Seriously?!? A road widening out to the ‘burbs? Now?
I’m sure most of you will remember this plan from years ago. Way back in 2001, council decided to attack the problem of traffic congestion on Cabana Road by having administration look into widening it to accomodate the throngs of LaSalle commuters coming into the city. Well, it’s that time again.
In the heyday of freeway building in the 1950s, the well-known architect and urbanist Lewis Mumford warned that trying to cure traffic congestion with more road capacity was like trying to cure obesity by loosening your belt. You can’t build your way out of traffic congestion! I simply want evidence of one road-widening project that has actually decreased commuter time over the long haul!
But this time, my argument is different.
The project planners have addressed most of the anticipated roadblocks to this road-widening scheme; loss of trees, increased truck traffic, safety of pedestrians, property values of abutting land owners, and increased air pollution. They’ve done their homework in anticipating the negative response to this plan.
However, here in the year 2009, almost 8 years since this plan was initially brought before council, one item needs to be addressed.
Is traffic congestion still an issue?
In 2001 when first proposed, the automotive industry was in full production. Layoffs were non-existant and if my memory serves me, they were actually adding additional shifts at my old plant. Times were great, and a lot of Windsorites were living their dream of the big SUVs parked in the long driveways of their suburban LaSalle acreage. This is the time when the project’s traffic counts were taken. Single-occupancy vehicles were the norm as everyone could afford to drive everywhere (gas prices were around 70 cents per litre) and they did. Jobs were plentiful and we all needed to get from our raised ranch to our manufacturing jobs as quickly as possible.
I believe we can all admit that times are drastically different now.
So, does it make sense for this city to pour millions of infrastructure dollars into a road widening (that wouldn’t have worked anyways) that is completely unnecessary? Can you not think of dozens of other projects that need this cash infusion a heck of a lot more.
Me too. That is why I’m going to raise my voice on this issue at council this Monday night and I hope that others will do the same. A quick email or telephone call to your councillor will work wonders, and also show them that I am not the only person that this gross waste of taxpayer monies bothers! All I want is council to defer this issue (and NOT allocate any funds out of our cash-strapped 2009 budget) until up-to-date traffic counts can be compiled and the need for this road widening defended.
Thanks for your help!
Tags: budget repercussions, City Council, Environmental assessment, gas, Infrastructure, ROI, transportation, transportation costs, urban sprawl, wasted resources
Post Feedback
Do you know what else is on the agenda on Monday?
I’m going to have to agree with you for the most part - is a road widening appropriate for right NOW? I’m going to have to lean towards no.
Great work!
I drive Cabana Road/County Rd. 42 from Lauzon to St. Clair twice a day. I have no problems driving this road. If you drive at a reasonable speed and leave the appropriate space between you and the car in front there is not a problem.
Insanity prevails, rebury this idea and reduce the road to one lane, one hour one way and second hour the other way and on and on…maybe the drivers will get the hint and leave their fracking cars and fat families at home or stay in Lasalle!
This road widening mania has to stop, it doesn’t work, it hasn’t worked and it will never will work! Gee is there anybody thinking in the Traffic department in this city or Planning! Windsor is shrinking instead of losening the belt, start tightening it and spend the money to finish Ouellette Avenue! (without widening that either)
It’s always about the damn car in this fracking city! Excuse me! But the world is changing, so waddle away from your planning desk and go for a walk!
speaking as someone who lives on this road, this proposal is ludicrous. it does NOT take into account the concerns and preference or residents. another highway??? give me a break. instead of building bigger why not build greener? instead of widening the road and encouraging an increased flow of traffic and more cars why don’t you improve the public transit system, add bike lanes and improve the sidewalks for pedestrians? nope. not in windsor. car is king here. got to make sure the residents in the outerlying regions have a highway to get to work.
when i asked them (the “consultants”) years ago why is this even an option they reminded me that back in the 1960s cabana was designated an “arterial” road. Let me remind you that according to my neighbour, who has been there since the 60s, no one was living on cabana road. very few residents lived there. so let’s base our entire decision making on a designation that was made in the 1960s when there was no community.
why is it so hard for those making the decisions to make the right decisions? when will they start listening to the community? the actual wants and needs of the citizens?
i encourage as many people as possible to come out to the council meeting on march 2. we need bodies there. this goes beyond the widening of one road. this is quality of life for all residents.
