I finally got a recommendation for a gallery-generator which is lightweight enough not to use up all of my disk quota with HTML garbage. I spent the weekend uploading pictures to temp space on a linux box on which I could write pre-processing scripts and this morning quickly generated a simple gallery for March 2004. I hope to do a month a day or two until I'm caught up.
The cow orker friend who has graciously given me a chunk of webhosting for a few months since io.com barfed on the backup for the blog had his own hiccup recently when his hosting company didn't do their chores for a while. Should be back up now; and thanks again to Baba for the free mobile home while I still procrastinate on getting a permanent home.
Anyways, that's why you couldn't get here for your weekly dose of crackpot. The enb.
This week's Chronicle badly misremembers the history of the Shoal Creek Blvd. Debacle of '00; casting city staff as villains and Jackie Goodman and the neighborhood as heroes. Here's a short (correct) timeline, along with what they got wrong:
1. Prior to 2000, SCB allows parking in bike lanes. This is something which nobody would do today; these bike lanes predate modern bicycle traffic engineering practice.
2. SCB's turn comes in the "let's ban parking in existing bike lanes" carousel. The past couple of years saw the no-parking signs go up on about a half-dozen streets with old bike lanes such as Mesa Dr.
3. City staff from bike/ped program decides to be nice and come up with a plan which allows on-street parking on one side of the street (see this picture). Chronicle writer misconstrues this as a bike lane "on one side of the street".
4. Neighborhood freaks. Jackie Goodman sides with them, of course.
5. Staff and neighborhood come up with an "alternating sides" strategy where there's still only parking on one side, but it winds back and forth every so often.
6. The "alternating sides" strategy is tested and fails.
7. Charles Gandy comes in and convinces the neighborhood and a couple of well-meaning but naive cyclists that this plan can work.
8. City engineers reject that plan for liability reasons (damn straight - look at the pictures again if you have to).
9. Fallback plan of maintaining slightly modified original layout with some bulb-outs. IE, instead of 12-13 ft travel lanes with 7-8 ft "bike lane with parking", we get 10-ft travel lanes with 10-ft "bike lane with parking". Chronicle writer misrepresents city engineers' opposition as against this fallback plan rather than to Gandy's 10-4-6 disaster.
And of course the conclusion to the article comes from Paul Nagy. As one person on Michael Bluejay's page put it:
Any possibility that a mutually beneficial result could emerge from a consensus-based process -- however slight -- was completely dashed when the whole process was hijacked by Paul Nagy. There was a point where Gandy had hood-winked everyone into thinking a panacea solution existed, when he should have known better that his "solution" would never make it past city engineers. (I actually don't feel bad at being deceived by this snake oil, as so many others -- except Dahmus -- were also taken in, including many from the bike community.) I place full blame for that on Gandy for playing politics by trying to please everyone when it's clear that that is impossible. We hired him as an "expert," and clearly he is not.
At the point where the original design -- which was agreed upon by the original consensus committee as final -- was tossed back, Nagy and Gandy jumped on the opportunity to assume the helm without any input from anyone else. There is NO cycling voice in the process AT ALL now.
Pure hatchet-job. Where are you, Lauri Apple and Mike Clark-Madison?
Here's the letter. Let's see if it makes it in.
In reference to this week's column by Daniel Mottola, allow me to suggest that in the future a columnist who picks up a long-running issue for the first time be encouraged to familiarize themselves with the history of the issue before writing a wrap-up. For one thing, the city staff proposal originally presented by a long-serving and dedicated employee of the bike/ped program had bike lanes on both sides of the street, with on-street parking allowed only on one side. No proposal with a bike lane on one side of the street only was ever proposed.
More importantly, both Michael Bluejay (http://bicycleaustin.info/roadways/shoalcreek.html) and myself (http://www.io.com/~mdahmus/trans/shoalcreek.html) have long had summaries of the issue with diagrams. I highly encourage people to look at the picture of Charles Gandy's original proposal at http://www.dahmus.org/iofiles/trans/consultplan.html (showing a cyclist narrowly avoiding getting disembowled as they attempt to travel between a SUV and a parked truck) before coming to conclusions that Jackie Goodman's "give the neighborhood whatever they want no matter what" position was the right one.
The city engineers deserve medals, not ridicule, for standing up for the safety of cyclists and against the bogus 4-foot-bike-lane next to substandard-parking-lane design supported by Gandy and the neighborhood. The "shared multipurpose lanes" were a REACTION to their threat not to sign off on Gandy's plan, another thing your columnist gets wrong.
In short: the Shoal Creek debacle showed that even on the most important route in the city for commuting cyclists, the city doesn't have the guts to put safe travel for cyclists ahead of on-street parking (even when on-street parking is preserved on one side of the street). The multipurpose lanes are essentially what was on the street to begin with - a solution that no traffic engineer or bicycle coordinator would today approve -- bicycle lanes which cars can park in at will.
