Home > Transportation Planning – Local Issues

Transportation Planning – Local Issues

San José State University

Department of Urban and Regional Planning

URBP 256

Transportation Planning – Local Issues

Spring 2010

Course Summary Information

Revised: 28 January 2010


Eduardo C. Serafin, PE, AICP

Technical Program Manager
Technology Transfer Program (Tech Transfer)
Institute of Transportation Studies (ITS)
University of California, Berkeley (UCB)

Office Location:

WSQ 218B (DURP offices)


Cell: 510-375-3997; Work: 510-665-3457 (UC Berkeley ITS Tech Transfer)



Office Hours:

Thursday, 2:30 – 3:30 PM (when class is in session)

Class Days / Time:

Thursday, 4:00 – 6:45 PM


Sweeney Hall 238 (SH238)


The course offering for URBP 256 for this semester is based on the previous course conducted in Spring 2009 by Prof. Asha Weinstein Agrawal, who has generously shared her course materials with us. Thanks, Asha!

Schedule Notes

First Class: January 28

Furlough Day (No Class): May 6

BRT Workshop (TransForm): March 4

Last Class: May 13

Spring Break (No Class): April 1

Final Project Submission: May 20

Contacting the Instructor

For any questions on this course, pls e-mail me first using my SJSU account. If I don’t respond by the end of the following business day, pls feel free to call my cell for a follow-up. If I don’t pick up, pls leave me a detailed message. As a last resort for truly urgent questions, you may call me at UC Berkeley ITS Tech Transfer during normal business hours.

Although my office hours on campus are rather limited, pls feel free to contact me at anytime (per the protocol above), and I will do my best to provide you feedback on any issue or concern you may have. My goal is to be very accessible to all my students.

URBP 256

Transportation Planning – Local Issues

Spring 2010

Course Syllabus

Course Catalog Description

URBP 256: Examination of transportation planning issues addressed at the neighborhood and municipal level. Not to substitute for transportation engineering. Course may be repeated for credit when topic changes.

ENVS 178 & URBP 178: DURP is not offering the undergraduate part of this course this semester due to the budgetary constraints at SJSU.

Course Description and Objectives

This course introduces students to key transportation planning issues dealt with at the municipal level, including residential street design, street design for major thoroughfares, coordination of land-use and transportation planning, transit planning, approaches to addressing traffic congestion, and parking policy.

As students learn about these different transportation planning topics, the course will also teach a number of key skills critical to any transportation planner. By the end of the semester, students who successfully complete the course will learn to:

  • Explain the connections between travel behavior and urban form as defined by density, diversity, and design.
  • Evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of local transportation planning tools and policies. In particular, students will learn introductory-level strategies to apply five key evaluation metrics for transportation plans and policies:
  1. Do they improve accessibility for all modes (e.g., private vehicles, transit vehicles, pedestrians, and bicyclists)?
  2. Do they improve accessibility for all population groups?
  3. Do they improve local quality of life (beyond providing accessibility benefits)?
  4. Do they reduce impacts of the transportation system on the natural environment?
  5. Do they equitably distribute the costs and/or benefits of the transportation system?
  • Evaluate the effectiveness of transportation plans and policy tools by finding reliable research and data and using the information to assess the likely outcomes of those plans or policy tools.

Course Prerequisite

There are no prerequisites. For this semester, only graduate students are welcome to the class. First we accept DURP students who are about to graduate. Next we can accept regular matriculated graduate students. Finally, open-enrollment University students with bachelor’s degrees may be given permission codes to join the class, if slots are still available.

Required Course Readings

1. Website: http://www.sjsu.edu/faculty/weinstein.agrawal/urbp256syllabus.htm (scroll down to see the course readings in the old schedule)

2. Weekly Readings

Readings for the course will be available on-line either through the old course website (see above) or the SJSU library's electronic course reserves system. If you need help accessing the electronic reserves, the process is explained at the library's "Electronic Reserves Help" page. Other reading materials may be e-mailed to you at least a week before the class.

3. Style Book

  • Turabian, Kate. A Manual for Writers of Term Papers, Theses and Dissertations, 7th ed. Chicago, University of Chicago Press, 2007.

This book is available for purchase at the campus bookstore, as well as at many bookstores around the Bay Area and on-line. Be sure to buy the correct edition.

Course Assignments and Grading Policy

Students are expected to attend and participate in all class sessions, complete assigned readings and written memo assignments, and participate/contribute to the class project for the VTA (with the project work products listed below). Your grade for the course will be based on the following assignments:

Course Assignments

Percent of Total Grade

1. Class Participation in Discussions


2. Weekly Memo Assignments (minimum of 10 required out of a total 11 assigned)


3. Class Project: Final Parking Demand Survey Form and Database for Completed Surveys


4. Class Project: Sections of Draft Technical Report for the VTA Parking Demand Survey of Selected TODs


5. Class Project: Full Draft Technical Report for the VTA Parking Demand Survey of Selected TODs


Final grades will be assigned based on the following scale:





97 - above


94 - 96


90 - 93


87 - 89


84 - 86


80 - 83


77 - 79


74 - 76


70 - 73


67 - 69


64 - 66


60 - 63


Below 60

Pls note that I reserve the right to adjust the above grading scales to reflect the level of effort expended by the class to accommodate the critical deadlines for the VTA Class Project.

