AUSTIN | Transportation Updates

[austlar1]

Originally Posted by Komeht

The single worst urban crime perpetrated on Austin was building IH35 through the middle of town. It was a disasterously bad idea and the suggestion that is should be expanded is moving us backwards.

This is what was destroyed by IH 35 - a beautifully conceived grand treelined boulevard. Can you imagine it today?



As far as I'm concerned the SB proposal is ill conceived because it doesn't do nearly enough to go back to what East Avenue should be. 6 divided lanes is way too much - that's not a walkable street. It should be 4 lanes with on street parking and high capacity transit and protected bike lanes in the center. Also it should run all the way to Airport Blvd at grade.

All through traffic should be diverted onto a combination of 183/130. There is no need to go through the massive expense of burying the highway. You could accomplish the same and much more by shifting IH 35 east and returning to what should never have been ruined.

I agree with you, but you will get crucified here for trying to push that agenda. The usual suspects will pounce on you and rip you to shreds. Nobody ever wants to have a serious consideration of this proposal.

[lzppjb]

Is it really even up to us? I've read and thought about moving it to 183/130, but is that a legitimate option? It's a national highway.

[austlar1]

The Embarcadero FWY in San Francisco and the IH280 connection in downtown San Francisco were both torn down and removed following the earthquake in 1989. If there is a political will to get something done, it can be done. Interstate routes have been tinkered with around the country over the last several decades. The 183/130 route would become the new IH 35 through Austin. The spurs leading to downtown would be given a new Interstate designation and remain part of the Interstate system.

[Komeht]

Originally Posted by lzppjb

Is it really even up to us? I've read and thought about moving it to 183/130, but is that a legitimate option? It's a national highway.

There is no engineering reason why it can't be done. There is no logistical reason why it can't be done. There is no financial reason why it cant be done (in fact the proposal to move IH35 east liberates an enormous amount of land for development giving a twin boost to government coffers in both sales and ad valorem taxes). In fact the only obstacles are institutional and political.

What was done can be undone.

[electricron]

Originally Posted by austlar1

The Embarcadero FWY in San Francisco and the IH280 connection in downtown San Francisco were both torn down and removed following the earthquake in 1989. If there is a political will to get something done, it can be done. Interstate routes have been tinkered with around the country over the last several decades. The 183/130 route would become the new IH 35 through Austin. The spurs leading to downtown would be given a new Interstate designation and remain part of the Interstate system.

While I agree there are alternatives for through traffic around Austin today, and the existing I-35 corridor traffic can be rerouted, I disagree that the Embarcadero Freeway closely resembles I-35 in any way - except they were called freeways.

The Embarcadero Freeway was just a mile or two mile in length, providing a second ramp onto the Bay Area Bridge from the north side of downtown San Francisco. The fact it was a ramp to the double decked Bay Area Bridge meant it had to be elevated and double decked. It was built long before San Francisco built BART under the Bay.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...reeway_map.png
There are no really close comparisons in Texas, the closest would be the two ramps from either side of the new Fred Hartman Bridge over the Houston Ship Channel in Baytown. In Baytown, the two highways merge further out and there's actually just one ramp to the bridge on either side, and its nowhere close to downtown Houston.

The Bay Area Bridge could survive with the elimination of one of its ramps and still maintain traffic flows. Eliminating the Embarcadero Freeway required traffic on the north side of downtown San Francisco to just drive through downtown instead of bypassing it. Local traffic in downtown Austin would be affected the same way with the elimination of I-35 freeway through downtown Austin.

[austlar1]

Originally Posted by electricron

While I agree there are alternatives for through traffic around Austin today, and the existing I-35 corridor traffic can be rerouted, I disagree that the Embarcadero Freeway closely resembles I-35 in any way - except they were called freeways.

The Embarcadero Freeway was just a mile or two mile in length, providing a second ramp onto the Bay Area Bridge from the north side of downtown San Francisco. The fact it was a ramp to the double decked Bay Area Bridge meant it had to be elevated and double decked. It was built long before San Francisco built BART under the Bay.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...reeway_map.png
There are no really close comparisons in Texas, the closest would be the two ramps from either side of the new Fred Hartman Bridge over the Houston Ship Channel in Baytown. In Baytown, the two highways merge further out and there's actually just one ramp to the bridge on either side, and its nowhere close to downtown Houston.

