More medians....

23,025 Views | 183 Replies | Last: 2 mo ago by doubledog
MarineBQ04
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Look no further than your local city councils. The medians are done in conjunction with TxDot, but ultimately it is the local city councils that make the final decision.
CS78
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Can we get a group buy together on pink paint? Just start painting all the trouble spots pink until they at least fix the worst curbs?
woodiewood1
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I was told by a city manager of a small city in our region that the money for their medians and putting in curbs came from the stimulus money given in the 2 Trillion dollar Infrastructure stimulus bill. I thought it was for roads, rail, water systems, and bridges that were in disrepair and safety risk and not for new construction?

BiochemAg97
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
woodiewood1 said:

I was told by a city manager of a small city in our region that the money for their medians and putting in curbs came from the stimulus money given in the 2 Trillion dollar Infrastructure stimulus bill. I thought it was for roads, rail, water systems, and bridges that were in disrepair and safety risk and not for new construction?




Well medians and curbs are not new roads. Obviously someone made the argument that not having medians was a safety risk.

Ultimately this is because Congress just threw money around during the pandemic without any real controls/definition of what to do with it. Same issue with the more recent spending bill with all the money for transportation to reduce pollution. State of Texas was arguing more traffic lanes = less congestion = less pollution from cars sitting in traffic.

Tailgate88
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
B$Weigem said:

The extra wide sidewalks on. It's sides if William Joel Bryan effectively eliminate an entire traffic lane. Ridiculous!
https://wtaw.com/bryan-city-council-frustrations-over-narrower-driving-lanes-on-wjb-parkway-around-sue-haswell-park

Quote:

Bryan city council members share their frustration with city staff about narrower driving lanes being built on William Joel Bryan Parkway (WJB) around Sue Haswell Park.

The unscheduled conversation was an extension of the council's discussion during their January 9th workshop about whether to continue plans to add a center median on South College between Villa Maria and Carson.

City engineer Paul Kaspar cited studies showing the "traffic calming" benefit of narrower lanes.

Councilman James Edge and mayor Bobby Gutierrez said narrower lanes would make it more difficult for fire engines to respond to emergencies.

Kaspar said the 11 foot wide lanes would accommodate fire engines and large transit buses driving side by side.

Gutierrez, who lives in the WJB construction zone, expects when he pulls out of his driveway he will be stopping traffic in both lanes.

The WJB project also includes wider sidewalks that are called shared use paths. While councilman Paul Torres questioned the need for shared use paths, that was supported by Gutierrez and Edge.
BiochemAg97
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Shared use paths are intended to move bikes from street to path. I question if that actually works.

Adding bike lanes would have also narrowed the traffic lanes.
Tailgate88
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
BiochemAg97 said:

Shared use paths are intended to move bikes from street to path. I question if that actually works.

Adding bike lanes would have also narrowed the traffic lanes.
I presume that is safer for the bike riders so I'm not necessarily against it, but as Spock would say, the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. How many cars drive on WJB on a daily basis and how many bikes? It would be safer for bikes to use side streets that run parallel - that's what I would do if I was biking in that area. I'm fairly sure there are similar streets around town that have "No Bikes" signs because they are higher traffic streets. If they are that worried about bike traffic maybe they should establish bike routes like College Station has done.

I have not driven past there lately so I don't know how much narrower the lanes are in real life, but according the quote in the article above, they are wide enough that two big vehicles can travel next to each other so .... I guess that's wide enough.
BiochemAg97
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Tailgate88 said:

BiochemAg97 said:

Shared use paths are intended to move bikes from street to path. I question if that actually works.

Adding bike lanes would have also narrowed the traffic lanes.
I presume that is safer for the bike riders so I'm not necessarily against it, but as Spock would say, the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. How many cars drive on WJB on a daily basis and how many bikes? It would be safer for bikes to use side streets that run parallel - that's what I would do if I was biking in that area. I'm fairly sure there are similar streets around town that have "No Bikes" signs because they are higher traffic streets. If they are that worried about bike traffic maybe they should establish bike routes like College Station has done.

I have not driven past there lately so I don't know how much narrower the lanes are in real life, but according the quote in the article above, they are wide enough that two big vehicles can travel next to each other so .... I guess that's wide enough.


I have no idea if bike traffic is really a problem in that area, but I have seen enough projects making more bike/pedestrian friendly that I wonder if it is a requirement for some of the funding.

