BIKE: Election Endorsements, Round 2

[Patrick Goetz]

Michael Bluejay wrote:
> Okay, since there's still an election to be decided, let's revisit the 
> idea of endorsements from the bicycling community.
>

The monorail vs. light rail vote appearted to work out OK -- this seems 
like a better way of coming up with an endorsement that has some clout.

I think the single most important question to ask right now is the issue 
Tommy Eden and Preston Tyree having been bringing to our attention, 
namely CAMPO's attempts to once again wiggle out of meeting Federal 
mandates to add bicycle and pedestrian accessibility to major arterials.

The question could be phrased something like this:
"FHWA Design Guidelines require that new arterial construction projects 
include facilities for bicycles and pedestrians in most cases (as long 
as the cost isn't greater than 20% of the total cost of the project) and 
the original CAMPO 2030 plan prepared by staff stated that CAMPO would 
follow these guidelines on new roadways as well as allocate some funds 
to retrofit previously built roads that didn't meet these guidelines 
when constructed.  Now the CAMPO board has suggested that the plan 
should be amended so that local 'jurisdictions' can themselves determine 
what constitutes 'excessive cost', thus leaving such facilities out of 
road construction projects if they deem them to be too expensive.  How 
do you feel about this amendment?"

A few additional questions:

- How important do you consider it to be to encourage transportation 
bicycling and bicycle commuting as a solution to the city's congestion 
and air quality problems?

- If important, what would you do to encourage more transportation 
bicycling and bicycle commuting?

- How important are providing facilities (bike lanes, showers, covered 
and secure bicycle parking) in getting more people to use bicycles for 
transportation and commuting?

- If important, what would you do to secure funds to increase and 
enhance such facilities?

- On a scale of 1 to 10, how important it is for the city to maintain 
staff dedicated specifically to bicycle and pedestrian issues? 
Portland, OR has 6 FTE's just for bicycle issues -- what would be an 
appropriate number for Austin?

- Do you envision a day when Austin's downtown will need bicycle parking 
garages similar to those found near Tokyo train stations?



> First question:  Would the Austin Cycling Association like to survey 
> and/or interview the candidates?  If so, great!  Let's go that route.  
> Bob/Fred, can you tell us what ACA thinks of this idea?
> 

This is a terrible idea.  First of all, most ACA members are 
recreational cyclists.  Absolutely nothing wrong with this; in fact, 
it's one of my favorite things, too, but someone who carries his/her 
bike around in an SUV in order to bike at select precious locations is 
probably not going to have a clear idea of what kinds of concerns a 
bicycle commuter (i.e. one who is actually trying to bike to locations) 
might have.  Last time I checked, this list was focused on 
transportation cycling issues.  Second, the ACA is helmet looneyville; 
home to the people that believe that styrofoam has magically protective 
properties that make bike lanes, safe routes to school, and all that 
nonsense completely unnecessary.  I'd just as soon base my decision on 
an endorsement by Gerald Daugherty -- at least he's not crazy.