AUSTIN | Transportation Updates

[The ATX]

Since we are continuing with this...How about "Hell Hole." That pretty much describes what putting I-35 underground would be like.

[the Genral]

Originally Posted by Hill Country

Since we are continuing with this...How about "Hell Hole." That pretty much describes what putting I-35 underground would be like.

And the winner is....hell hole... for the reason stated.

[M1EK]

Going back to the issue of the protected bike lane, with my favorite cheerios-shitter, here's an article I came across today:

http://janheine.wordpress.com/2013/0...rate-or-equal/

Some money quotes:

To understand bicycle safety, it is important to look at the actual, rather than perceived, dangers. The danger of being hit from behind or being “clipped” by a car passing too close is very small. It accounts for less than 5% of car-bike accidents.

Most accidents involving bikes and cars occur at intersections. Leaving aside accidents that are the cyclist’s fault (and thus more easily avoidable), there are three common scenarios:

A car pulls out of a side street and doesn’t notice the approaching cyclist who has the right of way.
A car is about to turn right and doesn’t realize that there is a cyclist traveling in the same direction in their blind spot on the right. The car cuts off the cyclist, often with fatal consequences.
A car turns left and doesn’t notice an oncoming cyclist. The car turns into the cyclist’s path.
In all cases, the driver did not notice the cyclist. This is the greatest danger for cyclists: being overlooked in traffic. Since drivers usually scan the road for cars, cyclists are safest if they ride where drivers look for cars. To be safe, cyclists must be an equal part of traffic.

and more

These are not hypothetical concerns. The police department in Berlin, Germany, found that on streets where “protected bike paths” were installed, the frequency of cycling accidents greatly increased. (The results are significant even when corrected for various factors, such as an increased number of cyclists traveling on these routes.)

and more

An on-street bike lane (above, on uphill right side) is a much better solution to separating bicycles and cars. It keeps cyclists on the roadway as a legitimate part of traffic. To novice cyclists, it may be disconcerting to be passed by fast-moving cars, but it is safer to be an equal part of traffic than to pop out from unexpected places as you cross intersections on a separate path.

Separate cycle paths are appealing to many cycling advocates because they exist all over Europe. And in Europe, more people cycle, and cycling is safer. So it’s easy to think that the cycle paths are the reason for cycling’s success in Europe.

Having lived in Europe, I believe that cycling there is successful in spite of (and not because of) the bike paths. It may help to know that separate bike paths originally were not introduced to make cycling better, but to clear the road for cars (by the car-obsessed Nazis in Germany). For that reason, cyclists were required by law to use the bike path, whether it was well-designed or not. Other European countries quickly followed this “innovation.” It spread to yet more countries when Germany invaded much of Europe during World War II.

As early as 1936, the French Cyclotouring Federation lobbied for bike lanes painted on the road, instead of mandatory, but dangerous, bike paths. In Europe, that battle still is going on more than 75 years later, because the Nazi-era laws remain on the books to this day, even in cycling-friendly places like Amsterdam and Copenhagen. (To be clear, I am not implying that those advocating for separate paths should be in any form compared to Nazis. I only included this for a historic perspective on why European cyclists have to cycle on segregated facilities.)

That's only about a third of his post, which is excellent. Highly recommend you check it out. Of course, I'm sure that in your world I somehow got to her and convinced his to 'spread misinformation'.

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by M1EK

Going back to the issue of the protected bike lane, with my favorite cheerios-shitter,

Thank you so much for bringing class and decorum to this discussion

Originally Posted by M1EK

here's an article I came across today:

http://janheine.wordpress.com/2013/0...rate-or-equal/

You apparently failed to notice that her source ( http://bicyclesafe.com/) is the exact same source you linked earlier and which I have already addressed. You know, the one that shows the majority of fatalities aren't at intersections.

Originally Posted by M1EK

Of course, I'm sure that in your world I somehow got to her and convinced her to 'spread misinformation'.

No, I'm sure both of you are misinformed in your own unique, special ways.

