Oakland County passes Complete Streets Resolution

Vox · August-18-11, 11:23 AM

Today the Oakland County Commission passed their Complete Streets resolution by a vote of 25-0. This is a big victory for big victory for pedestrians, bicyclists, environmentalists, transit advocates, and really all drivers.

The resolution states, in part:

“…increasing active transportation [[e.g. walking, bicycling, public transportation) offers the potential for improved public health, economic development, a cleaner environment, reduced transportation costs, enhanced community connections, social equity, and more livable communities. ‘Complete Streets’ can also reduce traffic congestion and reliance on foreign oil.”

**cramerro** · August-18-11, 12:31 PM

It will be interesting to see how long and with how much resistance the RCOC embraces this. The county doesn't have direct control over them, so it will need some policy and attitude changes within RCOC before you see big changes at least on county roads.

A great first step! Cheers!

Vox · August-18-11, 01:16 PM

Originally Posted by cramerro

It will be interesting to see how long and with how much resistance the RCOC embraces this. The county doesn't have direct control over them, so it will need some policy and attitude changes within RCOC before you see big changes at least on county roads.

A great first step! Cheers!

Seeing as how the OC Commisioners appoint RCOC members, it probably would be a good thing for their personal and professional careers within the RCOC to do as the Commission wishes.

**Detroitnerd** · August-18-11, 01:26 PM

I don't understand how this passed in OC. Didn't L. Brooks "sprawl-is-growth-and-we-love-our-cars" Patterson kick up a fuss?

**professorscott** · August-18-11, 02:21 PM

Originally Posted by Detroitnerd

I don't understand how this passed in OC. Didn't L. Brooks "sprawl-is-growth-and-we-love-our-cars" Patterson kick up a fuss?

Complete streets is a livability issue. You can design an exurb to make it more livable; it's still an exurb, but it's better than if you didn't do this.

Vox · August-18-11, 02:45 PM

Originally Posted by Detroitnerd

I don't understand how this passed in OC. Didn't L. Brooks "sprawl-is-growth-and-we-love-our-cars" Patterson kick up a fuss?

I guess this proved two things. Oakland county is more progressive than Wayne or Macomb in certain aspects, and that Detroitnerd doesn't know everything, as he previously believed. Gotta love it.

**RO_Resident** · August-18-11, 02:50 PM

Notice came through yesterday [[8/17) that there is a ~$750,000 complete streets grant for the Woodward corridor. I don't think the county commissioners were going to turn that money down.

Vox · August-18-11, 03:11 PM

Originally Posted by RO_Resident

Notice came through yesterday [[8/17) that there is a ~$750,000 complete streets grant for the Woodward corridor. I don't think the county commissioners were going to turn that money down.

That money was coming whether or not the resolution passed. If there was a problem accepting the money, Detroit would have passed their resolution/ordinance by now.

**RO_Resident** · August-18-11, 05:33 PM

Exactly, the county would have got the money anyways. I think the commission was showing support for receiving the grant.

Vox · August-18-11, 07:35 PM

Actually the motion was in support of the bike riders and alt transportation people in OC. Commissioners Covey and Woodward were instrumental in writing and pushing the item through committee. If it were some other commissioners, I guess I may think money was involved. Not in this case

**cramerro** · August-19-11, 07:40 AM

Originally Posted by Vox

Seeing as how the OC Commisioners appoint RCOC members, it probably would be a good thing for their personal and professional careers within the RCOC to do as the Commission wishes.

Understood. I'm talking real change in mindset and daily practice all the way down to the engineer level. It's one thing to have a policy that people follow begrudgingly when they have to and another to have a culture that centers around considering all modes of travel in every design, permit, and construction project.

As recently as last year, the RCOC had a firm policy of no on-street bike lanes on a road with county jurisdiction. Period. Not even a segment of a major but under-traveled road [[with excess capacity) that connects two other jurisdictions with only 1/2 mile of road, where the segments on either end have support for a bike lane. I know this first hand - this isn't just a scenario.

