#1 2011-09-02 10:01:31

bizikletari
Member
Registered: 2009-03-18
Posts: 223

Chrerrywod meeting

Does anyone have an assesment of the Cherrywood meeting?
Are we going to save the original bicycle master plan or are we still trimming it down?

I haven't seen any news anywhere about this.

Offline

#2 2011-09-03 17:05:00

dougmc
Administrator
Registered: 2008-06-01
Posts: 620

Re: Chrerrywod meeting

The only summary I've seen is this at https://www.facebook.com/groups/57751197797/ --

Elliott Mcfadden
There was a strong showing at this week's Cherrywood bike lane meeting. Let's keep it up with next Wednesday's neighborhood meeting. Stop the bike lane roll back!

Save the Cherrywood Road Bike Lanes: CNA Land Use & Transportation Meeting
Location: Cherrywood Coffeehouse
Like ·  · Unsubscribe · Yesterday at 1:47pm

Nuthouse Bicycles as both a cyclist and a cherrywood resident, i was impressed with the attendance, however not necessarily in a good way. while the opponents of bike lanes in attendance were clearly advocating positions that were almost entirely self serving, one of their contentions was plainly evident to this cherrywood resident: namely, that policies were being pushed upon the neighborhood by non-residents. and though in the context of the discussion that argument may be (or at least appear) specious, the number of unfamiliar faces probably didn't do much to help that perception. i'd bet a bicycle there wasn't a mind changed in the entire room and that, in fact, the opposition in attendance left feeling even worse about the proposition.
Yesterday at 2:10pm ·

Elliott Mcfadden Sounds like Nueces Bike Boulevard all over again... meetings causing entrenchment, not consensus.
Yesterday at 2:13pm ·

Rafael J. Paonessa Dolagaray Well, no matter where the cyclists were from, the streets are for everyone and I don't ride only in my neighborhood just like the folks from Cherrywood don't drive only in Cherrywood, right?
Yesterday at 2:14pm ·

Nuthouse Bicycles i'm not arguing that point, and in fact made it myself. look, there's no way to sugarcoat it- the dynamic of the meeting became evident rather quickly. which is to say that it was all mouths, no ears. from the neighborhood association rep who insisted on throwing a parliamentary wrench in the works, to the opponents who refused to engage in civil discussion with anyone, to the proponents of bike lanes who insisted on using baited questions and talking over the top of the audience...
Yesterday at 2:26pm ·

Nuthouse Bicycles and, look, there's no way around this either. the only vocal opposition at the meeting was black. and the rest of the meeting was white. and that has absolutely zero bearing on the topic at hand, but as the guy at the meeting who was actually accused of racism, i certainly perceived that dynamic- a pile of young, white cyclists rolling in and, at times, engaging in less than civil discussion with older, black longtime residents of the neighborhood. and again, regardless of how beside the point that dynamic is- it still exists. i don't know how to solve that- but that meeting certainly didn't help.
Yesterday at 2:36pm ·

Elliott Mcfadden Thank you for the frank report. That is a dynamic that has not been reported.
Yesterday at 3:20pm ·

Elliott Mcfadden Nuthouse, I had an off line conversation with someone from LOBV. This person indicated things were not so dire or polarized. At least one of the neighbors in opposition actually has come around on the subject.
Yesterday at 4:55pm ·

Nuthouse Bicycles yeah, i'm not surprised one bit.
Yesterday at 4:56pm ·

Nuthouse Bicycles which is to say- i didn't feel the LOBV contribution to the meeting was terribly helpful. and i'd challenge the LOBV to dispute the basic details as i presented them. what i tried to offer as a perspective to opponents of bike lines is this: that nobody is trying to take anything from them, and that increased bicycle traffic would act as a traffic calming device. in other words- something positive. which, thankfully, was first suggested by an actual resident of cherrywood road. up to that point the tone (which, admittedly, was set by the rather rude, unreasonable woman who accused me of racism) seemed to only affirm the opponent's suspicions that something, indeed, was being taken from them. and frankly, i think that some of those residents aren't going to be convinced otherwise, regardless of how nicely you try to present it. but at the bottom of this whole issue, as far as i'm concerned, is the attitude of motorists and non-cyclists. namely, that we must work to convince those people that we are not their enemies, irritations, or usurpers of their properties, rights, or conveniences. bike lanes work. i don't argue that. but they work better when the people who don't use them also don't use them as a reason to hate us.
23 hours ago ·

Offline

#3 2011-09-05 14:45:01

bizikletari
Member
Registered: 2009-03-18
Posts: 223

Re: Chrerrywod meeting

Thank you, dougmc; I was afraid the issue was drifting into such scenario.

