BIKE: Link posted to Pfluger "preferred alternative"

[Stuart Werbner]

I would like to register my agreement with Eric's position:

1) Let's get this signature project in an up and coming signature part of 
the city, done right. No more substandard, Downtown Shoal Creek Trail type 
solutions (e.g., narrow and blind switchbacks)

2) I am excited about an extension that will take me somewhere -- many 
different places, in fact. I don't consider riding alongside a busy and 
congested main arterial as meeting this criteria. I can already do that now, 
without a new extension. [And, still do this, from time to time, when I am 
in
serious need of getting somewhere, and don't have time to take the scenic 
route. And, am willing to risk my life.]

And, I want to see something built that is going to compel people to get out 
of their autombiles and ride/walk around. Hopefully, we are all willing to 
share infrastructure with those who are beneath us in riding/walking skill 
and experience.

Also, it is time to look beyond just providing infrastructure to aid in 
bicycle commuting to work. We need to start encouraging those seeking to use 
their bicycles for doing errands, such as shopping.

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

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


>From: Eric Anderson <bikeeric>
>To: Austin Bikes <forum>
>Subject: Re: BIKE: Link posted to Pfluger "preferred alternative"
>Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2005 15:42:15 -0800 (PST)
>MIME-Version: 1.0
>Received: from frida.dreamhost.com ([66.33.206.23]) by mc1-f17.hotmail.com 
>with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.211); Thu, 20 Jan 2005 15:42:20 -0800
>Received: from che.dreamhost.com (che.dreamhost.com [66.33.216.23])by 
>frida.dreamhost.com (Postfix) with ESMTPid 7299816D606; Thu, 20 Jan 2005 
>15:42:20 -0800 (PST)
>Received: from che.dreamhost.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])by 
>che.dreamhost.com (Postfix) with ESMTPid 7DA4F98904; Thu, 20 Jan 2005 
>15:42:19 -0800 (PST)
>Received: from loot.dreamhost.com (loot.dreamhost.com [66.33.213.29])by 
>che.dreamhost.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C25F098882for 
><forum>;Thu, 20 Jan 2005 15:42:15 -0800 (PST)
>Received: from web21201.mail.yahoo.com 
>(web21201.mail.yahoo.com[216.136.129.59])by loot.dreamhost.com (Postfix) 
>with SMTP id 6FE612FC2Bfor <forum>; Thu, 20 Jan 2005 
>15:42:15 -0800 (PST)
>Received: (qmail 73106 invoked by uid 60001); 20 Jan 2005 23:42:15 -0000
>Received: from [168.39.81.6] by web21201.mail.yahoo.com via HTTP;Thu, 20 
>Jan 2005 15:42:15 PST
>X-Message-Info: U2wzkPk8/jbVq+cGKPKEI/IIbRpyd790rICJZxcdgzQ=
>Delivered-To: forum-bicycleaustin.info
>Comment: DomainKeys? See http://antispam.yahoo.com/domainkeys
>DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; 
>d=yahoo.com;b=iAWyuMdSWLBRIQ7EYNsxknDel7CHhGM1ljh3g054LNeUK3nhEAkh2NcDWivg54e4XnIJ8VUbUF1DeyiCohxmajXc2xyn/3yBNYILzX3diAKqfWG8GrWCiKXun2wA2on4Bj8s0eGE5InKNHf1HPnrz8IXiaFhJuYQTUTqWSnn3eQ=; 
>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: 20 Jan 2005 23:42:20.0655 (UTC) 
>FILETIME=[AEFA47F0:01C4FF49]
>
>Mike: thanks for your continued input.
>
>Seriously, our back and forth over the last few months has helped me define 
>my position, while providing me fodder to throw at the Pfluger planners. I 
>believe that the current North-South Option 2 as an alternative has so 
>benifitted.
>
>I substantially agree with all four of your points; I would say, "failing 
>to meet even one of the four will result in a substandard, dysfunctional, 
>and failed facility.
>
>I do however disagree with the notion that this alignment takes either 
>bicyclists OR pedestrians "out of the way". This is a silly argument: that 
>ending up on the Bowie side of Whole Foods is in any way even slightly more 
>inconvenient than arriving on the Lamar side.
>
>I will get to a more detailed response as soon as I can re-confirm details 
>that suggest in fact that your four conditions are met.
>
>Thanks again Mike!
>
>Eric
>
>Mike Dahmus <mdahmus> wrote:
>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
>
>_______________________________________________
>Get on or off this list here: http://BicycleAustin.info/list
>
>
>Eric Anderson <bikeeric>
>(512) 476-7304
>
>---------------------------------
>Do you Yahoo!?
>  Yahoo! Search presents - Jib Jab's 'Second Term'
>
>_______________________________________________
>Get on or off this list here:  http://BicycleAustin.info/list