I will be out of the office starting  09/09/2005 and will not return until
09/19/2005.

If you need immediate assistance please contact Nick Cotto  in the Fitness
Center at 683-8018.

I live on White Rock, a block from Shoal Creek.  I drive a pickup,
and I ride my bikes a LOT.  My position is this:  we stick with the
status quo. Yes, the curb extensions are flawed.  But in lieu of any
alternative plan or even the slightest semblance of agreement on one,
let's not throw good money after bad.  As it stands right now, the
residents can park on the street, cyclists have a HECK of a lot more
pavement devoted to us than before, the driving lanes are
substantially more narrow, reducing speeds as much as anything shy of
speed bumps or roundabouts will, and the curb extensions keep cars
from driving in the bike lane.  Plus, the trees in bloom are nice.
Can't we please just try to live with this, in spite of its
imperfections?

----- Original Message -----

From: Rolf Remshard

To: ShoalCreekBlvdAustin@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Thursday, September 15, 2005 10:25 PM

Subject: [ShoalCreekBlvdAustin] Re: One-side parking is not an unreasonable hardship

The orgional bicycle lanes were put in about 1986, without
neighborhood notification. Parking  allowed. The bicycle lanes were 6
foot wide both sides and easy to ride on, few parked cars, and not as
much cutthrough traffic as today.  Most kids ride their bikes on the
sidewalks to the schools.

--- In ShoalCreekBlvdAustin@yahoogroups.com, "Robbin" <robbin@i...>
wrote:
> Mike
>
> Do you know when the original bike lanes were put in or where to ask
to find out?
>
> What was their original purpose? What I am asking here is were they
put there for safety or did it just have to do with the city mapping
out a set of bike routes and marking all of them on the pavement with
bike lanes?

The orgional bicycle lanes were put in about 1986, without
neighborhood notification. Parking  allowed. The bicycle lanes were 6
foot wide both sides and easy to ride on, few parked cars, and not as
much cutthrough traffic as today.  Most kids ride their bikes on the
sidewalks to the schools.

--- In ShoalCreekBlvdAustin@yahoogroups.com, "Mike Dahmus"
<mdahmus@y...> wrote:
> --- In ShoalCreekBlvdAustin@yahoogroups.com, "Kerry Kimbrough"
> <kkimbrough@a...> wrote:
> > As others have previously mentioned, there are several reasons
to
> > regret the subcommitee's decision to undo the current SCB
design.
>
> And there are plenty of reasons to support removing both-sides
parking
> from Shoal Creek Boulevard. Simply put: bike lanes which allow
cars to
> park in them are viewed by the rest of the country as an oxymoron.

Not so, I have seen may designs like the CEs on the west coast and
Arizona.

  A
> new facility designed this way would never be approved, as it would
> open the city up to unacceptable levels of liability for violated
> accepted standards in roadway engineering.

ASHTOW (sp, yea) only?  very few approved designs there. ANd how can
someone get hurt by a CE? it is an fixed object?

--- In ShoalCreekBlvdAustin@yahoogroups.com, "Mike Dahmus"
<mdahmus@y...> wrote:
> --- In ShoalCreekBlvdAustin@yahoogroups.com, "Kerry Kimbrough"
> <kkimbrough@a...> wrote:
> > > Speed is USUALLY not the issue for safety of cyclists and
> > pedestrians,
> > > it's poor geometric design and bad user behavior.
> >
> > Mike's point here is reasonable, except that it really applies
to
> > cyclists only and mostly to commuters. Unlike cyclists,
pedestrians
> > in the SCB neighborhood often need to cross the street --- to
get to
> > school, to reach the park, to walk to the store, etc. The same
> > applies to folks who enjoy intra-neighborhood pedalling. Also,
unlike
> > commuting cyclists, neighborhood pedestrians need to cross in
between
> > intersections, often in curved sections with limited sight
lights.
>
> No, it applies to pedestrians as well. Getting hit by a car going
20
> is much worse than not getting hit by a car going 40, whether you
are
> on a bike or on foot. The theory that slower traffic in and of
itself
> leads to a huge decrease in crossing accidents is not borne out by
any
> study of which I am aware. Compare and contrast with other
treatments
> such as raised crosswalks, pedestrian refuges, traditional signals,
> stop signs, etc.
>
> - MD

No so, slower traffic allows the driver to be more aware of what is
in the road, and he can take action to avoid the trouble. Stopping
distances from 40 mph is far more than 20 mph.

