When it comes to traffic signage, is less more?

That’s the issue taken up by Ed Wagner of Tulsa Alternative Transportation Examiner, who was baffled by a wave of confusing new signs in the parking lot of his place of employment. Wagner believes the proliferation of stop signs in Tulsa has resulted in drivers who pay them little attention, or drive faster between stops, making conditions more hazardous for pedestrians.

The idea of doing away with signage is not new, but Wagner stops short of advocating a Mondermanist approach. Here’s what he has in mind:

For most drivers, stop signs have become defacto yields. We should recognize this and simply replace them with true yield signs. I realize it wouldn’t help those kids stranded on a street corner, but that problem could be addressed by stationing a crossing guard there.

But is it right to change the signage in order to align our streets with people’s behavior? Or should we expect that behavior should conform to the existing signage? I’m thinking that by changing most stop signs to yields, we can give the remaining stop signs greater impact on driver’s behavior, in effect, gaining compliance by reducing their numbers. Frankly though, that’s a supposition which should be confirmed via testing.

Wagner also offers this tidbit on the double standard of the rolling stop: "There’s a perceptual difference for motorists who reduce speed from 25 mph down to 5 mph, and feel that consists of stopping. Yet a cyclist who slows from 15 mph to that same 5 mph is seen as a lawbreaker."

More from the Network today: Mobilizing the Region on the effort to use complete streets to curb childhood obesity in Kingston, New York; Streetsblog San Francisco on the prospect of lifting the four-year injunction on bike infrastructure; and Greater Greater Washington on a partial victory for streetcar supporters.

When I find myself complaining about city subway or bus service — while waiting too long for the bus or watching helplessly from one train as the one I need to transfer to leaves the station — I try to keep in mind that, maybe above all else, the relative ease of car-free mobility is the reason I live in New York. Jarrett Walker of Human Transit might say that, by having the choice to make my home in such a place, I have reached the self-actualization level on the Transit Hierarchy of Needs.

Drawing on a post from The Dead Horse Times, Walker explains that by applying Abraham Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs to public transportation, advocates might come to a better understanding of "what’s really important" when it comes to growing transit ridership while meeting the needs of those for whom transit is mostly a means to the most basic ends.

We transport planners are sometimes cast as narrow-minded because we obsess about travel time. But we obsess about it because human beings do. When an urbanist such as Patrick Condon suggests that I should want transit to be slower so that it will foster better communities, I sense a problem that Maslow’s pyramid might elucidate.

Where in Maslow’s pyramid would we locate our need for speed? You might argue that it depends on the purpose of travel, but the vast majority of our travel is about the three lowest levels of the pyramid. These levels — Physiological, Safety and Love/belonging — are what motivate us to work, and work is one of the great drivers of transit demand.

More directly, the anxious basic lower-level needs are why we often feel "we just need to get there." You’re waiting for a bus or train because you want to be home where it’s safe (Safety). Or you want to get home to your partner or child (Safety and Love/belonging). Or you’re hungry — a Physiological need.

When we engage in conversations about what makes a great city, or for that matter a good life, we have to remember that outside the sealed windows of our salon or charrette or network of likeminded blogs, most of our fellow citizens are working on more fundamental needs, and are motivated by those needs as they travel in the city. They’re buying food, or earning their rent money, or getting home to their families.

In a somewhat related post, Second Avenue Sagas fears that New York’s "new" digital subway signage is already 10 years behind. Also on the Network today: Twin City Sidewalks on how Sesame Street is a bad model for public space; DC Bike Examiner on instances when transit isn’t "green"; and Soap Box LA on the new era of cooperation between cyclists and LAPD.

On a recent drive along the Jersey shore, Andy found Route 35 packed with people, and the street ill-suited to accommodate them.

A 21-year-old pedestrian was killed at this Ocean City, NJ intersection in July. Locals say design changes are needed to prevent future casualties. Photo: pressofAtanticCity.com

Talk of pedestrian and bicycle traffic! It was everywhere and coming from every conceivable direction. This was particularly true in the Lavallette and Ortley Beach areas. Despite the volumes of bike and pedestrian traffic facilities for them were extremely minimal and often in poor condition. Bike lanes are nonexistent and even sidewalks were intermittent. Bicyclists came from every direction with only one of over a hundred having any lights even though it was completely dark by this time. Pedestrians were also hard to see, including ones making every effort to use the marked crosswalks. Local authorities did try to help pedestrians by placing construction barrels in the roadway to accent crosswalks but at night this seemed (to me at least) to cause more confusion.

