Development
A Pedestrian Downtown – Advanced I
Jan 5th
Now that we have established the basic concepts that the City should follow, lets look at specifics. First, everybody should know that according to VA law, a crosswalk can be marked or unmarked at any intersection or marked at any other place on a roadway. Additionally, drivers must stop for pedestrians crossing at any marked or unmarked crosswalk when the speed of the road is greater than 35 MPH. Since most drivers in Virginia seem to be completely ignorant of these laws, marked crosswalks are the best choice Downtown, since they can be easily recognized. Regular use of the “State Law: Yield to Pedestrians” signage would also be helpful. Next, as I said before, sidewalks should flow through crosswalks at logical places to make the pedestrian grid as effective as the street grid. Overall, Norfolk has done a decent job. Unfortunately, the city has taken the cheap way out on multiple occasions. Take the intersection of Main St. and Martins Ln. Its a simple ‘T’ intersection, but the city only gave it 2/3 of its crossings.
Main St. & Martins Ln.: an incomplete crosswalk block. (c) Google
It may not seem like a big deal. A person walking north on the west side of Martins Ln. could, conceivably, cross Martins Ln. and then cross Main St. (red lines). That isn’t human nature, though. Human nature dictates that one would take the least complex route (green lines), which would, of course, be more dangerous, since drivers are not watching unmarked crosswalks. Norfolk needs to show city pedestrians that they are important by going the extra mile to include them to the same extent as they include motor vehicles. There are a number of intersections that need full crosswalk blocks:
- Main St. & Martins Ln.
- York St. & Dunmore St.
- York St. & Yarmouth St.
- Brambleton Blvd. & Yarmouth St.
- Bute St. & Yarmouth St.
- York St. & Duke St. *
- Brambleton Blvd. & Boush St. *
- Granby St. & Bute St. *
- Charlotte St. & Bute St.
- Charlotte St. & Monticello Ave.
- Charlotte St. & Bank St.
- Bute St. & Monticello Ave.
- Bute St. & St. Pauls Blvd.
- Freemason St. & St. Pauls Blvd.
- Market St. & St. Pauls Blvd.
- Cumberland St. & Market St.
- Cumberland St. & City Hall Ave.
- Atlantic St. & Waterside Dr.
- Waterside Dr. & Martins Ln.
- Plume St. & Boush St.
- Brooke Ave. & Boush St.
- Brooke Ave. & Granby St.
- Tazewell St. & Granby St.
- Tazewell St. & Monticello Ave.
- Market St. & Granby St.
- Freemason St. & Monticello Ave.
- Main St. & Union St.
- Main St. & East St.
Think that’s alot? That’s just the regular intersections. There are an additional number of mid-block crosswalks that would complete the pedestrian grid. The crosswalks, especially on narrow streets such as Granby, should be raised to the level of the sidewalk. This would serve to keep vehicles from speeding as well as increase the ease of mobility for people in wheelchairs. Looking past the crosswalks, however, there are a number of other items on the list to make the Downtown district more pedestrian friendly.
While normally I would loath what a shopping mall stands for, take a minute and think about the amenities a mall provides for its customers. Take MacArthur Center, which I consider the best of the area’s malls, and the customer comforts it offers. First and foremost, a good, knowledgeable customer service desk sits at a convenient, central location. A good building services company takes care to make sure the building looks clean day in and day out. Security maintains a safe atmosphere and compliments customer service. As for direct amenities, there are safe, clean public restrooms, water fountains, and plentiful seating areas. All of these elements should be modeled in the general Downtown area.For all intents and purposes, Downtown should be looked at as a single unit, just like a mall looks at itself. Downtown’s users should be considered ‘customers’ and each should be treated as such.
