Comments on: Paradise LOSt (Part I): How Long Will the City Keep Us Stuck in Our Cars? http://sf.streetsblog.org/2009/01/26/paradise-lost-part-i-how-long-will-the-city-keep-us-stuck-in-our-cars/ Covering San Francisco's livable streets movement Sun, 22 Nov 2009 10:39:06 -0800 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8 hourly 1 By: Don http://sf.streetsblog.org/2009/01/26/paradise-lost-part-i-how-long-will-the-city-keep-us-stuck-in-our-cars/comment-page-1/#comment-5785 Don Wed, 27 May 2009 04:54:10 +0000 http://sf.streetsblog.org/?p=1376#comment-5785 Two Rob Anderson Haikus: Hates Water and Air Likes the Prison of His Car Please, Move to L.A. Rob Anderson's Gaffe Fought For Your Oil in Iraq? I Didn't Think So Two Rob Anderson Haikus:

Hates Water and Air
Likes the Prison of His Car
Please, Move to L.A.

Rob Anderson's Gaffe
Fought For Your Oil in Iraq?
I Didn't Think So

]]> By: Kevin http://sf.streetsblog.org/2009/01/26/paradise-lost-part-i-how-long-will-the-city-keep-us-stuck-in-our-cars/comment-page-1/#comment-5579 Kevin Mon, 18 May 2009 23:47:29 +0000 http://sf.streetsblog.org/?p=1376#comment-5579 LOS. LOL. LOS. LOL.

]]> By: ian http://sf.streetsblog.org/2009/01/26/paradise-lost-part-i-how-long-will-the-city-keep-us-stuck-in-our-cars/comment-page-1/#comment-3425 ian Sun, 01 Feb 2009 04:00:45 +0000 http://sf.streetsblog.org/?p=1376#comment-3425 ron anderson - i think your concerns are off mark. bike/ped advocates, i believe, are not in it, as you say, "to screw up traffic for motor vehicles with impunity". the argument, which is entirely valid, is that in the spectrum of roadway classifications, from urban city street to limited access highway interstate, there is also a spectrum of users. one might say that the closer you get to a city center, and away from the interstate, less priority should be given to cars, and more to buses, peds, and bikes. in a rich urban environment with multiple modal choices, this is a rational argument because these alternative ways of getting around are much more efficient, serve many more citizens, and provide more choices. so on highways, cars reign supreme, as they should. but in city centers, driving a car on scarce public right-of-way is a privelege shared to a significant extent with the many others on bike, foot, rail, or bus. and in these areas, the LOS methodology should be able to handle the mix of modes so that all users are taken into cosideration when an analysis of roadway operations is performed. that said, it is true that at the current time, many municipalities are implementing bicycle and pedestrian improvements without a practical justification for how the effects to auto traffic are justified. this could be done by developing a modal priority matrix for various roadways in a city, and designing the streetspace to achieve a balanced LOS that quantitatively meets this priority ranking. so on a highway, peds get little or no service and cars get all the capacity, but on a shared street, cars are down to just 10% of total capacity, with the rest split amongst all others. the talk in some traffic engineering circles is similar to what someone said above, that of replacing the 20th century VMT "vehicle miles traveled" with "person miles traveled". doing so would allow for buses to take priority over private autos. but i think this does not go all the way to address the spectrum described above. something that better handles the full mix of modes for a given street is most applicable. ron anderson - i think your concerns are off mark. bike/ped advocates, i believe, are not in it, as you say, "to screw up traffic for motor vehicles with impunity". the argument, which is entirely valid, is that in the spectrum of roadway classifications, from urban city street to limited access highway interstate, there is also a spectrum of users. one might say that the closer you get to a city center, and away from the interstate, less priority should be given to cars, and more to buses, peds, and bikes. in a rich urban environment with multiple modal choices, this is a rational argument because these alternative ways of getting around are much more efficient, serve many more citizens, and provide more choices. so on highways, cars reign supreme, as they should. but in city centers, driving a car on scarce public right-of-way is a privelege shared to a significant extent with the many others on bike, foot, rail, or bus. and in these areas, the LOS methodology should be able to handle the mix of modes so that all users are taken into cosideration when an analysis of roadway operations is performed. that said, it is true that at the current time, many municipalities are implementing bicycle and pedestrian improvements without a practical justification for how the effects to auto traffic are justified. this could be done by developing a modal priority matrix for various roadways in a city, and designing the streetspace to achieve a balanced LOS that quantitatively meets this priority ranking. so on a highway, peds get little or no service and cars get all the capacity, but on a shared street, cars are down to just 10% of total capacity, with the rest split amongst all others.

the talk in some traffic engineering circles is similar to what someone said above, that of replacing the 20th century VMT "vehicle miles traveled" with "person miles traveled". doing so would allow for buses to take priority over private autos. but i think this does not go all the way to address the spectrum described above. something that better handles the full mix of modes for a given street is most applicable.

