Nueces St Bike Boulevard Open House was standing room only. Image courtesy of Austin Cycling Association. Photo by Laura King.
Last night, the City of Austin held the first of three design and feedback open houses for Austin’s first bicycle boulevard proposed for Nueces Street from 3rd Street to MLK, Jr Boulevard. The Nueces Street Bike Boulevard was part of the Master Bicycle Plan unanimously adopted by the Austin City Council in June.
During an introduction presentation, the selection of Nueces Street was explained because it met these criteria for good bike boulevard candidate:
- A route already used by cyclists
- A street on a grid system easing car traffic to other streets
- Low current motor vehicle speed and volume
- A good grade with no overly difficult hills
- Connection to popular destinations and other bicycle facilities
- A mix of current uses
In a packed, standing room only room at Pease Elementary, approximately 100 attendees for the most part fell into two categories: cyclists there to support the proposed bike boulevard and property owns who either do not want the boulevard at all or want it moved to Rio Grande Street. After a brief presentation by City of Austin Bicycle Coordinator Annick Beaudet, a comments section began. Though cyclist made up a majority in attendance, the majority of comments came from property owners who were universally negative. Most owners moderated their comments by suggesting the proposed boulevard be moved to Rio Grande Street. While there appeared to be merits to either street being used, it wasn’t clear that the owners weren’t just trying to pass off the concept to other property owners on Rio Grande, many of whom were not in attendance.
Tensions ran high in the comments period with one property owner asking how many people there owned land and were tax payers, the assumption being the majority of cyclists weren’t stakeholders because they don’t own land. Others suggested that customers and clients would somehow not be able to find their businesses if traffic diverters were installed (one way car, two way bike intersections forcing cars to come into the neighborhood on different streets.) Beaudet responded, “Lots of Austin roads have changed. It’s hard for me to remember Cesar Chavez as a one way street yet people have adapted. I find the idea that customers can’t adapt to street changes not credible.”
Also of concern was affect on property values. Beaudet indicated there was no proof of adverse changes to property values in other cities with bicycle boulevards and in fact some saw increased business and have requested removal of car parking for bike parking. Curiously, several owners expressed support for redevelopment of parts of Nueces with high density, multi-use buildings yet opposed transportation mode shifting. They apparently think we can shoe horn in thousands of more residents in a few blocks and have everyone continue to drive everywhere with no problems.
Visioning what the bike boulevard would look like with planning map and tools. Image courtesy of Austin Cycling Association. Photo by Laura King.
After the comments period, a more constructive session started with city staff laying out huge maps of the proposed corridor to allow participants a chance to vision what the street would look like. Graphic chips with examples of speed cushion, medians, traffic diverters, and standard bike lanes were used to move around the map and see what worked. One limitation on Nueces Street came from uses by APD, the Fire Department, and Capital Metro. Most dominant was the Fire Department that required a clear southbound path for fire trucks down the entire length of Nueces. This essentially means traffic diverters could only be used to divert northbound traffic.
There was less tension between the groups during this period. One of the owners wanting no new facilities on a portion of Nueces near her property still suggested parking removal on one side of the street to accommodate bike lanes if the boulevard had to happen. Once force to look at solutions with pen and paper, there was a departure of the earlier NIMBY rhetoric and appeared to be a more earnest approach to figuring out how to all live together. The consensus heard from the cyclists there was that while Nueces Street was the preferred corridor they were open to Rio Grande Street as an alternative as well. The key was that the cyclists want a true bike boulevard with lots of traffic calming and the location within a street or two was of less import.
Example of possible Pinch Point traffic calming. Click image for download of all options.
Kuddos to City staff for remaining calm, providing an open safe place for feedback, and offering the tools to do good planning. There will be two more design feedback sessions in January for those that missed the first open house:
- Wednesday, January 13, 6-8 PM: Project Discussion and Public Design Exercise
- Wednesday, January 27, 6-8 PM: Design Presentation and Final Commenting
All of the open houses will be at Pease Elementary School, 1106 Rio Grande St. If you cannot make the Open Houses, you can still contact the Bicycle and Pedestrian Program staff with your feedback and suggestions. Jason Fialkoff at (512) 627-9150 or Jason.fialkoff@ci.austin.tx.us is the point person on this.
