AUSTIN | Transportation Updates

[lonewolf]

also that was hella rude novacek lol

also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urban_area_of_Copenhagen

[lonewolf]

urbancore and i seemingly agree on this.
-bikes are great
-many cities where bikes are great
-it is a nice goal to aim to increase bike options in theory
-in practice, bike lanes are probably not a realistic option for cities who committed to cars 50y ago(with exception of cities that were built to the human scale before autos, looks like those grids can be retrofitted)
-austin is not one of those cities


i appreciate even the occasional rude comments as i know this board attracts people who are passionate about urban planning. i do not ever seek to bullshit or mislead and if you feel my comments do so you may attack the comments and not the aims behind them(unless you are a mind reader)

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by lonewolf

also that was hella rude novacek lol

You're fighting bicycle infrastructure improvement with misinformation, which directly threatens my safety and the safety of my family.

I'm going to call you on it.

Originally Posted by lonewolf

also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urban_area_of_Copenhagen

Also still wrong.

Yes, if you look at wider "urban area" (i.e. not "Copenhagen proper") the population is higher.

But then so is the area. Significantly.

Literally just like Austin. Austin's city population is now ~1M, but the population of the urban area (which stretches all the way up to Georgetown) is much higher.

[Echostatic]

Transportation Updates Thread, perpetually salty since 2007

[lonewolf]

Originally Posted by Novacek

You're fighting bicycle infrastructure improvement with misinformation, which directly threatens my safety and the safety of my family.

I'm going to call you on it.




Also still wrong.

Yes, if you look at wider "urban area" (i.e. not "Copenhagen proper") the population is higher.

But then so is the area. Significantly.

Literally just like Austin. Austin's city population is now ~1M, but the population of the urban area (which stretches all the way up to Georgetown) is much higher.

I'm pointing out that bicycles are inherently unsafe since
-they do not mix with walking/joggers, which means..
-they require lanes adjacent to roads which are the domain of those who text, drink, and god knows what else while they drive.

I'm not endangering your family come onnn man stop it lol


I sincerely apologize for the incorrect numbers, i posted those links to illustrate how i found those figures. Now let's get to the crux of my argument which is that Copenhagen (proper/metro/urban area w/e) is significantly more dense population wise and suitable for higher adoption of bicycles. Which means my larger point was largely correct! Your point is...?

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by lonewolf

I'm pointing out that bicycles are inherently unsafe since
-they do not mix with walking/joggers, which means..

Yes, they do. There's plenty of domains where it works fine to mix them.

A lot of the bicycle infrastructure investment that's going in is shared use paths.

Either road adjacent or urban trails.

Originally Posted by lonewolf

-they require lanes adjacent to roads which are the domain of those who text, drink, and god knows what else while they drive.

Driver behaviors which also endanger pedestrians, which you claim to support wholeheartedly.

Using your logic we shouldn't build any sidewalks, as that encourages more pedestrians out in the path of drunk drivers.

Originally Posted by lonewolf

Now let's get to the crux of my argument which is that Copenhagen (proper/metro/urban area w/e) is significantly more dense population wise and suitable for higher adoption of bicycles. Which means my larger point was largely correct! Your point is...?

Copenhagen as a whole is of a much higher average density than Austin as a whole.

Which is about as meaningless a measure as you can make. As literally nobody bikes from every single point in Austin to every single other point in Austin.

There are parts of Austin that either are or have planned density much higher than the Austin average. And surprise surprise, that's usually where infrastructure is prioritized.

The average for Austin doesn't matter.

[lonewolf]

1. multi use lanes got to be 8' wide if they are to accompany peds AND bikers a la VCT and riverside boardwalk, there is no discussion of putting those next to roads, that's not what we're talking about here.

2. sidewalks aren't on the road, we're not talking about those.

3. "Copenhagen as a whole is of a much higher average density than Austin as a whole.
Which is about as meaningless a measure as you can make."

aaaaaand i'm tapping out here. I just don't see this branch as a fruitful argument.

