MyWHaT

Monday’s Quote

Without empathy, you will never have inclusion.

~ TC Mayor, Chris Bzdok, Sat. morning at Great Lakes Bioneers Conference.

This weekend he was on stage riffing about governance with Derek Bailey, Tribal Chairman of the Grand Traverse Band of Ottawa and Chippewa Indians. The two shared the stage for 30 minutes talking about the foundations of how they approach their different political roles. It was a refreshing discussion and I joked that it was a debate between what was more needed in government: compassion or empathy.

If there is a difference, we need both.

The mayor has recalled his remarks and posted them on the Plan for TC website. The video should be up in the next few weeks.

Monday Crank/Ramble

Last week I was in a meeting defending discussing a transportation element for Traverse City’s master plan. The process is part of the planning commission’s role to build-out last year’s passed, but rather vague, city master plan. There are nine elements, of which I’ve participated in two: transportation and parks & recreation. The master plan provides the City a framework and direction for the future, and is the key document representing the community’s values. It’s a big deal and a language is critical.

Effective Emotional Signage? Calling it what it is.

I’m not ready to talk about that; groups are still working. However, last week’s discussion got me thinking. It was reflective of the subtle meanings in language. Part of the transportation element is the Non-Motorized Transportation. Or, should I say, Human-Powered Transportation. Or, perhaps it’s Walking & Biking. Or, the Hop, Skip and Jump Transport. Or…well… needless to say, the header for this particular element was important and changed several times during our process. Our latest draft uses Active Transportation; I think.

It’s not a common term, but among planners and transportation geeks, Active Transportation is growing in use, particularly as it’s connected to combating growing health concerns. We chose it because it is the most inclusive and flexible for future uses, including funding potential. At the basis, it includes walking and bicycling, but is flexible enough to consider long-boards, kick bikes, wheelchairs, skis and kik-sleds.

Are You A Walker?

That discussion got me thinking about how we label users of different transportation choices. We often classify people into different groups as if their mobility choices define them. I’m guilty of it as much as anyone. Although when I use the term motorist, I’m typically referring to more than just people in cars. Rather, I use it to refer to the advocates of car-culture over other forms of transportation. Similar to how these motorists use cyclists as a tool to limit the perception to people who want to bike as simply lycra-clad speed riders.

Like most labels, the intention is to create narrow understanding and bias. In certain situations, that is precisely what is needed.  At other times, it reflects a laziness and becomes unnecessarily counter productive. I still cringe at some of the implied meanings of BATA riders during the transit center debate a few years back.

Would you notice?

Language isn’t neutral. We shouldn’t even try to change that, but we can be more intentional of the meanings our words imply. At times, it’s suitable to label someone or yourself to highlight a distinction. Part of the beauty of the human experience is proclaiming who we are and for what we stand. I’m a walker, hear me roar!

For public documents, however, we need to strive to be as inclusive as possible. And, as positive as possible; not as dull as possible. Beyond documents, we see this in our street signs.  For example, why do we need to use the term pedestrian? It seems so sterile and limited. “Stop for Pedestrians in Crosswalk” may be more effective if it said “Stop for Your Neighbors in Crosswalk“.

This post has gone farther than intended, hence calling it a ramble, but I want to wrap it up by referring to a recent post on Human Transit on this subject. That piece was itself a reflection on a Michael Druker’s similar post at the BLOG Psystenance. Frustrated by the limitations of previous labels, he suggests these changes:

• Old: pedestrians. New: people on foot, or people walking.
• Old: cyclists. New: people on bikes, or people cycling.
• Old: transit users. New: people on transit.
• Old: drivers or motorists. New: people in cars, or people driving.

As he explains, “sometimes we’re in cars, sometimes we’re on transit, sometimes we’re on bikes, and sometimes we’re on foot. But we’re all people, and our perspectives are much more similar than the facile modal categories lead us to believe.“

What are your thoughts? Do you feel constrained by mode labeling or empowered?

Traverse City planning commission meeting • Tonight, Wednesday Aug. 4, 2010 at 7PM in commission chambers, 2nd floor in the Governmental Center. Agenda (PDF)

___

Barlow and Centre St., looking south.

