DOCSLIB.ORG

Grand Parkway State Highway 99 Segment E

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Grand Parkway State Highway 99 Segment E Final Environmental VOLUME Impact Statement II From IH 10 to US 290 Grand Parkway Harris County, Texas State Highway 99 Segment E FHWA-TX-EIS-02-01-F November 2007 Document Organization The Grand Parkway Segments E, F-1, F-2, and G study area is divided into four Segments of Independent Utility (SIUs) to facilitate planning, design, and construction because limited state and federal funding provides no assurance that all the Grand Parkway segments would be constructed. Each SIU would connect at least two existing major transportation corridors to ensure independent utility as well as independent significance as required by the U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT), Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) regulations (23 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] 771.111[f]). The Segment E Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) is organized in a four-volume set in response to public and resource agency comments concerning potential cumulative effects of Segment E and the need to assess this segment as a facility with independent utility and logical termini, as follows: Volume I presents analyses and results common to all four segments, including project description, the need for and purpose of the project, alternatives considered, affected environment, indirect and cumulative effects, and agency and public coordination; Volume II provides a detailed assessment of Segment E relative to its project area. It includes issues, permits, and federal actions particular to Segment E, such as the need for and purpose of the project; alternatives considered; affected environment; environmental consequences; avoidance, minimization, and mitigation measures; indirect and cumulative effects; and agency and public coordination; Volume III contains Exhibits and Appendices referenced in Volumes I and II; and Volume IV includes materials related to the Segment E Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) Public Hearing, comments submitted, and responses provided following the release of the Segment E DEIS in February 2003. The volume covers and section tabs for Segment E are color coded (Volume I [Green, common to Segments E, F-1, F-2, and G] and Volume II/III/IV [Pink, Segment E specific]) to help the reader navigate through the document. The following highlights how Segment E is structured in relation to the FEISs for Segments F-1, F-2, and G: I II II II II III III III III IV IV IV IV VOLUME II TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................................................................1 SECTION 1: PROJECT NEED AND PURPOSE .............................................................................................................1-1 1.1 NEED FOR AND PURPOSE OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT..............................................................................1-1 1.2 DETAILED TRANSPORTATION NEEDS ANALYSIS.............................................................................................1-4 1.2.1 SYSTEM LINKAGE........................................................................................................................................1-4 1.2.2 EXPANDED CAPACITY .................................................................................................................................1-5 1.2.3 SAFETY ....................................................................................................................................................1-11 1.2.4 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ........................................................................................................................1-13 SECTION 2: ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS......................................................................................................................2-1 2.1 CORRIDOR STUDY................................................................................................................................................2-2 2.1.1 CORRIDOR A ..............................................................................................................................................2-3 2.1.2 CORRIDOR B ..............................................................................................................................................2-3 2.1.3 CORRIDOR C ..............................................................................................................................................2-3 2.1.4 CORRIDOR RESOURCE INVENTORY..............................................................................................................2-3 2.1.5 AGENCY AND PUBLIC COORDINATION ..........................................................................................................2-4 2.1.6 CORRIDOR REVISIONS ................................................................................................................................2-8 2.1.7 PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE CORRIDOR RECOMMENDATION ...........................................................................2-9 2.2 TRANSPORTATION MODE STUDY ......................................................................................................................2-9 2.2.1 NO-BUILD ALTERNATIVE............................................................................................................................2-10 2.2.2 BUILD ALTERNATIVE..................................................................................................................................2-15 2.2.3 ALTERNATIVE TRANSPORTATION MODES ELIMINATED FROM DETAILED STUDY ............................................2-16 2.2.4 ALTERNATIVE TRANSPORTATION MODES ADVANCED FOR FURTHER STUDY ................................................2-17 2.2.5 TRAFFIC AND TRANSPORTATION ANALYSIS ................................................................................................2-18 2.2.6 PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE TRANSPORTATION MODE..................................................................................2-24 2.3 ALTERNATIVE ALIGNMENT STUDY...................................................................................................................2-25 2.3.1 ALTERNATIVE ALIGNMENTS DEVELOPMENT................................................................................................2-25 2.3.2 SCREENING PROCESS...............................................................................................................................2-27 2.3.3 ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS RESULTS ...........................................................................................................2-28 2.3.4 PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE ALIGNMENT SUMMARY......................................................................................2-33 SECTION 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT......................................................................................................................3-1 3.1 LAND USE AND TRANSPORTATION PLANNING ................................................................................................3-1 3.1.1 HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT PATTERNS........................................................................................................3-1 3.1.2 EXISTING LAND USE....................................................................................................................................3-1 3.1.3 LAND USE PLANNING ..................................................................................................................................3-3 3.1.4 TRANSPORTATION PLANNING ......................................................................................................................3-4 3.1.5 JOINT DEVELOPMENT..................................................................................................................................3-5 3.2 GEOLOGY, SOILS, AND FARMLANDS .................................................................................................................3-5 3.2.1 GEOLOGY...................................................................................................................................................3-5 3.2.2 SOILS.........................................................................................................................................................3-6 3.2.3 FARMLANDS ...............................................................................................................................................3-7 3.3 SOCIAL CHARACTERISTICS ................................................................................................................................3-9 GRAND PARKWAY FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT – VOLUME II, SEGMENT E 3.3.1 POPULATION CHARACTERISTICS..................................................................................................................3-9 3.3.2 SOCIAL/COMMUNITY RESOURCES..............................................................................................................3-12 3.3.3 PUBLIC LANDS ..........................................................................................................................................3-13 3.4 ECONOMICS ........................................................................................................................................................3-13 3.4.1 ECONOMIC CONDITIONS............................................................................................................................3-13 3.5 PEDESTRIANS AND BICYCLISTS.......................................................................................................................3-17
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Sustaining the KCMO Boulevard and Parkway System
    KCMO Boulevard and Parkway System The “Three Legs” Sustaining the KCMO Boulevard and Parkway System KCMO Boulevard and Parkway System History Geometry Land Use Questions What was the purpose of the parks and boulevard system in Kansas City, Missouri? History What are the defining characteristics of a boulevard and a parkway? Geometry What makes them different from an ordinary street or each other? Land Use Perspective History, geometry, and land use are the three things that set our Boulevards & Parkways apart from being “any other street”. The changes requested to the zoning code are a necessary and vital part to the preservation of Kansas City’s Neighborhoods and the Boulevard & Parkway system! History The answers can be found in: a) the 1893 Report of the Board of Park Commissioners; “The Kansas City Park System and Its Effect on the City Plan” by George E. Kessler; b) various Annual Reports to the Board of Commissioners; c) the 1920 booklet “Souvenir” The Park and Boulevard System of Kansas City, Missouri; d) the historic surveys that were completed in 1989 and 1991 and e) the Boulevard and Parkway Standards adopted by Board of Park Commissioners August 28, 2010 History In 1917 Kessler stated: “The boulevards and parkways of Kansas City have accomplished the real purpose outlined by Mr. Meyer in the first report 1893, namely, the tying together all sections and the uniting of Kansas City as a whole into a community whose purposes and actions are for the benefit of the city as a whole at all times.” History Purpose of the Historic Parks, Boulevard & Parkway System Make communication between the different sections of the city, commercial, residential and to some extent industrial direct and distinctive.
    [Show full text]
  • Truly Spectacular!
    Directions to Western Park Entrance Directions to Eastern Park Entrance Hiking Paths Observation Decks Sussex WESTERN PARK ENTRANCE Sussex Corner Fundy Trail All trail distances are one-way unless indicated with an * Accessible off trails within the parkway - may require a Parkway Easy Moderate Strenuous short hike Waterford St. Martins Hearst Lodge A Multi-Use Trail 10 km 1 Flowerpot Rock – 1 9 Sluiceway Observation Deck Alma Harbour 39 km Opening B Sea Captains’ Burial Ground Footpath 0.34 km 2 Flowerpot Rock – 2 10 Suspension Footbridge Sea Caves 2021 7 km H C Flowerpot Rock Scenic Footpath 1.5 km 3 Flowerpot Rock – 3 Observation Deck P9 I D 11 Interpretive Centre Bradshaw Scenic Footpath 0.6 km 4 Fuller Falls EASTERN PARK ENTRANCE Observation Deck E Pioneer Trail Loop * 0.48 km Observation Deck Fundy Trail Parkway 12 Tufts’ Plateau F Big Salmon River Loop * 1.2 km 5 Lighthouse Map Legend Lookouts Beaches G Suspension Footbridge Trail 0.39 km 13 Long Beach Observation Deck Easily accessed by driving James Catt Observation Deck 0 Beach 1 Melvin Beach L H 14 McCumber Brook 4 the parkway Monument 7 10 Hearst Lodge Scenic Footpath 2.7 km 6 Isle Haute EASTERN PARK Electric Vehicle Charge Station 2 Pangburn Beach I Cranberry Brook Loop * 4.8 km Observation Deck 1 1 Fox Rock Lookout Mitchell Franklin Bridge Observation Deck ENTRANCE S F Fundy Trail Parkway - 30 km 3 Big Salmon River Beach Suspension 6 J Big Salmon to Long Beach Footpath 4.4 km 15 McCumber Brook 2 Fownes Head Lookout 7 Waterfowl ROUTE TO (cars, buses, motorcycles) 4 Long Beach
    [Show full text]
  • See Our Park Map of Water Bottle Refill Stations!
