PRISM ENGINEERING, SAFETY FIRST FOR TRAFFIC ENGINEERING & PLANNING
  • Home
  • SERVICES
    • SERVICES
    • EXPERT WITNESS
    • EXPERIENCE
    • Complete Streets EVOLVED >
      • Complete Streets
    • PROJECTS >
      • TRAFFIC ENGINEERING >
        • SAFETY FIRST focus at PRISM Engineering
        • Autonomous Road Design
    • TRANSPORTATION PLANNING >
      • Autonomous Transportation Planning
    • HSR Construction Inspection Experience
  • Contact
    • About
  • TRAFFIC FACTS
    • INTERNATIONAL TRAFFIC FACTS
    • CALIFORNIA HIGH SPEED RAIL TRAIN TO NOWHERE?
    • SAFETY FIRST Examples
    • PED DANGERS: Death by Subway and Death by UBER
    • Modern Roundabout Examples by PRISM Engineering
    • Death by NYC Subway: PED DANGERS
    • AUTONOMOUS VEHICLES in Traffic >
      • AUTONOMOUS CAR DISRUPTION
      • Autonomous UBER Fatal Accident
    • How About That BIKE COMMUTE?
    • NEWS
  • CHINA TRAFFIC 2018
    • CHINA TRAFFIC 2018
    • HSR High Speed Rail
    • CHINA BLOG
  • STUDIES
    • Watsonville CEIBA School Traffic and Safety Investigation
    • Pasadena 253 S Los Robles v2

