[Vision2020] Re: When Moscow Doubles - Transportation

[Nils Peterson]

Kit, Thanks for a thoughtful reply, I'm enclosing it below. I believe I
replied to you and the list. I have learned this practice from others on the
list, and as a reader of the digest I appreciate this it greatly when others
are so kind, because I often dump the digests unread.

Thanks also for a nice enumeration of your ideas about safe and efficient, I
agree its not all about cars. And I agree that the city block structure that
exists in the older parts of Moscow (with its various quirks) is the
character of development we want When Moscow Doubles.


On 5/23/06 10:30 AM, "Craine Kit" <kcraine at verizon.net> wrote:

> Nils,
> 
> I don¹t know if you meant this to go just to me or to the whole 2020
> list so I¹m replying just to you. You can repost it if you want.
> 
> Sorry if I was a little too brief in my statements concerning getting
> from point-A to point-B efficiently and safetly. The meaning of
> "efficiently and safely" depends on the mode of transportation.
> 
> For pedestrians, it means continuous sidewalks in good repair and
> free of obstructions (such as ice, bushes, and menasing dogs) which
> provide fairly direct and flat routes to various places (I prefer
> walkways that are not along busy streets)
> 
> For those in electric wheelchairs or other assistance devises, it
> means the same thing as for pedestrians, with the addition of usable
> curb-cut ramps and driveways that slope in such a way that one does
> not tip over.
> 
> For bicyclists, it means paved streets without too much traffic or
> potholes or storm drains that are at the bottom of a drop off.
> 
> For private motorized vehicles, it means having enough through routes
> so traffic can be spread out rather than being concentrated on a few,
> multiple lane roads. This is not to say every street has to go
> straight across town, but that drivers have more than one or two
> choices of how to get from one side of town to the other.
> 
> For public transportation, it means having enough stops and frequent
> pickups to make riding the bus is viable.
> 
> For all of those, the culda-sac model doesn¹t work well. Neither does
> the current practice of designing a subdivision to maximize the
> number of structures on a site without leaving openings for that
> development to connect with the next.
> 
> What is needed is for the city to layout the streets, walkways, bike
> routes, etc. and have development fit within that grid rather than
> letting transportation just happen.
> 
> Kit Craine
> 
> 
> On May 22, 2006, at 4:35 PM, Nils Peterson wrote:
> 
>> 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?
>> 
>