The Bay Area Bridge could survive with the elimination of one of its ramps and still maintain traffic flows. Eliminating the Embarcadero Freeway required traffic on the north side of downtown San Francisco to just drive through downtown instead of bypassing it. Local traffic in downtown Austin would be affected the same way with the elimination of I-35 freeway through downtown Austin.

My only point about the Embarcadero Freeway was the fact that it had an interstate highway designation (IH 480). The original plans called for it to run from IH 80 along the north shore of San Francisco. It was only built for a portion of the proposed route. I lived in SF during a time when this road was in operation. It was widely disliked by just about everybody, and, as a result, when the opportunity arose it was torn down. My point is that it is possible to change or tinker with interstate highway routes or "military highway" routes assuming there is the political will to do so. Any idiot can tell that IH 35 and the Embarcadero Freeway have very little in common, and I don't really need you to point that out. The Embarcadero never did carry much traffic and was never a core highway in the SF region.

[electricron]

Originally Posted by austlar1

My only point about the Embarcadero Freeway was the fact that it had an interstate highway designation (IH 480). The original plans called for it to run from IH 80 along the north shore of San Francisco. It was only built for a portion of the proposed route. I lived in SF during a time when this road was in operation. It was widely disliked by just about everybody, and, as a result, when the opportunity arose it was torn down. My point is that it is possible to change or tinker with interstate highway routes or "military highway" routes assuming there is the political will to do so. Any idiot can tell that IH 35 and the Embarcadero Freeway have very little in common, and I don't really need you to point that out. The Embarcadero never did carry much traffic and was never a core highway in the SF region.

You're right, it did carry a three digit interstate highway designation. But it was built more than a decade before Ike was elected President and before startup of the "IH" system. No IH funds was spent building it, the same can't be said about I 35.

[austlar1]

Originally Posted by electricron

You're right, it did carry a three digit interstate highway designation. But it was built more than a decade before Ike was elected President and before startup of the "IH" system. No IH funds was spent building it, the same can't be said about I 35.

Wrong, Electricon, Doyle Drive was an early freeway like structure built in 1936 or so and connected to the GG Bridge approach in SF. It was supposed to be included in the proposed route of IH480, but it was never linked with the Embarcadero Freeway which was built in 1959 during Eisenhower's second term and after the Interstate Highway Act was passed. I will grant you that the proposal for the Embarcadero Freeway and the initial planning took place a decade or more prior to construction when the freeway along the north shore of San Francisco was first conceived mostly as a state highway project. I have not been able to locate specifics as to how the road was funded, but construction did not start until after it was a designated interstate highway route. At one point in the 1970s, Senator Alan Cranston informed officials that they would not have to refund any federal funds should they decide to demolish the freeway.

The attached is from Wiki:The first section of the Embarcadero Freeway, from the Bay Bridge approach (Interstate 80) north to Broadway, opened in 1959.[7] As a consequence of the freeway revolt, the San Francisco Board of Supervisors passed Resolution 45-59 in January 1959, opposing certain freeways including the remainder of I-480.[8] The freeway revolt continued after a new freeway plan was proposed in 1964, with a major protest on May 17, 1964—200,000 people rallied in Golden Gate Park against any more new freeways. Poet Kenneth Rexroth spoke at the rally (among others) and folk singer Malvina Reynolds sang (she was most famous for her song "Little Boxes" attacking urban sprawl, which she sang at the anti-freeway rally).[9]

For more details here is the Wiki link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_State_Route_480

[austlar1]

How any of this might be relevant to Austin's situation is the fact that several major freeways entering San Francisco from the south cease to be freeways and continue in the City as surface streets. US101/Bayshore Freeway, the main road up from the airport, basically ramps down to street level and carries traffic through town along several major streets until it arrives at the Golden Gate Bridge and resumes being a freeway. The main roadway for IH 280 just ends in downtown San Francisco. The part of IH 280 that branches off down closer to Daly City becomes a divided boulevard (California Hwy 1 designation only at that point) before carrying traffic up 19th Ave in the Sunset District and across Golden Gate Park to the Golden Gate Bridge and the US 101 freeway which resumes in Marin. These streets manage to carry very heavy traffic loads rather efficiently. This takes place in a city of 49 square miles with a population about the same as Austin's, but with a population density that is about five times higher. SF is in a metro with three our four times the population of the Austin metro. I think examples like this lend some credibility to the concept advanced here that IH 35 through traffic could be re-routed to the east of central Austin and a restored high volume East Avenue could replace IH 35 through downtown and up past UT and Mueller. What a grand boulevard it would become over a period of several decades.

