Reflections From an Engineer on Advocacy for Transportation Reform

By on | 18 Comments

The Long Beach Convention Center, site of Pro Walk/Pro Bike: Pro Place 2012 / Photo: PPS

It is hard to believe that it has already been six weeks since we convened Pro Walk/Pro Bike: Pro Place 2012. The conference inspired a multitude of ideas, forged new partnerships, and reinforced existing ones. The tone was mostly upbeat; however, owing to the frustration of those who have been calling for change for years if not decades, sometimes the messaging took out their frustrations on engineers and transportation professionals.

Reprinted below (with permission) is an email sent to me by Bryan Jones, one of the professional engineers in attendance at the conference, expressing his concerns over how some of the advocates who spoke at PWPB Pro Place engaged in what I would call engineer-bashing. After spending 40 years as a transportation engineer myself, I empathize with Bryan (who works, for the record, as the Deputy Director of the City of Carlsbad, California’s Transportation Department). As an engineer, I too have often borne the brunt of folks frustrated with the direction of transportation over the last 50 years.  

I felt that Bryan’s email was worth sharing, not so much in an effort to defend my profession, but because I know that Bryan is 100% correct in pointing out that when advocacy unleashes harsh and personal rhetoric, it not only distracts us from the path to change, it deepens the barrier that we have to cross to engage the transportation for change. Bryan’s remarks about the reaction in some quarters to our disappointment with MAP-21 also resonated with me. Stomping our feet over what could or should have been will do no good.

I hope you will enjoy Bryan’s observations as much as I did.  –Gary Toth

 

—————————

Dear Gary;

I wanted to take a moment after Pro Walk/Pro Bike: Pro Place to share that I really enjoyed the conference. There were many great sessions and featured keynote speakers. For me, it was about connecting and reconnecting with people and fostering relationships. It was about hearing what others are doing in their organizations whether in advocacy, government, private business, or non-profits, at the local, regional, state, or national level. The 2012 organizers did a great job bringing the Pro Place theme into the conversations. I was fascinated and inspired by people from Project for Public Spaces like Fred & Ethan Kent, and advocates like Victor Dover. They brought a great new language and conversation to the Pro Walk/Pro Bike movement. Their messages resonated with me as their work results in creating streets, places, and communities where people want to be. And that means jobs, new businesses, and thriving and safe communities. The City of Long Beach and the host committee also did a fantastic job. Well done Charlie Gandy and team!

While the host committee reached out to organizations like the Institute for Transportation Engineers and AASHTO, there was an undertone throughout the conference that these organizations and their members along with a certain political party was to blame for society’s current problems. So the reach out was one step forward, but the undertone might have been two to five steps backwards. In fact, some of the speakers did not even make it an undertone. When speakers attack certain professions such as Traffic Engineering or political parties such as Republicans, it does not create partnerships or unity for a movement but furthers polarization and a greater divide. Most engineers at this conference felt unwelcome if they could not overcome or look past some of the speaker’s attacks.

The speakers were good, and their message could have been delivered without attacking or blaming. I heard it during keynote speeches and in break-out sessions. A good analogy would be a comedian’s or musician’s talents that get lost or unheard because of their curse language that prevents some from attending or listening. However, many of the speakers spoke to the choir and audience present rather than connecting with, welcoming, and reaching out to these new organizations which could be our partners now and in the future. In fact, I heard from many engineers that they felt unwelcome, which is definitely not a feeling we want them leaving with because we need them as partners and collaborators. I have been working closely with advocacy organizations for most of my career, and I feel my collaborative experiences with them have allowed me to be a better engineer and planner. I always encourage my colleagues in the engineering and planning professions to proactively engage advocacy organizations in a collaborative manner.

