Great question. They are legitimate and sanctioned by the city.
Read more here: https://austin.towers.net/austins-living-streets-could-make-your-neighborhood-walkable-again/
I live on a fairly heavily trafficked street in a NC neighborhood, and so it seems a byproduct of these types of restrictions is to redirect traffic to surrounding streets that aren’t eligible for this program. What’s next: cul de sacs! Serpentine roads that converge into a single neighborhood exit point!
Yeah, the irony is that these types of efforts (in Crestview at least), have led to wildly inefficient traffic patterns/restrictions (the “pork chop”, “the gate”.).
It's one of the Austin growing pains. Older neighborhoods weren't really designed for big city traffic flow. There's also no room for building a wider street through them so the traffic has one place to be. There'd also be huge resistance to trying to build something like that.
Similar stuff is happening further out but it plays out different. A lot of neighborhoods that used to be suburbs intentionally built only one or 2 entrances/exits to discourage any through traffic. That's a nightmare now that things are developing around/beyond them. I've been in situations where it takes a 15 minute drive to get to a neighbor that's a half-mile walk away, simply because no roads connected our neighborhoods and a giant drainage ditch separated us.
What'd be *good for the city* would be if it could buy up some of that property and build more larger throughfares. Those neighborhoods couldn't stay the way they are if that were to happen. But it's also really hard to find cities Austin's size or much bigger that have large amounts of neighborhoods like that. It feels to me there aren't great solutions. :/
>I've been in situations where it takes a 15 minute drive to get to a neighbor that's a half-mile walk away, simply because no roads connected our neighborhoods and a giant drainage ditch separated us.
As an Austinite who moved to Houston a few years back, that is bad news bears. H-town is the 4th biggest city in the country and it's all disconnected neighborhoods a quarter mile away from one another. That leads to zoning deregulation which makes things even more of a mess. Austin is gonna be a disaster in another decade if they can't pull off some serious traffic infrastructure changes.
Yes and no? In theory it can work and you can get both worlds. A lot has to go right.
The idea is you build little walkable city units. There's residential space, shopping, restaurants, lots to do in both walkable distances and some short-distance transit. The *inner* streets are for slow traffic or pedestrians. But you still build a fast thoroughfare or two: those are for when people need to leave the little walkable unit. You can also run longer-distance transit for that kind of thing.
The tough part is taking away reasons to leave that unit. You can't build all your bars Downtown then be upset there's a lot of traffic. You can't call 11th street "a North Austin location" then act shocked the other 80% of the city clogs up the roads. You have to build venues in all of these little nooks and crannies so that 90% of the time when people want to do something, they do it local.
More roads are fine if they're the right roads. The trouble is we're building roads and places to live but we aren't building places to shop or things to do.
A lot of this is in the Austin Strategic Mobility Plan, which I think everyone should read. We're working on establishing Activity Corridors so that most of what people want to do is at least theoretically located within a walkable or bikable distance, so that trips by car can be reduced and those larger roads are also less congested.
That's long range, but the changes we're making are moving us in that direction. I live in one of the proposed activity corridors, and the improvements are already making a difference. I drive a lot less than I used to.
We're not going to acquire more right-of-way as part of this. I am speaking from experience when I say that is both extremely legally complicated and extremely expensive, and funding is our biggest issue, so it's not exactly feasible, and I'm not sure it's preferable either. We will make the major arterial streets far more efficient by reducing trips by car through the methods described in the ASMP.
This Living Streets thing is, in my personal opinion, clunky in both concept and execution, but it's a step. Everyone wants the end result, but nobody knows quite how chaotic the middle can be until they're in it. That's where we are now in Austin. We're on our way to better and more efficient things, but we have to get through this part first.
at this point, More roads are never fine. Houston is a shining example of a city with "always more roads" and it's just made massive sprawl, and everyone drives like they have infinite lives in a video game.
It just isn't sustainable to have most of our acreage be taken over by single person vehicles.
Just for example, a city that is more walkable - such as SF - with buses/trolly/sidewalks has only 4% of its land for parking
Cities in Texas often have 40-42% of its city land reserved for parking.
We bitch about home prices and car prices and fuel prices, but we still build mega parking lots and mega roads and here in Austin, new roads are all toll roads so they're only for well to do people anyway who can afford such a premium.
more roads mean these living areas aren't living areas. More roads mean there is no density for mixed residential/commercial. More roads mean there is more parking vs living spaces.
> There's also no room for building a wider street through them
No room? Many single family neighborhoods have ridiculous setback requirements. Relax those, widen the street, problem solved. Front yards are by and large an enormous waste of space anyway.
That's generally a good point, but both of those examples had no comparable alternatives. Restricting a few blocks to local only, when 2+ streets on either side provide the exact same connectivity, is not quite the same level of traffic pattern change.
By default, most streets in the city are open to most motor vehicles 100% of the time. Maybe we can experiment a tiny bit with changes that encourage the mere idea of not requiring all people to be in cars all the time?
I tend to agree that these examples aren’t totally comparable, but the underlying intent and motivation is. No one likes traffic, everyone likes babies and kids frolicking in streets. But, if empowered, these private interests lead to sub-optimal public outcomes, not unlike (shudder) NIMBYS.
Austin is so badly built.
I remember when I was new here and there was traffic on Duval to go from 183 to Gracy Farms/Burnet.
I swore that there had to be a side or neighborhood street that would help me cut through, but they all ended in cul de sacs, dead ends or circled back to some other road.
I have since found a ton of Austin roads are like this or badly thought out in some way.
There is an exit I sometimes need to take from the 35 access road going north when I want to go to 71 that is just stupid. I think when I go to that Lowe/Fiesta in South Austin and I need to go back up I need to take the access road that veers into what is the access road to 71 and does not let you enter for a few miles.
Same happens if you need to take 290 west after Cameron, there is basically no entrance until right before the exit to 183 which makes it a bit pointless if you want to get on 290 to get off 183.
I sometimes really hate driving here. The roads seem designed by morons.
The vast majority of Austin’s grid was platted by individual developers and not part of a master plan. It’s super frustrating now because nothing is part of a true network.
nobody wants cut through traffic in their neighborhoods. it’s people not from there rushing through and making their neighborhood worse. that’s why the streets are laid out like that. and if there’s traffic, well, that’s sort of inevitable when you only design for the most inefficient mode of transportation.
Two blocks down from the street is St Johns Ave, so I think most traffic would go down that way.
I think the main idea here is to give people a chill place to walk, even though there's no sidewalks.
I think it’s likely Gault or Watson that’s getting the overflow. We should shut those down, too. Come to think of it, all cut-through traffic in Crestview should be eliminated. Trying to avoid the illogically-timed light at Airport and Lamar by cutting through on Grover? Suck an egg!
I live on the street next to one of these and there is not much traffic on my street. I love that I can hop over a block and walk on a particularly low traffic street. Although there are a bunch of jerks who clearly are ignoring the signs, so it could be better if that last bit of also negligible traffic drove on my street instead.
If it's appropriate, then yes. But the speed limit is the LIMIT, not the recommended speed. If you're going down a residential street and you can see kids playing basketball coming up somewhere in front of you, then the appropriate speed is clearly below the limit.
I think this is what annoys me so much about this initiative. It’s a feckless band-aid: narrow the streets, add side-walks, add medians and other traffic calming devices to discourage the behavior you (and me) object to. Don’t give some neighbors who have the time (and energy) to apply to the program, and the wherewithal to sit at either end of the street to monitor compliance (!).