[urbancore]

Originally Posted by Novacek

I guess it's a good thing we're not doing that then.

didn't mean that to be taken as a quote on the price/ridership. It was a flip comment, though I bet I'm not off by a factor of 4.

I am curious to know what the final price will be for the bond initiative, and do we think it will actually stay on budget? And the estimated annualized cost per trip.

Austin has a hilarious way of dealing with our infrastructure. In Zilker, the city makes you put in a sidewalk on your new house, or pay a fee in lieu. Zilker, like many other urban core neighborhoods, has "sidewalks to nowhere" all over the place. A patchwork with no PLAN to connect them. The fee in lieu is a joke, its less than $2k, last I checked. When the city decided to connect a stretch along Melridge that leads to Bluebonnet a few years ago, the budget to connect a bloody sidewalk less than 300 feet was between $250-300k. The contractors that I use to build my sidewalk to COA codes, would have done that some bit of work for $50k. COSTS matter!

The bike lane bollards are a freaking joke. Besides the fact that they are hideous, they are routinely run over, torn up, and wind up in my neighbors on Bluebonnet's yard. I love the bluebonnet bike lanes, even though they are used by parents with strollers just as much as bikes. Moms taking up BOTH lanes completely oblivious, and this is not just a covid thing. Our bike lanes are a patchwork of whatever "Bike Lane Quarterly" says is the new thing to do...which leads to a sad network, and makes the city planner look completely incompetent. Lets pick a plan and go with it, and I would love to be a bollard salesman...all those residuals. My favorite though is 40mph speed limit alongside skinny ass bike lanes on Lamar. Gimme a break. We need a citywide bike plan and stick to it. I'm training my kids to ride, each bike segment has different rules....so stupid.

Austin suffers from a lack of vision and a will to implement if there was one. We like to fight too much.

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by lonewolf

1. multi use lanes got to be 8' wide if they are to accompany peds AND bikers a la VCT and riverside boardwalk, there is no discussion of putting those next to roads, that's not what we're talking about here.

Yes, they are putting those next to roads. Again, a bunch of the infrastructure that's going in is of that form.

Most of the 2016 mobility bond corridor work is doing that. SUP next to the lanes are what's going in on a lot of Burnet Road, Airport Blvd, etc.

Originally Posted by lonewolf

2. sidewalks aren't on the road, we're not talking about those.

You think drunk drivers can't get pedestrians on sidewalks? Or intersections?



Honestly, you seem to have no clue what's going on. You rail against bike lanes, and say they're a waste of funds (even though painted lanes are effectively free). Then you show complete ignorance (like above) to the very existence of other forms of bike infrastructure (the kind that does cost the funds you were complaining about).

[the Genral]

Such intolerance to what should be a civil debate. Some of the language is rather insultive and has no place here. Please stop.

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by urbancore

didn't mean that to be taken as a quote on the price/ridership. It was a flip comment, though I bet I'm not off by a factor of 4.

No, you're off by much, much more.

For one, they're not spending $10B, but $7B. Only ~$4B of that is local funds (if you want to include the fed portion as well, okay, though Austin passing/not passing project connect won't make a bit of difference to what we pay the IRS).

And the ridership estimate is hundreds of thousands.


http://austintexas.gov/department/ci...200114-dis.htm
https://www.austintexas.gov/edims/do....cfm?id=334033

page 31-32

That's specifically the system that truncates the Orange Line at the transit centers

Originally Posted by urbancore

I am curious to know what the final price will be for the bond initiative, and do we think it will actually stay on budget?

Very, very likely to stay on budget, given that the budget includes a rather huge contingency buffer.

