The City of Austin’s Bicycle and Pedestrian Program is considering improvements in bicycle infrastructure on South Congress between downtown and Oltorf including bike lanes and back in parking spaces (similar to those installed on Dean Keaton). Last week, the Bicycle Advisory Council passed a resolution in support of this action calling for the following:
- a continuous uphill southbound bike lane on South Congress from Riverside to Oltorf
- northbound bike lanes south of Annie and north of Academy (with parallel parking in place of the proposed design that has no bike lane with sharrows and reverse-angle parking between Annie and Academy)
- support of reverse-angle parking
The League of Bicycling Voters is asking all supporters of cycling to contact the Austin City Council and express your support for the BAC resolution. Some opposition from local businesses has arisen so it is important that everyone’s voice be heard. The linked LOBV page has individual councilmember e-mail addresses but you can also contact all the City Council members at once using the group contact form here: http://www.ci.austin.tx.us/council/groupemail.htm
Those who want to use the phone instead can call each of the Council Members here:
- Mayor Lee Leffingwell- (512) 974-2250
- Place 1 Councilmember Chris Riley- (512) 974-2260
- Place 2 Councilmember Mike Martinez- (512) 974-2264
- Place 3 Councilmember Randi Shade- (512) 974-2255
- Place 4 Councilmember Laura Morrison- (512) 974-2258
- Place 5 Councilmember Bill Spelman- (512) 974-2256
- Place 6 Councilmember Sheryl Cole- (512) 974-2266
on Nov 22nd, 2010 at 10:02 am
Thanks Elliot! I think this is a much needed change with all of the bikes crawling up So.Co. with cars flying by. There is even a sign on So.Co. stating cars yield to bikes, but it doesn’t seem to be visible to anyone but the bikes!
Peace and Love,
Brian
on Nov 22nd, 2010 at 2:49 pm
RT @austinon2wheels: ATX cyclists: @lobvaustin wants you to contact City Council in support of BAC resolution on S Congress http://bit.ly/cCgzpo
on Nov 23rd, 2010 at 3:38 am
RT @austinon2wheels: ATX cyclists: @lobvaustin wants you to contact City Council in support of BAC resolution on S Congress http://bit.ly/cCgzpo
on Nov 23rd, 2010 at 10:32 am
“a continuous uphill southbound bike lane on South Congress from Riverside to Oltorf”
What? No. Please, no more bike lanes adjacent to on-street parking. Painting bike lines through the restaurant/retail section is more likely to _decrease_ safety by making cyclists feel compelled to take a road position closer to parked cars than they would otherwise.
If you want to put bike lanes on Congress where they might actually increase cyclist safety, look south of Ben White, where the shoulder is inconsistent, the lighting is poor, and the speed limit is 45mph.
on Nov 23rd, 2010 at 11:28 am
Nate,
If they don’t switch to reverse parking, I agree with you. Putting bike lanes behind conventional angled parking would be bad (I take this route all the time and cut through the neighborhood most of the time to avoid the angled parking.) When you use reverse angle parking, it changes the equation and makes the situation at least as safe if not more so than parallel in my opinion.
on Nov 23rd, 2010 at 11:29 am
Also, what do you mean south of Ben White? There is a bike lane for miles on Congress south of Ben White.
on Nov 23rd, 2010 at 1:20 pm
Granted, reverse angle parking improves the motorist’s view of the road when leaving the spot. But the cyclist is still going to be more visible and less likely to have a collision with a car or pedestrian in the middle (or left) of the adjacent full-sized lane than she would be on the right. Combining reverse angle parking and a bike lane means motorists have to cross a lane of traffic in reverse to park. That seems like a pretty uncomfortable situation for both motorists and cyclists.
When a motorist in the rightmost full-size lane is preparing to back into a parking space and a cyclist approaches from its rear in the bike lane, who is required to yield? It’s not a rhetorical question – I’d really like to have a definitive answer in case this plan is implemented.
As for the “south of Ben White” comment: heading south on Congress, shortly before you get to Stassney the bike lane disappears. By William Cannon there is a single traffic lane with a crappy shoulder. There are wide shoulders in spots but these are mostly parking lots and subject to uncontrolled traffic.
I hope CoA and the BAC will pay more attention to less central areas like this. For example, there is no good way to bike north from my neighborhood (Wm Cannon & Congress) into the core of the city, which is already plenty bikeable. Most of the time I suck it up and take S. 1st or Congress, but a casual or beginning cyclist isn’t going to be comfortable with that. People living north of 183 are similarly affected. This lack of bikeable connections into central Austin translates into less ridership, more driving.
The fact that the “SoCo” area has a lot of bicycle traffic means that cyclists are already comfortable riding in it (I know I am). So why add bike lanes there? Inducing cyclists to ride closer to parked cars isn’t going to increase cyclist safety. Is it going to increase ridership?
on Nov 30th, 2010 at 9:27 pm
Nate, I invite you to the BAC — it is composed of interested bicycling citizens like you. The BAC meets at 6:30pm on the third Thursday of each month in the 8th floor conference room in One Texas Center, 505 Barton Springs Rd. at South 1st St. You are welcome to attend and participate.
——
Regarding the reverse-angle parking, here is my understanding:
1) Car signals and merges into bike lane, yielding to any traffic there.
2) Car stops in bike lane, keeping the direction signal on
3) Car backs up into reverse-angle space.
Any traffic approaching from behind will need to wait, or pass on the left.
——
Regarding the idea that the new facilities will cause bicyclists to ride more closely to parked cars: I’m not sure that I understand your concern here. The reverse-angle parking will allow eye-contact from motorists to traffic (including bicyclists) coming up from behind. We’re not talking about parallel parking here, so the door-zone issue is irrelevant.
——
Regarding the idea that any bad or lack of bike facility in Austin precludes improving a bike facility in another part of Austin: This one is tough to understand by someone who has been watching bike and general transportation infrastructure change over the years. To be clear, there are almost always valid reasons for why one project is completed before another one. As the saying goes, “Rome wasn’t build in a day.”
The CoA Bike Program likely also wants to see bike lanes on Congress Ave. south until it ends. The currently proposed South Congress project has funds already devoted to it by entities beyond the control of the bike program.
——
The City of Austin is implementing the 2009 Austin Bike Plan, which has a stated goal of increasing bike usage to 5% citywide by 2020. While an area may have (or seem to have) a lot of bike traffic, the city is still working toward that 5% city wide, and thus needs to increase bicycle traffic where it can.
It’s easy to get caught in the trap of thinking that there are numerous streets in central or suburban Austin that are much more deserving of better bike facilities than anything else the city is working on currently. Such an opinion really depends of the point of view of the particular person. I think the key is to make sure that it’s on the CoA Bike Program’s radar: http://www.ci.austin.tx.us/bicycle/ If further assistance is needed, feel free to contact me at 512-203-7626 or tom@lobv.org There are a lot of complications for why one project is worked on but another is not. Sometimes the potential project needs a strong advocate for discussion _within_ that neighborhood.
on Nov 30th, 2010 at 9:31 pm
Oops. Keep in mind that these posts are uneditable…
Regarding the idea that the new facilities will cause bicyclists to ride more closely to parked cars: I need to add: I’m not convinced that because of the city’s proposal that bicyclists will be induced to ride more closely to parked cars. It’s possible that bicyclists will be riding farther from parked cars than they do now.