Jason at ATXBS has a very good synopsis of several things that were discussed at the BAC Thursday night, including the upcoming funding of bike boxes in test locations (yay!), the Austin Bicycle Plan being almost ready for a review (having an open house for comments on March 9 was tentatively discussed, sign our petition and get organized to make sure that everything gets done!), and much more. Here are a few important things that I wanted to reiterate, or that he left out:
City Staff indicated that they have a goal of removing all parking from bike lanes by 2030 -well, Jason said 2020, but I thought I heard 2030. Both of those dates are too long, in my opinion. If other cities can do it, so can we.
One of the best things said at the meeting was that the cycling community needs very much to stay heavily involved in decisions that may affect them, and that they are a big reason so much positive has happened of late. We need to stick with it!
At the beginning of the meeting, the BAC members discussed two options for participation in forums for city council candidates. The first option was being part of a larger forum including other transportation organization representatives, such as those advocating for better public transit. The second option, which most members seemed to agree upon, was to have a separate forum of just cycling organizations. This was based on heavy turnout for the cyclist forum in the last elections.
I have to say that I lean towards participating in the larger overall forum, quite simply because of the psychological framing of the issue: I want cycling to be considered along with, and part of, all serious transportation options! If we have a separate forum, we risk not being seen in that context.
Related posts:
on Jan 16th, 2009 at 12:28 pm
Marcus,
I totally agree with you on the 2030 or 2020 goal. The City of Austin is really good at setting goals that are 20-30 years down the road which has the benefit of making people feel good without having to immediately do anything. Unless there is a detailed time line with guideposts along the way, this removes a certain accountability in my opinion. People forget after a while that it was a goal, and the City does not make the progress promised. We saw this with renewal energy goals. I think if it can’t be done in five years, don’t promise it. Make goals more modest and actually deliver.
on Jan 19th, 2009 at 10:06 am
If you guys weren’t around back then, and even if you were, I encourage you to read the sad story of the Shoal Creek Debacle, which has a lot of good stuff from the “cautionary tale” perspective.
Start here: http://mdahmus.monkeysystems.com/blog/archives/cat_the_shoal_creek_debacle.html
(in those articles, I have many links to stuff written by Michael Bluejay which fills in many gaps as well).
on Jan 19th, 2009 at 10:14 am
Mike,
I was around back them, and I agree the Shoal Creek project was a lesson in how not to do things. It seemed like the City was so obsessed with making everyone happy, they made no one happy and the resulting project was crap. I think we need to realize most projects aren’t going to make everyone happy. Instead, focus on the broader good and do it right or not do it at all.
on Jan 19th, 2009 at 11:46 am
Yep that’s completely true, Mike.