 |
| Speed Humps at First Street |
At the beginning of this semester one of the first activities that I participated in as a result of my Sustainable Communities class was that I attended a monthly meeting of the
Bloomington Commision On Sustainability at Bloomington's City Hall. One of the items on the agenda that evening, and the one that seemed to have the most contention and discussion, was regarding two large
round-abouts that had been proposed over a year ago and were about to begin being built. Part of the issue that some in attendance had with these proposed updates to the roads was that these round-abouts would likely have the opposite effect that one might normally associate with them; they would actually increase traffic volume and speed through the areas that they would be installed in. (
If you'd like to take a look at the minutes from this meeting they can be found here.) As a result, it was suggested that these areas would become more dangerous for other alternative forms of transportation, such as biking and walking, and would have a deleterious effect on traffic calming attributes that seem to be valued in a community such as Bloomington.
 |
| Traffic Circle at 6th and Oak Streets |
Given that Bloomington holds itself out as a model community, it seems to me, that Bloomington would pride itself on creating traffic calming neighborhoods and strategies in order to keep its neighborhoods more desirable and friendly to community-building forms of transportation besides single owner/rider cars. This can easily be seen in how much of a bike friendly town Bloomington is (there are bike racks everywhere) and from what a solid bus system it has as well. So it struck me (and no doubt others at the BCOS meeting) as a bit odd, that so much of the city's budget was being spent on measures that increase the flow and speed of car traffic.
Bloomington does seem to have implemented some form of a traffic calming strategy and I was even able to find a pretty cool
google map that details some of the various traffic calming aspects that can be found around Bloomington. My best guess is that most of the traffic calming measures shown on the map are found
 |
| Traffic Island: Azalea Lane |
in and between neighborhoods where most residents are citizens of Bloomington (vs. seasonal students) who live in nicer neighborhoods and would appreciate measures that lend to a greater community feel and prosperous appearance of their neighborhoods. However, as is mentions in
Sustainability and Cities, sustainability can't be accomplished by only implementing traffic calming in certain areas of a community, because all that tends to do is push traffic to outlying areas. By implementing traffic calming measures in some neighborhoods but still budgeting for large scale road upgrades that provide for more and faster traffic in others, there seems to be a mixed message about where the city's values lie and whether it is concerned with the sustainability of the entire community, or only certain parts of it; or whether sustainability, in regards to car traffic reduction, is a focus at all.
Interesting. I have never seen that traffic calming google map before. It doesn't seem to me that the devices are primarily in the nicer neighborhoods of Bloomington, but I would be curious to see if they are prevalent in non-student areas.
ReplyDeleteI think one of the big concerns about the roundabouts at the BCoS meeting was the thought that their particular size would lead to more development, and would be harder for peds and bikers to navigate. I agree that the city does not present a cohesive message about sustainability and values, but that's our work, right?
I was at that BCOS meeting too and I think we all agree that the topic of discussion was pretty tense. In the end, I can kind of see both sides of the argument in that the traffic engineer had already invested so much time and resources into the project that it had to go through, but I can also see the councilman's position about how the round-about would add to sprawl and counter efforts toward increasing alternative transportation. In the end, I hope that both sides hold up their end of the bargain and keep ear other informed to increase collaboration on projects like these.
ReplyDeleteHi Scott - Nice post, I agree that there is a mixed message being sent. I also think the issue is interesting in general. On the one hand, we can't continue expanding roads and increasing traffic levels indefinitely. But on the other hand, as long as we have roads, shouldn't we try to make them the most efficient as possible?
ReplyDeleteIt is quite a dichotomy- having grown up in Bloomington since junior high, I have been able to witness the changes in the community over the years. Not only with new/expanded roads, but with new subdivisions, businesses, apartment complexes... you name it, I'm sure it's been considered. I've had the feeling for quite a while now that Bloomington has been in danger of losing it's "home town" feel. Everytime I see new land being cleared for development, this feeling is reinforced. Sure, Bloomington has always been a college town, but lately it seems like they're trying to tailor it more to the student population than ever... all the fancy apartment complexes on 10th street, the restuarant food chains, etc., are slowly changing the local, community feeling I've grown up knowing. I realize that it's a balance of priorities for the city, to ensure that they're maintaining a successful economy, but also making sure that Bloomington remains resident-friendly. But, back to the whole street-widening debate, it does cause one to wonder where the real priorities of the decision-makers lie.
ReplyDeleteNew roads and road improvements induce demand, which is why new roads are not a solution to traffic congestion. New bike and pedestrian paths also induce demand for more walking and biking. One of the reasons the round-about issue was so heated is that a few of these use up all the funds for transportation improvements through 2014, leaving no money for alternative modes of transit, at least for that particular source of Federal funding.
ReplyDeleteScott,it sure is a complicated issue. On the one hand, you are right; roundabouts do increase the amount and speed of traffice. On the other hand, though, roundabouts also cause less accidents and reduce travel time. I suppose it boils down to which the city focuses on.
ReplyDelete