Some comments on the WAMPO MTP 2035 list

As I posted last week, WAMPO has arrived at a final list of transportation projects eligible for federal funds from 2010-2035. Here is that list (bike/pedestrian projects lead it off); and here is a map showing the locations of the projects.

First, a quick reminder of what WAMPO does, because that will have a bearing on some of the comments that follow. The Wichita Area Metropolitan Planning Organization is comprised of municipality and county officials, as well as other groups of various sorts who are interested in/affected by transportation and its infrastructure. WAMPO looks at proposals for transportation projects from Sedgwick County and the municipalities therein, plus Andover, and through a combination of consultations of federal funding priorities and guidelines, public meetings in the area and surveys of citizens, it determines which of those projects a) are eligible for federal funds and b) have broad-based support for their funding. (If you're truly obsessed about this sort of thing, you won't want to miss these long posts on WAMPO meetings back in January, here and here.)

NB: Just because projects made the final list does not guarantee that they will be built. Municipalities and the county will build these, or not, based on interest the public shows in them. The NW By-pass, for example, has appeared in several of these project lists but has yet to be built. WAMPO's next public meeting will be Monday, June 28 (here is the agenda); the official acceptance of the project list will be in July; what lies ahead now will be WAMPO's functioning in an advisory capacity from here until 2035 and, in a few years, beginning work on the new master plan for the area.

So. What do we have in the MTP 2035? Well: from the standpoint of cycling/walking infrastructure a mixed bag to be sure, but one that is beginning to reflect a positive shift in prioritizing bike/ped facilities. Some of that shift is due to the change of administration in Washington, but some is due to local attitudinal shifts among the public and in several municipalities in the area. Also, as I've noted in a couple of older posts on WAMPO, it officially is a neutral arbitrator regarding a project's eligibility for funds, but because it also compiles the various lists of projects from which the final one is drawn up, it too can determine, in a passive-aggressive way, those projects that would have greater value in reducing traffic (and thus pollution). As just one example, in the middle stage of the selection process for these projects, there were four lists prioritizing a different traffic consideration, such as bridge repair, reducing congestion, etc. Each of those four lists contained all the eligible bike/ped projects and funding to allow Wichita Transit to expand bus service in the area. Also, a little reading between the lines of this overview document--in particular p. 4, which addresses land use and environmental issues--suggests (to me, anyway), that WAMPO would like to see municipalities address the issue of sprawl. Thoughtful land use, such as high-density, mixed-use development, makes for easier decision-making when it comes to transportation infrastructure. In short, in this MTP are some quiet but clear suggestions to the Powers That Be regarding future planning.

All that said, one could still wish that more (and/or other) bike/ped projects had been proposed besides the ones here. The primary objective with the bike/ped projects is to create some connectivity among already-existing paths to make them more useful as genuine travel routes for cyclists. Thus, on the list there's the path that will connect the southern terminus of the Arkansas River path with the Gypsum Creek path's Planeview Park terminus, and the path that will run from McAdams Park (the north end of the Canal path) to Grove Park (the north end of the K-96 path). Both these paths should encourage bike-commuting from outlying areas on the east side of town into the downtown area. There's also the conversion of the abandoned railroad right-of-way from the 8th/9th street and I-135 exit to 17th and Oliver, a much-needed in-town east-west route which should also encourage bike-commuting into the urban core. These are all important projects, and we should be glad that they are there. But, once again, the west side of Wichita (by which I mean everything west of downtown) will see no bike/ped projects; nor is there one east-west route that is anything like the length of the Canal path and the Ark River path. The first omission remains a mystery to me; the second would easily (and cheaply) be remedied by a simple re-striping of a street like Douglas. Re-striping, though, is not yet eligible for federal funding, as I found out at a WAMPO meeting back in January. That sort of thing is for the city to decide--and for us to encourage the city to decide it. Something else to keep an eye on: a total of almost $10.4 million not earmarked for any one project but to be used for bike/ped projects over the course of the 25 years covered by this MTP. That kind of money can build lots of bike paths . . . or, if Complete Streets legislation passes Congress, re-design and/or re-stripe a lot of streets.

I should note that in addition to the stand-alone bike/ped projects, several of the road and bridge projects also incorporate bike/ped-friendly improvements. These will be mostly unsexy things like new sidewalks and pedestrian crossings at intersections. Still, anything that can contribute to lowering our disproportionate share of Kansas' bike/ped fatalities is more than welcome. It's also very gratifying to see funds for expansion of Wichita Transit into a grid-route system with commuter routes to outlying towns.

