Monthly Archive

Traverse City should be a place where people live first, and a place they drive through on the way to somewhere else second. Whether measured by liveability, vacation-friendliness, or attractiveness as a home for future business, the best use of our city is as a destination, not a through-way to some other destination.     

This notion is neither new, nor invented by me.  Traffic calming was the top priority of the neighborhoods 20 years ago http://planfortc.com/2009/10/08/liveable/, and it was the top priority this year.  http://planfortc.com/2010/01/22/neighborhood-presidents-top-priorities-ian-glatting-hired-for-divison-st-ipr-update-jan-23-24/

The city is finally starting to look at traffic calming as part of the rebuild of city infrastructure discussed so often here.  The city commission recently took a look at a proposed policy drafted by city staff.  The policy in essence would institute traffic calming measures on a street on the request of a majority of the residents of that street.  If the measures are simple (signs and paint), the city pays the full cost.  If they are structural (speed humps, roundabouts, chokers, raised intersections), the city would pay half and the residents would pay half through a special improvement district.  This is the same share we now use for alleys. 

Here is the draft policy:

Residential Neighborhood Calming Traffic Program

Introduction

The City of Traverse City is committed to the safety and livability of its residential neighborhoods. This Residential Neighborhood Traffic Calming Program is designed to be a joint effort between the residents and the City to: identify residential traffic issues, create and implement a plan to address those issues, and evaluate the effectiveness of the various solutions. 

Goals and Objectives

Our intent is to establish a consistent and comprehensive process to address traffic concerns in our residential neighborhoods.  Prudent implementation of traffic calming measures can promote a high quality of life and active residential character within the City’s residential streets and neighborhoods.  Furthermore, this program strives to lessen the negative impact of vehicles on the homeowner’s rights to enjoy quiet and safe streets and sidewalks within residential communities within the City.

The Residential Neighborhood Traffic Calming Program has the following objectives:

<                 Improve neighborhood livability by mitigating the negative impact of vehicular traffic on residential neighborhoods.

<                 Promote safe and pleasant conditions for residents, motorists, bicyclists, pedestrians and transit riders on residential streets.

<                 Promote and support the use of transportation alternatives

<                 Encourage citizen participation in all phases of traffic calming program activities.

<                 Make efficient use of City resources by prioritizing program activities when necessary.

In order to achieve the above stated goals, this guideline for utilizing traffic calming measures has established a series of procedures and measures to guide residents and City in evaluating the options most appropriate to address each neighborhood=s concerns.  Throughout the evaluation process we will be guided by the following:

<                 Through traffic will be encouraged to use higher classification streets.

<                 Traffic calming devices shall be planned and designed in keeping with sound engineering and planning practices.

<                 Emergency vehicles will be accommodated.

<                 Reasonable vehicle access will be maintained; it is not acceptable to divert traffic to other residential streets.

<                 Pedestrian, bicycle and transit access will be encouraged or enhanced wherever possible.

<                 We will work with MDOT on designs for State Highways (US31, M-37, M-72)

Hierarchy of Street

In general, the lowest level, effective traffic calming measure should be applied to a street based on its category: “framework” streets and “non-framework” streets.

Framework streets include community collector streets and arterial streets that serve as regular emergency vehicle routes.  Traffic calming measures appropriate for framework streets include “cross-section measures” because response times are generally unaffected by cross- section changes. 

Non-Framework streets include local streets and neighborhood collector roads which are rarely used by emergency vehicles.  Both “cross-section” and “periodic measures” can be used on these streets.  However, even on non-network streets, the number of periodic measures should be limited with no more than 8 to 12 measures between two framework streets.  This will help keep emergency response times reasonable and increase public acceptability. 

Note – a map of these classifications can be found at http://www.ci.traverse-city.mi.us/agendas/Packet20100823.pdf, at page 14 of the pdf.

 Residential Neighborhood Traffic Calming Program Process

Project Initiation:

The first step is to identify the traffic concerns in your neighborhood and inform the City through a written citizen request stating the problems or issues being experienced.  You can use the attached form, also available on the City website, or send a formal letter addressed to [the point person for this program is TBD].

