If you haven’t seen all the fencing and earth movers on Cesar Chavez and Lamar yet, know that the long awaited extension to the Pfluger Pedestrian Bridge began construction this week. The extension will allow cyclists and pedestrians to cross Cesar Chavez on a bridge instead of having to cross at the light.
Here are the details from the City of Austin:
Austin’s popular Pfluger Pedestrian Bridge will get a new extension this year. The northwest arm of the bridge will be an overpass for pedestrians and bicyclists to easily cross over Cesar Chavez Street from above street level.
Work began this week on the construction, which is expected to last until December 2010.
The bridge follows alongside Sandra Muraida Way, and ends just before the Gables development. The project will also include an earthen, landscaped mound where the bridge extension meets the land on the north side of Cesar Chavez Street. At the ramp’s conclusion there will be a bicycle round-about with connections to hike-and-bike trail and Lance Armstrong Bikeway.
The existing Pfluger Bridge and Cesar Chavez Street will be closed for a short portion of the project in late summer to set the large bridge beams above the roadway. There is no traffic impact expected before then, but pedestrians and cyclists should exercise caution around the construction site.
More available at: http://www.ci.austin.tx.us/publicworks/pflugerbridge_design.htm
on Mar 24th, 2010 at 10:34 am
Does anyone know if there is a long (or short) term plan for peds on this side of Cesar? There is no sidewalk along Cesar, no way north except on perilous Lamar. Am I missing something? Currently we use the non-sidewalk along the curb on the south side at night and go all the way to San Antonio for a (relatively) safe and lit way back from South Lamar to Third and Nueces.
on Mar 24th, 2010 at 12:44 pm
the retail space below Gables Park Plaza should complement the added foot traffic. When/if they ever punch bowie street (at least a walkable path) under the train tracks this will be a seamless connection to downtown. Lord knows that nobody wants to walk the underpass on Lamar with a 4′ unprotected and crumbling sidewalk.
on Mar 24th, 2010 at 1:02 pm
Ah, so really there is no advantage for peds unless there is a shop of interest or they live in this new Gables. And bikes avoid the ramp and light in exchange for a round about double back to the bikeway. Until other connections are made the expense seems to be mainly for one apartment. Hopefully it will inspire the building of a connection with Bowie for bikes and peds.
on Mar 24th, 2010 at 2:17 pm
I emailed a project manager with some questions. Firstly, Public Works is going to do some improvements to the Lamar underpass, which will be done before the construction is complete.
Also, I the Bowie underpass sounds like it will happen, just not before construction ends.
Finally, they are working on some temporary connections through seaholm park, which will be available until Seahold Drive is ready as a connection.
http://www.ci.austin.tx.us/publicworks/images/1317tunnelopt.jpg
on Mar 24th, 2010 at 3:07 pm
Thanks for the additional info, Mark.
on Mar 24th, 2010 at 4:50 pm
Lots and lots of stop and yield signs compared with just staying on Lamar. Yay, Pfluger Stopway!
on Mar 24th, 2010 at 6:07 pm
Mark…that picture was what I ws looking for…and here’s hoping it gets done. Lamar is a bit out of the way for me but needed for overall ped access. I bet when this was propsed they thought Seaholm would be further along now.
on Mar 25th, 2010 at 10:16 am
For any cyclist with a bit of grit and a place to go, I think Lamar proper will always be the preferred route through the area. Less stops, a more direct route, and no squirrelly pedestrians and joggers to get in your way.
This bridge benefits the Class C cyclists who want to bike from their condo to the new fancy boutique shop before grabbing brunch downtown, and honestly they pay big taxes, they’ll be an increasingly visible segment of the downtown cycling population in the next few years, and because of this I think the bridge is a good thing even if I’ll only rarely (if ever) use it for transportation cycling. Plus maybe adding more traffic will keep all them damn hippies from congregating on the bridge.
Yay CoA for finally trying to COMPLETE a major bicycle/pedestrian infrastructure project.
on Mar 25th, 2010 at 10:24 am
Agreed. Getting as many inexperienced cyclists off the Lamar proper bridge as possible is a good thing both for the those cyclists and the experienced ones who want to use Lamar.
