Too Fast

Posted by Clark on February 19, 2012
Uncategorized / 1 Comment
Crash at MLK/Pratt

A truck crashed into a van flipping it on its side at the intersection of Martin Luther King Blvd and Pratt St

A pickup truck slammed into a van on Martin Luther King Jr Blvd at the intersection of W Pratt Street this afternoon. The force of the impact was so powerful that the van was flipped on its side. The van had to be taken apart to extract the driver. This is the same intersection where two teenage girls were killed while crossing the street in the crosswalk less than a year ago. But Randall Scott, a traffic engineer with the City’s Department of Transportation, is not concerned. He was quoted in June of last year saying the intersection is not considered to be especially dangerous. Accidents happen, right?

The transportation industry no longer refers to traffic crashes as accidents, preferring to emphasize the known and preventable causes of these collisions. And there is no doubt about the causes of these crashes on MLK. The city has designed a six-lane highway through the heart of Baltimore. But it’s not grade-separated, like JFX which keeps speeding traffic physically apart from people. Homes, businesses, hospitals, and schools are all located directly on MLK which means lots of people walking along and across the highway. 40,000 vehicles a day speed up and down the street as fast as they can, while Baltimore DOT does nothing but encourage it.

It’s time for the city to recognize that designing downtown as a series of highways is not the way of the future. Traffic and pedestrian safety should be the city’s top priority. Speed should not. Slowing traffic down will save lives. Many crashes will be avoided, and those that do happen will be less deadly.

It is entirely within the city’s power to make Baltimore safer. It’s time they act.

Pedestrian killed in Northwest Baltimore

Posted by Clark on January 06, 2012
News / No Comments

A man was killed in the 3500 block of Park Heights Avenue

A 62-year old man was killed this week trying to cross Park Heights Avenue. He was reportedly clipped by a driver’s side-view mirror while standing in the narrow median, looking for an opportunity to finish crossing the street. The car struck him around 3:30 pm on Wednesday. Police are attributing the man’s death to his own error for leaning into the street. The driver remained at the scene after the crash, virtually freeing him or her from any consequence. No information is available about the vehicle speed or any effort made to foresee or evade the crash. Police have not responded to requests for further details.

Pedestrians are commonly found in this area, which is primarily residential and adjacent to the wildly popular Druid Hill Park. However, no significant effort has been made to calm traffic on Park Heights Avenue.

Drivers in the US are rarely held culpable for killing pedestrians, provided they don’t leave the scene and aren’t found to be under the influence of drugs or alcohol. Even then, penalties are relatively minimal. Instead people who walk are blamed for putting themselves in harm’s way, irrespective of the conditions contributing to any given crash. Cities like Baltimore design and build wide, fast streets which create dangerous conditions for walking. Then they give pedestrians few opportunities to cross the street and/or make them inconvenient or ineffective. Finally, they blame the victim for not complying perfectly with their rules, while drivers get off with only the slightest scrutiny.

Our thoughts are with the nameless victim and his family. No doubt the incident will soon be forgotten without affecting the way Baltimore DOT or Baltimore City Police go about their business.

Our goal at Charm City Streets is to change this.

Tags: , , ,

How to Ride Transit

Posted by Clark on January 06, 2012
Best Practice / 1 Comment

People decide how to travel based on a variety of reasons, such as cost, convenience, and safety. Driving is the preferred choice for most people because it is the easiest, most flexible option for the majority of people in this country. Even in unfamiliar areas, it is relatively easy to pull out a map and see where you want to go and which roads will take you there.

This is where transit – specifically bus transit – struggles the most. Visitors to a city would need to invest a considerable amount of time studying route maps, timetables, and transfer points to figure out how they might use the local bus system. Subways and other rail transit systems are more accessible due to the simplified network, frequent and reliable service, and certainty that the train will come back on the same tracks. Conversely, bus route maps are complicated with overlapping routes and variable frequency.

Even in their home city, most people are only familiar with the few bus lines they use regularly. Determining how to use other routes, where the stops are, how long it will take, etc. takes a considerable amount of effort.

