ctchouston.org

[Bob]

Today in "Transportation Whatnot", I explain that the Upper Kirby TIRZ and Management District will begin reconstructing Kirby Drive, from US-59 north to San Felipe, in Jan 2008:

[IHB2]

I live in the area, use Kirby daily, and wonder:

why is a center median essential? does the UKD plan to replace the trees and grass lost to widening (necessitated by creating a center median?) by planting the median? does a planted median do anything for pedestrians that currently have grass and shade along much of Kirby between 59 and San Felipe? is 6-8 feet enough space between a building wall and the curb for public safety?

since high density developments at Kirby and Westheimer promise to inundate the area with both new auto and pedestrian traffic, shouldn't the rebuild focus on accomodating that growth?

[Ian]

On one hand, traffic on Kirby stinks and could probably greatly benefit from a roadway upgrade with center median. On the other hand, it looks like we're going to lose a lot of sidewalk space in some areas. Where the right of way is wide (~16'), some sidewalk could probably be sacrificed, although the resulting closeness to an adjacent building could limit that size and types of trees that could be planted. At other spots, such as shown in the Greenwood King photo, it looks like the sidewalk would be placed right next to the road -- which absolutely sucks for pedestrians. A safety concern on top of the omnipresent heat and traffic noise might well be enough to keep potential pedestrians in their cars.

[Bob]

Hey guys: I now have up a lot more detail about the project issues in my blog. Please check it out and let me know what you think.

Also, Tory Gattis posted a great narrative of the issue tonight at Houston Strategies:

[IHB2]

lots of good info bob.

while suicide lanes aren't the greatest design for traffic safety, and they aren't aesthetic visually like the UKD seems to want, they definitely reduce main lane backups where left turns into commercial or business establishments take place.

all I can say is that I cannot imagine any scenario with a raised median of any width that will not aggravate traffic backup on Kirby between 59 and San Felipe. so it's likely that overall auto traffic mobility will decline with the installation of a raised median.

[Bob]

[carolcaul]

Totally good info Bob.

One concern I had not heard addressed yet is specifically who would pay for the utilities being moved and buried. This will be a major expense, but in and of itself, it would add much to the beauty of the TIRZ. The issue of cost allocation should be specifically spelled out in an agreement between the parties.

General comments I have read were that utility burial might not be in the budget, but at the very least some utility movement would be required. It is not necessarily the TIRZ that would owe this money; it may be that CenterPoint owes some/all of such moneys. There are laws and regulations about who has to pay for utility movement (CenterPoint or TIRZ or COH), and there was a very famous (and ugly) 2006 case between HCTRA and Centerpoint about who had to pay to relocate light poles during construction of the Westpark Tollway. As of right now, HCTRA has to pay in that case.

I second the need for deep left turn lanes and leave out the raised medians. This is for the TIRZ which is at heart a business oriented concept. They pay for it, and it is for their development; however, I see a raised median as something that will continue to hold up traffic. That is, the lack of a raised median probably won't preserve any space for trees.

As for widening the ROW, that sounds very expensive; and I second the observations that the sidewalks would become dangerously narrow and too little space would be left for spreading trees.

Not all roads are the same width throughout. South of the TIRZ, the road won't be rebuilt, so why not carve out the residential area if their opposition is expected to be great enough to block the south of Westheimer or San Felipe redevelopment. Those people don't have any business being in a TIRZ anyway. (I personally object to nearly all TIRZ in Houston as an incestuous way for wealthy areas to preserve their wealth.) I personally observe traffic backed up every day through River Oaks to turn onto Shepherd; however, widening that portion of Kirby may only induce more traffic. In short, carve them out of the project to mitigate political opposition if they are not in the TIRZ.
_________________
Carol Caul

[Bob]

David Crossley posted a good write-up of the Kirby issue in the Gulf Coast Institute's "Connections" blog:

[Bob]

In addition, Jennifer Friedberg has an article in today's Houston Chronicle "This Week" section for Heights and River Oaks:

[IHB2]

[christof]

[IHB2]

[christof]

[christof]

New on my blog, Intermodality: the math on the Kirby proposal:

[Bob]

There's a great Viewpoints letter in today's Houston Chronicle about the Kirby project:

[glide625]

B. DEE DAVIS JR. "I am certain that the businesses on Kirby and residents of the area would support removing one lane of traffic in each direction and extending the green space on each side of the road to encourage pedestrian and bicycle traffic. We have a choice: Do we want Kirby to look like a stretch of Harwin or an area every Houstonian can enjoy visiting? "

I'm with this guy; there have to be other ways of doing this. Keep the trees and figure out a better solution.