Complete streets

california Complete Streets act of 2008: the specific content of the law (read it here)
Assembly Bill No. 1358
CHAPTER 657
An act to amend Sections 65040.2 and 65302 of the Government Code, relating to planning.
[Approved by Governor September 30, 2008. Filed with Secretary of State September 30, 2008.]
legislative counsel’s digest
AB 1358, Leno. Planning: circulation element: transportation.
(1) Existing law requires the legislative body of each county and city to adopt a comprehensive, long-term general plan for the physical development of the county or city with specified elements, including a circulation element consisting of the general location and extent of existing and proposed major thoroughfares, transportation routes, terminals, any military airports and ports, and other local public utilities and facilities, all correlated with the land use element of the plan.
This bill would require, commencing January 1, 2011, that the legislative body of a city or county, upon any substantive revision of the circulation element of the general plan, modify the circulation element to plan for a balanced, multimodal transportation network that meets the needs of all users of streets, roads, and highways, defined to include motorists, pedestrians, bicyclists, children, persons with disabilities, seniors, movers of commercial goods, and users of public transportation, in a manner that is
suitable to the rural, suburban, or urban context of the general plan.
By requiring new duties of local of
ficials, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program.
(2) Existing law establishes in the Office of the Governor the Office of Planning and Research with duties that include developing and adopting guidelines for the preparation of and content of mandatory elements required in city and county general plans.
This bill would require the office, commencing January 1, 2009, and no later than January 1, 2014, upon the next revision of these guidelines, to prepare or amend guidelines for a legislative body to accommodate the safe and convenient travel of users of streets, roads, and highways in a manner that is suitable to the rural, suburban, or urban context of the general plan, and in doing so to consider how appropriate accommodation varies depending on its transportation and land use context. It would authorize the office, in developing these guidelines, to consult with leading transportation experts, including, but not limited to, bicycle transportation planners, pedestrian planners, public transportation planners, local air quality management districts, and disability and senior mobility planners.
91
Ch. 657 — 2 --
(3) The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.
This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.
The people of the State of California do enact as follows:
SECTION 1. This act shall be known and may be cited as the California Complete Streets Act of 2008.
SEC. 2. The Legislature finds and declares all of the following:
(a) The California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, enacted as Chapter 488 of the Statutes of 2006, sets targets for the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions in California to slow the onset of human-induced climate change.
(b) The State Energy Resources Conservation and Development Commission has determined that transportation represents 41 percent of total greenhouse gas emissions in California.
(c) According to the United States Department of Transportation’s 2001 National Household Travel Survey, 41 percent of trips in urban areas nationwide are two miles or less in length, and 66 percent of urban trips that are one mile or less are made by automobile.
(d) Shifting the transportation mode share from single passenger cars to public transit, bicycling, and walking must be a significant part of short- and long-term planning goals if the state is to achieve the reduction in the number of vehicle miles traveled and in greenhouse gas emissions required by current law.
(e) Walking and bicycling provide the additional benefits of improving public health and reducing treatment costs for conditions associated with reduced physical activity including obesity, heart disease, lung disease, and diabetes. Medical costs associated with physical inactivity were estimated by the State Department of Health Care Services to be $28 billion in 2005.
(f) TheCaliforniaBlueprintforBicyclingandWalking,preparedpursuant to the Supplemental Report of the Budget Act of 2001, sets the goal of a 50 percent increase in bicycling and walking trips in California by 2010, and states that to achieve this goal, bicycling and walking must be considered in land use and community planning, and in all phases of transportation planning and project design.
(g) Inordertofulfillthecommitmenttoreducegreenhousegasemissions, make the most efficient use of urban land and transportation infrastructure, and improve public health by encouraging physical activity, transportation planners must find innovative ways to reduce vehicle miles traveled and to shift from short trips in the automobile to biking, walking, and use of public transit.
(h) It is the intent of the Legislature to require in the development of the circulation element of a local government’s general plan that the circulation
91
— 3 — Ch. 657
of users of streets, roads, and highways be accommodated in a manner suitable for the respective setting in rural, suburban, and urban contexts, and that users of streets, roads, and highways include bicyclists, children, persons with disabilities, motorists, movers of commercial goods, pedestrians, public transportation, and seniors.
SEC. 3. Section 65040.2 of the Government Code is amended to read:
65040.2. (a) In connection with its responsibilities under subdivision (l) of Section 65040, the office shall develop and adopt guidelines for the preparation of and the content of the mandatory elements required in city and county general plans by Article 5 (commencing with Section 65300) of Chapter 3. For purposes of this section, the guidelines prepared pursuant to Section 50459 of the Health and Safety Code shall be the guidelines for the housing element required by Section 65302. In the event that additional elements are hereafter required in city and county general plans by Article 5 (commencing with Section 65300) of Chapter 3, the office shall adopt guidelines for those elements within six months of the effective date of the legislation requiring those additional elements.
(b) The office may request from each state department and agency, as it deems appropriate, and the department or agency shall provide, technical assistance in readopting, amending, or repealing the guidelines.
(c) The guidelines shall be advisory to each city and county in order to provide assistance in preparing and maintaining their respective general plans.
(d) The guidelines shall contain the guidelines for addressing environmental justice matters developed pursuant to Section 65040.12.
(e) The guidelines shall contain advice including recommendations for best practices to allow for collaborative land use planning of adjacent civilian and military lands and facilities. The guidelines shall encourage enhanced land use compatibility between civilian lands and any adjacent or nearby military facilities through the examination of potential impacts upon one another.
(f) The guidelines shall contain advice for addressing the effects of civilian development on military readiness activities carried out on all of the following:
(1) Military installations.
(2) Military operating areas.
(3) Military training areas.
(4) Military training routes.
(5) Military airspace.
(6) Other territory adjacent to those installations and areas.
(g) By March 1, 2005, the guidelines shall contain advice, developed in

