pictures would improve this post

In these days of instant communication over the inter-tubes, people having the interwebs in their pockets, and taking pictures on the digitals, all i had was a bike and a notebook, and a grocery list. That is not to say that the grocery list really mattered. But it does indicate that I had other things to do, namely, make fajitas. This is not about fajitas. This is about the the recently announced resurfacing of Woodrow Wilson Drive.

Talking about municipal public works is boring. This is going to be very boring because of that. Also, i forgot my camera, thus, no pictures to liven the mood. Please forgive me.

Yesterday I saw a JFP (and JFP-Local) tweet about a press conference Mayor Johnson would be holding announcing the resurfacing of Woodrow Wilson Drive. I figured this would be a good chance to go and ask a question or two. Conveniently, I could combine trips and hit the grocery store afterwards, pay attention, this is almost a theme of the post.

I arrived at the corner of Peachtree and Woodrow Willson to see a small clutch of news-peoples, police officers and people of some local significance standing behind some orange traffic barrels by the park. I walked over to the cameras and leant on my bike waiting for Mayor Johnson to arrive at the podium. He announced the work to be done: a resurfacing of Woodrow Wilson, done with assistance from the MDOT Intermodal Connector Program. Work has also been approved on Mill and Pascagoula streets, presumably under the same program. Work had already been approved, and is presumably now to start, on Pearl streets. These are all being done under the guise of improving access to Union Station (which I absolutely and enthusiastically support!).

The details of the resurfacing program are as follows: The contractor is Superior Asphalt. As Woodrow Wilson is an important corridor, the work will be done to minimize disruption. The work will take place on one lane at a time, mostly at night. There will not be any work undertaken during Jackson State or JPS football games at Memorial Stadium or Newell Field, respectively. The work should start “in a week or so” and be done within three months. It is the undersanding of the Mayor that the work will take only 60 working days.

Three news cameras showed for the “turning dirt”: Fox 40, Wlbt 3 and Wapt 16. The Mayor was joined by a representative from Superior Asphalt, the City Council President, a doctor from the hospital across the street and probably somebody else. I think he mentioned that an MDOT representative could not make it.

While the photo op was going on I got to talking with an Officer Brister (im pretty sure thats his name). After opening with the standard “who are you with” we got to talking about the road and pedestrian access. We both had noticed that many people working for the hospital cross the road to get to their cars parked near Murrah. He asked me how the crossing was and said that he thought it looked scary – fast traffic on and off the interstate. I suggested a crosswalk with a warning light was needed but he said it would only make people speed up. We decided that the best option would be a pedestrian controlled red light. He encouraged me to ask the Mayor about any pedestrian accommodation they may have made.

Johnson said that there would be work done on sidewalks and crosswalks along the road. I am not sure if this is new or existing sidewalks. He did indicate that pedestrian facilities were important to development. I overheard him talking to one news man about a new development coming to Jackson. He spoke of a mixed use development where people could “work play and stay in one place” which was the trend of developments nowadays. I think this is fairly exciting for an American city, but i did not catch where this would be. He said that it would bring an estimated $2 million in tax revenue to the City when fully developed. This would be land that did not generate any tax revenue currently. Hopefully this is on a brownfield site, rehabilitating abandoned buildings is far better than paving over valuable, if unruly, greenspace.

Then he got to my real curiosity. I was wondering what sort of study was done on life cycle costs of road surfaces. A resurfacing is just a temporary solution to bad roads. I asked about different paving methods or materials and if they were studied to see if they could extend the life and value of the road. Johnson replied that they are not done on a case by case basis – suggesting alternatives to merely paving were not studied at all – but from an overall standard based on the type of road. He did mention that some alternative road materials (recycled glass or rubber) are used sometimes, but necessarily being used in this case. He did say that the standards they applied were designed to get the most bang for their buck. Without looking more deeply into the issue or studying alternatives more carefully, we may not know if we could get more bang out of that buck.

