Jamey Aebersold is wrong about street safety. Evidently facts are for non-smoking campaigns alone.

13 Simple But Factual Ways Biking Is Better.

Ask musician/favorite son Jamey Aebersold about smoking, and he will bombard you with reams of research.

I've seen and heard him do it.

Ask Aebersold, and he'll readily tell you that it isn't merely his opinion on the matter of tobacco. He has gathered facts, and he'll go fetch before-and-after lung graphics from the trunk of his car to illustrate the point. He deploys factual anti-smoking information like a general wielding his legions.

In short, it is fitting and proper to use facts when making an argument.

However, when the topic turns to the proper use and management of city streets, Aebersold seemingly no longer is interested in facts. In short order, Aebersold becomes just another tone deaf guy pounding Bud Lights in a smoky bar, opinionating.

Jeers

I don’t know why any biker would want to ride on Spring Street or Charlestown Road in New Albany. It’s way too dangerous. Those streets are for moving vehicles, not bikers. I think it’s a terrible idea to make bike lanes on those two city streets!

— Jamey Aebersold, New Albany

Think about it.

These streets are dangerous, so rather than make the streets safer by addressing the conditions that make them dangerous, the obvious solution is to remove all non-automotive elements from the streets -- you know, just like on the interstates.

That's shortenedbreathtaking.

There is no thought of the health of the city, through which these dangerous routes pass.

No mention of contemporary urban transportation trends.

No examination of the way that road design impacts property values and quality of life.

No evidence that Aebersold has researched the issue at all.

Perhaps Aebersold would be more convincing when pontificating on streets if he chose to embrace the same fact-based approach he uses to denounce smoking (did you know that his latest campaign is to convince the Harvest Homecoming committee to make its open-air street festival smoke free?)

I bet Aebersold has a few facts to back his "no smoking" request. What's more, he always has used his well-earned celebrity to advance his non-smoking agenda, and that's fine with me, because his smoking positions actually are factual.

When the facts evaporate, so does the credibility of his soap box. Of course, he's fully entitled to his own opinions -- just not to his own facts.

If Aebersold intends to become an advocate for street grid status quo, isn't he obliged to to operate under the same fact-based regime?

Perhaps Aebersold might begin by bringing himself up to date on concepts like this: Road diet. Believe it or not, the internet is filed with a wide range of ... (wait for it) ... facts about the topic. Heaven forbid, he might even read this important work, seeing as neither Bob Caesar nor Irv Stumler have bothered: Jeff Speck's Downtown Street Network Proposal.

Or do good ol' boys get an automatic Irv Fact Pass?

President Barack Obama speaks to the fact-vs-opinion nature of complete streets in New Albany.

Okay, not really. However, in his address, President Obama makes valuable points about fact versus opinion.

Full text of President Obama's speech at Rutgers commencement, by Mark Mueller (NJ.com)

Which brings me to my third point: Facts, evidence, reason, logic, an understanding of science -- these are good things. (Applause.) These are qualities you want in people making policy. These are qualities you want to continue to cultivate in yourselves as citizens. (Applause.) That might seem obvious. (Laughter.) That's why we honor Bill Moyers or Dr. Burnell. We traditionally have valued those things. But if you were listening to today's political debate, you might wonder where this strain of anti-intellectualism came from. (Applause.) So, Class of 2016, let me be as clear as I can be. In politics and in life, ignorance is not a virtue. (Applause.) It's not cool to not know what you're talking about. (Applause.) That's not keeping it real, or telling it like it is. (Laughter.) That's not challenging political correctness. That's just not knowing what you're talking about. (Applause.) And yet, we've become confused about this.

Look, our nation's Founders -- Franklin, Madison, Hamilton, Jefferson -- they were born of the Enlightenment. They sought to escape superstition, and sectarianism, and tribalism, and no-nothingness. (Applause.) They believed in rational thought and experimentation, and the capacity of informed citizens to master our own fates. That is embedded in our constitutional design. That spirit informed our inventors and our explorers, the Edisons and the Wright Brothers, and the George Washington Carvers and the Grace Hoppers, and the Norman Borlaugs and the Steve Jobses. That's what built this country.

And today, in every phone in one of your pockets -- (laughter) -- we have access to more information than at any time in human history, at a touch of a button. But, ironically, the flood of information hasn't made us more discerning of the truth. In some ways, it's just made us more confident in our ignorance. (Applause.) We assume whatever is on the web must be true. We search for sites that just reinforce our own predispositions. Opinions masquerade as facts. The wildest conspiracy theories are taken for gospel.