This just shows that once again Windsor looks to the past and hasn’t come out of the 1960s yet. Just living in Windsor is the definition of insanity and yet these yahoos still do what their Grand-fathers did in the 1950’s and 1960’s.
This is just like the arena and just like EC Row. All paid for by you and I while the suburbanites don’t drop a $1 of taxes to Windsor. How I wish that all of Essex County was gobbled up by this city.
I agree with everything that has been said above…….widening roads only facilitates car traffic…and does not “charge” drivers for unnecessary trips, single occupancy vehicles, or failing to use public transit.
Even a widening for bike lanes merely succeeds in pushing cyclists off the road so that they don’t impede traffic…..so cyclists end up squeezed into a barely-wide-enough corridor that is often poorly maintained and filled with “swoosh-rubble”………….but what do you expect from traffic engineers?
They will continue to think that adding more and more pavement is the solution to all traffic problems until we say “enough”
The biggest travesty of all is that these brilliant engineers think nothing of directing this traffic through someone’s neighborhood…..destroying the quality of life for everyone there and making people retreat to their houses…so that the term “neighborhood” loses all meaning.
All these lanes will do is facilitate commuter traffic…….and as soon as that is done, we lose the battle for a self-sustaining transit system to Lasalle and discourage alternative modes of transportation.
With the amount of space available, wouldn’t it be nice if instead of a 4-lane road, they would plan to leave it as a 2-lane road with a streetcar from LaSalle to the Airport/Walker-big-box region? Gotta start somewhere. I think we should send a copy of SimCity 4 to the city planners. Its more true to real life then what some of these guys are thinking!
Sounds like a great idea. Very necessary as it is always backed up along there. Plus they need to get it ready for more truck traffic and other traffic they are moving off the Drive. It should be a commuter route. Its about time! Trucks will need to hook up to the bridge along there.
So move your landscaping, rocks and gates off city owned land and stop encroaching. The people along Cabana have gotten away with this long enough. All you rich south Windsorites wanting a private drive that really belongs to all of us! Can you imagine the gall? Four lanes plus bike lanes is the only way. So get real and ready to lose 7ft of gratuitous conveyance to the city.
You were okay with it when it was Riverside Drive. I’m more than okay its happening to everyone now. I can get to Homesense faster and will smile as I drive along Cabana with my Strabucks.
The wealthy of South Windsor won’t beat this.
BTW, I’m not a jerk, but if my comments were prejudice, bitter, bigoted and hurtful then you now see how Drive Residents have been villianized.
But I still think its a great idea and fully support 4 lanes and a bike lane. Its time.
wow starbuck…do you even live in the area? i do. and i am far from the “rich south windsorites” that you refer to. traffic in the area has actually decreased from when I moved in 11 years ago. Sure there are long lines that happen, but those take place in the “big box” area and are a result of poor planning on the part of the developers and city. why should we be willing to accomodate trucks on our road? you can post all the “no trucks allowed sign” you want on that road, they still use it. do we not have the right to a better quality of life? i believe we do.
I believe that Windsor deserves better than highway after highway through it’s community. I believe that instead of accomodating those people that don’t even live in this city, we should be listening to those that do. residents along this stretch of road have long opposed a 4 lane highway and for good reasons. it’s destructive and poor planning. we have the right to ask for better.
Maybe the real reason that the city wants to widen Cabana to Lasalle is that the city is planning to annex Lasalle in the near future. Which they should have done fifty years ago, along with Tecumseh.
Sorry couldn’t resist opening old wounds…nah!
You state: “I believe that Windsor deserves better than highway after highway through it’s community. I believe that instead of accomodating those people that don’t even live in this city, we should be listening to those that do. ”
That is what Riverside Drive residents are talking about. But apparently many of you feel that our street can be a commuter route. Why? What is the difference here really?
This is precisely what Riverside Drive residents have been saying about themselves for years now. The plans should appease the residents, isn’t that what you are saying? Why is the Vista Project worth crucifying a whole neighbourhood as Halberstadt has accomplished while when its your neighbourhood local opinions are more important? Hmmm. Methinks I smell a rat.
I grew up on Dougall. Now live in Riverside.
And poor city planning is the least of it. I am happy to report that I now have Spitfire traffic wailing past my home on the way to games because of the excellent location the city chose for the new rink. Gota connect to Lauzon somewhere. The Saginaw Spirit lost yesterday because they got to the rink late. I know… since the team bus flew by my home at noon rushing to find the arena!
