WalkBikeCT

Cycling and Feminism: A Short Manifesto

noreply@blogger.com (Editor - WalkBikeCT) — Mon, 08 Mar 2010 17:15:00 +0000

My friend Juli Stupakevich recently posted an open letter on feminism and cycling to the Elm City Cycling email list. Her letter was so good - clear, powerful, and passionate - that I had to share it. I've re-posted it below, with Juli's permission.

We all know that however we choose to navigate the roads; it is often a very intricate power struggle that can bring the worst out of people. The smallest differences affect the way that people choose to treat each other: size, wealth, age, color, sex, what that guy's bumper sticker says, how fast someone notices the light turned green, the type of neighborhood, how loud the stereo is, how pissed someone is that the person in front of them is lost.... on and on. These affect how we choose to treat each other, either subconsciously or consciously.

So, a bit on why I am a feminist (and, damn it, why you should be too.)

Cyclists are quite often the minority on any given road. As females, we are an even smaller minority within a minority. As an acknowledgement of my fellow female riders: it is a TREMENDOUS act of courage to assert that we have the same right to the road as the tons of metal flying all around us. Hey, guys: do you get heckled and yelled at? We probably get it more. And imagine the things men scream to women while they are alone on a street. Sometimes it is expected to be taken as a compliment, and when it is not, you can guess the ways that drivers like to try to piss off cyclists who have "wronged" them.

Do you get startled by motorcycles revving their engines? Often, they wait until the last second to do it right behind me. Whether to impress me or scare me - I’ve never had the pleasure to ask. Do you get lectured on how you shouldn't be riding on the road? Imagine all the stereotypes that our society uses against women and, predictably, those are often their knee-jerk reactions. Namely: I am just a dumb girl who doesn't know what she is doing, slowing them down; I am a bitch who just wants to ride wherever I want; I am a naive idealist who needs to be taught a lesson.

I say this not to scare people away from cycling because a) the more of us there are, our presence is stronger and the level of aggression, I really believe, will be less and less and b) I am a stronger woman because of cycling and I can handle everything I mentioned above. And you can too. Cycling has taught me to be a clearer communicator, while not feeling guilty about it (no matter how many times a car horn or "bitch", etc. is the retort.) It has helped me realize how capable and strong I am mentally and physically. And it's helped be become proudly assertive because no one is going to give you space you don't claim in this world.

With that, will you invite one woman who might not ordinarily ride a bike for a bike ride this spring? Even if you are a more seasoned rider, could you take it a little easy, and help her figure out that she is capable of much more, but that there is no rush, and you can just enjoy the ride? I think this is a small sacrifice because we will likely get back much more seeing the ride through a fresh perspective.

I think we'll all be better for it.

Thanks,

Juli

Olympics provide a "nudge"

noreply@blogger.com (J.B.) — Tue, 16 Feb 2010 20:54:00 +0000

A few weeks ago I wrote (okay, maybe whined a little) about my choice to drive to what were really eminently bikeable locations. Today I saw a headline about the traffic and riots and civil liberties disasters going on in Vancouver. In a moment of unwarranted optimism thought: hey, I bet the cyclists are happier than the poor schnooks still driving or trying to take a public transit system that clearly wasn't ready. And they are!

Vancouver already has an active cycling population. This huge event has made cycling's advantages: personal freedom, the small space required to park at a destination, frequently designated lanes and the ability to maneuver out of stalled traffic, much greater than a car's normal advantages. The result is that people who might not otherwise be pedaling are out and discovering its advantages.

Maybe this answers my question from before: how to make the active transportation an easier choice. Make the default option harder. I'm thinking that some of the deterrents I listed, including fear of being accosted because you're alone out there, are less of an issue. If a lot more people are out on bikes, it would be a lot harder for muggers to operate.

I'm looking forward to seeing how the Olympics pan out for cyclists. Yup. I'm a transportation nerd.

Learn to Ride!!!

noreply@blogger.com (J.B.) — Wed, 10 Feb 2010 02:04:00 +0000

We (as in, all us cyclists and wannabes) all heard about the motorist in Oregon who followed a bad cyclist and shouted at him not to break traffic laws. Because he, the motorist, was a cyclist and advocate who was tired of lazy riders making him look bad. Word went out that he'd assaulted the cyclist, but I'm delighted/sad (?) to report that in fact, the cyclist assaulted him. And got in lots of trouble. Guess there's bad behavior on both sides.

Given the slightly chilling account of the cyclist using his bike to shatter the man's windshield, I'm glad I resisted temptation the other day. I followed two cyclists down Elm Street in New Haven in my car, and they were striking examples of the difference between riding with traffic and cruising along in the road. One in particular came close to having an irate driver pull alongside and yell at him for making us all look bad.

Just for the sake of context, Elm Street is a long, one way street with three active lanes, bus stops, many many pedestrians crossing, and parking. And the cars fly. In other words, not a place to mess around.

One cyclist clearly felt that lanes only exist for four-wheeled vehicles. He cruised around in his chosen lane on the right. When the bus in front of him slowed down, he pulled around the bus onto the dotted line between lanes about four inches from the passenger window of my car. When cars stopped for lights, he drifted along between so he could run the light. Meanwhile, his spandex twin was far behind due to his dedication to riding with the traffic. You know: staying in his lane, stopping with the traffic, signaling his intentions. He was following state guidelines for safe riding. I hope they eventually found each other. And I hope the annoying one didn't injure himself or anyone else.

The people I see riding on the sidewalk are annoying. But somehow they are less infuriating than this particular rider. Why ride in the road if you aren't going to bother to either ride properly or learn how to ride properly? I'll admit I wasn't that good at riding in traffic when I started, and I had to learn. But this person was too thoroughly equipped to be a beginner, so I can only assume he doesn't care.

I never take it personally when I'm stuck in traffic with a lousy driver. But cyclists are still a small group, and the behavior of one tends to be taken for the behavior of all by motorists. If he annoyed other drivers the way he was annoying me, they'll remember. And maybe take it out on another cyclist.

We need a cyclist version of the Pace car, just so those cyclists who can't be bothered can see that they are not necessarily the only ones riding. If they can't learn, cyclists are going to end up having to be licensed just like drivers. Maybe that's not a bad thing.

The Sacred Cow

noreply@blogger.com (J.B.) — Thu, 04 Feb 2010 02:06:00 +0000

While I was in the Lone Star State, I heard a lot about Austin's new commuter railway. As a budding transportation nerd, my ears pricked up and I listened to what people said, and took a look at a station. Basically, Austin's Capital Metro is using existing freight rail lines to add a commuter service that will connect downtown Austin to its northern suburbs and Leander, TX. The line was supposed to be in operation two years ago, but it's failed four inspections by the federal agency responsible for policing rail safety. And the city recently dumped its rail contracter, Veolia Transportation, after failing for the fourth time. It's now planning a March opening.

