You are not logged in.
We talked about writing to the city council to help support the Bike Boulevard and especially Annick. What email addresses should we be writing to specifically?
Offline
To e-mail City Council, including the Mayor, you can use this webform:
http://www.ci.austin.tx.us/council/groupemail.htm
If you could, please send a copy of your e-mail to the League of Bicycling Voters. Our e-mail address can be found at http://lobv.org/contact/ or you can e-mail me directly (see link to the left of _this_ post on the web forum).
We'd like to keep track of how many e-mails city council is getting and what people are saying. The Austin people definitely need to send more e-mails to city council in support of the Nueces Bike Boulevard to outweigh the opposition's e-mail campaign.
You can also find more information here:
http://www.lobv.org/nueces/
http://www.ci.austin.tx.us/publicworks/ … -input.htm
Offline
Thanks Tom.
My Aunt tells me how the bike boulevard near her Los Alamos NM is "cheered by both!"(cyclists and business owners)
Bike Boulevard in Albuquerque is supported by business owners too:
http://www.kob.com/article/stories/S879 … ml?cat=516
Last edited by rich00 (2010-01-23 03:11:07)
Offline
Nueces Bike Blvd already moved to Rio Grande?
This photo was taken today at the intersection of 11th & Rio Grande. Is that a planned traffic circle?
Offline
There is a draft of a Rio Grande St. version, based on input from some proponents in the neighborhood. However, it is just one idea in the box -- it is not decided that it will be moved to Rio Grande.
I hadn't heard about the painted demo traffic circle until your photo that you posted. I can't be sure that that is what that is, but I would guess that it is an outline of a proposed traffic circle. It is not a city-_planned_ feature though, otherwise I would have already heard about it.
Offline
cycling74,
I spoke with Nadia at the CoA Bike/Ped program, and she said the circular paint you saw on Rio Grande has nothing to do with the planning and work they are doing on the bike boulevard.
Offline
Does anyone know who painted it?
From the pic I can't tell where it is or its size.
Nadia, if it was painted by other city department, is it possible to learn who did it?
Offline
I went out there yesterday. It is not painted, rather it is taped. It is made up of white tape.
The one I saw was at 11th and Rio Grande Sts. It is 10-15 feet in diameter. It is likely there to represent a traffic circle.
Offline
I really support traffic circles - as a cyclist and car driver. Although I can see that they won't be as safe for C cyclists or little kids. (All road users, regardless of skill or age should be able to quickly acquire the necessary skills to cycle on roads. You don't need to handle your bike like professional mtn biker or have the guts of a NYC bike messenger to safely and efficiently cycle on 90% of current IN-TOWN roads).
But, for all practically purposes, they are great in most of the 4 way stop intersections on Nueces. The intersections are already large enough. A properly designed circle, with barriers placed in correct spots, and partial road humps (as seen on East Live Oak and S 5th St in South Austin) at each entrance to the circle, would keep all auto traffic to below 15mph (if the road humps are sharp enough) and allow cyclists to efficient travel through the intersection. Allowing cars to keep 10mph (except when they must yield to other traffic - which will be maybe 20% of the time) does help their travel time and gas mileage.
I believe the traffic circles would still be large enough for buses and the fire dept. I could be wrong?
As for the argument about traffic circles taking longer than a stop sign - in the worst situation you might lose 2-3 seconds when making a 270 degree (left) turn, compared to having to make a complete stop as it is right now. You'd still save gas though since you'd be keeping momentum. At the last meeting, Scott said the traffic circle at 30th and West is horrible to navigate. I wasn't even able to find that location to have a traffic circle. Nothing says that new traffic circles on Nueces would have to be cumbersome to navigate.
Every time I drive and come to a 3 or 4 way stop in a quiet area, I always wonder why there wasn't a traffic circle instead. It's the exact reason many people roll through stop signs - because many times making a complete stop is not necessary for the attentive driver. (Don't hate on the cyclists on Shoal Creek who roll through an EMPTY 4 way stop.)
At times I also come to intersections on low traffic roads where there are no stop signs, period. That can be dangerous. Could there be a balance? Better logic? A smoother commute for everyone?
Last edited by rich00 (2010-02-10 01:45:39)
Offline
Having attended my first Urban Transportation Commission (UTC) meeting last night, I'd observe:
- The presentation by two city staff members was strongly supportive of the bike blvd on Nueces, though it seemed to me to "start in the middle" rather than explain how a bike blvd on Nueces fit into any larger plan
- Pre-registered community commenters numbered about 15, with ~ 11 opposed, ~ 4 in favor.
