My intent was to comment here on the proposed Columbus bike plan in parts. The massive 212 page document is impressive in its scope and a lot to digest. I only focused on what appeared to be the meat of it: sections 4 through 7. Life got in the way and I only got around to submitting
my comments toady.
Others have blogged their opinions (Columbus-ite and X-ing Columbus) and have some pointed criticisms. I don't pretend to be smart enough to pick apart any particular proposal. I often hear experienced cyclists express completely different preferences or opinions about what is safe or what constitutes good design. The plan is thorough in its review of options and the proposals are made on the best available data (which is one area I suggest improving).
I tried to look at the big picture with comments. Here are few highlights:
I do think there are types of projects and programs that will be more cost-effective by achieving multiple aims for less money. One would be to prioritize on-street wayfinding and street markings..... Street markings reinforce to motorists and cyclists that bicycles must be accommodated on city streets. Moreover, omnipresent signage essentially provides continuous public education within the context in which it must be used. This signage a more effective teaching tool than brochures or PSAs.
.... increasing the viability of street level cycling is far more cost-effective than dedicated infrastructure. In section 7 the report notes that it would cost nearly $73 million to complete all proposed bike network improvements but only $13 million when dedicated bike paths are excluded.
.... build infrastructure that supports 1-2 mile commutes to destinations such as schools, supermarkets and other retail, post-offices, libraries and rec centers. The success of the overall plan rests on a high rate of public adoption of cycling. Creating infrastructure for low-threshold adoption will catalyze public awareness and support for more cycling infrastructure. Destination oriented design creates opportunities for local businesses and other public entities to contribute resources and amenities such as improved bike parking or consumer discounts to encourage participation. A bike sharing program around destination venues can also contribute to adoption.
.... Additionally, we must also consider public health, reduced carbon footprint, reduced car-ownership burden on moderate to low income families, and youth engagement. Youth engagement can come in the form of bike reclamation and building workshops such as the Third Ward program in
....Public input can also improve proposed designs. For instance, the report ...[is] a dense 200-plus page pdf that cannot be tagged, annotated, remixed or linked to in any granular way. Online communication technology can enable public collaboration in design if the building blocks are made accessible.
This bike plan is a great opening for greening Columbus streets for cleaner, safer, neighborhood friendly transportation. Be sure to write City Council and the County Commissioners to voice your support for expanding the biking capacity for Columbus. We can only hope there will be many opportunities to argue the details.
Photo Credits: http://flickr.com/photos/f-r-a-n-k/251794370/
2 comments:
I disagree that marked bikeways are more cost-effective than permanent infrastructure. I'll agree that they're cheaper, but to me, the term "cost-effective" has some benefit factored in. I think it's that "effective" part of the word.
I already see those little green signs on downtown streets like Broad and Front and wouldn't consider those to be bikeable by an adult, let alone a child. They won't get a single additional person to ride their bike. Not very effective, even at 1/10th of the cost of dedicated lanes.
I think $10 spent on those signs is $10 too much.
I omitted from my post the part of my letter that said, in certain situations, dedicated trails would be most appropriate. In general, however, I think we would get more bang for the buck with street markings and signs -- provided its done right.
I agree the puny little green signs might as well be invisible. But the street markings and infrastructure described in the Alta document are extensive and I think will get noticed.
The right mix of infrastructure and advocacy will, I hope, get us to a tipping point of acceptance that will make biking a safe an accessible alternative driving.
Thanks for being an advocate!
Post a Comment