An 'Easy' Way to Waste Time

From a letter to the editor in the April 28, 2008 edition of The New York Times

“The Big Thirst” (Week in Review, April 20) left me gratified, mystified and frustrated by turns.

Gratified because as a bicycle commuter, I am apparently the rarest of commuting Americans. And most efficient, in terms of energy per passenger mile.

Mystified and frustrated because the energy expert Vaclav Smil’s “... Or Conserving It” graphic describing three strategies for conserving oil doesn’t mention the strategy that can be enacted immediately with absolutely minimal implementation cost. What is this mysterious and apparently obscure strategy? Drive the speed limit.

The impact on the fuel economy would be even greater if the speed limit — gradually raised by increments since being set to 55 miles per hour in the late 1970s — were reset to 55. And if observing the speed limit were considered a public benefit instead of a public nuisance.

Consider the costs — in dollars, lives and security — of impatience.

Robert F. Anderson

Ellicott City, Md., April 20, 2008

Apparantly some think that time is not money.

By this logic, I should take 60-90 minutes to bicycle to work rather then 14 minutes to drive.

Or we should drive clustered together at 55 mph rather then 65-75 mph more spread out with greater reaction time between vehicles on limited access highways that lack pedestrians and side streets, despite the advances in vehicular technologies that provide greater fuel efficiency. In the early 1990s in a research paper that I did for a class at the American University in Washington DC on traffic clustering, I found that the ratio between single and multi-vehicular accidents was roughly 40/60 with the 55 mph national maximum speed limit, shifting to roughly 60/40 with its repeal. Hence the lower speed limit had a greater proportion of multi vehicular accidents: the type more likely to involve non at fault drivers; with the higher speed limits having a lesser proportion of those and the greater proportion of the single vehicular accidents that by their very nature likely involve only the at fault driver (and any passengers in that vehicle).

This will save even less fuel given the propensity pf police officers to set speed traps on downgrades, causing drivers to ride their brakes rather then pick up some free gravity speed/momentum.

Nonetheless, at least one of the current 3 major party candidates for U.S. President favors a return to a 55 mph speed limit: Hillary Clinton.

Sen. Hillary Clinton's Untimely Proposal
Hillary Clinton Backs Return to 55 mph speed limit
Hillary Clinton pushes for reinstatement of national 55 mph limit

How many Hillary Clinton supporters -- particularly the lower level income people that she allegedly reaches out to -- know her favoring reimposing the 55 mph national maximum speed limit?

Drive 55- No New Technology

The "Tri-State Transportation Campaign" Apparantly Looses It

A beautiful thing about the internet is its ability for people of differing opinions to communicate openly.

The "Tri State 'Transportation' Campaign" (TSTC) has an article about a real estate development/right of way violation scheme for New Haven, CT's Route 34 freeway: a short spur from the I-95/I-91 interchange that crosses over a railroad corridor before dropping down to pass beneath several cross street overpasses and truncated beneath an Air Rights Garage that as its name implies, respects this segment of below grade freeway. A right of way for this freeway's unbuilt segment continues further west to West River Memorial Park, where the freeway extension was to rise up as an elevated structure to cross over as a bridge, with earlier plans having the western continuation as a divisive earthen berm through the Horseshoe Lagoon- an area near the Yale University Athletic Center. Later plans deleted this westerly extension, and would have continued the freeway for only a few blocks as a below grade facility to rise up only to connect to the existing surface street, North Frontage Road. However, that would be blocked by the sale of the already cleared right of way, with Pfizer placing a $35 building immediately to the west of the Air Rights Garage, irresponsibly without a platform to preserve the freeway extension's subterranean right of way. This Pfizer building is envisioned as the first of a series of new buildings to be so constructed upon both the unbuilt extension's right of way, and upon the existing below grade highway- not as platforms, but rather by dumping tons of dirt to eliminate this highway and to relocate its traffic upon the existing parallel service roads.

To their credit, the TSTC article has a comments section, which I used (excerpts below)

#5 Douglas Willinger

Posted April 21, 2008 at 7:46 pm | Permalink

The positive benefits sought can be achieved via new buildings that respect the Route 34 freeway’s subterranean right of way.

What was done with the Pfizer building fiasco should not be allowed to hold this public right of way hostage.