Project Review:

Once we receive your request, staff will arrange for a site visit and meet with the neighborhood to discuss their concerns and review current traffic control measures. For project areas within a Neighborhood Association, staff will work with the Association President and/or Board to implement this Program.  For project areas not within a Neighborhood Association, staff will encourage interested residents to volunteer as representatives to work with staff to develop a neighborhood traffic calming plan.  Residents not serving as representatives are welcome to attend all meetings and time will be allotted for public comments and questions. 

Problem Identification/Needs Assessment:

Staff would then meet with the neighborhood representatives to make sure the problem definition represents the issues identified by the residents.  There are a variety of techniques to help define the problem including:

  <        Citizen input including needs, values, suggestions, etc

  <        Traffic observations including traffic volumes, speed, parking, safety, access, etc

  <            Environmental concerns including noise and air pollution, safety, access for pedestrians and cyclists, visual quality, etc

  <            Observation of resident activities including street activities, cycling, pedestrians, disabled, parking etc..

  <        Collect pertinent data, as necessary, such as historical traffic data, accident statistics, volume and speed counts, land use data, etc

Once all the information has been collected and analyzed, it must be determined if traffic calming will address the concerns. From this information, staff and representatives will compose a Neighborhood Traffic Calming Plan.  In general, the lowest level, effective traffic calming measure would be tried first. 

Once the Plan has been formulated, neighborhood representatives would host discussions with the residents of the entire neighborhood.  After which staff will work with neighborhood representatives to initiate the recommended solutions. 

Petitioning of Neighborhood:

For Plans with physical devices, a survey will be circulated by staff to the affected residents to determine support for the plan.  Signatures representing a majority (65%) of the households and businesses within the project would be required for further consideration of the project.  The survey will acknowledge that funding for plans with physical devices on streets not currently being reconstructed will be paid 50% by the City and 50% by the affected property owners through a Special Improvement District process.

Funding

The neighborhood and staff must agree that a plan is ready before it is considered for funding.  Costs count.  If the neighborhood and the City can agree on a low(er) cost solution, it’s easier to fund and more projects may be implemented.  Since resources are limited, it is possible there will be more projects than available funds.  If this is the case, the project ranking would also be used to come up with a priority list for funding.  Attach rating criteria.

Solutions including Neighborhood Speed Watch, Portable Speed Trailer, Brush Trimming, Pavement Markings, Signage, Target Enforcement, etc. will be funded entirely by the City.  Solutions including physical devices will be paid 50% by the City and 50% by the affected property owners. Neighborhoods would be given the option, if they do not wish to wait until their project comes to the top of the list, to pay 100% of the costs. 

The City is committed to ensuring a basic, effective level of mitigation on neighborhood streets.  If a neighborhood decides that it wants significant additional amenities over and above what is believed to correct the situation, it will need to pay the extra cost of these amenities.  If the plan requires significant City funding, capital and/or maintenance costs, then a funding proposal would also be developed by the neighborhood with assistance of City staff.  A plan deemed to be of significant public safety will be reviewed for full City funding. 

Evaluation

Each project will be evaluated for effectiveness, based on the same factors that measured the problem and design in the first place and realistic expectations about how close to perfect we can get.  Since much of what we will be doing may be experimental, it will be important to measure the actual change in speed, accidents, volumes, etc. so that neighborhoods can benefit from each other’s experiences. 

We will need to specifically articulate how to define success before the treatment is installed.  If it fails to meet the minimum expectations, or the negatives outweigh the positives, removal will be considered.

Staff will keep an inventory of devices and routinely inspect and review the devices for maintenance and safety issues.  We will be learning from each project=s successes and failures as we start working with traffic calming devices.  If a project does not get the anticipated results, the City will continue to work with the neighborhood to try effectively to mitigate the problem.