They had the plan reviewed by APTA, and it passed muster.

https://capmetro.org/docs/default-so...rsn=cdf45d0e_2

Originally Posted by urbancore

Austin has a hilarious way of dealing with our infrastructure. In Zilker, the city makes you put in a sidewalk on your new house, or pay a fee in lieu. Zilker, like many other urban core neighborhoods, has "sidewalks to nowhere" all over the place. A patchwork with no PLAN to connect them.

There is a plan. The sidewalk master plan. But again, they prioritize. So in a low density environment, it'll take a while. But when the city does put in the connection, it will be cheaper than it would have been (sidewalks last decades).

Originally Posted by urbancore

The fee in lieu is a joke, its less than $2k, last I checked. When the city decided to connect a stretch along Melridge that leads to Bluebonnet a few years ago, the budget to connect a bloody sidewalk less than 300 feet was between $250-300k. The contractors that I use to build my sidewalk to COA codes, would have done that some bit of work for $50k. COSTS matter!

I'm not familiar with that specific project. But the 2016 sidewalk master plan estimated the city's cost for new sidewalks at ~$120 /linear foot.

Originally Posted by urbancore

The bike lane bollards are a freaking joke. Besides the fact that they are hideous, they are routinely run over, torn up, and wind up in my neighbors on Bluebonnet's yard. I love the bluebonnet bike lanes, even though they are used by parents with strollers just as much as bikes. Moms taking up BOTH lanes completely oblivious, and this is not just a covid thing. Our bike lanes are a patchwork of whatever "Bike Lane Quarterly" says is the new thing to do...which leads to a sad network, and makes the city planner look completely incompetent. Lets pick a plan and go with it, and I would love to be a bollard salesman...all those residuals.

The bollards (and the turtle dots) are a pretty cheap/pretty quick improvement. Where it makes sense, they certainly can be improved upon. Like Shoal Creek, which is starting with the bollards/dots and already has plans to upgrade to a poured curb.

But I'd rather have the bollards now than wait 2 years for the curb.

Originally Posted by urbancore

My favorite though is 40mph speed limit alongside skinny ass bike lanes on Lamar. Gimme a break.

Which is better than what was there before. Which was no bike lane at all, and people passing you in the lane.

Is the bike lane there fairly low benefit, yes. But again, it cost ~$0. The plan is to improve the infrastructure there, but that takes money and time.

Originally Posted by urbancore

We need a citywide bike plan and stick to it.

We _have_ a city wide bike plan. And they're sticking to it. It just takes time and money. They're making rather good progress towards implementing that plan, especially recently.

[We vs us]

Originally Posted by Echostatic

Transportation Updates Thread, perpetually salty since 2007

Saltiest thread on the forum by far. TBH I stopped posting stuff here for a while because woweee, some super territorial folks hereabouts. Hasn’t changed much I see.

[eskimo33]

I am going to agree with lonewolf on this (Sorry about this lonewolf) and I have not statistics to back it up, just first person empirical evidence.

I do agree that for the CBD we should prioritize the pedestrian experience above all. This is the densest part of the city and we should encourage the interaction between pedestrians and buildings.

For context, before COVID and during "nice weather" i.e. October through mid-May; for the last 15+ years, I would bike to work a couple times of week from my North-Central Austin neighborhood. Before that, I spent two years cycling to work in Atlanta, GA. (Outside of Houston, I cannot think of a city that loves the automobile more.) A car twice in Atlanta hit me; I think that (maybe foolishly) I have experience in the bicycle automobile experience.

Originally Posted by papertowlroll

... and there was a ton of other people who did the same (or via e-scooter, skateboard, etc).

I agree that the amount of people commuting by bike has gone up over the past fifteen years (as has our population), but commuting by bicycle is hardly something the average auto commuter sees with any great amount of regularity.

Originally Posted by papertowlroll

As an example, I'd rather run a red light (which is designed for automobiles, not bikes) than sit in a left turn lane hoping I don't die when a car rear ends me.

This blatant disregard for the traffic laws; which applies to cars, bikes, Vespas, scooters and pedestrians is one of the main complaints that both automobile and bicycle advocates use to disparage each other and further entrenches their positions.

