Archive
A little paint provides a DIY connection
_
Proceed with caution
A MyWHaT reader sent this image of a DIY bike lane on Bunker Hill Rd. in Acme Township.
The corner (map) is a particularly unfriendly one with high speeds, no shoulders, and blind spots further down the hill. Yet, Bunker Hill Rd. is the only connection from the TART Trail at the bottom of Bunker Hill and the Vasa Trail off of Bartlett Rd. In addition, the just over a half-mile stretch connects nearly a hundred homes to several local businesses (i.e. a hardware store, convenience store, post office) at the bottom.
From this vantage point, it looks pretty good.
It’s my first day back from a two-week trip, so that’s about all the comment I can muster. I gave up riding to the Vasa Trail from here long ago because of this section of Bunker Hill. I might have to take a spin to check this out.
What say you? Look good? Needed?
_
_
Disclaimer: Opinions expressed here are that of the author and do not represent the opinions of writers previously published here or any of the organizations, committees, commissions or other affiliation the authors may belong to, unless so stated.
Road diets: Add capacity and access for all
_
Slow gets more of us there faster
When the proverbial ‘they’ say a road diet or speed reduction will cause congestion or some other end-of-the-world-malady, remember this graph posted in a Better Cities post recently (BC). The graph depicts how traffic travelling 25-mph and under may actually increase the number of cars that travel per hour through an area.
VPHPL = Vehicles Per Hour Per Lane
Increased traffic for all users
Also to be considered, but that isn’t depicted in the graph above, is the impact a slower, more accessible street will have in increasing traffic volumes for people on foot and on bike. Increasing the safety, comfort and appeal of self-propelled transportation through an area has additional volume impacts that is seldom measured. But, the more an area can facilitate parking once and walking between businesses or all together choosing to reach the area by transit, foot or bike, those trips also represent an increase in traffic that likely wasn’t happening before.
Of course, there are other considerations, chief among them, as the author, Chuck Marohn points out, is intersection design, which is the key to traffic flow and capacity. If you have a botched-up intersection, the best street design leading into it is for all for not. To gain increased efficiency with slower speeds, the intersection, and the next, and the next are critical–keeping the intersections flowing–smoothly and slowly–is the goal.
Corridor diets
As Traverse City considers road diets on 8th and Garfield Ave (Corridor Study), two streets with higher than posted speeds, reducing lanes need to be understood as way to help ameliorate a major community concern–the discomfort and safety concerns caused by high speeds. The Federal Highway Administration lists road diets as proven safety countermeasure (FHWA) because road diets, in part, create a scenario where one car going the speed limit (25-mph) or below sets the pace for everyone behind them. With 4-lane stroads, like Traverse City’s worse streets (yes, you 8th Street!), the effective and perceived speed is currently set by the most aggressive drivers.
This phenomena was mentioned on MyWHaT back in 2010 concerning Traverse City’s Division St. (here and here ). Unfortunately, a road conversion won’t happen on Division St. anytime soon. MDOT is one of the most cautious DOTs in the country regarding road diets and traffic volumes (MI-GOV). MDOT doesn’t (or seldom does) recommend these road conversions with volumes over 10,000 ATD (Average Daily Traffic) or peak hour traffic counts over 1000 vehicles (I once heard MDOT’s minimum as 15,000 ATD, but I couldn’t find reference this morning). Other DOT minimums are higher; a minimum of 25,000-ATD (FHWA) is often referenced.
That said, there is flexibility to experiment on streets with larger volumes when the context is a mixed use, urban, under-performing corridor–and there exists the political will to do so. Even more so when those streets are local streets, under local control. Garfield Avenue (under 20,000-ATD) and 8th St.’s 1/2 mile four lane section (under 25,00023,000-ATD) pose challenges for road diets, but they are not stretches–it can be done and there have been successful road diets on much busier streets.*
In the future, we’ll write about the primary reason road diets need to be considered in Traverse City. It isn’t for solving traffic problems, it’s to help release the economic potential and value that these two corridors contain. Changing how the public streets running through our neighborhoods behave is critical to a stronger and more resilient localized community and that is something worth counting.