Class Attendance & Participation

Students should attend all classes and participate fully in discussions and class exercises, as these are critical to learning the course content. To be given credit for class participation (equivalent to 0.36 % of the final grade for each class attended), students should sign in using the attendance sheet to be distributed at each class.

If you know that you will have to miss all or part of a class, please let me know in advance. Please also follow common rules of courtesy to keep from disrupting the class: e.g., do not arrive late, and turn off cell phones and pagers. Students should not use laptops during class or do any kind of texting.

Weekly Memo Assignments

For most of the class sessions, there will be an associated memo assignment. The memos will help you to think about the readings in advance of each class. They have been designed to stimulate your thinking and prepare you for productive in-class discussions. You will find the memo assignments for the class in the Tentative Course Schedule. Pls note that each weekly memo assignment is worth 4.5% of your final grade.

Memo Formatting Requirements:

  • The memos must be typed unless the directions specify otherwise.
  • The memos should fully cite all quotations, statistics, or other material that you learn from reading other sources, whether they may be course readings or materials that you identify on your own. Use Turabian-style footnotes and a bibliography to cite your sources.

Due Dates and Grading Policies:

  • Due Dates: These memos, which are designed to prepare you for the day's class, must be turned in at the beginning of the class session for which they are due. I will give half credit to memos turned in late for any reason, including malfunctioning computers, illness, or hungry pets that chew on memos.
  • Grading: The memos will be graded on a 10-point scale. Your grade for the memos will be the total points for the best ten memos submitted out of the total 11 possible assignments.
  • Missed Memos: You may miss one memo over the semester, in case you become ill, busy with work or other classes, have a family emergency, or any other personal reason.
  • Class Absence: If you have to miss a class for any reason, pls submit your memo assignment via e-mail before the class session. Any memo assignment submitted after the class will receive no more than half credit.

Class Project for VTA

For this semester, we have the distinct privilege of working on a class project for the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) to conduct a parking demand generation survey for transit oriented development (TOD) projects in selected VTA stations. The class project will culminate in a technical report to be submitted to the VTA for their reference and use. The VTA needs technical assistance in this effort to provide local jurisdictions in the VTA service area new, relevant information in reviewing their local policies regarding minimum requirements for on-site parking supply for TOD projects. Our deadline for submission to the VTA is May 27th.

For each in-class session, we will spend about one-third of our time conducting project meetings to discuss our technical scope of work, track student progress, and ensure adherence to the overall project schedule. Students will be required to bring the results of their work on the project and report said results in class on a weekly basis. I urge all students to keep up with the work each week, because not meeting individual schedules will put the entire class project at risk. As the old NASA cliché goes: Failure is not an option! To highlight the importance of the class project for this semester, pls note that it is worth a grand total of 50% of your final grade for the course.

Students will be organized in teams and should plan on collaborating in a real-time basis. At the end of the class project, you all will be given the chance to evaluate each other’s participation and contribution to the team effort. This peer-to-peer evaluation, which will be done confidentially, will be used in the determination of your grade for Technical Report (which is 10% of your final grade).

To help ensure our project process is efficient and optimally productive, I will form a Student Project Management (SPM) team that will help me keep the project on track and compile the Final Technical Report. Our collective goal is to produce a planning document that is technically solid, comprehensive, internally consistent, and user-friendly. The SPM team (of about 4-5) will be formed with feedback from the Department of Urban and Regional Planning. Students selected for the SPM team will be given extra points in their final grade, hence making it possible to get an A+ for the course.

SJSU Policy on Academic Integrity

Students should know that the University’s Academic Integrity Policy is available at:


SJSU's Policy on Academic Integrity states:

Your own commitment to learning, as evidenced by your enrollment at San Jose State University and the University’s integrity policy, require you to be honest in all your academic course work. Faculty members are required to report all infractions to the office of Student Conduct and Ethical Development. The website for Student Conduct and Ethical Development is available at www.sa.sjsu.edu/judicial_affairs/index.html.

Instances of academic dishonesty will not be tolerated. Cheating on exams or plagiarism (presenting the work of another as your own, or the use of another person’s ideas without giving proper credit) will result in a failing grade and sanctions by the University. For this class, all assignments are to be completed by the individual student unless otherwise specified. If you would like to include in your assignment any material you have submitted, or plan to submit for another class, please note that SJSU’s Academic Policy F06-1 requires approval of instructors.

Citing Sources and Avoiding Plagiarism

Plagiarism is the use of someone else’s language, images, data, or ideas without proper attribution. It is a very serious offense both in the university and in your professional work. In essence, plagiarism is both theft and lying: you have stolen someone else’s ideas, and then lied by implying that they are your own.

Plagiarism will lead to grade penalties and a record filed with the SJSU Office of Student Conduct and Ethical Development. In severe cases, students may also fail the course or even be expelled from the university.

If you are unsure what constitutes plagiarism, it is your responsibility to make sure you clarify the issues before you hand in draft or final work.

Learning when to cite a source and when not to is an art, not a science, and it is impossible to list every possible type of plagiarism. However, here are some typical examples of plagiarism that you should pay particular attention to avoid:

  • If you use a sentence (or even a part of a sentence) that someone else wrote and don’t identify the language as a quote by putting the text in quote marks and referencing the source, you have plagiarized.
  • If you paraphrase somebody else’s theory or idea and don’t reference the source, you have plagiarized.
  • If you use a picture or table from a web page or book and don’t reference the source, you have plagiarized.
  • If your paper incorporates data someone else has collected and you don’t reference the source, you have plagiarized.