And I am far from one of the wealthy that Hallberstadt and his cycling posse have ridiculed. And we also have the right to ask for better. God bless those with the courage to do so.
Yaaay Starbuck!!
Declining Traffic: How Will It Affect U.S. Transportation
Maybe we in Windsor can find stats like this in Ontario, Canada it might go along way in deciding if a road be widen or even built:
http://radar.planetizen.com/node/4511?prev=http%3A%2F%2Fradar.planetizen.com
Several Streetsblog Network members, including the Bicycle Coalition of Philadelphia and Decatur Metro, have blogged about the latest numbers from traffic information firm INRIX, which show declining congestion in 2008 vs. 2007 in nearly every metro area surveyed (Baton Rouge, LA, bucks the trend; go figure). INRIX reports “peak hour congestion on the major roads in urban America decreased nearly 30% in 2008 versus 2007.”
Missouri Bicycle News digs into a related set of data, the traffic volume trends from the Federal Highway Administration:
The December 2008 figures (the latest available) show that motor vehicle miles traveled were down about 3.6% for 2008 as compared with 2007.
Three thoughts:
1. It is remarkable that miles traveled continued to decline quite sharply even in the last part of 2008. During that period, gas prices were declining dramatically — which creates a strong incentive to drive more…
2. This continued drop in miles driven dramatically upsets transportation planning as it has been done over the past 50 years in the U.S. All road and highway planning is done on the assumption that travel miles will continue to increase at a 2-4% annual rate as they have done (on average) through the entire 20th century.
Sorry Starbuck, you cannot fool people by trying to equate two bike lanes to two traffic lanes no matter how hard you try. Your hope for sympathy is lost with your attempt to obfuscate the subject
Bike lanes good, car lanes bad, its that simple. If they tried to add a car lane to riverside drive, we would be equally appalled, they’re not, so get over it
The only ones who are obfuscating are people like you and Councillor Halberstadt who insist that its all about you……..i.e. cyclists. This group was quoted in the Windsor Star as objecting to the volume of traffic…not bikes…..Repeating your errors over and over again does not make you right…..
Bike lanes will not add one more car and logic dictates that it can only reduce cars by way of offering an alternative mode of transportation to existing drivers. In addition to that the plan calls for traffic calming measures one of which is the bikers themselves.
I defy you to find an example in any city on the planet earth that proves me wrong.
Cabana Road widening taken off the table
http://www.windsorstar.com/news/Cabana+Road+widening+taken+table/1347395/story.html
thank you chris for coming to council and speaking up… freudian slips and all
My pleasure, pc. Providing insight and entertainment to the citizens of Windsor is what I’m all about!
Mark
You use some big words. But your blatant hypocrisy still blares through. A lane is a lane if people need to travel. Why all of a sudden is there a difference? Again you are pushing the selfish notion that cyclists are more important than other commuters or people who use that road. Its wearing a little thin isn’t it?
The Cabana widening was taken off the table last night because Council and our puppet Mayor are afraid of being sued by the Corporation of the Residents of Cabana. All Cabana residents should be licking the toes of Riversiders who had the courage to take a stand and exercise their legal rights and forcing the City to acknowledge those democratic principles we enjoy in this country.
Its a shame the city wasted another million on this environmental assessment, which probably wasn’t even completed properly. (That would not be a first!) Eddie probably knows this and fears more litigation for his incompetence. Better to bow out gracefully from the project.
I still hope to see four lanes and bikes lanes one day. But specifically to the joy of Alan, Mark, Chris and their posse…I hope they spend all the money on intersew=ctions and don’t bleed a cent for bike lane improvements. That would be karma wouldn’t it?
No Starbuck, it’s your blatant ignorance that is shining through. It is painfully obvious that you have never read one article on the subject, and read nothing on SD other than what pertains to the happenings in your backyard (ie: Riverside Drive)
It is not Mark’s job to go over everthing that has been discussed on ScaleDown for almost two years with you. It is yours if you want to be a part of the solution.
However, your comments are being done out of spite (”I still hope to see four lanes and bikes lanes one day. But specifically to the joy of Alan, Mark, Chris and their posse…”) with the sole intention of igniting a flame war without even taking responsibility and ownership of your comments by posting under your real name. (How “courageous” is that?) It is for this reason that I cannot allow it to go any longer.