The DNC does offer some of these services, but they need to be expanded. The number of ambassadors should increase and they should be branded as a customer and security services group. This fact should be advertised so that pedestrians feel safe in life and property as well as safe in the fact that they don’t have to worry about getting lost. Their cleaning crew should also be expanded to make sure the district looks good. The city should also work to identify at least two public restroom sites Downtown. One should be in the vicinity of TCC and the other should be in the Bank of America vicinity. These facilities could be shared with or sponsored by a third party group, which would help cover the costs of cleaning and maintenance. Public water fountains should be located every couple of blocks for pedestrian convenience. Privately-owned, publicly-accessible vending machines should be encouraged. Benches and garbage/recycling receptacles should be placed very liberally.
That concludes the design factors that contribute to a friendly pedestrian district. Next topic will be regarding larger projects that increase the quantity of pedestrians in addition to enhancing their experience.
A Pedestrian Downtown – The Basics
Jan 2nd
Currently, the city has made some effort to increase Downtown’s ease-of-use for pedestrians. Unfortunately, most of this is done with an effort to keep the flow of traffic at a brisk pace. I say unfortunately because pedestrian ease-of-use and high traffic flow are completely contradictory. Pedestrian use increases when people feel safe. This perception of safety depends on slow moving cars, frequent crosswalks, and barriers between people and vehicle. Free-flowing vehicular traffic depends on complete separation between cars and people along with giving vehicle traffic priority. Despite the new light rail, Downtown Norfolk’s mobility system is still geared toward vehicle traffic.
First, think about the light rail itself. The Tide should not have to stop at traffic signals. It should always have priority. This stopping really makes no sense at rush hour, when vehicle traffic is stopped anyway. Second, the pedestrian transportation network (i.e. the sidewalks and crosswalks) should be given the same consideration as the vehicular transportation network (i.e. roads). A road would never be allowed to simply end with no signage or alternatives. A road would never be allowed to have obstacles in the middle. You would never approach a busy intersection in you car only to find that there was no intersection. No traffic lights, markings, or even roadway. For some reason, however, Norfolk allows similar problems to exist within the pedestrian network. Sidewalks throughout the city end at seemingly random places. Even in places where they spend more time and money, there are problems. On my last visit, I noticed that, at the Monticello Ave LRT station, the crosswalk did not connect from the station to the east side of Monticello. In fact, it could not connect: the accessible ramp to the sidewalk by the WF building did not line up with the crosswalk from the station to the west side of the street. Furthermore, there was no crosswalk across Freemason from WF to the mall. This is supposed to be the New Norfolk, full of pedestrian friendly amenities. Where are the basics?
Every sidewalk should flow in a logical way. They should not perplex their users or hinder their movement. That is the foundation for a high quality pedestrian network. Follow it up with adequate benches and public restrooms and Norfolk will be on its way to a world-class pedestrian-oriented Downtown.
The Tide
Mar 23rd
HRT is testing the light rail this week. I got this picture at Harbor Park station.
Apologies and Ramblings
Feb 25th
We have a lot of potential here, but for some reason, our leaders won’t make the best of it. Portland looked just like Norfolk in the 70s. They had blocks of vacant parking lots. New construction was taking place in the Portland suburbs and the central city was decaying. This is where our regions split. Hampton Roads kept spending money on new highways and infrastructure designed to facilitate new suburban construction. Portland, however, fought the idea that unrestrained growth was good for the region. Their biggest concern? That this new growth was destroying vital farmland, forestland, and other open space. They took their concerns to their legislatures and, after much debate, enacted some of the most comprehensive growth control regulations in the country. This accomplished their goal: protecting open spaces. It also had an unintended consequence. It forced growth back into the city. All of the money that would have been spent on suburbs was then available for the city. They opposed new highways and even fought to get some torn down. They used the savings from that to build a first class public transit system. One of the most important aspects of the new Portland was that they came up with a real comprehensive plan and stuck to it. For this reason, Portland is a well run, well designed city.
