http://www.columbusunderground.com/forums/topic/streetcar-i-even-hate-to-bring-this-up ColumbusUnderground.com Messageboard en-US Sun, 12 Feb 2012 14:04:26 +0000 http://bbpress.org/?v=1.0.2 q http://www.columbusunderground.com/forums/search.php http://www.columbusunderground.com/forums/topic/streetcar-i-even-hate-to-bring-this-up/page/38#post-345741 Fri, 17 Dec 2010 13:25:46 +0000 surber17 345741@http://www.columbusunderground.com/forums/ <p>cnn article on streetcars: <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/12/17/light.rail.streetcar/index.html?hpt=C2" rel="nofollow">http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/12/17/light.rail.streetcar/index.html?hpt=C2</a> I thought this would be an appropriate thread for it. </p> http://www.columbusunderground.com/forums/topic/streetcar-i-even-hate-to-bring-this-up/page/38#post-223249 Mon, 10 Aug 2009 05:57:50 +0000 johnwirtz 223249@http://www.columbusunderground.com/forums/ <p>I hope you're okay. Where were you and what kind of crash was it?</p> <p>...maybe you need a bike lane. </p> http://www.columbusunderground.com/forums/topic/streetcar-i-even-hate-to-bring-this-up/page/38#post-223243 Mon, 10 Aug 2009 01:06:28 +0000 Columbusite 223243@http://www.columbusunderground.com/forums/ <p>Well, I got hit by a car again. How <em><strong>dare</strong></em> I even selfishly suggest a comprehensive 25MPH speed limit on our commercial streets. I am such an arrogant, irrational, inconsiderate prick. </p> http://www.columbusunderground.com/forums/topic/streetcar-i-even-hate-to-bring-this-up/page/38#post-222641 Thu, 06 Aug 2009 12:57:50 +0000 johnwirtz 222641@http://www.columbusunderground.com/forums/ <p>I love a snow-covered street because you can see where the cars actually drive and get an idea of all the extra pavement that could be turned over to peds. </p> http://www.columbusunderground.com/forums/topic/streetcar-i-even-hate-to-bring-this-up/page/38#post-222549 Thu, 06 Aug 2009 09:42:46 +0000 greenhouse1014 222549@http://www.columbusunderground.com/forums/ <blockquote><p><cite>michaelcoyote wrote <a href="http://www.columbusunderground.com/forums/topic/streetcar-i-even-hate-to-bring-this-up/page/37#post-222458"> &gt;&gt; </a></cite><br /> Ah, here's the thing I was looking for: </p> <blockquote><p><cite><a href="http://features.csmonitor.com/environment/2008/06/25/do-traffic-laws-cause-accidents/">CS Monitor</a></cite><br /> In 2005, the New York Times described the center of Drachten, a Dutch city of about 50,000, which, at the insistence of traffic guru Hans Monderman, stripped away all regulatory traffic control features:</p> <blockquote><p> Not only was it virtually naked, stripped of all lights, signs and road markings, but there was no division between road and sidewalk. It was, basically, a bare brick square.<br /> But in spite of the apparently anarchical layout, the traffic, a steady stream of trucks, cars, buses, motorcycles, bicycles and pedestrians, moved along fluidly and easily, as if directed by an invisible conductor. When Mr. Monderman, a traffic engineer and the intersection’s proud designer, deliberately failed to check for oncoming traffic before crossing the street, the drivers slowed for him. No one honked or shouted rude words out of the window.<br /> “Who has the right of way?” he asked rhetorically. “I don’t care. People here have to find their own way, negotiate for themselves, use their own brains.” </p></blockquote> <p>According to a 2006 article Der Speigel, the number of traffic accidents in Drachten “declined dramatically” after the area was redesigned. </p></blockquote> <p>I think I agree with John that better design is needed, not better signage..