What the fuck is wrong with you, Austin?

[jimmyjazz 45889]

19 minutes ago, Larry T. Spider said:

Might just be talking out of my ass here but maybe there’s a middle between backing cops that do heinous shit and getting rid of all police.

Get outta here with all that level-headed perspective and shit.

[Orange&White 5522]

20 minutes ago, Larry T. Spider said:

Might just be talking out of my ass here but maybe there’s a middle between backing cops that do heinous shit and getting rid of all police.

The post i quoted and responded to clearly stated that all cops are bad.

Edited March 22 by Orange&White

[hayden_horn 11362]

12 hours ago, Brisketexan said:

APD doesn't do much policing anymore.  It's not their thing.  Sitting on the sidelines and pouting about how we don't love them enough, and staying home because we haven't made funding APD 80% of the city budget, is much more their speed.

it's weird how spending basically more than two solid decades villifying anyone having fun, starting riots for the city leadership, making travis county jail a revolving door of accused dwis, not really giving any effort to solving property crime, ignoring sexual assault accusations, setting up exploitative speed traps, assaulting unarmed people and oh killing them sometimes for no reason, using horses as weapons, and generally not doing their fucking job has resulted in citizen disinterest in giving them more resource to do this fuckjob they've been doing? 

get fucked

edit: (the police not poor brisket to whom I'm responding haha)

Edited March 22 by hayden_horn

[Guest]

While murder took a spring break, it's back on the job. After nothing in the first half of March, I think it's been three in the past week.

After a Riverside case over the weekend, we're now up to 14 through 3/24. Prior years:

2024: 14
2023: 21
2022: 18
2021: 18
2020: 11
2019: 7 

Almost three months into the year, seems like we're trending lower but still way above what it was like pre-pandemic. Combination of how everyone seems a bit more nuts following the pandemic and so many more people. 

[PvilleStang 2875]

2 hours ago, FirstTimeCaller said:

While murder took a spring break, it's back on the job. After nothing in the first half of March, I think it's been three in the past week.

After a Riverside case over the weekend, we're now up to 14 through 3/24. Prior years:

2024: 14
2023: 21
2022: 18
2021: 18
2020: 11
2019: 7 

Almost three months into the year, seems like we're trending lower but still way above what it was like pre-pandemic. Combination of how everyone seems a bit more nuts following the pandemic and so many more people. 

It's the Urbanists ruining everything.  And the lack of trains.

[Eskimohorn 5630]

The post i quoted and responded to clearly stated that all cops are bad.

Your response to Brisket’s post on systemic issues in police accountability is to not respond at all but go full on flinging poop post.

Post less.

[texasdago 7568]

4 hours ago, FirstTimeCaller said:

While murder took a spring break, it's back on the job. After nothing in the first half of March, I think it's been three in the past week.

After a Riverside case over the weekend, we're now up to 14 through 3/24. Prior years:

2024: 14
2023: 21
2022: 18
2021: 18
2020: 11
2019: 7 

Almost three months into the year, seems like we're trending lower but still way above what it was like pre-pandemic. Combination of how everyone seems a bit more nuts following the pandemic and so many more people. 

I've been wondering... have they not updated this?

https://www.kxan.com/news/crime/austin-homicide-map-2024/

The upside, though, is we went nearly a month without a murder.  

[Guest]

12 minutes ago, texasdago said:

I've been wondering... have they not updated this?

https://www.kxan.com/news/crime/austin-homicide-map-2024/

The upside, though, is we went nearly a month without a murder.  

They haven't. I thought we were still on a winning streak because they normally are very diligent about updating it. Then I saw the news story that claimed it was the 14th homicide this weekend. I saw an article about the 12th. No idea what the 13th one was.

[YGIFS 19449]

4 minutes ago, FirstTimeCaller said:

They haven't. I thought we were still on a winning streak because they normally are very diligent about updating it. Then I saw the news story that claimed it was the 14th homicide this weekend. I saw an article about the 12th. No idea what the 13th one was.

Or so the Germans' Nicole would have us believe...

[Guest]

 

[ztejas 43411]

What the fuck is Sendero Hills?

[ABSR 5308]

1 minute ago, ztejas said:

What the fuck is Sendero Hills?

