December 29, 2011 in Opinion

Editorial: New leaders must find right balance for streets

Sidewalks, bike lanes and other traditional and nontraditional elements will necessarily be a part of all future road construction projects. The focus on roadways exclusively for motor vehicle use becomes counterproductive as residents ponder alternative ways to commute and recreate for health and environmental reasons.

Several municipalities within Spokane County have already modified existing streets and rights of way to allow pedestrians and bike riders to get to more places safely, and with stronger heartbeats.

So-called complete streets are pavement, multitasking.

But productive as these new byways are, they are not the answer for every mile of transportation corridor. And because the extra costs – if there are extra costs – will fall exclusively on motorists until bicyclists and other users pony up, planners must have enough flexibility to balance competing interests as new projects are mapped out.

The ordinance adopted a week ago by the outgoing cast of the Spokane City Council may be too rigid. Dedicating as much as 20 percent of a project’s cost to pedestrian, wheelchair and bike infrastructure will have a very tangible impact on the amount of roadwork that gets done.

For example, the $117 million street bond issue passed by city voters in 2004 has so far replaced 78 miles of some pathetically broken down pavement. When the construction program ends in 2013, as many as 110 miles will have been overhauled.

The program has been very successful, in part because hard-pressed contractors have bid very competitively for the work.

If 20 percent of bond funds had been rededicated to sidewalks and bike lanes, 15 miles of streets fixed to date might not have been repaired.

Complete-street supporters can rightly assert that getting more people out of their cars will extend pavement life and improve Spokane’s overall quality of life. The arguments go both ways. But after another season of whack-a-pothole, jarred motorists will be feeling a mite surly.

When – not if – the new council and mayor begin consideration of a second bond issue to continue the good work of the first, they should consider rebalancing the distribution of construction dollars. At the very least, they should be candid about the tradeoffs involved in meeting the newly imposed standards.

The good work done with the money raised in 2004 has repaired not just roads, but voter and motorist confidence in the city’s ability to perform.

Complete streets have their place in the configuration of a durable, healthy, flexible and economical transportation network. The discussion of how big that place should be needs to continue.

To respond to this editorial online, go to www.spokesman.com and click on Opinion under the Topics menu.

34 comments on this story so far. Add yours!

