You are not logged in.
The boulevard without diverters is a waste of time - Shoal Creek Deux indeed. The whole point is to remove the stop signs (turn some into lights) so cyclists can proceed without stopping every couple hundred feet; but if you do this, you'll naturally attract MORE CARS to the corridor than exist today, so the diverters are critical to balance that attractive force.
rich, I'm really getting the sense you're a sockpuppet here - I hope to be proven wrong; but it's difficult to credit otherwise given the bogus diverter argument above. You remove the stop signs without adding diverters and I guarantee you auto traffic goes up to the level (per lane) of Guadalupe/Lavaca. (Heck, I use the corridor once in a while on my drive home WITH the stop signs; I'd do it every single day if the stop signs weren't there).
Offline
m1ek, I doubt he's a sock puppet. He's said he's on the steering committee. The list of members is given here --
http://austinontwowheels.org/2010/01/27 … boulevard/
and based on his username, I'm guessing he's "Richard Hollenbeck – commuter bicyclist".
Offline
Then Shoal Creek Deux Indeed (inexperienced, at least politically, cyclists cherrypicked to give appearance of consensus process).
Offline
That's a valid point on the diverters.
The only other option I can think of is extensive use of partial road humps (seen on East Live Oak). That would discourage a lot of through traffic, although certainly not have the same affect as diverters.
And yes I am not a sockpuppet, and I only represent myself, as an experienced cyclist and driver.
Who here volunteered for the steering committee? That's all I did, I wasn't cherry picked (as far as I know). I simply responded to Annick's invitiation at the Jan 13th meeting to be a part of the steering committee. There were over 150 people in that gym that night, maybe a lot more than 10 volunteered, yet us 10 were cherry picked?
I've been mostly quiet during the meetings, as yes, I don't have any political experience. But I do think my ideas for design are beneficial. I do support LOBV's design, but I don't see it happening, realistically.
If a Nueces without diverters is going to be a disaster as some of you say, then yes, go for all or nothing. And you will likely get nothing. Socially, and culturally, you are trying to do something unprecedented and extremely difficult and controversial - discouraging autos from a partially commercial / first response route in a downtown of a fairly large city where 95+% of traffic is autos, for primarily bike use.
Let's see what the TIA report finds. Maybe the original full bike boulevard design won't impact car traffic like Susan and Scott and the rest of the opposition says.
Most roads are not labeled 'multi-use', unless maybe there are bike route signs. A lot of the public assumes that bikes shouldn't be on any road that isn't designated as a bike route with bike lanes.
Back to my original thoughts on Nueces. The #1 reason I don't use it as a throughway through downtown is because I don't have destinations on or near it, and because it's slow as heck due to all the stops and lights. But other than that, is IS, as it currently is, a pretty safe and easy bike route. I can imagine that when I was 12 years old, I would of had no problem riding up and down Nueces all day. The cars already go car slow and there aren't that many.
In short - having no changes at all isn't the worst thing that can happen. The danger is that this project creates such animosity and negativity towards cycling in Austin. I'd rather hit my brakes 5 times on Nueces than see cycling gain more opposition in Austin.
So please convince the opposition that a full bike boulevard is not going to negatively affect them. LOBV has many legit responses as to support their idea - and I agree with them mostly. The problem is convincing the opposition and the anti-cycling crowd here.
Sometimes, you can't please everyone, unfortunately.
Last edited by rich00 (2010-02-12 15:13:37)
Offline
Do you really think Nueces without diverters (and no stop signs) will attract many more cars? The stoplights are very low priorty on Nueces, so all these cars would have a long wait compared to traveling Lamar, Lavaca, Guadalupe.
I don't think that part of your point is valid.
Also, Nueces deadends. Most people traveling N-S would still need to go the main arteries - it wouldn't make that much sense to use Nueces, unless those main roads are complete gridlock.
Last edited by rich00 (2010-02-12 15:29:21)
Offline
I think Annick said that 12 people volunteered for the Nueces Steering Committee? Nine were chosen, including myself.
