Nueces Bicycle Boulevard

MichaelBluejay · 2009-12-22 15:41:39

So far all the discussion about the Nueces Bike Blvd. has been on the (private) email list and not on the (public) web, so I'm trying to start a discussion here in the public domain.

The Nueces Bike Blvd. is a traffic-calming plan for Nueces which would put obstructions at certain intersections so auto traffic can't use the street as a through-street, though cyclists can because they can ride between the obstructions. Cars would still have access to Nueces from side streets, they just couldn't drive from one end of Nueces to another.

The local bike community is pretty enthused by this idea, but I'm a little nonplussed for a few reasons.

(1) Nueces is already an easy ride. I use it frequently, and it's one of my favorite urban streets for that purpose.

(2) There isn't much benefit to be had. After boulevard'ing the street, what exactly do we get out of it? It was already pretty easy to begin with.

(3) There is opposition to this from the usual quarters: Property owners in the affected area, and people who hate seeing any bones tossed towards bicyclists. If we're going to blow so much of our political capital on something, I'd prefer that we do so on a project that will have a lot more tangible benefits, rather than taking a very easy street and making it into -- a still very easy street.

(4) Perhaps the idea is that there's the ability to remove Stop signs so that cyclists can traverse the street faster. If so, I'm unconvinced that this is a compelling justification -- again, too little bang for the buck. A simpler and easier approach would be to put "BIKES YIELD" under the Stop signs, indicating that it's a Stop sign for cars, and a Yield sign for bikes.

I'd also like to relate this back to the debacle on Shoal Creek Blvd., where the Council put the rubber-stamp on cars parking in the bike lanes there a few years ago. It's a big reminder to all that cyclists are second-class citizens. The Bike Blvd. seems to try to remedy that in a weird way: We'd then have some areas where cars are given preference (Shoal Creek) and some where bikes are given preference (Nueces). My preference is that we just have NO areas where cars are given the kind of preference they're given on Shoal Creek -- even if it means we don't have a bike blvd. somewhere else. I'd like to see us start by dismantling the injustice that already exists, rather than trying to "balance" that injustice with affirmative action elsewhere.

plarson · 2009-12-23 14:54:16

I love the "BIKES YIELD" idea. So simple. Much less financial outlay.

tomwald · 2009-12-23 16:15:21

(1) Nueces is already an easy ride. I use it frequently, and it's one of my favorite urban streets for that purpose.

The stop signs every few hundred feet are a huge issue.
Try Nueces during afternoon rush hour, especially between 15th & MLK. Many motorists are downright nasty at that time of day.
Also, picture a ten-year-old riding the street unsupervised. Or, notice that there aren't any C-type bicyclists currently using the street.

(2) There isn't much benefit to be had. After boulevard'ing the street, what exactly do we get out of it? It was already pretty easy to begin with.

* To remove the stop signs while preventing it from turning into a redundant arterial for motorists.
* To reduce the motorist nastiness that does occur on Nueces.
* To make it more accessible to beginning bicyclists, including the UT population in West Campus.
* To make the street friendlier to pedestrians, and lead the way to a better pedestrian environment.

(3) There is opposition to this from the usual quarters: Property owners in the affected area, and people who hate seeing any bones tossed towards bicyclists. If we're going to blow so much of our political capital on something, I'd prefer that we do so on a project that will have a lot more tangible benefits, rather than taking a very easy street and making it into -- a still very easy street.

Yes, bicyclists are worthless to some people in Austin, but as Austin moves forward, they are the ones who need to pay attention and catch up. We can't bow down for a few people who have no interest in compromise and finding understanding.
The opposition along Nueces is a vocal minority of the property and business owners. Some property owners are vocal in their _support_.
I don't think we're blowing political capital on this one to any extent that doesn't make the "sacrifice" worthwhile. We are building a continuous network of bicycle facilities across Austin that are suitable for even beginner bicyclists. This is worthwhile.
The opposition should consider that they are shooting themselves in the foot. This project brings public investment into their area, will almost certainly raise their property values, and probably will increase the number of valuable drive/bike/walk-bys for retail. The opposition rests upon nothing other than fear and ignorance and they have no reason for hope because they are so disconnected with the bicycle and pedestrian traffic around them and the benefits therein.

I'd also say that "political capital" is usually what one sacrifices when one is not offering anything in return. The Nueces Bike Blvd. project will likely increase property values, so it is a win for both sides. In ten years, Austinites will be thankful that the empty arguments of the opposition will have been deflated (or ignored). On the other hand, asking for a citywide stop-sign-as-yield law (not what Bluejay suggested here) would give something to "bicyclists" while offering little or nothing to "motorists"/"everyman". Again, the Nueces Bike Blvd. project has vocal support from some property owners along Nueces and the project will ultimately benefit the opponents financially.