- There appear to be a large, articulate group of property owners and commercial property renters on and near Nueces, and most of the speakers were attorneys
- All (or all but one?) were strongly opposed to the planned bike blvd on Nueces, based on concerns that their customers/clients, employees, and delivery agents would be hampered seriously by reductions in traffic flow and parking. Speakers expressed concern about loss of rental revenue and reduced property values
- Another critique focused on whether bike blvds on commercial, as opposed to residential, streets have been or are likely to be successful. Numerous speakers emphasized that Nueces is a commercial street, albeit with some handsome former residences converted to commercial use
- A more generic critique addressed the cost-benefit of this project, and of bike facilities generally -- especially in light of current shortfalls in city services and facilities budgets. A rejoinder was that bond funds have been approved by the voters for this purpose.
- A final concern was that property owners and residents hadn't been consulted into the plan was quite well developed
- The supporters of the bike blvd were less prepared, less articulate, and less persuasive, in my opinion
- Commission members asked a set of not-very-penetrating questions, though they requested more study in some areas
- The Commission chair (name?) closed the session with what appeared to me to be a firm statement in support of changes in the Austin transportation status quo, if not in this particular project. As a long-time bicyclist, I found his comments not only unpersuasive but borderline absurd: (1) Austin adds 70 cars per day, and something must be done -- if this is true, I strongly suspect the additions are in the suburbs were new development occurs and where teenagers come of age; not clear what this has to do with a downtown bike blvd said to have primary benefit for UT and ACC students; (2) Downtown condo development is increasing residential density (all to the good, I believe), but the new residents need bike blvds to make downtown living viable -- seems to me that residential density, and the shopping and services density that follows, would be strongly supportive of walking and transit, rather than a bike blvd or two.
As an Austin resident and taxpayer, I would not be persuaded to support the Nueces bike blvd based on what I heard last night at UTC.
Offline
Traffic circles. I like them. I can think of plenty of intersections
that would work better with traffic circles. However I question if
the average American driver could handle them. As it is people can't
seem to stay in their lane while making a turn.
I know a traffic engineer in Virginia. He and I butt heads from time
to time as he has the standard "roads are only for cars" mentality.
He said they don't like traffic circles because they're not pedestrian
friendly. With a standard intersection traffic does get stopped and
can allow pedestrians to cross. With a traffic circle it's
free-flowing. I have to think there are ways to engineer around this
(I'm an electrical and not a civil engineer, I don't know). I do
think they're safer for vehicles (bicycles included) but are they
really more dangerous for pedestrians?
John
Offline
I disagree with Dan_biker assesment of last night meeting.
The audience was evenly divided, albeit most registered speakers spoke in opposition to the bike boulevard.
Fortunately, the main arguments they offered have been shown to be untrue by all city officials: lack of parking, lack of access to motorized vehicular transit, impairment to emergency response, etc.
It is surprising that they insist in misrepresenting the truth even when some of them, Susan Harris and Scott Sayers, are members of the steering comitee which the bike and pedestrian program put together to reach a compromise.
The argument for more studies was raised again, pretty much as it was during the tobacco struggle. It seems that, for the opposition, if the study comes from a city other than Austin it does not carry weight .
The questions asked mainly by Allen Demling and Eileen Schaubert were pertinent, to the point and were carefully well answered by Howard Lazarus and by Annick Beaudet.
Tommy Eden on the other hand, spoke very clearly about how small the expenditure for a bike boulevard is when it is compared with highways, etc. Mr. Lazarus was also extremely candid on this issue and made clear that the money was already allocated for this.
The false critique of residential vs commercial zoning for a bike boulevard was also clarified from the start by Ms. Beaudet. And I will add, Copenhagen is a vivid example for this. Mr Sayers said that Austin was not Portland, and apart of the assertion being a tautology, Portland is obviously an example to follow. Yes, in some respects we want to be like Portland, but here, in Austin.
It would have surprised me that Dan_biker, being a member of the bicycle community were so adamant against the boulevard, but luckily when MBJ set the forum, he made the registration visible. Surprise! Dan_biker registered today. It seems to me as a wolf disguised on spandex.
Offline
Pre-registered community commenters numbered about 15, with ~ 11 opposed, ~ 4 in favor.
I'll note that not all of the people who signed up to speak were asked to speak by the commission. Some proponents who signed were not asked to speak. Also, the order of the speakers was changed from the order in which they signed up.
If I had to guess, I'd say that the commission is indeed in support of the bike boulevard and that they wanted to give the opposition as much time as needed so that any possible concerns could be aired. The commission wants to hear if there are compelling reasons to change the project. Maybe the commission doesn't need to hear from so many proponents because the arguments for the bike blvd. are already stated.
There appear to be a large, articulate group of property owners and commercial property renters on and near Nueces...