So. Speaking of road surfaces. I went to the grocery store. I got, among other things, eggs (and was told to wash them by the cashier – not necessary due to USDA regulations on egg producers). I rode my bike home. On these rough streets, my bike and I can absorb most of the smaller bumps, but the larger ones – not so much. Thankfully my eggs all remained intact – but it did get me thinking about the importance of smooth roads. Having less traffic on residential streets would certainly help slow the onset of potholes and ruts. This is one of the further, gestalt issues that should be looked at.

Improving sidewalks is important for pedestrians. Sidewalks, especially along busier roads give people a safe place to walk (ok, you knew that). In my neighborhood, in the evening, it is generally lovely and traffic free, so people walk in the streets everywhere (we also have very few sidewalks). Cyclists should not ride on sidewalks. This is dangerous for pedestrians and does not help raise visibility of cyclists on streets – which is what should be done. The most effective cycling improvements that I have noticed are cycling only streets (cut off to cars) and cycling catches at stop lights – allowing cyclists to filter out of the stopped traffic and get ahead of the cars. Motorists don’t notice cyclists amongst the cars, and its a horrible place to sit in between two cars with engines running. Cycling catches make sure the motorists see the bikes and get to the other side of the lane once the cyclist gets going.

I am a bit torn about bike lanes. They are great when they are respected – cyclists can easily fly through stopped traffic and not worry about a lane changing car not noticing them. the problem, however, is when they are not respected. People park in them, walk in them and drive in them. This is not safe for the cyclist. Additionally, merging back into traffic tends to be harder from a cycle lane than from within traffic. For example: a cycle lane on the right side of a four lane road is very difficult to move from when you need to turn left – if you were in the right lane, this maneuver would only require you to shift to the other side of the lane before changing – but without constant signaling and looking backwards (both unsafe to that extent), this is not easy to do from a bike lane. Integrating with traffic is difficult from segregated lanes. Cyclists need to move with the traffic – no salmoning! Riding on the side of the lane usually allows room for a motorist to squeeze through, and spaces between stopped cars allows the cyclist to race to the head of the queue at a stop light. Its all about maintaining smooth efficient traffic flow.

Perhaps instead of bike lanes, safe routes should be marked. Signs indicating that a road is also a key bike throughway may help. A wavy line of green paint in the lane (where it won’t get worn down by cars) with the occasional bike stencil could indicate to cyclists as well as motorists that that road is ideal for cyclists, and cars should be wary. It is the visibility of cycling that needs to be raised.

i like trains too.

Some people bemoan the lack of train connections in the US, some just complain about the lack of alternatives to the car or plane. People often ask why it is that Europe has a better (presumably defined as more dense, accessible, and frequent) rail network than the US. I am pretty sure that this question is often asked rhetorically, but I’ll answer it anyway: After World War Two, European countries invested heavily (yes, with monetary help from the US) in their damaged rail networks.

With that out of the way, I can introduce the issue at hand. There is currently a lot of excitement over the prospect of high speed rail in America. Californians passed a bond issue to finance a high speed link from LA to SF; a cabal of governors in the midwest signed an agreement to promote high speed rail; and the federal stimulus plan includes money for developing high speed corridors in several places in the country. This is all very exciting, and has undoubtedly lead to a massive surge in articles of dubious accuracy extolling the joys, benefits and statistics of high speed rail.

For clarification, I really like trains. Trains are my favorite form of transportation. I look forward to reading train industry journals online – the ones filled with advertisements for ballast tamping machines and in depth analysis on the different types of track and sleepers available. Some of my friends at university thought it was weird how much I liked trains – I could only explain my interest by saying that since I had been deprived of trains as a child, being exposed to so many made me go over the edge. It was an infatuation. One might expect me to be very excited by the prospect of having high speed rail in my own country. I’m not really.

