicycle facilities for the good of the city.
Along those lines, I hate to say it, but the city staff proposal for this ‘downtown bike boulevard’ is a complete waste of time. Worse, it will actively degrade conditions for cyclists on both these streets.
In a common error, the city has failed to consider the effect of their actions on the individuals using this corridor, and more importantly, on changes to their incentives and disincentives. Today, it’s relatively painful for drivers to use Nueces (in particular) as a ‘cut-through’ or relief valve from congestion downtown, because of 4-way (and even some 2-way) stops. I know this because I drive through this part of downtown most days on my trip home from work.
While there’s some wavering on this, it’s pretty obvious that many stop signs will be removed (converted into traffic circles or traffic lights) in the city plan, as was the case in the LOBV plan – in order to attract bicyclists. So far, so good. But what happens to the incentives of motorists, if this change is made and nothing else is done?
Well, you replace those 4-way stops with lights and circles, and I (and thousands of others) will be thrilled to be able to drive on that street – to avoid backups on Lavaca from MLK and 15th, for instance. Without the originally proposed (at least by the LOBV) diverters and other disincentives, you’re going to see an increase in motor vehicle use of these streets for cut-through (through, not local) traffic. Exactly the opposite of what you want in a ‘bicycle boulevard’.
Please vote this thing dead. It’s not only not ideal; it’s worse than nothing – it promises to make things actually worse, not better, for cyclists in this corridor. (And on the subject of “any movement is progress”, a recent post by yours truly: http://mdahmus.monkeysystems.com/blog/archives/000642.html )
Recording this email for posterity, since I firmly believe this kind of discussion should be in the public eye – so it’s possible for others to see whether the input was acted on or just ignored (as is commonly the case).
This is expanded feedback from the forum – as you may know I was on the UTC for 5 years and used to be a serious bicycle commuter and still maintain a healthy interest, and I live about 500 feet from the intersection in question.
First issue is the fact that the bike lanes ‘downstream’ of the intersection were recently restriped all the way back to the intersection. This removes much of the supposed reason for bike boxes (in the old design where the bike lanes didn’t start for 100 feet or so past the intersection, the bike boxes would have allowed cyclists to be at the front of through traffic so they could get ‘up and over’ rather than having to wait behind motorists – now there is literally no reason to even get in the bike box.
The second problem is one of signage and paint – without a “Stop HERE on Red” sign, motorists don’t typically stop that far back from the intersection – even when white lines exist on the pavement. Coloring the bike box would help but would, I think, not be sufficient.
Please forward my email to the CTR people and invite them to contact me if they would like. I’d be very happy to share continued observations as I go through this intersection an average of 2 times per day, usually in the rush hours.
Regards, Mike Dahmus
Was going to start a new series today (“Myths of the Red Line”), but this was too perfect.
This morning, I dropped off my stepson at Austin HIgh for his last day of school this year. Pulled in at the PAC, which is the entrance closest to that underpass of Cesar Chavez. As I was leaving, I saw a cyclist on the Stopway; waiting for a spot to clear (lots of people turning into the same entrance I used). I stopped short of the crosswalk and motioned him on, trying to be nice, but after several moments of people coming around the corner and turning, he gave up and motioned me to go instead.
As Chris at the Austin Contrarian has already pointed out, Chris Riley is the urban candidate. I’m not going to address that end of the equation, since the other Chris pretty much nailed my feelings on the matter.
I’m going to talk about transportation.
Today, I think it’s fair to say that every city council member is a driver. While a few of them indicated they may ride bikes for fun, none of them regularly ride for transportation; and only one regularly walks for transportation (Mayor Wynn, about to leave). None of the rest appear to be Capital Metro users either. While they usually say things that support those modes of transportation, their actions quite often don’t live up to their words. I don’t think all or even most of this discrepancy is the result of anything other than a lack of working familiarity with the issues those modes of transportation face – in other words, they may want to do the right thing, but often don’t know what that is in a way that might be obvious to those of us with more experience.
Chris Riley is a cyclist and a pedestrian and a transit user. He doesn’t own a car now, but helped found Austin CarShare. He rides his bike everywhere, but isn’t against motorists; he just wants to make sure that we make things easier for those who don’t want to (or even more importantly can’t) drive. He understands the role of transportation in supporting sustainable land use in a way that some current city council members might claim to do, but has a commitment to the issue which far surpasses what I’ve seen from those folks. He co-founded the Alliance for Public Transportation; a group which is trying to push the rail conversation in the right direction.
Unlike some past city council candidates who have identified with bicyclists, Chris is realistic – he does not seek to eliminate cars, or punish drivers. He wants to make things better by moves that I think most motorists are even willing to accept. He’s a guy who’s been working in the private sector, so can speak to issues that regular citizens face every day, but has dedicated countless hours to the public to try to make things better for everybody.
I am not exaggerating when I say that on the issue of transportation, Chris is the strongest candidate for any city office, including mayor, that I have seen in the 13 years I’ve lived here in Austin.
I trust Chris implicitly to do as much as is realistically possible to improve transportation in our city in a sustainable forward-looking direction. I urge every reader of this blog to vote early for Chris, and tell your friends to do the same.
Chris Riley is the transportation candidate.
(PS: My readers are invited to meet Chris next Sunday. I don’t know if we’ll be able to make it due to ongoing pregnancy concerns, but I hope to be there).
Also see: Burnt Orange Report.
Allow me to present the SNAustin.org mayoral forum, with these humdingers:
1. This video shows you successful VMU projects and how nice their open spaces are and then says we need rules to make sure VMU developments provide enough open space. Wouldn’t it be smarter to show some that didn’t provide enough open space, if any such existed? Maybe they couldn’t find any, because I can’t think of any that do that bad a job.