consultation with the Native American Heritage Commission, for consulting with California Native American tribes for all of the following:
(1) The preservation of, or the mitigation of impacts to, places, features, and objects described in Sections 5097.9 and 5097.993 of the Public Resources Code.
91
Ch. 657 — 4 --
(2) Procedures for identifying through the Native American Heritage Commission the appropriate California Native American tribes.
(3) Proceduresforcontinuingtoprotecttheconfidentialityofinformation concerning the specific identity, location, character, and use of those places, features, and objects.
(4) Procedurestofacilitatevoluntarylandownerparticipationtopreserve and protect the specific identity, location, character, and use of those places, features, and objects.
(h) Commencing January 1, 2009, but no later than January 1, 2014, upon the next revision of the guidelines pursuant to subdivision (i), the office shall prepare or amend guidelines for a legislative body to accommodate the safe and convenient travel of users of streets, roads, and highways in a manner that is suitable to the rural, suburban, or urban context of the general plan, pursuant to subdivision (b) of Section 65302.
(1) In developing guidelines, the office shall consider how appropriate accommodation varies depending on its transportation and land use context, including urban, suburban, or rural environments.
(2) Theofficemayconsultwithleadingtransportationexpertsincluding, but not limited to, bicycle transportation planners, pedestrian planners, public transportation planners, local air quality management districts, and disability and senior mobility planners.
(i) The office shall provide for regular review and revision of the guidelines established pursuant to this section.
SEC. 4. Section 65302 of the Government Code is amended to read:
65302. The general plan shall consist of a statement of development policies and shall include a diagram or diagrams and text setting forth objectives, principles, standards, and plan proposals. The plan shall include the following elements:
(a) A land use element that designates the proposed general distribution and general location and extent of the uses of the land for housing, business, industry, open space, including agriculture, natural resources, recreation, and enjoyment of scenic beauty, education, public buildings and grounds, solid and liquid waste disposal facilities, and other categories of public and private uses of land. The location and designation of the extent of the uses of the land for public and private uses shall consider the identification of land and natural resources pursuant to paragraph (3) of subdivision (d). The land use element shall include a statement of the standards of population density and building intensity recommended for the various districts and other territory covered by the plan. The land use element shall identify and annually review those areas covered by the plan that are subject to flooding identified by flood plain mapping prepared by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) or the Department of Water Resources. The land use element shall also do both of the following:
(1) Designate in a land use category that provides for timber production those parcels of real property zoned for timberland production pursuant to the California Timberland Productivity Act of 1982 (Chapter 6.7 (commencing with Section 51100) of Part 1 of Division 1 of Title 5).
91
— 5 — Ch. 657
(2) Consider the impact of new growth on military readiness activities carried out on military bases, installations, and operating and training areas, when proposing zoning ordinances or designating land uses covered by the general plan for land, or other territory adjacent to military facilities, or underlying designated military aviation routes and airspace.
(A) In determining the impact of new growth on military readiness activities, information provided by military facilities shall be considered. Cities and counties shall address military impacts based on information from the military and other sources.
(B) The following definitions govern this paragraph:
(i) 
“Military readiness activities” mean all of the following:
(I) Training, support, and operations that prepare the men and women

of the military for combat.
(II) Operation, maintenance, and security of any military installation. (III) Testing of military equipment, vehicles, weapons, and sensors for

proper operation or suitability for combat use.
(ii) 
“Militaryinstallation”meansabase,camp,post,station,yard,center,
homeport facility for any ship, or other activity under the jurisdiction of the United States Department of Defense as defined in paragraph (1) of subsection (e) of Section 2687 of Title 10 of the United States Code.
(b) (1) Acirculationelementconsistingofthegenerallocationandextent of existing and proposed major thoroughfares, transportation routes, terminals, any military airports and ports, and other local public utilities and facilities, all correlated with the land use element of the plan.
(2) (A) Commencing January 1, 2011, upon any substantive revision of the circulation element, the legislative body shall modify the circulation element to plan for a balanced, multimodal transportation network that meets the needs of all users of streets, roads, and highways for safe and convenient travel in a manner that is suitable to the rural, suburban, or urban context of the general plan.
(B) Forpurposesofthisparagraph,“usersofstreets,roads,andhighways” means bicyclists, children, persons with disabilities, motorists, movers of commercial goods, pedestrians, users of public transportation, and seniors.
(c) A housing element as provided in Article 10.6 (commencing with Section 65580).
(d) (1) A conservation element for the conservation, development, and utilization of natural resources including water and its hydraulic force, forests, soils, rivers and other waters, harbors, fisheries, wildlife, minerals, and other natural resources. The conservation element shall consider the effect of development within the jurisdiction, as described in the land use element, on natural resources located on public lands, including military installations. That portion of the conservation element including waters shall be developed in coordination with any countywide water agency and with all district and city agencies, including flood management, water conservation, or groundwater agencies that have developed, served, controlled, managed, or conserved water of any type for any purpose in the county or city for which the plan is prepared. Coordination shall include
91
Ch. 657 — 6 --
the discussion and evaluation of any water supply and demand information described in Section 65352.5, if that information has been submitted by the water agency to the city or county.
(2) The conservation element may also cover all of the following:
(A) The reclamation of land and waters.
(B) Prevention and control of the pollution of streams and other waters. (C) Regulation of the use of land in stream channels and other areas

required for the accomplishment of the conservation plan.
(D) Prevention, control, and correction of the erosion of soils, beaches,

and shores.
(E) Protection of watersheds.
(F) The location, quantity and quality of the rock, sand and gravel

resources.
(3) Upon the next revision of the housing element on or after January 1,