The League of Bicycling Voters is also suggesting you contact the Austin City Council in support of the bicycle boulevard via their group e-mail. While a Council vote may not be required unless the plan changes radically from the approved Master Bike Plan, staff will confer with Council on how Public Works will proceed with the bike boulevard.
More images of the December 9, 2009 Nueces Street Bike Boulevard Open House here. Courtesy of Austin Cycling Association, Photos by Laura King.
Related posts:
- Massive turnout by cycling community at Third Nueces Street Bike Boulevard Open House ...
- Your voice needed at upcoming Nueces Bike Boulevard open houses ...
- Tonight the last in a series of open houses on the Nueces St Bicycle Boulevard ...
- Opposition to Nueces Street Bike Boulevard bring up same misleading concerns at UTC meeting ...
- LOBV releases proposal for Nueces Bike Boulevard ...
on Dec 10th, 2009 at 2:11 pm
This is starting to reek of the Shoal Creek problem – misguided attempts to seek consensus leading to people winning who never had any interest in compromise. I cannot conceive of a way the Fire Department can have completely unobstructed free-flow southbound travel that doesn’t also allow unobstructed free-flow travel for motorists, and they (we) WILL figure that out.
on Dec 10th, 2009 at 2:24 pm
Agreed. People already had their mind made up going in. Bottom line- property owner does not, and should not, equal street owner.
on Dec 10th, 2009 at 2:57 pm
Putting dangerous obstacles, bumps, and curves in the middle of roads is stoopid.
1. Ban parking on both sides of street.
2. Install bike lanes on both sides of street. Not just paint on the road, place, plastic pylons every 15′.
3. Remove stop signs.
4. Lower speed limit to 15mph.
5. Put warning signs on cross streets. “Cars must yield to bicycle traffic.”
6. Enforce the speed limit 24/7.
on Dec 10th, 2009 at 3:17 pm
Lame,
Your suggestions are the opposite of everything we know that slows cars down. The wider you make a street, the faster traffic goes. Also, do you really think removing all stop signs when all the neighboring streets have them is a way to divert non-local traffic? Widening the street and removing stop signs will mean Nueces becomes the major automobile thoroughfare between Guadalupe and Lamar, regardless of what any stop sign says.
on Dec 10th, 2009 at 3:27 pm
M1EK,
I am disappointed that there is a defacto veto on certain devices in one direction from the fire department, but there are still options on the table southbound including medians with bumps and pinch points. The speed of emergency vehicles is always the first excuse again traffic calming. In fact, one of the property owners last night tried to use that against the project, and I had to explain to her that traffic calming has been used in this town for a decade without major issue. This has to be addressed or it can be used to kill or water down the whole thing. It certainly does put a favorable in the Rio Grande column as these I understand the AFD restrictions were not a problem there (Nueces feeds the firehouse at MLK and Nueces for southbound emergencies.)
As for a Shoal Creek repeat, I did not sense it. First, I have seen how the staff has gotten a lot smarter at using the City processes to get legitimate bicycle facilities. Secondly, the Nueces Bicycle Blvd was specifically part of the Master Bike Plan which had lots of public input, a vote of elected officials, and carries with it the weight of law. The staff made this pretty clear last night.
Finally, I think the cycling community learned from Shoal Creek and is a much larger, more organized presence than they were at that time. If this starts going south, we aren’t going to put up with it.
on Dec 10th, 2009 at 4:11 pm
I will believe it when I stop seeing people have charettes and other consensus-building exercises where people with completely and fundamentally incompatible interests are at the table. This is precisely how Shoal Creek started. And remember, SCB was in the old bike plan, too, for all the good it did.
It may seem neat to invite people to draw on pieces of paper (how could public input possibly be wrong?), but as soon as the invitation is out to the cyclists and property owners and EMS guys, it becomes an implied input into the process – even if, again, their input is such that the thing can’t actually happen if they’re listened to. Then, you’re going to have those (now empowered by your process) opposing interests go to city council to demand a re-do, and then we’re at Shoal Creek Part Deux.