]]> By: Stefanie http://sf.streetsblog.org/2009/01/26/paradise-lost-part-i-how-long-will-the-city-keep-us-stuck-in-our-cars/comment-page-1/#comment-3395 Stefanie Fri, 30 Jan 2009 02:20:07 +0000 http://sf.streetsblog.org/?p=1376#comment-3395 As Tom points out, LOS should be used a tool - one of many. And there are LOS indicators for other modes of transportation, but they're not very good and don't take context into account. For example, a sidewalk that is not very congested (few people) is given a grade of A. Perhaps in heavily urban areas with lots of pedestrian traffic, you want to decrease congestion (through widening, etc), but usually you *want* people on the sidewalk. There is reform coming though, as Gary mentioned, in NCHRP 616. That report is part of NCHRP 03-70 (http://www.trb.org/trbnet/projectdisplay.asp?projectid=824) and will be in the Highway Capacity Manual update. Furthermore, cities are reforming their LOS calculations without national or statewide guidance. Seattle has been developing their method for a while now, and it sounds quite promising. I apologize if I'm repeating what others have already mentioned above. I'm just quite excited by multimodal LOS! As Tom points out, LOS should be used a tool - one of many. And there are LOS indicators for other modes of transportation, but they're not very good and don't take context into account. For example, a sidewalk that is not very congested (few people) is given a grade of A. Perhaps in heavily urban areas with lots of pedestrian traffic, you want to decrease congestion (through widening, etc), but usually you *want* people on the sidewalk.

There is reform coming though, as Gary mentioned, in NCHRP 616. That report is part of NCHRP 03-70 (http://www.trb.org/trbnet/projectdisplay.asp?projectid=824) and will be in the Highway Capacity Manual update. Furthermore, cities are reforming their LOS calculations without national or statewide guidance. Seattle has been developing their method for a while now, and it sounds quite promising.

I apologize if I'm repeating what others have already mentioned above. I'm just quite excited by multimodal LOS!

]]> By: Jim F. http://sf.streetsblog.org/2009/01/26/paradise-lost-part-i-how-long-will-the-city-keep-us-stuck-in-our-cars/comment-page-1/#comment-3385 Jim F. Thu, 29 Jan 2009 20:12:47 +0000 http://sf.streetsblog.org/?p=1376#comment-3385 Reform of LOS would have great benefits to MUNI and pedestrian improvements. If they pass we would not count a single bus as one vehicle, but one with lots of people on it. Plus, pedestrians might actually be considered in the mix too. Reform of LOS would have great benefits to MUNI and pedestrian improvements. If they pass we would not count a single bus as one vehicle, but one with lots of people on it. Plus, pedestrians might actually be considered in the mix too.

]]> By: Rob Anderson http://sf.streetsblog.org/2009/01/26/paradise-lost-part-i-how-long-will-the-city-keep-us-stuck-in-our-cars/comment-page-1/#comment-3380 Rob Anderson Thu, 29 Jan 2009 18:25:19 +0000 http://sf.streetsblog.org/?p=1376#comment-3380 There's a lot of obfuscation and pseudo-technical jargon in this discussion that does nothing but obscure the whole point of LOS "reform": to make it possible for the bike people to screw up traffic for motor vehicles with impunity. The SFBC and its many enablers in city government simply resent the fact that the Bicycle Plan project---and it is a huge project---should have to do any environmental/traffic analysis of their great planet-saving plans for city streets. There's a lot of obfuscation and pseudo-technical jargon in this discussion that does nothing but obscure the whole point of LOS "reform": to make it possible for the bike people to screw up traffic for motor vehicles with impunity. The SFBC and its many enablers in city government simply resent the fact that the Bicycle Plan project---and it is a huge project---should have to do any environmental/traffic analysis of their great planet-saving plans for city streets.

