Austinist: Super Forum Recap

Trancereducer

Fri, 10 Apr 2009 10:04:42 -0600

Speed bumps are a waste unless they result in a reduction in accidents and injuries. I noticed the ones of Duval north of 45th have been taken out. Does anyone know what was the catalyst for the decision to remove them and the cost of putting them in then taking them out?

Ryan

Fri, 10 Apr 2009 09:35:18 -0600

I still think speed bumps have their uses. One of the reasons they work in our neighborhood is because people were cutting through instead of staying on high traffic roads. I'm fine with that, as long as they aren't racing down my street while I'm trying to walk my dog. The speed bumps force 80-90% to slow down and also serve to slightly discourage someone looking for a shortcut to drive down my road in the first place. Maybe that's a little NIMBY but like I said, if they hadn't been speeding in the first place I wouldn't mind the extra traffic.

Grape Ape

Thu, 09 Apr 2009 11:38:06 -0600

Speed humps are crap. In my neighborhood it just irritates people. I commonly get passed when I slow down for them and even get honked at and flipped off for slowing down. Anyone with any kind of SUV just flies over them and around cars that slow down. It's been that way since they started putting them in years ago. I've also seen then cause more near wrecks than I can count due to people almost running into the back of others. In regards to bikes, cars always try to go around them and when not paying attention, often force bikes off the roadway.

mdahmus

Thu, 09 Apr 2009 09:04:16 -0600

45 mph with traffic lights and bike lanes >>>> 25 mph with no lights, just stop signs to piss off motorists, and heavy traffic.

Wes

Thu, 09 Apr 2009 07:50:36 -0600

speed humps > stop signs

AC

Wed, 08 Apr 2009 22:54:51 -0600

Good job again on the forum, Shilli. It was good to see a bunch of downtown-oriented organizations team up like that.

Ryan

Wed, 08 Apr 2009 22:35:10 -0600

I completely disagree about the speed bumps. Our neighborhood has a high traffic (cars, pedestrians, bikes) road and there has been dramatic improvement since the speed cushions went in. Before, cars would speed down the road at a totally unsafe/illegal speed of 40-45 mph. Now it's down to 20-25 mph. It's a neighborhood, not a drag strip. But also, I agree that a better alternative would be sidewalks and a dedicated bike lane (with curbs!).

mdahmus

Wed, 08 Apr 2009 18:21:30 -0600

I should be more positive (bunnies! rainbows!) - you're right, most of their stuff is good - I have found that even the most troglodytic of drivers generally don't get too mad at things that slow them down that clearly and obviously help pedestrians - stop signs really don't, though, and putting them up just to make driving more difficult makes us all worse off as drivers just learn not to take stop signs very seriously.

mdahmus

Wed, 08 Apr 2009 14:18:12 -0600

Stop signs used for traffic calming are also stupid - they don't help much because motorists will learn to obey them less as they're used less seriously. They also don't generate nearly as much respect for pedestrians' right-of-way. (The unnecessary stop signs up in Hyde Park are treated far less seriously than traffic lights in the area and obviously more necessary stop signs are). Agreed on the problems with warrants for traffic lights. City generally doesn't go beyond the state warrants which are ridiculously tough to meet for pedestrian traffic (we couldn't meet them at Zilker even during big events, we were told).

Shawn Shillington

Wed, 08 Apr 2009 13:44:30 -0600

Are those actually speed humps in NYC? Good says they are, but I think they might just be arrows. Even if they are, 9/10 is pretty good. Speed humps are certainly the traffic calming mechanism of choice around here. I think everyone that wants to slow down traffic would prefer stop signs and signals to speed humps, but the city claims to be unable to install stop signs and signals because of state law, so speed humps are the alternative.

mdahmus

Wed, 08 Apr 2009 13:30:50 -0600

Oh, and I should mention that 65 mph car traffic that gives cyclists room is better than 35 mph car traffic that doesn't. Otherwise, Lamar would be a nicer ride than Loop 360. A lot of people think slowing down cars is the only thing that matters, when, usually, it's attacking the wrong problem entirely. Same thing with the people who wanted to set speed limits on W 6th at 20 - instead of putting in more traffic signals. What's better - never getting a space to cross because the road is completely full of cars going 20 in a steady stream, or cars going 35 but stopping at lights once in a while to let you across?

mdahmus

Wed, 08 Apr 2009 13:26:48 -0600

A few of those changes actually are of the type that make things worse for cars without helping out other road users, which is a lose-lose-lose scenario (both groups lose, then they vote against any traffic changes in the future). In other words, speed bumps suck and should be used sparingly - they just piss off motorists and don't directly help pedestrians at all, who need calm predictable travel with gaps, not people speeding up and slowing down and road-enraged. Raised crosswalks, on the other hand? Great - motorists see the point to them; pedestrians get better treatment than they do in standard crosswalk. (The raised one heading to Fresh Plus in Clarksville is partially thanks to yours truly fighting that battle in OWANA).

Ryan

Wed, 08 Apr 2009 12:51:15 -0600

Yeah, I checked out a few of the questionnaires, great work by the way. As a transportation-cyclist myself, I am definitely voting for Chris Riley. I noted that Perla rides triathlons, which is nice - but if you don't also ride a bike instead of using your car I don't know if you can appreciate all the problems.

Shawn Shillington

Wed, 08 Apr 2009 12:43:34 -0600

I did see it and it is nice. Size of (and quality of and budget directed towards) the sidewalk vs. the street is a pretty clear indication of a city's relative valuation of pedestrians and cars. Pedestrians are winning in NYC, but not so much around here. The candidates talked about it a little at the forum and in their answers to question 11 of the questionnaire. Basically, the city considers cars necessary and pedestrians expendable, so funds for pedestrians get cut. It is no coincidence that Riley (probably the only carless candidate) seemed most inclined to find money for sidewalks in his answer to question 11.

Ryan

Wed, 08 Apr 2009 12:24:59 -0600

Shilli, this is off topic but have you seen this? http://awesome.goodmagazine.com/transparency/web/0904/livable-streets.html Pretty nice - if only we could do that throughout downtown Austin.