Planners preserve car dependency
...as they blame traffic engineers for car dependency.
Planning for a life centered around automobiles
I've worked as a traffic engineer and as an urban planner. When it comes to the ways that each group's work preserves car dependency, it's a coin toss as to which is the least self-aware. Of course there are exceptions, but they're exceptions. The norm is to follow the established processes that lead to a life centered around personal automobiles.
The following (“Objective 10”) is a blurb from a large and affluent county’s planning policy. It’s not from a state highway agency, or a traffic engineering manual. It’s written, updated, and enforced by the planning department.
You’ll regularly hear planners swear that they’re powerless against the forces of DOTs and traffic engineers. So it’s important to understand what some of the key phrases in each section mean.
Objective 10
"operational efficiency" refers to Level of Service for motorized modes. Maximum throughput with minimal delay.
"for all modes" leads to treating car delay as just as important as pedestrian delay, leading to miserable walking conditions.
Policy a.
"increase capacity" means more car traffic. Take note of how they spell out examples of what makes more car traffic.
"avoiding negative impacts on pedestrians and bicyclists" is a lie. You either prioritize car traffic or you prioritize pedestrian and bicyclist safety. Any increase in capacity is a negative impact for people outside cars.
Policy b.
"efficiency of the arterial street network" is what you see in the image below. It looks like an interstate, but that's an arterial built for through travel, just like an interstate would be.
"preserve and enhance" means the planning department paves the way for more “efficient” arterial networks.
Policy c.
"promote accessibility" means more access for more people. Sounds great, and it would be possible to achieve if you're allowed to violate Objective 10, Policy a, and Policy b. (So what’s the point of those, right?)
Policy d.
"discourages through travel" is incompatible with Objective 10, Policy a, and Policy b. Either planners don't understand this or they ignore it. There are tons of examples in their county of how following their policies encourages through travel.
Planner, know thyself
Even if a traffic engineer had written the entire comprehensive plan, it's the planning department that publishes it, updates it, and enforces it. Any developer is referred to this guiding document. This is just one example of how planning departments preserve car dependency in America.
One last thing that I can’t resist sharing…
The county’s website says the planning department’s role is to "promote livable communities which enhance the quality of life for the present and the future." Just an incredible photo to unironically use as a banner.
Planners don't like you knowing that they're the ones insisting traffic engineers perform analysis that justifies road expansions. But, from the same policy document:
Aiming for "better" letter grades from a Level of Service analysis means more and faster car traffic. (Functional classification is another demon that I’ll write about some other time.)
This might all sound like a Doomer take, but it’s not. You need to be able to interpret infrastructure jargon to make a better case for good urbanism. Here’s a positive alternative to the status quo path: Plan for the future you want, not the future you think is inevitable.