Vagabond Shark

Ideas, Bikes, Art, Design, Architecture, Politics, Tech, Software

Archive for the ‘transportation’ Category

Open Letter: Create a place in Aloha

Posted by Peter W on January 27, 2008

So if you don’t know, ‘Aloha’ is the name of an area in unincorporated Washington County (in Oregon). It isn’t even a town yet, but the Metro regional government says it should be one of the Metro Town Centers. Below is a letter asking that the County plans for the Aloha Town Center and rebuilds 185th Avenue as part of that.

Dear Commissioner Schouten,

I’m ecstatic to read in the paper that the County will have an open house this Thursday to talk about the 185th project between the highway and the high school. I can’t wait until it is finally safe to walk or ride a bike along what is now a nasty stretch of asphalt.

I’m very excited, but at the same time I’m worried. Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in MSTIP, planning, transportation, washington county | Leave a Comment »

Drive Safely PSAs

Posted by Peter W on January 5, 2008

Dat from Portland’s SHIFT bike advocacy/fun group is hoping to get a safety video shown as a PSA in Portland. On the SHIFT mailing list, Dat says:

Been doing a lot of research on PSA on what works and what does not. I came across this PSA that aired in 2005 in the UK. The Images are some what disturbing. I was thinking of adapting that PSA and other for U.S. taste. I even talked to some TV people and they said a PSA like this would even pass U.S. Censors.

Here’s the video he’s talking about:

Other people pointed out more videos. Below are a couple I thought were good. (WARNING: these images may also disturb you.)

This one shows how much difference 5mph makes in stopping distance:

This last one shows how important paying close attention is:

Posted in safety, transportation | Leave a Comment »

MSTIP and TIF

Posted by Peter W on November 27, 2007

I have some ideas about MSTIP and TIF in Washington County, and I’m putting them here for everyone to consider.

MSTIP (Major Streets Transportation “Improvement” Program) is basically a program where the county takes a bunch of property tax money from county residents (regardless of how much you might drive) and builds fatter roads that make it easy for people to continue to drive more and more in our increasingly sprawled out region. TIF (Traffic Impact Fee) funds essentially the same big-road projects, but with a fee developers pay (essentially regardless of how bike/pedestrian friendly–or car unfriendly–the development is).

Now, the County seems to think it is friendly to bicyclists and pedestrians when really it tends to just provide the bare minimum that is required by law (sidewalks and bike lanes). Currently the County is planning to collect $420 million over 6 years and of that, will spend a total of $20 million on ‘special’ projects, including bike, pedestrian, and bridge projects.

The County wants people to believe they are working toward a balanced transportation system, but thats just not true:

Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in MSTIP, planning, transportation, washington county | Leave a Comment »

Murray Road – A Freeway in the not too distant future?

Posted by Peter W on November 12, 2007

The front page image in the Washington County slides linked to from this post shows an artists depiction (below) of a project that I saw earlier on a WCCC road projects list.

Overpass on Murray Road

Alarmed by this, I asked the City of Beaverton about it (along with another project on their list–a five lane connection from Hall Blvd to Jenkins Rd which would go right though an existing neighborhood). It turns out that although these projects are on Beaverton’s list of plans, they are low priority projects that were included in the County list only because the County didn’t ask about priorities. It is scary though, that the County just assumed projects like these, that would obviously have a severely negative impact on bike and pedestrian modes, as well as neighborhood livability (or even neighborhood existence in the Hall Blvd case), should be among the first projects funded by the next Washington County MSTIP funding initiative.

In fact, the general trend in the Washington County MSTIP plans seems to be widening 2 lane roads to 3 lanes, widening 3 lane roads to 5 lanes, and even widening the 5 lane TV Hwy to 7 lanes. It makes me wonder – when does this pattern end? If the roads weren’t wide enough before, what guarantees that they will be wide enough after reconstruction? Will they just alleviate congestion temporarily while enabling more auto-dependent development at the urban fringes, which will in turn require another round of road widening projects? I also wonder what happens immediately after roads are widened? If it just enables more traffic, won’t that cause more congestion on the roads connected to newly widened roads?

People may currently accept MSTIP road widening projects as necessary and even convenient, but as we run out of easy projects and as it becomes necessary to tear down homes and neighborhoods to make way for more lanes, the political tide will begin to turn against wider roads (and has likely already begun).

