BIKE: Shoal Creek Boulevard Transportation Project [look before you jump!]

[Mike Dahmus]

Eric Anderson wrote:

> Hello bike folks and Patrick:
>  
>
>  
> 4) Though the current SCB "horizontal traffic calming" has met with 
> vociferous denunciation by some quarters in our community (you know 
> who you are), plus some folks antagonistic to bike lanes generally (a 
> segment of Effective Cycling adherents), the current SCB solution WAS 
> a result of extensive and expensive deliberation carried out by the 
> City of Austin, conceived by nationally renowned bike-planner Charlie 
> Gandy, driven certainly by neighborhood interests, but also endorsed 
> by The Urban Transportation Commission, City Council, adjacent 
> neighborhood groups, Austin Cycling Association, myself, Preston 
> Tyree, Stuart Werbner, Tommy Eden, and at least for a time, now-critic 
> Lane Wimberley.

While most of your note was even-handed, I found this particular 
paragraph to be a misrepresentation, on the following grounds:

1. Gandy's credentials on traffic engineering are a matter of some 
dispute. Certainly the original plan he came up with was so ludicrous 
that no engineer would sign on to it. He may be "nationally-renowned", 
but this debacle won't appear on his resume if he's got a lick of sense.

2. "The UTC" voted 6-1 to support the 10-4-6 plan. To say that it was 
"endorsed" is a stretch, especially when speaking to the austin-bikes 
list, since Patrick and Tommy reluctantly supported it, and I opposed 
it. In other words, out of the 3 UTC members who participate in this 
particular forum, there were 2 lukewarm supporters and one opponent. At 
least one of those lukewarm supporters is now on record as recanting his 
support, if I'm interpreting Patrick's recent comments correctly.

3. I find it incredibly obnoxious that you didn't mention my name ONCE 
in this thing, considering that most of the bad things I predicted on 
this issue have come to pass. Personally, when an opponent of mine ends 
up being so right so often, I find it a moral imperative to at least 
acknowledge such before continuing. I predicted:

    a. That downgrading SCB from its (eminently justified) status as a 
minor arterial to a residential collector would provide the neighborhood 
with enough ammunition to prevent the imposition of standard 
(parking-free) bike lanes.

    b. That the "consensus process" was a mistake and would result in a 
complete loss for cycling interests - preserving both-side parking at 
the expense of cyclist safety. This baloney was nothing but an excuse 
for certain city council members to avoid doing their job (making a hard 
decision between competing interests).

    c. That 'traffic calming' as envisioned in this project would not, 
in fact, provide enough safety improvement for bicyclists to be worth 
losing bike lanes. (see numerous reports on neighborhood group lists 
about cars running up and over curb extensions and generally driving in 
the 'shared lanes', the latter of which I have personally observed).

4. To assert that the design was endorsed by "now-critic Lane Wimberley" 
is also a misrepresentation, as far as I understand it. My recollection 
is that Lane supported "parking only on one side but meandering" design; 
but did not support the current design. I hope Lane will clarify.

- MD