Bicycle Austin forum

Thanks Michael and Doug. This is a good time to remind everyone to WRITE DOWN THE SERIAL NUMBER from your bike! Do it right NOW! I just happened to have mine in my wallet a few years ago when my bike was stolen from HEB Hancock (stupidly, I left the bike unlocked at the bike rack to run in very briefly but, jeez, it was 7 am! Who cases a bike rack at 7 am? A meth-head named Armando Hanft, apparently.). In less than 2 hours, APD found my bike (already stripped of all other identifying bells, racks, etc.), we flipped it over and checked the number, it matched, and they gave it back to me right there. Huge relief! It is a bit tricky to read the serial number; mine is crusted with grime and I had to double and triple check that I read it correctly. So, I wouldn’t be too quick to point fingers, but since I wasn’t there at the pawn shop, I don’t really have a useful opinion on it.
~dave.westenbarger~

Slate's tongue-in-cheek response to the new "crisis" of dockless bikes littering cities (spoiler: photos are of motor vehicle parking lots and dumps):

https://slate.com/business/2018/04/asto … ities.html

A colleague and fellow pedaler wrote the city about Georgian and got this response. Looks like Georgian will be getting “channelizers” like St Elmo:

“We have not yet completed the Georgian Drive project.  In order to discourage vehicles from entering the bike lanes, we will be installing channelizers (plastic curb) with delineators (vertical plastic posts) to physically prohibit vehicles from bypassing the cushions.  The configuration will look like the devices on St. Elmo Street Between S. 1st and Congress which has been very successful.  Unfortunately, our supply of devices ran out before we could install them on Georgian and I do apologize for the delay in completing the project.  Our markings crew is working on securing more devices so that we may complete the project.”

Red:

You read my mind! That's been exactly my experience regarding drivers waving me through intersections out of turn. I hate it and often refuse to go. I look away and ignore them until they go. Just like you, I also sometimes don't signal a left turn when a motor vehicle is approaching and for the exact same reason: I don't want to be put in danger by them stopping (where there is no traffic control device) in order to "let" me turn. No thanks. Please, mister or miss driver, just follow the patterns we're all expecting. It's safer for everyone that way.

Several months ago, I was waiting my turn at a stop sign to turn left (north) from Prairie Dell onto Northcrest and a southbound driver stopped mid-block to wave me through, across her path. There's no stop sign on Northcrest in either direction. I refused to go. She continued to wave me to go. I continued to refuse. Finally, a motor vehicle behind her that could not see me or what was going on and which I could not see, either, sped around her. I could have been crushed if I had gone out of turn. The original driver then rolled down her window and cursed at me as she too passed me just minding my own business and waiting my turn. Too bad, lady! Thanks, but *I* will be the one who decides what dangerous situations I put myself into, not you! So yes, Red, it's very likely another driver will try to pass the stopped motor vehicle and put you in a very bad situation. Don't do it!

The safest thing for everyone on the road, car, bike, or ped, is to be predictable. Courtesy is nice but predictability is crucial. I no longer blow through stop signs or red lights and I encourage all people on bikes to at least stop if they intend to continue through out of turn. I use hand gestures (nice ones, never the one finger salute) to let others know my plans. I do a lot of gesturing: your turn, now your turn, now my turn, thanks, feel free to turn right either in front of me or behind me when I'm stopped at a light and you're signaling your intent to turn (that's why I left so much room; if you don't signal, tough luck for you, I think you're going straight), etc. I have almost zero problems with drivers but I'm mostly pedaling in the city, not suburbia.

~davew~

I don't speak for Jeff Travillion. But when he knocked on my door earlier this year (nice guy), we talked about just that issue (toll roads). We talked about dropping tolls on Tx130 but adding them on I-35. A swap. I'm in favor of this even though I use I-35 regularly and would have to pay tolls. I don't even have a toll tag. I-35 would generate more revenue than Tx130 and tolls would reduce the through trucks which is a win for us center city folks. Jeff is responding to his neighbors in Pflugerville who want more "free" roads. Let them have them. Those lanes will fill up faster than Boggy Creek during a gully washer. Those folks can have the blight that is I-35 in their back yards instead of ours, always worrying when TxDOT will come in and widen it. Oops, they already are. I don't support just making tolled lanes free, but I'd swap for toll lanes, HOV/bus lanes, and rail down I-35 any day. Also there's some requirement that interstates be "free" (to drivers) so Tx130 would be renumbered I-35 and I-35 could be renamed, oh, I don't know, let's say East Avenue. I'm too tired to research that interstate requirement right now, so I'll just state it sans citation and hope I'm right.
~davew~

I used to blow lights and stop signs on my bike. Then I grew up. I don't confront other cyclists. Each person has to make his or her own choices. I do support ticketing these folks, though. Many years ago, a cyclist confronted me one time by hollering at me. I deserved it, but I wanted to ask him if hollering at people ever persuaded them to his side? I'm doubtful. Calm discussion might be better, but no one likes to be told off, especially by someone not in authority.