Barlow Street example

Barlow St. is a 2011 poster child for incomplete streets. It’s currently designed primarily  for automobile use despite a concentration of car-less residents living on and traveling through this part of town. It demonstrates a handful of head-scratching designs like adjacent sidewalks to nowhere, no sidewalks where social trails exist, narrow shoulders that are dangerous to walk and lack of any communication that people belong. It’s not the only incomplete street in the city, but it is a very telling example.

It’s confounding that this project was first conceived without people on foot in mind. This type of improvement shouldn’t even be up for debate. It was the planning commission that asked for it to be delayed (originally slated for 2010) and reconsidered as a more complete street.

2011 Street projects

It’s not the best time of the year to attend public meetings, but tonight’s Traverse City planning commission meeting may prove instructive. For the first time in most people’s memory, this volunteer board will be reviewing & advising staff, as well as the city commission, on how the following year’s planned street projects fulfill or fail to fulfill the master plan. They reviewed the 2010 street projects, but only after the 8th Street kerfuffle revealed a lack of attention to the master plan and empathy for different modes of travel.

(Click for larger view)

Tonight’s meeting is an attempt to not be caught off-guard like they were this past spring. The neighborhoods have been asking for more than just car-centered infrastructure for over a decade, at the least. There was considerable frustration when money was finally allocated for intensive street projects and sidewalks, bike lanes are other complete street facilities were all but forgotten.

After tonight, staff proposals & commitment for 2011 will be more clear.

Earlier in the year (June 15), the city commission and planning commission held a joint meeting where they toured these locations by bus. Tonight should reflect the discussions that occurred that night and in subsequent discussions.

The locations and original proposals from June 15 are:

1. Elmwood Ave. (north of Front St.): maintain current width, waterline and sewer improvements, poor sections of sidewalk fixed, new sidewalk east of Wayne on north side and a change at the Bay St. entrance to reduce high-speed corner taking.
2. Randolph St. (east of Elmwood Ave.): current dimensions, partial sewer replacement, sidewalk repairs.
3. Barlow St. (north of 8th St.): basically a mill and fill, sidewalk repairs. No additional improvements.
4. Barlow St. (between Centre and Carver St): Originally planned for 2010 without sidewalks.
5. Kelly St.(between Grant and Barlow St): pave it, new sewer. Sidewalks not included in proposal.
6. Shawnee St.(between Wenonah and E Bay Blvd): pave it and add curb. Sidewalks not included in proposal.

* All sidewalk ramps will be replaced or built to meet American Disability Act requirements.

A little citizen oversight

The 2010 street projects included some last-minute improvements thanks in part to the effort of the planning commission. Airport Access Rd., Hannah St. and even the 8th Street project all benefited from citizen oversight.  Airport Access now has a wider shoulder, the western most block of Hannah St. now has sidewalks on both sides and 8th Street at least has some improved crosswalks.

It can only be expected the same, or better, will occur with advanced diligence.

Have any suggestions for any of these streets?

More images from Barlow St. (south side)

In front of the Grand Traverse Area Community Living Apartments, looking south.

Standing at the Carver St. intersection, looking north.

Woman walking east on Centre St. No sidewalk, semi-busy traffic and heavy pedestrian traffic.Technically not on the list for 2011, but very similar to Kelly St. one block north.

Complete the streets!

City Commission Study Session: Traffic Calming

I couldn’t resist posting this short-clip from last week’s public comment at the city commission study session. The gentleman, Dennis Hansen from Okemos, was there to comment following Ian Lockwood’s traffic calming presentation. Note: I have no connection and did not suggest that he drive 8th Street to the meeting. He’s a complete free agent.

Roundabout concerns

Hansen primarily came to the meeting to share Michigan State University’s and Okemos’s experience with roundabouts. He was one of a handful there to warn against roundabouts. From his perspective, they haven’t lived up to their promise. On campus, they are having difficulties with blind or visually impaired pedestrians. This is a well recognized issue and one of the more legitimate concerns. It is also where improvements in roundabout construction is occurring with changes in design, texture, lights and audible warnings.

