Well, we can all look forward to having President Bush shower the people who live in the picturesque hills, valleys, and forests of Southern California with our hard-earned tax dollars. Why should we have to rebuild their communities? Why do we continue to allow communities to be built/rebuilt in areas that are clearly highly susceptible to natural disasters? It's no secret. Everyone knows these areas will burn. Everyone knows New Orleans will flood again. But yet we allow, even encourage, rebuilding in these areas at the same time we know that lives will be lost and billions of dollars of property destroyed. If people are intent on risking their lives and property in exchange for the benefit of living in a wonderful climate with beautiful surroundings, so be it. But why should we, who choose to live in a safe, but not so pretty flatland environment, be obligated to subsidize others' risky choices?
Does sprawling low-density development play a key role in the loss of lives and property? Could a wildfire actually devour a higher-density urban development, or is it only because of the relative sparseness of buildings, likely imposed by zoning ordinances, in these outlying areas that allows the fires to continue devour everything in their path. Rather than spreading homes throughout such a large area, would not a more concentrated area of development be much less susceptible to fire, and also better equipped through public water lines, to suppress such a fire?
Wednesday, October 24, 2007
Thursday, October 18, 2007
"A Greater East New York Street"
That's the title on the boulder, hidden within the landscaping on the island at the intersection with Dorman Street, just west of Highland Park. What's funny is that, aside from the vegetation which obscures its view, it's not visible because it's turned toward the street and passersby in vehicles at 30+ mph will not be able to read it, let alone likely even notice its existence. And since there's no sidewalk adjacent to the island, the only way a pedestrian would see it is if they choose to walk in a travel lane of New York Street. I had probably walked past it 100 times before I happened to discover it.
The following photos give you a few glimpses of the obstacles a pedestrian faces walking from downtown to the near-eastside of Indianapolis. Note that the sidewalk is adjacent to the curb with no landscaping or other separation from fast-moving traffic.
The boulder is inscribed with the year "1933". Perhaps, this commemorated the first paving of New York Street on the eastside. Perhaps, it just accompanied a street widening and/or the realignment and redesignation of New York Street as a major thoroughfare. Whatever specific improvements were begun or completed in 1933, one thing can be pretty well assured; it surely must have commemorated a project that made this corridor an asset to the near-eastside.
Well, that was 74 years ago. Aren't we due for another project to develop a "Greater East New York Street"?
I certainly don't believe that government should solve all of society's problems, but there are certain functions that government is uniquely situated, and obligated to perform, such as: defending our country against attack (military), providing for domestic tranquility (police, courts, jails), and securing and maintaining public transportation ways to provide for movement of people and goods (public works).
Back to the photos: how can we expect anyone to do anything other than drive their vehicle everywhere they go, if even the locations in the inner city that have sidewalks are not kept clear and passable. The issue here is vegetation that neither adjacent property owners have taken responsibility for trimming as required by City/County Code, nor has the government taken responsibility for by issuing said owners notices of violation, and subsequently fines, to promote compliance with the Code.
The Cultural Trail being developed downtown is wonderful and exciting. It will spotlight attention on Indianapolis over the next several years as different portions of the Trail are completed. And of course, it should be noted that the Trail is being built within the public right-of-way, it is not a typical public works project in that taxpayers are not funding the bulk of the bill, which has been covered by private fundraising through the Central Indiana Community Foundation. To me, aside from some concerns about mixing bicycle traffic with pedestrians in a relatively dense downtown area, I have little doubt that the Cultural Trail will be a great success.
But the big question to me is: will it be an isolated pedestrian amenity that people drive downtown to use, while the remainder of Indianapolis remains a downright hostile environment to pedestrians? Or will it result in a renaissance period where the City finally begins to reverse decades of neglect of its pedestrian infrastructure, marking a new era of dedication to repairing and enhancing our existing sidewalks that should provide connections to the Cultural Trail, as well as accommodate trips in our neighborhoods whether for work, shopping, exercise, or social trips? I pray that the latter occurs, so that Indianapolis can become a desirable destination for young creative professionals for a reason other than simply having the most affordable housing of any mid- to large-sized city in the country.
One of the ways the question will be answered, will be by walking east on New York Street from downtown in 5 or 10 years. Hopefully, the pictures will look quite different. It's been 74 years. It's time to begin a new campaign for a Greater East New York Street... and a Greater Washington Street, and...