The University of Indiana has developed a very helpful website with concrete examples about proper paraphrasing and quotation. See in particular the following pages:

  • http://www.indiana.edu/~istd/overview.html
  • http://www.indiana.edu/~istd/examples.html
  • http://www.indiana.edu/~istd/test.html

On the last page listed, you will find a quiz to test how well you understand proper paraphrasing.

If you still have questions after reading these pages, feel free to talk to me. There is nothing wrong with asking for help, whereas even unintentional plagiarism is a serious offense.

Course Citation Style

When you cite another author’s work in any assignment for the course, use footnotes and a bibliography formatted following the directions in Kate Turabian’s A Manual for Writers of Term Papers, Theses, and Dissertations, 7th ed., University of Chicago Press, 2007.

Note that Turabian’s book describes two systems for referencing materials: (1) "notes" (footnotes or endnotes), plus a corresponding bibliography, and (2) in-text parenthetical references, plus a corresponding reference list. Be sure to use the first system, with footnotes and a bibliography, for all work you turn in during the semester.

There are many websites that give guidance on Turabian-style citations, but many include incorrect or incomplete information. Therefore, you need to work from the book itself.

Campus Policy in Compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)

If you need course adaptations or accommodations because of a disability, or if you need special arrangements in case the building must be evacuated, please make an appointment with me as soon possible, or see me during office hours. SJSU Presidential Directive 97-03 requires that students with disabilities requesting accommodations must register with the SJSU Disability Resource Center to establish a record of their disability.

You can find information about the services SJSU offers to accommodate disabled students at www.drc.sjsu.edu.

URBP 256

Transportation Planning – Local Issues

Spring 2010

Tentative Course Schedule


  • This tentative course schedule is subject to change with fair notice. Any changes will be discussed in class with as much notice as possible.
  • Readings are to be completed before class on the day listed. You need to do the readings in order to complete the memo assignment, which is due at the start of class.
  • Assignments are due the day listed (unless otherwise noted) and are highlighted in red.

Week 1: January 28


  • Introductions and course overview
  • Student Transportation Finance Video Contest and weekly memo option
  • BRT workshop on proposed alternative for Silicon Valley (TransForm) and weekly memo option
  • Overview of class project for Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA)
  • How to read transportation research studies
  • Basic tips on writing style and plain English
  • The transportation planning/policy evaluation process


  • Student Transportation Finance Video Contest flyer
  • BRT Workshop on Proposed Alternative for Silicon Valley (TransForm) flyer
  • Transportation Research Tips
  • Tips for Reading Research Articles
  • Basic Tips: Writing Style and Plain English

Recommended Readings:

  • San Francisco Planning Department. San Francisco General Plan. Transportation Element. Available at http://www.sf-planning.org/ftp/General_Plan/I4_Transportation.htm

Week 2: February 4

Due: Memo #1: Accessibility for All (see below)


  • Transportation policy evaluation metric #1: Multi-modal accessibility impacts
  • Transportation policy evaluation metric #2: Accessibility impacts across different population groups
  • Looking at travel patterns for by different population groups (gender, ethnicity, age, etc)
  • VTA Class Project: presentation by VTA Staff (Robert Swierk and Ying Smith) regarding their needs for the study; refine scope of work and schedule; organize students into teams

Required Readings

  • Crane, Randall. "Is There a Quiet Revolution in Women's Travel? Revisiting the Gender Gap in Commuting." Journal of the American Planning Association 73, no. 3 (2007): 298 - 316. (This document will be e-mailed to you.)
  • Blumenberg, Evelyn, et al. Travel of Diverse Populations: Literature Review (PATH Working Paper). Berkeley: California PATH Program, Institute of Transportation Studies, University of California, Berkeley, September 2007. Available at http://www.path.berkeley.edu/PATH/Publications/PDF/PWP/2007/PWP-2007-05.pdf.
    (Note: If you don't want to read the entire report, you can just read the Abstract, Executive Summary, Chapters 1, 5, 7, and at least 1 other chapter of your choice.)

Required Reading for VTA Class Project:

  • Cervero, Robert, et al. Are TODs Over-Parked?. University of California Transportation Center: UCTC Research Paper No. 882. Brief is available at http://www.uctc.net/research/pb09_01.pdf. Full paper is available at http://www.uctc.net/research/papers/882.pdf.

Recommended Readings:

  • Metropolitan Transportation Commission. Change in Motion: Transportation 2035 Plan for the San Francisco Bay Area (Final). Chapter 1: Overview. April 2009. Available at http://www.mtc.ca.gov/planning/2035_plan/FINAL/1_Overview-final.pdf
  • Transport for London. Expanding Horizons: Transport for London’s Women’s Action Plan 2004. Available at http://www.tfl.gov.uk/assets/downloads/wap-english.pdf.
  • Cao, Xinyu, Patricia L. Mokhtarian, and Susan L. Handy. Neighborhood Design and Aging: An Empirical Analysis in Northern California. September 2007. Available at http://www.ugpti.org/pubs/pdf/DP189.pdf.
  • U.S. Government Accountability Office. Enhancing Transportation-Disadvantaged Seniors' Mobility. 2004. Available at http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d04971.pdf.

Memo #1: Accessibility for All

You are a transportation planner working for community X. (X is a city or town of your choice, perhaps the one where you currently live.)

