Critics of bike blvd make factually incorrect statements in calling for delay or removal of bike boulevard. Plus an update on the free swim policy at Barton Springs Pool.
Tuesday night, the City of Austin Urban Transportation Commission met to review the current progress on plans to create Austin’s first bicycle boulevard on Nueces Street. A group of property owners who oppose the project spoke in addition to members of the cycling community who spoke in support of concept. No new points of opposition were brought up but several previously mentioned points were, points that have been addressed as factually incorrect yet are still being spouted by this group.
Included in the criticisms were:
- parking will be removed (false)
- automotive traffic will be prohibited (false)
- street access to current properties will be removed (false)
- emergency vehicle times will be impaired (technically true BUT fire and EMS consider these delays negligible for response time)
- we don’t have the money (false, voter approved bond money is already set aside for this project)
- the bike boulevard will hurt businesses and property values will decrease (unproven PLUS all Austin and national data on traffic calming say the opposite.)
Although each of these issues have been addressed and corrected, the property owners are continuing to use these misleading statements to call for a delay or removal of the project from Nueces Street. What is most disconcerting is that two of the city selected property owner representatives for a committee to draft a compromise plan, Scott Sayers and Susan Harris, used some of these discredited points in their presentations. How can we expect a good faith solution from the stakeholder committee if members are continuing to make these statements in public?
Earlier this week, we saw a conspiracy theory floated against the cycling community by a business owner. He claimed we are all organizing through our blogs to ride more on Nueces Street to improve the traffic counts in a traffic study that is being done right now. Unfortunately, it was pointed out that the days and time of the traffic counts were unannounced to protect the integrity of the data. Also, I have not see a single cycling blog in this city suggest trying to skew numbers. Possibly are the bicycle counts higher than the opposition wants? Hey, if you don’t like the results, just make things up, right?
As I predicted earlier once Rio Grande was put into serious consideration, property owners on that street express similarly irrational NIMBYism. Indeed, a couple Rio Grande owners spoke at the UTC in opposition. We heard lots of people say how much they support cycling just as long as nothing is done to impede as much automotive traffic as possible. This seems truly patronizing and disingenuous. I believe you cannot create facilities that will encourage new cyclists to ride without a trade off in automotive traffic volume and speed.
The fact that the opposition is making wild accusations and repeating false statements does not bode well for finding a good faith compromise that will create a true bicycle boulevard and making these owners happy. I do not think the cycling community has much room to move here except to come out in strong support of a bike boulevard plan such as the League of Bicycling Voters proposal. The LOBV has an online petition supporting this plan you can sign online here.
City staff recommend ending 9:00 PM free swim at Barton Springs Pool
At Wednesday night’s Parks Commission meeting, there was a hearing to consider removing the 9- 10 PM nightly free swim at Barton Springs Pool to charging the $3 entrance fee charged during regular hours. The free swim at the pool has become very popular with large social bike rides causing a sharp increase in the number of people using the pool. This measure is seen as a way to offset staff costs and possibly reduce the numbers. Public input is being taken until February 25th. Anyone who wants to chime in with comments can contact the aquatics office at aquaticsoffice@ci.austin.tx.us.
Related posts:
- Massive turnout by cycling community at Third Nueces Street Bike Boulevard Open House ...
- City updates bike boulevard, drops Nueces Street from the name ...
- First bike boulevard open house highlights tensions between cyclists and Nueces Street property owners ...
- City offers more options, positions harden at second bike boulevard meeting ...
- Tonight the last in a series of open houses on the Nueces St Bicycle Boulevard ...
on Feb 11th, 2010 at 6:33 pm
For the life of me I do not understand why those two were selected for a “compromise” committee when they don’t seem the least bit interested in reaching any agreement.
on Feb 11th, 2010 at 6:40 pm
Yeah, it’s almost as if it was set up to fail. Shocking.
on Feb 11th, 2010 at 6:47 pm
Definitely my initial reaction.
on Feb 11th, 2010 at 7:23 pm
> The bike boulevard will hurt businesses and property values
> will decrease (unproven PLUS all Austin and national data on
> traffic calming say the opposite.)
There’s Austin data on this? Where?
The national data that I’ve seen has been unconvincing — studies done by cycling advocates regarding situations very different from Nueces — but is there more?
As for the conspiracy theory, there was the “NUTS for Nueces Ride” — perhaps that’s what he’s referring to? He probably knows that it wasn’t done to skew any study, but it does give him some semblance of plausible deniability if called on it.
on Feb 11th, 2010 at 7:48 pm
The Austin data is property values where traffic calming has occurred. The most relevant for this proposal is Rainey Street where traffic circles, speed cushions and a diverter on Davis Street have done nothing to decrease property values. In contrast, several high density developments have been put in and houses re-purposed for commercial use. Hmm, sounds a lot like Nueces Street.