* Traffic counts on Traverse City Streets need to be understood as snapshots for one time period–typically one day–in one spot. The City admittedly lacks the resources for comprehensive data gathering and analysis. In addition, traffic counts remain only one piece of the equation.
__
Have a comment, concern, or consideration to share?
_
Disclaimer: Opinions expressed here are that of the author and do not represent the opinions of writers previously published here or any of the organizations, committees, commissions or other affiliation the authors may belong to, unless so stated.
Underwhelming corridor studies up for review
A community-supported blog, thank you.
Announcement: with some crank
Public input sought tonight on Traverse City’s Draft Corridor Framework Plans (PDF). The meeting will be held from 6-8 pm at the Traverse Area District Library.
I don’t have time to find much positive to say about the newly released corridor studies (PDF). At first glance, and I stress only a glance, it isn’t very promising. The trust is that this is only a first step. The reality is, it’s probably what we are stuck with. Nonetheless, there must be some positives in this study–right? I let you to find them.
If I lived in SoFo, I’d be upset, because the 14th St. right of way improvements aren’t promising…I don’t get it, it’s a 25-mph zone in a mixed use corridor…why encourage higher speeds with 14-ft lanes? The minimum lane width on an expressway is 12-ft! The excuse is to make it a shared lane. Foul ball!
14th St. is exactly the street that you put bike lanes on–it’s a major gateway route, already has congestion, people need access to businesses, and is now a place people avoid. The explanation says there isn’t room…bullyhats…40 ft of pavement is plenty. Suggestion: 6 foot bicycle lanes, 10 foot travel lanes and a 8 foot turning lane–that’s 40-ft. It would provide design befitting a bicycle friendly city, it would help keep motorized traffic below 30-mph, and it would relive congestion. And, it might actually be a place worth supporting.
To suggest that wider travel lanes make a street safer, for anyone, is dangerous by design.
Don’t even get me going on the cross-section of Garfield Ave….really? This is innovation?
What else is in this corridor plan? (PDF)
Again, tonight at 6pm at the Library. Or, contact the City Planner and Panning Commission.
Press Release from Planning Department:
Corridor Project Seeks Public Input
Presentation of Plans for Eighth St., Garfield Ave., Fourteenth St., East Front St. and West Front St.
Early this year, a Community Workshop was held to kickoff an improvement project for five key Traverse City corridors to help the City understand what it can do to help these streets flourish. Since then, City staff has been working closely with a team of consultants and a Project Steering Committee to prepare plans for improving these important corridors. Each corridor has been studied to identify and plan for a range of issues and opportunities for improvement including: traffic, circulation, biking and pedestrian orientation/safety, land use and development potential among others topics.
The draft plans for the five corridors – Garfield Ave., Eighth Street, Fourteenth Street, East Front St. and West Front St. – will be presented on Wednesday, October 17th from 6-8 p.m. at the Traverse Area District Library on Woodmere Ave. Public comment on the draft plans is welcome and needed to guide their final development.
Elizabeth Whelan is a Boardman Neighborhood resident and member of the Corridor Steering Committee. “The overall goal of the project is to find out what we can do to make these streets better – for residents, for businesses and for all those who use them to get around, whether by car, bike or foot. The Community Workshop generated many good ideas, but we really need people to look over and weigh in on these draft plans.”
The draft plans are the result of an 8 month study that included:
- An analysis of existing conditions on the corridors,
- 3 workshops gathering public input,
- A web-based community issues mapping and visual preference survey,
- A demographic and economic analysis.
The plans, once complete, will guide the City in making decisions concerning transportation, housing and physical improvements to the streets. More information can be found on the City’s web site www.ci.traverse-city.mi.us or by contacting City Planning at 231.922.4778.