#6 Chris H

Posted April 27, 2008 at 9:03 pm | Permalink

Douglas,

I don’t know if you are going to check this because it was awhile ago but experience has shown that your scenario hasn’t really played out in practice.

#7 Douglas Willinger

Posted April 28, 2008 at 11:17 pm | Permalink

Chris:

The plan adds large buildings that will attract people. These are far larger buildings then those displaced by the freeway decades ago.

Are these buildings to be all mixed use, with most or all of the people having both their residences and jobs in these buildings?

I then check out the link in #6 , "From Induced Demand to Reduced Demand" by Charles Siegel, before attempting to make the following post:

Chris:


Your link talks about under-grounding existing freeway corridors via complete reconstruction, such as Boston's Big Dig.

But it says nothing about the far, far easier and inexpensive task of constructing platforms over existing below grade freeways.

I looked forward to an enlightening discussion/debate. For instance the Siegel article states:

In Great Britain, where there is a very active anti-freeway movement, transportation planners are no longer allowed to count reduced travel time as a benefit of building a new freeway. The Department of Transport has adopted a guidance document saying that cost-benefit studies on new freeways must assume that elasticity of demand may be as high as 1.0 with respect to speed - which means that average trip length increases as much as speed increases, so building freeways and increasing speeds just lengthen trips and does not save any time.2

Interestingly, this anti freeway movement lies to itself and others by prohibiting a consideration of time savings, instead submitting to a parochialist doctrine against allowing people a choice to travel further increasing choice over such things as jobs.

I write attempting, because the TSTC comments page then refuses to allow this to be posted, giving me a single word message:

discarded

Apparantly someone at the TSTC site could not handle this discussion.

Harvard Defeats Yale!

While Yale seeks parochialist means for blocking public right of way,
the Harvard community seeks cosmopolitan solutions to actually reconcile human needs.



http://www.cityminustraffic.org/newsite/introduction.htm
http://www.cityminustraffic.org/fgt/model.html

Yale's Parochialist Messiah John Norquist'

Norquist, a proponent of removing unsightly locally divisive elevated urban freeways, was recently in New Haven calling for removing that city's Route 34 Oak Street Connector: a below-grade freeway which opened in 1959, and since truncated beneath an Air Rights parking garage, but with a cleared right of way -- asides from Pfizer's 2005 demolition special -- extending to just before the also uncompleted West River Memorial Park, initially created as a WW1 monument to be lined via promenades.

"I [John Norquist] Say, 'Tear It Down'"

by Allan Appel | April 17, 2008 1:10 AM | Permalink | Comments (13)

Allan Appel Photo

John Norquist tore down a “connector” in Milwaukee more than twice as long as New Haven’s lamentable Mayor Richard Lee Highway — and a viable and prosperous streetscape arose in its place. He came to New Haven to tell us how to do it.

More than 100 people came to the Career Regional Magnet High School auditorium Wednesday night, many thinking they were there to hear from a kind of transportation messiah. As with messiahs in general, Norquist, who served as Milwaukee’s mayor from 1988-2004, didn’t bring many details, but he did provide hope.

Calling the Route 34 connector, the “Disconnector,” Norquist also provided some concrete advice: “First, don’t contemplate the project to death. It’s not going to be extended, it doesn’t justify itself by carrying much traffic. So get on with it, build the pressure, and get it done, so it can be an example to other cities, especially Hartford.”

Mayor John DeStefano wants to build over the Route 34 Connector and redevelop all the land once planned for an extended highway there.

But a co-speaker of Norquist Wednesday night, state Deputy Transportation Commissioner Albert Martin said the removal of Route 34 is by no means a done deal with his department.

Speaking with consummate diplomatese, he said, “Governor Rell’s vision of livable communities calls for an objective study of the removal of 34 to see if it’s in the best interest of New Haven.”

“I say tear it down,” Norquist replied in his remarks. “The state built it, let the state get rid of it. If you want to be nice, maybe the city can pay for the utility reconnects. But otherwise, not a dime.”

He also advised that the road should be taken down as close to I-95 as possible. “Get those off ramps tucked right next to the highway,” he said, “the way it’s done on the Dan Ryan Expressway in Chicago. So that when you get off the highway as soon as possible you’re on a viable urban grid of small streets.”

Except perhaps for Martin, Norquist was preaching to the choir about the removal of 34. It was the nature of the new space to be created, that viable urban grid to follow the removal, that was really on the minds of the audience members.