So, in short, MTP 2035 doesn't do everything we should want to see a diversified transportation plan do; on the other hand, though, if we squint at it in the right way, it serves as a template for where we should want to go. But infrastructure is in its essence reactive rather than proactive: it goes where the people are and reflects their priorities regarding land use and their preferred means of getting around. The government entities WAMPO serves are the ones who can be--who should be--proactive.

Should we negotiate with the automobile? Or would that be appeasement?

Via the weekly WAMPO update comes a link to a recent study that I had seen a couple of weeks ago and had wanted to link to and then, as I am wont to do, forgot about it. Now that it's appeared again, I'd like to link to it and make a connection between it and the recent story in the Eagle that I mentioned in Sunday's post.

The Alliance for Biking and Walking has just completed a benchmarking report (the Quick Facts Sheet is here) that shows that, nationwide, 9.6% of all trips in this country are made either on foot or by bike (those numbers are of course higher in urban areas), yet transportation funding for bike/ped infrastructure accounts for only 1.2% of federal funding--and it may just be that that funding disparity partly explains why cyclists and pedestrians account for 13.1% of all traffic fatalities in the U.S. The fact that WAMPO sees fit to forward this along is, I think, further confirmation that it sees such things as important and seeks to encourage the area's municipalities to give some thought to these issues.

Randal O'Toole's recent visit to town and critique of Wichita's apparent direction in favor of making downtown more walkable is worth taking another look at, especially his comment that (quoting from the article here) "'pedestrian-friendly' development — a cornerstone of Wichita's downtown effort, usually means car-hostile." This of course begs a question: That there is something to be gained in keeping downtown "pedestrian-hostile," some greater good that is worth continued occasional-yet-increasing cyclist and pedestrian deaths, seeing as the numbers of cyclists and pedestrians increased by 42% between 2000 and 2007 and will only continue to increase--whether or not cities and states plan accordingly for those increases.

O'Toole frames the issue in adversarial terms: cars vs. pedestrians and cyclists; the latter two, being the weaker entities, must perforce surrender space to the stronger. It's as though, in fact, that in such a framing autos are assumed to be feral creatures to be accommodated at all costs by us weaker mortals and so, if we appease them by providing them (and then stay out of) nice, wide lanes and plenty of (preferably free or at least cheap) Sudetenland-like parking lots, we will have peace in our time with them.

My analogy is, of course, absurd (I hope no one takes offense at it); but too often it is indeed true that it is the existence of cars, over and above what is better or at least preferable for making a place more livable, that has shaped the cities we live in--and, of course, our decisions about infrastructure priorities. That Mr. O'Toole apparently feels we are compelled to lie prostrate before the automobile and its needs would seem to me a surrender of liberty that, as I said in yesterday's post, I'd think he'd want to resist mightily as the good libertarian that (I assume) he is.

To frame this discussion in Us vs. Them terms is not helpful, in other words. With careful, thoughtful planning, we can easily create urban cores whose streets can accommodate both cars and people afoot and on bikes and whose land-use laws can lead to less need for cars (and lest anyone misunderstand me, not needing a car is not the same thing as being hostile toward them). Those who read the comments section for the Eagle article will find what follows familiar, for a couple of folks there already pointed this out: Complete Streets designs result in streets that can bear the same or greater amount of car traffic as conventional streets and, at the same time, apportion space for cyclists buses and pedestrians--all the while making those streets safer for everyone. The Douglas Design District sees the wisdom in executing a Complete Streets design on one of the very busiest streets in the city, as I noted last month.

Such a reasonable accommodation makes the street, again, a truly public space, and a safer one as well. If this is appeasement, then sign me up.

Mr. B. goes to City Hall: A preview

As I noted a while back, I plan to speak before the City Council on Tuesday, July 7th, during the public agenda portion of the meeting, to ask that the Council consider adopting a Complete Streets policy. What follows are some excerpts from what I'll be saying. As you'll see, my goal is to emphasize the practicality of such a policy--something that I think is true and compelling but doesn't often get voiced. Also as you'll see, I'll be referring to the June 11 Complete Streets webinar that WAMPO hosted and that I posted on here.

[O]ne crucial thing the webinar forcefully brought home to me that I would like to share with the Council is that Complete Streets are not just nice to have but are also extraordinarily practical.

During the webinar, one of the speakers described a street in Orlando, Florida, that has recently been converted from a four-lane, two-way street to a three-lane street with dedicated combination bicycle/bus lanes on either side. This street is a very busy one—in its previous form, 20,000 cars a day used it. But since its conversion, that street has seen a 43% reduction in accidents and an 87% reduction in injuries from those accidents—and, surprisingly, an increase in its use of 1,000 cars per day. The lesson here seems obvious to me: by not widening the street but by reapportioning its surface for various uses rather than one, the city of Orlando made that street at once more efficient and safer.

