Feel Good inc.

Looking for information on Saratoga's Complete Streets legislation? Good luck. Whether its Sustainable Saratoga or the Saratoga Healthy Transportation Network, each sponsor directs users to either the national site (providing nothing more than generic information) or the City's website. And, the City's website directs users here:

Duplicate headers received from server

The response from the server contained duplicate headers. This problem is generally the result of a misconfigured website or proxy. Only the website or proxy administrator can fix this issue.

Error 349 (net::ERR_RESPONSE_HEADERS_MULTIPLE_CONTENT_DISPOSITION): Multiple Content-Disposition headers received. This is disallowed to protect against HTTP response splitting attacks.

Fortunately, a deeper drill-down into the agenda of the last City Council meeting will provide the draft policy.  What we know is that Saratoga Springs wants to essentially mirror the State's legislation that was passed in February requiring that all planned construction on state or federal roads consider access for all modes of transportation. We can only assume at this point the the general intent of the local legislation is to include non state and federal roads. Right? I only ask because there is apparently a good deal of controversy surrounding other similar legislation and I just thought (given Saratoga's propensity for careful calculation in planning) that people might be interesting in digging into the details of what is claimed to be a fairly innocent piece of legislation. Yes, there apparently ARE some downsides to Complete Streets. Would have been nice if the sponsors published that fact and provided reasonable counter points. But, alas, we're left to believe that Complete Streets is a break-even panacea for all that ills our outdated transportation system.

Personally, I think Complete Streets is a wonderful concept in the abstract. Its especially wonderful when its implemented on large government projects and the added costs of compliance are borne by the state or federal government. Am I exited that local projects will be more expensive as a result? Not so much. But I've never really been a hard-up bean counter so the impending rising costs of municipal infrastructure projects inst something I'm really passionate about. There are, however, other potential issues with the proposed policy that should be clarified prior to passage.

For instance, the City's Comprehensive Plan and Open Space Plan are quite specific about retaining the character (i.e., inherent dangerous qualities) of its so-called "scenic rural roads." Examples include Denton Road and Gilbert Road. I don't think that anyone could deny that these roads are dangerous but the City has always been intent on retaining those features that make them so. Clearly, both these roads could benefit from bicycle lanes (not to mention shoulders) but its likely residents on those roads would object due to the fact that modernization will undoubtedly ruin their bucolic nature. According to the proposed policy, exceptions will be granted if sufficient fiscal hardship can be shown but what about complaints based on things other than money? And how does the proposed Shared Access Advisory Board get to the point of granting exceptions when its opinion is simply advisory in nature? Are they granting an exception to their advisory opinion? And if so, of what value is an excepted opinion?

At first look it would appear that this policy is nothing more than progressive, feel-good fluff: Go through all the trouble of appointing a new board to grant opinions on road construction that, for the most part, are already being considered by the City's existing land use boards. A more detailed analysis of the lack of publicity surrounding the policy unfortunately shows that this may be the case. For instance, why would the Downtown Special Assessment District support a policy that was soundly defeated by its members when it was proposed for Broadway? Perhaps because they're already in the clear? A classic example of "Do as I say, not as I do"?

No effective policy produces meaningful change without a degree individual hardship or opposition. If the City and associated transit groups want to institute a progressive policy, then fine. But its a bit disingenuous to herald a new day of shared access for all when the policy has no teeth and will be shouted down on a piece-meal basis by the influential special interest du jour.

Until a policy is passed that mandates compliance (and disregards all the little voices that pop up when the regulations come home to roost), the whole experiment is nothing more than feel-good propaganda.

Unless. Unless some activist board member uses an advisory opinion from the Advisory Board to delay or submarine an otherwise worthy project. Now that would something. Something people might want to consider.