Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

A Systematic Approach to Bicycle Parking Planning for Cities-Level of Service Level of Suffering

791 views

Published on

Title: A Systematic Approach to Bicycle Parking Planning for Cities
Track: Connect
Format: 60 minute panel
Abstract: Cambridge, MA and Washington, DC have taken a strategic approach to bicycle parking. This session will focus on their planning tools and lessons learned from both the public and private sector.
Presenters:
Presenter: Megan Kanagy Downtown DC Business Improvement District
Co-Presenter: Daniel Clark Dero Bike Rack Company
Co-Presenter: Jeffrey Rosenblum City of Cambridge, MA
Schedule:
Wednesday 9/10 3:00 PM - 4:00 PM in Breakout Rooms, 316

  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

A Systematic Approach to Bicycle Parking Planning for Cities-Level of Service Level of Suffering

  1. 1. •1 Level Of Service Jeffrey L. Rosenblum, PE
  2. 2. •2 Level Of Suffering Jeffrey L. Rosenblum, PE
  3. 3. Level of Service •Bottleneck theory of cars: how to maximize throughput –Long signal cycle lengths –More through lanes –Left turn pockets –High-speed turning radius, right turn pockets –Pedestrian push-buttons to increase car time 4
  4. 4. 6 Measures of a successful street?
  5. 5. 7
  6. 6. Metrics •LOS: vehicle throughput •Safety •Livability •Economic growth 8
  7. 7. What can you do? •Tools –Coordinate signals (slow but steady) –Restrict turns (needs network analysis) •Planning –Put the numbers in context: what is “peak”? –Do not unnecessarily plan for traffic growth –Combat car LOS with multimodal LOS; I recommend going with simple measures. –Use other measures (queue, network impact) •Policy –Stand behind “complete streets” policies 9
  8. 8. 10
  9. 9. 11
  10. 10. What can you do? •Policy –Decide not to care. LOS is the wrong approach altogether 12
  11. 11. 13 Lessons not learned?
  12. 12. BOSTON
  13. 13. It could have been a highway
  14. 14. •18 Cambridge, Mass.
  15. 15. Proposed “inner belt” CENTRAL SQUARE
  16. 16. 21 MY DAUGHTER’S SCHOOL
  17. 17. It wasn’t built MY DAUGHTER’S SCHOOL
  18. 18. 23
  19. 19. City of Cambridge
  20. 20. How workers commute to Cambridge
  21. 21. Policies “pays off”
  22. 22. Growth Without Gridlock 4 million sf 2000-2010 (38% growth)
  23. 23. Residential parking permits declining
  24. 24. Mass. Ave., Central Square
  25. 25. Before After Mass. Ave. road diet, 1996
  26. 26. Western Avenue
  27. 27. Traffic
  28. 28. Western Avenue, Cambridge
  29. 29. Western Avenue, Cambridge
  30. 30. Counts
  31. 31. Western Avenue 48
  32. 32. Western Avenue 49
  33. 33. Bridges
  34. 34. Boston University Bridge
  35. 35. Boston University Bridge
  36. 36. 55 BU Bridge
  37. 37. 56
  38. 38. 59
  39. 39. 60
  40. 40. • AM PM •Do nothing C C •Bicycle lanes F D Technical traffic analysis
  41. 41. Boston Globe, Feb 10, 2009 “BU bridge plans could spur road rage; Some fear closing lane will choke traffic”
  42. 42. Boston Globe, Feb 10, 2009 "There's going to be road rage," predicted Stanley Spiegel, who lives across the bridge in Brookline. "If you're going to spend public money to go for an improvement, you don't predictably make things worse. That's nuts."
  43. 43. #1
  44. 44. Good news for commuters: BU Bridge nearly done
  45. 45. 67
  46. 46. Anderson Bridge
  47. 47. 69
  48. 48. 70
  49. 49. 71
  50. 50. 72
  51. 51. Max pedestrian wait time 36 sec 86 sec 94 sec 59 sec 86 sec 94 sec AM PEAK
  52. 52. Pedestrian crossing time 68 sec 18 sec 10 sec 45 sec 18 sec 10 sec AM PEAK
  53. 53. Average pedestrian wait time 5 sec 34 sec 41 sec 15 sec 34 sec 41 sec Highway Capacity Manual Ped LOS A D E B E D AM PEAK
  54. 54. Mass. Ave., Boston
  55. 55. Although the remaining six approaches along the project do not meet the quantitative criteria, XXX does feel that qualitative safety criteria are satisfied at all approaches and that increased conflict between vehicles, pedestrians and bicyclists would result with the elimination of left turn lanes along this project.
  56. 56. •“…because defendants’ current bid specifications, engineering plans, and related materials violate Chapter 89 of the Massachusetts Acts of 1996 as codified in Massachusetts General Laws, Chapter 90E §2A (Massachusetts bicycle and pedestrian access accommodation law, hereafter “§2A”). Such injunction should remain in effect unless and until defendants’ re-design, re-engineer, or otherwise alter their proposed construction documents so as to incorporate “ALL (emphasis added) reasonable provisions for the accommodation of bicycle and pedestrian uses in… [the MassAve reconstruction project]”, as required by (and quoting from) §2A.”
  57. 57. McGrath Highway Removal
  58. 58. Highway Removal 86
  59. 59. Community vision 87
  60. 60. Conclusion
  61. 61. 89
  62. 62. Hans Monderman (1945 – 2008) 90
  63. 63. “You cannot solve a problem from the same consciousness that created it. You must learn to see the world anew.”

×