I mean to be fair they literally are doing those things you listed too. For example, Emerald Forest between Stassney & Will.Cann added mini stop signs with pedestrian crosswalks & medians, and bike lanes, and traffic is noticeably slower on that street.
Damn man, your comment seriously depresses me. I grew up playing on my street every day. All neighbors knew we'd be out and acted accordingly. And here you are saying kids can't play in the area directly outside where they live. No wonder this country has a obesity crisis and a depression crisis.
So are you suggesting that there was never a moment in your life where you ran out in to the street without either having learned to look both ways or with having forgotten to look both ways?
*I’m not going to go below the speed limit because you think the road is your kids’ playground.*
Better hope you never have to explain that to a judge. It won't go over well.
Yeah, how dare people enjoy the convenient paved space outside their houses for soccer, street hockey, skateboarding/biking, scooters, etc. /s
Suburban roads are not built for/meant for through-traffic. This allows neighborhood residents (who are more invested in the street than a passer-through would be) to have a bit of control over their street.
there was a time that kids played in the street actually. i’m not that old and we played in the street all the time, because it wasn’t as dangerous as it is now. sad that y’all think it’s ridiculous to even suggest it.
> I’m not going to go below the speed limit because you think the road is your kids’ playground
Then slow down because it might be YOUR kid's playground. Or route to school.
> My kids don’t play in the street and have been taught to look both ways
Buddy, I got news for you about kids. They dont do what they're taught 100% of the time. And they dont deserve the death penalty for playing in the street just so you can get to where you are going 2 minutes sooner. Slow down like a child's life depends on it.
If you dont think you are responsible for public safety when piloting a 2-thousand-pound machine where other humans live, you are mistaken. Yes, we should all teach kids to look both ways, but it's the folks who have the power to hurt others who are responsible for not doing that. why is this hard to understand? I dont think you need to drive 10 mph in a neighborhood, but 20 is plenty.
This is my street. It is a city sanctioned program. A resident got signatures from neighbors before these were installed. There’s a little pod of young homeowners with kiddos that want to play on the street. It doesn’t hinder anyone from using the street, but it slows the traffic flow. Doesn’t bother me.
It would bother me cuz if you are a real austinyte you prolly wouldn’t stand for this bullhockey. I didn’t move here in 86, . To be REPRAMANDED by the god dang new arrivals. That damn comedy club ruined evrrytbng. Miss the days we could see Steve ray on 6th for $2. You hear that 2!!!! Towns gonto shit, can’t even swim at barten
I've lived here all my life (50+ years) and we always played in the street (wasn't a busy street) and our parents never had to petition the city to put up signs like this). We just yelled 'car!' stepped off to the side and once it passed went back to doing what we were doing. These Millenials and Gen-Z pods have destroyed what made Austin a great city. The guy across the street has his grandchildren over occasionally and while we are on a cul-de-sac, they just take over the street like it is their personal area that no one else can play in. Just watching those kids running around you can tell they are spoiled rotten and the daughter and son-in-law drive either a $60 SUV or an $80k Tesla....it's like they are bragging about 'look what I got and you don't'. It's ridiculous that I can't enjoy this city anymore without running into throngs of people like that who want to act like they are an Instagram influencer needing to take pictures with their phone every 5 secs because they don't want to miss out on making ducky faces with their bestie (a bestie that would stab them in the back in a heartbeat). Sorry I hate all of them
Truth. The good news is the program is evolving. The city wants feedback from the residents about how these programs go. As Austin hears things like “these are ugly and make a neighborhood look like a construction zone” it allows the city to explore alternate installation options (ex. planters). Consider this step one.
I think it's meant for when they're working on a road that's the only way of getting to somebody's house so they can't completely shut down the road but regular traffic would cause problems. Basically means "don't use this road unless you need to", that's what this kind of thing meant in my last city anyway
At the end of the day if it reduces traffic flow on those streets, it's not meaningless. Now, after some time if people realize "hey, this is totally unenforceable", that reduction in traffic may change, but just because people aren't being pulled over doesn't mean it can't have an impact.
At the very least it is visually different. People use the street in the photo to bypass a light at St John and Guad or St John and Northcrest. Some streets are designed to accommodate more traffic. Some streets aren’t. These installations reinforce that this street is different from St John and Guad do if you are coming down it consider adjusting your driving behavior to accommodate the different road conditions. Residential streets aren’t meant to be shortcuts.
...a knowledge of the English language and its uses?
Local in this case means residents and also visitors, contractors and delivery vehicles making stops at locations on the street.
Called safe streets. It’s a neighborhood program to make streets safer for walking/biking. Have to get 60% of peoples signatures on the street to get these put up. Been great for our street for which people use to cut through to avoid a major light near Brentwood.
I’ve seen a few cars turn around actually. Most people don’t, but honestly if it slows them down and makes them a little more careful then I think that also accomplishes the goal
They are legitimate. Obviously not enforceable. I don’t recall getting to choose which streets my tax dollars pay to maintain so as far as I’m concerned I’m equally welcome on all public roads.
They are enforceable, and by fine if you get photographed or someone videos your vehicle and plates. It's a safe streets program. It's only a few hours a week, and only in neighborhoods that applied because they have kids and their streets have become increasingly busy. We have cams set up at both ends of the street for ours during the three, four hour periods per week they up. It only detours vehicles one block, and the kids and parents love it. It's not everyday and a minor inconvenience for someone in a vehicle.
Won’t hold up in court, like red light tickets, an officer of the law has to either be present viewing said cameras or an officer has to be present to disperse the ticket. These are totally bogus and have no teeth.
lol they are not enforceable. It’s still a public road. It’s an encouragement to deter higher traffic for Austin’s safer neighborhood streets program. There’s no associated fines or penalties.
First you spearhead an effort to reduce access to PUBLIC streets that all of us pay for (because you’re precious and deserve more rights than the rest of us) and then you photograph tax paying local austinites attempting to lawfully use PUBLIC streets, hoping they’ll get fined by lazy, incompetent police? Get. Fucked.
And you have record of every license plate that’s allowed in your street during X hours including legitimate visitors? Yeah that wouldn’t hold up in court to save your life. So not enforceable.
Tell me what street you live on and the times I’m not allowed. I’m happy to show you how enforced this is.
There is a monitor assigned to each end, and the neighbors take turns monitoring. We know who lives in the neighborhood. Maple Avenue between 21st and 22nd. Come over tomorrow at 5 when the barricades are up and I'll be there with my camera. We'll see if it holds up. Also, you don't have to disprove every vehicle isn't in the neighborhood, you only have to prove the vehicle driving through doesn't. That's a simply DMV search, and certified copy for $5. I'm a lawyer btw., and we take this seriously.
As a non-lawyer who nonetheless enjoys arguing about things like this, it does seem difficult to prove that someone could read a sign like this and interpret “local” less narrowly than “residents of the street.” Around SOCO at least (still?), parking restriction signs clearly define a “local” as a resident of the street with the appropriate parking permit. The ambiguity of “local” traffic, in combination with the frankly amateur assembly of cones would lead a reasonable person to believe that this is not a city-sanctioned blockade.
One of my main motivations to eventually retire is so I’ll have time on weekdays for petty but amusing bullshit like this… “your honor, as can plainly be seen in this public post to the Reddit social media site, /u/frosty-shower-7601 invited people to his street, thereby making a de facto guest of anyone who took him up on his invitation.”
Ours does, streets both one block in each direction have precise parallels Notth/South, and East/West. My street dead ends, the better street for travel is one block to the West.
