Sprawled Out: The Search for Community in the American Suburb

Roundabouts: Knowledge is economic power

A West Allis blogger recently weighed in regarding roundabouts. His opinions, unfortunately, are derived from nothing more substantial than a "gut feeling"; he lashes out against those darn "knowitalls" who are going to "screw up your businesses."

Read his blog entry yourself and assess the quality of his reasoning. You cannot assess the veracity of his data because, well, he doesn't provide any.

Which is good enough for one of his fellow community bloggers. Always entertaining is the trick of shrugging off mountains of data by equating empirical research and documented facts to "brochures and pamphlets and spin." Why expend intellectual muscle when you can chuck peanuts from the sideline?

"Data." "Research." "Careful study." "Endorsements by business groups." "Documented success in other communities." "Fact-based debate." These are the tools of those darn "knowitalls" who are going to "screw up your businesses."

"Supposition." "Gut feeling." "Fear of personal annoyance." "Poor math skills." "Colorful language." "Dogmatic partisanship." Ah, the tools of persons with a keyboard and access to the internet - - and little else to aid their position.

The West Allis blog entry, self-evident in its irrelevance and divorced from reality in favor of venting annoyance, is not worth the point-by-point dissection (in this case, evisceration) that a carefully reasoned argument would deserve. However, I wanted to answer here a couple questions for commenter "StubbornOldMan," because some technical shortcoming on the NOW blogs will not allow comments over a certain number of characters.

The questions "StubbornOldMan" came up with (even after claiming that he'd spent some time reading entries on this blog) were:

I have no personal axe to grind with you John, but you haven't answered either of the two questions I asked you.

1) What specific conditions would lend a particular interchange to be a poor candidate for a roundabout interchange? You hinted that there are defintely some. You're being just a tad bit too general in your criticisms for my objective mind.

2) If businesses lose income as a result of lower sales as a result of consumers going elsewhere, doesn't that automatically result in a less profitable business (consequently less tax revenue)?

Yes, I'm aware of the irony of "StubbornOldMan" demanding my specificity in the form of his grossly generalized questions. Let's see, however, if we can use this space to encourage specific questions about the dozens of specific issues surrounding roundabouts.

(An aside to "StubbornOldMan": Specific questions about specific issues - and specific criticisms of specific assertions I make or quote in this blog from other sources  - would indicate at least a minimal level of respect for the value of my time.)

I’ll answer the second question first: Yes. And the point of that question? Alas, a mystery. Is "StubbornOldMan" asking this on the basis the muddled blog entry he and I commented under? Does he believe that the "gut feeling" of one Michael James of West Allis ("roundabouts are bad for business," says Michael James) constitutes a sound platform from which to launch some manner of if-then connection?

To address question one, let’s first lay out some simple realities:

1. Roundabouts are not appropriate everywhere.
2. Worth repeating: Roundabouts are not appropriate everywhere.
3. And, once again, in case you missed it: Roundabouts are not appropriate everywhere.

Hence the saying: Knowledge is knowing a tomato is a fruit; wisdom is not putting it in a fruit salad.

Also, let's be more precise about "my criticisms." My argument is NOT "All roundabouts, all the time." My argument is: IF  careful study by the DOT brings a recommendation of roundabouts on 27th street, we should have the informed wisdom to exploit that to our advantage and not succumb to uninformed apprehensions.

What is important to note is that there are conditions that make roundabouts the far-and-away better choice in terms of safety, cost to build and maintain, convenience and commercial growth.

The blog entry we commented under - a blog entry based on zero facts, incorrect assumptions, a poor grasp of history and context, and a reliance on "gut feeling" - seems to deny that reality.

If I remain a “tad too general,” it's because, A) the data in three 4-inch thick three-ring binders gets a bit dense for non-engineers like myself and, one might suppose, “StubbornOldMan,”and B) "specifics conditions" are not at issue here other than to admit, as "StubbornOldMan" must if he is intellectually honest, that "specifics conditions" indeed exist and are measured by professionals.