We can dwell on the perceived setback of MAP-21 and become victims. It is an easy position to take. However, our reality is in our thoughts and we can focus our thoughts on all the great successes that have been accomplished and how to foster more of these successes. We can focus on what we “CAN” do rather than what we “CAN’T” do. Blaming others or specific groups for our built environment accomplishes very little and, as I remember one of my mentors saying, when you point blame on others there are three fingers pointing back at you. We have to be careful throwing rocks in a glass house. We live in a democracy so our built environment is the responsibility of all of us…now and in the past and future. And it has caused unintended public health, environmental, and mobility costs to name just a few of the consequences.

I might suggest that we can focus on changing to a culture of Active Transportation by changing the language and conversations. We need to identify and LISTEN to what our allies’ and perceived enemies’ objectives are. We should not just be talking, but SHOWING how effective our alternatives are through implementation—even at a small scale—with consistency, which can build a lot of momentum. However this requires us to CONNECT PEOPLE. A title I might suggest for 2014–I heard this “connection” discussion in April Economides presentation about her team’s success in Long Beach with Bicycle Friendly Business Districts. She changed perceptions by changing the language and conversations with people that were against bikes. While her passion is green stuff, she understood the passion of many of the business owners was also “green” $tuff! She spoke with them about the pro$perity of welcoming bike riders into their business districts, and did a lot of listening to their concerns and objectives.

Just so you know a little about me, this was my first Pro Walk/Pro Bike conference…although I called it Pro Walk/Pro Bike: Pro Place. I  am a Traffic Engineer, but also a Professional Transportation Planner; a member of the American Institute of Certified Planners; a League-Certified Instructor from the League of American Bicyclists; an advocate for Bicyclists and Pedestrians; a Complete and Livable Streets Implementer; and a local government public administrator/ leader. I have also had success with implementing Complete and Livable Streets in two jurisdictions (Fresno and Carlsbad) that were fairly automobile-focused when I started in their organization and community.

Neither of these communities has really been on the radar of most in the nation, as we didn’t accomplish change through policies and processes but rather through leadership, making connections, fostering relationships, and focusing on results. A lot of the success in these communities has come from aligning projects with community values and partnering with others like regional MPO’s, advocacy organizations, public health organizations, and our local business community. These two jurisdictions also both happen to be fairly conservative in political climate, so this movement does not have to be about one political party against another. These two communities might be great examples to further explore how political support was gained from a political party that is perceived by many as the enemy or surpressor of progress in transportation.

In my advocacy, I take time to encourage, empower, and enable engineers and planners to be leaders by evaluating and questioning their standards, policies and process and to determine if these standards align with community values and result in the outcomes where people want to walk and bike. We need bold transportation professionals that bring ingenuity and creativity to our profession; the world is ever-changing, and our profession must keep up. I want to also encourage the Pro Walk/Pro Bike organization to continue to utilize those of us in the transportation profession that “get it” and are your allies. We can help bridge the gap and create and foster the necessary relationships and connections with our fellow colleagues that might be slow to adopt the new active transportation system.

We have seen the innovation that has occurred in the telecommunication industry over the last fifty years. It started out with community phones with operators, then private phones, rotary phones to digital push button to wireless. Later the cellular phone was invented and first came with a briefcase size battery and as innovation occurred in the batteries and technology we went through flip phones, phones with keyboards, phone with lots of buttons and we now have the popular iPhone with one button. We are all waiting to see what comes next to help us connect with each other.

We have also seen a change in perspective with storm water regulations in California from quantity to quality. What would it be like if we experienced a change in perspective with transportation from quantity (freeways and wide thoroughfares with expectations of Level of Service C and D for peak hours) to quality.

However, change does not occur as quickly anymore from the Federal or State government. They are too big and remote to serve the people very efficiently and effectively or change course quickly. I am a firm believer that building quality streets, neighborhoods and communities starts with local governments. 85% of Americans lives within these cities. So in 2014…Pro Walk, Pro Bike, Pro Place, PRO PEOPLE! We could even add Pro Business and Pro Jobs! Or Pro Prosperity! or as this article suggests Pro Community Thrive! Just some thoughts on how the messaging could be better received by potential partners of tomorrow that maybe perceived by some as enemies of the movement today.

