What would happen if major freeways had to be built TODAY?

[jakeroot]

Warning: generalization ahead.

Ped advocates are generally anti car, and are thus prone to not giving a fuck about whether or not a car has the right of way.

I must respectfully disagree.  Not all ped advocates are anti-car (for one thing, at least some of them understand that those nasty car drivers help to pay for a lot of bike and pedestrian improvements).

Having known people who were struck by cars on the streets of the District of Columbia (in theory, a pedestrian-friendly jurisdiction), I suppose I am something of a pedestrian advocate myself (though it is easier for me to be a pedestrian now than it used to be).

When I say "ped advocate", I mean people who, on a more or less weekly basis, publicly bitch about poor pedestrian facilities on online forums and social media sites. People like you and I, who like cars but support better pedestrian access in areas, are not what I would categorize as "ped advocates" (we support increased pedestrian access when we see it happening, but we don't complain when it isn't happening (the latter being what I imagine ped advocates do in their spare time)).

So basically, my definition for "ped advocate" is someone who is, over most other things, very publicly pro-pedestrian and someone who spends their time advocating for increased pedestrian access, even if it comes at the cost of drivers. From my own, somewhat limited personal experience, a marked amount of Downtown Seattle residents are ped advocates, meaning they would be happier with narrower lanes, a reduced number of lanes overall, the removal of roads from high pedestrian areas, etc., even in the face of increased car growth.

[flowmotion]

How did "sprawl" become an acceptable term for what I, and many other, would call "growth?"

When the population of an area grows and the amount of land they use grows in the same proportion, that's merely growth. When the population doesn't change but the amount of land they use increases dramatically, that's sprawl.

The definition I've heard is that "sprawl" is noncontiguous growth, e.g. developments at the outer fringes rather than infill locations. The issue is that all sorts of new infrastructure needs to be built to service this growth, even when the existing infrastructure may be underutilized. And once an area has "sprawled", it's often nearly impossible to densify the area or build infill development.

(Of course, if you're in the road business like hbelkins, that might not be perceived as a problem.)

As a non-road example, I always thought it was interesting how every new suburb had to build a bunch of schools, only to start closing them down 10-15 years later.

[Pete from Boston]

The issue is that all sorts of new infrastructure needs to be built to service this growth, even when the existing infrastructure may be underutilized. And once an area has "sprawled", it's often nearly impossible to densify the area or build infill development.

This is the heart of the issue.  In another thread it was said that what people call sprawl is actually freedom.  The problem is that it's freedom at the general expense of the community.  I know this is true of many, many public services, but the "sprawl" definition implies a heavy public burden for mostly private gain.   

It's an exhausting debate that's had over and over again, and you may be on one side or the other but this is just an attempt to explain why the term is distinguished from "growth."

To provide a probably flawed comparison, think of a person growing up: their organs and systems grow to keep up.  Then think of an adult gaining an additional 100 lbs. over their normal weight–technically this is still growth, but the organs are not growing as the body spreads every wider, and the corporeal geography involved strains all the systems involved.

[flowmotion]

This is the heart of the issue.  In another thread it was said that what people call sprawl is actually freedom.  The problem is that it's freedom at the general expense of the community.  I know this is true of many, many public services, but the "sprawl" definition implies a heavy public burden for mostly private gain.   

It's an exhausting debate that's had over and over again, and you may be on one side or the other but this is just an attempt to explain why the term is distinguished from "growth."

I don't like to be too allegorical, but I think you can see how it happens it in two respects:

1) US Municipalities are defined around horses, not cars. Every government is competing for tax revenue with another town two miles away.  There is no regional planning, everyone is trying to bribe Walmart to come to their town and not the one at the next exit.

(Note this also leads to huge inefficiencies on all other levels: police depts, schools, road repair, etc. Every little suburb has their own set of bureaucracies.)


2) All this development is bought on credit because muni bonds are/were considered to be effectively the gold standard. Today's politicians can build a bunch of crap and then someone has to worry about it 30 years from now. Since Detroit and a number of other municipalities have gone under, the risk assumptions around sprawl will probably change.