Perhaps the most practical argument in favor of Complete Streets, especially these days, is that some of these projects are much less expensive than conventional street-building and –widening, and some are much cheaper even than bike paths. WAMPO’s Regional Pathway System Plan, adopted in 2007, proposes three major east-west re-striping projects totaling 12.8 miles, one on Douglas from Webb Rd. to I-135, one on Waterman from I-135 west to the railroad tracks, and one on Maple from Garden Plain and Goddard to west Wichita, that in 2007 had a total estimated cost of under half a million dollars—far less money than the cost of the recently-approved and much-needed bike path that will connect the Canal Route path to the K-96 path (for which, by the way, I thank the council for approving).

I am not an engineer or traffic planner, but it seems to me that it is the rare principle of infrastructure design that can simultaneously increase a street’s traffic-handling capacity and actually make it safer, do so more efficiently without widening it, and save the city a substantial amount of money both in terms of construction and, later on, in terms of the costs saved because that street is safer. The fiscal conservatives among us can surely see the financial virtues inherent in these benefits. But there is also the more intangible but no less important benefit that Complete Streets provide: they contribute to making the city a little greener, a little more livable, a place where people and businesses don’t just want to locate but want to stay. It’s the rare idea that progressives and conservatives, that cyclists, pedestrians and motorists can agree upon, but surely Complete Streets is one of them. I urge that the Council consider making a Complete Streets policy an integral part of its planning for Wichita’s future.

Heads up (with a correction)

I'll be requesting time to speak to the City Council about the virtues of Complete Streets at their weekly meeting on Tuesday, June 30 July 7*. It will start at 9:00 a.m. I hope some of you can make it.

____________
*I learned this week that the Council doesn't meet on 5th Tuesdays in a month.

WAMPOpalooza: Complete Streets webinar

Image found here.

Yesterday's WAMPO events, the webinar at the City Council chambers and the open house at the Water Center, created in me a strange combination of frustration with the status quo and hope for the future. (Do keep in mind as you read this that I am by nature optimistic.)

For the reader's sake, I'll discuss the webinar here and, in its own post, the open house.

Though there were about 30-40 people in attendance, most of them were city-planner types. To my knowledge, Janet Miller was the only city council member in attendance, though in conversation afterward I was pleased to hear that District 1 representative Lavonta Williams has also been an advocate for mass/alternate transportation (just as she wrote me--us--that she was). It was also my pleasure to meet Jane Byrnes, who, as I've mentioned before, is the the Bicycle and Pedestrian Representative on the Metropolitan Transportation Plan Project Advisory Committee (MTP-PAC). There were a couple of us "civilians" there, too, and they and I chatted and exchanged e-mail addresses. I'm not by nature a networker, but I seem to be headed that way.

The webinar itself was quite informative even for people like me who have a nodding acquaintance with Complete Streets. The moderator for yesterday's meeting was Gabe Rousseau, the program manager for the Bicycle and Pedestrian Program of the U.S. Department of Transportation; the two presenters were Barbara McCann, Executive Director of the National Complete Streets Coalition; and Michael Ronkin, a former planner with the Oregon Department of Transportation who now consults with municipalities on Complete Streets planning. In his opening remarks, Rousseau (who himself bike-commutes to work) confirmed what I have noted here in the past: that the current administration is keenly interested in promoting (and funding) public and alternate transportation. Department of Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood (who even has a blog) has in several speeches promoted these other modes and has held up Portland, Oregon, as a model of city planning. Personal observation: when President Obama nominated LaHood for the position, many commentators noted that he had not shown much interest in transportation issues during his career as a senator. Maybe it's just that I've become more attuned to these issues than I'd been in the past, but I can't think of a more engaged secretary of transportation than this one has been. Of course, this may be because the President is engaged on these issues as well . . . still, all accounts are that LaHood has so far shown genuine enthusiasm for his work.

[UPDATE: In today's USA Today is an interview with LaHood in which he says some more of the right things. Have a look.]

I'll refer you to the Complete Streets link above if you'd like a fuller explanation of the concept; alternately, though, take a drive down Mt. Vernon between Broadway and Greenway to have a look at one version of a Complete Street. Here, I'll just share some surprising information that, if presented as part of advocates' arguments in favor of cycling/pedestrian infrastructure, could turn some district representatives' heads. McCann noted that one of Complete Streets' coalition partners--and one of its most vocal supporters--is the American Association of Retired Persons. In a poll of its members, AARP learned that 47% of its members have to cross a street they feel is unsafe to cross; 54% feel their neighborhood is inhospitable to walking or cycling; and 56% strongly support Complete Streets policies. In case it's not obvious why this is important: 1) AARP's support complicates the stereotypical image of cycling and pedestrian infrastructure as for the young and middle-aged and/or primarily for recreational purposes by arguing that complete streets are safer streets (about which more later); 2) Older people vote. They are more involved in local governance than younger people; moreover, these folks want to be out and about, but they--as anybody would--want to feel safer as they go about their business. I'll just add here that in my own riding about town, older people constitute a high percentage (less than half, to be sure, but not too far south of that) of the folks I see on bicycles--on the street as well as on the paths. So, AARP's support is not by any means out of left field.