Originally Posted by papertowlroll

Personally I think the Idaho stop is safe cycling.

Regardless of your beliefs on the “Idaho stop”, it is not legal in Texas and by running red lights you are putting not only yourself at risk; but the biking movement as a whole in a public perception disadvantage. Also, see above.

Originally Posted by papertowlroll

...than sit in a left turn lane hoping I don't die when a car rear ends me.

This is a textbook example of conjecture and does nothing but to reinforce the blatant disregard for the law. See above two passages.

I mean no disrespect to anyone; however an all or nothing (or almost nothing) argument forwards nobody's desires for change.

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by urbancore

When the city decided to connect a stretch along Melridge that leads to Bluebonnet a few years ago, the budget to connect a bloody sidewalk less than 300 feet was between $250-300k. The contractors that I use to build my sidewalk to COA codes, would have done that some bit of work for $50k. COSTS matter!

I'm not sure where you got $250k-300 from.

Melridge Pl sidewalks was a quarter cent fund project, completed in 2017, for $43,512

https://www.austintexas.gov/edims/do....cfm?id=347018

[eskimo33]

FWIW, I am choosing to not respond Novacek's passionate comments as they might be construed as uncivil and I have no desire to engage in that type of discussion.

[kingkirbythe....]

Keep going Novacek. You got this.

[papertowelroll]

Originally Posted by eskimo33

This blatant disregard for the traffic laws; which applies to cars, bikes, Vespas, scooters and pedestrians is one of the main complaints that both automobile and bicycle advocates use to disparage each other and further entrenches their positions.

Regardless of your beliefs on the “Idaho stop”, it is not legal in Texas and by running red lights you are putting not only yourself at risk; but the biking movement as a whole in a public perception disadvantage. Also, see above.


This is a textbook example of conjecture and does nothing but to reinforce the blatant disregard for the law. See above two passages.

I mean no disrespect to anyone; however an all or nothing (or almost nothing) argument forwards nobody's desires for change.

You are missing the point. These laws are bad, and make the streets less safe. The city would be better off with the Idaho stop being legal. (Luckily it is largely enforced that way). A bicycle is not a car and should not be regulated as if it is.

[drummer]

If it's safer, then you should talk to the folks who make the laws to see it changed. As it stands, if you break laws that are in place you can not only get penalized for it, but you can also be a danger to others who understand the laws as-is...meaning, if I'm driving my family down the street with a green light, I'd love to not hit a cyclist - for his sake and mine.

[papertowelroll]

Originally Posted by drummer

If it's safer, then you should talk to the folks who make the laws to see it changed. As it stands, if you break laws that
are in place you can not only get penalized for it, but you can also be a danger to others who understand the laws as-is...meaning, if I'm driving my family down the street with a green light, I'd love to not hit a cyclist - for his sake and mine.

I don't think you understand what an Idaho stop is. It doesn't involve pulling out in front of a car that has a green light.

My point is that as a cyclist, it's much safer for me to get the F out of the way as quickly as possible. Not sit in traffic and rely on cars being aware of my presence.

[drummer]

Originally Posted by papertowelroll

I don't think you understand what an Idaho stop is. It doesn't involve pulling out in front of a car that has a green light.

My point is that as a cyclist, it's much safer for me to get the F out of the way as quickly as possible. Not sit in traffic and rely on cars being aware of my presence.

Perhaps I don't have a full understanding, and I'll accept that. My argument is simply following the laws that are currently in place and not taking unnecessary risks which put the cyclist and/or others in danger.

I do cycle quite a bit myself but I'm not nearly as informed on the laws as you or others, but I can appreciate the argument that not all current laws are ideal, also. I just can't get behind cyclists making deliberate choices to skip across intersections in front of my family - and I perhaps am one of the drivers who intentionally watches over and above because of my time driving and cycling in China. Drivers need to be on top of their game also, of course.