Look, both of you are completely misunderstanding the statistic on that page. It states that direct from behind hits are 3.8% of collisions (which doesn't say anything about how dangerous or fatal those are comparatively). But guess what: directly from behind hits are not the only types of mid-block hits, and not the only types of hits that separated bike lanes will protect from. You know, with the title of that section being "The Rear End, pt. 2", it sort of implies that there are other types of rear-end collisions. Oh look, right above it is the first type. Then there's also the mid-block side-swipe as a car changes lanes.

[the Genral]

Bottom line for me when I'm on a bicycle or motorcycle, I ride as if every motor vehicle on the road has the potential of colliding with me. Staying aware of that and my reaction time to close calls, and there have been quite a few, has kept me out of trouble for many years. I don't feel a diminished sense of enjoyment of riding on two wheels despite my personal realization that when I do so, I have to remain focused and ride defensive 100% of the time. I ride believing that every car surrounding me is going to cut me off, pull in front of me, hit me from behind, ect...When I ride in traffic anywhere, my paranoia warrants this attitude. In those cases, traveling on two wheels is not joy riding, its to get somewhere on the vehicle of my choice. If I want to joy ride, I'll stick to remote areas or park paths where I can let my guard down somewhat, but even then I keep aware of my surroundings.
We can quote statistics all day, but I think the single most important step we can take to protect ourselves when choosing to ride our bikes is to always expect the unexpected, use common sense, and have all safety measures in place, reflective tape, lights, rearview mirrors, helmets, and hand signals.
I wish there was a way to mandate a safety awareness course for everyone who rides a bike on public roads just to get the point across of how to minimize the potential risks, even if it saves just one life, it would be worth it.
I know that statistics help with designing and implementing safer biking lanes and routes, but despite all efforts to protect people, we still drive thru barriers, cross the road a half block from a crosswalk, fail to obey traffic laws, stop signs and traffic lights, so the human factor has got to be addressed equally if we are going to reduce bike / vehicle collisions. The average bike rider needs to learn how to keep out of harms way. There's a statistic worth fighting about, how much effort is going into acomplishing that? Debate and argue all you want about where and how the collisions are occurring, I've come to the conclusion that the human factor, the interaction between vehicle drivers and bikes riders are the reasons for accidents, and all the studies and funds going into barriers and bike lanes ect...validates that the human factor is practically an insurmountable issue, and that bike riding on public streets in inherently dangerous. Just say it like it is...and arguing over the stats, though entertaining, is counter productive to the root cause.

[Komeht]

For me - all of this varies by roadway. On a neighborhood street where the traffic is slow and it's two-lanes, I bike in the lane of traffic comfortably. If there's a really impatient driver behind me I'll pull over but otherwise I'm biking towards the center to avoid strikes.

But as the roads get busier, with more lanes of traffic, and faster cars with more idiots in them, then I want separation. And really busy and quick roads like Lamar, Airport, and Burnet where people are routinely going 40 - 50 mph regardless of what they're signed - I just wouldn't ride on them at all without a cycle track (even though I see people do this all the time).

I will say that perhaps one aspect that is probably hard to quantify is this - without regard to actual safety, cycle tracks do create a perception of safety and if they do so enough, and they attract enough cyclists then there will be increased visibility and awareness that cyclists share and are on the roads. So cycle tracks might indeed have a positive impact on-safey but not in precisely the way that was intended.

It's like anything else - sometimes a cycle track could be perfectly appropriate solution to a problem and other times wholly unnecessary or counter productive.

[M1EK]

Here's a vine taken this morning by an acquaintance of mine. Notice how few look for bikes; and notice the bus behind just let off a load on the other end of the platform.

https://vine.co/v/hi5JPJ2zqT7

I drove by about an hour earlier (7:45ish) than this picture and was stopped at the red light behind a bus - saw 6 people get off at the platform and walk across the bike lane without looking.

As for bike accidents - Novacek, perhaps you should at least consider the possibility that you're misinterpreting the data rather than assuming that everybody else is misinformed. I don't have time for more of your homework, which you wouldn't give credit for anyways, but everybody else reading should take me at my word here: cyclists with lots of experience don't worry about overtaking collisions (what few occur are disproportionately accidents at night where the cyclist had no lights and/or was going the wrong way, i.e. typical BWI); they worry about intersections, where cyclists doing the right thing are often hit anyways.

