And no, when it talks about LOS it talks about it for everyone without separating the modes. If LA would adopt that, we’d be on our way…

You may want to update your post. Caltrans has officially adopted the updated Deputy Directive 64. The updated directive now includes more “teeth,” if you will, and specifically includes provisions for Complete Streets.

While we are aware that is just a policy, part of the directive requires us to develop an implementation plan, which we’ve already been working on for several months in anticipation of the adopted policy. That is the area where our policies will actually become part of plans and programs.

The updated policy is located here: http://admin.dot.ca.gov/bfams/deputydirectives/Internal/dd_64_r1_signed.pdf Let me know if you have problems accessing it.

Eric Fredericks
Caltrans

The legislative counsel’s digest (on the first page) indicates that the standards for “complete” streets will have to be crafted by the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research. This agency will have to craft guidelines that can be acted upon by the legislature (between January 2009 to 2014), because this law has no teeth.

We’re left with the legally vague “in a manner that is suitable” language for accommodation. Unless we’ve got some insane lobbyist “in” with this department, why demand that they develop statewide standards?

Come to the legislature with the standards that will do what you want!

Who is doing the strategic policy planning for bicyclists in California? A group of hopeful middle schoolers?

“Hey Assemblyman, dogs. We think you should pass a bill to protect dogs”.

“Hmm, okay kids, I passed a bill which will require the Office of Large Stacks of Documents to develop an essay section for you city’s dog catcher job position. They’ll get back to us with their proposed essay section in 5 years, which may or may not be approved by the legislature at that time.”

“Yay dogs!”

For many worthwhile pedestrian and bicycle projects to succeed, car movement must often be sacrificed. That means that the measures of a roadway (Level Of Service, Average Daily Trips, Vehicle Miles Traveled) will show that a pedestrian and bicycle project have made a street worse!

A state mandate for “complete streets” is meaningless without any specific standards from the state that define “complete streets”. It encourages a hodgepodge of local laws that have to do with roadway planning, and it requires local entities to spend money crafting and then passing into law that hodgepodge.

A more effective law would amend the code which directs local governments to create a General Plan’s Mobility section. The State should outline specific scenarios that will allow the existing car-only roadway measures to be ignored or bypassed, in favor of other types of roadway measurement.

All of this “complete streets” hokum will fall on traffic engineers desks, and all they know how to do is follow guidelines and trade practice in service of private automobile throughput. With no specific criteria for degrading automobile throughput, how will this law be effective?