I first heard of this site on the BBC World Service while driving one night. Hills are Evil is trying to create a database of conditions that are either complimentary, or adverse to handicap accessibility, as well as other alternative travel. Any conveyance outside of pedestrian or automobile traffic, like bicycling or simply pulling a hand cart to and from a desired location.
As bicycling is an interest of mine, and promoted as alternative travel by the few but fervent, I believe hills are an immensely important consideration in planning bike paths. And, if one considers bike travel a serious alternative to the automobile, where development should be located.
With a East West corridor from Milwaukee to Madison and beyond, developing centered on the expressway, how should responsible planning be promoted? Also in the corridor is a substantial bike path core. If we look far into the future, with growing populations, there is even talk of the need for a fixed independent transit system. A controversial issue. Something I've shared my two cents about.
I would put forward that if we want responsible development that includes bicycles, promoting what are called multipurpose paths as they are called these days, hills are truly evil. The bicycle enthusiasts are few and far between. Yet work hard to support multipurpose paths and bicycling as a commuting option. Perhaps claiming a disproportionate amount of funds for the cause. The reality is few people, if presented the opportunity, will commute by bicycle. And if a larger population would, they would not want to travel more than two miles, or work up a sweat doing it. In other words, hills are evil. Even if solid percentages of people take up bicycling, like on many campuses, they will not use their bicycles at every phase of their life, or even in season of the year. Conditions and demands change with time. The money invested should be spent on what is most attractive to the largest number of people. Can I say again, hills are evil?
Even in a mountainous nation like Japan, the ancient densely populated cities are surprisingly level. In Korea the development goes up a mountain only after every available space in the valleys and open areas is consumed. Most developed before the advent of the automobile. But even with the automobile, fuel efficiency would be better served by avoiding hills.
JJR, a civil engineering firm recently gave a presentation at SARUP titled, "Sustainable Waterfront Redevelopment that Serve as an Economic Catalyst for Underutilized Harbor Areas." They have been successful in harbor area developments. They work under the premise that they create the bones, many already in place as harbors already contain substantial infrastructure, and allow time and market forces to fill in the meat.
So if we look at the Milwaukee-Madison corridor we can presume that development, to both the north and south, will want to tie into the nodes currently existing around the expressway. Either as a destination, or to connect to an alternative form of travel such as a bus. Or connecting to a potential node that may develop around a fixed mass transit alternative. Or even, if business and housing develop centered on the existing bike path, to promote green commuting, nodes developed around the bike corridor. In all cases planning, creating infrastructure, to avoid any major elevation change would be advantageous to promoting travel that is not automobile driven.
In the interview I heard on the BBC, the site promoter suggested that many chose longer routes to their destination based on the information they provided. They choose ease over distance. So do we develop elevation based zoning? Only allowing development, say, between five feet and fifteen feet above the applicable floodplain? All in our effort to promote any form of travel other than the automobile? I don't believe that is the roll of government, outside of insuring reasonable safety. It is the job of Architects and Planners. And in regards to developers or other interested parties, it is the job of society in general, possibly religion and media carrying much of the burden here, to promote a common standard of morality.
We can keep streets smaller and friendlier by creating several alternatives. Planning ahead of time, for how people can get from point A to B. Maybe we need to plan for one hundred years in the future now. Or maybe, as has happened many times in history, massive migrations may expand the population much more quickly than we can imagine. If we can draw business to Wisconsin. We have a beautiful corridor with great amenities from east to west, that needs to be protected through responsible development. That needs to be accessible from the north and south.
Most important is the perspective from the ground. Roads, and railroads, have always taken elevation changes into consideration when being planned. But what may appear to be a gentle climb for your car, will stop the vast majority of the population from even considering using a bicycle.
