Last night, the City of Austin held its second in a three part series of open houses on the proposed bicycle boulevard on Nueces Street. While city staff maintained publicly that all options were still on the table, a source told A2W that a high level city staffer communicated to cycling advocates that Nueces as a corridor was “dead” in response to objections of property owners and that Rio Grande would be the best chance at getting these facilities. It was also apparent at the meeting that those in support of and opposition to this bike focused traffic calming on Nueces Street seemed to be hardening their stances.
The concept of a bicycle boulevard has ignited passionate responses on both sides of the debate and after a crowded December meeting, city staff moved the meeting from the Pease Elementary cafeteria to the school gym. Even with the larger facilities, the meeting was standing room only with over 150 in attendance.
The meeting began with a briefing from the Bicycle Program Coordinator Annick Beaudet on response from the public since the last meeting. Highlights included:
- Investigating Rio Grande as alternative route
- Concern about the treatment of traffic at major intersections
- Calls for changing 4 way stops to 2 way stops
- Investigating the use of traffic circles
- Concern about the impact of traffic on adjacent streets
- Estimated affects of property value & business.
Also included were specifically where traffic calming is placed, calls for the creation of place, bike lanes as an alternative, and considering West Avenue as a corridor. The inclusion of Rio Grande meant the expansion of the tool box of traffic calming since Rio Grande has fewer public safety service restrictions.
Beaudet explained how Nueces Street was selected for a bike boulevard. Nueces was identified as a good street because it meets all the recommended requirements of good bike boulevards: it is already used by cyclists, is on a grid, is low in automotive traffic which is also slow in speed, connections to other popular destinations, serves a mix of uses, and has a fairly flat grade. This project was recommended by 1996 Master Bike Plan and the Street Smarts Task Force, was included in the adopted 2009 Master Bike Plan, and is in the draft Downtown Plan. This bike ways was a response to the need for a north/south signature bikeway to complement Lance Armstrong east/west bikeway. Rio Grande was also considered in this process but has issues with a more difficult grade (i.e., hills), does not connect as well to other bike projects, has higher vehicle turnover at peak traffic, and would require new lights at 5th & 6th Streets.
After concerns about the effects traffic calming might have on businesses and property owners, Beaudet briefed the audience with several reports all indicating positive benefit from these infrastructure improvements. There was a call to do an economic impact study specific on Nueces Street, and Beaudet said the City would consider it.
In response to concerns about the relevance of older traffic data, the City has hired Heidi Ross from HDR Engineering to be a traffic consultant and evaluate effects this traffic calming might have. After the University of Texas and ACC are back in session, Ross will look at rush hour traffic counts on West, Rio Grande, Nueces, & West and what the current travel times of the corridor are. Based on these numbers, she will develop several traffic models. Ross will look at 3 scenarios: no traffic calming build (current), short term implementation (3-6 months after finish), long term (assuming this area and West Campus further redeveloped). The models will look at Nueces & Rio Grande with partial diverters and without diverters as well as issues of heavy vehicle routes & access. Ross’s report is expected at the final open house on February 24.
Once briefed, staff allowed copious feedback from the audience. In the time since the last meetings, stakeholders on either side of the project hardened their stance. In early January, the League of Bicycling Voters introduced a proposal for Nueces Street and indicated yesterday that they were not interested in discussing Rio Grande as an alternative at this time. In addition to their plan, the LOBV had a petition on hand in support of their plan and have gone live with an online version for people to sign as well.
Similarly, property owners who made comments were uniformly against Nueces as a corridor siting access concerns and effects on business values as the main concern. (Beaudet clarified that street access to all properties would be maintained under any traffic calming scenario.) Most called for Rio Grande to be considered though conceding that similar issues with property owners there might come up. Several owners expressed the desire to maintain as much automotive traffic capacity as possible.
