| Cherrywood Neighborhood Assn. Home Austin TX 78722 GOOGLE Advanced Search | |
| [ 21-Jan-08] | [Cherrywood / Wilshire Woods Traffic Calming Project ] |
The Working Group is drafting a Plan. It will be revised after comments are received. |
|
05Jan20 Q&A from Harold Cook. Download Harold's 2-page flyer.
| == Please reply to <hc@haroldcook.com> == Hi folks, After having attended the neighborhood association meeting last night, listening to the comments on traffic calming there, and here on NeighborNet, I thought my own perspective via Q&A might be useful to somebody who may still be undecided on how to vote, or especially those who are in favor of the traffic calming plan but who may or may not get around to casting their ballot. I wasn't on the committee that worked on the plan, I'm just a consumer of the plan like most residents. For what it's worth, here's my perspective. *Q* Is my vote important? >> YES! Two neighborhoods in Austin voted the traffic calming program down, and thus will probably never have traffic calming in their areas. Of course, the vast majority of neighborhoods lucky enough to be chosen for the program have opted to vote in favor of traffic calming. 60 percent of those casting ballots must be in favor of the plan before it is implemented. *Q* Are people driving too fast through the neighborhood? >> Are you kidding? Kids are everywhere-the slower the traffic the better! In all my years living in the neighborhood, I have yet to hear anyone complain that people drive too slowly around here. *Q* Will these traffic calming measures successfully slow down traffic? >>Have you ever been through the HEB parking lot? While I agree that drivers seemingly overdose on their Stupid Pills when they get there, speed isn't the problem, bad judgment is. But nobody has invented a stupid bump. While those HEB/Hancock speed bumps are much more violent than the more gentle speech cushions being proposed, either is the universal sign for "slow down." Of course traffic calming slows down traffic. Even those not in favor of the plan often mention that "if it were just near Maplewood Elementary, that would be fine." That seems to acknowledge that even they believe traffic calming measures slow traffic and increase traffic safety. If you would like to try it out, go West on 381/2 Street to Duval, then turn right, and you will see that their speed cushions will slow you down, but will do so gently. *Q* This is a case of misplaced priority. Why aren't we putting in sidewalks instead? >> I agree, we need more sidewalks in the neighborhood. But the City of Austin isn't offering to pay for sidewalks in this program. We are availing ourselves of the available solutions. *Q* This is a case of misplaced priority. Why aren't we putting in bike paths instead? >> I agree, we need bike paths in the neighborhood. But the City of Austin isn't offering to pay for bike paths in this program. We are availing ourselves of the available solutions. *Q:* This is a case of misplaced priority. Why aren't we putting in stop signs instead? >> I agree, we need more stop signs in the neighborhood. The City won't let us have 'em. It's not among the traffic calming tools available to us. *Q* Won't this increase emergency vehicle response times? >> According to the Fire Department employee at the neighborhood association meeting last night, the answer is either "no," or "yes, but only by about 5 seconds." Also, the implementation of any traffic calming tools is subject to sign-off by the police and fire departments. I would suggest that any perceived slow response time by an emergency vehicle is due to the relatively low priority placed on the 911 call, not any traffic calming device installed. Further, the speed cushions on those streets the City deemed as major response routes are specifically designed for emergency vehicles' tires to miss the cushions entirely. And what about the response time of the ambulance going to the auto accident that wouldn't have happened in the first place if one or more of the vehicles involved had been driving more slowly? *Q* If this is so successful in slowing traffic, why is this a dying program in Austin? >> I theorize that the effect of traffic calming is to slow down and reduce traffic in neighborhoods that have traffic calming, thus increasing both the speed and volume of traffic in adjoining neighborhoods. Since decision-makers at the City level must consider the needs of the entire city, there isn't a NET gain to the city at large. But Cherrywood residents have the luxury of being most concerned about Cherrywood - our homes - and therefore there is, indeed, a net gain. *Q* Should vegetarians eat animal crackers? >> Just seeing if you're alert and still reading. Sorry. *Q:* Won't these speed cushions damage my vehicle? >> Yes, they absolutely will damage your vehicle - but only if you are part of the problem. Officer Salisbury with the APD explained at the meeting that if your vehicle is going over 45 miles per hour while going over the hump, it may cause damage. Since 45 MPH is WELL over any speed limit in the neighborhood, this is precisely the behavior we are trying to prevent. So if your vehicle is damaged by a speed cushion because you're significantly speeding, cry