BIKE: Re: SCB modifications and public hearing

[Patrick Goetz]

OK, I will combine 2 responses here in the interest of not discussing 
this issue all day.


stgetr wrote:
> 
>  >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.
> 
> That is exactly correct, and it is what a cyclist should be doing 
> anyway.  Hugging the curb and popping out into traffic to miss parked 
> cars is a recipe for disaster.  Perhaps the difference in our 
> perceptions is that I ride in traffic routinely, and have little fear of 
> being mirrored.  I actually believe the LAB statistics which say that 
> runovers from the back account for about 5% of car-bike accidents.
> 

I'm not disagreeing with you; however, if the traffic lane isn't wide 
enough to safely accomodate both motorist and passing bicyclist (e.g. 
new SCB), then either the bicyclist must weave or the motorist must slow 
down behind the bicyclist, and neither are comfortable options for the 
bicyclist.  As another list-izen has pointed out, motorists don't 
understand this concept (hugging the lane divider) at all and will get 
mad at you for hogging their lane when you have 10' to the curb you 
could be in.  If this is the solution, then they should have left the 
shared bike/parking lanes as they were (6') so that a bicyclist can ride 
on the line and still be passed safely by a motor vehicle.  This is what 
I used to do in the before-debacle era, and all was good.  I'm not sure 
what you're implying, but I ride in traffic something around 1500-2000 
trips a year, so feel somewhat qualified to at least speak to this issue 
as a user.  Are you a recreational or transportation cyclist?  My 
perceptions when I'm just roadbiking are different from when I'm 
commuting to work every day.  SCB is not just a recreational route -- 
it's the main Central to Northwest arterial for transportation 
bicyclists.  And run over from the back is still runover, btw, even if 
it is only a small percentage of car-bike accidents -- this is 
completely irrelevant.

Stuart Werbner wrote:
 >
 > 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.
 >

First of all, I strongly supported the original neighborhood solution, 
which would have allowed parking shifting from one side of the street to 
the other, creating a chicane effect while maintaining car free bike 
lanes continuously on both sides of the road, with a few traffic circles 
thrown in for good measure.  After a couple of minutes of testing, this 
solution was deemed unsafe by COA staff, a judgement almost everyone 
found extremely unconvincing and premature.  With some assistance from 
city council, the neighbors came back with the Gandy plan, which COA 
staff flatly refused to sign off on; i.e. this solution was considered 
not just unsafe, but in violation of ASHTO standards.  The UTC 
enthusiastically endorsed the original neighborhood plan, I either 
abstained from voting or reluctantly endorsed the Gandy plan, I can't 
remember which at the moment.  Tommy Eden reluctantly supported it and 
Mike Dahmus was vehemently opposed to it.  I didn't speak out strongly 
against it because I hadn't thought of the unintended consequences or 
how badly the idea could be implemented.  For example, if you're going 
to have curb extensions, make them genuine curb extensions and make them 
teardrop shaped in order to avoid orthogonal collisions.  And it didn't 
occur to me at the time that putting barriers in the bike lane and 
widening it would encourage more people to park in the street.  We had 
no idea that the Gandy plan would be implemented in complete opposition 
to the judgement of Public Works staff, and we had no idea that barriers 
would be installed, since the constant mantra of city staff was that 
there was absolutely no money available to construct such barriers.  I 
just assumed that there would be another round of discussions before any 
actual money was spent on this.  The fact that the Gandy plan 
(completely unsafe and expensive) was implemented instead of the 
original neighborhood plan (perhaps somewhat unsafe, but true traffic 
calming and car-free bike lanes, although also expensive) is an 
*obscenity*.  If they had $300K to spend, they could have implemented 
the neighborhood plan, which I'm sure even Public Works would have 
selected over the Gandy plan.  The only people opposed to the 
neighborhood plan were the very small number of SCB residents (less than 
5 households) who were insistent that removing any parking from SCB was 
an infringement on their rights.  In summary, I take issue with the 
statement above, to say the least.

The rest of the statement below is complete drivel.  In point of fact, 
Public Works and the original neighborhood plan both clearly 
demonstrated that car-free bike lanes are completely possible on SCB, 
and the neighborhood plan was supported by both bicyclists and the vast 
majority of area residents (i.e. an alternative traffic calming plan 
that would have satisfied the needs of bicyclists and the neighbors was 
ENTIRELY possible).  To quote MBJ, this compromise isn't a compromise at 
all.  It exactly satisfies the needs of the 5 households who own 
multiple vehicles and didn't want to lose any on street parking and 
screws everyone else.  By my definition of compromise, this leaves 
something to be desired.


 > 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.