To indulge "StubbornOldMan," here's a list of just a few of the factors - "specific conditions," if you will - the DOT weighs when measuring the appropriateness of a roundabout in a particular traffic environment. They look at the finished product in terms of:

• Entry Width
• Entry Flare
• Entry Angle
• Entry Radius
• Entry Deflection 
• Entry Path Curvature
• Entry Path Overlap
• Entry Speeds
• Fast Path Speeds
• Speed Consistency
• Sight Distance
• Exit Path Overlap
• Entry and Circulating Visibility
• Splitter Island Design
• Exit Lanes and Geometry
• Pedestrian Crossings/Crosswalks
• Maneuverability of Large Trucks
• Vertical Design Parameters

The ENTRY DEFLECTION is very important, for instance, as noted in the paper "Roundabout Studies in Kansas":

It must be stressed that the significant reductions in crashes and crash severity result from a well designed modern roundabout, with sufficient deflection to ensure low-speeds – no more than 30 to 40 km/hr. Also, the roadway environment or approach geometry (e.g. roadway curvature) should be such that drivers do not approach at high speeds. A study (Flannery, 2000) of crashes at modern roundabouts concluded that the main cause were approach geometry that allowed high-speed entry and lack of adequate deflection in the roundabout. Unfortunately, due to lack of clear cut guidelines and inexperienced designers, some new roundabouts in the USA are being built with little or no deflection.

That last line is very important.

If all of those (and much, much more) is found to be satisfactory, then roundabouts (properly engineered!) are recommended. If roundabouts are NOT recommended for 27th street by the DOT (which could still happen), then I would be first to agree with them. Tomatoes in fruit salad, remember?

But the bottom line is this:

After 20 years of careful study and data collection here and abroad, it has been shown to the satisfaction of state and national transportation officials, engineers, insurance companies (whose fortunes rise and fall on safety issues) and commercial organizations that properly engineered roundabouts in appropriate settings are far and away superior to traditional signaled intersections.

I’ll repeat a key phrase: “properly engineered roundabouts in appropriate settings.”

(DIGRESSION: I'll not insert here a long analysis of the difference between roundabouts and traffic circles that was flat out missed by a NOW commenter. Rather, I will direct "StubbornOldMan" to a website by the "knowitalls" at The Insurance Institute for Traffic Safety and a chart that conveys the information nicely.)

Then there's this from the voluminous file of "brochures and pamphlets and spin":

The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) performed a study titled Crash Reductions Following Installation of Roundabouts in the United States in 2000 on 24 U.S. intersections that had been converted both signalized intersections and stop-controlled intersections to modern roundabouts.  Similarly, the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) also completed a related study in 2002. The U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) also produced Roundabouts: An Information Guide in 2000 with safety statistics contained.  All of these studies revealed very consistent “before” and “after” results with respect to the safety of modern roundabouts compared to other types of stop controlled and signalized intersections. The following is a brief summary of these results with regard to the extent to which modern roundabout conversions improved the accident safety of the intersections: 

• 38 - 40% average reduction in all crash types
• 74 - 78% average decrease in injury accidents 
• 90% average decrease in fatalities or incapacitating injuries 
• 30 - 40% average decrease in pedestrian accidents (depending on the  roundabout location and existing pedestrian volumes)
• As much as a 75% reduction in delay where roundabouts replaced signals

These study results replicate other results of numerous studies conducted on roundabouts in Europe and Australia and provide quantitative evidence that the selection of a roundabout over the more conventional intersection geometrics and traffic control can have significantly positive traffic safety implications. 

- Source: High Speed Approaches at Roundabouts

But, are roundabouts good for business? This is a discussion I'm having as a member of the Franklin Economic Development Commission, and I can tell you that many of my fellow commissioners knew very little about roundabouts and their effects at the beginning of our discussion; they know a bit more now that I've corrected their stated misconceptions with documented facts.

So, "StubbornOldMan," I invite you to read a paper entitled, simply enough, "Are Roundabouts Good For Business?"

