Originally Posted by
njkayaker
Nothing is perfect.
The thing you need to address is whether things are better (or worse) overall after the changes.
Your statement here is suggesting the people who made the change aren't already aware of the "knock on" effects.
The "traffic calming" measures aren't really "an effort to get more people on bikes and public transit" anyway.
They are more of trading one type of "risky driving", speeding (for example), which tends to have worse outcomes, for another, more complicated/slower driving that has less worse outcomes.
Put another way, it's more preferable having people crash at low speeds due to "traffic calming" measures than crash at high speeds.
I wasn’t suggesting planners are unaware, because I have no idea idea if they are or not, nor whether even if they are, it should be a reason to change plans, so I wasn’t commenting on awareness, rather just making a statement of cause-and-effect. Anyone can go on a Facebook group like Ann Arbor Townies or check on the cuckoo Nextdoor app and hear the outrage-tinged complaints, so in fact, I’d assume planners are very aware. I went to one planning meeting about 20 years ago and heard the disapproval of citizens at that time— I was there advocating for more bike lanes as part of a school project— but admittedly don’t know what feedback to the coty has been in those forums since, but I’d bet money the sentiments are stronger and city planners have gotten the message a lot.
To that point, it is totally true that traffic calming measures are part of efforts to get people on bikes and public transit. It has been an expressly stated strategy of city development goals for decades. The linkage is simple to get: people will ride more if they feel safe, and high car-to-bike speed discrepancies make riders nervous, so reducing car traffic speeds is desirable for encouraging cycling.