New LDC needs more than lip service paid to bikes

I mentioned before that I went on record supporting bicycle lanes and required bike racks at the last public hearing for the proposed Land Development Code for the Heart of Peoria area. I was encouraged to also present my concerns in writing during the public hearing process, so I’ve now done that as well. Here is the text of my letter to the Planning and Zoning commissions:

Please enter this letter into the record at the public hearing on 29 November 2006 identified as “A PUBLIC HEARING TO AMEND THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN BY INCLUDING AN ILLUSTRATIVE PLAN, REGULATING PLAN, AND CHARRETTE REPORT FOR THE HEART OF PEORIA PLAN AREA.”

I have two requests for modification to the proposed Land Development Code as outlined below:

1. Include bicycle lanes in examples of street transects.

Section 6.7.1 of the proposed Land Development Code states (emphasis mine), “INTENT: The streets within the Form Districts are intended to balance the needs of all types of traffic—auto, bicycle, and pedestrian—to maximize mobility and convenience for all the citizens and users of the respective districts.” However, in the pages that follow, none of the streetspace examples or specifications show bicycle lanes.

While I recognize that not all urban thoroughfares will include bicycle lanes, such lanes should be incorporated whenever it is feasible to accommodate multimodal travel and ensure the safety of cyclists on busy roadways. Thus, it would be prudent to include in the Land Development Code examples of how bike lanes could be integrated into street design. The following graphics, reprinted from an Institute of Transportation Engineers publication, are provided as examples of what I’m proposing for inclusion:

Transect example

Bike Lane example

2. Include bicycle racks in parking requirements for businesses.

Section 6.1.4(F)(8) states that one of the goals of the parking requirements is to “incorporate convenient bicycle parking.” However, sections 6.2 through 6.5 do not specifically require parking facilities for bicycles, such as bike racks. There are many references to “vehicle parking,” but “vehicle” is not defined in section 11, and I would argue that “vehicle” is popularly understood to mean a motorized vehicle, not a bicycle.

Thus, I suggest that in sections 6.2 through 6.5, under each of the Siting requirements, subheading “Garage and Parking,” language be inserted such as “a number of off-street bicycle parking spaces shall be provided equal to the greater of two (2) spaces total or five (5) percent of the automobile parking space requirement.” The numbers and percentages may need to be adjusted; this is just an example of the type of language that would be appropriate to ensure adequate bicycle parking. For an example of bicycle parking requirements in another community, Denver’s regulations can be read on-line at http://massbike.org/bikelaw/~denver.htm.

While I have referenced just the form districts in my letter, I also think it would be a good idea to incorporate these ideas into the entire Heart of Peoria area.

Thank you for your consideration of these requests.

I’d like to say that I discovered these omissions with my own keen observational skills, but that would be untrue. They were actually brought to my attention by Mahkno and Bernie Goitein (independent of each other), so my thanks to them.

Note: The graphics I included are from the Institute of Transportation Engineers publication “Context Sensitive Solutions in Designing Major Urban Thoroughfares for Walkable Communities,” available online here.

For all you who love our high Peoria taxes…

Peoria Public Schools logo…get ready for your taxes to go up some more, courtesy of School District 150 with the cooperation of the Illinois State Legislature.

On Nov. 29, the Illinois House joined the Senate in overriding the Governor’s amendatory veto of SB2477 and allowing School District 150 to get bonding authority from the Public Building Commission for a period of five years to build new school buildings. The Governor’s veto would have required a referendum to obtain the bonding authority, but thanks to the override, the taxpayers will not get a say.

Now, instead of our tax rate going down in the next couple of years as older PBC bonds are retired, the tax rate will stay the same or possibly (likely, in my opinion) go up.

Here’s an interesting quote reported by WHOI News:

“I think the most important thing for students, parents and the people looking to relocate to the school district is their children will be in modern educational facilities that are designed for students in the 21st century,” [District 150 Treasurer] Cahill said.

Let me ask you, dear readers, are “modern educational facilities that are designed for students in the 21st century” the “most important thing” to you? Do you think it’s the most important thing for those looking to relocate? When you’re evaluating a school district, is the most important thing to you the age of the school buildings?

Or do you think student performance might be a bigger factor? Or maybe crime? Or what about good teachers? How about taxes? Do you think property taxes have an effect on where people choose to live?

Of course all those things are more important. Nobody moves into a school district because they have shiny new buildings. A building never taught a child. And taxes and student achievement are the biggest reasons people choose to live in Morton, Germantown Hills, or even East Peoria, rather than Peoria.

So the school board keeping the tax rate up while simultaneously focusing all their energy on issues with no correlation to student achievement (i.e., new school buildings) is only going to exacerbate the district’s problems.

They’ve got a point

District 150 teachers have given notice they may strike as early as Dec. 12. Why? The Journal Star reports:

The sticking point is pay. The district has proposed a “hard” wage freeze for the first year of a multiple-year contract, meaning there would be no raise to the base pay and no pay increases for gains in experience or education. The union, however, is proposing a soft freeze, which means there would be pay increases for experience and education but no raise to the base pay.

This is the same district that is planning on giving two administrators each roughly a $30,000/yr. raise. How is it that they can afford to give exorbitant raises to administrators but are destitute to give teachers a raise even when they gain experience and education? The district can’t have it both ways.

Snowed in

Looks like I get a day off.

Believe it or not, I actually tried to get out this morning. I got halfway out of the garage before getting stuck in the drifting snow. I was able to dig out of that and get back in the garage. Now if anyone asks, I don’t have to resort to speculation about whether I could have gotten out.

I’m not looking forward to shoveling.

I guess the good news is that it looks like I’ll get a chance to do some blogging this morning. If the newspaper is here, it’s buried under a foot or more of drifting snow. I think I’ll stick to the on-line version today.

Happy snow day, everyone!