*Sound of brakes screeching*

Ok. So. I was going to write about how the Austin commuter rail, despite numerous positive press releases and public statements, appears to have been something of a debacle. I would have discussed why it was sad that incompetence had thwarted the development of a rail system in a city that really promotes active transportation. I might even have asked a few questions about how this project compares to light rail, such as a trolley system, or bus rapid transit, and how these options would work for walkers and cyclists.

But then I spoke to my husband, a transportation planner, who flinched a little. Further discussion with him led me to the conclusion that any attempt to impartially explore rail and bus development would be bad. If I attempted an amateur take on these issues, I would probably have inadvertently stabbed any number of sacred cows in the neck and started up a bus vs. rail flame war. And would then have had to join the Witness Protection Program to avoid being stalked by angry bloggers. Light rail, buses and conventional rail have a lot of ardent advocates.

That right there, is the problem we're having in active and alternative transportation, people. I'd like to use my status as the outsider to take an outsider's look at rail transit in the U.S., but there are lots of intelligent people slamming each other over this. And I could expect a whole lot of angry diatribes in my inbox if I dared to comment. Perhaps it's time to ease up on criticism from within the ranks: bus advocates vs. the street car crowd, effective cyclists vs. the Copenhagenize syndicate, almost everyone else versus cyclists. There's plenty coming from outside, as this attack on the director of America 2050 will show.

Let's discuss transportation issues, let's pool ideas. But let's also have an open mind about alternatives. Let's remember that the goal is to make it possible, even desirable, for people to choose something other than their car to go about the business of living.

120 Million People Can't Be Wrong

noreply@blogger.com (Adam) — Tue, 02 Feb 2010 13:00:00 +0000

Our tag line here at WalkBikeCT proudly states that “the revolution will not be motorized”. Should we be sure about that? After all, a number of blogs and newspapers (see Sunday's NY Times) have picked up on the growing popularity of electric bikes. (I admit, it's old news, but I was still shocked to read that there are 120 million "e-bikes" zipping along China's crowded roads.)

Although electric bikes have been around for many years, it appears that improvements in battery technology are making the prospect of an affordable electrically-assisted bike feasible. Who's got two grand to go 22 mph on this?

I am sure most many of this blog's readers (and contributors), those pesky non-motorized purists, will throw their mouses or iPhones in disgust, but e-bikes could do a lot to encourage a critical mass of people to give up their cars for commuting and shopping purposes.

Would making biking easier lead to greater ridership?

Most of us would agree that, thanks to lightweight construction and plentiful gears, biking already is pretty easy.

But maybe it's just not easy enough for Joe the Commuter, who wants to arrive at work without needing to change his clothes or recover from biking up and down the hills in his leafy suburban town on the way to the city. Joe the Commuter thinks exercise is for the gym, after all, not his trip to work.

I am not convinced, however, that my strawman everyman would bother with an e-bike.

First, if he wanted the thrill of the open road without the workout, why wouldn't he just get a moped or motorcycle? (Perhaps the answer, for now, would lie in the lack of regulation; I don't think that riding an e-bike requires registration and a special license.)

Second, according to trend spotters, e-bikes ain't cool. As the NY Times wrote:

In China, riding an electric bike conveys professional achievement, even a certain degree of wealth. People in the United States, said Ed Benjamin, an independent consultant in the bike business, don’t quite know whether these bikes are fashionable. The e-bike is “an ambiguous statement,” Mr. Benjamin said.

What's "ambiguous" about e-bikes? I guess the rider is trying to toe the line between different circles, and not succeeding in any. His car driving co-workers will think he's weird. Ordinary bicyclists will think he's fat and lazy. And his wife will worry about the onset of his mid-life crisis.

Maybe e-bikes are going revolutionize transportation, or maybe they're just another goofy fad. Anyone out there still have a moped?

The Chilly, Timid Activist

noreply@blogger.com (J.B.) — Thu, 28 Jan 2010 19:02:00 +0000

Last night I went downtown for a yoga class (how yuppie). And here's my embarrassing secret: I drove. I live two miles away from that class, but it was cold and dark. So I drove.

I also drive to work. Again, very easy to get to via bike or public transit. Except: it's a hospital, in a part of town where nobody ever, ever walks around at night. I can't get to the transit stop without walking alone along poorly-lit streets and waiting at a stop, and I can't ride my bike home without going through an area where cyclists have been jumped before. So I drive.

I haven't come up with an answer to the question that I'm asking, assuming it's the right question: is it possible to make active transportation feel as safe and comfortable as driving? I realize that statistically, I probably have a much better chance of being hit or worse driving back and forth than I do walking and cycling. But blame it on salience or the media, I feel safer in that car. Fashion has thoughtfully swung in my favor and made puffy down jackets and furry boots look good, so it's easier to walk somewhere and arrive looking acceptably stylish than it was five years ago. But at night, I still get cold.

Safety could be addressed by more people walking. Montreal addressed the cold problem by building numerous subterranean walkways, which is a bit much to ask Connecticut. Could making transit easier and more flexible make it more comfortable to walk? It's already the same price to take the bus downtown as it is to park there, although it costs considerably more ingenuity to untangle the confusing and counterintuitive schedule and map. And it's much slower, especially if you have to change routes to get to a specific location.

Greater minds than mine are working on the problem, I know. But I hope they'll bear in mind that if I, a reasonably healthy and active adult living in a walkable city, often choose to drive, others will too. Can we make it easier to choose active transportion? Or do we also have to make it harder to choose to drive?

The Right Question

noreply@blogger.com (Tom H) — Tue, 26 Jan 2010 04:24:00 +0000

A mentor of mine used to tell me that the secret to a successful investigation is to start by asking the right question.

"The research question", he'd state, "is the most important part of the research process."

Any doubt I may have had about this mantra was whisked away by The High Cost of Free Parking by Donald Shoup. In writing this book, Shoup has done more to influence urban planning than almost anyone else alive. Not surprisingly, many people consider him to be one of the most influential contemporary urban thinkers.

So what is so ground-breaking about this book? Is it a formula for eliminating pollution? Ending sprawl? Perhaps, but it does so by looking at a simple, far-reaching facet of accepted planning and zoning. In this book Shoup challenges a central but hidden land-use policy, one that affects virtually every community in the country: the minimum parking requirement. This policy holds that it's the planner's responsibility to provide enough parking spaces to allow everyone to park for free, wherever they go.

I had the privilege of hearing Mr. Shoup speak at Yale University last week and was amazed at the turnout. It seemed like parking would be too dry of a topic to pack a lecture hall, but the hall was full. It was a who's who of Connecticut transportation nerds, myself included. He is one of the most influential thinkers in the field - his book has planners and politicians everywhere suddenly rethinking policies that have been unchallenged since World War II.

Minimum parking seemed like a very good idea at the time. To many people, it still does. Who doesn't love free parking? And who likes searching for change among the grit and gum wrappers under the car seat to feed the meter, or initiating a panicked search through wallets to pay for the garage? Nobody, which is why the idea of requiring developers and land owners to provide enough parking seemed so attractive. For decades, this policy was untouchable and enshrined in the planning canon.