2009, the conservation element shall identify rivers, creeks, streams, flood corridors, riparian habitats, and land that may accommodate floodwater for purposes of groundwater recharge and stormwater management.
(e) An open-space element as provided in Article 10.5 (commencing with Section 65560).
(f) (1) A noise element that shall identify and appraise noise problems in the community. The noise element shall recognize the guidelines established by the Office of Noise Control and shall analyze and quantify, to the extent practicable, as determined by the legislative body, current and projected noise levels for all of the following sources:
(A) Highways and freeways.
(B) Primary arterials and major local streets.
(C) Passenger and freight on-line railroad operations and ground rapid

transit systems.
(D) Commercial,generalaviation,heliport,helistop,andmilitaryairport

operations, aircraft overflights, jet engine test stands, and all other ground facilities and maintenance functions related to airport operation.
(E) Local industrial plants, including, but not limited to, railroad classification yards.
(F) Other ground stationary noise sources, including, but not limited to, military installations, identified by local agencies as contributing to the community noise environment.
(2) Noise contours shall be shown for all of these sources and stated in terms of community noise equivalent level (CNEL) or day-night average level (Ldn). The noise contours shall be prepared on the basis of noise monitoring or following generally accepted noise modeling techniques for the various sources identified in paragraphs (1) to (6), inclusive.
(3) The noise contours shall be used as a guide for establishing a pattern of land uses in the land use element that minimizes the exposure of community residents to excessive noise.
(4) Thenoiseelementshallincludeimplementationmeasuresandpossible solutions that address existing and foreseeable noise problems, if any. The
91
— 7 — Ch. 657
adopted noise element shall serve as a guideline for compliance with the state’s noise insulation standards.
(g) (1) A safety element for the protection of the community from any unreasonable risks associated with the effects of seismically induced surface rupture, ground shaking, ground failure, tsunami, seiche, and dam failure; slope instability leading to mudslides and landslides; subsidence, liquefaction, and other seismic hazards identified pursuant to Chapter 7.8 (commencing with Section 2690) of Division 2 of the Public Resources Code, and other geologic hazards known to the legislative body; flooding; and wildland and urban fires. The safety element shall include mapping of known seismic and other geologic hazards. It shall also address evacuation routes, military installations, peakload water supply requirements, and minimum road widths and clearances around structures, as those items relate to identified fire and geologic hazards.
(2) The safety element, upon the next revision of the housing element on or after January 1, 2009, shall also do the following:
(A) Identify information regarding flood hazards, including, but not limited to, the following:
(i) Flood hazard zones. As used in this subdivision, “flood hazard zone” means an area subject to flooding that is delineated as either a special hazard area or an area of moderate or minimal hazard on an official flood insurance rate map issued by the Federal Emergency Management Agency. The identification of a flood hazard zone does not imply that areas outside the flood hazard zones or uses permitted within flood hazard zones will be free from flooding or flood damage.
(ii) National Flood Insurance Program maps published by FEMA.
(iii) Information about flood hazards that is available from the United States Army Corps of Engineers.
(iv) DesignatedfloodwaymapsthatareavailablefromtheCentralValley Flood Protection Board.
(v) Dam failure inundation maps prepared pursuant to Section 8589.5 that are available from the Office of Emergency Services.
(vi) Awareness Floodplain Mapping Program maps and 200-year flood plain maps that are or may be available from, or accepted by, the Department of Water Resources.
(vii) Maps of levee protection zones.
(viii) Areas subject to inundation in the event of the failure of project or nonproject levees or floodwalls.
(ix) Historicaldataonflooding,includinglocallypreparedmapsofareas that are subject to flooding, areas that are vulnerable to flooding after wildfires, and sites that have been repeatedly damaged by flooding.
(x) Existing and planned development in flood hazard zones, including structures, roads, utilities, and essential public facilities.
(xi) Local, state, and federal agencies with responsibility for flood protection, including special districts and local offices of emergency services. (B) Establishasetofcomprehensivegoals,policies,andobjectivesbased on the information identified pursuant to subparagraph (A), for the protection
91
Ch. 657 — 8 --
of the community from the unreasonable risks of flooding, including, but not limited to:
(i) Avoiding or minimizing the risks of flooding to new development.
(ii) Evaluating whether new development should be located in flood hazard zones, and identifying construction methods or other methods to minimize damage if new development is located in flood hazard zones.
(iii) Maintainingthestructuralandoperationalintegrityofessentialpublic facilities during flooding.
(iv) Locating, when feasible, new essential public facilities outside of flood hazard zones, including hospitals and health care facilities, emergency shelters, fire stations, emergency command centers, and emergency communications facilities or identifying construction methods or other methods to minimize damage if these facilities are located in flood hazard zones.
(v) Establishingcooperativeworkingrelationshipsamongpublicagencies with responsibility for flood protection.
(C) Establishasetoffeasibleimplementationmeasuresdesignedtocarry out the goals, policies, and objectives established pursuant to subparagraph (B).
(3) After the initial revision of the safety element pursuant to paragraph (2), upon each revision of the housing element, the planning agency shall review and, if necessary, revise the safety element to identify new information that was not available during the previous revision of the safety element.
(4) Citiesandcountiesthathavefloodplainmanagementordinancesthat have been approved by FEMA that substantially comply with this section, or have substantially equivalent provisions to this subdivision in their general plans, may use that information in the safety element to comply with this subdivision, and shall summarize and incorporate by reference into the safety element the other general plan provisions or the flood plain ordinance, specifically showing how each requirement of this subdivision has been met.
(5) Prior to the periodic review of its general plan and prior to preparing or revising its safety element, each city and county shall consult the California Geological Survey of the Department of Conservation, the Central Valley Flood Protection Board, if the city or county is located within the boundaries of the Sacramento and San Joaquin Drainage District, as set forth in Section 8501 of the Water Code, and the Office of Emergency Services for the purpose of including information known by and available to the department, the office, and the board required by this subdivision.
(6) To the extent that a county’s safety element is sufficiently detailed and contains appropriate policies and programs for adoption by a city, a city may adopt that portion of the county’s safety element that pertains to the city’s planning area in satisfaction of the requirement imposed by this subdivision.
SEC. 5. No reimbursement is required by this act pursuant to Section 6 of Article XIII B of the California Constitution because a local agency or
91
— 9 — Ch. 657
school district has the authority to levy service charges, fees, or assessments sufficient to pay for the program or level of service mandated by this act, within the meaning of Section 17556 of the Government Code.

