SkyscraperPage Forum

SkyscraperPage Forum (http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/index.php)
-   Austin (http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/forumdisplay.php?f=446)
-   -   Austin Off Topic (http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=213438)

KevinFromTexas Sep 27, 2014 12:54 AM

Austin Off Topic
 
http://www.kvue.com/story/news/local...alks/16287483/
Quote:

Austin City Council approves rainbow crosswalks

KVUE.com 6:21 p.m. CDT September 26, 2014

AUSTIN -- Downtown Austin just got a little more colorful.

On Sept. 25, 2014 the Austin City Council passed a proposal for rainbow crosswalks on Bettie Naylor and 4th street.
https://fbcdn-sphotos-e-a.akamaihd.n...80354463_o.jpg
https://www.facebook.com/austinpride...type=3&theater

The ATX Sep 27, 2014 1:56 AM

:nyancat:

airwx Sep 27, 2014 2:22 AM

Maybe these will be vibrant enough to stop people from driving into the crosswalks when they are waiting for the lights to change!

DoubleC Sep 27, 2014 3:06 AM

Lol, I feel like somebody or some group is going to complain about the sidewalks, if you know what I mean? It's just a rainbow sidewalk...

wwmiv Sep 27, 2014 3:12 AM

So will these crosswalks be on every intersection between Congress and Rio Grande, then? For those that aren't aware, Bettie Naylor is 4th between Congress and Rio Grande. It's a coterminous designation.

LoneStarMike Sep 27, 2014 12:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wwmiv (Post 6745629)
So will these crosswalks be on every intersection between Congress and Rio Grande, then?

No, not according to the Austin American-Statesman:

The City Council

Quote:

Agreed to start discussions about installing permanent rainbow crosswalks on Bettie Naylor Street (a gay-friendly area) at the Lavaca Street and Colorado Street intersections, to show support for the LGBT community and serve as a tourist attraction.

lzppjb Sep 27, 2014 6:28 PM

Looks tacky.

The ATX Sep 27, 2014 8:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lzppjb (Post 6746078)
Looks tacky.

I agree. But superficial symbolism is important in liberal cities. So I won't complain since it really won't cost much.

wwmiv Sep 27, 2014 9:10 PM

I'm gay, just fyi, so tread carefully about what you call tacky.

Digatisdi Sep 27, 2014 9:48 PM

I'm gay as well, and I'm definitely happy with this proposal, especially given the alternate name of 4th. I feel like depending on the design it could look pretty good and definitely serve as a good conceptual anchor of that area. Maybe it'll stop people trying to open bars and clubs in the area that periodically deny entry to people who "look gay"

tie_guy Sep 27, 2014 11:00 PM

Also gay here and I really like it as well. Hopefully it's further planned to look a little more artsy, but I feel like it'll definitely contribute to the overall vibe of 4th St. I first was this in Vancouver and thought it was so neat! Almost an attraction as I saw plenty of folks taking pictures of the streets and the like. Go Austin!

Austinite101 Sep 27, 2014 11:07 PM

I'm bisexual and happy with this. I didn't realize how many LGBT forumers there were on here.

But that aside, I think the rainbow crosswalks will project the sort of openness about Austin overall that you don't have to be LBGT to appreciate. I support this and I'm surprised this hasn't already been installed.

KevinFromTexas Sep 28, 2014 2:12 AM

So, I doubt there is, but I'll go ahead ask anyway. Is there any truth to what this article says about the new light rail lines cannibalizing car lanes, or is it just anti-growth/urban rail transportation misinformation to scare people away from it? Honest question.

Particularly suspicious, is the 72 foot number the article states is necessary to accommodate the northbound and southbound "26 foot wide" tracks, and the additional 20 feet for station platforms. I really doubt the rail corridor really needs to be that wide. Most of the downtown east/west streets only have right-of-ways that are 80 feet. The widest streets are a max of 120 feet, such as Congress.

http://www.mystatesman.com/news/news....257273.735503
Quote:

How an urban rail line could affect car lanes, parking in Austin

Posted: 12:00 a.m. Saturday, Sept. 27, 2014

By Ben Wear - American-Statesman Staff

Installing two sets of light rail tracks over 9.5 miles through the heart of town, with the hope of taking some cars off the city’s clogged roads, will cost Austinites something more than the $600 million the city is seeking in the Nov. 4 bond election.

It will also cost them automobile lanes and hundreds of parking spaces in the city’s core.

