Treehugger recently posted an interesting set of ideas for how to make your City more bike and ped friendly.

Their suggestions (in sum):

1. Take away right on red turns for cars
2. Install more red light enforcement cameras
3. Have more parties (e.g. excuses to close the roads)
4. Rein in distracted driving (e.g. drivers with cell phones)
5. Support limited speed limits to 20 mph
6. Go on a Tweed Ride (you’ll have to read the post to see what this is)
7. Look to New York City for inspiration

The interesting part about many of these ideas is that Ann Arbor is already doing many of them.  The idea of no turn on red was suggested in the Ann Arbor Non-motorized plan.  We have lots of parties downtown (Art Fair, Green Fair, the Car Show, etc), which I think definitely makes it more pedestrian friendly.  Downtown people can’t really go more than 20 mph and I know the City as a whole has struggled with speed limits.  We might not have a Tweed Ride but we do have the Ride Around Town (RAT–thanks WBWC!).  Especially downtown, I think we are moving in the right direction on many of these items.

What do you think is missing from this list?  What else could we do downtown and elsewhere to create a better environment for peds and cyclists in Ann Arbor?

FYI from the DDA:

Dear Friend,

The Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority (DDA) is undertaking a comprehensive public parking plan following a request from City Council. The DDA seeks to understand the parking needs, priorities and preferences of community members so it can shape this plan.

Would you please take five minutes to complete this survey? It will help the DDA planning team understand more about your parking patterns, values and priorities in order to inform the parking plan.

• Survey Link: http://www.zoomerang.com/Survey/WEB22A8683SDVB
• Survey link for the visually impaired: www.surveymonkey.com/s/ParkingPlan2010

We appreciate the time you will spend completing this survey and would like to express our thanks with the chance to win a $25 gift certificate for 2 respondents drawn from this survey. Please continue to check your local news source and our website www.a2dda.org for project updates. This survey is open to all members of the public and we welcome a variety of input – please feel free to forward it along.

Again, thank you for your time and thoughts.

Susan Pollay

Executive Director | Ann Arbor DDA
734-994-6697 | www.a2dda.org

FYI:

Internationally renowned walkability expert Dan Burden is visiting Lansing next Friday, February 12th to do an all-day workshop at the Michigan Municipal League.

Click here for all the info

I don’t have a lot of time to comment on these survey results right now, but I wanted folks to be able to check out the results from this survey (conducted late last year) that assess the interest of Washtenaw County voters countywide transit.

You can download the Executive Summary here.

To get a taste of some of the results, here’s the final conclusion of the report:

At the time of the survey (October, 2009) support for a transit tax issue, though nominally at a majority of 51%, was insufficient for it to pass. Too much of the support was half-hearted, and opposition, though in the minority, was firm. However, exposure to various arguments for and against a transit tax during the survey resulted in a gain of 10% for the issue, a fact that indicates the ability of a campaign to motivate a positive vote, not by trying to change the minds of those clearly opposed to a levy, but primarily by strengthening the interest and support of those who at the present time are only weakly committed to a positive vote on the issue.

Although households with at least one transit user are heavily in favor of a transit tax issue, and are an important constituency, they are insufficient in number to pass a transit issue. Thus the issue will turn on the broader community benefit to all, transit users and non-users alike.

The promise of improvements to existing services such as extended weekend hours and more frequent service, while probably appealing to riders, and perhaps important, do not attract voters in general. On the other hand service which broaden the usefulness of transit throughout the county have some appeal. The prospects, however, of WALLY receives a very mixed response and is not advantageous to a transit tax issue. Ann Arbor – Detroit service receives better response, but neither rail issue is, at present, a significant new plus for a transit issue, and funding for WALLY may pose a serious risk for a transit issue.

The fate of the transit tax vote will depend not on a promise of any specific service or service package, but rather on the ability of a campaign and its allies to move and solidify the positive and positive-leaning voters by informing them of AATA’s existing accomplishments, its careful and productive use of public money, the county-wide nature of its future services, the need for public transit to attract jobs, and the need to expand services for seniors and those with disabilities.

