"Stephen Harding" <
[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> There are two make/break areas in promoting bicycle or alternate transport to my mind. These are
> land use policies which you mention, and road design.
>
> Land use policies of the post WWII years are beginning to be questioned. The concept of tract
> housing, tract malls, and the entire design of suburban communities is undergoing some real
> change. Newer ideas of mixing business and domicile areas, thus reducing or at least spreading out
> motor traffic has potential. Development of communities where all citizen's household
> food/supplies, social, and entertainment needs are within reasonable walking or bicycling
> distances is quite attractive, and well recieved by people living in them, albeit usually at
> higher price.
Mixed use isn't working too well except in areas of really high density where the streetscape is
business and the residential is in the upper floors. People in "walkable" or "modern urbanist"
communities are so accustomed to driving that they continue to follow their old habits and use their
auto anyway. Many modern urbanism communities with commercial in the center and residential
surrounding (think of a donut) have empty buildings in the commercial area. Modern businesses
requires such high traffic counts that businesses buried in the core cannot compete. A more
successful solution has been to cut the donut in half with a major road. This increases traffic
counts but at the expense of dividing the "walkable" community. The downside is that it is hard for
folks to resist using this more convenient method for getting down to the local store.
> Design of roadways allowing alternate means of transport better access is also very important.
> Whether it be a clearly marked bike lane, just a wide road shoulder, or even a separate path, such
> routes are more inviting to pedestrian or bicyclist (skateboarder, scoot, et. al.). You may argue
> about the desireability of separate paths or lanes, but the roadway must become more "inviting" to
> people choosing not to use a car.
There is a lot of truth in this observation. But more appealing facilities tend to be used for
recreation instead of transportation. Not necessarily a bad thing, but it depends on the goal you
are trying to reach.
> In realist terms though, nothing is going to change until driving becomes more demanding in time
> and/or money. Either taking your car out means hours of waiting in traffic and enduring the idiocy
> of others stuck with you, or a day trip in the car clearly will take $100.00 out of your pocket
> due to high fuel and insurance costs.
I once thought this myself. I thought that increasing the cost of gas, parking, or maybe making all
the major thoroughfares into tollways would solve our transportation problems. But the truth is that
it will only price lower income folks out of their cars. Then we have a real quandry. Because of the
way our cities are constructed, they cimply cannot be serviced by public transportation.
In an ideal world, cities would be a mix of commercial and residential uses where people of all
incomes could afford to live near where they work. But then human nature kicks in. It's hard to mix
commercial and residential when the ideal residence has a private park attached to the back. It's
hard to mix uses when NIMBY (not in my back yard) is the mantra which keeps industrial and heavy
commercial centers separate from residential. It's impossible to mix uses when planning and zoning
laws are designed to keep uses separate.
But is this really a bad thing? It's hard to say. When I think about global issues, I can look
objectively at the contributions of sprawl to the problem. But as I watch my kids safely play in our
back yard, I have to say that I enjoy this priviledge. I also enjoy dragging them around our
neighborhood in the trailer, saying hello to the kids who ride their bikes and the folks who walk
their dogs. Despite the lack of sidewalks and the presence of some fairly active through streets
(with some overly active teenage drivers), we still seem to get good use of our neighborhood.
I guess what I'm getting at is the situation is so complex that simple solutions like "let's
increase gas prices" will not be effective. To fix the diabolical problems we have created, we will
have to tackle it on many fronts, something which we, as a society, aren't equipped to do. To there
is too much segmentation in our government. There are too many feifdoms which would have to be
eradicated to make any real change. What's the solution? Beats me. I'll just keep pedalling and
looking for good ideas.
-Buck
