Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
CicLAvia's real importance has been to make clear that the divisions that we spend so much time debating — between cyclist and driver, driver and pedestrian, pedestrian and cyclist — are surprisingly malleable. ....
For more than half a century the very design of the city has supported and emphasized the idea that the roads belong to them and that anybody not using a car is an interloper at best and a threat (to their rights, freedom of movement, even happiness) at worst.
This familiar attitude suggests that every change to the city, whether it's new architecture or new transit lines, should be weighed primarily, if not exclusively, by its impact on motorists and levels of car traffic. It has seeped so deeply into the civic consciousness that it has fundamentally skewed debate on a wide range of crucial issues.
This speaks to the crux of the issue in a lot of cases. Most drivers don't know what it's like to be a bike commuter, and some bike commuters (or urban riders) don't think about what it's like to be a driver; and the other combinations. If you can't relate or empathize, then it's hard to see the benefits, risks and issues from the other person's perspective. Breaking through the barrier of an autocentric mindset has been difficult and will continue to be difficult unless smart approaches like this are used to educate people.
This thread is a great example of people opposing the idea of conceptual pedestrian improvements while not being familiar with the area (built environment and people): Snow and Evidence for Public Spaces
As drive carphilly put it:
Quote:
Originally Posted by drive carephilly
It doesn't matter how many pictures you post of existing examples a few blocks away on the same street. People who don't live there will insist that it won't work . . . even when it already does.
No one is using snow patterns that show that cars make turns on the portion of the roadway that is being set forth as an example of a place to build a parklet though. There's just some blogger on the Internet drawing with a green crayon on some pictures. The conversation then shifted to extending bump outs at which point it sort of quited down because everyone knows bump outs can work. They're entirely different than cutting 10, 15, 20 foot triangles into the middle of a road with a 120 degree corner with snow that shows cars use that portion to make the turn.
Also, CicLAvia has nothing to do with open streets. It has to do with closing streets for a street festival. There's nothing wrong with closing streets and having street festivals. It's a very old tradition that goes back centuries. In that it's a cycling focused street festival and may garner attention towards cycling, it's good. It just doesn't have anything to do with open streets. Increased awareness of bicycles may result in more open streets... ones without a police on every corner stopping people from entering.
Also, CicLAvia has nothing to do with open streets. It has to do with closing streets for a street festival. There's nothing wrong with closing streets and having street festivals. It's a very old tradition that goes back centuries. In that it's a cycling focused street festival and may garner attention towards cycling, it's good. It just doesn't have anything to do with open streets. Increased awareness of bicycles may result in more open streets... ones without a police on every corner stopping people from entering.
This is the type of attitude that events like CicLAvia are battling.
Did they "close" the street to cars? or did they "open" the street to pedestrians?
No one is using snow patterns that show that cars make turns on the portion of the roadway that is being set forth as an example of a place to build a parklet though. There's just some blogger on the Internet drawing with a green crayon on some pictures. The conversation then shifted to extending bump outs at which point it sort of quited down because everyone knows bump outs can work. They're entirely different than cutting 10, 15, 20 foot triangles into the middle of a road with a 120 degree corner with snow that shows cars use that portion to make the turn.
Also, CicLAvia has nothing to do with open streets. It has to do with closing streets for a street festival. There's nothing wrong with closing streets and having street festivals. It's a very old tradition that goes back centuries. In that it's a cycling focused street festival and may garner attention towards cycling, it's good. It just doesn't have anything to do with open streets. Increased awareness of bicycles may result in more open streets... ones without a police on every corner stopping people from entering.
Agree w/both paragraphs! It shows a total lack of understanding of "how driving works" (note I said driving, not cars, I do not have a great knowledge of how cars work myself) to look at tire patterns in the snow and deduce any great insights about city parks. There has to be clearance, etc.
I thought that CicLAvia was a street festival, but considering the point that was trying to be made, I wasn't sure.
This is the type of attitude that events like CicLAvia are battling.
Did they "close" the street to cars? or did they "open" the street to pedestrians?
Uh, there's police officers on every corner stopping cars from entering. One would have to be incredibly stupid to not realize they closed those streets to cars.
The street was always open to pedestrians, they just had to share it with cars. That doesn't really work when you're having a street festival. That's why you close the streets to cars when you have street festivals. San Francisco does all the time... America's Cup, Union Street Fair, Bay to Breakers, Nike Marathon, etc etc. When they filmed Gymkhana in San Francisco, they closed the streets to pedestrians as well.
It would be an absurd question to ask: "Did they close the streets to pedestrians? or did they "open" the streets to Ken Block?"
Ken Block was always welcome on those streets. He just had to share them and not go all Gymkhana on them. Gymkhana with pedestrians = very bad idea.
Agree w/both paragraphs! It shows a total lack of understanding of "how driving works" (note I said driving, not cars, I do not have a great knowledge of how cars work myself) to look at tire patterns in the snow and deduce any great insights about city parks. There has to be clearance, etc.
I thought that CicLAvia was a street festival, but considering the point that was trying to be made, I wasn't sure.