Offline

#4 2011-09-05 15:00:10

tomwald
Moderator
From: 78722
Registered: 2008-05-27
Posts: 290

Re: Chrerrywod meeting

Below is information from an LOBV newsletter sent out on Friday, Sept. 2nd.

Regarding the comments from Abe (Nuthouse Bicycles):  I'd like to encourage everyone, including Abe, to stay focused on the need to improve our city's bicycle infrastructure, and not get caught in secondary debates that will divide our efforts.  If there are suggestions for improvement in this campaign, please do send them to me.  I suspect that the audience here will fall into at least a couple of categories, one of which will want me to debate Abe on the issues he raises, while another will want me to not debate him.  To be clear, I don't agree with much of his assessment, but I'll leave the discussion at that.

I hope to see many Cherrywood Neighborhood residents at the meeting this Wednesday, Sept. 7th, 7:15pm at Cherrywood Coffeehouse.

===================================================

Recap & Reminder: Public Meetings to Save the Cherrywood Road Bike Lanes

Thanks goes to the over fifty new attendees at last Wednesday's public meeting on the Cherrywood Road bike lanes. Thank you for speaking up and submitting your comments to the city. Your attendance caught the attention of other stakeholders and city staff.

We need all Cherrywood Neighborhood residents to attend next Wednesday's neighborhood meeting. THIS IS CRITICAL. The neighborhood, including YOU, will be deciding what bike lanes to put on Cherrywood Road.

NEXT STEP:
What: Support the City's Original Proposal for Cherrywood Road bike lanes.
Who: Anyone can attend. Cherrywood Neighborhood residents can vote.
How: Attend the Cherrywood Neighborhood Meeting in support of the City's Original Proposal
When: Wednesday, Sept. 7th, 7:15-8:45pm (arrive early as parking fills quickly)
Where: Cherrywood Coffeehouse, E. 38-1/2 St. and Lafayette Ave., Austin, TX
    Original Proposal: http://goo.gl/rIFh8
    Map: http://g.co/maps/ch2p

You can read more information about the Cherrywood Road bike lanes on the
LOBV website.
    http://lobv.org/cherrywood-road-bike-lanes/

The Cherrywood Neighborhood is bounded by Manor Rd., Airport Blvd., Wilshire Blvd. (roughly), and I-35. If you live in the Cherrywood Neighborhood, then you can vote at neighborhood meetings in support of the Cherrywood Road bike lanes... but you have to attend the neighborhood meetings to vote.
Contact tom \at\ lobv.org with a request to be added to neighborhood meeting email lists.
    http://cherrywood.org/

Upcoming Meetings on Cherrywood Road Bike Lanes:
Sept. 7th 7:15pm, Cherrywood Coffeehouse: CNA Land Use & Transportation Meeting
Sept. 14th [6:30pm], Cherrywood Coffeehouse: CNA Steering Committee Meeting
Oct. 11th 6:00pm, Austin City Hall: Urban Transportation Commission (tentative)

===================================================

Offline

#5 2011-09-08 14:24:11

bizikletari
Member
Registered: 2009-03-18
Posts: 223

Re: Chrerrywod meeting

A promising update:
http://austinontwowheels.org/2011/09/07 … ike-lanes/

Last edited by bizikletari (2011-09-08 14:25:07)

Offline

#6 2011-09-08 23:43:47

daveintex13
Member
Registered: 2010-01-07
Posts: 24

Re: Chrerrywod meeting

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

Offline

#7 2011-09-09 09:03:56

bizikletari
Member
Registered: 2009-03-18
Posts: 223

Re: Chrerrywod meeting

daveintex13,

Thanks for your thorough report/assesment/impression of the status of the Cherrywood impasse. And, just for the sake of it, I would submit that I concur with your perception of how the city should conduct its mandate.