They said, shared use paths only work if bikes use them instead of road. And that will only happen if pedestrians stick to one side and provide a clear path for the bikes. I have seen them work great when done right. Part of that includes striping and signage so pedestrians walk on one side, and part of it is a continuous path that bikes can use.
CS78
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Tailgate88 said:



City engineer Paul Kaspar cited studies showing the "traffic calming" benefit of narrower lanes.

There it is. "Traffic calming" WTH is that? I knew these narrower lanes had to be someone's agenda. Drivers are inherently unsafe so let's just make the lanes actually unsafe to pressure drivers to slow down. You know what's unsafe? Accidents caused by drivers hitting medians at speed! This must be the dumbest idea in the history of traffic engineering.
BCSWguru
How long do you want to ignore this user?
We do not have enough east/west thoroughfares in BCS as it is and they decided to eliminate an entire lane each way out of downtown, where they are actively trying to build and increase activity. Brilliant, i tell ya!
Expert Analysis
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
BCSWguru said:

We do not have enough east/west thoroughfares in BCS as it is and they decided to eliminate an entire lane each way out of downtown, where they are actively trying to build and increase activity. Brilliant, i tell ya!
they are not eliminating any lanes
BluHorseShu
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
BCSWguru said:

We do not have enough east/west thoroughfares in BCS as it is and they decided to eliminate an entire lane each way out of downtown, where they are actively trying to build and increase activity. Brilliant, i tell ya!
We're long past being in desperate need of an east/west thorough fare. I'd have to recommend a monorail for the solution. Simpsons fans do your thing....
lawless89
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Really? Just drove that way tonight both directions and there seems to be zero chance that they can now fit two lanes in the space provided between the curbs. Looks like it'll fit one car lane and a bike lane at most.
MiMi
How long do you want to ignore this user?
S
Expert Analysis said:

BCSWguru said:

We do not have enough east/west thoroughfares in BCS as it is and they decided to eliminate an entire lane each way out of downtown, where they are actively trying to build and increase activity. Brilliant, i tell ya!
they are not eliminating any lanes

I drove WJB in that area a couple of days ago. It sure looks like they are eliminating a lane.
VAXMaster
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
CS78 said:

Tailgate88 said:



City engineer Paul Kaspar cited studies showing the "traffic calming" benefit of narrower lanes.

There it is. "Traffic calming" WTH is that? I knew these narrower lanes had to be someone's agenda. Drivers are inherently unsafe so let's just make the lanes actually unsafe to pressure drivers to slow down. You know what's unsafe? Accidents caused by drivers hitting medians at speed! This must be the dumbest idea in the history of traffic engineering.
Same mindset that brought about the 55mph speed limit in the 70s. Except narrow lanes are more subtle and no politician will ever campaign with a promise to repeal narrow lanes. Sometimes I think our traffic overlords don't really understand that their job isn't to maximize safety, it is to maximize travel efficiency within the envelope of acceptable risk. Otherwise just implement 5 mph governors on all motor vehicles, traffic deaths will plummet and studies will show this is an excellent policy. The economy would collapse, but that's someone else's problem.
RGRAg1/75
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
CS78 said:

Tailgate88 said:



City engineer Paul Kaspar cited studies showing the "traffic calming" benefit of narrower lanes.

There it is. "Traffic calming" WTH is that? I knew these narrower lanes had to be someone's agenda. Drivers are inherently unsafe so let's just make the lanes actually unsafe to pressure drivers to slow down. You know what's unsafe? Accidents caused by drivers hitting medians at speed! This must be the dumbest idea in the history of traffic engineering.

Someone heard something once and started repeating it because they think it makes them sound smart. No research put in to the origins or what the intend outcomes are.

Traffic calming is a traffic management approach that evolved in Europe and is now being implemented in many U.S. cities. The following definition is quoted from An Illustrated Guide to Traffic Calming by Hass Klau (1990):
"Traffic calming is a term that has emerged in Europe to describe a full range of methods to slow cars, but not necessarily ban them, as they move through commercial and residential neighborhoods. The benefit for pedestrians and bicyclists is that cars now drive at speeds that are safer and more compatible to walking and bicycling.
LOYAL AG
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
VAXMaster said:

CS78 said:

Tailgate88 said:



City engineer Paul Kaspar cited studies showing the "traffic calming" benefit of narrower lanes.