dieselox on December 29 at 5:32 a.m.
I take issue with the idea that cyclists do not pay their share. Every cyclist I know also drives a car most if the time, so they actually end up having less of an impact on the road: they pay for them with gas and tab fees, but the miles they ride for commuting or exercise don’t wear out the streets.
ejwilhelmson on December 29 at 5:43 a.m.
Quote: And because the extra costs – if there are extra costs – will fall exclusively on motorists until bicyclists and other users pony up, …
The implication of this statement is that “bicyclists and other users” don’t buy auto tabs, don’t pay property taxes, don’t pay federal income tax, and don’t buy gasoline. Since those are the sources of funding for roads, bicyclists and other users have ALWAYS paid for roads.
JBlim on December 29 at 6:09 a.m.
Maybe we should start adding a surcharge to those aren’t paying for streets, unless they can show they get all their food and other supplies by airdrop to their homes, and their garbage airlifted away without touching the street. Everyone uses streets, directly or indirectly. What’s with the anti-bicycle rhetoric? How about a shoe tax?
gmorton on December 29 at 7:32 a.m.
Greenie economics at work – devote 20% of street budgets to a mode that carries 1% of the traffic.
“Complete streets” is complete nonsense.
http://www.freespokane.net/?p=304
valleyman on December 29 at 8:52 a.m.
Do 20% of people in Spokane ride bikes or walk to engage in commerce on a regular basis? The answer is no. Thus spending 20% of bond funds on bike lanes and sidewalks is a fool’s errand. Spend the money on things that will improve our ability to engage in commerce and that will serve the most people.
Bike lanes and sidewalks are great but are impractical during our lovely winter season from about October until at least April… Do the most good with what you have - build roads.
LabSpokane on December 29 at 8:57 a.m.
Leaving aside the fact that most bicycle commuters own cars and pay taxes - gas taxes and vehicle license fees are far from the only revenue sources funding road construction.
Incomplete streets actually generate traffic congestion. Providing complete streets and safe paths for children to walk and bike to school would reduce traffic tremendously. Look at the difference in traffic volumes between a school day and non-school day. I don’t blame parents for driving children to school given that there is oftentimes NO safe place to walk to school.
Safety is the same reason many people feel compelled to drive when they would prefer to walk or bike. Fix that and it will go a long ways toward reducing congestion. It’s hard to understand die-hard motorists’ revulsion to Complete Streets when it is they who stand to reap the most benefits.
freeheeler on December 29 at 9:11 a.m.
It’s funny how most of the blame for the passing of Complete Streets goes on the bicyclists. Compete Streets is also here to aid the pedestrians and create better flowing traffic for automobiles. Why would one be so negative towards this positive movement. Let’s give our kids a safe way to get from place to place, let’s give the handicap a safe route, and let’s give the cyclist a pathway to separate them from automobile traffic. It’s a win-win opportunity. Yes, there is extra cost, but it’s a cost that will positively enhance our lives and it puts people to work with additional construction.
gmorton on December 29 at 10:37 a.m.
LabSpokane wrote,
“Providing complete streets and safe paths for children to walk and bike to school would reduce traffic tremendously.”
No, it would not. Children do not walk or bike to school because it is “unsafe.” They prefer to ride because it is quicker, easier, and more comfortable – the same reasons their parents drive to work.
The “safety” argument is nonsense. No kid in Spokane has been injured walking to school in Spokane in years. Indeed, they’re more likely to be injured when their parents drive them.
Public streets should indeed accommodate all modes – in proportion to their ratio of use. I.e., if bicycles carry 1% of the traffic (as they do), they should get no more than 1% of the budget.
bleckb on December 29 at 10:55 a.m.
It would be nice if the “old” writers at the SR would take the time to get a better understanding of what it is they are saying it, unless fidelity to the truth is not something they are concerned with. The same goes for readers who respond as if they are speaking some sort of truth.
For the record, at present I chair the city’s Bicycle Advisory Board, having spent the last four years on the BAB I’ve learned a good bit about public opinion and a good bit more than I already did about how government works.
First, like just about every cyclist in town, I drive a car. My wife and I each drive our own cars. But the gas tax money, the tab money, hardly comes close to the cost of building and maintaining streets. That’s why, as a homeowner, I voted in favor of the last bond issue, and might, just might, vote for the next one. We’ll see how that looks. The point is, bicyclists and pedestrians are not freeloading on the backs of car drives. We, for the most part, are car drivers. We drive more, less and about the same as do many drivers, though those like me drive less than they would if they didn’t bike. It’s my choice, one I gladly make.
