Got back from a meeting with transportation officials Nick & Steve with the city of Columbus about improving visibility for cyclists on the bridge north of Nationwide and the hill south of it. Hoping to get some signage up, since large “bike route” stencils on the road itself would have to go through a dozen bureaucracies, but could be done if you want to wait a decade. The signage would advise drivers that cyclists use this road (standard “share the road” signs), and surprisingly several cyclists were using the road while we were discussing it. I suggested signage advising traffic not to pass approaching the incline, since you can’t see traffic coming over the hill very well on the two-way stretch of Front. Hopefully we’ll get something. I suggested grooved speed humps on the inclines which would slow cars but not bikes or EM vehicles, but that’s an ODOT controlled road, so there’s no way. In the vast majority of cases only residential streets can have those installed, despite this road being a bike route.
If you know of any roads that could use improvements and know what you’d like to see, I’d suggest contacting Nick: NJPopa@columbus.gov or just call 645-3111 for the transportation division.
FYI, we’re not going to see sharrows until sometime in 2010 and any traffic calming measure requires several studies before implemented, which after a bit of thought makes no sense really. Just follow a formula like roads that are X ft wide + X number of lanes which are X ft wide + length of road without a stop = traffic going at an average of X MPH. Do we have some upside-down roads or loop-de-loops that I don’t know about which would throw that equation off?
I was also struck by just how many roads ODOT has control over. Virtually all streets Downtown along with several other streets. That means Downtown will never become a cyclist and pedestrian-friendly place. Ever. Period. Unless, of course, city officials were to *gasp* oppose the all-mighty ODOT. Based on their actions however, that’s not at all likely. The only hope would be grassroots.
Even streets that are residential, like King Ave. as I was told, function as arterials (they connect to the highways, you see) so my desire for traffic calming on King likely won’t be considered until a permanent speed limit is finalized. ODOT wants all of King to be 35, because drivers should be able to at least run over a couple of cyclists on their rush to 315. The city is trying to appease their bloodlust by compromising at 30 while residents want to maintain the current limit of 25.
So this means it is ODOT who dictates urban development on their streets, not city planners, and if they want to lower property values on a street like King and make streets attractive only to car oriented development, they can if they want. After all, an ODOT rep explained that the reason they’re tearing down Carabar and ET Paul is because there would be traffic. I guess it makes sense. Let’s spend lots of money so that drivers don’t have any traffic (hah!), even though it is well-known that drivers choose to put up with insane amounts of traffic at no additional cost.
To summarize; the most cyclists will get on bike routes is a bigger, more visible sign, which is better than nothing, and on any of ODOT’s roads you can forget about 25MPH speed limits, traffic calming, basically anything that would provide a safe environment for cyclists and pedestrians, since the city lets them have the final say in designing this city. And we wonder why east and west coasters aren’t flocking to Columbus.
March 12, 2009 at 3:56 pm
This post makes no sense.
March 12, 2009 at 4:27 pm
[/rant]
How so?
ODOT is judge, jury and executioner. Without any of their support to improve streets for alternatives to cars, those roads will simply be filled with speeding cars along with the development and side-effects that accompany them. Just look at Downtown if you have any doubt regarding the high correlation between the two. Little to no progress will be made for those who want to have safe alternatives to driving. We’ll get a few signs and sharrows two years after the bikeways plan was adopted. The hoops that one has to jump through for crosswalks and traffic calming can literally take years, but no one has to do anything to raise speed limits: ODOT’s already working on that. We lack a basic foundation (truly multi-modal roads) which is necessary for this city to reach its full potential and nothing is being done to change that. Oh wait, let me go back and fix something…there.
March 14, 2009 at 7:43 pm
The way you write is a huge turn-off.
I really think you need a fresh approach.
March 16, 2009 at 7:11 pm
Sounds like ODOT funding = ODOT design. Maybe if you wanted to pay to maintain King Avenue, they would let YOU decide what the speed limit should be. Maybe about 9 MPH. What do you think?
March 18, 2009 at 12:42 am
Except that ODOT is determining urban land-use, destroying investment, and lowering home-owners property values all for their #1 priority of quick commutes. They want to dictate urban planning, when that is not their realm of expertise. I’m certain that people who live on King Ave, who, according to the officials from the city’s transportation department, want to keep the 25MPH, should have their say over ODOT, who don’t even know how to do their own jobs. I think ODOT can f!ck themselves with a jagged, rusty piece of metal, to put it lightly.
March 18, 2009 at 4:40 pm
I don’t agree that ODOT determines land use. The city sets the zoning code, approves development permits, implements incentives like TIFs, and even runs its own non-profit development corporation. ODOT doesn’t do any of this.
I would be interested to see a study on the effect of speed limits on property values. There may be one out there. If there is, that would be a good thing to post to make your point.
Intuitively, I agree that most people would rather live or walk along a lower speed roadway. However, I think there are much more important factors at work in driving development in Columbus’ urban neighborhoods than the speed limits.
March 19, 2009 at 2:18 am
LOL @ Walker meltdown.
March 24, 2009 at 12:16 am
^When ODOT sets speed limits they are controlling development on that street. Drive-thrus and other car-oriented development are not going to pop up on 25MPH streets because those are best suited for long stretches of high-speed roads that support that development. No one is going to drive a long stretch of road at 25MPH lined with car-oriented development. The city is at fault when it allows such development, however.