    D V L B S Spotts Park O’Reilly St T Sawyer St H I E Snover St Snover Jackson Hill St Hill Jackson THEWATERWORKS H Zane and Brady Washington Glenwood N Memorial Way HOUSTONAVE SHEPHERDDR Cemetery Cemetery buffalo BAYO U EORIALDR Carruth Overlook Carruth STUDEONTST Bridge EORIALDR Green Tree to Sixth Ward Nature Area 0.40 M.D. Anderson Buffalo Bayou has been a focal point in Houston’s Foundation Stairway Cleveland Park Fonde history since the Allen brothers founded the city in 0.42 Rec. Center (weekends and evenings aer 1836. Today, the bayou is once again the centerpiece Houston Police Tapley 5pm only) Hamill Foundation Stairway Officers’ Memorial Tributary St Sabine of its development. Rosemont Bridge Rusk St » St. Thomas High School 0.18 Buffalo Bayou Partnership (BBP) is the non-profit organiza- 0.80 0.56 Shepherd Gateway Scurlock Foundation Overlook LDR ORIA Lee & Joe Jamail Hobby Center tion revitalizing and transforming Buffalo Bayou from a gi from the Radoff Family E Sabine Promenade Jackson Hill Bridge Skatepark Bridge Shepherd Drive to the Port of Houston Turning Basin. From to Memorial Park 0.39 Jane Gregory spearheading capital projects such as the 160-acre Buffalo EORIALDR Hobby 1.14 Garden Center 0.45 Bayou Park to constructing hike and bike trails, operating Neumann Family Barbara Fish Daniel comprehensive clean-up and maintenance programs and Wortham Foundation Stairway Nature Play Area Waugh Grove offering thoughtful programming, Buffalo Bayou Partnership Bat Colony ALLENPKWY Brookfield Bridge « Walker St is reclaiming Houston’s unique waterfront. JOHNNYSTEELE Federal Reserve Bank City Hall Bud Light Amphitheater Crosby McKinney St » Annex This map will guide you as you walk, run, cycle or paddle LOSTLAKE DOPARK Outfall ONTROSEBLVD TAFTST Gillette St Gillette ELEANORTINSLEYPARK Bagby St City along the waterway and visit the many parks and historic SHEPHERDDR WAUHDR Sam Houston Park Hall sites.
    [Show full text]
  • Boulevards and Parkways Seattle Open Space 2100 Boulevards + Parkways Diego Velasco
    Boulevards and Parkways Seattle Open Space 2100 Boulevards + Parkways Diego Velasco Ocean Parkway, Brooklyn in 1890 - Jacobs, Macdonald, Rofe, The Boulevard Book, 2002 Photo Jacobs, Macdonald, Rofe, The Boulevard Book, 2002 A multiway boulevard is a “ mixed-use public way that is by its very nature complex” Alan Jacobs, 2002 A boulevard or parkway is a wide urban street with tree-lined sidewalks and often multiple lanes of both fast and slow moving traffic. Boulevards are usually pleasant and grand promenades, flanked by rich, monumental architecture and supporting a variety of street uses. They are often “monumental links between important destina- tions.” 1 More importantly, boulevards can be open space systems that serve multiple functions at once: movement of traffic, provision of green space in the city, relief of congestion in overcrowded areas, accommodation of pedestrians and bicycles, and the nurturing of vital street life and activity in the city. Boulevards date back to the 16th century, when medieval towns abandoned their fortified walls and converted them to tree-lined walkways for public recreation. Cities like Amsterdam and Strasbourg were among the first to develop obsolete ramparts into pleasure promenades. In 1670, Louis XIV abandoned the walls of Paris and replaced these with promenades that served as the parade grounds of aristocrats and the well-to-do. These were also known as cours or allees, such as the Cour de la Reine, which extended alongside the palatial gardens of the Tuileries.1 In the mid-19th to early-20th century, boulevards came to be associated with large- scale planning efforts, such as those of Napoleon III and Baron Haussmann in Paris or City Beautiful movements in the United States.
