North Lamar/Burnet Development Thread

[wwmiv]

Originally Posted by atxsnail

I couldn't disagree more. We need bike lanes everywhere, including on both sides of street on major corridors like Airport. I use most of the bike facilities around North/Central Austin and see people using them all the time. This includes the new ones on Airport, which are very nice. The key feature for these is that they are separated/protected. Painted bike lanes on major arterial roads like Airport or Lamar suck and are a waste of paint. Separated bike facilities like these terra cotta ones are awesome. Everywhere else in the world it's been proven that bike use sees a massive jump after safe, all-level bike facilities are built in places people need to go.

The bike lane in front of that new apartment building on N Lamar is unlikely to see any use for many years. This is not because bike lanes are a waste, but rather that it's an orphaned lane and doesn't connect to a wider network. It's still good that it's being built, however. We had a crappy attitude about requiring developers to build sidewalks for too long and that's how we ended up with a crappy and disconnected sidewalk network.

You’re focusing less on the fact that I agree with a comprehensive network and don’t see the system as a waste, and more on the fact that building major two way bike lanes on both sides of any urban road is more than a bit profligate. It is also money that could have been used to pay for bike lanes elsewhere that need it more which would expand the network better, no?

Let’s just put it to rest, once and for all, that just because someone supports something does not mean they cannot ALSO see problems in its implementation. There is NOTHING wrong with being appropriately critical.

[calesce]

Originally Posted by myBrain

I live in Highland and just used the new bike lanes to bike down to Lazarus on Airport this weekend. Previously I could either take the short-but-sketchy Airport route or I'd have to go all the way down Guad and cut up through North Loop. The new bike lanes made this super easy -- up until the point that they end, after which you have a stretch of broken parking lots up to Lazarus. Mueller -- which is psychologically kind of far away -- would be an easy bike if they extended the bike lane all the way and improved the 35 crossing.

I also live in Highland and have made good use of the new lanes. The good news for us is that construction is about to start on the next segment of Airport Blvd, and will be adding more of those shared-use paths from 55th St to 45th street (construction starting next month). Unfortunately, because the Corridor Program is running into budget constraints, there will only be paths on the west side of the roadway, so there's not as direct a connection to some of the businesses.

[atxsnail]

Originally Posted by wwmiv

You’re focusing less on the fact that I agree with a comprehensive network and don’t see the system as a waste, and more on the fact that building major two way bike lanes on both sides of any urban road is more than a bit profligate. It is also money that could have been used to pay for bike lanes elsewhere that need it more which would expand the network better, no?

Let’s just put it to rest, once and for all, that just because someone supports something does not mean they cannot ALSO see problems in its implementation. There is NOTHING wrong with being appropriately critical.

I'm not personally attacking you but I am strenuously disagreeing with your opening statement:

They aren’t going to impact the functionality of those bike lanes, since nobody anywhere city wide uses them.

People do use these types of bike lanes. A lot, in fact. Way more than the painted lanes we've been forced to live with for decades. I commute to work on a bike (by choice btw) and unfortunately I don't have these nice lanes on my route. On my commutes I mostly see only young men riding in painted lanes on road bikes. On the newer separated paths I see all types of people and bikes: older people, children, parents with kids on seats and trailers, rollerskaters, e-bikes, cargo bikes, etc.

Up until just very recently, the city has primarily seen protected bike lanes as something for upper middle class people to use for recreation as opposed to real transportation infrastructure.

It's great that you seem to be reasonable enough to support a comprehensive network. Does it double costs to have a trail on both sides? Sure. But the comparative costs are still very low compared to road construction (and especially maintenance). We absolutely do need these lanes on both sides of major corridors precisely because they are major corridors. The current stretch of Airport is nice because on the north/east side of the street it provides connectivity and access to a lot of businesses, multi- and single family housing, education, etc. And on the south/west side of Airport, it's an extension of a major planned multi-use trail, the Red Line Trail. People who are using the trail on that side are using it as a faster, safer way to move through the area with fewer conflict points with cars and pedestrians.

Airport is a little unique because it changes form so much more than our other corridors. On corridors like Lamar and Burnet it's even more important that we put bike paths on both sides of the street because there is so much commercial/residential/retail activity on both sides of the street. I just don't believe it accurate to call that profligate.

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by wwmiv

You’re focusing less on the fact that I agree with a comprehensive network and don’t see the system as a waste, and more on the fact that building major two way bike lanes on both sides of any urban road is more than a bit profligate. It is also money that could have been used to pay for bike lanes elsewhere that need it more which would expand the network better, no?

Let’s just put it to rest, once and for all, that just because someone supports something does not mean they cannot ALSO see problems in its implementation. There is NOTHING wrong with being appropriately critical.

But you're not being "appropriately critical".

You're criticizing something you don't understand.

In most places, they're not building "major two way bike lanes on both sides". They're actually building rather narrow shared use paths (and possibly economizing too much) shared by both bike traffic and pedestrians.

If they were building major two way bike lanes on both sides, it would be 10-11 feet wide. Plus there'd also be a 5 foot sidewalk in addition to the bike lane.

Building a narrow (8') SUP instead of a one way separated bike lane(5-6') + 5 foot sidewalk is the opposite of profligate.

[JollyvilleJ-Rad]

Originally Posted by Novacek

In most places, they're not building "major two way bike lanes on both sides". They're actually building rather narrow shared use paths (and possibly economizing too much) shared by both bike traffic and pedestrians.

Agree with you, Novacek. I think Airport is a special case with a wide ROW in that area and a large ped/bike demand during especially ACC sessions. I haven't seen that amount of red SUPs on both sides anywhere else (though I admit I'm usually sequestered up North). Worked for years in Lincoln Village/LINC a decade ago - took a couple of out-of-town friends to Kick Butt to start our day earlier this week, and they were blown away not just by the quality of the new paths, but by how many people were still using it in when it was nearly 100 degrees and ACC main session hasn't started. This kind of project doesn't work everywhere, but for Airport I'd love to see it continue at least to 35 past Koenig, and hopefully beyond.

And FWIW, that is part of the Redline Trail in that area. Might also be part of the justification for additional capacity/facilities - especially when planning for the future.