 

Bryan D. Jones, TE, PTP, AICP, MPA
Deputy Director
City Traffic Engineer
Transportation Department
City of Carlsbad

Related posts

  1. If You Want New Solutions, Give The Problem-Solvers New Problems
  2. How Bicycling Advocacy is Changing Today: An Interview with Kit Keller
  3. After 30 Years of Bike/Ped Advocacy, How Far Have We Come?
  4. Early Bird Registration for Pro Walk / Pro Bike 2012: "Pro Place" is Now Open
Tagged with → • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •  

Keep your finger on the pulse–sign up for Placemaking News today! subscribe

  • Guest

    I couldn’t agree more as a civil servant (not an advocate) attending Pro Walk/Pro Bike.  I am also a avid work, recreational and errand biker and I’m (personally) an advocate for these two things outside of my professional work as well.  I care very much about both of these topics, and am a member of many of the organizations working on bike/ed issues.

    Like Bryan, I was really disappointed with some of the tone of the advocates in the room, who didn’t understand that decrying the present situation in harsh terms and cutting down organizations who you need as allies – not enemies – isn’t helping the movement. 

     It’s very, very easy to be an advocate, surround yourself with allies, and to choose the audience who you speak to.  It’s harder to work inside an public organization (federal, state, or local) and push the sort of change you’re espousing even if we believe in it.  It doesn’t mean it doesnt happen but it takes a lot more effort and careful relationship building.  Angry advocates can undo in minutes what we have spent months or years to build momentum for change internally.

  • http://www.richardcmoeur.com Richard C. Moeur

    I was Bryan’s co-presenter at our session at PWPB. The attendees at our session were interested, attentive, and polite, and the session went very well. No complaints there.

    But in the weeks afterward, I also thought about the same issues as Bryan did. I certainly had no illusions about this conference – after attending 5 of them (and being verbally attacked by the attendees at at least one), I know that PWPB is of, by, and for the activist and advocate community, unlike ITE, AASHTO, or other technical meetings.

    PPS/PWPB made very deliberate decisions in their choice of plenary & keynote speakers, and had a very good idea as to what they might be expected to say to such an audience. Some, like Jim Sayer, were excellent. But given this, I wasn’t very surprised at all to hear other high-profile speakers make extreme statements, such as laying the blame for our current situation directly on the shoulders of transportation engineering professionals, and that not providing certain facilities was a “human rights violation”. And the audience in general seemed to love every minute of it.

    PPS/PWPB is free to structure their conference any way they see fit, and 800+ attendees is certainly not a mark of failure. But if I was a mid-to-high-level manager at an agency or transportation organization, and I was aware of the overall tone and content of some of the presentations, it would likely affect decisions on whether to send staff to future iterations of this conference.

  • PWPB Planner

    Bryan is 100% correct, the caddy and prejudicial proclamations were counterproductive at best and consciously ignorant at worst.

    That said, you have to acknowledge reality.  Many of these advocates regularly experience small successes that prove hollow when megastructures insensitive to human scale and community context are pushed through the establishment anyway.

    I was personally accosted at PWPB by an engineer when I critiqued a supposedly “pedestrian friendly” interchange treatment for being ignorant to empirical observation of desire lines and the minimum turning radii of the human body.  This engineer pointed out that the design had to be the way it was because this was the safest design according to published standards.  But how can a design be safe if 9 out of 10 users will behave in a way entirely different than the design intent?

    There is a lot of personal and professional growth that all sides must undergo.