----- Original Message -----

From: Mike Dahmus

To: ShoalCreekBlvdAustin@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Thursday, September 15, 2005 6:52 PM

Subject: [ShoalCreekBlvdAustin] Re: One-side parking is not an unreasonable hardship

...It's been city policy for years now that any new bike lanes to be
striped must not allow parking. This policy now matches essentially
the rest of the civilized world in acknowledging that allowing parking
in bike lanes makes them useless.

Shoal Creek's original bike lanes were quite old and predated this
policy by many years.

--- In ShoalCreekBlvdAustin@yahoogroups.com, "Mike Dahmus"
<mdahmus@y...> wrote:
> --- In ShoalCreekBlvdAustin@yahoogroups.com, "Rolf Remshard"
> <rolf180@y...> wrote:
> > just a question to get started.
> > I think they do. Vehicles go faster with the larger amount of
lane
> > they see. (from several traffic calming sources, I can find the
> > sources too)  Lines are just paint on the street, a car or
bicycle can
> > cross over at any time.
>
> The general feeling in traffic engineering circles is that stripes
> alone can generate a small decrease in traffic speed, but that more
> substantial obstacles (chicanes, other physical cues) work better.

I think the wide white stripes are great, I do not see many cars
crossing over them at all.  The CEs were put in for the visual clue
and to keep cars from using the right lane as a new car lane. If it
was blue, or striped?

> However, the speed of cars is not the only factor here. A cyclist
who
> is hit by a car going 30 mph because the cyclist veered out of the
> bike lane to avoid a parked car is going to be in big trouble;
while a
> cyclist who is able to stay on a more predictable course in a car-
free
> bike lane can safely be passed by cars going much faster.

The bicycle can go between the CE and the Curb, where it is 2 foot
wide, should have been 3 foot, but.....

It is better not to have the line or bike lane too. In that case
cars watch for bicycles more and give them space.

>
> Speed is USUALLY not the issue for safety of cyclists and
pedestrians,
> it's poor geometric design and bad user behavior.

But there are cases where it is espically in the curvey areas, a ped
crossing the street, cars going too fast around the corner can hit
the pedestrian.  Front of myhouse is that way.

--- In ShoalCreekBlvdAustin@yahoogroups.com, sherahjr@a... wrote:
> 091505
> A few thoughts as follows:
> 1)  Cost of project, cost of removal; if I remember correctly, the
City
> contracted for something in the realm of $300,000 for the CE's,
and although I
> don't have an exact count, that amounts to around $10,000 apiece,
which is utterly
> ridiculous.  One could have a whole driveway paved for less than
that. I'm
> not in favor of removing what cost so much to put in place,
especially not if
> the same contractor who installed them is hired to remove them;

The should be left in for a while, continue to monitor them, and see
if they are worth keeping, it is a city asset right now, why rip
them out on an emotional decision?

> 2)  A cheaper alternative:  it would be worth a try (and far less
expensive)
> to install stop signs on SCB at Twin Oaks and at Treadwell
intersections --
> that curvy stretch seems to invite an extra push on the gas pedal;
> 3) Another alternative; install one or more flashing yellow lights
for a 20
> mph speed limit near the SCB Treadwell area (both directions, S &
N) that would
> be in effect in early morning and lalte afternoon, at times when
school is
> beginning and ending for the day.

