Lane Wimberley from the League of Bicycling Voters attended last night’s CAMPO meeting where the board decided whether or not to fund some critical bike infrastructure to improve safety and accessibility for Austin cyclists. Lane reported back with this mixed report on the meeting:
The CAMPO Transportation Policy Board met last night to (among other things) decide which of a handful of projects should be selected for implementation given a $5M pool of available funds. City Staff had recommended selections, but because of recent changes (mainly fiscal-related), the board directed a new analysis, which resulted in a reshuffling of the selections. Originally, City Staff had
recommended the 360/183 intersection improvements, but the reshuffled selections didn’t include that project.The short story: There’s good news, and bad news.
The bad news is that the proposed (and Staff-recommended) improvements for the 183/360 intersection were NOT included in the list of projects that the board approved for implementation.
But, there are several bits of good news. The board approved a project to improve Brushy Creek in Cedar Park. That one item consumed the lion’s share of the funds (at some $3M out of $5M available). The good news there is that that section of roadway will be improved with both sidewalks and bike lanes.
In the end, the decision came down to which alternative most completely utilized available funds, and the board-proposed selections evidently did a better job of that than did the Staff-selected ones,
especially given changes in project implementation costs.But, perhaps the best outcome of the meeting was that it became clear in the minds of the board members that the 360/183 intersection truly is an area of concern, and that the project needs to have priority in the next round. The likely outcome will be that the project will be approved in a year, best I can figure–possibly sooner.
Long-time bicycle advocate, Tommy Eden, was there with me to speak to CAMPO. I believe that our comments were very well received. Afterwords, Tommy related to me a sense that things are really
changing. After many years of consistently giving the cycling community the short shrift when it comes to allocating resources toward cycling infrastructure, Tommy feels like they are now finally
starting to “get it.” And, Chris Riley spoke quite masterfully to his fellow board members, providing a very compelling case for trying to make up for past negligence. Of course, the proof will be when we see some real commitment.In short, we still have a long way to go, and there’s a LOT of work ahead, but early signs are that our efforts are having the desired effect–not as fast as we’d like, but we’re getting there. We just need to keep on ‘em.
-Lane
PS I do want to throw out a plug for Annick and her crew in Bike/Ped (including our new teammate, Nadia). They work their butts off, and do a fantastic job. Most of the improvements you see today are because of them. It sucks that they won’t (yet) have the opportunity to do the much-needed 360/183 project, but I’m sure they will not be sitting still.
Related posts:
- CAMPO plan dumps bike infrastructure at 183 & 360 ...
- Notice: Tuesday’s CAMPO Bicycle and Pedestrian Subcommittee Cancelled ...
- November Update from City of Austin on bike infrastructure improvements ...
- City offers more options, positions harden at second bike boulevard meeting ...
- Yet more great new bike infrastructure ideas from Copenhagen ...
on Jan 21st, 2010 at 5:57 pm
I’m glad at least that the funds weren’t diverted to another vehicular facility, and as someone who rides there recreationally, I agree that Cedar Park does need improved bike infrastructure. However, a pre-approved project that is part of the Austin bicyle plan, for a dangerous intersection that is heavily used by both commuter and recreational cyclists on a daily basis, should have had priority.
on Jan 22nd, 2010 at 11:22 am
No offense to Cedar Parkers, but if you chose to live in Cedar Park, then cycling as a means of transportation really isn’t that important to you (nor is sustainable living, limiting urban sprawl, etc.).
The funds for cycling paths should really focus on the urban core instead of continuing to build infrastructure in areas where it will be used by an extreme minority of the population, and even then just for recreational purposes. Having bike paths on roads not used by cyclist just further strengthens motorists’ pre-existing prejudices that bike paths are a waste of space.
on Jan 22nd, 2010 at 11:36 am
Well said, Otis.
on Jan 22nd, 2010 at 12:31 pm
Get your head out of your backside, Otis. Cedar Park dwellers are not non-participants in the bicycling world, they just don’t go into Austin all that much, one less car on North 183 is a GOOD THING. A Cedar Park resident that doesn’t drive 183 in and out of Austin saves both Austin and Cedar Park a large sum of money each year. And they save a further sum in health care costs annually, too. And I live further out in Leander, so just shut up and sit down, on topics you know nothing about.
on Jan 22nd, 2010 at 12:50 pm
Tinker,
I think the point Otis is trying to make is that since there are limited resources being put towards bike infrastructure, we should but them into places where they will immediately do the most good. The kind of land development we have in the urban core much more easily supports the bicycle as a viable option for everyday transportation. The problem with non-automotive transportation like transit and biking in a traditional suburban development is that the population density and amenities like shops and restaurants are so widely dispersed it is difficult/ impossible to support these transportation modes for most of the population.
It is not that Cedar Park and Leander are not worthy. It is that a dollar spent in the urban core will get many times more people riding a bike than spending that same money in the suburbs.
on Jan 22nd, 2010 at 12:59 pm
Tinker, it’s a simple matter of cost per user. Spending a huge amount for bike infrastructure in a low population density area is not as effective as spending those funds in a higher density area.
If anything, the work should focus on connecting regions of bike lanes with one another. Great examples of worthwhile projects would be creating paths to connect from the north side of 183/360 to the south side. Or creating a bike-only bridge to get people from south of Ben White north across the greenbelt. Those projects would need a lot less than $3M to get started and would benefit many more people.
Realistically, if you don’t create a way to get from Cedar Park to Austin via bike, then you didn’t cut down on a single car, and you continue to reinforce the perceptions of motorists that nobody uses a bike lane. Creating a bike lane or boulevard that’s not connected to a larger network of bike lanes is simply giving it a death sentence before its birth. I really don’t think this project benefits cyclists so much as appropriates funds intended for cycling to benefit motorists in an area that the developers weren’t forced to create the proper infrastructure to support in the first place.
Finally, insulting people is a poor way to argue a point. I would have expected a tad more class from people on this page.
on Jan 22nd, 2010 at 3:53 pm
Recreation trumps transportation again in the bicycle world…although I’m sure there are lot of ‘ins and outs’ we don’t know about.
Seems like the Transportation Policy Board forgot its first name.
Although I’ve never been to Brushy Creek…looks pretty cool. I’ll have to drive the family out there with our bike. Ahem.
on Jan 22nd, 2010 at 10:53 pm
Otis,
I live in Cedar Park and I commute via bike to Austin every day. Many others here that bike are not comfortable with the current infrastructure. But you don’t bother to think that there are bike commuters out her. Yet again, another Austin dweller that has an elitist attitude that they are more important than the surrounding communities. The bulk of all the dollars spent are for the urban areas.