The Magic Roundabout

The magic roundabout in Swindon, England was constructed in 1972. It consists of five clockwise mini roundabouts arranged around an anticlockwise roundabout. In 2009 it was voted the fourth scariest junction in Britain. Before this roundabout was constructed, the area had been a motorist's nightmare which routinely failed to handle the volume of traffic which converged on it from five directions. The new roundabout was the work of the Road Research Laboratory (RRL) and their solution was brilliantly simple. All they did was combine two roundabouts in one - the first the conventional, clockwise variety and the second, which revolved inside the first, sending traffic anti-clockwise. Though it may confuse or amuse new visitors, the average English finds that his or her passage through one of the town's busiest junctions is actually quite fluid, even at peak times. 

Twenty-five years on, the Magic Roundabout still works, despite ever-increasing volumes of traffic. 

Though there have been 14 serious accidents and just over a hundred lesser ones recorded in 25 years, that rate is less than one would expect for such a busy junction. Most accidents have involved cyclists and motorcyclists and now a cycle lane running right round the outside of the roundabout, with pedestrian crossings, should ensure that the Magic Roundabout becomes as safe as it is efficient. Even though it is proven to be safe and efficient, do you think that this could ever be introduced in the United States for complex intersections?

Transforming 1-ways to 2-ways

In the past decade or so Downtown Phoenix has experienced an incredible amount of growth and development. Ranked as one of the fastest growing economies Phoenix is projected to grow to 2.2 million by the year 2020 with the entire metropolitan area projected to reach 6.3 million. With this said Phoenix has vested time and efforts in keeping up with the city's transportation demand. Such efforts includes light rail routes, expanded bus service, street repavement and transit infrastructure improvements (azcentral). Changes to transportation also includes the conversion of one ways to two ways. This has been the topic of conversation in my neighborhood.  Other cities have found turning one ways into two ways to be an affordable way to renew downtowns"such conversions reduce car speeds and encourage greater pedestrian and bike mode-share"(planetizen). In a Louisville Kentucky neighborhood a conversion to a two way has shown to improve "the livability of a neighborhood by significantly reducing crime and collisions and by increasing property values, business revenue, taxes, and bike and pedestrian traffic" (planetizen). Although the change to two ways has yielded positive results for some neighborhoods I'm not sure it would for mine. These neighborhoods were in need of rejuvenation while my neighborhood is already in healthy standing. In my opinion the implementation of the two way will likely cause for a more congested road running through my neighborhood. Any thoughts? 

sources:
http://www.azfamily.com/story/30331727/proposed-plan-to-make-phoenix-one-way-streets-2-way-not-sitting-well-with-all
http://www.planetizen.com/node/69354
https://www.phoenix.gov/streetssite/Pages/3rd5thavewestroosevelt.aspx
http://www.azcentral.com/story/news/local/phoenix/2015/08/25/phoenix-elections-transit-results-prop104/32283455/

Mapping Every U.S. Road Fatality From 2004 to 2013

Max Galka from Metrocosm mapped road fatalities in the U.S. from 2004-2013. The interactive map (Link: http://metrocosm.com/map-every-fatal-traffic-accident-in-the-u-s-2004-2013/) displays 373,377 points, one point for each person who died in a vehicle crash between 2004 and 2013. The shape of the icon of each point relates to the individual who died in the crash: man, woman, child (age < 16), or multiple, and the color identifies whether the person was a driver, a passenger, a pedestrian or a bicyclist.

Bike Lanes as a Symbol of Gentrification

In this recent article from the Washington Post, Perry Stein discusses the role of bike infrastructure as as a symbol of gentrification through the lens of a specific episode in Washington D.C.  The central thesis of the article gets at the way in which bicycle use intersects with race and class - and how infrastructure improvements create the conditions gentrification.

“Adonia Lugo, a Los Angeles-based anthropologist who studies cycling advocacy, says the root of it can be traced to a time before bike lanes entered the common U.S. city planning vernacular. For one, she says, car ownership holds a different value for different people, particularly along generational and socioeconomic lines.

At the D.C. meeting last month, cycling advocates suggested that churchgoers take the Metro if parking is so scarce.

“Access to driving is seen as a very important status symbol. There is a reality that for a lot of people in the U.S. that they had to work really hard to access money to buy cars,” Lugo said. “Sometimes people feel threatened when they feel a project will reduce their access to driving.”

When bikes were invented in the 19th century, they were expensive and a transportation mode that only the rich used. They became widespread in the 20th century, but lost their cachet as cars became more prevalent.

“People either believe cycling is elitist or for [low-income people], and people don’t want to associate themselves with either of those, especially in a country where we all believe we are middle class,” Lugo said.

There are plenty of black cyclists in the country, but it is still perceived as an activity more common among whites. Minority riders are a fast-growing part of the cycling population, but Capital Bikeshare ridership data, for instance, show that its users are generally younger and much whiter than the region’s overall population.

Lugo also said some bike lane opponents are concerned that such lanes translate to economic growth, and thus displacement.”