The city council has decided that one of its major policy initiatives for the next year should be to identify and adopt policies that would increase accessibility for one of the following groups: women, immigrants, racial and ethnic minorities, the elderly, or youth. Choose one of these groups to be the subject of your memo.

The City Council members have asked you to write a brief memo recommending the most useful one or two policies they could adopt to improve accessibility for the group you are writing about. Explain what each policy is and how it would help the people in question.

In the memo, cite statistics from both the Crane and Blumenberg et al readings to support your arguments. (You may cite other sources as well, if you wish, but this is not required.) Be sure to cite your sources following the Turabian formatting system, using footnotes and a bibliography.

The text of the memo, excluding citations, should be around one page, or about 250 to 300 words.

Week 3: February 11

Due: Memo #2: Livable Streets (see below)

Due: Option – Transportation Finance Video Contest, Letter of Intent with Abstract & Video Title


  • Transportation policy evaluation metric #3: The impact of the transportation system on community quality of life
  • Streets as places
  • The street design process
  • VTA Class Project: discuss literature search list by students; student teams to present and discuss completed literature surveys

Required Readings

  • Appleyard, Donald. Introduction and Chapters 1-3. In Livable Streets. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1981. (Available through the SJSU library's electronic course reserves.)
  • Project for Public Spaces. "Going Places: 21 Great Places That Show How Transportation Can Enliven a Community." 2008. Available at http://www.pps.org/transportation/info/trans_articles/great_transportation_places.

Recommended Readings:

  • Michaelson, Juliette, Gary Toth, and Renee Espiau. Great Corridors, Great Communities. New York: Project for Public Spaces, 2008. Available at http://www.pps.org/pdf/bookstore/Great_Corridors_Great_Communities.pdf.
  • San Francisco Planning Department. San Francisco Better Streets Plan: Policies and Guidelines for the Pedestrian Realm (draft plan). June 2008. Available at http://www.sfgov.org/site/uploadedfiles/planning/Citywide/Better_Streets/proposals.htm.
    (Note that Chapter 2 describes the planning and regulatory documents that control the street design process, as well as the different local agencies and department that get involved in the process.)

Memo #2: Livable Streets

This memo assignment has three parts:

Step 1: Interviews

Find at least three people to interview. For each interview, ask the following two questions.

  • First, ask, “If you were to describe the street where you live, what are the first 4 or 5 things that come to mind?” (It's fine if your interviewee answers with words, short phrases, or a longer description of a particular issue.)
  • Next, ask for a detailed physical description of the street along the block where the person lives. Features to record include the number of lanes of traffic, whether the street is one or two directions, the type of buildings along the street, and whether there is parallel or angle parking.

Tip: Do not tell your interviewees why you are asking the first question until after you finish the interview. You can say that you are doing an assignment for a class on city planning, but don’t give them any further information.

Step 2: Data summary

Write up a brief summary of each interview. This is not meant to be fancy—just list each person’s 4 or 5 observations and add a description of the street. If you'd like to include a hand-drawn stretch of the street layout, you can do so, but this isn't required.

Step 3: Analysis

Write a paragraph or two explaining how your findings are either similar to or different from what Donald Appleyard learned from his research for the book Livable Streets.

Week 4: February 18

Due: Memo #3: Traffic Calming (see below)


  • Guest John Ciccarelli (Founder of Bicycle Solutions): Bicycle Planning
  • Traffic calming: Traditional and radical
  • VTA Class Project: discuss draft of parking demand survey forms prepared by student teams; discuss process for beta-testing of draft survey forms and development of databases for completed surveys

Required Readings:

  • Appleyard, Donald. Chapter 12: Berkeley at the Barricades. In Livable Streets, pp. 215-239. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1981. (Available through the SJSU library's electronic course reserves.)
  • Ewing, Reid. "Impacts of Traffic Calming." Transportation Quarterly 55, no. 1 (Winter 2001): 33-45. (Available through the SJSU library's electronic course reserves.)
  • Lyall, Sarah. "A Path to Road Safety With No Signposts." New York Times, January 22, 2005. Available here.
  • Watch the video "Introduction to Shared Space (2 of 2)," available at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wuxMuMrXUJk.

Recommended Readings:

  • "Introduction to Shared Space (1 of 2)," available at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RLfasxqhBNU&feature=related. (Video)
  • City of San Jose, Department of Transportation. Traffic Calming Toolkit: A Community Leaders' Guide. 2001. Available at http://www.sanjoseca.gov/transportation/forms/toolkit.pdf.
  • City of Oakland, Bicycle Master Plan, 2007. Available for download from http://www.oaklandpw.com/page123.aspx#plan.

Memo #3: Traffic Calming

Traffic calming is very popular with many residents in the Bay Area because they believe it makes their streets quieter and safer. (I.e., traffic calming can help achieve course evaluation metric #2, improving local quality of life).

However, traffic calming is not an unmixed blessing. In terms of course evaluation metric #1, improving multi-modal accessibility, planners often discover that traffic calming impacts each mode differently. Pedestrians tend to like traffic calming, saying that it makes walking safer and more pleasant. Bicyclists have varied reactions, as they like slow traffic but may not like cycling over devices like speed humps. Motorists, however, usually dislike traffic calming a great deal, saying that it inconveniences them when they drive.