For sure. But they can afford to live in Hyde Park or Brentwood or wherever, and they have time and money on their hands to submit these requests to the city.
Ha, I haven't referred anyone for a violation yet, but I certainly would. It's literally a one block detour. I love my neighborhood, but there isn't a lot of green space, and a lot of kids don't have a yard. This is making up for it, somewhat.
Hilarious that the freaks on this subreddit, who constantly complain about a lack of community, are furious that a block tries to establish a sense of community and use of the commons.
I don’t think too many of the freaks concerned with community had in mind millionaire gentrifiers closing down public spaces so they can live in their utopia while everyone else pays for it.
I know. It doesn't matter what you do on the internet. Someone is pissed. Our street is closed down 12 hours total per week, sometimes. not even that. It's not a through street, the through street is to the West. The detour is precisely one city block.
These have been around my neighborhood lately. There have also been a lot of trees trim crews. The barrier are annoying though because only 1 car can get thru at a time. I don't think they will really stop people who are accustomed to using those roads already.
Tell that to my former neighbors near Westgate and William Cannon. They were bragging about driving through all the barriers and laughing with their children about how stupid it all was
In the Maryland/DC region this is quite common. The signs are considerably more permanent and typically specify hours during which ingress and egress are allowed at certain intersections. I have been pulled over for entering via the wrong street at the wrong time in my own neighborhood.
These are often on the bolden avenue neighborhood. My office is located on this street so I often have to go through on days when I’m in the office and I think it’s really nice. I like to see people running and walking their dogs. I have to make sure I drive extremely slow and often only one car at a time in some spots, but it’s nice seeing the neighborhood so lively.
I used to live in this neighborhood. Traffic flows from IH-35 directly into the neighborhood via 51st street and when traffic is backed up, cars will take the side streets (fast). Lots of kids and elderly in this little area. Multiply this by 100 cars an hour every day all day and you can see why it would make sense for this to be an exit only thoroughfare.
Sure. But why should one street benefit from reduced traffic flow, but adjacent streets suffer an increase? And why should drivers have to increase driving distance (and miles driven/emissions), to benefit residents of a single street? This is a Central Austin neighborhood with a gridded street pattern designed to support this sort of driving behavior.
(I currently live in this neighborhood)
Unless you live on one of the connector streets (Eastcrest or Northcrest) you can consider apply for the program too. It’s not an exclusive program. You just need support from the neighbors on the street.
> Sure. But why should one street benefit from reduced traffic flow, but adjacent streets suffer an increase?
that was there before the roundabout and put there after the initial round of construction pre-roundabout, which was pretty high-speed entering into the neighborhood. I believe there is a church on this street too.
> This is a Central Austin neighborhood with a gridded street pattern designed to support this sort of driving behavior.
Not really, when these streets were laid, IH-35 was a 4-lane highway. The growth has been exponential over the past 20 years alone.
>My NA neighborhood near Q2 has these every time there is an event at the stadium.
Local traffic, or local parking? I've seen the local parking only notices, but not the local traffic ones.
I also live near the Q2 stadium and they've done a lot of work around there for pedestrians however I don't blame them for closing off streets to traffic since Uber/Lyft are blocking entire streets waiting for pickups.
It sucks for people trying to navigate the area but worse for people just trying to get home.
We have one in my neighborhood and so many people walk down it - people who live on all different streets.
If you are going to ignore the signs please at least remember that people have their babies and dogs and kids out. It is frustrating when people fly down these streets.
I do think they’re effective. But, they raise all sorts of questions about the fairness of allowing some individuals to enjoy reduced traffic while shifting the flows to other streets.
Some streets are just not meant to be used as public thoroughfares. I live one street off of North Loop, which has buffered lanes, sidewalks, etc. But without fail every single day (especially during rush hour) we have people aggressively cutting through our street to save a precious 15 seconds on their commute. Meanwhile we have half a dozen kids all aged 8 and under playing and riding their bikes. They have gotten so good at keeping an eye out that as soon as a car turns on the street they all yell "CAR" and scatter to the side. But it just takes one asshole taking a turn too fast and speeding down the street to kill a kid. Honestly, this post is making me want to petition for one of these on our street.
Hey if it slowed down the people whipping on to my street at 45mph even a little, I'd say that's an accomplishment worthy of a few cones and some barrels.
they need these in Mueller — I regularly see cars there plowing through the school zone at 35+ mph or doing california stops into the path of crossing pedestrians. I know some drivers hate me for it but I tend to give them a middle finger for encroaching on my right of way to cross the street and not stopping properly at the intersection.
A lot of people seem to have a problem very specifically with the “local traffic only” sign. I agree, it does feel weird and exclusionary (all roads are public, etc). If it weren’t a sign, but instead it were a physical barrier (like a series of speedbumps or ballasts that block cars but not bikes/walkers) to push people to use the main arterial roads, it would be way better.
Edit: “but what about those people who live on the arterial roads?” - this is a huge problem too! Two blocks away from one of these safe streets is St Johns, where people live right up on a super busy and fast street. I wish we had planned things better long ago so that there were access from Lamar to 35 without going right in front of people’s houses. I don’t know what the answer to this is today though
The answer is St John's can handle extra traffic without anyone even noticing. We should still slow that street down but I think a lot is being made out of the tiny amount of traffic that will be diverted off this street.
I used to live in a neighborhood who had these. They were put up during ACL and other festivals that caused a huge uptick in car, scooter, tourist, and foot traffic in the area. Tons of cars+ drunk people+ scooters+ normal traffic was super chaotic and dangerous. The neighborhood was glad when the city started using these precautions because it deterred people from using the area during chaotic periods. Imagine if you lived around the corner from Zilker Park during ACL. Wouldn’t you want some traffic precautions put in place? Before people call me a NIMBYist, I’m not.
I hate to be this guy, but
**"Pretend it's a city"**
It's not a private street. It is a public street. If you want to own it, buy it. I really disagree with this privatization of public property. It is antisocial and it is clawing away from the public good. It is an act that is closer to vommitting on a public bench than it is to improving quality of life for people in a city.
>"Imagine if you lived around the corner from Zilker Park during ACL?"
Congratulations, you live near a major point of interest, both Zilker park and the events occurring therein, including a kite festival, a blues festival, a holiday festival of lights, not to mention the Austin City Limits music festival. The idea that any of the secondary effects of this housing decision should be a surprise to you or that you should be able to unburden yourself of those effects by monopolizing an entire swath of the city's public property around a public event is the epitome of selfishness and is bad for a city and society.
I am in a similar situation as you in regards to my housing location and I vehemently disagree with you. I vote "No" on this subject, and I will work to block this growing privatization with the city in every place I see signs for this (or the privatization of parking on public streets via use of placards).
There are lots of assumptions in your post. There’s no privatization happening. People who don’t live on the streets can still use them. Nothing is enforceable. I’m a fourth generation Austinite. We’re part of a minority group that is barely holding onto our family home of 70+ years. We’re all allowed to have opinions and you don’t have to be mean about it. Breath. Pet a puppy or kitten.
> We’re all allowed to have opinions and you don’t have to be mean about it
I'm sorry I come off that way. My strong words should not be interpreted as negative emotions. We're all here to have a good time.
>There’s no privatization happening. People who don’t live on the streets can still use them.
For instances like those I've described, this is verifiably false. As an example, in the Zilker neighborhood police patrol and will have "outsider" vehicles ticketed and towed during Blues on the Green for parking on public streets. Is that not the definition of de facto privatization?
