SCV Talk · Archive
Nine years of the Valley’s town square · 2006–2015
SCV Talk
December 9, 2010· scvtalk.com · WordPress (SCVTalk 3.0) · Wayback capture

Don’t Trust Traffic Engineers

I know by now these cute videos must be getting tiring, but there’s something about them that’s really useful as an educational and discussion tool. So here goes my teachable moment.

I like this video because it speaks to an important paradox of living in the suburbs. All of us want to live on nice, quiet, low-taffic streets, but when we get in our cars, we want to get from Point A to Point B as rapidly as possible. At home, we value peace and quiet; on the road, we value speed above all else, and get angry when don’t get it. These two mindsets are present everywhere in the SCV (and sometimes simultaneously, like when neighborhood residents complain about speeders only to find out from the Sheriff’s Department that they are the ones speeding through their own neighborhood).

Traffic engineers, God bless them, exist only to address the latter mindset. Their job is to make sure traffic flows smoothly (read: quickly). They couldn’t care less about the impact of a road-widening on a particular neighborhood because they’re focused on the larger system and their job is to ensure traffic moves rapidly. To them, even cut-throughs like the ones on Benz Road and the one on Valley Street that was closed a decade ago are beneficial because they increase efficiency without increasing costs.

That’s why I think every city that employs traffic engineers ought to employ a “livability engineer” too. Because let’s face it, the reason we have to get in our cars is because we live so far from the jobs, activities, schools and retail shops we visit everyday. And the traffic engineers are there to accommodate us. A livability engineer would take a look at a given neighborhood and learn why people are getting in their cars in the first place, rather than merely planning on how to accommodate them once they do.

This is also why I’m a lukewarm supporter of OVOV’s concept of a “Valley of Villages.” I want to be able to walk or ride my bike to the shops, restaurants, schools and activities I visit regularly. Essentially, I’d like to put the traffic engineer -and his product, the gigantic superhighways like Newhall Ranch and McBean- out of business.

Am I an idealist? Yeah probably. But the incessant traffic complainers have their own unrealistic demands and are missing the larger point entirely: there wouldn’t be as much traffic if we all resided in livable, walkable communities and neighborhoods.

Don’t Trust Traffic Engineers

Comments (7)

  1. Need for Involved CitizenryDecember 9, 2010 at 10:42 am
    Jeff: Are you aware that under OVOV, 5 bikelane segments will be elimated due to all the necessary road widening?
  2. The King of SCVDecember 9, 2010 at 10:49 am
    I believe Wiley Canyon is on the widening list. Do you know?
  3. The King of SCVDecember 9, 2010 at 10:44 am
    I perfectly understand your ideal vision of what you would like to do in terms of walking to all the amenities you frequent regularly. That may be realized if you moved to another town. That being true to some degree I would hate loose Jeff Wilson to a location that was better laid out to accomplish this utopia. We will never have this scenario here in SCV & I don’t know of a place that accomplishes level of micro environments where everything is within reach of ones front door. It’s an impossible achievement here in our valley. Perhaps Jeff, you should discuss the actuality of how our valley would operate or function with 450+ thousand residents living here. This population projection is suspect to me and everyone who hears it. Our grid will not allow what you so eloquently describe as a live, work, shop society. It would a be a fabulous way of living, I would agree, but how do we restructure our infrastructure to make Santa Clarita Valley acomodate this projection. Livability Engineers do exist in our valley. They are patriotic citizens who stand before my council and give real world, real life, and practical advice during our council meetings. Our residents are the Livability experts that go through a lot of effort to impart their experience. Dave G, Tim B, Al F, Allan C, Annette L, Tony N, Nadine T, Tony N, and many more. Great videos you share. Keep sharing. The King of SCV
  4. GregDecember 9, 2010 at 11:04 am
    I have to disagree with you on this one. It starts at the planning level. Planners need to demand better projects that incorporate mixed uses and take advantage of transit-oriented development. Ultimately, its the Planning Commission and City Council that are the approving bodies. Traffic Engineers are reactionary based on what’s approved. If you talk to any Traffic Engineer, I think you’ll find that they think its not efficient to build 8-lane roads like Newhall Ranch Road to accomodate traffic that occurs only during the peak periods. While I agree with your overall assessment of OVOV, etc. , I think you have placed the blame on the wrong group. I can assure you that Traffic Engineers are not heartless and do think about surrounding communities. However, they’re hands are tied based on planner deals with developers and what the commisison and council approve.
  5. Need for Involved CitizenryDecember 9, 2010 at 11:26 am
    At last months Planning meeting, I listened to Ian Pari, one of the City’s traffic engineers tell us that a “E” level of service in major intersections (in other words a road designed to have a 45 mph speed would have a 15 mph speed) at peak periods was an efficient use of the roadways, and that an “F” level was acceptable under certain conditions. Of course, SR 14 will be “F” during peak periods. The prior plan required capital improvements if roads were operating below a “C”. Why are the planners willing to accept traffic conditions that are 40% less than today’s standards? Probably because they can’t build enough roads to accommodate the population increases. Their statements that traffic will improve under OVOV is true only when comparing to the existing poor plan – not how things are today. Additionally, it is predicated on their building out every road on their map – highly unlikely. They’ve done no what-if analysis to see what things look like if those roads don’t get build or what they will cost!
  6. navigatorDecember 9, 2010 at 12:09 pm
    Was that Cam and Andrew Ye?
  7. cashDecember 9, 2010 at 12:28 pm
    City staff won’t be happy until bumper to bumper metro link trains attempt to transport people to and from the SCV.

Preserved as part of the SCV Talk Archive. Text is presented as originally published; presentation has been standardised for readability. The original capture is available at the Internet Archive.

Support