A question I'd had before yesterday concerned street capacity on re-designed streets. In theory, as I said at the conclusion of this post, "a street designed to accommodate pedestrians, bikers and buses as well as cars actually maximizes that street's traffic capacity: more people can use the same space than if it were designed strictly for automobiles." But I had no evidence--not even Mt. Vernon--that this was true: Aside from the bike lanes and wider sidewalks set farther away from the curb, the stretch of Mt. Vernon from Greenway to Broadway is unchanged--it's still a two-lane, two-way street. Besides, it's not anyone's idea of a busy street. But Ronkin in his presentation mentioned the example of a street in Orlando, Florida, that was once a busy (about 20,000 cars/day) 4-lane undivided street that was converted into a 3-lane street (center left-turn lane) with bike/bus lanes on each side; on that street, not only did accidents decrease by over 40% and injuries by 87%, its traffic load actually increased by about 1,000 cars/day. I could hear the planners sitting behind me oooh and aaah a little when they heard this. The point of this: if done right, Complete Streets kills two urban-planning birds with one conceptual stone--it both increases a street's capacity and makes it safer.

Over 80 political entities--a half-dozen states, many cities, and a few counties--have adopted some sort of official language making Complete Streets the principle that guides project design and funding. Moreover, in Washington the Complete Streets Act of 2009, submitted in both the House and the Senate, is in search of co-sponsors (hint, hint). Given the current legislative climate, language advocating Complete Streets principles is fairly certain to find its way into federal legislation. To be blunt about this, if Wichita (and the State of Kansas) want federal money for transportation (duh!), we'll be seeing Complete Streets principles applied to some near-future construction. But not to all; not all transportation construction is eligible for federal money and so does not have to conform to those design guidelines. Hence the frustration a couple of us felt at the make-up of our webinar audience. Planners can propose and plan out the wazoo, but it's ultimately elected officials who will decide what projects get funded and, for that matter, those projects' guiding principles. The fact that Janet Miller knew everyone in the room either as her constituent (me) or as already active in these issues or as city staff is a little disheartening.

Those of us citizens who stayed and chatted for a while, though, came from all parts of the city, and each of us have heard the same thing from more than one person: "I'd bike to work/the store if only . . . ," that blank more often than not filled in with comments about missing or inadequate or impractical infrastructure. I strongly suspect that if you've read this far, you also have heard these same remarks from others (or have thought them yourself). Two council people that I know of (and Mayor Brewer, judging from his remarks concerning downtown revitalization) are supportive of these matters; but they are only three people on a seven-person council, and in any event they are usually going to vote in accordance with the sentiments of those constituents they hear from the most. All that said, it was also clear from this conversation that some councilpeople are, shall we say, more responsive to their constituents than others are. The point: however cathartic it is to complain to friends or on blogs about the present state of things, these things will not change until/unless enough of us speak up often enough and long enough on their behalf to people with their hands on the pursestrings.

Fair warning: that last sentiment will also be the predominant message of my post on the WAMPO open house, here.

June 11: WAMPO (events) Gone Wild!

Thursday, June 11 has turned into a significant day for anyone interested in the future of Wichita's and Sedgwick County's transportation infrastructure--which is very likely you, if you're visiting this blog. On that day, the Wichita Area Metropolitan Planning Organization (WAMPO) will be hosting two events of major importance. I know I posted one of these in my previous post, but for convenience's sake I'll re-post it here.

As I already noted, on the 11th from 1:00-2:30 WAMPO will be hosting the Complete Streets webinar in the City Council chambers. You can learn more about Complete Streets here.

But as if that weren't enough transportation wonkiness in one day for you, this morning via Jane Byrnes I received the following announcement:

You are invited to attend a WAMPO Open House.

When: Thursday June 11, 2009

Where: Water Center, 101 E. Pawnee, Wichita, KS

Time: 4:30p.m. – 6:00p.m.

Stop in anytime between 4:30p.m. – 6:00p.m. and get the most up to date information regarding the 2010 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP).