Mr. Shoup upended this thinking. He asked the right question: "What is the cost of providing 'free' parking to everyone all the time?" This question matters because we tend to assume that if we aren't visibly paying for something, then there's no cost. This is, of course, ridiculous to assume. None of us have received an invoice for the war in Iraq, but we all know that this military action isn't free. It turns out that the cost of providing "free" parking is very high. It pushes up land prices, it taxes storm-water systems, it uses up land that could be put to better use. In a nutshell, free parking is very inefficient because everyone pays no matter how much or how little they use those spaces.

When I go to a store part of the money I spend there goes to cover the construction and maintenance of the parking lot, whether or not I've used it. If I rent a condo with "free" parking, I pay for that parking with my rent and condo fees, whether I use each allotted space or not. Parking has been an amenity we use without paying for so long that we've become blind to the absurdity.

Imagine for a moment that instead of parking, air travel was required to be "free". Imagine the government raising all our taxes to dramatically upgrade air traffic control, airports, and planes, and provide tickets to anyone. Picture major travel destinations being required to help provide free tickets to anyone who wants them; the cost would of course be passed along to the consumer in the form of much higher prices for meals, hotel rooms, and amenities. What would you do? Well, it's "free", so you'd fly. Immediately, there would be a shortage of seats on airplanes, and we would eventually become unaware of the staggeringly high cost being paid by frequent flier and aerophobe alike.

This is how parking works now. We all use it as much as we can because it we've already paid for it. Therefore, it's always being used, so there's a constant clamor for more because there never seems to be enough. By asking the right question, Shoup cuts through conventional thinking to show that free parking isn't really free at all, and that it actually wastes resources and space. His solution is simple: Stop requiring developers to build parking they don't want to build and charge the market price for the parking that's available.

Shoup suggests charging a price high enough to occupy about 85% of existing parking spaces. In other words, raise the price until about 15% of people who would normally park are deterred into making another arrangement. This will result in an efficiently utilized parking system in which those willing to pay market price can quickly and easily find a spot.

This obvious solution eluded planners and policy-makers for decades. It's because they were asking the wrong question, namely: "How much parking do we need for everyone to park for free?" This is a doesn't work, because there is no such thing as free. Somebody pays. You pay, even if you never get a bill. Shoup was able to see this solution simply by asking the right question: "What is the true cost of a parking space, and what should we charge people for parking?"

Despite being convinced by Shoup's theory and thoroughly enjoying the book, seeing him speak last week left me somewhat disappointed. To be fair, Donald Shoup is an excellent and engaging speaker. What disappointed me was the realization that Shoup had asked and answered one critical question but left its corollary wide open. Shoup tells us how to price parking but not how much parking to build in a community. A town could have 20,00 spaces priced for 85% occupancy or 5,00 spaces priced for 85% occupancy. In both cases the town would be following his advice. But would either one would be optimal for the town's economic vigor, ease of movement, and efficiency?

Too many spaces, and you arrive at an urban wasteland that welcomes cars but repels people. Too few, and businesses can't serve all their customers, residents circle the block in frustration, and traffic builds. Although it is tempting to say "the fewer parking spaces, the better", it's just not practical. Until our land use policies change to create communities less dependent on private automobiles, a certain amount of parking is necessary.

So my question for Donald Shoup, and everyone else out there, is, "How do we decide how many parking spaces to build in a community?"

Smackdown: Austin vs. New Haven!!

noreply@blogger.com (J.B.) — Fri, 22 Jan 2010 00:30:00 +0000

I was in Texas a while back, staying with family. Specifically, Austin, the Texas mecca for those of us who are into alternative transportation. And bubble tea. Seriously, go there, check out Toy Joy, and then go to Half-Price Books. Half-Price Books is where Texas kicks Connecticut's ass until it whimpers for mercy. Wait, I was talking about something...right. active transportation.

Shopping delights aside, I noticed that everywhere we went, we drove. We went down to this Toy Joy place, then got in the car and drove for a while to see the campus of University of Texas Austin, then drove some more. None of the landmarks were close together. Same could be said of almost all of Connecticut, I know this. I live in New Haven and I'm spoiled. I walk to the grocery store, I walk to the drugstore, and can cycle downtown for dinner. Somehow, I expected a city of comparable importance to Texas as New Haven is to Connecticut to be just as walkable. But New Haven's neighborhoods were almost all built B.C. (before cars) and Austin's A.C. (after cars). It shows.

I saw a grand total of five cyclists the whole time, although it was about 40 degrees out and that would discourage most cyclists that far south. Two of them were on the sidewalk ignoring the bike lane, and frankly I might have too. There were a LOT of cars going REALLY fast for a city. That's just how the roads are built. The heavy traffic is a common topic of conversation. On the other hand (sorry New Haven) the only people who asked us for money didn't follow us down the street hassling us, which happened to the family I was visiting when they came to New Haven.

It might have been because I was staying with my altogether delightful and progressive family, but from what they said the citizens of Austin are really engaged in the problem of making their city easier to navigate without a car. The city has been building a new light rail system – unfortunately, a disaster, and one I will address in another post – and it has bike lanes and sidewalks. It has a great bike and pedestrian plan. But here is the problem they have, and it is the same problem every city in America has: everything that is built puts cars first.

I visited a newly built community just outside Austin which is supposed to be for active adults. These are people who are moving into a place to retire, and they don't really want to have a car for each adult in the household. They want to be able to walk around, and get by with just one car, and know that if they ever have to give up driving, they could stay in their homes. Which are great: affordable, energy-efficient, well-designed, and really comfortable. There are lots of nicely landscaped walking trails and pretty wooded common areas. But the developer built that place for cars first, and not people. It is supposed to be walkable but the streets themselves are not. I felt it the most strongly when I went for a walk on one of the winding side streets. The cars that passed us were flying. Not because they are bad people, but because the roads are wide and curved just right to make 40 mph the most comfortable speed.

There's an older neighborhood near the university that was also built A.C. However, it was built when the city still laid out the streets (and before the onset of Levittowns), so the streets are in short grids. There were a few cars zooming around, but most were not and it felt great to walk.

The developer was just building what he knows will sell. The city was building what it thought would work. Should the layout be up to the developer? Would the city build those streets now?

Supply and Demand

noreply@blogger.com (Tom H) — Tue, 19 Jan 2010 04:20:00 +0000

One of may favorite urban planning blogs is the New Geography. It's underlying philosophy is firmly libertarian and, as far as planning goes, contrarian. Mind you, I am neither libertarian nor contrarian. I like the New Geography because, love or hate the politics behind it, it presents a fresh take on a lot of planning issues and forces any good planner or advocate to thoughtfully examine his/her beliefs. The authors, with the exception of Wendell Cox who can best be described as Glenn Beck with a beard and a pile of questionable statistics, are economically conservative without succumbing to the excesses intellectual nihilism of the extreme right wing. They are Bill Buckley conservatives rather than Bill O'Reilly Republicans.

