Bike Boulevard: City Study Supports Project

Study shows bike boulevard would not negatively impact surrounding streets

By Lee Nichols, Fri., March 5, 2010

Nueces and Seventh Street, without diverters (above) and how the intersection would look with a traffic diverter (below) (Photos courtesy of City of Austin)

One of the major arguments against a so-called "bicycle boulevard" in Downtown Austin – that it would worsen traffic on surrounding streets – appears to have been shot down by a city-commissioned traffic impact analysis.

Opponents of such a boulevard – recently organized as Austinites for Downtown Mobility – cited this concern as a major argument against redesigning either Nueces or Rio Grande streets to discourage through-traffic and encourage bicycling. Devices to accomplish this goal could range from simple bicycle lanes to various traffic-calming devices and maybe even "diverters" that would prevent certain turns by cars onto the boulevard while still allowing bicycle access (see "Bicycle Dreams," Feb. 5.)

But at an open house last week, the city's Public Works Department unveiled the results of the traffic impact analysis performed by HDR Engineering in January. The study made forecasts of what a bike boulevard might do to traffic along that corridor – running from Third Street up to MLK Boulevard – both in 2012 and in 2020.

The key finding: not much. According to the study, the number of drivers moving off of the bike boulevard wouldn't be substantial enough to severely impact the surrounding streets. More precisely, the study predicts that whether a bike boulevard is built or not, many of the intersections in the corridor will eventually be classified as "failing" (defined, according to a grading system used by the city, as an intersection with delays that cause substantial driver discomfort, frustration, fuel consumption, and lost travel time). Examining both Nueces and Rio Grande options in regard to three scenarios – boulevard with and without diverters, boulevard with traffic circles, and no bike boulevard at all (referred to as "no-build") – "it can be seen that there is very little difference between the total number of failing intersections between the No-Build Alternative and the various bicycle boulevard alternatives," the report reads. "The traffic operations in the 2020 No-Build condition will deteriorate compared to the 2012 No-Build condition due to background growth and development of other projects, regardless of construction of a bicycle boulevard."

As for the specific traffic-calming devices that may be introduced (see photos, above and below): "It is not likely that additional traffic will be attracted to or diverted from the streets because of their function in the roadway network." The report also states that impacts on delivery vehicles and emergency response vehicles would be minimal.

Rio Grande and Ninth, as it is now (above), and how it would look with a traffic circle (below) (Photos courtesy of City of Austin)

"I will note that the traffic circles version [for either street] has zero effect on traffic flow or capacity and zero effect on parking, and that is going to be weighted heavily as staff looks at a solution to this project," says city of Austin Bicycle Program Manager Annick Beaudet.

"I think it's quite clear from the studies that there aren't any significant concerns about redistribution of traffic from Nueces or from the traffic flow on Nueces," says Rob D'Amico of the League of Bicycling Voters, which supports creation of a bike boulevard specifically on Nueces. "I think the study bolsters the idea that Nueces is a good location for a bike boulevard."

A representative of Austinites for Downtown Mobility had not returned calls as of press time. The organization has previously stated that it supports facilities for cyclists but fears discouraging automobile through-traffic on Nueces or Rio Grande would be detrimental to business on those streets.

Beaudet says that city staff will now process citizen input into a specific recommendation for what a bike boulevard should look like (including possibly the no-build option), to be completed by March 30, and the proposal will then start making its way through the city's boards and commissions process.