This extension has been a long time coming and I’m glad to see it happen.
on Mar 25th, 2010 at 11:15 pm
Bike bridge expanding, hell yes: http://austinontwowheels.org/2010/03/24/construction-begins-this-week-on-the-pfluger-bridge-extension/
on Mar 26th, 2010 at 8:55 am
Guys, the danger is that once the bridge is done, cyclists will be banned from the Lamar bridge (like pedestrians already have been).
on Mar 29th, 2010 at 12:25 pm
OK, so that’s a danger, but so far cyclists aren’t banned from *any* roads in Austin. Even IH-35′s upper deck, Mopac north of the river, etc. — roads that cyclists would rarely if ever ride.
(The signs are still up on Mopac, but the law behind them has expired so they’re not valid.)
And really, from a cyclist point of view, that bridge isn’t so incredibly dangerous. Sure, it’s not some calm residential area, but the traffic there is usually pretty slow and there is a sidewalk that one can get on in an emergency, even if it’s raised and pedestrians are prohibited.
So, M1EK, are you suggesting that cyclists not push for bike/pedestrian bridges like the Pfluger bridge, simply because they might prompt the city to start banning bikes from certain roads?
on Mar 29th, 2010 at 12:34 pm
Banning cyclists from road is one of the main arguments of vehicular cyclists on why we shouldn’t build bike facilities. I’ve not seen a major case in America of that actually happening, and I would expect the cycling community would be rather vocal in opposition to any such move.
on Mar 29th, 2010 at 12:40 pm
Doug, pedestrians already got banned from Lamar; and cyclists were already banned from some segments of freeway in our area. It’s not that far of a leap to assume that once the bridge is done, cyclists would get banned from the vehicle bridge. Obviously I don’t want that to happen – I rode that bridge all the time when I lived over in Clarksville and could still ride; it’s clearly superior to having to yield right-of-way five or six times on the alternate route.
My suggestion, Doug, is that we pay attention to the voices of realism when these facilities are being proposed/designed – I expressed all of this way back when the bridge’s NW arm was junked and turned into the central/surface route. If the bridge is being sold to the public (both motorists and cyclists) as a “get the cyclists off this dangerous bridge” project, you’d better make damn sure the new route has the objective attributes to make it attractive for those cyclists currently using the other bridge – including but not limited to the ability to get right-of-way at all intersections.
I know you guys in Librik’s army think I’m some ranting idiot – but I was 100% right on Shoal Creek, I was 100% right on the 2000 light rail election (thanks Patrick for the dinner), I was 100% right on 51st/Airport (for a recent example), and I’m going to be right here – as much as I wish otherwise – expect a “no bikes” sign on the Lamar bridge within a year or two of the extension’s opening.
on Mar 29th, 2010 at 12:40 pm
Personally, I think the Pfluger pedestrian bridge is rather superfluous — there are other alternatives that are very close.
But it’s such a high traffic pedestrian/cyclist area (and especially with the cyclists who just ride the paths and rarely get on the road at all) that it makes sense, and so does the extension.
It’s important only because it’s really popular.
on Mar 29th, 2010 at 12:46 pm
Just as long as you’re remaining humble, M1EK.
on Mar 29th, 2010 at 12:46 pm
No, it’s important because it’s going to affect transportation cyclists – not just the trail-riders.
on Mar 29th, 2010 at 1:13 pm
The Lamar bridge has pretty sucky sidewalks — narrow, right next to traffic on one side and a short fence on the other. It makes me wonder why they didn’t either 1) do it right in the first place, or 2) not bother with sidewalks at all.
As far as I know, there are no roads in the Austin area where cyclists are actually banned. The signs are still up in Mopac but don’t have any laws behind them, people think the cyclists are banned from the upper deck of IH-35 but there are no signs (or laws), and even the tollways don’t ban cyclists. Which roads are you referring to?
I’m not aware of the Pfluger bridge being sold as a “get the cyclists off this dangerous bridge” project.
As for Librik’s army, um, yeah. That’s something a ranting lunatic might say, and it detracts from their message, be it right or wrong.
on Mar 29th, 2010 at 1:43 pm
And “ranting lunatic” is the kind of language Librik allowed to be applied to yours truly, while attempts to defend in similarly colored language were banned. All animals equal; some more than others.
