Yup. This is their justification.PS3D said:
The survey is rigged to add more bike lanes at the expense of existing traffic flow.
Stupe said:
I noticed that "Get rid of the medians" was nowhere on that survey.
That isn't a troll post. Those stupid things cause more traffic issues than they "solve".
PS3D said:
The survey is rigged to add more bike lanes at the expense of existing traffic flow.
Mr. Yancy:Bob Yancy said:PS3D said:
The survey is rigged to add more bike lanes at the expense of existing traffic flow.
I respectfully disagree. The city of CS once was very prohibitive in bikes mixing with cars. Back in the 90s for sure. In recent decades that policy swung dramatically toward favoring bike and pedestrian mobility.
Now I think we are grappling with the right balance. How to promote bikes and pedestrian paths in the appropriate way. Part of that research is determining just how many folks are walking and riding bikes. I think that's why you're seeing those questions, particularly in a time of strained resources.
My $.02, respectfully
-yancy
I'm not a bike person and that is not at all how I read that.PS3D said:
The survey is rigged to add more bike lanes at the expense of existing traffic flow.
Spending money on bike lanes is not a waste, in my opinion.Quote:
While I'm not expecting the city to blast through neighborhoods with new roadways (the time has closed for that unfortunately), it looks like to me the city has fallen for ideologues and trendy urban planning ideas like "traffic calming" (making existing roads worse) and wasting valuable tax money on bike lanes while refusing to address the growing city and its congestion problems.
hopeandrealchange said:
Thank you for the discussion.
What are your thoughts on overlay districts?
I have a problem when the city changes the rules after I have purchased a property to cater to a few.
I understand and respect hoa's and deed restrictions. Seems like we have two sets of rules. My property rights should not be changed by a personally motivated city government.
Sorry for getting off topic but it all could be a simple solution to the problem.
It's very easy to say yes when you imagine nice wide mixed-use paths connecting parts of the city together with bike lanes. It's going to be another issue when your neighborhood has parking cut off and tow-away zones because they converted half of it to bike paths.Stupe said:Spending money on bike lanes is not a waste, in my opinion.Quote:
While I'm not expecting the city to blast through neighborhoods with new roadways (the time has closed for that unfortunately), it looks like to me the city has fallen for ideologues and trendy urban planning ideas like "traffic calming" (making existing roads worse) and wasting valuable tax money on bike lanes while refusing to address the growing city and its congestion problems.
On the contrary, it IS addressing the the growth of the city and the congestion.
As tu ag said, there are a lot of people using bikes because of the demographics. Ignoring that fact and not taking it into consideration when widening roads or building new roads can be a fatal mistake.
Bike riders are not going to go away just because there aren't lanes. They will just be in the road or on the sidewalk.
The number of car/bike accidents could be reduced 98% if,tu ag said:
In a city with 70k college students, we need bike lanes. Every year there are major accidents with bikes and cars, some have been fatal.
I just wish TxDot would allow us to give input on their decisions, because they are the real annoyance on traffic issues in the area. Good gracious. Medians. Hwy 6 exits. Construction timing. Etc.
PS3D said:Mr. Yancy:Bob Yancy said:PS3D said:
The survey is rigged to add more bike lanes at the expense of existing traffic flow.
I respectfully disagree. The city of CS once was very prohibitive in bikes mixing with cars. Back in the 90s for sure. In recent decades that policy swung dramatically toward favoring bike and pedestrian mobility.
Now I think we are grappling with the right balance. How to promote bikes and pedestrian paths in the appropriate way. Part of that research is determining just how many folks are walking and riding bikes. I think that's why you're seeing those questions, particularly in a time of strained resources.
My $.02, respectfully
-yancy
The City of College Station has grown dramatically since the 1990s, primarily in the north-south direction, and existing corridors like Texas Avenue and Wellborn are regularly crowded, while there has been general resistance to create any relief corridors.
Welsh Avenue was once planned to connect to George Bush Drive (formerly Jersey Drive) due to neighborhood resistance, and when those same houses were demolished for newer housing, the City did not take advantage and buy ROW to make Welsh a relief route. Similarly, Dexter Drive once was slated to be a major corridor, to the point where an extension to Southwest Parkway was deliberately crippled with a 50-foot gap between the two segments.
Holleman Drive West with its apartment complexes regularly gets congested as well, yet even with the railroad rebuild it did not accommodate two lanes in each direction. I realize this is less useful when FM 2818 construction cut off Holleman Drive South and Holleman Drive West from each other, but it seems to have not even been considered.
