mattbk.com – Page 29 – Matt Burton-Kelly's home on the Web

Tonight: Public Input Meeting – Long Range Transportation Plan Update

This just in from schaefs:

WHY?

The purpose of the public meeting will be to provide a public involvement opportunity at the early stages of the MPO’s Long Range Transportation Plan Update process. At the meeting, citizens will be asked for their input on issues, needs and opportunities that could affect the Grand Forks – East Grand Forks transportation system.

This meeting is the first of five public meetings that will be conducted during the study.

WHEN?

May 16, 2012

Open House: 5:30 p.m. to 7:30 p.m.

Formal Presentation at 6:00 p.m.

WHERE?

Grand Forks City Hall – Council Chambers

255 North Fourth Street Grand Forks, ND

The meeting announcement (with more detailed information) can be found here.

Quickie: South-End Bypass

The Grand Forks Herald has this article today on the push for a south-end truck bypass, including a Merrifield Road/I-29 interchange. What do you think of such a plan?

From the Grand Forks Herald, 16 May 2012.

Not just about bicycles – explaining Complete Streets

Some visitors to this blog may be wondering what is meant by “complete streets,” when the majority of coverage has been about bicycles. Part of the cycle-centricity stems from recent events: the idea of bikeshare in Grand Forks is a pretty big deal around here, so it’s interesting to write about. Another part of the bicycling focus comes from my personal experiences: I’ve been bicycle commuting in Grand Forks for almost six and a half years, and commuting year-round for about five of those years. My discussions with people so far this spring have been focused on making it easier for people to ride because that’s what I talk to my friends about.

It’s not just about bicycles, however. We can all recognize that, for many people, bicycle commuting is not an option due to work scheduling, transporting more than a couple kids around at once, needing to move large items, injury or illness, disability, or a combination of these and many other factors. We have different mode of transportation because they are all good for different things, and this is where the complete streets model comes in. A good overview comes from the National Complete Streets Coaliton:

Complete Streets are streets for everyone. They are designed and operated to enable safe access for all users. Pedestrians, bicyclists, motorists and transit riders of all ages and abilities must be able to safely move along and across a complete street. Complete Streets make it easy to cross the street, walk to shops, and bicycle to work. They allow buses to run on time and make it safe for people to walk to and from train stations.

Creating complete streets means transportation agencies must change their approach to community roads.By adopting a Complete Streets policy, communities direct their transportation planners and engineers to routinely design and operate the entire right of way to enable safe access for all users, regardless of age, ability, or mode of transportation. This means that every transportation project will make the street network better and safer for drivers, transit users, pedestrians, and bicyclists – making your town a better place to live.

Complete streets supporters aren’t against any particular mode of transportation, but they are anti-bad-design when it comes to public infrastructure. “Bad design” refers (as shown above) to transportation that is automobile-centric, a condition shared by much of the country but not necessarily most of the world. We aren’t out to tell you what choices to make, but we’re here to tell you that you can have choices, and those choices should be integrated into the public space.

Some examples of non-complete streets in Grand Forks include

The South Washington Street underpass, the deteriorating sidewalks of which make it nigh impassible for the elderly during the summer. The lack of snow removal on those same sidewalks closes it off completely during the winter.
The DeMers overpass, which has no sidewalks at all. There are only limited opportunities to cross the train tracks in town, and this one, near downtown, excludes anyone not in a motor vehicle.
Both ends of the University Avenue bike lane, which dump a rider onto the sidewalk after crossing 42nd Street or Columbia Road.
The 42nd Street railroad crossing, which backs up traffic, causing pedestrians and cyclists (also stopped by the train) to breathe the same exhaust that the drivers are stuck in.

There must be a reason for this, of course. Altruism is not entirely at play here, and many complete streets advocates just want a place for themselves on the road where they won’t feel like they are going to die. Additionally, however, there are a number of societal benefits from giving people choices when it comes to transportation, including (but not limited to)

Congestion reduction: more options means fitting more people in the road. If it’s sunny, ride your bicycle. If it’s raining, take the bus. If you’re helping your grandmother move, drive your truck.
Economic growth: the more people you can get to your door, the more money you can make. Why disregard the part of the community that rides a bicycle or walks? Pedestrian malls formed by closing streets to vehicles often become commercial hotspots.
Healthier society: by allowing people to walk or ride, we’re making it easier for people to get the minimum amount of recommended daily physical activity. For employers, healthier employees means fewer sick days.
Safety: by adding accessibility, drivers are required to pay greater attention, reduce speed, and lower the number of crashes.
Fiscal planning: by including complete streets designs early on new projects, money can be saved on making those same improvements later.

