Road Diet

lmbrls, post: 369487, member: 6823 wrote: ...I have done more surveys for walking paths and sidewalks than roadway surveys....

That's been the way of life in Portland for 20+ years. Portland is top shelf for livability. Property values are through the roof. When property values are high, people complain about the price of surveys a little less. That's the good side.

Bad side - it's a little tough to drive in this city and that is entirely intentional. Bicyclists are militant about using all the road they want at whatever speed they want. That can be frustrating.

In Maryland, I have not noticed the conversions of roads (might be happening since I was laid off from surveying though). But, for quite a few years now, a number of abandoned railroad lines have been converted to hiking/biking trails. The old RR lines (arguably) interfere less with roads (except at the crossings of course) than taking away actual roadway.

lmbrls, post: 369487, member: 6823 wrote: What are your thoughts on funds that historically been used for roadway improvements to relieve traffic congestion being used for these purposes? I must say that we have enjoyed the revenue.

There is a school of thought in traffic planning that increasing capacity not only doesn't relieve congestion, it makes the congestion worse

Induced Demand

In my city we have a single major street that runs through the old town, which is the commercial center. For decades it was 2 lanes in each direction, 30 mph posted speed, with no bike lanes. Bicyclists had to choose between going one or more blocks out of their way and deal with multiple stop signs or risk their lives in the flow of cars. Pedestrians crossing the street anywhere except at the two signal-controlled intersections danced with death. One of the intersections had the city's highest accident rate by far.

A decade or so ago a guy came to town at the invitation of some nearby residents, and he said the street was an ideal candidate for a road diet. 1 lane each way with bike lanes and left turn pockets, 25 mph posted speed. Much controversy ensued, the Chamber of Commerce claimed that it would devastate the downtown, and people claimed that traffic would back up for miles. Years of community meetings, City Council discussion, and Public Works reports resulted in a bitterly opposed decision to give it a try. A plan was devised to implement the realignment with striping only, no concrete improvements. A couple of years ago it was implemented, and it's the greatest thing since sliced bread. The backups never materialized -- traffic actually flows better than it did before. Bikes now use the street safely, pedestrians can cross more easily at the uncontrolled intersections (though the installation of concrete islands will make that even better), and the accident rate has decreased.

I'm a believer.

James Fleming, post: 369495, member: 136 wrote: There is a school of thought in traffic planning that increasing capacity not only doesn't relieve congestion, it makes the congestion worse

I'd like to see someone explain that to a land developer in Florida. 😉

James Fleming, post: 369495, member: 136 wrote: There is a school of thought in traffic planning that increasing capacity not only doesn't relieve congestion, it makes the congestion worse

Induced Demand

I agree with the article. In the road-widening business it's called "If you build it, they will come....all at the same time."

We have several local "time-honored" older areas in town that are popular with the university and the artsy-craftsy community, all had pre-WWII paving. Lengthy discussions concerning the traffic eventually led to a couple of widened routes and a couple of one-way streets. It looked good on paper.

The increased flow allowed folks to get through these areas quicker, and then more folks began utilizing the routes to cut across town quicker. The result being the vehicular traffic has increased so much, the pedestrian shopper stays away; spelling demise for the district. The very capital improvement that was meant to enhance the area quickly became its killing shot.

James Fleming, post: 369495, member: 136 wrote: There is a school of thought in traffic planning that increasing capacity not only doesn't relieve congestion, it makes the congestion worse

Induced Demand

Haven't read the entire article yet, but my basic thought is that this approach would likely work best in areas that are past the development stage.

For instance, I live in a neighborhood that has one ingress/egress. On to a main road. With a traffic light. Up until a few years ago, things worked smoothly. Two lanes each direction, entrance to a highway a quarter mile in one direction.

Then came along a shopping center with everybody's favorite WalMart as the anchor. Three more traffic lights, considerably more traffic. So much so that traffic often backs up at the lights blocking the only entrance/exit from my neighborhood.

I emailed the SHA complaining that should there be an emergency (fire or ambulance type) at certain times of the day, the emergency vehicles would have a difficult time accessing the neighborhood. SHA "heard" me, but years later, nothing has actually been done about it.

In the area I live in, it seems as if I can't go more than 10 feet or so without having to stop for a traffic signal. Would very much like to move to a less populated area.

John, post: 369508, member: 791 wrote: ..Then came along a shopping center with everybody's favorite WalMart as the anchor. Three more traffic lights, considerably more traffic. So much so that traffic often backs up at the lights blocking the only entrance/exit from my neighborhood..

I'm not so sure that constricting traffic flow isn't a ploy to "slow us down and get us pull in and buy something"...

paden cash, post: 369511, member: 20 wrote: I'm not so sure that constricting traffic flow isn't a ploy to "slow us down and get us pull in and buy something"...

They can try all they want... but a number of folks in my neighborhood don't like our neighborhood WalMart and chose to shop elsewhere. And they have further annoyed at least some of us when we can't get in or out of our neighborhood in a convenient fashion.

So, their evil plan is backfiring.... good on them 😀

James Fleming, post: 369495, member: 136 wrote: There is a school of thought in traffic planning that increasing capacity not only doesn't relieve congestion, it makes the congestion worse

Induced Demand

I must admit that I have had an evolution of thought on this subject. A large portion of the work that I have done for the last 30 years has been database surveys for transportation improvement projects. I have finally concluded that congestion will not be solved with pavement. Widening a road from 2 lanes to 4 or 6 lanes will definitely increase capacity. When a road is widened to 8 lanes the capacity may increase; however, the vehicles per day per lane will decrease. The cost increases and the benefits decreases. When traffic reaches a certain volume, there is not solution to prevent congestion. Not wanting to deal with congestion on a daily basis is the No. 1 reason I want to leave the Metro Atlanta area upon retirement. I believe the answer to congestion is a basic change in the public's mindset and incentives like tax credits to companies which may include

Telecommuting - The guy in the adjoining office sends me emails anyway. Why should we care if we are next door or across town. We can access the network anywhere we have WiFi.
Staggered Shifts
Safe Dependable Public Transportation
Other creative solutions

In other words, using the facilities we have in place more efficiently. It is crazy that school buses, large trucks and most of the work force must be on the road at the same time.

While driving in congested areas I visualize traffic flow in terms of fluid dynamics.

John, post: 369492, member: 791 wrote: In Maryland, I have not noticed the conversions of roads (might be happening since I was laid off from surveying though). But, for quite a few years now, a number of abandoned railroad lines have been converted to hiking/biking trails. The old RR lines (arguably) interfere less with roads (except at the crossings of course) than taking away actual roadway.

rails to trails projects are a lot of bang for the buck. profile slopes are friendly to bicycling, the R/W is for the most part self evident, takes are easy, and construction is inexpensive

Moe Shetty, post: 369661, member: 138 wrote: rails to trails projects are a lot of bang for the buck. profile slopes are friendly to bicycling, the R/W is for the most part self evident, takes are easy, and construction is inexpensive

I think the rails to trails is a great thing. Lets folks enjoy some nature along the way.

Part of one line passes within walking distance of my grandparent's old house in Monkton. My brother and I used to walk the tracks when we were young.

Not nearly so great if you are the landowner along side one of these. The list of problems caused by people is unbelievable.

But on the other hand, the difference between right of way and easement can be a difficult one:

Chevy Chase Land Company v United States 1999