1) I absolutely LOVE scramble streets. So glad you brought that up.
B) We moved to Columbia, MO, about 7 years after the city received a $25M grant to make the place more walkable and bikable. Basically, we were able to get just about anywhere in a safe (and, generally, timely) via very safe bike path (or non-road adjacent trail) and it was phenomenal. Obviously the Arkansas summer makes foot-driven travel a bit more challenging, but I miss having that infrastructure all the time.
I haven't but am aware of that thinking! Tom Vanderbilt's book "Traffic" has a chapter on his visit to Holland to travel around with a famed traffic/urban planner person whose name I am blanking on, and he wrote about the concept of the kind of ecosystem a highway has, which doesn't demand as much driver attention, versus the ecosystem an in-town road has, which requires much more. This guy is a strong advocate for removing separated sidewalks (the "woonerf" system--https://www.humankind.city/post/woonerf-inclusive-and-livable-dutch-street) and traffic signs and signals in towns because it forces drivers to pay attention to the entire ecosystem.
I've never encountered something called a "scramble" that I didn't love. A scramble up rocks? Love it. The egg-based food? Love it. Jeep Scrambler? Love it.
Columbia was pretty great in that regard. It's where the old partner in crime got her doctorate, and she became someone who biked the couple of miles to her office every day, even in subzero temps.
It seems to me that your small town is a particularly difficult place to make less car/traffic oriented. To a huge extent, the economy is based on tremendous numbers of non-residents coming for a day or a week, and a whole bunch of them need to get, every day, from south of town to north of town, and back. But there's only a limited number of roads they can take, because of that huge man-made transportation feature -- the very purpose of the town's creation -- that divides north and south. Your out-of-town guests, the people who are paying the bills, care a whole lot about how quickly they can get through your town, and little to nothing about how you and your kids live your lives. (Except not getting in their way).
Then there's the northeast flow: even back when I lived there in the 70s, it seemed like getting the thru-trucks off downtown city streets would be a worthwhile project. I suppose building out the KM Ranch Road and making that 93 would be (a) a huge safety and quality of life improvement for people in town and (b) enough of a hit to merchants in town that you'd see torches and pitchforks at any meeting suggesting it.
It is particularly difficult for all those reasons! But I think that was the steering committee's point in their letter to the editor: They had asked the state DOT and consultants to use truly innovative thinking to figure out some answers that met the multiple needs of the towns, and are deeply frustrated that the answer was the exact opposite of that. (The steering committee was made of long-time residents who have been deeply involved in all the efforts that have made Whitefish what it is today, with an extensive bike/ped system and a strong downtown core -- results of now decades of engagement and foresight.)
And those difficulties and points, which are absolutely valid, are why it's so important to not just say "widen the highway and be done with it." This valley and town will continue to grow in population, and I don't see tourism decreasing in the next decade or two. Widening the highway is only a temporary fix to all these issues. Getting to a really good answer is going to take a tremendous amount of creative thinking that widens its understanding of multimodal transportation. But it's not all super outside the box. Getting from hotels to Big Mountain or Glacier Park can be served by shuttle services, and we have the rudiments of that. People aren't quite used to it, but they seem to adapt just fine when they go to Europe :)
The state's argument against the bypass is that it wouldn't reduce traffic much. Which seems awfully circular. If a bypass that took the logging trucks out of town completely wouldn't reduce traffic, why would another lane? They didn't explain that.
I remember the argument against a bypass from the perspective of business owners going around in 1994 when the idea was first mooted. It made more sense to me then than it does now. There just aren't that many people going through Whitefish on their way to somewhere else. They come here to be *here.* Downtown businesses made that same argument against increasing the resort tax to 3% a few years ago, but in truth it hasn't hurt them at all.
I would love to see all of that! Seattle has done a tremendous amount of work. (I was going to highlight Seattle's pro-walkability work in my book, but the mayor at the time got caught doing some very awful stuff online, so I featured Denver instead.)
