Comments on: The Safety Bogeyman http://www.urbanophile.com/2009/12/20/the-safety-bogeyman/ Passionate About Cities Mon, 06 Sep 2010 00:50:06 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.1 hourly 1 By: cdc guy http://www.urbanophile.com/2009/12/20/the-safety-bogeyman/comment-page-1/#comment-6531 cdc guy Wed, 23 Dec 2009 14:31:22 +0000 http://www.urbanophile.com/?p=1687#comment-6531 Really, Aaron, what do you expect? INDOT's self-defined mission is to move cars and trucks, not people. Really, Aaron, what do you expect? INDOT’s self-defined mission is to move cars and trucks, not people.

]]> By: The Urbanophile http://www.urbanophile.com/2009/12/20/the-safety-bogeyman/comment-page-1/#comment-6521 The Urbanophile Tue, 22 Dec 2009 22:27:32 +0000 http://www.urbanophile.com/?p=1687#comment-6521 Dirt, that's outrageous. Even if someone wanted to cross I-465 on a "local side street" how could they? By definition those are types of streets that do not get bridges across a major roadway. Dirt, that’s outrageous. Even if someone wanted to cross I-465 on a “local side street” how could they? By definition those are types of streets that do not get bridges across a major roadway.

]]> By: cdc guy http://www.urbanophile.com/2009/12/20/the-safety-bogeyman/comment-page-1/#comment-6520 cdc guy Tue, 22 Dec 2009 22:26:54 +0000 http://www.urbanophile.com/?p=1687#comment-6520 Off-topic rant of the day: I agree with Travis: the place to start is with parking lots. More shade, more-defined pedestrian paths, better connections to residential areas. One way to start is to stop with the ridiculously high parking requirements. Some of that parking-lot space could be re-configured to put a walking path in and among the parking spaces. For one take on this, go to Bing Maps and type in "Longwood Gardens, PA". That layout has a central pedestrian path that probably costs less than 5% of the theoretical maximum parking, but it makes the walk in to the ticket lobby much more welcoming. If I were laying out parking lot regulations, I'd require such a path, and also put sidewalks between the head-in rows, to connect to the cross-lot path. (The surface parking lot at the Indianapolis Museum of Art has something like this, but it is oriented 90 degrees wrong; its central walkway inexplicably leads AWAY from the Museum's entrance pavilion, parallel to the building front.) That's probably the one thing that "lifestyle centers" get right: park once, and walk around in an inviting place between different stores. I'd grudgingly admit that's a start. Pedestrians can deal with the relatively short interruption of the busy bridge or one busy intersection. It is because everything else on their journey is inhospitable and inconvenient that they really don't perceive any alternative to using the car. Hmm. Maybe this wasn't off-topic at all: more car trips to shop and do stuff in the 'burbs means more road capacity is needed, means more bigger roads, means more parking required at stores... Off-topic rant of the day:

I agree with Travis: the place to start is with parking lots. More shade, more-defined pedestrian paths, better connections to residential areas.

One way to start is to stop with the ridiculously high parking requirements. Some of that parking-lot space could be re-configured to put a walking path in and among the parking spaces. For one take on this, go to Bing Maps and type in “Longwood Gardens, PA”. That layout has a central pedestrian path that probably costs less than 5% of the theoretical maximum parking, but it makes the walk in to the ticket lobby much more welcoming.

If I were laying out parking lot regulations, I’d require such a path, and also put sidewalks between the head-in rows, to connect to the cross-lot path. (The surface parking lot at the Indianapolis Museum of Art has something like this, but it is oriented 90 degrees wrong; its central walkway inexplicably leads AWAY from the Museum’s entrance pavilion, parallel to the building front.)

That’s probably the one thing that “lifestyle centers” get right: park once, and walk around in an inviting place between different stores. I’d grudgingly admit that’s a start.

Pedestrians can deal with the relatively short interruption of the busy bridge or one busy intersection. It is because everything else on their journey is inhospitable and inconvenient that they really don’t perceive any alternative to using the car.

