posted by Joe Polk at 10:57 PM /
Mt. Lebanon Commission has been toying with ideas to help traffic flow in both the business districts and in neighborhoods.
But the process is long and consensus is tough to achieve, said Commissioner Dan Miller. He has been working for some time on a traffic plan for the Mapleton/Marietta neighborhood. In fact, residents there began complaining to the municipality in February 2005 about cars speeding through and the need for something to be done.
Link: www.thealmanac.net/ALM/Story/12-24-ML-traffic-B
But the process is long and consensus is tough to achieve, said Commissioner Dan Miller. He has been working for some time on a traffic plan for the Mapleton/Marietta neighborhood. In fact, residents there began complaining to the municipality in February 2005 about cars speeding through and the need for something to be done.
Link: www.thealmanac.net/ALM/Story/12-24-ML-traffic-B
Labels: traffic, traffic calming
18 Comments:
I'm a bit surprised that Dan Miller would tell the Almanac that we have nothing similar to the USC ordinance for traffic calming. In fact, our formal traffic calming policy is not only identical to USC's - it served as the model for USC's.
I'm hoping Mr. Miller's distinction is that our policy is not technicially an ordinance (assuming USC's really is).
Frankly though, whether the policy is an ordinance or not is a distinction without a difference. Our traffic calming policy serves exactly the same purpose, follows exactly the same procedures and is exactly what the Mapleton area relied upon 2+ years ago to bring this issue to the table.
I'm hoping that Mr. Miller was misquoted and not actually undertaking this effort without first familiarizing himself with the township's existing traffic calming policy.
I would also point out that our policy permits the Commission to direct the residents of an impacted neighborhood to pick up some or all of the costs of the traffic calming efforts. In this time of budget cuts, and with the understanding that traffic calming expenditures have few benefits to the community at-large, I'm all in favor of sending these neighborhoods a bill.
Upon further review (and as expected), USC does not have a traffic calming ordinance but a policy, just like Mt. Lebanon's policy. In fact, USC's policy was enacted some 2+ years after Mt. Lebanon's policy.
The problem is not a lack of a policy, but a the lack of a consensus as to how these problems should be handled. I would offer that a true consensus is impossible and traffic volumes in our neighborhoods are something we simply need to learn to live with.
Dave,
That's a pretty cavalier assessment on your part. Are you not in favor of doing anything to protect pedestrians and inevitable property value declines that come with increased traffic?
I would agree with you if you could convince me that the cut-through drivers would actually pay attention to the stop signs in my neighborhood--but you and I both know that they don't.
So your proposed solution is to simply 'learn to live with the traffic'? How many kids have to get clipped by drivers before you actually change your tune to, "drivers will have to simply get used to congestion."
Tim, if you want to call my approach cavalier, that's fine. I’ve been called far worse while sitting on the Traffic Board. You’re certainly not the first person to accuse me of being anti-child safety. If trying to be honest in managing people's expectations about traffic in Mt. Lebanon is cavalier, I suppose I'm guilty. However, since “cavalier” is defined as being inconsiderate, off-handed, careless, etc., I think I’m anything but.
Truth is, I was around this issue for 6 years as a member and Chairman of the Mt. Lebanon Traffic Board. My tenure on the Board coincided with the development and passage of the Traffic Calming Policy. I've also been a part of implementing that Policy in 2 neighborhoods - Mission Hills and Mapleton/Marietta, which is the plan that has been on the Commission's plate for over 2 years. Those on the Board during this time period often spent 3-4 hours a night learning about traffic studies, engineering, codes and regulations, and debating traffic in our community. On the Mapleton/Marietta issue, we presided over some of the most largely attended and hotly contested public meetings since SableGate.
I would encourage anyone who is interested in this issue to refresh his/her recollection by reviewing the old news coverage and perhaps more importantly, the old minutes of our meetings.
