|
Comment on this article |
View comments |
Email this Article
|
|
Speed Bumps only for the Wealthy? |
Current rating: 0 |
by rich
Email: letsthinksomemore (nospam) yahoo.com (unverified!) |
12 Jan 2005
|
|
I find it fascinating that, of all the streets in Champaign where we could have installed experimental speed bumps to control traffic, it just so happens that we chose the wealthiest single street in the city. And now, of course, city officials caution us that, even though the experiment worked very well, there is precious little funding available for additional installations in other parts of the city (such as north of University Avenue, ya think?) At least Mr. Robeson has his, thank goodness! |
Speed humps getting job done
By MIKE MONSON
© 2005 THE NEWS-GAZETTE
Published Online January 12, 2005
CHAMPAIGN – Kyle Robeson was among a number of residents who live along Waverly Drive who asked the Champaign City Council three years ago to install traffic-calming devices on Waverly to slow traffic.
Two traffic-calming devices, called speed humps – literally rises in the street spaced about 550 feet apart – were installed in August 2002 at the request of the neighborhood.
More than two years later, testimonials from Waverly Drive residents as well as city engineering studies show that the speed humps have done the job, reducing traffic volumes and average speeds significantly.
The Champaign City Council unanimously decided Tuesday night to allow other city neighborhoods to request similar traffic-calming devices on a two-year trial basis, as budget limits allow.
Robeson said the speed humps have made his neighborhood safer.
"It's the best thing that's ever been done," he said. "People used to race from one end to the other at 50 mph. It's been a very effective way of getting people to obey the law."
Pat Fitzgerald of 1212 Waverly Drive said that before the speed humps were installed, people were using his street as a high-speed shortcut to Kirby Avenue. The hazard was made worse by the fact that there are no sidewalks or streetlights in the neighborhood, located just west of the Champaign Country Club. The lack of sidewalks forces people, including children and senior citizens, to walk in the street, he said.
"It was a recipe for disaster," Fitzgerald said. "Thanks to the traffic calming, it appears the city has addressed the problem."
Data collected by city engineering staff show how dramatically speed humps reduced average speeds and traffic volume on Waverly Drive.
Before the August 2002 installation, the street averaged 943 vehicles per day, with 29 percent of vehicles surpassing the 30 mph speed limit.
Two years later, traffic volume is 556 vehicles per day, with the number of vehicles over 30 mph at 5 percent at the humps and 13 percent in between.
The city council on Tuesday endorsed a staff recommendation to approve a proposed update of the city's traffic-calming policy on a two-year trial basis. The update will streamline the policy for a neighborhood to request a traffic-calming device for a local residential street.
The new policy could lead to the more widespread use of devices throughout the city, though such a move would also require a significant increase in the city's budget for its traffic management program, currently funded at $20,000 every other year.
That sum would pay for the installation of only one traffic calming device per year.
Besides speed humps, the city is also planning to use traffic circles to slow traffic on neighborhood streets.
Traffic circles, which have been used with success in Bloomington, - would be retrofitted into existing stop sign intersections, according to city civil engineer Chris Sokolowski. Traffic circles would comprise a circle of greenery in the middle of the intersection, with the driver having the option of turning left, right or going straight. As the name implies, a vehicle must make a partly circular path around the intersection to the street that is their destination.
An engineering study of traffic circles in Bloomington, commissioned by the city of Champaign, showed that in combination with speed humps spaced 330 feet apart, most vehicles traveled 25 mph or less between devices and the number of vehicles traveling over 30 mph also dropped dramatically.
A speed hump costs about $8,000 to install, while a traffic circle costs about $8,000 or $9,000 for a typical intersection, Sokolowski said.
The city council also heard Tuesday about how traffic has been influenced along Devonshire Drive since four-way stop signs were installed in March 2002 at the intersections of Devonshire at Galen Drive and Devonshire at Mayfair Road.