Now, I just follow the laws, stop at stop signs and red lights, and let my actions speak for me.

~dave.westenbarger~

The only thing I can offer is, I have learned the hard way to try to carry breakables as close to my person as possible, usually in a back pack.  My bike is not nearly as cushioned as my body.  Personally, I would try to tie up the frames in a towel or blanket then lash that to my back somehow (bungee cords or a used inner tube with a clip, slung around your shoulders?).  I'm assuming there's glass and maybe I shouldn't be assuming that.
~davew~

Tom: 

re: transition counts.  In the original proposal, SB there is one where the sharrow changes to BL at about Clarkson.  NB there are 2, one at E32 (BL to sharrow) and another at about E34 or maybe Clarkson (sh->BL).  That's where I get 3.  The revised plan has 5:  NB south of E32 (BL->sh) and north of E34 (sh->BL) , SB at about Clarkson (sh->BL), at Edgewood (BL->sh), and south of E32 (sh->BL).  That's the best I could figure out from the City presentation and a follow-up telephone conversation, rather than an actual map, which I would've preferred.

I wrote the part of the Upper Boggy Creek plan that mentions bike lanes on Cherrywood Rd.  That was in 2002.  I'm not a transportation planner or engineer, but at the time, thought that bike lanes are the solution to bicycle safety in all situations.

They're not.

Not all bike lanes are created equal.  I guess I expected a professional would look at the request and modify it based on conditions, which is sort of what we're getting now, which is a good thing.  If either proposal was for bike lanes and no parking along the entire segment, then yes, that would be the safest solution for cyclists, though it would change the character.  But that's not what's being proposed.  The proposed bike lanes for Cherrywood Rd., in both plans, include a substantial amount of "door zone" next to parked cars, and lots of transitions from bike lanes to sharrows or back.  I suggest, at the very least, the uphill portions be placed abuting the curbs, which is where cyclists of A/B/C abilities all ride now anyway, due to the lack of parked cars at most hours.  It's safest for all of us.

There are certain segments of Cherrywood Rd., such as south-bound south of E 32nd St., where a bike lane (next to parked cars, thus door zones) just doesn't make sense.  I pedal a lot on streets that have a parking lane next to bike lanes.  Georgian/ Northcrest, for example.  There are almost never any vehicles parked in the parking lane.  I ride in the bike lane, because I know that's where I'm supposed to be and it signals to the few motorists that it's my space.  But I often see B/C riders who hug the curb, in the parking lane, rather than get out in the bike lane.  They just won't do it.  Currently, Cherrywood Rd. has very low use of available parking, especially on that segment.  If a bike lane is striped next to a parking lane, B/C riders will not use it.  They'll hug the curb.  Last night, I watched a man and a young girl, pedaling together  in the dark, do exactly this.  No parked cars and no motor vehicles in sight.  They had lights and helmets, they were unperterbed, so everything was good.  Why stir up a lot of bad feelings, give cyclists (another) black eye, when it's unnecessary?  Is it really helping B/C cyclists?  Of course not, if they won't use it.  And they won't.

Cherrywood Rd. has a 6% mode share for bicycles already, with NO cycling facilities at all.  Wow!  That's really good!  No bike lanes, no sharrows, nothing.  It says a lot about the character of that street that cyclists feel so comfortable already.  Let's be careful before we go putting cyclists in door zones, removing parking to stripe bike lanes that won't be used, and stirring up animosity towards all cyclists when we all have the same goal:  to preserve both the calm, safe cycling environment and the residential character of the street.  That's all I'm saying. 

We've had a number of "meetings" but not much actual discussion has taken place because of some acrimony, poor visual materials (maps), little to no supporting data, a poor description of the problem and goals, and no comparisons of possible solutions.  That's my main beef with the process, that the supposed meetings did not accomplish much and produced plans that are dangerous to beginner cyclists, in my opinion.  So just saying we've had meetings ignores the quality of those meetings.  And just saying a plan has bike lanes is not the same thing as actually improving cyclist safety.

Thanks to everyone for offering their perspectives.  We'll see what happens tonight at CNA and tomorrow at BAC and eventually at UTC.

m1ek:  Thanks for your comments.  I appreciate you took time to write, with how busy you probably are, because I know you've been through a lot more of these bile-spilling sessions than I have.  Any bake sales coming up?  btw, I too was out on election day 2000 knocking on doors for light rail.  Ah, the old days.

I don't know if Cherrywood will end up exactly like Shoal Creek.  Maybe.  I hope not, though I pedal Shoal Creek and enjoy it, even now.  I've watched how cyclists ride on Cherrywood and talked to a few, and it's not terrible now.  Granted these may be "A" cyclists, but I also saw a dad and two little kids on bikes this weekend, and that was encouraging.  Several residents were in favor, if a little reluctant.  Some cyclists opposed.  So it's kind of strange.  Also, the parking is only sparingly used, except when there's a party.  So it's like SC in that regard.