For all of the great things that can be said about high speed rail, it is not really what we need. We need a solid, extensive, well served passenger rail network first. High speed rail would serve a few cities, when a train is traveling at 186 mph and above, it is not practical nor efficient to stop very often. Services of this speed would only serve major cities spaced over a hundred miles apart. High speed rail is designed to compete with air travel. While this is great, it limits the users of the network to those in major cities. What is needed is an expanded network, not a slimmed down one. Access to train travel needs to be increased, not restricted.

Right now, Amtrak has 44 routes. 31 of these routes only have service daily, if that often. The number of route miles served more than once daily is hardly 14% of the number served only daily (3,934 route-miles served more than daily, 28,233 route-miles served daily or less. source.). A network like this does not serve its potential customers well. What is needed is a serious attempt at making rail travel a viable travel option in the US. A more complete network would be able to feed into the inter-city routes that make money for operators.

A successful rail network could consist of three parts: Local, Inter-City and High Speed.

Local trains could share track with Inter-City trains. These would be slower, smaller trains which stop more often. Capable of speeds up to 80 mph, these trains would serve the sprawling urban areas and smaller communities along the Inter-City routes. Services could run frequently during the working day to maximize the usefulness to commuters. It should be noted that may local and state authorities already operate services like this.

Inter-City trains would run faster and stop less frequently. Routes for these services could follow major transportation corridors, and current Amtrak routes and serve cities too small for high speed service. These could run fairly frequently throughout the day. With double track, these trains could operate around 125 mph and share tracks with the local trains.

High Speed trains would run on dedicated high speed lines. Modern traction technology such as exhibited in Alstom’s AGV allow for these trains to operate at up to 220 mph. Services of this speed would compete directly with air travel and serve cities over 100 miles apart. The slower services would feed passengers into the service at major cities.

It would not be easy to build such a national network. Unfortunately, it has been a long time since American had an extensive network, and many of the miles of track have been taken up or fallen to low standards of maintenence. After all, standards for track built pre 1940’s would not be the same as the precise engineering required for high speed lines. Amtrak shares track with freight trains. Much of this is single track, and even though Amtrak gets a two hour window for travel, a single delay on a long distance train may set the train back for longer farther down the line. The tracks need to be upgraded so that Amtrak can operate at its most efficient speed. Or better yet, the government could take over the ownership of the train tracks themselves. This would allow a single body to oversee the construction and maintenance of track. Depending on the conditions of such a deal, rail operators may actually like the idea: they get to stop worrying about track maintenance, handing over cost and liability to the government; they may get an immediate cash infusion (most large train operators have high debt loads) as the government buys the track and land from them; all they have to do is subject themselves to a timetabling authority, where they could be guaranteed a slot close to when they need it.

Many people object to the idea of the government playing such a large role: owning the track, operating the trains… As far as owning the track, it does not really matter who owns it, so long as it is maintained to high standards. Most people are happy to tacitly consent to the governments ownership of roads, so the government owning other transportation infrastructure really shouldn’t bother anyone. Privatization of rail is possible, if it can be first established well enough to turn a profit. Privatization may not be needed though. State ownership of train operations is less relevant in Europe now with open access of one country to another. By this I mean that one can catch a German train in France, a French train in Italy, a Polish train in Hungary, and many other great combinations. It doesn’t matter that it is a government owning the company that owns the train, pays the conductor and picks out the decor – it is free market competition amongst government owned operators. So long as there is effective, efficient management, it does not matter that the government plays the role of sole shareholder and regulator of one or more train operators. Local and state governments could play a more active role in local and regional services, providing line with its own flavor and democratic ideal.