There it is. "Traffic calming" WTH is that? I knew these narrower lanes had to be someone's agenda. Drivers are inherently unsafe so let's just make the lanes actually unsafe to pressure drivers to slow down. You know what's unsafe? Accidents caused by drivers hitting medians at speed! This must be the dumbest idea in the history of traffic engineering.
Same mindset that brought about the 55mph speed limit in the 70s. Except narrow lanes are more subtle and no politician will ever campaign with a promise to repeal narrow lanes. Sometimes I think our traffic overlords don't really understand that their job isn't to maximize safety, it is to maximize travel efficiency within the envelope of acceptable risk. Otherwise just implement 5 mph governors on all motor vehicles, traffic deaths will plummet and studies will show this is an excellent policy. The economy would collapse, but that's someone else's problem.


I've always wondered what happened to traffic statistics when we went from 55 to 75+. Yes cars have gotten much safer in that time I still would have expected an increase in accidents if not fatalities. In other words faster roads leads to more accidents but safer cars means fewer deaths. Seems like there would be research on this but I've never seen it.
A fearful society is a compliant society. That's why Democrats and criminals prefer their victims to be unarmed. Gun Control is not about guns, it's about control.
BiochemAg97
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
LOYAL AG said:

VAXMaster said:

CS78 said:

Tailgate88 said:



City engineer Paul Kaspar cited studies showing the "traffic calming" benefit of narrower lanes.

There it is. "Traffic calming" WTH is that? I knew these narrower lanes had to be someone's agenda. Drivers are inherently unsafe so let's just make the lanes actually unsafe to pressure drivers to slow down. You know what's unsafe? Accidents caused by drivers hitting medians at speed! This must be the dumbest idea in the history of traffic engineering.
Same mindset that brought about the 55mph speed limit in the 70s. Except narrow lanes are more subtle and no politician will ever campaign with a promise to repeal narrow lanes. Sometimes I think our traffic overlords don't really understand that their job isn't to maximize safety, it is to maximize travel efficiency within the envelope of acceptable risk. Otherwise just implement 5 mph governors on all motor vehicles, traffic deaths will plummet and studies will show this is an excellent policy. The economy would collapse, but that's someone else's problem.


I've always wondered what happened to traffic statistics when we went from 55 to 75+. Yes cars have gotten much safer in that time I still would have expected an increase in accidents if not fatalities. In other words faster roads leads to more accidents but safer cars means fewer deaths. Seems like there would be research on this but I've never seen it.


As an interesting side note that is tangentially related, number of accidents went down but traffic fatalities increased during the pandemic when everyone stayed at home. Suddenly, there was no traffic from taking kids to school and driving to the office, no traffic jams to slow vehicles. Those that did travel, were traveling at a higher rate of speed so those accidents that did happen were more fatal.


Do we take from that traffic congestion is safer, even though more minor accidents will occur?
LOYAL AG
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
BiochemAg97 said:

LOYAL AG said:

VAXMaster said:

CS78 said:

Tailgate88 said:



City engineer Paul Kaspar cited studies showing the "traffic calming" benefit of narrower lanes.

There it is. "Traffic calming" WTH is that? I knew these narrower lanes had to be someone's agenda. Drivers are inherently unsafe so let's just make the lanes actually unsafe to pressure drivers to slow down. You know what's unsafe? Accidents caused by drivers hitting medians at speed! This must be the dumbest idea in the history of traffic engineering.
Same mindset that brought about the 55mph speed limit in the 70s. Except narrow lanes are more subtle and no politician will ever campaign with a promise to repeal narrow lanes. Sometimes I think our traffic overlords don't really understand that their job isn't to maximize safety, it is to maximize travel efficiency within the envelope of acceptable risk. Otherwise just implement 5 mph governors on all motor vehicles, traffic deaths will plummet and studies will show this is an excellent policy. The economy would collapse, but that's someone else's problem.


I've always wondered what happened to traffic statistics when we went from 55 to 75+. Yes cars have gotten much safer in that time I still would have expected an increase in accidents if not fatalities. In other words faster roads leads to more accidents but safer cars means fewer deaths. Seems like there would be research on this but I've never seen it.


