Nope, it's not.

Tweet

Maybe it's time to plant a few more street trees in Woodland Hills?

Will AB 2231 have unintended consequences for sidewalks?

Tweet

Assembly Bill 2231, introduced by Assemblymember Felipe Fuentes, shifts responsibility for sidewalk repairs from adjacent property owners to local jurisdictions. The bill is touted by groups such as the California Association of Realtors because it "rightfully stops local governments from shirking responsibility for these sidewalks and protects property owners from huge repair and legal costs for damages they did not produce."

That might be good for homeowners, but is it good for sidewalks? The bill imposes a state-mandated local program, which means that ultimately the State could be responsible for paying sidewalk repair costs if the Commission on State Mandates determines the costs are reimbursable. Given the state of California's budget, that possibility is uncertain at best, meaning local jurisdictions would likely have to pay for repairs.

Great! you say -- one way or the other, we'll finally get some much-needed sidewalk fixes. Don't be so sure. At least one city says it would remove its sidewalks rather than bankrupt itself trying to repair them. There's also the risk that jurisdictions would decide to cut down shade trees that threaten to cause sidewalk damage (or maybe just make it a policy not to plant them). Given this, it's no surprise groups like the League of California Cities and California Association of Counties oppose the bill (although the reason they give for doing so is a little discouraging: "It is difficult to justify repairing a sidewalk for a homeowner in a residential neighborhood instead of filling potholes on a thoroughfare that serves as a primary route for the movement of people and goods…").  

I don't fault Fuentes for wanting cities to take responsibility for sidewalk repair. Though it's clearly not the reason he's sponsored the bill (he's more interested in scoring points with homeowners worried about liability than in ensuring pedestrian connectivity), it galls me when cities argue they have a mandate to maintain the traveled way for vehicles--but not pedestrians. Still, I believe there is a real risk that AB 2231, if passed, could lead to fewer sidewalks. Until the bill is changed to address that problem, it's not one I believe pedestrian advocates should support.

This Week on Foot

Tweet

We're visiting Seattle this week, where the City Council rejects mayor's plan for more stores in neighborhoods due in part to concerns over too much walkability. As one person said during public testimony (to loud applause), "We don't need more walkability in our neighborhood." Is there such a thing a too much walkability, or are the problems with the mayor's proposal more nuanced (e.g. a perception that they favor new development over existing retailers)?

It does seem like an odd complaint, given that everywhere else they're jumping on the walkability band...sneakers? This week we learned about Microcities: The Rise of the Mini Home and the Walkable Neighborhood, found out that Home Prices In ‘Resilient Walkable’ Communities See Strongest Recovery, and discovered that Now Coveted: A Walkable, Convenient Place. Even the Military rethinks base planning for energy efficiency, walkability.

And it's not to soon, because it's been a dangerous week out there for pedestrians, with a Pedestrian struck by Metrolink train in Anaheim and a 101-year-old pedestrian killed by 91-year-old driver in Burbank. Fortunately Volvo introduces pedestrian airbarg in 2013 V40 model, and Safe Kids Receives $25,000 To Improve Pedestrian Safety. There even a new Campaign tackles pedestrian deaths on Northern Ireland roads.

Meanwhile, closer to home we're wondering How many agencies does it take to make a better LA street? Already Hollywood's EaCa Alley Already Action-Packed, without a ton of agencies dipping their feet in the water. Elsewhere in the country Central Maui Pedestrian & Bicycle Master Plan to be Unveiled, there's a A second act for the walkable neighborhood in D.C., and the Walkability - Coalition submits suggestions on approving walking areas in Estherville.

Finally this week, we learn about Gas and Cigarettes and Addiction Funding--and how it might not be a great idea to depend on them to fix our walkability problems.

Driverless cars will save the world!

Tweet

Photo courtesy of the Nevada Department of Motor Vehicles

Okay, I don't really think that.

But I do think they deserve more than a knee-jerk, negative reaction (see discussion here and here). Pedestrians (and planners, for that matter) tend to think of the car as their natural enemy, and it's true the car causes a lot of problems--for everyone, not just those who travel on foot. Does that mean we should reject any change in the technology that might continue to perpetuate an auto-centric world? Let's consider the costs of cars and private vehicle travel, and see what robo-cars might do to change them.

1. Public Health
According to CDC data about 30,000 Americans are killed in traffic crashes each year, at a cost of $41 billion. If that sounds discouraging, consider that over 90 percent of traffic deaths and injuries take place outside the US, killing 1.3 million people annually and injuring another 20 to 50 million. I probably don't have to tell you that pedestrians are disproportionately represented in those deaths and injuries, right?

Driverless cars might not eliminate this problem entirely (the laws of physics still apply if someone darts in front of a car), but they have the potential to seriously decrease deaths and injuries from crashes. Imagine no more distracted driving, drunk driving, speeding, red-light running--or people cutting you off on the freeway. For me, this alone is reason enough to support further investigation into driverless technology.

There are other health consequences from driving, of course. Air pollution from vehicles contributes to high asthma and cancer rates, particularly in neighborhoods near freeways. Driverless cars may have a small impact on this by reducing congestion, but the real benefits from pollution reduction will come from other technologies. And by making it easier to drive, robo-cars might contribute to the ongoing obesity problem in our country (and elsewhere). We shouldn't ignore their potential to create a new kind of lazy (car-potato?), but I'm not convinced the obesity epidemic, with its myriad causes and solutions, is reason enough to reject robo-cars outright.

2. Congestion
Congestion costs Americans over $100 billion per year (not including associated health costs). As transportation experts have said for years, the best solution is well within our reach -- if only we could find the political will to implement it. Until then we hunt for the second-best options, and driverless cars are one of them. They would remove most of the delays caused by crashes, and allow vehicles to travel faster and more smoothly.

However, let's be clear: driverless cars would not solve the fundamental problem of congestion (namely, lots of people trying to get the same place at the same time on the same route). They have the potential to ease congestion by improving roadway efficiency, but they won't eliminate it entirely.

This week on foot

Tweet

 Photo courtesy of Comox Valley Record

This week has been full of debate over driverless cars. Oops — wrong future! says Google-Funded Pundit: Forget Transit, the Future Belongs to Robocars. But Driverless cars don't change geometry.

On the other hand, students might--like South Brunswick High School Students Seek Sidewalk. And it's a good thing, because this week we learned why Why Seniors, Children, and the Poor Are at Greater Risk of Traffic Deaths, which may explain why Some Comox Valley elementary students get aboard 'walking bus' to stay safe during their walk to school.

Elsewhere in the country Five Points Officials Looking to Make Area Safer to Walk as well, while King County's 'Complete Streets' Hopes To Reverse Health Effects Of Sprawl, Washington-DC Area Planning Board Approves Complete Streets Policy and Essex County Complete Streets Policy Adopted.

But it's not Complete Streets for everyone. Is the world's fastest pedestrian signal in downtown Muncie? I can't say, but I do know a "Diverging diamond" doesn't help make a walkable corridor. And those walkable corridors are important, since New housing forecast mostly good for walkable communities.

And while we're talking about walkability, don't forget that Parks should be pedestrian friendly. So should bridges, like the Pedestrian bridge dedicated to long-time trail leader in Maine. And maybe even...Vegas? I guess it's one of those Walkable Places Where Glitz Is King.

But cars are king in Kenya: Mwau's Car Knocks Pedestrian to Death, reminding us that the question of walking vs. driving is also one of who has the power.

Finally this week, in California the Senate OKs bill to increase fines for cell phone use while driving-- but across the country they've taken the opposite approach: Texting while walking banned in N.J. town.