High speed rail is sexy, no doubt, and building an excellent network is a noble goal. With an average speed of 86 mph, the Acela, America’s only ‘high speed’ service, is laughable. It would be much more impressive to see an American Iron Horse splitting the countryside at 220+ mph. Before that is done though, we need to ensure that the rest of the passenger rail network will be strengthened. It is no use building a high speed rail network if the rest of the network falls into decay and passengers turn their backs on it due to lack of accessibility. High speed trains would certainly raise the profile of the train network, but that would be lost when potential passengers look at their options only to find that they have none.

the second picture is sideways

(for a summary of the transition team meeting which inspired this post, see this previous post)

At the public forum for Public Works, I asked the transition team how radical the new Public Works Department would be when looking for solutions to the increasingly powerful problems that we will face. This question was met with the unmoving gaze of the committee, it was not their job to talk. The problem is twofold: Jackson’s infamously crumbling infrastructure coupled with stagnating budgets. I believe that, like most problems, more ideas are the start of the solution. It appears that desperate times may call for desperate measures. Working at the same “good enough for government work” pace that typifies most city departments is simply not good enough. Better ideas are needed, radical ideas may be best.

Yes, I may mean untested ideas. Bold ideas are needed. Harvey Johnson, the steady planner and plodder, may not be the first to sign up to this, but certainly he is still willing to consider alternatives to the status quo.

Case Study: Roads.
Jackson is well known for its crumbling and potholed roads. We like to look at the roads and blame their state on our ‘unique problem’ of Yazoo Clay but mineralogy is not the only fault. The roads in Jackson are generally crumbly. Heavy traffic on main corridors wears the roads down quickly, yazoo clay and time turn residential streets into pitted stretches of asphalt. Jackson’s Public Works Department has a lot on their plate, patching holes and resurfacing large stretches of road. The problem is that they simply cannot work fast enough. There is not enough money in their 62 million dollar budget to fill all the holes and resurface all of the streets.

So the general idea that has been governing the department as far as I can tell is that they will patch major/problematic holes as they can get to them, and do major resurfacing as needed/as major outside funds come in for them. So far, this has pretty much been good enough for government work. I think that there should be more radical solutions put on the table for consideration. This is what I enquired about at the meeting. Here is one such idea:

Incorporate traffic control with road maintenance to an extreme: Close off streets within neighborhoods to force more traffic onto major roads. This will of course cause more wear on the major roads. So, on those major corridors which will be picking up most traffic, make the investment in longer lasting, maybe, concrete, roads which may last upwards of 50 years before needing maintenance. Roads within neighborhoods would carry less traffic, and slower traffic, making them more appealing and safe for pedestrians, children and cyclists. Closed off roads could be practically ignored. Even as the street surface deteriorated, there would be no urgent need to repair them, as the traffic would be slow and familiar to the street. These streets could even be replaced with gravel or other low cost surfaces.

Here is an example of a street already gone field (as far as I can tell). This is a dead end across from a park in Jackson. The street is split by a drainage creek. Artificial dividing lines would be similar to this. The road has clearly not been maintained too well as of late, and is only used by a few homes anyway. With a road like this, the city has a number of options to make maintenance cheaper:
1) Just ignore it. Doesn’t cost anything until somebody decides to sue the city for some damage they suffered by driving recklessly on it. This problem leads to…
2) Grind it down as needs be, eventually replacing it with a cheaper surface such as gravel. Costs a bit of money, but less than actually maintaining it. Long term thinking ability needed here.
3) Sell the street. Sell it to the homeowners, make a shared right of way for all the residents. It would effectively become a shared driveway, responsibility would go to the new owners. The city makes a bit of cash, and moves on.
4) Even if they didn’t sell off the whole street, they only really need to keep up a small lane of it. Is there any reason that three cars abreast could fit down this road which leads to three houses?

Obviously, I am not an engineer. I am prepared to be heckled by engineers for my generally unsubstantiated ideas. I hope that people will at least realize that there should be more open discussion of ideas to make the department more effective. There are new ideas, and different ideas which may be better for the city.

This is not the only ‘radical’ solution that I have cracked up. Having control of utility lines and mains offers great possibilities. Maybe Jackson could lay a robust, upgradable fiber optic network to rent back to content distributers. Perhaps we could lure more companies here with a promise of low cost of living and an absolutely cracking fiber optic network. (Yes, we already have a good network leftover from WorldCom’s heyday, but lets make a better, more upgradable one.

