Comments on: Don’t Let Fear Hold You Back

By: Laurence Aurbach

Laurence Aurbach — Tue, 24 Mar 2009 00:54:01 +0000

Stephanie, it is because what one generally sees in Complete Streets literature is a call to consider all users equally. For instance, the MassHighway document says that:

Ultimately, thoughtful consideration and evaluation of all modes should result in a robust, multimodal transportation system for the Commonwealth that accommodates all users safely and efficiently within the public right-of-way.

Sounds pretty sensible, and it is certainly better than the status quo. No question. But since it doesn’t go any farther than that, it fails to set priorities. Contrast to the UK Manual for Streets which states:

It is recommended that the design of a scheme should follow the user hierarchy …

Consider first
Pedestrians
Cyclists
Public transport users
Specialist service vehicles
(e.g. emergency services, waste, etc.)
Other motor traffic
Consider last

That is a clearly defined set of priorities.

By: Stefanie

Stefanie — Mon, 23 Mar 2009 15:47:35 +0000

Laurence, I’m curious as to why you think complete streets say nothing about transportation priorities when dealing with limited resources. The “complete streets” concept is not about singular corridors, but about a complete overhaul of the transportation policy – meaning all users are assumed from a project’s inception. It’s about using the existing funds wisely, balancing all needs appropriately. Furthermore, as we need to flexible in how to apply these policies, taking context and future need for the facility into account. One wouldn’t build a 10′ sidewalk in rural Arkansas.

You may want to look at some new design guides to understand how this works on the ground. For example, MassHighway’s Project Development and Design Guide looks at ROW from the curb in – rather than the center line out. The City of Decatur, GA’s Community Transportation Plan actually designs the ROW for every street in town – you’ll see how it varies according to context and use.

By: Laurence Aurbach

Laurence Aurbach — Mon, 23 Mar 2009 13:42:31 +0000

Right now the priority of U.S. surface transportation policy, spoken or unspoken, is moving more and more cars at faster and faster speeds. Everything else gets whatever crumbs are left over. Complete Streets are a step in the right direction but Complete Streets say nothing about what gets priority when there are limits on available space, funding, and other resources. The official UK design guide for residential and mixed use streets sets transportation priorities exactly as Clemente describes. Here is a proposal for a conceptual framework to replace the current unsustainable U.S. transportation concept. I'd be interested in getting feedback on this.

By: Peter

Peter — Fri, 20 Mar 2009 19:04:28 +0000

when drivers ‘intimidate’ cyclists, they are actually ‘terrorizing’ cyclists — their behavior is the textbook definition of terrorism:

http://tinyurl.com/c8rv2a

for drivers, there are democratic, political means of keeping bikers off the roads, but too often they choose the terror route and resort to violence and threats of violence to achieve their goals — it has to stop. and we need to appropriate response from law enforcement officials to prevent and punish this terrorism as much as possible.

By: Greg

Greg — Fri, 20 Mar 2009 16:00:07 +0000

“But the belief that bicycling is dangerous is based on intimidation, scary stories and vague statistics.”

Those scary stories are scary because they are often easily verifiable. The belief that bicycling is dangerous is not particularly mistaken.