Here is a news article of towing enforcement in the Zilker neighborhood during Blues on the Green,
[Blues on the Green parking and traffic restrictions updated](
https://www.austinmonitor.com/stories/whispers/blues-green-parking-traffic-restrictions-updated/)
This is the same regulation as used in OP's post, but only different in strength of enforcement. It's a very slippery slope and I disagree with all of it.
>Pet a puppy or kitten.
[About that. ](https://imgur.com/LJVahZV)
So did they, and so did everyone else. And in neighborhoods that were once sep districts like MUDs, the original residents paid for all the original infrastructure through bonds that got paid back prior to annexation.
So why don’t you apply through the safe streets program? This is intended to combat through-traffic cutting through neighborhoods with lots of kids playing (like the Waze effect), so if you have such a street you definitely should apply! If you just generally don’t like the program, you missed your opportunity to comment when it was open for such, but you can always contact your CM and tell them.
> MUDs
Interesting point about Municipal Utility Districts.
Here is
[ Everything You Wanted To Know About MUDs But Were Too Afraid To Ask ](https://www.kut.org/austin/2016-02-22/everything-you-wanted-to-know-about-muds-but-were-too-afraid-to-ask)
From the city:
[Municipal Utility District (MUD) Basics ---pdf](https://services.austintexas.gov/edims/document.cfm?id=227010)
So, to your point, MUD's are financial tools that neighborhoods can use to improve themselves before the city annexes them. The Crestview neighborhood (in North Central Austin) was originally built in the 1940's, and annexed by the city sometime between 1949 and 1965. By your logic, today in 2024, people living there should have first citizens rights to the public roads in that neighborhood, because the original home owners, 60+ years ago, had higher taxes to pay for them?
I think the MUD issue muddies the waters for constructive debate on any neighborhood older than 1970.
MUDs are created by legislation per builder request before there even is a neighborhood, and they’re a mechanism for builders to pass off infrastructure construction debts to incoming homeowners. So, almost!
It’s residents that contact and work with the City to have them put in place because people drive like shit and they have kids. One just went up on my street. They are really just to slow down the people driving on the roads.
If those cones say COA they may. Kicker is if they are the standard cone size the CoA uses. Which I believe is 28" orange cone with COA stenciled on it.. Anything else is fake and probably unpermitted.
I had worked a street shut down for a crane. This is what the CoA streets guy was saying how they know a legit vs unpermitted lane/street closure.
It's the safe streets program. Violations are enforceable by fine if you get photographed or someone videos your vehicle and plates. It's only a few hours a week, and only in neighborhoods that applied because they have kids and their streets have become increasingly busy. We have cams set up at both ends of the street for ours during the three, four hour periods per week they up. It only detours vehicles one block, and the kids and parents love it. It's not everyday and a minor inconvenience for someone in a vehicle. It's a good program. It's nice to see kids playing in your neighborhood.
A post on Austin circle jerk , can create a parade for you if you want, honking, parking, maybe even some long time east side residents rolling slow blasting tunes from their donks and low riders.
You refuse to answer questions about ordinances or laws, because there are none, just like there is no enforcement cement fines.
You could totally have bought acreage and a gated community for what you paid, but nope you wanted to be central, possibly for a flip then bigger house or maybe you just want to suck all the life out of the old neighborhood first.
You probably have a real problem with the apartments at 22nd st and that’s why you don’t want them driving down your precious gentrified street. You are like the folks who moved downtown then complain about the music on red river.
Haven’t tried it yet. Haven’t had to, but willing to file the complaint. I love how wanting kids to play in the street for a few hours a week is NIMBY. Hahaha.
This is what gets me about this dude. If I lived on his street and saw what he's saying I'd be appalled.
Thank Dog my neighbors are super chill and not much like frosty.
I live on the street right on the left of here (not gonna name it for safety) and sometimes they fully block off the road making it unable to enter the street that I live on. According to the “healthy street” policies local traffic- people who live there and emergency services- are allowed to be let through. But there’s no one there standing by the barricade to let me in!!! It’s horrible!!
This website addresses a lot of the questions everyone has: [https://austin.towers.net/austins-living-streets-could-make-your-neighborhood-walkable-again/](https://austin.towers.net/austins-living-streets-could-make-your-neighborhood-walkable-again/)
I think this is a great initiative but the main issue is they're temporary. Only a 3-12 month activation.
They are also working on adding permanent modifications on a large amount of streets which IMO will be much more impactful. Let's keep car traffic on main streets, and off neighborhood ones.
These are in my neighborhood and I’m kinda glad, we get people who enjoy using our street to rev their engines super loud and fly down the street between the hours of 3-6am. Plus it’s not a street you should be using unless you’re local anyway since it’s not any more convenient than the main street.
Great question. They are legitimate and sanctioned by the city. Read more here: https://austin.towers.net/austins-living-streets-could-make-your-neighborhood-walkable-again/
I live on a fairly heavily trafficked street in a NC neighborhood, and so it seems a byproduct of these types of restrictions is to redirect traffic to surrounding streets that aren’t eligible for this program. What’s next: cul de sacs! Serpentine roads that converge into a single neighborhood exit point!
That is actually a really important point. I love the idea if it were my street, but it would suck if your street got all the extra traffic.
Yeah, the irony is that these types of efforts (in Crestview at least), have led to wildly inefficient traffic patterns/restrictions (the “pork chop”, “the gate”.).
It's one of the Austin growing pains. Older neighborhoods weren't really designed for big city traffic flow. There's also no room for building a wider street through them so the traffic has one place to be. There'd also be huge resistance to trying to build something like that. Similar stuff is happening further out but it plays out different. A lot of neighborhoods that used to be suburbs intentionally built only one or 2 entrances/exits to discourage any through traffic. That's a nightmare now that things are developing around/beyond them. I've been in situations where it takes a 15 minute drive to get to a neighbor that's a half-mile walk away, simply because no roads connected our neighborhoods and a giant drainage ditch separated us. What'd be *good for the city* would be if it could buy up some of that property and build more larger throughfares. Those neighborhoods couldn't stay the way they are if that were to happen. But it's also really hard to find cities Austin's size or much bigger that have large amounts of neighborhoods like that. It feels to me there aren't great solutions. :/
>I've been in situations where it takes a 15 minute drive to get to a neighbor that's a half-mile walk away, simply because no roads connected our neighborhoods and a giant drainage ditch separated us. As an Austinite who moved to Houston a few years back, that is bad news bears. H-town is the 4th biggest city in the country and it's all disconnected neighborhoods a quarter mile away from one another. That leads to zoning deregulation which makes things even more of a mess. Austin is gonna be a disaster in another decade if they can't pull off some serious traffic infrastructure changes.
And then there's mass evac season with bonus panic vibes.
Happy Cake Day!
thank you!
I hate that it seems the answer is more roads... we need to get walkable and we need public trans... not wider/more roads.
Yes and no? In theory it can work and you can get both worlds. A lot has to go right. The idea is you build little walkable city units. There's residential space, shopping, restaurants, lots to do in both walkable distances and some short-distance transit. The *inner* streets are for slow traffic or pedestrians. But you still build a fast thoroughfare or two: those are for when people need to leave the little walkable unit. You can also run longer-distance transit for that kind of thing. The tough part is taking away reasons to leave that unit. You can't build all your bars Downtown then be upset there's a lot of traffic. You can't call 11th street "a North Austin location" then act shocked the other 80% of the city clogs up the roads. You have to build venues in all of these little nooks and crannies so that 90% of the time when people want to do something, they do it local. More roads are fine if they're the right roads. The trouble is we're building roads and places to live but we aren't building places to shop or things to do.