You are a transportation planner working in a community that currently has no traffic calming program. Your city council is considering adopting a new program to implement traffic calming in a few neighborhoods. The council members have asked you to write a short memo explaining whether or not they should create a new traffic calming program to install speed humps and traffic circles in a residential neighborhoods in your town. (If the program were implemented, the decision to install traffic calming on a particular block would only be made after careful study of that location.)

In arguing your position, make sure you do the following:

  1. Discuss the trade-offs between the benefits to residents (metric #2), and the varying accessibility impacts for drivers, pedestrians, and bicyclists (metric #1).
  2. Refer to the evidence Ewing presents in the Transportation Quarterly article about the effectiveness of traffic calming devices. (I.e., if the city installs them, what is the likely impact on driver behavior?)

The memo should be around one page, or about 250 to 300 words.

Week 5: February 25

Due: Memo #4: Walkability Audit (memo assignments here)


  • Guest Matthew Ridgway (Principal at Fehr & Peers Transportation Consultants): Pedestrian master planning AND sidewalks and ADA
  • Transportation policy evaluation metric #4: The impact of the transportation system on the natural environment
  • VTA Class Project: discuss results of beta-testing of parking demand survey forms completed by student teams; review draft or sample databases for completed surveys; discuss process for launching, promoting, and implementing the full parking demand survey at selected TODS at VTA stations

Required Reading

  • Go to the website at http://www.walkinginfo.org/ and read all the pages and sub-pages under the “Walking Solutions” heading in the left-hand column. Pay particular attention to the material under the first three sections ("Implement Solutions," "Develop Plans and Policies," and "Engineer Pedestrian Facilities").
  • United States Environmental Protection Agency. Chapters 1 and 2. In Indicators of the Environmental Impacts of Transportation, 2nd ed. Washington, D.C.: The Agency, October 1999. (This document will be e-mailed to you.) Note: Read Chapter 1 with a particular emphasis on understanding the importance of indicators in planning and how to design good transportation indicators, and read Chapter 2 with the goal of gaining an understanding of the wide range of impacts that the transportation system has on the natural environment.

Recommended Reading

  • Alta Planning + Design. San Jose Pedestrian Master Plan: Administrative Draft. March 26, 2008. Available here.
  • Alta Planning + Design and Logan Hopper Associates. City of San Jose, California: Detailed ADA Transition Plan Update for Sidewalks: Revised Draft - March 20, 2008. Available here.
  • Alta Planning + Design. North San Jose Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan (draft). January 29, 2009. Available here.
  • Southworth, Michael. "Reclaiming the Walkable City." Frameworks, no. 4 (2006): 16-23. Available at http://www.ced.berkeley.edu/images/stories/publications/ced_pubs/frameworks_4/southworth.06.fw.4.16.pdf.
  • Hess, Paul M. "Avenues or Arterials: The Struggle to Change Street Building Practices in Toronto, Canada." Journal of Urban Design 14, no. 1 (2009): 1 - 28. (This document will be e-mailed to you.)
  • Forman, Richard T. T. "Road Ecology's Promise: What's Around the Bend?" Environment 46, no. 4 (2004): 9-21. (This document will be e-mailed to you.)
  • Interview on the Daily Show of Daniel Sperling about this new book, Two Billion Cars, available here.
  • Berg, Nate. "From Utility to Amenity: Greening the Alleys of Los Angeles." January 22, 2009. Available at http://www.planetizen.com/node/37038.
  • City of Portland. "Portland Green Streets Program." 2009. Available at http://www.portlandonline.com/BES/index.cfm?c=44407&.

Memo #4: Walkability Audit

In this exercise you will evaluate how walkable four different blocks are. The overall goal of the exercise is for you to:

  1. Develop a greater awareness of the environmental features that make different street types more and less friendly for walkers.
  2. Develop an understanding of the process of collecting data about walkability.

Step 1: Review the Pedestrian Environment Data Scan (PEDS) instrument

To do this, you need to visit three websites.

  1. For a very brief overview of the tool, visit http://planningandactivity.unc.edu/RP1.htm.
  2. Next, look over the PEDS data-collection instrument itself, at http://planningandactivity.unc.edu/PEDS%20Instrument%20v.2.pdf.
  3. Finally, read over the "PEDS Protocol," which explains how to use the instrument: http://planningandactivity.unc.edu/Audit%20Protocol%20v.2.pdf.

Step 2: Audit four blocks for walkability

Find four blocks to audit for walkability. To minimize the time this assignment takes, you may test out the instrument on blocks that are near places you go during your regular routine (near your home, SJSU, your workplace, etc.). However, pick four blocks that are at least somewhat different from each other, so that you can see how they each score.

For each of the four blocks, fill out the PEDS instrument and also answer the following four supplemental questions, giving your subjective assessment of the block:

A) How safe from traffic do you feel walking on this block?

“Very safe”
“Somewhat safe”
“Somewhat unsafe”
“Very unsafe”

B) How safe from crime would you feel walking on this block at night?

“Very safe”
“Somewhat safe”
“Somewhat unsafe”
“Very unsafe”

C) How attractive is this block to walk along?

“Very attractive”
“Somewhat attractive”
“Somewhat unattractive”
“Very unattractive”

D) If you were walking to go somewhere, would you want to walk along this block? Consider both your feeling of safety and also whether or not the block is attractive.

“I would go a little bit out of my way to walk along this block because it is so nice.”
“I would choose to walk along this block if I didn't have to go out of my way to do so.”
“I would avoid this block if I didn't have to go out of my way to do so to do so.”
“I would avoid this block even if it meant walking a little bit out of my way to do so.”
“I would not care one way or the other if I were to walk down this block along my route.”

