City's plan is skewed against traffic-calming initiatives City's plan is skewed against traffic-calming initiatives (May 05, 2004)

By Ross Wilson

Menlo Park is compiling a neighborhood traffic management plan intended to formalize the traffic mitigation process. Lamentably, although it masquerades as a plan to foster neighborhood participation, it is severely skewed against traffic-calming activity.

The plan requires a 60 percent vote even to initiate a traffic study, and non-responder votes are counted as against, rather than being ignored. Allegedly, this abrogation of democratic process will prevent the community from being steamrolled by traffic-calming activists - a paradoxical claim in light of the high educational level of our population, the fact that citizens in a democracy must participate if they wish to be heard, and the fact that opposition to traffic-calming is itself well-organized and vocal.

Simultaneously, the proposed plan requires 100 percent approval of residents within 100 feet of traffic devices. The specter of tyranny of the minority is thus invoked to discourage traffic studies, but is embraced whenever it lessens the likelihood of adoption of a traffic-mitigation program.

The plan forbids use of partial or full street closures and one-way conversions except in last resort, and then only to mitigate egregious safety-related problems. Yet, flow modification is a key component of modern urban neighborhood design, which strives to insulate residential communities from high cut-through traffic volume; Menlo Park's Vintage Oaks neighborhood is an example of planning that discourages ingress and egress of non-local traffic.

The remark is constantly heard that aging housing stock should be upgraded; why not also upgrade antiquated roadway formats to make the surrounding neighborhoods more livable?

Of course, means other than closures can be employed to reduce cut-through traffic: one can require cut-through drivers to run a gauntlet of street furniture so onerous that all but the most obstinate commuter would be deterred. But at what cost to the city and what inconvenience to residents? It should be a maxim of any plan that an open toolbox be maintained and tailored to the neighborhood being served, and that calming measures be chosen simultaneously to have minimum effect on residents and maximum deterrence to cut-through traffic.

The present traffic management policy is gravely flawed. Up to now, public participation in the review process has been strictly pro-forma, and no meaningful changes have been made despite considerable testimony highlighting the plan's deficiencies. Significant alterations are needed to ensure that the final policy embodies a balanced approach. Failure to do so will only perpetuate divisiveness and do nothing to arrest the descent of our local streets into raucous free-for-alls.

Ross Wilson lives on Woodland Avenue in Menlo Park and has been active on traffic mattres.

E-mail a friend a link to this story.