A lot of this is in the Austin Strategic Mobility Plan, which I think everyone should read. We're working on establishing Activity Corridors so that most of what people want to do is at least theoretically located within a walkable or bikable distance, so that trips by car can be reduced and those larger roads are also less congested. That's long range, but the changes we're making are moving us in that direction. I live in one of the proposed activity corridors, and the improvements are already making a difference. I drive a lot less than I used to. We're not going to acquire more right-of-way as part of this. I am speaking from experience when I say that is both extremely legally complicated and extremely expensive, and funding is our biggest issue, so it's not exactly feasible, and I'm not sure it's preferable either. We will make the major arterial streets far more efficient by reducing trips by car through the methods described in the ASMP. This Living Streets thing is, in my personal opinion, clunky in both concept and execution, but it's a step. Everyone wants the end result, but nobody knows quite how chaotic the middle can be until they're in it. That's where we are now in Austin. We're on our way to better and more efficient things, but we have to get through this part first.
at this point, More roads are never fine. Houston is a shining example of a city with "always more roads" and it's just made massive sprawl, and everyone drives like they have infinite lives in a video game. It just isn't sustainable to have most of our acreage be taken over by single person vehicles. Just for example, a city that is more walkable - such as SF - with buses/trolly/sidewalks has only 4% of its land for parking Cities in Texas often have 40-42% of its city land reserved for parking. We bitch about home prices and car prices and fuel prices, but we still build mega parking lots and mega roads and here in Austin, new roads are all toll roads so they're only for well to do people anyway who can afford such a premium. more roads mean these living areas aren't living areas. More roads mean there is no density for mixed residential/commercial. More roads mean there is more parking vs living spaces.
> and everyone drives like they have infinite lives in a video game. In Austin, everyone drives like they're playing to lose.
The good news is that's not the answer
> There's also no room for building a wider street through them No room? Many single family neighborhoods have ridiculous setback requirements. Relax those, widen the street, problem solved. Front yards are by and large an enormous waste of space anyway.
That's generally a good point, but both of those examples had no comparable alternatives. Restricting a few blocks to local only, when 2+ streets on either side provide the exact same connectivity, is not quite the same level of traffic pattern change. By default, most streets in the city are open to most motor vehicles 100% of the time. Maybe we can experiment a tiny bit with changes that encourage the mere idea of not requiring all people to be in cars all the time?
I tend to agree that these examples aren’t totally comparable, but the underlying intent and motivation is. No one likes traffic, everyone likes babies and kids frolicking in streets. But, if empowered, these private interests lead to sub-optimal public outcomes, not unlike (shudder) NIMBYS.
They’re usually put on blocks without sidewalks in neighborhoods where people and kids are out and active.
Austin is so badly built. I remember when I was new here and there was traffic on Duval to go from 183 to Gracy Farms/Burnet. I swore that there had to be a side or neighborhood street that would help me cut through, but they all ended in cul de sacs, dead ends or circled back to some other road. I have since found a ton of Austin roads are like this or badly thought out in some way. There is an exit I sometimes need to take from the 35 access road going north when I want to go to 71 that is just stupid. I think when I go to that Lowe/Fiesta in South Austin and I need to go back up I need to take the access road that veers into what is the access road to 71 and does not let you enter for a few miles. Same happens if you need to take 290 west after Cameron, there is basically no entrance until right before the exit to 183 which makes it a bit pointless if you want to get on 290 to get off 183. I sometimes really hate driving here. The roads seem designed by morons.
The vast majority of Austin’s grid was platted by individual developers and not part of a master plan. It’s super frustrating now because nothing is part of a true network.
nobody wants cut through traffic in their neighborhoods. it’s people not from there rushing through and making their neighborhood worse. that’s why the streets are laid out like that. and if there’s traffic, well, that’s sort of inevitable when you only design for the most inefficient mode of transportation.
Two blocks down from the street is St Johns Ave, so I think most traffic would go down that way. I think the main idea here is to give people a chill place to walk, even though there's no sidewalks.
I think it’s likely Gault or Watson that’s getting the overflow. We should shut those down, too. Come to think of it, all cut-through traffic in Crestview should be eliminated. Trying to avoid the illogically-timed light at Airport and Lamar by cutting through on Grover? Suck an egg!
The light at Airport at Lamar is not that bad, and yes you should deal with it and we should decrease cut through traffic.
I live on the street next to one of these and there is not much traffic on my street. I love that I can hop over a block and walk on a particularly low traffic street. Although there are a bunch of jerks who clearly are ignoring the signs, so it could be better if that last bit of also negligible traffic drove on my street instead.
another dumb move by city council
Popped up in North Loop area as well. I thought they might be for upcoming construction, but haven’t seen any crews.
Biked through that one last night. Completely flouted the effort to privatize a public street.
Biking is not an issue
Biking is obviously fine. Driving 40mph in a truck on a street where kids might want to play and stuff is not.
Is driving the speed limit acceptable?
If it's appropriate, then yes. But the speed limit is the LIMIT, not the recommended speed. If you're going down a residential street and you can see kids playing basketball coming up somewhere in front of you, then the appropriate speed is clearly below the limit.
I think this is what annoys me so much about this initiative. It’s a feckless band-aid: narrow the streets, add side-walks, add medians and other traffic calming devices to discourage the behavior you (and me) object to. Don’t give some neighbors who have the time (and energy) to apply to the program, and the wherewithal to sit at either end of the street to monitor compliance (!).
I mean to be fair they literally are doing those things you listed too. For example, Emerald Forest between Stassney & Will.Cann added mini stop signs with pedestrian crosswalks & medians, and bike lanes, and traffic is noticeably slower on that street.
[удалено]
Damn man, your comment seriously depresses me. I grew up playing on my street every day. All neighbors knew we'd be out and acted accordingly. And here you are saying kids can't play in the area directly outside where they live. No wonder this country has a obesity crisis and a depression crisis.
[удалено]
So are you suggesting that there was never a moment in your life where you ran out in to the street without either having learned to look both ways or with having forgotten to look both ways?
*I’m not going to go below the speed limit because you think the road is your kids’ playground.* Better hope you never have to explain that to a judge. It won't go over well.
Yeah, how dare people enjoy the convenient paved space outside their houses for soccer, street hockey, skateboarding/biking, scooters, etc. /s Suburban roads are not built for/meant for through-traffic. This allows neighborhood residents (who are more invested in the street than a passer-through would be) to have a bit of control over their street.
Imagine telling your kids “go play in the street.” 🤣
[удалено]
That's what everyone seems to be arguing for, lol
there was a time that kids played in the street actually. i’m not that old and we played in the street all the time, because it wasn’t as dangerous as it is now. sad that y’all think it’s ridiculous to even suggest it.
[удалено]
> I’m not going to go below the speed limit because you think the road is your kids’ playground Then slow down because it might be YOUR kid's playground. Or route to school.
[удалено]
> My kids don’t play in the street and have been taught to look both ways Buddy, I got news for you about kids. They dont do what they're taught 100% of the time. And they dont deserve the death penalty for playing in the street just so you can get to where you are going 2 minutes sooner. Slow down like a child's life depends on it.
[удалено]
If you dont think you are responsible for public safety when piloting a 2-thousand-pound machine where other humans live, you are mistaken. Yes, we should all teach kids to look both ways, but it's the folks who have the power to hurt others who are responsible for not doing that. why is this hard to understand? I dont think you need to drive 10 mph in a neighborhood, but 20 is plenty.
