Category Archives: Traffic

Update on Coves, West Bluff issues

A couple of updates on recent neighborhood traffic concerns:

  • The Coves — A public hearing was held Tuesday evening regarding a proposal to put a gate across Sedley street, cutting off vehicular access between the Coves of Charter Oak (a newly-built subdivision with no residents yet) and Vinton Highlands. I talked to a Traffic Commission member and learned that about 16-17 people attended the hearing. The only two who spoke in favor of the gate were the Coves developer, and one resident of Vinton Highlands that lives adjacent to the formerly-dead-end Sedley street. Everyone else spoke against it. The Traffic Commission will make a decision at their next scheduled meeting, but they will likely recommend against putting in a gate.
  • The Uplands — The Uplands Residential Association (URA) met Thursday night to discuss a proposal to limit access to and from Main street. Specifically, the proposal was to allow only right turns from Main into the Uplands (i.e., onto Elmwood, Institute, Glenwood, Maplewood, and Parkside) and left turns onto Main from the Uplands (except for Parkside). The purpose was to mitigate cut-through traffic. The proposal was defeated 43-12. However, association members all agreed that speeding in the neighborhood is a problem, so the URA officers will now be putting together a proposal for traffic calming in the neighborhood.

Public Hearing tonight on Coves gate

You may remember that there was some controversy over putting a gate up between the Coves of Charter Oak and Vinton Highlands subdivisions. The proposed gate would actually block a public street. The Traffic Commission will be holding a public hearing tonight regarding that issue at Mark Bills Middle School. Here’s the address and agenda:

CITY OF PEORIA – TRAFFIC COMMISSION
PUBLIC HEARING

MARK BILLS MIDDLE SCHOOL
6001 N. FROSTWOOD PARKWAY
PEORIA, IL 61615

6:30 P.M.

AGENDA ITEMS

ITEM NO. 1 PUBLIC HEARING Regarding City Council Item No. 07-427 Regarding a Request for Approval of a REVOCABLE RIGHT-OF-WAY USE PERMIT for THE COVES OF CHARTER OAK HOMEOWNERS’ ASSOCIATION to Allow Them to INSTALL A GATE at No Cost to the City of Peoria, on SEDLEY AVENUE Between MOORING WAY AND VERNER DRIVE, with Conditions, and CONSIDERATION OF ACTION TO ADDRESS THE PERMIT REQUEST.

ADJOURNMENT

Traffic calming on neighborhood streets

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

How do you grade Peoria’s traffic signals?

Traffic SignalA 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.

Let through-streets through

Not a Through Street signAt 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.

If city stands firm, State’s Attorney could be in a world of hurt

On Jan. 31 and Feb. 1, 2006, police ticketed thirteen pedestrians and two motorists for jaywalking and crosswalk violations downtown around Jefferson, Adams, and Main streets. There was the usual hue and cry with calls for police to focus on “real crime,” but the police and the city (rightly) stood firm.

Not so the State’s Attorney’s office. On Feb. 14 that year, prosecutors dropped the charges, sending all the scofflaws letters that stated, “Our office joins Peoria police in its interest to raise public awareness regarding pedestrian safety…. We have chosen not to pursue this as a prosecution in court, and no payment nor further action is necessary on your part. No mark of any kind will appear against your license or name regarding this matter.” Kevin Lyons declined to comment at the time.

So I would expect the State’s Attorney’s office do the same for the children who were recently ticketed for similar pedestrian violations. Since they’ve set a precedent for dismissing these infractions, it would be inconsistent for them to take a different course of action here, wouldn’t it?

As I see it, this will put the State’s Attorney between a rock and a hard place. If he doesn’t prosecute these tickets, he’ll be perceived by many as soft on crime at the worst possible time for him: during an election cycle (won’t LaHood have fun with that one?). But if he does prosecute, he’ll have, at best, a large number of people demanding an explanation for his inconsistency — at worst, charges of racism.

I’ll bet he regrets not prosecuting those tickets last year.

Cat wants traffic patterns unchanged downtown

One Way SignI meant to post this awhile ago and just never got around to it. One of the things the Heart of Peoria Commission is focusing on these days is fixing the streets. That doesn’t just mean filling potholes. It means making the streets more balanced thoroughfares — streets that comfortably accommodate not just cars, but also pedestrians, bicycles, and mass transit.

Downtown, there are a few street changes that the Commission would like to see and that the Heart of Peoria Plan advocates. In the Warehouse District, the Commission would like to see the Washington Street corridor improved by widening the sidewalks, allowing on-street parking, planting street trees, lowering the speed limit, and narrowing it from five lanes to three. IDOT put the kibosh on that plan, but there are efforts underway to change their mind. The Heart of Peoria Plan advocates changing Adams and Jefferson streets to allow two-way traffic again.

All of this talk about changing the streets downtown has led Caterpillar to publish their position, which can be summed up thus: status quo. They like things just the way they are, thank you very much. Here’s their full statement:

Caterpillar Inc. supports maintaining the existing traffic patterns on Adams, Jefferson, and Washington Streets in downtown Peoria (specifically one-way traffic on Adams and Jefferson, and two-way traffic on Washington).

We oppose any change that would reconfigure Adams Street or Jefferson Street for two-way traffic.

We oppose any change that would result in shifting heavy truck volume through downtown Peoria from Washington Street to other streets.

We believe that one-way traffic flow on Adams and Jefferson is smoother, less disruptive and consistent than would be the case if the streets were changed to two-way traffic. This is particularly true in front of our world headquarters on Adams Street. In order to properly host Caterpillar visitors, VIP vans, buses, and cars must be able to park conveniently and safely in front of our headquarters. Adams Street accommodates this activity effectively and safely in a multiple lane, one-way configuration.

Moreover, the image of Adams Street is a valuable component of the overall image conveyed by Caterpillar’s headquarters. We consistently receive positive comments from dealers, customers and visitors on the pleasant qualities of this area, and we attribute this ambience, in part, to the smooth, one-way traffic flow on Adams Street.

The current street routing in downtown Peoria, coupled with new and efficient links to Interstate 74, allows heavy trucks serving ADM and other industries to use Washington St. This pattern results in lower truck traffic volume on Adams and Jefferson through the most congested downtown areas.

The safety of Caterpillar employees is of the utmost importance. A key concern of our workers in downtown Peoria is pedestrian safety. In addition to our numerous buildings, Caterpillar employees occupy office space in many downtown office buildings and generate a large amount of pedestrian traffic during the typical business day. Changing streets from one-way to two-way
would create more vehicle/pedestrian conflicts at intersections. This would be especially true at the intersection of Adams Street and Main Street, which is traversed by hundreds of Caterpillar people daily. Although one of the busiest in downtown Peoria, it is easier to navigate because Adams Street is one-way. Our employees are familiar with the traffic patterns as they exist today
and know what to expect.

Caterpillar operates several parking lots for employees in downtown Peoria. In some cases the entrances and exits to these lots are located to accommodate current traffic patterns. For example, the exit from our parking lot in the 200 block of Northeast Adams allows for safe discharge in one direction on Adams Street, avoiding the safety issues associated with a left turn onto a two-way street.

We believe that any revisions to the current traffic patterns on Adams, Jefferson, and Washington Streets in the downtown Peoria area would be detrimental to our employees and visitors.

For a company that touts fact-based or measurement-based decision making (Six Sigma), this statement sure is full of a lot of conjecture. Who would have thought that the “pleasant qualities of this area” could be attributed to one-way streets? Or that cars and vans cannot park conveniently or safely in front of a business unless the street is one-way?

I agree that we don’t want heavy truck traffic diverted from Washington to Adams/Jefferson. Preferably, the truck traffic would be diverted instead to the Bob Michel bridge for I-74 access, bypassing the most congested part of downtown altogether.

But the paragraph about worker safety is the one that really takes the cake for me. “Our employees are familiar with the traffic patterns as they exist today and know what to expect.” So, if we were to change Adams to two-way, Caterpillar is telling us that their management employees — most if not all of whom have advanced degrees — will become confused or disoriented by the change, resulting in pedestrian accidents and casualties? If so, maybe traffic patterns outside shouldn’t be their biggest concern right now. Personally, I believe Cat employees are sharp enough to be able to navigate the crosswalk with little difficulty were traffic to change to two-way. I guess I just have high expectations.

The Cat lot in the 200 block of NE Adams is on the southeast side of the street, which means that traffic out of that lot can continue unchanged simply by making it a right-turn only exit, were the street to ever change to two-way.

Suffice it to say, I don’t find Cat’s objections compelling. I’d like to see them have an open mind as Councilman Sandberg works with them and other stakeholders regarding the possibilities for these downtown corridors (Washington, Adams, and Jefferson) and how they can be improved.

More info on the Coves controversy

The developer of the Coves at Charter Oak wants to put up a gate across a little road called Sedley that connects his new subdivision with the older Vinton Highlands subdivision. As I stated in a previous post, there was no mention in the council communication of what the “neighborhood concerns” were that would necessitate the installation of a gate to separate the subdivisions. In fact, it doesn’t even specify which neighborhood(s) had the concerns.

At the council meeting Tuesday night, Councilman Bill Spears said that it was his understanding that Vinton Highlands residents wanted it closed. Spears explained that when the annexation agreement was being negotiated, he received numerous complaints from one resident of Vinton Highlands whose property is on the dead-end portion of Sedley, and a petition with 25 Vinton Highlands signatures wanting to keep the road closed. (For the record, there are roughly 250 homes in the subdivision and the neighborhood association hasn’t met in the last three years.)

So why was the road built, you may wonder. Well, the fire department and city staff wanted there to be two access points for the purposes of fire protection, so the road was built by the developer as part of the annexation agreement. Fire Chief Tomblin admits that it would be very rare that they would have to use that access point, but it is needed in case of emergency.

Then there’s this letter from Mike Stauffer, the developer, to Bill Spears dated June 20. It states:

Thank you very much for your assistance in obtaining approval of the proposed access control gate for the north end of the Coves at Charter Oak subdivision. The existing Weaver Ridge and Vinton Highlands neighborhood associations and the future residents of the Coves will be well-served with reduced traffic and safer intersections because of this action.

So now it appears that Weaver Ridge also wanted the road blocked. That wasn’t mentioned at the council meeting Tuesday night. What difference does it make to the folks in Weaver Ridge? According to the letter, they’re concerned about traffic volume and safety at intersections. Let’s consider those for a second. Here’s a map of the area in question:

Vinton Highlands and The Coves map

The part outlined in blue is Vinton Highlands, and the red outline shows The Coves. Right in the middle of where the two meet is Sedley and where they want to put the gate. To the south, you see where The Coves’ main street, Mooring Way, intersects with Charter Oak Road. Directly south is Weaverridge. Just take a moment to get your bearings there.

Now, tell me: what traffic/safety issues are there here? Clearly none. Sedley isn’t exactly what one would call a shortcut. Nobody’s going to get from Frostwood or Big Hollow to Charter Oak or Weaverridge any quicker by wending their way through these two subdivisions. Not only that, the street isn’t currently open, so there’s no historical data to back up their assertion, nor has a traffic study been done. So that argument doesn’t wash.

Part of the problem with this issue is that the city has no set policy to use as a guide. Other neighborhoods that have gotten diverters or other obstructions installed got them in spite of the city’s regulations. So maybe this would be a good time for the city to develop a policy regarding the obstruction of public streets. Perhaps the Traffic Commission can help with that task.

The Council on Tuesday sent this issue to the Traffic Commission to be vetted. That process will include a public hearing.

The Coves keeping out the riff-raff?

