BIKE: Link posted to Pfluger "preferred alternative"

[Fred Meredith]

Ah, Mike, did you listen to yourself?

You missed a major boat right there in your first statement "I don't 
care about Seaholm; and this path's interaction with the Lance 
Armstrong Bikeway is not one of my top priorities." I'm sorry you 
feel that way.  I think you are taking a very small view.

Things often happen when you combine practical goals with dreams, 
ideals and esthetics. Imagine taking a stand in the early days of 
Austin and telling the world that you aren't interested in the 
capitol building. It isn't where you want to go so why have a major 
main street of great width leading from miles away right up nearly to 
the front steps.  No, the capitol was not the destination of a high 
percentage of daily trips in those days either, but the esthetics of 
Congress Avenue and a view of the capitol building were important and 
are still important to many people.

I'd like to think that the cycling community is no less capable of 
embracing esthetics and ideals in where its separate, but equal 
bridge access is placed. It could, over the years, be much more 
important that the bridge access cross and link in symbolic as well 
as practical terms with the cross-town bikeway and that the essence 
or meaning of how and where they cross paths conveys more of a 
message than "I can get from here to there in the shortest distance."

Take the whole picture into consideration and not just what would be 
the most direct and efficient way to get from point A to point B. I 
don't know that any direct access ALONG Lamar Blvd needs to be 
considered until such time as something major is done to Lamar to 
make it more "shareable" between cyclists and motorists. Some of us 
will still ride on Lamar and, unfortunately, some will still ride on 
the sidewalks of Lamar. Hopefully, the streets that parallel Lamar 
will handle most of the north-south bicycle traffic.

I am not sure, myself, that I am in favor of the current plan for 
Bowie Street. I want to see what it is going to look like when Whole 
Foods gets all of their ducks in a row. But, it looks to me that once 
Cesar Chavez and the Union Pacific tracks (the major barriers to 
north-south cyclists) have been dealt with, a variety of options 
could take shape.

I want to see more details, myself, but I do not want to dismiss the 
Cross-town bikeway or Seaholm (until I know what the ultimate 
disposition of the facility will be). I do know that I don't NEED the 
extension to go to Lamar because there are much better cycling 
streets for going north and if your destination is ON Lamar, you can 
probably find a cross street over to Lamar that will get you close.

Fred (who is abandoning smart silence just long enough to become a 
target) Meredith


At 7:59 AM -0600 1/20/05, Mike Dahmus 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


-- 
When in doubt ... ride your bike (or at least write about it).

Fred Meredith
P.O. Box 100 (12702 Lowden Ln for UPS/FedEx)
Manchaca, TX 78652
512/282-1987 (office/home)
512/282-7413 (fax)
512/636-7480 (wireless)
More than you want to know at: http://2merediths.com