COMMUNITY TRANSPORTATION AGE ARRIVAL

COMMUNITY TRANSPORTATION AGE ARRIVAL…

TIME HAS COME FOR BIG INFRASTRUCTURE UPGRADE SPENDING ON TOWN AND URBAN CENTERS FOR WALKING AND BICYCLING—THE CHANGES WE HAVE BEEN WAITING FOR

It happened in Germany and the Netherlands near the end of the last century, and now it is time for Vermont to launch a major town and urban center infrastructure program with initial investments at the rate of $10-$20 million mostly from federal transportation funds, entirely allocated to the walking and bicycling modes.

A good start for walking and bicycling infrastructure spending would be an immediate infusion of $5 million this year with an invitation for submissions of proposals by towns and cities with basic cycle-track (a la Montreal), roundabouts, and other easily designed and built walking and bicycle facilities serving local residents along major streets and thoroughfares.

When starting their infrastructure programs Germany and the Netherlands already boasted the typical European modal share of bicycling and walking in the range of 25-35%, but still both invested heavily on big improved facilities for walking and bicycle travel.  Meanwhile U.S. and Canadian modal share remain stuck to on average about 1% for bicycling and 10% for walking. 

 

Two key factors demand the investment  $10 million or so each year right now. Consider a typical highway expansion or bypass which today costs $15-$30 million.  Several of these high expenditure highway projects are now in the State five-year construction program.  So, a $10 million-a-year expenditure for walking and bicycling infrastructure program over and above the current bikepath program continues very affordable.  The first factor favoring a new direction  involves the very success of the bikepath program itself--the cycle of building bikepaths and basic sidewalks in most of Vermont’s downtowns and village centers has run it course since the landmark program began 1990-1991. 

Second, more importantly, car travel plateaued and will likely decline this decade in much if not all of the state.  Part of this phenomenon gets reflected in car travel growth sliding to a crawl 2000-2010.  Remarkably in the workforce no increase occurred in car travel to work during this same period while a flood of over 9,000 workers, over two percent of the workforce, suddenly walked, biked, took public transit or worked at home.  The end of car travel growth and workers abandoning the car as a way to work means the need suddenly exists to make downtowns and town centers quality place—and safe places--to walk and bicycle as is the case in our urban small town counterparts in Europe.  Burlington’s Church Street Marketplace arose in great part as an inspiration from a similar effort in Copenhagen.  Now, Vermont town and urban centers, again, need to replicate the infrastructure changes which sustained and expanded walking and bicycling in continental western Europe over the recent decades.

Regional planning agencies and key state agencies need to develop on a coordinated basis detailed plans for town and urban center cycle track and roundabout (and traffic calming elements also) which assure markedly improved and safer walkability and bikability for all ages.  These planning efforts build on already existing basic walking and bicycling plans mostly done in the 1990s.   Planning this time around not only looks at basic cycle tracks and roundabouts, but also the informal built up area “back” ways and creation of connections closed off in the past but with camera monitoring equipment can now be safely made available for walking and bicycling connections to and between the street and sidewalk networks.  These investments surely will spur increases in walking and bicycling and insure either stable or declining car travel and congestion in all built up areas of the State.

Finally as Vermont surely will follow other states moving to broad base taxes and away from constantly declining revenues associated with car travel, a new stream of resources can fund walking, bicycle, passenger rail and public transit.

Now the modern age of community transportation begins: (1) first commuter and intercity rail passenger services along with local bus and other public transit; and (2) provision in our town centers and urban areas basic safe walking and bicycle infrastructure along streets and backways which enables a renaissance of walking and bicycling mode.

STATES SING "SAYONARA GAS TAX"

NATIONS’ CAR DRIVERS AND PASSENGERS DUMP CARS, GAS TAXES FLOUNDER EVERYWHERE, AND NOW TWO STATES MOVE TOWARDS BROAD BASE TAXES FOR TRANSPORTION BUDGETS WITH ONE, VIRGINIA, ALREADY ACROSS THE FINISH LINE WITH ITS ABOLISHING IT’S 17.5 CENT GAS TAX LAST WEEK

                   …more shocks and tremors from the “transportation tectonic shift”

The realm of transporting people from place to place in America changes now before our very eyes. 