As a preview, the paper ends thusly:

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 
South Golden Road is a typical suburban strip commercial corridor. The installation of four roundabouts within this half-mile long arterial has resulted in slower speeds, but lower travel times and less delay at business access points. Accident rates have dropped by 88% and injury accidents have declined from 31 in the 3 years prior to installation to only 1 in the 4½ years after – a decline in injury accidents rates of 93%. The improvement in traffic flow, vehicular safety and access to businesses combined with amenities such as landscaped medians and pedestrian walkways has stimulated economic activity. Sales tax revenues have increased 60% since installation of the roundabouts and 75,000 square feet of retail/office space has been built.  In Golden, CO, businesses have said “Yes, roundabouts are good for business.” 

Is this section of road, though a close match. exactly like 27th street? Of course not. But you cannot help but be compelled by the similarities and the positive results.

And, "StubbornOldMan," as you read the paper (it's not very long, I promise), you will encounter data that contradicts in rapid succession the egregious (and, frankly, adolescent) suppositions made by the WestAllisNOWblog entry we commented under.

You may choose to ignore, "StubbornOldMan," these data and the fruit of the other studies also included. You may choose to ignore the fact that this particular paper is but the tip of the iceberg in terms of data gathered and studies conducted that conclude in support of properly engineered roundabouts. But in doing so, you are putting intuition and "gut feeling" ahead of hard facts, and I have a difficult time accepting that mode of thinking.

In other words: If, on the one hand, I face "annoyance" and "the public's fear of change," and on the other hand I have reliable data that shows me over and over again that properly engineered roundabouts regularly lead to substantial improvements in safety, higher local commercial success, lower costs to build and maintain, fewer delays, better transit times, lower fuel consumption, etc., then, my friend, I will recommend that the local governments in question demonstrate leadership and advocate for roundabouts when the DOT indicates they're appropriate.

With that said - and knowing that there are specific problems with roundabouts that indeed need to be addressed -  I welcome informed, specific questions and challenges to the material above, "StubbornOldMan."

I also welcome your opinion of the KISS concert at this past weekend at Summerfest!

Enriching the public discourse? The lost art of fact checking at NOW newspapers

Apparently, in addition to sponsoring blog space for the black helicopter crowd, Community Newspapers has evidently extended their laissez-faire policy to assertions of fact made in print at Community Newspaper Inc.'s "MyCommunityNOW" papers.

Witness the "Community Voices" feature in the June 25 edition of the Franklin/Greendale/Hales Corners/Oak Creek NOW Newspaper, "Love or hate 'em, plenty of views on roundabouts."

From "Linda G" of Philadelphia:

I spent 25 adult years in the Franklin area before moving out east and find this talk of roundabouts a bit strange. People in Pennsylvania and New Jersey are getting RID of them. Folks here hate them. Accidents abound. Granted, most accidents are minor. Ten years from now, I bet people will regret having built these things.

Editing? Well, the underlined material above was actually edited out of the print version of this comment (the online posting is here,) Another (wiser) edit was the rambling "A tour guide in Halifax, during one of our visits, said of a roundabout we were navigating that it was going to be replaced because at least two or three accidents happen every day. Sure enough, one happened right there in front of us. Semi-truck crunched a van.")

Fact checking? Opinions are one thing, but, as a newspaper, when you print an assertion of fact, it's generally a good idea to go to Google or make a phone call. Had anyone at Community Newspapers done so, they would have learned that in the older cities of the eastern United States - particularly in Pennsylvania and New Jersey - traffic circles were and are common traffic features.

Let's make this clear (as Community Newspapers missed a teachable moment): Just as not all roundabouts are correctly engineered or appropriate for certain locations, Traffic circles are very different - and much less safe and efficient than - roundabouts. In fact, any traffic circle - often erroneously referred to as a "roundabout" - built in the U.S. prior to 1994 is almost certainly not a conforming roundabout.

And, guess what? The old traffic circles in Pennsylvania, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island, etc. - some dating back to horse and buggy days - are indeed being removed. And often replaced by roundabouts when appropriate.

Does Community Newspapers enrich public discussion when they take this lazy approach?

I guess it falls to me to do what they don't have time for.

From Traffic Circles vs. Roundabouts:

Beware the cul-de-sac nightmare....

Weekend Viewing: James Howard Kunstler dissects suburbia | Video on TED.com

Few say it better.

James Howard Kunstler dissects suburbia | Video on TED.com.