[crossley]

The median is critical. It will cut crashes basically in half, and will greatly increase the safety in the pedestrian realm. It's the only thing in the plan that's worth doing. There may be better ways to do it, but the median is critical.

[IHB2]

Village/SW News reported the compromise is worked out. less ROW takings, narrower median, 1 11', 2 10' lanes on each side - total width 73' - 74' at corners (up from current 66') instead of UKD planned 80'.

the article says only that the agreement is between UKD and Trees for Houston. no info on whether property owners agree or not.

[Bob]

Jennifer Friedberg has a write-up in Thursday's "This Week" section:

[Bob]

The Houston Chronicle editorial board weighed in over the weekend against widening Kirby's lanes:

[Bob]

...

[Bob]

There's a public workshop coming up that will feature the latest developments on Kirby Drive. The Upper Kirby District will host a workshop along with the combined Super Neighborhood Councils for Afton Oaks/River Oaks and Greenway Plaza/Upper Kirby on Sat Dec 15, 2007 (invitation):

9:00 - 10:00 am Review Super Neighborhood Action Plan (SNAP) for the whole area, including residential street reconstruction in Afton Oaks.

10:00 - 11:00 am Kirby Drive reconstruction update: HOK will present an update on landscape and streetscape elements. Goodman Corporation will give a brief update on the overall Upper Kirby pedestrian streetscape master plan, which UK is submitting for federal grant consideration.

12:00 - 4:00 pm Kirby Drive design workshop. Participants will be invited to sketch and brianstorm streetscape (both hardscape and landscape) elements for the soon-to-be-rebuilt Kirby Drive.

The meeting will be held at the Upper Kirby District Building, 3015 Richmond Avenue, 77098, in the first-floor "Upper Kirby" meeting room. If you have any questions, please contact Travis Younkin, UK's Capital Projects Coordinator, at (713) 524-8000 or travis@upperkirby.org.

Upper Kirby then plans to convene a public meeting in early 2008 to recap and present all of the accumulated findings and conclusions.

[kf5nd]

Upper Kirby TIRZ 19 and Upper Kirby Management District are having another community meeting to update businesses, residents, and stakeholders on the Kirby Drive storm drainage and mobility improvements, with construction scheduled to begin April 2008

Thursday, January 17, 2008
5 - 7 pm

Upper Kirby District Building
3015 Richmond
Houston TX 77098

For more info call 713-524-8000

[IHB2]

[Ian]

I know this issue is probably dead and done, but just in case there's some hope that the City can be made to see the light, I'm still applying pressure to the engineers:

A couple of points about the Kirby widening, courtesy of an article about Complete Streets in the most recent edition of the ITE Journal:

1. Increasing lane widths “increases pedestrian crossing distances (and thus pedestrian crossing times, which impact negatively on signal timing for vehicular traffic).” If there’s any doubt that Kirby will be a pedestrian boulevard within the next couple of years, take a drive down it one of these days and tour all the new high-density development. If you make Kirby wider, all those pedestrians will take longer to cross it, and you won’t be able to give as much green time to your through traffic. Many of these intersections already operate at LOS F during the peak hour, and widening the road is ironically likely to worsen that situation.
2. “Narrower travel lanes: Based on the results of a recent National Cooperative Highway Research Program study, 11-foot or 10-foot lanes in urban areas are just as safe as 12-foot lanes for posted speeds of 45 mph or less.” So those SUV-drivers might be a little less comfortable, but they’ll be just as safe.
3. Guess who won’t be as safe? Everyone else. “A pedestrian hit by a car traveling at 20 miles per hour has an 85% survivability rate” and “that same collision with a car going twice as fast, 40 mph, will lower the survivability likelihood to 15%” It’s a fact that widening lanes to the City’s one-size-fits-all suburban standards will encourage drivers to travel faster – which is probably the point. But this is an area that will be burgeoning with a pedestrian population, and any increase in vehicular speed presents an enormous increase of risk to that growing population.
4. And of course, by widening the road, you’ll be taking away from the buffer that shield pedestrians from these higher speeds. If anything, the pedestrian space should be WIDENED to accommodate a rapidly urbanizing environment; the sidewalks along Kirby are currently miniscule in spots. But under the City’s design standards, that’s not going to happen.

I don’t mean to be rude, but under the current plan for the Kirby widening, City engineers will be designing a facility that is LESS safe for the public than it currently is. Manuals and design standards are one thing; but engineers reserve the right to exercise their engineering judgment when they feel the standards are not appropriate. Please, please give this project another, objective look. And don’t be afraid to deviate from the standards a bit.

