Oakland County passes Complete Streets Resolution

[oladub]

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.

So if the annual average daily traffic flow on a given four lane wide street is, e.g., 8,000 cars a day and two lanes are made into bicycle lanes and 500 elderly and other motorists decide to bicycle to work in the sun, rain or snow, then about 7,500 cars share two lanes while 500 bicycles [[ I am being charitable) share the other two lanes. Sounds like a great idea from a sophomore urban planning class...and everybody will be .

[Novine]

A bike lane doesn't require the same amount of space as a car lane. The width of a single car lane can easily accommodate two wide bike lanes. As to the math, you were the one saying that we should calculate the "ecological" cost and benefit of a bike lane. Getting 500 cars a day off the roads and having those users bike seems like a big win from an ecological basis especially if that happens within the same footprint of an existing road. What's the problem?

[oladub]

A bike lane doesn't require the same amount of space as a car lane. The width of a single car lane can easily accommodate two wide bike lanes. As to the math, you were the one saying that we should calculate the "ecological" cost and benefit of a bike lane. Getting 500 cars a day off the roads and having those users bike seems like a big win from an ecological basis especially if that happens within the same footprint of an existing road. What's the problem?

The problems include all the people who are too old or lame to ride bicycles and the rainy, very hot, and wintry days when not many would like to bicycle not to mention night time. Another problem is that, using the previous numbers, the 7,500 cars are forced to use two fewer lanes. This has all the appeal of going through a road construction zone in which two lanes are under construction and four lanes of traffic are reduced to two. What happens in the winter, when almost everyone is back in their warm car and 8,000 cars are now funneled into two lanes instead of four because the other lanes have been sacrificed to hypothetical fair weather bicyclists? I'm not necessarily against bike lanes because they would make sense if the number of people using them approached the number useing the remaining motorist lanes. From an ecological perspective, a lot of energy is required to build and maintain traffic lanes. If those lanes are not well utilized, they are energy sink holes.

[cramerro]

The problems include all the people who are too old or lame to ride bicycles and the rainy, very hot, and wintry days when not many would like to bicycle not to mention night time. Another problem is that, using the previous numbers, the 7,500 cars are forced to use two fewer lanes. This has all the appeal of going through a road construction zone in which two lanes are under construction and four lanes of traffic are reduced to two. What happens in the winter, when almost everyone is back in their warm car and 8,000 cars are now funneled into two lanes instead of four because the other lanes have been sacrificed to hypothetical fair weather bicyclists? I'm not necessarily against bike lanes because they would make sense if the number of people using them approached the number useing the remaining motorist lanes. From an ecological perspective, a lot of energy is required to build and maintain traffic lanes. If those lanes are not well utilized, they are energy sink holes.

I'm going to sound like a planner here [[for good reason), but Complete Streets, walkability, bike lanes, bike paths, transit, etc is much more complex picture than comparing the number of bikes to cars to justify which you use up ROW on. There is a critical threshold to breach, as with many other planning related techniques, before you can have people comfortable enough to change the status quo when it comes to their routines and daily choices for everything from access to stores and services to what mode of travel they use to make trips.

Just as you might argue about a proposed commuter rail or light rail, "well, nobody uses it so is it really worth $XX Million?" Of course they aren't using something that isn't there. You would have 0 bike facilities [[and about 1/12th the number of regular sidewalks) if the criteria for spending money to put in said facilities was tied to how many people use it. Of course someone isn't going to walk along an abandoned railroad ROW if there's no path there, and isn't going to take thier kids for a bike ride in the grass along Metro Pky if there's no path there, etc.

The core idea behind Complete Streets is making an investment in facilities for more modes of travel than just autos, as a means to make those alternate modes an attractive alternative, a feasibile choice, for the average citizen. Does it mean the end goal is no cars? No. But, maybe you'd consider walking or biking 1/4 mile to the commercial center becuase you know there is a sidewalk or bike path and visibile crosswalk marking and a sidewalk from the street into the strip mall that make it possible to do so without feeling like you're Indiana Jones. Or maybe you take you bike to work on sunny days when there's a bike lane [[or in planner utopia, you buy a house close to work becuase you'd have that choice!).

A road diet is a tool to make a better use of existing facilities to have a more 'Complete Street.' It meets all of the goals that you talk about - often it means only re-striping the pavement. How much more cost effective could you possibly be while adding capacity for bikes [[and often adding on-street parking and a center turn lane which have countless other benefits as well)? Road diets epsecially on non-local roads are only executed once traffic engineers and planners have determined that, to the best of thier abilities, they are comfortable that the design capacity of the road is so far in excess of the typical demand [[volume of vehicles) that they can take away a lane or lanes without negitvely impacting operations or safety. A 4-lanes to 3-lanes conversion is often an easy one becuse, especially in corridors with lots of left turns into cross streets, the 3 lane has almost the same capacity and is actually significantly safer.