There is plenty of evidence out there that if there are freeloaders, it is the drives of cars. Auto traffic is hugely subsidized. We can start with the federal government bailing out the auto industry, one that clearly is having trouble standing on its own. We can then go to the need for massive federal subsidies for roadway construction (never mind maintenance). If all those drivers were paying their way, we’d have plenty of money for the North/South Freeway, at roughly $200 million per mile on average, but we don’t. We have to go to the state and federal government for this money, as do the builders of just about every road project in the nation. Every tax paying citizen is subsidizing roadway use for the benefit of drivers. Why? Well, as someone already noted, roadways are used to deliver food and good, to get us to hospitals and so on and so forth.
Drivers who think that gas taxes and fees (remember the cuts that came when they were reduced to $35? ) fully fund roadway construction and maintenance are either wholly misinformed or willfully ignorant (which is another way of saying delusional). If that were the case, there would be no bond issue. But since there is a bond issue, those who walk, use transit and those who bike are being unfairly taxed (yes, taxed) with supporting the drivers amongst us. This applies to owners and renters (as a former landlord, I can tell you that those who rented my house also covered my tax payments, meaning they paid taxes too).
I just wonder why the SR can’t hire an editorialist able to dig up the facts about which they write instead of polemicists incapable of shedding light on the situation. The Complete Streets ordinance is clear that not all streets will be made bike and pedestrian friendly. I have to wonder if the writer of the editorial even bothered to both read and process the ordinance, if if they were just shooting from their proverbial and ill-informed hip.
sowinso on December 29 at 12:37 p.m.
I keep hearing this “only 1% of the funds should go to bikes because only 1% of the traffic is bikes” meme.
About century ago, 0% of the streets were used by autos. Should we have adopted and held to that standard? If we had never allowed cars on the roads, they still wouldn’t be here, would they?
Perhaps the reason why there is so little bike ridership is that the roads have become hostile to their use (as certain drivers and commentators clearly are). Only corrective investment will allow it to return to its rightful rate.
bikedog on December 29 at 2:03 p.m.
“Bike lanes and sidewalks are great but are impractical during our lovely winter season from about October until at least April”
Whenever I hear someone say this, it makes me wonder whatever happened to our pioneer spirt and our western rugged individualism. It’s easy to bike commute from mid-February or March (or earlier depending on the winter) and through November. With just a little resolve you can do it all year. Lights, fenders, either some traction or snow tires - no problem. People can’t believe I ride to work in the rain. It’s only a litle water! They don’t know what they’re missing.
valleyman on December 29 at 2:28 p.m.
Bikes can share well built roads and maintained roads with cars just like they do now. If those of you who bike in addition to driving want special lanes, you should be given the opportunity to voluntarily pay more, otherwise, let us have decent roads to promote and secure commerce. Bikes aren’t bringing this nation’s life blood to market or transporting the majority (or even close to it) to work.
gmorton on December 29 at 4:24 p.m.
bleckb wrote,
“Drivers who think that gas taxes and fees (remember the cuts that came when they were reduced to $35? ) fully fund roadway construction and maintenance are either wholly misinformed or willfully ignorant (which is another way of saying delusional). If that were the case, there would be no bond issue.”
City streets have never been funded primarily with fuel taxes. Nor should they be, since they are used by many more classes of users than auto drivers – pedestrians, bicyclists, transit vehicles, city-operated emergency vehicles, skateboarders, etc. They are funded primarily from property taxes, according to the front footage or value of the property.
Intercity roads are a different story, however. Federal highway funds are 90% financed by fuel taxes; state highway costs are about 80% financed with fuel taxes. (Those figures were 100% until the last few decades. Since then “pork” has played an increasing role).
“Auto traffic is hugely subsidized.”
No, it is not.
“We can start with the federal government bailing out the auto industry, one that clearly is having trouble standing on its own.”
No, we don’t start there. That was an unnecessary and thoroughly modern exercise in federal economic meddling. And it is entirely irrelevant – the national road system was built out long before that fiasco.
“We can then go to the need for massive federal subsidies for roadway construction (never mind maintenance).”
Sorry, but there were and are no “massive federal subsidies” for roadway construction. Those “subsidies” are 90% paid for by the users of those roadways (although I agree it should be 100%).
misjustice on December 29 at 4:28 p.m.
The negativity expressed on this thread towards bike riders and pedestrians (and by extension those which are mobility impaired, such as folks in wheelchairs) is one reason why this cow town should be renamed ‘Spokan’t’…
gmorton on December 29 at 4:30 p.m.
sowinso wrote,
“About century ago, 0% of the streets were used by autos. Should we have adopted and held to that standard?”
Yes. And we did. Streets were not specifically configured for autos until autos became the dominant mode of use.
“If we had never allowed cars on the roads, they still wouldn’t be here, would they?”
No one is suggesting bikes and other modes should not be “allowed” on the roads. I’m suggesting those roadways should not be configured for minor modes at the expense of the dominant mode, in terms of either costs or traffic throughput.
gmorton on December 29 at 4:32 p.m.
misjustice wrote,
“The negativity expressed on this thread towards bike riders and pedestrians . . .”
What “negativity” is that, misj?
The “negativity” is directed at city bureaucrats who have become mesmerized by with greenie mythology.
bikedog on December 30 at 8:43 a.m.
Gmorton wrote:
“City streets have never been funded primarily with fuel taxes. Nor should they be, since they are used by many more classes of users than auto drivers – pedestrians, bicyclists, transit vehicles, city-operated emergency vehicles, skateboarders, etc. They are funded primarily from property taxes, according to the front footage or value of the property.”
Then city streets should be designed and built to include provisions for these “other classes of users”.
Scott
valleyman on December 30 at 9:22 a.m.
@bikedog: Since when can’t bikes use the traffic lanes with the exception of the freeway? If they can’t it’s news to me…
gmorton on December 30 at 10:40 a.m.
bikedog wrote,
“Then city streets should be designed and built to include provisions for these ‘other classes of users’.”
Yes, they should be – in proportion to the extent of use. E.g., if bikes make up 1% of the traffic on the streets, they should get 1% of the funding and 1% of the ROW.
bikedog on December 30 at 10:41 a.m.
Never said they can’t use the traffic lanes and I’m happy to ride on the street. Thanks for allowing bikes that freedom, as I find many people don’t even want bikes on the street.
A simple solution to give bikes a little room on the street is to narrow the car traffic lanes and leave a wider section on the right hand side for bikes.. Slap some sharows down. The narrower car lanes also can have a calming effect on traffic, maybe help to cut down on the speeding epidemic we have in town.
Scott
bikedog on December 30 at 4:19 p.m.
“Yes, they should be – in proportion to the extent of use. E.g., if bikes make up 1% of the traffic on the streets, they should get 1% of the funding and 1% of the ROW.”
So should the same reasoning be applied to walkers and sidewalks?
I’m not sure what you mean by 1% of the ROW - bikes only get to use 1% of the street width? I must have that wrong.
I see you are careful to use the (accurate or inaccurate) percent of traffic for bikers and walkers, but not the percent of people who bike or walk.
gmorton on December 30 at 6:52 p.m.
bikedog wrote,
“I’m not sure what you mean by 1% of the ROW - bikes only get to use 1% of the street width? I must have that wrong.”
Not quite. The principle is simply that you accommodate modes in proportion to their use. I.e., the dominant mode gets first priority, and is accommodated first. Other modes are then accommodated to the extent the budget and ROW permit.
Bike lanes could be added to many streets without adversely impacting auto capacity. But you do not add a bike lane, which might carry 5 commuters per hour, to a street at the cost of a traffic lane, which would carry 500 commuters per hour.
reservedparking on December 31 at 12:02 a.m.
‘Perhaps the reason why there is so little bike ridership is that the roads have become hostile to their use…’
Perhaps this is because of the large volume of bicyclists who can’t seem to understand the rules of the road (stop signs, intersection right of way, lane discipline, etc.) apply to them, too. Separate the bikes from the car traffic, and both will be happier.
LabSpokane on December 31 at 9:49 a.m.
gmorton wrote:
The “safety” argument is nonsense. No kid in Spokane has been injured walking to school in Spokane in years. Indeed, they’re more likely to be injured when their parents drive them.
================================================
Children don’t get hit while walking because they are chauffeured to school by mom and dad in 6000 lb vehicle that gets 14 mpg.
