MyWHaT

____

Recently on Henry Morgenstein’s “Essays”, he calls attention to the planning truth that goeth unspoken: the power of a healthy grid of streets.

If you have a grid of ten street by ten streets – you can all envision that – if you seek to go by car from one corner of the ten street grid to the other far corner, there are 184,000 possible ways to do that.  You heard correctly, 184,000 ways to get from point A to point B.”

He continues, applying the analogy to Traverse City.

The point of all this?  If you make one major road — the Old Town by pass for instance — they’ll all come roaring down that wide & welcoming way — and it will soon be stinky, clogged, overcrowded, noisy….

But if you leave the situation alone, some will come down tenth, some will go down seventh, some will take State, others Cass, others union.”

Traverse City residents and fearful fearless leaders have heard this here before … and here (MW). The lesson repeated over and over and over and over is: maximize your grid while treating all your streets as livable streets (StreetFilms). Do it responsibly, of course. Slow our 2-3 ton beasts down and stop investing in ”car cannons”– those arterial speed zones that border and divide the community. The attempt to “solve” our traffic problem with more arterials is insane in the full Einsteinian sense of the word.

To flip the approach, start thinking about people cannons (MW).

Henry concludes with a call for sanity. Balance.

For at least the next 20 years, let us focus all our resources on making towns navigable by foot, by car, by trolley, by bus, by train, by tram.  It is not so much that we will ban cars as that we will make the alternatives enticing, fun, inexpensive, readily available, safe & warm.  Everything that cars are now.

_

Of course, isn't this how we arrived at our current problems?

_

Thoughts?

-

_

Contributions greatly appreciated.

__

__

Video Tuesday

via USEPAgov

Now, this is placemaking

Normal, IL’s Uptown Normal Roundabout project won the EPA’s Smart Growth Achievement Award for turning a solution to a traffic dilemma into something much, much, much more value added.

The Uptown Normal Roundabout project solved a complicated intersection, created a public plaza that has fostered economic vitality & increased social capital. In addition, the integrated stormwater system (Hoerrschaudt) naturally filters the runoff from the surrounding streetscapes and reuses it in the form of a water play feature and eventually to irrigate the adjacent landscaping.

This is a Complete Street project.  Complete + Green Street = Designed for People

Can you imagine this place with just concrete? Or, even just grass here with no people? It’s just, I mean, it’s boring.”

~ Mark Peterson City Manager of Normal, IL

Dear Decision Makers, Please take note. 

_

NOTE: Roundabouts in Traverse City? Still looking for leadership at the commission and staff level. They seem more interested in $3-million tunnels. The MyWHaT Modern Roundabout page continues to get hits, so someone is interested. 

Parking Calming: nobody is speeding down this street.

(…and, that is a beautiful thing)

On-street parking on Washington St., Traverse City. (photo GLHJR)

Traffic planners and engineers aren’t making this up, narrowing the streets with on-street parking slows drivers down. A combination of factors are at work: 1) when we drive through an area like the one shown above we feel a sense of enclosure and 2) because there is likely to be more human activity of people present as people get in and out of cars and then walk to their destination, we also slow down due to context.

In Traverse City, one of the major issues over the last 30 years has been cut-through and speeding traffic through the neighborhoods. The number of cars on the road is another long-term fix all together, but narrowing the streets with a sense of enclosure and getting more people walking and bicycling is the quickest solution to increasing the cost of driving through the neighborhoods.

A more strategic use of our streets, and other infrastructure, for parking is needed.

CAUTION: When bicycling next to parked cars, be safe: avoid the door. 

_

_

The content of this blog is well researched, but the writer could still be totally off his f***ing rocker–if you think so, let him know…then click through to make a contribution. 

Keep the Wheels Turning

Eliminating Parking Requirements

The difference of 500 or 100 ft.

Another change in Traverse City’s traffic control policies occurred on Monday night. The City Commission accepted a change to the parking requirement that required all new development or expansions to provide a minimum number of parking spaces if the property is located within 500 ft. of a public parking structure. The planning department originally was requesting a 1000 ft radius, but the politics of Central Neighborhood’s discomfort with overflow traffic reduced the coverage. This is unfortunate, because it creates a hole in the intended coverage downtown where a 3rd bookend parking deck is likely to be built on West Front St.

