You are not logged in.
Once again, we are witnessing COA officials caving in to threats and intimidation from old school business and development interests, once again, at the expense of ordinary people (cyclists or not) and the environment. And, the sad and ironic thing about it, as with virtually all of the previous instances, is that it is completely unnecessary.
This latest capitulation is unnecessary because the stated goals, and the means to achieve them, as proposed by the LOBV, or some reasonable compromise thereof, would have been beneficial for both business/re-development interests, as well as for cyclists.
Measures could have been taken to convert Nueces Street, instead of Rio Grande, into a real bicycle boulevard, without eliminating automobile traffic, and at the same time not only helping businesses survive, but thrive.
Nueces Street could have provided a shining counterexample to the myth that bicycles and automobiles are incompatible and incapable of sharing the same space, and the false choices between business/development, quality of life, and sustainability.
As understood by most knowledgeable people in the Austin Cycling Community, Nueces Street would have been the better choice for a bicycle boulevard. It has a much smoother grade than Rio Grande, thus it is much more attractive to cyclists, especially new/inexperienced cyclists than a road like Rio Grande. In addition, goes further south than Rio Grande, and may eventually connect with Cesar Chavez. For cyclists, the attraction here would be the Lance Armstrong Bikeway which runs alongside Cesar Chavez in that vicinity.
I hope that in the coming decades, officials representing the City of Austin and its People decide to abandon their propensity toward bowing to dictates from old school business interests, under the same old threats of action by the Lege, financially damaging lawsuits, or the threat of being labeled "unfriendly to business".
Offline
This latest capitulation is unnecessary because the stated goals, and the means to achieve them, as proposed by the LOBV, or some reasonable compromise thereof, would have been beneficial for both business/re-development interests, as well as for cyclists.
That is still the question of some disagreement. The business owners who opposed the plan certainly don't believe this -- or they would have switched to supporting the plan. Yes, I know studies have said so, but again -- they obviously don't believe the studies.
Nueces Street could have provided a shining counterexample to the myth that bicycles and automobiles are incompatible and incapable of sharing the same space
I actually disagree here.
The planned bike boulevard was an aberration with traffic calming measures to dissuade cars from using it but not bicycles. Normal roads don't have these measures, and it's likely that the majority of roads will never have or need these measures, even if cars go the way of the dodo. (If there's no cars at some point in the future, there's no need for any such measures to dissuade them.) Really, the truly shining counterexample to your given myth would simply be a normal road with similar numbers of cars and bikes. If it requires a bike boulevard to disprove the myth, then corroborates the myth more than it disproves it.
... or the threat of being labeled "unfriendly to business".
Well, at some level, not giving business owners what they want (even if their desires actually aren't in their best interests, though that's likely to be very uncertain) is always going to be seen "unfriendly to business" -- especially if you're the business. That threat is really unavoidable -- it needs to be ignored.
Just so it's clear -- I support LOBV's plan for Nueces and don't really disagree with what you said -- just a few points of it.
Offline
I actually disagree with your reasoning on a number of levels.
1) I disagree with the premise that the traffic calming measures are meant to dissuade cars from using it. In reality, I think the intention is to dissuade cars from using the bike blvd as a **cut through / arterial** like Guadalupe or Lavaca. However, for motorists with business on that street, I would submit that they may encounter a fairly pleasant experience with low speeds, and reasonable traffic volumes.
2) I disagree that bike blvds are uniformly bad for business.There are numerous cities around the world that employ bike blvds, with thriving business on them. You might find this hard to believe, but I would not support bike blvds if they were detrimental to business. In fact, I believe it would be unreasonable for me or any other cyclist to ask any city to spend precious tax money to intentionally do something that would harm the livelihoods of some of the people furnishing that tax money, in the first place. That is suicidal behavior for a city.
I welcome any factual debate on whether bike blvds are uniformly bad for business. Now one thing I would concede is that while I don't believe that bike blvds are bad for all businesses, I would agree that bike blvds could be bad for certain kinds of businesses. I would think big box outlets, large scale shopping malls, fast food joints, large restaurants, or gas stations, would not fare well with a bike blvd in their midst. In short, businesses that inherently reliant on high vehicle traffic volumes may not be compatible with bike blvds. Fortunately, however, there are no such businesses on Nueces Blvd. The businesses on Nueces are appt. oriented businesses that generate relatively low traffic volumes.
