2030 San Diego RTP: An Illegal and Deceptive Proposal

http://www.sandag.org/index.asp?projectid=197&fuseaction=projects.detail

“Transportation infrastructure and services must be coordinated with land use planning if we are to avoid increased traffic congestion, reduced mobility, and a deteriorating quality of life.”

I must love the above sentence because I have all ready quoted it once before, but here we go again!

One of the laws that the RTP got sued for was that it did not do enough to reduce greenhouse gases.

“SAN DIEGO – Superior Court Judge Timothy Taylor ruled yesterday that the San Diego Association of Governments violated state law by failing to fully account for, and take steps to reduce, climate pollution in its environmental review of the region’s long-term transportation plan.”

http://www.climateplan.org/californias-new-vision/around-the-state/san-diego/

In reality, it can only INCREASE traffic congestion; a focus on reducing congestion is the same as having a goal of increasing greenhouse gases.

Of course, they say that reduced congestion is equal to reduced greenhouse gases (because people’s trips are faster) but LTRs know that based on Smeed’s Law, this is not true. Make a product (motoring) more attractive by reducing congestion and people will do more of it.

“Systems Development: More Travel Choices”

This sounds great. We’re going to get more networks, right? That is, the only complete network is for motoring. There is ample evidence to show that if we don’t have a complete network,we won’t have any choices. What are they doing to complete more networks?

I think that if they are serious about giving “choices” rather than just lying about them, they’ll stop building any more motorways because that network is done. What does the RTP give us:

“The 2030 RTP includes a flexible roadway system, which can be used by transit and high occupancy vehicles (HOVs), and improves goods movement through the region.”

Wow more roads. Nice.

There’s no mention of trolley network nor a bicycle only network. Nor anything for pedestrian only network. The only “choice” they give us is pretty much the same network that’s all ready done.

I’m leaving out many quotes where they mention the words: transit, pedestrian, and cycling because they don’t talk about a network. No network, no choice.

Here’s some more nonsense:

“Implementing the 2030 RTP requires close cooperation and coordination among all transportation agencies, local jurisdictions, and the traveling public.”

Here’s one blogger who thinks that the plan sucks and will not cooperate. Of course, I don’t have a choice and as you know: THIS BLOG ALWAYS RECOMMENDS FULL COMPLIANCE OF THE LAW–NO EXCEPTIONS.

No, sir. I won’t break the law, but if could legally not comply with this plan, I would do so.

The notion that the public has to agree to this plan is just another lie. They don’t care what we think.

Overall, this plan will do more to discourage transit use and cycling. Here’s one reason:

“As seen in these two figures, levels of service (LOS) A through D indicate free-flow conditions, while LOS E and F indicate growing congestion, unstable flow, and stop-and-go traffic.”

But as a cyclist, I WANT stop and go traffic because it’s much, much safer. Plus, having stop and go traffic makes cycling more attractive which I thought was one of their goals.

In conclusion, when they say that they want cycling, transit, and walking, they plan for ways to discourage these activities. Even putting a bit more money into each of these activities will yield no change at all if they reduce congestion.

I suggest that they take out any mention of congestion reduction as this one goal makes all their other goals null and void. But they won’t because safety of anyone but motorists as well as offering real choices through the creation of alternative networks is NOT on their agenda.

This plan is full of lies which are there to placate the cycling community. We are not stupid and won’t be tricked by their continual use of the words cyclist while they do their all to make cycling more dangerous and less attractive as a mode of transportation.
.

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: