You are not logged in.
Stassney Ln. BIKE LANES survey, deadline is this SUNDAY (1/19): please back physically protected bike lanes and building out an All Ages and Abilities Bicycle Network by taking the survey now. An enthusiastic and clear message to the effect of "I want protected bike lanes on Stassney!” is an excellent response. The survey is short and can take only a minute or two. The deadline is January 19 (this SUNDAY) so please do not put it off: https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/FV5YFT3.
For more information:
Stassney Project website: https://data.austintexas.gov/stories/s/66ck-2scm
Stassney presentation boards: http://austintexas.gov/sites/default/fi … online.pdf
All Ages and Abilities Bicycle Network: https://www.arcgis.com/apps/MapJournal/ … a5fb935eea
Bike Austin & Walk Austin petition: https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIp … g/viewform
Last edited by pjschaub (2020-01-17 00:00:47)
Offline
REMINDER- The survey closes on January 19 (SUNDAY): https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/FV5YFT3.
PLEASE back physically protected bike lanes and building out an All Ages and Abilities Network by taking the survey now with support biking for everyone on Stassney. An enthusiastic and clear message to the effect of "I want protected bike lanes on Stassney!” is an excellent response. The survey is short and can take only a minute or two.
Offline
I don't usually bike on Stassney Ln., but have a few times in the relatively distance path. So I have refrained from doing the survey.
I am a BikeAustin member (I think, since there is no staff to send out dues renewal, it may well be that might membership has expired). In any case, if the protected lanes are anything like the dangerous two way bike lanes in Barton Hills and Zilker and the in process 2 way bike lanes on Shoal Creek, I would definitely not support them. I think BikeAustin would be better served trying to educate the public about the limited utility of protected bike lanes (specifically that most accidents, car-car, car-bike, car-pedestrian, etc.) happen at intersections, including driveways and entrances to parking lots and businesses, where protected bike lanes are impossible. Two way bike lanes rely on drivers doing something new (looking for bikes in a direction where they have not had to look for traffic before). This is a recipe for failure. A fundamental design guideline for bicycle facilities is to not require drivers to do anything different.
While I don't know much about Stassney Lane, Barton Hills Drive, Bluebonnet (in Zilker) and Shoal Creek Blvd. were already decent places fairly safe places to ride. Why are we spending lots of the limited amount of money for bike infrastructure on these roads? We should be expending places that are safe for cyclists, for instance providing better way to cross major highways (I-35, 183, Mopac, etc.).
Art
Offline
The Stassney bike lane project has evolved over time and now has "protection" in the form of pylons and Austin's own monster-sized "Bots dots" concrete bumpers. That's a usual route for me on weekends, so I've ridden it quite a number of times as it has evolved.
Stassney was good to ride on in the pre-bike-lane-era. Bike lanes didn't hurt. Might have helped. The pylons and barriers as configured, IMO, have made it worse than it ever was.
Watch the confused behavior of motorists on that stretch. They pull out across the lane and stop before making turns right or left on to Stassney. The pylons and bumpers prevent drivers from doing as they should and safely merging to the curb before making right turns from Stassney to side streets or curb cuts to parking lots. The pylons leave following cyclists in the driver's blind spot--praying, I suppose, that the driver will signal the turn. As flatau put it, above, "A fundamental design guideline for bicycle facilities is to not require drivers to do anything different."
On Saturday, the Stassney "protection" pylons operated as predicted. I came up on a large number of branches in the bike lane that had been felled by the recent winds, well-hidden in the shade of the remaining branches above, so there was little warning about the problem ahead. Had the pylons not been there, I easily could have checked over my shoulder for overtaking traffic, and safely gone left around the branches. With the pylons, my only option was to brake hard and make complicated maneuvers through and around them--the pylons made a simple situation pretty dangerous. A "person who rides bikes" cannot watch out for pylons ahead and watch out for traffic behind at the same time.
And a kicker--now I see a lot more "salmon" riding-- people contraflow in those lanes. It seems the pylons send a message to a significant number of people that the rules of the road don't apply there.
Branches, glass, dogs on long leashes, motorists pulling out across the lane or turning across the lane, pedestrians crossing the lane, joggers in the lane, "salmon" riders--all of these hazards require a "person who rides bikes" to have more skill and more situational awareness to handle the "protected" bike lane than they would without the "protection."
(edited to add: it hasn't been a problem for me because of my usual routes, but the pylons and bumpers are a real problem for a cyclist who wants to make a left anywhere along the stretch)
(edited to add: The pylons are a problem for those westbound motorists wanting to turn right into the DQ parking lot--evidenced by my nearly being right-hooked on Nov. 11--An F-250 driver (not signalling) barely noticed me at the last instant because he was having trouble looking behind into the bike lane and looking ahead to avoid the pylons. Had I not anticipated the problem, it could have turned out badly. What else would you expect by forcing right-turning traffic to cross the path of forward-moving traffic in the driver's rear blind spot? The "protected" bike lane requires expert skills from riders. )
Last edited by Jack (2021-11-15 11:20:53)
Offline
[ Generated in 0.017 seconds, 11 queries executed - Memory usage: 543.17 KiB (Peak: 543.8 KiB) ]