me a river. *Q* I think this is a waste of tax money. >> They won't be refunding you the tax money if our neighborhood opts out of this plan. They'll just spend it in somebody else's neighborhood. It certainly won't cost you anything you haven't already paid. Whether or not tax money should be invested in such a program is a policy issue beyond the control of this particular neighborhood. Meanwhile, we've been offered this solution, which the city will either pay for in this neighborhood, or somebody else's neighborhood. *Q* I don't like the plan because it's not perfect/it's not how I would have done it/there isn't a speed cushion on my block/there are too many speed cushions on my block/I don't like the location of the speed cushion(s) on my block/they didn't consult with me on the color and texture of the speed cushion on my block/blah blah blah on my block. >> Please don't let the perfect get in the way of the achievable. There are aspects of this plan I would not have done *Q:* uite this way. The process-imposed by the City of Austin, not your neighbors-isn't perfect either. I don't really like driving over the dang things personally. But we have a problem in this neighborhood, and this is the best solution, given the imposed limitations. All we are left with is to vote yes, vote no, or stick our heads in the sand by not bothering to vote at all. I respectfully suggest that the traffic calming plan as proposed presents a net gain to our neighborhood, and deserves 10 seconds out of your life to fill out your blue ballot and vote "yes" on the plan. I hope this has been helpful, or at least somewhat entertaining. I'm sure there are other opinions, and I respect yours. Most of all, I hope you take the time to make yours count by casting your vote. There are only a few more days to do so before the deadline. As I voted yes, I was thinking of the Maplewood kids who cross our streets by the hundreds twice a day. I was thinking of the seniors who leave church and cross Cherrywood every Sunday afternoon. I was thinking about the scores of us who walk our dogs in the mornings and evenings around our friendly streets, hoping they'll get even friendlier. And yes, I was thinking of my property values in the event I ever decide to sell my home, and the potential buyers who see that people are NOT careening down my street at breakneck speeds. I hope you agree, and respectfully ask you to vote "yes" on the traffic calming plan. Harold "Tres" Cook hc@haroldcook.com 3710 Cherrywood Road |
04Nov08 (1) From Isabel Headrick and (2) from Sarah Looney
__ASHWOOD @ WRIGHTWOOD 1. First I want to say thanks to the Working Group who worked on the traffic calming: I really appreciate all the hard work you all did, and it's for a wonderful cause. As a resident of Maplewood who walks my seven-year-old to school every day, braving the hazards of my fellow parents who are rushing to school in cars at 7:43, I have the opportuntiy every day to notice where the cars are going fast and where they have slowed down already. I REALLY appreciate that you put a speed cushion on Maplewood at the blind curve between Wilshire Blvd and Kirkwood; that is the location of horrible speeding. Also I think that removing the proposed locations between Kirkwood and Ashwood and in front of the school on Maplewood makes sense. Traffic actually does not move very fast at those locations: at the first, because cars are going uphill, and at the second, because cars are already going very slowly due to congestion (this is where my theory that cars parked on the street makes an excellent traffic calming device comes in). Even at non-rush-hour times of day these locations get relatively few speeders. In addition, the flashing speed limit sign is on that hill and most cars do slow down for that. Now if you had another set of cushions to put down I would highly recommend one where Wrightwood rounds the corner to become Ashwood. There is absolutely no visibility there. I personally think that is a higher priority than the two on Maplewood I just mentioned (between Kirkwood & Ashwood and in front of the school) or for that matter, cushions on 38.5. Just my thoughts. Again, thanks for putting all that hard work into the plan. Isabelle Headrick 2. == Please reply to "austingrrrl" <austingrrrl@yahoo.com> == I couldn't agree more... I've been the near-victim of countless head-on collisions rounding that curve in the road. Good suggestion. Now if you had another set of cushions to put down I would highly recommend one where Wrightwood rounds the corner to become Ashwood. There is absolutely no visibility there. I personally think that is a higher priority than the two on Maplewood I just mentioned (between Kirkwood & Ashwood and in front of the school) or for that matter, cushions on 38.5. -Sarah Looney- |
04Sep9 From Lisa Schemanske
__E. CLARKSON/RNFOLPH == Please reply to "Richard Behal" <behalske4@earthlink.net> == This is the speed data I requested for Clarkson/Randolph. If the speed chart we've been using to prioritize were updated, this would put this stretch right there with Wilshire and Lafayette for speed. Something to consider. I'm also looking for anyone who agreed to form a subgroup to look at the Maplewood area. Thanks, >From Gordon [Derr]- We did the counts on June 26th. The count was done 155 feet east of Larry Avenue. Westbound volume was 186 vehicles per day, with the highest hour being Noon to 1 PM, when there was 18 cars. The 85th percentile speed over the whole day was 34 mph. The highest hour for the combination of directions was 5 to 6 PM, when there was 34 vehicles in an hour. Gordon |
04Jul12 From Chris Owan