In the race for energy efficiency between mass transit and single occupancy vehicles, who’s currently on the winning side?  The Straight Dope tackles this question in characteristically logical style.

The only thing I regret about this article is that he doesn’t look at bikes and traveling by foot as viable transportation option (although he does mention them in passing at the end of the article).

A New York Times Blog recently posted that public transit ridership declined by 3.8% during the first nine months of 2009.  Not surprising given the lower gas prices and unemployment stats for 2009.   The Ann Arbor Transportation Authority experienced similar declines during that time.   Also of note is that transit ridership in San Francisco actually increased during this time.

One thing the blog post doesn’t consider is the change in automobile use during this time.  Were people also driving less because they didn’t have the money to go shopping etc?  Or maybe people were driving more because gas is cheap.  I am sure this stat is out there somewhere.

It would also be interesting to consider who stopped taking the bus.  Did people who always take the bus simply take the bus less?  Or did people who could choose between driving or busing choose to drive?  It’s not as if all transit riders are the same.  It would be very interesting to delve into this data as well.

For a somewhat basic breakdown of this concept, in the APTA report, it appears that ridership on Commuter Rail and Buses declined about 5% while ridership on Heavy Rail and Light Rail declined to a lesser degree (about 3% and 1% respectively) .  Trolley ridership actually increased by .6%   It would be interesting to see why the declines are different.  Any thoughts?

So I guess the take home lesson in all of this (which we’ve known here at the getDowntown Program for a while now) is that cost matters when it comes to transportation choices.  Most people will be more likely to change their commuting behavior when it starts to hit their pocketbook.  People are also more likely to change their commuting behavior when they live closer to where they work (within 4 miles or so).

As we enter a New Year and continue to have debates surrounding healthcare and global warming, how does transportation (and commuting in particular) fit into this picture?  What would our world look like if more people in Ann Arbor (and the US) used sustainable transportation?  What problems would this solve (or create)?

A recent article in AnnArbor.com reports on AATA’s move toward a countywide authority as well as the preliminary results from a survey looking at voter interest in a countywide millage for transit.

The resulting comments preceding the article highlight the various opinions surrounding both ideas.  Some people will never be interested in countywide transit or a millage and don’t see the need for it.  Some people ride the buses all the time, see that they are crowded and thus see the need for more and expanded service.  Like most issues, opinions on AATA’s interest in moving to countywide are colored by the experience of the individual.

As the Director of an organization that encourages people to bus, bike, walk, carpool, etc. downtown, I clearly have an interest in seeing an expansion of transit service countywide.  I’m not going to argue with that.  However, my interest is not simply shaped by my own experience but by what I hear from the people I serve–downtown commuters.

The getDowntown Program recently conducted a survey of downtown Ann Arbor employees and found that about 50% of employees live in Ann Arbor.  That means the rest live outside of Ann Arbor.   As a center for high-quality jobs, Ann Arbor, and downtown especially, attract workers from all over the region.  As I have seen in my work, many of these people would like to have other ways to get to their jobs in addition to being able to drive.  They want options.  Also, a vibrant downtown is one filled with lots of people.  When people can bike, bus, walk, and drive to a downtown, this contributes to a vibrancy that more auto-centric parts of Ann Arbor lack.

Speaking of options, what isn’t mentioned in that article but is important to consider in this debate is the two proposed Commuter Rail lines (WALLY and Ann Arbor-Detroit).  While both of the rail lines are expected to be operating by the end of 2010 or early 2011, it’s still unclear what role they will play in shaping a countywide transit conversation.

I think the challenge we will continue to face in Washtenaw County surrounding the transit debate is that parts of the county are much more urban than others.  As a result, transit needs and interests are different depending on where you live in the county.  I think AATA recognizes this and will use this knowledge to shape their countywide plan.  At the same time, we continue to live in a region rather than in separate cities and townships.  What does transit look like if we plan it for a region rather that for separate cities and townships?