One of the reoccuring themes on the site that brought me to question and reevaluate my beliefs is the idea that compact, mixed-use, walkable cities are not affordable for the majority of people; that walkable cities like Boston, New York and San Francisco are simply playgrounds for the upper class and hipsters willing to pay way too much for rent. In numerous posts, the contributors to the New Geography bash walkable cities like New York and San Fransisco because they are unaffordable to the middle class. Suburbs and exurbs in places like Houston and the Inland Empire, they argue, provide affordable homeownership opportunites for most Americans. Therefore, they reason, we should be planning auto-centric exurban developments rather than compact towns because to former is affordable and the latter is expensive.

On the surface it is hard to argue against their conclusions. New York and San Francisco aren't very affordable, particularly if you want to own a house or condo someday, which most people do. Very few of us would argue that we need to build more housing for the wealthy. And, it would seem that low-density, exurban development seems to accomplish the goal of providing homeownership opportunities for the middle class. As I thought about it more though, the argument began to look increasingly ridiculous. My "Aha!" moment came to me when I reflected on the fact that this idea came from a libertarian-leaning website.

Of course walkable cities like New York and San Francisco are unaffordable while places like Houston and surburban Atlanta offer good deals on housing. New York and San Francisco are some of the most desirable places in the world to live. Nothing against the sunbelt, but given two identically sized homes for sale at the same price, most people would opt to live in New York or San Fransisco as opposed to Houston or Atlanta.

The reason home prices are so high in so many of our dense, walkable cities, is precisely because people are willing to pay a premium for this type of community. The problem isn't that walkable communities are inherently expensive to live in, it's that we haven't built enough of them, so the demand outstrips the available supply. The obvious answer is to build more walkable mixed-use places. As any first year econ student will tell you, increasing the supply of a good or service will, all things being equal, reduce the price.

So instead of shunning walkable, compact development because it's expensive, we should encourage it because it's desirable enough to be expensive.

Response to "Tread Carefully"

noreply@blogger.com (Adam) — Thu, 14 Jan 2010 09:00:00 +0000

In our Tuesday post, contributor Tom Harned acknowledged the value of a vulnerable user’s law for Connecticut but also cautioned policymakers to consider four problems with such laws. As advocates and bloggers, we often get accused, sometimes fairly, of playing arm-chair quarterback, raising issues and problems without offering actionable, concrete solutions. So as a follow-up, I’d like expand on Tom’s arguments and suggest practical ways to address many of the concerns and issues he raised.

Tom raised the following issues:

First, by designating bicyclists as a separate class of users from drivers of motor vehicles, the law risks stigmatizing bike riders and ultimately could lead to the banning of bikes from roadways.

Second, it is challenging to define which users should be “vulnerable,” especially with the proliferation of light motorized vehicles like golf carts, and to determine what happens if one vulnerable user hits another one.

The third issue relates to fairness: why should a driver’s penalty depend on the type of road user he or she hits?

A fourth concern is that law enforcement and the general public will not support the law, owing to the widely held, if erroneous, belief that pedestrians and bicyclists are culpable for many accidents with cars.

I think that Tom’s concerns are valid. Some of them could be addressed by careful bill drafting, while others will require lawmakers to make clear, but possibly unpopular, judgments about the rules of the road.

As to the first issue, the law could state in plain terms that cyclists have an equal right to use the roads. This right has been previously defined in other state statutes. Nothing about the vulnerable user’s law would change this status except that drivers of cars and trucks would face elevated penalties for injuring or killing people riding bikes. Providing elevated penalties for injuring particular classes is nothing new—see, for example, laws that raise the degree of offense for people who attack public safety officers—and similar logic would support doing so in the case of vulnerable users.

I agree that, with so many types of vehicles on the road, it can be difficult to separate the vulnerable users from the non-vulnerable ones. But this kind of line-drawing is what lawmaking is all about, and as long as drafters can agree on what “vulnerability” means, it can be done fairly. One approach would be to look at statistics about the likelihood of injury or death at particular speeds. Users of vehicles who are unlikely to survive a low speed crash would be deemed “vulnerable.” A simpler approach would be to draw a clear line: cars and trucks on one side, and everyone else on the other. The other side would include a range of mobility options, from motorcycles to wheelchairs to feet.

I am not sure what penalties should be imposed when one vulnerable user hits another. The law’s underlying goal of protecting vulnerable users would seem to be undermined if, for example, a motorcycle rider did not face elevated penalties for hitting a pedestrian. Nevertheless, it probably makes sense only to bring cars and trucks under the vulnerable user’s law’s scrutiny, if only to avoid this contention. After all, how far would we want to spread criminal liability under this law? I know this answer will not satisfy everyone but it might be the most politically sound.

Regarding the issue of fairness, I don't think that hitting another driver is a similar act as hitting someone on a bike. Drivers are surrounded by a metal cage and share in safety features like air bags and seat belts. Drivers are unlikely to die in low speed collisions, while someone on a bike could suffer severe injuries even at very low speeds. This significant unfairness should warrant harsher penalties to promote better awareness on the roads.

Finally, the law could address the potential injustice of punishing a driver for a vulnerable user’s stupidity by excluding users who are illegally using the roads from the law’s scope. A jaywalker, for example, would not share in the law’s protections.

Good luck to everyone working on this law. It is long overdue.

The Vulnerable Users Law - Tread Carefully

noreply@blogger.com (Tom H) — Tue, 12 Jan 2010 02:39:00 +0000

A number of friends and colleagues of mine have been exploring the possibility of a vulnerable users law here in Connecticut. Vulnerable users laws are laws aimed at protecting those roadway users that are not protected by things like airbags, steel cages, crumple zones etc. Most commonly, these laws are intended to protect bicyclists and pedestrians and to appropriately and fairly punish those who harm them through reckless, careless, or even malevolent behavior. As an advocate for pedestrians and bicyclists I am generally in favor of such laws. Motorists who injure or even kill pedestrians and cyclists often get off with little more than a slap on the wrist. In most cases, unless you're drunk, or flee the scene, you can injure or kill a cyclist or pedestrian and do less jail time than you would for selling small amounts of marijuana. That being said, vulnerable users laws can be a double-edged sword so there a couple of key things to consider when crafting or advocating these types of laws.

The first is that you're essentially creating a new class of roadway users, "vulnerable users". Overall this is a good thing. A driver of an automobile can do significantly more harm and therefore, should have more responsibility, much in the same way we hold commercial truckers to higher standards of conduct than we do drivers of private automobiles. The downside of this is, that by creating a separate class of users with differing levels of responsibility, we can inadvertently lay the groundwork for giving different rights to different types of users. This is less of an issue with pedestrians because they are already a separate class of roadway users, i.e. they are not vehicles. With bicyclists, however, there has been a history of trying to get them banned from certain roadways, citing safety as a concern (i.e. it's for their own good). There have been attempts in a number of states as recently as 2009: http://www.kansascyclist.com/news/2009/08/proposals-to-ban-bicycles-in-colorado-and-iowa/

The second issue with vulnerable users laws is that you have to be both careful and specific in terms of how you define a "vulnerable user". Is a motorcyclist a vulnerable user? Are vulnerable users synonymous with non-motorized roadway users? With the proliferation of electric-assist bicyclists and neighborhood electric vehicles like golf carts there is, and will continue to be, an increasing variety of vehicles on the road. With the population aging, these types of vehicles will become more and more common as many older citizens may no longer be comfortable driving standard automobiles and switch to these small less powerful vehicles. This is already happening in a lot of retirement villages in the sunbelt. If a 20-year-old cyclist hits an 80-year-old driver of a golf car, who is the vulnerable user? Are they both vulnerable users?