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/06145/692870-55.stm
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/
06159/696471-55.stm
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/06082/674740-55.stm
More to Tim’s point, I am certainly in favor of keeping pedestrians safe and I can assure you that Mt. Lebanon has all of the necessary traffic control and traffic calming devices in place to do so. In those instances in which such devices are believed to be lacking, Mt. Lebanon (perhaps more so than any neighboring community) has a process in place to address such concerns. In those instances in which devices are determined (by traffic engineers and the Board) to be lacking, they are fixed. However, as the traffic engineers and other public safety officials will confirm, the Mapleton/Marietta area and areas like it are not lacking any traffic control devices or other measures to make them safe. Instead, those neighborhoods would simply prefer to have less traffic . Frankly, I think all of Mt. Lebanon would prefer to have less traffic.
The argument most often heard by residents in the cut-through neighborhoods is “keep the traffic on the main roads and off of the residential streets.” My response is usually, “show me a street in Mt. Lebanon that is not residential.” The folks who live on Cochran, Bower Hill, Cedar, Beverly, etc. have children, property values, yards and driveways that are equally important to them and worthy of our consideration. It is absolutely critical to keep in mind when listening to Mr. Miller or the residents of his Ward that the traffic calming plan was NOT designed because there are deficiencies or a lack of other safety features in the Mapleton/Marietta neighborhood. Instead, it is a plan to make that neighborhood less accessible to outside traffic, and in turn reduce traffic volume. A noble objective for those residents, for sure. But what about those in similar or surrounding neighborhoods? It must be remembered that traffic that does not travel through this neighborhood must go someplace else (like Longridge, Carnegie, Salem or Austin), or sit in front of those homes on Cochran, Bower Hill, Beverly and Cedar.
Fair? You be the judge.
Tim, I think you will find that most car/pedestrian accidents are not the result of anything other than human error and, as recently noted by our Police Chief in the Almanac, the error can usually be allocated 50/50 between the pedestrian and the driver. Notably, the most recent pedestrian accident occurred at the corner of Cedar and Cochran – a critical intersection in the Mapleton/Marietta plan – and not a location that would generally be referred to as “a residential neighborhood”. In fact, under the Mapleton/Marietta plan, traffic at this particular intersection would be increased to unprecedented levels. Does this make it safer?
So, if my 6 years of looking at this issue (with the assistance of various traffic engineers) and concluding that what we have is sufficient makes me cavalier, let me ask you and anyone else a very direct question . . . . what measures would you suggest to keep our streets safer and less congested? Give me some specifics.
Also, since traffic calming is essentially asking people to change their conduct for the betterment of everyone, please confirm for me that you’ve never done any of the following:
1. Used Mission Hills to travel between Mt. Lebanon Blvd. and Washington Rd.
2. Used Marlin or N. Meadowcroft to get to Beverly Rd.
3. Used Cedar Blvd to get to Connor/Gilkeson
4. Used Mapleton/Marietta as a cut through
5. Used N. Meadowcroft to get to/from Downtown
6. Used Greenhurst (and surrounding streets) to get from Bower Hill to Cedar Blvd.
7. Used Salem, Longridge, Carnegie or Duquesne to travel between Bower Hill and Cedar Blvd.
8. Used Parker, Newburn or Morrison to get from Cochran to Beverly Rd/Banksville Rd.
One of the problems that Dave alludes to -- correctly, in my view -- is that "calmed" traffic isn't really calmed. That traffic will go someplace else, likely into another neighborhood. A "calming" solution in one place creates a problem someplace else.
If drivers are speeding and rolling through stop signs in residential cut-throughs, then the Mt. Lebanon Police Department should set up enforcement programs. I've made this suggestion on the blog before: Park a couple of cruisers fore and aft of the intersection in question, and wave offenders over to the side and issue a bank of tickets. Repeat, from time to time. People will get the message.
I know that police officers don't enjoy this sort of thing, and the neighborhood doesn't like it because the neighborhood usually assumes that abusive drivers live somewhere *else.* It hurts to learn that you're part of the problem, not part of the solution. But it works, so long as all drivers are treated equally -- regardless of where they live.
Dave,
My responses to your lengthy post:
1. Yes, your response was cavalier. Your service on the Traffic Board notwithstanding--telling the Mt. Lebanon residents to 'learn to live with the traffic' is cavalier. Put whatever pretty face on it you want to.
2. I think it is quite likely that Mr. Miller was misquoted by the Almanac. Either way, it would seem that the important issue is traffic, not the semantics of the issue.
