"Sprawl and busy streets are a vicious cycle and one doesn't go without the

other. In an economy dependent on growth, we push widening the streets
first to encourage development of the less expensive properties, ie.,
properties that are further from town. When the development happens,
people have to drive farther which equates to more cars/mile which builds
a need for even wider streets.

Part of what makes that model unsustainable, besides a world passing peak
oil production, is that wider streets require longer crosswalk timing for
pedestrians to cross. Lengthening the crosswalk timing means that cars
have to wait longer for the light to change which negates the reason for
widening the streets. Tucson DOT's answer has been to just make the
pedestrians run faster and those of us who can't run faster can just stay
home."

I lived in Portland, Oregon for many years and they have a law against urban
sprawl. The problem this creates though, is increased building density. It's
unbelievable. The greenways and animal corridors vanished as new homes were
put it. Coyotes became a much bigger problem than before as they now did all
their hunting in the new neighborhoods. The wildlife doesn't just vanish
when you take away their homes.
Also, urban growth boundries drove the cost of housing way up and people had
to move farther out to find a place to live. I commuted 45min each way to
work and I was one of the lucky ones. Here, I commute 15 minutes. Traffic is
much better, although it still takes a while to get across town. However,
what takes me 45minutes here, took 2 hours in Portland. The population of
Portland is about 525,000 in the city, versus 575,000 in Portland. The
population density though for Tucson is 2,657/sq mile versus 4,288/sq mile
in Portland. I would much rather live here.
I do get what you're talking about with the cross-walks though. There's one
at the corner of Grant Rd. and Forbes Blvd. that lasts for about 2.5
seconds. That's not even enough time if you sprint across the four lanes of
traffic. But, going the other direction, across Forbes, the walk signal
lasts for more like 10 seconds. But, I could go on for hours about the
moronic traffic signals and work prioritization in this town.
I don't think the answer to increased growth is to be found in limiting
sprawl. I think it's to be found in limiting growth. We have local
governments doing their best to attract new businesses, employers and
employees. I think it's good to look at the health and prosperity of the
community, but there needs to be balance. It's not a simple solution.


Brett

-----Original Message-----
From: AZTOC@yahoogroups.com [mailto:AZTOC@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Dale
Sent: Tuesday, May 12, 2009 2:36 PM
To: AZTOC@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [AZTOC] Re: Attn: Dale - address of Pima County Board

Brett:

See below.

On Tue, 12 May 2009 13:48:51 -0700, Brett Cook <brett@...> wrote:

> You might have something there. I've been trying to figure out how to get
> more people involved. One of the great things about Tucson is the Rillito
> River Park. I'd like to see this idea extended to other Rivers/washes
> besides the Rillito and part of the Santa Cruz.

I wonder if it would be possible to get permission for an existing
greenway along a wash to donate an artwork/bench that's marked as being
donated from this group?

> Those two could actually be extended and joined to create a path that
> covers
> the north and west side of town. I believe the same thing could be done
> to
> the Pantano, maybe as far S. as 22nd.
> The problem would be the sections of private property that go right up to
> the river's edge.

Right now, a greater problem might be that most everybody is broke. Still,
there might be funding available through state and federal transportation
grants and reimbursement projects like Safe Routes to Schools.

Where private property extends to the edge of the wash, I would think it
would be possible to extend the elevated area a bit further into the wash
without significantly reducing flow capacity, and if it would, perhaps the
wash could be dug a bit deeper around the area. Another possibility might
be to build a walking platform elevated over the wash. I think Lowes did
that behind their eastside store where they built a really nice public
seating area.

> The point here is that all groups involved in such a project have a
> better
> chance of getting their interests addressed. For example, I could see
> biking, jogging and roller groups being able to lobby for use from a
> stronger position if they were part of the effort.

Imagine an annual walking/biking/rolling fair or exhibit to show
improvements that have been made recently, plans that are in the works,
and offer a vision of where we could go.

> Sprawl can be a good thing. It means there's some land left undeveloped
> in
> spots. I would ride my bike to work if I didn't have to risk my life in
> traffic where there are no bike lanes or lanes only on the busiest
> streets.

