BIKE: Pfluger extension project [UPDATE]

[Mike Dahmus]

Well, I waited all weekend, and still no PDFs on the Pfluger site - I 
suppose it's time to weigh in on what I HAVE seen so far.

It appears that the Pfluger group has allowed themselves to be swayed 
towards a crossing of Cesar Chavez terminating in an at-grade route 
connecting to a proposed underpass of the railroad where Bowie St. would 
be if it went through. I keep hearing calls to be patient, but I'm 
getting that Shoal Creek Feeling All Over Again, you know, the one where 
the bicyclists compromise and end up with nothing.

If this goes the way I think it's going, the route is great for Seaholm, 
but incredbly crappy for the goals of the Pfluger extension, which were, 
in case you forget:

the route MUST be an attractive enough alternative to LAMAR BLVD so that 
TRANSPORTATIONAL CYCLISTS willingly use it instead of the Lamar bridge. 
In other words, it can't just be GOOD, it MUST BE BETTER THAN THE 
ALTERNATIVE.

This means that the bridge extension route (back to 6th/Lamar area) must 
have these two non-negotiable characteristics:

A: equivalent right-of-way priority (no two-way stop signs or crosswalk 
crossings) and speed/reliability/safety should meet or exceed that you 
get by staying on Lamar
B: not be too far out of the way - pedestrians are also going to use 
this route, including disabled pedestrians

Evaluating the Bowie route leads me to conclude that it falls short on 
both metrics in the following ways:

1. Intersection(s) inside Seaholm are unlikely to be signalized - more 
likely to be 4-way stops. (I would guess there would be at least one of 
these before the Bowie underpass is reached). This fails requirement A 
above.

2. The Bowie underpass is not a reality today, and in fact, may never 
become reality. This would presumably lead the Pfluger path further east 
to the Shoal Creek hike&bike trail (in fact, this was one of the early 
suggestions from City Council, ignoring the original design goal of the 
bridge). This fails requirement B above catastrophically and requirement 
A as well.

3. If the Bowie underpass is built, the route still fails requirement B 
above (too far to the east for pedestrians) - this is assuming 
requirement A is otherwise met (4 and 5 apply if not).

4. If the Bowie underpass is built, the route must then cross 5th St. 
(early word is that there will not be a traffic light there, but instead 
just a flashing crosswalk). This fails requirement A (catastrophically).

5. Likewise, the route must then cross or join 6th St. to rejoin the 
Lamar corridor. Eric's original idea that Bowie/Henderson could be 
realigned to meet at 6th St. are now impossible to implement - that 
would have been a nice idea, but it can't happen now. Cyclists using the 
new route must therefore turn left on W 6th in order to get back to 
Lamar or even to Henderson. Early word is that there may in fact be a 
traffic signal there by the time this route is complete - but this still 
fails requirement A above, since travelling this section of 6th St. to 
rejoin the Lamar corridor is unlikely to be attractive. A route which 
had used a realigned Bowie/Henderson intersection to rejoin the Lamar 
corridor (even as far north as 9th St.) would meet requirement A in my 
opinion, just so you know that I'm not an absolutist about rejoining 
Lamar at 5th or 6th.

I hope the Working Group will take this to heart, but I fear that (like 
so many planners these days), they're not even trying to look at this 
from the perspective of the user to see if it makes sense. If the goal 
of the Pfluger Bridge Extension is to get people to and through the 
Seaholm project, it's going to do a good job. But that's not the goal 
that I was working towards, and I don't think it's the one y'all were 
either.

- MD