3. 3 children were recently involved in the hit and run on Cochran and Cedar. That's only 3 blocks from the high school, and looking around, it appears to be a residential neighborhood. I'm sure residents of the 5th Ward would agree.
4. The measures taken to improve pedestrian safety in that neighborhood are about 10 years old. I'll bet the traffic volume in that same area has increased significantly in that time. If the volume has in fact increased, doesn't that warrant better safety measures--especially so close to a school zone?
Dealing appropriately with traffic in a busy residential neighborhood, on the one hand, and child, pedestrian, and cyclist safety, on the other hand, are related but different things. It is important not to let the "keep the children safe" argument run away with the traffic management issue.
For example, the Cochran/Cedar intersection (1) is in the middle of a residential neighborhood (in Mt. Lebanon, what isn't?), (2) carries very high volumes of both local and through traffic, and (3) is badly designed, badly lit (at dusk, at dawn, and at night), and -- from my own anecdotal observation -- poorly monitored by the Police Department. "Traffic calming" will do little to nothing to address any of those conditions. Yet the safety of the intersection could be improved. Lighting could be improved. Signage could be improved. Traffic control via traffic lights (the new ones are improvements, to be sure) could be supplemented by traffic control by patrol officers during peak periods.
Tim, thanks for suggesting that I have a pretty face. I don't get that too often.
I'll ask my question again - if I'm cavalier, what specific solutions would YOU offer to reduce traffic volumes in Mt. Lebanon?
What would you do to improve the Cedar/Cochran intersection?
Ironically, the Cedar/Cochran intersection has received perhaps the most attention in the last 2 years. New traffic lights, new signs - the works. What more can be done other than peak hour patrols as Mike suggests?
Its easy to sit back, identify a perceived problem and complain about it.
My point is simply that we can't reduce the volume in Lebo. That ship has sailed. Speed is not as bad as people think it is, once they look at the speed studies that are regularly performed by the MLPD. We can, however, alter our own personal conduct (avoid cutting through, driving 25 or less, stop at stop signs, etc.) We don't need lights, signs or police to do that and frankly it would have the greatest and most immediate positive impact.
But, I'm happy to hear your suggestions.
After neighbors being respectful of other neighbors - municipality wide, more enforcement may be warranted. Unfortunately, you have to inspect what you expect.
Regarding the traffic engineer: Trans Associates reports are barely worth the paper printed on. Some data is useful; however the analysis demonstrates ZERO assimilation skills.
When a study was done on my street, Trans concluded “the volumes and speeds on Navahoe Drive are within what would be expected to be acceptable on a residential street. Generally if the 85th percentile speed does not exceed 10 miles per hour over the posted speed, a speeding problem is not significant. In addition, if the average daily traffic volumes are less than 2000 vehicles the street is functioning as a local residential street without significant through volumes."
When I asked Chief Ogden about his take on the study, he replied "there were some pretty fast cars."
Chief Ogden was right! There were 19 cars recorded over 45 MPH in the 48 hour study, including 3 over 65 MPH. Yes – statistically - speeding was not a problem, unless you child was crossing the street in front of one of the 65 MPH cars. BTW - the fast cars were clocked during normal daytime hours.
As far as volumes go - - up to 2000 cars per day "without significant through volumes" ???? The study recorded an average daily volume of 469 cars. How on earth would this grow by a factor of 4+ without significant though volume?
Trans Associates is a total tab A in slot A, tab B in slot B consultant. Absolutely no thinking about the context of the situation.
Bill, please for once come down from your high horse. You - of all people - know that the township's outside consultants adhere to well-settled industry and/or the Commonwealth's standards. If the Commission wants to adhere to other standards, then the Commission can certainly agree to do so. A perfect example is their reluctance to deviate from the Commonwealth's stop sign guidelines. We could easily put a stop sign or 2 on every street where speed is an issue. However, the Commonwealth's guidelines suggest that stop signs should not be used to control speed - only unsafe intersections. The Commission can certainly disregard this guideline and put stop signs everywhere somebody wants one, but they have not been willing to do so. (In my opinion, they are right in refusing to deviate.)
I can also assure you that another traffic engineer would not give you a different result or analysis.