</p></blockquote> <p>This reminds me of winter, when the streets are snow-covered. I always find it remarkable how it doesn't trun into complete anarchy without visible lane markings. Everyone seems to pretty much follow the accepted flow. </p> http://www.columbusunderground.com/forums/topic/streetcar-i-even-hate-to-bring-this-up/page/37#post-222547 Thu, 06 Aug 2009 09:40:38 +0000 johnwirtz 222547@http://www.columbusunderground.com/forums/ <p>Hans Monderman had some interesting theories. I wrote a XingColumbus post about him and Shared Space here:<br /> <a href="http://xingcolumbus.wordpress.com/2008/09/26/shared-space/" rel="nofollow">http://xingcolumbus.wordpress.com/2008/09/26/shared-space/</a> </p> http://www.columbusunderground.com/forums/topic/streetcar-i-even-hate-to-bring-this-up/page/37#post-222458 Wed, 05 Aug 2009 23:36:51 +0000 michaelcoyote 222458@http://www.columbusunderground.com/forums/ <p>Ah, here's the thing I was looking for: </p> <blockquote><p><cite><a href="http://features.csmonitor.com/environment/2008/06/25/do-traffic-laws-cause-accidents/">CS Monitor</a></cite></p> <p>In 2005, the New York Times described the center of Drachten, a Dutch city of about 50,000, which, at the insistence of traffic guru Hans Monderman, stripped away all regulatory traffic control features:</p> <blockquote><p> Not only was it virtually naked, stripped of all lights, signs and road markings, but there was no division between road and sidewalk. It was, basically, a bare brick square.</p> <p> But in spite of the apparently anarchical layout, the traffic, a steady stream of trucks, cars, buses, motorcycles, bicycles and pedestrians, moved along fluidly and easily, as if directed by an invisible conductor. When Mr. Monderman, a traffic engineer and the intersection’s proud designer, deliberately failed to check for oncoming traffic before crossing the street, the drivers slowed for him. No one honked or shouted rude words out of the window.</p> <p> “Who has the right of way?” he asked rhetorically. “I don’t care. People here have to find their own way, negotiate for themselves, use their own brains.”</p> </blockquote> <p>According to a 2006 article Der Speigel, the number of traffic accidents in Drachten “declined dramatically” after the area was redesigned. </p></blockquote> <p>I think I agree with John that better design is needed, not better signage.. </p> http://www.columbusunderground.com/forums/topic/streetcar-i-even-hate-to-bring-this-up/page/37#post-222444 Wed, 05 Aug 2009 22:19:00 +0000 Columbusite 222444@http://www.columbusunderground.com/forums/ <p>I hear ya on 5th. I did put together a <a href="http://columbus-ite.com/maps/traffic-calming-map/">map</a> of traffic calmed roads (needs collaboration) and for residential streets I wonder if that alone has driven up property value where it's been implemented compared to streetcars. </p> http://www.columbusunderground.com/forums/topic/streetcar-i-even-hate-to-bring-this-up/page/37#post-222424 Wed, 05 Aug 2009 21:18:31 +0000 michaelcoyote 222424@http://www.columbusunderground.com/forums/ <blockquote><p><cite>johnwirtz wrote <a href="http://www.columbusunderground.com/forums/topic/streetcar-i-even-hate-to-bring-this-up/page/37#post-222114"> &gt;&gt; </a></cite><br /> If they had put up 30 MPH hour signs on Morse Road, do you think that anyone would drive 30 MPH? I doubt it. The design of the roadway has to change too. </p></blockquote> <p>This is true.. The (temporary?) 25 MPH speed limits on 5th and 3rd are a perfect example.. I've seem more than my fair share of people speeding along both of these roads and even on some of the slower side streets and these are on the whole much narrower than Morse.</p> <p>Signage will never solve this on it's own if at all. Road and crossing development could to be used to slow down drivers along with light timing, raised crossings, speedhumps, and other tools far better than signs can. I know that I'd not mind more speedhumps along some of the side residential streets as well where speed limits seem ignored.... </p> http://www.columbusunderground.com/forums/topic/streetcar-i-even-hate-to-bring-this-up/page/37#post-222306 Wed, 05 Aug 2009 15:17:52 +0000 Columbusite 222306@http://www.columbusunderground.com/forums/ <p>I (almost) always stress the fact that road design needs to dictate the speed of drivers so that the signs are taken seriously. I'm talking about