not sure if this is the appropriate forum, but based on this feedback
I received today, it appears that the die is cast regarding shared use
lanes for bikes as part of the upcoming Mopac project. It makes me
wonder why we bother with open houses if it's all set in stone
already.
from Steve Pustelnyk:
Thank you for sharing your comments regarding your desire for a
contiguous shared use path in the MoPac corridor. A number of shared
use paths and bike facilities currently parallel MoPac along areas
like Shoal Creek and Exposition. We worked closely with the City of
Austin and the cycling community to find ways to link these facilities
together and provide greater east-west connectivity across MoPac. Our
proposed $5 million investment would greatly enhance mobility for
cyclists in the corridor. We have determined that it would not be
reasonable or feasible to construct a shared-use path within the
limits of MoPac for many reasons including financial constraints,
social impacts, limited right-of-way, and restrictions on elevated
structures. If I can provide any additional information, please let
me know.
Thank you for submitting feedback to CTRMA regarding a complete, contiguous, shared use path as part of the MoPac Improvement Project. It is important to keep a persistent voice for such facilities.
Despite Steve Pustelnyk's statement, there is still some movement on this, though it does seem to be getting near the end. I hope to see some positive movement within the next few weeks. I am working with elected officials and staff this week to see what further we can establish.
-Tom
-- Tom Wald Executive Director League of Bicycling Voters http://lobv.org/join t...@lobv.org 512-203-7626
On 3/26/12, John Abrams <jsabr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> not sure if this is the appropriate forum, but based on this feedback > I received today, it appears that the die is cast regarding shared use > lanes for bikes as part of the upcoming Mopac project. It makes me > wonder why we bother with open houses if it's all set in stone > already.
> from Steve Pustelnyk: > Thank you for sharing your comments regarding your desire for a > contiguous shared use path in the MoPac corridor. A number of shared > use paths and bike facilities currently parallel MoPac along areas > like Shoal Creek and Exposition. We worked closely with the City of > Austin and the cycling community to find ways to link these facilities > together and provide greater east-west connectivity across MoPac. Our > proposed $5 million investment would greatly enhance mobility for > cyclists in the corridor. We have determined that it would not be > reasonable or feasible to construct a shared-use path within the > limits of MoPac for many reasons including financial constraints, > social impacts, limited right-of-way, and restrictions on elevated > structures. If I can provide any additional information, please let > me know.
> -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google > Groups "Austin Bicycle Advisory Council" group. > To post, email: austin-bac@googlegroups.com > To unsubscribe, email: austin-bac+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com > To visit online, go to: http://groups.google.com/group/austin-bac > City of Austin staff also maintains an essential BAC list. > To join the staff-maintained list, email: nadia.barr...@ci.austin.tx.us
If we get to the point of a complete "no" to any additional facilities further than what CTRMA presented at the open house, I would like to seriously and positively suggest that we ask for a simple crushed granite path like what we have at Town Lake and Mueller. I believe this would remove some of the reasons they cite for not building a paved multi-use path.
I am not aware of the exact cost difference between the two surfaces, but I think it would reduce the cost a lot. The issue of residential private property could be addressed by shifting the trail route onto a quiet residential street, such as Westfield dr, for necessary portions. A small wood pedestrian bridge over the creek near Foster lane would allow a trail in that area, completely removing the cyclist from high volume auto traffic intersections.
It may not be the perfect, wide, paved, continuous path we want, but it still would be a great value and still be efficient, safe, and pleasant enough for a bicycle transportation route. I think it's a lot better than nothing, and would improve chances of one day making it right.
These 'dirt' paths are quite popular where they have been put in, and the Mopac area we are dealing with really lacks such amenities.
Rich Hollenbeck
________________________________ From: Tom Wald <tomw...@gmail.com> To: jsabr...@gmail.com Cc: Austin Bicycle Advisory Council <austin-bac@googlegroups.com> Sent: Tuesday, March 27, 2012 1:51 PM Subject: Re: [AustinBAC] about my feedback to CTRMA regarding Mopac changes
John,
Thank you for submitting feedback to CTRMA regarding a complete, contiguous, shared use path as part of the MoPac Improvement Project. It is important to keep a persistent voice for such facilities.
Despite Steve Pustelnyk's statement, there is still some movement on this, though it does seem to be getting near the end. I hope to see some positive movement within the next few weeks. I am working with elected officials and staff this week to see what further we can establish.
-Tom
-- Tom Wald Executive Director League of Bicycling Voters http://lobv.org/join t...@lobv.org 512-203-7626
On 3/26/12, John Abrams <jsabr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> not sure if this is the appropriate forum, but based on this feedback > I received today, it appears that the die is cast regarding shared use > lanes for bikes as part of the upcoming Mopac project. It makes me > wonder why we bother with open houses if it's all set in stone > already.
