How do you balance the needs and preferences of different modes and users of traffic systems?

Balancing the needs and preferences of different modes and users in a traffic system involves comprehensive planning. This includes designing infrastructure that accommodates pedestrians, cyclists, public transport, and private vehicles. Implementing smart traffic management systems and gathering feedback from diverse user groups help achieve a more inclusive and efficient transportation network.

Indeed & as our modeling combined with smart visual aids will enable greater effectiveness in working with verifying situations!!

Well stated. I’ll add one clarification, that safety (safe infrastructure) is not a preference of road users, but rather a basic expectation. Safe infrastructure refers to design elements about the system that a user cannot control (eg, intersection sight lines, traffic light sequencing, etc). Transportation systems must be designed in ways that accommodate current laws and policies, and vice versa: policy changes must consider the existing infrastructure’s design (which for better or worse cannot be changed overnight) in addition to the pressures for positive change.

I agree with Mr. Larson in that safety is a base expectation. Once the system is safe, then other objectives can be optimized. I would also include micromobility, which is a very large and growing segment of traffic modes now, especially in urban areas.

Balancing the needs and preferences of different modes and users in traffic systems involves thoughtful urban planning, incorporating various transportation options, and considering factors such as efficiency, safety, and sustainability. It often requires a mix of public transportation, pedestrian-friendly infrastructure, and accommodating various modes of private transport. Community engagement and data-driven decision-making also play crucial roles in achieving a balanced and inclusive traffic system.

Dealing with multiple objetives is quite a challenge. In the case of traffic, many objectives and perspectives are in conflict. What maximises capacity to vehicles usually increases delays and risks to pedestrians and generates more emissions and environmental damage. A hierarchy of objectives is necessary, together with the recognition that these have changed in the past and will change in the future. Improve safety, reduce environmental impact in a cost effective way should be, in my view, the superior objectives. Just below them should be user satisfaction (a rather subjective and difficult to measure ideal), economic, social and equitable development (other difficult-to-quantify objectives). The rest are potential means to an end.

Mobility systems also have a role in Place Making. An exclusive focus on quantifiable measures ignores considerations of beauty, pleasant environment, opportunities to interact with others. These must have a role in any design attempting to improve conditions in an area.

When the design of the traffic system is initiated, it is important to facilitate the minimum accommodations for each user BEFORE any other user is selected to prioritize.