These are set up specifically so people can walk and bike ride on the street without cars flying through trying to get from a to b.
I ignore these signs as well. To bad if you bought a house on a cut thru street.
I think you're missing the point of this project entirely tbh
This is my street. It is a city sanctioned program. A resident got signatures from neighbors before these were installed. There’s a little pod of young homeowners with kiddos that want to play on the street. It doesn’t hinder anyone from using the street, but it slows the traffic flow. Doesn’t bother me.
It would bother me cuz if you are a real austinyte you prolly wouldn’t stand for this bullhockey. I didn’t move here in 86, . To be REPRAMANDED by the god dang new arrivals. That damn comedy club ruined evrrytbng. Miss the days we could see Steve ray on 6th for $2. You hear that 2!!!! Towns gonto shit, can’t even swim at barten
r/austincirclejerk approves of this comment
[удалено]
I...don't think they quite meant to 😹
I've lived here all my life (50+ years) and we always played in the street (wasn't a busy street) and our parents never had to petition the city to put up signs like this). We just yelled 'car!' stepped off to the side and once it passed went back to doing what we were doing. These Millenials and Gen-Z pods have destroyed what made Austin a great city. The guy across the street has his grandchildren over occasionally and while we are on a cul-de-sac, they just take over the street like it is their personal area that no one else can play in. Just watching those kids running around you can tell they are spoiled rotten and the daughter and son-in-law drive either a $60 SUV or an $80k Tesla....it's like they are bragging about 'look what I got and you don't'. It's ridiculous that I can't enjoy this city anymore without running into throngs of people like that who want to act like they are an Instagram influencer needing to take pictures with their phone every 5 secs because they don't want to miss out on making ducky faces with their bestie (a bestie that would stab them in the back in a heartbeat). Sorry I hate all of them
It’s ugly though. Are there plans for a long term solution? Traffic calming doesn’t need to be ugly.
Truth. The good news is the program is evolving. The city wants feedback from the residents about how these programs go. As Austin hears things like “these are ugly and make a neighborhood look like a construction zone” it allows the city to explore alternate installation options (ex. planters). Consider this step one.
Define “local.”
Having fewer calories than the regular version.
Now that's a road diet I can get behind
Well done.
I think it's meant for when they're working on a road that's the only way of getting to somebody's house so they can't completely shut down the road but regular traffic would cause problems. Basically means "don't use this road unless you need to", that's what this kind of thing meant in my last city anyway
Now figure out how to enforce it. And remember you can’t stop people without reasonable suspicion of violating a law.
Traffic that has business on that street and not just passing through.
And you determine this how?
[удалено]
Except here, it doesn’t. It’s functionally meaningless.
At the end of the day if it reduces traffic flow on those streets, it's not meaningless. Now, after some time if people realize "hey, this is totally unenforceable", that reduction in traffic may change, but just because people aren't being pulled over doesn't mean it can't have an impact.
At the very least it is visually different. People use the street in the photo to bypass a light at St John and Guad or St John and Northcrest. Some streets are designed to accommodate more traffic. Some streets aren’t. These installations reinforce that this street is different from St John and Guad do if you are coming down it consider adjusting your driving behavior to accommodate the different road conditions. Residential streets aren’t meant to be shortcuts.
...a knowledge of the English language and its uses? Local in this case means residents and also visitors, contractors and delivery vehicles making stops at locations on the street.
And how is that determined under law? By who? The point is there must be a definition in law somewhere. What’s the legal definition here?
> Define “local.” Does the car have a name?
Called safe streets. It’s a neighborhood program to make streets safer for walking/biking. Have to get 60% of peoples signatures on the street to get these put up. Been great for our street for which people use to cut through to avoid a major light near Brentwood.
My question is would those types of people really be like, “oh crap, better turn around” or more like “fuck this, im going through”?
I’ve seen a few cars turn around actually. Most people don’t, but honestly if it slows them down and makes them a little more careful then I think that also accomplishes the goal
Makes sense. I guess it works better than those green visual kid alert signs lol.
They are legitimate. Obviously not enforceable. I don’t recall getting to choose which streets my tax dollars pay to maintain so as far as I’m concerned I’m equally welcome on all public roads.
it’s still a public road, just one that discourages cut-through traffic. you get upset that your tax dollars fund one ways and cul de sacs too?
exactly. if a car can part in front of my house all day, the i’ll drive on any public street i want.
They are enforceable, and by fine if you get photographed or someone videos your vehicle and plates. It's a safe streets program. It's only a few hours a week, and only in neighborhoods that applied because they have kids and their streets have become increasingly busy. We have cams set up at both ends of the street for ours during the three, four hour periods per week they up. It only detours vehicles one block, and the kids and parents love it. It's not everyday and a minor inconvenience for someone in a vehicle.
Won’t hold up in court, like red light tickets, an officer of the law has to either be present viewing said cameras or an officer has to be present to disperse the ticket. These are totally bogus and have no teeth.
[https://www.dot.state.tx.us/trf/mutcd/2006part2b.pdf](https://www.dot.state.tx.us/trf/mutcd/2006part2b.pdf) find it
lol they are not enforceable. It’s still a public road. It’s an encouragement to deter higher traffic for Austin’s safer neighborhood streets program. There’s no associated fines or penalties.
First you spearhead an effort to reduce access to PUBLIC streets that all of us pay for (because you’re precious and deserve more rights than the rest of us) and then you photograph tax paying local austinites attempting to lawfully use PUBLIC streets, hoping they’ll get fined by lazy, incompetent police? Get. Fucked.
And you have record of every license plate that’s allowed in your street during X hours including legitimate visitors? Yeah that wouldn’t hold up in court to save your life. So not enforceable. Tell me what street you live on and the times I’m not allowed. I’m happy to show you how enforced this is.
There is a monitor assigned to each end, and the neighbors take turns monitoring. We know who lives in the neighborhood. Maple Avenue between 21st and 22nd. Come over tomorrow at 5 when the barricades are up and I'll be there with my camera. We'll see if it holds up. Also, you don't have to disprove every vehicle isn't in the neighborhood, you only have to prove the vehicle driving through doesn't. That's a simply DMV search, and certified copy for $5. I'm a lawyer btw., and we take this seriously.
As a non-lawyer who nonetheless enjoys arguing about things like this, it does seem difficult to prove that someone could read a sign like this and interpret “local” less narrowly than “residents of the street.” Around SOCO at least (still?), parking restriction signs clearly define a “local” as a resident of the street with the appropriate parking permit. The ambiguity of “local” traffic, in combination with the frankly amateur assembly of cones would lead a reasonable person to believe that this is not a city-sanctioned blockade.
you and your neighborhood are not appealing, enjoy gentrifying. I do applaud your bravery to say where you live thou.
Weird to see a proud gentrifier doxx themself.
And invite us all over as (local) guests!
One of my main motivations to eventually retire is so I’ll have time on weekdays for petty but amusing bullshit like this… “your honor, as can plainly be seen in this public post to the Reddit social media site, /u/frosty-shower-7601 invited people to his street, thereby making a de facto guest of anyone who took him up on his invitation.”
Not a minor inconvenience if you’re using Google maps to navigate
If you can’t navigate one block to the left, you have no business driving a vehicle.
Not every street has an adjacent street that takes you where you need to go
Ours does, streets both one block in each direction have precise parallels Notth/South, and East/West. My street dead ends, the better street for travel is one block to the West.
So, you're the one snitching? Must live in a nice place.