Another argument I'd add is the one that clarifies who pays for the streets of Austin. My understanding is that WE do; property taxes pay for the streets in Austin. Even if you rent, because it is from the monthly payment that comes the money to pay the tax. Furthermore when we pay the tax —directly or indirectly, via rent— that money is not earmarked to pay for one specific street. It is for all streets in Austin. Thus, we, all the citizens in Austin, have a say in what we do to all of our streets. My understanding is that we, through City Council, had decided to implement the 2009 Bicycle Master Plan. That should suffice.

The devil is in the details, of course; and I agree that staff should request imput from the neighborhoods in which they are about to work. But that imput should not extend to the infamous "All the options are in the table". No. The bike plan is what the City of Austin wants and needs.
That is the bottom line.

Offline

#8 2011-09-09 10:16:13

damicoaustin
Member
From: Austin, TX
Registered: 2008-05-27
Posts: 143
Website

Re: Chrerrywod meeting

The city process does, of course, calls for consultation with stakeholders and modifications to the original notification if necessary based on feedback. (See: http://lobv.org/wp-content/uploads/2011 … final.pdf) The problem is that when COA releases a second notification and stakeholder meeting with a different proposal, it's automatically seen as what the city is now favoring, and thus any attempt to get back to the original proposal by bicyclists is seen as negative and hostile by neighborhood opposition.

I'm not sure quite how this could be handled differently. If COA were to come out with two different proposals in the beginning--one purely bike lanes and one watered down with something else--then COA would be put in the position of presenting a less-than-ideal proposal from the get go. That's not good either, because the neighborhoods likely would go with the watered down version...when perhaps if they had just been presented with the standard parking modifications and bike lanes they might be sold on the benefits and support it.

Another problem is that bicyclists (as a community) aren't going to get involved large-scale in the initial stakeholder discussions, and then will only jump in when a new proposal threatens bike lanes. So the city is faced with trying to work with residents who are giving them the most (and loudest) feedback, then facing the potential wrath of cyclists after they work to accommodate neighborhood concerns.

It's a tough situation. Perhaps COA might be more cognizant of the fact that bicyclists will come back and object to deviating from bike lanes unless there's a REALLY good reason. Maybe they are, and there are other factors at play. All this might have been discussed at some point at the BAC...don't know.

As for COA handling hostile environments, I've seem them do a dang good job of it in the past. I wasn't at the meeting, so I can't speak to what happened, but I know they are capable of facilitating these meetings well. It's not their job to counter, so much, as to try and keep things relatively civil and defend themselves if it's only truly necessary.

Regardless, I'm convinced Cherrywood should have bike lanes...so onward.

Offline

#9 2011-09-09 11:13:04

abe
Member
Registered: 2011-09-09
Posts: 2

Re: Chrerrywod meeting

well, i'll attempt to clarify my perspective, but unfortunately i tend to have problems with any sort of middle ground between "succinct" and "william faulkner"...

as a cyclist (and now, recently, as the parent of a couple of new cyclists) i don't feel it's in our best interests to further alienate those who already oppose what they perceive to be our request for special consideration.  unfortunately we live in a climate and society in which the only interest that isn't a special interest is your own.  i can't do anything about that.  but, even at the most optimistic projections, the cycling community is a very small percentage of the overall population of road users in austin.  and i'm only saying that to further illustrate it's how we're perceived.  and, frankly, i don't give a damn how people in cars perceive me.  but, i'd prefer it that they don't resent me or otherwise see me as a target- either in the literal or figurative sense.