Urban Transportation Commissioner
and Only No Vote on Great Shoal Creek Debacle of '00
Tri-Rail, the commuter rail line which parallels I-95 through most of South Florida, is the transit start most like Austin's proposed commuter rail line, for good and ill. Read the archives for the whole story, but here's the short version: It was cheap to get started (used existing track), just like ours will be; it doesn't go near any downtown areas, just like ours won't; and it relies exclusively on shuttle buses for passenger distribution, just like ours will. Since then, a hugely expensive double-tracking project has nearly finished without any corresponding improvement in ridership. (The double-tracking has proceeded in phases; portions complete are already in use with their corresponding speed/reliability improvements).
My own observations from my trip home follow the excerpts and comments from this article in the Boca Raton News which appeared recently.
Critics, who suggest that Tri-Rail should be shot and put out of its financial misery, grudgingly admit that railroads are closely linked with the stateï¿½s continued development and growth. Resigned to Tri-Railï¿½s financial reality, but resolute about its future, Palm Beach County Commissioner Jeff Koons admitted Tri-Rail ï¿½will never, never, ever pay for itselfï¿½ operationally. He nodded when asked if this will mean millions upon millions annually in continued local, state and federal subsidy. He continued to nod slowly when told that critics are outraged that itï¿½s costing taxpayers about $46,000 each and every day so that about 9,000 persons per day on average can ride the South Florida Regional Transportation Authority (SFRTA) commuter rail service.
That kind of talk ignores the reality that automobile commuters are incredibly subsidized too, but it bears repeating that Tri-Rail's economic performance is far worse than most light-rail starts in this country. So you can't get rid of transit subsidies, but you CAN do a hell of a lot better than that.
And note "9,000 people per day". After 15 years. On a line much much longer than the one proposed for Austin.
Luksha is among the many South Floridians who derisively note that not a single Tri-Rail train goes through a single ï¿½downtownï¿½, and only indirect services via, bus, taxi or Metrorail will get you to the regionï¿½s airports after getting off Tri-Rail.
Yup, just like Austin (nearly zero downtown workers work within the typically considered 1/4 mile walking distance of the station at the Convention Center, so don't even try me).
Koons sighs: ï¿½Itï¿½s tough trying to promote a railroad in the middle of I-95 construction.ï¿½
No, it's not. It should be even easier to get people to take grade-separated transit when the highway option gets worse. It's not, because the grade-separated transit option in this case has the fatal flaw of relying on shuttle buses to get people where they actually need to go.
ï¿½Weï¿½re too suburban,ï¿½ according to Palm Beach County Commissioner Mary McCarty, who says Tri-Railï¿½s financial health in fact may depend on whether SFRTA can negotiate an agreement with Florida East Coast Railroad (FEC) for use of the FEC line that wanders through most of Floridaï¿½s urban areas. Without a FEC/TRI-Rail alliance, McCarty sees the need for continued subsidy because of the ï¿½inherent fear of feeder bus reliability.ï¿½ The buses ï¿½are often late,ï¿½ she explained.
The FEC railroad runs right through all of the major downtowns in the area -- meaning riders of a service there could actually walk from the train station to work.
They've learned from painful experience what we're going to learn because we fell for Mike Krusee and Fred Gilliam''s snow-job.
Now for my observations:
I saw half a dozen Tri-Rail trains (while driving on I-95). All were emptier than Capital Metro's worst bus routes. I got to see the line from Boynton Beach down to I-595 (Fort Lauderdale), and did not see one lick of transit-oriented development anywhere -- the same low-density warehouse sprawl that used to be around the line is still around the line.
A brand new station is under construction (nearly done) in Boca Raton on the old IBM property (where I used to work). This old IBM site was purchased by a company which has subleased to a ton of smaller firms about 5 years ago. The property is also currently full of new construction which seems mostly to be retail uses -- interestingly enough, they are oriented as far away from the rail line as feasible -- i.e. they do not view proximity to the train station as even slightly desirable. (And the existing offices in the old IBM buildings are a good hike from the train station - especially given South Florida's weather most of the year). This station's location was chosen after about five years of failed work trying to get a station built farther south as part of a new transit-oriented development.
Lesson: You don't get transit-oriented development around a failed rail line. Meaning: the developer contemplating building a project which will incur more cost and potentially less access for motorists is going to want to see people riding the train now who fit their economic profile - i.e. people who can afford cars, but are choosing to ride the train; not the people who ride the train because they have no other choice.
This does not bode well for the Capital Metro backers who think that transit-oriented development can make up for the poor routing of our own starter line.
Just found (via Cyburbia) a new blog by an Austin planner intern which links this site, and I thought I'd return the favor. Hopefully Adam will write more stuff in the future - his paper is a good start.