If these are ideas you can get behind, for yourself or for someone else, please do some more reading and start thinking about what we can do. Of cities in North Dakota, only Fargo has at least some degree of policy relating to complete streets; with a little work, Grand Forks could be the first to design and implement a complete streets policy to make sure everyone is able to make the best transportation choices they can.

steps to take

ideas for steps to take that involve everyone in streets processes before mandating specific changes

bicycle surveys to measure exactly where, when and why people ride:

http://www.bicyclenetwork.com.au/general/bike-futures/40428/

complete streets plan:

http://www.completestreets.org/complete-streets-fundamentals/complete-streets-faq/

http://streetsblog.net/2012/05/01/so-you-have-a-complete-streets-policy-now-what/

bicycle-friendly businesses and university:

http://www.bikeleague.org/programs/bicyclefriendlyamerica/bicyclefriendlyuniversity/

Work in progress: genus duration of freshwater mussels in the Hyriidae

My dissertation is dependent on the assumption that people make mistakes in identification and naming of fossil and modern organisms. In particular, I am proposing that certain freshwater mussel genera in the family Hyriidae have supposed taxon ranges that are far longer than they should be, however in order to be taken at least somewhat seriously I need to show that this could be the case and select candidates for further investigation.

The first figure is a simple taxon range diagram for several genera that are agreeably within the Hyriidae. The mean indicators can be ignored. It is apparent that three genera in particular stand out as being long-lived. This could be for a number of reasons: the genera may actually have survived for such long periods of time, certain specimens may have been misidentified, or certain nomenclatural lumping may have occurred inappropriately.
The second figure includes more information. The width of each bean is proportional to the number of occurrences of each taxon through time. Note that the full range of each taxon is not displayed on the second figure because it was produced from age estimates from (in most cases) surrounding stage boundaries.

I will leave it to the reader to determine whether I am on the right track.

Plots were produced in R using the function below, which is being released under the CRAPL. Data is from my personal locality occurrence database, which will become available on the completion of my dissertation.

ranges<-function(locfile,genera=c("Alathyria","Velesunio"),type="box",columns=c("D_no_dissertation_id","genus_bogan","species_source","ref1","age_start_ma","age_end_ma")) {
 # Make sure beanplot is available.
 library("beanplot");
 # Read in the data from a CSV file.
 localities<-read.csv(locfile);
 # List the genera you want.
 # genera<-c("Alathyria","Velesunio");
 # Create a place to store the selections.
 selection<-list();
 start<-list();
 end<-list();
 select<-data.frame();

## For bean plots
 # Grab the whole selection
 select<-subset(localities,localities$genus_bogan %in% genera & localities$age_start_ma!="NA" & localities$age_end_ma!="NA",select=columns);
 # Add mean dates to a data frame.
 select$mean<-ave(select$age_start_ma, select$age_end_ma);
 # Get rid of the unneeded genus names in the subset.
 select$genus_bogan<-factor(select$genus_bogan);

if(type=="box") {
 ## For box plots
 # Loop through the genera
 for (i in 1:length(genera)) {
 # Grab the columns you want.
 selection[[i]]<-subset(localities,localities$genus_bogan==genera[i] & localities$age_start_ma!="NA" & localities$age_end_ma!="NA",select=columns);
 # Sort by column age_start_ma (not needed at the moment).
 # selection[[i]]<-sort(selection[[i]],by=~"age_start_ma")
 # Find the start and end dates.
 start[[i]]<-max(selection[[i]]["age_start_ma"]);
 end[[i]]<-min(selection[[i]]["age_end_ma"]);
 }
 # Make the start and end lists into a matrix...the long way around.
 df<-data.frame(start=unlist(start),end=unlist(end));
 # Transpose the matrix.
 toplot<-t(as.matrix(df));
 # Make a box plot. Don't need to worry about whiskers because there are only two values. The y-axis is reversed.
 boxplot(toplot,names=genera,ylim=rev(range(toplot)),ylab=c("Ma"));
 # Show the data being plotted.
 print(toplot);

 } else if(type=="bean") {

 # Make a bean plot. This is more complicated. The y-axis is reversed.
 beanplot(select$mean~select$genus_bogan, ylim=rev(range(select$mean)), cut=0, log="", names=levels(select$genus_bogan), what=c(0,1,0,0),bw=20,col = c("#CAB2D6", "#33A02C", "#B2DF8A"), border = "#CAB2D6",ylab=c("Ma"));
 }

}

Fargo Bike Lane News

While Grand Forks discusses bikeshare and closing a section of University Avenue, our neighbors to the south are embroiled in a bitter bike lane battle. A list of articles and current status of the project is being kept up by the Great Plains Cycling Club on their website.