In other, shorter, words: I think city staff knows exactly how to build the bike boulevard, and if they just did it without this kind of exercise, it might actually manage to get done, but as soon as the process becomes public, it becomes Shoal Creek-style risky.
on Dec 10th, 2009 at 4:13 pm
Oh and, again, emphasizing the EMS problem, if southbound traffic isn’t ever diverted (EMS ‘requirement’) and if the stop signs are removed (basic bike boulevard requirement), the thing is completely useless – because car drivers will quickly flock to the corridor. This isn’t just a minor flaw, it is a fatal flaw.
on Dec 10th, 2009 at 4:33 pm
M1EK,
The bike boulevard, as much as we want it, is a major change to the street. Being against public input not only is anti-democratic, it creates more problems in the long run. It’s just the flip side of crappy development being shoved down our throats.
The city staff has a council adopted document (actually several) and best practices backing them up, and they have been quite good at leveraging these to get some pretty good facilities lately WITH public input. Not one piece of infrastructure installed in the last year wasn’t done without some public input process. Portland and Seattle have way better infrastructure than us, but they did do it with public input. Shoal Creek was a product of an inexperienced staff and a lack of good processes. I think things are much better now.
If we aren’t bringing a decent number of property owners along, that’s our fault for not doing a good enough job showing the benefits. I refuse to trade one form of development autocracy for another.
on Dec 10th, 2009 at 4:39 pm
Elliott,
Subjecting bike infrastructure to this gauntlet while not doing the same for automobile infrastructure is bad enough. Volunteering for said scrutiny is even worse, strategically speaking. Again, Shoal Creek is not a feature, it’s a bug, and “public input” is VERY easy to hijack.
As for showing the benefits – any process which is allowed to be effectively vetoed by the provincial interests of the closest residents/owners on those grounds is doomed – because MOST of the benefits accrue to the whole city on ANY kind of infrastructure project, while those closest to it pay most of the ‘cost’. Even if you or I would wish they’d think otherwise, we’re not going to be able to convince somebody who owns an office building on that street that this change will directly benefit them in the short-term – so if that’s the standard we have to meet, then we’re never going to see anything happen here.
Finally, as for supposed results lately, the good guys came within an eyeblink of losing on Exposition. And, again, we had a council-adopted document (actually several) as well as national best practices to back up the right thing on Shoal Creek.
The key in all of this is City Council. All this work will ultimately mean nothing if Laura Morrison decides so, just like it did with Shoal Creek and Jackie Goodman.
on Dec 10th, 2009 at 4:40 pm
In other words, we’ve “won” battles lately because they were small battles compared to Shoal Creek. I don’t see this one being so small.
on Dec 10th, 2009 at 4:49 pm
BTW, I don’t know if you’ve been around long enough to remember, but you’re talking to basically the only guy who wasn’t snookered on the Shoal Creek Debacle.
http://bicycleaustin.info/roadways/shoalcreek2.html
Scroll down to “I am dismayed”
A few people used the same rationale you’re using now back then. Didn’t work. (Many others were much more thoroughly snookered and actually thought they were in a legitimate enterprise, of course).
on Dec 10th, 2009 at 5:19 pm
I don’t see Shoal Creek as a bug, although I don’t ride it often. But I am sure that a bike blvd should be a lot more than that.
I think it’s sad that the public option, I mean the bicycle only idea was removed from the plan from the get go.
The idea of receiving public input under the assumption that all options are on the table but some are on a nicer table than others is not my idea of what a democratic process should be.
When a property owner mistakenly asked who was a taxpayer in the room he made it very clear that he thought that some of the stakeholders were more important than others, such presumption should be dismissed at once by the city officials.
The AFD argument is very silly as well, with that mindset there is not one single street in the city into which firemen should not have rapid access. I cannot derive from that premise that all streets have to be designed with a 30mph idea.
We need to start implementing a bike blvds, and we need them in downtown. But I would prefer we do not call them bike blvds if they are to be conceived with such timidity.
A proper bike blvd MUST be a place designed for bicycles as the main users, cars should be granted access to each block but not as a thoroughfare. Otherwise it will be anything but a bike boulevard. It ought to be treated similarly to a school zone, with 20mph max speed and an absolute cell phone use prohibition.
on Dec 10th, 2009 at 5:56 pm
Alonso, if you don’t see SCB as a bug, then please go read that whole sordid tale linked above. It’s a disaster waiting to happen – some novice cyclist who doesn’t know to stay out of those things (that sort of look like bike lanes but are actually just a parking area) is going to get killed.
on Dec 10th, 2009 at 7:20 pm
First, kudos to Annick and the other city staff. They did a great job presenting the project and in dealing with a difficult room.