(4) Perhaps the idea is that there's the ability to remove Stop signs so that cyclists can traverse the street faster. If so, I'm unconvinced that this is a compelling justification -- again, too little bang for the buck. A simpler and easier approach would be to put "BIKES YIELD" under the Stop signs, indicating that it's a Stop sign for cars, and a Yield sign for bikes.

As suggested above, that wouldn't help C-type bicyclists. However, it certainly would be cool for bicycle traffic to be legally recognized for its significantly lower danger to others. How would we go about getting this "bikes yield" option implemented where it would be helpful? I would imagine that such a pilot program would have its own expenses associated with it, too, but probably not as much as what's to be spent on a Nueces Bike Blvd.
My guess though, is that this wouldn't fly with the CoA engineers and/or city council. And again, C-type bicyclists would still be in the same boat as now (i.e. not using Nueces).

I was once a C-type bicyclist. When I was growing up, I made invaluable use of sidewalks, bike paths, and quiet streets. Had there been no such opportunities to learn and have fun on a bicycle in my neighborhood, I may not have continued riding past my youth. Some students at UT are returning to a bicycle for the first time since they were ten. A continuous safe and quiet route to downtown and the river will be a great asset in growing their bicycling experience. Nueces is part of the way there -- turning it into a bicycle boulevard will bring it all of the way there.

And bike boulevards work for multiple skill levels and needs of bicyclists, not just C-type bicyclists. They improve the experience for A- and B-type bicyclists. But of course, there are more than three different types of bicyclists. So even if it doesn't improve your experience (as an A- or B-type bicyclist), be rest assured that there are others (myself included) who would personally appreciate a transformation to a bicycle boulevard.

Again, the opposition has a real legitimate type of concern (property values), but their concern is unfounded, and rather backwards. They stand to gain, but are spooked by any shift from cars to bike or foot. Let's hope that we can convince more of them that the transformation of the street is better for them, and not worse. So far, city council is not about to take the issue up again, so it isn't even to that level yet.

damicoaustin · 2009-12-24 09:00:58

I'm interested in the idea of "bikes yield" too. But it isn't going to float by COA engineers, as noted by Tom...maybe this is something we could work for. Not to mention that it also slows down bikes a bit and probably will confuse motorists a tad.

However, I'm with Tom. The idea is attracting the C cyclist, or the 5-year-old, and of place making. We're going to see more and more arguments on whether separate or "preferential" treatments help or hurt bicyclists, since it puts people in the frame of mind of not accepting bicyclists in all places. (The Dallas Observer article on this was a great look at what can happen. http://www.dallasobserver.com/2009-11-2 … -traffic/)

Or even the recent posts on Great Northern on "why don't y'all stay in the bike lane."

But in the end, if we get enough new bicyclists, it won't matter, and I believe deep down that some people just aren't going to make the leap until they do get that kind of safe, preferential treatment.

On the "political capital" issue, I don't think we expend anything here, because this is logical place for promoting a bike corridor, the cost is low, the impacts are low, and it's already been listed in all the planning efforts. And if the council doesn't blink and acts as a majority in accepting a good boulevard, then they really haven't expended any political capital either. It's hard for a small opposition to really produce negative political results against an entire body acting in unison.

Shoal Creek....I'm glad Michael brought this up. This would be an interesting process again, huh? Maybe save that for next August? But for now, on a more pragmatic level, we should be looking at completing the Shoal Creek trail to Lady Bird. This is something Riley, when he first took office, said should be the key priority for the bike program. A few eyebrows raised at him thinking he could set the priorities. But what a simple and logical step. And just think about having a trail corridor that long, an inner corridor on Nueces that connects with UT, sharrows on Guad/Lavaca, bike lanes on San Jacinto, etc. You'd have a great mix of strategies all in place to appeal to different areas and types of cyclists. (sorry South Austin...you lose out again, for awhile.)

And I know I'm downtown centric...but it's a start.

robbo · 2009-12-24 21:09:42

MichaelBluejay wrote:

(2) There isn't much benefit to be had. After boulevard'ing the street, what exactly do we get out of it? It was already pretty easy to begin with.

I suppose the same thing can be said (and often is said) about bike lanes. After all, what's really different after painting a bike lane stripe? The street is still just as wide/narrow as it was before. Any perception of enhanced bike safety is merely "between one's ears."

Granted, Nueces is a pretty bikeable street as-is. I believe the benefit of boulevard'ing would be to protect (and possibly improve) its bike-ability while also discouraging automobiles from using it as an alternative to Lavaca/Guadalupe.

Nueces does get a bit testy during evening rush hour -- and also after the bars close.

Bottom line, its a good candidate for a bike boulevard and its an experiment that should be pursued.

