Here are two viewpoints on the merits of two-way street conversions. The first comes from a Tribune reader (scroll to the bottom):
LETTERS: April 16, 2009
The second comes from people who know what they're talking about:
Traffic Calming 101
Discuss if you wish.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
34 comments:
My response is going to the Tribune.
This is another textbook case of "I'm ignorant and angry about it".
Bluegill, when the studies and presentation of the 2-way street plan was done a while back, wasn't there going to be a design change? I mean to say, that what they're converting is going to be different from the part of Spring Street that is 2 way right now, correct? Wasn't there discussions of a median?
(I wasn't able to make it to those meetings so I don't quite know!)
Courtney,
The short answer is that you're right. It will be much different than the highway section of Spring west of Vincennes.
It will have fewer, narrower lanes, retain on-street parking, and add other traffic calming measures, including possible medians and bike lanes.
More later in this space and hopefully the Tribune when I have time.
The link Roger provided is a really good one, essentially repeating much of the information about traffic calming shared at the hearing that Jameson claims never happened.
The link is incomplete. Being from New Jersey, a state famous for 'jug-handles' there is no mention of these.
I am not a traffic expert by any means. I do know that there is a good amount of traffic downtown on Spring Street and I have no idea of making the one way streets two way will help that or hurt that or if things which just remain static. Being adjacent to the firehouse, however, I can see great advantages to Spring Street becoming a two way street. Theoretically, a fire in a home, two or three houses to the west of the firehouse would mean a long trip around the block.
Both the links work for me. Is anyone else having a problem?
I think, perhaps, John meant that the article was incomplete--not mentioning "jug handles". The actual link works fine for me.
Jameson is a smart guy and a good neighbor, if a little misguided on this issue. I'm fairly certain I've spoken with him in person about this, and he should be aware that the city has held meetings on the topic.
LOL, the link worked they guy just didn't include the famous New Jersey jug handles. Or infamous New Jersey jug handles. I guess I was just making a bad joke. :-(
Marvy.
I know Jameson has done some good work in the neighborhoods. Unfortunately, his letter isn't it.
My concern isn't about him personally so much as it's about the misconceptions he just foisted on the public.
We're on the same page about it. The fact that he should know better further justifies a response.
This was my reaction, too. Jameson should know better; I think, too often, his solutions are derived in isolation.
The best result I can think of is for Jameson to join us at city council tonight and then afterward for post-council discussion at Studio's. But his number is unlisted.
I can certainly imagine having him write another letter two weeks from now endorsing the reversion to two-way traffic flow once he has educated himself.
He's not a stupid man and provided his letter isn't part of an orchestrated campaign, I think it's feasible that he can be shown why the reversion is best for everybody...not just the "uniformed." B.W., if you can reach him, will you extend the invitation for me? And I'll look for him at tonight's meeting.
I'm excited about being a uniformed businessman.
Jeff, what's the status of that Bulgarian naval outfit on E-bay?
Still too small.
I read the Tribune letter, my take, downtown resident has legitimate concerns for children’s safety in street design. As fellow downtown parent I appreciate his horror, because frankly, the streets here are about as dangerous for children as you can have. That’s a fact.
I read the street calming 101 tutorial you linked. Lots of good traffic calming ideas. (full disclosure: I worked on a project for the German gov’t in 1990 promoting "vekehrsberuhigung" to Germans and I lived in the most progressive infrastructure cities in America in my adult life).
Then I read the comments. Starts off with our traffic czar, although since when I’m not sure, I missed his coronation LOL, deigning to waste his time even responding to someone who is so “...ignorant and angry about it".
“Jameson is a smart guy and a good neighbor, if a little misguided on this issue.” What issue again? The issue is starting to conceal in the slime...
“My concern isn't about him personally so much as it's about the misconceptions he just foisted on the public.” “The fact that he should know better further justifies a response.”
Oh oh! is it time to get out our Jack-boots yet? I love playing Nazi...
“This was my reaction, too. Jameson should know better; I think, too often, his solutions are derived in isolation...”
