Recently released 2009 National Household Travel Survey from the Federal Highway Administration documents transportation mode choice trends. From 2001 to 2009, the percentage of biking, walking, and transit trips have increased while vehicle trips have fallen.

According to the Mobilizing the Region web site:

Of course, the good news for walking, bicycling and transit use may reflect fluctuating gasoline prices and the current economic recession (respondents were surveyed between March 2008 and April 2009). But when asked to interpret the findings, FHWA staff told MTR that “the general public is more aware of the need to walk and bike for environmental and health reasons, thus they make more of those trips and they report more of them in our survey.”

What we have found in Metro Detroit is traffic engineers assume there will be increased vehicle traffic, even in cities which have undergone drastic populations drops like Royal Oak and Detroit. (Note that according to U.S. Census data, Royal Oak’s population decline rate is slightly higher than the city of Detroit’s since 2000.)

Assuming increased vehicle travel often means our roads are wider than they need to be — width that could be converted into bike lanes.

Washington Boulevard in Royal Oak

For example. last year we tried pushing the city of Royal Oak to change Washington Boulevard before it was repaved between Lincoln and Woodward. We asked for a 4 lanes to 3 road diet which would have added bike lanes while increasing safety for all users. We were told that the city was projecting an increase in vehicle travel on Washington over 20 years and therefore could not reduce the number of lanes.

This projected increased was standard practice but completely unrealistic given that:

• Washington Avenue north of Lincoln had already been road dieted from 4 to 3 lanes.
• Woodward vehicle traffic was declining.
• Royal Oak’s population is dropping.

(Of course what’s ridiculous is that the road diet could have occurred for the time being. If that vehicle traffic did return, the road could be re-striped. In the meantime, there would be increased safety for all travel modes. Clearly safety was not the highest priority in this decision making process.)

I-94 Expansion in Detroit

Another example is the planned expansion on I-94 through Detroit. MDOT is still forecasting increased vehicle traffic even though the actual numbers show no increase.

On the other hand, MDOT decided to remove two pedestrian bridges after concluding they weren’t justified given the existing pedestrian and bicycle traffic. MDOT did not project any growth for biking and walking on these bridges despite the US DOT policy statement that such projects “should anticipate likely future demand for bicycling and walking facilities.”

Their bias is apparent.

We need to ensure that Metro Detroit transportation projects realistically and consistently forecast traffic for all modes.

C and G Newspapers ran a recent article on the rail-with-trail proposal in Royal Oak:

City officials have begun to look into the possibility of a recreational trail along the railroad lines that run through the city and into the downtown. The administration was tasked at looking at the issue after Commissioner Jim Rasor brought it forward at the Jan. 25 meeting. Any potential trail would run alongside the existing railway, where there is a large amount of open area.

“This would really enhance recreation possibilities for Royal Oak and the region,” Rasor said.

Rasor said he would like to see the trail constructed from the downtown area to the northern Royal Oak boarder, which is a length of approximately four miles.

A long-range goal, Rasor said, would be to eventually link up to the Clinton River Trail in Pontiac, which runs from Pontiac to Rochester Hills and eventually dumps into the Macomb Orchard Trail, which goes 26 miles to Richmond.

Since this article was published, I’ve met with city of Royal Oak staff to discuss next steps — which is basically information gathering. I’ve also kept the Active Transportation Alliance, the organization that will create Royal Oak’s non-motorized plan, in the loop.

There was a question about whether a feasibility study was the next step. In speaking with the Rails-to-Trails Conservancy they asked. “Is it being used now?” The answer is sure. They said that if people are already using the pathway next to the rail lines then it’s feasible.

Below is a link from a 1932 article discussing the history of this rail right-of-way. “All cuts and fills were constructed for four tracks, but at present only two tracks have been laid.” Two of the lines were intended for suburban train service while the other pair for freight. As noted earlier, the third and fourth line were never added, which leaves room for a non-motorized trail.

Link: Grand Trunk Relocation on Detroit-Pontiac Line, Engineering News-Record, October 21, 1932

Interestingly enough, the original plan was to build an “elevated motor speedway” above the rail lines. It was to be a toll road allowing motorists to travel between Pontiac and Detroit in under 30 minutes.