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by M1EK

And your contention that they will be clear of pedestrians 'most of the time' is ludicrous. These are a couple of the most heavily used bus stops in the city - pedestrians will be crossing here every few seconds the majority of the day.

You're off by orders of magnitude.

Boardings per hour on the #1 are 51.1, the #101 has 29.7, and the #3 has 32.4.
Source: http://www.capmetro.org/uploadedFile...Conditions.pdf

The metrorapid is basically replacing these routes. So even if _every single boarding_ of these routes was at this 1 stop (hint, it's not) you'd expect approximately 113.2 people every hour, or 1 person every 32 seconds (not every few seconds) at the metrorapid stop. Not exactly running the guantlet.

The remaning local routes are using the other stop. Those routes consist of the 5, 18, 19, 982, 983, 987, plus whatever is left of the #1 (let's say 50% of it's previous boardings, just to be conservative). I'm omitting the night owls as they run at a completely separate time, and are pretty small anyway.
Total that up, and it's 24.9 + 24.0 + 17.1 + 32.8 + 20.5 + 22.2 + .5 * 51.1, or 167.1 per hour, or 1 pedestrian ever 21 seconds at the other bus stop. Again, if _every single boarding_ of these routes is at this one stop.

Of course, the pedestrians aren't evenly distributed over the hour. So if you're biking along and a bus is actively there, or just pulling away, slow down a bit and obey the yield sign and you'll be fine.

CapMetro used to have maps that showed the boardings/alightings per stop, but they moved files around and I can't find them anymore. The actual boardings at these particular stops will be probably 10% of the above numbers. And don't forget the 900s only run a couple hours during the day.

In conclusion, yeah, the lanes will be free of pedestrians "most of the time".

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by M1EK

the vast majority of bike/car accidents are at intersections, not midblock, and protected bike lanes make midblock better but intersections worse.

And yet all the austin cyclist fatalities seem to occur from hits from behind.

http://www.kxan.com/news/local/austi...list-from-bike
http://www.kvue.com/news/local/Cycli...212048311.html
http://www.statesman.com/news/news/l...eside-1/nSLdB/
http://www.kvue.com/news/Cyclist-kil...138066023.html

Those were the 3 from 2012 and 1 from 2013. I haven't gone back to look at other years, but I expect they're mostly the same.

(2012 also had http://www.kxan.com/news/local/austi...auto-ped-crash which was technically pedestrian but bike-related. Also mid-block).

[M1EK]

Originally Posted by Novacek

You're off by orders of magnitude.

Boardings per hour on the #1 are 51.1, the #101 has 29.7, and the #3 has 32.4.
Source: http://www.capmetro.org/uploadedFile...Conditions.pdf

The metrorapid is basically replacing these routes. So even if _every single boarding_ of these routes was at this 1 stop (hint, it's not) you'd expect approximately 113.2 people every hour, or 1 person every 32 seconds (not every few seconds) at the metrorapid stop. Not exactly running the guantlet.

The remaning local routes are using the other stop. Those routes consist of the 5, 18, 19, 982, 983, 987, plus whatever is left of the #1 (let's say 50% of it's previous boardings, just to be conservative). I'm omitting the night owls as they run at a completely separate time, and are pretty small anyway.
Total that up, and it's 24.9 + 24.0 + 17.1 + 32.8 + 20.5 + 22.2 + .5 * 51.1, or 167.1 per hour, or 1 pedestrian ever 21 seconds at the other bus stop. Again, if _every single boarding_ of these routes is at this one stop.

Of course, the pedestrians aren't evenly distributed over the hour. So if you're biking along and a bus is actively there, or just pulling away, slow down a bit and obey the yield sign and you'll be fine.

CapMetro used to have maps that showed the boardings/alightings per stop, but they moved files around and I can't find them anymore. The actual boardings at these particular stops will be probably 10% of the above numbers. And don't forget the 900s only run a couple hours during the day.