With repairs coming soon at some point it is time for NJDOT to step up and come up with a Context Sensitive Solution for this highway that suits the needs of all roadway users and increases safety for all.

Traffic enforcement and equitable street design shouldn't be an either/or proposition, but what is the proper balance? Can citizens prod law enforcers and urban planners to work together to improve conditions for all road users? If so, where do we begin?

Also today, Transit Miami finds that Quito, Ecuador, is getting it right when it comes to people-friendly streetscaping, while UrbanCincy ponders the merits of signal timing in keeping speeds down. And WashCycle reports that Roanoke, Virginia, cyclists bulked up their bikes to illustrate how much street space is required for the average driver.

In Portland, fears of liability turned Safe Routes to School to "Safer Routes." Photo: BikePortland.org

"It’s pervasive throughout the country and we’re hearing about it more and more,” [Ping] said. The problem, according to Ping, is that many school principals and administrators feel that biking and walking to school is simply unsafe. They are concerned about being held liable for anything that happens during the trip to and/or from school.

In addition to studying the current scope of the problem, the Safe Routes National Partnership is putting together a team of legal experts who will craft a legal statement directed at school principals, outlining why improving biking and walking options will not increase their liability exposure. They hope the legal statement will also help allay the fears that lead to bike ban policies in the first place.

Though, as Ping points out, principals can't actually stop students from walking and biking, they can use their influence to discourage it. Administrators can also deny students a decent place to store their bikes during the school day. But if the issue is safety and liability, what about those high school parking lots?

Ping said one safe routes advocate he heard from countered a bike ban in their community by asking the principal whether or not he felt liable for kids who drive to school. “That’s a great way to push back on this idea.”

In a somewhat related post featured on the Network today, Car Free With Kids sings the praises of raising a toddler on transit. Also: The Overhead Wire notes light rail progress in Houston, while Streetsblog LA finds controversy over one Metro rail line; Gateway Streets maps "desire paths" in St. Louis's Forest Park; and NY Examiner analyzes another case of motorist-on-cyclist violence, this time in Staten Island.

In response to the President's State of the Union Address in February, Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal (R) criticized the stimulus, arguing that it was "larded with wasteful spending." He pointed to the $8 billion devoted to high-speed rail as a specifically unnecessary expenditure. It became clear at that moment that the road to an improved American transportation system would not be a straight shot. How will the members of the Senate react when they are forced to consider expanding the federal commitment to transportation? That's what this Transport Index is intended to anticipate.

The health reform debate of the last several weeks has made evident the fact that Republicans in Congress will be able to rile up an intimidating opposition to legislation proposed by the Democratic Party. Though Democrats have 60 seats in the Senate -- a number that is large enough to vote down a potentially fatal filibuster -- the sudden arrival of thousands of right-wing demonstrators on scene at town hall meetings has slowed down and problematized the passage of any legislation.

Would Republicans stage a similar temper tantrum if the Congress embarked on a massive transportation program? It's unclear, but Mr. Jindal's reaction in February indicates that it's a distinct possibility.

What do you think of this ranking system? Can Democratic senators from Montana, North Dakota, and Arkansas be counted on to support a bill that invests in urban transit?

More on the Network: Hard Drive details how a bike shop owner in Portland, Oregon has instituted his own Cash for Clunkers program; Urban Review STL looks at how towns are messing up Main Street; Copenhagenize anticipates the arrival of "bicycle superhighways"; and Plan Philly reports on a city plan to speed bus travel.

Photo: TITIG/Flickr

The report is brief but it does a great job pointing to the economic/health benefits of bicycling while dispelling myths commonly used to oppose bicycle infrastructure investments. For example a study of bike lanes on Bloor St. in Toronto concluded that the addition of bike lanes would be unlikely to harm local business and predicted that commercial activity on the street would likely increase. Three-quarters of merchants surveyed on the street believed that business activity would improve or stay the same if a bike lane replaced half of the on-street parking.