This was the vision of Joseph A. Bower and he had a good reason to build a highway to downtown.

He’d just built and opened the Ambassador Bridge.

The Detroit Free Press recently ran this article on trail development throughout Metro Detroit.

“Look at this. There’s so much potential,” Royal Oak City Commissioner Jim Rasor said, as he strode Wednesday in Royal Oak beside railroad tracks where he envisions a hiking-biking trail.

Tonight, the Royal Oak City Commission is to discuss Rasor’s hope to turn 8.5 miles of unused land next to the Canadian National Railway tracks — from Royal Oak to Bloomfield Township — into a public trail, tying south Oakland’s bike lanes to north Oakland’s wooded paths.

I recently gave the following public comment on the rail-with-trail concept at Monday’s City Commission meeting:

I encourage the City Commission to explore a rail with trail along the Grand Trunk right-of-way.

Originally this rail line headed northwest out of Royal Oak following Sherman before meeting up with and paralleling Woodward. When the state of Michigan wanted to widen Woodward, they bought land and re-routed the railroad to its current location.

The plan was to build four parallel rail lines, but only two were ever built. The result is there is unused space along the right-of-way which is now a two-track dirt path.

It seems that unused space could accommodate a non-motorized trail.

And wouldn’t this be a great way to bring people into our Downtown?

This would not be the first rail-with-trail. They exist throughout the United States, including ones in Ann Arbor and Traverse City. Nationwide, rails-with-Trails have a perfect safety record. They have a much better safety record than roads and sidewalks.

As someone who lives within eyesight of the railroad and who has had their home appraised, I know how it reduces my property value. Creating a rail-with-trail would increase property values throughout the city, but especially for those of us living close to the rail line.

The response from the commission was mixed. Some wanted to punt this to the county. In fact, Commissioner Drinkwine said the Paint Creek Trail had been spearheaded by the county — it wasn’t. It was spearheaded by grassroots efforts and local governments. The county does not provide leadership on trail projects outside of their own parks.

Nonetheless, I am meeting with Royal Oak city staff this week to provide more information on next steps, especially as it relates to the non-motorized planning process which is expected to begin in February or March.

This web site has been a labor of love for some time now, but perhaps more lately. It’s been a challenge publishing so much information.

But, the results have been very encouraging. According to Google, our web visits have increased by 105% this year over last. We’ve been getting some of our articles picked up in the local and national blogosphere.

What are your thoughts on making this site better or more effective?

This site was originally created to fill a void in Southeast Michigan in terms of bicycle advocacy — a void that unfortunately remains after our unsuccessful attempt to improve our local bike advocacy.

And with the exception of a handful of local communities, Southeast Michigan has become less bicycle friendly through the years — unless you’re lucky enough to be on a trail. Bicycling has received lip service and maps, but not much in terms of leadership and funding that could make some real changes on the ground. A lot of people, including cyclists seem quite satisfied with the status quo.

Vehicle mobility continues to trump the safety of all roads users. As a result, best practices and AASHTO guidelines for safe bicycling facilities are routinely ignored.

The bright spots for bicycling progress in the Tri-county region are Detroit, Troy, Royal Oak and Novi. The latter three have or are about to begin non-motorized transportation planning with qualified planners. Of course Ferndale has been a leader in the past as well. Is this enough of a critical mass to get other communities and the county to do the same? What will be the implementation timeline?

And 2010 should see Detroit emerge as the clear non-motorized transportation leader within the three counties. But, for the time being, Oakland and Macomb have a firm grip as the two worst counties for bicycling in Michigan and we don’t see that changing.

Nine bike racks were installed around Royal Oak during the past year thanks to the DDA and SMART, but that’s not enough for a city of this size.

One solution is to require new developments and streetscaping projects to include bicycle racks from the beginning. It’s often cheaper and certainly easier to install them during construction than to add them later.

That said, it’s frustrating to see this not happening, especially since the Master Plan calls for making Royal Oak more bicycle friendly.

Two recent examples are on tonight’s city commission agenda: the massive EMagine Theater project and two streetscaping projects.

We’ve sent the following public comment to the Commission:

(more…)