The concept of "complete streets" -- streets and roadways that are designed not primarily for cars and secondarily for everyone else, but designed right off the bat with all users in mind -- is gaining traction and attention throughout the fields of transportation and urban planning around the US and the world.
Yesterday, US Secretary of Transportation Ray LaHood wrote on his blog a post titled "Report, petition call for safer roadway planning". In it, he cites Transportation for America's recent report, Dangerous by Design.
Bike and pedestrian advocates have been pushing this message for years, and it's pretty darn exciting to see the conversation really moving into the mainstream.
Does your neighborhood contain complete streets?
Showing posts with label streets. Show all posts
Showing posts with label streets. Show all posts
Wednesday, November 18, 2009
Tuesday, February 10, 2009
Enrique Peñalosa on Urban Happiness
Last Thursday, I attended a lecture by Enrique Peñalosa, former mayor of Bogotá, who was visiting Boston through Livable Streets, and Institute for Transportation and Development Policy last week. He also visited the WalkBoston offices for a couple of lively lunchtime conversations.
What I found most engaging about Peñalosa was not any particular design suggestion he made for cities. Most of us who are interested in urbanism are familiar with ideas like creating more open space, making bigger sidewalks, bike lanes, and the like, and most of us who are working in the field in Boston know better the streets that would most benefit from an overhaul. What Peñalosa offers, however, is a way of thinking that represents a true paradigm shift in how we approach the politics of urban design.
In essence, what he proposes is that the city be considered habitat for humans, and that people should be the primary focus for urban design. We have Environmental Impact Reviews, he pointed out, but not Human Impact Reviews. Cities planned for cars are cities that institutionalize class-based inequality, as they prioritize the transportation of people who can afford cars over the safety, enjoyment, and transportation of people who can't, or who choose not to. Therefore, reorienting the city towards pedestrians is a move toward equality.
To this end, we should see sidewalks not as relatives of streets, whose job is to get people from here to there, but instead as relatives of parks, which are all about people's pleasure of place. At intersections, the sidewalk should remain at a level, making cars come into pedestrians' space rather than make pedestrians step into the car zone to get across the street. Sidewalks should come first, then room for public transportation, which is a public good, and only if there's room should there be street space for private vehicles in the public way.
What would our cities look like if they put people first?
What I found most engaging about Peñalosa was not any particular design suggestion he made for cities. Most of us who are interested in urbanism are familiar with ideas like creating more open space, making bigger sidewalks, bike lanes, and the like, and most of us who are working in the field in Boston know better the streets that would most benefit from an overhaul. What Peñalosa offers, however, is a way of thinking that represents a true paradigm shift in how we approach the politics of urban design.
In essence, what he proposes is that the city be considered habitat for humans, and that people should be the primary focus for urban design. We have Environmental Impact Reviews, he pointed out, but not Human Impact Reviews. Cities planned for cars are cities that institutionalize class-based inequality, as they prioritize the transportation of people who can afford cars over the safety, enjoyment, and transportation of people who can't, or who choose not to. Therefore, reorienting the city towards pedestrians is a move toward equality.
To this end, we should see sidewalks not as relatives of streets, whose job is to get people from here to there, but instead as relatives of parks, which are all about people's pleasure of place. At intersections, the sidewalk should remain at a level, making cars come into pedestrians' space rather than make pedestrians step into the car zone to get across the street. Sidewalks should come first, then room for public transportation, which is a public good, and only if there's room should there be street space for private vehicles in the public way.
What would our cities look like if they put people first?
Monday, January 26, 2009
Urban Happiness with Enrique Peñalosa!
[Note: This is an event not to be missed!]
Urban Happiness with Enrique Peñalosa! Hosted by LivableStreets Alliance
What happens when you give street space back to people?
Thursday, February 5, 6:30 pm
@ Boston Public Library, Copley Square, Rabb Lecture Hall
This event is free and open to the public. Enrique Peñalosa is a special guest speaker in the StreetTalk lecture series hosted by LivableStreets Alliance.