Picture
Bikes have a GREEN LIGHT, but cars are allowed to still pass through and intimidate the bikes.  The police officer? She just watches and waves her hands around, but is a HUGE DISTRACTION to all drivers, and is ineffective to improve any safety.  In fact, as seen in the video to the right, she fails (see vid at 1:40).
Complete Streets is billed as a green solution that provides equal access for all modes of transportation, making room especially for pedestrians and bikes, giving them "right of way" spaces, but these efforts often end up being a mass of chaos and "accidents waiting to happen" with a myriad of near-misses.

       Just look at this New York chaos in action>>>

Watch this video, as this avid New York City bike rider films his adventure with GoPro cameras, and watch how many unsuspecting people he feels the need to LECTURE along the way to "get out" of the bike lane (he's right, technically, but what an uphill battle against very real pedestrian congestion... frankly? I think he expects way way too much right-of-way for cyclists in such a situation). Pedestrians have to give way once in a while. Is a cyclist the only mode of travel that doesn't have to give way?

​As bikes speed past cars that are opening their doors (next to bike lanes), taking their chances, should a cyclist expect that, someday, everybody will learn how to open a car door and check both directions before they do so?  That is wishful thinking IMO.  It will never happen.  Its just a POOR design to have bikes ride in spaces that are immediately adjacent to the opening of car doors and mixed with so many pedestrians crowded on sidewalks who have sought the bike lane for a temporary refuge.  

​Also, there are MANY locations where the bike lanes lead the bike rider into HARMS WAY!!  Just watch the video, and let me know what you think about riding a bike in New York.

