Third Avenue Becomes A Two-Way

[Detroitnerd]

Does that mean that 10 years from now, there will be no more two-way-paired streets? If so, how are we able to get rid of the John R.-Brush pair? Or what about Warren-Forest Avenues? I know the latter pair became a two-way pair a bit late because there were streetcars still on Warren and it was too expensive to modify the streetcar tracks, especially since the then-DSR was in the middle of discontinuing the streetcars, so they had to discontinue the Warren streetcars in order to create the two-way pair.

Urban planning, while an important job, and one that I have a lot of respect for, does tend to be unusually susceptible to fads and categorical tastes. The fad right now is that all one-way streets must be turned into two-way streets to slow down traffic. Never-no-mind that one-way streets are good at providing narrower streets that add to the human scale of neighborhoods and slow down traffic quite nicely anyway.

Other urban planning fads today include roundabouts [[crossings where motorists and pedestrians can't see each other coming), medians [[where pedestrians can wait in the baking sun because the light has to change quickly, maybe get to smell some flowers where the center-running rail should be anyway), bump outs [[which eliminate about one parking spot per block), streetscaping [[which gives the appearance of affluence without any added economic activity), bollards [[which sequester off non-auto areas but are also hazards for cyclists) and bike lanes [[which discourage bicycles from being ridden like any other vehicle). They change just often enough to provide a revenue stream for contractors.

[Doma]

I see many of the things you just mentioned in thriving and successful cities all across the country, Detroit needs change and I think that re-imagining the transportation system in Detroit is a very positive thing.

Urban planning, while an important job, and one that I have a lot of respect for, does tend to be unusually susceptible to fads and categorical tastes. The fad right now is that all one-way streets must be turned into two-way streets to slow down traffic. Never-no-mind that one-way streets are good at providing narrower streets that add to the human scale of neighborhoods and slow down traffic quite nicely anyway.

Other urban planning fads today include roundabouts [[crossings where motorists and pedestrians can't see each other coming), medians [[where pedestrians can wait in the baking sun because the light has to change quickly, maybe get to smell some flowers where the center-running rail should be anyway), bump outs [[which eliminate about one parking spot per block), streetscaping [[which gives the appearance of affluence without any added economic activity), bollards [[which sequester off non-auto areas but are also hazards for cyclists) and bike lanes [[which discourage bicycles from being ridden like any other vehicle). They change just often enough to provide a revenue stream for contractors.

[Detroitnerd]

I see many of the things you just mentioned in thriving and successful cities all across the country, Detroit needs change and I think that re-imagining the transportation system in Detroit is a very positive thing.

Oh, I don't necessarily disagree with you. I just challenge the thinking that goes like this.

1) Portland is a successful city.

2) Portland has bike lanes, bump outs, bollards, berms and band shells.

3) Therefore, if Detroit installs bike lanes, bump outs, bollards, berms and band shells, Detroit will become as successful as Portland.

I think we're always looking for silver bullets, you know? It's just so tempting to conclude that because Portland has bike lanes that if we lay down bike lanes the prosperity will follow. For instance, in Hamtramck, they streetscaped Joseph Campau and added bump outs and upgraded street lighting. The net effect hasn't been very impressive. In fact, the thoroughfare without any of those improvements, Conant, has exploded while Joseph Campau has seen a slight uptick.

Also, as with all things, they can be done well or done poorly. You can go to the trouble of installing bike lanes when there are scores of parallel streets that cyclists can already use. You can add bollards in such a way that they pose hazards. You can add medians like the Livernois median, which hurt local businesses by making motorists drive out of their way when they used to have to make a simple turn to get somewhere.

Anyway, I think that to criticize the faddishness of urban planning is to do it a service. What's wrong with a conversation about what's good and bad, what's well-implemented and poorly implemented? Seems the more input the better.

[DetroitPlanner]

I think we're always looking for silver bullets, you know? It's just so tempting to conclude that because Portland has bike lanes that if we lay down bike lanes the prosperity will follow. For instance, in Hamtramck, they streetscaped Joseph Campau and added bump outs and upgraded street lighting. The net effect hasn't been very impressive. In fact, the thoroughfare without any of those improvements, Conant, has exploded while Joseph Campau has seen a slight uptick.

Anyway, I think that to criticize the faddishness of urban planning is to do it a service. What's wrong with a conversation about what's good and bad, what's well-implemented and poorly implemented? Seems the more input the better.