]]> By: Tom Rubin http://sf.streetsblog.org/2009/01/26/paradise-lost-part-i-how-long-will-the-city-keep-us-stuck-in-our-cars/comment-page-1/#comment-3379 Tom Rubin Thu, 29 Jan 2009 14:58:42 +0000 http://sf.streetsblog.org/?p=1376#comment-3379 Let's not throw out the baby with the bathwater. First, while I am certainly not a transportation engineer PE, I am a member of ITE, use many transportation engineering concepts in my work as a transportation consultant, and would like to think I do make some understanding of some of the basic concepts involved. First, LOS is a good and useful tool, but it should never be utilized in autopilot, as in, OK, the objective is to produce the specified LOS, do what is necessary to make that happen. LOS analysis -- properly performed, which should go without saying, but, in this day and age, does have to be said -- is a very useful tool in analyzing impacts of proposed changes in transportation systems, land use, etc. However, it should never be the ONLY analysis performed. Also, keep in mind that there are entire families of LOS standards. For example, for auto use of roads, there is a standard for freeway lanes, for arterial lanes, for signalized intersections, etc. BUT, there are also LOS standards for transit and pedestrial transportation -- for example, one transit standard relates to the extent of standees. So, one very simple and logical change is simply to ensure that where LOS is being studied for autos on roads, the impacts on other modes is also included, were applicable (there are situations, of course, where some modes of transit are not directly applicable, such as pedestrian and bicylist travel on the Bay Bridge, although there are often good reasons to include some comparable analysis even in these cases, such as, how about a way for cyclists to take their bikes on BART during rush hour or, if that is not desired by BART due to impacts on people carrying capacity, how about having bike lockers at ALL [well, OK, most] BART stations and allowing cyclists to have two lockers at different stations, so someone who wanted to could keep an oldie in SF for that last mile-and-half to the office). In fairness, however, you do have to reflect the quantities involved in such analysis. In the core CBD, the volume of pedestrian traffic is very large and the weighting given to pedestrian movement should reflect this; on a residential street with good sidewalks, the impacts of many changes will have little or no impact on pedestrial movement. Also, don't forget that almost all goods movement to specific SF destinations is via truck (I'm excluding thru shipments). Transportation engineering is not a fixed science; it both constantly evolving and, when done properlty, has a significant portion of art -- that cannot always be quantified. Finally, in regard to CEQA, keep in mind that this is, more than anything else, a checklist of steps to be performed, analyses to be performed, and information to be disclosed to the decision-makers so that they can make intelligent decisions -- and to the public, so they can comment on both the recommendations and the decisions. CEQA, in and of itself, does NOT mandage specific actions -- AND the decision-making agency has the option to make a decision on the basis of overriding concerns, and this is constantly done. It is very unusual to see a court overturn a decision made by a governmental body after an EIR et al on the grounds that the decision was not the best one; EIR's are tossed out by the courts on the grounds that the PROCESS was not properly conducted, that something wasn't studied that should have been, or that an analysis was faulty, or that a specific alternative should have been considered and wasn't. Technically, if there was a statement in an EIR that one undesirable aspect of proceeding with a project was that it would lead to the end of life on Earth, and this was properly disclosed, and the government body decided to go ahead anyway, it could be very difficult to challenge the results on CEQA grounds because the process was followed completely and correrctly. This type of result may not be what any of us are looking for, but the implication is, even if the auto/truck LOS results of a specific decision are not good, the governmental decision-making body generally has the ability to go ahead with that decision anyway, as long as it can show that the matter was studied by competent experts, the process was follows, and the body has reason to make a finding of overriding concerns, after evaluating the possible mitigations. This has to be the way it works, because even the "best" projects generally have some negative impacts, and the elected officials and their delegates have to have the legal authority to make difficult decisions -- AFTER following the required process and informing everyone what's going on and giving everyong the opportunity to be heard. Let's not throw out the baby with the bathwater.

First, while I am certainly not a transportation engineer PE, I am a member of ITE, use many transportation engineering concepts in my work as a transportation consultant, and would like to think I do make some understanding of some of the basic concepts involved.

First, LOS is a good and useful tool, but it should never be utilized in autopilot, as in, OK, the objective is to produce the specified LOS, do what is necessary to make that happen.