TEST:  Is this a "complete" street?
or is it a Chaos Street?

A great experiment has been taking place throughout the world for a couple of decades now, to get people out of their cars and riding bikes or walking on the sidewalks.  Complete Streets is the common name given to the efforts to get this done. But is it a good idea to do this to busy streets?  Is it working? Are people getting out of their cars?  The answer is a resounding NO!  As more and more people choose to buy cars. In Los Angeles alone, 600,000 more people decided to drive in the last decade, and now there are 2,000,000 vehicles on the road there every day.  During the same time, 5000 more cyclists also joined the fray there.

Watch this video, and ask yourself, "Is this something that I would want to do?"  Would anyone want to enter the chaotic environment that is shown in this video?  Does this look like fun to you, to ride a bike in designated bike lanes, but to have those bike lanes completely overrun with construction issues, parking issues, wrong way traffic issues, pedestrians suddenly entering issues, it is a mass of confusion and accidents waiting to happen.  It may not be fatal accidents waiting to happen, but certainly very PAINFUL accidents waiting to happen.

There is a better solution than this.

Mixing all modes of traffic in such close proximity of each other is just a recipe for disaster and pain.  
It would be better to have NO bike lanes than to give the impression that these cyclists are safe, to give them that false impression, or to give pedestrians the same false sense of security when at any turn of their body they might walk right into the path of a 20 mph bike, and get extremely hurt / injured.
A great experiment has been taking place throughout the world, but especially in California, to get people out of their cars and riding bikes or walking on the sidewalks.   It sounds really nice, but in the United States...there is a very deep rooted car culture.  Level of Service (LOS) still matters.  
Drivers want LOS C or better conditions, but instead they are getting LOS F.  
Traffic Engineering has been villainized by some planners, but it is so much more relevant today, than ever before. Get people out of their cars?  How about take care of those cars instead? LOS matters.
     Watch to see what SB 743 in California has done to transform the state into a more congested traffic jam.

The California Complete Streets Act
(Assembly Bill No. 1358, CHAPTER 657, An act to amend Sections 65040.2 and 65302 of the Government Code), Requires Cities and Counties and Caltrans to have a transportation network that meets the needs of ALL users of streets, roads, and highways, defined to include:
MOTORISTS, PEDS, BIKES, etc.  Note that "MOTORISTS" are included in the law.  These can NOT be ignored.  The Level of Service on a road even for vehicles needs to "meet the need" as per state law.  General Plans need to reflect this.

Picture
The California COMPLETE STREETS ACT of 2008,
"requires that the legislative body of a city or county, upon any substantive revision of the circulation element of the general plan, modify the circulation element to plan for a BALANCED, MULTIMODAL transportation network that meets the needs of all users of streets, roads, and highways, de
fined to include:
1) motorists, 2) pedestrians, 3) bicyclists, 4) children, 5) persons with disabilities, 6) seniors, 7) movers of commercial goods, and 8) users of public transportation,
in a manner that is:
suitable to the rural, suburban, or urban context of the GENERAL PLAN."

Take note of this language.
  The law states specifically that the NEEDS of even MOTORISTS are to be included in the development of the circulation plan.  However, in so many cities this has not been the case, as the vehicle levels of service continue to plummet and the needs of drivers to avoid unnecessary delays has not been met.  In fact, they have been ignored in favor of only installing bike lanes and adding buses, with an over-sized budget to implement these changes, even when there is little demand for a full system of such modes of traffic.  For instance, some cities have taken away lanes from cars, making an already LOS E condition into a terrible LOS F condition, not meeting the needs of those drivers, and instead making room for a bike lane which ends up having a very small and limited use.  And the bike riders using such lanes still have to compete at street level with vehicles at every single signalized intersection, and the risk of accident and fatality has been steadily rising. Solutions are needed!  Traffic congestion can NOT be ignored any longer, and this is by a CA state mandate which is over a decade old.

The purpose of Complete Streets involves creatively developing a transportation system that provides safety and mobility for ALL users: peds, cars, bikes, transit, and trucks. There is no "one size fits all." It will be unique for nearly every different community or situation. It must be adaptive to meet specific needs and traffic demographics, and should be efficient and not unnecessarily inhibit vehicle flow (which leads to aggravated drivers).  Attention to safety is paramount.  The safety needs of pedestrians and cyclists is especially important. Seeking solutions where peds and vehicles do NOT directly mix is ideal.  When vehicles and peds mix at the street level, this is where the fatalities primarily occur.

