Texasota

An annual membership is $79 for unlimited 60 minute rides. Cost is not an issue here.

And it's not meant as a replacement for bike ownership anyway; it's an augmentation. I own two bikes, but I don't always have one with me. I also don't always want to worry about locking up somewhere safe. An extensive bike share system adds a ton of flexibility. 

And overseas cities with high bike usage have bike share systems as well. I've ridden extensively in Copenhagen. Using *multiple*! bikeshare systems.

This is not a real conflict. 

39 minutes ago, chempku said:

I always think the idea of prioritizing BCyle over other private bicycle infra (e.g. safer/more reliable bike parking) is so underwhelming, comparing to the vision from cycling advocates. There are only ~10 bicycles/e-bikes per station. Had there be massive bike commutes, BCycles will never fulfill the demand. 

I always don't get the idea why the city keep promoting the cost-ineffective BCycle while there is still no reliable way to track the availbaility of bicycle parking/bike racks. 

Anyone agrees with me? 

 

I 100% disagree with you, though I also don't think these things are mutually exclusive. I actually think they build off of each other.

Bcycle still needs to grow, but I already find it to be pretty useful. Have you ever used bikeshare in a city where its pretty extensive? DC, NY, or Minneapolis for example?

It can really function more as a transportation network than just random bikes for rent. Yes, rebalancing station load can be an issue, but it's still a super useful service.

The station suspensions are worrying though.

Uh, that does not look like one month away from opening.

That's not the city hall annex. That's the public works building.

...and wow this station has been a long time coming.

As someone who has crossed 11th on foot before, this road diet is *more* than worth it if it slows drivers down and makes those crossings safer. 

Safety and comfort matter. 

It's on street - originally planned as buffered but there will now be some physical separation. 4ff60f5de8b71a138a5fe4ee132e3657_Renderings.pdf (amazonaws.com)

Nice! It's easy to imagine a conversion of that building into any number of arts-related uses.

Dickson to Washington *is* getting bike lanes. Washington to I-10 is planned but (as I understand it) not finalized. 

Yeah, to some extent it's basically not possible given the number of lanes and larger context. 

You could convert both streets to true boulevards with high quality medians so no one ever has to cross more than 3-4 lanes at a time, but that still wouldn't be great.

But, back to the actual claim made about this intersection, it just doesn't qualify as "protected". You can't call crossing a slip lane into a weird triangle "protection".  Protected intersections have a real definition that this just doesnt meet: Protected Intersections | National Association of City Transportation Officials (nacto.org)

The point is, while this might be better than the previous configuration, there's a *huge* gap between this and real high quality infrastructure. 

In no meaningful way is this a protected intersection. It's above average for what it is, but it still massively prioritizes cars. 

I really hate that this thing got national press when Houston has a number of *actual* higher quality protected intersections now. 

Also - you cross the intersection on a bike or on foot, and... then what? You get dumped onto normal, mildly unpleasant sidewalks right up again high speed car lanes. 

Maybe don't mention God when celebrating that people *aren't* being fed and sheltered.

I wouldn't describe any of those driveways as "narrow", even from an American firefighting perspective.

That said, I definitely wish our fire departments would use smaller vehicles in urban settings.

why exactly bother passing something like the walkable places ordinance and then just let it sit on a shelf for two years? 

Navigation (along with Westheimer and Washington) should have been the center of a "walkable place" within a year.

Yeah, you need to set aside some support funding for affected businesses, but it's totally doable. It can also be done in stages. 

Westheimer b/w Bagby and 610 also really benefits from being a true grid, so most businesses will still have some sort of access even if the street in front in totally blocked off.

Unfortunately we're barely a functioning country at this point so it would take longer and be more expensive than somewhere like... any other country, but I would still argue it would be worth it. 

Such a huge waste, but probably correct.

Ruth's Chris

Hmmm, it could be all the BOOST stops at least then. They do seem somewhat elevated, though I wouldn't have said as much or as consistently as the BRT line.

The refusal to accept that other people actually disagree with you is a truly stunning level of narcissism.

This is a huge, complicated, and, at very best, imperfect project. The vast majority of power in the decision-making process lies with TXDOT. 

You are getting your freeway with (apparently) no real concessions. How exactly are you playing the victim here? 

I don't think it is. The BRT buses are designed for elevated stations, not sidewalk level. 

These freeway fetishists sure are sore winners.

What an awful waste of space. 

There's tons of surface parking I'd rather see them repurpose as a park. Plenty of parking in the garage + on street.

I really want to see the text of the MOU. This could be great, or it could just be lip service. I'm cautiously optimistic though.

Yes.