What do you think of bike lanes? Does the general lack of bike lanes in Grand Forks affect your choice of whether to travel by a certain route? Are there any places in town you’d like to see lanes installed?

Grand Forks bikeshare survey results are out

Just a quick post to let people digest these responses. The results are available as a PDF here, including all responses, not just aggregate data. An FAQ PDF (which many survey respondents appear not to have read) is available from the Greater Grand Forks Greenway here.

Update: WDAZ had a story on this last night which thankfully details the type of system we might have here.

Closing University Avenue

One of the best things about going to a small residential university for my undergraduate degree was the lack of cars on campus. The campus was small, there were parking lots on the outskirts (near most of the dorms), and you walked or rode a bicycle everywhere. It was a given. The campus was small enough to make this feasible. It’s not that there were no vehicles at all–delivery trucks and the like would drive through in the early morning, the streets were plowed during the winter, and on move-in and move-out day you could bring your vehicle in to move your stuff–but for the students, we just had to deal with the lack of motorized transportation.

The Grand Forks/East Grand Forks Metropolitan Planning Organization is looking to do a similar thing for part of the University of North Dakota, reports the Grand Forks Herald. They have released a report (which I have not located yet) proposing the closing of University Avenue between Columbia Road to the east and Stanford Road to the west (see image from the Herald website) in order to reduce pedestrian/motorist interactions, promote walking and cycling, and reduce emissions from motor vehicles.

Image from the Grand Forks Herald.

This proposal is notable for its daring and progressiveness. This might be the first instance of closing streets for the sake of pedestrians in Grand Forks history. There are strong criticisms, however I think they can be mitigated. Two in particular stand out: emergency vehicle access and perceived increased congestion.

Emergency vehicle access worries are due to the use of University Ave as a route for fire trucks and ambulances, but “closed to personal vehicles” does not mean “closed to emergency vehicles.” Allowing these vehicles access to University Ave, as long as even one lane is left clear for service, might even decrease response times due to not having to wait for automobile traffic to get out of the way.

Perceived congestion is a more difficult nut to crack, but I propose an initial tradeoff to help people understand the value of this street closure: limited hours of operation. Larger cities do this all the time–drive into Washington, D.C. some morning and you’ll see whole residential streets change one-way direction–and people learn how it works. Close University Avenue between 8 AM and 4 PM every day (perhaps with gates) except to service and emergency vehicles for a trial semester, study the effects, and use those data to shut it down completely.

Again, I’m very excited about this plan because it opens up new possibilities. Street parties. Street vendors (allowing off-campus restaurants to set up shop for lunch). More space for people on foot and bicycles. Less noise, traffic, and emissions for everyone. What other opportunities do you see?

Roads are paid for by drivers, right?

“Why should we even allow cyclists on the roads? They aren’t paying for them.”
Variations on this theme come up fairly regularly: Drivers pay for roads through gas taxes and car registrations Cyclists don’t need to pay out anything. Why should we let people who aren’t paying for the roads use the roads?

Unfortunately, this argument rests on a false assumption: that all roads are paid for by user fees (gas taxes and registrations). In fact, according to an article a few years ago on Streetsblog, “Between 1982 and 2007, the amount of federal highway revenue derived from non-users of the highway system has doubled.” We are all paying for roads, regardless of whether drive or not, and identifying gas taxes as “user fees” is even under question. Add to this the fact that many cyclists also own cars (and therefore pay “user fees”), and the argument against them using the roads falls apart even more.

So, as far as cycling infrastructure and complete streets development goes, getting even 1% of transportation funding has been an uphill battle. By recognizing that this funding isn’t even fully supported by drivers we should be able to utilize it to support cycling- and pedestrian-related endeavors, in Grand Forks and beyond.