LOS analysis -- properly performed, which should go without saying, but, in this day and age, does have to be said -- is a very useful tool in analyzing impacts of proposed changes in transportation systems, land use, etc.

However, it should never be the ONLY analysis performed.

Also, keep in mind that there are entire families of LOS standards. For example, for auto use of roads, there is a standard for freeway lanes, for arterial lanes, for signalized intersections, etc. BUT, there are also LOS standards for transit and pedestrial transportation -- for example, one transit standard relates to the extent of standees.

So, one very simple and logical change is simply to ensure that where LOS is being studied for autos on roads, the impacts on other modes is also included, were applicable (there are situations, of course, where some modes of transit are not directly applicable, such as pedestrian and bicylist travel on the Bay Bridge, although there are often good reasons to include some comparable analysis even in these cases, such as, how about a way for cyclists to take their bikes on BART during rush hour or, if that is not desired by BART due to impacts on people carrying capacity, how about having bike lockers at ALL [well, OK, most] BART stations and allowing cyclists to have two lockers at different stations, so someone who wanted to could keep an oldie in SF for that last mile-and-half to the office).

In fairness, however, you do have to reflect the quantities involved in such analysis. In the core CBD, the volume of pedestrian traffic is very large and the weighting given to pedestrian movement should reflect this; on a residential street with good sidewalks, the impacts of many changes will have little or no impact on pedestrial movement. Also, don't forget that almost all goods movement to specific SF destinations is via truck (I'm excluding thru shipments).

Transportation engineering is not a fixed science; it both constantly evolving and, when done properlty, has a significant portion of art -- that cannot always be quantified.

Finally, in regard to CEQA, keep in mind that this is, more than anything else, a checklist of steps to be performed, analyses to be performed, and information to be disclosed to the decision-makers so that they can make intelligent decisions -- and to the public, so they can comment on both the recommendations and the decisions. CEQA, in and of itself, does NOT mandage specific actions -- AND the decision-making agency has the option to make a decision on the basis of overriding concerns, and this is constantly done.

It is very unusual to see a court overturn a decision made by a governmental body after an EIR et al on the grounds that the decision was not the best one; EIR's are tossed out by the courts on the grounds that the PROCESS was not properly conducted, that something wasn't studied that should have been, or that an analysis was faulty, or that a specific alternative should have been considered and wasn't.

Technically, if there was a statement in an EIR that one undesirable aspect of proceeding with a project was that it would lead to the end of life on Earth, and this was properly disclosed, and the government body decided to go ahead anyway, it could be very difficult to challenge the results on CEQA grounds because the process was followed completely and correrctly.

This type of result may not be what any of us are looking for, but the implication is, even if the auto/truck LOS results of a specific decision are not good, the governmental decision-making body generally has the ability to go ahead with that decision anyway, as long as it can show that the matter was studied by competent experts, the process was follows, and the body has reason to make a finding of overriding concerns, after evaluating the possible mitigations. This has to be the way it works, because even the "best" projects generally have some negative impacts, and the elected officials and their delegates have to have the legal authority to make difficult decisions -- AFTER following the required process and informing everyone what's going on and giving everyong the opportunity to be heard.

]]> By: Charles Siegel http://sf.streetsblog.org/2009/01/26/paradise-lost-part-i-how-long-will-the-city-keep-us-stuck-in-our-cars/comment-page-1/#comment-3365 Charles Siegel Wed, 28 Jan 2009 18:32:16 +0000 http://sf.streetsblog.org/?p=1376#comment-3365 I think the ATG described in the second LOS post would satisfy the requirement to have a Congestion Management Plan. It is another way of mitigating congestion, by assessing a fee to support transit rather than by adding road capacity: "ATG avoids intersection-specific analysis, instead evaluating new developments based on the number of car trips they would add to the aggregate traffic picture and assessing a transit mitigation fee based on the total number of additional trips." I think the ATG described in the second LOS post would satisfy the requirement to have a Congestion Management Plan. It is another way of mitigating congestion, by assessing a fee to support transit rather than by adding road capacity:

"ATG avoids intersection-specific analysis, instead evaluating new developments based on the number of car trips they would add to the aggregate traffic picture and assessing a transit mitigation fee based on the total number of additional trips."