You can find the LAB report, with plenty of U.S. success stories, here. If there is a downside to this bit of positive economic news, it could be that in one of America's most hospitable cycling towns -- Portland, Oregon -- would-be pedalers may have a tough time finding an affordable starter ride. Cash for beater bikes, anyone?

In other news, Smart City Memphis laments that city's refusal to abandon sprawl-inducing land use patterns; Second Avenue Sagas delves into this week's New York subway station ceiling collapse; Streetsblog San Francisco offers analysis on the potential positive effect of the transit strike near miss; and Cycling Solution reports on livable streets improvements in Budapest, Hungary.

(Photo: Columbus Dispatch)

Even if all the statements are true, I didn’t like the tone of the article. It seemed like pedestrians were being blamed for their own deaths. One might think that the driver of a vehicle capable of killing someone might be held responsible for hitting people in the roadway at least some of the time.

Xing Columbus wonders if local police have data to back up their claims, as none was cited in the article. An August 13 editorial in the Sacramento Bee, however, points to a study from the UC Berkeley Traffic Safety Center showing that "more than 80 percent of crosswalk collisions are related to driver behavior."

So some skepticism is in order when drivers say, "the pedestrian ran (darted, dashed) in front of me" or "came out of nowhere" -- especially when the pedestrian is unconscious (or dead), and there are no witnesses at the scene.

Regardless of statistics, the prevailing sentiment seems to be that, by inserting themselves into the domain of cars and drivers, pedestrians and cyclists are asking for it.

Not that further proof is needed, but if you really want to get worked up, have a look at the comments on a weekend pedestrian fatality in Athens, Georgia. As friends of the victim expressed their condolences to his family, one Athens Banner-Herald reader wrote:

Why is it that everyone can show sympathy to the person who caused the accident but no one seems concerned with the real victim in all of this -- the driver who had to watch someone basically commit suicide on the front bumper of his vehicle? My heart goes out to that driver. That must have been a horrible situation to be forced into.

Also today: Streetsblog San Francisco reports that the looming BART strike was averted over the weekend; The Wash Cycle has an update on what was once called "The Stupidest Bike Lane in America"; and Bike Portland marks another successful Sunday Parkways event.

Global devastation: Not as catchy as "Billie Jean."

There is little about the world we live in and rely upon today that will be familiar or viable in that world just 90 years from now. Water, agriculture, land use, species -- our survivability -- will be in a totally different territory. Really, not just metaphorically.

We need this reality to get at least as much attention as Michael Jackson's death. It should motivate more tweets, more street action, more conversations, more pondering about what life means, makes it worth living, legacies, life potential, and the fate of offspring.

If MJ's death motivated to you spend 4 minutes listening to a song you wouldn't have listened to last week, then email your Senators and tell them the climate change bill before them is far too weak and too slow. Tell them that you'll willing to commit more than $175/year by 2020 in high energy prices (the impact of the House version of the bill), and then start talking with everyone you know.

Also today: Second Avenue Sagas questions the relevance of New York's Straphangers Campaign; DC Bike Examiner wonders if motorist-cyclist conflicts are over-hyped; Carfree Chicago hopes for a transportation commissioner who gets it; and Bicycle Fixation applauds an effort in the UK to encourage cycling among rail passengers.

Photo: Jennifer Aaron

The best quotes from Haddon’s articles are from those who say they will turn to their cars. “Now I know what I’m going to do next week. I’m going to pull out the car,” Angela Pacheco of Brooklyn said, because the 30-Day Unlimited Ride is going up the cost of a whopping three gallons of gas. Another rider in another Haddon piece echoed Pacheco. “Might as well get a car,” Marcia Roberts, a Queens resident, said.

This is the attitude that explains why our mass transit system doesn’t have political support. This is why people are going to be fighting with MTA employees over the new fares. This is why politicians refuse to toll the East River bridges, refuse to allow the city to implement camera-enforced bus lanes. This is why the agency that runs our subway system -- a system that transports over 5.2 million people per day -- is struggling to keep it in a state of good repair.

On the eve of yet another fare hike, transit advocates have themselves to blame. We haven’t united behind the proper message; we haven’t overcome a powerful auto lobby; and we haven’t made our voices heard by those who hold the purse strings. One day, that will change. For now, we’re left with higher fares and a transit authority on life support.

