You are not logged in.
Pages: 1
Yes, this is the beloved "improved shoulder" on SCB, to be shared by parked cars and bikes. With some frequency, I encounter black-clad joggers in this improved shoulder, running against traffic, at night. Yikes!
The other phantom menace on SCB is the stretch of chewed-up pavement between 45th and around 47th. The bike lane is nearly unusable there, and the absence of parked cars on the shoulder means that cars driving in the main lanes aren't expecting bikes to take the lane. The presence of the stop sign assures a pretty steady pace of northbound cars. I travel the length of the Shoal Creek trail from 5th to Greenlawn, and I find that stretch to be the most nerve-wracking.
I like it. It made me smile. Thanks for posting.
I have the same concern, and early in my commuting career, I had some adventures related to changing flats on the way to work and getting caught in torrential rain with insufficient water protection for my laptop.
To address the issue of flat tires, I now buy armored tires. I have never had a puncture since I installed Michelin Pilot City tires. (I used to work for Michelin and have a lot of respect for their quality system and level of technical expertise.) They may be heavier and slightly more expensive, but for me this is a no-brainer on a commuter bike. I hate changing flats on the side of the road for a host of reasons.
As for rain protection, I found that a Tyvek sleeve (I repurposed a free one from FedEx) is light, waterproof, and folds up nicely. I discovered that my laptop got wet from the /bottom/ of my backpack since that's where the water pooled. Make sure the sleeve opens upward, and cover the top.
When it's rainy all day or obnoxiously hot, I take the bus. We're a one-car family, so one way or another I have to get to work car-free every day. It works. I don't miss having a car (too much).
(6) Shoal Creek Blvd. Council affirmed that it's perfectly fine for cars to park in the bike lanes on Shoal Creek Blvd., ignoring national safety guidelines and the advice of its own staff.
Perhaps this needs rewording. Aren't the "bike lanes" on SCB actually called something different, like "improved shoulders," where technically speaking biking and parking are allowed together?
Personally, SCB doesn't bother me that much because the lanes are so wide, and cars are used to bikes there. Plus, the regulations, striping, curb islands, etc. have changed frequently there, and someone is always unhappy about it. I would prefer to see more emphasis on the honest-to-goodness bike lines where parking is a problem. I'm thinking of Medical Pkwy near 45th which, due to parking for Taco Shack, constitutes a dangerous door zone. Another bad spot for parking in legitimate bike lanes is Guadalupe, behind the DPS complex. Fortunately, traffic is not too heavy along that stretch, but those lanes are about useless due to the number of cars parked on-street there. No doubt we could collectively come up with a long list of problem spots.
In summary, I would prefer to see more emphasis on parking in bike lanes in general, and less on the specific issue of SCB.
For what it's worth, I do my best to bike on roads that don't have cars whizzing past and try to avoid cars altogether. There is usually an alternative to streets where car-bike confrontations are common. For instance, Woodview is a nice alternative to Burnet or Shoal Creek (which tends to be OK, car wise), and Woodrow or Guadalupe (north of 45th) offer nice alternatives to Lamar. I'm always surprised when I see bikers on Burnet or Lamar. They're playing a dangerous game and not winning any goodwill from drivers who are nervous about their presence.
Heck, when I'm driving, I get nervous around bikes. It's not hard to see how this turns into anger in some people. IMO, the best advocacy toward the people to only remember "stupid" cyclists is to set a good example and not exercise my "rights" when it could cause frustration or make a driver nervous.
Forgive me for the medical emergency I almost caused. Yikes! ;-)
So let me see if I have it right:
The red line is a "commuter rail" connecting the suburbs with the urban center.
"Light rail" is the proposed and recently-described street-car-like system that has many close-spaced stops and is concentrated in the urban center.
As far as I know, there are plans afoot for both types of systems: a green line commuter rail to Elgin, and a light-rail urban service that wouldn't quite reach to Mueller but crosses the river, might have a spur to the airport, etc.
To keep this on-topic, maybe it's important to make the distinction between the kinds of rail:
The commuter rail (in my opinion) is clearly bike-friendly. Bikes get on and off (in theory) and the rails are removed from traffic.
