Iowa’s Senator Harkin Introduces “Complete Streets Act”
On Monday US Senator Tom Harkin of Iowa introduced "The Complete Streets Act of 2008," a bill "to promote the design of streets that are safe for all of those using the street -- including motorists, bus riders, bicyclists, and pedestrians, including people with disabilities."
"Making our streets bike and pedestrian friendly is a win-win for us all," said Harkin. "It not only promotes healthier lifestyles, it lowers the amount of traffic congestion that many people deal with every day."
A recent study by the Texas Transportation Institute found that providing more travel options, including public transportation, bicycling and walking facilities, is an important element in reducing traffic congestion. The study reported that congestion was responsible for an annual $78.2 billion loss in fuel during traffic jams in 2005, an increase from $57.6 billion in 2000.
Also, as recently as 30 years ago, up to 70 percent of children were walking or riding bikes to school. Currently, the number has dropped to only 10 percent. Parents report that traffic safety is the main reason they do not permit their children to walk or bike to school. This legislation will make our environment more inviting for physical activity, especially for kids.
Though S.2686 would require states and Metropolitan Planning Organizations to adopt policies to ensure "that the safety and convenience of all users of the transportation system shall be accommodated," and though it calls for measurable performance standards, the bill includes Hummer-sized loopholes, such as exemptions in cases where the "cost of establishing complete facilities would be excessively disproportionate to the need or probable use." So while it may be an important symbolic gesture, it remains to be seen what tangible impact it would have if passed.
Upon introduction the Complete Streets Act had one co-sponsor, fellow Democratic Senator Tom Carper of Delaware.
RSS feed for comments on this post.
I'd call my Senator and ask her to support it but she's too busy answering imaginary phone calls on prop phones.
Comment by ddartley — March 5, 2008 @ 2:09 pm | Link
I think we need to embrace this bill whole-heartily to encourage progress on this issue. No bills avoid loop-holes, and it is sensible that rural roads not be made to have distinct bike lanes, sidewalks, etc...
This legislation will get Americans thinking about alternative transportation again. Soon we'll need to drop the term "alternative" once the movement goes mainstream. But that is for tomorrow. For now, go Harkin!
Comment by Geoffrey Hall — March 5, 2008 @ 4:01 pm | Link
A symbolic gesture is better than no gesture at all.
Ddartley, you'd be much better off contacting Schumer anyway, since he's actually interested in representing New Yorkers.
Comment by Josh — March 5, 2008 @ 5:22 pm | Link
Schumer isn't interested in representing New Yorkers who don't own cars.
Geoffrey, maybe it's pragmatic to ignore the holes in the bill, but I wouldn't say that it's sensible. I grew up walking and cycling on rural roads, and sustained a concussion because the only "safe" part of my road was four inches deep in loose gravel that day. Something needs to be done to make rural roads safer for non-motorized use. I don't know what, but something.
Comment by Cap'n Transit — March 5, 2008 @ 8:02 pm | Link
As a cyclist, pedestrian, and disabled person, I'd say that the biggest problem is understanding. Motorists don't seem to have any idea what it's like to be on a bicycle in traffic, or to try to cross the street when handicapped. The best way to change this would be to have those motorists become cyclists themselves (including the police), if only occasionally.
So, in that spirit, I'd endorse token measures.
Comment by Jim N — March 5, 2008 @ 9:26 pm | Link
The AARP has been pushing the "Complete Streets" idea in their monthly magazine.
Comment by da — March 5, 2008 @ 10:32 pm | Link
"Complete Streets" is a bad idea cooked up to save the auto. We can't mix the auto with bicycles and pedestrians. We have to eliminate it before it eliminates us.
Comment by fpteditors — March 6, 2008 @ 10:26 am | Link
Cap'n Transit, I too grew up walking and cycling on rural roads - luckily I was never seriously injured, though there were certainly close calls.
My point is that given limited resources, it would be more sensible - or pragmatic, depending on how you see it - to fix the much more densely populated areas' roadways.
In college, residents of my dorm had to dash across a clover interchange to get to the grocery store because some car obsessed mayor thought it was appropriate in a densely populated student neighbourhood. I'd rather lose these dangerous projects than invest in rural areas where the facilities are less likely to be used.
Certainly once the urban and suburban streets have been converted and the mindset is established you could look to carry the program across all roadways. I'd be afraid that if it went full out right away, it would either not pass in the Senate or be vetoed. Which would solve nothing... Sometimes you gotta take it one day at a time.
Comment by Geoffrey Hall — March 6, 2008 @ 3:05 pm | Link
Sure, Geoffrey, I agree that the best strategic allocation of resources is towards areas with high populations. But I think we should implement a few rural showcases, particularly in terms of popular long-distance routes. Part of the difference between the difficulties experienced by the Fat Man Walking and the relative success of Fat March is the quality of the pedestrian infrastructure.
Comment by Cap'n Transit — March 6, 2008 @ 4:05 pm | Link
If you read this and you're from Iowa, contact Senator Harkin, and thank him for this effort. I think as the price of gasoline keeps rising, $4 soon?, that the interest will increase. High prices will make this idea more appealing to a broader public. This bill is at least a few steps in the right direction.
Comment by RvW — March 19, 2008 @ 9:24 am | Link