The "Bikes Yield" idea makes more sense as an across the board rule change for all Stop signs. Unfortunately, it'll never float until all those automobile drivers become active bike riders.

batcity · 2010-01-08 14:31:04

I am a business owner on Nueces Street. I think it is important that the bicycle community hear my concerns as opposed to constantly be labeled ignorant by certain opposition.

Nueces is almost entirely zoned for commercial property. When I invested my life savings as well as my company's future in purchasing property on Nueces last year, I did it for one simple reason: the ability to increase exposure of my company within a densely populated and growing downtown district with accessible through traffic in place. Nueces offers this as it is a thoroughfare from MLK to downtown and soon to expand to Cesar Chavez. Many alternate streets do not provide the same luxuries.

My company, as many others established on Nueces, rely on this exposure. My client based has grown since our move and it can be often directly traced back to this exposure. I have also hired two new employees since this summer. My area is also zoned by the city to continue to grow with development once the economy turns around. Additional growth will lead to more traffic and more exposure.

The problem with a bicycle boulevard is it is designed to deter automobile traffic. This decreases exposure therefore also devaluing my business. Unfortunately, there are not and will never be enough bicyclists on Nueces to compensate for this lost exposure.

In addition, my commercial property will go down in value as it has less intrinsic value to other companies to purchase the property. The reason the property values have doubled in the last five years to begin with along Nueces is due to the rapidly increasing exposure it offers businesses and the city's rezoning plans to densify the area.

Opposition also claims that only a minority of property owners along Nueces reject to the bicycle boulevard. This is not the case. Every business owner I have talked to is devastated by the financial impact this will have. The only business set to benefit is Lance Armstrong's bike shop. To call all of us ignorant and fearful of change is foolish. Many others, like me, have business and economic backgrounds and clearly realize the negative impact deterred automobile traffic will have.

The city is also providing some misleading information. Remember the study that Annick provided that showed only 3,500 cars use Nueces a day? Well it was done in August of 2002 while UT & ACC were not in session. How much has downtown Austin changed in 7 1/2 years and how much busier is it when both schools are in session? Also there is no concrete numbers to support Annick's claims that businesses have benefited from the Portland bicycle boulevard. I have spoken to one Portland business owner who states otherwise.

The argument of less stop signs is minuscule. How much time is lost having to stop at a couple stops signs when commuting through downtown? The C-cyclist benefit will be minimal. You will still have some auto traffic, freight trucks (we had an 18 wheeler deliver to us yesterday), fire trucks (MLK & Nueces station) and rush hour traffic. After all, it is a business corridor within a metropolitan city. Which brings me to me next point: what the heck are kids doing riding their bikes unsupervised within a downtown city?

Listen, the truth is businesses rely on Nueces and the vehicles that use it. The area is zoned to be heavily developed and become ever busier in the near future. Bikes are able to navigate on Nueces sharing the road just fine right now. Trying to fit a bicycle boulevard on Nueces is like trying to fit a square peg in a round hole.

bizikletari · 2010-01-08 16:28:22

Robin bikes to work!

jmayson · 2010-01-09 15:24:40

To the business owner on Nueces,

I didn't see where you identified your business so I have no idea who your customers are. In other parts of the country and in European cities shopkeepers have seen an increase in business after cars were completely eliminated from streets. This is in part because it's much easier to see a business when going past it at walking or cycling speeds than 35 mph in a car.

The city isn't proposing closing Nueces to motor vehicles. They will still be allowed access to the road. You will still have customers in cars. You will still have delivery trucks pulling up to your front door. That's not changing.

It wasn't long ago that it was a common sight to see kids exploring their cities by bike. Unfortunately we've yielded our roads to outlaw motorists causing some parents not to allow their kids to wander from home. The result has been obese kids who health problems we used to see only in people four times their age. Children on the streets is a sign of a healthy city. Would you complain about birds in the sky or fish in a lake? Our roads are not the exclusive domain of motorists nor do they exist solely to deliver customers to your doorstep.

I'll leave you with this. The United States lost 4 million cars in 2009. Energy prices are expected to continue to rise. A savvy businessperson would be thinking of ways to make money from these changes and catering to pedestrians and bicyclists would be a start. Do you honestly expect to see increased vehicular traffic as gasoline
passes through $5, $6, $8 per gallon? Cyclists who don't own cars have a lot more cash, about $7,000 per year more, to spend. If I were you I'd be making sure there was was ample bicycle parking in front of my
business and think of ways to get cyclists inside my business rather than shutting them out.

[Moderator edit: No sigs as per forum rules]

AlanfromBigEasy · 2010-01-09 17:58:27

Experience from New Orleans

The truth found by merchants in New Orleans is that car unfriendly/bike & ped friendly streets with limited car parking and lots of bike parking and pleasantly walkable are the BEST locations for small businesses.