On the City bike map, Cherrywood is marked light blue for "High-Comfort Roads," the highest category.  It definitely needs bike lanes on some stretches (the hills, especially).  I don't think it needs planters like Shoal Creek tried, though a roundabout at 32nd might be nice.  But that's more than just paint. 

I think if I were going to try to make the case for bike lanes to a neighborhood, or even to cyclists, I'd present studies that showed that bike lanes on similar streets had these outcomes.  I'd discuss what traffic engineers (AASHTO, FHWA) recommend for roads with the traffic volumes measured here.  I'd collect before and after data (bike and car traffic volumes, speeds, accident rates) on my own projects on streets people are familiar with, under various types of treatments (bike lanes, sharrows, nothing) on various types of roads and show people what, if anything, actually changes.  A lot of concern is the unknown, speculation about how things will be better or worse.  But not much of this type of information has been made available, so it's hard to really know what decision to make.

It'd be nice if just one European paradise were possible somewhere in Austin, but it ain't gonna be on Cherrywood.  The only Euro we're going to get is where they throw chairs at each other in Parliament.

Last night (Wed., 9/7/11), the Land Use and Transportation Committee of the Cherrywood Neighborhood Association (CNA) voted 16-5 to recommend that CNA Steering Committee (SC) notify the city that CNA preferred the Original city proposal for bike lanes on Cherrywood Rd.  I was one of the 16.  CNA SC meets monthly and acts on behalf of CNA between regular quarterly meetings of the full CNA.  SC next meets 9/14 at Cherrywood Coffeehouse in the side room and will be considering the bike lane proposal yet again.  SC does not have to follow LUT's recommendation.

Thanks to all the bike supporters who attended!  I was impressed by the turnout and surprised that the residents who attended the public meeting on 8/31 were not there.  Maybe they will show up at SC next week.  Maybe they don't believe they can influence CNA in this process.  Maybe they'll appeal directly to the City, via UTC or Council.  I don't know.

I agree with Nuthouse that the 8/31 public meeting was unpleasant.  I'm disappointed the meeting got a little out of hand and I'm disappointed the City has created a process that pits neighbors against cyclists (who are often other neighbors), instead of deciding on a policy and sticking to it.  The arguments have already been made, pro and con, City Council has decided on a policy, and either the plan needs to be implemented by staff or amended.  There's nothing to be gained by having cyclists and neighbors re-argue all the points each time the issue is discussed for each new re-striping project.  It just creates hard feelings, because it certainly doesn't change any minds.

But it appeared from the public meeting that some folks thought they could kill the whole plan if they got nasty enough.  And City staff in attendance, which included some high ranking people, said nothing to counter that.  So, given no assurance by the City that they won't fold under resident pressure, bike supporters had no choice but to put on a full court press to defend the City's own policy (as adopted in the Austin 2009 Bicycle Plan Update), because the City wasn't.  This then appears to residents as "those bike people" ramming something down their throats.  So we are the bad guys and scapegoats yet again.  It doesn't have to be this way and it shouldn't be this way.

So what's the problem we're attempting to solve with bike lanes?  The goal is to make the road safer for less confident cyclists and other users, thereby increasing their mode share, which has various beneficial effects (health, pollution, traffic, etc.).  Currently, there's a small but steady flow of bikes along Cherrywood all day.  City staff mentioned 6% of vehicles at the meeting, which is pretty good and indicates that the road is pretty safe already, at least for the mostly young adult cohort.

Cyclists are one of three groups of users who share that road.  The other two are (1) residents, and their guests, who sometimes park on the street, and (2) motorized vehicle users who traverse the neighborhood.  Which of those two is more of a threat to the safety of cyclists?  Neither of the proposed bike lane solutions requires concessions from motor vehicle users, only from residents.  But residents and cyclists share a common interest in preserving the road's fairly quiet, fairly low speed residential character.  Will that character change under the proposed solutions?  Are those changes good for cyclists?  Residents?  Are there ways to achieve the two goals of (1) improved cyclist safety and (2) preservation of residential character (which also happens to promote goal 1)?

These are the questions we should be asking, not do they have driveways (I asked that, and it was only antagonistic).  We should be thinking bigger.  We should be making Cherrywood Rd. a model bike-friendly street that draws cyclists, repels cut-through motor vehicles, provides access and convenience to residents, and is an absolute joy to be on because it's calm, safe, beautiful, and all users' legitimate needs are met. 

Traffic circles.  Tree-filled medians.  Raised or textured surfaces.  Ample and clear pavement demarcations.  Pinch points.  Chicaines.  Diverters.  Stop signs.  Even on-street parking.  All of these improve cyclist safety while preserving, even enhancing, residential character.  Is it still possible at this late hour to extricate ourselves from the dysfunctional City process and bring all parties together, put everything on the table, and work out a solution that achieves these goals?  We've shown we have the political clout to be recognized in the City's plan.  We can make this happen, too.

Now, do we choose to be the enemies of the folks whose houses we pass every day, or their best friends?

Respectfully submitted,
Dave Westenbarger