Hmm. Maybe this wasn’t off-topic at all: more car trips to shop and do stuff in the ‘burbs means more road capacity is needed, means more bigger roads, means more parking required at stores…

]]> By: AmericanDirt http://www.urbanophile.com/2009/12/20/the-safety-bogeyman/comment-page-1/#comment-6519 AmericanDirt Tue, 22 Dec 2009 22:25:02 +0000 http://www.urbanophile.com/?p=1687#comment-6519 It would seem that the average/median notion argued here is a moot point for INDOT--possibly interchangeable. I learned about their looseness with terminology a few weeks ago when I inquired about US 31 South, at the interchange with I-465. Previously there had been grade separation at the US 31 bridge to at least have some protection for pedestrians needing to use the highway to cross I-465. Now, after the construction, there is no grade separation whatsoever. The INDOT rep provided this response to my inquiry: > > > Thank you for your e-mail regarding U.S. 31. I assume this is U.S. 31 and I-465 on the south side. The bridge replacement project is halfway complete, but on hiatus until spring (probably March or April, depending on when the weather breaks). The amount of shoulder at the bridge once replaced should be similar to what was there before. U.S. 31 is a limited access highway that has a high volume of traffic at higher speeds. It is suggested that pedestrians use local side streets with less traffic and speed to get to their destinations. > > > US 31 is not a limited access highway by any stretch of the term; it is filled with intersections and stoplights, as well as businesses and private residences. In both cases, "limited access highway" allows a certain benchmarking for a LOS that completely removes pedestrians from consideration. And, contrary perhaps to the scenario in Carmel, we DO see pedestrians occasionally using the US 31 viaduct to get across I-465. It would seem that the average/median notion argued here is a moot point for INDOT–possibly interchangeable. I learned about their looseness with terminology a few weeks ago when I inquired about US 31 South, at the interchange with I-465. Previously there had been grade separation at the US 31 bridge to at least have some protection for pedestrians needing to use the highway to cross I-465. Now, after the construction, there is no grade separation whatsoever. The INDOT rep provided this response to my inquiry:
>
>
>
Thank you for your e-mail regarding U.S. 31. I assume this is U.S. 31 and I-465 on the south side. The bridge replacement project is halfway complete, but on hiatus until spring (probably March or April, depending on when the weather breaks).

The amount of shoulder at the bridge once replaced should be similar to what was there before. U.S. 31 is a limited access highway that has a high volume of traffic at higher speeds. It is suggested that pedestrians use local side streets with less traffic and speed to get to their destinations.
>
>
>
US 31 is not a limited access highway by any stretch of the term; it is filled with intersections and stoplights, as well as businesses and private residences. In both cases, “limited access highway” allows a certain benchmarking for a LOS that completely removes pedestrians from consideration. And, contrary perhaps to the scenario in Carmel, we DO see pedestrians occasionally using the US 31 viaduct to get across I-465.

]]> By: Travis http://www.urbanophile.com/2009/12/20/the-safety-bogeyman/comment-page-1/#comment-6518 Travis Tue, 22 Dec 2009 21:13:59 +0000 http://www.urbanophile.com/?p=1687#comment-6518 I find it interesting that most of these posts have been on the plans that they had set out for the project and very little on what can be done for pedestrian traffic without it seeming like a second thought to vehicles. There is alot of housing close enough to the road and as we all know there is just about everything a hoosier could need or want lining it. I think a good place to start would be some examples of how this problem has been fixed before. Unfortunately I can not name one place i have noticed this to be accomplished. In chicago they just throw in areas for people to stand in between all of the lanes of traffic but that is neither safe nor pleasing. Pedesrian bridges come off as a second thought unless if they have a high amount on context with the site like Frank Ghery's in millenium park, and how are we suposed to convince people to walk or ride their bike while there are hardly any bike racks and there are giant parking lots around every store and restaurant pedestrians will have to cross. The problem with every solution i can think of is that the area was never designed for pedestrian use in the first place. This means it will be a very slow transition away from vehicle use I find it interesting that most of these posts have been on the plans that they had set out for the project and very little on what can be done for pedestrian traffic without it seeming like a second thought to vehicles. There is alot of housing close enough to the road and as we all know there is just about everything a hoosier could need or want lining it. I think a good place to start would be some examples of how this problem has been fixed before. Unfortunately I can not name one place i have noticed this to be accomplished. In chicago they just throw in areas for people to stand in between all of the lanes of traffic but that is neither safe nor pleasing. Pedesrian bridges come off as a second thought unless if they have a high amount on context with the site like Frank Ghery’s in millenium park, and how are we suposed to convince people to walk or ride their bike while there are hardly any bike racks and there are giant parking lots around every store and restaurant pedestrians will have to cross. The problem with every solution i can think of is that the area was never designed for pedestrian use in the first place. This means it will be a very slow transition away from vehicle use

