[Vision2020] Re: When Moscow Doubles - Transportation

[Nils Peterson]

Kit, thanks for good use of the subject line:

On 5/22/06 2:39 PM, " Craine Kit <kcraine at verizon.net> wrote:

> Addressing the issues by single-site "improvements" (such
> as the proposed 3rd Street Bridge) only shift the burden rather than
> solving the problem.
> 
> This approach does not produce a viable transportation system that
> allows all residents to go from point-A to point-B efficiently and
> safely. The only viable solution is to plan AND produce--in other
> words, the City needs to make adequate streets happen.
> 
> That means we, the taxpayers, will need to reach into our pockets and
> pay the big bucks growing the transportation network will cost. Are
> we willing and able?

"All politics are local," and transportation planning is global, which seems
to lead to a conflict.

My concern with your post is the spin that may get put on "...viable
transportation system that allows all residents to go from point-A to
point-B efficiently and safely."  The spin is an assumption of _how_ one
does that -- the ready assumption is private automobile.

I'm just back from a week spent in downtown Bellevue, where all the streets
are 5-6 lanes wide and the blocks are longer than Moscow's. Its efficient.
I've also spent time in Scotland, where the medieval streets are the extreme
opposite- narrow, winding, bad corners, etc. Driving is so difficult that
people don't do as much of it. But busses are good. And walking is good.

So, what are the touchstones of a "viable transportation system?" What are
the core values? What are the tradeoffs we are willing to state, embody in
zoning, etc?