And just on a roadgeek level, it's interesting how we constantly talk about roads which could go from A to B. But what actually gets built is uninteresting commuter routes of no national importance just to enable sprawl development and stripmalls. I think the essence of this hobby is going from place to place. Not cheerleading for "growth".

[GCrites]

How did "sprawl" become an acceptable term for what I, and many other, would call "growth?"

When the population of an area grows and the amount of land they use grows in the same proportion, that's merely growth. When the population doesn't change but the amount of land they use increases dramatically, that's sprawl.

Not quite.  Take a look at Clermont, FL.  Now true most is housing as well as many strip malls, so it is populated per unit, but is it growth or is it redistribution?  Many move from one area to another, and the population is not growing, but spreading out more.

Now true everybody is moving to Central Florida these days as they were back in the early 90's which is what caused the Southchase and Hunters Creek area to now reach peak capacity as when I moved in 1990 it was only a fraction of homes and no major shopping centers there like there is now.  However, Clermont is not the same as it literally grew overnight.  It took Southchase and Hunters Creek well over a decade and a half to get where it is now.

US 27 in Clermont was a rural 65 mph expressway back at the turn of the century, now its a 45 to 55 mph suburban arterial.  It also grew many traffic signals as well.  Back in 2000 there was only 3 traffic lights from I-4 to Leesburg, and now there is too many to count.

Basically most of Clermont is Orlando and Kissimme people looking for a change as the two main cities of Central Florida are have gotten really bad with crime and bad schools.  One girl I knew from Kissimmee said she had to move out to Clermont because the schools are too bad there for her daughter to attend.  Plus the neighborhoods have gone down in quality in many Orlando and Kissimmee locations. Not only in crime and social class, but in traffic too!

I myself am not happy with the traffic situation on John Young Parkway and Orange Blossom Trail as it used to take less than two minuts to go from Deerfield Boulevard to Hunters Creek Boulevard, which can now take 5 to 10 minutes due to increase in commuter, shopping, and other traffic.  To me it is frustrating at any time, not only rush hour, so a move to a new community outside the Orlando Metro area would be welcome.

What you are talking about is people already in sprawl fleeing sprawl and thereby creating more sprawl. The large amount of rotted out post-WWII areas in this country are examples of this phenomenon. These days, the vast majority of sprawl is created by those fleeing sprawl rather than traditional downtowns, small towns and city centers.

[vdeane]

Of course, most of the ped advocates are pro-jaywalking

Citation needed.

Ever notice how, whenever the topic of pedestrian fatalities comes up, the solution is always lowering the speed limit and traffic calming, and common sense things like "require pedestrians to cross only at crosswalks" and "look both ways before crossing the street" aren't ever considered?  It doesn't seem like there's a difference in many people's minds between a driver who runs a red and mows down a line of pedestrians crossing the street and a driver who doesn't have time to stop for a pedestrian who just randomly darted out into traffic in the middle of the street without looking.  Then we have laws like "you must stop if there's a pedestrian anywhere near the crosswalk even if he wouldn't be anywhere near your car at any point when you're driving through".

Many states may have jumped at toll roads to handle their plans: Pennsylvania, Oklahoma, Texas, Florida, etc.

It's worth noting that most of Pennsylvania's interstate system was originally planned as extensions of the Turnpike.  I-81 in NY was planned as part of the Thruway as well.

[kkt]

Of course, most of the ped advocates are pro-jaywalking

Citation needed.

Ever notice how, whenever the topic of pedestrian fatalities comes up, the solution is always lowering the speed limit and traffic calming, and common sense things like "require pedestrians to cross only at crosswalks" and "look both ways before crossing the street" aren't ever considered?

This is a series of straw man arguments.  You exaggerate the positions of people who disagree with you, then attack them for a position they don't actually hold.  Okay if you just want to rant, but it prevents understanding and is not very persuasive.