]]> By: Joe Student http://sf.streetsblog.org/2009/01/26/paradise-lost-part-i-how-long-will-the-city-keep-us-stuck-in-our-cars/comment-page-1/#comment-3363 Joe Student Wed, 28 Jan 2009 16:15:18 +0000 http://sf.streetsblog.org/?p=1376#comment-3363 More info on how LOS standards are required by the State can be found in the California Government Code 65089 (Congestion Management Plans). From San Francisco County's website (and plan): "The California Government Code mandates the development of a Congestion Management Program (CMP) for each county in the state to manage the effects of land use decisions on the transportation system, and vice versa. It requires that all elements of the CMP be monitored at least biennially by the designated Congestion Management Agency (CMA) to determine if the county and city governments, known as Member Agencies, conform to the CMP. The San Francisco County Transportation Authority (SFCTA) is the designated CMA for San Francisco County, and therefore is responsible for CMP monitoring." http://www.sfcta.org/content/view/301/147/ More info on how LOS standards are required by the State can be found in the California Government Code 65089 (Congestion Management Plans).

From San Francisco County's website (and plan):
"The California Government Code mandates the development of a Congestion Management Program (CMP) for each county in the state to manage the effects of land use decisions on the transportation system, and vice versa. It requires that all elements of the CMP be monitored at least biennially by the designated Congestion Management Agency (CMA) to determine if the county and city governments, known as Member Agencies, conform to the CMP. The San Francisco County Transportation Authority (SFCTA) is the designated CMA for San Francisco County, and therefore is responsible for CMP monitoring."

http://www.sfcta.org/content/view/301/147/

]]> By: Matthew Ridgway http://sf.streetsblog.org/2009/01/26/paradise-lost-part-i-how-long-will-the-city-keep-us-stuck-in-our-cars/comment-page-1/#comment-3362 Matthew Ridgway Wed, 28 Jan 2009 15:37:50 +0000 http://sf.streetsblog.org/?p=1376#comment-3362 Good post. Another good source for information on CEQA and LOS is here http://coolconnections.org/2009/01/19/california-proposes-dropping-auto-los/ Good post. Another good source for information on CEQA and LOS is here

http://coolconnections.org/2009/01/19/california-proposes-dropping-auto-los/

]]> By: Matthew Roth http://sf.streetsblog.org/2009/01/26/paradise-lost-part-i-how-long-will-the-city-keep-us-stuck-in-our-cars/comment-page-1/#comment-3354 Matthew Roth Wed, 28 Jan 2009 00:42:51 +0000 http://sf.streetsblog.org/?p=1376#comment-3354 Gary, Thanks for pointing to NCHRP report 616. See today's post for more on what the city is doing in response to the 2006 proclamation for more balanced LOS. http://sf.streetsblog.org/2009/01/27/paradise-lost-part-ii-turning-automobility-on-its-head/ Gary,
Thanks for pointing to NCHRP report 616.
See today's post for more on what the city is doing in response to the 2006 proclamation for more balanced LOS.
http://sf.streetsblog.org/2009/01/27/paradise-lost-part-ii-turning-automobility-on-its-head/

]]> By: Derek http://sf.streetsblog.org/2009/01/26/paradise-lost-part-i-how-long-will-the-city-keep-us-stuck-in-our-cars/comment-page-1/#comment-3353 Derek Tue, 27 Jan 2009 23:27:00 +0000 http://sf.streetsblog.org/?p=1376#comment-3353 "sprawl happens because most people (planners included) simply cannot afford to live in large houses on big lots in many of our central cities." There, fixed that for you. :-) "sprawl happens because most people (planners included) simply cannot afford to live in large houses on big lots in many of our central cities."

There, fixed that for you. :-)

]]> By: Prolly http://sf.streetsblog.org/2009/01/26/paradise-lost-part-i-how-long-will-the-city-keep-us-stuck-in-our-cars/comment-page-1/#comment-3349 Prolly Tue, 27 Jan 2009 22:18:16 +0000 http://sf.streetsblog.org/?p=1376#comment-3349 I know ATS, and he's a pretty solid dude. Been riding bikes for a long time, for what it's worth. I know ATS, and he's a pretty solid dude. Been riding bikes for a long time, for what it's worth.