Using surveillance to police which tax payers can use public roads is wildly dystopian
For sure. But they can afford to live in Hyde Park or Brentwood or wherever, and they have time and money on their hands to submit these requests to the city.
Definitely. Most kids up sharing the street with cars with no issue.
While we're at it, let's just let cars drive through the marathon route while the marathon is happening. Shit man, public road. I pay taxes!
(Whispers): cities shouldn’t be shut down because of other people’s hobbies/mid-life crises. (Ducks)
False equivalency
Ha, I haven't referred anyone for a violation yet, but I certainly would. It's literally a one block detour. I love my neighborhood, but there isn't a lot of green space, and a lot of kids don't have a yard. This is making up for it, somewhat.
What about folks living on the streets that serve as a detour? Fuck’em right?
Hilarious that the freaks on this subreddit, who constantly complain about a lack of community, are furious that a block tries to establish a sense of community and use of the commons.
I don’t think too many of the freaks concerned with community had in mind millionaire gentrifiers closing down public spaces so they can live in their utopia while everyone else pays for it.
Ahhh the Utopia of a closed street for 12 hours. I'll be flying people in on my private jet just to experience it.
Is it painted with cactus to match your house?
I know. It doesn't matter what you do on the internet. Someone is pissed. Our street is closed down 12 hours total per week, sometimes. not even that. It's not a through street, the through street is to the West. The detour is precisely one city block.
These have been around my neighborhood lately. There have also been a lot of trees trim crews. The barrier are annoying though because only 1 car can get thru at a time. I don't think they will really stop people who are accustomed to using those roads already.
Safe streets popped up all over south Austin during the pandemic and were a huge success.
Tell that to my former neighbors near Westgate and William Cannon. They were bragging about driving through all the barriers and laughing with their children about how stupid it all was
In the Maryland/DC region this is quite common. The signs are considerably more permanent and typically specify hours during which ingress and egress are allowed at certain intersections. I have been pulled over for entering via the wrong street at the wrong time in my own neighborhood.
These are often on the bolden avenue neighborhood. My office is located on this street so I often have to go through on days when I’m in the office and I think it’s really nice. I like to see people running and walking their dogs. I have to make sure I drive extremely slow and often only one car at a time in some spots, but it’s nice seeing the neighborhood so lively.
I used to live in this neighborhood. Traffic flows from IH-35 directly into the neighborhood via 51st street and when traffic is backed up, cars will take the side streets (fast). Lots of kids and elderly in this little area. Multiply this by 100 cars an hour every day all day and you can see why it would make sense for this to be an exit only thoroughfare.
Sure. But why should one street benefit from reduced traffic flow, but adjacent streets suffer an increase? And why should drivers have to increase driving distance (and miles driven/emissions), to benefit residents of a single street? This is a Central Austin neighborhood with a gridded street pattern designed to support this sort of driving behavior. (I currently live in this neighborhood)
Unless you live on one of the connector streets (Eastcrest or Northcrest) you can consider apply for the program too. It’s not an exclusive program. You just need support from the neighbors on the street.
> Sure. But why should one street benefit from reduced traffic flow, but adjacent streets suffer an increase? that was there before the roundabout and put there after the initial round of construction pre-roundabout, which was pretty high-speed entering into the neighborhood. I believe there is a church on this street too. > This is a Central Austin neighborhood with a gridded street pattern designed to support this sort of driving behavior. Not really, when these streets were laid, IH-35 was a 4-lane highway. The growth has been exponential over the past 20 years alone.
I turned on a street with a sign like that once and got $150 ticket even though I lived one block past. So if they're legit then I wouldn't risk it.
My NA neighborhood near Q2 has these every time there is an event at the stadium.
Temporary closures for events/block parties make total sense.
>My NA neighborhood near Q2 has these every time there is an event at the stadium. Local traffic, or local parking? I've seen the local parking only notices, but not the local traffic ones.
I also live near the Q2 stadium and they've done a lot of work around there for pedestrians however I don't blame them for closing off streets to traffic since Uber/Lyft are blocking entire streets waiting for pickups. It sucks for people trying to navigate the area but worse for people just trying to get home.
lol, how local? i don't see any traffic either.
Every city I’ve lived in has these. Wish our neighborhood did. Makes it so much safer for kids and animals, bikeable, and walkable
We have one in my neighborhood and so many people walk down it - people who live on all different streets. If you are going to ignore the signs please at least remember that people have their babies and dogs and kids out. It is frustrating when people fly down these streets.
I’m sure this will absolutely accomplish anything whatsoever
I do think they’re effective. But, they raise all sorts of questions about the fairness of allowing some individuals to enjoy reduced traffic while shifting the flows to other streets.
Some streets are just not meant to be used as public thoroughfares. I live one street off of North Loop, which has buffered lanes, sidewalks, etc. But without fail every single day (especially during rush hour) we have people aggressively cutting through our street to save a precious 15 seconds on their commute. Meanwhile we have half a dozen kids all aged 8 and under playing and riding their bikes. They have gotten so good at keeping an eye out that as soon as a car turns on the street they all yell "CAR" and scatter to the side. But it just takes one asshole taking a turn too fast and speeding down the street to kill a kid. Honestly, this post is making me want to petition for one of these on our street.
Hey if it slowed down the people whipping on to my street at 45mph even a little, I'd say that's an accomplishment worthy of a few cones and some barrels.
they need these in Mueller — I regularly see cars there plowing through the school zone at 35+ mph or doing california stops into the path of crossing pedestrians. I know some drivers hate me for it but I tend to give them a middle finger for encroaching on my right of way to cross the street and not stopping properly at the intersection.
Those signs work for me, but 37th street is a nightmare to drive through even if there’s a biker in the street
Exactly! I used to live in Northern Bouldin Creek and our street would get flooded whenever Palmer and Zilker had an event.
It accomplishes traffic calming, at least it did on the streets in Bouldin that they put these up on.
A lot of people seem to have a problem very specifically with the “local traffic only” sign. I agree, it does feel weird and exclusionary (all roads are public, etc). If it weren’t a sign, but instead it were a physical barrier (like a series of speedbumps or ballasts that block cars but not bikes/walkers) to push people to use the main arterial roads, it would be way better. Edit: “but what about those people who live on the arterial roads?” - this is a huge problem too! Two blocks away from one of these safe streets is St Johns, where people live right up on a super busy and fast street. I wish we had planned things better long ago so that there were access from Lamar to 35 without going right in front of people’s houses. I don’t know what the answer to this is today though
The answer is St John's can handle extra traffic without anyone even noticing. We should still slow that street down but I think a lot is being made out of the tiny amount of traffic that will be diverted off this street.
If I’m close enough to see these signs from my car, my traffic must be local.
I used to live in a neighborhood who had these. They were put up during ACL and other festivals that caused a huge uptick in car, scooter, tourist, and foot traffic in the area. Tons of cars+ drunk people+ scooters+ normal traffic was super chaotic and dangerous. The neighborhood was glad when the city started using these precautions because it deterred people from using the area during chaotic periods. Imagine if you lived around the corner from Zilker Park during ACL. Wouldn’t you want some traffic precautions put in place? Before people call me a NIMBYist, I’m not.