SD is here to foster a respectful dialogue, and it is painfully obvious that is not how you want to play.
Everyone is entitled to an opinion. I am educated on the subject. My opinion differs from your own. Accept that please. Censoring opinions that differ from yours is… well…..you know!
The spiteful comments are made out of frustration of the double standards being fed to the community at large. I have already laid out that arguement.
If my opinion which differs from the moderators is deemed disrespectful because it does not align with your own purpose then I have to question the purpose of Scaledown? Hearing something you don’t like is not disrespectful. And I do believe it is you who does not have the facts about the Riverside issues. What do you really know about the EA process? The laws and loopholes? The riverside concerns aren’t all that different from the Cabana situation. Not to the residents. Some people out here cleared the path for Cabana to be left alone. In time, you will realize I spoke the truth. I hit a nerve so I will leave it alone.
I believe I was belittled by Mark first. I can read the sarcasm in his posts. Don’t dish it out if you don’t want citizens to respond accordingly. Maybe you should remove that nasty video of the bike ride down the drive which insults and alienates certain houses and owners on the water. I’m surprised you haven’t been contacted about it. Its not about bushes or fences on Riverside OR Cabana.
Can you make one of those videos of a bike ride along Cabana? I would seriously like to compare the danger of the trek. Really, no sarcasm here.
I play fair and was dishing out the same garbage comments about “rich people with alterior motives” in my first post to prove how hurtful and ridiculous that is. It was not me that made the Vista project a rich vs poor issue. That was Halberstadt and he has been quoted. It is not forgotten. Making the same comments about Cabana residents was a lesson in double standards. There cannot be double standards based on neighbourhood, square footage or the view from your backyard. I now know you see that point. Thank you.
I shouldn’t have insulted the Mayor, but he really has missed the boat on alot of issues lately. At least we still have a symphony. Start a blog on that one.
RDVIP’s purpose is not to expedite traffic flow but, rather see commuter traffic rerouted to Wyandotte or Tecumseh Road or E.C. Row for the benefit of City of Windsor residents. RDVIP includes a number of traffic calming elements as well as design features that will allow for greater pedestrian and other people-powered transportation options. The properties fronting onto Riverside Drive would benefit from lower/slower traffic and direct access to bike lanes/recreation/parks. The benefits would be attractive to anyone looking to move to the area.
The Cabana Road project as designed would promote higher traffic volumes and speeds to expedite cross-town traffic. Those that would benefit most would be those people from neighbouring Lasalle or Tecumseh. While those people living on Cabana would get an expressway.
Want to know what Cabana Road will look like expanded - drive up Lauzon Rd. from Wyandotte to McHugh.
Apples and oranges folks.
Sorry to offend you Starbuck but I think its belittling to expect people to believ e a bike lane is the same as a car lane. Biking along cabana with its wide shoulders that don’t have curbs are much easier although We at scaledown would be very consistent in a desire to see designated bike lanes on that road as well
James
I am well versed in the RSDVIP. Interestingly enough, right now we have a Cabana project right here in Riverside. Riverside Drive East benefits those living in Tecumseh and all expedited cross town traffic. The people living on it have an expressway many hours of the day. Traffic calming measures will slow vehicles and cause road rage but tactics for removing the vehicles is unsolved and merely speculated at best. All my research has indeed involved rerouting traffic. Those elements such as the Wyandotte extension need to be completed BEFORE and work on the Drive begins. The city has not acknowledged or planned this to any professional satisfaction. The side streets have let it be known they don’t want to be the scapegoats for emptying cars off the Drive. Right now, there isn’t a place to reroute the traffic which will inevitably back up along the Drive causing more congestion. Wyandotte at present is a road to nowhere. Check it out and then tell me where traffic will go? I drive that section of Lauzon everyday and see no problem with it as driver who obeys the speed limit. Though I admit the arena project has hurt the area for residents. I’d be upset if I lived there.
Mark
Point taken. I don’t cycle on the street as I am afraid of getting sideswiped. Cars are more important than bikes I guess. Cyclists have come down very hard on the Vista and I wonder why they aren’t barking for equal rights to the plan on Cabana? You may be consistent in your needs but the city is not consistent in their methods or priorities. It makes for alot of resentment and confusion.
Guess we’ll see how the madness unfolds.
Thanks people.
