HomeMy WebLinkAboutemail from OToole to Hines on issueMalone, Walter
From: Moore, Bruce
Sent: Thursday, April 02, 2015 9:42 AM
To: Bozynski, Tony; Carney, Dana; Malone, Walter; Honeywell, Jon; Loe, Ronny; Hood, Mike
Subject: FW: Complete Streets questions regarding master street plan
Attachments: Best -Laid Plans chapter 26.pdf; ATT00001.htm
For your reading pleasure . .
From: Director Hines
Sent: Tuesday, March 31, 2015 8:51 AM
To: Stodola, Mark; Moore, Bruce; Director Cazort; Director Fortson; Director Kumpuris; Webb, Kathy; Doris Wright;
Director Adcock; Director Wyrick; Ken Richardson; Erma Hendrix
Subject: Fwd: Complete Streets questions regarding master street plan
Please see an alternative view point on complete streets and a published excerpt from his book that is attached.
Regards,
Lance
Begin forwarded message:
From: Randal O'Toole <rot ti.or >
Date: March 2, 2015 at 10:42:36 AM CST
To: Lance Hines <lancehinesArne.com>
Cc: Marc Scribner <Marc.Scrihner@cei.org>
Subject: Re: Complete Streets questions regarding master street plan
Mr. Hines,
As an ardent cyclist, I generally prefer to cycle major roads when in cities. But I seem to be
unusual. We know that adding striped bike lanes to streets does increase cycle usage. Two
questions I have are whether this really increases bike safety or if it is just a perceived increase
that leads to increased cycling; and how to do it without reducing roadway capacities for cars,
which remain far more numerous than bikes even in the most bicycle friendly cities.
Complete streets isn't the answer either for bicycles or pedestrians. Many cities that have done
complete streets work have narrowed and/or removed lanes for autos, widened sidewalks, and
put bump -outs at corners to reduce the distance pedestrians have to walk to cross streets (which
also eliminates right -turn lanes).
No one has done any work to prove that these are worthwhile devices, either in terms of
increasing walking/cycling or increasing safety. At least some of the things planners advocate
such as turning one-way streets into two-way streets — demonstrably reduce safety.
Portland brags that it has seen a large increase in walking and bicycle commuting. But this
appears to be due to the construction of subsidized high-density housing on the edges of
downtown Portland. Most of the cycling has come at the expense of reduced transit ridership.
In 2001, downtown Portland had 42,500 auto commuters, 40,000 transit commuters, and 4,300
bicycle/pedestrian commuters. In that year, Portland opened its first streetcar line and began
spending about $800 million subsidizing high-density housing at either end of the streetcar line,
just north and south of downtown. By 2012, bike/walk commuting was up to 12,500, but transit
commuting had fallen to 32,200. Driving had grown to 44,800. You can see the increase in
bike/walk explains most of the decrease in transit.
Portland has applied complete -streets principles to many of the roads leading into downtown,
though not the ones connecting the high-density developments just north and south of downtown
with downtown. While I think making some of the bridges more bike friendly has helped, I don't
think the complete streets work did much to change the bike commuting numbers. Portland's
emphasis on high-density housing has driven families with children to move to distant suburbs;
though Portland's population has doubled since 1925, the number of school-age children has
been cut in half.
As an alternative to complete streets for cycling, I would suggest bicycle boulevards. These
consist of local streets parallel to arterials and collectors that have been signed for bicycles.
Where possible, stop signs on these streets favor the streets to minimize the number of times
cyclist have to slow or stop. Chicanes might be added in a few spots to discourage auto drivers
from trying to use them as alternatives to the arterials or collectors. Such bicycle boulevards give
cyclists a safe alternative without taking away anything from the motor vehicle users on the
arterials or collectors.
For pedestrians (and in general), you should demand engineering studies showing whether
projects actually increase safety before installing them. For example, in some situations, adding a
striped pedestrian crosswalk can actually increase pedestrian accidents, probably because they
give pedestrians an increased sense of security. Soon after a Portland suburb that installed bump
outs, it had a fatal pedestrian accident at that intersection. Was it because the bump outs gave the
pedestrian a case sense of security? I don't have enough data to say, but I doubt the other side
does either.
Attached is a chapter from my book, Best -Laid Plans, that compares engineering with planning. I
suggest you argue that, without the kind of engineering studies described on pp. 199-200 of the
book, Little Rock shouldn't rush in to adopting expensive policies that may actually prove
harmful to residents.
Best,
Randal
Cato Institute
26344 SW Metolius Meadows Drive
Camp Sherman, Oregon 97730
541-595-1460
541-588-0518 cell
http://ti.orq/antiplanner