> from Steve Pustelnyk: > Thank you for sharing your comments regarding your desire for a > contiguous shared use path in the MoPac corridor. A number of shared > use paths and bike facilities currently parallel MoPac along areas > like Shoal Creek and Exposition. We worked closely with the City of > Austin and the cycling community to find ways to link these facilities > together and provide greater east-west connectivity across MoPac. Our > proposed $5 million investment would greatly enhance mobility for > cyclists in the corridor. We have determined that it would not be > reasonable or feasible to construct a shared-use path within the > limits of MoPac for many reasons including financial constraints, > social impacts, limited right-of-way, and restrictions on elevated > structures. If I can provide any additional information, please let > me know.
> -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google > Groups "Austin Bicycle Advisory Council" group. > To post, email: austin-bac@googlegroups.com > To unsubscribe, email: austin-bac+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com > To visit online, go to: http://groups.google.com/group/austin-bac > City of Austin staff also maintains an essential BAC list. > To join the staff-maintained list, email: nadia.barr...@ci.austin.tx.us
-- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Austin Bicycle Advisory Council" group. To post, email: austin-bac@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe, email: austin-bac+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com To visit online, go to: http://groups.google.com/group/austin-bac City of Austin staff also maintains an essential BAC list. To join the staff-maintained list, email: nadia.barr...@ci.austin.tx.us
Those are all options that I am suggesting, if we do run into any dead-ends. At the moment, there are some excellent possibilities on the table, and we're actively looking into these. Hopefully, we'll have something solid by the end of April, but it's too early to say exactly what will result.
On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 5:39 PM, Rich <veloma...@yahoo.com> wrote: > If we get to the point of a complete "no" to any additional facilities > further than what CTRMA presented at the open house, I would like to > seriously and positively suggest that we ask for a simple crushed granite > path like what we have at Town Lake and Mueller. I believe this would > remove some of the reasons they cite for not building a paved multi-use > path.
> I am not aware of the exact cost difference between the two surfaces, but > I think it would reduce the cost a lot. The issue of residential private > property could be addressed by shifting the trail route onto a quiet > residential street, such as Westfield dr, for necessary portions. A small > wood pedestrian bridge over the creek near Foster lane would allow a trail > in that area, completely removing the cyclist from high volume auto traffic > intersections.
> It may not be the perfect, wide, paved, continuous path we want, but it > still would be a great value and still be efficient, safe, and pleasant > enough for a bicycle transportation route. I think it's a lot better than > nothing, and would improve chances of one day making it right.
> These 'dirt' paths are quite popular where they have been put in, and the > Mopac area we are dealing with really lacks such amenities.
> Rich Hollenbeck > ------------------------------ > *From:* Tom Wald <tomw...@gmail.com> > *To:* jsabr...@gmail.com > *Cc:* Austin Bicycle Advisory Council <austin-bac@googlegroups.com> > *Sent:* Tuesday, March 27, 2012 1:51 PM > *Subject:* Re: [AustinBAC] about my feedback to CTRMA regarding Mopac > changes
> John,
> Thank you for submitting feedback to CTRMA regarding a complete, > contiguous, shared use path as part of the MoPac Improvement Project. > It is important to keep a persistent voice for such facilities.
> Despite Steve Pustelnyk's statement, there is still some movement on > this, though it does seem to be getting near the end. I hope to see > some positive movement within the next few weeks. I am working with > elected officials and staff this week to see what further we can > establish.
> -Tom
> -- > Tom Wald > Executive Director > League of Bicycling Voters > http://lobv.org/join > t...@lobv.org > 512-203-7626
> On 3/26/12, John Abrams <jsabr...@gmail.com> wrote: > > not sure if this is the appropriate forum, but based on this feedback > > I received today, it appears that the die is cast regarding shared use > > lanes for bikes as part of the upcoming Mopac project. It makes me > > wonder why we bother with open houses if it's all set in stone > > already.
> > from Steve Pustelnyk: > > Thank you for sharing your comments regarding your desire for a > > contiguous shared use path in the MoPac corridor. A number of shared > > use paths and bike facilities currently parallel MoPac along areas > > like Shoal Creek and Exposition. We worked closely with the City of > > Austin and the cycling community to find ways to link these facilities > > together and provide greater east-west connectivity across MoPac. Our > > proposed $5 million investment would greatly enhance mobility for > > cyclists in the corridor. We have determined that it would not be > > reasonable or feasible to construct a shared-use path within the > > limits of MoPac for many reasons including financial constraints, > > social impacts, limited right-of-way, and restrictions on elevated > > structures. If I can provide any additional information, please let > > me know.