As an interesting side note that is tangentially related, number of accidents went down but traffic fatalities increased during the pandemic when everyone stayed at home. Suddenly, there was no traffic from taking kids to school and driving to the office, no traffic jams to slow vehicles. Those that did travel, were traveling at a higher rate of speed so those accidents that did happen were more fatal.


Do we take from that traffic congestion is safer, even though more minor accidents will occur?


Hadn't heard that but it's not surprising. I think I have observed that people drive more aggressively around town these days than they did as recently as 5 years ago which seems to fit your post and makes me agree with your conclusion. I've also noticed traffic enforcement is exceedingly rare these days. Knock on wood I can't tell you the last time I saw a speed trap. I don't tend to speed much around town. Maybe 5 over give or take. I will consistently do as much as 10-15 over on highways and sometimes more but so is everyone else these days. Unless I'm in Houston then I find myself wondering if I will get to test the 130 mph governor.
A fearful society is a compliant society. That's why Democrats and criminals prefer their victims to be unarmed. Gun Control is not about guns, it's about control.
Tailgate88
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
I just drove WJB from the bypass to Coulter. No way a bus and a truck can drive next to each other. I am not even sure it is going to be two lanes.
angus55
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Everyone associated with COB, COSC, and TXDOT planning and engineering should be fired. It is ridiculous. They are making traffic, safety, and congestion worse, while killing business. They are squeezing down one of the main roads to downtown where they spent an buttload of money to revitalize. How stupid can a group be?
We'll win this war, but we'll win it only by fighting and by showing the Germans that we've got more guts than they have, or ever will have. We're not going to just shoot the sons-of-b******, were going to rip out their living G*******d guts and use them to grease the treads of our tanks. We're going to murder those lousy Hun c********** by the bushel-f****** basket. War is a bloody killing business. You've got to spill their blood or they will spill yours. Rip them up the belly. Shot them in the guts.
BCSWguru
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Tailgate88 said:

I just drove WJB from the bypass to Coulter. No way a bus and a truck can drive next to each other. I am not even sure it is going to be two lanes.
The drawings show two lanes but there's no way two trucks are going through there next to each other. Should have just added the Coulter stoplight and been done with it.
maroon barchetta
How long do you want to ignore this user?
LOYAL AG said:

BiochemAg97 said:

LOYAL AG said:

VAXMaster said:

CS78 said:

Tailgate88 said:



City engineer Paul Kaspar cited studies showing the "traffic calming" benefit of narrower lanes.

There it is. "Traffic calming" WTH is that? I knew these narrower lanes had to be someone's agenda. Drivers are inherently unsafe so let's just make the lanes actually unsafe to pressure drivers to slow down. You know what's unsafe? Accidents caused by drivers hitting medians at speed! This must be the dumbest idea in the history of traffic engineering.
Same mindset that brought about the 55mph speed limit in the 70s. Except narrow lanes are more subtle and no politician will ever campaign with a promise to repeal narrow lanes. Sometimes I think our traffic overlords don't really understand that their job isn't to maximize safety, it is to maximize travel efficiency within the envelope of acceptable risk. Otherwise just implement 5 mph governors on all motor vehicles, traffic deaths will plummet and studies will show this is an excellent policy. The economy would collapse, but that's someone else's problem.


I've always wondered what happened to traffic statistics when we went from 55 to 75+. Yes cars have gotten much safer in that time I still would have expected an increase in accidents if not fatalities. In other words faster roads leads to more accidents but safer cars means fewer deaths. Seems like there would be research on this but I've never seen it.


As an interesting side note that is tangentially related, number of accidents went down but traffic fatalities increased during the pandemic when everyone stayed at home. Suddenly, there was no traffic from taking kids to school and driving to the office, no traffic jams to slow vehicles. Those that did travel, were traveling at a higher rate of speed so those accidents that did happen were more fatal.


Do we take from that traffic congestion is safer, even though more minor accidents will occur?


Hadn't heard that but it's not surprising. I think I have observed that people drive more aggressively around town these days than they did as recently as 5 years ago which seems to fit your post and makes me agree with your conclusion. I've also noticed traffic enforcement is exceedingly rare these days. Knock on wood I can't tell you the last time I saw a speed trap. I don't tend to speed much around town. Maybe 5 over give or take. I will consistently do as much as 10-15 over on highways and sometimes more but so is everyone else these days. Unless I'm in Houston then I find myself wondering if I will get to test the 130 mph governor.