Those pedestrian safety measures are already the law and the subject of education by parents and preschools just about everywhere.  I'm not sure what else you'd have people do.  I do expect better behavior from licensed drivers than I do unlicensed pedestrians, many of whom are kids.

It doesn't seem like there's a difference in many people's minds between a driver who runs a red and mows down a line of pedestrians crossing the street and a driver who doesn't have time to stop for a pedestrian who just randomly darted out into traffic in the middle of the street without looking.

If there are many people who consider those actions equivalent, how about naming three people who have actually expressed that opinion?

Then we have laws like "you must stop if there's a pedestrian anywhere near the crosswalk even if he wouldn't be anywhere near your car at any point when you're driving through".

What state law says the driver must stop for a pedestrian who is not anywhere near the crosswalk?  State laws I know about are about pedestrians in or about to walk into the crosswalk.  Are you talking about the general duty to avoid an accident if possible, even if the other party doesn't have the right of way?

[cl94]

Of course, most of the ped advocates are pro-jaywalking

Citation needed.

Ever notice how, whenever the topic of pedestrian fatalities comes up, the solution is always lowering the speed limit and traffic calming, and common sense things like "require pedestrians to cross only at crosswalks" and "look both ways before crossing the street" aren't ever considered?

This is a series of straw man arguments.  You exaggerate the positions of people who disagree with you, then attack them for a position they don't actually hold.  Okay if you just want to rant, but it prevents understanding and is not very persuasive.

Those pedestrian safety measures are already the law and the subject of education by parents and preschools just about everywhere.  I'm not sure what else you'd have people do.  I do expect better behavior from licensed drivers than I do unlicensed pedestrians, many of whom are kids.

It doesn't seem like there's a difference in many people's minds between a driver who runs a red and mows down a line of pedestrians crossing the street and a driver who doesn't have time to stop for a pedestrian who just randomly darted out into traffic in the middle of the street without looking.

If there are many people who consider those actions equivalent, how about naming three people who have actually expressed that opinion?

Then we have laws like "you must stop if there's a pedestrian anywhere near the crosswalk even if he wouldn't be anywhere near your car at any point when you're driving through".

What state law says the driver must stop for a pedestrian who is not anywhere near the crosswalk?  State laws I know about are about pedestrians in or about to walk into the crosswalk.  Are you talking about the general duty to avoid an accident if possible, even if the other party doesn't have the right of way?

New York and most of the northeastern states have such a law

[Pete from Boston]

Our law is that you must stop if the pedestrian's on your side, or within ten feet of your side on the other. 

[jeffandnicole]

Of course, most of the ped advocates are pro-jaywalking

Citation needed.

Ever notice how, whenever the topic of pedestrian fatalities comes up, the solution is always lowering the speed limit and traffic calming, and common sense things like "require pedestrians to cross only at crosswalks" and "look both ways before crossing the street" aren't ever considered?

This is a series of straw man arguments.  You exaggerate the positions of people who disagree with you, then attack them for a position they don't actually hold.  Okay if you just want to rant, but it prevents understanding and is not very persuasive.

Those pedestrian safety measures are already the law and the subject of education by parents and preschools just about everywhere.  I'm not sure what else you'd have people do.  I do expect better behavior from licensed drivers than I do unlicensed pedestrians, many of whom are kids.

It doesn't seem like there's a difference in many people's minds between a driver who runs a red and mows down a line of pedestrians crossing the street and a driver who doesn't have time to stop for a pedestrian who just randomly darted out into traffic in the middle of the street without looking.

If there are many people who consider those actions equivalent, how about naming three people who have actually expressed that opinion?

Then we have laws like "you must stop if there's a pedestrian anywhere near the crosswalk even if he wouldn't be anywhere near your car at any point when you're driving through".

What state law says the driver must stop for a pedestrian who is not anywhere near the crosswalk?  State laws I know about are about pedestrians in or about to walk into the crosswalk.  Are you talking about the general duty to avoid an accident if possible, even if the other party doesn't have the right of way?