I could go on forever about this [[obviously)... just have an open mind. The established engineers and planners in all levels of government will provide plenty of resistance along the way which, in turn, will result in careful, deliberate employment of Complete Streets techniques.

[RCOC]

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!

Actually RCOC helped to write the resolution adopted by the County Board. We fully support Complete Streets, and already had a Complete Streets committee [[including a number of multi-modal transportation advocates from outside the agency) as members.
- Road Commission for Oakland County

[ghettopalmetto]

The problems include all the people who are too old or lame to ride bicycles and the rainy, very hot, and wintry days when not many would like to bicycle not to mention night time.

Yet it seems like you're not at all concerned about anyone "too old or lame" or too young, or too blind, or too poor to drive cars all over Kingdom Come.

Why the inconsistency in your position, Oladub?

[Detroitnerd]

Yet it seems like you're not at all concerned about anyone "too old or lame" or too young, or too blind, or too poor to drive cars all over Kingdom Come.

Why the inconsistency in your position, Oladub?

What do you call a motorist's selective observations? Blind spots, was it?

[Novine]

Does that mean that RCOC reversed course from the previous position that the resolution was "premature"?

"RCOC Spokesman Craig Bryson said the agency’s “biggest concern” is that the resolution is premature given that a state review committee has been established to study the issue and come up with model Complete Streets policies that can be adopted by local units of government, and that panel’s work is still another one to two years away from being completed."

http://spinalcolumnonline.com/comple...-the-gop-rcoc/

[cramerro]

Does that mean that RCOC reversed course from the previous position that the resolution was "premature"?

"RCOC Spokesman Craig Bryson said the agency’s “biggest concern” is that the resolution is premature given that a state review committee has been established to study the issue and come up with model Complete Streets policies that can be adopted by local units of government, and that panel’s work is still another one to two years away from being completed."

http://spinalcolumnonline.com/comple...-the-gop-rcoc/

With all due resepect to RCOC's post, this quote is exactly what I mean. I know the RCOC has plenty of people with thier hearts in the right place, and are interested in being a part of it, but whether it will really be a significant consideration in design and spending versus just a buzzword initiative to tout remains to be seen.

"Yes, this is great new initiative, BUT, we can't really do it just yet..." that's silliness. There are a number of communities across the state and many more across the country that have adopted functioning complete streets ordinances including Flint, Lansing, Ann Arbor, and Detroit. This isn't rocket science. If this guy's first reaction is, "well, MDOT's task force is working on something that won't be ready for 2 years, so we'd better not change anything until then," it looks like the RCOC might not be ready to actually do this [[as I suspect).

[Novine]

That's my expectation from RCOC. We'll get lip-service for a couple of years until they are forced to adopt something. Meanwhile, Detroit's adding bike lanes and getting funding for more even though they haven't adopted any Complete Streets ordinances or standards. Detroit's getting it done while RCOC makes excuses.

http://www.m-bike.org/blog/2011/08/1...here-possible/

[oladub]

cramerro: "Road diets epsecially on non-local roads are only executed once traffic engineers and planners have determined that, to the best of thier abilities, they are comfortable that the design capacity of the road is so far in excess of the typical demand [[volume of vehicles) that they can take away a lane or lanes without negitvely impacting operations or safety."

I'll agree with that. In fact I already covered that point in my post #24, "The concept seems, at least, counterintuitive unless the road was overbuilt in the first place and didn't need so many lanes." So if Oakland County is just going to be applying this to it's already overbuilt roads; why not? I disagree, however with your light rail analogy which wasn't being discussed. Minneapolis has had an extremely successful light rail system because it was designed to connect important facilities and locations. Some other light rail systems have been failures because they don't connect anything of importance or are built in cities where crime is a big problem. Just building something does not insure success. More bicyclists could be expected in a fair weather college town than in city with an elderly population located in a harsh climate for instance. Maybe soccer moms in Oakland county can shuffle their kids around on extended or cargo bicycles.

I admit a skepticism of planners. Planners promoted sprawl after WWII. They said that it was healthier for children to grow up in places like Levittown. Now they are saying that was all wrong and want to stack the proletariat on top of each other. What Oakland County is proposing is what Portland Oregon pioneered twenty years ago. Portland developed a set of policies hostile to car usage including a shortage of parking places in new dwellings and limits to sprawl designed to build "upward instead of outward". Trendy as Portland has become for yuppies, such policies have priced much of the middle class out of the housing market. A lot of people have been forced to move to exurbia and commute long distances to afford housing. This has been good for the planners, government regulators, and financial interests tied to the real estate industry though.