The pandemic fatality stats are things I've seen from multiple sources over the past couple of years.

Fewer miles driven by Americans. Fewer crashes. Higher percentage of fatalities with those crashes because the people that were driving on the less-crowded roads were doing so after binging the Fast and Furious movies during quarantine or something.
LOYAL AG
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
maroon barchetta said:

LOYAL AG said:

BiochemAg97 said:

LOYAL AG said:

VAXMaster said:

CS78 said:

Tailgate88 said:



City engineer Paul Kaspar cited studies showing the "traffic calming" benefit of narrower lanes.

There it is. "Traffic calming" WTH is that? I knew these narrower lanes had to be someone's agenda. Drivers are inherently unsafe so let's just make the lanes actually unsafe to pressure drivers to slow down. You know what's unsafe? Accidents caused by drivers hitting medians at speed! This must be the dumbest idea in the history of traffic engineering.
Same mindset that brought about the 55mph speed limit in the 70s. Except narrow lanes are more subtle and no politician will ever campaign with a promise to repeal narrow lanes. Sometimes I think our traffic overlords don't really understand that their job isn't to maximize safety, it is to maximize travel efficiency within the envelope of acceptable risk. Otherwise just implement 5 mph governors on all motor vehicles, traffic deaths will plummet and studies will show this is an excellent policy. The economy would collapse, but that's someone else's problem.


I've always wondered what happened to traffic statistics when we went from 55 to 75+. Yes cars have gotten much safer in that time I still would have expected an increase in accidents if not fatalities. In other words faster roads leads to more accidents but safer cars means fewer deaths. Seems like there would be research on this but I've never seen it.


As an interesting side note that is tangentially related, number of accidents went down but traffic fatalities increased during the pandemic when everyone stayed at home. Suddenly, there was no traffic from taking kids to school and driving to the office, no traffic jams to slow vehicles. Those that did travel, were traveling at a higher rate of speed so those accidents that did happen were more fatal.


Do we take from that traffic congestion is safer, even though more minor accidents will occur?


Hadn't heard that but it's not surprising. I think I have observed that people drive more aggressively around town these days than they did as recently as 5 years ago which seems to fit your post and makes me agree with your conclusion. I've also noticed traffic enforcement is exceedingly rare these days. Knock on wood I can't tell you the last time I saw a speed trap. I don't tend to speed much around town. Maybe 5 over give or take. I will consistently do as much as 10-15 over on highways and sometimes more but so is everyone else these days. Unless I'm in Houston then I find myself wondering if I will get to test the 130 mph governor.


The pandemic fatality stats are things I've seen from multiple sources over the past couple of years.

Fewer miles driven by Americans. Fewer crashes. Higher percentage of fatalities with those crashes because the people that were driving on the less-crowded roads were doing so after binging the Fast and Furious movies during quarantine or something.


That doesn't surprise me and I think your cause is spot on. lol

I recently watched a video about rare classic cars and some of them from the 40's and 50's had top speeds of 65-70. Now we have cars at "reasonable" price points that do 180+. I've always had a heavy foot and on the highways don't hesitate to do 90-95 if traffic allows for it. I get a bit nervous over about 100 these days. Not too long ago I was on 21 coming in from Caldwell and I was keeping up with a few students just for fun and we were doing 120+ for several miles. I drive a Hyundai Veloster turbo that's stiff as a board but they were in lifted pickups which can't possibly be stable at those speeds. I backed off after a few miles.
A fearful society is a compliant society. That's why Democrats and criminals prefer their victims to be unarmed. Gun Control is not about guns, it's about control.
BiochemAg97
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
LOYAL AG said:

BiochemAg97 said:

LOYAL AG said:

VAXMaster said:

CS78 said:

Tailgate88 said:



City engineer Paul Kaspar cited studies showing the "traffic calming" benefit of narrower lanes.

There it is. "Traffic calming" WTH is that? I knew these narrower lanes had to be someone's agenda. Drivers are inherently unsafe so let's just make the lanes actually unsafe to pressure drivers to slow down. You know what's unsafe? Accidents caused by drivers hitting medians at speed! This must be the dumbest idea in the history of traffic engineering.
Same mindset that brought about the 55mph speed limit in the 70s. Except narrow lanes are more subtle and no politician will ever campaign with a promise to repeal narrow lanes. Sometimes I think our traffic overlords don't really understand that their job isn't to maximize safety, it is to maximize travel efficiency within the envelope of acceptable risk. Otherwise just implement 5 mph governors on all motor vehicles, traffic deaths will plummet and studies will show this is an excellent policy. The economy would collapse, but that's someone else's problem.