An accomplished public official, economist and administrator, Enrique Peñalosa completed his three-year term as Mayor of Bogotá, Colombia on December 31, 2000. While mayor, Peñalosa was responsible for numerous radical improvements to the city and its citizens. He promoted a city model giving priority to children and public spaces and restricting private car use, building hundreds of kilometers of sidewalks, bicycle paths, pedestrian streets, greenways, and parks. He received the Stockholm Challenge Award for organizing a Car-Free Day in 2000 and a referendum vote then endorsed it annually. As part of the pico y plata license plate restriction program, he removed 40% of cars during peak hours. Peñalosa also led efforts to improve Bogotá's marginal neighborhoods through citizen involvement; planted more than 100,000 trees; created a new, highly successful bus-based transit system; and turned a deteriorated downtown avenue into a dynamic pedestrian public space. He helped transform the city's attitude from one of negative hopelessness to one of pride and hope, developing a model for urban improvement based on the equal rights of all people to transportation, education, and public spaces.
This event is part of a 4-day series of events hosted by LivableStreets Alliance and sponsored by the Institute for Transportation and Development Policy, in collaboration with WalkBoston, Institute for Human Centered Design, Bikes Not Bombs, Charles River Conservancy, and MassBike.
For more information, check out www.livablestreets.info or contact Jackie Douglas at (617) 621-1746, jackie@livablestreets.info.
For a flyer about the event, check out http://www.livablestreets.info/files/Penalosa_5feb09_BPL.pdf
Urban Happiness with Enrique Peñalosa! Hosted by LivableStreets Alliance
What happens when you give street space back to people?
Thursday, February 5, 6:30 pm
@ Boston Public Library, Copley Square, Rabb Lecture Hall
This event is free and open to the public. Enrique Peñalosa is a special guest speaker in the StreetTalk lecture series hosted by LivableStreets Alliance.
An accomplished public official, economist and administrator, Enrique Peñalosa completed his three-year term as Mayor of Bogotá, Colombia on December 31, 2000. While mayor, Peñalosa was responsible for numerous radical improvements to the city and its citizens. He promoted a city model giving priority to children and public spaces and restricting private car use, building hundreds of kilometers of sidewalks, bicycle paths, pedestrian streets, greenways, and parks. He received the Stockholm Challenge Award for organizing a Car-Free Day in 2000 and a referendum vote then endorsed it annually. As part of the pico y plata license plate restriction program, he removed 40% of cars during peak hours. Peñalosa also led efforts to improve Bogotá's marginal neighborhoods through citizen involvement; planted more than 100,000 trees; created a new, highly successful bus-based transit system; and turned a deteriorated downtown avenue into a dynamic pedestrian public space. He helped transform the city's attitude from one of negative hopelessness to one of pride and hope, developing a model for urban improvement based on the equal rights of all people to transportation, education, and public spaces.
This event is part of a 4-day series of events hosted by LivableStreets Alliance and sponsored by the Institute for Transportation and Development Policy, in collaboration with WalkBoston, Institute for Human Centered Design, Bikes Not Bombs, Charles River Conservancy, and MassBike.
For more information, check out www.livablestreets.info or contact Jackie Douglas at (617) 621-1746, jackie@livablestreets.info.
For a flyer about the event, check out http://www.livablestreets.info/files/Penalosa_5feb09_BPL.pdf
Thursday, December 4, 2008
Extreme crosswalk geekery
I am about to get really crosswalk geeky on you:
There are a lot of different patterns used for crosswalks, all of which are intended to give pedestrians a clear, protected zone in which to cross a street. As I'm sure we've all observed, they can be used at intersections and at mid-block crossings. But what's the deal with all the different designs?