“The best result I can think of is for Jameson to join us at city council tonight and then afterward for post-council discussion at Studio's. But his number is unlisted.”
“...once he has educated himself.” “He's not a stupid man and provided his letter isn't part of an orchestrated campaign, I think it's feasible that he can be shown why the reversion is best for everybody...not just the "uniformed."
At this point it’s getting too spine-tingling. So back to the beginning, something about 2-way streets and speed and children. How did it move so quickly from a potentially fruitful civic discussion to personal attack after personal attack and finally cross the line into what to someone from Massachusetts would identify right off as old-school “Tammany Hall” style politics.
So my question is: are your politics progressive, but your process good-old boy?
I stand by the title, which remains value whatever the degree of concern for one's progeny.
That's because it isn't personal. It's business, uniformed or otherwise.
Sorry, "valid."
A translation for Gina:
Regardless of anyone's opinion of traffic solutions and/or problems, Jameson said a bunch of stuff in his letter that isn't factually true.
People said, gee, that's unusual. I wonder why it happened because Jameson doesn't normally do that.
Maybe we should write to the Tribune to correct the factual errors and talk to Jameson about it so he can make his decision based on facts instead of incorrect assumptions.
"People said, gee, that's unusual. I wonder why it happened because Jameson doesn't normally do that."
...which is a disingenius way of saying ,gee, let's ignore the content of his remark and get personal.
No, it's the exact opposite, saying let's focus on the facts and not make it personal.
I've met Jameson. I've spent time talking to him. I've evaluated his sincerity and his ability to reason. I've made a judgment on his passion and intelligence.
Thus, I am surprised that Jameson, who lives a few doors away from me, would assume that no hearings have been held and that two-way traffic will create new and greater hazards.
Not everyone can spend the time to study the solutions. Not everyone was able to attend the presentation of traffic-calming alternatives put on in the spring of '07, I believe. Not everyone has spent four years studying this issue, soliciting public opinions on the matter, and advocating for this as one aspect of creating safer, more attractive, livable, walkable, bikable neighborhoods.
I believe that if Jameson had been able to do so, he would certainly have written a different letter.
Larry Summers is one who does not fully agree with the plan in the abstract, but who understands what it is intended to accomplish. I'd like to invite Larry to talk to his fellow party member, if he hasn't already.
I fail to see how inviting Jameson to come share drinks and dinner with people who have spent years studying this project is fascistic.
I tried to call Jameson. I looked for his number in my own records. When I couldn't reach him, I asked someone to invite him to join us tonight.
And I repeat: Unless his letter was written as part of a wrecker's campaign, it's likely something Jameson will later disavow.
As I read the letter, I misunderstood it to be someone deep on West Spring. Only when I read the signature was I shocked to see "Jameson Bledsoe" as the signer. It's uncharacteristic.
I, too, walk frequently over the eastern two miles of Spring Street, and I agree with Jameson that the nature of Spring east of Vincennes is hazardous, and not just to kids. But the continuation west of Vincennes can be entirely different, with angle parking, two-way traffic, rest medians for pedestrians, bike paths, perhaps fewer traffic lights, and a pace of traffic that enables drivers to take notice of the treasures. Spring is where the speed is highest and its five one-way lanes are inherently designed to encourage reckless driving.
I don't think I said Jameson shouldn't have fired off a panicked letter on limited information as much as I said he wouldn't have written that letter if he had more information. And then I invited him to sit with me at council and have dinner with me later.
Herr Goebbels wasn't known for that kind of outreach, was he?
For the record, and I think it's a fair use to include it here now, this is what appeared online in The Tribune's letters section:
Do not make Spring Street two-way
With regards to finding out that Spring Street will become two-way traffic, I am astonished that New Albany Mayor Doug England has made this a priority in his administration. As our city’s neighborhoods continue to decline as a cancer of blight continues to move into the last remaining fair neighborhoods, England is going to spend millions to convert a few streets to two-way traffic. This is England’s plan to help our failing neighborhoods.
I, personally, live in the east end, a block off of Spring Street, and I take my 3-year-old daughter to Bicknell Park to play. This is a two-way section of Spring Street and it is very dangerous. When I do have to cross Spring Street anywhere west of Vincennes Street, it is much safer.