]]> By: The Urbanophile http://www.urbanophile.com/2009/12/20/the-safety-bogeyman/comment-page-1/#comment-6513 The Urbanophile Tue, 22 Dec 2009 13:28:07 +0000 http://www.urbanophile.com/?p=1687#comment-6513 Yes, but in the Carmel case the freeway is in effect already there. The existing road is a four lane divided highway, limited access, with fenced ROW, etc. All it has are huge signalized intersections with no crosswalks. The upgrade project isn't expanding the ROW one bit, and dramatically reduces the amount of pavement pedestrians have to cross. I've walked through one of the new interchanges. It is night and day. Yes, but in the Carmel case the freeway is in effect already there. The existing road is a four lane divided highway, limited access, with fenced ROW, etc. All it has are huge signalized intersections with no crosswalks. The upgrade project isn’t expanding the ROW one bit, and dramatically reduces the amount of pavement pedestrians have to cross. I’ve walked through one of the new interchanges. It is night and day.

]]> By: Alon Levy http://www.urbanophile.com/2009/12/20/the-safety-bogeyman/comment-page-1/#comment-6506 Alon Levy Tue, 22 Dec 2009 04:10:57 +0000 http://www.urbanophile.com/?p=1687#comment-6506 Depressed freeways aren't much better than at-grade ones - just look at what happened to the South Bronx after Moses rammed the Cross-Bronx Expressway through it. Depressed freeways aren’t much better than at-grade ones – just look at what happened to the South Bronx after Moses rammed the Cross-Bronx Expressway through it.

]]> By: The Urbanophile http://www.urbanophile.com/2009/12/20/the-safety-bogeyman/comment-page-1/#comment-6502 The Urbanophile Tue, 22 Dec 2009 00:33:52 +0000 http://www.urbanophile.com/?p=1687#comment-6502 Steve, I agree it is seldom pleasant to cross a freeway. However, Carmel (one of the two towns this passes through) has really been working hard dramatically improve quality of space. They are rebuilding miles of streets with 8-ft sidepaths on both sides. They also spent a decade battling the state to gain control of a similar road on the other side of town. They are also making it a freeway, but with very tight roundabout interchanges and the freeway depressed under the roundabouts to the extent the water table allows. It is a dramatic improvement in pedestrian and bike experience. In fact, the main purpose of the project is linking the communities on the two sides. You can find out more about: <a href="http://www.carmellink.org/" rel="nofollow">http://www.carmellink.org/</a> Westfield, the other town, has its downtown directly adjacent to US 31, so it isn't unreasonable to hope that people in housing developments on the other side might want to walk or bike to get there. Steve,

I agree it is seldom pleasant to cross a freeway. However, Carmel (one of the two towns this passes through) has really been working hard dramatically improve quality of space. They are rebuilding miles of streets with 8-ft sidepaths on both sides. They also spent a decade battling the state to gain control of a similar road on the other side of town. They are also making it a freeway, but with very tight roundabout interchanges and the freeway depressed under the roundabouts to the extent the water table allows. It is a dramatic improvement in pedestrian and bike experience. In fact, the main purpose of the project is linking the communities on the two sides. You can find out more about:

http://www.carmellink.org/

Westfield, the other town, has its downtown directly adjacent to US 31, so it isn’t unreasonable to hope that people in housing developments on the other side might want to walk or bike to get there.

]]> By: John http://www.urbanophile.com/2009/12/20/the-safety-bogeyman/comment-page-1/#comment-6499 John Mon, 21 Dec 2009 21:52:25 +0000 http://www.urbanophile.com/?p=1687#comment-6499 An EIS isn't always required with federal funds, just for really big projects that have major impacts. Planners and engineers can often do a smaller version called an Environmental Analysis (EA) instead. Spot on with the analysis though. An EIS isn’t always required with federal funds, just for really big projects that have major impacts. Planners and engineers can often do a smaller version called an Environmental Analysis (EA) instead. Spot on with the analysis though.

]]> By: Steve Mouzon http://www.urbanophile.com/2009/12/20/the-safety-bogeyman/comment-page-1/#comment-6498 Steve Mouzon Mon, 21 Dec 2009 21:19:05 +0000 http://www.urbanophile.com/?p=1687#comment-6498 Ever count people crossing a pedestrian footbridge over an interstate? It's a prescription for a boring day. Problem is, a Cheapway so degrades the urban fabric on both sides to a depth of several blocks that there is usually a very light pedestrian load on the sidewalks either side of the Cheapway that want to go from one side to the other. Ever count people crossing a pedestrian footbridge over an interstate? It’s a prescription for a boring day. Problem is, a Cheapway so degrades the urban fabric on both sides to a depth of several blocks that there is usually a very light pedestrian load on the sidewalks either side of the Cheapway that want to go from one side to the other.

]]>