Tell you what, Doug, since I haven’t attacked you in any way, shape, or form in this discussion, how about you apologize for that first, and then I’ll address the substance of your comment?
on Mar 29th, 2010 at 1:47 pm
Let’s get comments back to substance instead of personal back and forths, guys. If not, I’ll delete the whole thread.
on Mar 29th, 2010 at 1:53 pm
There was no attack from me to any of you. False equivalence FTW.
On the substance, the Pfluger Bridge’s genesis was when a pedestrian got killed on the bridge, true, but the initial momentum for the bridge was heavily cyclist-related. I rode in (and helped keep adult) a protest ride to get the thing funded. I was pretty heavily involved in the effort to keep the thing moving at the time while on the UTC, and, obviously (I hope), heavily involved in the discussions about the extension across Cesar Chavez when the money wasn’t enough to get the whole thing built.
So speaking as somebody who was ‘there’ the whole time, yes, it was very much about “getting cyclists off this dangerous bridge”.
on Mar 29th, 2010 at 1:55 pm
There was, as far as I’m aware, no protest walk across the bridge, for instance.
on Mar 29th, 2010 at 3:30 pm
You want me to apologize for you not attacking me? I guess I’m a bit confused about what you want.
As for “raving lunatic”, they’re your words. I repeated them to point out the irony — yes, you’ve had disagreements with Librik. That doesn’t make people who don’t always agree with you part of his “army”.
on Mar 30th, 2010 at 8:35 am
“That’s something a ranting lunatic might say”.
on Mar 30th, 2010 at 12:30 pm
“I know you guys in Librik’s army think I’m some ranting idiot” …
on Mar 30th, 2010 at 12:38 pm
Yes. You owned it.
on Oct 18th, 2010 at 12:31 pm
I’m a fan of the Pfluger bridge because I ride for fun and transport. I have no fear of traffic (I worked as a bike messenger in NYC for a year) or cars but I know a bad idea when I see one.
The Lamar Street bridge seems like a death trap given how narrow it is and how poorly people drive. Really, the Pfluger Bridge seems like such a better idea. It would be nice if the hipsters and other irritating people go away (or get out of the way) and if the car traffic were reduced, but that’s the reality. There aren’t many places where one can stop to chill on a bench without a car in your face, watch a sunrise/set or ride somewhere without any sort of problems.
An added problem to the otherwise beneficial increase in cycling (or bike ridingness) is we have to start yielding to each other and giving the right of way. The hipsters with headphones poorly riding fixed gear bikes the wrong way down a street or the delivery bikes (this is more of a NYC problem) who ONLY ride on the sidewalk and against the flow of traffic as well as the pretentious “real cyclists” as much as the first-time-on-a-bike folks all need to ride with the same rules as the car driving folks sometimes follow. I mean, we can’t ride like we’re the only ones on the street. It’s easier for us to not crash into each other than cars. Also pedestrians need to understand that stepping in front of someone on a bike is a bad idea and that walking in bike lanes is equally bad – just as much as getting the bikes off the sidewalks and heading the right way on a street or path.
Whenever people complain about how rough it is in Austin to ride a bike or how mean and unprofessional the cops are, I try not to laugh. Austin is the easiest place to get around on bike I ever lived (OK, I only lived in Austin for a little while but I’m there as often as I can, coming from horrible San Antonio). NYC is in some ways a close second, but the NYPD makes riding a bike an occasionally huge challenge.
I would love to see better bike routes in the increasingly suburban northern parts of Austin on both the east and west side. Austin has the wonderfully numbered bike routes (where else has them?) but I’d like to see more separated bikeways like the ones downtown. Maybe even extending the greenway, or whatever it’s called that runs to somewhere in the 30′s or 40′s. It’s awesome to ride that far to the river or downtown without ever having a car mirror at my elbow.
Austinites don’t seem to realize what they have and how lucky they are. What other city has built what it built for bikes and pedestrians?
As a nation we’re decades behind the developed world and slowly declining. But, at least little gems like these argued-about bridges and infrastructure are here for people to debate or simply ride over.