Tulane Avenue used to be a vital commerce area until it was reconfigured as an access road from the Interstate to the Medical Center. Lots of high income traffic count after reconfiguration. And the best place to find a "working girl" with the increased traffic count pre-Katrina. No decent restaurant or shop along the entire length.

Magazine Street is a narrow two lane street with VERY limited off street parking, 25 mph speed limit (and most go closer to 20 mph because it is a car unfriendly place), many stop-lights, limited on-street parallel parking, etc.

Result, over 4 miles of vibrant small shops. A GREAT place to shop !

Seven blocks of Oak Street were recently rebuilt#, with the OK of the shop owners to a bike friendly and car unfriendly street. Uniformly the reports are of increased business.

# Bulbouts at every intersection with either a park bench facing away from the street (who wants to watch cars, even @ bus stops) or bike racks on the bulbout. At least one cafe got a mid-street bulb-out for sidewalk tables (cost 4 parking spaces).

Cobblestones at every intersection (but smooth 4' wide for bikes at edges). Good teeth rattle if car is going too fast.

Lights are set to work against using Oak Street as a thoroughfare. I think one light has an "all red" phase to help peds (many lights in New Orleans now have an "all red" phase).

Street was narrowed and sidewalk widened (my eyeball is -3' street & +1'6" on each sidewalk). Most cars go over center strip unless another car is coming, then they slow down more and squeeze through. Unsure what happens if two Hummers try to pass.

Oak Street is now much more alive and a place to meet, shop and party.

Best Hopes for understanding that auto sewers repel people,

Alan Drake

MichaelBluejay · 2010-01-10 15:38:06

batcity, thank you for coming here and sharing your concerns. I understand your concerns and frustration, and I know why this is a controversial issue.

Let me start out by quoting what transportation pundit Mike Dahmus' said about this topic over at [url=]Austin on Two Wheels[/url]:

As for showing the benefits – any process which is allowed to be effectively vetoed by the provincial interests of the closest residents/owners on those grounds is doomed – because MOST of the benefits accrue to the whole city on ANY kind of infrastructure project, while those closest to it pay most of the 'cost'. Even if you or I would wish they'd think otherwise, we're not going to be able to convince somebody who owns an office building on that street that this change will directly benefit them in the short-term – so if that's the standard we have to meet, then we're never going to see anything happen here.

I think this is a useful perspective. Clearly no course of action in this city is going to please everyone, so the question becomes, if we can't please everyone, then which side doesn't get what they want? And more importantly, why? Do the wishes of a business owner who believes his business will suffer trump the desire of a community to put some traffic-calming on a busy street? Or is it the other way around? That's what it comes down to.

So how do we resolve this? As I said, I do believe that a benefit to the community is more important than individual localized property owners' concerns, but that presupposes that there *is* a real benefit to the project. So, if indeed your business is going to suffer, exactly what benefit was important enough to justify that? In other words, how should we measure the "success" of this project? I know what the plan is -- specific ways to discourage motor vehicle traffic. But how do we evaluate the results? X% less motor vehicle traffic? Y% more cycling / ped traffic? Some combination? I don't think we can evaluate it in terms of decreased injuries and fatalities, because I'm guessing there are so few on that stretch of roadway that before/after numbers would be pretty meaningless.

In summary:

(1) I'm not convinced that the plan will hurt your (or any other) business on Nueces.
(2) Even if it did, I think that could be justified *if* the project has a very clear community benefit.
(3) How exactly do we evaluate that benefit, to ensure that any hardship caused by the project has been "justified"?

Personally, I think there is greater community benefit and equal or less hardship to the nearby property owners by getting cars out of the bike lanes on Shoal Creek Blvd., which is where I wish our efforts had been directed instead of Nueces. So I'll offer you a compromise: If you can make that happen, I'll publicly endorse that plan over the Nueces plan.

batcity · 2010-01-11 11:49:38

My business is Bat City Awards and Apparel. Our prime clients are businesses, associations, universities and agencies. Since moving into our new location on Nueces Street, I have not yet had one identified client by bicycle. This is not to say that there is not economic value to additional bicyclist exposure. What it does say is that my clients form of transportation is automobile?

The value gained from a bicycle boulevard is very minimal. Nueces Street is easily commutable by bicycle already as are many other parallel streets like San Antonio and Rio Grande. The increase of new riders within the city will be minimal. The negative impact to existing property owners and small businesses far outweigh these benefits.

This does not mean I oppose additional measures to increase bicycle usage in Austin and increase bicyclist safety. The city should have more bike lanes around town that do not deter automobile traffic. Speed limits could be dropped to 25 miles an hour to also add safety for cars and bikes.

The inherent problem with the bike boulevard proposal is traffic calming devices designed to deter automobiles. Sure my business will still be accessible, but it will lose exposure and therefore commerce.

I have yet to hear a valid argument why bike lanes and reducing the speed limit across portions of downtown is not a suitable solution?