i have no rational answers for some of the issues presented in opposition to bike lanes as presented at the asbury meeting.  it became clear rather quickly that reason played little, if any, part in some of the arguments.  so, how to counter that?  (and i'll go on record as thinking the city mandated feedback process is a dog and pony show- i work with the city every day- and that it's, if anything, counterproductive to just about everything save exacerbating tension).  i believe it's in our best interest, if there is a "we"- as (and please forgive me here) a marginalized group- to be sensitive to, and willing to address, opponents' feelings in addition to, or despite, the amount of logic in their positions.  or the amount of logic we perceive to be in their positions.  i also think it's worthwhile to consider the dynamic of dealing with other marginalized groups and their sensitivities as such.

of course this would all be so much easier if we were dealing in an undiluted environment of logic.  but, we've got what we've got.  perceptions matter.  and i, as somebody who has been on the roads of austin on my bike virtually every day for the past 4-5 years, would rather not be perceived by people in two-ton battering rams as- by default- a menace, an inconvenience, or an excuse to take out misplaced aggression.  and i'd much rather be considerate to my neighbors' feelings, in this particular instance, than to just tell them to "deal with it."  the latter stance is, unfortunately, the all-too-american way many things are decided anymore.  a tyranny of the majority is no way to operate.

Offline

#10 2011-09-09 12:10:44

daveintex13
Member
Registered: 2010-01-07
Posts: 24

Re: Chrerrywod meeting

Good points, folks.  Thanks for the thoughtful responses. 

What I'd like to avoid at the CNA SC meeting Wednesday is a repeat of the public meeting last week.  If everyone goes in with the two goals in mind:  safer cycling and protect residential character, and avoids arguing about who pays what taxes, who has driveways, what the purpose of the street in front of your house is, etc., the things that divide us, and focus on what unites us, we can reach consensus.  We do not want this going on TV or to Council in a cage-match of death pitting cyclists against residents, when the real villain is the danger presented by motor vehicles.  That would be bad for everyone, and a real black eye for cyclists.

Abe:  I'm hoping you'll back me up on this and come to SC on Wednesday.  We need to gather Cherrywood cyclists who are also property owners, to show that there are residents here who pay taxes and are also cyclists.  A couple of cute young "props" on their bikes would be outstanding!  Let's talk offline.  You know where I live.

Dave Westenbarger

Offline

#11 2011-09-09 13:40:07

abe
Member
Registered: 2011-09-09
Posts: 2

Re: Chrerrywod meeting

Dave,
All these meetings are taking away from the precious little time i have each week to build bike frames... but yeah, i'll try to be there. No kiddos, though- i'm inflexible in keeping my kids away from the silliness of politics and such.

Offline

#12 2011-09-12 13:44:52

m1ek
Member
Registered: 2008-06-02
Posts: 153

Re: Chrerrywod meeting

Dave,

Sounds like you're angling for a repeat of Shoal Creek. There is zero chance a road with as substantial a role in the traffic network as Cherrywood is going to turn into a bicycle boulevard when they couldn't even get up the gumption to do it on Nueces. The most likely scenario if the push for bike lanes abates is yet another Shoal Creek situation - NOT a European-like paradise.

Sometimes the right thing to do is not to try to be friends with everybody.

Offline

#13 2011-09-12 17:40:05

McChris
Member
From: Blackland
Registered: 2008-10-31
Posts: 36
Website

Re: Chrerrywod meeting

I think two factors that might lead to a better outcome than Shoal Creek are that first there are already road humps on Cherrywood and the other arterials in the neighborhood. (Lafayette, 38 1/2…) Secondly, the neighborhood seems pretty split on the bike lanes, unlike the vocal majority of the Nueces property owners. The folks complaining were making somewhat legitimate arguments about gentrification that were pretty specious in this particular context. There were plenty of residents two weeks ago that supported the bike lanes.

Offline

#14 2011-09-12 21:23:11

daveintex13
Member
Registered: 2010-01-07
Posts: 24

Re: Chrerrywod meeting

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.

Offline

#15 2011-09-13 09:13:02

daveintex13
Member
Registered: 2010-01-07
Posts: 24

Re: Chrerrywod meeting

I want to make clear, since it wasn't before, that making a case for bike lanes is not the first step in the process. The (very brief outline of) steps I envision in a successful process would be something along these lines:

Step 1.  Identify the problem.
Step 2.  Describe the goals and how success in meeting them will be determined.
Step 3.  Identify options for solving the problem while meeting the goals.
Step 4.  Compare and contrast options (costs and benefits).  This is the point at which, if bike lanes are identified
             as the appropriate solution, it's because they are the option with the greatest benefits-to-costs as found
             in the previous steps.
Step 5.  Select and implement an option.
Step 6.  Measure progress toward achieving the goals and solving the problem.
Step 7.  Report results.

