And if billions weren't wasted in this state on roads to nowhere, bike trails that are barely used, overinflated construction costs, and massive pensions, we would not have needed the tax increase.
Complete Streets in Peoria
I agree that those are all bad things. However, that isn't "complete streets." All "complete streets" means is that the public right of way is being used to serve the public--all of the public, not just motorists. Making sure that streets have sidewalks and bike lanes doesn't force anyone to walk or bike; it simply facilitates those other forms of transit. It's also a lot more practical than setting up a completely separate system/corridor for recreational biking (bike trails). We should all be able to share the public right of way. It doesn't cost any extra to add a bike lane vs. adding another travel lane for cars. It doesn't cost any extra to paint a line separating a part of the road for bikes vs. painting a line to separate travel lanes for cars or parking lanes for cars. And all streets should have sidewalks for the use of pedestrians. It's a public safety issue.
I guess this means Plant and I are on the same side on this issue, which is a miracle. Lol!
We had this discussion a couple years ago on PDC. My opinion has not changed. Complete streets is a ploy to get people out of cars and onto buses, bikes, or feet. While I agree that we as a society can and should walk and bike to get where we need to go whenever possible, we cannot force people to do something they do not want to do when it comes to transportation.cjsummers wrote: ↑Mon Dec 14, 2020 8:40 am I agree that those are all bad things. However, that isn't "complete streets." All "complete streets" means is that the public right of way is being used to serve the public--all of the public, not just motorists. Making sure that streets have sidewalks and bike lanes doesn't force anyone to walk or bike; it simply facilitates those other forms of transit. It's also a lot more practical than setting up a completely separate system/corridor for recreational biking (bike trails). We should all be able to share the public right of way. It doesn't cost any extra to add a bike lane vs. adding another travel lane for cars. It doesn't cost any extra to paint a line separating a part of the road for bikes vs. painting a line to separate travel lanes for cars or parking lanes for cars. And all streets should have sidewalks for the use of pedestrians. It's a public safety issue.
It really isn’t. It is an effort to accommodate people who already are on buses, bikes, and feet—who pay taxes just like people in cars and deserve to be accommodated on the public right of way. There are pedestrians everywhere for all kinds of reasons. Why shouldn’t they be allowed to share the streets safely?
Those are YOUR motives, and I find no fault with that. Unfortunately, the big government, central planner types are in fact using the complete street concept to get people out of cars and into buses that are paid for and run with tax dollars.
This excerpt from the link I posted earlier sums it up nicely:
Let’s face it: urban planners hate automobiles. They probably don’t hate their own car — many of them drive as much as anyone else. But they believe that Americans drive too much.
Their solution is to increase traffic congestion. But the question has always been, how do they sell that idea to a public that relies on cars for more than 80 percent of their travel? The answer is to come up with some fluffy phrase that sounds nice.
Your link from "The Antiplanner"? Persuasive. At least as persuasive as a pro-life argument from Planned Parenthood.
All the organizations that promote Complete Streets cite the reasons I stated earlier. If you find evidence to the contrary (not cynical conjecture from an anonymous blogger), let me know.
https://www.transportation.gov/mission/ ... te-streets
https://smartgrowthamerica.org/program/ ... coalition/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complete_streets
I'm guessing if your numbers where that lucky it wouldn't be up to $291M