It is unclear how this will finally play out. The City is keeping its cards close to the chest on the bike boulevard and has requested a group of stakeholders meet to hammer out some options. This proposal was met with little enthusiasm from cycling advocates leery of a Shoal Creek repeat. (Bike facilities on Shoal Creek ran into heated opposition from residents not wanting the loss of on street parking. A compromise facility was built and so disliked and ridiculed it was later ripped out.) The next 40 day will determine where and if Austin will get its first true bicycle boulevard.
Related posts:
- Opposition to Nueces Street Bike Boulevard bring up same misleading concerns at UTC meeting ...
- City Bike-Ped staff commission committee to hammer out compromise on Nueces Bike Boulevard ...
- LOBV releases proposal for Nueces Bike Boulevard ...
- Massive turnout by cycling community at Third Nueces Street Bike Boulevard Open House ...
- First bike boulevard open house highlights tensions between cyclists and Nueces Street property owners ...
on Jan 14th, 2010 at 2:14 pm
There should be a topographic overlay on the maps so property owners can understand just how much of a hill there is on West Ave., it’s not even worth considering. I personally don’t have any major issues with Rio Grande, I would just hate to see the Nueces proposal railroaded before a full consideration of it has taken place. With the schools located on Rio Grande, it might be an easier sell in terms of safety & traffic/speed reduction. If it were to come down to a decision between Rio Grande and no bike blvd. at all, I would gladly back a Rio Grande proposal. My only concerns with Rio Grande is that it ends at 4th st. Is the city willing to commit to connecting Rio Grande with a bridge to that rather awkward portion of the Shoal Creek trail? It can also get quite busy on Rio Grande between 5th & 7th streets with all those restaurants & bars. I’d also expect about an equal amount of opposition from property owners on that street, but perhaps the safety issue (think of the children!!) would be enough to drown out a lot of the hard line opposition.
on Jan 14th, 2010 at 2:22 pm
I agree, West Ave is a flat out bad idea for a bike boulevard. I wish people would actually ride the streets they have in mind before suggesting them.
on Jan 14th, 2010 at 2:51 pm
Sounds like we’re getting a lot of push back on Nueces. Are there any plans for the LOBV to create a plan for Rio Grande that really focuses on making that corridor ideal for bikes and truly minimize through traffic?
If they do push for Rio Grande, what would be the possibilities of getting a bike-bridge to cross the creek and meet up with the Lance Armstrong bikeway? If that could be done, the N-S corridor would be complete.
on Jan 14th, 2010 at 3:04 pm
Thanks for the summary. You are right to be wary of Shoal Creek Debacle Deux. The current LOBV proposal is already meeting the ‘neighbors’ partway (no bollards, no southbound diverters), just like the initial volley on Shoal Crek met the ‘neighbors’ halfway (narrower than ideal bike lanes so parking on one side could be preserved). Any further compromise would be a disaster, just like it was on SCB.
And Rio Grande would be a complete waste of time. Too many hills, likely opposition to materialize there as well once it becomes seriously considered.
on Jan 14th, 2010 at 3:25 pm
M1EK,
I agree the hills on Rio Grande make it less then ideal (the main reason the BAC selected Nueces in the discussion.) Also, ACC and Cap Metro are conspiring to pretty much nix effective traffic calming in the blocks between 15th and MLK. However, the biggest issue is the second one you mentioned. As soon as you move a street over, there will be a whole new group of property owners coming out of the woodwork with the same opposition. The City says they’ve informed the owners on Rio Grande about the bike boulevard plan, but it didn’t sound like Rio Grande was mentioned in this communication.
I’m glad LOBV is not backing down on this. I think their proposal is pretty reasonable for auto access while creating some decent traffic calming and space for bikes and pedestrians.
on Jan 14th, 2010 at 3:36 pm
After all the water has flown we might end up with a very nice and empty bike boulevard on Río Grande while all the bicyclists keep riding on Nueces, and dodging more traffic than before. Talk about waste of time, money and mores.
on Jan 14th, 2010 at 5:53 pm
Moving to Rio Grande would greatly reduce the issues with the fire department and jail, but as Elliott suggested would simply replace one group of property owners with another.