And please tell me what the township should or can do to stop 3, 5 or even 10 people from speeding down your street every other day? I know, I know - put a police officer there 24/7, right? But what about your friend's street or my street? And what do we do when the officer designated to sit on YOUR street is called to respond to an accident or an incident somewhere else in the community? There simply aren't enough police officers to go around. . And you've certainly studied the budget enough to know that there's not enough money to hire more police officers to write tickets.
But I'll ask you the same thing I asked Tim - what do YOU propose we do about it?
In addition to this recent incident at Cedar and Cochran, there was an incident earlier in the fall involving a vehicle and a runner on the lower end of Cedar. During the school year in particular, we have thousands of pedestrians, on our sidewalks everyday, their safety is paramount.
There is a absolutely a meaningful role for enforcement, when we cannot police ourselves. As such I am a huge supporter of Public Safety and its primacy in the budget.
I do not know that there is not enough money for what we need in public safety. And - - after the Matrix report is released, we may find we can redeploy some resources to increase public safety, without additional expense.
Additionally, our new Chief brings a fresh set of eyes and broad experiences, so I look for public safety to improve with this change. Do not take this as a slight to Chief Ogden, change just brings improvements. Look at how things improved when we got a new Municipal Manager. I would like to see how things would change with a new Traffic Engineer.
Further, the Commission is charged with doing what it can to ensure public safety and I expect them to do it. This includes allocated the necessary resources as well as initiating appropriate traffic control plans.
As far as consultant’s and “well-settled industry and/or the Commonwealth's standards” in Mt. Lebanon - - balderdash. Traffic safety is as much an art as a science. I‘ll post more on this below.
I have been disappointed by our Traffic Engineer, not only because of the Navahoe traffic study, but the positions taken in other projects, including the Kossman project.
In Kossman - first Trans Associates agreed that comprehensive traffic mitigation was required, then it wasn’t. The only thing that changed was a new edition of “Trip Generation” was published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (www.ite.org) and this seemed to make all the difference in the world. At a Planning Board meeting, Trans Associates described this publication as the bible for traffic engineers and the neighbor’s questions fell on deaf ears.
I listened to this discussion and thought this is ridiculous. Where does common sense come into play? What about professional judgment?
If the traffic mitigation was not required now, it was not required before. The project was the same. And yet a few years earlier, Trans Associates was prepared to have this developer spend hundreds of thousands of dollars unnecessarily; but not anymore – because of the new edition of “Trip Generation.”
I then looked into “Trip Generation” and contacted two experts in the field. One that objects to the unadulterated use of data, without professional judgment and one who actually edited the first few editions of “Trip Generation.”
I will post my e-mails and the responses below. I apologize for the length, but editing does not seem to be appropriate.
On Wed, 29 Jun 2005 12:14:09 -0400 "Matthews, Bill" wrote:
Last week I read an insightful article you authored on parking in central business districts and this morning reviewed your article "Truth in Transportation Planning" on the US DOT website, which also seemed very much on target with the overgeneralization and questionable use of statistics in transportation and land use decisions.
I am a resident of suburban Pittsburgh and last evening witnessed an extensive discussion on land use, trip generation and traffic mitigation. I was not particularly interested in the project, but got engaged by the active debate.
A developer is proposing a "Class A" office park with ample parking (in excess of that normally required for this size office building).
When the plan was conditionally approved in 2002 the current ITE Trip Generation handbook was the 6th edition. As a result of the data in this book, the developer was required to plan and execute several hundred thousand dollars of traffic mitigation. Nothing has been accomplished to this end, because the developer was unable to acquire the property necessary to modify the roadway.
Along comes the 7th edition, which for this land use apparently has significantly reduced the trip generation assumptions.
Accordingly now the developer is proposing (and our traffic engineer is accepting) nominal, by comparison, traffic mitigation. You can imagine the local residents are outraged.
It seems to me it is time for a reality check. However, the Municipalities traffic engineer, who now agrees with the developer's, says the ITE guide is the bible with objective standards and there is no place for practical considerations or any reasonableness test.
I believe, however, there is always a place to ask the question "Does this make sense?"