KevinFromTexas Sep 28, 2014 2:24 AM

By the way, Willie Nelson Boulevard obviously needs green crosswalks. ;)

And I had never heard of that Bettie Naylor designation for 4th Street. It looks like I'll have to go read some more. :)

Meagan0803 Sep 28, 2014 2:54 AM

I love this!!! I am not gay but a huge LGBT rights advocate. So proud of Austin!

ahealy Sep 28, 2014 3:53 AM

Woo hooo! and....I am gay as well (for those who can't tell from my avatar).

:cheers:

pscajunguy Sep 28, 2014 6:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ahealy (Post 6746521)
Woo hooo! and....I am gay as well (for those who can't tell from my avatar).

:cheers:

I'll bet that Waller Place had better'd build something good now that your old hangout is a memory of the past! By the way, is the new one OK?:???:

electricron Sep 28, 2014 6:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KevinFromTexas (Post 6746432)
So, I doubt there is, but I'll go ahead ask anyway. Is there any truth to what this article says about the new light rail lines cannibalizing car lanes, or is it just anti-growth/urban rail transportation misinformation to scare people away from it? Honest question.

Particularly suspicious, is the 72 foot number the article states is necessary to accommodate the northbound and southbound "26 foot wide" tracks, and the additional 20 feet for station platforms. I really doubt the rail corridor really needs to be that wide. Most of the downtown east/west streets only have right-of-ways that are 80 feet. The widest streets are a max of 120 feet, such as Congress.

http://www.mystatesman.com/news/news....257273.735503

It's not 72 feet out of 80 feet. It'll only be a maximum of 46 feet out of 80 feet.
The 26 feet mentioned was the total for both north and south tracks, not individually. The 20 feet for the platforms doesn't necessarily have to come from existing traffic lanes, it could come from sidewalk areas outside the street's curbs. So it could be as low as just 26 feet from the existing street, leaving potentially 54 feet remaining out of the 80 feet wide streets. At speeds of 30 -35 mph, 10 feet wide lanes are safe, so 5 lanes can be made from the remaining 54 feet. But even with side platforms, modern transit systems today prefer bulbs at platform locations, in place of parking spaces which reduces street widths 10 feet or so (a lane). You don't have to place the north and south side platforms exactly opposite one another, therefore at the platform you will have 4 lanes of traffic instead of 5 - with 5 lanes where there aren't any platforms.

Additionally, most streetcars and light rail vehicles are less than 10 feet wide, the extra 3 feet per track is to accommodate a 1.5 feet clearance for safety on both sides of a vehicle - especially in curves where a vehicle requires a larger footprint and therefore a larger clearance.

Streetcars don't have to have dedicated lanes that light rail trains usually require. They can share lanes with other traffic. Never-the-less, dedicated lanes for streetcars and light rail vehicles is usually safer, and allows for slightly faster transit speeds - especially when transit trains follow and stop at traffic signals by ensuring the trains make the lights on the first cycle.

MichaelB Sep 28, 2014 2:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ahealy (Post 6746521)
Woo hooo! and....I am gay as well (for those who can't tell from my avatar).

:cheers:

you don't say? ;) ..... well, I guess that means I must be too! LOL!

Yeah, there might have been more tasteful ways to do it. But what the hell. Not sure how well it will wear before it's a "dirty rainbow"....... but again.... what the hell.... I guess that has it's own metaphor as well! LOL!

I think the best part is the ( indirect) acknowledgement that it was the gay bars that started the revival of the warehouse district when few others wanted to go there.... Save the one African American bar called "Fire and Ice" that actually pre-dated Oil Cans.... and the small theatre ( Capitol City Playhouse) that was where "Fado" is now.
A brief History FYI. in the mid 80s. "Franks" was the "Boat house". The space accross the street that was most recently "kiss and fly" was "Halls" ( the 80s glass brick that just came down was part of the original "Halls" re-do. There was another gay bar that was next to the former "SIX". All of these predated Oil Cans.... and the bars spaces we see today.
The other FYI: 7th and Red River was the other "gay bar district". The original "Chain Drive" was in the "side bar" space. "THe Crossing" was in "Barbarella". Halcyon was one of the first gay dance clubs in Austin in the 70s. (don;t know the name.. A former lighting design professor of mine at UT told me of doing the light system there and when they went in there were still small rooms in the Attic from it's bordello days!) There were also bars in the "Plush" and "red 7" spaces.... and I'm sure I'm forgetting some.!

lzppjb Sep 28, 2014 4:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wwmiv (Post 6746211)
I'm gay, just fyi, so tread carefully about what you call tacky.

lol ok? I can have my opinion that it's tacky.


All times are GMT. The time now is 2:03 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.