New York and most of the northeastern states have such a law

No they don't.  They have laws that state if a pedestrian is IN a crosswalk, you must stop or yield.  But just because they're in the vicinity of the crosswalk doesn't require a driver to stop or yield.

Here's NY's actual law:  1151. Pedestrians'   right   of   way  in  crosswalks.     (a)  When traffic-control signals are not in place or not in operation the  driver of  a  vehicle shall yield the right of way, slowing down or stopping if need be to so yield, to a  pedestrian  crossing  the  roadway  within  a crosswalk  on  the  roadway  upon which the vehicle is traveling, except that any pedestrian crossing a roadway at a  point  where  a  pedestrian tunnel or overpass has been provided shall yield the right of way to all vehicles.
    (b) No pedestrian shall suddenly leave a curb or other place of safety and  walk or run into the path of a vehicle which is so close that it is impractical for the driver to yield.
    (c) Whenever any vehicle is stopped at a marked crosswalk  or  at  any unmarked  crosswalk  at  an intersection to permit a pedestrian to cross the roadway, the driver of any other vehicle approaching from  the  rear shall not overtake and pass such stopped vehicle.

[vdeane]

Of course, most of the ped advocates are pro-jaywalking

Citation needed.

Ever notice how, whenever the topic of pedestrian fatalities comes up, the solution is always lowering the speed limit and traffic calming, and common sense things like "require pedestrians to cross only at crosswalks" and "look both ways before crossing the street" aren't ever considered?

This is a series of straw man arguments.  You exaggerate the positions of people who disagree with you, then attack them for a position they don't actually hold.  Okay if you just want to rant, but it prevents understanding and is not very persuasive.

Look DeBlasio's Vision Zero.  Two things have been enacted under it: the addition of "school zone" speed cameras that in practice act as mobile toll collection units (they're situated in locations that maximize the amount of tickets generated, not areas that actually have children; the infamous example is one on a frontage road to I-278 on Staten Island that doesn't even give cars enough time to safely slow from 50 mph to 25 mph), and the reduction of the speed limit to 25 city-wide and 20 in some locations.  The "slower is always safer" lobby definitely runs NYC.  For me, the fact that many of these initiatives focus on drivers while seemingly ignoring pedestrian behavior (which is never mentioned in the PR) is what gets me miffed.  I don't like it when one group is favored over another.  For anything.  Fairness defines my core values.

Those pedestrian safety measures are already the law and the subject of education by parents and preschools just about everywhere.  I'm not sure what else you'd have people do.  I do expect better behavior from licensed drivers than I do unlicensed pedestrians, many of whom are kids.

Actually follow those measures?  I knew to do them since before I was three.  It's not that hard.  How is it fair to inconvenience motorists because some people act like idiots?  It isn't!

There are laws against jaywalking and such, yes.  But they're not enforced.  At all.  And people would likely scream if they were.  Especially in NYC.

If there are many people who consider those actions equivalent, how about naming three people who have actually expressed that opinion?

I'm speaking in generalities that I've learned from years on reading articles and comments on the internet.  I don't keep a portfolio of every single comment I've ever seen - that would be a ridiculous burden.  I think primarily my intuitive thought processes, and as such most of what I know is the synthesis of countless other sources, most of which I can't discretely pull out any more.

What state law says the driver must stop for a pedestrian who is not anywhere near the crosswalk?  State laws I know about are about pedestrians in or about to walk into the crosswalk.

In NY, the law is that you must stop if there is a pedestrian anywhere in the crosswalk or approaching it regardless of other circumstances (including the pedestrian moving slowly enough that you would otherwise be long gone before he got to your side of the crosswalk).  And yes, it's stop, not yield.  Says so right on the signs that are sometimes placed in the middle of crosswalks; many drivers will stop even if there's no pedestrian in sight and aren't sure if "for pedestrians using the crosswalk" is when you need to stop or an explanation for why you have to stop.

