Comments on: Mixed bag on bike infrastructure from CAMPO meeting

By: Dave

Dave — Sat, 23 Jan 2010 03:53:37 +0000

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.

By: Rob D'Amico

Rob D'Amico — Fri, 22 Jan 2010 20:53:01 +0000

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.

By: Otis

Otis — Fri, 22 Jan 2010 17:59:32 +0000

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.

By: elliott

elliott — Fri, 22 Jan 2010 17:50:17 +0000

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.

By: Tinker

Tinker — Fri, 22 Jan 2010 17:31:05 +0000

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.

By: elliott

elliott — Fri, 22 Jan 2010 16:36:07 +0000

Well said, Otis.

By: Otis

Otis — Fri, 22 Jan 2010 16:22:05 +0000

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.

By: Chris

Chris — Thu, 21 Jan 2010 22:57:24 +0000

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.