_
_
Reminder: Please read the comments policy if you haven’t done so already. If you feel you need to rant against the world and raise numerous tangential issues while personally attacking individuals or organizations, consider creating your own blog and tracking back to MyWHaT. If it is of value, you will attract readers. Or, send me a message with all the rants you wish. Otherwise, healthy, friendly discussion is fully encouraged.
Blank Here
The many hats found along TC’s Division St.
A community-supported blog, thank you.
Yes, no, maybe so…
The last few weeks I’ve been asked several times, by several people, what I thought about Traverse City’s City Proposal 1 to dispose of a strip of parkland along Division St. My first response is to roll my eyes. Then change the subject. If they insist, they might get the 40 minute rant and even that is a truncated version
However I end up voting, I’ll be second guessing myself the moment I walk out the door. The UpNorthMedia discussion helped me realize that we are being asked to actually give a wider corridor to MDOT; once it is done it is done, albeit with a sunset clause and a future City Commission approval clause. The tension exists not with the parkland, but with the lack of strategy and shared vision around this corridor and this ballot initiative.
Can a flawed process be corrected mid-stride?
Objectives from last 3 years
It’s fine to say, “we all agree we want a safer street”, but the problem arises with the different interpretation of what a safer street means. Undoubtedly, that discussion will occur internally and externally. It will come from citizens pestering public officials and professionals who serve many masters, including their own engrained approach to designing roadways and public space. That’s to be expected.
What aggravates here is a version of that process already occurred over a three-year process, costing hundreds of hours of volunteer time, struggles to agree on some basic steps, and now we are being told this is a first step. To those involved, this is a recursive 15th mile marker in a marathon that never ends.
I’m first and foremost a citizen. I want to see a better community and I’m invested enough to work for that by seeking out diverse opinions, working through conflicts, informing myself, developing the necessary questions to move ideas into implementation, and honoring processes. That said, for argument’s sake, let me pretend that I can segregate my different mode choices into distinct personalities. I’m not a citizen, I’m a motorists, pedestrian, bicyclist, or a something else entirely. This is the myopic view of political process that attempts to put people in this “interested party” or that “interested party” and something I try to avoid. However, for the sake of argument, let me answer how I may view this ballot proposal at this time wearing those different hats.
- The Motorist: I’m all revved up about this proposal. The intersection with the most crashes and the intersection with the 10th most crashes in Traverse City are in this stretch. 14th & Division and 11th & Division crashes have conservatively cost those impacted, mostly people in cars, $3.5 million dollars in property damages and injuries over the last 3 1/2 years. This excludes the public cost of responding to them and the increase surveillance of them with each crash. And, despite the smoother surface, this corridor still gets my heart rate up every-time I drive it. With MDOT and the Chamber in support and willing to put time and staff time being involved, I can trust that the ultimate design will reduce some of that stress.
- The Pedestrian: I’m trippin’ over it. Finally, there’s something tangible to vote on and there seems to be momentum in providing me a refuge somewhere in this corridor to cross the street. The final design may or may not slow cars down, but I’ll have that refuge at an intersection or along the corridor to give me bit more control. I’m likely still not going to let my children or 80-year-old grandma cross on their own, but it looks like finally, something is going to be done to bridge the division. I hear I might even get a complete sidewalk network out of it.
- The Bicyclist: I’m coasting. MDOT has previously ruled out a road conversion that might consider a street with bike lanes. I’m curious about a similar street in Lansing where MDOT (LSJ) just put bike lanes on. That gives me some hope, but certainly not trust. I’m a bit frustrated that a focus on what the City of Traverse City can do in its own right of way, including parkland, has been put on hold as the community responds to this ballot proposal. That troubles me as a trailhead at the future Buffalo Ridge Trail connection, along the old railroad bed just south of 14th St., not only would serve me as a bicyclist, but would also assist to calm traffic by providing a place for activity along what is now avoided space. What’s in this for me? They aren’t even addressing the silly one way crossing at 7th St.
