|"slower driving" should be included here
It's also mostly about walking - sidewalks and crosswalks
(By the way, it's nice to see "walkers" instead of "pedestrians"! We could go further and say "increase safety for people walking and biking," so that the emphasis is on all people, who will throughout the day and throughout their lives use a variety of transportation activities, and not be limited to one only as some emblem of self-ID or affiliation.)
Just in 2019 and now the start of 2020, the traffic deaths involving people walking have nearly all been in marked crosswalks. The crosswalks have been no guarantee for safety. The death of two people biking and skating are less clearcut, but one involved excessive driver speed, and the other remains a little ambiguous, since the person biking is not able to tell their own story, and police were quick to take the driver's story.)
- Marshall Leslie (in a crosswalk on Center at 12th )
- Linda Adamson (in or near a crosswalk on Owens at Liberty)
- Jason Libel (on bike on Portland Road)
- Josephine Watkins (in a brand-new enhanced crosswalk on Portland Road)
- Rodric Kenyon Drolshagen (in a very well-marked, established crosswalk on Front at State)
- Jaime Le Ann Hall (on skateboard on Hawthorne; driver speeding)
|Fuel subsidy is but one of the ways we subsidize
our autoism - via twitter
As it is currently, the goal to "increase safety for cyclists and walkers" remains a little ad hoc, disconnected from larger policy goals and other actions. (For another perspective, one that is consistent with most of this, see the Strong Towns post, "Why Do Americans View Zero Road Deaths as an Impossible Goal?")
One of those other policy goals is to improve the City's commuter program.
|How much parking subsidy is there?
Also: "At the time of the survey, two employees reported regularly taking the bus." Two!
This should occasion more surprise and concern. Isn't that a pretty big failure? Are the barriers to greater use of transit deeper than improved bells and whistles on the commuter program?
It is encouraging to see improved secure bike storage and showering facilities on the list.
But what about City Hall's location? It's on a median between the Liberty/Commercial couplet, and the bike lanes are all on the outer lanes. Getting to City Hall on bike is not easy.
A project to boost travel to work by means other than drive-alone trips will need to dig deeper and, again, look at the total subsidy for our autoism.
Getting to the Library has the same problem as getting to City Hall. One solution to this (and to other factors as well, of course) has been to suggest that what we really need is free parking there.
|Why do we assume the lack of free parking
is such a barrier?
|Parking revenue from 2014-15 Adopted Budget (book 1)
It is nice to see we will be taking a look at the north Front Street area. Particularly since the UGM relocation and Police Station have redirected the redevelopment of some important blocks just north of downtown, it will be helpful to figure out what we need to do to incent more housing and other mixed-use redevelopment in that "north downtown" area.
|North downtown project
Others know more about this and have more trenchant things to say. See especially the ongoing series over at CANDO.
|The hazmat suits - January 10th
I hope the City can refocus from short-term damage control over downtown camping to longer term and more structural remedies:
- Supportive housing for those most in need
- Various kinds of subsidized housing for others in need
- And abundant market-rate housing in walkable neighborhoods to stabilize pricing and affordability, and to reduce drive-alone trips
But of course this is about preference, too. The preference here is for more housing, especially near downtown, and more support for non-auto travel, not for more cops.
(Small update: Others have had similar questions about the employee payroll tax it turns out. Here's one proposal that the employee payroll tax should go for homeless and housing solutions.)