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

[Thorne]

Mike, 

You see, we do agree on many things, which I've always recognized.  I agree
that a needed bike lane must not allow parking on the strength that if you
could ride safely where parking is allowed, the bike lane is not necessary.  I
agree that no bike lane is better than a bike lane with parking and that such
lanes are all too common in Austin.  What I disagreed with was spending
political capital getting parking removed from bike lanes that didn't seem to
me all that helpful to cyclists to begin with--and with revisiting the old
debate without moving things forward.

I'm playing no game here, BTW.  That phrase was meant as an apology of sorts
for extending the history debate when I'd hoped to move things forward (and I
took this note of yours as a step forward, actually), not as a personal
attack.  Nor do I forget you are in a position to know or lump you in with
those who want the bike lanes everywhere--because you are in a position to
know and know what you are talking about is why you are one I'd like to
communicate with.  Still, do I misunderstand you that you on the one hand
consider Bull Creek a marginal case for bike lanes and then on the other
consider it a big loss to have cars parked in those marginal case lanes?.  The
two go hand in hand.  Roads with room enough to park and have traffic pass
safely are easy cases for convincing engineers to paint bike lane stripes. 
The unnecessary bike lanes are very attractive for parking by their very
nature (space wide enough to park in and handily segregated from auto traffic
by a white stripe).  As I said, the 'debacle' started with painting the
stripes.  That and the law of unintended consequences.  Speaking of which, I'd
suggest that removing the parking on SCB--whether the bike lanes stay or
not--would increase auto traffic speed there, and so increase the speed
differential with cyclists.  Do you agree?  And I'd bet dollars to doughnuts
that if the bike lanes stay and the parking goes, you'd find far more kids
riding to and from the park on the wrong side of the street.

Now, Lane Wimberly has just suggested that there may be an accident rate on
SCB high enough to consider it a problem area, in spite of my perception of
its low danger.  What do others have to say about that?  Is the accident rate
on SCB high enough compared to other places in Austin to warrant trying to
spend the political capital necessary to solve it?  If it's a lot worse than I
think it is, then by all means, you will find me trying to get the city and
the neighborhood to help us find a solution.

Jeff


------ Original Message ------
Received: Tue, 18 Jan 2005 09:43:02 AM CST
From: Mike Dahmus <mdahmus>
To: Austin Bikes <forum>Cc: 
Subject: Re: BIKE: Mostly Well-Done AusChron Article on SCB (Bury the
Hatchet)

Thorne wrote:

>I've thought it through many times, Dahmus.  And have again.  SCB was the
>wrong place to be having the wrong argument, since cycling SCB with parking
on
>the sides is just fine, and I was no 'expert rider' my first several dozen
>times riding it.  All of us might ask ourselves why SCB is so attractive to
>cyclists if it's also so bad as some claim.  It's not the bike lane, its the
>nice safe riding.
>
>I agree that the SCB battle was bad for the future of cycling interests in
>Austin--wholeheartedly.  Losing the SCB battle was bad for cyclists because
it
>showed cyclists fighting the wrong battle for the wrong reasons and
seriously
>reduced the credibility of 'bicycle advocates' in Austin.  And that was the
>very concern I had from the moment I was approached in 2000 to sign the
>petition in support.  By all appearances, it was a battle over turf, not
>safety, which is why the 'debacle' started with the idea to paint the bike
>lanes in the first place (long before the battle over parking began).  To
>date, I've never heard a coherent argument for why SCB parking was the
>priority of the day as far as Austin cycling safety was concerned. 
Dangerous
>places needed that attention, and still do.
>  
>
That statement would be fine, if the issue being debated was whether or 
not to place bike lanes on Shoal Creek. The problem for your theory is 
that the debate was actually whether or not to allow parking in the bike 
lanes that were already there.

We're a laughingstock nationally for allowing cars to park in bike 
lanes, folks. Many of you may not realize this, but in the rest of the 
world, a "bike lane" is equivalent to a "car lane" in the sense that you 
don't allow parked cars in a lane designed for through travel. Again, 
this presents problems in the fact that car drivers get mad when you 
leave the bike lane to get around the parked car -- they don't know how 
early you must merge in order to do this safely. This creates friction 
which hurts us politically - I've spent half a dozen mornings here at 
work defending cyclists to suburbanites on issues just like this one.

And don't dare lump me in with people who think you should put bike 
lanes everywhere either - I was on record here years ago as saying that 
Bull Creek was a marginal case, for instance, and didn't deserve the 
attention until the suburban routes like Jollyville were addressed.

If your argument is that we should remove the stripes entirely - I'd 
agree. Bike lanes with cars parked in them are worse than no bike lanes 
at all. I'd, in fact, be thrilled to hear the neighbors wail and moan at 
the inevitably higher-speed automobile traffic that would then result.

>But, since I'd really hoped that the repetitive SCB posts would end (and
>noting that I have received several off-list replies thanking me for
>interjecting into the SCB history debate my concern that there wasn't good
>cause to enter the battle), 
>
Well, if that's the game that we're playing, I can truthfully relate to 
you that I've also received many off-list replies thanking me for 
continuing to post on the subject, and thus getting the history CORRECT 
rather than allowing the neighborhood to rewrite it. And the precedent 
set did indeed affect debate on the UTC about the church wanting to park 
in bike lanes on Bull Creek, and I, in case you forget, was and am in a 
position to know.

In short: Many roads are marginal cases for bike lanes. But if the bike 
lane is there at all, it must be a no-parking bike lane, or it hurts 
both the political position of cyclists (causing unnecessary irritation 
to motorists) AND runs a safety risk with novice cyclists. If you want 
parking on a street, get rid of the damn bike lane.

- MD

_______________________________________________
Get on or off this list here:  http://BicycleAustin.info/list