Step 3: Write up your results

Write up a short memo (one page maximum) in which you summarize what you learned about the role that environmental factors do (or do not) play in creating walkable streets. Along with this summary, hand in the sheets on which you scored the four blocks using the PEDS instrument and the four supplemental questions provided above.

Week 6: March 4

Bus Rapid Transit (BRT): A New Transportation Alternative for SJSU & Silicon Valley
Presented by Chris Lepe/TransForm at MLK Library, 5:45 – 6:45 PM (see flyer fore more details)
Sponsored by the Urban Planning Coalition (UPC)
Reference: http://www.transformca.org/brt

No memo assigned for this week.

A survey assignment from TransForm will be available to students as an option to replace one weekly memo. Contact Chris Lepe for more information at clepe@transformca.org or (408) 406-8074.

Chris to distribute the BRT survey instruments to the student volunteers.

VTA class project field work

  • VTA Class Project: student teams to begin the launching, promoting, and implementing the parking demand survey at selected TODs at VTA stations; student teams to visit assigned TODs and reach out to property managers, HOA officers, or other relevant parties associated with the TODs to implement the parking demand survey; student teams to develop survey databases that will be used to compile completed survey sheets

Week 7: March 11

Due: VTA Class Project: Final Parking Demand Survey Form and Database for Completed Surveys

Due: Memo #5: To Connect or Not to Connect (see below)

Due: Option – Transportation Finance Video Contest, Final Video


  • Chris Lepe: BRT merchant survey – instructions and Q&A with students
  • Street layout and accessibility
  • Measuring "level of service" -- an introduction
  • VTA Class Project: report progress in the implementation of parking demand survey by student teams for their assigned TODs; discuss ways to promote the survey and maximize participation; launch the full online parking demand survey by all student teams

Required Readings:

  • Southworth, Michael, and Eran Ben-Joseph. "Reconsidering the Cul-De-Sac." Access, no. 24 (2004): 28-33. Available at http://www.uctc.net/access/24/Access%2024%20-%2006%20-%20Reconsidering%20the%20Cul-de-sac.pdf
  • Aurbach, Laurence. "Two Connectivity Studies for 2008." PedShed.net, November 18, 2008. Available at http://pedshed.net/?p=217.
  • Terry, Peter A. "HCM 101: A Primer for Non-Technical Decision Makers." Kansas University Transportation Center, no date. (I’m contacting the author for a copy; if found, this document will be e-mailed to you.)

Recommended Readings:

  • Kostof, Spiro. The City Shaped: Urban Patterns and Meanings through History. Boston: Bulfinch Press, 1991. (Check SJSU library for availability.)
  • Cozens, Paul, and David Hillier. "The Shape of Things to Come: New Urbanism, the Grid and the Cul-De-Sac." International Planning Studies 13, no. 1 (2008): 51 - 73. (This document will be e-mailed to you.)
  • Grammenos, Fanis, Barry Craig, Douglas Pollard, and Carla Guerrera. "Hippodamus Rides to Radburn: A New Model for the 21st Century." Journal of Urban Design 13, no. 2 (2008): 163-76. Available at http://www.fusedgrid.ca/docs/HippodamusRidestoRadburn.pdf.
  • Southworth, Michael, and Eran Ben-Joseph. Streets and the Shaping of Towns and Cities. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1997. (Check SJSU library for availability.)

Memo #5: To Connect or Not to Connect

As a planner for the Community Development Department (CDD) of the City of Alphabeta, you have been assigned to manage the review of a proposed development project for a residential subdivision that includes a street network of mostly cul-de-sacs. The City has a standing policy (through its general plan, zoning, and design guidelines) to discourage more cul-de-sacs and dead-end streets and to encourage more connectivity in the local roadway network and with the regional roadway system.

The developer has informed you that he plans to fight for his development project as currently proposed. Apparently he has paid for the conduct of a real estate market survey, and his realtor experts have indicated that the demand for single-family detached homes in cul-de-sacs is very strong in your town and in the larger region.

Based on the readings for the day (and perhaps your own), you need to prepare a memo for the CDD Director which highlights potential improvements to the current proposed residential subdivision from the developer. Pls make sure that you address the following key points:

  1. Pros and cons of cul-de-sacs vs. interconnected local streets
  2. Impact of the current proposed residential developments on the four transportation policy evaluation metrics (discussed so far in class)

The text of the memo, excluding citations, should be around one page, or about 250 to 300 words.

Week 8: March 18

Due: Memo #6: "The Congestion Terminator" (see below)


  • Guest Elliot Martin (Researcher at the Transportation Sustainability Research Center, UC Berkeley): Worldwide carsharing experience
  • Traffic congestion: What is it, how do we define it, and what can we do or should do about it?
  • VTA Class Project: report progress in the implementation of parking demand survey by student teams for their assigned TODs; continue to promote the survey and maximize participation; review actual results from the submitted surveys from respondents; discuss the preparation of the draft outline of the technical report for VTA staff

Required Reading

  • Shaheen, Susan A., and Adam P. Cohen. "Growth in Worldwide Carsharing: An International Comparison." Transportation Research Record, no. 1992 (2007): 81-89. (This document will be emailed to you.)
  • Taylor, Brian D. "Rethinking Traffic Congestion." Access, no. 21 (2002): 8-16. Available at http://www.uctc.net/access/21/Access%2021%20-%2003%20-%20Rethinking%20Congestion.pdf.
  • Downs, Anthony. Chapter 3 and Chapter 18. In Still Stuck in Traffic, pp. 14-36, 321-354. (Available through the SJSU library's electronic course reserves.) NOTE: For chapter 18, please read carefully through page 329; you may skim the rest of the chapter, if you wish, though I recommend reading it carefully.