Starbuck,
My position on RDVIP is that it be considered as a whole project, not just a few blocks here and there. As a whole RDVIP presents an opportunity for the city as a whole. I would argue that the positive impacts of RDVIP for the city would be greater than GreenLink and the new arena combined.
I am disappointed that a few residents have chosen to fight the plan rather than use their influence to press the city to ensure that by the time RDVIP is completed traffic from the far East side and the communities to the East of the city will be redirected to more suitable arterial roads like Wyandotte, Tecumseh and E.C. Row.
If the city could demonstrate that they could redirect traffic off the Drive and onto these other routes would you be more amiable to the RDVIP?
James,
We need to do more than just redirect the traffic problems somewhere else. We need a comprehensive transportation plan. We need to reduce the number of transient single occupant vehicles. We need to end the host-parasite relationship between Windsor and edge communities.
RDVIP is good start but we need more bike lanes, more east-west HOV lanes, radical transit improvements, better development planning, and something like a cordon toll to act as a catalyst.
The host-parasite relationship between Windsor and edge communities is killing both the host (Windsor) and will eventually kill the parasites too (the edge communities). These edge communities extract benefits from the host and yet only contribute to the problems of the host. A toll around the city of Windsor as part of a comprehensive transportation plan is the best way to slowly wane the parasites from the host.
Nothing promotes harmonious resolution more than calling the other side parasites.
juxtaposeur,
The host-parasite dynamic is not this side or the other side but the environment created by policies and economic incentives. No one could fault LaSalle and Tecumseh for what they do. If anything Windsor leadership is at fault here for being short sighted and pandering to power brokers that live outside Windsor instead of defending the interests of the residents.
Edwin, thank you for clarifying your characterization. I live (rent) in Windsor but I’ll be honest, I have little incentive to buy into property within the city limits due to the mounting tax issues the tax base faces.
Can’t they run a light rail from tecumseh to the University of Windsor using Riverside Drive? Or maybe at least to the Via station at Walker? Would that ease some congestion?
Or is that adding fuel to the fire?
Never said I wasn’t amiable to it. Indeed parts of it I oppose. I just do not believe it will have the end result promised. How many people out there will stop using the drive for their commute? Its just not going to happen.
Bike lanes combined with the current traffic is deadly no matter what kind of calming measure are installed. If the road belongs to everyone (that was a major pro-Vista battle premise) then its naive to think that people will stop using it after construction. Cars in particular. Especially without any visible and viable rerouting options at present. I see ambulances, police cruisers, fire trucks all day long as well. And those people have made statements they don’t use it as a commuter route.. but they do.. regularly.
I don’t know what the solution is. If only police would monitor the street better and nail speeders that would help. Along with lowering the speed limit. One big fat ticket and three points may deter people from commuting along it. But there is nowhere else to go right now. Less vehicles is a nice idea but with zero public transportation here it isn’t likely we will see vehicle numbers dropping. And with our winters, cycling is limited.
Its going to be a decade before we really see what is happening.
Strategies for urban transportation as a two-sided market (part 1)
I have been impressed by the success of Boulder transit, they more than doubled transit use between 1995 and 2005, from 15% to 34%. A large part of that success, I think, is a comprehensive transportation plan that creates a kind of cordon toll in and around Boulder. A combination of measures like higher parking fees, more bike lanes, more HOV lanes, traffic calming and an eco-pass discourage car use and subsidize cycling and public transit.
HOP, SKIP, and JUMP aboard a Boulder Bus
http://www.streetfilms.org/archives/hop-skip-and-jump-aboard-a-boulder-bus/
But what makes subsidizing cyclists and transit users at the expense of car users a successful strategy? I would suggest the answer lies in the concept that economists call the network effect of a two-sided market.
Two-sided markets are products and services that tie together two distinct groups of users in a network. It’s a platform that provides the infrastructure and rules that facilitate the two groups to transact. For example, web search engine Google brings together searchers with advertisers. When successful, these platforms catalyze a virtues cycle, where more demand from one user group leads to greater benefit for the other group.
Traditionally urban transportation is viewed as a one-side market. You have demand for transportation in the form of people needing to move from A to B and you have supply in the form of roads and highways that responds to or anticipates the demand. The transportation mix (walking vs. cycling vs. public transit vs. car use) is for the most part ignored or tilted to favour car use.
Is this traditional view of urban transportation a failed business model? Like Google charging you 25 cents for each keyword search instead of it being free and advertisers subsidizing your search.
