Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Texas > Austin
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 06-07-2017, 09:57 PM
 
7,991 posts, read 10,332,852 times
Reputation: 15003

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Austin97 View Post
the right answer is to remove all lights from 620 and 2222 and make high speed interchanges with 2222 and 620 (and with 71 and 183)

However the people on 620 and 2222 voted down turning 620 into an actual highway.

Now they want to encroach on the nature preserve.
When was that voted against? I don't recall ever voting on it. In fact, the plans I've heard of (granted, VERY long-term) have 620 being widened by a lane in each direction and overpasses added. I have no problem with that. But I will also admit that there are other intersections (183/360 for example) and roads (360) that are far more overdue for overpasses than 620 and should probably get them first, which is just a sad testimony to how poorly the city has handled the growth and traffic issues.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 06-08-2017, 05:11 AM
 
7,742 posts, read 15,044,929 times
Reputation: 4295
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarnivalGal View Post
When was that voted against? I don't recall ever voting on it. In fact, the plans I've heard of (granted, VERY long-term) have 620 being widened by a lane in each direction and overpasses added. I have no problem with that. But I will also admit that there are other intersections (183/360 for example) and roads (360) that are far more overdue for overpasses than 620 and should probably get them first, which is just a sad testimony to how poorly the city has handled the growth and traffic issues.
people on 360 voted against them too
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-08-2017, 08:24 AM
 
7,991 posts, read 10,332,852 times
Reputation: 15003
Quote:
Originally Posted by Austin97 View Post
people on 360 voted against them too
Yes, that I do know. But that was decades ago (I think). They are now going ahead with the original plans of adding overpasses on 360 (without a vote). Of course it won't be done for 20-25 years, but at least they're finally doing it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-08-2017, 08:26 AM
 
Location: Austin, TX
12,059 posts, read 13,790,915 times
Reputation: 7256
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarnivalGal View Post
When was that voted against? I don't recall ever voting on it. In fact, the plans I've heard of (granted, VERY long-term) have 620 being widened by a lane in each direction and overpasses added. I have no problem with that. But I will also admit that there are other intersections (183/360 for example) and roads (360) that are far more overdue for overpasses than 620 and should probably get them first, which is just a sad testimony to how poorly the city has handled the growth and traffic issues.
There will be a lane added on 620 from Quinlan to 2222 but there will not be any overpasses along 620. This lane add will occur in several years.

The most immediate improvement is a new light at 620/Steiner Ranch Blvd. They were supposed to start it in June, it's almost mid June and no work so far
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-08-2017, 08:58 AM
 
Location: Avery Ranch, Austin, TX
8,977 posts, read 17,454,123 times
Reputation: 4000
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarnivalGal View Post
Yes, that I do know. But that was decades ago (I think). They are now going ahead with the original plans of adding overpasses on 360 (without a vote). Of course it won't be done for 20-25 years, but at least they're finally doing it.
I'll just continue to avoid the area for a couple more decades, then. I travel through that stretch maybe twice a year as it is
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-08-2017, 09:24 AM
 
7,991 posts, read 10,332,852 times
Reputation: 15003
Quote:
Originally Posted by cBach View Post
There will be a lane added on 620 from Quinlan to 2222 but there will not be any overpasses along 620. This lane add will occur in several years.

The most immediate improvement is a new light at 620/Steiner Ranch Blvd. They were supposed to start it in June, it's almost mid June and no work so far
The improvements I saw plans for (either Four Points News or Statesman, can't remember) had the added lanes going past Anderson Mill. It also included overpasses. Granted, it was decades away...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-08-2017, 09:55 AM
 
2,602 posts, read 2,962,657 times
Reputation: 997
Quote:
Originally Posted by cBach View Post
If you look at the site plan, there is a bridge that will allow wildlife to get to the other side of the road (the wildlife will go under the bridge). My source is the Four Point News from June 7.
And if you look at the article, you will find out the real reason for the bridge isn't the wildlife, it's because "We would need to build a bridge over Bull Creek"


So it fails on two counts:

1) The wildlife won't know that they need to divert east 1/4 mile, go under a bridge, and then divert back. What, you expect them to read a sign?


2) A bridge will still interrupt the tree canopy (trees won't grow well under a bridge), which means the tract is cut off for the canopy-dwelling birds. Especially since the one spot where the break narrows from 100 feet to ~50 feet, is where there's less canopy naturally because there's a creek.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-08-2017, 10:11 AM
 
2,602 posts, read 2,962,657 times
Reputation: 997
Quote:
Originally Posted by cBach View Post
I can see both sides of the debate. I understand that the preserve is a habitat for some species and I appreciate that.

However, during the fire I realized that a place like Vandegrift could virtually get "cut off" from the rest of the city. The parking lots would probably serve as fire breaks where the firetrucks could fight the fire but it would prevent any evacuation and there would have to be a "stay in place" order.

I agree that they shouldn't have built Vandegrift where it is, but they did, and we cannot be responsible for any lives lost in the next fire, which we know will come in the next drought.
The "evacuation route" story is a canard, and not a very good one.