I left during the break and before folks gathered around the maps, but I was encouraged by much of what I heard. However, much of what I heard was a developing consensus in favor of Rio Grande over Nueces.
We need to really take a look at the comparative existing commercial uses on both streets, and we need to consider what traffic on Nueces will be like once it connects with Cesar Chavez. I’m not sure that we can construct an argument in favor of diverting through traffic off of Nueces when we’re opening it to Cesar Chavez to make it more attractive for through traffic. Also, there is merit in that Rio Grande already connects through West Campus.
Before last night, I was concerned that this project was developing a dynamic similar to Shoal Creek. Now, I think that we’re heading in a much more positive direction.
on Dec 10th, 2009 at 8:41 pm
M1Ek,
I was around when the Shoal Creek thing happened, just not as a vocal part of the cycling community (I was a cyclists, but not engaged.) I remember thinking the Shoal Creek solution was pretty crappy from the get go.
As for public input on automobile infrastructure, I’m all for it. I think public input should be a crucial part of the process, just not the only one. As handful of property owners should not be able to hijack something that has a broader public good and follows best practices. They SHOULD however have a chance to make their case and see if the different parties can find a solution that works for everyone. In this case, Rio Grande may be that solution (although the absence of those property owners in this process to date makes me suspicious that we’ll run into similar resistance there.) That is part of good process.
on Dec 10th, 2009 at 8:46 pm
Jeb,
I agree the staff has handled it well. They certainly didn’t cave to disgruntled property owners.
I’m not sure there is a consensus around Rio Grande as the preference other than the Nueces Street owners. The cyclists I spoke to all preferred Nueces to Rio Grande but did not find moving one street over to Rio Grande a non-starter. The key here is we all want a real bike boulevard, not some watered down thing called an Austin Style bike boulevard.
on Dec 10th, 2009 at 8:59 pm
OK.
M1Ek, You are correct. I wasn’t around for the Shoal Creek catastrophe, but what do we do now?
Again, a bike boulevard must be something very different to the compromise we are talking about. A bike boulevard should be a decision from Austin to bet for a better future.
If we are unable to rid ourselves from the interests of a handful of property owners and need some sort of compromise then let’s not attempt a bike boulevard; just stripe some decent bike lanes, forbid parking and call it a day.
Some future generation will have the courage we lack today. Hopefully.
on Dec 10th, 2009 at 9:06 pm
Alonso,
Don’t throw in the towel. I heard nothing that indicated we would not get a true bike boulevard. Staff was courteous but firm. Because it was in the adopted Master Bike Plan, it will be more difficult (but not impossible) to undo. If we get a Shoal Creek type scenario, I can guarantee you the cycling community is organized and large enough to put up a fight this time.
At this point, we need as many cyclists participating as possible and if it goes south, cross that bridge when we get to it.
on Dec 11th, 2009 at 9:27 am
I can understand a home owner not wanting a “Bike Blvd” on their street if they don’t know what one is. The name is probably off putting to a lot of people.
But once they are educated on what a bike blvd is, I can’t see why any of them would oppose it. The videos you posted earlier showing the streets in Portland were beautiful. You could actually go out in the street and toss a football without fear of getting rolled over by an SUV.
It doesn’t seem like as much of a progressive movement than just a return to the way things used to be when I was a kid. I know I’m preaching to the choir. I’m just not understanding the opposition to the idea.
on Dec 11th, 2009 at 9:42 am
Ben,
The opposition falls into two categories. The first is fearing what you don’t know. This is our first bike boulevard so owners don’t know how this will effect property values, building access, and street look and feel. Once we do one successfully, I think this kind of resistance will ease as it has with other traffic calming throughout the city (The first ones were real fights but now so many neighborhoods want them the city doesn’t have the money to fill all requests.)
