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.)

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.

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.

Looking forward to your more detailed analysis …

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.

(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 …

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.

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.