All of which begs the question: If New York City doesn't recognize the value of a healthy transit system, who will serve as the much-needed role model for the rest of the country?

In happier Network news, Streetsblog San Francisco reports progress toward lifting the bike infrastructure injunction. Meanwhile, World Streets talks up shared public spaces, Hard Drive advises a reader on motorcycle noise, and Bike Portland bids farewell to Michael Jackson with -- what else? -- a bike ride. 

Riding prohibited signs abound in Georgetown.

Do such signs work? Rarely have I actually seen a cyclist abide by a dismount sign, though that's not to say they don't guilt riders into somewhat safer cycling habits. I certainly feel compelled to at least slow down when passing such signs. However, there are also plenty of riders chafing at the new signs.

A colleague of mine, a competitive mountain rider, shared her exasperation about the signs after a pedestrian chewed her out for not dismounting -- as a sign instructed -- near a bridge on the Mount Vernon bike trail. "The signs probably caused -- or at least exacerbated -- the problem," she said. "We’ve become overly concerned about safety, and we’ve forgotten that what we really need on the bike paths [is] for people to exercise good judgment."

Voiland goes on to cite the late Hans Monderman, who believed that traffic signs often do more harm than good. Are common bike-ped spaces appropriate laboratories for further testing this theory?

Also today: Tuscon Bike Lawyer describes how local police add insult, and then some, to cyclist injury; Grist admonishes the media for soft-pedaling on climate change; a guest blogger on the N Judah Chronicles extols the communal virtues of San Francisco's MUNI; and BLDG Blog argues that transit product placement is a steal.

While President Barack Obama promoted wind power and cap-and-trade legislation, VP Joe Biden spent Earth Day talking up transit. Public radio's "The Takeaway" reports that Biden held a presser at a bus maintenance facility in Landover, Maryland, to tout a $300 million investment in hybrid buses and other municipal vehicles as part of the federal stimulus package. Said Biden:

This program, the Clean Cities program, is in its 15th year. Already it's saved two billion gallons of petroleum used since its inception. And now, it's time to ramp it up. Ramp it up in a big way. We know it works.

As reporter Andrea Bernstein points out, this is not breaking news. What's interesting, she says, is the seemingly intensifying focus of the White House on transit as the fight over the next round of federal transportation spending approaches.

I would say that up to now there has been mostly disappointment among people who care about mass transit in the Obama administration. People felt that the recovery act only had $8 billion dollars, now that's $8 billion but it's $8 billion out of $800 billion, so that's 1% and that's all the money for transit, and they were saying that isn't enough money, it doesn't show a real commitment, you can't really change things with that.

So when they begin to see the administration talking about high speed rail, when they begin to see the administration talking about mass transit going as Joe Biden did yesterday to a transit station for his Earth Day thing, they're thinking ok, so maybe this administration is going to put serious muscle behind this. As a reauthorization fight comes up, speaking to a lobbyist from NRDC who has expressed great disappointment up to now, and he said you know, I think things may be beginning to turn.

So what do you think? Are you seeing evidence of an emerging, pro-transit agenda from DC these days? Could Biden's enthusiasm over buses and Ray LaHood's cyclist pledge be part and parcel of a preemptive push to shake up the asphalt-loaded federal funding formula -- or is the admin simply playing to an attention-starved constituency?

As livable streets advocates work to make headway in breaking the cycle of American auto dependence, the folks at Planetizen have put together a video narrative that explains how we got here. "The Story of Sprawl," a double DVD set produced by Managing Editor Tim Halbur, is a compilation of historical films dating from 1939 to 1965, documenting the confluence of factors that fostered the quintessential land use motif of the 20th century: far-flung, low-density, driving-intensive residential and commercial development. The discs include commentary from planning notables including Andrés Duany, Elizabeth Plater-Zyberk, John Norquist, Neal Peirce, James Howard Kunstler and Robert Cervero, featured in the clip above.

"The Story of Sprawl" is available now. Check the Planetizen promo page for more clips and ordering info.

