In a recent post about the benefits of a gridiron street system, Beth Akeson left some supporting comments and said:

Let’s explore how other communities are handling these issues and learn from their successes and failures. We can always tweak the ideas to accommodate the “uniqueness” of Peoria. I have learned so much from reading, attending conferences and interviewing people who have solved some of the municipal problems we face. I would be happy to share this information with anyone interested and I have asked CJ if he would be willing to upload a variety of documents for people to read at their convenience.

As promised, here are the documents (in PDF format) and web links:

	Back to Basics in Transportation Planning on the Projects for Public Spaces website
	Context Sensitive Solutions in Designing Major Urban Thoroughfares for Walkable Communities on the Institute of Transportation Engineers website
	West Palm Beach Traffic Calming: The Second Generation by Timothy Stillings & Ian Lockwood
	U.S. Experience with Traffic Calming by Reid Ewing & Charles Kooshian
	Traffic Calming for Crime Reduction and Neighborhood Revitalization by Ian Lockwood & Timothy Stillings
	Nashville Neighborhood Traffic Management Pilot Program by Gresham, Smith and Partners
	Nashville Neighborhood Traffic Management Pilot Program, Appendix A
	Nashville Neighborhood Traffic Management Pilot Program, Appendix B
	Future in Transportation: Back to Our Roots? by Gary Toth
	Transportation Prescription for Healthy Cities by Ian Lockwood

A couple of weeks ago, the City of Peoria released this information about the city’s traffic signals:

The American Public Works Association (APWA), as part of the National Transportation Operations Coalition (NTOC), participated in the release of the 2007 Traffic Signal Report Card during a press conference on October 9, 2007 in Washington D.C. Nationwide, the report graded traffic signals with a D, which was a slight improvement over the D- that was recorded in the 2005 report. The City of Peoria participated in the 2007 assessment and received a B on the report card. This is an improvement from 2005, when the City of Peoria scored a D+. The City scored very well on several areas in particular such as maintenance and signal operation at individual intersections. Much of this improved score can be attributed to the attention that has been given to the traffic signals. Improvements such as LED signals, battery backup and attention to signal coordination have improved and upgraded the condition of Peoria’s traffic signals. The effort and work that has been put into traffic signals has paid dividends with short travel times and improved safety for the traveling public. With the completion of the I74 project and the shifting of traffic volumes due to growth, continuous attention is required to maintain the current level of traffic signal operation.

It’s unclear whether this grade was based on an independent audit of Peoria’s traffic signals or a self-assessment completed by the city’s own Public Works department. Regardless, APWA gives Peoria a grade of “B,” and one of the reasons, according to the city, is because of improvement in “attention to signal coordination.”

Maybe other communities have worse signal coordination, but I know I often experience poor traffic light coordination in some corridors, including Sterling (esp. the I-74 interchange), University (between War Memorial and Main), and Knoxville (between I-74 and War Memorial — the light at McDonalds/Thrush is especially bad). So I was surprised to see Peoria scoring so high.

Of course, this report just reports on existing traffic signals and how well they’re operated, maintained, and managed. What it doesn’t look at is the overall context. Are there too many traffic signals? Is that the only tool in our public works toolbox for controlling traffic flow? Are there intersections that would be better served with roundabouts instead? Could certain intersections have been designed to mitigate the need for as much signal control as they have (e.g., the I-74 interchanges at Sterling and University)?

It might be worthwhile to consider an even broader context. Is the increase in traffic signals ultimately a city planning issue, not a public works issue? One could argue that by allowing suburban growth that segregates land uses (residential separated from commercial and retail uses), we’ve created an environment that is automobile-dependent, which has in turn led to increased traffic, necessitating wider roads with more capacity, and thus more traffic signals.

In light of that context, I wonder what grade Peoria’s traffic signals would receive.

At the end of a Journal Star article on Friday about the new arbor at Rebecca Place being dedicated and the planned celebration for it, there was a brief mention that neighbors may want that street closed permanently:

In the coming months, [Second District Councilwoman Barbara] Van Auken said the neighborhood association and city officials, will consider if Rebecca Place should be redeveloped into a cul-de-sac dead-ending at Main at the foot of the arbor.