The report did not recommend removal of the stop signs, but reported mixed results. It reported that overall east-west traffic volumes through the area were relatively unchanged, though there was some redistribution of traffic due to the stop signs. Specifically, there were decreases in traffic on Devonshire with increases in traffic volumes on Broadmoor and Harrington drives.
Except for the areas near the stop signs, speeds along Devonshire Drive were relatively unchanged, the report found, with average speeds of 35 to 38 mph and about 50 percent of vehicles traveling over 30 mph. |
This work is in the public domain |
Comments
|
Re: Speed Bumps only for the Wealthy? |
by rich
letsthinksomemore (nospam) yahoo.com (unverified) |
Current rating: 0
12 Jan 2005
|
|
A quick postscript: a number of years ago I lived in Southwood (a working class 'hood) on a long, straight street. Cars were speeding down it on a constant basis, going up to 60 mph. The neighbors got together, had some meetings, and invited the City of Champaign to come speak with us. They sent a police sergeant, who patiently explained that the process of installing speed bumps was costly, complex, and probably not worth pursuing. Guess we lived on the wrong side of town. |
|
Re: Speed Bumps only for the Wealthy? |
by Local Yocal
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
14 Jan 2005
|
|
Here's another one: The Tram. It is promised the Tram is to bring great economic development where ever the tracks are laid. The MTD, by its own calculations, suggests that about 30% of its current ridership on the buses are minorities living north of University Avenue. So when Bill Volk is asked will the tram tracks likely run where economic development is needed most, and where the ridership is great, he hems and haws, and says........."no" with little explanation. But Peter Fox's new South Research Park with thousands of car parking spaces is top priority for the tram. |
|
Addressing Mistaken Tram Assumptions |
by ML
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
14 Jan 2005
|
Justiifying the need for the tram is primarily based on volume of tracffic. That is why projected tram routes at this time do not go north of University Avenue. While there is a high precentage of minorities that live there, the traffic volumes that the tram is designed to both alleviate and transport simply are not there.
In the future, they are also less likely to be there than south of University. Why? Because of bad past decisions that only considered the expansion of road traffic. Interstate 74 blocks future expansion of the urbanized area of the cities to the north of it, while urban sprawl moves east, south, and west. Eventually, there probably will be an expansion of housing to the north of I-74, along with the need for an expansion of tram service there. Until that happens, there is likely to be very limited justification for tram service there, EXCEPT to the North Prospect-North Neil shopping zone. However, the cost of expanding the tram over the interstate probably cannot be justified solely on serving the ill-planned transporation mess (thank the City of Champaign planners and city council for that) that exists there without future housing growth.
One should also not assume that minorities all live north of University Avenue. I would like to see a cite for the statement that "The MTD, by its own calculations, suggests that about 30% of its current ridership on the buses are minorities living north of University Avenue." It would not surprise me that 30% of the overall ridership ARE minorities, but, given the on-campus volume, I seriously doubt that 30% of the riders live "north of University Avenue." Perhaps you are conflating the two statistics in a way that doesn't reflect real-world figures.
Tram routes will also free up buses to provide better feeder service to tram routes, as well as extended service in parts of the community that are off the tram routes. This would certainly include areas north of University Ave., so your assumption that minorities would somehow be disproportionately disbenefited by the tram really doesn't hold water.
As far as the tram going to the South Research Park, this is intended to increase the capabilities for Park and Ride. One of the primary goals of building the tram is to reduce on-campus traffic volume. Here again we see that the benefits of the tram extend even to those who may never ride it, for whatever reason. Those who still feel obligated to use cars through the most intensively trafficked part of C-U will certainly benefit from the tram by not having to fight for parking and through on-campus traffic.
While the tram has many local doubters -- most notably led by those who give the editorial page of the News-Gazette far too much credit for ascertaining what is in the best interest of the community -- despite the initial cost, the emprical data on trams show that they bring significant benefits that cannot be achieved with any other transportation mode. And for alleviation of limited transportation capacity in high traffic areas such as in Campustown, there is no substitute, which is the main reason the tram is being proposed.