A place of many future cyclist/car accidents.

[ChickenSandwich 9828]

Travis County, Texas, has worst opioid problem in the state, EMS says (kxan.com)

 

We're #1!!

 

"ATCEMS: Travis County has highest opioid death rate in Texas"

[InkaUtexas 25865]

10 minutes ago, FirstTimeCaller said:

 

Cool. Now make cyclists get a license so they know how to use it.

[Deej 76755]

2 minutes ago, InkaUtexas said:

Cool. Now make cyclists get a license so they know how to use it.

They'll ride though any part except the bike lane. 

[Mittens 8258]

Why would anyone be upset about that intersection?  Anything that removes stop signs is a plus to me.

[Wally Pryor 5261]

1 hour ago, FirstTimeCaller said:

 

 

Director of Bicycling has to earn the 6-figure salary. 

But you need some of the old Moments tiles from South Lamar to really complete. Surely the city has some in storage somewhere. 

[jimmyjazz 45889]

27 minutes ago, Mittens said:

Why would anyone be upset about that intersection?  Anything that removes stop signs is a plus to me.

We have a traffic circle at the end of our street.  It's a "T" intersection.  Previously, there was a stop sign on the leg that was perpendicular to the other two.  Now, it's a traffic circle with 3 yield signs.

To say that Austin drivers have no fucking idea how to navigate a 3-legged traffic circle with 3 yield signs would be understating things.  Most drivers on the two legs that are parallel to each other (and perpendicular to the third) seem to think they have the right of way.  It's maddening.

Long story short:  Austinites don't tend to be very astute when it comes to traffic control measures, especially traffic circles.

[PvilleStang 2875]

Ha!  Another bike cuck advertising their bsky.social handle on the twitterverse.

[Guest]

I need to get into the plastic road pylon business. What the hell am I doing?

[hornian 5210]

55 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

We have a traffic circle at the end of our street.  It's a "T" intersection.  Previously, there was a stop sign on the leg that was perpendicular to the other two.  Now, it's a traffic circle with 3 yield signs.

To say that Austin drivers have no fucking idea how to navigate a 3-legged traffic circle with 3 yield signs would be understating things.  Most drivers on the two legs that are parallel to each other (and perpendicular to the third) seem to think they have the right of way.  It's maddening.

Long story short:  Austinites don't tend to be very astute when it comes to traffic control measures, especially traffic circles.

I just go for it, and let the chips fall where they may. 

"I'm older than you and I have better insurance" is the way I live my life. Towanda!

[HenryJames 66038]

2 hours ago, ztejas said:

What the fuck is Sendero Hills?

A place no one on Surly will ever go but still be outraged about.

[Paper_jam 831]

This fucking city just wants to make driving anywhere in your own car (and parking, once you get there) completely intolerable.

We need infrastructure that completely segregates cars from bikes, not infrastructure that tries to force two fundamentally incompatible modes of transport together.

 

[Bozo_Casanova 26437]

2 minutes ago, Paper_jam said:

This fucking city just wants to make driving anywhere in your own car (and parking, once you get there) completely intolerable.

We need infrastructure that completely segregates cars from bikes, not infrastructure that tries to force two fundamentally incompatible modes of transport together.

 

Cry more. Where did you get the idea that bikes are cars are incompatible? They coexist in literally every big city on earth. 

Edited March 26 by Bozo_Casanova

[Bozo_Casanova 26437]

1 hour ago, jimmyjazz said:

Long story short:  Austinites don't tend to be very astute when it comes to traffic control measures, especially traffic circles.

false. Every single intersection in Austin that has replaced signs or controls with a circle in the last two decades has seen both a reduction in accidents and better traffic flow.

Edited March 26 by Bozo_Casanova

[jimmyjazz 45889]

Just now, Bozo_Casanova said:

false. Every single intersection that has replaced signs or controls with a circle in the last two decades has seen both a reduction in accidents and better traffic flow.

LMAO.  OK, I'm just going thru the ones that suck ass (my street and 51st, and yes I know your data on the latter).

[blacklab 11926]

3 hours ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

Where did you get the idea that bikes are cars are incompatible? They coexist in literally every big city on earth. 

