The My Wheels are Turning blog has another great article about urban design in Traverse City. That article reminds us of this Jane Jacobs quote.

Automobiles are often conveniently tagged as the villains responsible for the ills of cities and the disappointments and futilities of city planning. But the destructive effects of automobiles are much less a cause than a symptom of our incompetence at city building. The simple needs of automobiles are more easily understood and satisfied than the complex needs of cities, and a growing number of planners and designers have come to believe that if they can only solve the problems of traffic, they will thereby have solved the major problems of cities. Cities have much more intricate economic and social concerns than automobile traffic. How can you know what to try with traffic until you know how the city itself works, and what else it needs to do with its streets? You can’t.
— Jane Jacobs, Death and Life of Great American Cities

Bicycle advocates can find many examples to support Jacob’s quote. It’s relatively easy to define transportation problems in terms of motor vehicle levels of service (LOS) and average daily traffic (ADT). LOS and ADTs are easily measured and quantified for motor vehicles.

How do you measure real and perceived safety issues that create latent demand for non-motorized transportation options?

There’s also been recent discussion nationally about how congestion is measured in the U.S. This discussion was kicked off with the recent CEO for Cities report called, Driven Apart: How sprawl is lengthening our commutes and why misleading mobility measures are making things worse.

A new report from CEOs for Cities unveils the real reason Americans spend so much time in traffic and offers a dramatic critique of the 25 year old industry standard created by the Texas Transportation Institute’s Urban Mobility Report (UMR) – often used to justify billions of dollars in expenditures to build new roads and highways…

A close examination shows that the UMR has a number of major flaws that misstate and exaggerate the effects of congestion, particularly the Travel Time Index (TTI).  TTI is the ratio of average peak hour travel times to average free flow travel times… Because this methodology does not take into account travel distances, it universally rewards cities that are spread out as opposed to compact urban areas.

It’s bottom line, common sense conclusion: “What creates traffic jams isn’t more cars and fewer highways, it’s sprawl.”

And Transportation for America published this article today which concurs.

The cycle is familiar by now. A study tells us what we all know: our roads are congested. We pour billions into new roads and lanes to “reduce congestion.” Then the study comes out two years later and just as before, our roads are still congested. There’s a call for new roads, new roads open up, we drive further and further, congestion goes up. Rinse and repeat.

That hypothetical study exists in Metro Detroit. It’s SEMCOG’s Congestion Management System Plan. It fails to mention sprawl as a possible cause for congestion (and never mentions increased bicycling as a partial solution.)

It does focus plenty on the LOS’s for motorists during peak travel time.

Center for Creative Studies' uncreative bike rack at the Taubman Center. Nudge, nudge.

The Wheelhouse Detroit blog has an excellent discussion of bicycle parking and racks.

As Detroit becomes more bike friendly, more and more businesses and institutions are installing bike racks — which is great, no doubt about it. What is frustrating, though, is to see funds and good intent wasted when, simply put, the bike rack is not functional. This occurs when the rack is poorly designed or poorly placed.

This is perfect timing as the Association of Pedestrian and Bicycle Professionals released a second edition of their Bicycle Parking Guidelines. Their first edition is available on-line, but this second edition adds:

• Guidance long-term bicycle parking
• Elements of a good bike locker, including specific performance criteria
• Maintenance best practices
• Sample site plans and diagrams to help avoid blunders in rack and locker placement
• Sample quantity requirements for bicycle parking to meet need by land use
• A worksheet for programming bicycle parking for a building or cluster of buildings
• Abundant images and charts to illustrate concepts and conditions

One issue is funding. Cities like Chicago rely on Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) funding for much of their bike parking. SEMCOG’s CMAQ funding formula does not give the same priority to our non-motorized projects — something groups like MTGA want to change.

It also seems that once we find a funding mechanism, we can spur green job creation by having local steel workers creating bicycle racks. Why would a underemployed manufacturing city import these simple metal structures? We should be exporting bicycle racks.

SEMCOG issued a press release highlighting their analysis of the 2009 crash data. When it comes to their non-motorized crash analysis, we find it to be very superficial. This year is no different.

We did more year-to-year comparison and found some unreported and disturbing trends.

