lp Stop Bicycle Boulevard in Austin

[absolutely]

Originally Posted by smartgxl

exactly. The op doesnt seem to get that this is designed to promote a more intersting, permanent, sustainable lifestyle; its not designed for casual recreational riding or for intense bike training a la lance armstrong.

What a lot of people want, are highly walkable neighborhoods, with store fronts that front along the street and good sidewalks, safe biking infrastructure, that also allow some auto traffic and flow. If austin did this, slowly rebuilding/remaking all neighborhoods from the urban core on out, it would be a great example to the rest of the nation, that you can live a great, healthy middle-class living, without the sprawl associated with the burbs. That is what the bike lanes and other such initiatives are designed to accomplish.

I have a theory as to why many city planners wont allow this to happen: Many cities, in order to pay for roads, bridges etc, raise money thru the bond market, by issuing muni bonds. They then pay off those bonds monthly to the bondholders (essentially a mortgage) using fuel taxes, which are paid for at the pump, by the consumer. So, many municipalities have a vested financial interest in promoting the 'suburban' city model, of sprawl, with a heavy driving culture. They need cars, and fuel consumption, to help pay off the infrastructure that was built. If people are riding bikes or walking, then they are not helping to pay for the city's infrastructure costs.

I can understand that some people dont want to live in a dense neighborhood; they want to live in a big house on a plot of land, with a backyard. They think they are entitled to this...but guess what, that selfish lifestyle is causing destruction of the land, destruction of scarce resources, and driving up costs for everyone else. If you feel it is your right to live out in a remote area, in some 'suburb', well that is your right, but you should be the one to pay for it. You should be taxed heavily to subsidize it all...the roads, the police, and the oil that fuels it all. Not those of us that just want to live a clean healthy lifestyle and live within our means. If you are such a big shot with a lot of money, mr cheesy suburban guy, then you pay for it.

spot on

[JudyBlue]

Originally Posted by jobert

Thanks for the email addresses. I will be sure to email everyone on the list and tell them that I am for it, and how it will help the mayor Lee Leffingwell meet his goal of 30,000 people living downtown by 2015 and create a greener Austin.


Thanks.

"his goal"?
"greener" Austin?
The middle class has moved away from Austin (Elgin, Kyle, Round Rock/Pflugerville, Manor) because they can't afford housing for their family in Austin.
Now, the jobs are in Austin so they commute into town in their cars. Now, what should be a 20-minute commute turns into a 50-minute commute because the City of Austin has not developed their road system to keep up with the recent growth. And you say green? Think about the added tailpipe emmissions due to the longer commutes.
Where do you see green in downtown?

[atxcio]

Originally Posted by JudyBlue

"his goal"?
"greener" Austin?
The middle class has moved away from Austin (Elgin, Kyle, Round Rock/Pflugerville, Manor) because they can't afford housing for their family in Austin.
...
Where do you see green in downtown?

More people living downtown = greener. At least that is the theory; living 400 people to a block (highrise) means less sprawl, fewer lawns to waste water on, fewer cars, less reason to drive, more access to public transportation. Would be nice if they could work down there, too, and that is ultimately the goal. But at least while they have to commute out of downtown, they'll be doing a reverse-commute, hence sitting in traffic less.

Places like RR, Cedar Park, Pflugerville, etc will always be around because they serve a purpose and appeal to a big segment of buyers; and they aren't controlled by the city of Austin, nor should they be. But as far as the city itself, Austin is doing the right when it encourages density downtown.

[veloman777]

It looks like there is going to be a compromise of sorts made. (Even though the LOBV plan was already a compromise). I can't go into the details here, but *my feeling* is that there will be an improved roadway through Nueces and or Rio Grande that will encourage cycling use more, but also not have any negative impact on car drivers.

There's still much work to be done and much decisions to be made by people and departments way more important than me.

I encourage everyone to provide their input on the city's website. I don't have the exact link, you'll have to search for the Nueces project, but there is a public input form!


As an aside, IN MY OPINION, Austin could benefit immensely from an arterial system of truly bike priority routes. My dream would be one main bike-only path north-south from 38th st south to Ben White.

Auto traffic is only going to get worse. People need OPTIONS, safe options that make sense.