Archive for transportation

Do We Really Want Our Streets to Make the Honor Roll?

Posted in Comprehensive Planning and Codes, Town Planning, Urban Planning and Design, Urbanism with tags , on February 16, 2013 by John Olson

An interesting question that I believe requires exploration in towns and cities is in the priority of level of service. Level of Service (LOS) is a term used to describe the quantity of congestion and velocities for any given street. Letter grades are given for each level of service. The problem is that a high grade in one subject often leads to a low grade in other subjects. As stated in the EVstudio blog post, Inverse Relationship of Level of Service and Pedestrian Propulsion, free flowing vehicular traffic often results in a negative experience for the pedestrian.

So the question is when the priority should be for free flowing vehicular traffic. Generally speaking, free flowing traffic is helpful when traveling long distances. Lets say for instance, when you are driving across a state of corn fields. Free flow traffic at the regulated speed limits is desirable to get through as fast as possible.

I have touched upon the undesirable consequences of our desires for faster travel speeds. Let’s go a step further and consider the installation costs for increasing the LOS. There are financial costs involved for putting the infrastructure in place. They could include additional asphalt, concrete, curbs and new sidewalks. The more expensive and regional LOS fixes include additional land, bridges, concrete cloverleafs, and so on.

In addition to the direct costs, there are also indirect LOS costs… Ironic to have LOS costs to improve the LOS, right? But yes, there is often a great amount of time to add lanes, etc to a corridor which royally messes up the level of service during construction.

This is often a very expensive endeavor, but wait… that is only for the installation. We also need to consider the maintenance of these new roads that increase our levels of service. Local and state governments are buried with debt for the maintenance of their existing street, road and bridge maintenance. There is really no light at the end of the tunnel of the maintenance debt…

The other side effect for cities and counties is the stretching of a municipality to the point that improvements to LOS often benefit the next city or county rather than the government who pays for the infrastructure and its maintenance.

So… How important is it really to increase the level of service? Shouldn’t we really be talking about the integration of services, residents, offices, and institutions to decrease the need for highways, arterials, and collectors? Shouldn’t we be talking about the finer grain detail of our transportation palette?

Can we accept D’s and F’s for our streets if it means that there are places to walk and bike safely?

Congestion Part 2: Alternative Modes of Transportation

Posted in Town Planning, Urban Planning and Design with tags , , on December 19, 2011 by John Olson

In the last blog post, Congestion Part 1: Addition by Subtraction, I asked the question “Is congestion really such a bad thing?” You may have read thinking that John is off the deep end on this one. Well perhaps, but what if I am right that congestion is actually healthy? Is solving its problems actually going to hurt the holistic viability of a community?

Onward.

As you hopefully read in Part 1, the easiest solution to solving congestion is to increase the capacity of the roads. This temporary and expensive solution is  generally accomplished by road widening. Another more progressive alternative to this is to increase transit and other modes of transportation.  I happen to agree with this philosophy, but the success is directly related to the amount of alternative modes, how they interact, and the ease of the use of the Single-Occupant Vehicle, or SOV.

First, there has to be a cost/benefit life cycle analysis considered for providing alternative modes of transportation. If the alternative modes of transportation are equal or greater to the SOV in terms of cost, convenience, and time, chances of success are low. People with altruistic motivations will use the alternative modes, but the real target audience is the everyday person. This is why I often state that making it easier to use the single-occupant vehicle works in contradiction to decreasing vehicle miles traveled, or VMT.

Second, if the expected users of the alternative transportation systems have quick access to their own SOV, there have to be considerable opposing forces to using it compared to the alternative modes of bicycles, walking car-share programs or transit. Opposing forces could include difficulty in finding a place to park their SOV or costs of parking their SOV. Money is a powerful force in changing personal habits, especially for Americans.

I do not believe that creating the opposing forces is the answer. What I do believe is that when the crossroads appear and the choice needs to be made to spend more money to ease the use of the SOV or to increase other alternatives of transportation, a careful analysis must occur. It is much more financially responsible to add transit, bike lanes, bike sharing programs, or even HOV lanes than to take on a multi-million dollar road widening project.  After all, road widening is a temporary solution to a long-term problem.

The Euclidean Effects on Transportation Systems

Posted in Comprehensive Planning and Codes, Town Planning, Urban Planning and Design, Urbanism with tags , , , , , on September 5, 2011 by John Olson

Euclidean zoning has been incredibly efficient at organizing the land uses of our towns and cities. The organization patterns have become so efficient at segregating people and places that our communities do not realize the effects of the rigid zoning patterns until it is too late.

We have created an environment that lacks the possibility for adaptation – an environment that is full of monotony and lacking diversity. (Euclidean Effects on the Built Environment)

What else have we created in the process of organizing our communities? In the process of organizing for efficiency and segregation, we construct a transportation framework that revolves around the use of the automobile - more often than not, the single-occupant automobile (SOV). The option of walking or cycling from the residence to where we work, shop, play and learn has been lost in and beyond the first ring suburbs for our residents.

Segregation and Disconnected communities increase our dependence on the automobile and decrease our propensity to walk.

Let’s examine this a bit further in how our transportation networks are organized. First let’s start with a question.  When was the last time that you were on a highway or major street and could see the physical location where you wanted to go, but did not have any idea in how to get there? This occurs very often and enhances the frustrating experience of driving in the suburbs. It is a direct result of the efficiency machine that is the road classification system. Interestingly enough, the basics of the road classification system work similar to a typical sewer system, where sewage pipes and infrastructure start small at the individual residence or building and continually grow larger as the sewage moves away and collects additional sewage from other areas. A single blockage or interruption of flow can cause a nuisance for an entire subdivision. Interruptions in traffic in an emergency can be tragic to the fleeing drivers.

Moving beyond the sewage digression, recognizing the parallels to the way we move sewage and how we funnel our vehicles in a system. Street classification systems require minimum distances between intersections as a means to maintaining the speed of traffic on a major street. In this scenario and in a controlled environment, vehicular traffic should function in an efficient manner. But we are not in a controlled environment and the drivers are a major variable.  Drivers get distracted easily and cause an increasingly amount of vehicular accidents in our country, many of which are fatal. When an accident occurs on suburban streets and highways, long delays are caused and navigating to another route is near impossible. If you watch the traffic delay problems in your city, most delays occur in suburban locations where the road classification system is implemented to its full capacity. You rarely have the same issues in an urban environment with the original connected network of streets is in place. Interstate highways and road improvements in urban environments are certainly the exception where the suburban transportation model is imposed on an existing urban network.

If you would like to read more about the classification system, see the website for the U.S. Department of Transportation’s Federal Highway Administration.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,366 other followers