The third thing to watch out for, or at least be aware of and prepared to address, is the fairness issue. One complaint I've heard a number of times is that vulnerable user laws can create legal rulings that are very counter-intuitive. The most commonly cited example goes like this: Drunk driver A hits and kills another motorist while drunk driver B hits and kills a cyclist. Under some vulnerable user laws, driver B would face a more serious penalty for his crime than driver A, even though both drivers committed the same act with the same end result. The punishment varies depending on the type of vehicle your victim happens to be driving.

That last thing to be be careful of is assigning too much blame to drivers in cases where cyclists or pedestrians may be overwhelmingly at fault. Penalties for drivers who hit and injure cyclists and pedestrians certainly need to be stiffer and more regularly enforced, but if penalties or the assignment of fault is draconian, or is perceived as genuinely unfair, the law may ultimately be ineffective and generate a backlash. Juries tend to be sympathetic to drivers because everyone on the jury has typically driven a car and can put themselves in the driver's shoes. They may or may not be able to relate as freely to the cyclist or the pedestrian.

So with all these issues, why have a vulnerable users law at all? Why should cyclists and pedestrians get special protection under the law? The simple answer is this: driving is a privilege, walking and biking are rights. In order to drive a car you have to have a driver's license issued to you by the state you live in. This license can be revoked by the state for any number of reasons, largely because reckless drivers can, and often do, inflict a tremendous amount of harm. People ought to have the freedom to choose how they want to get around, and should be able to do so knowing that they'll be adequately protected by the law.

Good Fences?

noreply@blogger.com (Adam) — Thu, 07 Jan 2010 21:40:00 +0000

Source: Hamden Chronicle (1 May 1958)

One of the New Haven Independent's most commented-upon stories in recent memory was about the infamous fence separating the now demolished Brookside and Rockview housing projects from the Pine Rock neighborhood in Hamden.

That fence, which is tall and composed of double-layer chain link, has existed in some form since the projects were first built in the early 1950s. In fact, letters from the era show that New Haven's Housing Authority was responsible for building the first, much shorter, fences between the projects and their suburban neighbors.

Not only did West Rock's planners build a wall between the projects and Hamden, but they also dead-ended the projects' roads. One contemporary reporter speculated that "[w]hile officials have not said so officially, it is known that Woodin Street [in Hamden] will not be linked with the streets in the projects, so that the business of the residents will be diverted, as far as possible to New Haven businesses."

Whether this speculation was true or not, West Rock's layout made it difficult for residents to shop nearby. It took a number of years before any businesses moved onto the isolated site. Residents had to take the bus a few miles into Westville to shop. They could not walk to Hamden, of course, unless they took a long walk around Wintergreen Avenue or hopped a fence and trespassed through a neighbor's lawn.

Such trespasses were not uncommon:

In July 1955, the owner of a neighboring farm complained to the Housing Authority that project children were trespassing through his fields. In April 1957, a child from Brookside apparently attacked a woman living across the border for refusing to pick up a ball and baseball glove thrown over the short fence separating her land from the project. He jumped the fence and kicked the woman. In the aftermath of this violence, and other incidents that their petition only hinted at, the residents of neighboring Thorpe Drive in Hamden demanded that the Housing Authority build a taller fence to prevent “thoroughfare.” “We feel it is not necessary to list the nuisances and damage that have already been inflicted upon us, including the severe bodily injury to one of our children.” This barrier would also serve to stop project residents from driving their cars across the grass separating Brookside Drive and Thorpe Drive; similar trespassing would also occur in March 1958 between Woodin Street and its near-intersections with Wilmot Road and Brookside Avenue.

(For the record, the poor woman who had been kicked by a Brookside child admitted that her neighbors in Project Building No. 4 were “cooperative and neighborly.”)

Obviously, this slice of life at Brookside and Rockview dates from a time before gangs, drugs and extreme poverty hit the projects. These problems seem quaint in comparison to the troubles facing project residents and their suburban neighbors through second half of the twentieth-century. But the pattern of wall-building was set.

Now that the Housing Authority wants a fresh start at West Rock, it is hard to understand how a new project will be successful as long as these walls exist. A project's value derives, in large part, from the opportunities it provides to its residents. Unlike other redevelopment projects the Authority has undertaken in the past few decades, the new residents of West Rock are not located near downtown (Monterey Place) or on waterfront property near highways and employment centers (Q Terrace). They cannot get to jobs without cars or an unreasonably long bus commute.

As a result, even if the Housing Authority builds a walkable, mixed-income community, how will its trajectory be different if opportunities for upward mobility are so difficult for residents to access without a car?

Of course, some of the new residents, like their predecessors from the 1950s, will seek out West Rock as a suburban-style environment that otherwise would be unobtainable in the city. Accessibility will be a secondary concern.

It's possible that, like before, social service opportunities will be concentrated on the new site. Some people think that public housing is efficient because it puts disadvantaged people in close proximity to these kind of opportunities. But this approach goes nowhere with re-integrating project residents into society, and it would certainly lead to more separation between the new West Rock and its neighbors.

In any event, any development at West Rock must eliminate the obvious walls between the new community and its neighbors. This change will help bring down the less tangible barriers, too.

Source: Adam Wolkoff, “Creating a Suburban Ghetto: Public Housing at New Haven's West Rock,” Connecticut History, vol. 45, issue 1, 56-93 (Spring 2006).

We're Back

noreply@blogger.com (Editor - WalkBikeCT) — Wed, 06 Jan 2010 01:53:00 +0000

We started this blog in December of 2008 with a small number of editors and contributors. Our goal was to post a piece about walking and biking everyday. There were only a few of us and we quickly discovered that trying to work a full time job and still come up with an original post each day was a surefire way to burn out, which is exactly what happened.

After some months off we all decided that WalkBikeCT was fun to write, just not everyday. So we brought the site back and this time we vowed to run it in a more mentally and emotionally sustainable way. We've going to be posting twice a week this year, on Tuesdays and Thursdays. We've also recruited a number of new contributors to lighten our load and increase the variety in our posts. Check our this year's first post, from WalkBikeCT contributor Tom Harned. Mr. Harned makes a case for why conservatives, not just liberals, should embrace and promote walking and biking as an essential part of our transportation system.

The Conservative Case for Walking and Biking

noreply@blogger.com (Tom H) — Wed, 06 Jan 2010 01:49:00 +0000

Conservatives tend to believe that individuals should have as many choices as possible when it comes the decisions that affect their lives. This conviction is based on the belief that individuals know what is best for themselves and will ultimately make the right decisions, given all the options and information available.

