Killed by a Traffic Engineer: Shattering the Delusion that Science Underlies Our Transportation System

by Wes Marshall

to become a squeaky wheel issue. If your neighborhood has the wherewithal to set up petitions and complain to the right people, you now have a shot at seeing one of our safer designs. If your neighborhood doesn’t have that sort of time or political clout, tough luck. The reverse is also true—and to a greater extent. Sometimes, all it takes is a few vocal constituents to squash a safer design. Given some of the atrocities perpetuated by traffic engineers in the past, taking community input seriously makes sense. But safer streets shouldn’t be subject to a popularity contest. Opting against a safer design after a few drivers grumbled about it forcing them to drive slower? Canceling a protected bikeway after a few neighbors moaned about losing some on-street parking or the perceived aesthetics of the street? Such decisions are common for traffic engineers, and they should invite a liability problem. Even an unfrozen caveman lawyer could argue that basing what gets built on the whims of a few neighbors—instead of a “rational process”—could fall under the umbrella of “arbitrary” or “capricious.”