Also, there was a story recently about Fort Lee, NJ having a police officer dress up like a duck, stand near a crosswalk, and ticket people for failure to stop.  The comments on the article were a mix of people livid that drivers were getting ticketed for failing to stop for a creepy duck that didn't even look like he was about to cross the road and people who were livid that anyone dare suggest that drivers should have the ROW.

[NE2]

Yawn, carsplaining.

[Pete from Boston]

There's only extremism if this is extreme to you:

Peds rule in the urban environment, no ifs, ands, or buts.  It's not a mystery except to some people not in that environment.  It's out of practicality, necessity, and common sense.  Steel thing with motor yields to squishy thing without, no matter the inconvenience.  If the general common sense of drivers and/or peds goes down (or remains down), so do speed limits.  Your sense of urgency is secondary–leave earlier next time.   

My guess is that the percentage of the general population that finds this extreme is somewhat lower than that on this forum. 

[jeffandnicole]

In NY, the law is that you must stop if there is a pedestrian anywhere in the crosswalk or approaching it

Please site the law regarding what I bolded above.  I already provided the law regarding within a crosswalk, but have not seen anything that states "approaching" a crosswalk.

[hbelkins]

This is the heart of the issue.  In another thread it was said that what people call sprawl is actually freedom.  The problem is that it's freedom at the general expense of the community.  I know this is true of many, many public services, but the "sprawl" definition implies a heavy public burden for mostly private gain.

I would dispute that assertion, and here's why.

Vacant property is worth only so much. Once something is built on it, it becomes worth much more. That increases the tax base.

I'll give you a personal example. About 15 years ago, I bought some vacant property. The property's value increased slightly for tax purposes during that time. I recently sold the property (at a loss from what I originally paid for it, which will help me when I file my income taxes this year but will also lower the property's taxable value) to someone who wants to build a house on it. When he builds, the taxable value of the property will go up dramatically, and new tax revenue will flow into the county's coffers.

When a big field is subdivided and houses are built, or if commercial buildings go up on the property, the amount of tax revenue the property generates will go up, and that can be used to make the initial investment in infrastructure. Water and sewer service will pay for itself in a few years once the lines are installed; other revenue can pay for street upkeep.

[froggie]

Vacant property is worth only so much. Once something is built on it, it becomes worth much more. That increases the tax base.

The catch is that, especially for lower-denstiy development, the rate of tax base increase is usually less than the increase in public service costs (roads, schools, utilities, etc) to cover that development.

Water and sewer service will pay for itself in a few years once the lines are installed

This isn't usually the case.  It often takes either several years or a rate increase (affecting all pre-existing customers) before water/sewer service pays itself off for a new greenfield development.

[GCrites]

Vacant property is worth only so much. Once something is built on it, it becomes worth much more. That increases the tax base.

The catch is that, especially for lower-denstiy development, the rate of tax base increase is usually less than the increase in public service costs (roads, schools, utilities, etc) to cover that development.

And if the new structure results in the abandonment of an old structure, the property value of the old structure drops. Or the new structure can result in the marginal depreciation of 10 other structures, spread out in different proportions between them. In other cases, they can keep other properties from appreciating as quickly as they would if the new structure wasn't built.

A classic example is when a mall is successful until someone builds a new mall two miles down the road causing the tenants of the old mall to leave for the new mall. The old mall eventually becomes worthless, gets demoed and the land drops in value almost to its pre-improvement level when adjusted for inflation.

[cpzilliacus]

Water and sewer service will pay for itself in a few years once the lines are installed

This isn't usually the case.  It often takes either several years or a rate increase (affecting all pre-existing customers) before water/sewer service pays itself off for a new greenfield development.

Which is why many parts of Maryland charge new development a so-called "front foot benefit charge" on new hookups to water and sewer service.  That is to pay for the new connection, and it is usually collected in a series of 23 annual payments on the property tax bill.

[jwolfer]

Biggest question would be how would the country progress over the past 50+ years without the major interstate projects?

