I think everyone would agree that there exists a need for pedestrian (and, by extension, bicycle) mobility in the city. Not everyone owns or has access to a motor vehicle (which they can buy from dealers like Bill Eads RV – rv dealer if they have a budget); for example: children under 16, elderly residents who can no longer drive, disabled residents, poor residents, and those who simply choose not to drive for health or other reasons. All these people have the same mobility needs as their fellow residents who have motor vehicles. They all need to get groceries, visit the doctor, enjoy entertainment offerings in town, visit friends and relatives, etc. I think everyone would also agree that one of the basic functions of government is to provide the infrastructure for said mobility.

So the question then becomes, what is the best, most efficient way for the city to meet this need?

Some people believe the best way is by providing a network of exclusively pedestrian corridors — “trails.” These trails are to be completely separate from city streets, which are assumed to be the exclusive domain of motor vehicles. Given that assumption, it follows that motor vehicles and pedestrians simply don’t mix, thus making separate corridors essential for safety reasons.

I would argue that a better solution is something called “complete streets.” The idea is to use a city’s existing corridors, which after all go all the places a person wants to go already, to accommodate not only motor vehicles, but also pedestrians and bicyclists.

The trouble with the “trails” system is that they are almost exclusively for recreational use. They don’t go to all the places one needs to go (work, home, shopping, etc.). Thus they don’t really help meet the need of pedestrian mobility. They’re also a tremendous public expense. Acquiring and maintaining duplicate corridors (one for motorists, one for pedestrians) doubles the burden on the taxpayer.

It’s easy to see why there is a desire for trails, however, when you consider how little consideration pedestrian access has been given in the city. Look around town and you’ll find places where sidewalks are non-existent, intermittent, crumbling, obstructed, narrow, or unconnected.

In October 2007, the State of Illinois adopted “complete streets” legislation as Public Act 095-0665, which states, “Bicycle and pedestrian ways shall be given full consideration in the planning and development of transportation facilities, including the incorporation of such ways into State plans and programs.” However, if you take a look at some big road projects — the Route 150 resurfacing, for instance — you don’t see any improvements for pedestrian mobility. That’s because projects like that are exempted from the statute:

(b) In or within one mile of an urban area, bicycle and pedestrian ways shall be established in conjunction with the construction, reconstruction, or other change of any State transportation facility except:
(1) in pavement resurfacing projects that do not widen the existing traveled way or do not provide stabilized shoulders; or
(2) where approved by the Secretary of Transportation based upon documented safety issues, excessive cost or absence of need.

These exceptions eliminate about 95% of road projects. No doubt Route 150 would fall under both exceptions. And yet, I see people walking or biking along this route all the time, especially between the Glen Hollow shopping center and the nearby neighborhoods to the north, such as Sherwood Forrest, Rolling Acres, and Timberlane apartments.

Where Route 150 travels through older neighborhoods, pedestrians can use side streets because they’re through-streets on a grid pattern, and many of them run roughly parallel to Route 150. But in the northern parts of the city, residential streets are curvilinear and the only access between neighborhoods are large arterial roadways. Between the neighborhoods mentioned earlier and the nearest shopping, the shortest route is Route 150. Some sort of pedestrian access is sorely needed along this corridor.

Meanwhile, projects that do fall under the statute — Main Street improvements, Washington Street (Route 24) improvements, Sheridan Triangle reconstruction — are stalled for various reasons, but fundamentally due to lack of political will. It’s easy to blame money as the culprit, but our local taxing bodies have never let a lack of money get in the way of constructing things they really wanted (need I even give examples?).

Clearly, we’ve got a long way to go. And the longer we put off fixing the streets, the more pressure there is going to be for alternative corridors/trails. While those trails may be constructed and maintained by a different municipal body (the Park District, for example), the money all comes from the same source: the taxpayer. We shouldn’t settle for an inferior system of pedestrian accessibility under the false conception that it’s somehow saving us money. It’s not. It’s costing us, and it’s not filling the real need. It’s as inefficient as it is ineffective.

We need to put more pressure on our elected officials to provide complete streets. We need to develop creative ways to accommodate all users with our present corridors. And we need to do it sooner than later.