In his neighborhood, Okemos, the perception is that yield rates are low and apparently there have been incidents of motorists not being able to navigate properly. This includes a few who have just stopped in the middle of the roundabout. I wasn’t able to find any information regarding this, however, the Okemos roundabout is often used as a poster child in support of roundabouts. A disconnect exists.

Hansen’s complete comments on roundabouts:

Pattern of success vs. individual cases

It’s these types of experiential stories that the community must evaluate and weigh against the current situation and any proposed alternatives. Legitimate concerns need follow-up, and in most places solutions are available. We must first ask whether or not the roundabouts where people are experiencing difficulties are: 1) actually roundabouts, 2) properly designed, 3) they were introduced properly.

No traffic device is going to be perfect, but there are certainly better designed devices than others, including signalized intersections. Lockwood’s short response to Hansen’s, and other negative comments about roundabouts is instructive and worth a quick watch. In particular this idea that one poor performing roundabout is instructive of all roundabouts. We don’t seem to apply that standard to signalized intersections or other traffic devices, so why apply it to roundabouts?

The complete 2 hour +/- study session is online at the UpNorth Media Center. Lockwood’s presentation is included in that video. I’ll be highlighting the key points in the near future.

Lockwood was invited to Traverse City by the city and through assistance by a coalition of area organizations and agencies interested providing further education on roundabouts and traffic calming in general.  He also met with a group interested in continue to work on a solution to the Division St. corridor.

Am I the only one who doesn’t text message with my thumbs? Regardless of how you text, it’s now illegal to do it while under the influence of driving a motor vehicle. Heads-up, eyes on the road.

This video is part of the roll out of the “thumbs on the wheel” campaign. Starting July 1st, a $100 citation is possible for texting behind the wheel . A more likely scenario is that you crash into something.

Keep your heads up people, it could be worse.

Mode share on the rise

Have you noticed more people using active transportation to commute to work lately? If Northern Michigan is like the rest of the country, you’re not seeing things.

Since 2001, the number of trips taken by biking and walking has increased by 25%. This is short of the goal set by The National Biking and Walking Study that sought to double “the percentage of total trips made by bicycling and walking from 7.9% to 15.8% of all travel trips.” But it’s a start.

It should be noted, this study measures the dominate transportation mode used on a trip. One reason that walkability is so crucial is that even if someone drives, they will end up walking part of their trip. We are all pedestrians.

Beyond minimum standards

Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood is using the report to strengthen policy assertion that asks transportation agencies to go beyond minimum standards in  providing safe and convenient infrastructure for pedestrians and bicyclists.

“This report demonstrates what we’ve been saying here at the Department. Americans want and need safe alternatives to driving. And by making biking and walking safer and more accessible, we’ll be able to provide Americans with more choices and help foster more active, livable communities,” he said of the report.

The full report explains the objectives and methodology, and also describes the efforts underway that to increase the numbers of people choosing to walk or ride. Complete Streets,  Safe Routes to School, and the Livable & Sustainable Communities initiatives all get mentioned.

Good news; not great. Perhaps, the last 15 years can be considered the uphill climb of the journey.

Slow progress was made and now is time for a downhill cruise.

Guest writer: Bill Palladino

Part II

Yesterday was about why public meetings suck. Today’s follow-up is about how to make them better, or at the least how to judge them.

Here are my 10 rules for providing valued public participation in government/municipal meetings (a future post will have lists for nonprofit organization meetings).

1. Public meetings should be public. This definition shouldn’t stop with the bare minimum requirements of the public meetings act.  Public officials should seriously reach out to their constituents and find ways to invite them into the meetings as equal partners. Doing this consistently will, over time, create meetings where all sides of a conversation are represented rather than the usual knee-jerk turnouts strongly leaning towards one side on an issue.  In the long run this solution serves the public officials too.
2. Meeting rooms should be comfortable for both officials and the audience. Too many public meetings are held in stale windowless rooms, with the audience as a second-thought.  It’s almost as if they’re based on some centuries-old image of British Parliament.  The audience should feel comfortable and welcome, and they should be encouraged to participate.
3. Public officials should make efforts to connect with audience members prior to and/or after the meeting. Being elected to office does not give anyone the right to ignore the people who put them there.  In fact, it is just the opposite in a true democracy. But it’s a lot easier for individuals to make decisions in a vacuum when they separate themselves from their people.  Officials should not enter and exit public meeting rooms through some rear entrance that keeps them away from citizenry.  It’s a simple act that sends a big message.
4. The physical set-up of the room should not separate officials from audience members. Furthering numbers 2 and 3 above, the design of meeting chambers should not put huge distances between officials and audience members. Next time you’re at a public meeting sit in the front row. If the desks of officials are more than eight feet away, that distance can be used to disengage from the public. Ask yourself why the room is set up that way.
5. Audience members should be treated with respect and encouraged to participate. Some entities seem to treat public participation in meetings as a nuisance.  Officials show this through body language, tone of voice or other forms of acting out displeasure.