Of course, the real world often doesn't work this way, unfortunately.  But if we keep this sort of ideal in mind, maybe we can avoid some of the problems that will inevitably arise when the process doesn't follow this outline.  Here's my interpretation of what we got instead:

Step 1:  Here's your bike lanes.
Step 2:  Now, y'all go argue about it amongst yourselves.
Step 3:  Oh, you didn't like that?  Okay, here's another very similar plan.  Pick one.

Antagonism might be called for at some point, but I'm not sure it's best to start with it in every situation.

~davew~

Offline

#16 2011-09-14 11:59:26

tomwald
Moderator
From: 78722
Registered: 2008-05-27
Posts: 290

Re: Chrerrywod meeting

daveintex13 wrote:

I want to make clear, since it wasn't before, that making a case for bike lanes is not the first step in the process.

If we can consider this in two realms, then on the bicycle interest side, we have the Austin Bicycle Advisory Council. We and City Staff have spent countless hours discussing the merits of bike lanes in particular contexts and how wide bike lanes should be.  The citizen forum exists for coming to a final bicycle community decision on these questions, and that forum is the Austin Bicycle Advisory Council (BAC).

The BAC meets monthly on the third Thursday at 6:00pm, in the 8th Floor Conference Room of One Texas Center, 5050 Barton Springs Rd. at S. 1st St.  The BAC meets tomorrow, Sept. 15th, and the Cherrywood Road bike lanes is posted for action.

Attendance and participation is open to anyone.  Decisions are usually made by consensus of the citizens in the room, but some decisions are made by majority vote of the current official BAC members.

---

On the neighborhood side, we have the Neighborhood Association, individual resident interests, and other users of the street.  In the last nine weeks the neighborhood has had six meetings on the issue (if the two public meetings at neighborhood church are included).  Tonight, we will have our seventh meeting on the issue. (And UTC will almost certainly have this as an action item on Oct. 11th.)  This doesn't include the many neighborhood meetings that developed the neighborhood plan that includes bike lanes, and the meetings in later years to review the transportation items of the neighborhood plan.

---

The neighborhood plan and the Austin Bike Plan have involved countless hours of work by city staff and citizens.  From this, we have the "Here's your bike lanes."  As I said in an offline email...

Tom Wald, in an offline email, wrote:

I suspect that there are over 10,000 people with an opinion on this Cherrywood Road bike lanes issue who will be significantly affected by the outcome.  That is not an exaggeration, and the number is perhaps even twice that.  Since we will not be able to bring all of those people together at meeting on this issue, at some point we do need to make decision without their input in person (or otherwise).  At the moment of that decision, there will still be people coming into the discussion asking for more time to decide and discuss.

And to be clear, we will not get unanimity from the 10,000 people, which means that there will likely always be opposition.

City staff and other community leaders are doing a lot of work to manage this process to balance what could be a never-ending process with including interested stakeholders in the discussion.  If we drag out the process too much, then we will frustrate those who have already been attending and participating at recent meetings and at meetings for the last 10-20 years.  There is a balance to be had here, and it is not good if we have too much or too little discussion on the Cherrywood Road bike lanes issue.

I can sense that people are getting "meetinged-out" on this issue and that we are losing people's attention and patience.  I do not think that we should draw this out any longer than the existing process that we have.

Offline

#17 2011-09-14 12:44:44

bizikletari
Member
Registered: 2009-03-18
Posts: 223

Re: Chrerrywod meeting

The part I do not understand is this:  if Austin recognized a few years ago that Cherrywood Rd. should have bike lanes as integral part of the corridor Pleasant Valley Rd.-Chestnut Ave-Cherrywood Rd.; and they were included in the bike plan, why are they again discussing them instead of painting them on the pavement.
Is there any hope that motorized vehicles and/or on-street parking will finally start making sense to better our future? Seems unlikely.
So, why we keep asking if it is OK to start building the solutions?