A city official told me that he, personally, is not in support of the mayor’s plan, but that the mayor and a few uniformed business owners are pushing for it. I will tell you now that the speeds at which drivers drive at the two-way section of Spring Street are just as fast as at the one-way sections. This opinion that drivers will drive slower is not true.
There is a better way to make Spring Street safer and more pedestrian-friendly. This official also mentioned that the last predestine fatality was at a two-way section of Main Street. I am dreading this change to Spring Street. I find that the mayor has been hasty in his decision and I implore all members of the City Council to do everything in their power to block Mayor England.
There is a better solution to the city’s traffic and the mayor would have found out other opinions if he took public opinion on the matter, in a public hearing, but we have not had such leadership out of England. I plead to any citizen who has an opinion on the matter to try and cross Spring Street at a two-way section and then cross at a one-way section and find out which is safer. Don’t let the mayor jeopardize our children’s safety or even our own, for political reasons. Please call and object to the Spring Street changing until a better plan is implemented.
— Jameson Bledsoe, New Albany
I'll post this independently.
So I compliment and defend the guy and it's somehow a slimy fascist plot?
Wacky. Par for the course in New Albany but still wacky. Brewhouse anyone?
Randy, I know you know bunches about solutions for a better Spring St, and I’m a supporter of your work there. It just creeps me out when the answer to a citizen question that should be addressed to all citizens, if it seeks to be persuasive, instead sounds like something from the cutting room floor of Casablanca! “Let’s get his number and take ‘em, eh, for some booze down at da club” He ‘ll be writing a retraction in no time..."
...when the answer to a citizen question that should be addressed to all citizens...What question?
In point of fact, I thought I was treading damned lightly. Here's the unedited text of my original response, with Mr. Bledsoe's thoughts in italics.
With regards to finding out that Spring Street will become two-way traffic, I am astonished that New Albany Mayor Doug England has made this a priority in his administration. As our city’s neighborhoods continue to decline as a cancer of blight continues to move into the last remaining fair neighborhoods, England is going to spend millions to convert a few streets to two-way traffic. This is England’s plan to help our failing neighborhoods.
It's part of it. Astonished? The mayor spoke of it during his campaign, and throughout 2007, and into 2008. Was Mr. Bledsoe listening? And: “England is going to spend millions” – typical boilerplate for “let’s not talk about the details, just tar and feather a number and scare the crap out of the –dare we say -- uninformed.”
I, personally, live in the east end, a block off of Spring Street, and I take my 3-year-old daughter to Bicknell Park to play. This is a two-way section of Spring Street and it is very dangerous. When I do have to cross Spring Street anywhere west of Vincennes Street, it is much safer.Hmm, which might have something to do with Spring Street feeding Silver. Perhaps the traffic calming needs to being at Silver Creek.
A city official told me that he, personally, is not in support of the mayor’s plan, but that the mayor and a few uniformed business owners are pushing for it. I will tell you now that the speeds at which drivers drive at the two-way section of Spring Street are just as fast as at the one-way sections. This opinion that drivers will drive slower is not true.“Opinion”? See my preceding reference to the findings of people who have actually researched it. How is t not true, and how much of this is a feeling as opposed to a reality? And, “uniformed (uninformed)”? I’ve read the web sites, attended meetings and talked to people who’ve experienced it other places. Can Mr Bledsoe explain to me how this makes me uninformed, as opposed to his informed (without supporting evidence) stance?
There is a better way to make Spring Street safer and more pedestrian-friendly. This official also mentioned that the last predestine fatality was at a two-way section of Main Street. I am dreading this change to Spring Street. I find that the mayor has been hasty in his decision and I implore all members of the City Council to do everything in their power to block Mayor England.The're doing that already. Meanwhile, what’s the better way? Is it included anywhere in the text of the letter? Does this paragraph even make sense?