___

6-10 continued below

Click through for full version

6. Public comment sections should include opportunity for Q&A. Many public entities see the “public comment” section of meetings as a one-way soapbox.  This is fine, but there should also be space for the public to ask questions directly of their elected officials at the meeting.  Not providing such a space holds the danger of creating frustrated community members.  Finding ways to engage and fully validate those who come to public meetings is critical.
7. Attorneys should not be seated at the same table as public officials. In an effort to provide a legal framework and guidance to public officials, attorneys are often seated among them. This is a mistake. It sends a message to the public that the public body values the word of a hired lawyer over that of the citizenry. Let’s face it, attorneys can be intimidating. If they are seated with the convening group this creates another layer of defense that officials can hide behind. Attorneys are necessary, but certainly not in the foreground of public discourse.  They should be in the background, ready to contribute when necessary, but should otherwise not play a large role.
8. All public officials should contribute to the discussion. Leaders, especially those voted into office, should lead.  Often officials take a highly 
passive approach in public, barely speaking up about important items.  This isn’t leadership, 
it’s control masquerading as shyness. Elected officials should be expected to chime in on every issue of importance that comes across the table.  Why else are they there?
9. The public should have at their disposal information about issues brought up at each meeting. Public officials often bring up items on an agenda without allowing the public access to the same information they hold.  This is one of the oldest methods of weakening a democratic process… keeping people in the dark. Public officials simply need to help members of the public educate themselves regarding the issues at hand.
10. Notes and official minutes of the meeting should be available quickly after the meeting, and leadership should make a point of telling the public where to access these documents. Full transparency includes the opportunity for the public to view the official record 
of meetings in a timely manner.  Minutes are typically the official legal documentation of all actions in public meetings. It’s important to ensure they represent reality, and it’s the public’s responsibility to do so.

What do you think? Make sense? Have additional criteria to suggest?

The scorecard below is your chance to be the Olympic judge mentioned yesterday.

Download it and print one out the next time you go to a public meeting. After you fill it out, let the world know what you think of public process via the MyWHaT online scorecard.

Keep us posted.

Download your scorecard here (PDF)

Online scorecard can be found at: http://www.zoomerang.com/Survey/WEB22ALF6LABFL

___

Please subscribe to this BLOG’s feed and pass this link on to a friend.

Last night’s Division St. snooze coverage: IPR gets into the local road action (where were they for 8th Street?), the Record Eagle noticed the broad support for the roundabout plan and 7&4′s value? It’s all in the public commentary (people hear what they want to hear…or simply don’t listen). PlanforTC’s facebook page is another source of interesting commentary.

The PPT presentation from the consultants is also now public.

___

What’s there to say? It looks like Division Street will remain a blight on the city for the foreseeable future. To blame is poor leadership & lack of direction. From the vantage point of this arm-chair quarterback, it’s just hard to see anyone in a position of influence willing to step-up and make a decision.

Whose role is it to cut-through the clutter and make a proposal? The city manager? City staff? City commission? Some sort of coalition of power brokers in the city?

Nobody wants to take ownership. The lack of direction was evident last night as the proposals from URS lacked clarity and a strong recommendation.

The evening started with a proposed boulevard from 8 1/2 Street south to 14th street. This despite that a BLVD wasn’t mentioned at the March 17th public forum and was left on the floor during the charrette. Important elements in this concept are Michigan lefts, wider footprint through the corridor, and dual left turn lanes at 14th Street.