MichaelBluejay · 2010-01-11 18:11:02

batcity, I made a good faith effort to discuss your concerns in a meaningful way, but I don't see that effort reciprocated. Specifically, I said that it's reasonable for us to define exactly what constitutes success of the project so that any decrease in your business (if it actually happens) would be justified. But instead you come back and just toss out unsubstantiated opinions like "The value gained from a bicycle boulevard is very minimal" and "The increase of new riders within the city will be minimal." Even if you had any data to support this, which you don't, it's meaningless unless we define exactly what kind of increases in ridership are significant. (The other part of this analysis, which I was saving pending getting some better input, which didn't happen, was that varying levels of project success would ideally be weighed against varying levels of property owner downside. For example, would a 10% increase in bike traffic on Nueces justify a 5% decrease in store sales? Would a 1000% increase in bike traffic justify putting a store out of business?) When I suggest we come up with criteria to evaluate the project and you respond with unproductive ranting, you come across as someone who is unreasonable, unwilling to dialogue, and implacable no matter what we do. I sincerely hope that's not the case.

So the ball is in your court. If you're willing to discuss this meaningfully, I'll listen and I'm guessing the rest of the bike community will as well. But if you just want to complain, then I'll consider my initial effort wasted and I won't waste any more time listening to your complaints.

AlanfromBigEasy · 2010-01-11 20:39:01

batcity wrote:

my business ... will lose exposure and therefore commerce.

Even that harm is quite questionable. Auto drivers pay MUCH less attention to their surroundings than bicyclists and pedestrians.

Scenario: UT Department wants to honor, say, retiring professor. Over morning coffee, group in department discusses issue. One faculty or staff member that commutes by bike mentions a place on Nueces that has a selection of plaques & awards. Chairman delegates someone to go there and select something appropriate, or report back on options (or goes there personally).

Let us suppose that bicyclists are 10 times more likely to note your business (probably an under estimate) and converting Nueces to a bike boulevard adds 300 bikes/day by your business and reduces car traffic by an equal #. Your exposure has been tremendously enhanced.

Unless you are selling gasoline, auto traffic count does relatively little to promote business.

PS: At lunch today, someone asked me for the name of a good cobbler. I mentioned the one on Magazine that I have used for a dozen years. I first noted him and gave him a try after walking by this shop.

I am sure that I drove by a number of other shoe repair shops, but I did not remember a single one. But I remembered the one I walked by.

Best Hopes,

Alan Drake

m1ek · 2010-01-12 10:34:05

"I have yet to hear a valid argument why bike lanes and reducing the speed limit across portions of downtown is not a suitable solution?"

Because cyclists would still then have to stop at every stop sign on Nueces (or blow through them, or go somewhere else). Those stops are a lot more disincentive to ride a bike than to drive a car.

bikinpolitico · 2010-01-12 16:30:21

I agree with MichaelBluejay on responding to the economic benefits versus harm and batcity's response. I have published an article siting several reports on how traffic calming is good for business and increases property values: http://austinontwowheels.org/2009/12/22 … -business/

I found no report in my research that indicated negative effects. batcity's response is is purely his conjecture and has no evidence to back it up. In fact, he's dismissed these reports in comments on my site without siting any evidence to the contrary.

I agree with Michael that batcity is not entering into this conversation in good faith or open to reasoned argument.

jmayson · 2010-01-12 16:37:29

Dear Batcity,

I have lived all over the country. What makes Austin so unique is it remains a very livable and vibrant city. What makes it so are the local businesses and strong sense of community. The last thing any of us want is to run a locally owned business out. I don't believe designating Nueces as a bike boulevard is going to negatively impact your business and here's why.

I am looking at your website as I type this. You have a nondescript building and sell corporate awards. I have driven in a car up and down Nueces and have never noticed your business. When I'm driving at automobile speeds my focus is on the road and not all of the businesses lining the road. Even if a driver or passenger notices your "Bat City Awards" sign I have a very hard time believing they decide on a whim to pull in and buy a trophy or plaque. Since your sign doesn't tell us what exactly it is you do I really don't think too many drivers think "if I ever need medals for my sales team I'll come here".

I am not attempting to be sarcastic or flippant here. I'm simply stating a business such as yours probably doesn't get any spontaneous off-the-street business that a fast-food restaurant or convenience store would get. Instead people will use the phone book or Internet to find a local trophy shop. I cannot believe a potential customer would say "Here's one, but it's on a bicycle boulevard, so instead of driving three blocks over I'll drive up to Lamar and 183."

You ask why the city doesn't instead reduce the speed limit or add bike lanes. The city isn't allowed to set speed limits to whatever it wants. Federal and state regulations govern this. Speed limits are largely obeyed by the honor system, APD can't patrol 24/7/365. And it doesn't solve the stop sign issue.