The conversion was a proposal brought forward by the Midtown people and the DPW. Public input was solicited but none was received. Sometimes the apathy around here amazes me.

Regarding Silver Bullets, Detroit needs gold ones. Comparing Detroit that has suffered 60 years of de-industrialization to a growing city with lots of economic generators is not a solution. With every industrial job shed, the region loses 2-3 others through spin offs that the industry provided. Those spinoffs included everything from waitstaff to IT professionals.

We need to learn what has worked and more importantly what has not in similar places like Flint, Gary, Cleveland, Pittsburgh, who went down the rathole before we did.

[Detroitnerd]

The conversion was a proposal brought forward by the Midtown people and the DPW. Public input was solicited but none was received. Sometimes the apathy around here amazes me.

How was the public informed, I wonder. Via a notice in Detroit Legal News? I wonder if you're mistaking a lack of outreach and community awareness for apathy.

Regarding Silver Bullets, Detroit needs gold ones. Comparing Detroit that has suffered 60 years of de-industrialization to a growing city with lots of economic generators is not a solution. With every industrial job shed, the region loses 2-3 others through spin offs that the industry provided. Those spinoffs included everything from waitstaff to IT professionals.

That's nice rhetoric, but it doesn't really address the problems I raised. The problem is to adopt the trimmings of success and confuse it with the root causes of success. That's a cargo cult mentality that wastes precious resources.

We need to learn what has worked and more importantly what has not in similar places like Flint, Gary, Cleveland, Pittsburgh, who went down the rathole before we did.

Fair enough. And you'll notice I didn't really criticize turning Third into a two-way. [[A friend sure did. A friend who has lived in the area a long time, at that.) But if the idea is that you put down bike lanes and party stores become Starbuckses, ghetto palms become honey locusts, and homeless people become kiosks, I think it's just magical thinking at work.

Enough half-measures. Bring on the light rail already!

[wolverine]

Urban planning, while an important job, and one that I have a lot of respect for, does tend to be unusually susceptible to fads and categorical tastes. The fad right now is that all one-way streets must be turned into two-way streets to slow down traffic. Never-no-mind that one-way streets are good at providing narrower streets that add to the human scale of neighborhoods and slow down traffic quite nicely anyway.

Other urban planning fads today include roundabouts [[crossings where motorists and pedestrians can't see each other coming), medians [[where pedestrians can wait in the baking sun because the light has to change quickly, maybe get to smell some flowers where the center-running rail should be anyway), bump outs [[which eliminate about one parking spot per block), streetscaping [[which gives the appearance of affluence without any added economic activity), bollards [[which sequester off non-auto areas but are also hazards for cyclists) and bike lanes [[which discourage bicycles from being ridden like any other vehicle). They change just often enough to provide a revenue stream for contractors.

Well, I do agree planning fads exist, but I don't see any reason to not segregate modes. For example, cycle tracks prevent motorists from veering into the bicycle lane and eliminate instances of "dooring" Streets with cycle tracks also require 4-way stops because intersection visibility is decreased seeing other vehicles causing drivers to be more cautious when performing turns. However the visibility of pedestrians and cyclists are increased. Same with bump-outs.

[Detroitnerd]

Well, I do agree planning fads exist, but I don't see any reason to not segregate modes. For example, cycle tracks prevent motorists from veering into the bicycle lane and eliminate instances of "dooring" Streets with cycle tracks also require 4-way stops because intersection visibility is decreased seeing other vehicles causing drivers to be more cautious when performing turns. However the visibility of pedestrians and cyclists are increased. Same with bump-outs.

There's actually a lively debate about separating modes, and whether it helps.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vehicular_cycling

And sharing the road often produces the desired results anyway. For instance, in a European city, they had a problem. No matter how much signage, how many traffic lights, how many lines on the road they put up in a public square, cars kept hitting cyclists and pedestrians. Finally, they removed all signage, all lights, all striping. To the "segregated mode" way of thinking, this is murder waiting to happen, right? Nope. They found that injuries went way down. Why? Because instead of looking at signs and lights and striping, motorists were looking around them, wondering where the next obstacle was.

That gets at the heart of this concern I have for faddism in urban planning, which to my mind sometimes mimics the very worst of the single-mindedness of the last generation's highway engineer. That everything has to be regimented, separated, drawn off with lines and cordoned off with bollards. How did people ever share the road before planners made those decisions for them? Well ...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C4JHj4wFpXk