Then why the fuck do they need their own lanes and $10 million dollar bridges?

[Bozo_Casanova 26437]

Just now, jimmyjazz said:

LMAO.  OK, I'm just going thru the ones that suck ass (my street and 51st, and yes I know your data on the latter).

I don't know what data would say otherwise. Circles offer better flow but command attentiveness, and increase caution. Much like narrowing streets lowers speed, the mechanism of action is increasing the amount of focus required by drivers. Getting drivers to focus more is a good thing, but it's stressful for people who think they should be able to daydream while piloting a 4000lb machine on residential streets at 35-40mph. 

[Brisketexan 105071]

6 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

but it's stressful for people who think they should be able to daydream while piloting a 4000lb machine on residential streets at 35-40mph. 

You're singing my song, man....

[Bozo_Casanova 26437]

1 minute ago, blacklab said:

They why the fuck do they need their own lanes and $10 million dollar bridges?

Because they were designed out of existing ones a few decades ago, and now we're having to deal with the problems that has created. Ideally we would never have designed city infrastructure for cars only, but here we are.
A better question is why we not only stopped building for pedestrians but actually overhauled and retrofitted the infrastructure in the middle of our our cities, including Austin, to force people into cars. It's not a rhetorical question, but maybe because the scope of this thread. 
Your question is based in the idea that cars are the default mode of transport in cities and pedestrians are somehow interlopers, and I don't think that's true. And simply making pedestrian and public transport slightly less terrible for people who want that isn't infringing on anybody.

[Bozo_Casanova 26437]

Bitching about traffic circles is classic angry old man behavior, though. They hate change more than they like less traffic.

Edited March 26 by Bozo_Casanova

[jimmyjazz 45889]

12 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

I don't know what data would say otherwise. Circles offer better flow but command attentiveness, and increase caution. Much like narrowing streets lowers speed, the mechanism of action is increasing the amount of focus required by drivers. Getting drivers to focus more is a good thing, but it's stressful for people who think they should be able to daydream while piloting a 4000lb machine on residential streets at 35-40mph. 

No, it's stressful for the people who encounter the circles when those daydreamers are plowing through without any regard for the actual law.

[blacklab 11926]

2 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

And simply making pedestrian and public transport slightly less terrible for people who want that isn't infringing on anybody.

Tell that to the people stuck in traffic on barton springs eastbound in zilker

[PvilleStang 2875]

6 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

And simply making pedestrian and public transport slightly less terrible for people who want that isn't infringing on anybody.

Taking away existing road infrastructure to provide bike and pedestrian paths clogs already saturated arteries within this city.  Not to mention, yes, some days it's nice to get out and walk and ride, but we're not NYC, and no one wants to smell your ass after you rode an hour to get to the office on your battery-supplemented bike.  And if you're lucky enough to live in walking distance to your work, well, good for you.  Most people around here are not.

Edited March 26 by PvilleStang

[Guest]

Cars suck, but we already built for cars. Trying to go back and shoehorn in biking doesn't work. 

I would 100% ride my bike -- even in summer -- if it were an attractive option. Having a white line painted next to cars going 40 mph with flexible plastic poles isn't an attractive option. 

And whatever the hell that mess is that is pictured above is just confusing to anyone involved.

[Bozo_Casanova 26437]

37 minutes ago, blacklab said:

Tell that to the people stuck in traffic on barton springs eastbound in zilker

The problem with Barton Springs Eastbound is not a lack of lanes, it sucked only slightly less before that. The problem with Barton Springs Eastbound is the controlled intersections at Azie Morton, Kinney, and Lamar. Put a roundabout at Azie Morton, a circle at Lamar, and a stop sign on Kinney avenue at Barton Springs*, and it's better than it was before, even with the bike lanes. That said, you wouldn't need the bike lanes for the bikes to be safe in that environment. 

And BTW - they know this. This is what the traffic engineers would do if not for the ever-present clamor of know-nothings. 

*Kinney only needs the light because of the traffic pulses generated by the controls at Lamar and Azie Morton. If that was smoothed out the light is no longer required, although I'm sure the people up there would raise hell, because they raise hell about anything. 

