Complete streets have their place

but I'd rather live in a Woonerf

Observations on the complete street infrastructure (Sidewalking Victoria, 24 February 11) has me thinking. Author Thomas Guerrero is an accomplished, thought provoking blogger and photographer whose images highlight points in his essay.

I love integrated bike networks--though I am more of a walker (& EV user) than a cyclist at this time, so I am on board with complete streets in their place: thoroughfares to move multi-modal traffic from A to B.

My concern (and the complete street model is but one example) is that we seem incapable of taking a policy guideline and implementing it in a contextual manner. That is, here's a desired outcome, there's the reality, what can get us from one to the other in specific yet variable situations? Importantly, and how does that relate to the overall multi-modal transportation network? Utrecht achieves this by planning for a holistically envisioned network. 

Maybe we're heading that way, too. But trusting that once all is in place the anomalies will disappear is a bit of a challenge.

Complete streets, with separate lanes for motor vehicles, bicycles and pedestrians, serve an important purpose on arterials in a typical urban environment. Beyond that, I would prefer mapping cycling corridors such that they become effective for cyclists--sometimes on arterials—but often on streets that should not be complete streets at all, but shared spaces at the most local level, woonerven or "home zones" that are about life rather than getting from A to B. Cyclists, like drivers, would proceed more slowly in awareness of that public use in pedestrian-centric areas.

In planning, there are innumerable considerations and myriad regulations. But we rarely see a comprehensive understanding that is consolidated into a focus on desired outcomes to guide an implementation that hits the mark. The initial charette, if held, is typically outcome focused. However, there is a "computer says no" habit that is hard to break when desired outcomes suggest need for flexibility in the interpretation of policy.

It can be done. Sometimes the right combination of planning skills, public advocacy and courage is found. Silos in governance, both structural and cultural, are part of the problem.

As for the contentious bike lanes on Fort and Pandora, an alternative model might have created a bike corridor on View Street below Central School, right through the downtown core. This would have allowed the cycle space now on Fort and Pandora to animate the public realm through wider sidewalks, garden beds with street furnishings and people engaged in downtown activities.

The display of the trolley tracks discovered during construction is both a nice touch and a dreadful reminder of what we have lost in implementing "the latest trend." Coming from an east coast location where varied public transport was a norm, I was shocked to find that Victoria was ripping out and paving over tracks at the young age of age 12. Forty years later, living in Hong Kong, I noted that retention, rather than replacement, of diverse modes of transit meant that long paid for systems were available to those with the least ability to pay while the latest higher cost subways met needs of others. There is an interdependency in civic models we need to think about. 

So...I am ambivalent. I am glad that the City offers a much more accessible cycling infrastructure and disappointed with the seeming one-size-fits-all except for politically motivated exceptions that break the rules. As an EV driver and people-priority woonerf champion, I see that not managing arterials as such is causing increased speed and volume of cut-through drivers seeking more functional routes--through residential neighbourhoods. Most of all, I see that public transportation is not designed to attract ridership.

Finding an effective balance is paramount.