  • Guest

    I am following up my comment earlier and want to echo Richard’s thoughts.   It was a very well attended conference with some great content.  But if you are going to great lengths to make this conference a relevant meeting place for dialogue and for all transportation professionals, you have to cater to more than just activist advocates.  Again, that may be a deliberate choice by PPS and PWPB – but remember this is still a nascent movement, and growing movements need to be inclusive and willing to thoughtfully engage in dialogue, not shrill

    I was honestly pretty unhappy with the actions at some of the lunch and closing plenarys.  Inviting John Horsley (head of AASHTO) and then embarassing him on stage – someone who is a bike advocate but leads a state membership organization whose membership is still growing warmer to bike/ped.  It’s a hell of a lot harder for him to come to an conference like this than it is to have another feel good session by America Bikes or some other group.

    And a closing speaker who proposed a ridiculous platform that included statements like “WE NEED TO BUILD NO MORE NEW ROADS”.  That may have made for good audience dynamics in the PWPB attendees, but I looked around and saw anyone that didn’t work in advocacy shaking their head.  That plays well to your bike and ped advocates in your city, but try selling that to the average citizen. Or the City Council.  The city or state department of transportation. It’s not a moderate or a realistic viewpoint and it sends a lot of advocates down the wrong path by proposing a more extreme, than collaborative method of doing things.

  • Jason

    Politics aside, we are all professionals and we need to acknowledge our mistakes. It is a shame that some Engineers feel as though they have been personally attacked.  But I have been unfairly pressured, dismissed and obstructed too many times by Engineers to have much sympathy.  

  • Pingback: Reflections From an Engineer on Advocacy for Transportation Reform | keretterek

  • Guest

    Glad that Gary Toth published this letter, but I must say that ProBike-ProWalk is a meeting designed to help move forward in our thinking on biking and walking vs. spending a lot of time applauding ourselves.  So, it is important to discuss history and learn from it at these meetings.  There have been and still are barriers to improving conditions for biking and walking put up by some of these groups/organizations Bryan mentions.  That is just a fact. Instead of complaining about feeling unwelcomed or blamed, traffic engineers should be telling these people what they are doing today to improve things and accepting their feedback. Advocacy and civic engagement on any issue is positive in whatever form it takes. It educates us and broadens our discussions. We should welcome the opportunity to hear these refreshing perspectives with less defensiveness.

  • Guest2

    In a review of many advocacy materials and approaches, there’s a common theme of
    frustration and panicked urgency… and as a result with those tones, it often feels disingenuous and needlessly shrill. Should we make the conscious decision to 
    return to a “first things first” approach where relationships are made and
    nurtured, I believe that earnestness radiates out and helps reduce that sense of
    distrust that many people seem to have for public sector employees like city traffic engineers, planners, as well as, advocates.

    Starting out or nurturing a relationship does not need to include words or attacks that make people feel unwelcomed or blamed. That just closes peoples ears to listening and you lose your audience. That creates more walls and barriers rather than bridges to finding a solution. We do not need to rehash the past or what has not been done…but rather on the future and what we can do together. We should be highlighting the GREAT behaviors of those traffic engineers and transportation planners that “get it” and are doing great things. Celebrate it! Change the language, the converstations, and then the culture will follow.

    I would disagree that advocacy is positive no matter what form it takes. The form can lose a lot of credibility and confidence with those that can help facilitate the change. The messaging, communication, and relationships need to be strategic. Advocacy groups should read the book “Start with Why” by Simon Sinek and then figure out the “why” that they share with those they are seeking help from…speak their language or what matters to them and it is amazing the synergy that will result.

    As my mom used to say, you can catch a lot more flies with honey than vinegar. So if advocates really want to be heard and change to occur for the better, I would strongly encourage the use of honey.

  • Guest3

    There are a lot of engineers that “get it” and are working towards solutions. It took us over 70 years to get where we are today so the change throughout the nation will not occur over night. Start small and build up momentum. If we do not first succeed do not get discouraged but rather look for the opportunity of what can be done or agreed on and build up momentum. People naturally want to be part of success…so focus on the successes rather than the mistakes and people will gravitate to be part of the successful movement. Advocacy organizations should be highlighting those engineers and planners by name that “get it”…and helping tell their story and why, how, and what they have done.