Under our current transportation system, the majority of Nutmeggers and the majority of Americans for that matter, don’t have a whole lot of choice when comes to finding a way to get to work, shopping, school, etc. We have to drive.

We have to drive because our transportation policies have created a built environment that is downright hostile to pedestrians and cyclists, an environment that gives most of us little choice but to drive most of the time.

To a liberal concerned about the environment and our dependence on foreign oil this should be somewhat disturbing. To a conservative worried about big government dictating how we live our lives, this should be downright appalling.

The car is, and has been for some time now, an enduring symbol of the freedom and sense of possibility that is part of the American fabric. The car, coupled with the open road, boldly declares that anything is possible, that our destiny is ours to make. However, few things embody freedom, self-reliance, and self-sufficiency more than walking or biking to one’s destination. You are not on anyone else’s schedule. You leave when you decide to and travel by the route you choose – and you don’t pay anyone else a dime to do it. When walking or biking you are at once the driver and the engine. Even more so than the motorist, you are truly independent.

At some point in our history this was forgotten. Somewhere, somehow, walking and biking for transportation got pushed into the liberal column, where it has remained to this day. On local, state, and federal levels, we see liberals championing these causes, supporting funding for walking and biking infrastructure while conservatives like Rush Limbaugh, do their best to bitterly combat anything that doesn’t subsidize driving.

The obvious, but overlooked question here is: When did getting oneself from here to there using your own two feet become "liberal"? When did conservatives get the idea that providing you own transportation – that relying on your own muscle and sweat, as opposed to a gasoline engine – become something other than a virtue, something worthy of scorn and mockery, something to be discouraged? A true conservative would promote all forms of personal mobility.

Conservatives will often talk about how government should be as lean and efficient as possible. Spending taxpayer money is a serious issue and therefore, the government should utilize tax dollars in such a way as to provide the greatest level of service for the least expenditure.

The current auto-oriented transportation policy often championed by the conservative members of both the Connecticut General Assembly and the United States Congress is anything but cost-effective and efficient. Our state and federal gas taxes do not come close to paying for the highway system we all enjoy. This means that all citizens, no matter how much or how little they drive, end up subsidizing this costly system through their income taxes, property taxes, sales taxes, and all manner of other fees levied on them by local, state, and federal governments. Any conservative worth his or her salt knows that if you want to lower taxes, you have to have an equivalent reduction in government spending (unless of course you’re a Republican member of congress, in which case you believe in tax-cuts funded by money borrowed from the Chinese). One way to reduce government spending is to develop a transportation system that moves people around as inexpensively as possible.

Our current dependence on the automobile for virtually each and every trip we make is an irresponsible and expensive indulgence that costs us all. Promoting walking and biking may currently be issues associated with the left, but they shouldn’t remain that way. Conservatives should embrace walking and biking, even if they don’t like the liberals and moderates who currently support it.

Jersey Goodness and" Share the Road"

noreply@blogger.com (J.B.) — Mon, 15 Jun 2009 23:27:00 +0000

I saw the best jersey the other day! Tour de France yellow, nifty pockets, and a bold, arrow-adorned slogan saying “3 Feet Please”. I loved it. However, lately most of the traffic has been extremely nice about my sharing the road – thoughtful and giving me plenty of space (You know who you are. Hug yourself). They don't need a reminder. The remaining 10% continue to whiz by with inches to spare, often honking loudly enough to startle me into swerving, and often swearing out the window to inform me that my presence on their road is an affront. They won't care about my three feet – my very presence is apparently a mortal offense.

So, as happens on long rides, I envisioned another jersey: “Legally on Road”? Or how about: “State Law-Abiding”? Maybe: “Monitored by Police Camera?” No, that would be false advertising. If it wouldn't slow me down and entangle me with oncoming cars at lights, I'd trail a banner, a lá Jersey Shore: “State Law: I'm Supposed to Be On the Road!! See CT Title 14 Chapter 248, Section 14-286!!” A girl can dream.

While looking up that law so I could tell you about it, I discovered that Connecticut has, as a part of its Safe Routes to School Initiative, launched a "Share the Road" campaign, which among other things enshrined the three feet in state law. I'm thrilled, except that the press release is a month old and I had no idea the campaign was on. If I didn't notice, how to transmit this news to that 10%?

Start here:http://www.sharetheroadct.org/

After you've sent the image along to whoever might be interested, check out the “Learn More” link. All the stuff I've been scouring the internet for, neatly collected on a state-run website.

The image I want on my jersey would be: “So Happy Together”. Anyone reading this good at silk-screening?

And because the 3 Feet Please jersey is pretty great, you can find it here.

Walking around in pain for fashion

noreply@blogger.com (J.B.) — Thu, 11 Jun 2009 19:43:00 +0000

So I was in New York City the other day. Even though it was cloudy and cool, it was great to walk around and people-watch a bit. You'd think I'd learn to suspend vanity and just wear my tourist sneakers, but I don't learn, and I have blisters from my flip-flops.

Why don't women take care of their feet? There we were in a city where everyone walks, and women were teetering around in high heels or padding around in ballet flats - and flat or not, those things have no support at all. I could have saved myself a world of pain (and my husband a world of whining) if I had been willing to sacrifice fashion and wear my not-cute, not-trendy Brooks athletic shoes, the Oscar winners of arch support.

Poorly designed footwear, especially high heels, helps produce bunions, plantar fascitis, heel spurs, you name it. And then you end up not being able to walk, let alone create a life that doesn't depend on cars.

Let me tell you, the men I saw were not tipping and clacking with their behinds thrust out (a postural side-effect of high heels). And they were even wearing nice shoes that matched their expensive business suits.

So, other women, I ask you this: when do we send teetering heels into history along with the corset? Compare the damage the one does to the damage of the other. Wear flat, comfortable shoes with a killer outfit.

And guys: if you really, truly want to see a world with fewer cars, more walking and biking, and healthier people, act turned off by stiletto heels. Even if you think they're hot.

Connecticut walkbiker meets Israeli roads

noreply@blogger.com (Adam) — Tue, 07 Apr 2009 21:57:00 +0000

My brother Jay immigrated to Israel a few years ago and has been living a car-free life in Jerusalem ever since. He bikes to work, the shuk, and everywhere else. Unfortunately, much like in the state he left, a lot of the employment opportunities in Israel are located in sprawling office and industrial parks in the outskirts of the major cities. So to access these places, Jay became 16 again and signed up for Israeli driver's ed. He seems to have developed an avuncular but challenging relationship with his instructor, whose years of teaching driving have given him a buddha-like resignation about life on the road.

In any event, his comments give you some idea of what the roads are like over there (and make me think they could use some red light cameras. . .)

The top seven things that you never want to hear from your driving instructor

1. Jay: "Forget it!!! I am never going to learn how to drive with a stick shift"

Driving Teacher: "That is your opinion, not a fact. Now Leesten to me. You must leesten to me and you are not leestening. Why won't you leesten...."