> > -- > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google > > Groups "Austin Bicycle Advisory Council" group. > > To post, email: austin-bac@googlegroups.com > > To unsubscribe, email: austin-bac+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com > > To visit online, go to: http://groups.google.com/group/austin-bac > > City of Austin staff also maintains an essential BAC list. > > To join the staff-maintained list, email: nadia.barr...@ci.austin.tx.us
> -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google > Groups "Austin Bicycle Advisory Council" group. > To post, email: austin-bac@googlegroups.com > To unsubscribe, email: austin-bac+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com > To visit online, go to: http://groups.google.com/group/austin-bac > City of Austin staff also maintains an essential BAC list. > To join the staff-maintained list, email: nadia.barr...@ci.austin.tx.us
I wish those making the decisions could experience what we cyclists
experience. I will tell a short story about my ride on Great Northern
Blvd a few hours ago. This road has a two way bike lane on the west
side of the roadway. Some riders say they feel safer staying in the
car lane. It's a good thing I wasn't going NB in the car lane tonight
at approximately midnight (Friday). Near the Far West connector I was
passed from behind by a pickup truck going in the range of 100-120mph.
He was going so fast that he was almost catching air off the
incredibly mild undulations of this very smooth road. I felt I was in
a video game, except for the huge rush of partially unburnt gasoline
exhaust in the gust coming over me. I wasn't startled too much as I
heard the tires about 2-3 seconds before he passed me. A minute later
I near the end of this straight stretch of road and come across two
pedestrians walking in the bike lanes. I talked to them about the
truck. They said they saw him screeching his tires trying to slow to
make the 90 degree corner to the right..
So before you think Great Northern Blvd is a nice bike route, just
remember that the flat straight nature of it might be inviting another
idiot to test the limits of their vehicle.
Always know your surroundings and have an escape route. I was lucky he
hadn't lost control, and there was about 12 feet separating us.
Rich H
On Mar 26, 9:27 pm, John Abrams <jsabr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> not sure if this is the appropriate forum, but based on this feedback
> I received today, it appears that the die is cast regarding shared use
> lanes for bikes as part of the upcoming Mopac project. It makes me
> wonder why we bother with open houses if it's all set in stone
> already.
> from Steve Pustelnyk:
> Thank you for sharing your comments regarding your desire for a
> contiguous shared use path in the MoPac corridor. A number of shared
> use paths and bike facilities currently parallel MoPac along areas
> like Shoal Creek and Exposition. We worked closely with the City of
> Austin and the cycling community to find ways to link these facilities
> together and provide greater east-west connectivity across MoPac. Our
> proposed $5 million investment would greatly enhance mobility for
> cyclists in the corridor. We have determined that it would not be
> reasonable or feasible to construct a shared-use path within the
> limits of MoPac for many reasons including financial constraints,
> social impacts, limited right-of-way, and restrictions on elevated
> structures. If I can provide any additional information, please let
> me know.
> I wish those making the decisions could experience what we cyclists
> experience. I will tell a short story about my ride on Great Northern
> Blvd a few hours ago. This road has a two way bike lane on the west
> side of the roadway. Some riders say they feel safer staying in the
> car lane. It's a good thing I wasn't going NB in the car lane tonight
> at approximately midnight (Friday). Near the Far West connector I was
> passed from behind by a pickup truck going in the range of 100-120mph.
> He was going so fast that he was almost catching air off the
> incredibly mild undulations of this very smooth road. I felt I was in
> a video game, except for the huge rush of partially unburnt gasoline
> exhaust in the gust coming over me. I wasn't startled too much as I
> heard the tires about 2-3 seconds before he passed me. A minute later
> I near the end of this straight stretch of road and come across two
> pedestrians walking in the bike lanes. I talked to them about the
> truck. They said they saw him screeching his tires trying to slow to
> make the 90 degree corner to the right..
> So before you think Great Northern Blvd is a nice bike route, just
> remember that the flat straight nature of it might be inviting another
> idiot to test the limits of their vehicle.
> Always know your surroundings and have an escape route. I was lucky he
> hadn't lost control, and there was about 12 feet separating us.
> Rich H
> On Mar 26, 9:27 pm, John Abrams <jsabr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > not sure if this is the appropriate forum, but based on this feedback
> > I received today, it appears that the die is cast regarding shared use
> > lanes for bikes as part of the upcomingMopacproject. It makes me
> > wonder why we bother with open houses if it's all set in stone
> > already.
> > from Steve Pustelnyk:
> > Thank you for sharing your comments regarding your desire for a
> > contiguous shared use path in theMoPaccorridor. A number of shared
> > use paths and bike facilities currently parallelMoPacalong areas
> > like Shoal Creek and Exposition. We worked closely with the City of
> > Austin and the cycling community to find ways to link these facilities
> > together and provide greater east-west connectivity acrossMoPac. Our
> > proposed $5 million investment would greatly enhance mobility for
> > cyclists in the corridor. We have determined that it would not be
> > reasonable or feasible to construct a shared-use path within the
> > limits ofMoPacfor many reasons including financial constraints,
> > social impacts, limited right-of-way, and restrictions on elevated
> > structures. If I can provide any additional information, please let
> > me know.
