You are hereDaily Texan says: "Cyclists' input left out of plan"; I say: "Business as usual at UT"
Daily Texan says: "Cyclists' input left out of plan"; I say: "Business as usual at UT"
Today the Daily Texan published an article about UT pressuring the City of Austin to remove Speedway as a bicycle thoroughfare in the Bicycle Plan Update, without having this decision reviewed by any of the cyclist-advocacy groups at the University or around Austin. They interviewed Tom Wald, UT student and long-time cycling advocate, who had a few things to say about UT's treatment of their cycling students:
“UT is trying to ignore the needs of bicyclists,” Wald said. “There’s no clear plan of how to accommodate bicyclists.”
He said neither of his committees were given an opportunity to see what was left in and taken out of the bike plan before it went to the city council.
“They did not notify the UT Bicycle Committee that they were rejecting us,” Wald said.
This oversight was recently mentioned on the BAC mailing list, but only after the plan with the Speedway omission was already approved. The article also mentions that UT doesn't have a specific Bicycle Plan, but that they were "still working on it". Wonder how long they've been saying that. It seems that such a venerable university would have SOME plan for how to get their two-wheeled students around campus. Oftentimes being the quickest and least-impactful way of getting around from class to class, you'd think that they'd specifically cater to cyclists, and not shun them entirely.
Lets hope they figure it out quick, school starts in a little over a month and the number of freshmen cyclists coming in are going to be more than ever before. With their lack of knowledge of the rules of the road and the UT cops penchant for ticketing cycling infractions, shit should get interesting around mid-September. Read the entire article here.
I've been emailing back and forth since the start of the year with PTS, trying to get them to give me some info on the bicycling commuter benefit, and whether UT will enable bicycle commuters to get the 20/month benefit (to pay for tires, tubes, tuneups, etc). I've been getting bs responses like "talk to your staff representative" or "president powers is busy." It looks like people at UT who are interested in the benefit might have to fight to obtain it. I bet if we could get UT to give the benefit out, lots of the other large businesses (AMD, Seton, IBM, Whole Foods) in the area would allow the benefit as well. Anyone interested or have any info on this?
Note that what passes for a front page article in the Daily Texan has no information at all; its only substance is the two quotes. So let's isolate and analyze them.
“UT is trying to ignore the needs of bicyclists,” Wald said. “There’s no clear plan of how to accommodate bicyclists.”
“They did not notify the UT Bicycle Committee that they were rejecting us,” Wald said.
Here is the other quote, from a UT official:
“No one at UT was contacted in regards to the bike plan, even though a section addressed the University,” Stone said. “Someone [at the city] had the insight to say ‘Hey there’s something about UT in the report’ and so they asked us if it was accurate and it wasn’t completely accurate. It wasn’t based on us trying to skirt committees.”
In contrast with the petulant and vacuous tone of the SG representative, the UT official actually sheds light on the situation: it appears that what was left out of the report was not prescriptive but descriptive. "Something" was "inaccurate". Mark, "inaccurate", not necessarily "disagreeable to UT". UT has some autonomy in its bike policies, and the city's Bike Plan likely aimed to cite some decisions of UT's internal committees, doing so incorrectly and realizing the mistake with insufficient time to correct it.
The article fans the flames over a complete nonissue.
I do not appreciate insults, including poorly researched insults.
The article may not have much information, but preserving bicycle access at UT is hardly a non-issue. Please note that I can't decide what the reporter chooses to quote. I gave much more detail than the reporter expressed in his article.
The "UT official" Bobby Stone works for PTS, which was notified in March of the UT components of the Austin bike plan. I know that because I e-mailed PTS with the page numbers. I actually pointed out some of the inaccurate information to PTS, including the detail Stone mentions: "One thing they talked about is, ‘we have a UT bicycle plan, but we don’t,’... We’re still working on it." I realize all too well that UT doesn't have a clear plan for bicyclists.
Since March, the UT bicycle committee has met but there was no indication from PTS that the Speedway Bike Blvd. was inconsistent with UT bicycle needs or plans, nor was the committee given the opportunity to weigh in. PTS had three months or more to bring these issues to the public, including the committees.
If the Speedway Bike Blvd. component was "inaccurate", then what was it being compared to? Does UT have a bicycle plan that they haven't shown to the public? No, because they are "working on it". How does PTS expect bicyclists to use Austin city bicycle route #47 to get to UT? Mind you, that bike route has been there, in print for over a decade, and de facto for decades.
