BIKE: Link posted to Pfluger "preferred alternative"

[Mike Dahmus]

Eric Anderson wrote:

> Dear folks:
>  
> Pfluger Bridge Extension Project web-site now hosts new pdf file 
> depicting staff proposed "preferred alternative" "Option2.pdf".
>  
> North-South Option 2 would combine a Pfluger Bridge Center Arm 
> extension, coupled to a new street through a 
> Gables redevelopment, connecting with a Bowie Street underpass, and 
> accommodation on Bowie St. to Henderson.
>  
> Pfluger Bridge Center Arm extension coupled with Bowie Street underpass:
> http://www.ci.austin.tx.us/publicworks/downloads/n-s_Option2.pdf
>  

(Note that I've shared some of this in conversations with Eric privately 
before now).

This is from the perspective of the original purpose of the bridge. I 
don't care about Seaholm; and this path's interaction with the Lance 
Armstrong Bikeway is not one of my top priorities.

Within those parameters, here are the potential problems with this 
alignment:

1. What happens at the roundabout (traffic circle) depicted at the 
intersection of the Pfluger path and the realigned Sandra Muraida Way 
for northbound cyclists? No unsignalized crossings should be part of 
this route - since the original intention of the bridge was to attract 
cyclists AWAY from the existing Lamar Bridge where they already have 
right of way (i.e. all crossings on that route are signalized).

If this crossing is just a crosswalk across the mouth of the traffic 
circle, it is not an acceptable alternative.

1b. How do southbound cyclists join the path/bridge? Same basic question.

2. How is the underpass at Bowie staged? If the underpass is not set in 
stone to be developed fairly quickly, this is not an acceptable alternative.

3. What is the crossing at 5th and Bowie to be? Signalized? If not, this 
is not an acceptable alternative.

4. How does a northbound cyclist navigate from 6th/Bowie to 
6th/Henderson? How does a southbound cyclist get to Bowie from 
Henderson? If both intersections are not signalized, this is not an 
acceptable alternative.

Allow me once again to be the voice of realism - I find it unlikely that 
all of the 4 problems listed above will be satisfactorily addressed - 
and if ANY ONE of them is not, the route becomes less attractive for a 
transportational cyclist than just staying on Lamar Blvd.

By the way, for pedestrians, the long distance they have to travel out 
of the way to use this route is a substantial disincentive already, even 
without these potential intersection problems.

- MD