Parents drive their children to school in Spokane because they’re rightfully afraid to let them walk or bike to school. We need to provide the resources in order to change the culture, not the other way around. Driving children back and forth to school generates a huge volume of traffic, which could easily be reduced by providing equitable public facilities, which unlike roadbeds used by vehicles, last for many decades.
misjustice on December 31 at 9:54 a.m.
Strange, Coeurd’Alene is very “bike” friendly. What is so different 35 miles to the east of Spokan’t???? Is it because it’s a red state?
cogpv on December 31 at 11:33 a.m.
Current urban street design standards have devolved to create such a convoluted mess of a street that it doesn’t do anything well. There are too many things going on in too little space. The features often conflict with each other causing hazards and turning the street into an obstacle course and a hostile environment.
We need user friendly streets that enhance the quality of life rather that detract from it. We need living streets, not deadly streets. We need simple streets, not complex streets.
We need to have a moratorium on street construction until we can study what really works, how people really use streets, and do it with an open mind rather than a preconcieved set of ideas. Streets deemed too hazardous will have to be modified. Some of the newer streets are frightening to drive down, much less ride a bike, walk or run. There are street treatments in many nearby communities that function much better than what we are getting now.
A street should fit the neighborhood instead of forcing neighborhoods to accept a street that incompatible with the existing infrastructure. One size fits all doesn’t work, especially in existing neighborhoods that have been evolving on their own for many years. Neighborhoods, especially existing ones, have unique personalities, just like people. Like in medicine, what may cure one patient will kill another.
cogpv on December 31 at 12:15 p.m.
They make studded snow tires for bicycles now. You can ride in any weather. If you don’t believe, I have a slide show for you.
Someone said I was crazy for riding in the cold but the way I see it if you’re going to be freezing I would rather be exercising rather than sitting in a cold car. The car doesn’t like it either. By the time I’m done scraping windows on my car I can be halfway to my destination on my bike.
If conditions are so bad I can’t ride my bike I don’t want to be driving a car either. At that point I’ll take the bus, ski or snowshoe.
cogpv on December 31 at 12:16 p.m.
How about a tax on bicycle tires and running shoes?
cogpv on December 31 at 12:20 p.m.
You ought to see the street by my house. Most of the traffic is pedestrians, runners and walkers. Then we get a lot of bikes, and then a few cars. I’m not sure which is most. And this is on a shared-use parkway. Build it and they will come. Make it convenient and it will happen.
gmorton on December 31 at 2:51 p.m.
LabSpokane wrote,
“Parents drive their children to school in Spokane because they’re rightfully afraid to let them walk or bike to school. We need to provide the resources in order to change the culture, not the other way around.”
The fears you mention have nothing to do with traffic or road safety. They have to do with the predators parents believe (rightly or wrongly) are loose on the streets.
And, no, we don’t need to provide any “resources” (i.e., money stolen from taxpayers) to “change the culture” to conform to some greenie fantasy. The culture will change on its own, when and if enough individuals perceive an advantage in changing their own behaviors. At the moment, and for the foreseeable future, no such advantage is apparent.
gmorton on December 31 at 2:54 p.m.
misjustice wrote,
“What is so different 35 miles to the east of Spokan’t????”
CDA is much smaller and more compact, thus bikes are more useful there.
gmorton on December 31 at 2:59 p.m.
cogpv wrote,
“You ought to see the street by my house. Most of the traffic is pedestrians, runners and walkers.”
That will be the case on most residential streets, especially those populated by young families with lots of kids.
bleckb on January 01 at 8:19 p.m.
gmorton, are you anything other than contrarian? Do you have any evidence to back up your views? You act as if you are omniscient, all knowing, all seeing, into the minds of every users far and wide, the one with the answers, but you offer nothing but contrariness. Nothing productive about that.
bikedog on January 03 at 9:58 p.m.
reserved parking wrote:
“Perhaps this is because of the large volume of bicyclists who can’t seem to understand the rules of the road (stop signs, intersection right of way, lane discipline, etc.) apply to them, too.”
Funny, I think the same applies to drivers. On my morning commute, I’d say the majority of motor vehicle drivers are breaking the law one way or another: speeding, not signalling, running stop signs and red lights.
misjustice wrote:
“Strange, Coeurd’Alene is very “bike” friendly. What is so different 35 miles to the east of Spokan’t????
gmorton replied:
“CDA is much smaller and more compact, thus bikes are more useful there”
Interesting - Rode our bikes in Seattle last summer and it’s easy to follow bike routes there to get to different sections of the city.