But if wider roads don’t fix the traffic problem and people want an alternative, what can be done? Luckily there is an alternative.

The Washington County Department of Land Use and Transportation (DLUT) seems to have left one huge factor out of their supply and demand transportation equations – the demand side. They assume that there is nothing they can do to reduce the amount of driving people do.  But the solution is actually in their name – “Land Use”. Instead of building wider roads to handle growing traffic from new houses far away from businesses, schools, and shopping, the DLUT should focus on promoting infill development and new development in centers, where people are close enough to where they want to go that they wouldn’t need to use a car to make trips (or if they did use their car, at least the trips would be shorter). Resident surveys have already shown that people prefer this to sprawling auto dependent development; the DLUT just needs to start paying attention to what people want and help make that happen. The alternative — continuing our current path and turning our roads into freeways — means more noise, more neighborhoods carved up, less people walking, biking and taking transit, more pollution, and in the end, just more traffic.

Posted in beaverton, MSTIP, planning, transportation, washington county | Leave a Comment »

Washington County 2020 Transportation Needs

Posted by Peter W on November 12, 2007

Today I came across some slides from a presentation made in April about Washington County’s 2020 Transportation needs.

It had some interesting information about current funding and transportation trends, and results from a survey of 403 Washington County residents over 18 years old in May 2006. Below are some of the highlights:

In the last 20 years, transportation capital projects costs totaled $432 million. The 2020 capital projects needs will cost $2.6 billion. [I’m really curious how in the next 12 years we can afford to spend six times more money than we did in the last 20 years.]

There is an expected population increase of 44%, and jobs increase of 70% by 2020 in Washington County. Bike/Ped trips are expected increase by 47%, while auto trips increase by 75%. [Does anyone else think that maybe we need to increase our bike/ped mode split?]

When asked to rate the importance and performance of various goals, the survey found that “well planned to handle growth” was perceived as highly important but the county had low performance on this. Efficient use of tax dollars is also highly important to people but results show that people feel the county’s performance is low in this regard.

“Safety and convenience for pedestrians and bicyclists” was rated more important than easy travel to residential or shopping areas, quick connection to freeways, and travel times being maintained or reduced.
Regarding what was the biggest challenge facing the county, “traffic congestion” was rated as the biggest by 36% of people and “education and schools” was rated the biggest by 34%. [I’m a little confused about the numbers on that slide (p25) because they add up to over 100%. It was pointed out that overall, transportation issues were the #1 concern (65%), but I’m curious if that is just because they allowed multiple selection and gave more transportation choices (“congestion”, “maintenance”, and “infrastructure”) than other categories. I also wonder if bike/ped safety and convenience, and education, would matter more if school age people were included in the survey (hopefully the county isn’t intending to only support the voting part of the public…)]

When asked who should pay for transportation improvements, the result was:

  • 70% fees on new development
  • 55% was assessment on commercial trucks
  • 45% business income tax
  • 42% vehicle registration fees
  • 35% local road maintenance districts
  • 33% gas tax
  • 27% tolls on major freeways
  • 25% property tax
  • 12% personal income tax

(multiple selection was allowed, so #s add to more than 100%)

Note that more people believed a gax tax should fund transportation rather than property tax.

Annually, the current county gas tax raises $600,000 while property tax raises $20,000,000 (in other words, county property tax raises 30 times as much money as the county gas tax).

Among the conclusions is: “Keep resident values in mind when crafting any new funding package”. [Hopefully if they stick to that they will support more bike/ped infrastructure and shift the funding source away from property tax and onto other sources that might also help people make better transportation choices (like gas tax and vehicle registration fees).]

One thing this presentation completely lacked was any discussion about changing the demand for transportation, via programs to encourage alternatives to automobile use, or through land-use changes. I believe that if the County enacted a high fee on new development on the urban fringe where the costs of providing infrastructure are high and where alternative transportation modes are less convenient, then that could potentially have a big impact on encouraging infill development and development in centers. And instead of spending money on capacity improvements which will just enable more sprawl and more traffic, the money could be spent on providing bike/ped safety improvements, connectivity, and improvements in centers that promote denser development; the result would be less reliance on the automobile and hence less traffic.