All (or all but one?) were strongly opposed to the planned bike blvd on Nueces, based on concerns that their customers/clients, employees, and delivery agents would be hampered seriously by reductions in traffic flow and parking. Speakers expressed concern about loss of rental revenue and reduced property values
What is unfortunate is that some of the things they are saying are simply not true. It is certainly possible to articulately speak nonsense and self-contradictory statements. Some of there concerns however are indeed valid, but those too need a real and sincere discussion to understand and evaluate.
Another critique focused on whether bike blvds on commercial, as opposed to residential, streets have been or are likely to be successful. Numerous speakers emphasized that Nueces is a commercial street, albeit with some handsome former residences converted to commercial use
Again, this is a red herring. City staff has understood the nature of this street, i.e. current uses and future development potential, from the get-go.
A more generic critique addressed the cost-benefit of this project, and of bike facilities generally -- especially in light of current shortfalls in city services and facilities budgets. A rejoinder was that bond funds have been approved by the voters for this purpose.
In the City of Austin, automobile use is subsidized by bicycle use. We could have gotten into this debate last night, but that would have been a huge tangential discussion.
A final concern was that property owners and residents hadn't been consulted into the plan was quite well developed
The chair, Rich MacKinnon, addressed this with the first few words from his mouth in his closing speech. The opponents, at least most of those who spoke, are making their first venture into public participation of transportation planning. It can be jolting for a newcomer. But where were these people for the last decade or more when their colleagues in downtown business were working on a plan for downtown?
Furthermore, while their concern of not being consulted may be considered valid, it has little to do with the actual merits of the project, the problems the project is intended to solve, and the needs of the Austin community that the project is attempting to solve. In other words, it's time to have a civil discussion, not a shouting match.
The supporters of the bike blvd were less prepared, less articulate, and less persuasive, in my opinion
Umm... the opposition that spoke last night was composed primarily of lawyers and other business professionals. Lawyers and salesmen are paid to be persuasive. (However, that doesn't take away from the points being made on either/any of the sides.)
Commission members asked a set of not-very-penetrating questions, though they requested more study in some areas
No? Then what would be an example of a penetrating question? Many of the commissioners questions were softballs, asking city staff to clarify some of the misconceptions put forth by the opposition.
The Commission chair (name?) closed the session with what appeared to me to be a firm statement in support of changes in the Austin transportation status quo, if not in this particular project.
I think the problem is that if one identifies the problems that the city faces, the transportation solutions being suggested by city staff are quite reasonable. Furthermore, there are a lot of strong indications that city staff's approach is reflecting the expectations of the Austin voting public.
As a long-time bicyclist, I found his comments not only unpersuasive but borderline absurd: (1) Austin adds 70 cars per day, and something must be done -- if this is true, I strongly suspect the additions are in the suburbs were new development occurs and where teenagers come of age; not clear what this has to do with a downtown bike blvd said to have primary benefit for UT and ACC students;
Here, you really miss the point. The opposition is relying upon more people-traffic for the sake of increased business and future development. The opposition expects more people-traffic to fit into downtown. Now, you're saying you disagree with both the proponents and the opponents who expect more people-traffic downtown. Downtown is densifying -- both the proponents and opponents agree with this. Downtown development will include new residences, new offices, new retail, and so on.
(2) Downtown condo development is increasing residential density (all to the good, I believe), but the new residents need bike blvds to make downtown living viable -- seems to me that residential density, and the shopping and services density that follows, would be strongly supportive of walking and transit, rather than a bike blvd or two.
Rich made clear what the challenge was of adding transit. Austin has been hesitant to spend more on public mass transit. The roads into and out of the core city are at capacity, i.e. there are real bottlenecks for traffic into and out of the core (and other parts of the city). If we cannot build more roads, if we are unwilling to invest more in public mass transit, then our only real choices left are walking, bicycling, and carpooling. Each of these solutions is only going to go so far in helping us meet our transportation needs. That's why the potential of bicycling needs to be optimized as part of our community solution. We cannot afford to waste the opportunity to make bicycling more available to a public that repeatedly demands better bicycling facilities. Until recently, and even still sometimes, we need to ask why the city is so reluctant to provide bicycling facilities when so many in Austin repeatedly ask for better bicycling facilities.
Offline
List members: I appreciate corrections, clarifications, and deeper background information regarding my comments on last night's UTC meeting. I posted this morning as a newcomer to the specifics of the Nueces bike blvd disputation, but having been involved in studies of biking environments since the 1970s. I do not work downtown, I do not own property downtown, and I don't know anyone who works or lives on or near Nueces, as far as I know. My reason for summarizing and commenting on what I heard was *not* advocacy, but rather to share my reaction that -- based solely on what was presented last night in City Hall -- the opposition made a stronger case than the biking advocates. If there is a more compelling case for the Nueces project, I trust it will be made in future public and private meetings, since a self-interested group of attorneys will surely make their views heard.