Huh. So the VMU developers are already doing a good job providing a lot more public open space than, let’s say, the typical residential or commercial areas in this part of town have done (where ‘open space’ is comprised of surface parking lots, driveways, swales, and huge front setbacks of St. Augustine grass – precisely none of it ‘public’). Is it possible, just possible, that these folks aren’t really “advocates for new urbanism”, like the almost-all-the-same-folks-but-really-quite-different-no-trust-us RG4N? You know, the same folks who claimed to want a VMU development at Northcross but now say they’re thrilled with a single-story Wal-Mart surrounded by acres of surface parking,
2. From this posting for the forum:
The neighborhoods – Allandale, Brentwood, Crestview, Highland, North Shoal Creek, and Wooten – have identified three priorities for discussion at the forum: code enforcement, minimum public open space in mixed use districts, and transportation policy with an emphasis on pedestrian, bicycle and transit connectivity.
Oh, so NOW they’re concerned with “bicycle connectivity”?. That’s swell. Allow me to suggest it’s difficult to take you seriously given your failure to even address obliquely what happened the last time a clear and compelling interest in bicycle transportation conflicted with the desire of a few old coots to park their overflow cars on their side of the street. Resulting in some real cool “bicycle connectivity”. As in, one of these days a bicyclist is going to end up connected with an automobile because you guys couldn’t walk across the street to get to your fourth and fifth cars.
Or do your old pal M1EK a favor and just go ahead and ask them about Shoal Creek at the forum. That ought to be some fun.
Update: How could I have forgotten their other priority?
3. Code enforcement. Yes, now, only now, do these folks want to make the city respect the integrity of the city code. You know, the same code that clearly stated that Lincoln and Wal-Mart had the legal authority to build exactly what they wanted to build at Northcross? The code that so clearly stated those development rights that not one but two judges sent RG4N and ANA home crying with their tails between their legs? The code that was so obvious that the judge nearly made ANA pay Lincoln’s legal bills when ANA foolishly tried to appeal? That code, the one you made the city waste a million or more dollars defending?
Oh yeah, that code. Well, now that Wal-Mart scaled back due to economics, I guess we can return to insisting that it must be defended at all costs, right?
and note, I’m far from the only one.
Also please excuse the brevity – I’m doing this from a Wendy’s in Huntsville during a short lunch break.
Breathless media coverage from the Statesman makes you think that Mueller is the wildest dreams of urbanites and environmentalists and sustainable-liviing fans all come to life. Meanwhile, every time I raise some (informed, compared to most) criticism of Mueller, I get personal attacks in return. At times like this, I like to remind myself (and hopefully others) of the substantive, objective, reasons why Mueller presents us with problems.
Continue reading Why I’m Hard on Mueller
I am not surprised, although still disappointed, to see this kind of logic defending not only the decision to run a red light but fight it in court.
Was riding from the gym to work one fine November morning down Congress Ave. Got pulled over by a motorcycle cop and another cop in a patrol car. They gave me a ticket for running a red light. I tried explaining how it wasn’t dangerous since I stopped at the light, looked for oncoming traffic and pedestrians, then proceeded. Nevertheless, I got a moving violation and a $275 ticket, just like if I was driving a Chevy Silverado at speed.
I sent in my ticket pleading not guilty and waving pre-trial hearing.
I got a court date.
I went to court.
The case was dismissed. Not sure if it was because the officer didn’t show up or what. My online case summary says “Dismissed Insufficient Evidence”
Overall, I’d say my in-court experience was very good. The whole procedure took less than 30 minutes. I would recommend anyone who received similar tickets to do the same. I was tempted to just pay the fine and move on with life, but glad that I didn’t. Traffic laws shouldn’t be black and white/ bikes are cars.
Grow up, kids. There is no moral justification for you running that red light that doesn’t apply to any of us when we drive, yet I’m sure that most of you, save one idiosyncratic former colleague of mine, don’t want cars doing it. And every time you shoot back with some moronic drivel about how “bikes aren’t cars”, you make it harder to protect the rights of bikes to be on the roadway. “They aren’t cars; you admitted it,” they’ll say, “so get the hell on the sidewalk”.
(by PabloBM on flickr)
I spent years fighting for bicycle facilities and accomodations and basic rights on the Urban Transportation Commission. Many times, we lost a battle we should have won, because idiots like you made it easy for neighborhoods to argue their reactionary case (i.e. Shoal Creek). Whether you’re a racer in bright plumage who doesn’t want to get out of your clipless pedals or a budding young anarchist who thinks the law doesn’t apply to you, it was often your fault when stuff like the Shoal Creek debacle happened. Neighborhood nitwits would make the case that we shouldn’t prioritize bicycle treatments over on-street parking, for instance, because ‘those cyclists don’t care about other road users’ anyways. And it worked, because they were right: you idiots don’t care about other road users.
Don’t feed me the crap about how you can’t hurt anybody with your bike. It’s not true; I almost wrecked a car ten years ago trying to avoid killing an idiot just like you who ran a light across 24th.
(Yes, in case you’re wondering, it was being ganged up on by the Juvenile Anarchist Brigade in a discussion just like this one that finally chased me off the austin-bikes list after years and years of contributing there – after not being allowed to fight fire with fire. Thanks, Mike Librik).
So you, unnamed wanker on the austin-bikes list, are the second recipient of my Worst Person in Austin award. Congratulations. And ATXBS.com comes in a close second for backing him up on this one.