As staff turnover ushers in some new, younger engineers that haven't been molded to the old ways, the change will happen for sure. It will be interesting to watch if this can gain enough traction for quicker action.

**Novine** · August-19-11, 09:44 AM

"As staff turnover ushers in some new, younger engineers that haven't been molded to the old ways, the change will happen for sure. It will be interesting to watch if this can gain enough traction for quicker action."

That would be nice. But the problem is that the people at the top of the organization don't believe in Complete Streets. Until those people change their mindset or are replaced, the engineers aren't going to be able to bring about change no matter what their mindset.

**Detroitnerd** · August-19-11, 12:05 PM

Originally Posted by Vox

I guess this proved two things. Oakland county is more progressive than Wayne or Macomb in certain aspects, and that Detroitnerd doesn't know everything, as he previously believed. Gotta love it.

I was being facetious, but have your fun. Actually, I was quite surprised to see bike lanes on Trumbull recently. Looks like they're finally implementing some of the suggestions on bike lanes they've been taking over the years. I think it'll be especially productive in Detroit, where city streets built for the heavier car traffic of the past will now leave room for bikes and designated lanes. And vehicular cyclists will still be able to do their thing, of course...

**Bham1982** · August-19-11, 12:07 PM

This is good news. It's only a symbolic resolution, but hopefully reflects county-based buy-in on mobility options.

**Detroitnerd** · August-19-11, 12:12 PM

Originally Posted by cramerro

As recently as last year, the RCOC had a firm policy of no on-street bike lanes on a road with county jurisdiction. Period. Not even a segment of a major but under-traveled road [[with excess capacity) that connects two other jurisdictions with only 1/2 mile of road, where the segments on either end have support for a bike lane. I know this first hand - this isn't just a scenario.

As staff turnover ushers in some new, younger engineers that haven't been molded to the old ways, the change will happen for sure. It will be interesting to watch if this can gain enough traction for quicker action.

I know what you mean. I was doing research about five or ten years ago and called the director of the Wayne County roads, Pat Hogan, and he said bicycles on the road were dangerous and would cause crashes. He even went so far as to say he would discourage bicyclists from using the roadway. He didn't say cycling on the road was illegal [[he said he didn't know the answer to that!), but he said he did know that it’s "dangerous and should be discouraged."

The fact is, five or ten years ago, you could be on a road commission and not even know if bikes were legal on them. The fact that we're now to the point where it has a neat little name [[complete streets) and funding mechanisms and engineers are getting accustomed to it bodes very well. I'd say it's a lot of progress in a very short time.

**RO_Resident** · August-19-11, 02:29 PM

A little blurb in the Free Press:

Oakland Woodward group gets U.S. grant

The Woodward Avenue Action Association will receive a $752,880 Federal Highway Administration grant to develop a Complete Streets plan for Woodward. The philosophy encourages towns to think about bicyclists and pedestrians when planning transportation projects.

The Oakland County Board of Commissioners unanimously approved a resolution Thursday to encourage the county Road Commission to adopt the philosophy. Spokesman Craig Bryson said the commission supports the concept but that other issues have to be considered, such as the cost of expanding bike and pedestrian access.

**oladub** · August-19-11, 03:17 PM

We recently had a bicycle path put in alongside a new four lane highway near where I live. Between the bicycle path and the road expansion from two to four lanes, some houses had to be torn down and hundreds of agricultural acres were made into a right of way along a five mile stretch. The road took far more land than the bicycle trail. I doubt if many people will drive hundreds of miles to bike along a four lane highway. When the project is complete though, I am expecting that the far heavier auto traffic will transport far more passengers per acre of land condemned than the bicycle trail. What I am suggesting is that bicycle traffic has to be very heavy relative to auto traffic to justify special lanes on an ecological basis. Lots of set aside concrete for how many riders?

Lots of new regulations will however create new jobs for lawyers, planners, and other bureaucrats.

**Novine** · August-19-11, 03:27 PM

"Spokesman Craig Bryson said the commission supports the concept but that other issues have to be considered, such as the cost of expanding bike and pedestrian access."

