Thinking Backwards

Earlier today, I sat down with city staff to discuss the finer points of a project. A project that is purported to improve access to a local high school, mind you. At one point, the conversation over one proposed piece went something like this:

City engineer: …the EIR [that was done when the school was built]  wasn’t adequate, so now we have to go back in and add more capacity so that traffic can keep moving.

Me: Right, but right now, a lot of kids walk to school. What is proposed will be bad for pedestrians because of the wider distance to cross and multiple threats.

CE: But we have to think about the motorists and do something to improve the LOS. [Not anymore!] We can use signals to control the multiple threat situations.

Me: Okay, well then at least put in pedestrian refuge islands.

CE: Hmmm, not sure if those will fit.

Me: Well, how wide are the lanes?

CE (looks at drawings): One is 12′, one is 11′.

Me: How about we just chop say a foot off of each of those, then?

CE: But then that make things tight and slows traffic down.

Me: Good!

CE: But then people won’t be able to get through there fast.

Me: Good! This is after all a school zone, they shouldn’t be driving fast anyway.

Is it really too much to ask that we think of the children first and the motorists second?

Advertisements

Is that how you feel?

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s