- The Transit Rider: I’m waiting; always waiting. Not sure where I fit in the plans. Central neighborhood continues to complain about me. MDOT doesn’t want me on Division St. and I don’t want to wait on Division St. Have you stood along there? It’s a hell hole. I still don’t have a convenient trip across town and I wonder what would happen if the time, energy, and money focused on engineering a solution was focused on increasing ridership. Could we not reduce the number of single occupant trips being taken to and from the hospital with a bit of investment? Wouldn’t this relieve some of the traffic?
Reality is more nuanced
Of course, the majority of us wear all of these hats and we simply want better streets across the City and the wider community. We want safe and convenient choices. We want added value to our community. Like the people living next to Division St., we want to go to bed without the house shaking. We want to pull out of our driveway without fear. We want to be able to use our front yard and the front room in our house.
Does this ballot proposal get us closer to any of that? I’m not certain it matters either way. On November 7th, whatever the result, there remains a lot of work to do. Regardless of the vote, there will be an opportunity for interested parties, hopefully those with a holistic approach, to participate in a process likely of their own creation. If you are concerned about Division St., I recommend that you not worry too much about the vote result. The result will only be one street sign guiding the process forward.
Yes or no, that’s up to you; informed by the many hats you wear. But, the end result of a better street that better serves the context of a neighborhood and an entry point to a city will not be determined by this vote. It will be determined more from the level of engagement you are willing to give to it over the next 10 years.
_
Related articles
- Crosstalk: The Division St. slowdown…potentially…maybe (mywheelsareturning.com)
- TC City Commission moves forward with Division St. ballot question (mywheelsareturning.com)
_
Reminder: Please read the comments policy if you haven’t done so already. If you feel you need to rant against the world and raise numerous tangential issues while personally attacking individuals or organizations, consider creating your own blog and tracking back to MyWHaT. If it is of value, you will attract readers. Or, send me a message with all the rants you wish. Otherwise, healthy, friendly discussion is fully encouraged.
Blank Here
Crosstalk: The Division St. slowdown…potentially…maybe
A community-supported blog, thank you.
UpNorthMedia Center’s series Crosstalk (UNM)this week is airing a discussion between Mayor Mike Estes and attorney Grant Parsons concerning the City Proposal to dispose of parkland along Division St. They don’t allow embedding, so if you’re interested click over and watch the 30 minute discussion.
I don’t have the time this morning to dig into the entire discussion. Both individuals raise some valid points, some points worth exploring, as well as a few points of dubious nature. It’s a friendly discussion, sparingly moderated.
One fundamental difference between the two men has little to do with the stroad of Division. Both of them recognize it as an under serving corridor to the community, although they do disagree about the role the City could play to actually control ever-increasing amount of cars on it. A lot of the discussion explores what the ballot measure actually achieves.
Parsons contends that as much as this ballot proposal was written to distance the City from a commitment to disposal of parkland, by the insertion of the condition that a future City Commission must approve the final plan, the language reads as “disposing” of parkland and thus requires 3/5ths vote, according to City charter. If it isn’t actually “disposing” of parkland, then what does it achieve? Is it an empty gesture by voters to, as he said, “show MDOT some love?” For him, there are too many unknowns to support the measure.
In response, the Mayor reiterates again and again that it is a future City Commission that will make the final decision and that this is the only opportunity we have improving the corridor. In order to get to that future point, he is asking voters to engage with MDOT and allow them the widened right of way to facilitate a planning and design process.
Again, the program is online and can be seen on TV on Oct. 11 and Oct. 12 at 8pm.
I’m withholding further commentary for the time being. However, I’m really interested in where MyWHaT readers are on the issue.
After last week’s League of Women’s Voters forum and further time to consider and discuss the issue in the community, do you have any major breakthroughs to share? Minor quibbles to unleash? Profound insights to take the discussion higher?