I imagine that we may already have some Rio Grande property owners supporting the Nueces proposal simply because they don’t want it coming over to Rio Grande.
Wherever it moves, the push-back is not going to go away.
The property owners don’t care how much of a hill there is — they mostly drive it, they don’t ride it. They’ve largely decided that this proposal will hurt them (if it’s on their street) (and the odds are good that they’re right) and so they’re going to oppose it, and I wouldn’t expect many to change their mind unless you can convince them that it will help them. (And so far, the arguments to this end have been weak — studies done by bike-enthusiasts in cities that are very different from Austin.)
on Jan 14th, 2010 at 7:06 pm
Doug,
I’m going to have to call BS on the second part of this statement: “They’ve largely decided that this proposal will hurt them . . . (and the odds are good that they’re right).” There is absolutely no evidence either in outside studies or in traffic calming done in Austin (which has been implemented for over a decade) that this will hurt business or property values. Zero. Nada. It is not intellectually honest to say “odds are they’re right.” The most you can say is that the economic impact is unknown. When you own your own business, we call that Tuesday. You plan, you collect data, your reduce risk, you play odds, but in the end, it’s a crap shoot.
Moreover, the majority of businesses on Nueces Street in this area are law firms and other professional services. I have owned a political consulting firm for six years that operates under a similar business model to these types of businesses. We get our clients through relationships and referrals, not someone driving by. I do not find it creditable that a current or potential client would not do business with me because they had to drive one block out of their way to get to me. My office location in connection with the presence or absence of traffic calming is not a determining factor in getting or retaining clients.
on Jan 14th, 2010 at 10:14 pm
I have no idea how such a minimal intrusion plan has caused so much controversy. I’ve never heard so many folks complain about calming traffic in a quiet neighborhood, and i cannot believe that there are rumors that the plan is dead. I’m absolutely stunned by these developments. Primarily, the city council passed the master plan. Obviously the property owners are concerned, but this is the reason why we have legislators who have looked at the research (no, doug, all evidence suggest that the traffic calming will increase property value).
West Ave is absurd, and Rio Grande is not ideal. There is no viable north-south bicycle friendly route that exists downtown. The level of discourse at the meeting was shockingly unhelpful. We elected Chris Riley, we need him now to make sure this doesn’t get killed. I use nueces on a regular basis, so i’ll take what i can get on that road, but it’s remarkable how outraged these landowners are over minor traffic calming.
on Jan 15th, 2010 at 12:44 pm
I agree with Elliot. When ever I ride down the street I see: bail bonds, law firms, photography studies and other such businesses. When ever I have been interested in using such a business (sorry, can’t vouch for bail bonds) it has never been because I drove by and thought “Hey, that looks like a good one. I’ll go there.” Any of those places will have clients that are going there because of recommendations or online searches.
I am somewhat surprised property owners are opposed. Why would you oppose a quiet, serene street to do your work.
Also, sadly, I must agree with Alonso. I will still use Nueces to travel even if Rio Grande becomes the Bike Blvd. My wife is more opposed to hills than traffic. Hah
on Jan 19th, 2010 at 4:24 pm
For those (many) of you who favor the “there’s nothing to worry about because the city passed the bike plan” argument, the recent UTC meeting might be illustrative. Tom Wald does a decent job laying out some concerns, Richard Mackinnon (chair) listens politely and asks questions making it pretty clear he doesn’t find moving to Rio Grande or watering it down of much conern; and then one of the commissioners I don’t know (maybe Lanier?) replies with “there’s 700 things in the bike plan; city council didn’t pass all of them by passing the plan”.
(citizen communication; at the beginning).
If a commissioner thinks this way, you can bet a city council member won’t give this argument the time of day; so it’s probably time to stop using it for comfort. This is Shoal Creek Deux already; it’s time to fight, not compromise.
on Jan 19th, 2010 at 4:58 pm
I agree, M1EK. Our City Council has a history of overriding passed plans when it is politically convenient or it benefits powerful interests. While having Nueces in the plan was helpful, I never assume it’s a done deal until the concrete starts pouring.