Sprawl and busy streets are a vicious cycle and one doesn't go without the
other. In an economy dependent on growth, we push widening the streets
first to encourage development of the less expensive properties, ie.,
properties that are further from town. When the development happens,
people have to drive farther which equates to more cars/mile which builds
a need for even wider streets.

Part of what makes that model unsustainable, besides a world passing peak
oil production, is that wider streets require longer crosswalk timing for
pedestrians to cross. Lengthening the crosswalk timing means that cars
have to wait longer for the light to change which negates the reason for
widening the streets. Tucson DOT's answer has been to just make the
pedestrians run faster and those of us who can't run faster can just stay
home.

> Who wants to ride a bike with people zipping by at 50mph?

The speed limit on the 2-lane road in front of my house is 45 mph. The
County has plans for paved bike lanes when they can afford it. Until then,
they've been tacking on a bit of asphalt here and there whenever they have
extra after finishing another project. In some spots, it's now up to about
a foot wide.

> The key would be
> figuring out a way to tie undeveloped strips together to improve access
> for
> non-motorized traffic.

IMO, Planning and Zoning should have an overall long term plan for
sections of property so that when subdivisions are developed, walking
paths extend through each subdivision and are connected to walking paths
in adjacent subdivisions so that pedestrians seldom have to be in or
adjacent to traffic. Imagine if roads were all planned for each
subdivision without regard to connections to roads on adjacent
subdivisions.

The advantage of that also is that crosswalks could be located mid-block
away from automobile intersections. Instead of 12 lanes of automobile
traffic waiting for a pedestrian to cross, they could use Pelican
crossings at points in the road without right and left turn lanes so only
3 lanes of traffic would have to stop at any given time.

> Part of the problem though, is there's so much to do in this life that
> it's
> hard to choose where to focus.
> I'm just as guilty as anyone else. Since December, I've been putting my
> time
> into a backyard "garden" project. I started out by making some wine from
> local grapes this summer. The difficulty of sourcing good winegrapes made
> something give inside and the next thing I know, I'm putting in a
> vineyard.
> Jeez, I now have 50 vines in the backyard, complete with trellis and drip
> system. It turns out that grapes are low water users and love the sun.
> They
> also don't seem to mind crappy soil (which I have an abundance of). I did
> the work myself, with the help of family and friends. Now, I just have to
> keep from screwing up the wine so I have something worthwhile to give
> out to
> those great people who helped remove 5 tons of prickly pear, dig trenches
> and lay drip line. We didn't want to raze the ground, so we "surgically"
> removed selected cactus and cleared and area just big enough. This makes
> it
> hard to stand back and get a good picture though, so I took lots :-).
> Dale, I noticed you discuss gardening on your website, so I thought you
> might be interested in this. Here's a link to some photo's of the
> progress.
> The vines are now almost 2 months old:
> http://app.onlinephotofiler.com/GalleryThumbnails.aspx?gallery=182759
>
> If the above link doesn't work, browse to: photos.cooksplace.us and
> select
> the vineyard gallery.
>
> Brett

I'm reforesting about an acre that's been damaged by many decades of
cattle grazing and development. Part of what I hope to accomplish in the
coming year is to plant Arizona mesquites along the roadway to provide
shade for walkers and I'd like to build a public bench for passers-by to
rest under the mesquites and to function as an example for others of what
a more sustainable community would look like.

To make this reforestation project sustainable, I'm working on water
harvesting and I've learned that what's more important than collecting
water is keeping it--using mulch to prevent evaporation. At a recent
sustainability fair, one of the presenters said (as best I can recall)
that about 12 inches of rain can fall in Tucson in a year and about 70
inches can evaporate. I know that when water moves upward in the soil, in
brings up calcium carbonate--the stuff that makes caliche--so it's not
hard to figure out the end product of that cycle. In fact, I just came in
from spreading mulch and it looks like I'll have a bit left this time to
expand my veggie gardens.

-- Dale
<http://DaleRoose.com/>
Moral Relativism--believing that torture is justifiable as a "lesser evil".