The benefits to a community in shifting the transportation mix from car use to more walking, cycling and public transit have been discussed ad nauseam here before and I’ll spare you the sermon. Let me just say that there are social, environmental, and economic benefits to a community. It improves the quality of life for residents, acts as a source of competitive advantage for businesses, and aids in attracting new residents and businesses to the community.
So, should we view urban transportation as a two-sided market where our goal is to match the demand for transportation and the transportation mix with the benefits to the community? Does this explain the success of Boulder? What do you think?
I would guess that most of us at SD would view urban transportation as a two-sided market but most other people view it as a one-sided market. This is likely why when looking at issues like RDVIP and Cabana Rd. widening it seems we are speaking two different languages even when looking at the same facts.
Strategies and pricing models in a two-sided market are tricky and at times counter intuitive. However, one thing is clear traditional one-side market strategies won’t work in these two-side markets. I hope to follow-up with some thoughts on these strategies and pricing models at a latter time.
Boulder Goes Bike Platinum
http://www.streetfilms.org/archives/boulder-goes-bike-platinum/
Two-sided market (Wikipedia)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-sided_market
Urban Transportation as a two-sided market the Boulder Case
Side 1 – transportation users and the transportation mix (from Wikipedia)
-Cars and Highways - ???
(Wikipedia makes no reference to them. This speaks volume to the importance of this mode of transportation in the city of Boulder.)
-Mass Transit
Boulder has an extensive bus system operated by the Regional Transportation District (RTD). The HOP, SKIP, JUMP, BOUND, DASH and STAMPEDE routes run throughout the city and connect to nearby communities on a frequent basis, with departures every ten minutes during peak hours, Monday-Friday. Other routes, such as the 201, 203, 204, 205, 206, 208 and 209 depart every 15 to 30 minutes. Regional routes, traveling between nearby cities such as Longmont (BOLT, J), Golden (GS), and Denver (B/BX/DM/HX/S/T), as well as Denver International Airport (AB), are also available. There are over 100 scheduled buses that run between Boulder and Denver on weekdays. Boulder will be connected to downtown Denver with a BRT or Bus Rapid Transit route along US-36. This is being funded by FasTracks and construction is expected to begin in 2009 and to be completed in 2016. Route, schedule and fare information is available on the RTD Web site at http://www.rtd-denver.com/, or by calling their Telephone Information Center at 303-299-6000. Real time arrival information for the HOP route is available at http://www.nextbus.com. Google also offers a transit trip planner for the Boulder-Denver region at http://www.google.com/transit
Beginning in 2014, commuter rail will travel between Longmont, Boulder and Denver, with stops in major communities along the way. This commuter rail line is funded by FasTracks, a transit improvement plan funded by a 0.4% increase in the sales tax throughout the Denver metro area. RTD, the developer of FasTracks, and the City of Boulder are planning a transit-oriented development near the intersection of Pearl and 33rd Streets to accommodate a Boulder Fastracks station. The development will feature the relocated Boulder Railroad Depot, which may be returned to a transit-related use.
-Cycling
Boulder, well-known for its bicycle culture, boasts hundreds of miles of bike paths, lanes, and routes that interconnect to create a renowned network of bikeways usable year-round. Boulder has 74 bike and pedestrian underpasses that facilitate safer and uninterrupted travel throughout much of the city. The city offers a route-finding Web site at http://www.gobikeboulder.net/ that allows users to map personalized bike routes around the city. In 2008 the city was recognized by the League of American Bicyclists as a Platinum-level bicycle friendly community.
Walk and Bike Month is celebrated throughout June, with Bike to Work Day held on the last Wednesday in June. The event is presented by GO Boulder and is produced by Community Cycles. Begun in 1977 as Bike to Work Day, Boulder’s annual celebration of biking is believed to be one of the oldest in the United States.
