City engineering by "gut": "Let's live on the edge and BUILD THE FOUR-LANER!"

This post is a comment in response to an item at a Franklin blog, Fred Keller's BATTLE JOINED -- please excuse a bit of localese as well as cut-and-paste linkage, as this was done quickly:

 

Fred: Your "Let's widen College Avenue" argument doesn't make a lot of sense, frankly, unless you are merely looking for a cudgel with which to hammer the mayor. And, any cudgel will do, right?

You ask: Why would the mayor and city officials argue for Contest Sensitive Design when a road is being built through our community?

Really?

The idea that road congestion will increase at a steady rate is just FALSE, reinforced by a road-building industry anxious to lay more asphalt. (A mile of freeway costs three to four times the annual operating expense to the state of a rail line connecting us to Madison and Chicago -- has that not occurred to you?)

"But we need to build capacity," you might say. (Actually, what you said was: "Let's live on the edge and BUILD THE FOUR-LANER!")

But - what's that? Traffic can DECREASE? Guess what - the engineers don't account for that in their forecasts. They are all about BUILDING IT UP. If traffic rates go up +.05 in a year, they tend to keep adding the same increase every year.

Let's apply engineer-style traffic analysis: My daughter grew 1.5 inches in the past year. At this rate, she'll be over 9 feet tall by the time she's my age.

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ohim/tvtw/08dectvt/index.cfm (2008)

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ohim/tvtw/09dectvt/ (2009)

Your stance sees to be "gut instinct" against years of traffic studies NOT DONE BY ROAD BUILDERS that show widening roads actually INCREASES traffic and congestion (it's called "induced traffic"); and that creating alternative travel options (bike and ped) DECREASES traffic and congestion.

The Federal Highway Administration found in a study in Milwaukee that induced traffic accounted for 11-22 percent of the area's increased traffic from 1963 to 1991. ("Widening roads to ease traffic congestion is ineffective and expensive at the same time," said Roy Kienitz, Executive Director of the Surface Transportation Policy Project. "It's like trying to cure obesity by loosening your belt.")

I have no time to get fancy (a pillar of your argument: "waste time digging up stats for me!"), so I'm quoting here directly from another web site: A road diet on San Francisco’s Valencia Street reduced automobile through lanes from four to two, adding a center turn lane and two bike lanes. Following this change, collisions involving pedestrians declined 36%, accompanied by an increase in pedestrian traffic and a whopping 140% increase in bicycle riders – all without significantly altering automobile traffic capacity. (http://www.completestreets.org/complete-streets-fundamentals/factsheets/ease-congestion/)

Also: "When travel demand requires three moving lanes in each direction and/or double left turn and right turn lanes, the roadway impact on the adjacent community can become severe. From on urban planning standpoint, volumes of these magnitudes usually indicate too few arterial streets serving that particular corridor or a lack of freeway capacity for the longer trips that should not be on the arterial street system to begin with. Although it is recognized that geographic and urban development constraints may require these six-lane arterials in some situations, these conditions should be dealt with early in the planning process for new or developing suburbs, and some compromises and special design measures may be needed in existing corridors where other alternatives exist." (http://www.urbanstreet.info/3rd_symp_proceedings/Retrofitting%20Urban%20Arterials%20into%20Complete%20Streets.pdf)

"The phenomenon of induced traffic works in reverse as well. When New York's West Side Highway collapsed in 1973, an NYDOT study showed that 93 percent of the car trips lost did not reappear elsewhere; people simply stopped driving. A similar result accompanied the destruction of San Francisco's Embarcadero Freeway in the 1989 earthquake. Citizens voted to remove the freeway entirely despite the apocalyptic warnings of traffic engineers. Surprisingly, a recent British study found that downtown road removals tend to boost local economies, while new roads lead to higher urban unemployment. So much for road-building as a way to spur the economy." (From the book SUBURBAN NATION)

You also proceed from a FORTUNATE standpoint: You and your kids perhaps can (or will) drive. How about a bit of empathy for those of us who want to create an environment of moderate independent travel for the elderly of differently-abled? I can tell you for CERTAIN that I will not live in a community where my son cannot walk a few blocks to get on a bus or visit a friend. 