]]> By: Asst. Trans. Spec. http://sf.streetsblog.org/2009/01/26/paradise-lost-part-i-how-long-will-the-city-keep-us-stuck-in-our-cars/comment-page-1/#comment-3348 Asst. Trans. Spec. Tue, 27 Jan 2009 22:09:35 +0000 http://sf.streetsblog.org/?p=1376#comment-3348 As another person/cyclist applying LOS standards but hating it, I agree entirely with Ian. The worst thing we can continue to do is allow automobility to run unimpeded. Congestion is what we need. LOS F = Good Then when it's bad. People will say 'eff' this, give me some transit, some bike lanes. LOS can remain, but new CEQA revisions, should rate the expanded lanes, emissions and carnage by cars as significant impacts; with the only potential mitigation being bus/bike lanes and wider sidewalks. /@work rant As another person/cyclist applying LOS standards but hating it, I agree entirely with Ian.

The worst thing we can continue to do is allow automobility to run unimpeded.

Congestion is what we need.

LOS F = Good

Then when it's bad. People will say 'eff' this, give me some transit, some bike lanes. LOS can remain, but new CEQA revisions, should rate the expanded lanes, emissions and carnage by cars as significant impacts; with the only potential mitigation being bus/bike lanes and wider sidewalks.

/@work rant

]]> By: Gary Toth http://sf.streetsblog.org/2009/01/26/paradise-lost-part-i-how-long-will-the-city-keep-us-stuck-in-our-cars/comment-page-1/#comment-3347 Gary Toth Tue, 27 Jan 2009 21:57:36 +0000 http://sf.streetsblog.org/?p=1376#comment-3347 Matthew, has SF done anything in response to the Council's 2006 proclamation calling for more balanced LOS measures? Have you seen the new NCHRP report 616, which provides a methodology for a balanced LOS calcuation? Google it and you can download the pdf. Finally, the Project for Public Spaces wrote an article on traffic projections and LOS, which is posted on the Federal Highway Administrations Context Sensitive Solutions website. See http://www.contextsensitivesolutions.org/content/newsletter/june-2008/ Gary Matthew, has SF done anything in response to the Council's 2006 proclamation calling for more balanced LOS measures?

Have you seen the new NCHRP report 616, which provides a methodology for a balanced LOS calcuation? Google it and you can download the pdf.

Finally, the Project for Public Spaces wrote an article on traffic projections and LOS, which is posted on the Federal Highway Administrations Context Sensitive Solutions website. See http://www.contextsensitivesolutions.org/content/newsletter/june-2008/

Gary

]]> By: Evan http://sf.streetsblog.org/2009/01/26/paradise-lost-part-i-how-long-will-the-city-keep-us-stuck-in-our-cars/comment-page-1/#comment-3346 Evan Tue, 27 Jan 2009 21:54:56 +0000 http://sf.streetsblog.org/?p=1376#comment-3346 If CAR was really concerned with LOS, they would ask that an environmental review process be required before any new car can enter the transportation system (paid for by the prospective owner, of course). After all, every new car just adds more delay for all the other cars...and takes up a heck of a lot more space than a bicycle does. If CAR was really concerned with LOS, they would ask that an environmental review process be required before any new car can enter the transportation system (paid for by the prospective owner, of course). After all, every new car just adds more delay for all the other cars...and takes up a heck of a lot more space than a bicycle does.

