I would be all for this. . .as long as they can make our weather more like Holland too (Austin: appointed, sales)

[Komeht]

Wear: Austin looking to Holland to make the city more... | www.statesman.com

[atxcio]

I'm all for it anyway. Spending 100% of the dollars for transportation on just car projects makes no sense. Cars, sidewalks for pedestrians, infrastructure for cyclists, public transportation, we need it all. Weather is not an excuse.

The politicians ought to know that trips do Amsterdam to help solve Austin's transportation woes won't be looked on kindly by the "masses"... doesn't mean they shouldn't do it, just means they need to be ready for the backlash and better have some solid reasons.

[Komeht]

Cars, sidewalks, trails and whatnot. . . that's all nice. But not going to get the vast majority of people out of cars on commuting on bike or on foot. The ONLY solution to this is more density, and not just in the CBD.

Unfortunately the neighborhood NIMBY's oppose this. So you can spend all the money you want on bike lanes, and pretty bike stations, and watering stations and back rubs for cyclists. But if someone's commute is longer than a couple of miles - I guarantee you 99.9999% they're going in a car.

You want to get people on a bike? Make Austin denser.

[Adamson865]

I dunno... the City Council is pretty dense already. Any more and their heads may explode.

[Austin97]

Originally Posted by Komeht

Cars, sidewalks, trails and whatnot. . . that's all nice. But not going to get the vast majority of people out of cars on commuting on bike or on foot. The ONLY solution to this is more density, and not just in the CBD.

Unfortunately the neighborhood NIMBY's oppose this. So you can spend all the money you want on bike lanes, and pretty bike stations, and watering stations and back rubs for cyclists. But if someone's commute is longer than a couple of miles - I guarantee you 99.9999% they're going in a car.

You want to get people on a bike? Make Austin denser.

you are looking at it backwards. Bike lanes dont solve a general traffic problem, but they do attract the type of people that want to ride bikes.

The same goes for trains. Trains wont relieve traffic congestion, but they will attract and be used by the types of people who want to use trains to commute.

As long as the costs for bike lanes and trains are roughly comparable (on a per user mile basis) to roads, I think that they are ok.

roughly 2% of people commute on bikes in austin, so I think your 99.9999% is provably wrong.

BTW I vote against all train/bike packages, but I do recognize how they are valuable to specific groups of people and to austin in general to attract those "creative class" types.

[Komeht]

Originally Posted by Austin97

you are looking at it backwards. Bike lanes dont solve a general traffic problem, but they do attract the type of people that want to ride bikes.

The same goes for trains. Trains wont relieve traffic congestion, but they will attract and be used by the types of people who want to use trains to commute.

As long as the costs for bike lanes and trains are roughly comparable (on a per user mile basis) to roads, I think that they are ok.

roughly 2% of people commute on bikes in austin, so I think your 99.9999% is provably wrong.

BTW I vote against all train/bike packages, but I do recognize how they are valuable to specific groups of people and to austin in general to attract those "creative class" types.

Nonsensical.

1. The vast majority of the 2% of bike commuters in Austin are central and live close to work. Which is PRECISELY my point. You can get 2% of people to ditch the car when they have a 2 mile commute. Good luck when that commute is 5 or 10 miles and it's 105 in the afternoon.

2. People who live in Round Rock and Cedar Park and Buda are not riding their bikes to work. I believe you'll concede this point.

3. There are many reasons people chose to live in the suburbs but one of the main ones is cost of living. It's cheaper to live in the suburbs. Why? Housing in unavailable and vastly constrained in inner city neighborhoods in Austin.

4. For all of Austin's lip service paid for a dense urban center city, we fall woefully short. Austin is one of the least dense cities in America (which likely makes it one of the least dense cities of its size in the world). Far less than the other major metropolitan areas in Texas.

All this crap about getting people out of cars and onto bikes is meaningless until you get people close to work. Cart is way way way beyond the horse here. You can lay down the nicest rubberized protected bike lane that tax dollars can buy, but it won't make a difference.

Conversely, you increasing the density in the urban core, encouraging development to occur in the center and not sent to Leander, you will get people close to work where biking becomes a reasonable option and it could happen all on its own.

Oh, and whoever said weather is not an excuse hasn't spent a summer here in Central Texas.

[atxcio]

It's not about getting fewer cars on the road, it's about providing alternatives. Whether the average person uses them (sidewalks or bike routes) once a year, 6 months out of the year, or year-round doesn't matter at this point. It's infrastructure, you can invest in it now or pay more for it later (or suffer by not having it).

I say do it now while we can. We're not always going to be growing and flush with sales and property taxes. And infrastructure projects aren't going to get any cheaper.

Of course, that goes for road improvements too. Not sure how much the city can do about the main arteries, I think that's pretty much TxDOT territory... but the city can improve the roads they control and provide the full array of mobility options on those.

[owlman]

Originally Posted by atxcio

Not sure how much the city can do about the main arteries, I think that's pretty much TxDOT territory...

I'd say this is one of the biggest barriers to cycling in this town. I think the city is doing a great job adding bike facilities to local roads when it's "free" to do so, like striping bike lanes when roads are resurfaced and being restriped anyway and the existing road width supports it. However, so many trips around Austin require traveling on a highway or frontage road (due to geography or poorly planned subdivisions that don't connect otherwise) and the current policy of bikes sharing a lane with 50+ mph frontage road traffic is not sustainable.

[Komeht]

Originally Posted by atxcio

It's not about getting fewer cars on the road, it's about providing alternatives. Whether the average person uses them (sidewalks or bike routes) once a year, 6 months out of the year, or year-round doesn't matter at this point. It's infrastructure, you can invest in it now or pay more for it later (or suffer by not having it).

I say do it now while we can. We're not always going to be growing and flush with sales and property taxes. And infrastructure projects aren't going to get any cheaper.

Of course, that goes for road improvements too. Not sure how much the city can do about the main arteries, I think that's pretty much TxDOT territory... but the city can improve the roads they control and provide the full array of mobility options on those.

It's not about getting fewer cars or the road? Wait? What? Of course it is. Why else do we care how someone gets to work?

We're not always going to be growing and flush with sales and property taxes is a reason to be prudent about spending.

[atxcio]

Originally Posted by Komeht

It's not about getting fewer cars or the road? Wait? What? Of course it is. Why else do we care how someone gets to work?

We don't worry about how someone gets to work. We build infrastructure that supports various modes of transit, and in the future people have options. It doesn't necessarily reduce the number of cars on the road, and if you are expecting that, you will be disappointed.

We're not always going to be growing and flush with sales and property taxes is a reason to be prudent about spending.

Infrastructure is prudent spending IMO. Whether it is for cars (or buses), pedestrians, or cyclists.