Posted in MSTIP, planning, transportation, washington county | 1 Comment »

Climate Change, Transit Development in the News

Posted by Peter W on October 29, 2007

We’ve got to do something about climate change:

The planet is in danger of crossing a “tipping point” of irreversible damage to its atmosphere, climate, water and ecosystems unless governments can develop comprehensive strategies to promote growth and sustainability, warns a new report released on Thursday by an environmental advocacy branch of the United Nations.

(full article)

California is trying – with the recently passed Global Warming Solutions Act they plan to “reduce the state’s total greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by the year 2020.” But hybrids alone won’t solve the problem.

We need to do a lot more if we’re actually going to reduce our emissions. We’ve got to reduce the amount we drive.

To do that, we need to build in a way that makes it easy to get around. We need to build more homes near jobs, and make sure people can afford those homes. We need to build neighborhoods with shops, services, good public transit, and parks – all within easy walking distance of homes.

[…]

It’s time to turn the Bay Area’s innovative talent to the question of how to use our land well. Instead of saying, “We have to drive, but maybe we should drive a different kind of car,” let’s ask, “How can we make it easier to get where we want to go?” Let’s envision a better way to live for people and the planet, and let’s start making it happen.

(see full article in the San Francisco Chronicle)

Luckily it isn’t just a few newspaper editors that favor smarter growth (more compact cities served by more transit).

Three-fourths of Americans believe that being smarter about development and improving public transportation are better long-term solutions for reducing traffic congestion than building new roads, according to a survey released today by the National Association of Realtors® and Smart Growth America. […]

As evidence of the traction the issue has gained in the last few years, nearly three-quarters of Americans are concerned about the role growth and development plays in climate change. Traffic congestion is still a concern to many Americans as it continues to worsen in most cities in the country. Half of those surveyed think improving public transit would be the best way to reduce congestion, and 26 percent believe developing communities that reduce the need to drive would be the better alternative. Only one in five said building new roads was the answer.

Eight in 10 respondents prefer redeveloping older urban and suburban areas rather than build new housing and commercial development on the edge of existing suburbs. More than half of those surveyed believe that businesses and homes should be built closer together to shorten commutes, limit traffic congestion and allow residents to walk to stores and shops instead of using their cars. Six in 10 also agree that new-home construction should be limited in outlying areas and encouraged in inner urban areas to shorten commutes and prevent more traffic congestion. […]

The 2007 Growth and Transportation Survey was conducted by telephone among 1,000 adults living in the United States in October 2007. The study has a margin of error of plus or minus 3.1 percentage points.

(via Planetizen).

If Oregon is such a green state, and the majority in the US understands that better transit and smarter development can help combat climate change, why is Washington County continuing to build bigger roads that serve greenfield subdivisions on the urban fringe instead of focusing on better transit, more bike and pedestrian traffic, more compact centers, and urban renewal[1]?

1: Note that I mean urban renewal in the traditional sense: “renewing aging urban places”, not the Washington County Planning dept.’s definition: “supporting greenfield development in future suburban places”. If you don’t already know… the County is considering using “urban renewal” as a source of funds for the North Bethany development, which is a suburb on former fields at the North edge of the county.

Posted in climate change, hillsboro, north bethany, planning, transportation, washington county | Leave a Comment »

A simple request?

Posted by Peter W on October 27, 2007

Turtles

There is a section of Walker Road just West of 185th Ave that I ride on often when biking to work. From 185th the bike lane exists until Walker hits NW 191st Ave, at which point something very strange happens.

There is a fairly new subdivision development there and it appears that when it was built the developer was required to do an “improvement” to add a turn lane and a stub of a second through lane on one side (why the thru lane you ask? Because they plan to widen the road to five lanes in the near future). Apparently, however, the developers weren’t required to think about cyclists and our need for space on the road.
Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in transportation, washington county | 2 Comments »

Public Transit, Public Art

Posted by Peter W on October 27, 2007


Seattle Bus Shelter
Originally uploaded by techieshark

This summer I went to Seattle and while I was up there I was amazed at some of their awesome bus shelters. The general color scheme matches their buses, and most shelters have different designs in the glass as well as unique designs painted on the wood paneling of the shelter. I think this is a great way to brighten the area, provide a more interesting & attractive environment for transit users, and artistically reflect the culture and history of the area.