However, one should not over emphasize the campus aspect. Future growth in urban areas and the desire of many interest groups in preventing excessive sprawl are also important parts of the tram equation. Tram routes allow high population concentrations without the transportation problems associated with exclusive reliance on car and bus modes.
Thus, I find your race-based analysis of proposed tram routes to be trite pandering that is based on ignorance of urban and transportation planning theory and practice, as well as a fundamental misunderstanding of the limitations of present modes of transportation. |
|
Re: Speed Bumps only for the Wealthy? |
by rich
letsthinksomemore (nospam) yahoo.com (unverified) |
Current rating: 0
14 Jan 2005
|
ML -- you were doing an excellent job of educating readers about the issue, until the last paragraph. Then, apparently angry with Yocal, descended to an unnecessary, derogatory remark, referring to her/his "ignorance" and characterizing her/his comments as "trite."
This strikes me as a way to discourage commentary. Some people are insecure in speaking out, are reluctant to offer opinions in the first place, and will absolutely decline to do so if they think they're going to be put down.
I don't know Yocal, or whether you have legitimate reasons to have responded in this manner, but that's not the point. I'm talking about other folks who would sense the danger of saying something trite and ignorant, and having you tell them so. |
|
Don't Confuse the Two |
by ML
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
14 Jan 2005
|
You are obviously confusing ignorance with stupidity, Rich. There is nothing inherently "derogatory" about ignorance and there is an effective cure -- learning more. If I had called someone "stupid" you might have a point.
I will also stand by my characteriztion of LY's comment as trite. That is my opinion and, until refuted by evidence, is probably shared by many other readers.
Furthermore, a critical approach to ignorance is one of the purposes of Indymedia. It is hardly "unnnecessary."
Additionally, you are hardly a credible source of information on how IMC website use policy should be applied. Your own initial, trolling comments in your recent sudden appearance here are only maginified in significance by trolling emails of yours that were recently reproduced and hidden in an off topic post by another regular user of our website. |
|
Re: Speed Bumps only for the Wealthy? |
by rich
letsthinksomemore (nospam) yahoo.com (unverified) |
Current rating: 0
14 Jan 2005
|
|
Although I have directed the bulk of my thoughts on your post to a private email -- deeming it inappropriate and unseemly to have a personal discussion on the site -- I will say openly that a "sudden appearance" on the site should not be grounds for suspicion. If you make it difficult for people to "suddenly appear" (as opposed to, what?, gradually come into focus, sort of like Captain Kirk being beamed back to the Enterprise?), you will find precious few new individuals making an appearance at all. |
|
Sorry, No Email |
by ML
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
14 Jan 2005
|
Rich,
I checked my account and haven't seen your mail.
I agree with you when you say that "I will say openly that a "sudden appearance" on the site should not be grounds for suspicion." Certainly, not in itself. |
|
Re: Speed Bumps only for the Wealthy? |
by rich
letsthinksomemore (nospam) yahoo.com (unverified) |
Current rating: 0
14 Jan 2005
|
ML -- here's the message I (thought) I sent. Nothing inflamatory here.
I am upset and puzzled by your comments about me on the message board. I am not a troll, and must confess that I had to ask my teenaged son for a definition. I live in the C-U community, own a longstanding small contracting business, consider myself an honest contributing member of this town, and support a number of social causes in which I deeply believe.
In my first post, I used poor judgment and adopted a provocative style of argument. In my reply to GRG's reply, I apologized for doing this, and had what I think was a reasonable and respectful series of exchanges. Clearly, there is some distance between GRG and me on the issues, but I would also point you to my last comment to him in which I suggested we end the discussion on a point upon which we probably agree.