Traffic in Delhi and Atlanta. Notice which scene also includes bikes. Photos: Ri Co Fo To and silvrayn via Flickr

As with many other issues, the world will expect America's "talk" -- say, urging China and India not to become auto-centric -- to be accompanied by "walk," at home. That, unfortunately, despite early glimmers of hope, is not happening. The stimulus bill has allocated about 8 billion dollars to transit, compared with 30 billion to highways. This is roughly in keeping with the traditional 80/20 split of federal transportation funds that have been enshrined since the Eisenhower days. If we are to get serious about halting climate-change, this split will also have to change.

Dutta cites Japanese and European models -- "Make cars, buy cars, just don't drive them all the time." -- as potential templates for India and other developing economies, so long as they, too, make adequate investments in public transportation.

The same could be said of the U.S., where the average citizen consumes 25 times as much energy as the average Indian. Dutta suggests America will need to commit to a long-term, "multi-generational" approach to transit development if it wants the kind of results already evident in its most urbanized cities.

The average Texan consumes approximately 500 million BTU per year, about six to seven times that consumed by a resident of New York City or San Francisco. The difference largely results from level of dependence on the automobile. Metropolitan regions where many people travel by public transportation (or by bicycles or on foot) are inherently more carbon-efficient than places that rely almost exclusively on automobiles, which is to say, most of the United States.

Photo: bondidwhat/Flickr

According to the Times, the Schumer-Israel bill -- the Accelerated Retirement of Inefficient Vehicles Act (ARIVA) -- is superior to an alternative proposal from Rep. Betty Sutton of Ohio, whose Consumer Assistance to Recycle and Save Act (CARS) would authorize up to $5,000 in vouchers to drivers who swap their old cars for "new ones that are assembled in the United States and carry a minimum fuel-efficiency rating of 27 m.p.g." Beginning in 2010, Sutton's bill would offer $7,500 toward domestic hybrid models averaging 100 mpg or more.

The Obama administration likes the "cash for clunkers" concept. CARS has the backing of the UAW and, not surprisingly, is favored by Detroit. "But because more than half the cars in showrooms today already meet the 27 m.p.g. standard set by the bill," write the editors of the Times, "the measure would provide fewer environmental benefits than the more ambitious Schumer-Israel proposal." ARIVA, on the other hand, would "guarantee considerable oil savings and significant reductions in carbon dioxide."

Or not. In a recent New Yorker article, David Owen sums up the argument against a CAFE-based cure-all.

If doubling the cost of gas gives drivers an environmentally valuable incentive to drive less -- the recent oil-price spike pushed down consumption and vehicle miles travelled, stimulated investment in renewable energy, increased public transit ridership, and killed the Hummer -- then doubling the efficiency of cars makes that incentive disappear. Getting more miles to the gallon is of no benefit to the environment if it leads to an increase in driving -- and the response of drivers to decreases in the cost of driving is to drive more. Increases in fuel efficiency could be bad for the environment unless they’re accompanied by powerful disincentives that force drivers to find alternatives to hundred-mile commutes.

It isn't mentioned in the Times editorial, but each "cash for clunkers" bill does in fact offer incentives for drivers to leave their cars behind -- sort of. Both CARS and ARIVA would give drivers the option of trading their personal wheels for transit vouchers, but the payout is limited to $3,000.

While such measures could conceivably entice urbanites in transit-rich environments, despite being shortchanged, to give up their cars altogether, what impact might a popular federal "cash for clunkers" program have on the rest of the country? And if the goal is to reduce fossil fuel consumption, why on earth would the transit benefit be $2,000 less than that granted to the new car buyer?

As for our auto industry, everyone recognizes that years of bad decision-making and a global recession have pushed our automakers to the brink. We should not, and will not, protect them from their own bad practices. But we are committed to the goal of a re-tooled, re-imagined auto industry that can compete and win. Millions of jobs depend on it. Scores of communities depend on it. And I believe the nation that invented the automobile cannot walk away from it.

With energy policy at the top of his agenda, the president pledged investment in solar and wind power, biofuels, "clean coal," and "more fuel-efficient cars and trucks built right here in America."

If indeed there are serious plans to include municipal mass transit -- which millions of working Americans also depend on -- as part of the mix, Obama is playing it close to the vest. Public transportation was mentioned only once during last night's speech. Along with "jobs rebuilding our roads and bridges," the president said Americans would be put to work by "expanding mass transit."