1. It's hard for me to envision any sort of emergency where shelter-in-place wouldn't be the preferred or only option. We don't have hurricanes to evacuate from (and evacuations from those frequently kill more people than they save, see Houston). In a tornado evacuating is the exact opposite of what you want to do. Even in active shooter situations I believe the current practice is to shelter in place. Otherwise you end up with a bunch of people running around and its hard to tell the perp from the victims. I don't believe its in a flood zone. Etc.

2. Proper evacuations are _hard_. They cause panic and confusion. When evacuating, how do you tell that you didn't leave anyone behind? Especially if you send people out on two routes. Where do you have people evacuate to, where do you collect them to make sure everyone made it out (gee, a high school campus seems ideal for that purpose)? If you let people evacuate on private vehicles*, people panic and traffic is a CF. How do you make sure people don't act stupid (and people frequently act stupid in an emergency) and head directly into danger.

3. What vehicles do you use to evacuate people? What do you do about all the kids that got dropped off and their parents are now halfway across town working? What about those that walked/biked to school? *Especially if you (as above) _don't_ let them use their private vehicles. Do you even have enough buses. If LISD is like what I grew up with, the MS and HS had staggered schedules and reused the same buses.

4. If a wildfire is so close as to pose an active danger to the HS, and is such a great danger that sheltering in place isn't preferred, who in their goddamned right mind is going to send people into the bloody forest? Even with the wide clearcutting they're proposing, they'd still be surrounded on both sides by fire (potentially, or the risk of the fire spreading to such). If wider 2222 is too dangerous, you're not going to risk a narrower road.


Better to spend some of that $17M on sprinklers for the HS, and a backup water supply.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-08-2017, 10:22 AM
 
7,991 posts, read 10,332,852 times
Reputation: 15003
Quote:
Originally Posted by Novacek View Post
The "evacuation route" story is a canard, and not a very good one.

1. It's hard for me to envision any sort of emergency where shelter-in-place wouldn't be the preferred or only option. We don't have hurricanes to evacuate from (and evacuations from those frequently kill more people than they save, see Houston). In a tornado evacuating is the exact opposite of what you want to do. Even in active shooter situations I believe the current practice is to shelter in place. Otherwise you end up with a bunch of people running around and its hard to tell the perp from the victims. I don't believe its in a flood zone. Etc.

2. Proper evacuations are _hard_. They cause panic and confusion. When evacuating, how do you tell that you didn't leave anyone behind? Especially if you send people out on two routes. Where do you have people evacuate to, where do you collect them to make sure everyone made it out (gee, a high school campus seems ideal for that purpose)? If you let people evacuate on private vehicles*, people panic and traffic is a CF. How do you make sure people don't act stupid (and people frequently act stupid in an emergency) and head directly into danger.

3. What vehicles do you use to evacuate people? What do you do about all the kids that got dropped off and their parents are now halfway across town working? What about those that walked/biked to school? *Especially if you (as above) _don't_ let them use their private vehicles. Do you even have enough buses. If LISD is like what I grew up with, the MS and HS had staggered schedules and reused the same buses.

4. If a wildfire is so close as to pose an active danger to the HS, and is such a great danger that sheltering in place isn't preferred, who in their goddamned right mind is going to send people into the bloody forest? Even with the wide clearcutting they're proposing, they'd still be surrounded on both sides by fire (potentially, or the risk of the fire spreading to such). If wider 2222 is too dangerous, you're not going to risk a narrower road.


Better to spend some of that $17M on sprinklers for the HS, and a backup water supply.
As someone who had to evacuate their home during the fires in 2011, this is not true. First responders are (and were) great about ordering evacuations while it was still safe. Shelter in place is is hardly a good plan for wildfires. The evacuation of Steiner went pretty smoothly. The traffic bottleneck was (ironically) at 620/River Place. Not only did you have the ordered evacuations from the fires south of 2222, but all traffic from the north had to be diverted onto 2222 as well. Police did a great job of directing traffic at that intersection, but it just couldn't handle the number of cars. Had there been a second road, traffic coming from the north could have been diverted onto it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-08-2017, 10:32 AM
 
2,602 posts, read 2,962,657 times
Reputation: 997
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarnivalGal View Post
As someone who had to evacuate their home during the fires in 2011, this is not true. First responders are (and were) great about ordering evacuations while it was still safe.
In which case, nobody would be "cut off" and a alternate road isn't needed.


And that evacuation was a different kind. That was the evacuation of private citizens, who were then on their own (nobody had to account for you afterwards).

If you're a school who has legal responsibility over minors, you can't just send them off on their merry way to wherever they want to go.


Quote:
Originally Posted by CarnivalGal View Post
Shelter in place is is hardly a good plan for wildfires.
It is when there's spots at the school campus a quarter mile from the treeline.

Seriously, can you not tell the difference between evacuating houses 20 feet from trees and a major clear-cut campus 1/2 mile wide(which again, hopefully has the sprinkler systems that individual houses probably should but don't)?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Settings
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2020 data
Loading data...

123
Hide US histogram


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Texas > Austin

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top