The following photos give you a few glimpses of the obstacles a pedestrian faces walking from downtown to the near-eastside of Indianapolis. Note that the sidewalk is adjacent to the curb with no landscaping or other separation from fast-moving traffic.
The boulder is inscribed with the year "1933". Perhaps, this commemorated the first paving of New York Street on the eastside. Perhaps, it just accompanied a street widening and/or the realignment and redesignation of New York Street as a major thoroughfare. Whatever specific improvements were begun or completed in 1933, one thing can be pretty well assured; it surely must have commemorated a project that made this corridor an asset to the near-eastside.
Well, that was 74 years ago. Aren't we due for another project to develop a "Greater East New York Street"?
I certainly don't believe that government should solve all of society's problems, but there are certain functions that government is uniquely situated, and obligated to perform, such as: defending our country against attack (military), providing for domestic tranquility (police, courts, jails), and securing and maintaining public transportation ways to provide for movement of people and goods (public works).
Back to the photos: how can we expect anyone to do anything other than drive their vehicle everywhere they go, if even the locations in the inner city that have sidewalks are not kept clear and passable. The issue here is vegetation that neither adjacent property owners have taken responsibility for trimming as required by City/County Code, nor has the government taken responsibility for by issuing said owners notices of violation, and subsequently fines, to promote compliance with the Code.
The Cultural Trail being developed downtown is wonderful and exciting. It will spotlight attention on Indianapolis over the next several years as different portions of the Trail are completed. And of course, it should be noted that the Trail is being built within the public right-of-way, it is not a typical public works project in that taxpayers are not funding the bulk of the bill, which has been covered by private fundraising through the Central Indiana Community Foundation. To me, aside from some concerns about mixing bicycle traffic with pedestrians in a relatively dense downtown area, I have little doubt that the Cultural Trail will be a great success.
But the big question to me is: will it be an isolated pedestrian amenity that people drive downtown to use, while the remainder of Indianapolis remains a downright hostile environment to pedestrians? Or will it result in a renaissance period where the City finally begins to reverse decades of neglect of its pedestrian infrastructure, marking a new era of dedication to repairing and enhancing our existing sidewalks that should provide connections to the Cultural Trail, as well as accommodate trips in our neighborhoods whether for work, shopping, exercise, or social trips? I pray that the latter occurs, so that Indianapolis can become a desirable destination for young creative professionals for a reason other than simply having the most affordable housing of any mid- to large-sized city in the country.
One of the ways the question will be answered, will be by walking east on New York Street from downtown in 5 or 10 years. Hopefully, the pictures will look quite different. It's been 74 years. It's time to begin a new campaign for a Greater East New York Street... and a Greater Washington Street, and...
Tuesday, October 9, 2007
City-County Council 08-Oct-2007
http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071009/LOCAL19/71009066
Interesting clip is linked at the Indy Star's article about last night's Council meeting. The clip runs about 15-20 minutes, but provides some insight into the workings of the Council. The debate was apparently about a procedural vote on an investigation into ethics lapses by the Council President Monroe Gray. Certainly, the Star article about the issue of a conflict of interest between Mr. Gray's collection of one paycheck as City-County Council President, and another paycheck as IFD's liaison to the City-County Council couldn't help his re-election bid, unless he is perceived as the subject of a witch hunt. However, the amount of presumably unbiased experts who agree that there is a clearly unacceptable conflict between the two positions would seem to dispel any such belief. I would expect that it is now slightly more likely that the voters of District 8 might be inclined to vote for new representation, but we shall see about that in four weeks.
By the way, archives of full Council hearings and committee meetings, as well as MDC, BZA, IHPC, and Hearing Examiner meetings can be watched in their entirety at the following site:
http://indianapolis.granicus.com/ViewPublisher.php?view_id=3
Interesting clip is linked at the Indy Star's article about last night's Council meeting. The clip runs about 15-20 minutes, but provides some insight into the workings of the Council. The debate was apparently about a procedural vote on an investigation into ethics lapses by the Council President Monroe Gray. Certainly, the Star article about the issue of a conflict of interest between Mr. Gray's collection of one paycheck as City-County Council President, and another paycheck as IFD's liaison to the City-County Council couldn't help his re-election bid, unless he is perceived as the subject of a witch hunt. However, the amount of presumably unbiased experts who agree that there is a clearly unacceptable conflict between the two positions would seem to dispel any such belief. I would expect that it is now slightly more likely that the voters of District 8 might be inclined to vote for new representation, but we shall see about that in four weeks.