Okay, first, in Massachusetts, the "standard" design (and the one the state pays for when cities want to put in or repaint a crosswalk) is this:
There's one of these near my house, actually, I didn't realize until just a few months ago that this was a crosswalk at all -- I always figured that these were simply lines in intersections to tell cars where to stop, and I found them confusing when located mid-block. They're okay, I guess, but they're not very visible. Also, because they run perpendicular to traffic, they get worn and faded quite quickly. D
Even worse is the dashed style:
This one has all the disadvantages of the standard style, plus it's effectively pre-faded. Maybe the fact that it's dashed makes it more visible? I'm not sure. In any case, I don't like it. D-
Another that I don't see particularly frequently is the solid crosswalk:
This one is certainly more visually arresting than either the standard or the dashed. Sometimes I see these painted yellow, or with white borders and yellow fill. Not bad. It uses a lot of paint (or, more often, these days, thermoplastic), though, which is costly, needs a fair amount of maintenance, and might be slippery for both vehicles and pedestrians. C
The continental style is among the most commonly used in and around Boston, I think:
The stripes are attention-getting, and because they're oriented parallel to vehicular travel, they will be more durable over time. Vehicle tires will, at least some of the time, miss the markings, which should decrease skidding in cases where that material is more slippery than the pavement. Pedestrians also won't have to walk on a solid painted or plastic surface. B+
The ladder style has a lot of the same advantages:
The framing bars that run perpendicular don't, to my mind, add much, except a zone requiring more frequent maintenance. On the other hand, the kids I've worked with for Safe Routes to School liked the imagery of "climbing the ladder" as a reminder for them to stay within the crosswalk zone when crossing streets. And since the consequence of worn framing strips is that the ladder will simply look like a Continental style crosswalk, I suppose that's not a big deal. B
Zebra crosswalks have a certain visual appeal:
The problem, as you probably surmised, is that the angle means more wear over time. B-
So those are the most common crosswalk types I've seen out and about. But this post was actually inspired by a couple of new (to me) crosswalk styles that I think are pretty nifty:
First, there's the piano style:
The big win here is that you still have a very visible crosswalk, but by leaving extra room where most vehicle tires will wear, you cut down on any potential skidding and maintenance costs due to the markings getting worn down. Nice. A
In a different vein, you get the double ladder:
Instead of reducing skidding for vehicles, this one leaves an unmarked zones where pedestrians can walk and reduce potential slippage for them. What's not to like? A
Finally, putting those two good ideas together, there's the double piano:
It's visible. It experiences reduced wear and tear. It minimizes potential slipping and skidding for vehicles and pedestrians. This is a great crosswalk. A+
There are a lot of different patterns used for crosswalks, all of which are intended to give pedestrians a clear, protected zone in which to cross a street. As I'm sure we've all observed, they can be used at intersections and at mid-block crossings. But what's the deal with all the different designs?
Okay, first, in Massachusetts, the "standard" design (and the one the state pays for when cities want to put in or repaint a crosswalk) is this:
There's one of these near my house, actually, I didn't realize until just a few months ago that this was a crosswalk at all -- I always figured that these were simply lines in intersections to tell cars where to stop, and I found them confusing when located mid-block. They're okay, I guess, but they're not very visible. Also, because they run perpendicular to traffic, they get worn and faded quite quickly. D
Even worse is the dashed style:
This one has all the disadvantages of the standard style, plus it's effectively pre-faded. Maybe the fact that it's dashed makes it more visible? I'm not sure. In any case, I don't like it. D-
Another that I don't see particularly frequently is the solid crosswalk:
This one is certainly more visually arresting than either the standard or the dashed. Sometimes I see these painted yellow, or with white borders and yellow fill. Not bad. It uses a lot of paint (or, more often, these days, thermoplastic), though, which is costly, needs a fair amount of maintenance, and might be slippery for both vehicles and pedestrians. C
The continental style is among the most commonly used in and around Boston, I think:
The stripes are attention-getting, and because they're oriented parallel to vehicular travel, they will be more durable over time. Vehicle tires will, at least some of the time, miss the markings, which should decrease skidding in cases where that material is more slippery than the pavement. Pedestrians also won't have to walk on a solid painted or plastic surface. B+
The ladder style has a lot of the same advantages:
The framing bars that run perpendicular don't, to my mind, add much, except a zone requiring more frequent maintenance. On the other hand, the kids I've worked with for Safe Routes to School liked the imagery of "climbing the ladder" as a reminder for them to stay within the crosswalk zone when crossing streets. And since the consequence of worn framing strips is that the ladder will simply look like a Continental style crosswalk, I suppose that's not a big deal. B
Zebra crosswalks have a certain visual appeal:
The problem, as you probably surmised, is that the angle means more wear over time. B-
So those are the most common crosswalk types I've seen out and about. But this post was actually inspired by a couple of new (to me) crosswalk styles that I think are pretty nifty:
First, there's the piano style:
The big win here is that you still have a very visible crosswalk, but by leaving extra room where most vehicle tires will wear, you cut down on any potential skidding and maintenance costs due to the markings getting worn down. Nice. A
In a different vein, you get the double ladder:
Instead of reducing skidding for vehicles, this one leaves an unmarked zones where pedestrians can walk and reduce potential slippage for them. What's not to like? A
Finally, putting those two good ideas together, there's the double piano:
It's visible. It experiences reduced wear and tear. It minimizes potential slipping and skidding for vehicles and pedestrians. This is a great crosswalk. A+
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
