By Dom Nozzi
A large number of residential neighborhoods can substantially reduce the highly inhibiting large travel distances bicyclists and pedestrians must travel to get to and from destinations. For example, the end of a cul-de-sac or dead end street may be very close to an office park or a shopping center, but the bicyclist or pedestrian must often back-track and get onto a major road in order to get to such a destination because the direct route would require a person to cross over private property.
The solution recognized by many is to create a publicly-accessible bicycle/pedestrian “connector” path that provides such a short-cut link to these nearby destinations. Many, however, are convinced that such connectors are sufficient, in and of themselves, to create a large increase in the amount of bicycle and pedestrian commuting.
As a vigorous advocate of increasing bicycling and walking trips (and reducing car trips), I am a strong supporter of such connectors.
However, bicycle and pedestrian commuting much more importantly depends on streets being connected. Adding bicycle/pedestrian connectors in a disconnected cul-de-sac neighborhood will help somewhat, but connected, gridded streets without cul-de-sacs or dead ends are much more effective in reducing travel distances for bicyclists and pedestrians.
Connector paths AND more connected streets in neighborhoods are essential, and we must work to create more of each. But connected streets are far more important than connector paths. Connector paths are necessary but not sufficient.
Connector paths, alone, are not a silver bullet. We will never see more than a pitiful amount of bicycle commuters in disconnected, cul-de-sac’d neighborhoods. It matters not a whit whether we have three non-street connectors or hundreds in such neighborhoods (not to mention long-distance off-street bicycle and pedestrian paths). By building disconnected streets, people living in such a neighborhood are inexorably doomed to be utterly dependent on car travel. The only salvation for such a neighborhood is to figure out how to incrementally connect the streets in the neighborhood.
Again, I’m a big supporter of connector paths (and will be on the front lines fighting for them). But installing such paths in an existing neighborhood almost always results in vicious, angry opposition by neighbors who fear such a path will deliver “undesirable” people. Even if we can succeed in winning the ferocious political firefights that nearly all of the connector path retrofit projects promise, we’d still find that they are not the limiting factor for bicycle and pedestrian commuting. Like a motorist, a bicycle or pedestrian commuter needs to get to thousands of destinations — not just the one or two that a connector can provide — which means that there is no way around this conclusion: Unless the streets are connected (and the traffic calmed/slowed, and the car parking prices/limited, by the way), bicycle and pedestrian commuting ain’t going to happen in a meaningful way.
My latest book, The Car is the Enemy of the City (WalkableStreets, 2010), can be purchased here:
Visit my urban design website read more about what I have to say on those topics. You can also schedule me to give a speech in your community about transportation and congestion, land use development and sprawl, and improving quality of life.
Or email me at: email@example.com
Visit my other sites:
A lifetime of Adventures…
Run for Your Life! Dom’s Dangerous Opinions…
My FB profile…