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.
Well you have my attention. I have been noticing as I traverse the city on errands that sidewalks go for several blocks and then there are none. Then they continue on later. Where are the people supposed to walk when there are none? In the street? There is no continuity of planning with the sidewalks in this city. Bicycilist, walkers, families with strollers, handicapped, etc., simply don’t have a way to get to the necessary areas. If you park on Main St., in front of the Becker Building in the handicapped zone you have to climb a huge step just to get up to the sidewalk. What’s the point of handicapped if you can’t get up the step to the sidewalk? The planning of the city streets and sidewalks and bike paths is terrible. These are essentials and basic infrastructure and we are not handling them accordingly. I think “complete streets” is an excellent program if it is followed in its intent.
Great post CJ! As someone who falls into the latter category of people who choose not to drive, it’d be great to see more complete streets initiatives around Peoria.
The easy solution is to live in denser areas if you enjoy being a pedestrian… but in most of those areas, the commerce has moved out to more auto-friendly areas, which encourages people to move out that way.
Although it still can be done… I live downtown, and I find that I can walk most places I need to go — sometimes that includes walking over the Bob Michel. It seems that there’s almost always someone walking or biking across that bridge, which surprises many people. Downtown Peoria is actually very pedestrian friendly, with wide sidewalks and (working) pedestrian countdown timers at all of the downtown signals. The East Peoria side, not so much — walking down by the Camp/Riverside/Washington intersections takes a little skill to get through, considering the only pedestrian signal is crossing Riverside at Washington (no ped signals at Camp/Riverside, and a potentially confusing signal sequence can be dangerous).
District 2 and 3 are relatively dense areas that have relatively abysmal – or missing sidewalks. And it’s all the more ridiculous if you follow the possible path of someone in a wheechair – curb cut on one block crossing the street to …. a curb and grass – or a curb cut leading to grass or a pit. I saw a man rollerblading down the middle of University south of McClure yesterday afternoon – towards oncoming traffic – it was quite something but that wasn’t for lack of sidewalks – and he did move onto a sidewalk when the oncoming cars got closer.
While I don’t disagree with most of what you say, that exception for resurfacing is much needed. Could you imagine the cost involved in bringing streets up to this new standard every time they needed to be resurfaced? It would be astronomical.
11BRAVO,
We could vote on a new ‘fix-the-road’ sales tax…..?
Excellent article. I agree. Now all we need to do is get the city/county to hire consultants to devise the plans and then some even newer logos for the necessary signage. And a new city motto to replace the regional catchphrase of “It’s better here!” I’m voting for “Peoria: City of Street Walkers.”
NV:typed: We could vote on a new ‘fix-the-road’ sales tax…..?
After you Tazewell County.
Street and Curb improvements, etc.? Don’t expect much help from our “new” Public Works Director. You can email me and ask me why not. Or just keep watching my blog site over the next couple of weeks.
Precinct,
OH! WOW! You are so clever! You MUST be a politician!
Precinct,
If a ‘fix-the-road’ tax was your idea first, I am sorry I stole your thunder.
The fix the road tax is already in place. You pay at the pump. Federal motor fuel tax started in 1956 at .03/gallon. Currently it is 18.4 cents plus whatever the state and local tax is added to it.
As I have often said if the standards for road materials were raised we wouldn’t be fixing the roads so often. It would cost a little more in the first place but after that you wouldn’t do it so much all the time. Raise the standards for material and you raise the quality of the ride and everybody makes out.
The Peoria Chronicle writes:
“Not everyone owns or has access to a motor vehicle; 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.”
While I agree some work needs to be done around town as far as walkways and sidewalks (south side), I notice you and others never once mentioned Citylink. How does Citylink figure into the equation per the point you are attempting to make in the above quoted word work?
lashawn trent: First, I believe everything I said about pedestrians and bicyclists would equally apply to transit riders. Essentially, transit riders are pedestrians. City buses do not drive you up to the front door everyplace you want to go. Getting to and from the bus, you’re dependent on the city’s pedestrian infrastructure (sidewalks, bike lanes, crosswalks, etc.).
Second, since the city is so sprawling, pedestrians do have a need for frequent and reliable mass transit. CityLink provides the bare minimum, in my opinion. No offense to CityLink; I think most of the problem has to do with city planning. But buses that only come by every half-hour during peak times and every hour during non-peak times are simply not frequent enough. And allowing patrons to stop the bus wherever and whenever they want instead of sticking to predetermined bus stops makes buses unreliable timing-wise. Furthermore, many bus stops are inaccessible for persons with a disability, and are generally undignified for any transit rider. So clearly there is room for improvement here, too.
Yea! I’m with you on this. I’m a big fan of building the trail but also really think we need bike and pedestrian friendly streets (especially in North Peoria where I live and work). I think the trail is great for people wanting to enjoy being outside and get some exercise and hope to see it happen for those people. Rather not have more people in the street just for “fun” but I think “complete” streets are more important than the trail for Peoria. You start the campaign and I’ll back you!
My question though, as I was driving down University toward One World yesterday I noticed how narrow the lanes were already and while a decent section had a turn lane (that I deemed removable so we could add bike lanes instead) not all of it did. So is it possible to have bike lanes intermittently along a road like University or would it have to be all or nothing?