Edited March 26 by Bozo_Casanova

[Bozo_Casanova 26437]

19 minutes ago, FirstTimeCaller said:

Cars suck, but we already built for cars. Trying to go back and shoehorn in biking doesn't work.

Care don't suck, cars are great and also we did a bad job of building for them. That's why it works for bikes even less. If you make it better for cars, making it better for bikes is easy. The problem is that adding lanes to a fragile grid only makes it more fragile. That's why expanding I35 (which I support for other reasons) isn't going to do much good, if any. 

Edited March 26 by Bozo_Casanova

[markstanco 12571]

6 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

Care don't suck, cars are great and also we did a bad job of building for them. That's why it works for bikes even less. If you make it better for cars, making it better for bikes is easy. The problem is that adding lanes to a fragile grid only makes it more fragile. That's why expanding I35 (which I support for other reasons) isn't going to do much good, if any. 

Adding lanes wont help?  How is that (honest question)?  

[bschoolprof 6252]

4 hours ago, ztejas said:

What the fuck is Sendero Hills?

It's a neighborhood in East Austin where old Alejandro, a maintenance man, used to live.  Due to rising rents/property taxes, he's been pushed out in favor of new Alejandro, an "urbanist" and bike dork.  

[Bozo_Casanova 26437]

1 hour ago, markstanco said:

Adding lanes wont help?  How is that (honest question)?  

Two reasons. The first is induced demand, which is the chicken and egg of road size and the traffic on it. But the far more important reason for Austin is that the grid is *fragile*. 

Some light theory first: the hierarchy of road design works like this- local road ->Collector->Aterial Road->Freeway, etc. The function of a collector road is to collect local traffic and deliver it to major or arterial roads which in turn deliver it onto controlled access freeways or between areas of intense development, and usually that system takes care of intself. It makes sense to have really intense development along Guadalupe Lamar and Burnet road because lots of collectors run perpendicular to them and lots of local roads are perpendicular to the collectors in the areas on either side and in between. 
HOWEVER
There are *very few* arterial roads that run parallel to those three roads, and even fewer that run the full  length between Mopac and I35 on either side. Shockingly few. Would you like to guess how many lanes directly connect the full distance of mopac and I35 between the river and 183 in each direction?
 

Spoiler

Eight.
Koenig - 3
15th - 2
6th/5th - 3
1st - 3

And zero lanes between Koenig and 15th. 

When any given or freeway or arterial road in Central Austin is approaching full capacity, it turns into a parking lot not because of the size of the that road but because of 
1) a lack of connectivity between arterial roads
2) a lack of alternative to arterial roads.
3) A lack of connectivity between collectors but most importantly
4) Inefficient intersections of collector roads and arterials. 

Lamar turns green southbound at 45th, and 45 backs up on the East, empties out to the west . The light turns red at Lamar and Barton Springs in the morning and Eastbound backs up to the West and empties out to East

That's why we call traffic "backed up," and when they add lanes to arterials and freeways in that environment without radical improvements to the efficiency of intersections, they are just making the parking lot bigger because the problem is mostly inefficiency - IOW, it's not the lanes. It's the red lights. 

[mchookem 16322]

roundabout circles can and do improve traffic flow, i think that's undeniable.

but in order for them to work and have free flow of traffic, every driver has to be able to trust that every other driver entering the circle knows the rules and how to properly navigate the circle. and therein lies the problem.

[Bozo_Casanova 26437]

1 hour ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

Eight

Eleven. I’m a moron.

3+2+3+3=11

56 minutes ago, mchookem said:

but in order for them to work and have free flow of traffic, every driver has to be able to trust that every other driver entering the circle knows the rules and how to properly navigate the circle. and therein lies the problem.

No. That’s why they work. They force drivers to do what they should always be doing anyway: pay attention.

That’s why these arguments are so funny. There is literally not a single example of a traffic circle or roundabout replacing a controlled intersection in the state of Texas in the last 30 years that did not yield both better traffic flow and reduced injury accidents. 
but sure, we’ve got to watch what other drivers are doing. Huge problem. 

[MonkeyDoughnut 10229]

17 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

Eleven. I’m a moron.

3+2+3+3=11

No. That’s why they work. They force drivers to do what they should always be doing anyway: pay attention.

