It's Our City is a project that uses TV, Radio and Web
to promote civic engagement in the Philadelphia region.Philadelphia bicyclists and pedestrians move higher up the food chain
Wednesday, June 3rd, 2009 at 5:03 pm - by Alan Tu. Filed under: Community.
The end of an era is near
For the majority of the 20th Century, transportation planning has been geared toward moving cars faster and more efficiently. But today, Philadelphia Mayor Michael Nutter bucking that trend by signing an Executive Order that requires all city departments to consider the needs of bicyclists and pedestrians in all planning decisions.
His signature does not mean that separate bike lanes will pop-up everywhere or that school crossing guards will appear on Roosevelt Boulevard. But it is the right kind of reform to be promoting especially now as the city struggles to rightsize under this global recession. This helps keep the Mayor’s reformist agenda alive at least in spirit.
The Executive Order is part of a larger nationwide movement towards what’s called a “Complete Streets Policy.” This calls for expanding the use of things like wider sidewalks, protected bike lanes (or wide paved shoulders), special bus lanes, two-stage pedestrian crossing using mid-way islands.
While the methods listed are nothing new, the concept of requiring all city departments to take into consideration the needs of bicyclists, pedestrians, people with disabilities, as well as automobiles seems uber logical especially, if you want a vibrant community that doesn’t become a ghost town after 6:00 p.m.
Philadelphia joins many other cities and states that are adopting Complete Streets Policy thinking. On April 24, Delaware Governor Jack Markell ordered his transportation department to become more bike and pedestrian friendly on future projects.
Here’s my question for you. While I think the Mayor is sincere in having city departments become more bike and pedestrian friendly, do you think that when the hard decisions have to be made that economic interests will always take precedent over the needs of the non-motorized citizenry? I ask this because if we really want to do this, then some planning official will have to have the guts in the future to tell a developer that you can’t build that behemoth parking garage no matter how much we need your tax revenues.
June 3rd, 2009 at 5:29 pm
I just don’t see the two being mutually exclusive, and we inevitably run into problems when we try to create absolute, hard and fast rules - especially when we’re talking about governing people in a city.
City planning and initiatives can certainly be friendlier to bikers and pedestrians - and endeavoring to protect the interests of that population is admirable and worthwhile. But I don’t think any of those folks will say that a parking garage that brings in tax revenue is a threat to pedestrians. Putting money into a project that will bring in tourists and tax money will pay for itself over time.
Maybe that was not the best example to illustrate your question? Or are you saying that parking garages are dangerous for pedestrians? I mean, they are, but most of the time, that’s because they’ve parked their car there, making them not so much pedestrians as drivers who are temporarily walking, in which case, you can’t expect them to have the same survival skills as legitimate pedestrians.
My point is really that by pushing for a pedestrian and cyclist friendly city, that isn’t saying, “you know what, cars, go eat poop.” I really don’t think you have to choose one over the other. And, in light of economic changes and (hopefully) improved public transit, a harmonious balance of all forms of transportation will evolve.
June 4th, 2009 at 4:41 pm
I agree with Alex. Alan, you know better than anyone that I’m about as pro-cyclist, pro-pedestrian as it gets. In fact, if it were up to me, I’d get rid of sidewalks, crosswalks, traffic lights, and stop signs and let the cyclists and walkers take over. The cars can be the ones squeezing by at 5 mph. But at the same time, it is VERY convenient to have a car at this point in time, even in Center City and the immediate surrounding suburbs. From a policy perspective, the goal should be to close the “convenience gap” between having a car and not having a car for everyone - be they exurban, suburban or urban.
Having a car is always going to be more convenient than not but as the price of car ownership begins to skyrocket, we (our policymakers) need to be prepared to give us other choices.