    When we talk about people based on their “position” we are not talking about a person but rather labeling them with a title and often a stereotype. Get to know those engineers on a personal level. They are often people just like you that live, work, and play in your community. They too have families and want a quality community.

  • John_Schubert

    I did not attend this year’s Pro Bike, but I sent a trusted source.  From his report, I think Gary’s “reflections” are so diplomatically worded that many readers may miss the gravity of the underlying issues.
      As one anonymous commenter on this web page said, “it is important to discuss history and learn from it at these meetings.”  OK, so where was the presentation on the fact that “coffin corner” bike lanes and/or cycletracks (the mechanism of the collision is identical whether it’s a bike lane or a cycle track) have caused so many fatal truck/bicycle collisions?  The deaths this year of Kathryn Rickson in Portland and two schoolchildren in Copenhagen should convince any remotely objective observer that the earlier deaths of Bryce Lewis, Brett Jarolemek, Tracy Sparling, Alice Swanson, and many others were not just freak accidents — they were predictable in advance, and baked into the design.
      The hostility towards engineers (and towards anyone else who uses systematic failure analysis to learn from previous tragedies) is a sign of an extremist movement that has some serious problems.  As Richard Moeur said, government agencies have legitimate reason to be skeptical about using the public’s money to send their employees to a conference that smacks of purging dissidents, suppressing critical thought and demanding ideological purity.  (The green fingernail polish was an ironic touch.  Rickson died because she trusted a green bike lane.)
      For the record, I have been a speaker and a sponsor at other Pro bike conferences spanning three decades.
      – John Schubert, Limeport.org

  • PaoloDesigner

    I agree, all this bashing is not doing us any good.  Now, someone needs to make Fred Kent over at PPS understand that about his unchecked architect/professional designer bashing!

  • Bernie Paquette

    Advocate not Alienate. Agree. Works when trying to inspire people to maintain a litter free environment as well as promoting complete streets.

    Bernie Paquette
    S.B. Vermont
    http://litterwithastorytotell.blogspot.com/

  • dylanrivis

    As a cyclist who has seen how fellow bicycling humans are accomodated in countries such as Holland and Germany and compared that to the dismal, typically myopic, North American approach have a long established reservoir of anger. So you will have to endure my and others’ exercizing our right to express this anger first, before you preach the gospel of jollyness from on high, especially when it originates from someone who has a need to follow his name with a string of qualifications (e.g.TE, PTP, AICP, MPA ).Puffery does not belong here.

    In the USA we have a habit of starting from square one instead of seeking out long established protocols in other parts of the world, evaluating their successes and applying them to our particular situations.We prefer, self centred as we are, to stumble along and, inevitably achieve far from adequate results. I offer as one significant example, the use of industrial sized wind turbines for electricity generation when 30 years of experience in Germany has brought them around to the realization that this source of power generation cannot even come close to realizing the goals required. Any intelligent person or group subsequently trying to initiate a response to the climate change issue would be wise to use the end point of Germany’s experience as their starting point instead of which it is our arrogant choice to go back to the stone age and ‘re-invent the wheel.’ Pride is the issue here.

    The first thing the engineering community and politicians need to do is invite expression of the cycling community’s feelings without trying to water it down and, honestly and openly, they need to hear and acknowledge the anger and it’s sources. Otherwise what the political anfd engineering powers that be will end up imposing designs which do not necessarily meet the needs and aspirations of the cycling public.

    Listening to and hearing how we feel about our experiences is, categorically, critical. All I see in this letter is a wordy attempt to squash the real feelings of the cycling public so it feels comfortable for the engineers and politicians. Describing conferencees as ‘shrill’ is insulting. What needs to be recognized is the level of anger,fear and frustration we feel as cyclists, people with basically similar goals as other travellers yet who have to endure far from acceptable transportation environments, ones which we have little or no voice in establishing.