This spring, Bobby Stone presented a study on 24th Street, including its intersection with Speedway, that made no acknowledgment that bicycle traffic even existed, yet the conclusion of the report was to close off two bicycle routes on campus. I figured that was worth disagreeing with, so I made the point that bicyclists would be affected. Should I have stayed silent? Believe it or not, Bobby Stone didn't even realize the importance of 24th St. to bicyclists until he was reminded of it at one of those public input committee meetings. Note that Speedway was once open to bicyclists at both ends of campus, now it is closed at both ends. Only last fall was the mid-section re-opened to bicyclists. The north end access is permitted only because PTS realizes how ridiculous it would be to ticket the thousands of bicyclists who pass through there each day... but bicyclists were ticketed in the old Speedway dismount zone. No, none of this information got into the article.
As for a UT bicycle plan, don't hold your breath. There has been no indication from PTS that they are actually working on it anytime this year or next. The draft UT plan that is mentioned was released in 2007. UT may develop a plan sooner, but it will take pressure from a good number of people.
PTS does much for bicyclists. Orange Bike Project owes its shop space to PTS. The maintained bike racks, registration program, readily available supplies, bike pumps in every garage, and some other amenities are offered by PTS. But PTS is reducing bicycle access at UT as a norm -- the removal of the official "dismount zone" is a notable exception -- and is not working adequately with the city to connect with city routes. Only at my insistence is the bike coordinator connecting more with the city. There is good change happening, but it is not happening in a vacuum. There is pressure coming from me and others such as Gordon Novak (whom you've probably never heard of) and George McQueen of OBP. And I will have you know that PTS isn't the whole of the problem. Others in the UT administration would rather just remove bicycles entirely from campus. Really. That was the plan before others protested several years ago. I know, it sounds ridiculous and perhaps sensationalist, but people didn't believe that Speedway could be closed off like it is and, well, it is now.
Please realize that the Daily Texan is a student newspaper. Please excuse that the article missed some of the relevant facts. The press on this issue is one of the few avenues we have to pressure UT to address bicycle planning needs at UT.
Tom,
I apologize for my abusive choice of words. I turned a rant against the Daily Texan, excessive to begin with, against you. And thanks for the information. Apropos, I frequently refer to and enjoy Dr Novak's online course notes for CS 315.
Thanks for following up with additional facts on the matter, Tom. As a member of the BAC I was broadsided by these changes when Alonso brought it to our attention last Thursday, at which point it was too late to do anything. The official change addendum was only sent to the CoA reps 2 days before City Council ruled on the bike plan, not giving ANYONE involved enough time to discuss or look over the modifications.
From my understanding though, the bike plan is a LIVING document, open to additional changes and modifications as our understanding of workable bicycle infrastructure progresses. Hopefully some bicycle accessibility in and around the UT campus area is a big part of those changes. They sorely need it.
I was a student at UT 20 years ago, and I'd commute to UT from Buda, park in the far away C lots (they're athletic fields now) and ride my bike the mile or so into class and between classes. Later, I moved off Riverside and would do the same thing, or ride all the way to school.
Things haven't improved since then -- they've gotten slightly worse. Things were pretty much the way they are now, except that back then they didn't have any `dismount zones'. And Speedway was pretty much a normal road, used by cars (with parking permits that permitted parking inside, or after hours) and bikes.
Several things haven't changed --
-- They didn't let you lock to anything except bike racks back then either. (Violators had their locks cut and bikes impounded.)
-- They required registration back then too.
-- They required you to follow the traffic laws back then too, though I don't recall anybody actually getting a ticket from them for it. (But maybe I just didn't notice.)
Really, the only thing that I think has improved is that bike theft seems to have improved. UTPD has shown considerable interest in catching thieves lately, when back then they didn't seem to care.
Well, I'd call Orange Bike a big improvement too -- I don't recall it being around back then. But I'm not sure this makes up for the ruination of Speedway ...
Speedway is not a dismount zone as of Fall 2008. It is a shared bicycle/pedestrian pathway, and the only reason for the recent disruptions of that zone is the simultaneous construction of no fewer than three new buildings along Speedway, Norman Hackerman Hall, the new Computer Science complex, and the Student Activity Building.
Even as all of this goes on, Speedway is wide open to bikes all summer. Each weekday, on Speedway itself, a trailer is open selling cheap bicycle supplies and city bike maps, and registering bicycles for free.
Things have changed, and for the better.
... but perhaps that's in error. I've been through there a few times in the last few months, but it's always been late so I didn't get the `full effect'.
Also, last time I checked, Speedway was blocked at 26th (Dean Keaton now) with permanent barriers to stop cars and a chain (presumably) to stop bikes. Hopefully the chain is just a temporary thing -- at night that could be easy to miss and could really mess somebody up. (Sure, they should have good lights and not go too fast, but there's always the chance for somebody to be hurt.) And there were barriers blocking the road further south as well, but these were temporary barriers.
20 years ago, Speedway was completely open, except for the guard shacks, but they're open to bikes.
They were registering bikes 20 years ago too, in roughly the same place, but didn't have a trailer, it was just a guy with a chair and an umbrella and a box of his supplies. Selling supplies is nice, however.