I’m responding to a comment on the facebook post which started with the sharing of the 13-lane animation on which I commented in my previous post on this blog. A commenter stated:
…I don’t think it oversells the space because that assumption operates on the premise that cars need to be able to go EVERYWHERE. They don’t. So while one single road may not have 13 lanes to give up, two or three collectively certainly might. Take them away, at least from through traffic. They’ll become access-only, which effectively makes them pretty empty.
Well, yes, access. Roads have gone nearly everywhere the wheel was known, for thousands of years, because motor vehicles, or wagons drawn by animals, have to go everywhere except where people and supplies are to be transported on foot, on the backs of animals, by bicycle, railroad or boat, all of which are more expensive or impractical for many destinations, loads and trips. Oh, I left out elephants, which require as much road width as motor vehicles, but you get the idea. Inefficient (largely single-occupant) use of motor vehicles, requiring enormous amounts of space for multi-lane arterial roads and for parking, is the space issue — not the existence of motor vehicles or where they can go. Overpopulation and land use also play into this problem.
Be ready for a surprise if you live long enough to see it. People who are thinking about autonomous vehicles are saying that traffic volume will actually be higher, though parking demand will be much lower because these vehicles will be in use much more of the time. Traffic, they say, will be slower but steadier. Road capacity will increase both due to reduction in parking and to more efficient use of travel space (shorter following distances, better traffic management).
I could be surprised too because I’m not sure that this is more utopian than reality will turn out to be. In particular, travel demand varies enormously at different times of day, so parking will still be needed (though fewer parking spaces per vehicle, to be sure). We can see some of the parking issue playing out with bike-share systems having to rebalance for commutes in opposite directions, morning and evening. With driverless cars, that would amount to either extra cars and parking, or extra travel. I remain unconvinced that people will be happy to carpool in driverless cars, that overall cost reduction will outweigh that consideration or the tragedy of the commons/convenience to the individual of having a personal vehicle. Urban/suburban/rural conditions will of course differ.
Where do bicycles fit into this? That not a question whose answer I know to give. I may speculate on it later.
Comments from Reed Kempton, a Senior Planner with the Maricopa County Department of Transportation, late in the day on March 21. This is an addition to my earlier post about the crash. I thank Reed for his permission to post his comments, which originally appeared on the e-mail list of the Association for Bicycle and Pedestrian Professionals.
**********
I’ve been driving through this intersection in its various configurations for 50 years and bicycling here for 48 (Yes, I am that old!) and would like to address some of the questions and statements from the past couple of days. Refer to the Google link below and note the position of the large X in the median. One report indicated that the pedestrian stepped off the median into the car’s path about 350 feet south of the intersection near the top of the X in the northbound direction. If this is the case, the car would have just changed lanes and been moving into the left left turn lane. 125 feet further south makes more sense to me as the car would be moving straight and not yet reached the left turn lanes.
https://goo.gl/maps/YkNMUu1nYZp
>How many lanes of car traffic are there?
2 lanes southbound; 2 lanes northbound; approaching the intersection northbound adds 2 left and one right turn lane; both directions include sidewalks and bike lanes
>Why does the area have clear, solid, inviting pathways across a median, if people aren’t supposed to cross there?
A history on the Mill Avenue bridges over the normally dry Salt River can be read at the Wikipedia link below but here is a short summary. From 1931 to 1994, only one bridge existed. Southbound traffic used the bridge while northbound traffic drove through the river. When water was flowing, a rare occurrence for many decades, the bridge was used for one lane of traffic in each direction. There was an asphalt crossover located just north of the bridge. When the second bridge was added, a crossover was put in place to accommodate the potential closing of one of the bridges. The X in the median is intended to be used to move cars from one side to the other if a bridge was closed. What looks like a path, has vertical curbs and signs that say do not cross here. In 1999, Tempe put two dams in the river to create a town lake.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mill_Avenue_Bridges
>How far is it to a safer place to cross?
The signalized intersection is 350 feet north. Ped access to the park below the road is about the same distance south. Just south of that is a shared use path along the north bank of the river. The Rio Salado Path connects to path systems in Scottsdale, Mesa, and Phoenix making it possible to travel significant distances without riding or walking on a road.
>A trail meets the street where there is no crosswalk and no traffic signal.
While it is pretty easy to walk across the desert landscape in this location, there is no trail meeting the street. There are numerous mountain bike trails east of Lake View Dr.
Maybe tomorrow we will be given more information.
Reed