At the time of the initial conditional approval, the developer was prepared to build more than ample parking for the buildings and undertake complex traffic mitigation, both at substantial expense. It occurs to me that the developer, then facing significant non-revenue producing expenses, did not question the reasonableness of the trip generation counts or he would have argued the contrary. There were significant dollars coming off the bottom line of the project due to the mitigation alone.
Now with the 7th edition - in its pocket - the developer believes with minor modifications to the ingress and egress of the property he can comply with the traffic standards.
There seems to be a disconnect - the building and actual anticipated traffic demand remains unchanged, yet because there is an updated manual- all is well.
I am not passing judgment on the ITE standards, only suggesting that professional judgment, or at a minimum some common sense, be applied with the usage of the ITE standards. Maybe the 6th edition was in error- but to conclude that parking is a function of building square footage alone, not considering the practical and intended use of the development, can only be characterized as reckless and foolhardy.
My question is: Does it makes sense to ask that professional judgment be substituted for blind obedience to reported standards?
Can you direct me to any authoritative sources that speak to the practical application of the ITE or other similar standards?
Thank you for your time and attention,
Bill Matthews
RESPONSE …
Thanks for your message. I sympathize with your problem. I'm afraid that cities rely so heavily on the ITE manuals because planners have too little professional expertise to do anything else. They have no professional judgment to fall back on.
I summarized what I know in a recent book, The High Cost of Free Parking, but I can't think of any specific solution to your problem.
Donald Shoup
Sent: Thursday, June 30, 2005 1:21 PM
Subject: Practical Application of ITE Trip Generation Manual
Mr. Buttke:
I am a resident of suburban Pittsburgh, and recently observed an intriguing debate at a local planning commission meeting regarding the application of the ITE Trip Generation manual. Prior to that evening I had no idea such a guide existed.
Having an interest in community development and planning, I have since been compelled to read up on the manual. I came across two articles on the BTS web site: Yours entitled Truth in Transportation Planning Discussion which appears to be in response to Donald Shoup's original article Truth in Transportation Planning.
You clearly reject the notion that ITE remotely suggests a cook book usage of the manual and approach to transportation planning and decision making. That ITE makes no representation that the data presented is the "final authority" on Trip Generation and the corresponding development decisions.
The recommended approach in the practical application of the information provided would require it to be salted with nothing less than professional judgment and maybe even a little common sense.
Is it too much to say that transportation planning may be "as much an Art as a Science" and that it is important to engage professional traffic engineers or others appropriately trained to consider all the relevant data points to both frame the problem and formulate a solution?
It is in fact more than knowing the square footage of a building and looking the answer up in a table, for example.
I think you summarized your thoughts in the final sentence of the article: "ITE's intent is to provide a helpful resource that will guide transportation professionals in their decision making."
Am I getting it? Can you recommend other articles that would discuss the proper use of the ITE Trip Generation manual? I intend to request the manual through our local inter-library loan to see how the information is actually presented.
Thank you for your time,
Bill Matthews
Response …
Mr. Matthews:
You are on the right track here. However, it is not a manual, it is a report of the latest data collected regarding vehicle trip generation.
I have been retired for some years now and an artist. I do not have much information regarding other discussions of trip generation or transportation planning. I suggest you contact ITE or visit their website at www.ite.org.
Carl Buttke
Dave,
I have a hunch that your invitation for ideas from Bill and I is more likely to tee-up more explanations from you on how no traffic calming measures are worthwhile. But that aside, here are a couple of ideas I wonder about. I will preface this by saying, I have no data on their efficacy, but I expect you'll enlighten us.
1. I have heard of a proposal to widen Painter's Run to allow for more of the South Hills cut-through traffic that currently besets all of us in Mt. Lebanon. I'm sure that would be a very costly endeavor that would require action by PennDOT.
2. Rumble strips and/or speed humps on major cut-through streets.
3. Enforcement in major cut-through areas. This doesn't always mean a police car. Speed sensors with read-outs seem to slow people down. I also wonder what would happen if you simply had someone filming cars as they cut through and run stop signs. I'm guessing that would slow people down--especially if the names of people running stop signs were getting posted.