A brief summary of the TIP can be found on the WAMPO website: [here]

As I noted in my post on the Delano Neighborhood Association meeting, the City's representatives could not have stated the matter more bluntly: People who speak up in favor of issues gain their collective ear (and money)--if enough people talk it up enough. Those of you in the area who, like me, want and envision for Wichita a transportation infrastructure more accommodating of alternate and public transportation--the 11th will be your day to be a warm body in support of that vision. As I've been saying in various ways in these last few days, I sense we are at or very near the point where we can tip the discussion in this city in the direction of gaining more attention and resources for alternate transportation and the larger issue of how to make Wichita a more livable city.

I'm planning to be at both events. I hope to meet some of you there. I'll be easy to spot--I'll be the one glassy-eyed with optimism.

An image to ponder

UPDATE: Just to make sure no one misses this--and very apropos of this post's subject . . . An anonymous commenter left notice that on June 11 (a week from today) WAMPO will be hosting the Complete Streets webinar I'd mentioned here. It'll be in the City Council chambers from 1:00-2:30 p.m. I plan to be there; I hope some of you will be, too.

Often, proposals for adding streets and widening already-existing streets include the argument that they are needed to alleviate congestion. Perhaps, though, just perhaps, other means exist by which we can ease congestion:

"Bicycle - 90 sq. m for 71 people to park their bikes; Car - 1000 sq. m for 72 people to park their care (avg. occupancy of 1.2 people per car); Bus - 30 sq m for the bus." Click on image to enlarge. Image found here.

The above picture makes the case more eloquently than any number of words I can offer here, but I'll try anyway: so long as the single-occupant automobile remains the default setting for city planning--by which I mean not only street-building but other things such as zoning ordinances requiring businesses to provide a certain number of parking spaces to accommodate customers--cities will not alleviate congestion but only perpetuate it and even drive it (no pun intended) to other streets as drivers, no fools, seek and find faster (because less-congested) routes and those routes become congested. But imagine streets designed or retrofitted to accommodate and encourage alternate means of getting around, and/or augmentations of public transit in the form of more routes and more service along those routes. Not all those 72 people would take the bus or ride their bikes instead of drive their cars, no; but if even, say, seven of them were to do so on a regular basis, streets would become 10% less congested. Multiply that by the population of a city and . . .

As I noted in my previous post, bike-commuting in Wichita already appears to be increased compared to last year, but not because of anything the city has done to facilitate on-street cycling, the new bike paths and the bike lanes on Mt. Vernon notwithstanding. External circumstances--the cost of gas or other, more dire economic realities; concern for the environment; etc.--are nudging people into making that choice. At the same time, most of us know or have actually been told by others that they would like to commute by bicycle if the city's streets were more conducive to doing so. To my mind, the city could, with a few strokes of a paintbrush, simultaneously encourage these folks to leave their cars at home on occasion and save millions on expensive street-widening projects by re-striping a few well-selected streets (preferably east-west streets and some streets west of Sedgwick County park) to incorporate bike lanes. Obviously, such projects would directly benefit those already cycling on the streets and those interested in giving cycling a try. But, as the picture above makes clear, by thus reducing the number of cars taking up space on the roads, these projects would also not-so-indirectly benefit even those who choose never to cycle on the street by alleviating congestion--and that would in the long run save the city money by reducing wear and tear on streets that require repair and, further on down the road, forestalling the need to increase a street's car-carrying capacity.

Another way of saying all this: cyclists interested in making the case for bike-friendlier cities make their cases weaker if they stick only to some version of the "cyclists are people, too" argument. While that argument is certainly true, I think it's actually easier and more persuasive to demonstrate how providing on-street infrastructure that accommodates cyclists and promoting public transit ends up benefiting everyone who uses city streets, even (especially?) those who never ride a bike or take the bus. The proof of this is as plain as the picture at the top of this post.

Good news for southside bike-commuters

I'm not back here full-time yet (though the Mrs.' condition is improving--and thanks for all the kind wishes sent our way), but I did want to pass along this tidbit: that at least in one instance, those dotted purple lines on Wichita's bike-path map do indeed mean "funded"--very good to know, given the current economy.

At the point where George Washington Blvd. crosses Gypsum Creek (a little south of Pawnee) construction of a bike path along the creek is well under way: the dirt base looks to be steamrolled, but as of yesterday no actual pouring of the (concrete?/asphalt?) surface has occurred. Assuming the weather cooperates, though, it appears that could happen any day.

This stretch is part of a route marked "funded" that will run, eventually, from the southern terminus of the Canal path south along I-135, turn east at Gill Park and follow Gypsum Creek to George Washington, then head southeast along that street to the intersection with Oliver, where it will intersect with the Gypsum Creek path. I can't say yet whether construction is progressing along the whole route, but once it's completed a hypothetical bike-commuter who, oh, I don't know, lives downtown and works at McConnell would have a slightly-longer but safer route to work--and probably quicker as well, since it will be off the streets.