I realize that there are people who fear the impact of bike blvds on their businesses. It is natural for people to fear change, especially when their livelihoods are at stake, but it is not ok for people to use that as the only reason to block change even though it happens all the time. And, I would submit that the fear is largely uncorroborated. It should be obvious at this point that our society needs to incorporate more exercise, and less petroleum consumption in our daily lives. It is time for all of us to act in a reasonable and constructive fashion to those ends, instead of looking to someone else.
3) I would also strongly disagree that in order for bike blvds to be a shining example of bikes and autos sharing the road that there have to be equal numbers of both. That is preposterous. Not even in the great bike friendly cities of Europe are such proportions witnessed. Amsterdam, #1 bicycle city in the world, "only" has a 40% level. A 10% level of bicycles or higher would, in my opinion, be a shining example, especially considering we are in the US. A 10% level would put us on part with Portland, OR., the top ranking bike friendly major city in the US.
I would submit that a 10% level of bike traffic is a significant achievement, and would generate numerous noticeable beneficial effects: improved air quality, reduction in obesity levels, reduction in traffic congestion, etc... Imagine the beneficial effects that a 40% level would have in all major US cities!
Nonetheless, you are certainly welcome to decide for yourself what level of bicycle traffic would be considered a "shining example".
Also, I am heartened to that you support the LOBV plan.
Offline
I actually disagree with your reasoning on a number of levels.
1) I disagree with the premise that the traffic calming measures are meant to dissuade cars from using it. In reality, I think the intention is to dissuade cars from using the bike blvd as a **cut through / arterial** like Guadalupe or Lavaca.
OK, but that is dissuading cars from using it. The cars that have to use it will still use it, of course (but they might have to take a longer or slower path.) Not all the traffic calming measures were intended to do this (some, like traffic circles and removed stop signs, actually make the road more attractive to through traffic), but the diverters absolutely were.
2) I disagree that bike blvds are uniformly bad for business
This would be a classic example of a strawman -- you're disagreeing with something I didn't claim or even imply.
3) I would also strongly disagree that in order for bike blvds to be a shining example of bikes and autos sharing the road that there have to be equal numbers of both.
I didn't really claim that either. The number of vehicles of each type was really secondary to my point, which was basically that the ideal place to disprove any myths that they are "incompatible and incapable of sharing the same space" would be a regular street, not a bicycle boulevard.
If a bicycle boulevard is the only place that cars and bikes can share the same space, then that's really bad for every place that's not a bicycle boulevard -- which is most places. Fortunately, I don't believe this to be the case, and I doubt you do either.
Offline
A more helpful way to think of this might be the following:
Rather than every street having to support bike and car traffic at equal levels, most streets support both; some (freeways!) support cars more than they support bikes; and some (bike boulevards!) support bikes more than they do cars.
Offline
Yep.
Offline
I'm pretty sure I heard a news story on 590 this morning in which a lawyer on Rio Grande expressed opposition to the plan because he'd be losing parking. Anybody else hear it? Not positive he was on RG but that's the impression I got.
Offline
Uh oh. Well if there is a lawyer with an office on RG opposed to the RG plan, then I guess we'll find out that the city has selected yet another alternative to Nueces. Will the new proposal be for West this time?
Offline
There will never be a successful debate if you can not determine the FACTS. Each side clearly has different opinions on certain issues, such as how this project will affect businesses and economics.
We've never actually solved that, since the January meeting. How can we get anywhere without facts?
It's not easy to prove that something with so many variables is going to be a certain way. But if you can't lay down some concrete facts, then these debates will continue to go in circles.
There's also the problem that many car drivers simply believe they have the right to go full speed ahead, and anything that threatens that ability is shunned. The only thing that we, all road users as a whole, are ENTITLED to, is a safe route. Every non-restricted access road should be providing a safe route for cyclists and cars. We are entitled to that. But the car world believes their right to go full speed ahead is more important than our right to safety. A car that is able to arrive 2 minutes faster to a destination - that doesn't make it superior to a slower road user - such as a cyclist. And many times a cyclist can be faster.
It comes down to basic ethics.
Last edited by rich00 (2010-04-15 21:25:08)
Offline
[ Generated in 0.014 seconds, 9 queries executed - Memory usage: 575.86 KiB (Peak: 591.42 KiB) ]