Recommended Reading:

  • Millard-Ball, Adam, Gail Murray, Jessica Ter Schure, Christine Fox, and Jon Burkhardt. Chapters 2 and 6. In Car-Sharing: Where and How It Succeeds. Washington, D.C.: Transportation Research Board, 2005. Available at http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/tcrp/tcrp_rpt_108.pdf.

Memo #6

Running a Mayoral Campaign as the "The Congestion Terminator" - Brilliant or Foolish?

As we've discussed in class, one of the many roles that planners play is to advise politicians on whether or not to tackle a particular issue and what general approach to take. For example, imagine the following scenario in City Y (a city of your choice), picking a city that has at least a moderate amount of traffic congestion:

Mayor X of City Y is preparing for a reelection campaign. One of the mayor's most trusted campaign managers, who likes action movies, has suggested that the mayor bill him/herself “The Congestion Terminator” and run on a platform of promising to make congestion relief a centerpiece of his/her next term in office. Because the mayor knows that you are both politically savvy and an expert in transportation planning, s/he has asked you to write a one-page, confidential memo explaining whether or not this is a good idea.

In your memo, be sure to address the following three issues:

  1. Is there a pressing need to focus attention in the city on congestion management at this time?
  2. Would "congestion relief" be achievable, or would it be a deceptive campaign promise? If you think "relief" is achievable, how should the mayor define "relief"? (In other words, what kind of congestion relief is the mayor likely to be able to achieve in four years?)
  3. If the mayor adopts this platform, list a few key planning strategies that s/he should support as part of such a platform given the particular land-uses, political culture, policy goals, and other characteristics of City Y. (Policies might be road or highway expansion, higher parking fees, land-use planning, etc.)

Be sure to cite both the Taylor and Downs readings in your memo.

Week 9: March 25

Due: Memo #7: The Demise of Streetcars (see below)

Due: Option – BRT Merchant Survey for TransForm


  • History of transit finance: Did GM Kill the Trolley? (Video and discussion)
  • VTA Class Project: report progress in the implementation of parking demand survey by student teams for their assigned TODs; continue to promote the survey and maximize participation; review actual results from the submitted surveys from respondents; review the draft outline of the technical report for VTA staff and prepare final outline

Required readings

  • Slater, C. “General Motors and the Demise of Streetcars.” Transportation Quarterly 51, no.3 (Summer 1997): 45-66. Available at http://www.lava.net/cslater/TQOrigin.pdf.
  • “Ideas in Motion: General Motors and the Demise of the Streetcar.” Transportation Quarterly 52, no. 1 (Winter 1998): 14-29. (Available through the SJSU library electronic course reserves.)

Memo #7: The Demise of the Streetcars

Sometimes planners must decide what they believe about a controversial issue where both sides present alternative evidence and argument to back up their positions. One such issue is the long-standing dispute over whether or not General Motors intentionally replaced streetcars with buses in order to make public transit so inconvenient that people would start using automobiles instead of transit.

Write a one-page memo arguing whether or not you believe this argument about General Motors is true. Be sure to use the articles to justify your position, citing those arguments in them that you find the most persuasive. Note that since you may write only one page, you should focus on just the most important arguments/evidence.

***No Class April 1 - Spring Break***

Week 10: April 8

Due: Memo #8: Equity: (see below)


  • Transportation policy evaluation metric #5: Equity
  • Pricing as one strategy to reduce congestion (congestion pricing)
  • VTA Class Project: report progress in the implementation of parking demand survey by student teams for their assigned TODs; review actual results from the submitted surveys from respondents; discuss the process of compilation of database results from completed surveys from respondents; agree on the final outline for the technical report

Required Readings:

  • Litman, Todd. "Evaluating Transportation Equity: Methods for Incorporating Distributional Impacts into Transport Planning." Victoria Transport Institute, July 19, 2007. Available at http://www.vtpi.org/equity.pdf.
  • Weinstein, Asha, and Gian-Claudia Sciara. "Unraveling Equity in HOT Lane Planning: A View from Practice." Journal of Planning Education and Research 26, no. 2 (2006): 174-84. (Available through the SJSU library's on-line journals.)

Recommended Readings:

  • Bernstein, Scott, Carrie Makarewicz, and Kevin McCarty. Driven to Spend: Pumping Dollars out of Our Households and Communities. Chicago: Center for Neighborhood Technology and Surface Transportation Policy Project, 2005. Available at http://www.transact.org/library/reports_pdfs/driven_to_spend/Driven_to_Spend_Report.pdf.
  • Schweitzer, Lisa, and Abel Jr. Valenzuela. "Environmental Injustice and Transportation: The Claims and the Evidence." Journal of Planning Literature 18, no. 4 (2004): 383 - 98. (Available through the SJSU library's on-line journals.)
  • Lipman, Barbara J., et al. A Heavy Load: The Combined Housing and Transportation Burdens of Working Families. Washington, D.C.: Center for Housing Policy, 2006 (October). Available at http://www.nhc.org/pdf/pub_heavy_load_10_06.pdf.