I agree with the flashing yellow, they may be easier to put in, and
it definatly needs it.

> 4) put a 'no parking within 15 feet (or 20, whatever works) of
Curb Extender"
> sign on each CE; the other day I saw a car parked nearly at the
edge of a CE,
> which would completely prevent a pedestrian or bicyclist from
being able to
> pass through the "needle" and force them into the street area
outside the
> marked pedestrian/bike lane.
> that's all I can think of for now.
> JR at sherahjr@a...
> ==================================================
>
> Group Email Addresses
> Post message: ShoalCreekBlvdAustin@yahoogroups.com
> Subscribe: ShoalCreekBlvdAustin-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
> Unsubscribe: ShoalCreekBlvdAustin-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
> List owner: ShoalCreekBlvdAustin-owner@yahoogroups.com
>
> Issues are anything on SCB, past present and future, the list is
> completly open.  Discuss new designs, when to take out the CEs.
How
> many CEs should we leave in. Where did the money go, and so on.
> Group Email Addresses
> Post message: ShoalCreekBlvdAustin@yahoogroups.com
> Subscribe: ShoalCreekBlvdAustin-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
> Unsubscribe: ShoalCreekBlvdAustin-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
> List owner: ShoalCreekBlvdAustin-owner@yahoogroups.com
>
> Issues are anything on SCB, past present and future, the list is
> completly open.  Discuss new designs, when to take out the CEs.
How
> many CEs should we leave in. Where did the money go, and so on.

--- In ShoalCreekBlvdAustin@yahoogroups.com, "Mike Dahmus"
<mdahmus@y...> wrote:
> --- In ShoalCreekBlvdAustin@yahoogroups.com, "Robbin"
<robbin@i...> wrote:
> > Actually, the original city plan had a bike lane marked on both
> sides of the road and there was no prohibition of parking. The one
> side parking plan came about after the street was resurfaced (about
> 2001 or 02).

Before resurfacing, it had two 6 foot bike lanes with parking, about
30 cars for the entire length.
The one sided plan came up in late 1999 or early 2000.  The street
has not been resurfaced since late 1999 or early 2000.

>
> Yes, when I referred to "original city plan" I meant "original plan
> for striping after resurfacing". Sorry if I was confusing.
>
> It's been city policy for years now that any new bike lanes to be
> striped must not allow parking.

That applies to new streets, not the older inner city streets.

> Shoal Creek's original bike lanes were quite old and predated this
> policy by many years.

And they worked fine. No complaints from riders. The real problem is
speeding of Cars with the wide lanes, cars clocked at +50 mph.

--- In ShoalCreekBlvdAustin@yahoogroups.com, "Robbin" <robbin@i...> wrote:
> Actually, the original city plan had a bike lane marked on both
sides of the road and there was no prohibition of parking. The one
side parking plan came about after the street was resurfaced (about
2001 or 02).

Yes, when I referred to "original city plan" I meant "original plan
for striping after resurfacing". Sorry if I was confusing.

It's been city policy for years now that any new bike lanes to be
striped must not allow parking. This policy now matches essentially
the rest of the civilized world in acknowledging that allowing parking
in bike lanes makes them useless.

Shoal Creek's original bike lanes were quite old and predated this
policy by many years.

I have a difficult time understanding when a vehicle is permitted or
supposed to drive in a marked bike lane. Anyone want to try to explain
it?

----- Original Message -----

From: Mike Dahmus

To: ShoalCreekBlvdAustin@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Thursday, September 15, 2005 5:24 PM

Subject: [ShoalCreekBlvdAustin] Re: One-side parking is not an unreasonable hardship

 

No. The city tried the "winding from side to side" striping in 2003,
not the original city plan (parking on one side only; not winding
from side to side).

--- In ShoalCreekBlvdAustin@yahoogroups.com, "Rolf Remshard"
<rolf180@y...> wrote:
> The solution we have now works for every bicyclist I have talked
to,
> they like the big lanes, and the wide line seperating from the
cars.