    I recently approached a local mall manager about having cycle racks available and was met with “We don’t have many people cycling to the mall !”. This in a situation where access to the mall is either legally banned or requires a lengthy, circuitous detour. His response reflects much of the present attitude to cycling as a means of transportation and subsequent need to make accomodations. Another mall, after being lobbied for years, provided an excellent bike rack for 5 bicycles (this in the middle of the city) and then proceeded to ignore/not monitor the problems that arose when emptied shopping carts continuously blocked access.

    Without belaboring the details, of which there are a multitude, all I am wishing to establish is that ‘A car is a machine used in transporting a human and so is a bicycle !”. However, there are glaring differences such as; from a global warming situation the bicycle takes a fraction of the resources to build ; the cycle is propelled without the requirement of fossil fuels; the cycle acts as a continuous agent in form of health-giving exercize; the cycle requires a comparitively limited amount of parking area and, this age old device is a delight to ride, allowing much freedom and flexibility when the circumstances allow.

    I urge future conferencees, both speakers to first encourage expression of what is driving these ‘shrill ‘ attendees and  to do some serious listening. Attendees from the cycling community need to keep raising their voices until they establish an equal footing. We will not and should not ‘come to the table’ until this is established.

  • Bruce Lierman

    Your last sentence indicates to me the difficulty of working with you as a force for change for cycling or any other issue.  You are at the table.  Being a cyclist does not grant you any special rights as a citizen, and certainly, neither does your anger.  Your anger is yours.  There is no reason to expect any elected official or other public figure to respond to it.  If you want to influence those who make decisions in a democracy, build a constituency and advocate for change.  It will happen at the ballot box, by the action of a respectfully vocal and well-supported group of advocates.  

    The public facilities we have are a manifestation of the multiple opinions and concepts represented in our body politic.  There are plenty of angry  people.  Some of them ride bicycles. Some of them drive pickup trucks.  No matter what the benefits of any particular mode of transportation or energy production may exist in the minds of individuals,  the only way to make those benefits manifest in public works is to convince the majority of voters that they are in their best interest.  All the rest, all the posturing, all the outrage, serve only the self-image of the individuals expressing them. 

    Our choices are to enter the public arena and make the best deal we can, or to go it alone and work what change we can by ourselves or with a cadre of like-minded individuals outside of the public, political arena.  Take your pick.  Except for your own motivation, I don’t think you’ll find your anger will do you much good in either venue.

    Bruce Lierman

  • Guest

    Bruce, regarding the comment about anger not doing much good, I would say it depends – Is dylanrivis an attorney or friends with an attorney?  Sometimes, as engineers, when we fail to hear the issues behind the anger, these things play out in the court instead of in our meetings like they should – no?  Surely as an engineer you have had this experience.

  • guest

    Wow dylanrivis before attacking Bryan because of his position as a transportation engineer/ planner or his qualifications (acronyms behind his name) I would encourage you to google what he has already done for bicyclists and pedestrians and what he continues to do for us. His accomplishments and experiences speak volumes and maybe we as advocates can learn from his ability to facilitate and lead change within local governments. Bryan is headed in the right direction and as advocates we should be supporting people in positions like Bryan’s that can help us actually make change occur. And maybe by working with people like Bryan that “Get It” we can demonstrate change through implementation and others in the engineering, planning, and elected official professions will follow. It is people in the public that attack government officials that make them risk adverse and less susceptable to change or innovation.

    I think you missed Bryan’s entire point. He was not saying that your feelings do not matter. Rather he was saying bringing anger and emotion to the table and attacking people has accomplished very little for those on the advocacy side that utilize that approach. And maybe we should be listening to him to identify strategic ways that actually work within our local governments to facilitate change and be heard. We are all part of the solution. Raising your voice or attacking others does not establish an equal footing. Treating people with respect and working to create a relationship with the person will often result in an equal footing and actually having some credibility to be heard.

