Then again, I’ve been told that Primeggia was not a licensed P.E., so may be it’s interpreted flexibly; also, DOT has way more than three deputy commissioners.

Total agreement. Christine’s suggestions immediately above all sounds fantastic to me.

Anecdote time: Reading over the Tillary Street re-timing plans (recently linked off this site), I was amused to notice that actual observation clocked pedestrians at over 50 seconds crossing the Brooklyn Bridge entrance at Tillary’s north side, while the lights were only timed walk for thirty-something seconds. The “average person” actually couldn’t cross on a Walk sign before it went don’t-walk.

Engineering isn’t the enemy. Tone-deaf attempts to solve the wrong problems are the enemy.

Who knows how much more effective our streets would be if pedestrians had coordinated walk signs and did not have to stop for 40 seconds every 200 ft ? What if the cars , which carry only a third of the volume had to stop longer and let the larger volume pass ? All scientific questions that do not get asked.

This will ensure that not one discipline sounds more scientific than the others and that engineering does not drive the policy.

Let’s not forget that DOT is set up – that job was set up – to enable vehicle throughput. It should be up to DOT’s executives to listen to different points of view within their agency and choose the one that makes sense. To some extent, Primeggia’s job was to represent the automobile. To DOT’s credit, they’ve been creating positions for people who are supposed to fight for non-auto modes.

Also – he deserves a lot of credit for one thing. Don’t forget, in addition to policy, he was also an administrator and could be relied on for clear guidance and quick decision-making and a returned phone call – not something you can take for granted in city government. In that regard he will surely be missed.

Second, this business of “engineer” vs “planner” is just plain silly. The full spectrum of transportation “vision” can be found in both populations (and in a number of other disciplines as well). The trick will be finding someone with the managerial and “can do” chops to translate the vision into action while keeping the lights on (literally and figuratively). If the worst thing that ever happened to transportation in NYC was Mike Primeggia we’d be in a lot better shape.

~ellis, a young traffic engineer (Rutgers ’05)

All these anti-engineering comments strike me as the equivalent of religious zealots who decry Darwinism.

Not really. I think it’s completely fair to say that the traffic engineering profession was absolutely integral in the screwing up of the American landscape. Sure, you can also blame the American consumer, their politicians, the suburban sprawl developers and a few other parties. But the traffic engineers are up there at the top of the list. Engineers like Sam Schwartz and Gary Toth will be the first to agree. The profession may be getting better but it’s improving from a place of near total bankruptcy.

Stop by Brooklyn Poly Tech where Primeggia went to engineering school, pick up a course book and check out the transportation engineering curriculum. The next generation of NYC traffic engineers are still, primarily, being taught how to move vehicles and time traffic signals.

Then go check out the transportation planning curriculum at, say, UC Berkeley. Note the holistic, multi-modal approach and the emphasis on “the interaction between transportation and built, natural, and social environments.”

http://dcrp.ced.berkeley.edu/departments–programs/crp/concentration-in-transportation-policy–planning.htm

What kind of professional do you want managing your city’s streets?

Brooklyn Poly:

http://www.poly.edu/ce/graduate/transportation/planning/index.php

PROGRAM REQUIREMENTS

TR 6313 Traffic Control and Signalization I
TR 6323 Traffic Control and Signalization II

Select at least 2 from:

TR 6013 Fundamental Concepts in Transportation
TR 6023 Analytic Methods in Transportation
TR 6223 Intelligent Transportation Systems and Their Applications
TR 7033 Transportation Safety
TR 7123 Transportation Planning and Congestion Management
TR 7323 Design of Parking and Terminal Facilities
TR 7333 Design & Mgmt of Arterial & Street Networks
TR 7343 Urban Freeways and Intercity Highways

Both are highly skilled new urbanists who understand the value of ‘place’ and the actual engineering/planning/designing techniques and requirements that reinforce urbanism, rather than undermine it.

It’s called transportation engineering now, and the lines between engineering and planning and being blurred more and more. Yes, it’s impossible to predict exactly what will happen in reality, but the same is true for all applied sciences. A structure is never built exactly as planned, but structural engineers are not called educated building guessers.

My point is that engineering is changing to look at all modes and at all variables. For example, what happens to traffic when road capacity is removed? How does adding a bike lane affect bike mode share? How can we better evaluate pedestrian space? Your anger at old-school traffic engineers is understandable, but I think you should be cautious about letting this anger stand between you and a potentially powerful ally in the livable streets movement.

PS.

For decades “city planning” meant “‘slum’ clearance”, “urban renewal”, and “superblocks”. The profession has thankfully moved beyond that; hopefully traffic engineering has matured similarly.

Also, it can’t fairly be called engineering, or couldn’t until recently, because until recently the models which traffic engineers used were not closely tied to reality; there was no control/variable experimentation.

They were variably educated guessers. Not engineers.