I think cities wouldn't have stretched out as far as they did, as the ride to downtown would be mind-numbingly long.  I think freeways THROUGH cities would be a non-starter. Situations like Columbia or Greenville, SC, Detroit, St. Petersburg or Miami FL, etc where two roads reach into downtown, but aren't connected and the main line runs just outside the city core. Or, more similar to Pittsburgh or Rochester where the mainline runs well outside of the city and spurs run into the city from far away due to cheaper land (though, again, probably not a direct pass through). I-70 would've avoided the direct Columbus-Indianapolis-St. Louis-Kansas City corridor and been place just north or south of the main route. More of a 'hub and spoke' setup. Full beltways around the outside of the city and freeways running between beltways connecting them with the occassional freeway reaching into the urban core.

The other hypothetical is what state upgrades would be done in the absense of a federal highway system. NY's parkway system obviously would be quite extensive and well traveled. Kentucky may still have created their parkways. Many states may have jumped at toll roads to handle their plans: Pennsylvania, Oklahoma, Texas, Florida, etc.

Some other states would probably crop up major highway plans of their owns. Either toll or free. And some adventurous businesses may create their own private toll roads to serve major city-to-city needs. I could see railroad operators looking to team up by creating roadways near their ROW to help prop up their rail service, which would probably be much more thorough and economical. And once their road is built, it would be hard to argue building ANOTHER competing road.

I think we would have more cities with traffic like the infamously bad São Paolo traffic. If population is dense enough mass transit is a no brained. But it has to be convenient. Who wants to be beholden to an inconvenient schedule

[jwolfer]

Biggest question would be how would the country progress over the past 50+ years without the major interstate projects?

I think cities wouldn't have stretched out as far as they did, as the ride to downtown would be mind-numbingly long.  I think freeways THROUGH cities would be a non-starter. Situations like Columbia or Greenville, SC, Detroit, St. Petersburg or Miami FL, etc where two roads reach into downtown, but aren't connected and the main line runs just outside the city core. Or, more similar to Pittsburgh or Rochester where the mainline runs well outside of the city and spurs run into the city from far away due to cheaper land (though, again, probably not a direct pass through). I-70 would've avoided the direct Columbus-Indianapolis-St. Louis-Kansas City corridor and been place just north or south of the main route. More of a 'hub and spoke' setup. Full beltways around the outside of the city and freeways running between beltways connecting them with the occassional freeway reaching into the urban core.

The other hypothetical is what state upgrades would be done in the absense of a federal highway system. NY's parkway system obviously would be quite extensive and well traveled. Kentucky may still have created their parkways. Many states may have jumped at toll roads to handle their plans: Pennsylvania, Oklahoma, Texas, Florida, etc.

Some other states would probably crop up major highway plans of their owns. Either toll or free. And some adventurous businesses may create their own private toll roads to serve major city-to-city needs. I could see railroad operators looking to team up by creating roadways near their ROW to help prop up their rail service, which would probably be much more thorough and economical. And once their road is built, it would be hard to argue building ANOTHER competing road.

There would be local toll roads like in Florida large cities. Miami Dade Expressway authority. Orlando-orange County Expressway Authority and Jacksonville Expressway authority built pre-interstate freeways. Some were incorporated into interstate plans

[vdeane]

There's only extremism if this is extreme to you:

Peds rule in the urban environment, no ifs, ands, or buts.  It's not a mystery except to some people not in that environment.  It's out of practicality, necessity, and common sense.  Steel thing with motor yields to squishy thing without, no matter the inconvenience.  If the general common sense of drivers and/or peds goes down (or remains down), so do speed limits.  Your sense of urgency is secondary–leave earlier next time.   

My guess is that the percentage of the general population that finds this extreme is somewhat lower than that on this forum. 

In boating, the principle is that traffic that can more easily yield is the one that yields; sailboats yield to ships, power boats yield to sailboats, and everyone else yields to power boats.  But for road traffic we do the reverse!  I've never understood that.  It seems to me that it would be safer to have pedestrians, who can stop immediately, yield to vehicular traffic, which can't.  To me, having it the opposite essentially makes the statement "pedestrians are more important", and assertion which I've never understood.  It feels like cars are being treated more and more like second class citizens by planners and politicians, and as someone who won't be giving up her car as her primary/only means of transport in the next few decades, that stings.