The second are owners who want to maintain the current car focused streets because they depend on people coming from outside the area to make their businesses work. I don’t think this will be an issue once implemented as people will adapt, but the philosophy is still there. Also, oddly enough some of these same people were supporting higher density redevelopment of their land (and the cash that brings) but maintaining the same car focused transportation mix. It seems like true folly to believe you can triple or quadruple the residences and businesses in the area and expect car only transportation to work on those streets.
on Dec 11th, 2009 at 10:36 am
I can understand the first issue. And I believe with education & familiarity that issue will go away. As for the 2nd issue, it could be argued that more people will find out about those businesses and frequent them when they start using the new blvd.
This town can be so frustrating some times, and I’m a native Austinite. People argue for change and a smarter way of living. But that usually just means driving the SUV to the farmer’s market a couple times a month. It’s the weirdest part about Austin to me.
on Dec 11th, 2009 at 10:55 am
Good Bike Boulevard films…
http://www.streetfilms.org/bicycle-boulevards4nyc/
http://www.streetfilms.org/berkeley-bike-boulevards/
on Dec 11th, 2009 at 11:29 am
Ben,
Unfortunately, that is not an Austin only phenom. People want to feel like they are green without having to change their lives much or by buying something. American society seems to be hardwired to consume.
on Dec 11th, 2009 at 12:41 pm
It would be wonderful if the new bike boulevard could not only serve the existing cyclist community, but attract new cyclists. On this point I think Nueces’ flatness makes it clearly superior to Rio Grande. I think RG’s hills are enough to scare off would-be newcomers to cycling. Nueces is just /so/ flat, it’s really quite a selling point.
on Dec 11th, 2009 at 1:25 pm
Grant,
Attracting the new cyclists is the primary function of bike boulevards: a bike way that is welcoming to bicyclists of all experience levels. I agree that Nueces’ flatness is what makes Nueces the preferred corridor for those who want this to actually function the way its supposed to.
on Dec 11th, 2009 at 9:53 pm
Wow, this could be the longest discussion on the A2W site. Shoal creek. Hmmm. The difference this time is there’s momentum, a much friendlier council and a bike community ready to work on a unified front to get a quality product.
A few thoughts:
1) I’m not convinced that southbound diverters are impossible. There may be a design–although not ideal–that accommodates them getting through while stopping auto traffic. As pointed out, the fire/ems position is always going to be pushing the easiest access, but they are simply looking out for their interests (which of course translate into some interest for us.)
My question to EMS/AFD would be: “Shouldn’t you be against increasing the vast majority of projects that add lane miles, since you’re really increasing congestion in the long run and adding to your response time?”
Again, as noted, we shouldn’t just buy public safety demands without questioning them. I’m also questioning an objection to an idea for raised pedestrian crosswalks at east/west street stop signs, since they supposedly would add too much to response times.
2) LOBV will be putting together a plan. We need a more “concrete” starting point from our perspective. And let’s face it, we’ve been talking about this and researching this for quite some time and have a degree of expertise and understanding about how bike boulevards work that warrants an actual plan.
3) The amount of waffling and kowtowing in response to the recent vocal opposition from Nueces property owners, as Mike discusses, is rather pathetic. In the simplest terms, what we have here is one retail store that doesn’t depend all that much on visual traffic worried about a slight decrease in auto traffic going down the street, and a bunch of people who’s chief objection is that they don’t feel they should have to go 0-3 blocks out of their way when traversing the length of Nueces. Then there’s one visionary who says that so much new high rise residential will be going in that we need to preserve more space for cars. Jeez…when I tried to sell light rail for a living I had to go out and talk to business owners about months to years of construction disruption, massive loss of parking and of course the overall gargantuan price tag….that is impact, my son.
But hell, let’s build all the elevated freeways we want, rip out homes, tear up streets and the like for cars, but Noooooooooooooooo, as Steve Martin might say, don’t make me DRIVE a couple blocks out of my way so that bikes can have one street in Austin with a modicum of preferential treatment.
4) Jeb, I know what you’re saying deep down, but for: “We need to…consider what traffic on Nueces will be like once it connects with Cesar Chavez. I’m not sure that we can construct an argument in favor of diverting through traffic off of Nueces when we’re opening it to Cesar Chavez to make it more attractive for through traffic.”