The city spends plenty of money sending its waste to the dump. Reducing this amount saves money for the city. Promoting recycling and possibly composting by offering incentives to recycle more and throw away less would go a long way towards saving money and making Jackson more livable.

So, what I mean by this post, is this: Is the new administration willing to consider different, possibly more radical solutions to the problems that it will face (which we have faced for a long time)?

Recommended reading:
Concrete v. Asphalt
Closing roads to cut congestion

Inauguration tonight. Don’t forget about the public forums!

sharing ideas with the public works transition team

What happened: Mayor Harvey Johnson’s transition team for public works is preparing a report for him, this was the public’s chance to give input. Our words would be recorded and the team plans to use our input and data to form their report. They will need more data than they got today. The meeting took place in city hall. The transition team was introduced, with Mr. Matt Thomas at the helm. Other team members flanked him, including the Reverend Damuel Boyd, Tommy Darnell, Calvin Dean, Ruthania Hudson and Waddell Nejam. The event was facilitated by Dr. Bill Cooley. Mr. Thomas opened thanking people for showing, and saying how important it was that people give their input. The public works department operates on a 62 million dollar budget and consists of the road and infrastructure maintenance side as well as the water billing department.

I saw the notification of this series of forums by chance on the Jackson Free Press website. Granted, it was a very high chance that I would have seen it, as I have their RSS feed in my browser, but a chance nonetheless. It did not seem well advertised, as this was only announced sometime the morning of the 29th, with the meeting on the 30th. When I arrived at the meeting, my suspicions were confirmed. There was one news van outside, and the room was sparsely populated.

Originally I thought that there would be more discussion with the transition team. I also thought that the Mr. Johnson would be there, to share ideas and take criticism. This was not the case. Dr. Cooley stood at front with the microphone and invited audience members to the front to pitch their ideas at how to improve public works in Jackson. This felt a bit awkward at first, as I had no idea what sort of thing to say to a transition team, not knowing their background, expertise, or authority on implementing these ideas.

The first speaker was a city worker who bemoaned the shape of the roads where she lived. No sidewalks and terrible condition of streets coupled with irregular, and unreliable garbage pick up made the area a horrible place to live. The transition team looked on in somber silence. This was a good point about garbage collection which was reflected later in comments by an out of towner who commented on the large amounts of sometimes unnecessary waste which the city is paying to have dumped. Perhaps we should deal with our waste more efficiently. Although it was not mentioned explicitly in the meeting, recycling, lawn/tree waste and possibly compost material could be removed from our waste system more effectively, saving, and possibly generating money for the City of Jackson.

A young Mr. Upkins praised the Jackson Metro Parkway as an excellent roadway which was well maintained. He then turned to voice concerns over the long term prospects, wanting to know if regular maintenance, mowing, street sweeping would be taken care of. He felt that the area could do with more beautification, moving utilities underground and adding public green space. Improvements such as these would promote the social improvement and economic growth of the area, he hinted.

Another gentleman stood up to speak. Instead of bringing the hopeful tones of the previous speaker, he came down to criticize the department for their inaction. He brought up past arguments with the department including a burst water main that took three months to be completely resolved, an overflowing creek flooding his and neighborhood properties that took over a year to be seen to. He noted that foreclosures in the area meant that yards were left strewn with the insides of homes and only attention from the news brought any action. He recalled an episode in which “the worst road crew in the world” was brought in to re-pave a road, when they had finished, the road looked “about the same” as when they had started. It was his luck to live in Ward 1, where things actually did get done, he said. He later lamented that he had been told that homeowners were responsible for maintaining their own gutters, but could not believe that he was the person to fix all 35 feet of his crumbling gutter. He highlighted communication and inactivity problems which have characterized the department of Public Works in the past.