Just because these national studies were put out by entities advocating bike/ped facilities, does not mean their methodology is flawed. Sure if AAA or GM released similar study it would make a stronger case, but I don’t see anybody else investing time and money to study this. I have seen none, 0, zip in any evidence anywhere to show negative impact on business. By the way, there is government data from Copenhagen that showed complete elimination of car traffic produced double digit increases in property values and retail sales. Not the same, but maybe we are being too moderate in keeping automotive traffic, eh?
The traffic counts he was referring to are part of the traffic study mentioned at the last open house, several weeks after the NUTS for Nueces Ride. Sorry, no excuse for the paranoid accusation there.
on Feb 11th, 2010 at 8:26 pm
Davis is a residential area. Nueces is commercial — very different. You really think Davis is a lot like Nueces? (Perhaps Nueces used to be like Davis, but it certainly isn’t now.)
Also, I’m not sure what changes to Davis you’re referring to — whatever traffic calming was done was *extremely* mild. The speed limit is 40 mph for most of it — people do 50 mph. If there’s traffic calming, it failed miserably.
What’s proposed to Nueces is much more severe than anything I’ve noticed on Davis. (I live right next to Davis, and drive and ride on it often, so I’m familiar with it. In fact, any changes there probably would have some miniscule effect on *my* property values.)
Don’t know about Rainey street. From google maps, it looks mostly residential, but there’s some stuff that looks commercial too. Were these calming measures done in the commercial or residential parts?
It’s well known that residences like traffic calming — they’re asking for it all the time. It’s the businesses that aren’t always so keen on it.
As for the studies done, I never said that just because they were put out by entities advocating bike/ped facilities that their methodologies were flawed. But they were written by pro-biking people to promote a pro-biking agenda — that alone is enough to make people who don’t agree with this agenda to distrust them, even if the methodologies used happen to be perfectly valid (and really, that’s hard to tell, especially if one isn’t at all familiar with the areas studied.)
As for the Nuts for Nueces ride, I didn’t say it was accurate, only that it might be what he’s referring to. (FUD works much better if there’s a grain of truth in there, and yes, people did talk about riding on Nueces on a specific date on their blogs. Perhaps that was the wrong date, perhaps it was just an innocent ride/rally, but hey, he made a mistake, how should he know why they rode?)
on Feb 11th, 2010 at 8:37 pm
Nevermind about Davis. I’m talking Davis Lane, you’re talking Davis Street — my mistake.
I found on google the changes you’re referring to — a traffic circle, speed bumps, a “one lane only” diverter, etc. It seems to be more in the residential area than the commercial area — the traffic circle and diverter seem to be at the border between commercial and residential.
Certainly, Nueces seems a whole lot more commercial than Rainey lane does. And the proposed changes are a lot more significant than what I see here — this Davis lane is only 250 feet long, after all, and there’s little need to go down it unless your destination is actually on it.
on Feb 11th, 2010 at 9:20 pm
Doug,
If the conspiracy theory sprouted from the “Nuts for Nueces Ride Rally” we did at the beginning of this story, then this conspiracy theory is the result of an extremely unusual neuronal combination. It does not even have the semblance of skewed reality of most conspirational minds, it has nothing.
With regard to the need of Austin originated data; I wish I could be able to convey how most research is carried out. In most instances the body of knowledge of any given field is used to predict the most probable outcome for the case study. Yes, there are risks in extrapolating, but there is a degree to which assuming those risks is the way to move forward.
There is a great number of studies across the globe regarding many different aspects of the impact of bicycles on transportation. Despite the obvious differences among places, trends can be and are identified. Standing on these studies, social scientists, planners; in one word, societies, from disparate regions of the world have been able to predict and/or plan for what it is more likely to happen. They use statistical analyses, which is in fact the art of dealing with uncertainty within certain limits of tolerance. If each plan or decision has to be based on a specific study at a given place and time, I am afraid decisions will always be stalled by the lack of resources and it would be wasteful to procede that way.
The issue with Nueces is not lack of data that can be trusted; it is a political tour-de-force where the interest of one group of individuals is against the interest of the community at large.
on Feb 12th, 2010 at 9:56 am
Bike Plan passes with unanimous support and a $20 million commitment
http://bikeportland.org/2010/02/11/the-bike-plan-live-from-city-council/#more-29391
I feel like we’re going backwards sometimes here in Austin. This much grief over a few traffic diverters. It all seems so ridiculous. We should be where Portland is now.
We don’t need a committee. We need the city to take charge and just build it. They don’t ask for permission when they decide they need to build a crosswalk for the safety and benefit of a neighborhood.