I can make an argument. There is something deep-dish wrong with leadership in this town if they espouse lofty goals for multi-modal transportation, climate protection, etc., and then seriously want to preserve Nueces as a thoroughfare route for traffic too lazy to sit in the congestion on the major arterials. Let’s take another 11 years to study long-range mass transit options, let’s build a bikeway that has more serpentines and alignment changes than a yogi with scoliosis, but we’ll feed the car junkies every six months by watering down our other modes and preserving their right to more and more concrete real estate.
Anyone not willing to trade a through route on Nueces for the most significant bike facility this city will have is worthless to the future of Austin and just another dirtbot in the line of human drones blabbing ideals and then spasaming into a pile of flesh-tone jelly at the thought of actually doing anything about it.
Why fear another Shoal Creek? Such an sequel would at least let us know whether the leadership in this city will blink in the face of what quite frankly is one of the weakiest opposition arguments I’ve seen to any infrastructure project contemplated in my past 20 or so years of observing this stuff.
Or, will they take that “radical” step of doing what some 27 other cities have already done with positive results.
5) Nueces is a natural, always has been. It was long described as “low hanging fruit” for a major bike facility because of its simple connection of UT/Downtown, it’s cheap cost to build and it’s existing high bicycle counts. We can talk Rio Grande, but there’s a reason Nueces is the chosen one. Let’s not defer its major attributes just because what I expected all along–a vocal opposition who don’t want to give up any automobile convenience, no matter how trivial.
on Dec 12th, 2009 at 5:08 pm
As a cyclist in a British city with many of the objects you picture, I’d advise against installing them. The cycle by-pass lanes are rarely wide enough to use, and even if they were, they suffer from the twin problems of being filled with debris (leaves etc) and merging back into traffic afterwards, the latter being exacerbated by motorists rushing through these devices to try to beat oncoming traffic. Speed cushions are essentially useless in slowing cars (they have to be narrow enough to allow ambulances and fire engines to pass unimpeded), but they do force bicycles and motorcycles to adopt less safe road positions.
The safest road layout is usually a single lane in each direction, with or without parking lanes, and with junctions being simple cross-roads and T-junctions (no roundabouts, which encourage traffic to build up dangerous exit speeds without being able to see the exit). If there are extra lanes, the center lanes should be dedicated to transit — that alone will calm traffic sufficiently.
on Dec 13th, 2009 at 3:33 am
Well, kinda disheartening to read the article. I feel that if there is unimpeded southbound traffic, it will be nothing like a bike boulevard, it will just become another busy street, unsuitable for bikes. Move the fire station to the corner of Rio Grande, rather than move the bike boulevard.
It is interesting too, that the prospect of having to drive 0-3 blocks out of the way, a distance about equal to the width of a big box store parking lot, is just toooo terrible to contemplate.
Sometimes, I wish Spike Bike was real. While irrational, I can hardly wait for the gas to run out. We should hit another oil shock by about 2012, unless the economy declines faster than oil production.
on Dec 13th, 2009 at 2:38 pm
Dave,
As Rob said earlier, the southbound emergency access issue may not necessarily be a non-starter. Even if it is, that does not mean traffic flows unimpeded. Medians with speed bumps and choke points are still possible, just not diverters which force traffic to turn. If you put a sufficient number of those other traffic calming devices, non-local car traffic will avoid this street.
I do find you observation about driving amusing as well. These folks say they depend on traffic outside of downtown coming to them. If you’ve already driven 5-10 miles to get somewhere, are you really going to turn around because your have to drive a block or two more? As for the people depending on casual street traffic to drive sales, it’s been pretty well established that business increases as you add foot and bike traffic. As opposed to cars, they pass at a speed where you can actually see what the business is.
on Dec 14th, 2009 at 2:30 am
I would like to post a comment as one of the property owners along Nueces who is not opposed to encouraging bicycle usage but finds inherent flaws with Nueces Street.
1. Property on Nueces Street along the proposed path is predominantly commercial property. My company, Bat City Awards & Apparel, relies heavily on the exposure I get from the automobile traffic. Other companies do as well, even if they are less retail based than mine. Increased bicycle usage will not be able to supplant the loss of automobile use. This will have a severe negative impact on commerce.