Although a BLVD would be slightly easier to cross on foot (refuge island in the middle), none of the additions are a solution to addressing speeds, noise & vibrations, or the remaining half of the corridor going north to the bay.

A boulevard along Division St. is an expensive half measure aimed at presenting an option to city commissioners lacking interest in the subject and as something that is ‘understood‘ by the public.

It’s seen as ‘doable‘ even though it solves little.

Roundabouts are a Local Solution

City staff & commissioners should have been more involved in the design charrettes and public forums for Division St and Grandview Parkway. As a result, the $50,000 +/- spent to obtain a corridor wide plan may be wasted due to uninformed, reactive decision makers.

The process worked as needed under the city’s adopted context sensitive solution design principles. Primary to this approach is active involvement of stakeholders to identify community needs & solutions. At the table for Division St. were over two dozen groups representing a diverse set of interests. To lead the process URS hired one of the top engineers in the country, Ian Lockwood, whose specialty is corridors just like Division St.

Out of that public and participatory process, a concept of a series of roundabouts (PDF) was proposed.

While improving flow and reducing congestion, the roundabout solution calms traffic, evenly improves accessibility for all users, reduces long-term costs, enhances the sense of place and reduces the opportunity for fatal crashes by a substantial amount. It’s short of a desired road diet and complete street, but it’s something that is livable.

An elegant comprise out of a well led public process.

Unfortunately, some of the decision makers in this city like to conveniently ignore informed public process & real data. Knee-jerk reactions to change are not new or specific to Traverse City. Also not unique to Traverse City is a reluctance to make bold moves.

I will continue to argue that we had better get over this reluctant hump or we will quickly lose our golden child status in the state of Michigan. We will be left with somewhat walkable sections of town isolated from one another and no sense of equity in how we are spending tax dollars. I’m all for amping-up the pressure…but where?

Who is in charge?

How do we get over this hump of half-measures and turn a plan into action?

To be continued….

• Roundabouts resource page: for those seeking an informed choice

___

If you see something you like, please subscribe to this BLOG’s feed and also pass this link on to a friend.

The leave-it-basically-as-is reconstruction project of 8th Street begins today. 8th Street from Garfield to Woodmere will be closed from April 12th to June 23rd (PDF).

The project remains a missed opportunity. Despite a huge public effort and an enormous amount of political capital spent, once finished, this short section will basically look much like it did on April 11th, with the inclusion of two shiny new turning lanes at Barlow.

We need to be clear, there was no compromise.

Citizens got wind of the project much too late. The mechanism for checking that street projects match the will of the neighborhoods (as expressed through 2 master plans, calls from neighborhood associations, countless public input) simply failed. For at least 20-25 years, the public has been asking that the design of 8th street be changed. It runs through the heart of the city and it is precisely because it is an important cross-town route that we need it to serve more than one function.

One small victory out of this might be that the planning commission moved to increase its oversight of road projects. Last week, thanks to their input, they received improvements on some 2010 projects and tonight the city commission will discuss one of them that requires considerable more expense to add curb, gutter, and sidewalks along Barlow Street. Barlow is one of the most heavily traveled by walkers and cyclists. As Mayor Bzdok explains on Plan for TC, this project is a crucial litmus test for the city in how seriously & equitably they will implement the master plan?

What is happening on 8th Street

Most of what the city requested in their last-minute attempt for 8th Street was declined by MDOT, with both the state agency and the FHWA pointing to each other as to why changes couldn’t be made. The city used two fingers to point at both of them as an excuse. The alternative concept was dismissed and, in particular, the response for bike lanes was basically the same egg-headed reply that there is a trail 2 blocks south. It seems more than a few people can’t quite grasp how adding bike lanes to 8th street is one small part of a greater vision to 1) encourage more active transportation 2) help implement the community vision for complete streets 3) encourage economic growth through this corridor. (This has all been nicely wrapped into song, included below).

What might be considered ‘improved‘ once the paint is dry:

• The cross-walks at Rose St. and at Garfield Ave.
• “Share the Road” signage (it is the law)
• Two pedestrian signs at Grant St.
  
