News

During a recent visit to New York City to spend time with my sister and her family, I discovered firsthand the considerable advances in bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure of this bustling metropolis.

During a recent visit to New York City to spend time with my sister and her family, I discovered firsthand the considerable advances in bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure of this bustling metropolis. I was able to bike along a riverside, car-free bike path with great views of the Hudson and East Rivers as I circumnavigated most of Manhattan. In New York, Mayor Michael Bloomberg has transformed Time Square into a pedestrian and bike oasis in the heart of one of the busiest parts of the city by blocking off Broadway to car traffic. Bike commuting in New York City has increased by 45 percent since 2006 due to aggressive implementation of bike improvements such as these.

As I took that long ride around Manhattan, I couldn’t help but ponder how great it would be to have a bike and pedestrian path like this one alongside our own Monterey Bay. For almost 10 years, local transportation officials have had plans to purchase and build a scenic coastal trail along the 32-mile rail corridor from Watsonville to Davenport. The deal to obtain this underutilized mobility corridor will evaporate by June of next year because of funding deadlines.

In Santa Cruz County, where 47 percent of greenhouse gases are generated by transportation, improvements have been made to make travel by foot and bike safer and easier. These improvements have contributed to an impressive bike commuter rate of 9.3 percent of all to trips to work in the City of Santa Cruz, but there are still too many gaps between bike and pedestrian facilities, leaving Santa Cruz short of a comprehensive bike and pedestrian network. Bold game-changing projects are called for to make Santa Cruz County a top-tier bike- and pedestrian-friendly community.

The issue over what bike and traffic calming modifications should be made to King Street exemplifies the struggle between far-reaching and incremental advances in sustainable transportation improvements. The city, with collaboration from various community shareholders, developed the Master Transportation Study (MTS), a forward-thinking planning document that laid out a road map for increased alternative transportation. The MTS guideline specified that a bike boulevard on King Street would contribute to a more livable community and increase bike travel on the Westside.

The City of Santa Cruz is ready to install an ingredient of most bike boulevards, called a Sharrows (Shared-Lane pavement markings), on King Street to give cyclists and motorists a better idea of the safest placement for bicyclists on this narrow street. This is a step forward, but to really make the street safer and feel safer for cyclists, especially grade school students who use King Street to travel to Mission Hill Middle School, the vehicle traffic volumes need to be turned down. Low traffic counts are a key component to successful bike boulevards.

King Street is a neighborhood street that is serving as a main travel thoroughfare during peak commuter times. A group of neighbors, along with bike advocates, are urging the city to conduct a neighborhood-wide traffic study to determine if cut-through car traffic can be diverted out of neighborhood streets. Unfortunately, city staff appear to view community involvement in this project as a hindrance rather than an asset for arriving at a solution that will increase non-polluting mobility and reduce noise and car speeds in this neighborhood.

At a time of a dwindling city budget, why not take advantage of free assistance from neighbors and bike/ped advocates who have studied the issue, held community forums and recruited expert planners to help devise a workable plan? King Street is a good example of how the city is cautiously acting to improve bike conditions due to their concerns of impacting automobile traffic flow. A cautious approach might not be the best way to convert King Street into a bike-friendly street for grade school children and to combat climate change.

Creating a bike and walking network in Santa Cruz would be an effective way to replace short drive-alone car trips and reduce our collaborative carbon footprint. According to the City of Santa Cruz’s 2000 Master Transportation Study survey, 60 percent of commute trips start and finish within city limits, making biking and walking a plausible replacement of car trips for many residents. Reducing short distance car trips is critical to minimizing vehicle emissions as 60 percent of the pollution created by automobile emissions happens in the first few minutes of operation, before pollution control devices can work effectively.

Santa Cruz needs bold and innovative projects to encourage residents and visitors to use healthy, active, and greenhouse gas reducing transportation. A safe and inviting alternate bike route for Mission Street is needed, as well as more car-free bike and walking paths. We need sidewalks that don’t leave you stranded on the side of the road and bike lanes that don’t end abruptly. Make sure every school child has a safe bike and walking route to school, as over one-third of all 5th, 7th and 9th graders in South County are either obese or overweight.

