Two proposed projects aim to change downtown Mansfield with hopes of increasing community engagement and stimulating economic activity: reunifying Central Park and converting Main and Diamond Streets to two-way traffic. Both projects propose to benefit small businesses, make downtown more walkable, and improve overall quality of life for Mansfield residents and visitors.
John Fernyak, CEO of Engwiller properties, proposed returning a section of Main and Diamond streets to two-way traffic. The other project, to reunify Mansfield’s Central Park, was initiated by a committee formed within the Richland County Community Development Group (RCDG) and led by local businessman John Siegenthaler. Both projects have outspoken supporters as well as opponents.
In an interview, the best-selling author of “Walkable City,” Jeff Speck spoke about his book and the Mansfield projects. His book aptly describes situations like those in Mansfield, but points to surprising solutions.
One such solution is the elimination of one-way streets. This excerpt seems almost like a page out of a book about Mansfield:
“One-ways wreck downtown retail districts for reasons beyond noxious driving, principally because they distribute vitality unevenly, and often in unexpected ways. They have been known to kill stores consigned to the morning path to work, since people do most of their shopping on the evening path home. They also create a situation in which half the stores on cross-streets lose their retail visibility, being located over the shoulders of passing drivers.”
Later in the book Speck describes another scenario much like the proposed central park reunification:
“The first question to ask before investing in walkability: where can spending the least money make the most difference? The answer, as obvious as it is ignored, is on streets that are already framed by buildings that have the potential to attract and sustain street life. In other words, places where an accommodating private realm already exists to give comfort and interest to an improved public realm. Most cities have their fair share of streets like this, where historic shopfronts and other attractive buildings line sidewalks that are blighted only by a high-speed, treeless roadway. Fix the street, and you’ve got the whole package, or close to it.”
While local stakeholders question the compatibility of these proposals, Speck sees the two as parts of one possible plan rather than diametrically opposed separate plans.
“Obviously the two should be part of the same plan. Resolving that sounds like a political challenge, not a planning one,” said Speck.
Much of the dissent in response to both proposals hinges on concerns about the possibility of forfeiting on street parking. Speck agrees that every effort should be made to retain on street parking. In the book he cites research indicating that business can lose up to $10,000 per year in revenue resulting from eliminated on street parking.
“This is a tough one. The loss of curb parking in front of businesses can be devastating. Retail experts and leasers will tell you that it is very hard to have a successful store without the teaser parking in front, no matter how large the reserve is elsewhere. When planning for retail, I will typically keep a one-way if the alternative is to lose a side of parking,” said Speck.
He went on to explain that there are ways to make a conversion such as the proposal in Mansfield work. Speck suggests that “left-hand turn lanes should be short, and the parking should be able to appear where these left-hand turn lanes are not.”
Speck is an advocate of two-way conversions, if possible, referencing successful conversions in other cities. In Savannah, Georgia, for example, a one-way to two-way conversion resulted in significant economic activity. Prior to the conversion the street had lost two thirds of the active (taxpaying) addresses on the street, after the conversion active addresses increased by fifty percent. Vancouver, Washington’s, one-way to two-way conversion in 2008 was an overnight success resulting in double the consumer traffic and exposure for businesses and no added traffic congestion.
Much of the concern that the two proposals are incompatible hinges on whether two-way traffic surrounding the proposed reunified central park would cause traffic congestion. The Richland County Regional Planning Commission (RCRPC) conducted a traffic study utilizing a method of measurement known as Level of Service (LOS). This particular approach is a vehicle-centric model, and urban planners are increasingly less inclined to use it as the sole measure for planning.
The traffic study suggested there was some reason for concern. But Speck explained that LOS studies are not as widely used as they once were. Some states are implementing the Travel Time Index and Reliablity metrics for thorough studies.
Speck has a seemingly radical suggestion to make both of these proposals possible–less traffic lights. He suggested that two-way traffic coupled with four-way stops is the optimal solution for Mansfield. Speck conceded he couldn’t suggest a definitive plan without visiting Mansfield, but he did speculate.
“You need signals against the Lincoln Highway. Every other intersection in your downtown could probably be two-lane two-way with a four-way stop. This may sound radical, but we are doing it in conservative Cedar Rapids,” he said.
He went on to explain that this could also be a cost saving measure, “In Cedar Rapids, we brought in an engineering firm to vet my recommendations. When an out-of-town consultant says that something will work, people have more confidence. Also, each new street signal costs about $150,000. Isn’t it worth spending five figures to avoid spending a million on lights, and perhaps save a million in future light replacement? In Cedar Rapids, we are effectively paying for our modifications with the money that we will save from signals not needed in the future.”
Are projects in larger cities applicable here?
Mansfield is considerably smaller than Cedar Rapids, but Speck argues that even so the approach should be the same, “I just did a downtown plan for Ada, Michigan, Pop. 9,882, and I used the same approach to walkability, which I learned from cities, towns, and villages. But Mansfield is not a small town. It’s a small city, and quite an urban one at that.”
His advice is to look at comparable cities and learn what we can. “Some ideas, like a subway, are not applicable, and others, like bringing back a two-way network, certainly are. Understanding which lessons from other places are most useful to you is a big challenge, but you can benefit from looking at other small cities that have achieved positive outcomes. The challenge is to find similar-sized cities — or cities that average out to similar size– that have accomplished what you are considering. Certainly, turning local streets from pedestrian-unfriendly to friendly is a universally beneficial outcome,” said Speck.
If you’d like to learn more about Speck’s thoughts on walkability you can view his TED talk here: http://www.ted.com/talks/jeff_speck_the_walkable_city.html
“When an out-of-town consultant says that something will work, people have more confidence. Also, each new street signal costs about $150,000. Isn’t it worth spending five figures to avoid spending a million on lights, and perhaps save a million in future light replacement,” asks “Walkable City” author Jeff Speck.
