Comments on: City offers more options, positions harden at second bike boulevard meeting

By: elliott

elliott — Tue, 19 Jan 2010 21:58:24 +0000

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.

By: M1EK

M1EK — Tue, 19 Jan 2010 21:24:35 +0000

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.

By: Jeff

Jeff — Fri, 15 Jan 2010 17:44:53 +0000

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

By: Matt

Matt — Fri, 15 Jan 2010 03:14:53 +0000

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.

By: elliott

elliott — Fri, 15 Jan 2010 00:06:18 +0000

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.

By: Doug

Doug — Thu, 14 Jan 2010 22:53:13 +0000

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.)

By: Alonso

Alonso — Thu, 14 Jan 2010 20:36:18 +0000

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.

By: elliott

elliott — Thu, 14 Jan 2010 20:25:41 +0000

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.

By: M1EK

M1EK — Thu, 14 Jan 2010 20:04:23 +0000

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.

By: Otis

Otis — Thu, 14 Jan 2010 19:51:36 +0000

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.