If so, please share.
Ballot Language
Public Records Concerning Division St.
- Approved Ballot Language for Nov. 2012 (Scbd)
- July 23rd Study Session Packet (Scribd)
- City to seek parkland along Division St. (Ticker)
- April 23, 2012 Commission Study Session (Resolution)
- 2010 Division St. Intiative Summary (Full screen)
- Division St. Presentation from April 26, 2010
- Traffic Modeling Results: 2010 Modern Roundabout Study (City Website)
- Division Street: Boulevard (Graphic)
_
Reminder: Please read the comments policy if you haven’t done so already. If you feel you need to rant against the world and raise numerous tangential issues while personally attacking individuals or organizations, consider creating your own blog and tracking back to MyWHaT. If it is of value, you will attract readers. Or, send me a message with all the rants you wish. Otherwise, healthy, friendly discussion is fully encouraged.
Blank Here
Breaking! Roads and streets don’t look the same
A community-supported blog, thank you.
Chuck Marohn‘s concept of a stroad is freely used here on MyWHaT. It is an elegant phrase giving a name to those public corridor’s built myopically to move motorized traffic despite the context of their surroundings and long-term needs of a community. Obviously, it is created by combining what the stroad behaves as, a road, and what it often pretends to be, a street. Traverse City is bordered by a series of them and bisected by one of the most blighted.
The blog, Stroad to Boulevard, posted an interesting idea on the stroad concept by comparing contrasting screen grabs from Google image results for “road” and for “street.” Interesting results.
The author nails it with this passage, followed by a passage from the US Federal Highway Agency supporting his point:
Designing a street to encourage high speeds (with multiple wide 12 foot, 3.6m, lanes, larger corner radii, full clear sides) is dangerous madness. But it is the standard design for collectors and arterials across North America, because traffic engineers believe more space means safer streets. Since more space means higher speeds, this is clearly false.
Yet, not just in Traverse City, but across the country engineers continue to propose wider, straighter, and, as a result, faster.
My request: Please stop, thank you.
_
NOTE: For those interested and feeling wonky, Chuck Marohn will be presenting at Michigan Municipal League’s Annual Convention in October.
_
Have a weekend!
Blank Here
Road ideas: Harder to kill than zombies
A community-supported blog, thank you.
Resurrections
#1
Garfield Township’s supervisor, Chuck Korn, throws it out there (Record Eagle). ”Everything about Hartman-Hammond makes sense except that everyone has bad feelings about it.“
Well, that, and the subsequent reports and findings that say the $20-$30 million price tag is a boondoggle, that traffic patterns don’t support it, and the subsequent sprawl it will induce was rejected. As well, money for the alternative is already in place (RE).
#2
Traverse City’s proposed West Boardman Lake Ave. (MW) is still bubbling under the surface. Apparently, City staff are still driving the Old Town By-pass towards a future implementation complete with shifting rationales. Yet, no added value to the community has been presented, no long-term relief for Cass St. vehicle miles per day has been shown, and no overwhelming support is present (PDF).
What guest contributor and Old Town resident Megan Olds wrote in Let’s Call a Spade a Spade (MW) back in March 2011, a response to a well attended BLA meeting, still stands true:
…I went to the meeting with the impression that scenarios were still being explored and that building the road was not a “given.” This is what the community was told at the last meeting about the proposed Boardman Lake Avenue project in February.
…
If the City is committed to building the road, then let’s implement a quality public input process to talk about placemaking in this neighborhood. Let’s talk about land use and natural resource protection and recreation and safety and aesthetics, and about the needs of the Avenue’s users and its neighbors. It felt like that’s where the organizers of last night’s meeting might have wanted the dialogue to go, but because the City’s commitment to build the road is not being stated clearly, people were not coming to the table to have that type of conversation.
