|Why Staff chooses not to support a full 4/3 safety conversion|
So I just want to underline one small detail.
If we object to the consequences of a set of projected traffic volumes for 2035, then broadly two approaches come to mind:
- We can wring our hands, bewail and moan, and accommodate those future consequences with partial mitigation (and sometimes new roads), but mostly just manage with sighs and acceptance; or,
- We can make a determined effort to head off those projections and actually try to reduce traffic counts
If we don't like traffic, why don't we make every effort to reduce the frequency of driving trips and to reduce the length of driving trips?
Instead our current approach is fundamentally incoherent: We say we don't like congestion and traffic, but systematically we do nearly everything we can to accommodate and subsidize driving. We induce more traffic while we make futile and largely symbolic gestures to try to ward it off.
No wonder we fail. Until we are willing to grapple explicitly with this incoherence, we're just going to keep failing.
For more detailed comment on the State Street Study, see these main posts:
- "State Street Study Already Hamstrung by 20th Century Mobility Standards?"
- "Draft State Street Plan Disappoints"
- "Understanding Safety: Crash Rates vs Counts on State Street"
- "Prospects for State Street look a Little Dim"
- "State Street Study at Planning Commission Tuesday" (last month's first meeting)