[Vision2020] Re: When Moscow Doubles - Transportation

Wed May 24 11:01:11 PDT 2006

Kit & Nils, et al;
I know City Council met last night with sidewalks on their agenda and this
might be too late for them to consider, BUT... I suggest people interested
in transportation and vehicle/pedestrian issues Google WOONERF and read
about this concept.  I has some very pleasant connotations that can work as
well in Moscow as it does elsewhere.  (It has been used in the Netherlands
in the 1970's.)  Here are some direct sites:
http://www.ecocitycleveland.org/transportation/traffic/tools/woonerf.html
http://www.architectureweek.com/2004/0505/building_1-2.html
http://www.walkinginfo.org/de/curb1.cfm?codename=32d&CM_maingroup=Traffic%20
Calming

Mark

"No space can serve just a single function.  Conversely, in the United
States we've perfected the art of getting two acres to do the work of one."
Lyle Bicknell

-----Original Message-----
From: vision2020-bounces at moscow.com
[mailto:vision2020-bounces at moscow.com]On Behalf Of Nils Peterson
Sent: Tuesday, May 23, 2006 11:03 PM
To: Craine Kit; vision2020 at moscow.com
Subject: [Vision2020] Re: When Moscow Doubles - Transportation

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?
>>
>

_____________________________________________________
 List services made available by First Step Internet,
 serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
               http://www.fsr.net
          mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