There is a lot more I could say on this subject, but I’d rather leave it at this and encourage readers to try to listen to both sides of the debate and figure out how transit factors into the future of this region.  Once a plan is put out there, there will probably be proposals for how to fund it.  And that’s when the really interesting debates will begin.

Transportation for America recently published a report on the state of transportation in our United States.

Where does Michigan Rank?  Here are some of the stats.

See the full report here:

Transportation For America » State Facts — Michigan.

So I’m in D.C. this week for the Association for Commuter Transportation Conference.

I just attended a session on the relationship between land use and transportation demand management.

While a lot of the information in the presentation is probably old hat to many planners out there, it was new to me.

First thing discussed were the three D’s of Good Land Use:

1. Density (height of buildings, closeness of buildings, etc)
2. Diversity (of uses)
3. Design

Of those 3, it’s Density that is most contentious in our community.  A contingent of people in Ann Arbor (and in many places) equate density with what could be called the 3 C’s: Cars (or Congestion), Crime and Crud.

But here’s the thing, if you look at the relative impact of density it’s often the case that as density increases, private auto use decreases.  In other words, the closer that people are to where they want to go, the less people will drive.  And the more density we have, the better the potential for robust public transit.

This makes a lot of sense and why I would say I am an advocate for density.

But again, here’s the thing.  Density does not have to mean 50 story buildings or high crime or any of that stuff.  Density can create a walkable community where people don’t have to spend time in traffic, and look good and have buildings that are high, but not insane.  And I think for most people, that’s a good thing.

And yet, there are people in our community that do not trust developers and believe that if we allow our community to grow and allow density it will contribute to the deterioration of what we love about Ann Arbor.  I don;t blame them for being wary.  We’ve have some unfortunate developments proposed of late.

From my perspective, it’s obvious we have to understand that density is just a piece of the puzzle and diversity and design must also factor into the picture.  But I also can’t deny that if we had more density in our community that would mean less people would have to drive, which has great implications for the environment and for our quality of life.  And the work that I do to encourage people to try sustainable options instead of driving goes hand in hand with land use.  If there was someone at the front door of an office building on the day new workers filed it, there is a much greater likelihood that many of those workers will try other ways to get to work (especially if they get a free transit pass and don’t get their parking subsidized).   More density can certainly mean less cars if there is a conceited effort to incorporate transportation demand management into the development.  It’s worked in other communities.  It can work in our community.

While I don’t think cars are ever going to go away, I also don’t think that cars are always the best way for us to get around.  I want us to find ways to create a community where we can have more and better options and enough affordable housing so that people can live close to where they work.

And perhaps this is the most mystifying part of this debate.  Does anyone really just want to create high-rise buildings that will destroy our community?  I don’t think so.  Does anyone want to stamp out any effort to make our community for transit and walk/bike friendly?  Probably not.  While developers obviously want to make money on a project, they are not inherently evil and I would like to give them a chance to invigorate some parts of our community that are currently very suburban.

So let’s try to see density as just one way to get to a larger goal.  If we want to attract talent.  If we want to allow people to live close to where they work.  If we want to cut down on congestion and make environmental gains we must use the tools that will get us there.  Density might be one of them.  Design and Diversity are two others.  Transportation Demand Management plays a role.  As does public input.

Maybe we need to focus on creating (or enhancing) our community to make it more livable rather than get into the density vs. no-density debate.  Because I think we all want the same thing.  It’s just the words that can get in the way.

FYI:

The Southeast Michigan Council of Governments has agreed to host a public meeting on the 2035 Long Range Regional Transportation Plan development on September 10, 2009 from 2:00 to 4:00 pm at the Washtenaw Community College’s Liberal Arts Building, Room 375 located at 4800 E. Huron River Drive in Ann Arbor Township.

The regional plan, called Direction 2035, can be found here.