The century’s first decade brought a drop in car travel for every age group, flattening or even decline in vehicle miles of travel in most states, and since 1995 a 20 percent drop in the proportion of the under-30 driver licensing with their car travel down even more 22 percent. 

States and the federal government this century continue experience an even greater drop in motor fuel and car-related taxes from more fuel-efficient vehicles and driving cutbacks by consumers. Now in 2013 comes a revolution in state finance of all transportation led by Virginia and Massachusetts January proposals looking to fund needed transportation programs and projects with broad base taxes, quitting the practice of about a century of funding highways and most other transportation needs from motor-vehicle related taxes and fees.

  

Less than two months after Virginia Governor Bob McDonell proposed it, the financing plan passed by large margins in the House and Senate last week.  The new law abolishes the 17.5 cent Virginia gasoline tax and moves to a sales tax on motor fuels along with a dedicated  transportation 0.8% sales tax on top of the current 5% for all goods and services except food.  The new approach raises over $3 billion in the first five years versus under the old regime.

Meanwhile in Massachusetts, the plan put forth by Gov. Deval Patrick raises $1.9 million in new revenue yearly, mostly from the income tax, with both all transportation modes and education getting needed funding—particularly the MBTA, a backlog of highway and bridge projects, and expansion of passenger rail service statewide.

Governor Patrick’s plan includes some tax reform, such as reduction in the sales tax by a penny, sets gasoline and motor vehicle taxes and fees into an automatic increase schedule in line with changes of inflation.

With Virginia and Massachusetts in the lead—one with a Republican governor and legislature and the other Democratic—can the rest of the nation be far behind?

MEASURING WHAT'S WALKABLE-ONE SIMPLE WAY

The following post reflects a Burlington (VT) Walk Bike Council (BWBC) response to member Phil Hammserslough's commending to the Council an interview with community planner Peter Calthorpe....

 Thanks to Phil Hammerslough get us to Peter Calthorpe’s discussion of community design.  This got me to thinking about these two elements: (1)  what is a “walkable” community and this second item from Calthorpe (2) if you want to have a workable transit system you have to “arrive at a place that’s walkable.”

HERE IS SOME OF THE TEXT:

Peter Calthorpe: My short and simple answer is that a well-designed city is walkable. It’s a place where your destinations are close enough to walk to and where you feel safe enough to walk. And it’s a place that is interesting enough socially to make you feel that walking is perhaps something more than just getting from point A to point B. I think that is the heart of it.

……. We have a myopic transportation system. The way we design our communities doesn’t allow walking, doesn’t provide decent transit systems and doesn’t provide alternatives to the car.

London: It brings us back to the idea of walkable communities.

Calthorpe: Exactly. That is the foundation, because if you want a transit system to function, you have to arrive at a place that’s walkable — otherwise you are going to want to take your car there. So you need walkable neighborhoods.

So Calthorpe says our built up areas need to walkable and without “walkability” then transit cannot function (well maybe “function well” might be better).  OK, so what’s “walkable?” How do we measure it?  For us in Vermont, walkable means making existing urban area, town and cities, etc.,“walkable.”  Our populations are generally not growing, there is plenty of opportunity to increase housing densities in our primarily older urban and town centers—we all agree on that.  So, how do we make things “walkable.”  How can we know when something is “walkable?”  And is there a method or way to measure walkability without hiring a consultant?

Interestingly we have, for example, a readily available a way to measure our scenic viewscapes from any vantage point using a simple method which anyone can use—the method not only determines if you have a valuable viewscape but also whether it is among the top few which require every reasonable effort to preserve. And, most important, anyone can do it. The methology, available from the Vermont Agency of Transportation was originally developed from a Massachusetts statewide landscape inventory taken when it appeared the entire state would be overrun by development in the 1950s.  Scenic experts hired by Vermont refined a state methodology using principals the Massachusetts experience and that citizen-usable evaluation tool is available today. Actually a rudimentary method which measures the likelihood a given node, area, corridor affords a workable walking environment.  The method is very simple, probably could use some updating today but gives anyone the ability to determine whether their street, neighborhood and community measure up on a scale of  “walkability”.  (Even Calthorpe abandoned adjusting the word “pedestrian” to “pedestrianability.”)

