I think this report (
http://www.hennepin.us/files/HennepinUS ... pr2013.pdf) is seriously flawed. It makes a number of assumptions (in bold) that I think are just plain wrong:
1.
Wider is better. “the existing ROW space is less than what is necessary to ideally accommodate all transportation modes” (§ 1.3) How wide is Washington? According to § 2.2, it is between 110 and 120 feet (ie, really wide).
2.
Automobile traffic takes priority over other transport modes. “The
remaining ROW space not used for motorized moving traffic lanes may be allocated for any other combination of uses (e.g., bike lanes, pedestrian sidewalks, medians, streetscaping, on street parking, etc.). These ROW allocation aspects are not specifically evaluated herein” (§ 1.3) [emphasis added]
3.
Washington is a regional road, not a local street. The purpose of the street is to funnel auto commuters to the freeways, not to connect the neighborhoods through which it runs. “Washington Avenue serves an important role as a regional A-Minor Arterial […] As an arterial street, Washington Avenue provides direct access to I-35W on the east end of the CBD, I-394 in the central portion of the CBD and I-94 on the westerly end of the CBD.” (§ 2.1)
4.
The objective of redesign should be moving automobiles quickly. “The efficient movement of motor vehicle traffic is a key objective in weighing the feasibility of any design alternative for Washington Avenue. Equally important is determining the potential consequence of any impacts resulting from increased congestion levels along Washington Avenue” (§ 6.0)
5.
Congestion = Bad. Congestion = Cars Moving Slowly. So Cars Moving Slowly = Bad. So Cars Moving Fast = Good. This is honestly the level of intellectual rigor that goes into this stuff. Is this how decisions really get made? “Figure 10 graphically illustrates the expected congestion along Washington Avenue for each scenario. The key measure is average motorist operating speed (thresholds based upon level of service criteria defined in the Highway Capacity Manual).” (§ 6.3.2) Right . . . , so – what we need to do is make Washington into a high-speed roadway and damn everything else? Brilliant idea.
6.
Downtown residential development and the Central Corridor LRT will increase automobile traffic. This is found at § 5.1 “Forecast 2035 Traffic Volumes” and doesn’t make any sense. Mixed use development and transit improvements precisely do not increase auto traffic because they (1) reduce the number of trips required in the first place, and (2) allow for trips to be made by alternative modes of walking, biking, and transit.
7.
There is going to be sustained compound growth in traffic volume. This assumption is based on what I think can charitably be called pseudoscience (“a system of theories, assumptions, and methods erroneously regarded as scientific”;
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/pseudoscience). According to § 5.1, traffic volumes will increase lock-step at a rate of 0.5 percent per year. Doesn’t sound like a lot, but it is (for a stark illustration of the silliness of compound growth, check out Jeremy Grantham’s analysis that a 1% increase in the population of Ancient Egypt would, by the time Egypt collapsed, have seen the population grow 9 trillion times:
http://www.theoildrum.com/node/7853 [go to section “Failure to Appreciate the Impossibility of Sustained Compound Growth]).
Again, the issue of induced demand goes unaddressed ('improving' traffic 'flow' induces more people to drive, thereby increasing congestion). As said many times elsewhere, of course, the classic Upton Sinclair quote holds true: "It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it." Replace "man" with "civil engineer" and "something" with "induced demand".
Also rather rich is the graphic comparison (starting on page 51) between Washington and 3rd St. Green = Good. Red = Bad. “Washington is Red in comparison with 3rd, which is Green, so let’s make it more Green, like 3rd !” Beyond the childish logic of this, it begs the question as to why there is so little traffic on 3rd. It might be because 3rd has uninteresting adjacent land uses due to the uninviting streetscape wrought by an auto-centric infrastructure mindset lacking metrics for aesthetics and uninterested in alternative transportation modes, but that’s just my opinion.
For a host of reasons, therefore, I think this study is bogus.
Better would be:
- • Two ten to eleven (10 - 11) foot wide traffic lanes in each direction with a center left turn lane (total of five lanes at eleven feet each, or 50 - 55 feet),
• dedicated 6 foot parking lanes on both sides (12 feet),
• 20 foot building to curb space. This includes the frontage area (tables/chairs, outside vending), the walk area, the planting / furnishing zone (plantings = trees, furnishings = benches, bike parking, & bus stops), and the edge zone (parking meters). Total of 40 feet.
• Corner curb bump-outs to decrease the distance required to cross the street. These don't add to the width, instead they replace width designated for parking elsewhere. Reduces distance to cross the street from 67 feet to 55 feet.
By my count, that makes 102 - 107 feet; well within the 110 – 120 ROW that exists.
Fantasy? Doesn’t seem all that different from the design guidelines for streets and sidewalks for the City of Minneapolis (
http://www.minneapolismn.gov/www/groups ... 283657.pdf).
By contrast, following this report’s recommendations and abidcating (what are really political, not "technical") design decisions to self-interested civil engineering contractors seems like a really bad idea.