[Bob]

[Ian]

[houhola]

[Ian]

[houhola]

[carolcaul]

I must have stepped off into some parallel universe. houhola has a point. There will be trucks; big trucks and itty-bitty lanes do not mix well with traffic flow or pedestrian safety.

This is a TIRZ; this is an established commercial area, and the TIRZ will have a goal not only to increase the residential tax base, but also the enterprise tax base. There will be a lot of commercial traffic, and there will be more people in the area who will need goods, not just services. That means trucks, large trucks. Calming lanes are not a good concept in that mix. [I can out tree-hug pretty much anybody else in CTC even on a bad day, and I want people using smaller footprint/no carbon-low carbon cars made in the US so we have more jobs; but there is no real solution on the horizon for big trucks.]

On the other hand, I drive a lot in Calgary. Calgary is even more pedestrian friendly downtown than San Francisco. It is nearly impossible to make a right (yes, right, not left) turn because of bad walk light sequencing. Pedestrian walk light sequencing is something that could be considered to improve turning traffic flow and safety to the pedestrians.
_________________
Carol Caul

[houhola]

[Bob]

[houhola]

[kf5nd]

Even if oil reaches $250 per barrel? (Gazprom opinion today). In my opinion, the oil prices are going to kill-off automotive traffic as we know it.

[houhola]

[kf5nd]

In other words, we aren't planning for a soft landing (lost that opportunity years ago), or even a hard, controlled landing, we're just going to fly into a mountain at Mach 0.75

[Ed Browne]

[houhola]

[houhola]

[Ed Browne]

[houhola]

[Ian]

[mycarhateme]

[houhola]

[Ed Browne]

[Ian]

The trees are gone.

I haven't felt my heart sink like this in a long time. Just like that, we lose. All of Houston loses. So bitterly disappointing.

[Ed Browne]

[Ian]

From Tom Vanderbilt's Traffic blog (I love this guy):

A reader recently alerted me to yet another “trees and traffic” saga, this time in Sag Harbor, NY. Briefly, a 100-year-old black oak, beloved by neighborhood residents, was cut down after being struck by drivers in two separate incidents (one involving a rollover).

Now, it turns out the tree’s core had rotted, but what’s important here is that before this was even known, the ax was coming — because the tree, which had lasted virtually the entire history of automobile-dom, was viewed as a traffic hazard. Being generally of the mind that traffic is the hazard, I always view these claims with suspicion. This was a street marked for 25 mph. Assuming you were driving the proper speed and paying attention, how do you a.) strike something as large and obvious as a tree and b.) roll over your vehicle? (Any crash reconstructionists reading? I beg for elucidation). Trying to eliminate every potential physical hazard from the landscape to cater to some vision of crash-free driving forgets that the greatest source of risk comes from the driver himself.

Which is not to say nothing should have or could have been done; town officials claimed that a “bulb-out” or some other measure meant to wrap the road around the tree would cause the road to be too “narrow.” Too narrow according to some blanket set of prescriptions that take no heed of things like local character — and for what it’s worth, I’ve yet to see a road in the U.S. that could be described as “too narrow.” Narrow roads, moreover, are good for neighborhoods. The sad truth is the town was, perhaps rightly, more worried about litigation. And so yet another distinctive bit of the landscape was meant to be sacrificed to ensure the smooth flow of traffic, with greater safety — unless, that is, another driver weaves across the road into your path. Do you then eliminate the other lane of traffic?

The Sag Harbor Express had this to say:

“What unnerves us about this situation specifically is there appears to be a willingness on the village’s behalf to remove this tree not because it is dying, but because it appears to be a hazard due to its location in the roadway. We understand it is the village’s responsibility to protect its residents from facing untold amounts of liability as well as hazardous conditions, we are not convinced every avenue has been explored in this scenario.

We encourage the village to look at ways to keep this oak, if it is in fact a viable tree, through planning or engineering as is often done in communities committed to historic street trees that often, in their quirky way, stick out into roadways that were designed around them in the first place.

In a time where we are seeking to protect the character of our community with every tool we have, we would like to see the same initiative used on behalf of village officials in this case.

We do live in a litigious society, as Sag Harbor officials well know, dealing with a number of lawsuits over the last decade brought by people who did not have the foresight to watch their own step. We bemoan the fact that people across the country do not seem able to take responsibility for their own actions any more, rather placing the blame on someone else’s shoulders for their own errors. However, we would hate to see the village allow itself to be victimized by these very people and begin what we see as allowing that fear of litigation, in part, dictate what we deem worthy of protection.”

[Don Gallagher]