If the city has decided we need a bike blvd for the safety and benefit of the city, they need to stop asking for permission and just do it. That’s their job.
on Feb 12th, 2010 at 10:19 am
Doug,
Davis is a diverter off Rainey Street. Before the traffic calming was put there, the neighborhood was a major cut through from downtown to I-35. I worked for over a year at MLK and West and I know that Nueces can be a cut through for Guadalupe when rush hour traffic gets backed up.
Rainey Street is essentially Nueces Street about 20 years ago. Much of it is residential but it is zoned CBD and most of the properties are owned by commerical developers. Several homes have been converted to restaurants and office space, and the traffic calming did nothing to prevent 2 high rise condos from being built at the other end of the street.
So,
1. traffic calming did nothing to reduce the value of the land
2. traffic calming did nothing to prevent high density development
These are the main arguments of Susan Harris which are flat out not the case in a street that is a transitional neighborhood from downtown as Nueces Street is. I’d argue the traffic calming added value but the CBD zoning did that more than anything. The key here is that it did not prevent the very changes Susan says she’s for in re-development of her own property.
on Feb 12th, 2010 at 10:49 am
When were these diverters and other changes put in? If it was 20 years ago, then the analogy with Nueces would then be complete. If it was recent, then the analogy isn’t complete, and it’s going to be hard to accurately determine any changes in property values.
(It’s not like the Travis County Appraisal District is known for accurately working out property values. And besides, they tend to go up over time anyways so a small hit in property values could easily be masked by increasing property values. Knowing TCAD, they’d ignore any changes to the area and simply add a few percent to last year’s values.)
Is there a study to be read done on the property values in this area? How was any lack of changes in property values determined?
But it’s not really property values they should be worried about — it’s their business. Have all the businesses near the calming measures been asked about what effect they’ve had on their business? (A study?) If they have, and they generally report no change or an improvement, then that would begin to suggest that these changes wouldn’t have much negative effect, and should be more convincing than the studies done elsewhere. Though these changes are pretty minor compared to what’s proposed for Nueces …
on Feb 12th, 2010 at 11:35 am
Doug,
I don’t remember exactly when it was put in but it was within the last decade, at least 5 years ago. The key here is the divert and other traffic calming did not kill the street. 2 new high rise condos went in within after the traffic calming and there are new businesses (one restaurant that went in about a month ago) opening on Rainey.
Don’t get me wrong. The CBD zoning did more to increase the value of the land than anything. It’s just that opponents are saying their land will be worthless for redevelopment or business if traffic calming is put in, and in this case, a similar neighborhood catty corner had none of these ill effects. Whether it improved the value is uncertain but it didn’t devalue the land or prevent new development.
I’m going to try to get some more detailed analysis for an article in the next week or so.
on Feb 12th, 2010 at 12:08 pm
I don’t recall the opponents saying their land would be worthless — only that it would lose some value, that they’d lose some business.
Looking forward to your more detailed analysis …
on Feb 12th, 2010 at 1:56 pm
Doug sez: “As for the Nuts for Nueces ride, I didn’t say it was accurate, only that it might be what he’s referring to. (FUD works much better if there’s a grain of truth in there, and yes, people did talk about riding on Nueces on a specific date on their blogs. Perhaps that was the wrong date, perhaps it was just an innocent ride/rally, but hey, he made a mistake, how should he know why they rode?)”
What is “FUD”? Is there a URL/link that you could point me to? I’m still looking for even a single reference to people advocating increasing bike counts on Nueces St. during the study period. If I haven’t heard of it and I can’t find it, then I remain doubtful that Greg Copp found such a source.
on Feb 15th, 2010 at 10:16 am
FUD = F.ear U.ncertainty & D.oubt – It’s a sales term. You can generate sales by increasing the fear, uncertainity & doubt in your customers mind, leading them to believe they need to buy now, or else (insert random calamity here) will happen.
It’s used a lot by politicians and news outlets as well. But I’d argue they’re trying to sell you something as well.
on Feb 17th, 2010 at 12:09 pm
Ben defined FUD nicely.
As for people advocating increasing bike counts on Nueces St. during the study period, I’m not saying that a single person said that. But Copp may have misunderstood the purpose of the Nuts for Nueces ride.
(But really, if you want to know what he’s talking about, I guess the thing to do is to ask him.)
on Feb 22nd, 2010 at 1:13 pm
As a delivery driver, my cash flow to support myself would be hurt if i couldn’t readily access the businesses and condos on nueces st, one of the shortest routes to and from downtown as well, i would probably become one of those bums on the street if it werent for my delivery job. consider that
on Feb 22nd, 2010 at 1:20 pm
John,
Neither the City of Austin toolbox nor the League of Bicycling Voters proposal for a Nueces Bike Boulevard block current vehicle access to any of the properties on the proposed route. I used to work at MLK and West while I live south. Nueces is an awful cut through street with stop lights or stop signs at nearly every corner. Guadalupe/Lavaca are much faster streets to get to and from downtown. I don’t understand how this would hurt your business?