This is the usual cop-out from the Road Commission. They act as if building a street so it's not hostile to pedestrian and bikers dramatically increases the cost of construction. Not true. Many of the improvements that could make streets more Complete could be done without spending a lot of extra money. But it requires making an effort to think about users other than cars and trucks. That seems to be a "bridge too far" for the Road Commission.

Vox · August-19-11, 10:46 PM

Originally Posted by oladub

We recently had a bicycle path put in alongside a new four lane highway near where I live. Between the bicycle path and the road expansion from two to four lanes, some houses had to be torn down and hundreds of agricultural acres were made into a right of way along a five mile stretch. The road took far more land than the bicycle trail. I doubt if many people will drive hundreds of miles to bike along a four lane highway. When the project is complete though, I am expecting that the far heavier auto traffic will transport far more passengers per acre of land condemned than the bicycle trail. What I am suggesting is that bicycle traffic has to be very heavy relative to auto traffic to justify special lanes on an ecological basis. Lots of set aside concrete for how many riders?

Lots of new regulations will however create new jobs for lawyers, planners, and other bureaucrats.

You act as if the bicycle trail was responsible for the demolition. If that is really the case, there's just rampant stupidity up where you live.

Steve bennet · August-20-11, 01:18 AM

They say this is for improved public health, yet Oakland country is having a fit over medical marijuana. Whatever.

**oladub** · August-20-11, 01:54 AM

Originally Posted by Vox

You act as if the bicycle trail was responsible for the demolition. If that is really the case, there's just rampant stupidity up where you live.

The right of way did have to be wider to allow the addition of a parallel bicycle trail. I'm guessing that the width of the bicycle trail plus the required space between the trail and the highway averages about 20-24' so 22' x 5 miles = about 12 acres and anything on it. My point though was that bike trails, be they in the city or in rural areas, really have to have a lot of bicycle traffic to be warranted from an ecological perspective.

Vox · August-20-11, 08:50 AM

Originally Posted by oladub

The right of way did have to be wider to allow the addition of a parallel bicycle trail. I'm guessing that the width of the bicycle trail plus the required space between the trail and the highway averages about 20-24' so 22' x 5 miles = about 12 acres and anything on it. My point though was that bike trails, be they in the city or in rural areas, really have to have a lot of bicycle traffic to be warranted from an ecological perspective.

Actually no. Look up the term road diet for more on that.

**j to the jeremy** · August-20-11, 09:09 AM

Originally Posted by oladub

The right of way did have to be wider to allow the addition of a parallel bicycle trail. I'm guessing that the width of the bicycle trail plus the required space between the trail and the highway averages about 20-24' so 22' x 5 miles = about 12 acres and anything on it. My point though was that bike trails, be they in the city or in rural areas, really have to have a lot of bicycle traffic to be warranted from an ecological perspective.

Which is why a complete street, with a bike lane, is a more effective, cheaper, and more responsible option many times.

**oladub** · August-20-11, 09:17 AM

Ok, I looked up "road diet". It has to do with reducing the number of lanes which wasn't situation in my local case you asked about. The concept seems, at least, counterintuitive unless the road was overbuilt in the first place and didn't need so many lanes. Replacing traffic lanes with bicycle lanes, wider sidewalks, or more landscaping probably has it's place but not if it slows or diverts traffic. Having cars idle their engines longer or even building separate bicycle lanes for an occasional bicycle simply isn't ecological. There should be some sort of ratio of bicyclers to motorists, on an annual basis, before any of this makes sense except if this all comes under the umbrella and budget of parks and recreation instead of transportation.

**Novine** · August-20-11, 08:03 PM

Widening roads actually increases traffic because it encourages traffic trips that otherwise wouldn't happen in that area. BIke lanes do the opposite. Each bike trip done for transportation purposes is one less car trip on a road, so your mathematical formula that you want needs to take into account the benefits that accrue from moving people out of cars and onto bikes, or walking or other forms of getting around town.