BIKE: Re: Small but significant error in "Seeing the beauty of a thinner Shoal Creek"

[Patrick Goetz]

CHTepper wrote:
>  
> Just so history isn't revised incorrectly:  If a small group of 
> "activist bicyclists" had come to the realization that five cars 
> parked in the bike lanes along the five-mile expanse of Shoal Creek 
> didn't pose a danger of cyclists.  And, if they had allowed the city to 
> restripe the original bike lanes as were, then none of this time, 
> expense, and antagonism would have happened in the first place.  I would 
> argue that these "bicycle activists" actually turned a simple repaving 
> project into an expensive five-year turmoil and have effectively placed 
> us regular cyclists in perilous danger.
>  

Not to turn this into a long, drawn out argument, but restriping the 
original bike lanes was not an option that was on the table.  Under the 
tenure of COA bike/ped coordinator Linda DuPriest, the department of 
Public Works adopted a policy of not striping bike lanes which also 
allowed parking; i.e. if you put in a bike lane, it is automatically a 
no-parking bike lane (Carl should know this).  This is still the 
official city policy, btw., and explains why the SCB debacle is being 
called an "improved shoulder" rather than a bike lane.

I agree with Carl, however, that having no striping at all would be have 
been a considerably safer (and cheaper) than what's been done. 
Sometimes less is more -- a LOT more, in the case of SBC.  Anyone who 
regularly bikes on this formerly delightful stretch of road is deeply 
saddened and angered by what's gone down; at considerable expense, no less.