In my humble opinion, it’s a bit of a shame that we have to be reminded, as planners and engineers alike, to create streets that accommodate all types of travelers: cyclists, walkers, busriders, disabled, motorist, etc etc. This, to me, is common sense. However, since the housing crisis and boom of Post World War II, yesterday’s cities of today (even newer Planned Urban Developments (PUDs)), have been designed specifically to accommodate the automobile…and the auto only. Street classification systems of today have routinely strayed from the traditional grid pattern system that disperses traffic more efficiently. "Streets are classified into a system of increasing volume and speed: residential, collector, minor , and major arterial. This classification philosophy… purposely de-emphasizes accommodations for users other than private vehicles on the highest volume streets" (StreetsWiki). Today’s streets are congested arterials and roads—a significant difference demonstrated in the later portion of this write-up.
With current legislation supporting a reduction in greenhouse gases and other auto-related pollution (AB 32 and SB 375, specifically), city officials and politicians are turning to planners to seek the change they wish to see (hats off to Gandhi on that one- had to put that in!)—healthier, more livable streets for all. In response, a grassroots-turned-nationally-supported initiative came to the streets (pun intended) in 2007 to support a push to fully provide for what the movement deems as Complete Streets. Through policy and local initiative, the movement seeks to provide access to all types of travelers equally…without overemphasizing the presence of the automobile.
A number of cities have adopted policies to support such a movement, such as Santa Barbara, San Francisco, Sacramento, as well as, yours truly, San Diego. And that’s just in California. Boulder, CO, Bloomington, IN, Madison, WI—are just three examples of the national effort.
Yet, while the idea of better connectivity is fresh to legislation, carrying out such a vision in an efficient manner that actually accomplishes the goal, is of concern to some planning critics. Charles Marohn, writing for the New Urban Network (The New Urban Network) , speaks to the effect that it is not enough to do the Complete Streets concept lip-service by contracting engineers to manicure existing roads into more drive-able avenues for the motorists. In other words, by embarking on development under the misnomer of Complete Streets, engineers are only realizing their plans for a complete street, not the community's need for more accomodating infrastructure. The idea of complete streets is not to make the street more pleasant for the automobile (which is what Marhon is suggesting the engineers are currently doing), but to rather share the attention with all forms of transport. He argues that, post WWII, the discrepancy between streets and roads was blurred insofar as roads and streets were treated as equal parts. Let it be known: roads move high volumes of traffic at high speeds; Streets move cars at slow speeds. Marohn suggests that in plan realization, engineers are creating roads, rather than multi-purpose roads for all. Using the Complete Streets concept (and public monies, as well) to support the car culture of today is not the intention of the movement.
Complete Streets is making tremendous headway in General and Community-Specific plans today and will continue to do so in the future. Complete Streets is common sense. In the more forward thinking communities, implementation is a no-brainer. Yet, for those communities wishing to make broader strides (pun intended...again) in the walkability and livability components of their General plans, when push comes to shove, it seems that traditional modes of governance are revisited and change is deferred yet again. Look at San Diego as an example--our City, Community and Site Specific plans tout eleborate plans for better connectivity (Ex. the Inland Rail Trail, the Regional Bicycle Plan, etc) yet perhaps the largest change that has gained support is a plan to widen our local Interstate to become a mega-arterial of 14 plus lanes of shiny, new cars. Street versus Road. Automobile versus Transit. David versus Goliath. Fun!
No comments:
Post a Comment