Eliminating parking requirements is something I support city-wide. Cities need not require any private parking and instead need to charge more market-based pricing to existing publicly provided parking facilities, including on-street parking. If a new business wants to build a surface lot, there should be mechanisms in place to discourage it. Currently, banks and investors drive a lot of parking requirements and a sure-fire way to counter that push is by making it less cost-effective to have a massive parking lot. Communities seem to not apply basic principles of real estate when comes to parking cars. Land dedicated to parking is wasted economic and social opportunity.

Neighborhood Streets and Parking

The morning after

The policy above makes sense, but during the discussion a lot of issues were raised about parking in the neighborhoods, namely that neighborhoods next to downtown carry a burden of over-flow commuter parking. I’m still not convinced that this is an issue. Access needn’t be a concern as the majority of homes have alley parking. The streets in our neighborhoods are generously wide enough to handle parking and two lanes of traffic (part of the reason we have speeding problems through the neighborhoods) and that extra paved surface space needs to be used or eliminated–ideally, the City does both. 

As written here before, I’m in support of narrowing as many streets as we can for benefits of safety, quality of the neighborhoods, improved water quality, and economic sustainability. The basics of the latter point is simple: less pavement=less investment.

I’m also in support of the City experimenting with 24/7 (overnight) residential parking. If the community can encourage more people to use their front entrance by parking there, we can achieve some street narrowing without huge infrastructure investment. We may also address some of the concerns about over-flow commuter parking, as then someone could, if they so chose, have first dibs on the public on-street parking in front of their residence. The details of the scheme could be worked out to discourage commuter parking as well as the parking of a fleet of cars by one owner. On May 23rd of this year, I sent a request to the traffic committee (an internal staff committee) to consider the possibilities. That email is below. I didn’t hear a reply other than that it would be discussed.

What do you think?

Would you like to park in front of your house over-night?

_ 

_ 

Makayla and the Traffic Committee,

I’m interested in seeing the City pursue a 24/7 parking permit program for our neighborhood streets. I think it may help achieve a better quality of life for city residents by:

• Providing a service to residents who might feel inconvenienced having to move their cars at night
• Providing more space for visitors who may visit city residents
• Providing traffic calming by narrowing streets and creation of chicane effects
• Providing a small, but useful, pot of money to re-invest into the neighborhoods in the form of sidewalks, traffic calming or park improvements.
• ???? (There may well be other benefits once we begin to explore the opportunity)

I suggest a scheme where residents may purchase “neighborhood investment permits” that allow for 24/7 parking on city streets. It isn’t mandatory and would target residents who like the idea of getting a small service in return for contributing to city improvements and who also support the use of on street parking to calm traffic. The cost need not be restrictive, but substantial enough to raise funds. The 1st permit could be priced at $50-$75 and a 2nd permit at $100-$150. A 3rd permit could be explored, and good be priced at $200 or higher. I think an annual or bi-annual permit both could be explored. Permits could also be an opportunity to engage citizens about the benefits of traffic calming.

Obviously, this is not intended for long-term storage of under-utilized cars, so regulations would need to be established to ensure that cars are moved regularly. This is easily done through the need for snowplows and street cleaning, like requiring certain days for the cars to be on one side or the other. Many cities that have heavy snowfall also have 24/7 on-street parking, so the right policy could easily be found. These are for neighborhood streets, so perfectly cleared streets need not be a priority.

I’d be interested in what your initial thoughts are. I’ve run the idea by a few of my neighbors who were supportive and they also said they’d likely purchase a permit if it wasn’t priced to high, $100 seems to be the highest anyone would go for the first car. Around 10 pm on many nights, you can see people walking out in their pajamas to pull their cars around the block and most of us have had the dreaded $15 dollar ticket on more than one occasion.

Thank you for considering this and let me know how I could help.

Gary

_

If you support this opportunity and/or have something to add, please let MyWHaT readers know. More importantly, let the City’s traffic committee know. You can send an email to the assistant to the city manager and the city planner at: “Makayla Vitous” <mvitous@ci.traverse-city.mi.us>, “Russ Soyring” <rsoyring@ci.traverse-city.mi.us>.

_

Proven fact: typos and grammatical errors decrease following  a contribution to the management and cause of this blog.  

Keep the Wheels Turning

Video Tuesday

via markenlei

Cut down the conflicts, minimize the ones remaining and improve the roadway experience for everyone involved.

Seems like sound advice for any number of intersections.

