You are not logged in.
Pages: 1
I just want to point out that my posting that MBJ moved into this thread (without my consent, of course) had as the original subject header: "LOBV Sportin Tin Ears Once Again".
Sorry if either of my recent posts causes any diaper rash amongst the more vocal members of the cycling community, but it is genuinely what I believe.
I believe either Tovo or Shade would do fine for bike/ped issues. And, with Tovo, you get the added bonus of not having to shell out as much $$ for water rate increases, as she is opposed to WTP4, which we still don't need at least for another decade. And, BTW, it is still not completely paid for yet, so there is an opportunity still to suspend further work on it.
I just hope we haven't pissed Tovo off to the point where she doesn't cooperate with the cycling community just because of a few members with egos bigger than their political sense, as it is looking increasingly likely she will win the seat.
In general, I believe LOBV ought to stick to issues, and stay out of the business of picking candidates. Educate people on the candidates' stands on the relevant issues, and let cyclists (along with anyone else) do the choosin. We're not like the NRA -- we don't currently have the ability to intimidate elected officials, practice fearmongering amongst uneducated voters, and swing elections.
Sincerely.
Can't believe y'all [LOBV] endorsed Randi Shade for council against an established neighborhood activist. Ain't it common sense that a neighborhood activist is gonna be more friendly on bike and ped issues? You know, that whole quality of life thing?
Maybe there is hope for our kind after all:
http://www.oregonlive.com/portland/inde … incart_mce
One lesson -- get good at reading license plates at crunch time.
Here's the link:
http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/world/ … cnn?hpt=C2
I was hoping it would show actual footage of the escape, but it doesn't. But, at least it casts bicyclists and bicycles in a positive light (certainly a start).
Hopefully, we can all agree on this and avoid another flame war.
Here is the latest threat to the Austin Way of Life, a proposed F1 track on the edge of town, paid for with a massive infusion of tax dollars, many of which will end up being our own. Just think how much bicycle infrastructure we could get with $25 or $50 million. Just think how much aquifer land we could buy, or urban renewal.
Please let your local representatives know that you oppose this deal, and at the very least, demand full transparency.
The hostility expressed by others in this thread perfectly demonstrates what makes our local bicycle community so dysfunctional, and so ineffective. When the organizer of this website, and others, have nothing better to do than criticize someone who thinks that a hearing on a major piece of bike infrastructure that doesn't include a vote and doesn't include public comments, IS UNACCEPTABLE; instead of criticizing the officials that are putting on that hearing, we have a real problem. When people would rather focus on a critic of the suboptimal compromise that this bike blvd represents, instead of on the suboptimal compromise itself, we have a real problem.
BTW, I despite my busy schedule, wrote to the Chronicle, the Statesman, and of course, to the City Council. In addition, I had discussions with other members of the cycling community on this issue. Could I have done more? Sure. I could have quit my job, and organized a hunger strike, or a march on city hall, etc..., but again, I am only one person, and am not financially independent. This call to boycott the hearing was only the last in a series of actions that I undertook, and was purposely in response to efforts by others to gather people to attend this sham. And, I am proud of my call for boycott.
If people want to take their frustrations out on me, go right ahead. Blame me for the suboptimal facility that is going in on Rio Grande. But, you gotta wonder how useful that is. It might be better to ask what others in the cycling community did, as well. Obviously not enough. How many others wrote to the Chronicle, Statesman, City Council, or took other action?
I'm glad everyone liked the idea. So glad I did something else with my Thursday other than going to a lamo hearing where nobody from the public is permitted to say anything! Democracy in action!! I wonder what these critics did on their Thursday, other than D'Amico. I bet they didn't go to the hearing either. They just wasted their bosses' time by spraying a few bits as seen from their postings.
And to address the NAACP analogy, I have a hard time imagining that a lot of African Americans showed up at city council hearings when it was decided that they were supposed to sit in the back of the bus, instead of sit wherever they want. There may have been some, but it obviously wasn't too effective. What was ultimately more effective was organizing for real change, outside of city council chambers.
Make a point to not show up for the council rubber stamping of the flawed Downtown Bicycle Blvd Plan.
First of all, it will start late and go on too long. Second of all, it is not a public hearing in that while you are allowed to attend, you won't get a chance to speak. Third of all, it is for a suboptimal compromise to the original proposal for a bicycle blvd. on Nueces St., as overwhelmingly supported by the local bicycle community. As we have seen many times before, city officials have once again knuckled under to political pressure from old school development and business interests, and are moving the bicycle blvd. to Rio Grande St., instead.
If you are fortunate enough to have a job in this economy, just think, you could be at work doing something useful, and earning a living instead.
So, just don't go to this event. Register your frustration with City of Austin officials, and go on with your life. Save your vacation and stay at work; do some extra yard work or gardening; do that shopping errand before it gets too hot; cool off at Barton Springs; ride your bike, or spend time with a friend or loved one.
Please send a strong message to City of Austin officials that you as a cyclist are tired of being on the losing end of politically driven compromises with moneyed interests.
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?
Yep.
FYI: http://www.streetsblog.org/2007/01/24/s … oulevards/
Last time I checked, Berkeley had thriving businesses, and plenty of dense development, even though they have an impressive network of bicycle blvds.
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.
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".
Pages: 1
[ Generated in 0.112 seconds, 7 queries executed - Memory usage: 591.5 KiB (Peak: 655.57 KiB) ]