Complete Streets

Recently, a significant amount of debate has been underway in Spokane about the "complete streets" concept. In a nutshell, a complete street is one which all people can use and feel safe, whether they are using a car, bike, feet, or any other conveyance. There has been a great deal of reasoned discussion on this important transportation topic. (There have also been spirited assertions* on the issue.)

Futurewise's Kitty Klitzke worked hard on convincing the Spokane City Council to adopt a resolution directing the city to gather the information for and prepare a complete streets ordinance. Futurewise's web page on the subject is here. Councilmembers Corker, Rush, Shogan and Waldref voted in favor of the resolution. Councilmember Jon Snyder blogged about it the next morning and posted the resolution text as well.

There is an embarrassing amount of angry, anti-bike sentiment expressed in Spokane (and those two both on the same day). Oh, and by the way, first letter writer above, the roads were not made for cars. They were made for pedestrians, horse and buggies, and streetcars.

Spokane's Citizen Streets Committee Chairman Dallas Hawkins states that he is in favor of the concept, but it concerned about the cost. This is a reasonable initial concern, but federal grants are available ("enhancement grants") which will cover up to 80% of that cost. Since the cost of pedestrian and bike facilities are low anyway, this makes them exceptionally inexpensive.

There is a comment on that opinion piece above which says, essentially, that bikes should be allowed the equal proportion of right-of-way to the proportion of trips that road carries. This is a specious argument. If the road doesn't have a bike lane, the road may very well be impassable by bikes. Those are the roads which are most in need of bike lanes, not the least. Besides, if you start considering the number of kids riding bikes on residential streets--well, the auto-only advocates had better watch out for what they wish. They might be banished from the neighborhoods forever.

And, the tide is turning at the federal level regarding transportation alternatives to automobiles. The United States Department of Transportation has issued new policy regarding complete streets which will have the effect of putting communities which fail to accommodate all transportation modes at a disadvantage. Here is the policy statement, issued of March 15, 2010:

The DOT policy is to incorporate safe and convenient walking and bicycling facilities into transportation projects. Every transportation agency, including DOT, has the responsibility to improve conditions and opportunities for walking and bicycling and to integrate walking and bicycling into their transportation systems. Because of the numerous individual and community benefits that walking and bicycling provide — including health, safety, environmental, transportation, and quality of life — transportation agencies are encouraged to go beyond minimum standards to provide safe and convenient facilities for these modes.

Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood blogged about this new policy as well, and included two videos of his "tabletop speech" on the topic.

It's important that we fully understand the costs, yes, but we must also be mindful of the advantages, including improved air quality, improved cardiovascular health, reduced street maintenance costs, reduced dependency on foreign oil, reduced carbon dioxide emissions, reduced personal transportation costs, improved public safety, and even an improved economy for locally owned businesses. Only short-sightedness and prejudice can get in the way.

---

* My term for debates in which the tin-foil-wearing, UN-conspiracy-fearing, black-helicopter crowd is inspired to participate. Apparently some people think that the UN is taking us over through installing sidewalks so that people with disabilities can use them.

Brownfields Direct Assistance

According to the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), brownfields are "real propert[ies], the expansion, redevelopment, or reuse of which may be complicated by the presence or potential presence of a hazardous substance, pollutant, or contaminant." Most people can think of a place in their neighborhood or region where there were industrial activities that had the potential of contaminating the ground. Now idle, those properties are unused because it's easier to develop greenfields (previously unbuilt properties) than rehabilitate a contaminated site.

Why is it important to deal with brownfields? First of all, there is the environmental impact. Over time, there is the potential that brownfields can contaminate other properties as well. If wildlife are taking advantage of the low impact activities there, they may also bring contaminants into the biology of the area. Secondly, brownfields drive down property values. After all, who wants to live next to an unmitigated environmental problem? Third, brownfields contribute to sprawl by taking otherwise productive land out of the market, requiring the construction of new facilities out on the rural edge and the extension of services such as sewer, water, roads, police, fire protection and schools into areas that didn't need it previously--a very expensive option!

If you'd like to point out a brownfield that you'd like to be returned to a productive state, now's the time to inform your local jurisdiction. The EPA is offering assistance to local jurisdictions for direct assistance in the planning of brownfield rehabilitation of a "neighborhood, district, city block or corridor." Your advocacy and the availability of assistance might make something happen! Applications made by your city or county are due by June 1, 2010.