Back to Hampton Roads. While Portland was engineering a new city, Norfolk decided the best course of action was to tear ours down. Hampton Roads as a whole, spent a fortune building new highways to allow for quick driving to and from the suburbs. While Portland worked and grew as a region, Hampton Roads cities decided to compete against one another. Each city had to fight for its share of new development, for is share of tourists, even for its share of defense dollars. For this reason, we live in a region with a half-dozen “downtowns,” each of them only a fraction of what they could be if they were built as one. We now live in a region with no pattern of employment or housing centers but rather a sprawling mass of congestion. While cities like Portland are the places-to-be amongst todays young people, Hampton Roads is not. Without finding some way to attract new younger residents, our problems will only get worse.
We need to get more forward thinking people in our elected offices from local to state levels. We need to learn from places like Portland and act accordingly. They aren’t perfect, but they still have alot to teach us. Projects like the Southeastern Parkway are a waste of money. New highways only serve to promote new suburbs at the expense of the rest of the region. Positive investments would include a true all-encompassing master plan for the region. This plan would include a well thought out fixed guideway mass transit system like light rail. It would also work to rezone the areas around transit stops to encourage high-density developments. An emphasis should also be put on expanding freight rail to take more trucks off the roads. Above all, Hampton Roads needs to formulate a plan to share revenue between cities, preferably by merging into one jurisdiction. People should not be afraid of a merger. They will still live in the same place. Taxes can even stay the same for each segment of the new city. The goal, however, is to create a region where growth in one part is good for the whole region. It won’t matter if a new tower is but in Downtown Norfolk or at Town Center. The increased tax base will pay for both areas. Once we have a region that can function as a region, we should split our collective economic development money between attracting the relocation of large companies and creating new businesses, preferably start-ups owned by recent graduates of local colleges and universities. The opportunity presented to graduates will encourage them to stay in the area. If they stay, their friends are more likely to stay and/or move to the area.
Hampton Roads can do this. We have to make our leaders know we will accept no less.
Posted via WordPress for Android
HRBT, US460 Both Get Private Proposals
Oct 30th
HRBT
The HRBT plan calls for a new, four-lane bridge/tunnel from the Peninsula to Norfolk. The existing lanes would be used for westbound traffic. Additionally, the Monitor-Merrimac Bridge Tunnel and the James River Bridge will also receive upgrades. It would cost $4.5 billion and use tolls as high as $6 each way. These tolls would apparently be applied to the HRBT, the MMBT, and the JRB.
While nobody can argue that an expanded HRBT would ease traffic flow, I also do not think that anybody would argue that tolling all three crossings would not hurt our economy. As described, this project would give the Southside a serious disadvantage over the Peninsula. It would also negatively impact what weak regional drive for mass transit that we have. Alternatively, the “Third Crossing” would most certainly benefit our regional economy, even with tolls. Its multi-modal design would take cars and trucks off the road by allowing freight traffic and transit. The HRBT plan is designed simply to make money for those involved. The “Third Crossing” was designed to improve our regional competitiveness in the global economy. Money would still be made in a public-private partnership, but the impacts would be positive for the region.
US 460
Turning US 460 into an interstate-grade highway is a noble goal… if it were 1960. While it would certainly improved travel time to Richmond and aid in evacuations, it would not serve to increase the region’s competitiveness. The 460 project would make the Western Tidewater communities more appealing to industry and business, but at the expense of Norfolk, Virginia Beach, and Chesapeake. The new highway would only serve to expand the sprawl of Richmond towards Hampton Roads. I think it would be fair to define our region as anything within a 45 minutes drive. The US 460 project would make Isle of Wight County a mere 30 minutes away from Petersburg.
The money would be better invested in High Speed Rail. It has already been estimated that if we had true HSR from both Norfolk and Newport News, that we could operate with profits exceeding $30 million a year. That money could pay for a lot of transportation projects. The economic development that HSR would bring would also benefit the entire region, not just the outlying counties.
I am not against public-private partnerships. On the contrary, I think that they can bring much-needed capital to a tight state budget. We do, however, need to spend it wisely, in a way that will allow us to grow our tax base. This way, in the future, we will not have such a tight budget.