“I didn’t come here because I needed convincing to take down 34,” said East Rock Alderman Allan Brison of the Green Party. (Only two other alders, Dwight’s Gina Calder and Fair Haven’s Erin-Sturgis Pascale, were present.) “I hoped to hear what’s going to go in there. From what I heard from the city at previous meetings and the current construction makes me think it’s going to be high-end tall buildings with lots of parking.” ...

More than 100 people came to the Career Regional Magnet High School auditorium Wednesday night, many thinking they were there to hear from a kind of transportation messiah. As with messiahs in general, Norquist, who served as Milwaukee’s mayor from 1988-2004, didn’t bring many details, but he did provide hope.

Posted by: Our Town | April 18, 2008 12:41 PM

Beware false prophets. They talk of destroying one true transportation corridor without thought of how all that traffic will get around, just, it will be absorbed by the grid system. They talk of replacing the highway with buildings in "scale" with their surroundings. They talk of trolleys, but don't want to build to the density that would actually support a trolley system.

This is all poorly thought out. Give me an alternate transportation plan before you start tearing out a major transportation facility.

Some here forget that Rt. 34 is part of a regional system, it's not just for New Haven. Every city could say get your road away from here, but we all rely on the system, and we need to look beyond our parochial interests and see the big picture.

All I can say is that I don't want any of those 80,000 cars a day coming down my street. That's why the Rt. 34 highway was constructed in the first place. All that traffic was on Chapel Street and George Street. And now there's even more. What a relief to the neighborhood was Rt. 34 when it was connected along the frontage roads...Have we forgotten?

Posted by: robn | April 17, 2008 8:57 AM

The Urban Design League needs to show how the daily I-91 traffic back up on the connector (something that Mr Norquist obviously hasn't bothered to examine) is going to be absorbed by that exit. Its completely unacceptable for that exiting to be absorbed into the East Rock neighborhood, where there is already too much traffic. Unless viable, high volume exiting is provided in the current connector location this idea is dead on arrival. Alderman Brison should acknowledge this problem because if he doesn't he is going to be a one term alderman.

Posted by: Webblog 1 | April 19, 2008 3:19 PM

How much was Norquist paid to come to New Haven and say something stupid like:

"If you mean affordable rents," he responded, "the head of our city council, an African- American, said that affordable rents should not be a goal in life."

"Unaffordable rents should be. He meant of course that people do so well, they can afford more. I wouldn't worry about it. Then again, I'm not that familiar with New Haven."

Obviously Norquist didn't do his home work:

According to a NHI article Re: "Pilot Hike Back on the Table"

Forty Seven thousand (47K) New Haven residents qualify for federal Earned Income Tax Credit, that's 47K of 92K persons above the age of 18, with a family of four earning less than 40K a year. (Source U.S. Census Bureau). Almost half of New Haven's residents rely on the so called affordable rent.

Therefore, Vanessa Burns, representing State Sen. Toni Harp, asked Norquist to comment on how the post-highway removal gentrification in Milwaukee affected local minority communities.

This was an entirely appropriate question.

Posted by: robn | April 20, 2008 1:51 PM

This is a stupid idea and I'll reiterate that anyone who thinks its a good one should drive down I-91 into 34 during rush hour and observe the volume of traffic. There is NO WAY that this can be instantly absorbed into a slow city grid without backing up traffic and causing drivers to dump into East Rock.

There is plenty of developeable area beyond Phizer and the reason that rt 3d dempo is being discussed is becuase its a classic triple dip...federal pork barrel funding for road demolition as well as road re-building and surrounding redevelopment.

How about just simply develop where there isn't a major vehicular artery?

Or, just simply build upon platforms to preserve the Route 34 freeway and extension's subterranean right of way to get the benefits of both the freeway and the new real estate development.

More than 100 people came to the Career Regional Magnet High School auditorium Wednesday night, many thinking they were there to hear from a kind of transportation messiah. As with messiahs in general, Norquist, who served as Milwaukee’s mayor from 1988-2004, didn’t bring many details, but he did provide hope.

“I didn’t come here because I needed convincing to take down 34,” said East Rock Alderman Allan Brison of the Green Party.

It's already "down" as its a below grade highway.

Obviously sloganeering here serves as a substitute for independent thought.