Offline

#18 2011-09-14 13:54:47

damicoaustin
Member
From: Austin, TX
Registered: 2008-05-27
Posts: 143
Website

Re: Chrerrywod meeting

bizikletari wrote:

The part I do not understand is this:  if Austin recognized a few years ago that Cherrywood Rd. should have bike lanes as integral part of the corridor Pleasant Valley Rd.-Chestnut Ave-Cherrywood Rd.; and they were included in the bike plan, why are they again discussing them instead of painting them on the pavement.

But realize that even though we have a Bike Plan, there's still--as I noted earlier--an official COA process for eliminating parking when striping bike lanes. Thus, the neighbors get their say and staff is supposed to take their feedback into consideration and work to see if something meets their concerns. But again, I'm down with the original and you can see my earlier comments on the problems with alternate proposals.

tomwald wrote:

The citizen forum exists for coming to a final bicycle community decision on these questions, and that forum is the Austin Bicycle Advisory Council (BAC).

Tom, excellent points on participating in BAC discussions and work. But caution that the BAC shouldn't be and isn't the final word for the bicycle community. I think to get closer to that point they need better outreach to the bicycling community for people that can't or just wont go to their meetings ... Me included. If I went to BAC tonight that would be three meeting outside of the house and away from my kids for this week...that just ain't going to cut it. I'm a bit more in tune with BAC, since I get the agenda and the minutes each month, and I somewhat track their listserve. But many people probably don't have a clue what they are doing. BAC used to have a Web site, but it's years out of date. I know it gets some coverage on this forum, atxbs and austinontwowheels, but it would be great if there was a more constant reporting of what's going to happen at BAC and what happens.

Offline

#19 2011-09-14 13:56:22

daveintex13
Member
Registered: 2010-01-07
Posts: 24

Re: Chrerrywod meeting

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.

Offline

#20 2011-09-14 14:18:20

daveintex13
Member
Registered: 2010-01-07
Posts: 24

Re: Chrerrywod meeting

By the way, I'm a dues paying member of LoBV and support Tom and all the hard work he puts in, often uncompensated, on behalf of all of us.  I strongly encourage all of you to support LoBV (lobv.org).  We just happen to have slightly different views on this issue, though I think we share the same concerns, that is, how to make Austin the best it can be for cyclists.

I think BAC will be a very useful conversation and I look forward to hearing their views.  Y'all come now, hear?  How does one get on their list for announcements?

DaveW

Offline

#21 2011-09-14 14:28:26

m1ek
Member
Registered: 2008-06-02
Posts: 153

Re: Chrerrywod meeting

Dave, your comments sound reasonable in context but can be used to oppose pretty much any bike lane, anywhere. And obvious counterarguments exist - if little parking is being used now, then it shouldn't be missed, right? If cyclists aren't riding in the bike lanes now, perhaps it's because they are so poorly enforced (I'm unaware of any other city that allows cars to park in "bike lanes" or "things that look like bike lanes" (SCB)).

And the "same goals" argument sounds JUST like Shoal Creek - where the 'neighbors' claimed to be in favor of the same thing - safe, reliable, speedy bicycle travel, but were really being driven by a special interest subset seeking to maintain on-street parking above all else. Be careful how much you let yourself get fooled in the same way certain elements of our community got hoodwinked back then. Traffic calming is not, in fact, a better tool for cyclists than bike lanes, all else being equal, because most traffic calming measures end up discomforting cyclists as much or more than they do motorists, and the few that do not appear to be off limits in Austin (i.e. diverters on Nueces).

Offline

#22 2011-09-14 14:43:37

tomwald
Moderator
From: 78722
Registered: 2008-05-27
Posts: 290

Re: Chrerrywod meeting

daveintex13 wrote:

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.