Light rail is not so clear to me. I'm imagining trying to take a bike on Boston's Green line (a street-sharing trolly like the one proposed for Austin, I think) and that doesn't look so good, unless it's a folding bike I'm using. Also, from a bike's point of view, I would rather have fewer interactions between my bike rims and the recessed in-street rails that light rail trains tend to use. Been there, done that, don't care to do it again, especially not in traffic.
I'm in favor of light rail (if by that we mean the red-line commuter rail.) It has nice accommodations for bikes and is a good alternative to a ride home on 108F afternoons in the summer. There is usually room to squeeze one more bike on the train, but if the rack is full on a bus, you're SOL. Lately, however, the train has been jam-packed on the morning in-bound trains, and there was no room at all for me and my bike, so I made the ride anyway. Good thing I live close enough to have that option.
There is a larger question though: how should a candidate's stance on public transportation affect the recommendation of the LOBV? Do we need to have consensus? There is clearly a diversity of opinion among LOBV members.
. So on a busy street with a speed limit of 35 or MPH the cyclist is encouraged to slow down all the traffic behind them? That lacks all common sense.
I'm a bike commuter (~60 miles/week over the last 5 years in Austin) very interested in self-preservation. I avoid busy 35mph streets (Guadalupe, Lamar, Burnet) as much as possible. It is not too hard to find side streets that are safer for travel. There are times, however, when you have to go a short distance with cars, and it is much better to take the lane than to be passed at speed with obstacles or debris potentially in your way.
I think you've made an unjustified logical leap in concluding that anyone is encouraging bikes to slow down all the traffic behind them.
I don't think anyone is advocating a traffic-snarling mozy along Austin's major arterials (well, maybe the Critical Mass folks do, but that's a much-debated and certainly not universally condoned practice). The point is to avoid a dangerous pass. Believe me, I am intensely aware of cars behind me when I have taken the lane, and I try to find a way to let them safely pass as soon as possible. My main priority, however, is to arrive alive and undamaged.
I've bought spokes at several LBS's. Sometimes they have a stock of standard length spokes in a drawer, but I've seen an employee cut the spoke by hand, square the end, and run a die around the end to add the threads. I don't know what the thread spec is, but I'm pretty sure I've done this myself before.
The important tools to have are a spoke tension meter and a truing stand. Then it's a matter of experience and patience.
You can fit a lot more bikes on the train than on any of the express or regular buses. I've seen 5 in a train car, and there is room to squeeze more if needed. With the buses your SOL if the rack is full. I bike to work in the morning and then ride home on the train when the heat of the day would be too much. From a biking perspective (this is a biking forum) the trains are a huge improvement over the buses.
I feel pretty certain that most motorists don't know what to do with the bike box. The signage doesn't make it clear.
In my personal experience, most motorists are content to wait behind a cyclist who is preventing them from turning right on red. I usually try to be sensitive to this and stay to left so that they can get by if needed, but sometimes they'll honk at me to get me to move over, and I find that really irritating. There are places where I want a car waiting with me to trigger the light signal. Guadalupe northbound at Koenig is a good example of a sensor that won't change the light for a solo bike, so I usually block the lane so that a car will wait with me and trigger the sensor.
What would be a good way to label the box to let motorists know that a bike is legit at the front of a stoplight line? "Bikes wait here" inside the box? "Wait here on red" on a sign pointing to the line?
BTW, I'm cross posting to the city's feedback site.
I saw the bike box installed today and snapped a photo, available at http://www.flickr.com/photos/23044147@N03/?saved=1
I find the thinking behind the argument to be a little absurd. What is the point of an environmental benefit if not for the benefit of humanity? Can we not consider health and long life to be worthy public goals? Or are humans the enemy?
Here it is: <quote>One of the single best things you can do for the planet is to limit your time here.</quote> According to this point of view, perhaps Hitler, Pol Pot, and Stalin should be viewed as heros for substantially reducing the human footprint on the planet! War and disease are good because they keep the population in check. Do we really want to follow this line of reasoning?
Perhaps this boils down to the difference between two environmental philosophies:
1-We are placed here as stewards of creation and should use it with care and responsibility. (My personal point of view)
2-"The Earth does not belong to us, we belong to the Earth."
Pages: 1
[ Generated in 0.090 seconds, 9 queries executed - Memory usage: 582.36 KiB (Peak: 598.29 KiB) ]