BIKE: Mostly Well-Done AusChron Article on SCB (Bury the Hatchet)

[Stuart Werbner]

>From: Lane Wimberley <bikelane>

>On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 22:23:35 -0600, Stuart Werbner <stuwerb> 
>wrote:
> > I thought the article in the 1/14/05 Chronicle on SCB was very positive 
>and
> > very well done, except for the last part of the article. Daniel Mottola 
>put
> > together a pretty accurate summary on the 5+ year SCB process.
>
>I don't think "accurate" is the word I would have chosen.  I think Mike 
>Dahmus
>has pointed out several inaccuracies in the article.

That's fine -- you got your opinion, MD got his, and I got mine. I still 
says the article's
pretty accurate, and pointed out what I thought were its problems...

> > A couple of points the article missed:
> > 1) There were fruitless efforts by the SCB residents to have traffic 
>calming
> > installed YEARS before the SCB issue came to a head in mid 2000.
>
>This is interesting.  Can you list any such efforts?  I'm not aware of any.

Thanks for the complement.

No, I cannot list any such efforts in particular, mostly cuz I am not a 
resident of
the SCB vicinity and was never involved in these efforts. I was just passing 
on
what I heard from another couple who lived along SCB near Hancock, who I 
became
friendly with on the Working Group, and who moved to S. Carolina a couple of 
years
ago.

I would rather not name them, but you should know who they are since they 
were
vocal members of the SCB Working Group.

If you are still  "interested" and "curious" I would also recommend asking 
either
the current or former Allandale NA officers about this.

> > This was
> > another factor in the frustration felt by the residents -- namely that 
>the
> > city appeared to care more about cyclists passing through the 
>neighborhood
> > than the residents living along and nearby SCB, putting up with 
>increased
> > traffic and speeding/passing from Mopac bypassers.
>
>I don't think this is quite right.  I'm sure that there were some residents
>who felt that the city was unfairly asking them to sacrifice something in 
>favor
>of cyclists, but in almost all cases, I think that the concern was based on 
>the
>residents' perception that the city was asking them to sacrifice their
>on-street parking (and, only some of it, to be sure), not that any new plan 
>was
>going to aggrevate traffic speeds or volume.

I'm sorry you disagree.

I just think that a significant number of residents felt that the city 
placed the
interests of others ABOVE theirs, originally -- instead of placing 
everybody's together
and finding a good compromise solution -- which I believe has now ultimately 
happened.

I don't believe that I ever implied that the original COA restriping was 
going to
"aggravate traffic speeds or volume".

>I suspect there were also some
>residents who were concerned that the plan initially proposed was simply
>ugly or somehow unappealing, or that the city was effectively passing up
>an opportunity to do something better, like introduce traffic calming or 
>better
>pedestrian facilities.  But, it is definitely the case that a
>significant portion of
>the momentum to preserve ALL on-street parking came from a small, loud
>minority, and the leader of that faction happened to be a SCB resident with
>some five or six cars and a rather short driveway.  It is interesting
>to note how
>the final part of the charette's mission statement, "...and to
>preserve on-street parking,"
>stands out like a sore thumb from the rest of an otherwise admirable
>collection of goals.

I am sorry that is what you feel.

> > In the late spring (or early summer) of 2000, the city notified 
>residents
> > that SCB was going to be restriped and that bicycle lanes would be 
>redrawn
> > that would prohibit on-street parking.
>
>To be clear, to prohibit *some* on-street parking; parking would still
>have been allowed
>along one side of the street, which was more than adequate for the number 
>of
>cars parked there even during peak parking demand.

One of the biggest flaws in the original COA "shuv it down yer throat" 
restriping
proposal, aside from the fact that it was a "shuv it down yer throat" 
proposal, was
that there would be the issue of enforcement.

How regularly would APD patrol and ticket the area? Would they just write 
warnings?
Would they really keep bothering to piss off otherwise responsible, law 
abiding
homeowners, or would they eventually tire of it after pressure from the NAs 
and the
city council?

How long would it take before the city council decided to change its mind 
again and
back off of strictly enforcing the parking ban?

[And what happens then, you and MD leading a peloton of angry cyclists past 
city
hall?]

Why push for a solution that relies on active enforcement, pisses off the 
residents,
doesn't reduce speeding, and doesn't otherwise improve safety. I believe the
biggest problem with SCB is its width and its perceived width -- this 
encourages
speeding and passing, and the thought in the back of many a mind that it 
might make
a nice minor arterial someday.

Don't get me wrong -- I am a supporter, in general, of bike lanes, but I'm 
sorry if you
think improving the safety of cyclists, joggers, and baby strollers can be 
had for several
hundred cans of striping paint on a road such as SCB.

> > 2) The last sentence in the article seems to imply that the OUTCOME of 
>the
> > process may become a model for future roadway projects. This is 
>incorrect --
> > it's actually the PROCESS itself that is now becoming the model, i.e., 
>the
> > process of involving stakeholders and city staff in a 
>non-confrontational
> > and collaborative manner to develop a consensus solution.
>
>And, in my opinion, this is exactly the tragedy.  The process is flawed if
>it allows a majority to select convenience to the exclusion of the safety 
>of
>the minority.  At best, the process will have resulted in calmer
>traffic -- if we're lucky --
>and we all benefit from that.  But, in the end, we still have parked cars 
>in
>bike lanes on SBC, and will likely have parked cars in bike lanes all over 
>the
>city from here on out.  Moreover, if, as a majority group, non-cycling
>residents want to impose any
>other cycling-unfriendly measures in their neighborhoods, they now have a
>clear method for achieving their goals.

I'm sorry you feel that way. You certainly had your chance to publicly speak
out against the final proposal. You had your chance to make your feelings 
known
to the working group, and you were once part of the working group, yourself.

You had your chance to make constructive counter proposals. Complaints are 
not a
counter-proposal, though they make excellent email forum and talk show 
fodder.

Aside from the vague complaints you made to me from time to time when we'd
occasionally cross paths on our bicycles into work, and an occasional angry 
email
message to the bike forum, you didn't seem to say very much about it at all.

And, again, I think this idea of actively, perpetually, and strictly 
enforced parking bans
in bicycle lanes is ludicrous. Right up there with world peace, and an end 
to poverty
and human suffering. Nice ideas, all, but not something likely to happen 
during my
lifetime.

>But, the real tragedy in the case of the SBC debacle was that the
>process allowed
>a minority to ensure that a truly excellent alternative, which
>preserved more-than-adequate
>parking on *both* sides of the street AND introduced traffic calming
>measures AND
>prohibited parking in bike lanes, had no chance.  Their only objection
>was that *some*
>parking was lost.  (I don't buy the pedestrian objection, as the final plan
>is no better for pedestrians, and they aren't clamoring about that ... 
>because
>they can park wherever the hell they please.)
>
>-Lane

I'm sorry you feel that way. You're part of the less than 40% of SCB 
residents
that voted against the final proposal.

Good Luck,

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

"Braggin about his big, burly man date while demagogically opposin gay 
marriage."