Then you haven't talked to many cyclists.

> > The idea that banning parking on ONE side of SCB is an incredible
> > hardship is not borne out by the facts. In my neighborhood, both
> > Speedway and Duval have restrictions on on-street parking which
> > prevent you from parking on EITHER side of the street (at certain
> > times of day). Likewise, many other streets (with residences)
> > throughout the city ban parking on one or both sides.
>
> Actually the City already tried that on SCB, in 2003(?).

No. The city tried the "winding from side to side" striping in 2003,
not the original city plan (parking on one side only; not winding
from side to side).

--- In ShoalCreekBlvdAustin@yahoogroups.com, "Mike Dahmus"
<mdahmus@y...> wrote:
> "For those of you wanting to ban parking on SCB, all I can figure
is
> that you must not live on SCB.  This would mean, for us, that any
> visitors coming to our house would have to ride their bicycles or
walk
> and when my Son is old enough to drive next year we will have to
tell
> him we can't fit a 3rd car into the driveway and therefore he can't
> have a car.  This is rediculous! What about if we want to have a
> social function at our house.  We live right in the middle of a
very
> long block and parking on a side street could mean a quarter mile
walk
> to get to the front door."
>
> SCB is a critical link in the commuting route for hundreds of
commuter
> cyclists. There is no way to reconcile both-sides parking with bike
> lanes on this street.

The solution we have now works for every bicyclist I have talked to,
they like the big lanes, and the wide line seperating from the cars.

>
> The idea that banning parking on ONE side of SCB is an incredible
> hardship is not borne out by the facts. In my neighborhood, both
> Speedway and Duval have restrictions on on-street parking which
> prevent you from parking on EITHER side of the street (at certain
> times of day). Likewise, many other streets (with residences)
> throughout the city ban parking on one or both sides.

Actually the City already tried that on SCB, in 2003(?).  They had a
one month test of that striping, with reflector buttons installed on
the street and camaras.  They rejected the design, because the cars
were not staying in the lanes. This was mainly because one car lane
is in the curb, and the car had to be driven with one tire at the
curb pan or in the pan.  The striping is still on the street south
of greenlawn. It dosen't work.

--- In ShoalCreekBlvdAustin@yahoogroups.com, "jbfrock" <jbfrock@y...>
wrote:
> Mike, unless you move into Allandale (1), or plan to pay for taking
out the CEs (2), I think you
> should get active in your own neighborhaood association and leave
ours alone.

I will do so, on the day that you succeed in turning Shoal Creek
Boulevard into a private street, owned and maintained by the residents
who live on it, and receiving no funds from the City of Austin.

Until then, you're going to have to realize that for commuter
cyclists, Shoal Creek Boulevard is a critical link in their
transportation system which cannot be replaced. The parked cars in the
mixed-use shoulder are destroying the utility and safety of this route
for the city's commuter cyclists.

No,it is not.

I strongly support the use of this list to discuss the SCB by *all*
interested parties. I firmly reject the notion that only SCB neighbors
have a right to "speak" here.

I am an Allandale resident. As a cyclist, a motorist, a pedestrian, and
a dog walker, I have a certain stake in this issue. I don't always
agree with the cycling activists. Nor do I agree with those neighbors
that would like to see bikes removed from SCB altogether. But they have
a stake, too. I think all of them ought to be able to share their ideas
and concerns on this list.

Regards,
Kerry

----- Original Message -----

From: jbfrock

To: ShoalCreekBlvdAustin@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Thursday, September 15, 2005 3:24 PM

Subject: [ShoalCreekBlvdAustin] The best solution

Mike, unless you move into Allandale (1), or plan to pay for taking out the CEs (2), I think you
should get active in your own neighborhaood association and leave ours alone.  You really
have no invested "stake" (i.e. homeownership) in this area and should not be telling
homeowners what is convenient and not convenient for them.