2. Driving Teacher: "What eez that man doing? "What eez hee doing? Maybe we should pull over and ask? No wait, that might not be good. You know, you Americans don't care about anyone. Someone could kill himself and even then you would not pull over!"

3. Driving Teacher: "You can be more assertive on the road. You did not need to let that driver pass you. You know what they say, when in Rome, one must be like the Romans. No wait, you do not want to drive like the Romans. You know what they say, how does one cross the road in Rome....

Jay: "Amos, I have to be honest with you, I don't trust any of these drivers.

Driving Teacher: "That is okay. What needs only to trust in Hashem (G-d) and that too is your personal choice"

4. Yossi, Ma Nish Ma (how are you)? You see that taxi driver who cut you off? He was my student once....

(somehow my driving teacher knew every motorist on the road who always seemed to be doing everything that I was being taught not to do)

5. Driving Teacher: "Very good. If you had not stopped at the traffic light when it had turned yellow, who knows what would have happened to you....no I don't even want to think about that..."

(in Israel, when the traffic light turns yellow, you must stop if you value your life and your car)

6. Driving Teacher: "Very good. You know in Israel, one must not seek to exercise his 'rights' on the road but what must do what is right..."

(There is a saying in Israel, it sounds better in Hebrew but it basically goes like this, "It is better to lose a moment (by stopping at the red light) than to lose your life in a moment")

7. Driving Teacher (another one): "He is a pachdan (cowardly) driver, but he is ready for the exam."

(The "pachdan" driver passed on his first attempt)

Red light camera update

noreply@blogger.com (Adam) — Tue, 07 Apr 2009 00:00:00 +0000

The red light camera bill is moving forward in the General Assembly. In its current incarnation, the bill will allow the city of New Haven to create a pilot program to install cameras at up to a dozen intersections. (Click here to read the joint favorable report, which includes summaries of the testimony of proponents and opponents of the legislation.) There has been some media coverage of the bill, including a positive editorial by the Hartford Courant.

Walkbike tourism

noreply@blogger.com (Adam) — Tue, 24 Mar 2009 23:00:00 +0000

I recently returned from a trip to Los Angeles. Some people go to California to gawk at celebrities, take wine tours, or ride the teacups at Disney. As a walkbike nerd, I intended to find out if the rumors about Los Angeles are true: is LA really the country's sprawl capital? (Click here for the NY Times series on the subject).

It turns out that LA is a very dense city: actually, the highest population density in the country according to the 2000 US Census.

Yet this density does not make the city very walkable. I visited some areas that were designed to be pedestrian friendly, such as Little Tokyo, 3rd Street in Santa Monica, and Pasadena's Old Downtown. But most of the city's shopping is either tucked away in malls (some of which are outdoors, which gives them a main street feel) or lining its busy boulevards which are choked with traffic for much of the day. I saw some examples of strip malls that are built out to the sidewalk, but mostly they were the setback sort you would see along Whalley Avenue or Dixwell. Very few shade trees, too, but maybe they couldn't survive in the desert/mediterranean climate. The major roads were at least four lanes plus a turning lane across and allowed traffic to fly by at high speeds. I did notice that the side streets adjacent to the major boulevards had speed humps, but this was the extent of traffic calming I saw.

I don't think that LA residents are any more attached to their cars than anyone else who doesn't live in Manhattan or San Francisco. But I'm sure more people there would consider walking if the major roads focused less on speed and more on aesthetics. Plus, with free parking in abundance throughout much of the LA that I visited (downtown is a significant exception), I'm sure many people lack the financial incentive to leave the car at home.

I did not get a chance to check out the bike trails, etc., that were available other than the path along the Pacific coast in Santa Monica, which was unsurpringingly gorgeous. Given its climate and density, LA has the potential to be a very bike friendly city, but I think that it would be too dangerous for most bikers given the high speeds that drivers can go on its roads.

Can Rail Save Connecticut Cities?

noreply@blogger.com (Adam) — Mon, 23 Feb 2009 13:06:00 +0000

On Friday, I attended the 16th annual Gallivan Conference at the University of Connecticut School of Law in Hartford. This year's conference asked whether rail (light, commuter, and intercity) is the answer to the problems of the state's cities, and also looked at some of the legal issues complicating the expansion of railroads in the state.

New DOT Commissioner Joseph Marie presented case studies from other metros that built light rail lines, including Phoenix and Minneapolis, where he led construction of the systems. Marie admitted that in his 23 years in the transportation business, he had never built a road--an encouraging sign. He said that rail cannot save the cities, but would be a step forward given the right leadership, etc. Seems like a realistic if unhelpful assessment. He said that the DOT was committed to expanding rail service, but said that building new parking facilities was key to increasing ridership. Nothing said about intermodal transportation or accommodating bikes and pedestrians who use the rails.

It was refreshing to see another panelist, State Rep. David McCluskey, a member of the transportation committee, call Commissioner Marie out on the parking issue. Rep. McCluskey was enthusiastic about the prospects of expanding rail service in the state, but encouraged the new DOT commissioner to realize that its not only up to the DOT to solve the parking "problem." He suggested that the state had a role to challenge local governments to meet the goal of bringing commuters to the station. Rather than build new lots, the DOT could leverage the existing privately-owned lots near stations, coordinate bus transportation better, and encourage biking and walking to the stations. Rep. McCluskey said he sees the current economic crisis as an opportunity to demand more from local government at all levels and to change the complicated structures of government that makes it difficult to reform our transportation infrastructure.

Prof. Norman Garrick advocated for building rails in Connecticut cities as a means of "placemaking"; that is, using rails to reshape the way people connect with our urban areas. Rails make cities central to the transportation experience, rather than peripheral exits off the interstates. He cautioned that rail should not be treated as an "appendage" to the highway system, which is essentially what Connecticut has today in Fairfield County. He said that if everyone drives to the train, the rail will do nothing to restore the centrality of cities.

Finally, Prof. Sara Bronin discussed how legal regulations have shaped the placement and preservation of our rail infrastructure and the current legal challenges facing railroads today.

Given his enthusiasm for transportation alternatives to the highways, the audience seemed focused on testing whether Commissioner Marie would live up to these committments during his tenure. One audience member asked whether Marie intended to reform the State Traffic Commission, whose mission works against "placemaking" by focusing on auto capacity rather than inclusion of pedestrians or byclists. Marie said that the mixed transit model which characterizes our state's DOT is actually the goal of most state transit agencies because it allow for flexibility in planning transportation. He said that the CT DOT was getting "better balance" in planning roadways. Another audience member said that Marie was "a world class jockey riding a hippopatomous," and said that the DOT was constantly sabotaging bike and pedestrian friendly projects. Marie defended his agency by saying that there were lots of capable people working at the DOT, that he had brought in some fresh perspectives, and that the agency was evolving in its attitude. He said that the DOT does not ask "why not" enough. But he added that the DOT was doing its "core mission" of maintenance well.

UPDATE: Connecticut News Junkie covered the conference, too.