> -----Original Message-----
> From: AZTOC@yahoogroups.com [mailto:AZTOC@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of
> Dale
> Sent: Monday, May 11, 2009 6:09 PM
> To: AZTOC@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [AZTOC] Re: Attn: Dale - address of Pima County Board
>
> jamie:
>
> It's interesting that you should bring this up. The City of Seattle just
> published their "Draft Seattle Pedestrian Master Plan"--
> <http://www.seattle.gov/transportation/pedestrian_masterplan/>
> --in which they describe the many tools available to make Seattle more
> walkable. In walkability, they don't stop with sidewalks but also include
> paths, trails, greenways, and anyplace else people might walk within and
> around the urban environment. At this point, I doubt any of our elected
> officials have the foresight to see the many virtues of walkability and
> will move forward only if forced by the masses or maybe by a court order.
>
> Looking through this lengthy Web document from Seattle, the thought of
> making much of our community walkable seems like a daunting if not
> impossible task because of the opposing inertia. Arizona has an
> unsustainable growth-addicted economy that expects sprawl to build the
> wealth necessary to sustain the existing infrastructure. It's like trying
> to save the economy of a nation addicted to consumer debt by freeing up
> more credit. But I digress.
>
> IMO, walkers and rollers (wheelchair & scooter users) whether with or
> without dogs would all benefit by creating a popular movement to demand
> more liveable and sustainable neighborhoods inclusive of the full
> spectrum
> of walkers. Organization has worked well for bicyclists but pedestrians
> currently lack the same degree of unity for a cause.
>
> My wife is sponsoring a program on Access Tucson called Perils for
> Pedestrians that presents actions other communities are taking to become
> more walkable. I've been thinking that several people could get together
> and make attractive portable photo presentations on display boards to
> show
> the relative benefits of walkability and take it to public libraries,
> street fairs, green and sustainability expos, community centers, and
> anywhere people will see them. I'm convinced that if people knew what
> they're missing, more people would be demanding walkability.
>
> -- Dale
> <http://DaleRoose.com/>
> Jesus was homeless.
>
> On Mon, 11 May 2009 17:06:49 -0700, Jamie D. <jdeben@...> wrote:
>
>> Hi Dale,
>>
>> How did our meeting with the Board go way back in Feb?
>>
>> jamie d
>>
>> --- In AZTOC@yahoogroups.com, Dale <dale@...> wrote:
>>>
>>> In case anyone is interested in participating, I address the Pima
>>> County
>>> Board of Supervisors suggesting changes generally around walkability as
>>> a
>>> key to a better urban environment. Many people are involved in groups
>>> representing the needs of bicycle riders, but there are few people
>>> representing pedestrians. In the County neighborhood where I live and
>>> walk, we have bike lanes but no sidewalks.
>>>
>>> When I walk into the city, I find that rather than encouraging walking
>>> and
>>> bus riding, there are problems that actively discourage walking. One
>>> problem is short crosswalk timing. The Americans with Disabilities Act
>>> calls for sufficient crosswalk signal time to allow people to cross at
>>> 3.5
>>> ft/sec but I've found intersections in Tucson that require 12 ft/sec.
>>> Having a particular disability, I get stuck in intersections after the
>>> lights change and I'm reasonably mobil. Seniors using walkers should be
>>> able to cross our streets with some degree of safety.
>>>
>>> When we think of trails, we tend to think about recreational trails in
>>> areas outside the urban environment. In the days, our trails were the
>>> routes we used to conduct activities of our daily lives the way we now
>>> use
>>> roads and sidewalks, so I consider our sidewalks as urban trails.
>>> Personally, I'd like to see some neighborhoods that think in terms of
>>> walks and sideroads, but I'm not holding my breath.
>>>
>>> BTW, I walk with one or two dogs almost every day on the northeast
>>> side.
>>> Imagine the visibility we'd have if we walked through neighborhoods in
>>> groups.
>>>
>>> -- Dale
>>> Cry havoc and let loose the dogs of change!
>>
>>




------------------------------------

Yahoo! Groups Links