Picture
PRISM Engineering's Grant Johnson, TE spent 2.5 years in China specializing in creating transportation designs and solutions based on Complete Streets concepts and guidelines. Because population density is very high in China, Complete Streets looks a little different than typical implementations in rural America, even in major urbanized cities.  The primary reason for this is because 90% of the population in China do not own a car.  Walking is key to most transportation systems that interface with the sidewalks including transit and subways.  In China, Grant worked on the design of new bus lines and station locations in a new town, using AutoCAD to draft Signing and Striping, Crosswalk locations, Parallel Parking and Bike Lane design, all using Complete Streets methodology.  In addition, he conceptually designed a transportation roundabout/hub with dedicated taxi and bus lanes inside the hub, interfacing with pedestrian walks and escalators serving subway lines beneath grade. 
CALTRANS defines Complete Streets as: a transportation facility that is planned, designed, operated, and maintained to provide safe mobility for all users, including bicyclists, pedestrians, transit vehicles, truckers, and motorists, appropriate to the function and context of the facility. Every complete street looks different, according to its context, community preferences, the types of road users, and their needs.

Complete streets, CHINA Style 中国风格 (HIGH density)

What does Complete Streets look like in china?
• LARGE PED BRIDGES
• VEHICLE BRIDGES & UNDERPASSES
• GRADE SEPARATION OF MODES
• TUNNELS
• GUARDRAILS
• FENCES
• SIDEWALKS

Grant Johnson visited CHINA (Chongqing) in Jan 2018 and observed traffic conditions of numerous facilities, and compared the traffic situation to American traffic.  In China, only 10% of the population in Chongqing actually own a vehicle. All others ride transit or taxi, or walk. 

By separating the various modes of traffic as shown in this video, the safety is improved.  PEDS cross the street on a high bridge with escalator access.  THRU vehicles pass under a major pedestrian block in a sunken tunnel to avoid conflict with thousands of pedestrians.  Subway stations interface with the pedestrian areas which are flanked by skyscrapers of stores and businesses.  Buses, taxis, trucks, and passenger cars share massive nine-lane roadways that carry as much traffic as a freeway, but are signal controlled at grade with other intersections. Capacity is nearly saturated.  Stop and go conditions exist in some areas.  Bikes are not accommodated in this case, but must share the same space as pedestrians (not practical to incorporate bike facilities in this case)

Complete Streets will need to EVOLVE

Complete Streets as it now stands is based on an old paradigm.  It is based on purely human interactions in a transportation system where all modes of traffic are mixed, but where specific engineering treatments to roadways design and traffic control are introduced to make the roadway or corridor more friendly and safer for pedestrians and those riding a bike.  In the past before Complete Streets was implemented in hundreds of locations around the USA and the world, vehicles were given priority in the road system and safety was compromised when there were careless or inattentive drivers behind the wheel.  Accidents were more severe because they happened at higher speeds.  Widen open roads were hard to cross by pedestrians, and also encouraged even faster speeds by drivers of vehicles.  Since roadways have been redesigned to slow cars, there have been some improvements to safety as the number of fatalities has not grown with traffic growth... yet it still hovers around 40,000 fatalities per year in the USA.  This is unacceptable and needs to change... but we are not able to achieve the VISION ZERO goals of eliminating fatality on the roadways. In fact, when Los Angeles implemented Complete Streets recently, the traffic fatalities in the City soared to 260 deaths in 2016, and significantly higher in 2017.  Complete Streets is not a fool proof concept, and it needs to be revisited with updates that take into consideration the real reasons that fatalities would still climb in say Los Angeles even when Complete Streets is implemented.  

The underlying cause of fatalities is not necessarily the road design. It is the HUMAN element.

As long as there are a subset of human drivers who are unprepared to drive safely, get distracted easily, speed or drive recklessly, take drugs or alcohol before they drive, then we will have fatalities on the road. I can speak from experience, I have not had an accident, let alone a fatal accident in all my life.  I probably like you, are not the problem. But we let just about anybody drive in this country and the simple testing process does not make everybody an equal driver.  Some drivers still look at the passenger while talking, rather than look at the road, always.  Complete Streets will never solve these kind of problems.  So what will?