There is a better solution to the city’s traffic and the mayor would have found out other opinions if he took public opinion on the matter, in a public hearing, but we have not had such leadership out of England. I plead to any citizen who has an opinion on the matter to try and cross Spring Street at a two-way section and then cross at a one-way section and find out which is safer. Don’t let the mayor jeopardize our children’s safety or even our own, for political reasons. Please call and object to the Spring Street changing until a better plan is implemented. Hasty? To me, it hasn’t moved anywhere near the speed it should. To ensure our “children’s safety," and save neighborhoods, perhaps we should close streets and fence them off, creating gated communities in the urban fabric. Odd – where did I hear that idea before? And, there have been public meetings, at which I did not see Mr. Bledsoe. So why appeal to opinions, and not to facts?
And I wrote the preceding without a single controversial reference to Republicanism. Maybe, like Texas, Mr. Bledsoe would have his neighborhood secede.
Gina, when you put it that way, it is funny. It sure would be easier to get things done if I were that guy.
If this had come from Joe Nutball, I'd be able to identify its source. But I'd have been almost as surprised if bluegill's name had been signed at the bottom.
This is not new. If Mayor Garner hadn't had to deal with a $3 million deficit, it would have been done by now, and at a lower cost. Doug England called it his number one priority during the campaign, much to my own surprise and suspicious delight. I certainly couldn't see any benefit to England in pandering to our interests, but there he was, asking for votes and saying this was his top priority.
Jameson ran for office in 2007. He asked for my vote for the D5 seat. I even ventured to give him some friendly counsel about his campaign. Why would he be "astonished?"
It was a huge mistake to make the streets one-way in the first place. Three key inner-city/downtown streets, plus cross streets, were made one way. Why? Cuz dat's what the big cities were doing.
What are the most progressive cities doing now? Reverting to two-way patterns.
Jameson uses the rhetorical tool of reducing this to a debate over two-way vs. one-way, and drags his toddler into the debate somehow. He fails to address the goal and attacks the method. I suppose it's the administration's fault, and ours, that every single person in the city hasn't heard every compelling reason for creating an environment that is pedestrian-friendly, including two-way streets, bike lanes, angle parking, modified optics, etc. But you'd think a council candidate who almost won would have boned up on this.
I just don't think Jameson Bledsoe wants to be the standard-bearer for "Citizens Against Kid-Friendly Streets," but he is today's standard-bearer for exactly that.
I think I said, I live in the same place Jameson does. I walk the streets there and downtown, probably much more than he does. That's why I cross with the light, at the crosswalk. I don't rightly know what that has to do with reverting to the designed traffic flow patterns. And I don't see how people racing out in and out of Floyd County on Spring Street has anything to do with traffic patterns more than a mile from Silver Creek.
OK, it's starting to be a more civil discussion. I'm learning things. I've tried to follow these traffic discussions over time, but as with everything here, the larger issue and it's ability to create community, is squandered by everything being "personal". Sorry, I'm just not used to that.
I'd rather use my comments for forward momentum on issues, but I had to tell you how this thread was looking. People here really don't know how to share the public space at this point. You're missing all the fun of politics as a result. You turn "the public sphere" into a space where people get hurt and pretty soon most people will withdraw. And the public space here is hopefully more than just an advertisment for a private drinking club of white males, sooo boring.
Gina,
I'd respectfully submit that it was neither personal nor uncivil until you made it so. No one was attacking Jameson personally. In fact, several made statements reinforcing their respect for Jameson and separating his person from the faulty information he put forth.
And then came the jack-booted Nazi stuff...from you.
What gives?
ps. Herr Regional Traffic Czar: Dave Thrasher can make up those awesome huge flowerpots for about $3000/each and I thought 10 of those in the middle of Main and another 10 in the middle of Spring would immediately calm traffic. Not to mention brand the town and only cost - $60,000, a mere 10/th of what Mayor England just toss out for a tent, so we got the money I think, and it would be a great support for the local arts.
One other idea - there are so many, but it's proven over and over that returning historic streets to the original cobblestone will slow cars considerably. Even just returning sections works. And it's greener because, well, your the expert so you know.
pss. MSPA submitted a master plan to return Main St to a boulevard, like 5 years ago. It was a good idea, are Main St and Spring St considered as a whole, or is the goal, perhaps inadvertantly, to make Main St more chaotic?