Non-urban areas have such a long way to go, and most of it is in the mindset. Our county commissioners have resisted a county-wide bike trail system for years -- they see it as a thing that Speedo-wearing cyclists will use on Saturdays and can't envision it as another form of mobility and transportation. It's an uphill battle.
I would love to see those streets change, too! Even in our small downtown, when I walked there during lockdown it was crazy to realize how much space isn't being used when people aren't parking cars. All that space could be used for so much else ...
You know, I agree with you. I forget about the exponential speed of this technology as well as the exponential change. You have far better insights into that than I do. I hope people like Harris make some space for your kinds of ideas. They clearly understand the problem. And in their podcast they often talk about "so what can we do about this specific issue" but I think even they are realizing that it's too big for little tweaks.
And yes, you are describing the past few years. When I look at what public health officers just in my state are facing not just because of misinformation but because of radicalized beliefs that feed into violent tendencies, I'm not sanguine.
Thank you for the kind words! Weirdly, I haven't been following Strong Towns for a while but remembered some of Marohn's early work and really like what they've been doing recently. I might have to read his book.
I've personally come to the conclusion that no matter how I feel about it (and how anxiety-riddled I get presenting ideas), we're not going to get anywhere if people don't put forward seemingly bold and ridiculous ideas. After all, they're only considered bold and ridiculous because we've spent hundreds if not thousands of years going the other direction.
There's a lot of key thinking in this paragraph of yours: "The problem is systemic in that there does not appear to be a system that allows us to collaborate and modify existing systems. Trans-national corporations cannot be regulated by national efforts beyond what's available in the markets and we don't yet have a way to effectively collaborate as consumers to achieve that."
FYI
https://wapo.st/3AIU4BM
What a great article. I saw that photo yesterday and it’s easy to dunk but the article does a good job laying out the real problems we face.
1) I absolutely LOVE scramble streets. So glad you brought that up.
B) We moved to Columbia, MO, about 7 years after the city received a $25M grant to make the place more walkable and bikable. Basically, we were able to get just about anywhere in a safe (and, generally, timely) via very safe bike path (or non-road adjacent trail) and it was phenomenal. Obviously the Arkansas summer makes foot-driven travel a bit more challenging, but I miss having that infrastructure all the time.
III) Have you taken a dive into these geniuses? https://thecityfix.com/blog/naked-streets-without-traffic-lights-improve-flow-and-safety/
As always, great shit!
I haven't but am aware of that thinking! Tom Vanderbilt's book "Traffic" has a chapter on his visit to Holland to travel around with a famed traffic/urban planner person whose name I am blanking on, and he wrote about the concept of the kind of ecosystem a highway has, which doesn't demand as much driver attention, versus the ecosystem an in-town road has, which requires much more. This guy is a strong advocate for removing separated sidewalks (the "woonerf" system--https://www.humankind.city/post/woonerf-inclusive-and-livable-dutch-street) and traffic signs and signals in towns because it forces drivers to pay attention to the entire ecosystem.
Columbia sounds wonderful!
Scramble crossings are my favorite.
I've never encountered something called a "scramble" that I didn't love. A scramble up rocks? Love it. The egg-based food? Love it. Jeep Scrambler? Love it.
Columbia was pretty great in that regard. It's where the old partner in crime got her doctorate, and she became someone who biked the couple of miles to her office every day, even in subzero temps.
My new favorite for a while, “Scramble.”
I can't decide if the name "Scramblin' Scribbles" is too twee a name for a Substack, but I love it so hard.
Claim it! That would be so fun, you could fit any topic into that 😀
So many possibilities that I can already smell the analysis paralysis!
It seems to me that your small town is a particularly difficult place to make less car/traffic oriented. To a huge extent, the economy is based on tremendous numbers of non-residents coming for a day or a week, and a whole bunch of them need to get, every day, from south of town to north of town, and back. But there's only a limited number of roads they can take, because of that huge man-made transportation feature -- the very purpose of the town's creation -- that divides north and south. Your out-of-town guests, the people who are paying the bills, care a whole lot about how quickly they can get through your town, and little to nothing about how you and your kids live your lives. (Except not getting in their way).