Mike, unless you move into Allandale (1), or plan to pay for taking out the CEs
(2), I think you
should get active in your own neighborhaood association and leave ours alone. 
You really
have no invested "stake" (i.e. homeownership) in this area and should not be
telling
homeowners what is convenient and not convenient for them.  I still think the
best solution is
what I suggested on the other site and that is--leave them alone.  Trim the
trees, clean (or fill
in) between curb and CEs and police both bikes and cars to see that posted
speeds and stop
signs are obeyed.

"For those of you wanting to ban parking on SCB, all I can figure is
that you must not live on SCB.  This would mean, for us, that any
visitors coming to our house would have to ride their bicycles or walk
and when my Son is old enough to drive next year we will have to tell
him we can't fit a 3rd car into the driveway and therefore he can't
have a car.  This is rediculous! What about if we want to have a
social function at our house.  We live right in the middle of a very
long block and parking on a side street could mean a quarter mile walk
to get to the front door."

SCB is a critical link in the commuting route for hundreds of commuter
cyclists. There is no way to reconcile both-sides parking with bike
lanes on this street.

The idea that banning parking on ONE side of SCB is an incredible
hardship is not borne out by the facts. In my neighborhood, both
Speedway and Duval have restrictions on on-street parking which
prevent you from parking on EITHER side of the street (at certain
times of day). Likewise, many other streets (with residences)
throughout the city ban parking on one or both sides.

In your case, if you are on the side where parking is banned, your
visitors would have to park across the street. Just like they do on
various roads in my neighborhood, or in Old West Austin, etc.

--- In ShoalCreekBlvdAustin@yahoogroups.com, "Kerry Kimbrough"
<kkimbrough@a...> wrote:
> As others have previously mentioned, there are several reasons to
> regret the subcommitee's decision to undo the current SCB design.

And there are plenty of reasons to support removing both-sides parking
from Shoal Creek Boulevard. Simply put: bike lanes which allow cars to
park in them are viewed by the rest of the country as an oxymoron. A
new facility designed this way would never be approved, as it would
open the city up to unacceptable levels of liability for violated
accepted standards in roadway engineering.

Parking on one side of Shoal Creek Boulevard already represents a
compromise - the one-side-only design leaves cyclists with slightly
substandard bike lanes; and parking is simply not allowed at all on
many roadways similar to Shoal Creek throughout the city. On other
roadways (Speedway and Duval, for instance), parking is not allowed on
either side of the road during the day (Duval) or during rush hour
(Speedway).

Eliminating parking on just one side of Shoal Creek is not an
unreasonable imposition on the neighborhood.

--- In ShoalCreekBlvdAustin@yahoogroups.com, "Kerry Kimbrough"
<kkimbrough@a...> wrote:
> > Speed is USUALLY not the issue for safety of cyclists and
> pedestrians,
> > it's poor geometric design and bad user behavior.
>
> Mike's point here is reasonable, except that it really applies to
> cyclists only and mostly to commuters. Unlike cyclists, pedestrians
> in the SCB neighborhood often need to cross the street --- to get to
> school, to reach the park, to walk to the store, etc. The same
> applies to folks who enjoy intra-neighborhood pedalling. Also, unlike
> commuting cyclists, neighborhood pedestrians need to cross in between
> intersections, often in curved sections with limited sight lights.

No, it applies to pedestrians as well. Getting hit by a car going 20
is much worse than not getting hit by a car going 40, whether you are
on a bike or on foot. The theory that slower traffic in and of itself
leads to a huge decrease in crossing accidents is not borne out by any
study of which I am aware. Compare and contrast with other treatments
such as raised crosswalks, pedestrian refuges, traditional signals,
stop signs, etc.

- MD

> Speed is USUALLY not the issue for safety of cyclists and
pedestrians,
> it's poor geometric design and bad user behavior.