• Some additional crosswalk elements at Fern and Prospect

None of this fits into what can be considered a serious attempt to create a complete street and so sooner, rather than later, this section and the rest of 8th Street will again require citizen attention. None of the above will serve to transform the complaints along this street of speeding, noise, and safety concerns.

While 8th Street moves plenty of motor vehicles, it can also be designed to encourage use by pedestrians and bicycle commuters. It can be designed to enhance the mix of uses along its corridor. It can be designed to be more than a thoroughfare.

In the future, it will be. But it will take a huge YIMBY effort…(Yes in my backyard)

And yes, there are still plenty of ‘8th Street: Walk it, Bike it, Drive it-slow‘ stickers available. We must use it how we intend it to be used if we are ever to reclaim it.

___

If you see something you like, please subscribe to this BLOG’s feed and also pass this link on to a friend.

Monday night’s study session included the revealing of the potential new design elements for the 2010 reconstruction of 8th Street, as well an update on the planning commission’s review of the 2010 street projects. The following day, the Record Eagle ran a misrepresentation of the issue titled, “Compromise reached on Eighth Street” that portrayed the issue over, leaving everyone happy, happy, happy…lithium doses anyone?

Who compromised with whom? The city and MDOT? MDOT and FHWA? The city and FHWA? The city and the neighborhoods?

From this vantage point, it appears that the city only achieved to further compromise & postpone implementing the values of those it represents. Those values are expressed in the last two master plans, the Grand Vision and countless neighborhood association meetings calling for traffic calming & livability improvements. And, yes, bike lanes.

But, apparently, those are not to be taken too seriously. As commissioner Mike Gillman made clear, “the master plan is not a religion. Priorities are priorities, not something we do just because we have this magic book to tell us what to do.”

Defining priorities

The majority of the current city commission do not grasp the priorities. They appear content on mediocrity and hodgepodging together maintenance projects to fulfill the status quo of moving & parking motorized vehicles. The city is spending over $1 million this year on street repair. A substantial amount that may or may not be spent annually in the coming years. On the 8th Street project, the city is spending roughly $400 thousand of its own money. Isn’t this a perfect opportunity to design it right?

No one was arguing to not complete the 8th Street project. It is primarily a sewer project that is apparently long overdue. The leadership of the city should have been more assertive in calming fears of residents & business owners along 8th street, while at the same time being more clear in giving staff the direction and language they wanted used to represent the community’s position regarding amending the original design.

They acquiesced. And, it appears they have failed.

The best traffic calming device remains people (and beagles). Our goal is to design a city that treats each street as a potential pedestrian and bicycle corridor.  How do we get the city to understand that this needs to be their goal as well?

People of all types are already using 8th Street as means for active transportation and many people have expressed that they would use it more if the infrastructure was provided. There isn’t a need for a network map to figure that out. Current design and engineering is still stuck in the mode of providing for the current function–not taking the reins and risks to build what we envision for the city. Hence, the chatter and scratching of heads at the governmental center (and the Vic McCarty show) around the question of “Where are these bicyclists? I don’t see them on 8th Street.“

If they could just get out of their cars and SUVs, they might.

We can help them see

I’ve been riding (and walking) 8th Street a lot since this blew up. I have to say, it hasn’t been that bad. For the most part, automobile drivers have been courteous, despite going 10-15 mph over the speed limit. It’s not a pleasure cruise, mind you, but it certainly allows me a direct, convenient route across town.

This corridor, from Garfield Ave. to Lake St., has a lot of potential. We’ve failed to grasp the opportunity this year, but those of us who envision a different 8th Street need to keep reminding the city staff and city commission (whoever is serving) that we want this debate. It’s a city street, running through a mixed use neighborhood. It CAN be designed to maintain current flows while encouraging more active transportation.

We can do this best by using it. Will you take a pledge with me?

I PLEDGE to bike or walk along 8th Street when possible & when I drive it, to be a pace car going 25MPH or less.

FYI: If you want someone to ride with on 8th St., let me know. Either myself or someone near can be there.

• Action Alert: Call to support allocation of $2 billion in competitive grants for Active Transportation •

__

If you see something you like, please subscribe to this BLOG’s feed and also pass this link on to a friend.