It is a matter of perspective. CicLAvia reclaims the street for non-car uses, turning it into a public space for a short period of time.
It is also way bigger than a street festival, which typically only impacts a few blocks vs several miles in this case.
Bogota (which started this "modern" open streets movement) closes most of the streets to cars, in the entire city on Sundays. Here is a video of the impact: Streetfilms | Ciclovia: Bogotá, Colombia
Basically, for one day a week, they open up the streets to non-car users. Vs the normal way of devoting the street to cars.
What has happened, these experiments open up ideas for new thinking about how street space is allocated. Most famously, Times Square in NYC. They closed Broadway to cars, and it turns out it was great for everyone. Times Square pedestrian zone will remain closed to cars - NY Daily News
They have done the studies, a few years after the closure and found it had a huge impact:
1. traffic moved faster in the neighborhood, and travel times decreased by like 20%
2. the number of collusions, with pedestrians>car, cyclists>car, car>car all decreased, so the streets are safer
3. new well used public space for everyone
This is "an open street" because we are opening up our minds to new uses for our streets.
No one is using snow patterns that show that cars make turns on the portion of the roadway that is being set forth as an example of a place to build a parklet though. There's just some blogger on the Internet drawing with a green crayon on some pictures. The conversation then shifted to extending bump outs at which point it sort of quited down because everyone knows bump outs can work. They're entirely different than cutting 10, 15, 20 foot triangles into the middle of a road with a 120 degree corner with snow that shows cars use that portion to make the turn.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katiana
Agree w/both paragraphs! It shows a total lack of understanding of "how driving works" (note I said driving, not cars, I do not have a great knowledge of how cars work myself) to look at tire patterns in the snow and deduce any great insights about city parks. There has to be clearance, etc.
They weren't saying to take the entire area in green, they were outlining it to show where less used pavement is in a dense neighborhood. The idea was conceptual to consider where bump-outs and other pedestrian improvements could be made, not to literally pour concrete in the entire green area and call it a day.
In terms of "how driving works", many of use have driven plenty. The fact is that there are other ways to use dense urban roadways and I'm thankful that the US is finally starting to push in that direction to explore how else to use these spaces. Public spaces are a primary amenity of dense urban neighborhoods, and IMO cars should not be king in these areas; there are plenty of other places where cars have complete domination and always will have.
As long as we're clear that by reclaim you mean close; that you're aware that streets were always public spaces. It's odd diction but we'd be in agreement. I'd simply say they closed the streets to cars for a short period of time to hold a street festival/other use (cycling race, marathon, parade, madman in a car). If you want to define closing streets to cars (and horses before them) to be an "open street" because we're hold a special event, that's fine. It's not a new idea to close streets for special events.
There's lots of Ciclovia-inspired events in the US. LA was pretty late to the party. I wouldn't really call it an "opening of minds to new uses." CiclovÃa - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Nothing wrong with it at all. It's just not a novel idea to close streets for special events. Adaptive use, perhaps. Most people like adaptive use.
It is a matter of perspective. CicLAvia reclaims the street for non-car uses, turning it into a public space for a short period of time.
It is also way bigger than a street festival, which typically only impacts a few blocks vs several miles in this case.
Bogota (which started this "modern" open streets movement) closes most of the streets to cars, in the entire city on Sundays. Here is a video of the impact: Streetfilms | Ciclovia: Bogotá, Colombia
Basically, for one day a week, they open up the streets to non-car users. Vs the normal way of devoting the street to cars.
What has happened, these experiments open up ideas for new thinking about how street space is allocated. Most famously, Times Square in NYC. They closed Broadway to cars, and it turns out it was great for everyone. Times Square pedestrian zone will remain closed to cars - NY Daily News
They have done the studies, a few years after the closure and found it had a huge impact:
1. traffic moved faster in the neighborhood, and travel times decreased by like 20%
2. the number of collusions, with pedestrians>car, cyclists>car, car>car all decreased, so the streets are safer
3. new well used public space for everyone
This is "an open street" because we are opening up our minds to new uses for our streets.
Malloric already responded to this conspiracy language, so I'll just say, I agree with him.
As far as this being something "new", Boulder, Colorado has been trying to get people out of their cars for at least the last 40 years. The successes have been modest, at best. Boulder has one of the highest, if not THE highest, car ownership rates in Colorado, about 1 car per resident, meaning many have >1 car each.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AJNEOA
They weren't saying to take the entire area in green, they were outlining it to show where less used pavement is in a dense neighborhood. The idea was conceptual to consider where bump-outs and other pedestrian improvements could be made, not to literally pour concrete in the entire green area and call it a day.
In terms of "how driving works", many of use have driven plenty. The fact is that there are other ways to use dense urban roadways and I'm thankful that the US is finally starting to push in that direction to explore how else to use these spaces. Public spaces are a primary amenity of dense urban neighborhoods, and IMO cars should not be king in these areas; there are plenty of other places where cars have complete domination and always will have.
Yeah, yeah, yeah. I'm just saying, the premise of the article was "silly". As far as the US "finally starting to push in that direction. . ", see above.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