Mike's point here is reasonable, except that it really applies to
cyclists only and mostly to commuters. Unlike cyclists, pedestrians
in the SCB neighborhood often need to cross the street --- to get to
school, to reach the park, to walk to the store, etc. The same
applies to folks who enjoy intra-neighborhood pedalling. Also, unlike
commuting cyclists, neighborhood pedestrians need to cross in between
intersections, often in curved sections with limited sight lights.

Traffic speed is a major neighborhood care-about for SCB. In all of
the prior discussions and surveys, this turned up as the #1 concern.
It has to be a consideration in any design proposal.

In all of the prior work on this issue, we've learned quite a bit
about traffic calming. Mike is right that stripes alone have no real
effect. Physical "affordances" are needed. Narrowing the traffic lane
has a strong slowing effect. So do elements that cause drivers to
perceive that the road is narrower (even if it really isn't).

Another thing that we learned from previous discussions and surveys
is that neighbors are strongly opposed to speed humps of any kind.
It's just one of those things that rubs everyone the wrong way. In
previous surveys, "no speed humps" consistently registered a >75%
majority.

Yet another thing we learned was that traffic circles are not high on
the list. They can be very effective. But many people here don't like
them and have had bad experiences with them in Hyde Park and other
neighborhoods. Also, they take effect only at intersections. But SCB
has long stretches of road between intersections.

Regards,
Kerry

--- In ShoalCreekBlvdAustin@yahoogroups.com, "Rolf Remshard"
<rolf180@y...> wrote:
> just a question to get started.
> I think they do. Vehicles go faster with the larger amount of lane
> they see. (from several traffic calming sources, I can find the
> sources too)  Lines are just paint on the street, a car or bicycle can
> cross over at any time.

The general feeling in traffic engineering circles is that stripes
alone can generate a small decrease in traffic speed, but that more
substantial obstacles (chicanes, other physical cues) work better.

However, the speed of cars is not the only factor here. A cyclist who
is hit by a car going 30 mph because the cyclist veered out of the
bike lane to avoid a parked car is going to be in big trouble; while a
cyclist who is able to stay on a more predictable course in a car-free
bike lane can safely be passed by cars going much faster.

Speed is USUALLY not the issue for safety of cyclists and pedestrians,
it's poor geometric design and bad user behavior.

As others have previously mentioned, there are several reasons to
regret the subcommitee's decision to undo the current SCB design. The
one that concerns me the most is the uncertainty of what comes next.
Lest anyone remain unaware, this is not simply a matter of scraping
off the CEs. The whole design is up for grabs again.

If you want to see parking remain on both sides of SCB, you should
start worrying. If the full City Council votes to accept the
subcommittee's decision, they will direct COA Public Works staff to
prepare a new roadway plan. This is the same staff that proposed one-
side-only parking in 1999, which how this all started. They still
resent being overruled then, and they will be coming back with a
vengeance. All the other supporters of the original COA plan have
been re-energized as well. Council member Lee Leffingwell, in
explaining his vote to undo the current design, said that he thought
one-side parking was the best solution.

If this concerns you and if you think we're better off leaving things
as they are, you need to send email to Council now. To send an email
to all members at once, click here:
http://www.ci.austin.tx.us/council/groupemail.htm. To email
individual members, click here: http://www.ci.austin.tx.us/council.
The most important part of your email is the Subject. I know from
previous experience that this is likely to be the only part they will
read. Simple and direct works best. For example: "Keep SCB curb
extensions" or "Don't change SCB".

Regards,
Kerry

just a question to get started.
I think they do. Vehicles go faster with the larger amount of lane
they see. (from several traffic calming sources, I can find the
sources too)  Lines are just paint on the street, a car or bicycle can
cross over at any time.

How much can the city pay for SCB?
Anyone know what the budget is like this year?

We can wait till later on when there is a real design.
They provide safety now, and can be used in the new design.
sure some will have to be removed.
No one has been physically hurt by them