Shrug. I believe that Gina's providing ample evidence of how it's personal, and toward whom the personal is being directed.
Too bad I'm not drunk already, although the comment about a white male drinking club makes me thirsty.
Another example of a personal pot shot but so be it:
I agree that including public art could be a part of traffic calming. I think it would work much better atop a real median.
I like what Dave did with the flower pots and have heard some talk around town of trying to expand on the idea as part of the downtown landscaping efforts. To be honest, I doubt the state DOT would allow us to stick them in the middle of Main Street. I also doubt they'd last long if we did.
What Mayor England wants to build at the amphitheater is much more than a tent. You're either misinformed or purposely trying to misinform, neither of which is terribly helpful, especially since building the amphitheater out of more permanent, lasting materials as the mayor wants to do seems to jive with with the principles you've espoused in the past.
Cobblestone streets have been discussed by city staff. When we still had them, fire trucks and garbage trucks had difficulty stopping, especially in wet conditions. As a public safety issue, it's been generally frowned upon.
Even if they were to pursue it, it would undoubtedly become an unusually brutal (and that's saying something) political firestorm. Like you on some other issues, I don't see it as an area worth expending a tremendous amount of energy when defeat is near certain. If it's this damn hard to get a street paved, what do you think reverting back to cobblestones would be like?
What I think might make sense as a compromise is cobblestone on-street parking lanes. It would help reinforce the concept of narrow driving lanes, help with stormwater run off, and be aesthetically pleasing.
The plan submitted by MSPA, as a whole, wasn't so much a plan but more a series of drawings, including what are probably some unrealistic, hugely expensive ideas with little to no justification provided for them, as is needed for the many approvals (often not local) to make them reality.
I understand that people were frustrated that it took so long to get feedback. To my knowledge, though, nothing has been done since feedback was given to improve upon the lack of justifications (traffic studies, environmental impact, etc) to provide impetus for approval and inclusion in the masterplan.
I was at the meeting when city officials did provide feedback and several in attendance essentially blew off that feedback as double speak. That wasn't terribly helpful, either, as the feedback was realistic.
As far as the Main Street boulevard concept itself is concerned, I know that the mayor and city staff still intend to pursue it. It's included in the city's list of stimulus-ready projects for potential funding. I would add again, though, that Main Street, functions as a state highway and is therefore under the strict control of the state DOT, lessening the ability of local decision makers to do anything.
At one point, Governor Daniels was considering "giving back" those portions of highway within city limits but I don't know how that idea has fared at the state level.
BG: “What Mayor England wants to build at the amphitheater is much more than a tent.”
And that’s dandy, but for the three years I’ve been living downtown I’ve been hoping for neighbors who are much more than slumlords and it probably won’t even cost $710,000 to stop them. Then I’ll have time to go party down at Vegas on the Greenaway.
BG: “I understand that people were frustrated that it took so long to get feedback. To my knowledge, though, nothing has been done since feedback was given to improve upon the lack of justifications (traffic studies, environmental impact, etc) to provide impetus for approval and inclusion in the masterplan.”
After years of effort and thousands of dollars of expense and umpteen meetings with city officials, the MSPA was beyond frustrated. We were already doing the work the city should have been doing all along, and the city should have supported us by providing help like traffic studies et al, not saying “go do more of our work for us”. Unfortunately, that took the wind out of people’s sails’.
BG: “Cobblestone streets have been discussed by city staff. When we still had them, fire trucks and garbage trucks had difficulty stopping, especially in wet conditions. As a public safety issue, it's been generally frowned upon.”
Pretty much anything this city has decided against lately would tend to point the thinking person squarely on target. I don’t remember when I lived on Beacon Hill anyone complaining about the cobblestone streets. Here, the street department spends more time trying to sweep up tree-fallen flower blossoms than trash, so I’m used to the chronic local “we can do that here...”
I know you've lived in much more progressive cities and I'm sure Beacon Hill is fantastic, but did you know that you're apparently the last person in town to know that Pam Badger did not resign?
Post a Comment