I've always wondered what happened to traffic statistics when we went from 55 to 75+. Yes cars have gotten much safer in that time I still would have expected an increase in accidents if not fatalities. In other words faster roads leads to more accidents but safer cars means fewer deaths. Seems like there would be research on this but I've never seen it.


As an interesting side note that is tangentially related, number of accidents went down but traffic fatalities increased during the pandemic when everyone stayed at home. Suddenly, there was no traffic from taking kids to school and driving to the office, no traffic jams to slow vehicles. Those that did travel, were traveling at a higher rate of speed so those accidents that did happen were more fatal.


Do we take from that traffic congestion is safer, even though more minor accidents will occur?


Hadn't heard that but it's not surprising. I think I have observed that people drive more aggressively around town these days than they did as recently as 5 years ago which seems to fit your post and makes me agree with your conclusion. I've also noticed traffic enforcement is exceedingly rare these days. Knock on wood I can't tell you the last time I saw a speed trap. I don't tend to speed much around town. Maybe 5 over give or take. I will consistently do as much as 10-15 over on highways and sometimes more but so is everyone else these days. Unless I'm in Houston then I find myself wondering if I will get to test the 130 mph governor.


I saw another article where traffic fatalities in the US has been increasing in recent years after a long down trend, while continuing a down trend in Europe. Article attributed it to pedestrian hit by car mostly and US drivers more likely to be in their cell phone than European drivers. Thing is, even in the face of all the no texting while driving campaigns and laws, the deaths are still increasing. So while that would contribute for US being higher than Europe, I don't think it explains the trend very well. It also ignored pedestrians with cell phones walking into traffic.

The traffic calming might be an explanations.
Tailgate88
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG

turfman80
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
How calm were you?
doubledog
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Tailgate88 said:



I noticed that the sidewalk (bike path?) was almost as wide as the road (curb to paint). I knew Americans were getting fatter, but this is ridiculous.
RGRAg1/75
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
doubledog said:

Tailgate88 said:



I noticed that the sidewalk (bike path?) was almost as wide as the road (curb to paint). I knew Americans were getting fatter, but this is ridiculous.
It's idiotic. Same level of idiocy as not continuing the road widening along greens prairie past CGII.
maroon barchetta
How long do you want to ignore this user?
doubledog said:

Tailgate88 said:



I noticed that the sidewalk (bike path?) was almost as wide as the road (curb to paint). I knew Americans were getting fatter, but this is ridiculous.


Jokes on you.

Fat Americans don't use sidewalks. It's part of the reason they are fat.
trouble
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Some of us do. We're fat for other reasons.
techno-ag
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Tailgate88 said:



Easy prediction: traffic stacking up after 5 out of downtown will be even worse than before.
EBrazosAg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
South College is next ….. shared use path is government speak for "ridiculous wide sidewalks that won't be utilized ".

https://wtaw.com/bryan-city-council-agrees-to-pursue-a-federal-grant-that-includes-building-a-median-on-south-college/
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
BCSWguru
How long do you want to ignore this user?
got caught behind a semi today through that stretch. its going to be hilarious.
LOYAL AG
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
RGRAg1/75 said:

doubledog said:

Tailgate88 said:



I noticed that the sidewalk (bike path?) was almost as wide as the road (curb to paint). I knew Americans were getting fatter, but this is ridiculous.
It's idiotic. Same level of idiocy as not continuing the road widening along greens prairie past CGII.


This was incredibly annoying but the explanation is much different than whatever lunacy lead to what they're doing at WJB. Apparently when the city annexed Wellborn the annexation stopped at the north edge of that stretch Greens Prairie so when the city widened GP they contracted for the part they own and the county didn't have the funds to do their 1/10th of a mile. Since then the county has deeded that stretch to the city and for their part the city says it's on a 3 year plan. Lol
A fearful society is a compliant society. That's why Democrats and criminals prefer their victims to be unarmed. Gun Control is not about guns, it's about control.
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.