Have you considered embracing this? You would be the only awards business on a bicycle boulevard in Texas! That's unique. Make it a strong point. Add a logo of a bat riding a bicycle. Deliver orders to downtown businesses by bike. You're helping keep Austin weird and not clogging the choked city streets with yet another motor vehicle. If you make your brand stand out like that, I can guarantee you will find new business, or more specifically it'll find you. Today you're just another trophy shop like every other one on the planet. What sets you apart?

I see no negatives to this and a huge potential for positives. It's your choice.

Last edited by jmayson (2010-01-12 16:38:20)

m1ek · 2010-01-12 16:39:27

Again in the interest of honing arguments, it's true that traditional traffic calming has been good for business/property values in many cases, but these projects are usually along the lines of the 2nd street redesign - i.e. still obviously 'welcome' to automobile traffic (I myself drive several blocks down 2nd as part of my commute home on some days when traffic encourages me to get off Mopac early enough). I wouldn't keep making this argument in response to critics of the Nueces Bike Blvd project, since if it's done with any effectiveness at all, it will NOT look welcoming to cars.

waterloo_cycles · 2010-01-12 19:52:53

batcity VIA THE WEB FORUM wrote:
> Nueces is almost entirely zoned for commercial property. When I invested my life savings as well as my company's future in purchasing property on Nueces last year, I did it for one simple reason: the ability to increase exposure of my company within a densely populated and growing downtown district with accessible through traffic in place. Nueces offers this as it is a thoroughfare from MLK to downtown and soon to expand to Cesar Chavez. Many alternate streets do not provide the same luxuries.
>
>

such as Guadalupe or Lavaca?

> My company, as many others established on Nueces, rely on this exposure. My client based has grown since our move and it can be often directly traced back to this exposure. I have also hired two new employees since this summer. My area is also zoned by the city to continue to grow with development once the economy turns around. Additional growth will lead to more traffic and more exposure.
>
>

so your business has increased from moving to Nueces from your previous location on Guadalupe? since there's a traffic light at 41st there would be plenty of eyeballs stopped and able to see the sign for your shop, so you can't complain about a lack of visibility. something tells me that the slower traffic on Nueces has already increased your business, despite the significantly lowered traffic volume.
I would imagine that many of your customers call to get your hours, prices, etc, at which time you can easily give them directions that would easily avoid the bollards from the bike boulevard, i.e. "take MLK to Nueces and turn south, we're 2 blocks down on the left or turn right on 16th from Guadalupe and then right on Nueces, we're a block and a half up on the right.

> The problem with a bicycle boulevard is it is designed to deter automobile traffic. This decreases exposure therefore also devaluing my business. Unfortunately, there are not and will never be enough bicyclists on Nueces to compensate for this lost exposure.
>
if you build it they will come
> In addition, my commercial property will go down in value as it has less intrinsic value to other companies to purchase the property. The reason the property values have doubled in the last five years to begin with along Nueces is due to the rapidly increasing exposure it offers businesses and the city's rezoning plans to densify the area.
>
so your property taxes will also drop

[Moderator edit: No signatures, and especially no email addresses, as per forum rules.]

bikinpolitico · 2010-01-13 13:34:49

M1EK,
I don't think I nor the data on traffic calming ever assumed it's welcoming to cars, just that is accommodates local automotive traffic. What the data shows is while you are making room for bikes and pedestrians AND discouraging cut through traffic, this is beneficial to business and property values. Bike boulevard have never promised the same level of auto traffic. As you said, if they are designed right they will discourage everyone but those specifically needing to get somewhere on that street. It's just that that doesn't hurt business the way opponents claim.

m1ek · 2010-01-13 15:18:26

Again, though, you need to understand their argument before you dismiss it so quickly (otherwise, you will lose - because you haven't really addressed the argument). The studies that have shown traffic calming to improve property values have been (as far as I can tell) of two main types:

1. Access-limiting and speed-reducing traffic calming showing increases in property value for purely residential areas

2. Speed-reducing traffic calming showing increases in property values for other uses (commercial)

I have NOT seen any evidence that access-limiting traffic calming increases property values for commercial areas.

Does this help explain the difference? Diverters are access-limiters in this model; roundabouts and stop signs and speed humps are speed-limiters.

m1ek · 2010-01-13 17:55:34

It'll be some years before I dare attempt to take time away from my family for the meetingocracy, but this is my advice to y'all this evening, in relation to the contention made by many that 'traffic calming increases property value' and similar ones.

San Francisco and New York might as well be in another solar system for all the relevance they have to Austin. And don't get me started on Europe (another galaxy).

As much as we might wish otherwise, the fact is that in Austin, people who patronize businesses by transit instead of by driving are almost entirely lower-income folks, unlike the vast swaths of middle and upper income people who do so in SF and especially NY. It is not difficult to understand why these businesses are afraid that their patrons who are turned off by difficulty driving there might not be easily replaced by transit users or cyclists.

