Living Streets Program updates include new funding and street closure modifications

Dirty Sixth may be reopening to car traffic, but a growing number of neighborhoods across Austin are moving in the opposite direction thanks to the city’s Living Streets Program.

Back from its holiday break, City Council’s Mobility Committee took to the dais last week for an update on the program, which closes roads to through traffic to make way for those looking to walk, bike or roll in the company of fellow neighbors. Newly armed with a cool $1.5 million in federal grant funding, the future looks bright for the former experiment in recreational placemaking.

The Living Streets Program was initially conceived in 2020, when the claustrophobia of pandemic stay-home measures brought unprecedented waves of pedestrian and bike activity to Austin’s residential streets. In response, City Council launched its Healthy Streets initiative, using cones and A-frame signs to reroute car traffic and accommodate socially distanced recreation on a handful of blocks throughout the city.

The overwhelming popularity of Healthy Streets revealed an answer to more profound needs, and in 2021, Council opened applications for its new Living Streets Program, offering permits barring through traffic in neighborhoods across the city. Today, the program is thriving, emboldening the residents of its 37 participating streets to pursue their own right-of-way revolution.

“There is less traffic, and it’s slower. Dogs, bikers, strollers, neighbors in wheelchairs, more of them are out, and more often,” said South Austin Healthy Street organizer Kate Hainsworth. “We’ve hosted ice cream trucks in the summer, a Dia de los Muertos party and park volunteering events, with more people joining each time. … There’s now a weekly bike gang of 15 kids and a couple of dads who have dusted off their skateboards to ride around the circuit. … These are uncomplicated and low-stress ways to build community and chat with neighbors you’d otherwise hope to run into taking out the trash.”

Healthy Streets, like the one described by Hainsworth, are bookended by semi-permanent street closures that, while unenforced, generally discourage unnecessary through traffic. But the Living Streets Program also offers Play Streets, which enforce stricter closures for shorter durations up to three times per week. Both rely on permits granted for a six-month period and make exceptions for local traffic like delivery drivers and guests of residents.

While the program has been increasingly popular in North Central neighborhoods like Brentwood, North Loop and Wooten, program manager Matt Macioge says staffers are paying close attention to critics. While surveys show 19 percent of surrounding residents identify as “very opposed” to Healthy Streets, that number jumps to 35 percent for Play Streets. Macioge says the disparity is likely due to the logistical demands of Play Streets, which rely on resident volunteers to patrol traffic barriers during weekly closures.

“Take Kenbridge Drive, one of our Play Streets that chose not to renew its permit. It’s 1,000 linear feet, just slightly under a quarter mile from end to end,” Macioge said. “When you’re monitoring those gates at the end of the intersections, you cannot see the middle of the road where the children are playing, nor can you communicate with your other residents. As one of 17 houses who approved, every other week you are working this shift. And because of that it becomes really untenable.”

Macioge says his team is learning from these failures, eyeing shorter street lengths, cul-de-sacs and deadends among their options for more manageable closures. The team is also preparing to test out a brand-new design called “Activity Zones,” which will direct drivers through narrow gaps to significantly slow down through traffic without completely barring access.

Those interested in a Living Street in their own neighborhood can check out the city’s website for details. The next round of applications are due April 4.

The Austin Monitor’s work is made possible by donations from the community. Though our reporting covers donors from time to time, we are careful to keep business and editorial efforts separate while maintaining transparency. A complete list of donors is available here, and our code of ethics is explained here.