Before the new crepe myrtles planted atop Shoal Creek Boulevard‘s 35 controversial curb islands even had time to take root, the City Council’s Land Use and Transportation Subcommittee has recommended the islands be removed, agreeing with many residents and cyclists that the awkward creations have failed as an outside-the-box answer to what would seem to be an easily decidable dilemma: install car-free bike lanes or preserve unconditional on-street parking?
The hope was that the islands, installed early last year between 40th Street and Foster Lane, would be a suitable compromise in a five-year impasse over how to safely accommodate the hundreds of bicyclists, joggers, and walkers who depend on the scenic north-south stretch for commuting and recreation, while simultaneously satisfying a vocal minority of residents unwilling to sacrifice on-street parking for traditional bike lanes. That’s all while slowing down speeding traffic, of course. The reality, however, is that the Frankenstein-like curb creations are wildly unpopular. In hundreds of e-mails to the Public Works Department, city manager’s office, and council members, neighborhood residents and cyclists are saying that at best, the frankencurbs are useless, and at worst, they make Shoal Creek more dangerous. As a result, when the removal recommendation is brought before City Council next Thursday, city leaders will be forced to weigh the importance of car-free bike lanes once again, and the outcome could become a precedent for road improvements to come.
Ambiguous language in the city’s bicycle plan, which calls for bike lanes in restriping and resurfacing projects on roads similar to Shoal Creek, paved the way for the unpopular outcome in Shoal Creek, says Public Works Department Director Sondra Creighton. She says her department could remove the curbs, using city street and bridge crews, without having to find new funds outside of its operational budget, although “the crews could be doing preventative maintenance on other roads,” and the $200,000 price tag could “affect funding on other projects.” In hindsight, she concludes, the project probably would have run smoother within the framework of the city’s traffic calming program, which is used for things like the addition of road humps or traffic circles and in which a two-thirds majority of balloted, area residents must agree.
Urban Transportation Commissioner and bike advocate Patrick Goetz favors accepted traffic calming efforts, such as traffic circles, for Shoal Creek. He said the islands don’t calm traffic, but do put a barrier in what used to be a bike lane, while creating a protected parking area for a very small number of residents. The only issue residents were really interested in, he said, was slowing down traffic on Shoal Creek Boulevard. But car-free bike lanes became a nonnegotiable factor in the project, he said, because the neighborhood insisted on trying to achieve consensus, and there were two to three households that would not budge on the lanes. This necessity for neighborhood consensus, goaded by former Council Member Jackie Goodman‘s desire for a creative compromise, ultimately amounted to “pandering to neighborhood extremists,” something City Council needs to move away from, Goetz said.
Goodman, however, says talks were swayed by a faction among cyclists who “really wanted priority consideration for bicyclists, to the exclusion of others.”
“What this plan was all about was to design something that was good for everyone,” she said. Goodman envisions a planning paradigm shift toward better ways of encouraging alternative transportation. She hopes the outcome will be that city staff sheds some of its rigid standards for bike facilities that she says prompted conflict during the Shoal Creek project’s planning. Such change won’t happen overnight, however. It will come from gauging pilot programs like the Shoal Creek one over time. In other words, it’s too soon to recommend removal given the amount of effort that went into the islands. “It hasn’t been quite long enough to tell,” Goodman said.
Members of a citizens working group, who spent years hewing the current curb island plan, are joined by a handful of bikers and neighbors in sticking up for the curbs. A few working group participants fault detractors for not participating in the entire process, maintaining that ample notice was given throughout the five years of decision-making and that the islands represent the best overall answer. Some supporters also argue that the funds needed to remove the project could be put to better use.
If council decides to 86 the frankencurbs, any number of things could happen. By simply removing the curb islands, the current “improved shoulders” become regular shoulders, bringing things back to square one. And traffic calming efforts would require additional cash. Creighton says traffic circles or speed humps would require another $300,000-$400,000 from the traffic-calming program, whose funds are exhausted. Any further compromise in the area seems doomed, while clear, effective leadership seems desperately needed. As Creighton put it: “Do we want to have car-free bike lanes and promote alternative transportation, or do we wish to serve the other interests of people who want to be able to park on the curb next to their house? … My goal is to have a clarification made by council.”
This article appears in September 23 • 2005.