    Bryan was recently appointed to the State of California Traffic Control Devices Committee, which oversees the CA MUTCD changes, as one of two new voting members representing bicycists and pedestrians of all ages and abilities. This is how new active transportation treatments that enhance the environment for bicyclists and pedestrians are approved. The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) working with the California Bicycle Coalition created these two new voting positions.

    Here are just some videos from both Fresno and Carlsbad that I easily found on the web.

    Carlsbad Livable Streets Youtube video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AS9VFpVWTB8
    Carlsbad Pedestrian Scramble Youtube Video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fvDpk7J2zY8&list=UUEpvrViEk8vH3AzLg5lEo8A&index=8&feature=plcp I BIKE FRESNO Biking = Joyhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=keeDi-2KUg0I BIKE FRESNO Revive your Bikehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=cZuem_B-L2sI BIKE FRESNO May is Bike Month Sponsorship videohttp://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=ohQfVJQ9a9A

  • Pingback: “We Are the Majority! The Cars Don’t Vote!” | Project for Public Spaces

  • ewastud

    I did not attend the PWPB conference, but I am a veteran civil servant and city planner who has heard many criticisms at public meetings regarding the actions/inactions and policies of the city in which I work, and even of my profession.  However harsh or crudely stated, I don’t take such criticisms personally and feel the need to be defensive as Bryan does.  To be so defensive and sensitive as that seems pretty silly to me.  Speaking from experience, most often, such criticisms and attacks, even if sometimes misplaced, have a good deal of merit.  

    We should accept the criticisms and use them constructively to agitate for change within our organizations and to educate and prod decision makers to make decisions that are truly in the best interest of the public rather than the most politically expedient decisions that satisfy perhaps certain special interest groups with a vested financial stake.  

    Irrespective of whatever good work that Bryan has personally been responsible for, the fact is that transportation engineers and planners have been largely dominated by the oil-automobile-highway construction lobby whose money really talks.  Generally speaking (now and historically), the transportation professionals have had very closed minds to other interests and concerns besides that aggressively influential (and very corrupt) lobby.  I find a great many engineers who have a very conservative mindset that only regards the established construction standards as valid for designing facilities, and has never considered re-looking at the basis of these “standards” and how well they actual serve all members of society.

    Look, for instance, at the bitter opposition of transportation professionals and municipal officials across America to the implementation of curb ramps and other design refinements needed for handicapped accessibility.  It took a protracted legal fight to finally make curb ramps ubiquitous across the country.  Unfortunately, all too often, only well-funded lawsuits make many transportation officials “get it.”  Curb ramps have not only been narrowly beneficial to persons in wheelchairs, but also parents pushing their children in strollers, delivery people and movers with hand trucks, as well as many other less ambulatory persons in the community.  

    Also, most importantly, we need to stop looking at the world only within the narrow confines of the boxes in which we categorize things.  We need to see the big picture, not just “transportation” as an end it itself.  Decisions made concerning the design of streets are not divorced from such concerns as global warming and pollution of our streams and oceans, for the design of streets impact them both.  The more we pave over the land with concrete and asphalt, the greater is the urban heat island effect and the more storm water carrying sediments and other pollutants is collected that needs to be dealt with.  We need to minimize the amount of pavement to what is really necessary.  

    The street infrastructure carrying motor vehicles should be decoupled from that carrying pedestrians and bicyclists.  There is no reason except close minded thinking causing us to put these together always within the same public right-of-way.  There is also little reason for the vehicular network from crossing paths with pedestrians and bicycles.  Through the intelligent use of dead-end streets and grade separation, especially where the terrain is to our advantage, we can design networks in which pedestrians and bicyclists can travel long, continuous paths without ever encountering an automobile.   We don’t have to re-invent the wheel even.  These solutions have already been employed successfully (such as the Greenbelt towns, and at Village Homes in Davis, California) before the transportation and planning professions seemed to forget about them.