By the way, archives of full Council hearings and committee meetings, as well as MDC, BZA, IHPC, and Hearing Examiner meetings can be watched in their entirety at the following site:
http://indianapolis.granicus.com/ViewPublisher.php?view_id=3
Thursday, October 4, 2007
Two-way Traffic on Michigan and New York Streets?
In my previous post, I comment briefly on the apparent lack of necessity to maintaining the one-way traffic design of Michigan and New York Streets on the near eastside of Indianapolis. This post will expand upon that idea. As indicated previously, it is my belief that the time has come for these streets to revert to two-way traffic. These city streets essentially serve as urban freeways from the "mid-eastside"/Irvington to downtown. The streets were not originally platted or designed for one-way traffic, but were converted to their current design sometime prior to the construction of the freeway system that now provides for fast travel between downtown and the farther points of the eastside.
Traffic counts, which can be viewed at http://www.indympo.org/NR/rdonlyres/1BE66B6A-902E-437B-A6F0-E30EAC5BD26A/0/2002tcount.pdf
indicate that New York and Michigan, with their combined seven travel lanes at rush hour, carry less traffic than five-lane Washington Street. A two-lane, two-way Michigan Street with an additional morning rush-hour lane westbound, and an additional afternoon rush-hour lane eastbound, and a two-way, two-lane New York Street could surely handle the same amount of traffic.
The first benefit would be to slow traffic down, thereby increasing the livability of the neighborhoods adjacent to these streets. The noise from traffic would likely decrease as speeds decreased. The traffic that utilizes these one-way streets typically proceeds faster than traffic on two-way streets in the city because the current multi-lane design of the streets and the lack of congestion encourages higher speeds. Second, commercial redevelopment would be more likely to occur because businesses would have the advantage of being visible and accessible by traffic in two directions, with a peak of drivers both in the morning and in the afternoon/evening.
Frankly, the changes of the past several decades including the decrease in population of Center Township and the success of so-called "big box" retailers have likely forever decreased the amount of dollars that will be spent at relatively small commercial sites in urban neighborhoods. Thus, there is not going to be enough demand to fill all the former retail buildings along New York and Michigan Streets. However, if traffic and commercial redevelopment were concentrated on one of the two corridors, there might be enough demand to reuse/redevelop a much greater percentage of the long vacant or underutilized commercial properties. The other of the two corridors could then be transformed into an urban greenway with enhanced sidewalks and bike lanes, perhaps borrowing upon the concept of the cultural trail, currently being developed downtown. The beautification of the latter corridor, with a coinciding decrease in vehicle traffic could make the commercial properties more viable for residential redevelopment, which would in turn bring more buying power into the neighborhood to support economic redevelopment of the former corridor.
Imagine a bustling Michigan Street, with plenty of thriving small businesses including coffee shops, restaurants, dry cleaners, offices, perhaps a small grocery. In addition to converting the four-lane street from one-way to two-way traffic, streetscape improvements could improve the environment for pedestrians as well.
Imagine a picturesque, park-like New York Street with a limited amount of neighborhood vehicular traffic, wide sidewalks and bike lanes separated from traffic, and lush landscaping.
Why isn't this possible? Would it take a minute or two longer to travel by car between downtown and Irvington? Yes, perhaps even three or four minutes longer. But it wouldn't it be worth the improvements that could be brought to the near-eastside? Even drivers would benefit from an enhanced experience if the appearance of the corridors was improved and more middle-class residents were attracted to the surrounding neighborhoods.
Traffic counts, which can be viewed at http://www.indympo.org/NR/rdonlyres/1BE66B6A-902E-437B-A6F0-E30EAC5BD26A/0/2002tcount.pdf
indicate that New York and Michigan, with their combined seven travel lanes at rush hour, carry less traffic than five-lane Washington Street. A two-lane, two-way Michigan Street with an additional morning rush-hour lane westbound, and an additional afternoon rush-hour lane eastbound, and a two-way, two-lane New York Street could surely handle the same amount of traffic.
