You are not logged in.
I'm working with my neighbors to try to prevent the City of Austin from closing Bruning Avenue, which is a street that runs from the intersection of 51st & Duval to Airport Blvd.
The city intends to install jersey barriers at both ends of this street, so it will only be accessible from the side streets (Evans and Martin) and both ends will be dead ends. Closing Bruning will interfere with Eastbound travel on 51st to Airport as well as Northbound Duval travel to Airport.
Isn't there a law or code that requires the city to avoid creating dead ends and culdesacs? I remember a discussion where this came up a few years back when a developer was going to build an apartment at the Texas Wildlife Training Facility off of Rowena. I couldn't find it in the forums, though. The developer wasn't going to abide by the grid plan by blocking travel on 50th street (http://www.austinchronicle.com/news/2008-05-16/625018/).
That's what I'm curious about. Is there an anti-culdesac code or law for Austin? Is it zoning?
Any pointers to resources regarding this transportation issue would be greatly appreciated.
thanks,
Seth
Offline
Talk to Dave Sullivan, the chair of the planning commission. He's been working on this issue for years. He and others tried to get an anti-cul-de-sac law in place but could not. The code only says that there must be at least two connections between subdivisions, one motor vehicle and one ped, and something about 1200-feet block length. But it sounds like you and your neighbors are doing everything you can to fight it. Keep it up. Even without strong code backup, it may be that through a neighborhood association resolution or talking to the right people at the city, you can change the closure.
Offline
Augenwinkel,
Thanks for the valuable advice. The Hyde Park Neighborhood Association actually just passed a resolution this week opposing the closure of Bruning Avenue.
Appreciatively,
Seth Johnson
Offline
Good lord, the gall. Your neighborhood FOUGHT AGAINST bike/ped connectivity in the case mentioned at the start of this thread - and now you want to use that argument in favor. Good luck.
Offline
One of the things that makes a neighborhood great is a collection of individuals with unique perspectives. Hence, during the original Rowena scuffle, you'll perhaps remember that I was one of many voices in support of pedestrian & bike access to that proposed development.
Seth
Offline
You've probably seen more info on this proposal since you first posted, but I might be able to provide more background info, since I was on the email thread that provided the recent impetus for the closure proposal.
I didn't have any appreciable time to participate in the discussion, but I recognized that bike/ped advocates were in on the discussion already. My major concern about closing the road would be to ensure that bicycle and pedestrian mobility would be maintained. In other words, if motor traffic were cut off, I would hope that bicycle and pedestrian traffic would still have access at the closed ends, à la a bike boulevard. I have indicated this preference to City Staff.
Offline
[ Generated in 0.016 seconds, 9 queries executed - Memory usage: 542.23 KiB (Peak: 542.85 KiB) ]