That’s why these arguments are so funny. There is literally not a single example of a traffic circle or roundabout replacing a controlled intersection in the state of Texas in the last 30 years that did not yield both better traffic flow and reduced injury accidents. 
but sure, we’ve got to watch what other drivers are doing. Huge problem. 

Can the word "injury" be removed from this sentence or do they cause more accidents, just less "injury" accidents?

[Bozo_Casanova 26437]

24 minutes ago, MonkeyDoughnut said:

Can the word "injury" be removed from this sentence or do they cause more accidents, just less "injury" accidents?

It depends. In a handful of locations* involving multi-lane circles low speed crashes (of the fender bender variety) have risen slightly, whereas injury accidents decline substantially. In all cases traffic flow improves. I’ll take that trade every time.  

 

 

 

*my understanding is that 51st and the I35 access road, sort of a worst cast scenario for a traffic circle, is one of the locations where this is true- much better traffic flow, far fewer injuries, a few more fender benders.

Edited March 27 by Bozo_Casanova

[markstanco 12571]

13 hours ago, mchookem said:

roundabout circles can and do improve traffic flow, i think that's undeniable.

but in order for them to work and have free flow of traffic, every driver has to be able to trust that every other driver entering the circle knows the rules and how to properly navigate the circle. and therein lies the problem.

Totally agree.  Where I live there are two traffic circles, and I would say 1 in 5 times I deal with somebody who cant navigate them properly.  Ive said to friends that we should get lawn chairs and a cooler full of beer and set up in the middle of the circle to watch the hilarity. 

[High Plains Drifter 11031]

 

Goddamn, the old man bitching on this thread is spectacular. 

 

 

[HRSchenker 2268]

16 hours ago, markstanco said:

Adding lanes wont help?  How is that (honest question)?  

If adding lanes reduced traffic, it would make sense that reducing lanes would increase traffic right? When the west side highway was removed in NYC, there was no massive gridlock as a result. Turns out that traffic wasn't going TO NYC it was going to NJ and using the highway because it was easier. Same thing with the old embarcadero in SF. 

What I think a lot of people miss is that if traffic isn't going TO your city, it shouldn't be IN your city. We're dealing with the same thing in Dallas. Why should local Dallas residents pay the price so residents in Forney can travel to Grand Prairie with no issues? 

[Guest]

Shouldn't MORE bike lines induce MORE bike traffic? Still waiting on that.

[markstanco 12571]

26 minutes ago, HRSchenker said:

If adding lanes reduced traffic, it would make sense that reducing lanes would increase traffic right? When the west side highway was removed in NYC, there was no massive gridlock as a result. Turns out that traffic wasn't going TO NYC it was going to NJ and using the highway because it was easier. Same thing with the old embarcadero in SF. 

What I think a lot of people miss is that if traffic isn't going TO your city, it shouldn't be IN your city. We're dealing with the same thing in Dallas. Why should local Dallas residents pay the price so residents in Forney can travel to Grand Prairie with no issues? 

Who goes to GP on purpose? 

[Bozo_Casanova 26437]

23 minutes ago, HRSchenker said:

What I think a lot of people miss is that if traffic isn't going TO your city, it shouldn't be IN your city. We're dealing with the same thing in Dallas. Why should local Dallas residents pay the price so residents in Forney can travel to Grand Prairie with no issues? 

I don’t *completely* agree with the premise, but the general idea is the main reason why the idea of swapping the designations of I35 and the 130 toll road in Austin won’t die- it would get the non-local semitrailer traffic out of central Austin, which is an enormous contributor to the problems on I35. 
I think we would also agree that city taxpayers wind up bearing a huge burden to subsidize highway construction and other services to accommodate suburban/exurban growth. 

31 minutes ago, FirstTimeCaller said:

Shouldn't MORE bike lines induce MORE bike traffic? Still waiting on that.

I got you, fam:

Biking on Rise in Austin

Quote

Austinites are biking more.

What's happening: The number of average daily bike trips per 1,000 people rose by six in Austin between 2019-2022, going from 17 to 23.

• That's per a new report from mobility data firm StreetLight Data, which uses GPS and other location data to measure urban transportation patterns.