_

Here in Traverse City, we haven’t even attempted carrying a bike lane through the intersection. Almost every bike lane we have ends at a minimum 20 feet plus before the intersection and the one that does go to an intersection, on Woodmere at 8th St., bicyclists are pinched between a curb and turning automobiles with nowhere else to go…(advice: take the lane or cross as a pedestrian).

We can do better, the models are out there. 

mocked up Google Streetview of Woodmere Ave.

Last night, without excessive discussion, the Traverse City Commission approved to vote at the October 3, 2011 meeting to amend the TC Code of Ordinances to require vehicles to stop for pedestrians in marked crosswalks. The discussion that did take place was more concerned about the trunk lines running through the city that really aren’t likely to be impacted by this local ordinance; being state roadways, they require a complete other bag of tricks to impact safety and speeds; a bold city ordinance will only help that cause.

Commissioner Ralph Sofferdine did raise some interesting concerns about creating a “false sense of safety” for pedestrians without adequate pavement treatments for marked crosswalks. It is a legitimate point, but one that also needn’t stop this current city commission from enacting an ordinance that may be slightly ahead of our street designs, education programs and enforcement regime.

An in-street crosswalk sign in Frankfort, MI. For commissioners concerned about creating a "false sense of safety" with a stop at crosswalk ordinance, inexpensive and effective in-street signage is one tool appropriate to transition the city into the new expectation. In-street stop for ped signs would be useful in crosswalks like those at Front and Maple Streets, Front and Hall Streets and at the Oak Park crosswalk.

_

Establishing the expectation that when approaching a marked, un-signalized crosswalk and a pedestrian wishes to cross that we come to a complete stop is something that all of the 70 miles of local streets (most of which are 25-mph zones) could benefit from. It is one small step to altering the culture endemic in the community that streets are solely for the use and enjoyment of one mode of transportation. The ordinance will more clearly put the onus on the person in or on a vehicle to acquiesce to the people simply wishing to cross the road.

Consider emailing the City in support of a city-wide ordinance requiring complete stops at marked cross-walks when pedestrians present. They will likely pass the ordinance on Oct. 3rd, but it’d be silly to see it constrained to a small location or otherwise watered-down.

* In-street yield to pedestrian signs like that shown above have “proved to be very effective” in influencing motorists behavior. It stands to reason that in-street stop for pedestrian signs would do the same. In New Haven, CT an extensive safety program has shown positive results with the in-street signs as well.

“Public health authorities and traffic engineers have extensive data showing that in-street signs are highly effective at increasing pedestrian safety.”

Park It

Yesterday I pulled up to the Huntington Bank on West Front Street and was pleasantly surprised to find a bike rack. About 3 months ago, at the Munson Ave. branch, I had raised the issue of no bicycle parking to one of the tellers. She was instantly supportive and said she’d look up who is in charge of something like that for Traverse City. Not exactly certain it is connected, but it is still appreciated to see some response on the ground so quickly.

Evaluation: Good

As far as the evaluation, I say 3 points, for a “good” rating is fair considering the cheap, unsecured grill rack (0-pts) and the pronounced location next to the ATM and only a few feet from the entrance (total of 3-pts).

You may notice that The Haul is parked on the outside end of the rack. This is because one consistent problem with grill racks is that many tires don’t actually fit in the slots or in the base area. As well, on thinner wheels it may even bend the rims. In addition, if other bicycles are parked there  it can be a real hassle getting in and out. But, this is certainly a huge improvement from what was here before–nothing.  Say “thank you” if this happens to be your bank.

_

Evaluate for yourself

Graphic Friday

You can participate in the research findings at Place Pulse.

The project (Gizmodo) uses two contrasting images from Google Streetview and asks viewers to click on the image that “looks safer.” Other questions to explore, compare and contrast places that look “more unique” or “more upper class.”

From the introduction on the Place Pulse website, a project out of MIT’s Media Labs, you get a feel for the underlying concept:

Inside your mind, subconscious judgements about your surroundings are made in real time. Do you feel safe? Does the area you are in seem unique? Does it appear wealthy, clean or even energetic? You may not think about, let alone understand, what goes into making these anecdotal determinations, but when elicited, your opinions can be understood as part of a more substantial collective and used in powerful ways.

What do the initial views of the streets in the city where you live express? 

(Thanks for the heads up, C.D.)

A Thursday Crank

Complete Streets: Unfunded Mandate or Sound Economic Principle?