On the consent agenda for the city council Tuesday night is a request from the Coves of Charter Oak Homeowners’ Association to have a gate put across a public right-of-way.

The Coves of Charter Oak is a new subdivision (with restrictions) off of Charter Oak road (across from Weaverridge) that backs up to the older Vinton Highlands subdivision off of Big Hollow road. There’s a common road that connects the two subdivisions called Sedley avenue. The city’s subdivision ordinance requires that the “arrangement of streets in new subdivisions or development shall make provisions for the continuance of the existing streets in adjoining areas” (Ord. No. 10455, § 1, 5-29-79). Hence, Sedley is a through street.

Well, the residents of The Coves have “concerns.” Those concerns are unfortunately not specified in the council request, so the public can only speculate. However, it’s The Coves neighborhood association that is not only making the request, but paying to have the gate installed and maintained, so I think it’s safe to say this is not a mutual concern with the homeowners in Vinton Highlands. Also, they’re not wanting to put a gate at the other entrance to this subdivision — the one off of Charter Oak road. And one would have to assume that The Coves residents are not trying to keep themselves out of Vinton Highlands.

So, let’s see, what does that leave? A concern over cut-through traffic from outside either neighborhood? It seems unlikely that anyone would cut through Sedley when either Frostwood Parkway or Big Hollow Road would be faster routes. So I’m going to have to conclude that The Cove residents simply don’t want Vinton Highlands residents driving through their neighborhood.

The only other gates across a public thoroughfare that I can think of are the gates across Mt. Hawley Road at Kellar grade school. I don’t particularly like those gates either, but at least they have a plausible excuse: child safety. Here, that’s not an issue. Here, we’re talking about two residential neighborhoods, and the only differences between them are demographic.

I don’t exactly understand how they can obstruct a public thoroughfare. Sec. 26-11 of Peoria’s municipal code says, “streets, avenues, alleys and sidewalks of the city shall be kept free and clear of all encumbrances and encroachments, and for the use of the public, and shall not be used or occupied in any other way than as provided in this chapter” (Code 1957, § 36-12). The council communication calls this a “revocable right-of-way use permit,” although I don’t know how one applies for such a permit, or where in the municipal code this type of permit is explained. I have found temporary permits for things like block parties, but all such permits require fees to be paid, and there is no fee mentioned in this council communication.

So, the question is this: what are, specifically, this neighborhood’s “concerns”? And why weren’t these “concerns” put down in writing in the council communication? Are the “concerns” over lower-income residents (or minority residents) driving through the upper-income Coves neighborhood? I’m at a loss as to what else it could be; and if that’s the case, I’m at a lost as to why the city would allow it. But perhaps there’s a reasonable explanation.

The Cove of Charter Oak

Thud!

Fender BenderWhen you watch a movie and there’s a car crash, there’s always a giant crashing sound that accompanies it. Now, we all know that movies are not reality and that sound effects are often exaggerated, but since you don’t see or hear real car crashes every day, you sort of come to expect them to sound the way they sound in the movies. You know: “Khkhkhkhkhkhkhkkh!”

In reality, car crashes are not nearly so spectacular. In fact, if it’s a fender-bender, it sounds like this: “Thud!” That’s it, just “thud.”

How do I know? Well, because someone ran into the back of me today. I was going north on Knoxville when the flow of traffic stopped (presumably because someone was turning left up ahead). The person coming up behind me didn’t realize that the flow of traffic had stopped. Despite his attempt to swerve at the last minute, he still hit me on the right rear bumper.

What made the biggest impression on me was the sound: “Thud!” Not at all what I expected. I expected “khkhkhkhkhkhkhkhkh!”

That reminds me of what a firefighter friend of mine told me — that cars don’t explode. Cars are always exploding in the movies, but that almost never happens in real life, he said. Of course, if someone puts a bomb in a car, then it explodes. But if the car is just on fire, it will burn, but not blow up.

Our view of reality is so skewed by Hollywood, isn’t it?