| __E. 32nd STOP SIGN OBSCURED == Please reply to <Chris.Owan@ci.austin.tx.us> == I just wanted to comment that as I was driving East on 32nd the other day, I noticed that the stop sign at French place was completely blocked by a large tree limb and foliage that was over hanging the street right before the stop sign. You can't see the stop sign until you are right up on it. I know it is there because I drive the street often. However, those unfamiliar will likely run the stop sign. The branch needs to be trimmed back so that drivers can see the stop sign. Of course, I don't want to call the city because they will trim way too much. Is the property owner on the neighbornet or does anyone know the owner of the house? Sorry I don't have the exact address. Anyone else notice this problem? |
04Jul10 From Danney Usury
| __HOLLYWOOD == Please reply to <2000dux@earthlink.net> == I don't know if the decisions are all carved in stone, but reversing the stop sign at Hollywood and Concordia would have better over-all outcomes in slowing traffic in the area that reversing the one at Werner and Concordia. The problem for those of us who live on Hollywood is that many cars come straight out of the Fiesta parking lot onto Hollywood and by the time they crest the small hill they going fairly fast and continue to do so. A stop sign at the end of the first block would really help in slowing traffic. -Danney |
04Jul10 From Girard Kinney
| __REVERSING 2-WAY STOPS and OTHER MATTERS == Please reply to <girard@kinneyarchitects.com> == To anyone in the neighborhood considering "reversing" stop signs in any intersections. In the 1950's, I lived over near Kinney Avenue. At that time, there was a two-way stop sign at the corner of Kinney & Hether. Someone decided that the intersection needed to continue to have a two-way stop sign, but that it needed to be reversed, so late one night it was reversed by city crews. Over the next few weeks there were many accidents, many near accidents and at least one fatality. Finally, the city figured out that when reversing stop signs, there must be a transition period, so they installed 2 more signs, making it a four-way stop sign for a few weeks or months; then went back to the reversed two-way stop signs. That worked OK, but eventually, they went back to 4 way stop signs there, because the amount of traffic on Kinney is about the same as that on Hether. I offer the following suggestions: 1. Every intersection in an urban neighborhood should have a traffic signal light, stop signs or yield signage. In other words, we should not have to rely on the more rural rule of "traffic on the right has the right-of'-way". So, the decision should simply be 'what is the best device at each intersection?' 2. At major intersections with lots of traffic both ways, there need to be traffic lights. I believe that we need traffic lights at 26th & Lafayette/Chicon, at one of the streets that cross Manor between Cherrywood and the Railroad Tracks (as Al Stowall has argued) and on 38th at LaFayette. We should not have to spend one cent of our traffic calming money for these lights; they are necessary for safety at these intersections. 3. Internally, there need to be stop signs or yield signs at all intersections. I personally prefer stop signs because I see folks ignore yield signs all the time- just last week a pickup barreled through the yield sign at Kern Ramble & 34th which I would have hit had it not been for pretty good reflexes and anti-lock brakes. My vote is for stop signs at all intersections. Again, I do not think traffic calming money should be spent on stop signs. Safe intersections is the responsibility of the city. 4. Four-way stop signs should be used only where there is a lot of traffic on BOTH streets. When they are used in situations where there is a great imbalance in the amount of traffic between the streets, folks on the more used street tend to run the stop sign, and the false sense of security they imply causes accidents rather than preventing them. 5. Use two-way stop signs, with the signs occurring on the street with less traffic. 6. Lobby separately for the stop signs- don't dilute our traffic-calming treasury for things the city should be doing anyway. 7. Use other devices than stop signs to calm traffic (humps, pillows, circles, chicanes, bulb-outs, speed indication signs, etc.). 8. Use humps, pillows and bulb-outs at locations where we want to encourage pedestrians to cross, NOT mid-block as is often done. For instance, I think that bulb-outs and/or humps (I am using this term to generically refer to whatever rise in the pavement are allowed at the moment) would be very logical along LaFayette at, say, Concordia, where four-way stop signs do not meet the criteria I have described above, but where it would be good to slow traffic AND accommodate pedestrian crossings. I think this criteria could apply to many streets in our neighborhood. 