Sanity Spreads: Roundabouts in TIME magazine

Click for full-sized graphic.

Marketing the debt culture: Remember when it was called a "second mortgage"?

Via Daily Sprawl, this New York Times article about how "second mortgages" became more benign-sounding "home equity loans," greatly encouraging the current unprecedented levels of debt among average Americans.

Live richly!

Home Equity Frenzy Was a Bank Ad Come True

By LOUISE STORY

“Live Richly.”

That catchy slogan, dreamed up by the Fallon Worldwide advertising agency, was pitched in 1999 to executives at Citicorp who were looking for a way to lure Americans to financial products like home equity loans. But some in the room did not like it. They worried the phrase would encourage people to live exorbitantly, says Stephen A. Cone, a top Citi marketer at the time.

Still, “Live Richly” won out. The advertising campaign, which cost some $1 billion from 2001 to 2006, urged people to lighten up about money and helped persuade hundreds of thousands of Citi customers to take out home equity loans — that is, to borrow against their homes. As one of the ads proclaimed: “There’s got to be at least $25,000 hidden in your house. We can help you find it.”

Not long ago, such loans, which used to be known as second mortgages, were considered the borrowing of last resort, to be avoided by all but people in dire financial straits. Today, these loans have become universally accepted, their image transformed by ubiquitous ad campaigns from banks.

Since the early 1980s, the value of home equity loans outstanding has ballooned to more than $1 trillion from $1 billion, and nearly a quarter of Americans with first mortgages have them. That explosive growth has been a boon for banks. Banks’ returns on fixed-rate home equity loans and lines of credit, which are the most popular, are 25 percent to 50 percent higher than returns on consumer loans over all, with much of that premium coming from relatively high fees.

However, what has been a highly lucrative business for banks has become a disaster for many borrowers, who are falling behind on their payments at near record levels and could lose their homes.

Read the rest HERE.

History of Sprawl

'Since 1945, our physical landscape has been molded by business interests, working hand in hand with government, to promote a sprawled way of life dominated by automobile usage. Tax laws were changed, zoning laws implemented, and our elected representatives blatantly supported one form of transportation over another. All so that sprawl and automobile dependence would occur. The American people did not choose to live this way. On the contrary, since the end of World War II, sprawl is the only option we have been given.'

From Douglas Morris's, It’s A Sprawl World After All

(Via Slow Home.)

KunstlerCast #8: The Glossary of Nowhere

If I had to point to the single event (non-terroristic, non-family-related) that most significantly affected my current world view, it would be the day I stood at Border's Books and offhandedly grabbed James Howard Kunstler's The Geography of Nowhere from a shelf and consumed the first three-or-so chapters without moving an inch from where I stood. My eyes were opened for the first time to the fact that our built environment does not have to be so crapulent.

Kunstler now has a podcast called "The Kunstlercast" that I'll regularly post here. You can also subscribe to his podcast via iTunes (see his site for easy "subscribe" click-thru).

Take a few minutes to listen, and you'll probably want to order the book ASAP. Read the book, and you'll surely start showing up at Plan Commission and Common Council meetings.

From the site:

When James Howard Kunstler wrote The Geography of Nowhere, it was to give people "the vocabulary to understand what's wrong with the places they ought to know best." In this installment we run down a few choice Kunstlerisms, like "parking lagoons" , "nature Band-Aides" and "patriotic totems." Kunstler also tells us why the depressing topic of suburban sprawl is also really funny.

KunstlerCast #8: The Glossary of Nowhere:

(Info about program and theme music at KunstlerCast.com)

Direct Download (7 MB):
KunstlerCast_08.mp3

(Via KunstlerCast.)

"Enclaves" vs. good places to live

ABOVE: a home in Boca Pointe, Florida. BELOW: Townhomes in nearby Charleston Place

What is immediately apparent is the scarcity of informal socializing within many of the enclaves. On a mild evening I drove through one section after another of Boca Pointe, where some 2,000 houses and apartments have been sold, and saw hardly anyone out walking or in conversation with neighbors. The landscape's beauty felt embalmed. From Boca Pointe, I drove to Charleston Place, a nearby neo-traditional development that Duany and Plater-Zyberk, extrapolating from the development patterns of old sections of Charleston, South Carolina, had laid out with orderly rows of townhouses closely facing narrow, straight streets. In this suburban development people were out walking in twos, threes, and fours, many of them chatting with their neighbors. Some were strolling along narrow linear walkways of brick, which run behind the walled back yards and have rose trellises above them.