That’s why communication and customer information are so important. If transit agencies did nothing else but improve system legibility, it would considerably improve service and attract ridership. This means communicating information at bus stops, online, and on mobile devices. It also means real-time arrival information. Low-frequency bus routes are inconvenient, and if they’re unreliable or show up early, it may mean waiting 30 minutes to an hour. If you give riders accurate and up-to-the-minute arrival information, they can at least plan around it.

Translating complicated schedule, route, and frequency information across an entire bus network can be challenging. But Washington,DC is doing an admirable job. Look at the map posted at this bus stop in DC.

Metro in DC provides simple, yet valuable information tailored to each bus stop (click to enlarge)

Immediately upon arriving at the stop you can tell which buses stop here and where they can take you. Then, you can quickly see how often they stop, or call the real-time arrival number to find out when the next bus is coming. Looking closer you can see where the major connections are to get to other parts of the city.

Creating these maps would naturally require some effort, but the value to existing and potential riders cannot be overstated. Transit budgets around the country are tight and MTA is no different. But communication must be a priority. All MTA buses are already equipped with vehicle location devices. MTA should figure out how to share this info with riders or open it up to someone else who can. Then they need to figure out how to make their system more legible. The current practice is embarrassing, especially with such a great example just down the road.

Tags: , , , , ,

In Memoriam

Posted by Clark on December 28, 2011
News / No Comments

Streetsblog does many things well and it is worth following even if you don’t live in one of its member cities (New York, LA, San Francisco, and DC). But one of its most important roles is increasing awareness of bicycle and pedestrian safety. Streetsblog tracks every fatal crash in New York and reports what happened, how it happened, and the consequences. Rarely are charges filed against drivers who kill people walking and cycling on New York streets. These incidents, which have clear causes, are chalked up as accidents and those of us who are not directly affected go on with our lives.

This is simultaneously shocking and unsurprising. We have created a culture where people operate deadly weapons in our cities without any meaningful responsibility for not killing other people.

Please take a moment to review this year’s In Memoriam. Think about the cost of cars in our cities. Consider whether it’s worth it. Is it reasonable to make driving less convenient if it means we kill fewer people? Or should we just keep ignoring this and accept it as a cost of motorized convenience?

Tags: , , , , ,

What’s so Funny about Traffic Deaths?

Posted by Clark on December 22, 2011
News / No Comments
Texting while Driving

 

In the wake of this week’s recommendation by the National Transportation Safety Board to ban cell phone use by automobile operators, many are talking about whether such a law is necessary. Today, despite the overwhelming evidence that talking on a cell phone (hands-free or not) impairs driving, Secretary Ray LaHood declared that his US DOT will not push for a national ban on this leading cause of distracted driving. While we can’t argue that it’s “not the biggest problem in America” (see economy, environment), motor vehicle crashes are the leading cause of death among people 30 years old and younger. The leading cause of death. And since 25-30% of all crashes involve someone talking (or texting) on a cell phone, it seems like it’s something worth looking into.

Leading causes of death for people under 30

Yet the popular media reaction to the NTSB’s recommendation is skeptical, or even mocking. Many claim we are overreacting. Some fear we’re becoming a nanny state. And those with a vested stake in keeping drivers chatting (mainly cell phone companies and auto manufacturers) are especially motivated to strike down this rule.

It’s difficult to imagine a similar reaction to other efforts to improve public safety. We spend unthinkable amounts of money to improve airline safety and prevent terrorist attacks, despite the fact that almost no one is killed or harmed in these ways. Even homicide accounts for only half the number of deaths as vehicle crashes, but it’s hard to picture a news anchor mocking police efforts to crack down on violent crime. Drug- and alcohol-related deaths are the only non-disease causes of death that claim more lives annually than vehicle crashes. But those deaths are at least partly brought on by the individual themselves.

So what’s the difference? Partly it has to do with the sense of entitlement people feel about driving. It’s often referred to as a “right,” and anything that changes where, how, or when people can drive is a threat to liberty. This is fundamentally untrue – that’s why we have licensing laws – but that’s not the point. We need to change the narrative around driving in this country. Perception is reality. Or at least it shapes it. Numbers can help. And so can word choice. But as more people make choices to drive less and walk and bike more, this is our chance to seize the conversation. Liberty is giving people the choice to live without needing to own a car. It means equal transportation opportunities for all income levels.

More people are living in cities every year. They don’t want development as usual. As their numbers grow, so do our chances of improving public health and safety.