4. When I lived in London, speed cameras worked amazingly well at deterring speeding. Granted, everyone hated them, but they slowed down and drove more safely. I've heard that several US cities have implemented stoplight cameras to great effect--but I believe these are pretty pricey systems. My guess is that we would have to see more vehicle-pedestrian incidents before we would consider this kind of expense.
Dave: What are your ideas for traffic calming?
Speed humps and rumble strips do not work. I'm sure that Dave remembers the ones in Mission Hills. The speed humps did not slow traffic down, and neighbors complained about the noise of the rumble strips.
Everyone in Mt. Lebanon can tell horror stories about the traffic on their street. I can remember the drunk driver who wrecked into our tree a week before Christmas a few years ago. Were it not for that tree, we would have lost 2 cars not including the truck next door that he split in half. Would traffic calming have helped that? I think not.
My request for specific ideas was intended solely to expand the conversation and, in part, to demonstrate that this is not as easy as people think it is. As I noted in my original comment, I've gone a full 360 on traffic calming. I was initially reluctant, then optimistic and now reluctant again. Over the course of the last 6 years, I have listened to residents, traffic engineers, Commissioners, and public safety officials. We have evaluated neighborhoods and counted cars. Unfortunately, I have concluded that there is no solution to the volume of traffic in Mt. Lebanon.
Increased enforcement would be great to curtail speeding and stop sign coasters. Every traffic engineer would agree with you on that. The police would too. They'll gladly take another officer or two dedicated to enforcement, a couple more patrol cars, a few roadside speed detectors, etc. You'll never hear them argue differently. My suggestion - attend every Commission meeting that you can and ask for it. Putting it on this Blog want get it done.
Interestingly though, a number of recent contributors to this Blog and elsewhere have suggested that public safety spending be cut and that we could use less of a police force. To quote one popular author on this Blog, "Does Mt. Lebanon need all of the full-time police officers that we currently employ? For the little stuff -- traffic control, drug education in the schools -- we like the services a lot, but we don't necessarily need every last bit of them." Our Commissioners even initially voted to remove an officer from regular street patrol in 2009 and place him at KO High School. This descision was later reversed. My point . . . . what one resident thinks is important or necessary, another does not.
If someone can offer a suggestion for eliminating the volume or cut through traffic, I'm all ears. Short of toll booths at our borders or a plastic bubble, I'm convinced that there is little we can do.
There is a policy in place to provide relief for high volume areas, but we have had little if any success in implementing it. Again, consensus building is difficult - if not impossible.
I also don't believe that my government is responsible for solving every problem, particularly those that can be solved or at least limited by altering our own personal conduct. Sure, we can't do much about USC and Peters drivers and I realize that. But Mt. Lebanon's own make up the majority of the drivers moving along our streets - and specifically our neighborhood streets.
Feel free to offer my 8 part cut through test (that previously went unanswered) to the drivers in your house or to your friends and neighbors. I think it will confirm my belief that we are ALL guilty of contributing to the problems on Mapleton, Greenhurst, N. Meadowcroft, Marlin and elsewhere. This is something that increased speed and stop sign enforcement will do nothing to cure.
Can't we police ourselves in this regard?
As the author of the quotation that Dave included in his last comment, I should note that the comment was made in a different context, to wit, the proposition that coming budget clouds mean that Mt. Lebanon cannot continue to afford to buy all of the public services that it currently buys. In an ideal budget world, would it be great to continue to staff public safety services as their current levels -- or higher? Sure. In a realistic, less than ideal budget world, the question is what public services do we want to retain, and what public services are we willing to forego? There is no reason that public safety functions should be excluded from that conversation.
That said, "traffic enforcement" means different things to different people. I don't see the need for dedicated traffic control officers or specialized equipment. (I have a separate post coming on the Police Department that has little to do with traffic as such.) I do think that with current staffing levels and budget, the Municipality, in conjunction with the new Chief, should review whether some current time, equipment, and personnel could be dedicated -- from time to time -- to enforcement of traffic laws at particularly problematic locations. In order words, pick two officers and two hours some afternoon and monitor a given intersection. Write a batch of tickets. Publicize what's happened. Repeat, from time to time.
You don't need to write a ticket to every offender everywhere in order to make an impact. You only need to cite enough offenders often enough to influence behavior.
Post a Comment
<< Home