9. In general, I do NOT recommend traffic humps AND stop signs on the same street at an intersection. I know that some folks disagree with this; preferring a 'belt and suspenders' philosophy; i.e. if the stop sign doesn't work, the humps will; or that the humps will slow the traffic down, so that they will more likely then stop. My opinion is that the solution to people not stopping at stop signs is better enforcement and stiffer fines. Traffic calming should be reserved for the cars that have the right of way. 10. Humps can be effective at intersections with traffic lights (note here that I am referring to humps that would occur prior to the pedestrian crossing at the intersection- never IN the intersection). They are effective because they calm the traffic that has the green light, causing folks to slow down at the intersection even when they have the right of way. These are my thoughts, and since those of us who are not officially members of the Traffic Calming team are apparently encouraged NOT to attend the meetings, I hope that someone will convey my suggestions for whatever they may be worth. -Girard Kinney- |
04Jul9 From Marilyn Fenn
| TRAFFIC CALMING == Please reply to < yiotta@grandecom.net > == In response to the info that Gordon kindly posted from the Traffic Calming meeting, I have a few notes that add to or contradict slightly what you have posted. If I understood all that was said last night, then here's what I've got from my notes (someone correct me if I'm wrong, please): 1. We cannot put any more 4-way stop signs in the neighborhood, due to traffic volume regulations; apparently we have no other locations that meet the volume requirements. (We have 4-way stops at 32nd & ?; Lafayette & ?, and 38-1/2 & Cherrywood; 1 or 2 of those are legacy 4-ways, and most likely wouldn't rate getting a 4-way stop sign now; Gordon from the city offered to remove them; we said no). :-) 2. Though we discussed turning the stop sign at Hollywood and Concordia around, we then realized we have many requests to do that at Concordia and Werner, which also helps address a visibility problem there. If we were to turn them on both Hollywood and Werner (and Lafayette), then we'd probably cause more speeding problems on Concordia, as there would no longer be any E-W stop signs from the frontage road until after Lafayette. Therefore, I think we left it at turning the ones along Concordia at Werner (and Lafayette), but not Hollywood. 3. One further suggestion for low-cost traffic calming was to put in pedestrian crosswalks in a bunch of locations, and work on making the whole neighborhood more pedestrian friendly. That's one of the possible options the city folks may need to get back to us on. 4. We also realize that a lot of the traffic we have in our neighborhood is actually (drum roll, please)...US! Gordon from the city suggested that if we all make a little more effort to get to know our neighbors, we'd find that our neighbors who know us are less likely to speed past our houses. Since National Night Out is coming up, perhaps we should all make more of an effort to hold or attend block parties? And one personal observation from having attended these meetings -- whatever we do to calm traffic is likely to cause some of us or even all of us a bit more inconvenience in getting around our 'hood. Sometimes, the solution may be worse than the problem. Just my nickle... Marilyn |
04Jun14 From Chris Owan
| __NEW SETON SHUTTLE cuts through Cherrywood == Please reply to <Chris.Owan@ci.austin.tx.us> == Hey all, Last Monday, St. David's started leasing parking at the Park and Ride off of Manor Road that is also being used by Seton/Brackenridge. They started running regular shuttle buses between St. David's and the Parking Lot on Manor. Unfortunately, the are running the Shuttle route on 32nd Street through the neighborhood. They come all the way up 32nd Street from the I-35 Access road, then cut over to Manor on Walnut which is East of Cherrywood Rd. After seeing a Van drive rather fast in front of my house 3 times in about a 45 minute period, I saw a pattern developing which I didn't like. I contacted St. David's and left a message. Rick Yates returned my call last Friday and said he would discuss changing the route to use Manor Road instead of 32nd Street with the shuttle company. He seemed very understanding of my concern of have Shuttle Vans running in front of my house every 15 minutes. He felt it would not be a problem to change the route to use Manor Road. This morning before leaving for work, I saw their shuttle run by the house twice. I am going to assume that the word has not trickled down to the shuttle drives. I am bringing this up because this is one of my main concerns for Area E of the traffic calming project. People like to use E. 32nd and Walnut (and vice versa) as cut through to avoid the light at Cherrywood and Manor Road. The new St. David's Shuttle is consistent with the other cut through traffic we have that is not directly associated with the neighborhood. Thanks. |
Found a broken link? Having trouble with the site? Want to provide updated content? Contact your friendly, neighborhood System Administrator.