A couple of links regarding property values and traffic:
http://www.ceds.org/pdfdocs/TrafNeig.PDF
http://dispatch.com/live/content/local_news/stories/2008/09/29/TRAFFIC.ART_ART_09-29-08_B1_91BF5UV.html?sid=101
You greatly underestimate the effects of a lower-speed limit even when the facts are right in front of you. That the only thriving part of Main st. is on the 25MPH stretch in Bexley is not a coincidence. That the healthiest stretches of High are the 30MPH stretch in the Short North and 25MPH stretch in Worthington are not a coincidence. That one of the best urban streets is on the 25MPH stretch of Grandview is not a coincidence. For more examples you can look to Clifton and Hyde Park in Cincinnati and Ohio City and Shaker Square in Cleveland. That the healthiest, most popular urban nieghborhoods in the state have a lower speed limit is a testament to the effects it has on land-use, economic vitality, multi-modal transportation (you’ll see more bikes in these places, for example)and desirability. Why we wouldn’t want that for all of our commercial corridors and for increasing property value and desirability of our residential streets is a mystery. To ODOT, some city officials and other naysayers, that is, not myself.
March 25, 2009 at 9:30 am
I think all those places you mentioned succeed because they have a good combination of density and income. To have a successful pedestrian-oriented business district, you need to have a certain amount of disposable income within walking distance. Low density places won’t work. Low income places won’t work.
I’m not very familiar with Cinci, but all the other places you listed are relatively dense and wealthy. So I guess the question is whether or not wealthy people moved to the Short North/Victorian Village/Italian Village because they liked the lower speed limit on that section of High Street or because it was an affordable neighborhood, close to downtown, close to OSU, with a great urban park, and beautiful architecture? I would guess the latter.
It would be interesting to know when the speed limits changed in relation to when the neighborhoods became well-stocked with small businesses. I would guess that in some cases, perhaps in Bexley, the business district has been thriving long before the speed limit was lowered to 25 MPH.
We may have a good test case now though. You got the speed limit on Long Street lowered to 30 MPH, right? So based on your theory, the neighborhood should start to gentrify and attract small businesses. How long should we wait to see if the speed limit reduction is successful?
March 26, 2009 at 4:44 pm
The appropriate density came to even lower-income neighborhoods several decades ago before streets were given over to cars and streets were widened and speeds increased. Regardless, they demonstrate the fundamental necessity for slower streets upon which good urban development can thrive and which ODOT does not want to see since their priority is cramming as many speeding cars onto a stretch of road as possible. I could have used examples of not-so-wealthy but walkable, urban places like Hamtramck up in Detroit or if you take a look at Mt. Vernon right here it used to be bustling, even though it was not the richest neighborhood in the city. But then the above happened, including the demolition of homes and businesses for highways which quarantined the area + urban renewal/suburbanization which encouraged car use and made the area less-walkable. As if lower-income residents needed to become car-dependent, but it’s OK to do social experiments on people if they don’t make a lot of money.
Now we’re faced with what to do for revitalization. Transportation shaped our neighborhoods before and can again. Despite lack of rail now, if the city were to shift the focus of moving cars as fast as possible regardless of the effects on quality of life, economic viability, mobility etc and instead adopted a policy where speeding is not a priority, but moving vehicle traffic is certainly factored in, then we’d see more improvements. Roads can be flexible and handle more than cars, but they have to be made safer so that people feel safe using other methods. Lower-income neighborhoods all over this city demonstrate that making roads car-only places invites car-oriented development. It’s logical that making roads inviting to various modes of transportation that development will reflect that.
Long St. could serve as an example, but the city would have to follow what I suggest more closely. I suggested 25MPH, they took it down a notch to 30MPH. On its face, 30MPH can work here, it does after all in the Short North. But there’s a reason I am much more comfortable biking on High in the SN vs Long. I think the main issue is how sporadic traffic lights are and as you well know getting new traffic lights is very, very difficult. Once you enter KL from the west there are no traffic lights *for five blocks* then it’s another three before you come to 20th. Also important to note is that the lights on High are not timed for cars to speed through the area like they are on Summit or 4th. It’s not uncommon for cars on High not to reach the 30MPH speed limit on this stretch. If Long were to even have a light at each intersection but were timed for cars to speed through, then there would be no point. Long also needs serious curb bump outs, ones that go from curb parking out to the edge of the lane for traffic, since there are no walls of buildings closing in on the street which further encourage slower traffic. When I feel as safe riding down Long, then we’ll have a worthy test subject to see if urban infill comes along
April 1, 2009 at 1:44 pm
The speed limit on nearly every street in Chicago is 30 MPH and it doesn’t inhibit the business districts. I think NYC is also 30 MPH. I think it’s more about density than speed. That’s not to say speed is unimportant, but it’s not the most important factor. You can slow cars or have no cars at all, but it doesn’t guarantee businesses will open up. You need people to support them. When Mt. Vernon was thriving, it had much more density than it does now. There weren’t as many vacant lots and there were larger households. The low median income in an area has to be compensated for with more people if you want a thriving business district.
Nevertheless, I think I’ve been giving you too hard a time about all this, which is of course part of the fun of online blogging. I do agree that having a pedestrian-friendly street is important if you want pedestrian-oriented retail and residences, which I do. So I appreciate you fighting for complete streets, even if I don’t always agree with your theories or methods.