    [Show full text]
  • Appendix B. Threatened and Endangered Species
    Appendix B. Threatened and Endangered Species This appendix summarizes information on population and habitat trends to date for Federally-listed T&E (threatened and endangered) species with the potential to occur on the NFGT during FY 11. Habitat and population trends are evaluated in relation to the Plan’s requirements, forest and USFWS (United States Fish and Wildlife Service) Recovery Plan implementation and risks to the species. The following table summarizes the status and location of those Federally-listed T&E or (C) candidate species that could potentially occur on the NFGT during FY 11. This table is derived from a combination of information from the USFWS, U.S. Forest Service and other natural resource information. It shows which species are known to occur or have potential to occur near (within counties surrounding) the NFGT. The table is used by NFGT personnel to identify those species potentially present on each respective unit that must be considered during site-specific project analysis. In a letter dated January 8, 2008, the NFGT requested concurrence from the USFWS to no longer consider the following species in Biological Evaluations prepared for projects on the NFGT: Texas Trailing Phlox, American Chaffseed, Houston Toad, Whooping Crane, Interior Least Tern, and the Piping Plover. These species or their habitat were not known to occur on NFGT lands. Concurrence was received from the USFWS on February 8, 2008. Table 1. NFGT Potential Endangered and Threatened Species Species Scientific Epithet Status SAB ANG DC SH CADDO
    [Show full text]
  • Texas Prairie Dawn-Flower (Hymenoxys Texana) 5-Year Review
    Texas prairie dawn-flower (Hymenoxys texana) 5-Year Review: Summary and Evaluation Photo credit: USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Texas Coastal Ecological Services Field Office Houston, Texas Table of Contents ABBREVIATIONS ........................................................................................................................ 3 1.0 GENERAL INFORMATION .......................................................................................... 4 2.0 REVIEW ANALYSIS ...................................................................................................... 7 2.4 SYNTHESIS .................................................................................................................. 24 3.0 RESULTS....................................................................................................................... 25 4.0 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FUTURE ACTIONS.................................................... 26 5.0 REFERENCES ............................................................................................................... 28 Appendix A ................................................................................................................................... 31 Recommendation resulting from the 5-Year Review: .................................................................. 34 Figures Figure 1 Current H. texana county occurrences ............................................................................. 9 Tables Table 1 Renaming of species historically associated with H. texana ..........................................
    [Show full text]
  • SOUTHERN PARKWAY Rightsizing for a Safer, Calmer, and More Inclusive Street WELCOME
    SOUTHERN PARKWAY Rightsizing for a safer, calmer, and more inclusive street WELCOME To help this meeting run as smoothly If you are new to WebEx, please take note of as possible, please consider the following some of the functions below. tips: If you have a question type it in the chat box and the facilitator will address​ You were automatically muted when you entered the meeting. To request to be un-muted, please raise your hand or put your request in the chat box. If others in your house are using streaming services, consider asking them to pause for the duration of the presentation Who, what, when, where, why? WHO: Louisville Metro Government and Kentucky Transportation Cabinet (KYTC) WHAT: Rightsizing is restriping the road from 4 lanes to 3, with a two-way left turn lane (center turn lane) and dedicated left turn lanes at certain intersections. WHEN: May 2021 WHERE: Southern Parkway between 3rd Street/Oakdale Avenue and Woodlawn Avenue/Kenwood Way WHY: This section of Southern Parkway, which is owned and maintained by KYTC, will be milled, paved, and striped in May. To save costs and improve safety at the same time, we intend to restripe Southern Parkway with a new configuration proven to improve safety. 3rd Street / Oakdale Ave. Where? Woodlawn Ave. / Kenwood Way Why rightsize? TO IMPROVE SAFETY Proven safety countermeasure to DECREASE both the number and severity of CRASHES (FHWA). Reduce speeding. Reduce weaving by separating left- turning traffic from through-traffic. Improve pedestrian safety by reducing the number of lanes people must cross at intersections.