The Opportunity for a real Solution is at the door.

Its here already, and will soon be accepted.  Autonomous Vehicles.  Ubiquitous in all cities. If we had that now, safety problem would be solved!
The answer is NOT and never was to "get everybody out of their cars."  In the USA, population is spread out as a nation, and density in population centers is relatively low.  In China, where most everybody lives in very populous urban cities with skyscrapers throughout as a default... these could more easily make drastic changes to lowering automobile use because they already have so many non-car alternatives in place in the form of walking on large sidewalks, taxi and mass transit systems, and subways, that altogether move 90% of the population (who do not own or drive a car). 

In the USA, transit systems only serve major cities, and then just do it satisfactorily (not great), but in the vast majority of small cities or unincorporated population centers transit is sorely lacking.  The population in the USA by far relies on the use of a personal automobile, since nearly everybody owns one. It is the long time culture and all of our planning and construction has been based on it. It is the fixed system that is not going to change much, because that would be too cost prohibitive and cause most people to move into skyscrapers, and they might not want to do that. They might prefer to live on a street, with a yard, and have a larger family, etc., play in the local park, etc.  

​Planners who contemplate the possibility that people could be lured out of their cars to embrace a new active lifestyle are not considering the masses that do not have this option, literally.  It is not reasonable to expect the masses (who do not already live in dense / populous urban cities like San Francisco, to move there, embrace a lifestyle without a personal car, use transit and ride bikes or walk and enjoy that lifestyle, because the transit and walking or even biking options are not available or practical.  Expensive cities where these things do now exist are truly beyond the purchasing power of most people. SF is very expensive for a reason, it is built out with many such options for walking, biking, and transit. Skyscrapers and density abound.    Outside of these large cities you have lifestyles and infrastructure that demand traveling much longer distances for even typical activities such as shopping, work, and school, and the automobile is the only practical mode of travel to accomplish these in reasonable times.  For example, I sometimes have meetings several hours by car from my home or office. It is not practical to consider riding a bike at 10 mph... it would take all day!  3 hours travel would increase to 18 hours, and I am not sure I would survive that.  Plus there are times to carry loads of specialized equipment or computers, that would not fit on a bike.  Living in China, however, it might be possible to get by with a rolling hand cart or suitcase, and ride a nearby transit systems that have just 5 minute headways, and get to a needed destination in the city.  For the most part the traveling time is similar to what can be done in a car that has to travel through congestion and parking is a nightmare to find it.  The only difference for the driver of a car there is they have air conditioning, and privacy in a private vehicle.  Phone calls on a bike or transit are also not practical.  Time is money.
Website Copy and Media © 2016-2023 b y Grant Johnson, PRISM Engineering
  • Home
  • SERVICES
    • SERVICES
    • EXPERT WITNESS
    • EXPERIENCE
    • Complete Streets EVOLVED >
      • Complete Streets
    • PROJECTS >
      • TRAFFIC ENGINEERING >
        • SAFETY FIRST focus at PRISM Engineering
        • Autonomous Road Design
    • TRANSPORTATION PLANNING >
      • Autonomous Transportation Planning
    • HSR Construction Inspection Experience
  • Contact
    • About
  • TRAFFIC FACTS
    • INTERNATIONAL TRAFFIC FACTS
    • CALIFORNIA HIGH SPEED RAIL TRAIN TO NOWHERE?
    • SAFETY FIRST Examples
    • PED DANGERS: Death by Subway and Death by UBER
    • Modern Roundabout Examples by PRISM Engineering
    • Death by NYC Subway: PED DANGERS
    • AUTONOMOUS VEHICLES in Traffic >
      • AUTONOMOUS CAR DISRUPTION
      • Autonomous UBER Fatal Accident
    • How About That BIKE COMMUTE?
    • NEWS
  • CHINA TRAFFIC 2018
    • CHINA TRAFFIC 2018
    • HSR High Speed Rail
    • CHINA BLOG
  • STUDIES
    • Watsonville CEIBA School Traffic and Safety Investigation
    • Pasadena 253 S Los Robles v2