The first benefit would be to slow traffic down, thereby increasing the livability of the neighborhoods adjacent to these streets. The noise from traffic would likely decrease as speeds decreased. The traffic that utilizes these one-way streets typically proceeds faster than traffic on two-way streets in the city because the current multi-lane design of the streets and the lack of congestion encourages higher speeds. Second, commercial redevelopment would be more likely to occur because businesses would have the advantage of being visible and accessible by traffic in two directions, with a peak of drivers both in the morning and in the afternoon/evening.
Frankly, the changes of the past several decades including the decrease in population of Center Township and the success of so-called "big box" retailers have likely forever decreased the amount of dollars that will be spent at relatively small commercial sites in urban neighborhoods. Thus, there is not going to be enough demand to fill all the former retail buildings along New York and Michigan Streets. However, if traffic and commercial redevelopment were concentrated on one of the two corridors, there might be enough demand to reuse/redevelop a much greater percentage of the long vacant or underutilized commercial properties. The other of the two corridors could then be transformed into an urban greenway with enhanced sidewalks and bike lanes, perhaps borrowing upon the concept of the cultural trail, currently being developed downtown. The beautification of the latter corridor, with a coinciding decrease in vehicle traffic could make the commercial properties more viable for residential redevelopment, which would in turn bring more buying power into the neighborhood to support economic redevelopment of the former corridor.
Imagine a bustling Michigan Street, with plenty of thriving small businesses including coffee shops, restaurants, dry cleaners, offices, perhaps a small grocery. In addition to converting the four-lane street from one-way to two-way traffic, streetscape improvements could improve the environment for pedestrians as well.
Imagine a picturesque, park-like New York Street with a limited amount of neighborhood vehicular traffic, wide sidewalks and bike lanes separated from traffic, and lush landscaping.
Why isn't this possible? Would it take a minute or two longer to travel by car between downtown and Irvington? Yes, perhaps even three or four minutes longer. But it wouldn't it be worth the improvements that could be brought to the near-eastside? Even drivers would benefit from an enhanced experience if the appearance of the corridors was improved and more middle-class residents were attracted to the surrounding neighborhoods.
INDOT freeway design
Why does INDOT design multi-lane entrance ramps so that the interior entrance lane merges with a through lane on the mainline? A couple of examples that come to mind are NB 465 to NB 69 and NB 465 to NB 65 on the northwestside. This seems completely unsafe. If there is a vehicle at the same point in each lane, the alternative to a collision would be to maneuver into another lane, which might also be occupied a vehicle. Why wouldn't the entrances be designed so that the outside entrance lane eventually merges into the inside entrance lane? In that case, if there were a conflict at the merge point, the vehicle in the outside lane, which would be responsible for merging, would be able to maneuver onto the shoulder where there shouldn't be another conflict. I'm not a traffic engineer, but I've not seen such a design anywhere else in my travels except for Indiana.
This type of unsafe design is not limited to INDOT though. The City of Indianapolis employs a different, but similarly dangerous merging design. SB College Avenue, approaching Interstate 65 drops from two lanes to one, as does NB College, just north of 71st Street. But rather than having the right lane merge into the left, the streets are signed and striped to require the interior (left) lane to merge to the right. It would seem that in the event of a conflict between two vehicles traveling the same direction, this design would make it more likely that a vehicle in the left lane might drive into oncoming traffic especially given the lack of a raised median at either location. Again, I haven't seen this design anywhere other than Indy.
On another note, why does INDOT insist on using mile markers to describe the location of a traffic incident on their overhead changeable message signs in the metro area? How many of us have any idea where MM 107 is on any particular Interstate? I can understand using the mile marker when you're describing an incident ahead on the same roadway. (If you're on I-65 and the sign reads "Accident- Stopped Traffic at MM 32" it's pretty easy to read the markers along the side of the road to identify the location of the incident.
But consider you're traveling north on I-65 at Southport Road and the sign reads "Lane Closed EB I-70 at MM 82 Expect Delays". If you don't know where MM 82 is, you won't know if this is between I-65 and I-465, or if it's 20 miles east of I-465. The information isn't helpful if you don't know whether the incident is on your planned route. Wouldn't it be more informative to indicate "at Emerson", "at Shadeland", at "Mt Comfort", "at Greenfield" etc.? It sure would be to me.