    [Show full text]
  • PSD GHG Biological Assessment for Air Liquide
    Biological Assessment Report Air Liquide Bayou Cogeneration Plant Pasadena, Texas June 18, 2013 www.erm.com Delivering sustainable solutions in a more competitive world Air Liquide Biological Assessment Report June 18, 2013 Project No. 0151579 Bayou Cogeneration Plant Pasadena, Texas Peter T. Belmonte, P.E. Partner-in-Charge Siddharth (Sid) Rajmohan Project Manager Environmental Resources Management 15810 Park Ten Place, Suite 300 Houston, Texas 77084-5140 T: 281-600-1000 F: 281-600-1001 Texas Registered Engineering Firm F-2393 TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY VI 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1 1.1 SITE LOCATION AND HISTORY 1 1.2 PROJECT PURPOSE AND NEED 2 2.0 THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES REGULATORY FRAMEWORK4 2.1 FEDERAL REGULATIONS 5 2.1.1 Federal Endangered Species Act 5 3.0 IDENTIFICATION OF ACTION AREA 6 4.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION 9 4.1 PROJECT LOCATION 9 4.2 EMISSIONS CONTROLS 9 4.3 NOISE LEVELS 11 4.4 DUST 11 4.5 WASTEWATER 11 5.0 ENVIRONMENTAL BASELINE 12 5.1 METHODOLOGY 12 5.2 FEDERALLY LISTED THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES, DESIGNATED CRITICAL HABITAT, AND OTHER PROTECTED SPECIES OF POTENTIAL OCCURRENCE IN THE ACTION AREA 12 5.3 FEDERALLY LISTED THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES AND DESIGNATED CRITICAL HABITAT 13 5.3.1 Texas Prairie dawn-flower (Federal Endangered) 13 5.3.2 West Indian manatee (Federal Endangered) 14 5.3.3 Houston Toad 15 5.3.4 Red-Cockaded Woodpecker 15 5.3.5 Whooping Crane 16 5.3.6 Smalltooth Sawfish 17 5.3.7 Louisiana Black Bear 17 5.3.8 Red Wolf 18 5.3.9 Green Sea Turtle 18 5.3.10 Kemp’s Ridley Sea Turtle 19
    [Show full text]
  • 2021 LIMITED ACCESS STATE NUMBERED HIGHWAYS As of December 31, 2020
    2021 LIMITED ACCESS STATE NUMBERED HIGHWAYS As of December 31, 2020 CONNECTICUT DEPARTMENT OF Transportation BUREAU OF POLICY AND PLANNING Office of Roadway Information Systems Roadway INVENTORY SECTION INTRODUCTION Each year, the Roadway Inventory Section within the Office of Roadway Information Systems produces this document entitled "Limited Access - State Numbered Highways," which lists all the limited access state highways in Connecticut. Limited access highways are defined as those that the Commissioner, with the advice and consent of the Governor and the Attorney General, designates as limited access highways to allow access only at highway intersections or designated points. This is provided by Section 13b-27 of the Connecticut General Statutes. This document is distributed within the Department of Transportation and the Division Office of the Federal Highway Administration for information and use. The primary purpose to produce this document is to provide a certified copy to the Office of the State Traffic Administration (OSTA). The OSTA utilizes this annual listing to comply with Section 14-298 of the Connecticut General Statutes. This statute, among other directives, requires the OSTA to publish annually a list of limited access highways. In compliance with this statute, each year the OSTA publishes the listing on the Department of Transportation’s website (http://www.ct.gov/dot/osta). The following is a complete listing of all state numbered limited access highways in Connecticut and includes copies of Connecticut General Statute Section 13b-27 (Limited Access Highways) and Section 14-298 (Office of the State Traffic Administration). It should be noted that only those highways having a State Route Number, State Road Number, Interstate Route Number or United States Route Number are listed.