Those wacky conservative Brits continue to try to make some inroads with the non-reality-based community with little obvious effect. Relevant excerpt:
But the bad news outdoes the good. The Republicans, by getting rid of inheritance tax, seem hell-bent on ignoring Teddy Roosevelt's warnings about the dangers of a hereditary aristocracy. The Democrats are more interested in preferment for minorities than building ladders of opportunity for all.
And the semi-permanent corporate pseudo-aristocracy (once you're an executive, you can kill 20 or 30 companies and still get executive jobs) ain't helping my mood either. The CEO of my last clerking factory single-handedly destroyed the place, and yet I'm sure he won't see even a remote economic hit from it, while the people he callously and frivolously fired when he was in a bad mood had to struggle to get by.
This isn't the America I believe in, and I don't have a lot of optimism that it's coming back anytime soon.
I've just returned from South Florida and will be assembling a few observations over the next couple of entries. This one focuses on bicycles - the transit article (mostly about Tri-Rail and its implications for Austin) comes next.
Delray Beach, the town immediately north of Boca Raton (where I grew up and where we stayed with my parents during most of the last 3 weeks), is obstructing a plan by the state highway department to rebuild state route A1A with standard bicycle lanes on each side. A1A is the main (in most parts the only) north-south route on the barrier islands which separate the ocean from the Intracoastal Waterway. In other words, this is the beach road, and not surprisingly, this is where the rich people mostly live. This is also where most people want to ride their bikes, for obvious reasons.
The state highway department in Florida seems to be very progressive, at least compared to TXDOT. On previous visits home, I've noticed a lot of (narrow but usable) bike lanes painted on major arterials throughout the region (this area, being mostly suburban, gets most major roads built and paid for by the state, as is the case here in Round Rock but not in Austin). In fact, A1A throughout Boca Raton was granted nice new bike lanes a few years ago, and they enjoy heavy use. This has resulted in a much saner trip for both drivers and cyclists on this road.
Anyways, the folks up in Delray who live on the road aren't happy with the plan to extend this facility further north; and they got their city commission to listen. The city came back with a proposal to build 3-feet wide mini-shoulders on the road, combined with 10-foot car lanes. Sound familiar? It's even worse when applied to South Florida, where so many drivers are marginally skilled and elderly. If the state bows to the wishes of the locals and builds this facility, people will be far worse off than with the current shared lane -- it will appear to drivers that it is safe to pass cyclists without crossing the double-yellow line, and people will get hurt and killed. There is some hope that the Florida DOT will overrule the local decision, and the local mainstream press has some opposition being heard in op-eds (which doesn't happen here thanks to the gutless Statesman), so it's all not yet lost, but I wouldn't say I'd bet on a positive outcome there.
This is a timely development since the restriping specified in the Great Shoal Creek Debacle of '00 is about to finally be implemented here in Austin -- the local neighbors, who glibly assert that "curb
extensions and lane stripping will be installed finally under a compromise
agreement between the Allandale and Rosedale neighborhoods, the city, cyclists,
pedestrians and emergency services." while participating in a process which showed that neighborhood thuggery will still beat sound engineering and progressive politics any day of the week, are going to see 10-feet "shared parking and bike" lanes next to 10-feet travel lanes. In other words, the most important bicycle route in the city (a "bicycle arterial" as I like to call it) is held hostage to on-street parking, and rendered less safe than it was before. This is a compromise in the sense that a deer and a wolf "agree" that the wolf will eat the deer.
This "compromise" (which I voted against at the UTC, all on my lonesome) was nothing more than a slap in the face to reasonable cyclists who want to coexist with drivers and parking -- as demonstrated by the original plan (with on-street parking preserved on one side of the street). And anybody who voted for this farce should be banned from ever claiming to be pro-bicycle-commuting for the rest of their life. It shows that you can't expect to get good results when you sell your basic principles for the sake of getting along, or, as an anonymous contributor to Michael Bluejay's list put it:
I am dismayed that Mike Dahmus was so damned right about this whole debacle from the very beginning. Although originally, I was very hopeful that a community consensus could be reached that could benefit everyone (and possibly even improve relations amongst the diverse users of SCB), I see now that I was completely naive. What we have now is little better than what we had originally: parking in bike lanes. I'm still hopeful that traffic will be a little calmer, but I doubt that drivers will remain in their lanes, and cyclists riding near the stripe will be at risk of being struck. Any possibility that a mutually beneficial result could emerge from a consensus-based process -- however slight -- was completely dashed when the whole process was hijacked by Paul Nagy. There was a point where Gandy had hood-winked everyone into thinking a panacea solution existed, when he should have known better that his "solution" would never make it past city engineers. (I actually don't feel bad at being deceived by this snake oil, as so many others -- except Dahmus -- were also taken in, including many from the bike community.) I place full blame for that on Gandy for playing politics by trying to please everyone when it's clear that that is impossible. We hired him as an "expert," and clearly he is not.