It's important to understand this argument rather than dismissing it with studies that simply aren't applicable to our environment. Otherwise, you're talking past each other, and the city will just go with the people making the most sense to them (meaning a 6-1 vote against the bike blvd).

Instead, I'd respond with "your customers will still have access by car; they just won't have through access for long distances either way; this is no different than (insert large numbers of other sections of downtown where the street grid is discontinuous, for instance; or even go to suburban areas where strip malls don't connect with each other). This shows that you understand the concern, and then effectively minimize it, rather than relying on the questionable contention that our transportation modeshares among the people with money to spend are anything like SF or NY or will be any time in the near future.

From a tactical/historical perspective, this is similar to how the SCB argument was needlessly complicated by some full-time cyclists' lack of understanding of why people might want to park in front of their houses (leading to some of those people saying that the residents should just ride their bikes too, rather than the far more effective 'understand and minimize' rebuttal of "you can still park right across the street, a restriction just like that on (insert long list of other streets in Austin that only allow parking on one side)").

tomwald · 2010-01-14 13:56:53

m1ek wrote:

... evidence that access-limiting traffic calming increases property values for commercial areas

I talked with a former city councilmember in Madison several weeks ago. Madison has State Street. It extends from the university to the state capitol on an isthmus in central Madison. Private motor vehicles were prohibited from it decades ago. The focus of it was primarily on mass transit buses and pedestrian sidewalks, but from what I remember, bicycle traffic is allowed in the street.

The councilmember compared State Street to other mass transit streets in the US. State Street floor space is highly desirable (property values have gone way up), and this is owed, in great part to the calmed street atmosphere of _no_ private cars on State Street. She said that one reason State Street has been so successful is that there are still frequent cross streets of State Street that allow unfettered motor vehicle traffic access to numerous parts of State Street.

State Street has important similarities and important differences with Nueces St., so it serves as a partial example.

carmilla222 · 2010-01-17 09:59:06

As a motorist, I don't drive down Nueces ever. I don't think I'd ever go there unless I was on my way to a place on Nueces. When I drive through downtown, I use Lavaca and Guadalupe and Congress. I can't remember very many businesses on Lavaca and Guadalupe except ones I have walked to (library and Texas Chili Parlor come to mind) from other places downtown. I can remember a lot of businesses on Congress, but that's probably because sometimes traffic is bad -- which I understand can be one effect of traffic calming. When I'm driving, I'm paying attention to the road and the car in front of me, not much else unless everyone is stopped. As a motorist, I do end up noticing when businesses are hard to get to, hard to park near, etc. But I still shop in those places if they have something I need. Examples I can think of off the top of my head are Toy Joy, anything on the drag and in west campus, EcoWise. If it's feasible, I often opt to ride my bike to those places instead, since parking is usually easier on a bike.

As a cyclist, I use San Jacinto when I go through downtown, not Nueces. It's similar to the concept of the Nueces bike boulevard in that it goes almost down to the trail at the lake, but very busy with car traffic. Right off the top of my head, I can remember lots of places and businesses on San Jacinto - churches, bars, restaurants, hotels, etc. - because when I'm on my bike I have time to look around. When Max's Wine Dive opened, I found out about it because I rode past on my bike. I can see the benefit of using Nueces, but I would really appreciate any bike friendly improvements that could be made -- connecting it to the Lance Armstrong veloway and the lake trails, making traffic calmer than on San Jacinto. My major irritation with riding San Jacinto all the way to the lake is the block of two of Cesar Chavez I have to use (that's really heavy traffic sometimes).

So: no one who has a business on Nueces is losing me as a car driving customer. I am never going to randomly drive past your business and notice you, because there are other streets that go through downtown that I will probably always like better. If I need something from your business and I find out about you through other venues like advertising, the bike boulevard wouldn't deter me from using you. It might encourage me to ride my bike to see you instead of driving, but my money would still spend the same, right?

As a cyclist, you could gain me as a customer because a.) I notice more stuff from my bike, and b.) the bike boulevard would give me an excuse to ride through your neighborhood. Right now, I don't have any reason to try out your street on my bike (or in my car).

I know other people have said similar things, but maybe in a more general context or comparing parts of Austn to parts of other cities. This is what the bike boulevard would mean to me as a consumer of stuff in Austin. I don't think I'm the only person like this, and I don't see the bike boulevard as a detrement to either me or my relationship to any of the business owners on Nueces, even in the short term.

Thanks,
Alicia

rich00 · 2010-01-18 02:12:11

The problem with just adding bike lanes is that there is not enough room due to car parking on the street. One proposal was to keeping parking to only one side of the street.

Bike lanes aren't really that helpful to cyclists either. We still get cut off and driven into very frequently while cycling in bike lanes.