Now, understand, I am sure you've learned during your years of college -- and if not, you will learn soon -- that there are a whole lot of folks who are book smart and have no common sense. (Applause.) That's the truth. You'll meet them if you haven't already. (Laughter.) So the fact that they've got a fancy degree -- you got to talk to them to see whether they know what they're talking about. (Laughter.) Qualities like kindness and compassion, honesty, hard work -- they often matter more than technical skills or know-how. (Applause.)

But when our leaders express a disdain for facts, when they're not held accountable for repeating falsehoods and just making stuff up, while actual experts are dismissed as elitists, then we've got a problem. (Applause.)

You know, it's interesting that if we get sick, we actually want to make sure the doctors have gone to medical school, they know what they're talking about. (Applause.) If we get on a plane, we say we really want a pilot to be able to pilot the plane. (Laughter.) And yet, in our public lives, we certainly think, "I don't want somebody who's done it before." (Laughter and applause.) The rejection of facts, the rejection of reason and science -- that is the path to decline. It calls to mind the words of Carl Sagan, who graduated high school here in New Jersey -- (applause) -- he said: "We can judge our progress by the courage of our questions and the depths of our answers, our willingness to embrace what is true rather than what feels good."

California concedes induced demand: Building roads encourages driving, hence MORE congestion.

Have an opinion about traffic congestion?

You're entitled, but henceforth, when you air it, I'll be asking you if you're familiar with induced demand.

It's going to be on the test, folks. Go back and reread your October reminder.

Induced demand" as necessary corrective to road-building lobbyists' Goebbelsian propaganda.

Here is November's.

California's DOT Admits That More Roads Mean More Traffic, by Eric Jaffe (City Lab)

Whenever a road project gets announced, the first thing officials talk about is how it’s going to reduce traffic ... (but) congestion relief itself is a dubious claim when it comes to road expansions.

Transportation experts have repeatedly found that building new roads inevitably encourages more people to drive, which in turn negates any congestion savings—a phenomenon known as “induced demand.”

There’s high-quality evidence for induced demand ...

Overall, NA has been two-way a lot longer than it has been one-way.

John P. views one-way streets not as high-speed arterials, but as the means to preserve New Albany as a sort of modern-day Mayberry enclave. That's about as counterintuitive as it gets, and yet as proponents, we must be prepared to answer the objections, even if they lack factual support.

Like I said we're a small town and I think a lot of people would like to keep it the way it is. That's my outlook on it.

Jeff Gillenwater replied to John P.

Two-way streets are actually much more "the small hometown we have always been". The streets in question were originally built as two-way and remained two-way throughout much of the city's history, a lot longer than they've been one-way. Two-way streets are the more traditional, hometown option.

He then explained how this iniquity came about in the first place.

"The conversion of two-way streets to one-way occurred in New Albany prior to the completion of the Sherman Minton Bridge. That project was completed in 1962. I don't know the exact date but I think the conversion may have occurred in the late 40s/early 50s.

"After World War II, a lot of people around the country started moving out to newly constructed suburbs. Most jobs, though, were still in town so commute distances got longer and people drove into and out of town a lot more. Street were converted to one-way to handle larger traffic volumes, to move people in and out as quickly as possible. New Albany was no different at the time and had several large employers downtown.

"Since the Sherman Minton was completed, though, our downtown and midtown areas have become cut throughs to the interstate. Much of the traffic isn't coming to and doesn't live in New Albany but is just speeding through as fast possible. Wide-laned, one-way streets encourage high speeds. Since speed is a significant factor in the number and severity of crashes, it makes our streets and neighborhoods more dangerous. That's what the Speck plan seeks to limit--that speeding, pass through traffic that treats our neighborhoods like highways.

"It includes several strategies for doing so. With the advent of bridge tolls on all the interstate bridges except the Sherman Minton, that speeding, cut through traffic will increase as people seek to avoid paying tolls. Likewise, because they create indirect routes for people actually coming to New Albany (having to go around the block all the time), one-way streets actually increase the number of miles driven and the number of turns necessary, again making our streets more dangerous and increasing pollution. There's a lot of good information, including a brief history concerning one-ways and a onlinepubs.trb.org/.../circulars/ec019/Ec019_f2.pdf">comparison of one to two-way streets in this study."

URL: http://onlinepubs.trb.org/.../circulars/ec019/Ec019_f2.pdf