Mike on Traffic

Blog for Beloit, WI Smart Growth Plan

I think it is pretty obvious I am a fan of blogs, otherwise I wouldn't be doing this.  I applaud the City of Beloit for starting up a blog for public participation.  They are hoping to bring residents into their comprehensive planning process who normally wouldn't get involved.  I think this is a great way to reach out to a demographic that doesn't normally pay attention to the inner workings of the city.  One slight criticism - I had to go to a blog search engine to find the blog.  I couldn't find it after two minutes of poking around on their site (including using their search tool).

Hopefully this is a successful model and other cities will dive in.  Thinking out loud - I wonder if developers should start blogging about their specific developments to smooth the process with their neighbors and the city?

Journal of Transport and Land Use

I received an interesting email yesterday about a new, free online journal - the Journal of Transport and Land Use.  It is interesting in several ways:

1. Totally free, web only.
2. Peer reviewed.
3. Only discusses research that integrates land use and transportation.  

I like the concept.  Transportation and land use provide an intertwined, circular system.  No need for roads going nowhere and developments make no sense if people can't get to them.

In both academia and consulting these two topics are typically separated and worked on by specialists in silos.  I think that is a mistake.  The best practitioners are always thinking about how the two systems impact each other. 

I hope you'll scan through the journal.  It is a concept that deserves to prosper.

Safety Measures for Roundabouts

The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety came out with a report evaluating safety at existing roundabouts in Maryland.  They found that most crashes, whether at single lane or double lane roundabouts, occurred on the approaches into the roundabouts not within the circulatory part of the roundabout.  In a nutshell, they recommend better landscaping within the middle of the roundabout along with better signing/pavement markings in advance of the roundabout.  Both measures are to clue drivers in that there is a roundabout ahead before it is too late for them to slow down.

The report did confirm the safety benefits of roundabouts.  Only 25% of the crashes in Maryland at roundabouts between 1993 and 2005 involved injuries.  More importantly, there were no fatalities at the 38 roundabouts studied.  This isn't a large sample, but the safety track record is encouraging compared to the safety at intersections controlled with traffic signals.  According to the Minnesota Office of Traffic Safety there were 25 fatal crashes at traffic signals in Minnesota in 2006.  A very low number, but maybe a few of them would have been avoided with roundabouts.

AUARs versus EISs

Over the last year and a half I have been fortunate enough to prepare traffic studies for several large scale developments.  These have been part of - jargon alert - AUARs (Alternative Urban Areawide Review) and EISs (Environmental Impact Statement).  These are environmental impact documents required by the Minnesota Legislature through the Environmental Quality Board (jargon - EQB) for large developments.  I have several great professionals who I can refer you to if you have nuanced questions about the difference between the two types of studies (as they say, check with your professional to get specific advice), but here is my quick generic assessment.

An EIS is usually done for developments that are very definable, i.e. a stadium.  AUARs are typically done for large areas that will have a mix of commercial/residential/office uses.  An EIS analyzes one development scenario where an AUAR usually analyzes at least two development scenarios.  Once an EIS is done, it remains valid forever unless the development is significantly altered.  On the other hand, an AUAR has to be updated every five years until the development is completely built out.  I am working on a traffic study for an AUAR update right now because the orginal AUAR expired.  The development is about 2/3 built, but they have to get their AUAR update done before they can break ground on another building. 

There are many nuanced, valid reasons for determining if an AUAR or an EIS is the correct environmental document to prepare.  If I was a city traffic engineer, I would prefer AUARs because you are analyzing the impacts of multiple development scenarios.  An AUAR  also allows you to reassess the situation every five years.  If I was a developer, I would prefer an EIS because I wouldn't have to pay for an update in five years and I wouldn't have to worry about being bitten in the future (by stricter regulations, impacts from other developments, etc.). 

p.s.  Please forgive my brief blogging hiatus.  I enjoyed a few days off last week and have been paying for it this week.