Tags: , ,

Bike Sharing comes to Baltimore

Posted by Clark on December 21, 2011
News / 1 Comment
Bicycle sharing is coming to Baltimore. What does it mean?

Last month the mayor announced that the City had reached an agreement with B-cycle to roll out a bike sharing program in Baltimore next year. After frequent fits and starts, it appears that Baltimore is about to join the ranks of cities like Montreal, Boulder, Minneapolis, and Boston. And while it won’t be integrated with our neighbors to the south, it will drastically improve transportation options for Baltimoreans.

If you haven’t used a bike sharing system, it’s worth thinking about what it could mean for you. Like car sharing, bike sharing allows members to borrow a bicycle for as long as they need and then return it for other members to use. Stations will be located around the city, concentrated at key destinations and attractions.

But there are several key differences between car sharing and bike sharing:

  1. One-way trips are permitted, even encouraged - bicycles may be rented at one station and dropped off at your destination. Then, when you’re ready to return home, borrow a bike and ride it back. Or ride on to your next destination. You don’t pay for time the bike is parked.
  2. Progressive rate structure - bike share systems are designed to encourage short trips. To keep as many bikes in circulation as possible, prices are designed to discourage members from keeping bikes for more than a couple hours. Some systems even offer the first 30 minutes for free.
  3. Staff move bikes from full stations to empty ones - due to popular travel patterns, some stations will end up with more bikes than available spaces while others may go empty. B-cycle employees will move bikes as needed.

Once B-cycle is up and running, members will have a new option for getting around the city. And with the ease and convenience of bike sharing, it will actually be quicker than driving or riding transit for many trips in the city. Any trip less than about 3 miles would take less than 30 minutes, and be free.

Here’s hoping this precipitates further investment in Baltimore’s bike network. For it to be a success, serious traffic calming is needed to make more people comfortable getting around by bicycle.

Tags: , , , , ,

Active Public Spaces

Posted by Clark on December 21, 2011
News / No Comments

The Atlantic Cities has a nice post today about the value of public spaces and their potential to create vibrancy and activity.

We make deliberate decisions on how our public spaces are used and those decisions have direct consequences. Do not assume things are how they must be.

Another Transit Service?

Posted by Clark on December 20, 2011
Trolley / No Comments

Could a fifth mode of transit in Baltimore be the answer?

For the seeming lack of quality in Baltimore’s public transit network, we at least have quantity. On top of the city’s expansive, but pitifully unreliable bus network, there is a Metro line, a light rail line, two commuter rail lines, and various commuter bus lines. And despite being run all by one agency, there is no fare integration, schedules do not appear to be coordinated, and the lines don’t even connect with each other very well. Then, in 2010, the City added its Charm City Circulator to the mix, demonstrating that free, City-run service could be cleaner, more reliable, and more frequent. Oh, and it’s free to ride.

Proposed Route

So you might be surprised to hear about plans for a new streetcar line along Baltimore’s Main Street. The Charles Street Trolley would connect the Inner Harbor to Charles Village along Charles Street, St. Paul Street, and Cathedral Avenue. It would not be run by MTA, rather a Trolley organization dedicated to its planning, operations, and maintenance. The planned route, which would duplicate much of the CCC’s Purple Line, would significantly enhance transit service north of Penn Station. And while Charles Street is one of the best-served transit streets in the City, MTA has proved itself to be too unreliable for many choice riders.

There are many questions to answer, such as Who will pay for this? How will this affect traffic along Charles Street? Will it connect well with other transit lines? etc. But these are details that can be figured out. Instead, we’re interested in the merits of the project itself.

Streetcars, or Trolleys, do not usually yield a dramatic improvement in terms of transportation. They tend to be more reliable, have more clean and comfortable vehicles, and are can carry more passengers compared with buses. And they certainly attract riders who will never step foot on a bus. Most of these issues are perception-based, but they are real so far as it goes.

The real benefit of streetcars comes in the form of economic development and livability. Streetcars invigorate the streets on which they run. Property values on streets with streetcars always go up. Tourism, which is nearly monopolized by our Inner Harbor, would extend into Mount Vernon, Station North, and Charles Village. That means more visitors to The Walters, the BMA, and even future attractions. It would transform the streets between North Avenue and 25th Street. And it would allow Charles Village and Old Goucher residents to ride transit instead of clogging Charles Street and St. Paul Street with their cars. The Trolley would help calm traffic on these streets, making them safer and more inviting for bicycles and pedestrians.

