Bullock Texas State History Museum
No Peace on Shoal Creek Bike Lanes Plan
RECEIVED Fri., Jan. 14, 2005
Dear Editor,
In reference to this week's report by Daniel Mottola ("Peace and Progress Come to Shoal Creek," Jan. 14) [News], allow me to suggest that in the future a reporter who picks up a long-running issue for the first time be encouraged to familiarize himself 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 (www.bicycleaustin.info/roadways/shoalcreek.html) and I (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 www.io.com/~mdahmus/trans/consultplan.html (showing a cyclist narrowly avoiding getting disemboweled as he attempts 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 reporter 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 in which cars can park at will.
In reference to this week's report by Daniel Mottola ("Peace and Progress Come to Shoal Creek," Jan. 14) [News], allow me to suggest that in the future a reporter who picks up a long-running issue for the first time be encouraged to familiarize himself 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 (www.bicycleaustin.info/roadways/shoalcreek.html) and I (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 www.io.com/~mdahmus/trans/consultplan.html (showing a cyclist narrowly avoiding getting disemboweled as he attempts 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 reporter 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 in which cars can park at will.
Regards,
Mike Dahmus
Urban Transportation Commissioner
and Only "no" vote on Great Shoal Creek Debacle of '00
Mike Dahmus
Urban Transportation Commissioner
and Only "no" vote on Great Shoal Creek Debacle of '00
[Dan Mottola responds: Mike Dahmus is correct in describing the design of the original proposal. I misunderstood the original plan description I was given, and I apologize for the inaccuracy in my report concerning the lanes on both sides of the street. However, the fact remains that many people strongly rejected the initial plan because it eliminated some parking (important to neighborhood residents, like the several elderly folks involved who perhaps don't see things precisely as Dahmus does), and later because it didn't meet the various stakeholders' needs. Nowhere in the story were city employees ridiculed or was their expertise called into question. As the article makes clear, even those who have concurred in the final plan are unhappy with some aspects of it. As his vote and his letter make plain, Dahmus obviously objects more than most.]