The walkability measurement method was developed about 1990 as part of the landmark land use/transportation study of the Portland, OR area, a study with the intent to determine how best to develop land and transportation investments to minimize car travel and maximize transit and the active modes of  bicycling and walking.  One of the reports from the 1000 Friends of Oregon sponsored project was a short paper with the bureaucratic title “Pedestrian Environmental Factor.”   A better title might be, “Measuring Community Walkability”—to be referenced here as the “Walkability Study.”  The study itself was not intended to be—nor was it represented—as a yardstick for walkability.  So this analysis takes some liberties with the original report.

The Walkability Study concludes that if you rate four factors on a scale of 0-3 and the total is 9 or better—the area possesses what usually is found in positive walking environments—based on evaluating a large number of locations with a lively walking mode. The four factors are quite easy to determine: (1) presence of a sidewalk; (2) presence of a connected sidewalk network; (3) degree of grades; and (4) ease of crossing intersections.  After using this in examples below, it becomes clear that one might like to rate a factor, for example, 1.5, rather than a whole number so one begins to measure a finer degree of walkability—but dealing with that can be left to another time.

Let’s take a couple of examples in Burlington and determine their “walkability” score using a 0, 1, 2, 3 approach from the Walkability Study.

 

Church Street Marketplace   Sidewalk:  3  Entire area a walker plaza.

Sidewalk Network:   3  All approaches and exits along the Marketplace involve sidewalks or mall areas

Grade:  3  Some variation exists here—there is a slight grade from Bank Street south to Main Street while Bank Street to Pearl Street is relatively flat.  Overall, given the context and slight grade on one portion of the area, a 3 score appears fair.

Intersection Crossing Ease:  1    OK this is the tough one.  When the Walkability Study was done all U.S. intersections were either signs or signalized—no roundabouts.  Before roundabouts any signalized two-lane roads intersection might get an automatic  score of “1”, a single lane signaled intersection a “2” (two-way stop control also) and 4-way stop intersections a gentleperson’s  “3.”  Purely low traffic residential areas might get a “2” and with a little traffic calming, a “3.”  But the advent of the roundabout and traffic calming techniques changed the equation—for the better for walkers.  Any roundabout reduces delay versus any signalized intersection and safety is improved for walkers at either one or two laners (Vermont at most may have one or two intersections statewide which might require a three-lane roundabout, so they are not a consideration.)

So here goes for a suggested scoring of intersections in the roundabout age.  Generally, from 0 to 3: (1) signalized intersection with one or more legs a four-lane roadway, 0 score; (2) two-lane intersection signalized or two-way stop control, score 1; (3) two-lane roundabout or four-way stop/yield, score 2; and (4) one-lane roundabout with or without traffic calming, score 3.

 

So, in the case of the Marketplace where there is a mix of two and four lane roadway intersections along north to south boarder streets (Winooski Avenue and Battery Street) , a score of “1” is marked.

TOTAL WALKABILITY SCORE: 10 (out of 12)

College Street and Battery Street  Sidewalk: 3  

Sidewalk Network: 3

Grade: 1 This is a mixture of  a 2 rating south on Battery toward Main, 1 to 2 rating north on Battery and east on College and a 0 rating on College toward the waterfront (the stairway adjacent on the south side gives a concrete picture of the grade). 

Intersection Crossing Ease:  0    Here Battery Street is four lane with a signal—though traffic can be handled by a single lane roundabout which would give it a score of “2”.   This is not to conclude a single lane roundabout is feasible—but since a single lane roundabout ups the intersection score from 7 to 9—below to just into the margin of walkability the impact of the roundabout on walkability becomes clear.  Short of an escalator-like device steep inclines cannot be changed and therefore present a clear barrier to walkability scores.  Even granting the current intersection with  score of “1” leaves it below the desired total score of 9 sought for a  minimum walkability rating. 