Offline
Well hell, I couldn't make it last night because I'm on another COA task force meeting at same time. But next time, I can show up and be real persuasive by saying the Nueces bike boulevard will
-- attract 3,000 new riders per day
-- reduce traffic congestion by 22% on nearby arterials
-- result in the loss of 4 million calories per year, thus addressing obesity
-- reduce NOX emissions by 4 percent, thus preventing the MSA from going into nonattainment
All of this is untrue...but hey, that hasn't stopped the opposition.
If you want a true compelling argument, read our plan: http://www.lobv.org
Offline
Also Dan_Biker...hopefully you've read:
http://www.austinchronicle.com/gyrobase … oid:951290
It's a pretty good summation.
Offline
Traffic circles. I like them. I can think of plenty of intersections
that would work better with traffic circles. However I question if
the average American driver could handle them. As it is people can't
seem to stay in their lane while making a turn.I know a traffic engineer in Virginia. He and I butt heads from time
to time as he has the standard "roads are only for cars" mentality.
He said they don't like traffic circles because they're not pedestrian
friendly. With a standard intersection traffic does get stopped and
can allow pedestrians to cross. With a traffic circle it's
free-flowing. I have to think there are ways to engineer around this
(I'm an electrical and not a civil engineer, I don't know). I do
think they're safer for vehicles (bicycles included) but are they
really more dangerous for pedestrians?John
The intersections where I propose traffic circles are quite low volume - so it would not be a problem for pedestrian crossing. Now, if we put a traffic circle at Lamar and 5th st, then obviously pedestrian crossing would be a serious issue.
I do agree with the question "can American's handle them?" That's an issue too.
Offline
To followup on bizikletari's question, city staff says the outline on the pavement was put there by an area property owner. City staff asked this person to remove it.
Offline
Final word on traffic circles. I do encounter a small one on 31st and West Ave on my bike. It's quaint. :-) I have thought Parmer and McNeil could use one. Traffic backs up heavily in all directions. However I think it'd also be a recipe for disaster. I sometimes have to drive my son to the RRISD PAC adjacent to McNeil HS. There are two turn lanes making the left from eastbound Parmer onto McNeil. It amazes me how many people start in the left lane and end their turn in the right. Or vice-versa. I'm amazed there aren't more crashes there.
I have seen grand traffic circles in Paris, Guadalajara and other cities. But here in the America I think we'd all be like Chevy Chase in European Vacation.
Offline
With respect to traffic circles --
I've seen studies to the effect that drivers tend to slow down and pay more attention when encountering things unfamiliar or with an appearance of being unsafe, and that this appearance thus can actually *increase* net safety.
As such, traffic circles may not be such a bad idea for Austin drivers as previously thought.
Offline
Okay, again, traffic circles should be only put at low volume intersections - like the ones on Nueces and Rio Grande and where they intersect other small roads (not MLK, 15th, 5th and 6th etc). When you have 1 car (or 2, or 3) entering the intersection every 12 seconds, you will not have backups. Come on now.
The problem areas with traffic circles are when two roads intersect where one road is heavily traveled (or both). But if both roads are low volume (3500/day) there is no problem and they greatly increase fuel mileage and decrease trip time.
My point is that something should be done about these almost needless 4 way stops on low volume roads, where most of the time you enter the intersection alone and *could* safely roll through at 15mph. Traffic circles perfectly address this, and make it safer almost always.
Also, a collision in a traffic circle is rarely direct, they are usually glancing blows that are much less severe than if you were to get T-boned by someone blowing a stop sign.
Last edited by rich00 (2010-02-12 14:22:12)
Offline
HDR traffic data says traffic circles replacing 4 way stops should have no significant affect on projected traffic volumes.
Hopefully everyone can come to the public meeting tomorrow night at Pease Elementary at 6-8pm, where all the data will be presented.
Annick has been reiterating that their is an underlying issue with downtown mobility - that is going happen with or without a Bike Boulevard being built - that is: By 2020, the main arterial roads within the downtown district (MLK, Ceaser Chavez, Lamar and Guadalupe) will become so congested that accessing downtown is going to be much harder and frustrating and will deteriorate Austin's desirability, among other aspects.
Giving people good options for transportation choices is going to be essential.
IMO, a quality bike route from 29th south to the Lance Armstrong Bikeway would be so valuable.
There really needs to be a safe efficient connection to 38th and Shoal Creek, then all us North/NW people would more likely consider bike commuting downtown.
Last edited by rich00 (2010-02-23 22:15:58)
Offline
[ Generated in 0.020 seconds, 10 queries executed - Memory usage: 642.61 KiB (Peak: 674.54 KiB) ]