Many years ago, even before the infamous road closure, Munson was to be expanded to six lanes as a major thorughfare. Now, even Dartmouth doesn't have four lanes beyond Southwest Parkway East anymore, let alone connecting to Munson Avenue and University Drive East.
While I'm not expecting the city to blast through neighborhoods with new roadways (the time has closed for that unfortunately), it looks like to me the city has fallen for ideologues and trendy urban planning ideas like "traffic calming" (making existing roads worse) and wasting valuable tax money on bike lanes while refusing to address the growing city and its congestion problems.
hopeandrealchange said:
Thank you for the discussion.
What are your thoughts on overlay districts?
I have a problem when the city changes the rules after I have purchased a property to cater to a few.
I understand and respect hoa's and deed restrictions. Seems like we have two sets of rules. My property rights should not be changed by a personally motivated city government.
Sorry for getting off topic but it all could be a simple solution to the problem.
Completely accurate.Quote:
The number of car/bike accidents could be reduced 98% if,
1. Bike riders would know the traffic laws.
2. Bike riders would follow the traffic laws.
In three instances I have come within a foot of running bike riders over, twice due to them just running stop signs and a third time riding the wrong way on George Bush Drive.
Bob finished the survey... HoweverBob Yancy said:
Traffic and roadway projects constitute the largest category of Capital Improvement Projects (CIP) in your proposed city budget. Help staff serve you best by participating in this quick and easy survey, please.
Respectfully yours,
https://blog.cstx.gov/
Quote:
Roadway safety improvements are more important to me than the speed of traffic flow
Completely agree that this is a terrible question. What the question actually says:doubledog said:Quote:
Roadway safety improvements are more important to me than the speed of traffic flow
This is a leading question and should be reworded or taken off the survey.
KingChicken said:
What if consideration is made on these 2 things:
1. Consider changes to the building requirements to allow for less parking spaces in commercial areas. Parking lots in most commercial areas are not filled up to even half capacity (not an actual source but just an observation). If less parking was required, this could increase density/proximity of commercial space to residential areas. This could reduce travel time and make walking/biking more desirable. It also lowers commercial construction costs, decreases maintenance costs, and increase city revenue by having more businesses and less open space
2. Prioritize pedestrian crossing over vehicle traffic. I don't know if it's possible to "reprogram" traffic lights, but currently pedestrians wait for "their turn" after the vehicles have cleared at their specified interval. If it could be done, when a pedestrian pushes the walk button, it could trigger a more rapid stop to vehicular traffic. This makes pedestrians wait time be reduced considerably and thus make walking more desirable
Additionally, create a "Leading Pedestrian Interval" where the pedestrian has a 3-7 second headstart before vehicle traffic starts moving. This allows pedestrians to decrease their journey time but also increase their visibility to other drivers. Pedestrians would be in the crosswalk when cars start driving so drivers would be able to see pedestrians and reduce accidents (by 13% according to this link)
https://highways.dot.gov/safety/proven-safety-countermeasures/leading-pedestrian-interval
Just a few ideas that may not be considered as often as adding the usual bike lanes or sidewalks
agnerd said:Completely agree that this is a terrible question. What the question actually says:doubledog said:Quote:
Roadway safety improvements are more important to me than the speed of traffic flow
This is a leading question and should be reworded or taken off the survey.
"Building medians is more important than keeping traffic flowing."
A lot of people will agree with the survey question and disagree with my translation. But City officials will use the survey to claim that people are in support of the medians.
doubledog said:Bob finished the survey... HoweverBob Yancy said:
Traffic and roadway projects constitute the largest category of Capital Improvement Projects (CIP) in your proposed city budget. Help staff serve you best by participating in this quick and easy survey, please.
Respectfully yours,
https://blog.cstx.gov/Quote:
Roadway safety improvements are more important to me than the speed of traffic flow
This is a leading question and should be reworded or taken off the survey.
The main issue is bike traffic safety. I can see that there is a need to improve our existing bike ways and paths.
A few years ago I could bike from Southwood valley to almost GB on a nice path that took me through bee creek and lemontree park. Then someone decided that the bridges across the creeks (along the path) should be removed due to flood control issues. This action forced bikers to take Anderson street. Anderson street is a major bus/truck thoroughfare and is not safe for bicycles. (IMHO). IF the city would widen Anderson street and for that matter Longmire to include bike medians (yes I said it) or protected bike lanes and add no parking, including Sundays, on these streets it will make them "bike" friendly.
Let the city start with these two streets (bike safety) and let's see what happens. Most students live north of Rock Prairie and south of Bryan so that is where the city needs to improve bike lanes.