In conclusion, yeah, the lanes will be free of pedestrians "most of the time".

Apologies for making you believe you needed to do homework to counter an exaggeration no worse than the one you made, that they would be free "most of the time".

I'll get out there with a pad of paper during the morning rush in a couple of weeks and put this to rest. Suffice to say that if a pedestrian is crossing even every 20 seconds during morning rush, let's say, you won't be able to ride at speed from 24th to MLK - at all. To say nothing of sight distance.

I shouldn't have said "few"; as that's too easy to misinterpret. What I mean is that you will not be able to ride this corridor at the speed you can ride it today - during the peak hours, enough pedestrians will be crossing that it's almost a surety you will have to slow way down or even stop at one point or another. And this doesn't happen today, so the net effect of this change is to discourage cycle commuting using this corridor (which, unfortunately, is the only realistic one in this part of town).

[M1EK]

Originally Posted by Novacek

And yet all the austin cyclist fatalities seem to occur from hits from behind.

http://www.kxan.com/news/local/austi...list-from-bike
http://www.kvue.com/news/local/Cycli...212048311.html
http://www.statesman.com/news/news/l...eside-1/nSLdB/
http://www.kvue.com/news/Cyclist-kil...138066023.html

Those were the 3 from 2012 and 1 from 2013. I haven't gone back to look at other years, but I expect they're mostly the same.

(2012 also had http://www.kxan.com/news/local/austi...auto-ped-crash which was technically pedestrian but bike-related. Also mid-block).

I think you need to spend some time here:

http://bicyclesafe.com/

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by M1EK

Apologies for making you believe you needed to do homework to counter an exaggeration no worse than the one you made, that they would be free "most of the time".

I'll get out there with a pad of paper during the morning rush in a couple of weeks and put this to rest. Suffice to say that if a pedestrian is crossing even every 20 seconds during morning rush, let's say, you won't be able to ride at speed from 24th to MLK - at all. To say nothing of sight distance.

I shouldn't have said "few"; as that's too easy to misinterpret. What I mean is that you will not be able to ride this corridor at the speed you can ride it today - during the peak hours, enough pedestrians will be crossing that it's almost a surety you will have to slow way down or even stop at one point or another. And this doesn't happen today, so the net effect of this change is to discourage cycle commuting using this corridor (which, unfortunately, is the only realistic one in this part of town).

That's just it, my statement wasn't an exaggeration. Even if _every single_ rider on these routes boards on this specific stop (they don't) and are completely evenly distributed throughout the day (they aren't) then the crossing will be clear 75% of the time. Since we know the above two worst-cases aren't true, then it will actually be clear ~99% of the time. Basically, unless you happen to arrive right when a bus arrives.

>>during the peak hours, enough pedestrians will be crossing that it's almost a surety you will have to slow way down or even stop at one point or another.
Again, just not true. Don't throw around assertions like "almost a surety" when the math directly contradicts it.

>>And this doesn't happen today, so the net effect of this change is to discourage cycle commuting using this corridor
No one is going to stop riding because they have to slow down for a couple of seconds 1% of the time. Certainly not compared to the _increases_ in ridership due to the increased comfort level.

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by M1EK

I think you need to spend some time here:

http://bicyclesafe.com/

What on that page addresses the _fact_ that all recent Austin fatalities have been from behind, not at intersections?

[M1EK]

Originally Posted by Novacek

What on that page addresses the _fact_ that all recent Austin fatalities have been from behind, not at intersections?

It doesn't. It does address the _fact_ that all over the country, which is a data set large enough to actually draw some worthwhile conclusions, overtaking accidents are rare compared to the other types.

In fact, having lived here for 17 years now, I can tell you that there have been plenty of fatalities of the other varieties. Just not extremely recently.

[Komeht]

Originally Posted by M1EK

The "safety in numbers" effect is real - but there's already a large number of cyclists here. If the new facility attracts 5x as many cyclists, but then a number of visible accidents occur, the increase in ridership will be short-lived and the "appearance of safety" will not lead to an actual increase in safety.

As for the existing cyclists and others' recommendation that they take the lane, from personal experience with Ye Old Shoal Creek Debacle, motorists will believe that you should be over there in that fancy bike facility they just paid for - and you'll get hassled, sometimes worse.