[lzppjb]

In my experience as a motorist, seeing a bike stop at a stop sign is a lot more rare than seeing one blow through it. I've seen them do it even with cars coming. That's not to say that all are like this, and I expect the cyclists on this forum are of the more responsible riders. But that's part of the intersetion problem, perhaps. Something else I see are bicycles riding up between cars waiting at a light in order to get in front of everyone. I see this a lot. I'm sure that adds to the problem of not being able to see a cyclist.

I really don't have problems with cyclists that are using it as their form of transportation. I give them a wide berth when I pass, and I slow down when I do. What annoys me are the Lance Armstrong wannabes riding in packs of 10-20 taking up entire neighborhood roads on a Sunday morning, or cruising along a highway that clearly prohibits bicycles for their own safety.

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by M1EK

I drove by about an hour earlier (7:45ish) than this picture and was stopped at the red light behind a bus - saw 6 people get off at the platform and walk across the bike lane without looking.

Uh, yeah, because they're not done with construction yet. The signage and green lane marking that will let people know about the bike lane aren't done yet.

Originally Posted by M1EK

As for bike accidents - Novacek, perhaps you should at least consider the possibility that you're misinterpreting the data rather than assuming that everybody else is misinformed.

It's a matter of basic math. 61 % of fatalities (not at intersections) > 39 % of fatalities (at intersections).

Originally Posted by M1EK

I don't have time for more of your homework, which you wouldn't give credit for anyways,

Supporting wild claims with actual facts aren't "homework". And yes, claims that are directly _contradicted_ by your own links are wild.

Originally Posted by M1EK

cyclists with lots of experience don't worry about overtaking collisions

Again, direct overtaking collisions aren't the only type of mid-block collisions. _Your_ own link calls out other types.

Originally Posted by M1EK

(what few occur are disproportionately accidents at night where the cyclist had no lights and/or was going the wrong way, i.e. typical BWI);

Sure, blame the cyclist. Ignore all the cyclist fatalities here in austin that were caused by DWI.

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by lzppjb

or cruising along a highway that clearly prohibits bicycles for their own safety.

Which highway? None of the highways in Austin prohibit bicycles? (okay, technically they're in the process of prohibiting them on the toll roads).

http://kutnews.org/post/you-can-bike...-horrible-idea

[lzppjb]

I guess I was thinking of 360. Didn't even think about 35 and Mopac. I can't believe anyone is crazy enough to ride on those. I thought I had seen signs on 360 prohibiting it, but I'm not sure. 360 is not one of the roads listed in your link as allowing them.

It's more of a common sense thing, anyway. I guess they're doing it for their health...which is sort of funny since they decide to ride along busy roads, cheating death with every second that passes.

[KevinFromTexas]

What Mike's talking about is true. People act like bike lanes are just fine spaces to walk in. Think of what would happen if people treated lanes of traffic for cars that way. They'd be scraping them up with a shovel. When you're riding your bike, one of the main things you do is scan the street for any problems well ahead of you to avoid them. I've seen people horsing around on sidewalks shoving each other as they walk a foot from the bike lane. Or they'll step out into the bike lane because the sidewalk is full. I might be coming along at 30 mph and ruin their day and mine.

Barton Springs is one of the worst streets for this situation during the festivals. The sidewalks are full and people step off into the street. It's the reason they eventually close Barton Springs west of Robert E. Lee. That insanely narrow and high sidewalk on the Barton Springs bridge crossing the creek is the last straw along there. Parts of South Congress are similar.

Originally Posted by lzppjb

In my experience as a motorist, seeing a bike stop at a stop sign is a lot more rare than seeing one blow through it. I've seen them do it even with cars coming. That's not to say that all are like this, and I expect the cyclists on this forum are of the more responsible riders. But that's part of the intersetion problem, perhaps. Something else I see are bicycles riding up between cars waiting at a light in order to get in front of everyone. I see this a lot. I'm sure that adds to the problem of not being able to see a cyclist.