But still: a couple of east-west routes that run through the center and northern portion of the city are still on my wish-list. Given our topography and urban realities, such routes would require adding dedicated bike lanes to existing streets . . . and according to the map, such routes aren't even proposed, much less funded. Given the budgeting priorities of the Obama administration, perhaps that will change. A fella can hope, at any rate. While we wait and see, though, it's very good to know that at least some already-funded projects are getting built.

An uneducated argument for a smart(er) gas tax

Image found here.

An anonymous commenter at this post left this comment, which I'll go ahead and post in full:

While I definitely agree with your musings on our consumerism and short attention spans, I do quibble with you on one point.

Are you serious? Put a higher tax on gasoline? I do believe the govt taxes us enough, thank you! And just what exactly would they do with that money? Misappropriation of funds is already at an all-time high. Let the people keep their money! Instead of a 7 whatever billion/trillion dollar bailout, why not give each person who filed a tax return get $500,000? It would have cost much less, and talk about stimulating the economy instead of giving it to banks who mismanaged it in the first place?

Anon., thanks, first of all, for dropping by and commenting.

The usual caveats: I'm by no means an expert on tax policy; although I'm inclined to believe that government on the whole makes our lives better than they would be otherwise, I, like everyone, have my own list of things government spends money on that, shall we say, could be better spent (and monitored)/shouldn't be spent. Recent bailouts included.

Given this blog's focus, though, I'd like to say a few words about the issue of a gas tax and the possible uses a higher--and smartly-applied tax--could be put to. Gas taxes are one of those quid pro quo taxes that, though we'd just as soon not pay them, we can see the purpose of: They usually go toward paying for building and maintaining streets and highways, helping to keep our taxes on income a little lower by taxing, instead, our consumption of something. It's perfectly reasonable to my mind, then, that those of us who drive should contribute a bit, every time we buy gas, toward offsetting the wear and tear our vehicles cause the roads.

But let's face it: owning and driving a car is a relative luxury even in the best of times, which our gasoline prices (dirt-cheap even with the taxes currently levied on it) have, up till this past summer, disguised just how good we have had it here in this country. But more urgently, our collective accommodation of that luxury has enormous costs. Maintaining all those roads is so expensive that much regular maintenance has been deferred (and deferred and . . . ). Providing parking spaces for cars is, frankly, a waste of space that--especially in urban areas--could be put to better use via the providing of more (and more affordable) housing, more (and more diverse) kinds of businesses; meanwhile, broad expanses of pavement increase run-off pollution and the potential for flooding via overtaxed manmade and natural drainage. (Aside: encouraging denser development has the added advantage of increasing tax revenues as well without raising rates of taxation, through increased property and sales tax revenues.) Cheap gas has also historically been a boon for food production (via farm mechanization and transportation); this summer's much-higher gas, though, gave those of us who bought food then a brief glimpse of how illusorily low our food costs are, too. Finally, the burning of carbon fuels is not good for us or for our environment, even if you don't think global warming is a problem. Not only are carbon monoxide and carbon dioxide not good to inhale, we've all gotten pretty flabby in large measure because our first thought when we need to go somewhere, no matter the distance, is to hop in the car rather than walk or ride a bike or, for longer distances, take a bus or carpool.

My commenter decries mindless and/or short-sighted consumerism, and s/he is right to do so. So why not levy a higher tax on this particular form of consumption? And, even better: why not direct the revenues generated toward the funding of mass transit, safer, more accommodating streets, the granting of seed money for manufacturers of cars that use alternate energy sources, for researchers looking for those alternate sources, for bicycle-renting programs, etc., etc., etc. The idea is analogous to how some cigarette-tax monies are used: Use that money to fund programs that ostensibly seek to counterbalance the effects of your consumption choice . . . and if, at some point, you decide that the cost of that consumption becomes higher than you're willing/able to pay, then good for you--and for all of us.

It's a strange thing: some become so fixated in their opposition to taxes that, quite apart from the issue of how is government going to do what we expect/need it to do without revenues, they can miss the point that in some instances, increased taxation--that is, the uses to which that increased revenue are put--can end up benefiting us far more than they cost us. Fewer people are smoking now than when I was growing up (I'm old enough to remember seeing cigarette ads on television); and we all benefit as a result, even if only indirectly: cleaner air, a reduced burden on our public health care system via the better health of those not smoking, etc. In a similar way, if higher gas taxes encouraged more people either not to drive or to drive less often, all of us--even those who keep driving--would benefit: less-congested streets and parking lots, cleaner air (again), better overall public health (again), etc. And, there'd be that much more gas available, and at lower prices, for those services which really will require gas for the foreseeable future: transportation and food and energy production.