After many discussions between the City Staff, the LOBV, the BAC, and numerous other Austinites, the City has settled upon a minimum width for bike lanes next to parallel car parking.  The result is a 14'-wide combination of car parking and bike lanes, usually striped as an 8' foot car parking space and 6' bike lane.  The result is that about 3' of the bike lane is outside of the door zone.

I can understand if you want to weigh in to reject that minimum standard, but please understand it as such -- an Austin standard.  The City is painting bike lanes all across Austin using that standard, and it would take some good convincing for them to change that minimum standard after so much has been put into it.

The Original Proposal from the City uses the 14' standard throughout.

However, the Second Proposal actually contains a bike lane / car parking combination of 12'.  This puts all but about 1' of the bike lane in the door zone.  The main reason to justify this "door zone bike lane" is that car parking should be preserved on both sides of Cherrywood Road for this block (Edgewood to 32nd).  The substandard bike lane (substandard to Austin standards, but satisfies the AASHTO standards produced by entities such as TxDOT in 1999) is considered not as bad here because bike traffic would be going more slowly, having just finished going up a hill.  I'll note that I'm not usually a fast hill climber, but I would likely be going about 10mph at that section, which would be too fast to risk what would almost certainly be death if I biked in that bike lane when a car door opened and a car drove by.  At 10 mph, a person would likely be hospitalized in a collision with a car door, regardless of other traffic.  This nuance of the Second Proposal will likely be part of the discussion at tomorrow's BAC meeting.

I don't understand your count for the bike-lane-to-sharrow transitions in the Original Proposal.  Southbound, there are none.  Northbound, there is one near 32nd.  The Second Proposal adds one going southbound, near Edgewood.  Transitioning from a sharrow to a bike lane is not so difficult.  It's similar to how it is with motor vehicles: merges are difficult whereas diverges are not.

I don't see enough evidence to be convinced that B Group bicyclists won't use the bike lanes.  I regularly see the contrary, and I frequently get feedback to the contrary.  The 8'/6' bike lanes are a good compromise that do serve B Group bicyclists.  Most C Group cyclists riding alone won't likely be served yet by them, but we need some incremental progress since even infinitesimal increments such as these Cherrywood Road bike lanes are apparently perceived as so incredibly painful.

Also, the Cherrywood Road bike lanes pre-date the Upper Boggy Creek Plan, even though putting them into the UBC Plan was a good idea.  I appreciate, Dave, that you did set the standard for the neighborhood plan, even if you yourself are questioning that plan now.  However, Cherrywood Road serves more than just the Cherrywood Neighborhood (and Upper Boggy Creek NPT), and it is City plans for that reason.

Offline

#23 2011-09-14 14:49:33

tomwald
Moderator
From: 78722
Registered: 2008-05-27
Posts: 290

Re: Chrerrywod meeting

daveintex13 wrote:

By the way, I'm a dues paying member of LoBV and support Tom and all the hard work he puts in, often uncompensated, on behalf of all of us.  I strongly encourage all of you to support LoBV (lobv.org).  We just happen to have slightly different views on this issue, though I think we share the same concerns, that is, how to make Austin the best it can be for cyclists.

I think BAC will be a very useful conversation and I look forward to hearing their views.  Y'all come now, hear?  How does one get on their list for announcements?

Thanks, Dave.  And I certainly don't have hard feelings about you with this.

Currently, there are two essential BAC email lists that you must be signed up to to get all meeting announcements:
1) BAC Google Group: http://groups.google.com/group/austin-bac/
2) The City's Bicycle Stakeholder list, maintained by Nadia Barrera nadia.barrera at austintexas.gov
Yes, sign up to both lists, or you will find yourself missing essential BAC info.  The first list is a discussion group; the second is an announcement list.

Offline

#24 2011-09-14 15:38:39

daveintex13
Member
Registered: 2010-01-07
Posts: 24

Re: Chrerrywod meeting

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.

Offline

#25 2011-09-16 15:52:21

bizikletari
Member
Registered: 2009-03-18
Posts: 223

Offline

Registered users online in this topic: 0, guests: 1
[Bot] claudebot

Board footer

[ Generated in 0.016 seconds, 9 queries executed - Memory usage: 697.57 KiB (Peak: 761.5 KiB) ]