I am not, by the way, hostile to denser population plans. I occasionally suggest large, up to 50,000 population, gated communities within Detroit City limits with population densities twice as high as Detroit ever had, as an alternative to 'urban farms'. I am consistently shot down because of the objection by some to the word 'gated' although technically most apartments and private property are already 'gated'. Detroit really seems like a prime candidate for 'complete streets' and 'road diets' to the extent crime is controlled. Meanwhile, high density gated developments are feasible.

[Bham1982]

How could Woodward ever meet Complete Streets? I'm actually very curious. Would they tear up the median green?

There's no room for a bike lane. Can't reduce the limited and valuable store-fronting parking, and can't remove lanes from congested Woodward.

Already no parking lanes, and no "wasted space" between parking lots and driving lanes.

[ghettopalmetto]

How could Woodward ever meet Complete Streets? I'm actually very curious. Would they tear up the median green?

There's no room for a bike lane. Can't reduce the limited and valuable store-fronting parking, and can't remove lanes from congested Woodward.

Already no parking lanes, and no "wasted space" between parking lots and driving lanes.

God forbid you get rid of a lane of traffic and maybe reduce the speed limit to 30 or 35 miles per hour. Wouldn't that just be absolutely miserable?

If you continue with the automobile-focused paradigm that you assume, then yes,
there is no way in Hell that Woodward would ever meet Complete Streets. It's a self-fulfilling prophecy, just as it has been for the past 65 years.

But the whole idea--for those arriving to the idea late--is that you consider pedestrians, bicyclists, and transit riders *in addition to* cars. Hence, the name "Complete Streets". And maybe, just maybe--we'll be able to construct environments that allow much more activity than cars moving through at 100 mph. Revolutionary, I know.

[Bham1982]

God forbid you get rid of a lane of traffic and maybe reduce the speed limit to 30 or 35 miles per hour. Wouldn't that just be absolutely miserable?

There is no municipality along Woodward that would go along with lane removal.

That's a non-starter in every jurisdication, given the heavy all-day congestion. And yeah, 30 mph actually would be absolutely miserable. Basically a year-round Dream Cruise.

Your idea wouldn't even be proposed in Copenhagen or whatnot. Bike lanes are great, but you wouldn't build them to replace trunk highway capacity.

[ghettopalmetto]

There is no municipality along Woodward that would go along with lane removal.

That's a non-starter in every jurisdication, given the heavy all-day congestion. And yeah, 30 mph actually would be absolutely miserable. Basically a year-round Dream Cruise.

Your idea wouldn't even be proposed in Copenhagen or whatnot. Bike lanes are great, but you wouldn't build them to replace trunk highway capacity.

Right. Because everyone will drive everywhere. As quickly as possible. Got it.

Did you fall asleep sometime in the 1950s, and only wake up recently? I'm just curious.

[Bham1982]

Right. Because everyone will drive everywhere. As quickly as possible. Got it.

Did you fall asleep sometime in the 1950s, and only wake up recently? I'm just curious.

You seem to have a pattern where you don't actually read others' posts, and just spout off some politicized platitude.

But yeah, obviously I fell asleep in the 50's if I don't want to convert Woodward into a tertiary road with subdivision speed limits. I need to get more "progressive"; the road is basically worthless as a highway...

[ghettopalmetto]

You seem to have a pattern where you don't actually read others' posts, and just spout off some politicized platitude.

But yeah, obviously I fell asleep in the 50's if I don't want to convert Woodward into a tertiary road with subdivision speed limits. I need to get more "progressive"; the road is basically worthless as a highway...

I'm just curious to know what you consider the purpose of a roadway to be. It seems like you would bend over backwards to accommodate as many cars travelling as fast as humanly possible, but bicyclists and pedestrians can just go fuck themselves, right? It's almost as if you wrote a highway engineering textbook.

It's a recurring theme with you. You are the Defender of the Status Quo. In your mind, everything in Southeast Michigan is just peachy-keen and doesn't need any high-falutin tinkering. You pretend that the way Oakland County appears today is the way that cities have always been constructed. Anything that deviates--such as places with [[Heavens, no!) pedestrian-friendly streets and effective public transportation, well those are dismissed as "trendy". You have an ostrich approach--move along, nothing to see here. Let me tell you something--it's your dependence on a motorized vehicle for every life function that is the trend, my friend. You act like the world is going to end if we dare to allow people to use their own two legs for locomotion.

Just don't piss and moan when still more educated people leave the state for places like Chicago and the East Coast, never to return.