As a consumer-oriented people who no longer have the means we once did to generate real wealth through manufacturing, our literal and figurative bills for living the way we have are coming due, or they soon will, and it will be harder to pay them as a result of that reduced means. A higher gas tax whose revenues are smartly spent with an eye toward reducing our consumption of gas would be an excellent step in the direction of making those literal and figurative bills a little easier to deal with.

News from the neighborhood(s): A mixed bag for bike-friendliness

Advance warning to non-residents of Wichita: what follow is pretty Inside (Wichita) Baseball, though one could make the case that our particulars may sound familiar to residents of other cities that are less than bike-friendly.

I'll preface all this by saying that it's not entirely proper of me to be critical of what follows. Many of the decisions were made early in my residency here; out of ignorance or sloth, I've not been involved in the decision-making that I could have been involved in; it is possible that infrastructure changes to streets to include bike lanes don't need to be stated in light of other, previously-made decisions (see, as one example, the WAMPO link over in the right gutter); and of course, pending the fate of The Complete Streets Act of 2008 (S. 2686), these plans may yet change in the future to conform to that act's requirements if they do not already. So, then, the more appropriate way to take this is as observation based on what I know and observe.

First of all, some good news for Riverside cyclists: I'd not been by North High School since work on the bridge was completed, so this morning I was pleased to see that the path that runs north along the Little Arkansas from Minisa Park now has a short southern extension that passes underneath the bridge and follows the river to the Bitting Street bridge. This allows cyclists to avoid the intersection at 13th and Bitting, which, especially when school is letting in/out, gets very busy. But for some reason there's no cutaway to allow cyclists to leave the path and get on to Bitting easily.

That last sentence is, in essence, the Wichita bike path system in a nutshell as it stands today. (Some of) the pieces are in place, but the other pieces that would link them up (some little, like the cutaway, or a bike path of a hundred yards or so that links the Arkansas River path to O. J. Watson Park; some much larger and more expensive, like east-west extensions and bike lanes that connect the north-south routes), either aren't there or aren't yet there (more about the latter later). Mind you, I say this as one speaking from the perspective of someone who uses his bike for transportation purposes in a city whose bike system conceives of cycling in primarily recreational terms. The absent cutaway has the effect, intentional or not, of discouraging cyclists from riding on the streets. I wish that that were otherwise.

Anyway, in a moment of serendipity I stopped by Riverside Perk for an iced latte (how elitist of me, I know: a bike-riding college-educated white boy stopping not for coffee but for an iced latte) and found an issue of the Riverside Citizens Association's October newsletter; it so happened that at the September meeting my council representative, Sharon Fearey, addressed the Association about some cycling concerns, as well as neighborhood-related matters that to my mind should be of concern to cyclists. The path that runs along the Little Arkansas doesn't have either an official name or its own map on the bike paths web page; according to the minutes though, "[w]ork has started on continuing the path going north of 13th street at Minisa and Bitting Street allowing access clear from 21st to the entire Riverside Park System." That path presently runs along the west bank of the river and stops just north of 18th in Woodland Park, so I assume that the path will be extended along that side of the river. But when I looked at the bike paths map just now, it shows, as already existing, a route that crosses the river at the 18th Street bridge ad then follows the east side of the river up to 21st. I hadn't realized this before; in the next couple of days I hope to have a chance to investigate it.

The other bike-path news concerns the one that runs right by my apartment complex--it follows the river's east bank from Nims Street to Murdock. It is in very poor condition: in places, it's hard even to walk it, much less ride a hybrid or road bike on it, and when the river rises (more than a few times a year after heavy rains), parts of it are impassable for days. The city's options are to spend the estimated $700,000 to make the needed repairs and modifications or to abandon it to the apartments' owners and let it be their responsibility. It's a real Hobson's choice, especially given that the landlords are not exactly proactive regarding maintenance of their property. So far as I can tell from the minutes, the city hasn't made a decision. Speaking as a cyclist who happens to live next to this path, I would prefer to see it repaired, whether by the city or the landlords; right now it's an eyesore that has more appeal to gang members and vagrants of various sorts than it does to the residents who live next to it. But I'm not blind to the cost involved, either. Moreover, even if the path were repaired and improved, it still wouldn't really "go" anywhere: it basically helps speed up downtown people's access to the Nims and Murdock Street bridges leading into Riverside Park, which is nice, but it's no one's idea of a path that improves the functionality of the city's infrastructure for cycling.