I also replied respectfully to your message to me about policies and promised to abide by them. And I have kept my word. At the same time, I did comment on your comment to Local Yocal, suggesting that using words such as "trite pandering" and "ignorant" did not seem to be in the spirit of the policies as I understand them.
My email messages to Anna were in response to ones she was sending me. I was trying to motivate her to stop -- not an easy task. I did not intend for them to be posted on the IMC site, and I regret that I didn't think more clearly about the possible outcomes.
My interest in IMC is from the perspective of an engaged member of the community, who is glad there is a forum for discussing important issues. I am, at the same time, a very private person. Moreover, as a the owner of a small business, it is vital that I maintain good relations with both labor and capital, and I frankly cannot afford to have someone take issue with my political views. Although I wish it were otherwise, I know from hard experience that this can hurt me economically. That is why I use a psuedonym, and I found no prohibition of such in the IMC policy statements.
Finally, let me emphasize that I understand the need to minimize uses of the site which do not contribute to the stated mission of IMC. That's fair and fine with me. Apparently you have had problems with "trolls" and I imagine that has been an unpleasant diversion of your energies from your purpose.
My hope, in the end, is that the IMC site truly is open to people of diverse opinions and that, so long as they are presented in a sincere and respectful manner, these opinions will be tolerated even though others may profoundly disagree with them.
If my approach to the IMC site is inconsistent with the purposes of its leadership, I will reluctantly but uncomplainingly simply cease to make use of it.
Sincerely,
Rich |
|
Re: Speed Bumps only for the Wealthy? |
by Local Yocal
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
15 Jan 2005
|
To ML and I guess my defender Rich,
I'm not offended by my argument being labeled as "trite", my post reflecting some sort of "ignorance". ML layed out the reasons why she/he felt the argument about the tram could be described that way. As for shutting down discourse on the topics by using such terms, I didn't find ML's comments rising to that level. I guess we're all a little paranoid about having our discussions be subverted into a series of petty, personal arguments over who's not dotting their i's correctly and who's stupid, and who's not. I am seeing efforts being made to keep the discussions polite and on-topic.
I respect ML's opinion, as is apparent that ML respected mine, taking the time to provide a reasoned response to my post. First, let me say I am grateful there exists debate at all about the most expensive infrastructure project ever proposed for Champaign-Urbana. You'd think if County Clerk Mark Sheldon's job description could make for a November referendum, the tram would also be put to the voters. Instead, it will be soley decided by bureaucrats in D.C. who will laddle out the $220 million dollar grant, and the local majorities of the Urbana City Council, Champaign City Council, and the University of Illinois Board of Trustees. I think that's only 17 votes needed to pass another set of taxes or fees to support the Tram's existence. Bill Volk has done a remarkable job of not explaining why, if the tram is such a great idea, why can't the voters of Champaign-Urbana vote on whether we should have a tram. But democracy probably doesn't serve the experts in transportation very well, and thus, should be avoided I guess. Just eat your taxes and shut up, we'll handle it, has been the MTD mode of operandi thus far.
ML, I look forward to more discussions on the tram in the future. At this point, I remain steadfast that the tram is the biggest welfare fraud I've ever seen, but have no personal interest in being right about that assessment. I hope people like ML can prove me wrong for I do not want to believe that my government is wasting $300 million dollars. Since this thread is about speed bumps and neighborhood services going to certain neighborhoods, I'll wait for a more tram-specific post to begin shaking off this ignorance that ML has me mired in.
