BIKE: Pfluger extension project

[Mike Dahmus]

One thing I would have hoped everybody would have learned from the Shoal 
Creek debacle is that you must come into a process like this with a set 
of nonnegotiable points you won't give up in the name of consensus. 
Obviously this needs to be a reasonable subset of what you WANT out of 
the process; but in the Shoal Creek process, the cyclists were 
consensusified out of _everything_.

"Give the process a chance" is what happened there. I was skeptical 
then, and I was right. I'm skeptical now. Want to bet against me again?

That's what I see going on here, unless somebody grows some backbone but 
quick. I looked at all of the drawings on that web site again, and I do 
not see one which crosses Sandra Muraida above or below grade, or even 
at a controlled intersection.

Looking at "issues" is not enough. The nonnegotiable point here needs to 
be: right-of-way comparable to that you'd have if you stayed in the 
vehicle lane on Lamar (which means that a trivial number of stops at 
controlled intersections are OK; but 2-way stops for cyclists are NOT).

Remember: the competition here is staying on Lamar, where you do not 
have any stops between 5th St. and Riverside; and those two stops have 
traffic lights. If your goal is to build a facility which is competitive 
enough with Lamar to draw away transportation cyclists (which is, in a 
reasonable world, the goal here), you'd treat the status of 
intersections as a basic requirement, not a point for negotiation.

- MD

Jeb Boyt wrote:

> No.
>
> Several options would allow cyclists to travel through without 
> crossing the realigned Sandra Muraida at grade.
>
> The Pfluger Bridge CAG has only met once and has yet to actually 
> analyze and discuss any of the possible alignments.  At our next 
> meeting, we will look at issues associated with the possible 
> alignments including travel distance and any at-grade crossings.
>
> How about we give the process a chance to examine what could be done?
>
> Jeb
> Pfluger Bridge CAG member
>
> ----Original Message Follows----
> From: Mike Dahmus <mdahmus>
> To: Eric Anderson <bikeeric>,Austin Bikes 
> <forum>
> Subject: Re: BIKE: Pfluger extension project
> Date: Sat, 04 Sep 2004 10:08:28 -0500
>
> It looks to me like most (or even all) of the options under discussion 
> now require crossing the new alignment of Sandra Muraida at-grade, 
> which will probably not be a controlled intersection given past 
> experience with the city. If controlled at all, I can imagine a nice 
> red stop-sign for the bicyclists (and no stop for the cars) as the 
> city's first choice given engineering standards. In addition, the 
> route then closely hugs a parking loop - meaning that its utility for 
> transportation is going to be questionable as people jump out of their 
> cars.
>
> If this interpretation is true, this is a disaster for transportation 
> cyclists - similar to the existing facility requiring Lamar corridor 
> cyclists to cross Cesar Chavez and Sandra Muraida (existing alignment) 
> as pedestrians.
>
> After the Shoal Creek debacle, I'm amazed anybody can be optimistic 
> about the result of a consensus-based planning process where the 
> minimum bicycle goals are not written in stone (non-negotiable) - in 
> that case, no parking in bike lanes; in this case, an 
> attractive-enough design to be better for transportation than riding 
> in the lane on Lamar Blvd.
>
> - MD
>
> On 02:31 PM 9/3/2004 -0700, Eric Anderson wrote:
>
>> Bike folks:
>>
>> Not much discussion recently re: Pfluger extension project underway. 
>> Soon,
>> first steps to be made to transform our "almost useless (to cyclists)"
>> Pfluger Bridge into something that brings us closer to a facility that
>> serves "multiple destinations on both sides of the river".
>>
>> This month, the city appointed Community Advisory Group (CAG) will be
>> meeting our second time, to discuss the 7-8 alternatives under
>> consideration.
>>
>> A number of the alternatives can be seen at the COA Seaholm web-page:
>> http://www.ci.austin.tx.us/planning/seaholmdraft.htm
>>
>> At least by our next CAG meeting?, HDR/Roma has promised the updated
>> versions would be online.
>>
>> Thanks to Jackie Goodman, architect Girard Kinney will assist HDR/ROMA
>> this next meeting. Girard has steadfastly worked (+ volunteered!) on 
>> this
>> project for now 13 years, and facilitated the 1997 -IDEA WORKSHOP- where
>> the community came up with the double-helix design of the Pfluger 
>> Bridge.
>>
>> I would like to say that of the 20 plus member CAG, 6-8 bicyclists 
>> and 3-4
>> south austin residents are going to do everything we can to insist on an
>> extension that serves transportation cyclists (as well as...).
>>
>> The -Flyunder Arm- is not my choice for a number of reasons. It 
>> should NOT
>> be the extension considered for this phase for one reason alone: It is
>> viewed as unacceptable by the handi-capped community given its excess
>> length, and excessive grade changes (+/- 28 feet!!!).
>>
>> I will make sure to post the upcoming meeting to this list..., there may
>> be light at the end of the tunnel?
>>
>> Eric Anderson <bikeeric>
>> (512)476-7304
>>
>> --- Thorne <jeffrey.thorne> wrote:
>>
>> > Here's an interesting bit from Velonews.com which reminds me of the
>> > almost
>> > useless (to cyclists) bike-ped bridge by Lamar and the "emergency 
>> only"
>> > designation of the older bridge's sidewalk (not that the cyclist
>> > should've
>> > been using that sidewalk anyway):
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> __________________________________
>> Do you Yahoo!?
>> Yahoo! Mail is new and improved - Check it out!
>> http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Get on or off this list here:  http://BicycleAustin.info/list
>
>
> Mike Dahmus
> mdahmus
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Get on or off this list here:  http://BicycleAustin.info/list
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Get on or off this list here:  http://BicycleAustin.info/list
>