Ms. Fearey also announced that several neighborhood revitalization plans have been adopted by the Metropolitan Area Planning Commission and the city council and are now officially part of the City and County Comprehensive Plan. Here is the list of all the various neighborhood plans; below, I've linked directly to the plans for the neighborhoods I live in or near or pass through on my commute route:

Delano Neighborhood Revitalization Plan

Midtown Neighborhood Plan

South Central

21st Street North Corridor Revitalization Plan

As I hinted at the beginning of this post, there's nothing in these plans that speaks specifically to bike-friendliness as part of their respective sections on improvements in infrastructure. The Delano District's plan does mention converting a railbanked easement into a combination bike/pedestrian path and greenbelt space. But, as I also said at the beginning, it may very well be that bike-friendliness is already included in these plans as part of larger, city-wide objectives and so isn't explicitly mentioned--at least, not in those sections I looked at today. But I don't know for sure. As time permits, I'll be sending out some e-mails to see what I can find out. Also as time permits, I would like to dig into these plans more deeply--especially the Delano plan: it differs from the others I've linked to because it operates from the proposition that it is less a neighborhood than a community, part of but, in its essence, distinct from Wichita. I'm very much in agreement with that sentiment, as I've stated before; what I'll be looking for and posting on will be how the Delano District plan proposes to develop and enhance its sense as a community unto itself.
__________

An addendum now: Back in July, you may remember, I posted a link to a WAMPO survey asking people to rank transportation priorities. If you're curious, here are the survey results.

If they can make it there . . .

A pedicab goes down the dedicated lane for it on the newly-reconfigured Broadway north of Herald Square.

Matthew Yglesias has links to two excellent discussions of Complete Streets among his posts for today. In the first, he links to an article in the Boston Globe Magazine; in the second, he links to a post from Streetsblog on the new "Broadway Boulevard" project. Go have a look.

Yglesias argues that a citizenry gets the city it has the will to work toward, that the form it takes is not inevitable:

[A] town or city needs to decide whether or not they really think that maximizing vehicle speed is the right priority for the design of their streets. If you decide to make it the priority, then you’ll wind up with a city that’s bad for pedestrians — narrow sidewalks, wider roads to cross, walk signs that only work if you press a button, intersections where walkers defer to turning traffic, etc. — and at the same time you’ll have fast-moving vehicles that tend to collide with human beings in a relatively deadly manner. If you decide not to make it the priority, then you get the reverse — wide sidewalks, narrow road crossings, adequate walk signals, and intersections where turning traffic defers to pedestrians. Cars will move slower through your city and there will be fewer car-person collisions and those that do occur will be less lethal.

And, I'll just add: streets with fewer cars, because alternate methods of getting about town will be more appealing.

A Complete Street in DC

Via Matthew Yglesias (not just a well-known political blogger but also a cyclist and strong advocate of re-imagining urban spaces in ways that permit more and varied transportation uses) comes this post from Greater Greater Washington about the redesign of U Street to accommodate more pedestrians, bike lanes, and buses--both the good things and the could-be-better things. For those of us far away from DC, this post nevertheless offers up observations and ideas applicable to any metro area contemplating its future transportation needs . . . like a certain city in south-central Kansas . . .

WAMPO Survey

Via Kansas Cyclist comes news of WAMPO's General Transportation Survey.

And please note, out-of-towners: "Incidentally, this survey is not limited to Wichita residents, so if you have a few minutes, please take the time to advocate for improved bicycle, pedestrian, and mass-transit on behalf of our friends in Wichita."

You know what to do.

The case for walkable cities

My day for counter-intuitive arguments . . .

Yesterday over in the right gutter I posted but didn't announce a link for WalkScore. WalkScore is a Google Maps app that attempts to show how walkable a neighborhood is: it shows you how close to you things like libraries, grocery stores, parks, pharmacies, etc. are.

Matthew Yglesias, a scary-smart center-left political blogger, strong advocate for mass/alternate transit solutions and high-density development, and an avid cyclist, makes a compelling case for making more parts of more cities more walkable. Referring to a map showing Washington, D.C.'s, walkability, he says:

If you know the city at all, you'll see that being pedestrian-friendly is a strong correlate of being prosperous. This reality sometimes tends to confuse the debate over planning for walkers. Because walkable neighborhoods tend to be inhabited by well-off people, the whole topic gets construed as a concern "for" well-off yuppies. But really that's backwards. Walkable areas tend to be full of relatively rich people because they're relatively rare and relatively desirable -- their scarcity means that the less prosperous are priced out of these areas, but if we shifted policy to increase the supply of areas with good pedestrian access, people of more modest means would be able to afford them.

I don't think it's absurd to push this a bit further and say that the more people you have walking in a neighborhood, the more likely they are to trade with neighborhood businesses (if they're there), saving them time and money and helping those businesses prosper--and, perhaps even attract more businesses there.

Those are, of course, long-term occurrences. But a city with a long-term vision, willing to be patient to see the results, could stand to benefit more of its citizenry in this relatively inexpensive way.