Ever since Complete Streets became part of state DOT policies (MI CS) there has been pushback. One push back involves funding. Here in Traverse City I’ve heard from local officials and city staff, as well as from representatives from the regional MDOT office that the state legislation passed last year is an “unfunded mandate.” Unfunded mandates are regulations enacted on an organization like a road agency, local government, or private entity for which no funding mechanism is put in place. This is not the case with Michigan’s Complete Streets policy.

For starters, there is no mandate; cities and road agencies are under no threat of punishment from the state if they ignore Public Act 134 (PDF) and Public Act 135 (PDF). If they can’t prove that they considered all road users adequately, they may, however, need to uncomfortably answer to their higher-ups; state lawmakers (YouTube), department heads (MI CS), or ultimately, the citizens of the communities where they are re-building/building roadways. Previous rebukes to incomplete streets already added extra costs to road projects even without the policy movement. I’ve wondered often how much money Traverse City wasted in staff time during the 8th St. kerfuffle. Much of it avoidable with a better planning and communication process. If anything, complete streets are performance based policies where, hopefully, money flows first to agencies enthusiastically building complete streets.

Secondly, although times are tough, road agencies continue to spend money on transportation amenities. What’s fundamental to implementing complete streets isn’t complicated engineering or miles of extra pavement, at the base level we can improve access for everyone with improved planning, communication and a realization that “people will be there.” It is a process of inclusive design principles that consider all legal users of the public right-of-way. In the context of the Traverse City region, where there are no express-ways, that covers the complete network of our roads, streets, trails, sidewalks, bus stops…

The Real Mandate

I don’t see Complete Streets as a new mandate. It is a principle that needed to have been part of the process for the last 40 years and wasn’t. Is it difficult for a system that was allowed to practically ignore people moving in any other fashion than an automobile to change its approach and perspective? Yes. Is it impossible? No. Transportation is already funded to the tune of tens of billions a year nationally (over $40 b through the federal highway administration alone) and it has disportionately been directed towards moving a single mode of transportation and thus limiting our choices at an increasingly unsustainable rate.

In the end, planning and implementing for all is ultimately sound economic policy. In communities where the complete right-of-way is designed for all users real estate  and property values rise (CEO for Cities), the roughly 30% of people who don’t have driver’s licences have improved access to jobs and shopping (CS), costly liabilities decrease (GG Wash) and social costs are lowered. This last investment was recently articulated nicely on Hingeline. The post addresses the real mandate, coming from the public-the need for transportation networks that provide safe, comfortable and equitable options:

When I think of Complete Streets I think of streets that are safe for everyone. And by making streets safer we lower what economists term externalities or “social costs”.

A street designed as complete will be safer for everyone resulting in a net economic gain to society.

In other words, what is a life worth? Not just to that person’s family and friends but to the economy as a whole? What are the economic benefits if lawsuits are kept out of the courts, insurance isn’t used, employees don’t miss work, first responders are available for other emergencies, and on and on?”

What are complete streets? Rory Neuner, who wears many hats in Lansing and the State of Michigan, including sitting on the state’s Complete Streets Advisory Council  (MDOT) recently spoke with Let’s Save Michigan concerning the current policy needs at the state level.

Bonus: if you live in Lansing, Neuner is also running for city council.

Park It (Where?)

__

Photo sent in by JB

In the new series on bicycle parking at area businesses, we have the first poor and ugly-a zero on the matrix-ouch. Jimmy John’s at the strip mall on Front St. has absolutely nothing in the way of bicycle parking. There isn’t even a pole near-by, let alone a bicycle rack.

In their defense, the entire strip mall is under the same condition. My guess, to make a change a request to the property owner needs to occur. Anyone know who that might be? The City’s tax parcel map reveals it to be the Shaw Investment Co. and a quick perusal of the web reveals little information.

My suggestion for the owner, as there is little space not devoted to cars here, use a parking spot in front of the Thai Cafe (next door) for  on street/parking lot bike rack. Or, a creative solution might be something less than perfect, but something, like they did at a Jimmy John’s in Grand Rapids shown in the picture to the right.

Again, below is a matrix for evaluating bicycle parking at businesses. Eventually, I’ll create a simple request form for people on bicycles to leave with businesses in need of bicycle parking. For now, we judge. And at Jimmy John’s, park at your own risk…luckily, they serve the fastest sandwich I’ve ever seen.

_

Related articles

• San Francisco Bike Parking Law: City May Require Businesses To Allow Bikes Inside (huffingtonpost.com)
• Bicycle Parking Lots (whatthedutch.wordpress.com)