I tend to avoid driving in cities specifically for this reason, but it really sucks when I do have need to go in one.  It's not a case of being in a hurry either - even if I have plenty of time, it drives my brain nuts to deal with constant stop and go or to sustain a speed lower than what I would have selected for the roadway condition.  I'm not a patient girl.

In NY, the law is that you must stop if there is a pedestrian anywhere in the crosswalk or approaching it

Please site the law regarding what I bolded above.  I already provided the law regarding within a crosswalk, but have not seen anything that states "approaching" a crosswalk.

It's what I was taught in drivers ed and what the police were enforcing with the duck in Fort Lee, NJ.  It was also cited as such in a newspaper article I read a few months ago out of Albany regarding a study to show racial bias in who car drivers stopped to let cross (really).  If it's not actual law, then it's certainly entrenched enough that planners, politicians, and law enforcement believe it.

[NE2]

To me, having it the opposite essentially makes the statement "pedestrians are more important", and assertion which I've never understood.  It feels like cars are being treated more and more like second class citizens by planners and politicians, and as someone who won't be giving up her car as her primary/only means of transport in the next few decades, that stings.

It's your assumption that cars are citizens at all that's entirely bogus.

[texaskdog]

I think the freeways between cities would be straighter, and the ones going into cities would be a bit different.  Instead of sending the freeway right through they'd likely have connectors going in in the path of least resistance.

[Brandon]

To me, having it the opposite essentially makes the statement "pedestrians are more important", and assertion which I've never understood.  It feels like cars are being treated more and more like second class citizens by planners and politicians, and as someone who won't be giving up her car as her primary/only means of transport in the next few decades, that stings.

It's your assumption that cars are citizens at all that's entirely bogus.

However, the drivers are citizens.  Nice strawman.

Traffic seems to obey different rules depending on what medium (land, water, air) the traffic uses.

Air is the most obvious.  Air traffic control directs air traffic, and pilots keep in communication with each other.  They still manage to collide from time to time.

Val pointed out how water traffic operates.

Land is a bit more of a mess (mostly due to volume and different types of traffic).  You have trains, which get the right of way over motorists, pedestrians, and bicyclists.  In fact, track construction crews need a flagman to warn them away from the track when a train comes bay, and can be considered at fault if they stray into the path of a train.  You have purely pedestrian areas where no rules seem to apply at times, but somehow folks manage to go to the side of the hallway they drive on.  Then there are the mixed flows.

Street traffic seems to work as streams of traffic (foot, bike, motor) that have right of way over crossing streams of traffic.  I disagree with the idea of the Fort Lee Duck (see above) and mid-block unsignalized pedestrian crossings.  They interfere with this idea of streams of traffic.  To elaborate, I'll use the following situations below to illustrate my point:

1. If I'm driving, and I wish to turn right onto a side street from a main street, I should stop and wait for any pedestrians to finish crossing the side street.  I am breaking through their stream of traffic, which is that of the main street.  Ditto if I'm coming out of the side street.  I'll wait for all traffic (ped/bike/motor) to finish before I exit said side street.  I'm breaking through their stream.

2. If I'm walking, and I cross said side street, I do not stop as I am on the main street and with/parallel to its flow.  But, if I'm crossing the main street, like I was driving, I should stop and wait my turn to cross when it is clear.

[NE2]

To me, having it the opposite essentially makes the statement "pedestrians are more important", and assertion which I've never understood.  It feels like cars are being treated more and more like second class citizens by planners and politicians, and as someone who won't be giving up her car as her primary/only means of transport in the next few decades, that stings.

It's your assumption that cars are citizens at all that's entirely bogus.

However, the drivers are citizens.  Nice strawman.

Actually it's the whole point. The drivers are citizens, and have the rights of pedestrians when they choose to walk.