Here is the link to the full article:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/local/wp/2015/11/12/why-are-bike-lanes-such-heated-symbols-of-gentrification/

As the urban form is redesigned in pursuit of the outcomes we have spent so much time in our program trying to understand, the issues raised by this article force an abrupt reconsideration of ideas that otherwise seem settled.  How can a bike lane not be an improvement?  Who could argue with a bike lane other than an impatient motorist? As the article illuminates, issues beyond mobility and accessibility must be considered. My own prejudices and privilege in place, I have never thought of bicycle use as connected to race and class.

Recently, I was having dinner with a former student (I used to be a high school teacher) who now attends the U of A as an undergrad. He is struggling with making his finances work out, doesn't have a car, and has been buying most of his food at the convenience store at the student union. I have an extra bike and offered it to him if it would be helpful to get to a grocery store. As we talked about biking, he admitted that he never learned how to ride a bike. His parents, when he was young, put forward the message that bicycling "was for rich people." I eventually persuaded him to accept the bike, and he is in the process of getting comfortable with it, but notable for me in the experience was how different he viewed bikes from me. 

In the case of the story from Washington D.C., while other economic and political forces are at play, the response to the proposed bike lanes seems like something we should make sure to understand.  The pursuit of improved accessibility and social justice demands that we do.

Health and Public Transit

There has been a study conducted by Japanese researchers and presented in the American heart association’s scientific sessions. This study indicated the significant impact of public transit on individuals’ health. It was based on a health evaluation for 6,000 adults that use different commute methods and represents different demographics.

The two methods of commuting to work that have been studied in this research are commuting by driving and commuting by using public transit. As a result of this study, researchers found that people who travel using the public transit are 44% less likely to be overweight, 27% less likely to have high blood pressure, and 34% less likely to have diabetes. These results are a great proof of the health benefits coming from using the public transit system.

This research has also highlighted another health fact among the users of the public transit system itself, people who tend to use bikes or walking to commute have higher rates of diabetes, high blood pressure, and overweight, than people who commute using the bus or train.

Another fact that has been observed throughout the study is the affect of the social aspect on the health system of human beings. People who tend to use the public transit experience higher levels of social and environmental interactions. 

Public transit system keeps on proving its benefits on different levels and attributes!

http://www.treehugger.com/health/3-surprising-health-benefits-linked-public-transportation.html

We don't really care about car accidents

http://www.kevinklinkenberg.com/blog/s6ktapqql97ymjow0ntmh1rlknl0b3

An article about how we as a society react (or rather, don't react) to the epidemic of automobile deaths, and how the solutions we do offer tend to be ineffective. It's fascinating to me that we as a species let ongoing disasters like this (over 30,000 people every year) go on with barely any notice, while a train or plane crash is cause for round-the-clock coverage, huge investigations, regulatory and design overhauls, and people freaking out and cancelling reservations out of fear for their lives. And yet almost nobody thinks twice about getting into a car. You can look at it in other ways (like two 747s falling out of the sky every week, or a 9/11 happening every month) but the point is the same.



Is it cognitive dissonance, preventing us from recognizing that in order to properly deal with the problem we will have to radically change our way of life at great expense? That what we take for granted as a wondrous modern convenience is also a game of russian roulette? (You can add cell phones and other driving distractions to this analogy if it pleases you.)



With so little media coverage of car accidents, is it just a matter of "out of sight, out of mind"?



Do we feel safer because we are in control of the vehicle when driving?

Is it because they are so commonly called "accidents", suggesting that there is no specific cause or remedy? Why did we start saying accident, anyway? People used to refer to them just a little differently:



Or should we just let it continue until self-driving cars fix everything?




My guess is we'll let this disaster continue as long as it happens quietly.

Elevating Bike Lanes in San Francisco

The bicyclist in San Francisco will soon encounter a new experience of riding on elevated Bike lanes in different locations throughout the city. The construction of these lanes is driven by the concept of keeping motorist out of the bike lanes, and increasing bicyclists’ safety. The concept of elevated bike lanes has been introduced before in different cities around the globe, but it is considered relatively new to the United States.

San Francisco is one of the cities in the United States that initiated the adaptation of elevated bike lanes in their transportation system. one of the new raised bike lanes in San Francisco is going to take place on Market Street, which is known as one of the main streets in San Francisco that serves the financial district. The new bike lane will be constructed a couple of inches higher than the adjacent street, and a couple of inches lower than the adjacent sidewalks.

Bicyclists in Market Street tend to ride their bikes on the sidewalks to avoid the congestion and the inefficient bike lanes; they have been suffering from difficulties in navigating their way throughout the route. However, Introducing the new-elevated bike lanes brought more concerns to bike riders  along this route in terms of efficiency and safety. They are wondering about how beneficial these lanes can be, and the probability for these lanes to turn into another hazardous settings that need special attention and mitigation.

The city officials are very excited about the new bike lanes and the city riders are very concerned about the efficiency of these bike lanes. The ongoing conflict cannot be solved until the project is executed, and people start actually using these bike lanes.