]]> By: ian http://sf.streetsblog.org/2009/01/26/paradise-lost-part-i-how-long-will-the-city-keep-us-stuck-in-our-cars/comment-page-1/#comment-3344 ian Tue, 27 Jan 2009 21:42:10 +0000 http://sf.streetsblog.org/?p=1376#comment-3344 it is entirely true that the current methodology for calculating roadway performance is auto-centric. in fact, it looks at peds, bikes, and transit as impedences to traffic flow). that said, i find it sad that matthew roth demonises the traffic engineer as some horrible devil who wants to destroy all that is good in the city. this is more of the same nonesense that divides the planning community and makes people with AICP after their name look like propagandists rather than community focused..and it is entirely untrue. here's the facts: laws and regulations are made by politicians. at one time, when cars were mostly everyone's priority, lawmakers asked trarffic engineers to develop criteria for traffic operations. they did so, with quite accuracy, and that was it for ~50 years. now comes the new era when people's priorities shift as the car overwhelms us and the idea of biking and walking become trendy (argue if yo ulike, but until we're walking and biking for decades it's just as much a fad as the prius is to hollywood). traffic engineers are just as capable of developing "complete street" criteria to address all modes and uses if asked. some have even offered such methodologies without being prompted by the pols this time. yes, i am a traffic engineer, but i ride my bike to work all the time, i prefer to walk for my local chores in the dense city i chose to move to, and i advocate reducing auto use as much as possible in my work every day. i am not a devil (although i was trained in those devilish techniques at school) and when the politicians are convinced that LOS should be calculated differently, then i'm sure the older-school in my profession will adopt the new methodology (albeit just as grudgingly as auto-workers would adopt a new profession). point is, traffic engineers are not the scapegoat for the sorry state of america's streets; we all are. and we all need to do something about it to make a change, not just point the finger. it is entirely true that the current methodology for calculating roadway performance is auto-centric. in fact, it looks at peds, bikes, and transit as impedences to traffic flow). that said, i find it sad that matthew roth demonises the traffic engineer as some horrible devil who wants to destroy all that is good in the city. this is more of the same nonesense that divides the planning community and makes people with AICP after their name look like propagandists rather than community focused..and it is entirely untrue. here's the facts: laws and regulations are made by politicians. at one time, when cars were mostly everyone's priority, lawmakers asked trarffic engineers to develop criteria for traffic operations. they did so, with quite accuracy, and that was it for ~50 years. now comes the new era when people's priorities shift as the car overwhelms us and the idea of biking and walking become trendy (argue if yo ulike, but until we're walking and biking for decades it's just as much a fad as the prius is to hollywood). traffic engineers are just as capable of developing "complete street" criteria to address all modes and uses if asked. some have even offered such methodologies without being prompted by the pols this time. yes, i am a traffic engineer, but i ride my bike to work all the time, i prefer to walk for my local chores in the dense city i chose to move to, and i advocate reducing auto use as much as possible in my work every day. i am not a devil (although i was trained in those devilish techniques at school) and when the politicians are convinced that LOS should be calculated differently, then i'm sure the older-school in my profession will adopt the new methodology (albeit just as grudgingly as auto-workers would adopt a new profession).

point is, traffic engineers are not the scapegoat for the sorry state of america's streets; we all are. and we all need to do something about it to make a change, not just point the finger.

]]> By: greg http://sf.streetsblog.org/2009/01/26/paradise-lost-part-i-how-long-will-the-city-keep-us-stuck-in-our-cars/comment-page-1/#comment-3343 greg Tue, 27 Jan 2009 21:12:15 +0000 http://sf.streetsblog.org/?p=1376#comment-3343 Until we dedicate some road space to cyclists, delays to bike traffic won't measure in seconds-- they'll measure in years. Until we dedicate some road space to cyclists, delays to bike traffic won't measure in seconds-- they'll measure in years.

]]> By: Andrew Hyder http://sf.streetsblog.org/2009/01/26/paradise-lost-part-i-how-long-will-the-city-keep-us-stuck-in-our-cars/comment-page-1/#comment-3342 Andrew Hyder Tue, 27 Jan 2009 20:58:43 +0000 http://sf.streetsblog.org/?p=1376#comment-3342 Our streets - one third of the public space in SF - are primarily designed to keep motorists from feeling uncomfortable. I think that is a gross inequality. I'm glad the discussion to drop LOS is catching steam. Our streets - one third of the public space in SF - are primarily designed to keep motorists from feeling uncomfortable. I think that is a gross inequality. I'm glad the discussion to drop LOS is catching steam.

]]> By: Jim F. http://sf.streetsblog.org/2009/01/26/paradise-lost-part-i-how-long-will-the-city-keep-us-stuck-in-our-cars/comment-page-1/#comment-3341 Jim F. Tue, 27 Jan 2009 20:46:24 +0000 http://sf.streetsblog.org/?p=1376#comment-3341 So, the question remains, how do you make it so that all modes are equal under the law? So that they all can enjoy a safe street. Does it mean that we have to bring the car down a notch and thus give the other modes better access? Do the cars have way too much space? So, the question remains, how do you make it so that all modes are equal under the law? So that they all can enjoy a safe street. Does it mean that we have to bring the car down a notch and thus give the other modes better access? Do the cars have way too much space?

]]>