BIKE: Re: SCB modifications and public hearing

[Stuart Werbner]

Pretty sad how the critics are trying to fight this -- saying little for 5 
years while others worked hard at devising a compromise solution. Then, just 
as it is being completed, start complaining.

I totally disagree that this solution is unsafe. While I couldnt say that it 
is the very best possible solution, it is certainly one of a number of very 
good ones.

Mr. Goetz was on the UTC, when it was approved. While I believe he abstained 
from the vote, he never proposed an alternative, nor spoke out very strongly 
against it. Now that something is being done, he has decided to speak out 
against the solution.

What I think a lot of the 11th hour criticism is about is this -- The 
DuPriest Doctrine has been violated, and peoples undies are up in a bunch. 
What I mean is that during the tenure of Linda DuPriest, the former COA 
Bicycle Coordinator, efforts were made to establish a precedent whereby 
parking in bicycle lanes would be banned. While I agree with this policy in 
general, I strongly feel that it is not possible to do this on Shoal Creek 
Blvd., nor is it necessarily in the best interests of cyclists.

The compromise we are now seeing on SCB would not be possible without such a 
compromise, and no traffic calming solution, as far as I am aware would be 
possible without it.

We need to have an open mind about parking in bicycle lanes -- most of the 
time, but not always beeing opposed to it.

And, we need to understand that compromise was needed to devise a solution 
with the residents of SCB, one that has worked in everyones interests.