Traffic cameras rolled out in West Hartford

noreply@blogger.com (Adam) — Sun, 22 Feb 2009 03:40:00 +0000

West Hartford is experimenting with a solar-powered radar camera that takes photographs of drivers who travel more than 15 miles per hour over the speed limit at the intersection of Boulevard and Whiting Street. Although the state doesn't allow towns to send tickets to drivers based on radar cameras (but legislation has been proposed and may be on the way this year), the town seeks to harness the power of moral suasion. If you speed through that intersection, which is in a dense residential neighborhood near a school, you will be sent a photo of yourself from the town police reminding you of your bad behavior.

The town is setting up four displays, but only one has a camera. The cost is $13,000. The town claims this effort will be more cost effective than redesigning the roadway. We'll see. West Hartford has been taking positive steps to slow down traffic along Farmington Ave. through various improvements and it's disappointing to see gimmicks when stronger action needs to be taken. As a great example of a dense, inner ring suburb where many people live within walking distance of shopping, school, and work, West Hartford needs to do all it can to make pedestrians and bikers safer. Perhaps if the traffic camera legislation succeeds, West Hartford's cameras will have the impact the town is looking for. But it might be a better use of town money to combine that $13,000 with some stimulus money to do some shovel ready (ugh, sorry) traffic calming.

Hartford's overpasses and walking

noreply@blogger.com (Adam) — Fri, 20 Feb 2009 01:31:00 +0000

I like reading Real Hartford, which has great insights into this city's politics, culture and daily life. While many people who live in and outside of Hartford tend to think of it as a ghost town after five, Real Hartford reminds us that a lot is happening away from our city's empty sidewalks. There was another great post today about the terrible state of Capitol Ave. between the UHaul rental center and Laurel St. Hidden underneath Interstate 84 and the railroad tracks, this part of town is an urban planning nightmare. The writer was on the way to La Paloma Sabanera (if you haven't been, it's the neighborhood coffee shop that you thought Hartford didn't have) and found that the sidewalk was icy and unsalted and covered with broken glass straight out of a bar fight. The same sad conditions are present on my own commute to work along Park St. as it passes under Interstate 84. When you drive to work along these major commuter arteries, it is easy to ignore the blight, but on foot, it's hard to ignore. Over the years, there has been some talk of removing the so-called Aetna Viaduct, the stretch of 84 that runs over Capitol Ave. and past the Aetna HQ into downtown. Turning 84 into a boulevard or sending it underground would be a great step forward for walking in Hartford.

Complete Streets Reception at the Capitol

noreply@blogger.com (Adam) — Wed, 11 Feb 2009 01:57:00 +0000

A coalition of walking and biking advocates will be meeting at the legislative office building at the state capitol tomorrow afternoon to discuss the complete streets legislation. It looks like the event starts around 3 pm and Rep. Tom Kehoe will be in attendance. If you are in Hartford and have an hour to spare, this looks like it will be great event with substantial turnout. New Haven residents and Yale students are taking two bio-diesel buses up to Hartford (facebook link here). Is anyone who lives or works in the 'beat going to be walking or biking there?

DNH: Lost New Haven

noreply@blogger.com (Editor - WalkBikeCT) — Mon, 09 Feb 2009 12:10:00 +0000

Here's a great piece from Design New Haven on how auto-centric planning doesn't so much destroy cities outright, but instead slowly erodes and degrades them over time:

The New Haven Register covers a presentation that Mr. Joe Taylor gave last week to the New Haven Museum, entitled "Lost New Haven." Click here for a brief slideshow of Mr. Taylor's photographic collection, showing vignettes of what Downtown New Haven used to look like (note: some of these links may expire).

Perhaps no loss is as ironic as that of the Joseph Sheffield House, across from St. Mary’s Church on Hillhouse Avenue, the home of two major city architects. It was originally the home of Ithiel Town, who designed Center Church and Trinity Church, both on the Green. It was expanded by his student, Henry Austin. The house was demolished in 1957 and now is the site of an aluminum-sided annex to the Dunham Laboratory...

Elizabeth Neuse of Hamden said she believed those who built the highways knew they were paving over history. “They knew what the devastation was there. They cut the east side from the west side, so State Street was radically changed,” she said.

Aside from all of the beautiful buildings (many of which, due in part to the tenacity of New Haven preservationists like Elizabeth Mills Brown, have survived in great condition), and a few neighborhoods that were paved over entirely for highways like Route 34, what is most revealing about older images of Downtown New Haven are the dramatic changes over time to the city's ancient street grid.

Many of these historic photos show streets which were narrow, walkable, lined with trees and wide sidewalks, and packed with pedestrians and cyclists. Although thankfully New Haven is still regarded as one of the most walkable cities in America, those same streets are now much wider, paved with thousands of square meters of expensive asphalt, and carry 3-4 lanes of high-speed traffic that is extremely dangerous to pedestrians and cyclists. Church Street, which runs in front of City Hall, is a prime example.

Though arguably at least as significant, such changes are far less noticable than a demolished landmark or missing neighborhood, because as Jane Jacobs points out in her seminal work on American cities, "erosion of the city by automobiles" tends to happen very slowly, over time. A lane is added here, a sidewalk curb radius reduced there; speeds of 30mph rather than 25mph start to become acceptable (despite the fact each additional mile per hour of speed within that range nearly doubles the chance of a pedestrian fatality); parking spaces are added in place of a crosswalk, sidewalks neglected, curb cuts added; traffic lights re-timed to maximize automobile flow rather than the efficiency of the bus system, a no RTOR sign goes missing.

Individually, these changes can be barely noticable. For example, Chapel Street between Orange and State was widened by six feet after the Shartenberg building was knocked down in the 1960s. The work associated with New Haven's 35-story 360 State development and its $5,000 per month apartments won't include the rebuilding of the street back to its original pedestrian-friendly configuration. That extra six feet of road to cross on foot might not seem much to an able bodied person, but it could easy cost someone's life. Incrementally, these small acts of erosion serve to discourage walking, bicycling and transit use across the entire city.

Full post here.

A tale of two cities

noreply@blogger.com (Editor - WalkBikeCT) — Sun, 08 Feb 2009 01:45:00 +0000

I'm going up to meet with contributing blogger Adam in Hartford, AKA the "heartbeat" tonight. It's not often that I go up to our state's capitol, so I'll be sure to take some good pictures of the pedestrian amenities there. For two cities in the same state that are almost exactly the same size, the street life downtown couldn't be more
different.

Hartford is a government town plain and simple. There's a vibrant dowtown during the working day, but after 5 PM aside from the bars, the place is a ghost town.

New Haven is college town. At one point it was more of a traditional city with a strong industrial base, but that base has mostly left, leaving Yale University as the biggest driver of the local economy. The upside to a college town is that while it may lack the busy and intense street life of a government town, it has more of a 24/7 feel.

In an ideal world, Hartford would attain more of a population beyond daytime workers and New Haven would develop a stronger employment base outside of Yale and both cities would have a bustling and robust street life.