3-Plus for Russell Street

Seems that we cannot grow our roads enough to achieve a desired level of service to solve traffic congestion. From the “Lifespan Analysis” on page 52 of Kittelson’s final report on Russell Street reconstruction options:

“However, none of the alternatives and options are expected to operate acceptably under year 2035 traffic conditions and meet the City and MDT’s operation standards per the projected traffic volumes…”.

But we must be cautious with “Projections” and “Levels of Service”, as summed up tidily in an article by John Williams in “Centerlines”:

“…Level of Service has long been a misnomer. What it actually measures is the level of comfort for drivers, who tend to like streets that have very few other cars and where they can drive fast without interruptions. To get a “good” LOS (i.e., an A or B), you needed to widen streets, add lanes, get rid of on-street parking, limit crossings, add turn lanes, etc. In the US, LOS was never intended to measure how well a road performed for all interested parties (e.g., the people who lived near it and worried about high speeds, the kids who wanted to cross it to get to school, the bicyclists who wanted to use it to get to work, transit users, etc.)”.

Also on page 52 of the Kittelson report, they go on to point out where the community could focus for more effective changes at managing traffic:

“For a reduction in traffic projections to occur, changes in current land use, mode split, population growth, and/or culture would need to occur.”.

In sum, we all need to change the way we practice living and moving about.

In January, the city counci approved a $186,000 contract for a peer review of the D-EIS traffic projections and modeling by an outside engineering and planning firm.

Coucilman Jason Wiener had some insightful reflections on what should come from this peer review process:

The purpose of the peer review is to get the enormous volume of comments received, and the Draft Environmental Impact Statement’s analysis, reviewed by people with the technical expertise to move the prime consultants and Montana Dept of Transportation to a different solution and no commitment to the conclusions that have already been drawn…

He continues on to defend the cost of the peer review:

$186,000 is a lot of money. In a $40 million project, however, it is less than .5% of the project budget. If even one turn lane drops out of the preferred alternative, the study pays for itself in eliminated construction costs.

Read his entire comment on his post on the MissoulaGov listserv.

For more background see:
The contract with Kittelson and Associates that passed council, or Keila Szpaller’s post at Missoula Red Tape.