Finally, I'd like to comment on the Super 70 project with the following two observations: First, the lack of any real increase in traffic on Michigan and New York Streets on the near eastside solidifies my opinion that these city streets no longer need to serve as urban freeways from the far-eastside to downtown. The time has come for these streets to revert to two-way traffic. The first benefit would be to slow traffic down, thereby increasing the livability of the neighborhoods adjacent to these streets. The noise from traffic would likely decrease as speeds decreased. The traffic that utilizes these one-way streets typically proceeds faster than traffic on two-way streets in the city because the current multi-lane design of the streets and the lack of congestion encourages higher speeds. Second, commercial redevelopment would be more likely to occur because businesses would have the advantage of being visible and accessible by traffic in two directions, with a peak of drivers both in the morning and in the afternoon/evening.
My other observation was of disappoint as I drove south on Sherman Drive from the Brightwood neighborhood and stared upon the new freeway overpass. The one benefit Brightwood had was that when I-70 was constructed it was channeled under Sherman Drive thereby deflecting traffic noise away from the neighborhood. The I-70 corridor was so narrow (even though it still accommodated the same eight travel lanes that the overpassed version will carry) with development on either side, that you could actually cross the Interstate and not even realize it. No more. Now, the Brightwood area to the north, as well as the area to the south, will experience the same hum of freeway noise with which most every neighborhood adjacent to a freeway must cope. Unfortunately for Brightwood, this headache won't come with the benefit of improved access to/from the freeway.
This type of unsafe design is not limited to INDOT though. The City of Indianapolis employs a different, but similarly dangerous merging design. SB College Avenue, approaching Interstate 65 drops from two lanes to one, as does NB College, just north of 71st Street. But rather than having the right lane merge into the left, the streets are signed and striped to require the interior (left) lane to merge to the right. It would seem that in the event of a conflict between two vehicles traveling the same direction, this design would make it more likely that a vehicle in the left lane might drive into oncoming traffic especially given the lack of a raised median at either location. Again, I haven't seen this design anywhere other than Indy.
On another note, why does INDOT insist on using mile markers to describe the location of a traffic incident on their overhead changeable message signs in the metro area? How many of us have any idea where MM 107 is on any particular Interstate? I can understand using the mile marker when you're describing an incident ahead on the same roadway. (If you're on I-65 and the sign reads "Accident- Stopped Traffic at MM 32" it's pretty easy to read the markers along the side of the road to identify the location of the incident.
But consider you're traveling north on I-65 at Southport Road and the sign reads "Lane Closed EB I-70 at MM 82 Expect Delays". If you don't know where MM 82 is, you won't know if this is between I-65 and I-465, or if it's 20 miles east of I-465. The information isn't helpful if you don't know whether the incident is on your planned route. Wouldn't it be more informative to indicate "at Emerson", "at Shadeland", at "Mt Comfort", "at Greenfield" etc.? It sure would be to me.
Finally, I'd like to comment on the Super 70 project with the following two observations: First, the lack of any real increase in traffic on Michigan and New York Streets on the near eastside solidifies my opinion that these city streets no longer need to serve as urban freeways from the far-eastside to downtown. The time has come for these streets to revert to two-way traffic. The first benefit would be to slow traffic down, thereby increasing the livability of the neighborhoods adjacent to these streets. The noise from traffic would likely decrease as speeds decreased. The traffic that utilizes these one-way streets typically proceeds faster than traffic on two-way streets in the city because the current multi-lane design of the streets and the lack of congestion encourages higher speeds. Second, commercial redevelopment would be more likely to occur because businesses would have the advantage of being visible and accessible by traffic in two directions, with a peak of drivers both in the morning and in the afternoon/evening.
My other observation was of disappoint as I drove south on Sherman Drive from the Brightwood neighborhood and stared upon the new freeway overpass. The one benefit Brightwood had was that when I-70 was constructed it was channeled under Sherman Drive thereby deflecting traffic noise away from the neighborhood. The I-70 corridor was so narrow (even though it still accommodated the same eight travel lanes that the overpassed version will carry) with development on either side, that you could actually cross the Interstate and not even realize it. No more. Now, the Brightwood area to the north, as well as the area to the south, will experience the same hum of freeway noise with which most every neighborhood adjacent to a freeway must cope. Unfortunately for Brightwood, this headache won't come with the benefit of improved access to/from the freeway.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)