Again, thanks to ML for the response, no offense taken, and let's continue to believe this site can be a place to think and express views. |
|
Re: Speed Bumps only for the Wealthy? |
by rich
letsthinksomemore (nospam) yahoo.com (unverified) |
Current rating: 0
15 Jan 2005
|
|
Picking up on LY's final thoughts, I would like to get back to the question of whether there are disparities in services to different neighborhoods in Champaign. In addition to the speed bumps I mentioned on Waverly, a few years back a stop sign was placed on Armory and James, along the Champaign Country Club. Now, I'm not questioning the need for these traffic control measures -- they are a benefit to pedestrians, cyclists, and so on. My concern is that I see plenty of locales in other parts of town that clearly have the same needs which are not being addressed. Perhaps interested folks with personal knowledge of this and other types of city services -- snow removal, storm drainage, etc -- that are apparently provided in an uneven manner around the city, would care to continue the discussion. |
|
Re: Speed Bumps only for the Wealthy? |
by gli
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
15 Jan 2005
|
As to the question of whether there are disparities in services to different neighborhoods in Champaign Urbana, I would say clearly yes. I have been a resident of the twin cities for over 25 years and have seen many examples of the wealthier areas getting preferential treatment, not only in what work is getting done but in the amount of time that work takes. Why did it take 3+ months to complete the North Goodwin Ave project? The road was completely shut down and it was a huge inconvenience to residents. Many days no presence of any kind by city workers. Somehow I can't see this happening on say, South Race.
Is it fair? I suppose you could make an arguement that the city does collect far more revenue from property taxes in the wealthier districts. I guess you can also argue that Goodwin does not support a very high volume of traffic. Whatever, it's just discrimination to me. |
|
Re: Speed Bumps only for the Wealthy? |
by gli
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
15 Jan 2005
|
|
I forgot to add...there are many such speed humps in the north end. Oh wait, those are railroad crossings that have deterioated to the point that they are downright dangerous. |
|
Re: Speed Bumps only for the Wealthy? |
by rich
letsthinksomemore (nospam) yahoo.com (unverified) |
Current rating: 0
15 Jan 2005
|
|
I'm with ya, Gli. Again, I will acknowledge I don't have data, but a casual drive around town, both north and south, will at least suggest that something's outta wack. The north Goodwin example is interesting. M.L. King Elementary School is right there. I find it a bit difficult to imagine a similarly prolonged construction project in front of, say, Robeson Elementary. I wonder, though, if it's as simple as the assessed property tax value of the respective neighborhoods. Perhaps it's more a function of home ownership. I wouldn't be surprised to learn the north end has a higher percentage of rented houses than other parts of town. And if the power is truly in the landed property owners -- which we know is the case -- then that could be contributing to the disparity. A landlord is going to be happy so long as the rent check keeps on coming, regardless of whether the street is crumbling, the sewers overflow, or the railroad tracts are in decay. |
|
Re: Speed Bumps only for the Wealthy? |
by Joe Futrelle
futrelle (nospam) shout.net (verified) |
Current rating: 0
19 Jan 2005
|
The problem, pure and simple, is sprawl. Our urban centers are threatened by expensive, ever-increasing suburban residental developments that are net consumers of city services and natural resources.
At the same time, politically, the cities are desperate to attract any and all developers, most of whom prefer sprawl to the less-profitable-for-them proposition of investing in maintaining and developing our downtowns and mixed-use areas. So the cities promise these developers all kinds of preferential treatment and make special deals with them so they'll build their new housing development in this cornfield or that cornfield.
So now the city is paying more service workers to service more and more residential areas, and their health care costs and the cost of gas to drive all the city vehicles on all these new and newly-deteriorating road networks are rising faster than inflation and probably property tax revenue (someone know the numbers on that?)
So politically we start forgetting about urban renewal most of the time. It's expensive, so let's just focus our effots in some flagship areas, maybe where we can get some leverage from the state (i.e., the University) or some local businesses. And the disparities in our political/economic system become disparities in city services.
The solution is to put a giant speed bump around our urban center to slow down developers who are rushing to the city limits to build the next golf-course-surrounding phalanx of McMansions. Tell them, yes, you can develop our city, but you have to invest in our least attractive neighborhoods--the ones that need attention the most. In a capitalist system, they'd be crazy to agree. Ah yes, but the workers control the means of production ... [insert socialist rant here] |
|
