who are roads for, anyway?

[joshua0]

I figure that I should probably cc: Dreamwidth on some of these letters I've been writing. So, in case you need to write a similar thing in your own community, here is a response I wrote to Redwood City's latest attempt at pretending they care about cycling infrastructure.

Good morning —

I’m a local cyclist and commuter, and I wanted to provide a little feedback on the outline that I’ve just read. Although I consider myself to be a fairly strong and fairly bold cyclist, I generally prefer to look at infrastructure through the lens of newer, less experienced cyclists, who may wish to make the transition from commuting by car to commuting by bicycle.

I took a look at the document (up through, but not including, the appendices); I can’t provide commentary on the specifics of the projects listed on Page 47, because no specifics were provided. Actually, in that document, I found that there is no proposed commitment to execute on any particular project in any particular time frame — only to think about some projects. My comment, then, comes in two parts:

1) Execution. Every moment of inaction costs a fraction of a life. Every KSI event is a human being. In Mountain View, a 13 year old was killed on his way to school at an intersection that has been known for years to be badly designed. Mountain View adopted Vision Zero three years ago (after, puzzlingly, debating for 11 months whether or not they should have more, or fewer, people killed in traffic in the City). It is good to plan for Vision Zero in Redwood City, and it is good to move with purpose, but at the end of the day, it takes 24 hours to bolt soft-hit barriers to the ground. Will it take a 13 year old being killed in Redwood City before these projects happen?

2) Scope. This may seem at odds with execution, but I encourage the Vision Zero planners to think bigger. In Cambridge, MA, there is a local ordinance that any time any part of Mass Ave is touched by construction for any reason, a separated bike lane must go in, along the entire length of it. In Silicon Valley, we believe that we dream of, and are on the forefront of, the future. Why is it that a city that has poor weather for cycling for about 5 months a year can install separated infrastructure everywhere, but in the city whose motto is ‘climate best by government test’, we can only dream of installing sharrows where it happens to be convenient, rather than letting the whole of Jefferson St be a first-class thoroughfare for bicycles?

At the end of the day, you must decide whether you wish to take action or not, but I hope you will not take a lack of commentary on a 181 page report that promises nothing as a signal that the right thing to have happen is to do nothing. Even as strong cyclists, despite Redwood City being closer to more interesting cycling terrain, my friends and I don’t meet downtown because the infrastructure does not support it; we meet in Los Altos, because it is simply lower risk to us. If that’s the balance that I take as a grizzled commuter, what chance does an underprivileged 13 year old have?

Regards,
Joshua Wise

Comments

[brainwane]

Thank you!