Birthday gift idea thirtieth

Even though Austin is the marijuana capital of Texas, it still seems surprising that city planners have devised a scheme for "revising" downtown traffic patterns that must have been hatched at last year's Eeyore's Birthday Party (with apologies to the donkey).

City transportation and planning director Austan Librach admits - with a straight face - that "we acknowledge that [the plan] does slow down traffic and in a sense is adding to the congestion." Indeed, implementing this pipe dream would increase air pollution by 10% to 13% in a city teetering on the brink of ozone nonattainment, increase traffic delays by about 23%, increase fuel consumption by 16% (what happened to conservation?), extend traffic delays to critical levels at 11 more intersections, and remove hundreds of downtown parking spaces. Even worse, by eliminating one-way streets, the plan will trap many drivers inside parking garages that are designed for the present street patterns.

The Austin American-Statesman (which urges us to yield to the superior wisdom of city planners) says this is a "comprehensive" plan that envisions such amenities as 32-foot-wide sidewalks (for better in-line skating?), dual rows of trees (which would probably die from the added vehicular pollution and doggie droppings), pedestrian amenities (Port-a-Potties?), and other (undefined) "street-scape touches."

The Statesman and other visionaries portray the downtown traffic debate as one over "what should downtown be? A place to reach easily by car ... or a destination where pedestrians mill about, bicyclists congregate, and commuters pass by at a slower rate?"

But true traffic planning must be for the real world, and the real downtown Austin consists largely of government offices (including the Taj Mahal of court buildings and the Capitol), law offices and attendant lobbyist and strategy dens, banks, bars, eateries, hotels, museums and theaters, a few pricey "lofts," and the shops that cater to downtown workers by day and entertainment seekers by night - nearly all of whom live far, far away.

Thus, for the sound of mind, the chief traffic problem in downtown Austin truly is how to effectively and efficiently move people into and out of the area - not how to enhance pedestrian traffic and "milling about." People seeking to get to jury duty or their attorney's office - or even to the Paramount - on time are not looking for a leisurely drive and no place to park.

There are a few streets - Fourth Street in the Warehouse District and East Sixth Street come to mind - where making life safer and easier for the pedestrian - especially at night - is important. A real plan would try to figure out how to enable people to get around in those areas on foot and into and out of those areas by whatever means they choose to arrive and depart.

But Austin's transportation brain trust apparently wants to engineer an outcome for the area that pleases special (hallucinogenic?) interests rather than trying to design a system that meets the needs of what the people - and their governing authorities - have chosen as the desired and necessary uses and activities in the area.

Supporters of this myopic mischief argue that Other Cities are eliminating one-way streets because (a) they are confusing to drivers or (b) they enable drivers to move quickly through the grid to their intended destinations rather than stop (and park where?) and shop in downtown stores. But why not? With traffic stalled, they could hop out of the car, take their time picking a gift item or even a sandwich, and get back into the car before anyone even cared.

The plan also calls for an end to left turns during rush hour from Congress Avenue between the river and the Capitol and from Lamar Boulevard onto Fifth and Sixth Streets. This is supposed to be a "good" idea, though it would require people wanting to turn left to drive three blocks out of their way. [For example, those headed north on Lamar seeking to go west on Sixth would have to turn right on Fifth, then left on Bowie, then left on Sixth.] Surely a better solution is to route traffic on Lamar such that it flows north only for a cycle, then south only for a cycle, making left turns (from two lanes) a snap. This scheme works quite well elsewhere in Austin.

The best ideas in the plan are to add a second left-turn lane at Lamar and Barton Springs Road for north-south traffic (which fits with the idea we proposed above) and a second right-turn bay from Lamar to Sandra Muraida Way. The planners would also extend West Avenue from Third Street down to Cesar Chavez, extend Third Street between West Avenue and Nueces - the most costly element in the plan, and add a reversible lane on the South First Street Bridge.

One idea not included (though it would be the crowning glory, in the eyes of some beholders) was to change Cesar Chavez into a two-way street, which admittedly would add 9 minutes to eastbound commutes each day. On the plus side, everyone from the unionized "homeless" with their factory-made signs to Brownie troops would have a much easier time hustling dollars and coins from stranded motorists.

Now to the bottom line. The "planners" who designed this nonsense must be clones of those who run Capitol Metro - and surely they are working in tandem. What purpose, for example, is served by moving bus lines off Congress Avenue and placing them on newly designated two-way streets in which traffic flows will be much slower?

One of the selling points of the light rail drive, it may be remembered, was that rail stops could become centers of commercial activity. Yet a quick look at, for example, the North Lamar transfer station and the Highland Mall bus stop shows that neither Capitol Metro nor the city's planning geniuses have even thought about applying that principle to bus transportation.

Surely it would enhance traffic to move the Highland Mall stop closer to the Food Court; bus patrons could grab a quick bite and even get out of the heat, or cold, or rain. The transfer station, meanwhile, is so isolated from evidences of civilization that the prospect of switching buses is at best dreary and at worst a little frightening.

Similarly, any real downtown traffic plan would address the need to improve bus service, especially during early evening and late-night hours, and especially to improve such service north toward the University of Texas campus and southeastward toward the East Riverside-Oltoff area's myriad of apartment complexes.

Instead, we have planners whose next great idea is likely going to be closing Guadalupe to vehicular traffic between Martin Luther King and Thirtieth Street - making the street entirely a pedestrian and bicycle thoroughfare - without including any proposal for re-routing vehicular traffic north-south and east-west through the area. Should anyone deem this as ludicrous, remember that the proposed light rail line on Guadalupe would have had virtually the same result.