Since we're thinking about bicycling planning in KC (and dare I ask everyone, again, if you haven't already done so, to write a short note to the city council, plan to attend the hearing August 7th at 1:30pm, and send a short letter to the editor of the Star, Pitch Weekly, and any local newspapers in your area?), I thought you might be interesting in this article that has some thoughts about making urban areas friendly to bicycling and walking:
Sprawl, Mega-Roads, Community, and Bicycling, by Mighk Wilson
http://www.living-room.org/bikepeople/mega.htm
---------------------------
[excerpts from the article]
Now is the time to develop strategies that team vehicular cycling concepts with those that curtail encouragement of unnecessary single-occupant motor vehicle trips. These concepts include increased densities that make walking, transit, and cycling more efficient; putting an end to subdivisions with access only via a major collector or arterial; transit-friendly development; and siting schools, shopping, and other community services in closer proximity to residential areas, and preferably within them. Once this type of community design becomes common, it becomes easier to justify roads with lower design speeds and capacity. The need for the higher capacity pedestrian- and bicyclist-unfriendly roadways mentioned earlier is reduced as people discover they are finally able to use modes other than the private automobile. Shade trees (which have often been removed to improve sight lines for high-speed driving) can be returned to our neighborhoods.
. . .
I won't presume to speak for other cyclists on this last point. But I myself want to live in a place where I can cycle on any road in town without a second thought. I'm a very confident vehicular cyclist, and think I can handle any situation the engineers throw at me, but I would prefer that my trips by bike be on roads with slower speeds, shade trees (especially important here in Florida), and intersections that are simple and straightforward to negotiate. I want the engineers to quit trying to make collectors and arterials into freeways.
------------------------
I second that last bit, particularly "quit trying to make collectors and arterials into freeways".
For instance, I live about 200 feet from Raytown Trafficway. I have been questioning more and more why it is necessary and why it is beneficial to our community to have three 40MPH+ "freeways" cutting right through the heart of Raytown. (Those would be Raytown Trafficway, Blue Ridge Cutoff, and 63rd street).
These "freeways" certainly scare off pedestrians (and, as a side effect, have killed the downtown area).
They certainly scare off most people from even attempting to cycle on those (main) streets.
It seems like traffic moving at 25-30MPH would be preferable to "freeways" from many points of view.
And a 25MPH or 30MPH speed limit would lengthen the typical motor vehicle trip scarcely at all. Many studies have shown that motorists' AVERAGE speed in urban areas, doorway to doorway, is something like 13MPH. All a high speed limit like 40 or 45MPH does is give motorists permission to briefly hit a HIGH speed of 50-55MPH in between stoplights. This makes motorists feel like they are really covering some ground fast. But in realistic terms, the two main effects of this high maximum speed are to scare off pedestrians and bicyclists and to get the motorists to the next red light quicker so they can wait there longer.
IMHO.
posted by Brent Hugh at
Sunday, August 25, 2002 |
permanently archived here