Side 2 – Community benefits
-#1 in “The Smartest Cities In America” - Forbes, February, 2008
-#2 in “Greenest Schools” (CU) - Sierra Magazine, August, 2008
-#1 in “20 Dream Towns” - Outside Magazine, August, 2006
-#3 in Top 10 Brainiest Small Cities - Bizjournals.com, June, 2006
-#1 Best of the Best - Men’s Journal, April 2006
-#1 Place You Dream of Living - Backpacker Magazine, February, 2006
-Best Place in the Country for Singles (Denver-Boulder) - Forbes: 2006, 2004, 2003
-#1 Best Place to Live - Successful Meetings: 2005
-The West’s Best City - Sunset Magazine: 2005
-#1 Best Places to Live - Men’s Journal Magazine: 2005, 2003
-#1 Top 20 Boom Towns - Business 2.0: 2004
-Colorado’s Best Workplaces for Commuters - United States EPA: 2004
-The Best Small Cities - Men’s Journal: 2004
-Best Place to Move (Boulder-Longmont) - Worldwide ERC and Primacy Relocation: 2004
-Best Places to Retire - Money Magazine: 2002
-#4 Best Places for Businesses and Career Advancement - Forbes: 2000
-#1 Best Places to Retire - Modern Maturity: 2000
-America’s Best Places to Live and Work - USA Today: 1999
-Best Cities in America for Starting and Growing a Business - Inc. Magazine: 1999
-Best Transportation - Sunset Magazine: 1999
-Small City Runner Up: Best Places to Live 2000 - Money Magazine: 1999
-Top 10 Cities for Teens - Seventeen Magazine, 1999
-Runner Up, America’s Foodiest Small Towns- “Bon Appetit Magazine”:2008
I think Urbanrat summed it up most eloquently. I would “quote” him/her if I knew how to do that. The issue is that with the relatively low density in the Windsor essex County area there should be no need for any road widenings, period! It is because of the sprawl development pattern in that part of town that there is an issue. the development pattern doesn’t give any options for through traffic.
The flip side of the density argument is that that same lack of relative density makes it not possible to argue for anything like light rail. We need to be thinking along the lines of a streamlined limited-stop bus system.
The numerous accolades bestowed on Boulder are impressive. Even more impressive to me is the pride of residents in their community and government that radiates in the pair of streetfilm videos. This is particularly striking when compared to the current attitudes of residents in Windsor. Pride in community and government might be a bit of a stretch in Windsor at the present time. How would you characterize the current attitudes of the residents of Windsor?
But can urban transportation policy and network effects of two-sided markets really be credited for the impressive results in Boulder? I suggest the answer is yes.
What voodoo economics is this? Well, it is not voodoo economics but harnessing the virtues cycle created by positive network effects. Ask Bill Gates or the founders of Google about the power of these network effects.
Network effects are the preferences regarding the number of participants in the network. It can be positive if more participants are preferred or it could be negative if fewer participants are preferred. Network effects could be same-side if the preference is for more or fewer participants in your own side. It could also be cross-side if the preference is for more or fewer participants in the other side.
Urban transportation as a two-sided market:
Side 1 - transportation mode (cars, public transit, cycling and walking)
Side 2 – Community benefits
Platform – transportation policy
Network effects:
Cars – negative same-side and negative cross-side effects
Public transit, cycling and walking – positive same-side and positive cross-side effects
It is clear, no one wants more cars. For motorists and public transit riders more cars means more congestion. For cyclists and pedestrians more cars translates into a more menacing environment. And for the community … well, just ask the residents of Riverside or Cabana what it means to them.
In contrast, everyone welcomes a shift towards more public transit, cycling and walking. It reduces congestion. It makes our streets less menacing. More transit riders improves the efficiency and/or the quality of our transit system. More cyclists ultimately leads to better cycling infrastructure and services. Finally, for the community it has social, environmental and economic benefits.
Harnessing these network effects is what Boulder has done so successfully.
Edwin wrote: “The host-parasite relationship between Windsor and edge communities is killing both the host (Windsor) and will eventually kill the parasites too (the edge communities). These edge communities extract benefits from the host and yet only contribute to the problems of the host. A toll around the city of Windsor as part of a comprehensive transportation plan is the best way to slowly wane the parasites from the host.”
It is true Edwin that edge cities/towns feed off a city without contributing much if anything to the host city but a toll road won’t be needed.
Several us figured that for every job lost in the auto industry or business in this area, that it is a sixty forty split in jobs lost. Sixty per cent in edge cities/towns, forty in the host city. It won’t be long before the edge cities/towns will be hurting worst than the host city, although the lost of property taxes et al will hurt, it will hit the edgies harder who lack the industrial base and rely solely on individual property and business taxes.
There won’t be anybody left to pay the tolls! They will all be in Windsor lining up for social housing and welfare services! There is no subsidize housing in the edgies, that is why they have prospered, they didn’t have to invest the social safety nets.