Then there's the northeast flow: even back when I lived there in the 70s, it seemed like getting the thru-trucks off downtown city streets would be a worthwhile project. I suppose building out the KM Ranch Road and making that 93 would be (a) a huge safety and quality of life improvement for people in town and (b) enough of a hit to merchants in town that you'd see torches and pitchforks at any meeting suggesting it.
There's probably a metaphor here for technology.
It is particularly difficult for all those reasons! But I think that was the steering committee's point in their letter to the editor: They had asked the state DOT and consultants to use truly innovative thinking to figure out some answers that met the multiple needs of the towns, and are deeply frustrated that the answer was the exact opposite of that. (The steering committee was made of long-time residents who have been deeply involved in all the efforts that have made Whitefish what it is today, with an extensive bike/ped system and a strong downtown core -- results of now decades of engagement and foresight.)
And those difficulties and points, which are absolutely valid, are why it's so important to not just say "widen the highway and be done with it." This valley and town will continue to grow in population, and I don't see tourism decreasing in the next decade or two. Widening the highway is only a temporary fix to all these issues. Getting to a really good answer is going to take a tremendous amount of creative thinking that widens its understanding of multimodal transportation. But it's not all super outside the box. Getting from hotels to Big Mountain or Glacier Park can be served by shuttle services, and we have the rudiments of that. People aren't quite used to it, but they seem to adapt just fine when they go to Europe :)
The state's argument against the bypass is that it wouldn't reduce traffic much. Which seems awfully circular. If a bypass that took the logging trucks out of town completely wouldn't reduce traffic, why would another lane? They didn't explain that.
I remember the argument against a bypass from the perspective of business owners going around in 1994 when the idea was first mooted. It made more sense to me then than it does now. There just aren't that many people going through Whitefish on their way to somewhere else. They come here to be *here.* Downtown businesses made that same argument against increasing the resort tax to 3% a few years ago, but in truth it hasn't hurt them at all.
I meant Northwest!!
This is spot on, Nia; thank you very much!
Thanks, Greg!
I would love to see all of that! Seattle has done a tremendous amount of work. (I was going to highlight Seattle's pro-walkability work in my book, but the mayor at the time got caught doing some very awful stuff online, so I featured Denver instead.)
Non-urban areas have such a long way to go, and most of it is in the mindset. Our county commissioners have resisted a county-wide bike trail system for years -- they see it as a thing that Speedo-wearing cyclists will use on Saturdays and can't envision it as another form of mobility and transportation. It's an uphill battle.
I would love to see those streets change, too! Even in our small downtown, when I walked there during lockdown it was crazy to realize how much space isn't being used when people aren't parking cars. All that space could be used for so much else ...
You know, I agree with you. I forget about the exponential speed of this technology as well as the exponential change. You have far better insights into that than I do. I hope people like Harris make some space for your kinds of ideas. They clearly understand the problem. And in their podcast they often talk about "so what can we do about this specific issue" but I think even they are realizing that it's too big for little tweaks.
And yes, you are describing the past few years. When I look at what public health officers just in my state are facing not just because of misinformation but because of radicalized beliefs that feed into violent tendencies, I'm not sanguine.
Thank you for the kind words! Weirdly, I haven't been following Strong Towns for a while but remembered some of Marohn's early work and really like what they've been doing recently. I might have to read his book.
I've personally come to the conclusion that no matter how I feel about it (and how anxiety-riddled I get presenting ideas), we're not going to get anywhere if people don't put forward seemingly bold and ridiculous ideas. After all, they're only considered bold and ridiculous because we've spent hundreds if not thousands of years going the other direction.
There's a lot of key thinking in this paragraph of yours: "The problem is systemic in that there does not appear to be a system that allows us to collaborate and modify existing systems. Trans-national corporations cannot be regulated by national efforts beyond what's available in the markets and we don't yet have a way to effectively collaborate as consumers to achieve that."