Interesting statistic: Motor vehicle crashes are the leading cause of death for 15- to 20- year-olds. Franklin's 16-to-20 year-olds have NO OPTION but to drive.

Do you know that a pedestrian or bikers chance of death jumps from 45% to 85% when the speed limit jumps from a sane, residential 30 MPH to the Franklin-standard (and enforced by engineering) 40 MPH?

A 27th street public transit hub (i.e. better than the spotty bus service currently available) is a logical next step. The average American who lives in an area that's walkable and has transit spends only 9% of their income on transportation, while a person living in an area that requires driving spends more than 25%. College Ave. can feed bikes and pedestrians to a public transit hub IF ACCOMMODATIONS ARE MADE FOR THEM NOW. 

Of pedestrians killed in 2007 and 2008, more than 50% died on arterial roadways, typically designed to be wide and fast (ala College Ave).  Roads like these are built to move cars and too often do not have meet the needs of pedestrian or bicyclist safety. 

You can dismiss safety, induced congestion, and mobility for the differently-abled and elderly. But how about ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT?

http://www.ceosforcities.org/files/WalkingTheWalk_CEOsforCities1.pdf (WALKING THE WALK: How Walkability Raises Home Values in U.S. Cities, by CEOs for Cities)

http://www.walk21.com/papers/Litman(1).pdf (
Economic Value of Walkability)

Want to rely on something more reality-based than your "gut instinct"? Dig into these studies:

http://www.hsisinfo.org//pdf/10-053.pdf (Evaluation of Lane Reduction “Road Diet” Measures on Crashes)

http://www.completestreets.org/webdocs/resources/lanewidth-safety.pdf (Relationship of Lane Width to Safety for Urban and Suburban Arterials)

http://www.vtpi.org/cong_relief.pdf (Smart Congestion Reductions: Reevaluating The Role Of Highway Expansion For Improving Urban Transportation)

http://www.urbanstreet.info/3rd_symp_proceedings/Retrofitting%20Urban%20Arterials%20into%20Complete%20Streets.pdf (RETROFITTING URBAN ARTERIALS INTO COMPLETE STREETS)

 

Comments

[Carol]

Yes-a bit dense to get through. But I picked up on the gist. A few thoughts-1)"generation Y" is not buying cars at the same rate. They don't like them, and probably can't afford them. 2)The boomers are going to be too old to drive. This removes many autos, calls for more transit, certainly reduces traffic. 3)Some roads are as hard to cross by foot as it is hard to swim across the mississippi. For people who never walk, it wld be eye-opening to see a video --maybe with a "cam" strapped to the person --of someone trying to cross difficult roads...also with a digital clock running in the bottom of the screen to show time elapsed waiting.

[John Michlig]

You read my mind. I plan to use a small camera to show the reality of car speed and proximity on most of our streets. It'll be a hi-def camera, so LOCAL DRIVERS BEWARE; license plates are legible.

[Fred Keller]

John:

With regards to sidewalks on College Avenue; I was told by Jack Takerian, Director, Milwaukee County Department of Transportation and Public Works, that the reconstruction plan includes a sidewalk on the south side of the roadway, from 51st Street to 27th Street.

And as my final word on the reconstruction of College Avenue, I’ll share with you and your readers, an email I sent to the mayor on one particular bullet point in his letter, which touches somewhat on the economic development of Rawson Avenue; including his response and my follow-up:

Wednesday, November 17

Mayor Taylor:

In your April 23, 2010 letter to Mr. Jack Takerian, Director, Milwaukee County Department of Transportation and Public Works, and Mr. Kenneth Yunker, Executive Director, SEWRPAC, regarding the College Avenue Reconstruction, you wrote—among other things—in opposition to the County’s plans:

A four-lane College Avenue that will end at 51st Street will drive more traffic onto 51st Street and hasten the need for reconstruction on 51st Street within Franklin limits, placing addition burden on Franklin taxpayers.

