Clutch, to your points:

“One, the national focus is on federal legislation and the federal-aid program, and most road projects involving federal dollars are major roadways or highways that almost no one would dream of making car-free.”

> SURE, the Complete Streets Act is only about federally-funded projects.

“Two, car-free is a local concept, and such projects are usually small-scale, even temporary, and done with local (not federal) funds.”

> I am not talking about temporary, because Complete Streets is not temporary. And why not Federal funds?

“Three, there are exceptions to most complete streets policies; we normally worry about these as a possible means of excluding walking, bicyling or tranist facilities from projects, but in a certain context the exceptions could be used to deny access to autos.”

> OK, sure, in theory, but from the slides on the National Complete Streets Coalition website, I see no intention of excluding automobiles. Some of the designs reduce lanes, examples, they say, of a “road diet”. But are these re-designs actually reducing automobile capacity, or were they just so “super sized” to begin with that it more of a situation of less food being ordered, and less wasted, but the same amount eaten?

The slides show lots of mainly empty spaces, with more bike lanes and more greenery sometimes. I grew up in a suburb of L.A. where some streets had no demarcated walking space, but I know that sidewalks ghettos are not a solution.

The website has claims about projected carbon savings as a result of “Completion”, but – unlike with automobile adverts – there is nothing to compare them to. They are totally abstract.

So, I won’t change my position. “Complete Streets” is a lie and an obfuscation. If we need to wink a little to make things go forward in urban development than the “green” pandemic which perhaps has already peaked has left terrible scars and a permanently weakened immune system.

Is it – more than anything else – just a make work program for landscape architects and contractors?

The negatives of the slogan are far outweighed by the positives, but I do acklnowedge the negatives. Namely, will complete streets’ emphasis on establishing rights of all roadways users (i.e, including motorists) hamper efforts to create car-free areas?

In the end, I think the answer is no, for several reasons. One, the national focus is on federal legislation and the federal-aid program, and most road projects involving federal dollars are major roadways or highways that almost noone would dream of making car-free. Two, car-free is a local concept, and such projects are usually small-scale, even temporary, and done with local (not federal) funds. Three, there are exceptions to most complete streets policies; we normally worry about these as a possible means of excluding walking, bicyling or tranist facilities from projects, but in a certain context the exceptions could be used to deny access to autos.

All-in-all, the startlingly positive implications associated with this simple, catchy slogan– in brief, that people who walk or bicycle (or take transit or drive) need to be fully considered in all aspects of transportation project development– dwarf any misgivings we might reasonably have over its potential misapplication.