Santa Cruz County has lots of good bike and walking plans, which need to be accelerated to on-the-street facilities to bump up biking and walking. For Santa Cruz to take serious steps forward to enact local climate solutions and address health issues, we need to quickly implement legacy projects such as a bike and pedestrian path along the 32-mile coastal rail corridor. Surely Santa Cruz can outpace New York City as a community that alleviates car use, which fosters a sedentary lifestyle and contributes to climate change while investing in non-polluting and exercise-inducing transportation.

Piet Canin is Program Director for the Sustainable Transportation Group at Ecology Action.

Related Posts

  • https://www.santacruz.com/news/santa_cruz_needs_to_get_bold_with_bikeability.html xlznqvoz

    JFTZTE ttuegspiaiog, pdiaxpofylan, [link=http://zgparnamyvpi.com/]zgparnamyvpi[/link], http://cvoyefmfffyd.com/

  • Whitey Joe Young

    I got to this page after receiving a Friends of Rail/Trail solicitation in the mail. Piet’s name was signed at the bottom. The beg letter spouted all the same untruths about the rail/trail plan, mostly by juxtaposing true facts (survey results) with conclusions that the facts just cannot sustain.

    I applaud his dedication and what might even be called fanaticism for this cause… the “let’s bike everywhere” cause. But, in his zeal, he becomes a LIAR for his cause, trying to sell people a bill of goods that he cannot deliver. If you carefully think about the propositions contained in his latest rant for money for his beloved trail, it just does not make sense. It sounds upon deeper inspection, like a con job.

    For example, take this one statement: “Increased safety: …there were over 1450 bicycle … collisions in Santa Cruz County resulting in 26 fatalities. Thirty-seven percent of these collisions occurred within 3 miles of this Rail Trail section. The trail will improve bike safety…”

    Think about it… a single strip of bike-able trail will somehow reduce those collisions. Oh, wait, only 37% of those collisions are within THREE MILES of the trail — his words! So, if you whip out your good old Google Maps and use the measure distance feature, that covers an area that extends from the coastline, all the way up to the Thurber Lane banana belt plateau, and the UCSC campus, as well as Pasatiempo, from the West side of Santa Cruz, all the way down to Soquel…. that;’s all within 3 miles of the proposed rail trail… and yet, this will ostensibly only address the 37% of the bicycle accidents.

    And how, pray tell, can it do that? Think of that vast area… it’s several square MILES. and the rail/trail is one tiny strip running down the middle of it. How are people’s safety going to be improved via the rail trail without MASSIVE investments in the rest of the bike lane infrastructure? That’s going to require many, many millions of dollars, and one has to question if this is even possible given the right-of-way issues and overlapping jurisdictional issues, never mind the sheer expense of it. It would have been different if the bike trails were planned in from the get-go, as they were in the build-out of the Amsterdam metro area. There, the bikes have almost as much sidewalk as pedestrians, and it extends everywhere, even down the smallest side streets, once you are out of “De Wallen” core of the city.

    No, our friend Piet has a pie-in-the-sky dream of an all-biking, all-hiking Santa Cruz that just can’t be pulled off with anything less than a gargantuan budget and an immense plan to makeover every major street and thoroughfare in Santa Cruz County. But even as he pushes this plan as somehow practical, and somehow a solution to our real world transportation and commuting needs, he supports the rest of the eco-dreamers in opposition to other more mundane solutions, like widening Highway 1, our most important transportation corridor, to three lanes all the way. Talk about saving greenhouse gasses… what do you think the daily parking lot of Southbound Rte 1 is doing to our atmosphere, with all those idling engines creeping along for the better part of an hour, to make a 10 minute journey. And what about the people in the neighborhoods which have been turned into “alternatives” to Route 1, along the Soquel and East Cliff corridors? You can bet they’d rather have that traffic stay on the highway.

    No, our friend Piet doesn’t want that. He wants his pet project INSTEAD. I really couldn’t care less if he gets his way on the bike dream, but for God’s sake let’s not pretend for one god-damn second that the bike dream is somehow AN ALTERNATIVE to improving the capacity of the Highway 1 corridor. No F-ing way, pal.