actually lowering the speed of traffic and then signing it in accordance to the new speed. Urban development happened on streets that were slow <em>because</em> they were slow: period. Our cities would have looked much different (read: unwalkable, unbikeable, and ugly with virtually no functioning mass transit) if we built our streets around speeding cars like we did post-WWII which attracted development for fast cars; there is undeniable evidence all over the country that this is the case. Look for an example of a Polaris Parkway-like road attracting development you'd see in the Short North. I don't think you'll have much luck. </p> <p>Unfortunately, such a "great streets" plan seems to be against what the city wants (both the general population and government), except for a couple of streets Downtown and the Short North (despite the multi-modal accessibility and development as a result). The death or limbo of the streetcars gave the city government an excuse so that they don't have to do anything to attract similar benefits. They can just throw up their hands and say,"Oh well, we tried." while they're spending, or going to spend, millions for adding more lanes for speeding cars on sprawling, high-speed arterial roads throughout the city. </p> http://www.columbusunderground.com/forums/topic/streetcar-i-even-hate-to-bring-this-up/page/37#post-222114 Wed, 05 Aug 2009 07:45:57 +0000 johnwirtz 222114@http://www.columbusunderground.com/forums/ <blockquote><p><cite>Columbusite wrote <a href="http://www.columbusunderground.com/forums/topic/streetcar-i-even-hate-to-bring-this-up/page/37#post-222086"> &gt;&gt;<br /> Out of our urban streets no stretch that accommodates fast cars, which excludes other modes, are great streets. High in the Short North, Gay St Downtown, Main only in Bexley, and Grandview Ave in Grandview have attracted desirable urban environment which has resulted in more recent developments.<br /> </a></cite></p></blockquote> <p>Did urban development happen on these streets because speeds are low or are speeds low because of the characteristics of the street and the adjacent urban form? I would guess that perhaps some of the former, but mostly the latter. It's an interesting question though.</p> <p>I think the problem with just lowering speed limits is that it isn't reasonable to post new speed limit signs and expect drivers to obey them. If they had put up 30 MPH hour signs on Morse Road, do you think that anyone would drive 30 MPH? I doubt it. The design of the roadway has to change too. I think you understand this. So I would be in favor of lowering speed limits in certain corridors (we need a "great streets" plan) if done in combination with redesigning streets as they are reconstructed. </p> http://www.columbusunderground.com/forums/topic/streetcar-i-even-hate-to-bring-this-up/page/37#post-222096 Wed, 05 Aug 2009 02:27:48 +0000 kessler 222096@http://www.columbusunderground.com/forums/ <p>slower street vs. faster street. hmmmmm I think Columbusite and I should do the westerville bike race and see who wins! Going off topic just because! </p> http://www.columbusunderground.com/forums/topic/streetcar-i-even-hate-to-bring-this-up/page/37#post-222086 Tue, 04 Aug 2009 21:48:49 +0000 Columbusite 222086@http://www.columbusunderground.com/forums/ <blockquote><p><cite>johnwirtz wrote <a href="http://www.columbusunderground.com/forums/topic/streetcar-i-even-hate-to-bring-this-up/page/37#post-220532"> &gt;&gt; </a></cite></p> <blockquote><p><cite>Columbusite wrote <a href="http://www.columbusunderground.com/forums/topic/streetcar-i-even-hate-to-bring-this-up/page/36#post-220360"> &gt;&gt; </a></cite><br /> That means everyone should be able to use the road and that <em>requires</em> slowing the road down to speeds safe for cyclists to be in traffic, for pedestrians to safely cross at a crosswalk (traffic around 30MPH or higher doesn't work), for mass transit like buses and streetcars which make numerous complete stops, etc. The road must provide an even playing field for all modes of transit in practice, not theory. </p></blockquote> <p>I've been thinking about this "great streets must be slow" concept a little more. I originally thought you were crazy for harping on this lower speed limits concept for so long, but I think you may be on to something. There has been recent research into adopting <a href="http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/nchrp/nchrp_rpt_616.pdf">Multi-Modal Level of Service</a> in the Highway Capacity Manual instead of using Level of Service for autos only. The recommended models for bike LOS and ped LOS do include speed as one of many variables.