Shel Silverstein, Urban Planner

In college, I was technical director on a production of An Evening With Shel Silverstein, a surprisingly (?) raunchy production written by the famous poet. 

That doesn't, however, mean that I like seeing his most famous, more child-friendly, work repurposed into urban planning circles.

I'm talking, of course, about Where The Sidewalk Ends.

Sidewalks ending is, in fact, one of my biggest complaints about urbanism in cities that might otherwise do better (see: New York losing to Vancouver). So today I wanted to talk about the issue of when and why sidewalks end--and why it sucks.

1. Sidewalks Should End With Purpose

Since I do not, in fact, wish to see the entire world covered in concrete and asphalt, I do agree that sidewalks have to end.

I'll even acknowledge that there are roads where there should not be sidewalks: fast roads, interstates, that kind of thing, places where walking would be inherently dangerous. There should be alternate routes around those of course, but a sidewalk might end when it reaches such a place if there is nowhere else to go.

But it shouldn't feel random or pointless.

And it really shouldn't feel pointed, as in the example above: this is literally feet from my local Hy-Vee, near a major intersection with lots of shops in addition to the grocery store, and the sidewalk--which had been perfectly existent before--suddenly ends.

It's not even in anyone's way! There's no reason that this strip should be grass, not sidewalk, because that retaining wall on the right already has people's lawns on it! If anything, this is harder to maintain, since somehow someone has to get down here to mow it!

A sidewalk should end when there's nothing to walk to--not when a landowner or the city is just too bored to put one in.

2. Sidewalks Should Be Functional - Even Under Construction

There is, of course, another way a sidewalk can "end": it can cease to function as a sidewalk, even if something bearing that appearance or name continues. Something like this:

There's no actual option here forward for a pedestrian, let alone for someone in a wheelchair or pushing a stroller/pram/etc. Yes, legally the sidewalk didn't end--but practically it did.

I acknowledge the need to repair sidewalks. I like that they're putting in actual curb cuts (which is what that is for above) near my house. But when they do that, there should be some kind of alternative provided--a protected walking path, or a detour sign, or something. Not just--this.

3. Sidewalks Work As a Network

The reason I emphasize this so much is that sidewalks really work as infrastructure, rather than as mere civil obligation, when they are part of an interconnected network that allows for pedestrian and related access. Yes, it helps to have a sidewalk to go from parking space to shop, but that could just be a parking lot. What sets a sidewalk apart is the ability to keep walking on. To experience the city. To go places on foot--whether from one shop to another after you parked, or actually on foot from the start (assisted or not by public transit). 

Like this Toronto example, a good sidewalk is designed with the idea that people will actually use it to go somewhere. Wayfinding like this is useful, but the bigger point is the width, and the fact that it is part of a whole set of routes so that you can do meaningful wayfinding, because there is a way to find. This kind of pole wouldn't mean diddly in Davenport. In Toronto, it's a way of understanding how you could walk from that spot to other spots in the city.

Sidewalks that end disrupt that network; they make it so that walking both looks like and is less of an option. Both of those matter, by the way: both the appearance (why would I walk here?) and the reality (how could I walk here?). And a sidewalk that isn't there because it ended contributes to both kinds of skepticism. Sidewalks do need to end--but they should do so in chosen ways in chosen places, with the default urban form being one that is actually walkable.

There is one exception to the need for sidewalks, of course: if there's no road to be beside.

But I don't really think that the places where sidewalks randomly end are up to fully pedestrianized streets.

Maybe for a parade.

Not, like this, for always.

What is it like in your city? Do you have a real pedestrian network of sidewalks? Or are you too hoping not to run into a Shel Silverstein poem on your way to the grocery store?

Margins for Error

For much of the last year, my partner's car has been showing various interrelated malfunctions that have kept it in and out of the dealership. For much of that time we've had a loaner car from them, but not all of it -- and not for the last month or so. Instead, and at various points throughout the year, my Aventon Abound has been serving as our "second car," with my partner taking mine (her commute is much longer and harder to bike). 

The trusty steed.

This has given me an appreciation both for my ability to do this and for the limitations that our urban design here in the Quad Cities (and more generally) imposes on someone who is not bike commuting by pure choice (as I have done before while in possession of a working car) but by necessity (as I am now).

And it's doable. We've been doing it. But in doing it, I've become (more) aware of the constraints that operate to let us do it, and the small margin for error that would flip it from possible to untenable.

1. Timing 

The single biggest issue I encounter with biking around the city is how long it takes to get places, and thus the timing of closely ordered events. That is to say: if I get off work at time X, where can I get in time X+5 minutes? X+15?

Biking adds buffer time to all those decisions. It shaves some off too (ask me about not getting in the car line for kindergarten dropoff!). But by and large, the more that things have to be bam-bam-bam tightly scheduled one after another in different locations, the harder biking here gets. Pick up the kids after school? Sure. Do that, then a grocery run? Yeah. Do that, a grocery run, AND get the kid to theatre practice? Maybe we're pushing it, or we need to figure out how to rearrange things to build in more time.

2. Roads

The impetus for this post was the way that the road closures for repairs around my house have us hemmed in. This pushes my bike from safer streets with more space and/or less car traffic to the few roads everyone is going down on their car. This makes things take longer (more traffic), feel less safe (more cars) and often makes for a bumpier ride (the streets they haven't fixed aren't in good repair and now I can't avoid them).

Please fix the dang roads, yes, but also please don't fix them all at once so I have to go with cars.