2. If I need to sell my building, it will be much less attractive to potential commercial buyers unless they are an industry that benefits directly from the bicycle community.
3. My company as well as Tiff’s Treats both provide delivery so this is a minor concern as well.
Here are reasons why property owners think Rio Grande is more viable:
1. There is an abundance of traffic that uses Nueces as a thoroughfare from 15th and MLK, particularly from UT. Westbound traffic on MLK cannot turn left at Rio Grande or San Antonio so these streets do not attract the same vehicle traffic, especially during peak drive times.
2. Rio Grande is a direct connection to ACC as well to bike lanes through West Campus.
3. The fire station frequently uses Nueces due to their location at MLK & Nueces. It is also heavily used by the Sherriff’s office as they enter the courthouse off Nueces.
4. Rio Grande has less commercial property than Nueces. Many of the property owners present were between 15th & MLK along Nueces as these portions are the most adversely affected by the proposal.
5. Nueces is to become a thoroughfare all the way to Cesar Chavez. This will increase the automobile traffic on Nueces.
The only negative of Rio Grande I see from the bike’s community standpoint is it is not as flat. However, the slope on Rio Grande is not that challenging and most bikers I talked to agreed that it wouldn’t be a deterrent to people who want to ride their bike. Many said the safety Rio Grande provides outweighs the slightly more difficult slope.
Another concern is obviously that moving to Rio Grande will bring out a new group of detesters. This is true, but most likely less vocal as Rio Grande is not heavily zoned for commercial use. The few small business do not rely on thoroughfare traffic as much as mine and will have less at stake.
Any solution that I am to support will have to ensure that automobile traffic is not deterred. Here are three solutions I see as potential compromises:
1. Use Rio Grande. I think this makes more sense on every level except for the small hill. Less cars, ACC, not a thoroughfare, bike lanes continue through West Campus and less commercial property. This is the most feasible compromise.
2. Use portions of both streets. Maybe use Rio Grande from MLK to ACC and then somewhere shift over to Nueces. The automobile traffic on Nueces is much lighter south of 12th Street.
3. Remove one side of parking and put in bike lanes. This would mean no traffic calming devices except maybe slightly reducing the speed limit. This protects automobile usage while providing bikes a safer lane to ride. Not all property owners will be for this option as parking is reduced, but it will be viewed as favorable to the much disliked pinch points and medians.
Please realize that my and many other property owners are just trying to protect our business interests. My company is only four years old with five employees trying to stay afloat during a bad economic time. I hope that the bike community does make significant progress and I am proud to have city leadership like Chris Riley that look to help make Austin more green. Hopefully we can come together and find common ground.
Anybody wanting to further discuss and have constructive dialog can email me at batcity@gmail.com. Thank you for providing a forum that allows me to share my concerns!
on Dec 14th, 2009 at 9:37 am
Trey,
On your first comments, the retail and real estate data I’ve seen simply do not support your assumptions. I find it difficult to believe you will lose your current clientele, and every thing I’m seeing shows retail doing BETTER with more foot and bike traffic. That is why lots of developers are clamoring to build new urban style development. Not only do you get more stops because the speed of movement of these shoppers but they tend to buy more. This is actually the rational for the original indoor malls. You may have more traffic numbers wise with cars, but those speeding by are way less likely to stop.
As for property value, it will only get better. If you have a true pedestrian and bicycle friendly street this will appeal to development that is dense and multi-purpose in nature. In fact, new urban development depends on this to get maximum return on investment. This type of development raises the price of land, not lowers it. Due to the zoning and goals of the City for that area of town, your property is only going to get more valuable.
I understand your nervousness about potential negative effect on your business, but I challenge you to find one example of where such development has happened in other communities and there was a demonstrated loss of business or lower property values. Bike boulevards are not just for cyclists. They improve the entire community and part of that is making more money.
As for Nueces versus Rio Grande, it seems clear the market has spoken here. The vast majority of cyclists currently out on the streets have chosen Nueces. Equally, with the goals of a bike boulevard to appeal to the most novice of riders, hills DO matter thus make Rio Grande less desirable.
