Complete Streets is a great thing – a real sea change in designing our streets for people rather than cars. But, unfortunately, sometimes we still get the engineering mindset when it comes to deploying complete streets policy:
In West Allis, a working-class Milwaukee suburb, the state proposed adding bike lanes to a six-lane highway that is one of the biggest commercial corridors in town. Many of the stores, fast-food restaurants and hotels either run right up to the street or rely on a single row of parking there. To accommodate the new bike lanes, the state would have had to widen the road by 10 feet. Some designs called for even more land to be taken. The city estimated the expansions would require the conversion of $10 million to $30 million of real estate into the highway right of way. “When we saw this, we were horrified,” says Peter Daniels, the city’s principal design engineer.
A couple of thoughts on this. There is no way that a six-lane stroad is hospitable to anyone other than cars. Putting a bike lane on this road is a dereliction of public safety. That said, if you’re going to put bike lanes on a six-lane highway, why don’t you put it on a road diet? Take a lane out on each side, or narrow the widths of the existing lanes, create a boulevard and slow traffic down through smart design. Design the road from the perspective of a person trying to cross the street on foot.
Jim Otterson
Agreed: A six lane facility is no place to have bike lanes. Separated cycle tracks maybe, but not bike lanes. A road diet may be a good way to do this, but it’s hard for me to say as I’m not familiar with the street, the nature of the development on the street, and other factors. That said, I think Enrique Penalosa’s concept that streets need to be safe for 8 year olds and 80 year olds applies to any street that has bike lanes planned. Perhaps WisDOT will reconsider widening the street and go with a road diet instead. One issue not mentioned in the post is prior consultation with adjacent property owners (likely) and the public (possibly). Consultation takes time, but is usually worth the effort in my experience. Not consulting tends to make things like this a costly experiment with no guaranteed outcome. Cities or states typically don’t have the financial resources to gamble like this…
Ryan Richter
Jim, thanks for the comment and insight. I agree with you on the thinking of Enrique Penalosa as well. Complete Streets is a great idea, in principle, but has been co-opted in many cases into expensive design solutions that do not actually have the intended effect of balancing the road uses. That said, I think Wisconsin’s use of Complete Streets for every project, while laudable in its intentions, falls short in ultimately forcing complete streets solutions on roads, like this one, where complete streets are unlikely to be successful without wholesale changes in land use and travel patterns. Which is why the widening to encompass every perceived use is crazy. And so, if you’re going to stick with applying complete streets on such a road, a road diet has to be considered. But I am guessing WisDOT and the community probably are not interested in decreasing vehicle throughput as they are with complying with the rules, and thus, here you go.
As a consultant myself, I strongly agree on the need for consultation before and during all phases of planning, design, engineering and construction.