    [Show full text]
  • Improving Value of Travel Time Savings Estimation for More Effective Transportation Project Evaluation
    Improving Value of Travel Time Savings Estimation for More Effective Transportation Project Evaluation BDK85 977-21 Final Report December 2011 i Improving Value of Travel Time Savings Estimation for More Effective Transportation Project Evaluation BDK85 977-21 Final Report Prepared for: Florida Department of Transportation Research Center 605 Suwannee Street, MS 30 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0450 Project Manager: Amy Datz Prepared by: Victoria A. Perk Joseph S. DeSalvo, Ph.D. Tara A. Rodrigues Nina M. Verzosa Steven C. Bovino Center for Urban Transportation Research University of South Florida 4202 E. Fowler Avenue, CUT-100 Tampa, FL 33620-5375 December 2011 i DRAFT October 2011 ii DISCLAIMER The opinions, findings, and conclusions expressed in this publication are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the State of Florida Department of Transportation. iii iv Technical Report Documentation Page 1. Report No. 2. Government Accession No. 3. Recipient's Catalog No. 4. Title and Subtitle 5. Report Date Improving Value of Travel Time Savings Estimation for More December 2011 Effective Transportation Project Evaluation 6. Performing Organization Code 7. Author(s) 8. Performing Organization Report No. Victoria A. Perk, Joseph S. DeSalvo, Tara A. Rodrigues, Nina M. Verzosa, Steven C. Bovino 9. Performing Organization Name and Address 10. Work Unit No. (TRAIS) Center for Urban Transportation Research University of South Florida 4202 E. Fowler Avenue, CUT-100 11. Contract or Grant No. Tampa, FL 33620 BDK85 977-21 12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address 13. Type of Report and Period Covered Florida Department of Transportation Final Report Research Center March 2010 – December 2011 605 Suwannee Street, MS 30 14.
    [Show full text]
  • Brooklyn-Queens Greenway Guide
    TABLE OF CONTENTS The Brooklyn-Queens Greenway Guide INTRODUCTION . .2 1 CONEY ISLAND . .3 2 OCEAN PARKWAY . .11 3 PROSPECT PARK . .16 4 EASTERN PARKWAY . .22 5 HIGHLAND PARK/RIDGEWOOD RESERVOIR . .29 6 FOREST PARK . .36 7 FLUSHING MEADOWS CORONA PARK . .42 8 KISSENA-CUNNINGHAM CORRIDOR . .54 9 ALLEY POND PARK TO FORT TOTTEN . .61 CONCLUSION . .70 GREENWAY SIGNAGE . .71 BIKE SHOPS . .73 2 The Brooklyn-Queens Greenway System ntroduction New York City Department of Parks & Recreation (Parks) works closely with The Brooklyn-Queens the Departments of Transportation Greenway (BQG) is a 40- and City Planning on the planning mile, continuous pedestrian and implementation of the City’s and cyclist route from Greenway Network. Parks has juris- Coney Island in Brooklyn to diction and maintains over 100 miles Fort Totten, on the Long of greenways for commuting and Island Sound, in Queens. recreational use, and continues to I plan, design, and construct additional The Brooklyn-Queens Greenway pro- greenway segments in each borough, vides an active and engaging way of utilizing City capital funds and a exploring these two lively and diverse number of federal transportation boroughs. The BQG presents the grants. cyclist or pedestrian with a wide range of amenities, cultural offerings, In 1987, the Neighborhood Open and urban experiences—linking 13 Space Coalition spearheaded the parks, two botanical gardens, the New concept of the Brooklyn-Queens York Aquarium, the Brooklyn Greenway, building on the work of Museum, the New York Hall of Frederick Law Olmsted, Calvert Vaux, Science, two environmental education and Robert Moses in their creations of centers, four lakes, and numerous the great parkways and parks of ethnic and historic neighborhoods.
    [Show full text]
  • Residential Street Standards & Neighborhood Traffic Control
    Residential Street Standards & Neighborhood Traffic Control: A Survey of Cities' Practices and Public Officials' Attitudes Eran Ben-Joseph Institute of Urban and Regional Planning University of California at Berkeley Abstract The failure of the local street system to provide livability and safety in the residential environment can be seen in the application of neighborhood traffic management programs by local authorities to mitigate traffic problems. In order to further identify the extent of the conflict associated with "livability" and geometrical design of residential street, the following issues are examined: (1) Existing and proposed residential streets standards and regulations as practiced by various cities and their evaluation by public and city officials. (2) Traffic problems associated with residential streets and their mitigation through traffic management and control programs. Data are collected from Public Works and Traffic Engineering Departments of 56 Californian cities and 19 cities nation-wide. The findings show that most cities are still adhering to published street standards as recommended by different professional and federal organizations. Although some city officials see the need to amend certain aspects of their regulations and create a more flexible framework for street design, most of them believe that the current practice is satisfactory. Yet, the extant of residents' complaints about traffic problems on their streets might indicate an inconsistency between professional practice, as manifested in street design, and its actual performance as experienced by the residents. This can also be seen in the application of traffic control devices used by local authorities to mitigate these problems of which the most common are the installation of speed humps and 4-way stop signs.
    [Show full text]