If Nueces became a bike boulevard, you would see a ridiculous amount of bikes (people) using it. Considering how discouraging cycling often is in dense urban areas I can easily see this being the case.

The future of a vibrant, economically successful, urban area where people go to as a destination, is one that has very few cars. Cars destroy so many things - health, social interaction, space, hazardous to all that are around it, the environment, the willingness to STOP and LOOK. Right now, this very day, Austin (as well as nearly ever major city) is killing itself. Take a bird's eye picture from above during rush hour. It's stress, gridlock and chaos, and with that comes disgusting air, noise, and ground pollution from the internal combustion engine.

Is it really worth it? Is it worth it to keep change away and live in that mess, just so you have the luxury of a climate controlled powerful travel? Think about it. It probably doesn't make you that happy - your perception just readjusted to the luxury, but now you have this stressful, unhealthy environment because of it.

I'm not anti-car, I believe it has it's uses. But it's use is far from a dense urban area.

A bike boulevard is a step in the right direction. It takes away one of the biggest reasons people don't ride bikes. Imagine the snowball effect of that.

You know how people say "bikes don't belong on the highway?" Well, it's true, they don't. There's very good reasons for it. Just as there's very good reasons for why cars don't belong in the city. Now, I realize you can't completely eliminate all cars from these urban areas. But that's why the bike boulevard is still open to cars.

I would encourage all business and property owners to look to the future. I know if I had a business on Nueces, I wouldn't mind it being the most PEOPLE friendly street in town (while still allowing all forms of transportation). Because as it is, Nueces (just as nearly every other road in Austin) isn't very people friendly - it's more of a race track for 3,000 lb missiles.

Walk out onto the street during rush hour and take a nice deep breath. Smells more like death than a healthy future, eh?

m1ek · 2010-01-19 16:24:59

For those (many) of you who favor the "there's nothing to worry about because the city passed the bike plan" argument, the recent UTC meeting might be illustrative. Tom Wald does a decent job laying out some concerns, Richard Mackinnon (chair) listens politely and asks questions making it pretty clear he doesn't find moving to Rio Grande or watering it down of much conern; and then one of the commissioners I don't know (maybe Lanier?) replies with "there's 700 things in the bike plan; city council didn't pass all of them by passing the plan".

http://austintx.swagit.com/player.php?refid=01132010-9','player','width=772,height=503,toolbar=no,scrollbars=no,left=100,top=10

(citizen communication; at the beginning).

If a commissioner thinks this way, you can bet a city council member won't give this argument the time of day; so it's probably time to stop using it for comfort. This is Shoal Creek Deux already; it's time to fight, not compromise.

Bicycle Austin forum

#1 2009-12-22 15:41:39

Nueces Bicycle Boulevard

#2 2009-12-23 14:54:16

Re: Nueces Bicycle Boulevard

#3 2009-12-23 16:15:21

Re: Nueces Bicycle Boulevard

#4 2009-12-24 09:00:58

Re: Nueces Bicycle Boulevard

#5 2009-12-24 21:09:42

Re: Nueces Bicycle Boulevard

#6 2010-01-08 14:31:04

Re: Nueces Bicycle Boulevard

#7 2010-01-08 16:28:22

Re: Nueces Bicycle Boulevard

#8 2010-01-09 15:24:40

Re: Nueces Bicycle Boulevard

#9 2010-01-09 17:58:27

Re: Nueces Bicycle Boulevard

#10 2010-01-10 15:38:06

Re: Nueces Bicycle Boulevard

#11 2010-01-11 11:49:38

Re: Nueces Bicycle Boulevard

#12 2010-01-11 18:11:02

Re: Nueces Bicycle Boulevard

#13 2010-01-11 20:39:01

Re: Nueces Bicycle Boulevard

#14 2010-01-12 10:34:05

Re: Nueces Bicycle Boulevard

#15 2010-01-12 16:30:21

Re: Nueces Bicycle Boulevard

#16 2010-01-12 16:37:29

Re: Nueces Bicycle Boulevard

#17 2010-01-12 16:39:27

Re: Nueces Bicycle Boulevard

#18 2010-01-12 19:52:53

Re: Nueces Bicycle Boulevard

#19 2010-01-13 13:34:49

Re: Nueces Bicycle Boulevard

#20 2010-01-13 15:18:26

Re: Nueces Bicycle Boulevard

#21 2010-01-13 17:55:34

Re: Nueces Bicycle Boulevard

#22 2010-01-14 13:56:53

Re: Nueces Bicycle Boulevard

#23 2010-01-17 09:59:06

Re: Nueces Bicycle Boulevard

#24 2010-01-18 02:12:11

Re: Nueces Bicycle Boulevard

#25 2010-01-19 16:24:59

Re: Nueces Bicycle Boulevard

Board footer