...I am requesting any and all City of Franklin records, traffic studies and reports, and other pertinent documents from 2008, 2009 and 2010 that lead you to this conclusion.

Monday, November 15

Mr. Keller,

I have contacted the City of Franklin's Assistant City Engineer Mr. Ron Romeis regarding your request for information concerning alleged City of Franklin studies and traffic reports for College Avenue between the years 2008 to 2010.

I asked him if he would be willing to meet with you to go over any City records regarding College Avenue and he indicated that he would be happy to do so. I am not in possession of such records nor have I been in possession of such records and I am of the understanding that no such City documents exist for the years 2008, 2009 and 2010.

You may contact Mr. Romeis by calling 425-7500 and then ask for the Engineering Department. I will send a copy of this reply to Mr. Romeis so that he will be aware that you may contact him.

I believe you are aware that Alderman Wilhelm wrote the letter in question and she asked County Supervisor Borkowski and myself for support for her letter. After having much discussion with the alderman and after listening to her rationale I agreed to support her position as did County Supervisor Borkowski.

The final word on any decision on the reconstruction of College Avenue will be Milwaukee County's given it is their road and therefore the letter is a letter of recommendation and it in no way binds any policy maker from choosing another course of action.

I support having sidewalks along this stretch of road. Given that the road lies between two very well established residential areas I do not support a widening of a road to four lanes that would invite heavy truck traffic nor do I believe the residents in that area would want this type of truck traffic.

I have concerns with the widening of a road that would take up current space between the traffic and the home owners and it is my belief that a pedestrian path is and has been needed down this stretch of road for many years.

I believe the Common Council should support Alderman Wilhelm's position regarding College Avenue given that it may provide a greater level of safety to the people in the area.


Sincerely,

Tom Taylor

Tuesday, November 16

Mayor Taylor:

Thank you for getting back to me so quickly, I know how busy you are.

First, I was not aware that Alderwoman Wilhelm wrote the April 23, 2010 letter, nor am I concerned with who actually wrote the letter. As far as I'm concerned, by signing the letter you and Borwowski are essentially agreeing with its content. Secondly, my primary concerns lie with the “facts” you presented in your letter and how you framed your argument against this project. It can be described in one word; misleading. After doing my own research, I am also concerned by the fact that claims made by the three signatories (all elected representatives of the people of Franklin), are—at best—nothing more than half-truths and baseless rhetoric. I know this now because I spoke with Jack Takerian and Mark Borkowski yesterday; and I now know the facts and have a clear picture of the truth.

Thank you.

Sincerely,

Fred V. Keller

In my opinion “the letter “ was nothing more than the major’s first piece of campaign literature to the voters in District 3.

[John Michlig]

Oh, Fred.

You employ the well-worn provocateur tactic of "requesting any and all" records related to the soup you want to stir up; however, when called on your bluff, you ignore the material provided.

Fred: Do you know that a pedestrian or bikers chance of death jumps from 45% to 85% when the speed limit jumps from a sane, residential 30 MPH to the Franklin-standard (and enforced by engineering) 40 MPH?

Why would anyone walk or bike on a road engineered for 45mph and above?

And, further, why would a county official -- who is rewarded for the amount of asphalt-pouring contracts he awards -- EVER consider anything less than the maximum lane count?

Fred, with all due respect: Don't bring your dogmatic, public-records-requesting beef with the mayor here without substantive facts or at least the bare attempt to address the material I was patient enough to bring forth.

My son will not be able to drive when he turns 16. You and your dogma are hindering his ability to travel independently -- not to mention strangling the economic development potential of Franklin, Wisconsin. You are free to do so, but come at me with substance and don't hide behind an open records straw man.