Mr. Anderson (von Anderson?) took the floor with three key points. While he was appreciative of the pothole reporting hotline (601-960-POTH) he said more use of online reporting could be made. I would like to point out that there is an awkward comments form that can be used for just that but his idea can be taken further with mapping and response capabilities. Perhaps the online form could map complaints as well as be updated whenever crews fill potholes in. Noting that Jackson was the capital of a rural state, and we have a lot of old trees, he introduced his idea that the Public Works department invest in wood-chipping machines. This goes back to what appears to be a theme of the night on dealing with waste effectively and efficiently. The department could certainly use some new methods, systems and ideas in that area. Finally he proposed rolling dumpster days. Making more regularly scheduled days for a dumpster to be placed in an area for the residents to use. It used to be the case that people could dump off extra waste and recycling at fire stations, but as far as I know, that was discontinued long ago. Rolling dumpsters allow residents to dispose of extra large items more conveniently, as well as promote general cleanliness of neighborhoods. If these were organized more regularly, people could participate more effectively. He also noted that communication problems between citizens, the government and fellow citizens should be addressed in order to make these solutions more viable.

It was here (at 18:18) that we were pleasantly interrupted by Mr. Harvey Johnson himself. In between meetings, the incoming executive stopped by to thank everyone for attending. He promised a more transparent supportive government which would not be a “black box”, opaque to its citizens.

After yielding the floor to Mr. Johnson, I appealed to the committee to work to ensure that this citizen input would continue throughout the administration. Citizen input as well as feedback from all sides of the issue is important to ensure effective operation of the Public Works department. I asked how far the new department would go to solve problems of an increasingly dilapidated infrastructure and possibly shrinking budgets. I would like to see radical steps taken, thinking out of the box and trying solutions which may not have been tried before. It is not easy to tell a crowd of older Mississippians that we must try new solutions, but I tried to go delicately.

There were further ideas thrown about, including a desire to have online water bills. One man called for more transparency and review to contract bids. One suggestion was that department heads piggyback on the COPS community meetings and engage with the citizenry on a monthly basis alongside the police force. The facilitator, Dr. Cooley, amusingly announced that he “Just recieved a tweet! Well, actually it was a handwritten sheet.” Someone wanted discussion on whether or not there should be a rating system on which streets should be attended to first. A slight discussion ensued. Two people speaking expressed partial support for a rating system, but that it should have factors other than citizen voting. I agree, some objective importance of roads should be assessed, in terms of use, economic development, and emergency situation use. There should be more science of traffic control employed.

I again returned to the floor to address the need for proper investment in out infrastructure. I proposed a somewhat modular system for infrastructure, an “infrastructure for infrastructure.” The idea I had was that while water and sewer mains were upgraded, space could be left for fiber optic lines, traffic control devices and the like. Upgrading the infrastructure in such a way as to expand its capability would make Jackson a more appealing location for businesses (especially with improved fiber optic networks). Proper investment is needed to provide quality roads and infrastructure which will not need to be replaced often and will be easily upgradable and pay off in the long run – a time span difficult for the average politician to comprehend.

Mr. Matt Thomas ended with a promise that our input would not fall on deaf ears. The meeting was recorded and notes were taken. The information that we provided would be reviewed as the committee crafted its report for Mr. Johnson. He said that he was “in the book” and we should look him up and get in touch. He would be pleased to meet with anyone. Unfortunately, I was unable to decide who he was in “the book” there being a Mat, Matt and Matthew Thomas, of Jackson, Clinton and Madison, respectively. If anyone does manage to get in touch with him, please, don’t ask him for a job, there are vacancies which you may apply for, but don’t ask him for a job. Also, do not ask who he is hiring or firing, as that is not his remit.

In all, it was a decent public forum. I would have appreciated more input from the transition team, and maybe some substantiation of the idea that citizen input would be appreciated throughout the administration. I didn’t propose any specific ideas in the meeting, but may in a later post.