What did you think of the speech, particularly in light of the hit-and-miss stimulus package? Do you remain hopeful that Obama "gets it" when it comes to the value of public transportation in reducing oil dependence and fostering sustainable communities, or is his seemingly unflagging commitment to propping up Detroit too much?

Finally, is it true that Americans can't "walk away" from the automobile? This may be a valid point. Our obesity epidemic and general lack of sidewalks make it pretty tough to walk away from anything.

Oberstar's office says the cuts were the product of the House speaker's office, the Senate majority leader, and the Obama transition team. "How those decisions were made, I don't know," Jim Berard, communications director for the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, told Grist. "It's disappointing that our recommendation was not accepted on the whole, but at the same time we got a good deal for transportation infrastructure and we want to keep the momentum going for this bill."

Opinion varies on what constitutes "a good deal for transportation infrastructure" at this moment in our nation's history. (Grist notes that there is some $50 billion in "shovel-ready" transit projects currently in the queue.) But why would a self-professed pro-urban, pro-transit, anti-oil dependence admin pull the plug on the progressive portion of this transportation spending proposal? Why would a speaker who represents downtown San Francisco go along with it?

There is speculation that Obama economic adviser Larry Summers opposed the Oberstar plan, while others think the new admin wants to reevaluate spending formulas in this year's TEA authorization, allowing an increase in transit funding that could be invested in a more deliberate, effective way -- and over a sustained period of time.

Of course, the same care could also be taken before throwing $30 billion at nebulous highway projects. 

Not to be outdone, the road-building lobbyists at the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) have launched their campaign to influence federal transportation spending priorities over the next year, including the 2009 TEA package.

Last week, while encouraging team Obama to incorporate highway construction into its economic stimulus plan, AASHTO rolled out IToldThePresident.org, a web site that invites the public to submit written and video comments on what the president-elect and Congress "need to know to take action to improve transportation."

Courtesy of trucking trade pub FleetOwner, here's what AASHTO has in mind:

At the heart of the group’s effort is a call for $545 billion worth of transportation infrastructure investment from 2010 through 2015 for highways ($375 billion), transit ($93 billion), freight movement ($42 billion, largely from sources outside the Highway Trust Fund), and intercity passenger rail ($35 billion).

As of this writing the AASHTO site has at least one video from a public transportation commuter, and a scan of written comments turned up a good number of pro-transit arguments. Let's keep 'em coming.

In November 2006, Danish planner Jan Gehl met Streetsblog Publisher Mark Gorton in Times Square to reflect on the state of the city's public spaces. In this Streetfilm by Clarence Eckerson, EIC Aaron Naparstek catches up with Gehl in the new Madison Square to talk about what has changed in the intervening two years, and what can still be done to make New York a world-class pedestrian city.

Streetcar-served TOD in Dallas, TX

Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) grew popular in the 1980s and 1990s as a response to suburban sprawl and a means of regenerating economic growth in central cities. The development is likely to include housing and/or offices as well as retail stores. A TOD also usually has relatively easy access for people on foot and bikes, while cars and other vehicles are discouraged from parking too close to the station. As a result, TODs are often friendlier to pedestrians and bicyclists than other forms of land development, and they encourage people to ride trains and buses rather than drive. The concept was slow to take off in the United States, but has gained strength in the first decade of the 21st century as fuel costs rise and traffic causes many Americans to rethink where they want to live and work.

Despite evidence that "drive 'til you qualify" sprawl presents an unsustainable drain on financial and natural resources, planners have been reluctant to abandon it. Even in relatively transit-rich metro NYC, TOD has been slow to catch on beyond the realm of private-sector advocacy, though recent remarks indicate the concept is at least on the radar of state-level officials in Connecticut and New York.

Photo: RACTOD/Flickr

Residents of all ages, electeds and planner-about-town Jan Gehl gathered at PS 87 last Thursday to mark the launch of "Blueprint for the Upper West Side: A Roadmap for Truly Livable Streets." A year-long community-based project of the Upper West Side Streets Renaissance campaign, the Blueprint [PDF], as its name implies, offers a detailed vision of street designs intended to improve safety, access and mobility for the car-free majority. Streetfilms' Robin Urban Smith was there and filed this report.