I really don't have problems with cyclists that are using it as their form of transportation. I give them a wide berth when I pass, and I slow down when I do. What annoys me are the Lance Armstrong wannabes riding in packs of 10-20 taking up entire neighborhood roads on a Sunday morning, or cruising along a highway that clearly prohibits bicycles for their own safety.

Yeah, I don't know why some cyclists run stop signs. They say the reason is it's lost momentum if they have to stop, which is complete BS. I say just get fit and deal with it. I never do this. And I don't know why a cyclist would ride up between cars. It's one thing if they're doing it to get ahead of the car to enter the driver's field of vision. It's better to be directly in front of them to force them to see you than to be off to the side in their peripheral field of view. Drivers sometimes forget to scan the street for trouble/objects. They tend to only look forward and forget about what might be just off to the side. Moving between cars and getting ahead of them can also be because you don't want to be on a bicycle sitting between bumpers. But riding between them is really stupid since it puts you in their blind spot.

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by lzppjb

360 is not one of the roads listed in your link as allowing them.

360 falls under "Bicycles are allowed to ride on any street in the City of Austin". I think those others are called out specially because they are even in another class (freeways) of which 360 is not.

360 is specifically outlined on the CoA bicycle map.

http://austintexas.gov/bicycle

[KevinFromTexas]

They're dropping the speed limit on South Congress between Cesar Chavez and Live Oak to 30 mph from 35 mph.

http://www.keyetv.com/news/features/...A%22wall%22%7D

[Komeht]

Originally Posted by KevinFromTexas

They're dropping the speed limit on South Congress between Cesar Chavez and Live Oak to 30 mph from 35 mph.

http://www.keyetv.com/news/features/...A%22wall%22%7D

great - now if they would just take out a couple of lanes of traffic. . .

Or even better - make it into a beautiful avenue with a center walkway like Las Ramblas - always thought South Congress could be something magnificent and we have the room there to do it.

[KevinFromTexas]

Except the trees would violate the CVC. I do like that pedestrian walkway down the middle of the street.

Also, please post a link to the website where you found that photo, if it's not your own.

[lzppjb]

If they could figure out how to relocate the parking on either side, they could keep the lanes and widen the sidewalks a great deal. I don't know what to do with parking, other than build garages somewhere, maybe on the southern end. It'd be more pedestrian friendly, but still cater to the car, which I don't see Texans giving up very easily. I'd like for them to keep more than just 2 lanes because I enjoy the times the hot rods gather on South congress and line the street.

[Komeht]

Originally Posted by lzppjb

If they could figure out how to relocate the parking on either side, they could keep the lanes and widen the sidewalks a great deal. I don't know what to do with parking, other than build garages somewhere, maybe on the southern end. It'd be more pedestrian friendly, but still cater to the car, which I don't see Texans giving up very easily. I'd like for them to keep more than just 2 lanes because I enjoy the times the hot rods gather on South congress and line the street.

There is no reason Congress has to be a 7 lane road. You could easily get rid of two lanes of traffic, widen the sidewalks and keep the parking - that should be the baseline of what we should do with South Congress.

[Komeht]

Originally Posted by KevinFromTexas

Except the trees would violate the CVC. I do like that pedestrian walkway down the middle of the street.

Also, please post a link to the website where you found that photo, if it's not your own.

Overly burdensome regulations is the reason we can't have nice things in Austin.

http://bikefriendlyoc.org/2011/06/09...-on-june-26th/

[JT5]

Originally Posted by Novacek

360 falls under "Bicycles are allowed to ride on any street in the City of Austin". I think those others are called out specially because they are even in another class (freeways) of which 360 is not.

360 is specifically outlined on the CoA bicycle map.

http://austintexas.gov/bicycle

Strictly a mtn biker, I've used the 360 southbound shoulder at westbank (Scottish woods) to loop back home from the Greenbelt for over 20 yrs. Yes, cars are whizzing by, but the shoulder is legal, smooth and wide.

That said, there are sections of 360 that I wouldn't consider road riding on.