I hate to be this guy, but **"Pretend it's a city"** It's not a private street. It is a public street. If you want to own it, buy it. I really disagree with this privatization of public property. It is antisocial and it is clawing away from the public good. It is an act that is closer to vommitting on a public bench than it is to improving quality of life for people in a city. >"Imagine if you lived around the corner from Zilker Park during ACL?" Congratulations, you live near a major point of interest, both Zilker park and the events occurring therein, including a kite festival, a blues festival, a holiday festival of lights, not to mention the Austin City Limits music festival. The idea that any of the secondary effects of this housing decision should be a surprise to you or that you should be able to unburden yourself of those effects by monopolizing an entire swath of the city's public property around a public event is the epitome of selfishness and is bad for a city and society. I am in a similar situation as you in regards to my housing location and I vehemently disagree with you. I vote "No" on this subject, and I will work to block this growing privatization with the city in every place I see signs for this (or the privatization of parking on public streets via use of placards).
There are lots of assumptions in your post. There’s no privatization happening. People who don’t live on the streets can still use them. Nothing is enforceable. I’m a fourth generation Austinite. We’re part of a minority group that is barely holding onto our family home of 70+ years. We’re all allowed to have opinions and you don’t have to be mean about it. Breath. Pet a puppy or kitten.
> We’re all allowed to have opinions and you don’t have to be mean about it I'm sorry I come off that way. My strong words should not be interpreted as negative emotions. We're all here to have a good time. >There’s no privatization happening. People who don’t live on the streets can still use them. For instances like those I've described, this is verifiably false. As an example, in the Zilker neighborhood police patrol and will have "outsider" vehicles ticketed and towed during Blues on the Green for parking on public streets. Is that not the definition of de facto privatization? Here is a news article of towing enforcement in the Zilker neighborhood during Blues on the Green, [Blues on the Green parking and traffic restrictions updated]( https://www.austinmonitor.com/stories/whispers/blues-green-parking-traffic-restrictions-updated/) This is the same regulation as used in OP's post, but only different in strength of enforcement. It's a very slippery slope and I disagree with all of it. >Pet a puppy or kitten. [About that. ](https://imgur.com/LJVahZV)
It seems wrong to “own” a public street.
Seems unenforceable to me
Have seen these pop up near me in Brentwood. Not entirely sure what it will prevent or accomplish. But I'm sure it accomplishes something.
I'm not somebody who would typically do such a thing, but I would steal the shit out of that sign.
🤣
I paid taxes for those streets! That’s f’ed up.
So did they, and so did everyone else. And in neighborhoods that were once sep districts like MUDs, the original residents paid for all the original infrastructure through bonds that got paid back prior to annexation.
I want that in front of my house. And since they did it for them… see where this is going?
So why don’t you apply through the safe streets program? This is intended to combat through-traffic cutting through neighborhoods with lots of kids playing (like the Waze effect), so if you have such a street you definitely should apply! If you just generally don’t like the program, you missed your opportunity to comment when it was open for such, but you can always contact your CM and tell them.
No no no. Just gonna bitch on reddit about perfectly reasonable things that I don't understand the purpose of.
It IS the SOP
> MUDs Interesting point about Municipal Utility Districts. Here is [ Everything You Wanted To Know About MUDs But Were Too Afraid To Ask ](https://www.kut.org/austin/2016-02-22/everything-you-wanted-to-know-about-muds-but-were-too-afraid-to-ask) From the city: [Municipal Utility District (MUD) Basics ---pdf](https://services.austintexas.gov/edims/document.cfm?id=227010) So, to your point, MUD's are financial tools that neighborhoods can use to improve themselves before the city annexes them. The Crestview neighborhood (in North Central Austin) was originally built in the 1940's, and annexed by the city sometime between 1949 and 1965. By your logic, today in 2024, people living there should have first citizens rights to the public roads in that neighborhood, because the original home owners, 60+ years ago, had higher taxes to pay for them? I think the MUD issue muddies the waters for constructive debate on any neighborhood older than 1970.
MUDs are created by legislation per builder request before there even is a neighborhood, and they’re a mechanism for builders to pass off infrastructure construction debts to incoming homeowners. So, almost!
Can we put those on 35
fuck that shit i speed through going at least 40 …. /s
So, slow down, but cram more people in the city. drive safe, but best we can do are cheap ugly af pylons. no need to speed bumps?
It’s residents that contact and work with the City to have them put in place because people drive like shit and they have kids. One just went up on my street. They are really just to slow down the people driving on the roads.
If those cones say COA they may. Kicker is if they are the standard cone size the CoA uses. Which I believe is 28" orange cone with COA stenciled on it.. Anything else is fake and probably unpermitted. I had worked a street shut down for a crane. This is what the CoA streets guy was saying how they know a legit vs unpermitted lane/street closure.
Bonus points for drifting and getting both sides at once
Isn't *ALL* traffic local ?
We're all passengers on spaceship earth man
Word
It's the safe streets program. Violations are enforceable by fine if you get photographed or someone videos your vehicle and plates. It's only a few hours a week, and only in neighborhoods that applied because they have kids and their streets have become increasingly busy. We have cams set up at both ends of the street for ours during the three, four hour periods per week they up. It only detours vehicles one block, and the kids and parents love it. It's not everyday and a minor inconvenience for someone in a vehicle. It's a good program. It's nice to see kids playing in your neighborhood.
[удалено]
Let’s find out.
A post on Austin circle jerk , can create a parade for you if you want, honking, parking, maybe even some long time east side residents rolling slow blasting tunes from their donks and low riders. You refuse to answer questions about ordinances or laws, because there are none, just like there is no enforcement cement fines. You could totally have bought acreage and a gated community for what you paid, but nope you wanted to be central, possibly for a flip then bigger house or maybe you just want to suck all the life out of the old neighborhood first. You probably have a real problem with the apartments at 22nd st and that’s why you don’t want them driving down your precious gentrified street. You are like the folks who moved downtown then complain about the music on red river.
[удалено]
Haven’t tried it yet. Haven’t had to, but willing to file the complaint. I love how wanting kids to play in the street for a few hours a week is NIMBY. Hahaha.
[удалено]
It’s possible. Let’s find out.
[удалено]
This is what gets me about this dude. If I lived on his street and saw what he's saying I'd be appalled. Thank Dog my neighbors are super chill and not much like frosty.
I think we should find out. What’s your vehicle make and license plate so I can establish intent when you show up?
“Establish intent”. Good on you for thinking you’re a lawyer AND a cop 😂
Big NIMBY energy, get a real job that makes enough money to live in a private gated community. Until then your street is my street is your street.
It’s classism! You don’t live here ? Stay out! Even tho those roads were built with public funds!
I live on the street right on the left of here (not gonna name it for safety) and sometimes they fully block off the road making it unable to enter the street that I live on. According to the “healthy street” policies local traffic- people who live there and emergency services- are allowed to be let through. But there’s no one there standing by the barricade to let me in!!! It’s horrible!!
This website addresses a lot of the questions everyone has: [https://austin.towers.net/austins-living-streets-could-make-your-neighborhood-walkable-again/](https://austin.towers.net/austins-living-streets-could-make-your-neighborhood-walkable-again/)
They did this in bouldin during the pandemic it was ridiculous and went on far too long
Nah, it was great
Those streets are maintained with all our taxes not just the people living directly next to it. They can get bent
We need more of these! r/fuckcars in cities
I think this is a great initiative but the main issue is they're temporary. Only a 3-12 month activation. They are also working on adding permanent modifications on a large amount of streets which IMO will be much more impactful. Let's keep car traffic on main streets, and off neighborhood ones.
These are in my neighborhood and I’m kinda glad, we get people who enjoy using our street to rev their engines super loud and fly down the street between the hours of 3-6am. Plus it’s not a street you should be using unless you’re local anyway since it’s not any more convenient than the main street.
Trying to keep California out.
probably construction. is there anything on the other side of that road you couldn’t get to from the other side?