The conceived vision 40 years ago had merit, subsequent years and changes in adjacent infill potential have altered the context that made BLA a valuable addition. A plan to expanded the grid would be welcome; what is being drawn up is an urban bypass–No thank you.
Visit City website for somewhat current information available on the West Boardman Lake Ave.
UPDATE: The above link also contains a link to the Draft Eighth Street Framework Plan, which among other things, gives a shout out to the BLAh.
Blank Here
You’d slow down if a bear was in the road, wouldn’t you?
A community-supported blog, thank you.
If I may, let me divert your attention to Charles Marohn’s latest at the blog Strong Towns:
Driving through some beautiful national parks last week it became clear to me. The description I’ve been looking for is, simply put, a park road. If you look at a park road, you will see something that, while engineered, is generally rather modest in its design and construction. They are built with the contour of the land, are designed for slow speed and low impact. While you would certainly have to deal with issues of stormwater and snow removal, my engineering instincts tell me that parks roads would generally be cheaper to construct and last just as long as the STROADS we build today.
…
Now park roads through suburbia won’t be lined with trees, wildlife and monuments, but there is no reason why this approach could not be immediately adapted to the construction, maintenance and retrofit of America’s financially unproductive places. The only resistance I envision (because residents of suburbia would generally prefer more modestly-sized streets, although they may balk at the longer drive times) is from engineers. They will, without justification, put forth the notion that park roads would be dangerous.
So how dangerous are park roads? I don’t know, but Yellowstone has over 3 million visitors per year and I would suspect that almost all arrive and travel by car. I found this article discussing bear attacks that had statistics suggesting fewer than three auto-related deaths per year.
From Roads, Streets, STROADS and Park Roads
Blank Here
What do we think about Division St.?
A community-supported blog, thank you.
UPDATED: 11AM to add a note of caution.
The results from the MyWHaT straw-poll are in!
In response to the question concerning the Division St./parkland ballot initiative – “if the election was today, how would you vote?”– MyWHaT readers pass the initiative 65% to 35%.*
Myself? I’m prepared to err on the side of yes. There are concerns about process, shortsightedness, narrow scope, lack of political will to declare a shared vision with teeth, pandering, alienation of key constituents, a lack of trust…faith…fortitude…abilities, and that it will unleash an army of zombies upon the city. Still, as of today, I’d vote yes.
In a future post, I may elaborate on some of these concerns, but for now, I’m content understanding that a majority–regardless of mode choice, simply want better access and improved quality of life throughout the community–Division St. included
[8-24, 10:30AM: Video removed by request]
* An online poll, on a niche blog, comes with a very large burlap bag of salt. Beer induced estimates put the accuracy for the greater community at a ± 10% to ± 30%. Meaning, at this moment, the ballot has a fifty-fifty chance of passing.
Blank Here
How many traffic deaths are acceptable…in your family?
A community-supported blog,thank you.
Zero fatalities
by MichiganDOT
Commendable and obvious goal, when put in the right perspective. Good work MDOT.
How does it happen? Education, enforcement, and good design are critical. Not just on highways, but on all of our streets. Focusing on safety for all modes. The goal everywhere should mimic the City of Chicago, which has embraced the zero deaths objective (Atlantic Cities) as well, clearly stating:
Eliminate all pedestrian, bicycle, and overall traffic crash fatalities within 10 years.
Unfortunately, locally our enforcement is all too forgiving. It is widely known that in the City 10-15-mph over the speed limit is not likely to be ticketed. Speed, put bluntly, kills and keeps people from expressing their right to public rights of way.
In today’s Record Eagle the area’s first speed camera is introduced. It is a feedback radar sign that displays the driver’s speed as they pass, but if they are over 15-mph over the speed limit it will snap a photo of the driver. Only over 15-mph–thank god safety comes first! (Note: the photos will not be used for anything anyway).
The leader in zero death policy is Sweden’s Vision Zero Initiative.
Go zero!
_
Have a weekend–stay alive.
