#SlowTheCars ... because Slick Jeffrey Gahan doesn't give a damn about pedestrian safety on Spring west of State.

A reader writes:

I just realized that the City County Building doesn’t even have a crosswalk on Spring Street! They don’t value any pedestrian’s right of way, do they?

Or, here:

Yes, it's the enduringly hazardous spot where West 1st Street crosses E. Spring to become Hauss (but there is no) Square (there).

Jeff Speck suggested a possible way to reformat one-way streets near the interstate interchange into two-ways, but Jeff Gahan chose to ignore this advice owing to his abject terror of offending drivers who race through this area on a daily basis. You see, Gahan and his team want New Albany to be walkable, though for only so long as drivers aren't inconvenienced.

If westbound drivers not increasing speeds to beat the light at Spring and State, they're doing it to avoid a stop at Scribner Drive -- precisely at the spot where a dozen legal offices and the public library lie directly across the street from both local and federal government buildings.

There is not even the pretense of a crosswalk at West 1st, and some of the most amusing (as well as harrowing) spectacles I've ever witnessed are government employees -- up to and including city council members -- precariously balancing their Big Gulps as they dodge flying cars and trucks to try to cross to the City County Building.

You can't help thinking: They see the problem, they experience the problem, years go past ... and absolutely nothing is done. Then, as we talk to them about walkability, the topic is greeted with blank faces.

I'll make it easy: if you fear for your life then no, it isn't walkable, no matter how many times Pinocchio Rosenbarger insists it is. Verily, If not for dysfunction, we'd have no function at all.

But this week on Friday, Gahan will meet Speck again -- and the lies will flow like cash-stuffed envelopes from HWC Engineering.

Gahan, Rosenbarger set to go full frontal Pinocchio about their urbanism credentials when the Congress for the New Urbanism 27 meets in Louisville June 11-15.

How very topical: "For the Record, the Feds Don’t Require Streets to Speed Car Traffic."

Perhaps now City Hall will take the fight to INDOT ... wait ... guess not, seeing as the last time our stewards of speed-through had the chance to fight for the right of walkers to cross the street at Main and West 1st, we folded faster than you can say "nice fresh asphalt just before the election."

That's not breaking eggs. It's capitulation.

For the Record, the Feds Don’t Require Streets to Speed Car Traffic, by Angie Schmitt (Streetsblog)

When advocating for a street redesign that will take some space away from cars, it’s common to run up against this classic brush-off from your local transportation agency: The federal government won’t allow it.

Well, the Federal Highway Administration recently went on the record to shoot down that excuse. The FHWA doesn’t require states and local governments to speed cars through streets, even ones classified as part of the National Highway System. Stephen Lee Davis at Transportation for America published this excerpt of a memo from FHWA regarding Level of Service, or LOS, a measure of congestion:

…FHWA does not have regulations or policies that require specific minimum LOS values for projects on the NHS. [National Highway System] The recommended values in the Green Book are regarded by FHWA as guidance only. Traffic forecasts are just one factor to consider when planning and designing projects. Agencies should set expectations for operational performance based on existing and projected traffic conditions, current and proposed land use, context, and agency transportation planning goals, and should also take into account the input of a wide cross section of project stakeholders.

Davis explains why this matters:

This might seem like a minor clarification, but FHWA just gave the green light to localities that want to implement a complete streets approach. By making clear that there is zero federal requirement to use level of service (and that there never has been), FHWA is implying that transportation agencies should consider more than just traffic speeds when planning street projects.