The research on protected bike lanes is far from universally accepted, by the way. Critical reading shows that accidents actually increase in many cases, since the vast majority of bike/car accidents are at intersections, not midblock, and protected bike lanes make midblock better but intersections worse.

Finally, what message does it send when cyclists have to come to a stop that drivers don't? What are you encouraging when you do that? And your contention that they will be clear of pedestrians 'most of the time' is ludicrous. These are a couple of the most heavily used bus stops in the city - pedestrians will be crossing here every few seconds the majority of the day.

To be clear: I'm not a Foresterite. I like bike lanes, but I want them integrated with the street (at least on streets like this one), not shoved off to the side and turned into sidewalks.

Hey M1ek, I'm no expert on this - just a casual cyclist. My encounters with protected bike lanes so far has been uniformly and overwhelmingly positive. In the places that I have them I have gravitated to the protected lanes and judging by other traffic so do other cyclists. Without regard to any data - just a personal observation, they certainly provide a sense of safety and comfort that bike lanes integrated with traffic don't. This works especially well when the buffer is a line of parked cars with a short separation to prevent collisions from an opening door. If I had them along my commute to work I would say the chances of me taking a bike on any give day would more than double.

Are you opposed to all such protected lanes or just in this location for the reasons you stated above?

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by M1EK

It doesn't. It does address the _fact_ that all over the country, which is a data set large enough to actually draw some worthwhile conclusions, overtaking accidents are rare compared to the other types.

In fact, having lived here for 17 years now, I can tell you that there have been plenty of fatalities of the other varieties. Just not extremely recently.

Are you refering to that page's link to
http://www.bicyclinglife.com/Library/TaleOfThree.htm

1. That wasn't all over the country, it was in 3 cities.
2. It was a single year from almost 20 years ago.
3. It doesn't seem to distinguish between fatalities and non-fatal accidents.

Or are you referring to this page:
http://www.bicyclinglife.com/Library/riskfactors.htm
Which states 39% of fatalities at "junctions", which would leave 61% of fatalities as mid-block.
"It is possible that non-intersection accidents are more likely to result in fatalities."

[M1EK]

Originally Posted by Novacek

Are you refering to that page's link to
http://www.bicyclinglife.com/Library/TaleOfThree.htm

1. That wasn't all over the country, it was in 3 cities.
2. It was a single year from almost 20 years ago.
3. It doesn't seem to distinguish between fatalities and non-fatal accidents.

Or are you referring to this page:
http://www.bicyclinglife.com/Library/riskfactors.htm
Which states 39% of fatalities at "junctions", which would leave 61% of fatalities as mid-block.
"It is possible that non-intersection accidents are more likely to result in fatalities."

Yes, among others. He actually cited his claims, and the page is very old. Nice job trying to turn that into a reason to attack.

Everybody in the bicycling community knows intersections are where the vast number of accidents happen - and driveways count. I don't know who shat in your cheerios where you feel the need to follow me around and do this, but I don't have time to do any homework for you - please go take your act to some other bike advocates and see what answer they give you. Remember - the claim you're taking issue with here is that all intersection-related accidents (turning, etc) outnumber overtaking accidents by a large margin. Good luck to you.

[M1EK]

Originally Posted by Komeht

Hey M1ek, I'm no expert on this - just a casual cyclist. My encounters with protected bike lanes so far has been uniformly and overwhelmingly positive. In the places that I have them I have gravitated to the protected lanes and judging by other traffic so do other cyclists. Without regard to any data - just a personal observation, they certainly provide a sense of safety and comfort that bike lanes integrated with traffic don't. This works especially well when the buffer is a line of parked cars with a short separation to prevent collisions from an opening door. If I had them along my commute to work I would say the chances of me taking a bike on any give day would more than double.

Are you opposed to all such protected lanes or just in this location for the reasons you stated above?

Protected bike lanes can give a feeling of security, but have some liabilities - at intersections, they are much worse than normal bike lanes.

By the way, my position is the moderate one - Forester makes the same complaint against ALL bike lanes that I'm making against protected ones. Protected bike lanes have their place, but it's only where there are few intersections, and the intersections are tightly controlled (and there's not a lot of pedestrians gumming things up).

Otherwise you might as well ride on the sidewalk. That feels safer to most people too, of course.