The Streetcar is expensive. Property owners along the proposed routes should be prepared to help finance its construction, as they will realize the economic rewards of the project. In fact, that’s part of the project’s current financing plan. And the City should kick in, too. This is a project for Baltimore City residents, not out-of-town tourists, restaurant chain owners, or suburban families.

Tags: , , , , ,

Ode to a Road

Posted by Clark on December 17, 2011
News / No Comments

Jones Falls Expressway

The JFX moves lots of traffic, but is that all?

Did you catch the puff piece on the front page of today’s Baltimore Sun? In the kind of treatment usually reserved for the editor’s brother-in-law, Candus Thompson raves about the highway that slices its way through the city. The article — which credits a highway for “nourishing a wedge of prosperity” and for keeping us “in the game” — ignores the realities of a highway in the middle of the city. It fails to recognize the difference between neighborhoods immediately to the east and west of the JFX. It pretends that, without this highway, people would be forced to drive through local streets all the way from Timonium and Hunt Valley, forgetting that the highway is the reason people could choose to live in these places.

But most upsetting are the quotes from Frank Murphy, our city’s Deputy Director of Transportation. Murphy also praises the highway, which is perhaps unsurprising coming from a traffic engineer. But he seems incapable, or unwilling, to recognize the cause-and-effect relationship between transportation and land use. And he scoffs at the idea of knocking the highway down to create a boulevard around which the city can build.

“What’s the point?” he asks, as if he couldn’t imagine a reason to do anything if it doesn’t improve traffic flow. If our city’s leadership cannot deign to c0nsider things that don’t meet arbitrary standards and auto mobility goals, what hope is there? Our leaders must be better. Our Mayor must insist on this.

The JFX is not the worst road project, and it does move a lot of people into and out of our city. But we are far beyond the days of celebrating a highway. We must be flexible moving forward and look for holistic solutions, not focusing on narrow-minded goals of the past. Otherwise, what’s the point?

Tags: , , , , ,

10,000 Families

Posted by Clark on December 16, 2011
News / No Comments

Last week at her inaugural address, the Mayor declared her goal to grow Baltimore City by 10,000 families in the next ten years. This is an admirable goal and one we should all join together to support. How she plans to achieve this in the face of continual population decline remains to be seen, but for the time being we will trust that she has plans in the works.

On the heels of Gerald Neily’s spot-on recommendations, we consider what the City can do in terms of transportation to make Baltimore more livable.

First, there are three things that could happen tomorrow (or, at most, the day after):

  1. Eliminate mega streets in Downtown – Pratt Street, Lombard Street, Baltimore Street, Green Street, Paca Street, President Street… These three-, four-, and five-lane arteries have no business in an urban environment. Take away lanes and add on-street parking and you’ve instantly improved life on the street.
  2. Retime traffic signals – Traffic signals are a useful tool for controlling traffic speed, when used correctly. Cities like Portland use signals to progress traffic at 12-15 miles per hour. Drivers learn not to speed up just to slam into the next red light, and actually come to appreciate the reliability and predictability. Reducing the signal length also helps make the signals friendlier to drivers, walkers, cyclists, and transit riders.
  3. Transit-tracker! – Real-time arrival information would make MTA’s terribly unreliable bus service actually usable. All of the City’s buses have on-board GPS trackers, so sharing it with the public is simply a matter of handing the data over to someone who can develop a phone app.

Longer term, the City must take significant steps to reorder its transportation priorities. Pedestrians, bicycles, and transit riders must be given preference over suburban commuters driving into and out of the city. Traffic engineers will tell you that this will increase congestion and cause some roads to *gasp* “fail.” Well, for one, “fail” means there’s traffic during the worst 15 minutes of the day, which isn’t necessarily the end of the world. Second, these streets are already failing from the perspective of public life. We should happily trade inconvenience to suburban commuters for improving the quality of life in downtown Baltimore.

That’s how you begin to make people want to live here instead of the County.

Tags: , , ,