I’m still bitter that a couple years ago when they repaved Willow Knolls Dr (Between Allen and University) they didn’t even add a shoulder to the road. People are walking along it all the time IN THE DITCH! b/c that’s all they’ve got.
Transit riders are essentially pedestrians. Your right. Buses may not drive you to the front door but they take you lots closer to where you want to be without walking much. You may have to walk to the bus stop and you may have to do a transfer to get where you are going but it beats walking 2 or more blocks specially when the weather is bad and for the most part the buses do take you very close to the door.
But thats just it. You first left out transit riders all together. But the rest is all well said for someone who presumeably doesnt ride mass transit. Do you ride frequently? I doubt it after reading all this. The One World crowd doesn’t know about mass transit. Just sidewalks and trails that aint good enough.
And man I don’t mean to bust you out or nothing but you just don’t know what you’re talking about. Maybe you’re just trying to spin something here and I don’t get it. Or maybe I do. But there ain’t nobody on these bus lines who is going to walk to the doctor or store. Most of where they are going is just too far to walk. 16 yr olds might ride the bike but a 70 yr old woman aint walking more than a block with her groceries or going to her doctor no matter how nice or bad the walk. And usually it ain’t just a couple of blocks away anyway. They’re going to take the bus or a cab if they have to and that is the truth.
You talk about minimum stops, ect, and allowing patrons to stop the bus wherever and whenever. What??? They don’t stop just anywhere here in Ptown. They stop and let patrons off at assigned stops once the patron pulls the cord. I lived in Chicago and Boston and St.Pete. in my day and it was the same in these cities essentially. And I would like it if buses came every 10 or 15 minutes but this is Peoria. You ain’t got the riders to support bigger city timing. I understand that but why dont you since your always printing out numbers on things about the city and what it does or wants to do with our money. You know that. Youre spinning this.
And the fact is many of us that don’t drive have good mobility thanks to Citylink. I see some around 16 riding, elderly people and disabled people, women with baby carrages. You say many bus stops are inacessable for the disabled. Which ones? I’ve been on buses where people in wheel chairs or women with baby carrages were picked up on Wisconsin, Lincoln, Knoxville, University, the mall, at Walmart, Kmart, Kroger, downtown. The drivers always give them the best help too. We’ve all known each other for years. And people I talk to on the bus don’t complain about the things you are saying here. I’ve never heard anything like this. And what do you mean by “undignified for any transit rider”. Nobody on these bus lines talks like that. I never felt second class riding Citylink. I dont think there is anything undignified about Citylink. That shows you know little about what you are talking about. I’ve even seen a driver and passanger help a elderly woman to the door of Proctor and get her an attendant. I guess she didn’t know Citylink has a service for her. But the driver informed her of such.
I agreed with you on the museum and voted against it but stop trying to get my taxes raised even more will you?
LaShawn: There definitely needs to be a discussion in Peoria about how to improve bus service.
lashawn: You can read my past posts on CityLink here.
And I’m not trying to raise your taxes. If you reread my post, my whole point was that maintaining separate corridors for pedestrians and motor vehicles needlessly increases the cost of pedestrian mobility. The establishment of complete streets and abandonment of a separate trail system will save tax money.
Great post! I agree with the concept of Complete Streets. I attended a one hour workshop on it just this past summer in Wisconsin.
I read your link to your past post on Citylink. And I reread you post. My only point to you was that you didnt talk about mass transit and how it benefits those who don’t or can’t drive but have to rely on being pedestrians and pedestrians take mass transit. That’s all I’m saying. I said I agreed with some work needing to be done. When I lived in that neighborhood I walked a couple times to Northwoods on Rt.150 from near University. It would be nice to see pedestrian friendly walk ways there.
But let me holler at you just a little bit more about Citylink then I’ll be done with this.
Bus travel is slow. Mass transit travel is slow even in a city with subways and “L’s”. I like 15 minute buses believe me, but where would citylink get the money to buy more buses so as to do that? And even if they do something like that I would hope that it would not be to their detrement and turn Citylink into a troubled CTA always looking for money and ways to keep on operating. Hell I’m just glad they now have a central hub with a roof over it. I can deal with the rest and thats all part of riding mass transit no matter what city you live in. I think it was worse to get around in the St.Pete area.
And, well hey, I’ve had buses go by as I’m walking up to the stop minutes before theyre suppose to. That’s just part of being a mass transit rider. I’ve had it happen twice in the last 10 years on 2 different lines since I’ve been back here and I just walked back home, called Citylink and complained about it. They seem to be very good about when you give them all the details and I believe they confront the driver once you have described him or her to them. Twice in 10 years ain’t that bad in my book but maybe I’m more tolerant than some others.
As far as some of the other comments in your link I’d say they don’t ride much. I see plenty of elderly riders but they mostly ride early in the day. After lunch time they’re mostly done and all home.
People always complain about things that really do work but have to mess with them until they get broke. You all think Citylink is broke but it ain’t when you compare apple to apples and not apples to oranges.
Thanks for your time.