Personally, I think introducing these bike lanes can have a significant impact on the reduction of bicyclists injuries ,because drivers’ awareness of other travelers sharing the same route will increase and there will be a higher sense developed by the different types of users on the route.

http://abc7news.com/traffic/new-bicycle-lanes-coming-to-market-street-in-sf/1040126/

Transportation - a victim of America's cultural wars

In light of the recent discussion surrounding the Highway Bill, Robert Atkinson posted an interesting editorial in The Washington Post entitled "How transportation became the latest victim of America's culture wars." Atkinson's discusses the implications of the inability of Congress to implement transportation policy in the United States due to the polarization of cultural beliefs related to federal transportation legislation. He characterizes the polarization of beliefs into two categories: the "congestion caucus" and the "liberty caucus."

On one hand, the congestion caucus recognizing the need for infrastructure funding, but only supports it for what they deem to be the "right kind" of infrastructure. The congestion caucus do not necessarily believe in supporting mobility or even infrastructure, but rather believe in getting people out of the suburbans and into multiethnic communities, trading SUV's for light rails and supporting the urban disadvantaged instead of the privileged suburbans. Funding highway expansion result in more single-family homes, more vehicles and more suburbs. Primarily, this group believes that infrastructure funding should be allocated to developing alternative transportation systems, rather than being allocated to roads.

On the other hand, the liberty caucus recognizes the need to support infrastructure funding, but only supports if it is for road improvement and the federal government role in determining funding allocation shrinks given their wastefulness. This group's primary goal is to devolve funding to the state to control funding allocation rather than the feds.

Personally, I find this article quite interesting because it really makes apparent what the polarizing nature of politics does to something that everyone recognizes as a great need. I can't help but imagine how our infrastructure might be, especially here in Tucson, if people worked towards achieving common ground rather than one side being right. Would it be possible to establish a transportation policy that adequately addresses improvements to current infrastructure and explored alternative modes that is a reasonable amount? I can't help but wonder what a world without out polarization might be and what might be achieved.

Check the article out here.

Public Comments on Public Transportation

Although I would like to believe I could be totally independent of my smart phone in reality I would be extremely lost, especially navigating a big city. Two articles published in CityLab highlighted what is and what is not, but should be, happening with our smart phones and transportation. The two articles discussed transportation and technology pertaining to New York City. 

Source: http://www.citylab.com/navigator/2015/10/people-do-not-hold-back-on-yelp-reviews-of-public-transit/412939/

This first article is in some ways kind of humorous but also very empowering and informative to transit users in New York. New York City Public Transit Yelp offers transit users an outlet to express their satisfaction or dissatisfaction with different types of public transportation services offered in the city. Some of the funniest yelp remarks include a comment about the G train in Brooklyn "'the middle ground between light and shadow, between science and superstition". Other comments include remarks about bus speeds like "do you know where the gas pedal even its?.. drive faster! you are a bus, a double bus, you Always have the right-of-way". In any case the yelp remarks are very informative and perhaps hold the potential to give insight to planners on what is and is not working from the perspective of the user. What do we think a Tucson Public Transit Yelp would have the most complaints about?


Sources: http://www.citylab.com/commute/2014/09/the-most-important-transportation-innovation-of-this-decade-is-the-smartphone/379525/

This article speaks to the important role technology plays in navigating us around big cities, "almost all movement in a major city now begins with a phone". It argues that with our dependency and access to our phones means public agencies should be making more of an effort in developing programs that inform the transit user to all forms of transit. The article notes the smartphone as "the most important (and ) most obvious innovation in transportation" and comments the cities are missing an opportunity to upgrade their transportation systems by not utilizing it. I know the SUN link has an app but I haven't found it very useful. Do we think Tucson is making way in having apps that help us navigate this city? 

How Many Lives Will Driverless Cars Save?

Researches estimate that driverless cars will reduce traffic fatalities by up to 90% by midcentury. In the United States alone, around 300,000 fatalities would be prevented over a 10-year period, and 1.5 million lives would be saved in 50 years. Globally, there are about 1.2 million traffic fatalities per year, which mean driverless cars would save 50 million lives around the world in 50 years. If driverless cars eliminate the majority of fatal traffic accidents as promised, the technology will be one of the most transformative public-health initiatives in human history.

The reduction of traffic fatalities relies on widespread adoption of driverless cars, and there will be situations where driverless cars will be involved in traffic accidents. The engineers who write the driverless car’s code will determine how the driverless car will crash, and if it will crash trying to save its occupant or the pedestrians and other human drivers.  

Do you think the reduction of traffic fatalities by driverless cars is achievable, although it will also be affected by human error and traffic accidents that are not caused by driverless cars? How do you think the discussion on whether the driverless car should crash trying to save its occupant or the pedestrians and other human drivers will end?

The full article (www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2015/09/self-driving-cars-could-save-300000-lives-per-decade-in-america/407956/)