2008-The year of 'Complete Streets' in Spokane?

2007 will likely go down as the year bicycle advocates in Spokane were finally heard.  Biking infrastructure has made some tremendous gains this year thanks to many dedicated individuals, but we're not satisfied.  Looking ahead to 2008 we see the momentum continuing for a city that's safer and more accessible for non-automotive forms of transportation.  We think 2008 could be a prime year for the complete streets movement to finally arrive in Spokane.

Complete streets are streets that serve all transportation users and this includes pedestrians, bikes, wheelchairs, transit and autos.  Think about the streets you use everyday to get home, to work, to the store, etc.  Which ones are designed with all users in mind?  It's nothing new in Washington State, in fact Seattle took the bold step of pledging to create complete streets first by passing a resolution and then a city ordinance the following year.  Redmond and Kirkland are into it as well...so why couldn't we?  C'mon, when you have the AARP and biking advocates on the same side of an issue something is up.

• Completethestreets.org
• Cities redo streets for pedestrians, cyclists, transit [New Urban News]

Comments

[sustainable]

Complete Streets - what street would make the most sense for the first project in Spokane? I'd love to see a 3' wide grassy median and at least one sidewalk/bikeway going up Sunset Blvd. It seems the whole street needs to be redone already.

[Contrarian]

Interesting photo. They've eliminated the 2-way left turn lane to make room for the bike paths, thereby inconveniencing 98% of the users of that street - making their trips longer - to accomodate the other 2% and pay homage to political correctness. How many cyclists do you see in that photo?

[Joy]

In response to Contrarian, its great that the improvements to this street inconvenience drivers of private vehicles and accommodate other forms of transportation. A little carrot and stick approach to moving ourselves away from the wasteful, unhealthy, overpriced and unsustainable form of transportation is in the best interests of everyone.
The reality is that private transportation is unsustainable, even if we go with biodiesel, ethanol, electric cars or hydrogen. Where would we put all of the waste associated with providing more and more cars to the current population along with generations to come? Its time we faced up to the reality that this is not a viable form of transportation for our future and we need to start building infrastructure for more sustainable forms of moving ourselves around on the landscape.

[Contrarian]

Joy --

" . . its great that the improvements to this street inconvenience drivers of private vehicles and accommodate other forms of transportation."

Ah. A novel approach to traffic engineering: make travel as costly and inconvenient as possible for as many travelers as possible. Instead, invest the available funds in methodologies nobody wants to use, but which provide job security for bureaucrats.

LOL.

"A little carrot and stick approach to moving ourselves away from the wasteful, unhealthy, overpriced and unsustainable form of transportation is in the best interests of everyone."

I wonder how you can declare so confidently what is "in the best interests of everyone." Most American commuters (98%) have apparently decided that transit and bicycles are *not* in their interests, as evidenced by the fact that they don't use them. You know better than they do what is in their interests?

But obviously you've bought into the fashionable "sustainability" myth lock, stock, and barrel. This may be a little esoteric for this forum, but "sustainability" is a shibboleth. Human social systems and economies, like weather and the ecosystem, are complex adpative systems (CAS's). They are dynamic systems whose states are constantly changing. All states are temporary; none need to be sustained for very long. Nor can they be planned, any more than weather can be predicted beyond 5-6 days. The system will accomodate itself to the current conditions on its own. Planners can't predict those or prepare for them.

Don't worry about "sustainability," Joy. It's nonsense.

[Andy]

Nice comments Joy...

We need more forward thinking individuals like yourself.

Recognizing our current means for transportation need to be scrutinized and transformed is crucial in ensuring generations to come will be able to enjoy a healthy planet.

[MK]

I love roads like this and hope we can move forward in this direction as well. Better design = a better future for us all.

[Contrarian]

Did someone mention "forward thinking"? How can advocacy of bicycles (18th century technology) or trains and streetcars (19th century) possibly be considered "forward thinking"? I believe calls for a retreat to the past are normally called "regressive."

[Bwab]

You're so right. I barely remember life before my SEGWAY. I mean, walking is so cro-mangnon

[leio]

I believe "forward thinking" is providing streets that not only satisfy the needs of automobiles, but those of public transit, bicyclists, and pedestrians. Besides the utilitarian aspects, the street should be aesthetically pleasing and environmentally friendly. This is a perfect example of the type of streets Spokane should be putting an effort into creating.

[Contrarian]

We don't build streets to satisfy the needs of automobiles, Leio, but of people. And (by far) most people prefer to travel by auto for trips of more than a few blocks. If cyclists desire that a certain portion of the right-of-way be devoted to their preferred mode of travel, they should pay the costs of that portion, as auto users do.

BTW, city streets almost always provide for pedestrians (sidewalks). And they can certainly be made aesthetically pleasing without wasting right-of-way real estate for little-used bike paths. It's rather like running 50-passenger buses around town day and night with 4 people aboard. Oh -- we do that too. Ah, politics . . .