What SEMCOG says: “Bicycle crashes down – Traffic crashes … involving bicycles decreased just less than one percent in 2009 from 2008. There were … 967 crashes involving bikes in 2009.”

What the data shows: While there were fewer total bicycle crashes, that is primarily due to there being fewer minor crashes that left the bicyclist uninjured. Incapacitating injuries among cyclists increased significantly. The number of serious (fatal or incapacitating) bicycle crashes are up over 16 percent!

This is especially alarming given that statewide bicycling fatalities are down 24%. And, motorist fatalities within the SEMCOG region dropped by 5%.

In 2009, 47% percent of all Michigan bicycle fatalities were within the SEMCOG region as opposed to 36% in 2008.

The number of bicyclists involved in a crash increased slightly this year as well.

What SEMCOG says: “Pedestrian crashes down – Crashes in Southeast Michigan involving pedestrians totaled 1,180 in 2009; this represents a two percent decrease from 2008.”

What the data shows: While pedestrian crashes are down, pedestrian fatalities are up 4.5%. Statewide, pedestrian fatalities are up 6.1%.

In 2008, non-motorized fatalities made up 21% of all road fatalities within the SEMCOG region. In 2009, that percentage climbed to 23%.

Also in the press release, SEMCOG Executive Director Paul Tait says, “We are happy to report this continuing decline in traffic crashes in Southeast Michigan. A number of factors contribute to this downward trend, including the poor economy, higher gas prices, fewer vehicle miles traveled, and higher safety belt usage.”

If higher gas prices and fewer vehicle miles traveled meant safer roads in 2009, then why aren’t those goals within the Michigan’s Strategic Highway Safety Plan? It’s obvious that one of the most efficient ways of decreasing serious road injuries would be to reduce the vehicle miles traveled. It’s proven itself in 2009, yet it’s not part of the plan to improve road safety. Why not? Is the lack of political leadership trumping safety?

And, SEMCOG’s Camine Palombo commented on their analysis by concluding, “Finally – some news we can be proud of!”

We don’t agree.

It was a bit of surprise seeing a Google booth at the National Bike Summit.   They are here to announce biking directions on Google Maps. This is a nice complement to the driving, walking, and public transit directions.

The routing algorithm doesn’t shy away from routing cyclists on some main roads, like Woodward Avenue. Perhaps we can use this as another reason to make Metro Detroit’s streets more bike friendly.

One major issue: Google is showing sidepaths/wide sidewalks as legitimate bicycling facilities when they are not according to national design guidelines. This makes us think SEMCOG may have provided this data to Google. Despite our comments against doing so, SEMCOG included sidepaths/wide sidewalks as bicycle facilities maps. We’ll bring this issue up with Google.

Here’s part of the announcement from the League of American Bicyclists:

This new feature includes: step-by-step bicycling directions; bike trails outlined directly on the map; and a new “Bicycling” layer that indicates bike trails, bike lanes, and bike-friendly roads. The directions feature provides step-by-step, bike-specific routing suggestions – similar to the directions provided by our driving, walking, or public transit modes. Simply enter a start point and destination and select “Bicycling” from the drop-down menu. You will receive a route that is optimized for cycling, taking advantage of bike trails, bike lanes, and bike-friendly streets and avoiding hilly terrain whenever possible.

Visit http://maps.google.com/biking to try out this new feature. Biking directions for Google Maps is currently in Beta.

SEMCOG recently launched a new MiBikematch service and the Free Press has an article it.

MiBikematch, a service to match up bike riders who would be more comfortable taking the trip with another rider, has been launched, the Southeast Michigan Council of Governments said Wednesday.

Users register there, entering their starting point, destination, days they ride and their work hours. That information is compared to other users for potential matches. Participants may contact potential riding companions through e-mail or the Web site. The service is free, SEMCOG spokeswoman Iris Steinberg said.

The program is part of an effort by state and local agencies to encourage folks to think beyond driving to ease congestion and improve air quality in a state among the tops in the nation in the percentage of drivers commuting alone by car.

Note that after signing up, you can select how you prefer to commute: by bike, car pool, van pool, or some combination of those.

It’s apparent that in order to make this service a success, we need a lot of bike commuters signing up.

$5 per gallon of gas would hurt the program either.