Midwestern Consulting

An engineering consultant once told me that signs, speed bumps, and retaining walls are examples of failures in design. If the design is right, those things are not needed.

The US-23/Lee Road round-about traffic controls are an example of design failure. Not only is there a mind bending number of directional signs and pavement markings, but the control devices are different in each of the round-abouts. To navigate them safely, the best path is to ignore the controls, slow down, and watch the other drivers. That is a mental speed bump.

David Engwicht, a “social inventor” in Australia, wrote Mental Speed Bumps.  The Smarter Way to Tame Trafficin 2005, while Hans Monderman, a traffic engineer, was in the Netherlands discovering a radical new way to tame neighborhood traffic: don’t.

The basic idea is that removing all traffic signs, speed bumps, line markings and traffic lights results in reduced traffic speed and greater safety. The lack of traffic controls creates “mental speed bumps.”

“Shared roads” or “complete streets” are now mainstream applications of the social contract we already apply at places like four way stops.  These purposely mix user types within the overall transportation system. Another example of shared use of space is the holiday shopping rush at the regional mall. A flood of vehicles shares an enormous parking area with hoards of shoppers rushing in and out of the mall.  The traffic flow is managed by the interaction between the pedestrians and the drivers rather than by traffic cops or signals, or zillions of directional signs.

Engwicht’s small volume describes the safety paradox, the idea that creating intrigue and uncertainty makes streets safer. That flies in the face of the conventional idea that predictability increases safety.  But predictability leads to increased speed and a lower level of concentration on the part of drivers, cyclists and pedestrians. Add that to distractions like talking on a cell phone, text messaging, listening to music on an iPod, etc. etc. and people are not in the moment, are not aware of or truly experiencing their environment, and are essentially on auto pilot, or as dad would say, “cruisin’ for a brusin’”!

This small volume is “a practical, down-to-earth guide for residents, parents, health professionals, city planners and anyone interested in creating more livable streets.”

The new Ann Arbor area, height and placement regulations include a new zoning district, R4E/multifamily, that targets parcels that front on “significant transit corridors” as identified in the Master Plan.  These corridors, identified on the map above in blue, (the DDA boundary is shown in red) are:

• Plymouth Road from US-23 to the DDA boundary
• Jackson/Huron Road from I-94 to the DDA boundary
• State Street from I-94 to the DDA boundary
• Washtenaw Boulevard from US-23 to the DDA boundary

 The new R4E zoning regulations include:

• Minimum 580 square feet per unit; maximum 75 dwelling units per acre
• No height limit
• Minimum 14,000 square foot lot area
• Minimum 120 foot lot width
• Minimum 40 percent “usable open space”*
• Minimum 15 foot front yard setback/ maximum 40 feet
• Minimum 10 foot side yard setback**
• Minimum 30 foot rear yard setback***

The intent is to provide higher density residential along major transportation corridors.  The challenge is to achieve 75 dwelling units per acre while providing parking usable open space.

There is no established parking requirement at this point. The Ann Arbor Planning Department has this on their “to do” list and for now defers to the old R4C/D requirement of 1 ½ spaces per unit.   

The challenge for an off-campus student housing project is even greater since each unit may have up to six unrelated adults living in it and parking demand could be much higher. Some form of structured parking is likely to be required.   

Clarifications:

* There is no definition for “Usable open space” so the Planning Department defers to the definition for “Open space”: “The portion of a lot which is devoted to outdoor recreation space, greenery, and space for household activities.  Open space area may include, but shall not be limited to, lawns, landscaping and gardens, wooded areas, sidewalks and walkways, active and passive recreational areas, unenclosed accessory structures used for recreational purposes, permanent or seasonal water surfaces and protected natural areas.  It shall not include area covered by parking lots, driveways, refuse facilities, or enclosed accessory structures.”

**plus 1 foot additional setback for each foot of building height over 30 feet when abutting residentially zoned land; and 3 inches per foot over 35 feet height and 1 ½ inches per foot over 50 feet width

**plus 1 foot additional setback for each foot of building height over 30 feet when abutting residentially zoned land

 Earl Ophoff is a senior project manager and a registered landscape architect at Midwestern Consulting, LLC in Ann Arbor.  Contact Earl at 734.995.0200.

The Michigan Legislature passed the Complete Streets transportation legislation yesterday.  Governor Granholm is expected to sign the bill into law soon.

The legislation is designed to make transportation engineers and city planners think about the needs of users of roadways other than motorists – mainly bicyclists and walkers.  If any of you have had the misfortune of riding your bike in the street and having rude motorists hog the roadway or honk at you in anger you know where this legislation is aimed.

We generally support this new design effort.  But what will it mean to cities, counties and townships?  Will the costs of acquiring new ROW access for sidewalks or bike paths, and their related constructon costs, be worth the effort to encourage residents to ditch their cars? 

If Michigan’s transportation engineers and city planners are serious in their efforts to promote a healthier lifestyle through walking and bicycle riding, there needs to be safe non-motorized pathways for people to use. 

But, we ask, at what cost?

What do you think?  Please leave a comment on this site.