Also please do fix them; can't say how often a road gets closed but the bike-relevant issues with it don't actually get fixed.

3. Vagaries of Employment 

I am blessed in a job that is close to my house (we bought the house first, so I phrase it that way; one could also say I am blessed to be able to live near work). I am also blessed with a flexible job where I can often do work from home, or on my own schedule, outside of certain ironclad times. 

If either of those things weren't true, yeesh.

Even my partner's job (which can be fairly flexible) is too far and too many evenings to make this doable. Any combination of going further, staying longer, or going back and forth would make this less possible.

And don't get me started on jobs that assume you can move locations midday but don't actually provide transportation for it.

I guess there isn't a lot of conclusion here other than this: I am pretty blessed in my ability to use the bike here the way I do, but it's fragile. In my ideal city design we'd want to make it the opposite: almost everyone would be able to do this, and it would be robust and flexible. For now, I'll count my blessings, but I encourage you to think about how you can or cannot do this in your life--and how your city could change to make it easier.

Getting Around: Paris

While I do not know Paris quite as well as I know London, having visited for less time and never lived there, I do think it is a good city as a model for thinking about how a massive metropolis can function without car dominance, and with some serious density of housing, while maintaining a livable atmosphere and cultural amenities. So I wanted to dive into getting around Paris in somewhat the way I did last year for London, with a focus on how those forms of transportation build on each other to create the sense of Paris as a place to move around.

1. Le Metro

The Paris Metro is an important element in the city's transportation scene, as iconic if not quite as old as the London Underground.

While not all stations retain the old style (and the new ones aren't built with it), the Art Nouveau stylings are still both recognizable and deliberately influential on Paris's vibe. Also, as you may or may not be able to see in the little map there, it covers most of the inner city of Paris proper pretty effectively, with easy transfers and (in my experience even as a non-French speaker) relatively little difficulty to navigate the city.

2. RER

Where Paris really shines, I think, is not in the inner-city connections (which are great, but many large cities have good inner-city transit) but in the way the larger Ile-de-France region is brought together by the RER. I have a million pictures of RER trains zooming by, though they largely look similar, since I took them on the same line.

What we can see here is a combination of things, even in this one photo:

a. electrified trains, meaning they are more efficient, quieter and cleaner, and can go through tunnels and other constrained spaces without needing to clear the air

b. large cars with clearly marked large exit doors, and good interior visibility

c. a multi-unit setup that allows for heavy throughput of people

The RER network is also impressive, including lines fairly far out from the city center but also metro-like frequencies and speeds in the city center itself.

It also provides a single-seat ride (this seat, for example!) to Charles de Gaulle airport, so it's a nice way to get into the city efficiently and effectively--or out, if one is taking the opposite route.

Also, the RER trains don't really create any issues in terms of conflict with cars and pedestrians, located as they are on distinct rights of way, including numerous tunnels and other locations where they find routes that other modes of transit cannot follow--again increasing the options for how you get from place A to place B.

3. The Trams

Unlike London, where trams are a second thought if they're even thought of, the trams in Paris serve an actual function: they create a non-inner-city (outer city? not quite suburban) network in echo of the Metro that allows further-out parts of the Paris region have fast, efficient, local service that isn't the cross-city RER.

This is one of the most inner-city of the tram routes, but even it is not "center city"--and they extend quite a bit further into the suburbs.

And they do go to important sites, like this football stadium--notably not the stadium for Paris Saint-Germain, but rather Paris FC, which only just promoted back into Ligue 1. Not an international tourist spot, necessarily then, but rather a spot that Parisians and French tourists are likely to visit. That is typical of the tram system: it serves high-ridership areas, but more for locals than for the international crowd.

4. Buses

I'll be honest: I took no photos of buses in Paris. I was too excited by other things. This is ironic because I actually took the bus more than other transport, as it was the primary route between my hotel and the conference location when I visited last. But it was just effective, efficient transportation that I took, not something that I photographed.

Here is an empty bus lane, though, just to emphasize the existence of a Parisian bus system that is in fact fairly fast and not badly designed.

5. Bikes

A big push recently in Parisian transportation has been bikes: Mayor Anne Hidalgo has emphasized them heavily. And I did see Parisians biking frequently, often in dedicated lanes.

It's also a good way for tourists to see the city, as you're at the street level. But not quite as good as...

6. Pedestrianism

One of my favorite things about Paris is the way pedestrianism is rewarded there. 

Sure, there are cars (see the side of the picture) but they don't get a lot of space all the time. Even in places like the below, where the car lane takes much of the street, it's still one lane whereas in the US they'd have knocked down the buildings on each side to make 2 or more, especially including parking:

Pedestrians get real space here, especially relative to the cars, and that means that you can actually expect a walk to be a relatively pleasant experience.

7. Trains

And of course Paris is well connected by other trains to other cities, as well as by its own regional and internal rail.

And if you're really into it (and I am), some of that is high speed rail, which can get you from here:

to the fields out of town:

to entirely other countries:

in just a few hours.

And if you're not into quite as high speed, Gare du Nord and the rest of the rail stations in the city have plenty of tracks for slower trains as well.

Basically, Paris is a well-connected hub of transport, while at the same time boasting high-quality subway, regional rail, and bus interconnectivity--and great biking and walking infrastructure.

And to imagine I visited before the Grand Paris Express even opened.

Other international cities could definitely learn from the way that Paris manages all this interconnected transit, and how it allows pedestrian rambling to shine even while allowing for quicker trips on transit.