Rich: I think you underestimate the public support for improved bicycle facilities in Austin. If Nueces does not become a successful bike boulevard, there will be a lot of irate people in Austin, bicyclists and non-bicyclists. We can't just interpret the opposition as the only people who feel strongly about this issue.
Also, Nueces St. is due to be pushed through to Cesar Chavez St., as is West Ave. Mopac-CesarChavez-Nueces-MLK-UT, and UT-MLK-Nueces-CesarChavez-Mopac could be a quick route for many people commuting by automobile.
Offline
"having no changes at all isn't the worst thing that can happen" Excuse me but were you picked to represent the cycling community or the property owners?
Offline
If this is about worrying about the attitudes of property owners, and especially about asking their permission to make changes on a public street that belongs to the entire community, then nothing is going to happen. It seems more and more as if the outcome of this process is preordained.
Offline
What incentive is there for the non-cyclists on the steering community to compromise anyways?
If the committee never comes to any agreement, will the city go ahead with some sort of plan? (Their own plan? The LOBV plan? Something else?) Or will it do nothing? If it's the latter, that's likely exactly what the property owners want, and their representatives on the committee are likely to be betting on it.
And the cyclists are sort of hamstrung as well -- there's not much room left for additional compromise (the LOBV plan is already a compromise) before the entire thing becomes pointless. And any sort of compromise agreed to is likely to make a large part of the cycling community view you as a "traitor" of some sort. Doesn't seem like an appealing situation ...
Offline
Compromise is fine, and to be expected as part of any political process, but the status quo is unacceptable. The LOBV plan is a good compromise that allows vehicular access while encouraging beginner cyclists, which is the whole point. It seems that it is the property owners who want to say no to everything- no traffic calming, no effort to reduce through traffic, etc. It would be interesting to find out how binding the committee's decision is. And yes, there would definitely be many irate people if this is defeated- many more than if it goes through (a small but vocal minority). We just can't go into this willing to give away the whole farm to people whose idea of a compromise is they get everything, and we get nothing.
Offline
Rich, Please stay on course. So far the LOBV is the only proposal that approximates to a Bike Blvd. Sometimes the only correct compromise is no compromise.
If we are entering the Shoal Creek Deux, (I am one of the Refusées, by the way) the worst that could happen is that one of our representatives, you in this case, acquiesces to the nothing that the opposition is attempting to corner you to agree to.
Offline
I feel like I don't belong being a part of this. I don't want to 'mess' things up for the LOBV or full supporters of the boulevard. I really would like to see a fast, safe route N-S through downtown for cyclists. I rode Nueces from 29th all the way to the LA bikeway and across the Pfluger bridge to Barton Springs Rd today. Cycling downtown is so slow and inefficient. I know if I was a car commuter I'd consider switching to bike commuting given proper infrastructure to make cycling as fast as it can be.
As I said before, I'd rather let Tom take the cyclist lead on this. I thought I could help offer input on specific designs, but I'm really not needed. I'm most likely not going to be able to make the next meeting anyway.
I really do want to support the boulevard.
Oh by the way, at about 7:15pm tonight I was traveling north up Nueces at 7th St on my bike when the car in front of me went through the stop sign at 35mph. 100 ft up the road was a cop car coming towards us who did nothing.
I'm starting to think Nueces could be a lot a safer, in fact.
Offline
Do you really think Nueces without diverters (and no stop signs) will attract many more cars? The stoplights are very low priorty on Nueces, so all these cars would have a long wait compared to traveling Lamar, Lavaca, Guadalupe.
I don't think that part of your point is valid.
Also, Nueces deadends. Most people traveling N-S would still need to go the main arteries - it wouldn't make that much sense to use Nueces, unless those main roads are complete gridlock.
Nueces will be connected - and I use a street very much like Nueces when Mopac is backed up too bad on my commute home (driving) on a regular basis. I also quite often use Nueces itself (north of 15th).
Offline
[ Generated in 0.018 seconds, 10 queries executed - Memory usage: 581.93 KiB (Peak: 597.42 KiB) ]