The well-defined, pedestrian-oriented outdoor space helps Charleston Place generate informal community activity, not simply a community image. A major defect of the shared outdoor space in planned-unit developments is that it is rarely defined tightly enough to invite people. The buildings, even when beautiful, are not arranged to create places that feel semi-enclosed and therefore special.

Philip Langdon, from the article "A Good Place to Live," The Atlantic, March 1988

No good ever came from planning in a vacuum

Apropos to my post entitled "The city and developer on one side of the table, the citizens on the other: Shoppes/Target update": 

"... the wisdom of crowds is often exceptionally good. And collective intelligence is especially valuable when it comes to subjects like town and city planning and managing development, subjects where important information is not concentrated in the hands of a few people, but is diffused among myriad members of the community. If the job is ... to produce a far-sighted plan for balancing environmental, aesthetic, economic, and social concerns, you’re far more likely to end up with a good answer if you solicit and aggregate the judgments of those who live in the community, rather than rely on a more traditional, top-down planning process. ... Is there a catch to the wisdom of crowds? ... it’s essential to make sure that the crowd is a diverse one, made up of people with different perspectives and different problem-solving tools."

-- James Surowiecki, from "Speaking of Place: The Wisdom of Communities," posted on the Orton Family Foundation web site (you can also access a video clip of Surowiecki's talk at last October's CommunityMatters Conference).

"For planning to be meaningful, citizens must be involved in the process. Planners, regardless of their personal talents and capabilities, working in isolation and apart from the clients of planning, will not be able to craft plans communities will embrace."

-- Michael Chandler, from "The 21st Century Plan" (Planning Commissioners Journal Issue #31)

Both from the Planning Quote of the Day website
 

Apropos to my post entitled "The city and developer on one side of the table, the citizens on the other: Shoppes/Target update": 

"... the wisdom of crowds is often exceptionally good. And collective intelligence is especially valuable when it comes to subjects like town and city planning and managing development, subjects where important information is not concentrated in the hands of a few people, but is diffused among myriad members of the community. If the job is ... to produce a far-sighted plan for balancing environmental, aesthetic, economic, and social concerns, you’re far more likely to end up with a good answer if you solicit and aggregate the judgments of those who live in the community, rather than rely on a more traditional, top-down planning process. ... Is there a catch to the wisdom of crowds? ... it’s essential to make sure that the crowd is a diverse one, made up of people with different perspectives and different problem-solving tools."

-- James Surowiecki, from "Speaking of Place: The Wisdom of Communities," posted on the Orton Family Foundation web site (you can also access a video clip of Surowiecki's talk at last October's CommunityMatters Conference).

"For planning to be meaningful, citizens must be involved in the process. Planners, regardless of their personal talents and capabilities, working in isolation and apart from the clients of planning, will not be able to craft plans communities will embrace."

-- Michael Chandler, from "The 21st Century Plan" (Planning Commissioners Journal Issue #31)

Both from the Planning Quote of the Day website
 

"... the wisdom of crowds is often exceptionally good. And collective intelligence is especially valuable when it comes to subjects like town and city planning and managing development, subjects where important information is not concentrated in the hands of a few people, but is diffused among myriad members of the community. If the job is ... to produce a far-sighted plan for balancing environmental, aesthetic, economic, and social concerns, you’re far more likely to end up with a good answer if you solicit and aggregate the judgments of those who live in the community, rather than rely on a more traditional, top-down planning process. ... Is there a catch to the wisdom of crowds? ... it’s essential to make sure that the crowd is a diverse one, made up of people with different perspectives and different problem-solving tools."

-- James Surowiecki, from "Speaking of Place: The Wisdom of Communities," posted on the Orton Family Foundation web site (you can also access a video clip of Surowiecki's talk at last October's CommunityMatters Conference).