Summary

This Residential Neighborhood Traffic Calming Program is intended to achieve the City’s goal of ensuring a high quality of life and active residential character within residential streets and neighborhoods.  Through the implementation of appropriate traffic calming measures as proposed in this program, the City of Traverse City will work towards lessening the negative impact of vehicles on the resident’s rights to enjoy quiet and safe streets and sidewalks within our residential communities.  While no single program can easily resolve all traffic problems, this program does provide a comprehensive guideline from which the City can consistently strive toward its desired goal.  This program is intended to be an evolving document as the City gains experience in the use of traffic calming devices. 

Measures proposed through this process must be consistent with accepted transportation engineering practice and reflect the needs and characteristics of all potential users of the City’s roadway system.

This document is not perfect.  Requiring 65% of the residents to sign on just to move traffic calming forward on a street, when 50% is enough for other improvements like alleys or paving gravel streets, seems out of whack.  And there are going to be times when the master plan or some other city project creates a need for traffic calming – it would seem like in those cases the city should pick up the entire expense.  And we need to offer a neighborhood these options before we design repaving projects.  But it is a start.

The traffic calming policy is headed next to the Planning Commission’s transportation elements committee.  You can contact PC chair Fred Wilmeth fwilmeth@sbcglobal.net or Transportation elements chair Ross Richardson ross873@sbcglobal.net for more info.  We need your input to finally get this rolling. 

example of chokers

photos are from http://trafficcalming.org

Monday the Traverse City Human Rights Commission will present a proposed non-discrimination ordinance to the city commission.  A draft can be found here:  http://www.ci.traverse-city.mi.us/City_Commission/Agendas/.   I’ll be away on a family vacation, but I support the ordinance 110%.  It’s the right thing to do, and it will be good for our city’s future.

The ordinance would prohibit discrimination in Traverse City – on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, sex, age, height, weight, marital status, physical or mental disability, family status, sexual orientation, or gender identity. 

A key difference between the ordinance and general Michigan law is that the ordinance is more inclusive: it includes sexual orientation and gender identity.  Under general Michigan law, employees who have done nothing wrong can be fired from their jobs or denied housing or access to public accommodations because they are gay or transgender.  The ordinance would prohibit this.  It would also require contractors doing business with the city to comply.  

The ordinance has important exemptions to protect religious beliefs.  It does not apply to churches or religious organizations.  The housing section does not apply to landlords in one or two-family owner-occupied dwellings, who may choose not to rent to someone based on their own personal beliefs.  It also does not shield illegal conduct.

The ordinance is modeled after other non-discrimination ordinances on the books in other cities in Michigan.   Nearly 20 cities in our state have passed these, including Grand Rapids, Lansing, East Lansing, Kalamazoo, Ann Arbor, Ypsilanti, Ferndale, Huntington Woods, and Detroit.

Traverse City is already a fairly open and tolerant city; the ordinance will codify into law values that I believe already predominate here.  In addition to being the right thing to do, the ordinance should help the city economically.  Studies have shown that cities who are open and tolerant attract more bright and talented people, which helps their business community and their home values.  Professor Richard Florida, author of Rise of the Creative Class, calls this the “tolerance premium.”  See http://www.creativeclass.com/rfcgdb/articles/There_Goes_the_Neighborhood.pdf

Ultimately, steps like this help set a tone about the city we are and wish to be.  Marshall Persky, a retired steel executive and the Chair of the TC Human Rights Commission, says it best:

“Together, we can send the message that Traverse City is open, inclusive and values equality enough to say that our city will not discriminate against anyone.”

Hope the city will hear from you on this by Monday night.

Traverse City Light & Power set some new goals in strategic planning this week:  backing off the goal of 30% renewable generation by 2020, ruling out future consideration of biomass, expanding the scope of its options for replacing dispatchable baseload generation, and ramping up energy efficiency beyond state requirements.  TCLP board chair Mike Coco offers this summary:

The board and staff of Traverse City Light & Power met twice in recent weeks to review and revise our utility’s strategic goals.  This process usually takes place each January.  We took this step now in response to public feedback and the board’s decision to drop biomass as a generation option at our June 23^rd meeting.  After having a total of six members of the public at the last three strategic planning sessions in as many recent years, I’m glad to report that we had almost twenty members of the public attend.  Almost all of them provided comment prior to the board’s discussions.  In addition, the board took into account public feedback received since October 2009 when the board considered purchasing local land for a potential generation plant.