   __o
_`\<,_
(*)/ (*)
~~~~~~~~~
Stuart Werbner
Annuit Coeptis



>From: Patrick Goetz <pgoetz>
>To: stgetr, Austin Bikes <forum>
>Subject: BIKE: Re: SCB modifications and public hearing
>Date: Tue, 26 Apr 2005 10:46:14 -0500
>MIME-Version: 1.0
>Received: from frida.dreamhost.com ([66.33.206.23]) by mc11-f19.hotmail.com 
>with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.211); Tue, 26 Apr 2005 08:53:01 -0700
>Received: from che.dreamhost.com (che.dreamhost.com [66.33.216.23])by 
>frida.dreamhost.com (Postfix) with ESMTPid 7EDB716D34B; Tue, 26 Apr 2005 
>08:51:10 -0700 (PDT)
>Received: from che.dreamhost.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])by 
>che.dreamhost.com (Postfix) with ESMTPid 93EAC84D47; Tue, 26 Apr 2005 
>08:51:06 -0700 (PDT)
>Received: from loot.dreamhost.com (loot.dreamhost.com [66.33.213.29])by 
>che.dreamhost.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0E52B84D55for 
><forum>;Tue, 26 Apr 2005 08:46:21 -0700 (PDT)
>Received: from dell3.ma.utexas.edu (dell3.ma.utexas.edu [146.6.139.124])by 
>loot.dreamhost.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A05672FC97for 
><forum>; Tue, 26 Apr 2005 08:46:20 -0700 (PDT)
>Received: from [128.83.133.100] (pgoetz 
>[128.83.133.100])by dell3.ma.utexas.edu (8.11.0.Beta3/8.10.2) with ESMTP 
>idj3QFkEx14172; Tue, 26 Apr 2005 10:46:14 -0500
>X-Message-Info: NDMZeIBu+sqGEM1GireZ3eTxKUCff1ooWtLyDndACdc=
>Delivered-To: forum-bicycleaustin.info
>User-Agent: Debian Thunderbird 1.0.2 (X11/20050331)
>X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
>References: 
><042520052208.1399.426D6A65000125300000057721602807419D9B0A099B9C>
>X-BeenThere: forum-bicycleaustin.info
>X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
>Precedence: list
>List-Id: forum-bicycleaustin.info.lists.bicycleaustin.info
>List-Unsubscribe: 
><http://lists.bicycleaustin.info/listinfo.cgi/forum-bicycleaustin.info>,<mailto:forum-bicycleaustin.info-request?subject=unsubscribe>
>List-Archive: 
><http://lists.bicycleaustin.info/private.cgi/forum-bicycleaustin.info>
>List-Post: <mailto:forum-bicycleaustin.info>
>List-Help: 
><mailto:forum-bicycleaustin.info-request?subject=help>
>List-Subscribe: 
><http://lists.bicycleaustin.info/listinfo.cgi/forum-bicycleaustin.info>,<mailto:forum-bicycleaustin.info-request?subject=subscribe>
>Errors-To: forum-bicycleaustin.info-bounces
>Return-Path: forum-bicycleaustin.info-bounces
>X-OriginalArrivalTime: 26 Apr 2005 15:53:01.0647 (UTC) 
>FILETIME=[068EA5F0:01C54A78]
>
>stgetr wrote:
> > I received a copy of your note urging cyclists to attend the May 11
> > hearing on SCB.  I think that is a very good idea, but don't share your
> > strong feelings against the SCB changes.  In fact, I have ridden SCB
> > several times since it was finished (for a total of probably 4-5 hours),
> > and think it is a surprising success.
><snip>
>>now that SCB is finished, I think the design is a very good solution to 
>>the problem of cycling on a through street in a quiet residential 
>>neighborhood.  Note, BTW, that the islands are NOT intended to slow 
>>traffic down; they are intended to keep motorists from trying to drive in 
>>the bike/parking lane.  Motorist speed is reduced because of the quite 
>>narrow lane striping, and in my experience it has been successful.  Where 
>>there were occasional drivers at 45-50 mph in the past,  most motorists 
>>now seem to be doing 25-30 mph.
>>
>
>Well, I have every intention of being civil at the scheduled hearings, but 
>don't agree that the design is a very good solution and will hazard a guess 
>that most other cyclists don't, either.  When I mentioned the opinion 
>voiced in the message above to some other cyclists, their attitude ranged 
>from shocked disbelief to vituperative irritation.  But then, as Fred 
>Meredith would have it, perhaps I just associate with the wrong kind of 
>people.
>
>Traffic calming?  No way.  I drove the street myself and enjoyed the Monte 
>Carlo turns protected by the extra wide shoulders, which is what the former 
>bike lane is now officially called -- an enhanced shoulder. ASHTO safety 
>standards disallow any other designation, as the city doesn't want to be 
>held liable for the inevitable tragedies which will result from this 
>monstrosity.  If this, btw, doesn't tell you everything you need to know 
>about the situation, then I'd be willing to sell you the Congress Ave. 
>bridge at a bargain price any day this week -- cash only, of course.  
>50mph?  I probably hit 60 without even trying.  The narrow lane striping 
>doesn't do a damn thing if there are huge shoulders on either side -- good 
>god, man, it's just paint -- nothing more.  Take it from me, an occasional 
>and hence rusty driver.  If I think this street is perfectly safe at 60mph, 
>then you can bet that other motorists are getting the same impression (for 
>me the motorist, that is -- not bicyclists, pedestrians, dogs, cats, 
>squirrels, or opossums).
>
>Keeping motorists from driving in the bike lane?  Another joke.  I 
>personally observed several people driving on the shoulder and merging back 
>to the left when encountering a bike crasher.  I followed an enormous Ford 
>Excursion that drove almost the entire length of the street 4 feet into the 
>shoulder.  These barriers serve 2 purposes and 2 purposes only.  1.)  
>Create a protected parking lane for SCB residents.  The city spent $300,000 
>so that each homeowner on SCB could enjoy 3 or 4 additional free parking 
>spaces in the public right of way.  At the very least, they need to be 
>taxed for this convenience.  2.) Force bicyclists using the enhanced 
>shoulder off their line and directly into the path of traffic.  If you 
>happen to live on SCB, then you might agree that 1) is great, but feel free 
>to discuss the merits of 2) with, for example, the likes of Fred Meredith 
>or someone else whose opinion you trust.
>
>The only safe option for a bicyclist riding this street now is to stay in 
>or near the line dividing the lane from the shoulder at all times. Because 
>of the new narrower lanes, this will result in bicyclists either getting 
>mirrored, hit from the back, or irritating overtaking motorists.  None of 
>these seem like profoundly positive consequences.
>
>What time of day did you ride SCB?  Any road is good at 5am on Sunday 
>morning.  Perhaps if you tried biking SCB at 5-6pm on a weekday your 
>impression of the situation might have been different.  One of the UTC 
>commissioners told me last week that he used to lead a weekly weekend group 
>ride for novice cyclists in his profession along SCB, but now considers the 
>street to be too dangerous for this activity and is looking for an 
>alternative place to ride.  This, my friend, is what matters; not the 
>opinion of John Forrester, or the ACA board, or any other elevated 
>dignitary or group thereof.  What matters is what the cyclist on the street 
>thinks, and save for your message and Eric Anderson's give it a chance 
>message, I haven't heard anything good about the SCB debacle.  Most people 
>think the bike lanes have just been unceremoniously removed in the interest 
>of creating more street parking, and I would say that their "uninformed" 
>opinion isn't that far from the truth.  Perhaps more enthusiasts will 
>emerge in the coming weeks, but I'm not holding my breath for this.
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Get on or off this list here:  http://BicycleAustin.info/list