She said while the arbor was under construction – and Rebecca was closed to traffic at Main – many neighbors drove on Laura or Bradley avenues into Rebecca with little problems. The biggest issue, Van Auken said, in reconstructing Rebecca into a cul-de-sac is ensuring public safety vehicles have access.

There’s even a rumor going around that they might want to install a gate, ala The Coves, at Rebecca and Main. Prohibiting or limiting access from Main street into the Uplands neighborhood is also being considered by that neighborhood association.

I like to call ideas like this the “suburbanization” of our urban areas. Streets in older, urban areas are on a grid system of rectilinear through-streets divided into city blocks. Starting in the 1940s and beyond, developers began building curvilinear streets for residences and business parks that terminated in dead-ends/cul-de-sacs, with only one or two access points to the entire neighborhood.

Cutting off urban streets to make them emulate their suburban counterparts is a bad idea. It creates more problems than it supposedly solves.

Inside the neighborhoods

Reducing the number of access points will always put more pressure on the interior streets. Van Auken stated “many neighbors drove on Laura or Bradley avenues into Rebecca with little problems” while Rebecca was closed at Main. I’ll bet they also went north on Cooper to get to Main. So whereas Rebecca currently has direct access to Main, by closing the street, more traffic will be generated onto the interior streets of Laura, Bradley, and Cooper.

Likewise in the Uplands, by limiting access to Main, more traffic will be dumped onto Columbia Terrace and its intersection with University Street. The problem is even greater here, since the Uplands has nearly 300 homes. If you figure most of those homes have two cars, that’s a lot of traffic that used to be filtered through six access points (five intersections with Main) now being largely diverted to one access point (Columbia Terrace and University). It makes Columbia Terrace a street-hierarchy-style collector, adding volume and putting additional pressure on it. This doesn’t make things safer for pedestrians or children on the interior streets.

Incidentally, cutting off access doesn’t do anything about speeding. Many people complain about “cut-through traffic,” when they really are complaining about speeding traffic. I don’t know of anyone that would mind people cutting through the neighborhood at 20 or 25 miles per hour. The trouble is, the people who live in the neighborhood are generating the most traffic, and they are just as prone to speeding as someone looking for a short-cut. So we can cut off access and still not solve the underlying issue: speed.

Outside the neighborhoods

Cutting off streets makes things even worse on Main and University. At a recent traffic forum, neighbors talked about how they wanted the traffic on Main street to slow down, and how Main street should be narrowed and made more pedestrian-friendly. In fact, it was this desire that made many neighbors worry that if Main were slowed too much, it would increase traffic cutting through their neighborhoods — hence, the desire to cut off access in anticipation of improvements to Main street. But the trouble is, cutting off access to the neighborhoods will have the opposite effect on Main and University than what neighbors desire.

Changes at Bradley University are already putting more pressure on Main and University. The city agreed to vacate Maplewood and Glenwood through campus (i.e., between Main street and Bradley avenue), so those points of access are now gone for students. Plus, Bradley is building a large parking deck at Maplewood and Main that will have access only to Main. So all parking for events at the Fieldhouse and the arena that will replace it will have to enter and exit from Main. If Maplewood had remained a through street, additional access could have been had from Bradley Avenue and its connections to Western and University.

By residents not letting people “cut through” their neighborhoods, all the traffic generated by the university will have to stay on Main and University. Plus, the residents themselves will be forcing themselves to use these streets more. If access in the Uplands is restricted, for example, every resident who wants to travel west on Main to get to Western or Farmington road would have to travel on Columbia Terrace to University south to Main street west. This especially puts increased pressure on the University/Main intersection, which is already a nightmare. If access weren’t restricted, those traveling west could enter Main as far west as Parkside drive, which would ease congestion at the Main/University intersection.

The bottom line is this: The university’s and neighborhoods’ actions will cause Main and University to carry a greater volume of traffic, which will result in these arterials becoming wider and faster, which is the exact opposite of what the residents say they want to see. It will further exacerbate neighborhood isolation and make the overall area more pedestrian-hostile, less safe for Bradley students, residents, and children.