City Council Emphasizes Bicycle and Pedestrian Movement

“I must admit that I am totally fickle. When I drive my car, I hate all bicyclists and pedestrians. When I walk, I hate all motorists and bicyclists. When I ride my bike, I hate all motorists and pedestrians.”

– Thad Tecza, CU professor

and transportation activist
A high level of interest in “finding better options for moving people around” has led to making bicycle and pedestrian safety and infrastructure the main Denver city council priority for 2014, according to District 1 Councilwoman Susan Shepherd.
“The city was built to favor automobile uses,” says Shepherd. “But now the public is clamoring for additional and improved bike and pedestrian infrastructure.”
Shepherd says, “[Council] needs to gather input from all sources and see what people would support. If this is important, we need to have a realistic conversation about where the money comes from.”
She points out that bike and pedestrian accidents were higher in the first quarter of this year than all of last year and adds that Denverites place increased emphasis on health and economic benefits of alternative transportation. She expects three months to a year before a definite plan can be put in place.
According to a statement from City Council which expressed the priority, multiple agencies would be involved in infrastructure investment that would:
· accelerate implementation of the Denver Moves plan;
· hire additional bike planners;
· construct protected commuter bike lanes;
· provide safe walkways and bike paths along major streets to schools; and
· implement engineering strategies to prevent “hit-and-run” accidents at intersections citywide.
Popular support for early efforts
There is little, if any, organized or vocal opposition to the council priority. At this point people are either supportive or ambivalent, said University of Colorado political science professor Thad Tecza, who is active in city transportation issues.
“Other than the bike trails coming out of the lottery money, [infrastructure] hasn’t required a significant financial investment and hasn’t inflicted any significant pain on other groups,” said Tecza.
However, Tecza anticipates potential road blocks to alternative transportation. “I would expect that as the movement grows and there is a call for significant restraints on cars in favor of bikes, like dedicating particular streets as ‘bike only’ or allowing bikes to violate traffic laws, you will see opposition form pretty quickly.”
District 1, in northwest Denver, is what Shepherd calls an “urban core neighborhood.” She says it makes sense to look at infrastructure improvements there because many people need safe bicycle access to downtown.
“We’ve got a fairly good network of sidewalks, but many are in disrepair, the same situation you have in Park Hill,” said Shepherd. “People would use options if they were safer.”
Denver historian Phil Goodstein, an ardent bicyclist and walker, is critical of efforts so far to help pedestrians and bike riders. “The more the city claims to help, the worse the situation appears to become.” An example, says Goodstein, is the elimination of the “Barnes Dance” method of diagonal pedestrian crossings downtown in 2011.
Paths to success
Shepherd cites Boston as an example of multi-modal transportation success. “It’s a model of an urban environment that is not dependent on automobile. Boston was developed as a ‘walkable’ city. Western cities, such as Denver, were developed around cars.”
Boston also has an extensive public transportation system, including a subway which connects to suburban trains. In Massachusetts, the law requiring motorists to yield to pedestrians is strictly observed and enforced.
Personal behavior and education are also important elements, says Shepherd. “All users of the right of way are responsible. We need proper, but not heavy-handed, enforcement of rules. Sometimes, it’s proper to give bicycles and pedestrians an advantage.”
Shepherd points out that Public Works has only one person, Emily Snyder, working on bicycle matters. The budget is only $2M per year for infrastructure. “At that rate, we can only do 10 miles per year of improvements and it would take 50 years to get to where we want to be.”
“Currently, sidewalk repair is the responsibility of individual homeowners,” says INC President Larry Ambrose, whose organization has had a long history supporting alternative ways of funding sidewalk construction and improvements.  “INC’s sidewalk maven, Mary Myers, passed away just recently. She worked tirelessly to bring this issue to the forefront.”
“One idea is to levy a fee to replace or install sidewalks,” says Shepherd. Other ideas include an alternative transportation tax or a bond initiative.
GPHC Board Member Dave Felice can be reached at gelato321@aol.com.