<br /> With that though, it's fairly obvious to everyone else that lowering speed limits alone won't create a complete street or a "great street" as you seem to think. There are too many other important design variables to consider (i.e. number of lanes, the volume of traffic, the width of the lanes, the width of the outside curb lane, the presence of a bike lane, the presence of on-street parking, the presence of street trees and other landscaping, the presence of a median, the width of the sidewalks, the height of buildings, building set-backs, the relation of entry ways to the buildings, and the physical condition of the infrastructure).<br /> Also, the upper limit may not be 30 MPH. I know plenty of streets in Chicago where I feel comfortable biking and walking even though speeds are closer to 35 MPH (although the streets are signed at 30 MPH). I doubt that the maximum limit for a "great street" is even consistent from street-to-street. I suspect it will be dependent on those same design variables I listed above.<br /> Nevertheless, maybe there should be a goal to create a "great urban street" (say level-of-service C or better for all modes) within a mile of say 90% of the people in the city limits. This is a fairly clear goal that would put almost everyone in Columbus-proper within a 15 to 20 minute walk of a walkable business district and would mean substantial changes to many suburban-sytle roadways.<br /> Spacing the "great [slower] streets" at one mile intervals should also leave room for major arterials in the system that facilitate regional travel at reasonably fast speeds. This could be hard to do in the suburbs though, where there isn't a dense grid of major streets. I might start making a map similar to the <a href="http://www.columbusunderground.com/forums/topic/greater-columbus-main-streets">one Noktulo created</a>.</p></blockquote> <p>I tried to point out each time that a slower street is the best <em>foundation</em> for a great urban street and is more likely to attract development. I did point out that it won't necessarily attract as much as a streetcar and I doubt it would myself, but it would do more than nothing, which is what we see on most of our urban corridors. </p> <p>I do consider lane width &#38; number of lanes and that is being included in a critique on the city's Hard Rd plan to add three lanes for a total of five. An example to maintain slower speed on a multi-lane road would be utilizing the skinny lanes on Cleveland and Long and a add a <em>raised</em> median with trees or something similar to visually narrow the street. Of course, too many lanes and I don't think there would be really much you could do.</p> <p>While I don't doubt your experience in Chicago, why even risk crossing the line here to see how fast we can let cars speed while also maintaining a relatively comfortable environment for peds and cyclists? Out of our urban streets no stretch that accommodates fast cars, which excludes other modes, are great streets. High in the Short North, Gay St Downtown, Main only in Bexley, and Grandview Ave in Grandview have attracted desirable urban environment which has resulted in more recent developments. Sure, High in Clintonville is somewhat happening, but I notice pedestrians hauling ass to cross the street and more cyclists that are too timid to ride among the high-speed traffic there. And of course when you consider the factors you mentioned on a 35MPH urban street in Chicago it's vastly different from what we have, like the previous example or any other 35MPH commercial street here. Volume of traffic is the one factor I don't see having a positive or negative impact on a good urban street. I know it doesn't for me as a cyclist or pedestrian.