 Major Outcomes

I would like to share with you the major outcomes of this process:

• First, there was board consensus to let go of 30by20 (producing 30% of our electricity from renewable sources by 2020).  Focusing on “renewable” as defined by regulatory agencies and the State and Federal governments greatly restricted community’s options for baseload generation.  The 30×20 goal was replaced with a goal of meeting all of our baseload and peak load energy needs while emphasizing local public health, life cycle impacts of any generation option, CO2 emissions and being economically and environmentally responsible.  Our utility is still faced with losing 50% of our baseload generation (from coal plants in Lansing).  This is a challenge that needs to be addressed soon though I and other board members will work to not rush the process.  Another challenge is how to adequately address concerns about local public health.  This is issue important to the board and the staff.  This will take significant board, staff and public discussion, as each generation source has benefits and challenges.  And the board continues to want to move away from coal, from which we receive 95% of our electricity today.  The board did not set a specific goal related to reducing CO2 emissions at this time.  This is something that takes significant thought and discussion.  The staff will be reviewing possible options for an objective tied to CO2 emissions as we complete this process.

• Second, the board again ruled out biomass as a generation source.  This applies to biomass electricity generated both locally and non-locally.  When the board decided June 23^rd to move away from biomass and to investigate other generation options, we needed to make a clear statement that this was not a delay tactic and that the board had consensus on this issue. Each board member individually voted on whether TCLP should consider biomass as a generation option.  Not one board member voted yes.
• Third, the board removed the requirement of “local” generation from the strategic goals.  The intent of this decision is to give the staff more options to present to the public (i.e., both local and non-local options).  Today, <1% of our electricity is produced locally.  Local generation is the “gold standard” as it provides the highest level of system-reliability, is typically less expensive and avoids losses due to transmission.  Local generation may also offer the option combined heat and power, which doubles the efficiency of a plant.  Despite these positive attributes of local generation, the board felt it was best to take a significant step back in our generation planning and to not pigeon-hole the utility into a narrow set of options. To be honest, the board does not have a solid grasp on whether the community supports any form of local generation.  There may be broad support for local generation.  There may not.  This is something the TCLP board must, and will, work to determine.
• Fourth, the board emphasized the need for 1) more energy efficiency, 2) more energy conservation and 3) more progressive energy tools.  For “energy tools”, think smart metering, a possible solar rate similar to the green rate TCLP had in the past, methods to help shave peak-demand, etc.  The board was specific in stating that we do not want to be bound by state rules around energy efficiency from Public Act 295.  This legislation creates some disincentives to being more aggressive with energy efficiency sooner.  The board also realizes that energy efficiency is only effective in replacing the need for more generation if it is done sustainable over the long term.  TCLP board and staff will have a presentation and in-depth discussion on energy efficiency at our August 10^th board meeting (5:15 at the Commission Chambers).  This discussion will help us further define for the staff exactly what the board and public would like to see in increased energy efficiency programs (e.g., are we targeting to reduce overall use, reduce during peak demand, etc.).  We would like to have additional public input from this discussion.  We hope to see you there. 

Next steps

Changes to the TCLP strategic goals are not final until we have specific objectives tied to each goal and they are voted on at a public meeting.  The staff will develop those specific measurable and time-bound objectives over the next ~30 days based on public and board feedback.  They will then be presented to the public and approved at a public board meeting. We welcome and encourage additional public input now and when they’re presented.

While the review of Traverse City Light & Powers strategic goals are first step, I realize they are not all-encompassing of restoring the board’s relationship with the community.  I believe this is a significant first step to move in a new direction.  We have heard you.  We are moving forward.

If you have ideas, questions, concerns or general comments, please feel free to reach out to me or another TCLP board member.  Thank you for reading.

Mike Coco, Chairman, Traverse City Light & Power

922-9689    mjcoco@gmail.com