I’ve not heard from any owners on Rio Grande about this. I tend to think you guys are throwing the bike boulevards from the frying pan into the fire on this by trying to push the concept off on other property owners who were not in attendance.
on Dec 14th, 2009 at 10:40 am
Elliott,
I understand my business and know that in the six months that we have been on Nueces Street that we have not experienced any new commerce from bike traffic and very minimal pedestrian traffic. However, I have countless of new clients that have come from automobile traffic. I also have a Business degree in with extensive business experience and feel confident that my concerns are valid.
Actually there has been no hard evidence provided that a bike boulevard will increase commerce and property values. There is evidence that it deters automobile traffic however, which is my primary concern.
Ask this question: If a bike boulevard does increase commerce and property values, why would all the property owners on Nueces Street unanimously oppose the proposal? Also, why have other bike boulevards in other cities received opposition from property owners?
Listen, I want to find a compromise and am posting here to share my ideas. I fear that without changes to the existing proposal, this will get dragged out into a legal, political and/or media war.
on Dec 14th, 2009 at 11:36 am
Trey,
I am a business owner as well. I understand what is means to create something and the risk that is involved. I also know if I see an opportunity to increase the value of my business, either real property or the business itself, I ought to take a look at it.
I believe the property owners are against this plan because the case has not been made that there will be either neutral or positive economic benefit to the owners. I’d welcome an opportunity to make that case.
on Dec 14th, 2009 at 11:38 am
Trey,
I also think we are still early in this process, and a resolution that makes most parties happy is possible. I think it is unwise to threaten the other parties with legal or political action at this point. That is not helpful in the process.
on Dec 15th, 2009 at 12:18 pm
The EMS/fire department issue could very well be a non-starter for a “bike blvd” *anywhere* — after all, the fire department may need to go down that road for a fire, where ever the road is.
Though in this case, I assume there’s as station right near this? There doesn’t appear to be one on Nueces itself anyways.
Though if they wanted to, they could solve the fire department problem with bollards like they have at the Capitol. They’re up most of the time, but the fire department has the ability to lower them as needed, either from the station or from the fire trucks themselves (like the traffic light changer things?) It might be expensive, but not *that* expensive. (Just make sure they’re more far apart — the ones at the capitol are tight enough to be slightly dangerous for cyclists.)
(Though to be fair, it will require more thought than that. The bollards would need something to prevent them from going back up when a car was on top of them or approaching.)
on Dec 15th, 2009 at 2:50 pm
Hey guys, one last point from the one person who was right about Shoal Creek from the very very beginning: the point to take away from Shoal Creek had NOTHING to do with the mobilization of the community or with an adopted bike plan or anything else. The ONLY point to take away is that it is critical to IDENTIFY where compromise is possible, and most importantly, where it is NOT.
The place city council failed was in making a choice between competing interests (by default, then, choosing parking). Don’t present this as if a compromise is possible if it really isn’t, because then the other ‘choice’ will win out every time.
on Dec 15th, 2009 at 4:17 pm
M1Ek,
I agree. However, what I think we are saying is that the cycling leadership (at least the ones engaged this time) know what they want and have the ability to mobilize more people. Shoal Creek had “leaders” speaking for us saying the compromise was good. I could be wrong, but I don’t think we’ll have that problem this time.
on Dec 18th, 2009 at 10:37 am
I spent a couple days off this to make sure I got some perspective – I still fear the Shoal Creek scenario quite likely, given comments about switching to Rio Grande, not putting up bollards, etc. (see the Austin Chronicle’s podcast for how this looks from the outside).
What I see is a lot of support for something that ends up being called a bike boulevard, but way too much willingness to compromise on the details that actually make it a functional bike boulevard. The bollards and diverters, for instance, aren’t just a minor detail – in most cities, they are what makes the thing work, and we’ve already ‘compromised’ those completely out of the picture.
on Dec 18th, 2009 at 11:18 am
M1EK,
Again, I agree. I can only speak for myself, but a bike boulevard that is one in name only will not get my support.
on Dec 18th, 2009 at 5:28 pm
My main fear now is that the adversaries to the boulevard could be getting a lot of access to the decision takers, and the fora to discuss it will be crowded with supporters talking to the walls.
on Dec 18th, 2009 at 6:42 pm
Alonso,
I know for a fact that the adversaries are not the only ones talking to decision makers.