BIKE: Curb Island Meeting @ Gullett

[Patrick Goetz]

Lane Wimberley wrote:
> 
> I was a little surprised not to see many bike folks there (at least,
> that I know), but there were still ample cyclists expressing opinions.
> 

I wanted to be there, but was too sick to get out of bed.  I suspected 
some kind of voodoo curse, but it sounds like the neighbors hate the 
bike crashers as much as most cyclists do.  It's kind of comforting, 
actually, that bad design sometimes is just bad design, regardless of 
what interest group you're coming from.


Lane, I think there are a couple of things that either you're 
mis-remembering or which seem to have gotten badly factually distorted:


> the data showed that there
> was a very small slowing of car speeds, something like .2 mph or so.
> This was judged to be negligible by the city.  Hence, I think to the
> extent that the design was intended to calm traffic by reducing
> speeds, it has failed.
>

I think this is because, in reality, and for most practical purposes, 
the road is really just as wide as it ever was.  In the brief amount of 
time that I've spent on SCB since the reconstruct, virtually every 
vehicle I observed spent at least some time with its outer wheels over 
the shoulder marker.  Some motorists in larger vehicles appeared to 
prefer driving right down the center of the shoulder marker.  If there's 
no car or curb extension at that location, there's nothing to prevent 
this driving behavior.  Traffic circles would have been considerably 
more effective in slowing down traffic and would have made SCB 
intersections a lot safer.


> 
> Subsequently, due to neighborhood opposition to removal of any parking
> on SCB, the city council passed a resolution that a consensus-based,
> neighborhood-involved pilot design project would be funded to the tune
> of $500K.  The end result is the design we see implemented on SCB.
>

This statement disturbs me, because it's far from the truth.  The UTC 
held a SCB public hearing attended by literally hundreds of Allandale 
residents and bicyclists.  Out of more than 200 people present, there 
were fewer than FIVE (5!) who were opposed to removal of any parking on 
SCB.  This hardly constitutes anything approaching neighborhood 
consensus.  Most residents were interested in seeing traffic calming 
measures implemented in order to help discourage Mopac bypass traffic 
and to slow down automobile traffic and quite a few residents expressed 
an interest in getting sidewalks.  Even fewer speakers were opposed to 
car-free bike lanes.  What emerged from this meeting was that the vast 
majority of neighbors (>90% present) would gladly give up some on-street 
parking in order to gain traffic calming.  Consequently the original 
neighborhood plan which you must remember.


> still an official bike route), the striped lanes are NOT bike lanes.
> They are (more or less) officially shared bike/parking lanes.

No, they're not even that -- they're "improved shoulders".


> 
> There was a lengthy question and answer session.  The majority of the
> neighbors who spoke were vociferously averse to the design as it
> exists now, particularly to the curb extensions.  The exchange was
> quite unruly at times, and frankly rude

AFAIK, the only SCB meeting which wasn't unruly and rude was the UTC 
public hearing I mentioned earlier.  There something to be said for an 
organized format in which speakers sign up to speak for 3 minutes to a 
bunch of Olympians sitting on a dais.


> 
> There were a number of residents who were upset that they had not been
> informed that these changes were underway.  I was a little amazed that
> anyone living in Austin, let alone in our neighborhoods, could not
> know that this had been going on for over five years.
> 

Well, I'm on the UTC and I was shocked to see the bike crashers going 
up.  Last we left this issue, Public Works was adamantly opposed to the 
Gandy Plan, in no small part because it didn't meet ASHTO standards, and 
we were told that there were no funds available to do anything other 
than stripe.  Perhaps this should be a lesson for all of us about 
letting a small group of neighbors convince city council to completely 
go against the recomendations of staff.

This really doesn't make sense to me.  The neighborhood plan was the 
consensus plan, approved by neighbors and bicyclists.  The problem with 
it was Public Works deemed it unsafe and there was no money available to 
implement this plan.  Well, Public Works must have considered the Gandy 
Plan even LESS safe than the neighborhood plan, and apparently money 
magically became available after the neighborhood plan was abandoned.


> 
> The overwhelming sentiment of the neighbors was a demand for the city
> to remove the curb extensions.
> 

Doesn't this beg the question: if the neighbors don't like and cyclists 
don't like it then why was it done?  Wasn't this supposed to be 
consensus driven process as per the city council resolution authorizing 
expenditure of the funds?


> 
> As for some of my own observations, I found two things rather ironic.
> First, while people seem to hate the curb extensions, ostensibly
> because they force cyclists into the "car lane," no mention was made
> of the fact that actually, it is the parked cars that are more
> effective barriers to cyclists.


Yes, but parked cars are easier to see, especially at night.


> 
> Second, the majority of the anger and frustration, by far, seemed to
> stem from the fact that the current design has not effectively
> channelized car and bike traffic, with the result that people fear
> dangerous car-bike interactions in a confused space.

I'm not normally known for being a conservative, but perhaps this is why 
it's sometimes better to stick to solutions which have been proven in 
practice?  Traffic circles would have been a better solution, despite 
the fact that they also direct bikes and cars into the same channel. 
Here is why (and perhaps this is ironic):  Control of the merge is in 
the hands of the larger, more dangerous vehicle.  Motorists would feel a 
lot better about sharing a lane with a bike if they can control when the 
merge happens.  Since a traffic circle forces cars into the bike lane, 
the motorist can choose when he/she merges.  Curb extensions do just the 
opposite -- they force bicyclists into the car lane, which is a big, 
disturbing variable for motorists, who are generally terrified of 
running over cyclists.  If you think about the dynamics of the situation 
a bit it should be completely clear that traffic circles are infinitely 
superior to curb extensions.


> Now, I did note that the folks that complained loudest about on-street
> parking removal were either not present last night, or didn't speak.

Again, because they're largely NON-EXISTENT.  There were 3-5 households 
making a lot of noise about this issue, incessantly emailing city 
council and staff, etc..  Most other residents DON'T REALLY CARE (based 
on the public testimony I heard with my own ears).


> Some of the people who spoke last night even mentioned that perhaps a
> better solution would be to remove at least some of the on-street
> parking.  <sigh> Where were these people during the past five years
> while this design was being negotiated?
> 

Lane, these people WERE there.  AT EVERY MEETING before the process was 
spirited away by city council into some kind of Gandy fantasy land. 
These were the people who supported the *NEIGHBORHOOD* plan which would 
have eliminated 50% of the on-street parking!  The real question is how 
did this happen and how can we prevent it from happening again?  What 
negotiation?  Who was involved in this negotation?  The 3 neighborhood 
zealots who were opposed to losing any on-street parking, a overpaid 
consultant, and a couple of anti-bike lane helmet loonies thrown in for 
good measure?  I really would like to know who was involved in the 
negotion, because it clearly wasn't most cyclists, the neighbors, or the 
UTC.


> Going forward, I see only two possibilities for improvements.  If we
> decide that channelization of car and bike traffic is valuable and
> worth-while, then we need to remove parking from properly implemented
> bike lanes.  This would mean either removing parking from both sides
> of the street, or some form of one-side-only parking, as was featured
> in several of the alternatives explored during the redesign process.
>


A few properly placed traffic circles and a complete removal of all 
striping save for the center lane (and of course dynamiting the curb 
extensions) would probably result in the tearful, undying gratitude of 
99.3145% of all stakeholders, at this point.  The only point which I am 
insistent on is that -- once the "negotiaters" responsible for this are 
indentified, the concrete debris resulting from blowing up the curb 
extensions be divided up and left in piles in their front yard so that 
they can deal with having is hauled off, or not.