</p> <p>Yes, substantial changes would have to be made to many sprawling areas of the city and suburbanized urban streets and they should. As long as there is a comprehensive, interconnected system of these kinds of streets we'll have become a great city. While I'd <em>ideally</em> like to see a blanket slow street policy adopted, I'd be more than fine with a system where you'd have the option to choose between a slow street and a high-speed suburban-style one. For exampl:, slow Morse, but not 161. Right now you're all but forced to go by car. And just think that after adopting such a policy we'd already have a bunch of healthier streets to connect together with a streetcar system. </p> http://www.columbusunderground.com/forums/topic/streetcar-i-even-hate-to-bring-this-up/page/37#post-222085 Tue, 04 Aug 2009 21:34:55 +0000 greenhouse1014 222085@http://www.columbusunderground.com/forums/ <blockquote><p><cite>Walker wrote <a href="http://www.columbusunderground.com/forums/topic/streetcar-i-even-hate-to-bring-this-up/page/37#post-221974"> &gt;&gt; </a></cite><br /> That crash doesn't look that bad. An SUV-on-SUV crash (which is a thousand times more likely) on the highway is much more likely to result in serious injury or death.</p></blockquote> <p>Did you really say that? a crash doesn't have to "look bad" for it to be deadly. that's a very spin-ey statament </p> http://www.columbusunderground.com/forums/topic/streetcar-i-even-hate-to-bring-this-up/page/37#post-222031 Tue, 04 Aug 2009 17:57:24 +0000 paktinat 222031@http://www.columbusunderground.com/forums/ <p>Yes, the Lolz.</p> <p>I just thought the picture was funny, and I was a bit happy that there was one less SUV in the world </p> http://www.columbusunderground.com/forums/topic/streetcar-i-even-hate-to-bring-this-up/page/37#post-222027 Tue, 04 Aug 2009 17:46:33 +0000 Walker 222027@http://www.columbusunderground.com/forums/ <p>I know. I'm just being a little snarky today. ;) </p> http://www.columbusunderground.com/forums/topic/streetcar-i-even-hate-to-bring-this-up/page/37#post-222012 Tue, 04 Aug 2009 16:10:08 +0000 Brant 222012@http://www.columbusunderground.com/forums/ <p>Walker, I didn't say we should never have streetcars. Only that the accident looked pretty bad to me.</p> <p>Nor did paktinat suggest that streetcar accidents were more dangerous or commonplace than highway accidents. I suspect s/he posted it just for the lolz.</p> <p>Of course accidents happen on railways, bike lanes, highways, airports, icy sidewalks - everywhere. It's just a picture of an accident that happens to involve a streetcar. It's not an argument against streetcars, so don't get yer dander up. </p> http://www.columbusunderground.com/forums/topic/streetcar-i-even-hate-to-bring-this-up/page/37#post-222010 Tue, 04 Aug 2009 15:45:45 +0000 blammo 222010@http://www.columbusunderground.com/forums/ <p>I guess light rail should get scrapped as well.<br /> <img src="http://www.forensicgenealogy.info/images/train_wreck.jpg"> </p> http://www.columbusunderground.com/forums/topic/streetcar-i-even-hate-to-bring-this-up/page/37#post-222007 Tue, 04 Aug 2009 15:38:19 +0000 Walker 222007@http://www.columbusunderground.com/forums/ <blockquote><p><cite>Brant Jones wrote <a href="http://www.columbusunderground.com/forums/topic/streetcar-i-even-hate-to-bring-this-up/page/37#post-221987"> &gt;&gt; </a></cite><br /> Looks pretty bad to me. Yikes.</p></blockquote> <p>You're right. We should probably not do Streetcars. There is a possibility that someone could get hurt! Yikes! </p> http://www.columbusunderground.com/forums/topic/streetcar-i-even-hate-to-bring-this-up/page/37#post-221987 Tue, 04 Aug 2009 15:13:03 +0000 Brant 221987@http://www.columbusunderground.com/forums/ <p>Looks pretty bad to me. Yikes. </p>