[Bham1982]

Just don't piss and moan when still more educated people leave the state for places like Chicago and the East Coast, never to return.

People will move to the East Coast unless we turn highways like Woodward into a 30 mph by-way dedicated to cycling. After all, there are no highways on the East Coast, and highways have no economic value or functional utility...

[Detroitnerd]

In fairness, Bham sometimes knows what he's talking about, and furnishes facts to make his points when he does. Often this will be related to a topic other than urban planning, etc.

But a lot of the time, especially when discussing urban planning and trends in urban-suburban America, he will simply make bold statements without facts to back them up, or use discredited debate techniques [[see straw man above) to propound his points. For whatever reason, he does seem to be a defender of the status quo, such as it is, despite whatever facts or research might have the temerity to get in the way.

[ghettopalmetto]

People will move to the East Coast unless we turn highways like Woodward into a 30 mph by-way dedicated to cycling. After all, there are no highways on the East Coast, and highways have no economic value or functional utility...

Where do you come up with this crap? Nobody *ever* said that Woodward needs to be "dedicated" to cycling. Nobody *ever* said that Michigan is the only place where highways exist. And nobody *ever* said that highways have no economic value. These are constructs of your own extremist imagination.

What I WILL say, however, is that you cannot have an attractive and successful Main Street where the speed limit is 45 miles per hour and very few impediments to the flow of automobile traffic. And you can't have a Main Street that takes half a day and a minor miracle to cross on foot without getting killed. And you can't have bicycle and automobile traffic comingled at speeds of 45 miles per hour, either.

Have you even been to say, Ann Freaking Arbor to see how preposterous your ideas are???

Are you building a metropolis for PEOPLE, or for CARS?

[Detroitnerd]

What is the average actual speed during business hours on, say, Broadway in midtown Manhattan? That is, in the areas they still allow cars on Broadway?

[ghettopalmetto]

What is the average actual speed during business hours on, say, Broadway in midtown Manhattan? That is, in the areas they still allow cars on Broadway?

See, now you're comparing poor widdle ole backwater Oakland County to Manhattan, which is the Center of the Universe. Well, let me tell you, Mister--Oakland County is not Manhattan, so it, whatever it is you're trying to say, well it just couldn't work, so we should just give up and not even try.

[canuck]

What is the average speed limit on Woodward? More than 30mph? Sounds like 30mph is quite enough for a city street. With that width, it seems it could spare a couple of lanes for bikes and streetrail and have enough leftover for drag racing somewhere in there...

[Novine]

Bham1982 is talking about the stretch of Woodward as it goes through Birmingham and the Bloomfields. It's a very high volume road that handles most of the north-south traffic in that corridor.

"Traffic volumes along Woodward Avenue approach 70,000 vehicles on a typical day south of Big Beaver and 45,000 vehicles south of Square Lake."

http://www.bloomfieldtwp.org/Service...sportation.pdf

If you read to the end of the plan, Bloomfield Township talks about adding bike lanes along key routes through the township.

[cramerro]

BTW, Complete Streets doesn't require that all streets accomodate all users equally, at least those who are really interested in practical application. The top goal IMO is connectivity and accessibility. If you can accomodate bicyclists along a parallel route, for example, then you don't have to have a 7' wide bike lane and 10' path along every street, including Woodward. As I and others have mentioned repeatedly above, the 'low-hanging fruit' is often where efforts are focused, especially given the financial realities of today.

Making Woodward a "Complete Street" doesn't have to mean taking away two lanes in each direction for wider sidewalks, a dedicated bike path, in-street bike lanes, and a transit lane. What is often [[most) important is a comprehensive approach to making it easier and convenient for pedestrians, bicyclists, transit users, delivery trucks, and automobiles to have safe access to the corridor. A Complete Streets ordinance at the county level, coupled with one at the state level [[in the works) and one at the local level all work together to ensure that every opportunity to improve the balance/situation is at least considered. There are so many intermediate steps/tools that still have a significant impact on making a street more complete, from making sure there is a clear connection from the sidewalk to storefront, encouraging/requiring bike parking, promoting bike routes and/or lanes on parallel and connecting corridors, enhancing high-use bus stops and adding bike racks and sidewalk connections to them, narrowing traffic lanes to calm traffic, adding textured pavement/more visbile crosswalks, improving intersection geometrics, adding pedestrian crosswalk countdown timers, and so on and so on.

Having an open mind to the idea is a pretty big hurdle for some, and you can bet that with the RCOC and MDOT being the ultimate decision makers on Woodward and the connecting mile roads, there will not be any rash or over-the-top changes to the ability of Woodward to carry a LOT of cars. Hopefully just enough to make it a little more comfortable for those who chose to or have to use another mode of transportation to live their lives.