TOTAL WALKABILITY SCORE:  7

North Street and North Champlain  Sidewalk: 3

Sidewalk Network: 3

Grade: 3

Intersection Crossing Ease:  2     This is an interesting intersection as it does have a signal which—based on he above discussion would be scored only a “1”.  But in this case North Champlain—a one-way north from Pearl Street—is traffic calmed so one can credit the intersection with an extra point.  The suggestion here is that a signaled intersection involving two-lane streets with full traffic calming could reach a score of  “3” equal to a single lane roundabout.  Most likely before that would occur one would simply convert the intersection to a roundabout and remove the signal.

This represents a first cut application.  The raw total scores do in fact point to where attention needs to be given. 

VERMONT ECONOMIST ART WOOLF DOESN'T READ THIS BLOG

VERMONT ECONOMIST ART WOOLF DOESN’T READ THIS BLOG

Vermont Economist Art Wolf keeps Burlington Free Press readers up with financial and demographic statistics in an engaging column each week, but presenting data on commuting in Vermont (When it comes to commuting Vermonters are just like everyone else, Free Press, February 7) Economist Wolf apparently does not read this blog which on January 25 found in the same 2000-2010 data sets “Vermont dumps the car to get to work.”  

Wolf missed the home-to-work trends during a ten-year period of time when the number of employed Vermonters grew by over 9,000 and those traveling to work by car actually declined 17, not a lot, but a historic trend change.  Meanwhile, Vermont worker commuting by public transit grew 72% to 3,140, by bicycle by 107% to 2,022, and walking 12.7% to 19,778.   The percentage of solo and carshare commuters dropped from 87.1% to 84.6%.

The news from the 2000-2010 tabulation really stands out: the first trend away from carcentricity in commuting since the end of World War II when the last vestiges of trolley, passenger rail, and bicycling commuting headed toward permanent lows leading to the overwhelming 80-90% commuting by car which continued on an upward slope--until 2000 when the tide began to turn. 

Several factors play into this historic change—and my January 25 blog examines some of those factors.  As important, it is clear that the downtrend in car commuting is likely to continue, and so too will increases in modal share for the non-car modes likely get repeated for some decades to come.

Economist Wolf may well be correct that Vermont is much like the U.S. in commuting but that commuting increasingly, at least in Vermont, now moves away for the first time from car travel to other modes. 

WALKER SAFETY AT ROUNDABOUTS--GETTING THE FOREST AND TREES RIGHT

FORESTS, TREES, AND WHY ROUNDABOUTS INCREASE WALKER SAFETY

During a meeting with a Burlington (VT) city official this week, I was asked to give a concise reasoning of how roundabouts increase safety for walkers.  In response quickly went into the studies, statistics, etc., but forgot entirely the basic element which reduces the frequency and severity of walker injuries: roundabouts by design reduce the speeds of vehicles.  Only by lowering speeds of vehicles can one begin to address walker safety—and the only way to reduce vehicle speeds is with concrete and steel impediments which roundabouts and other traffic calming devices provide.

The roundabout reduces speeds by forcing an approaching vehicle to divert from a straight line through placing a splitter island at the approach point with a curb as the enforcer.  After entry, the vehicle continues to face constraint by having to travel on a circular curbed travelway—the smaller the overall roundabout, the lower the circulating speed.  The entry and curved circular travelway constraints on speed are called “deflection.”  The one factor in all walker safety research which most impacts on walker injury frequency and injury severity is speed.  The small mini-roundabout (like the first one in Vermont built in Manchester Center last fall) features a humped area in the place of a curbed central island—but a mini generally can only be located at an intersection which has a fairly low speed environment.  And a mini only gets employed where a roundabout with a curbed central island is not practical.

Of course other features of a roundabout aid in the overall walker injury reduction—the splitter island providing a mid-crossing refuge so the walker deals with traffic from one direction at a time, the location of the crosswalk a car length from the actual intersection so there are not left hand turning traffic issues, and crosswalk width relatively narrow both reducing walker exposure and assisting in speed reduction of vehicles.

So with roundabouts you do get up to a 90% reduction in injury rates for walkers, and the U.S. and Canadian roundabouts record so far (no fatalities to date) approximates that of France where they yearly average about one walker fatality per 15,000 of their roundabouts yearly (well over 30,000 there today).

Hope this gets the forest and trees back into proper perspective.