Portland’s TriMet transit system has an art program but they seem to mainly focus on the MAX train stations. I think it would be great if we had more art incorporated into the bus system. I also wonder how Seattle and Portland’s public art incorporation into public transit compares with other cities.

Posted in art, transportation | Leave a Comment »

Gas prices up, but does anyone care?

Posted by Peter W on October 21, 2007

According to CNN, gas prices are up 60 cents from a year ago. The national average for a gallon of gas is now $2.80, up a nickle in the last two weeks. Over the same two weeks, the price of crude oil went up the equivalent of 18 cents, and as soon as refineries turn that into gas that price raise will be passed on to consumers across the nation.

All this makes me wonder – does Washington County or the cities in it figure in the rising gas prices into their models that determine the projected road capacity needs? Does this constant increase make them consider that we need to alter the kind of transportation system we have, and support more public transit, walking, and cycling? Or does the WCCC plow ahead on a new MSTIP to build more massive roads so people can drive more and so vehicle trip miles can continue to increase?

Posted in peak oil, planning, transportation, washington county | Leave a Comment »

North Bethany won’t have high level of transit service

Posted by Peter W on August 20, 2007

I wanted to make sure that people in the North Bethany development could easily get to their destination by transit, so I asked the county:

I noticed that TriMet has been involved in some of the discussions about N. Bethany and I was wondering if they (or any other source) has said how much density is required to support frequent bus service? If so, will N. Bethany be built to that density?

Ideally, North Bethany would be dense enough to support a frequent bus to the Willow Creek MAX stop, Sunset TC, and even downtown Hillsboro, Beaverton, and Portland. But it looks like we’ll be lucky to see the #52 serving any of the area. According to Washington County Planner Laurie Harris:

Phil Selinger, TriMet’s representative on the TAC, gave a presentation at the April 12, 2007 TAC and SWG meetings. The discussion is summarized in the following documents:
SWG meeting summary (page 2): http://www.bethanyplan.org/images/04.12.07swg_summary.pdf
TAC meeting summary (page 2): http://www.bethanyplan.org/images/04.12.07tac_summary.pdf
Phil said that North Bethany likely wouldn’t achieve densities to support high transit service [my emphasis. -peter] throughout North Bethany. In addition to density, there are urban design and development strategies that support transit, such as pedestrian-friendly amenities, sidewalks, and street connections. There is potential to extend Line 52 from PCC into one of the North Bethany neighborhood nodes or community center.

According to papers I’ve read (1, 2, 3) , there are some generally accepted guidelines for densities required to support transit. Here is what I’ve seen (note, the papers didn’t usually say, but I assume they are in units / gross acre):

  • bus service becomes feasible at 7 units per acre
  • frequent bus service becomes feasible at 15 units per acre
  • rail transit becomes feasible at 30 units / acre

If Metro requires that new land brought into the Urban Growth Boundary be developed at 10 units / net acre, how come most of North Bethany won’t support at least infrequent buses? The reason is that the density they are looking at works out to be about 5.75 units / gross acre (equivalent to 10 units / net acre, when you don’t count land used for open space and roads), which isn’t enough to support transit. However, they plan on concentrating higher density development near the main civic center at Kaiser Rd so they can build low density sprawling suburbs on the rest of the site – this might be enough to support transit to that area.

I think the county needs to think more about the proper density for the site. Here are some questions I still have:

  1. Is there enough office/commercial to generate mid day trips to sustain frequent (or even infrequent) during non-commute times?
  2. If a certain level of transit becomes feasible at a given density, how much higher does the density need to be before that level of transit will usually be successful, or even pay for itself?
  3. How much of a given density is required? If most people will only walk 1/4 of a mile to a bus stop, how many people should be within 1/4 of a mile to support that stop, and how many such stops are needed along a service corridor?
  4. I’m guessing that if driving were more expensive, even lower densities would support transit. How much more would driving need to cost for 5.75 units / gross acre to support frequent service?
  5. Can we prove that for the lifetime of the houses (say 100 years), we will always have cheap personal transport? Oil sure looks like it is running out and nothing else promises to be as cheap or easy. If we know we’re running out of cheap oil, is it really appropriate to build at such low, automobile dependent, densities?

Posted in north bethany, planning, transportation, washington county | Leave a Comment »