Memo #8: Equity


Currently the Bay Area has two ambitious congestion pricing proposals under consideration (though a long way from implementation). One is a regional network of HOT lanes on Bay Area freeways, with the possibility of those lanes being used for an express bus network as well as for solo drivers and carpools. The second proposal is to implement “area” congestion pricing for downtown San Francisco: drivers would have to pay a fee to enter the congested portion of the city, and the fee rate would vary so that it is higher in the most congested times and lower or even free during the off-peak period. Pick whichever proposal interests you more to write a memo following the directions below.


A high-level Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) staff member, who wishes to remain anonymous, has asked for your help because she knows you are knowledgeable about and sensitive to equity issues in transportation. S/he wants to understand (1) the equity issues related to the congestion pricing proposal you pick (a HOT lane network or area pricing in downtown SF) and (2) how the proposed new system could be designed to minimize those concerns. Write a one-page memo summarizing the key points she should consider, making sure to cite both readings for the day.

Week 11: April 15

Due: Memo #9 on the Grand Boulevard (see below)


  • Guest Rob Swierk (Senior Transportation Planner, VTA): The Grand Boulevard Initiative - modeling the benefits of enhanced transit under different land-use scenarios
  • Comprehensive approaches to transit services: BRT, dedicated bus lanes, and coordinating transportation and land use planning
  • VTA Class Project: review actual results from the submitted surveys from respondents; review the compilation of database results from completed surveys from respondents; student teams to present draft data summaries (tables, charts, graphs, etc); officially end the online parking demand survey

Required Readings: See the memo assignment for the required reading

Recommended Readings:

  • Bent, Elizabeth M., Rachel E.M. Hiatt, and Krute Singa. "Full-Featured Bus Rapid Transit in San Francisco, California: Toward a Comprehensive Planning Approach and Evaluation Framework." Transportation Research Record 2072 (2008): 89-100. (This document will be e-mailed to you.)
  • Currie, Graham, and Ian Wallis. "Effective Ways to Grow Urban Bus Markets: A Synthesis of Evidence." Journal of Transport Geography 16, no. 6 (2008): 419-29. (Available through the SJSU library's on-line journals.)
  • Estupinan, Nicolas, and Daniel A. Rodriguez. "The Relationship between Urban Form and Station Boardings for Bogota's BRT." Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice 42, no. 2 (2008): 296-306. (This document will be e-mailed to you.)
  • Taylor, Brian D., Douglas Miller, Hiroyuki Iseki, and Camille Fink. "Nature and/or Nurture? Analyzing the Determinants of Transit Ridership across US Urbanized Areas." Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice 43, no. 1 (2009): 60-77. (This document will be e-mailed to you.)

Memo #9: Planning for the Grand Boulevard along El Camino Real

You are a planner working for VTA and have been asked to help the cities of San Jose and Santa Clara with a project to turn El Camino Real into a "Grand Boulevard." Your director at VTA, Ms. Planella Visiona, has asked you to do a little reading about the project and visit the corridor, and then to write up a brief memo on your observations and recommendations from this preliminary reconnaissance work.

Task 1: Read about the project

Go to the homepage for the Grand Boulevard (http://www.grandboulevard.net/) and read:

  • The information on the homepage.
  • The "About Us" information (see the link at the left of the homepage, and read both the "History of El Camino" and the "Grand Boulevard Initiative" pages).
  • The "Existing Conditions Report" (see link at left of the homepage). You can skim much of the report, but pay careful attention to the sections on "Existing Land Use" (pp.14-22) and "Amenities/Identity" (pp. 47-49).

You may wish to browse through other pages on this website, as well, but doing so is optional.

Task 2: Visit the site

Take a drive, bus ride (VTA Route 22/522), bike ride, or walk along the Grand Boulevard corridor, starting on the Alameda, in San Jose, just west of the Arena. Follow the Alameda as it turns into El Camino Real in Santa Clara, and continue for about 3.5 miles, at least up to the intersection with Kiely/Bowers. You can see the route on this map.

While you are traveling along El Camino, take notes on what you see, keeping in mind the memo you will write, as described in Task 3.

I encourage you to do this site visit together with other members of the class so that you can discuss your observations together. However, you should write the memo (Task 3) by yourself.

Task 3: Write your memo

Once you are home, write a memo of 1/2 to 1 page recording your observations and recommendations for improving the corridor. Be sure to discuss how the boulevard changes along the way (e.g., the differences between The Alameda in San Jose and El Camino in Santa Clara). Also, explain what steps you recommend the cities of San Jose and Santa Clara take to turn the corridor into a street worthy of the name the "Grand Boulevard." What opportunities do you see? What challenges do you think the cities would face, and how would you try to overcome them?

As you think about what changes to recommend, try to think of recommendations that will help to achieve the five evaluation criteria we have been discussing all semester (these are on the top of the course syllabus).

Alternative assignments if you cannot visit this stretch of El Camino:

Everyone must read the material assigned in Task 1 and prepare questions for Rob Swierk. However, if you are unable to visit the part of El Camino described in Task 2, above, you may do one of these alternatives for Tasks 2 and 3:

Alternative A: Visit another stretch of El Camino that is at least three miles long and write a memo following the guidelines in Task 3, though of course you will be describing a different section of the corridor.

Alternative B: Visit a stretch of either Van Ness Avenue or Geary Boulevard in San Francisco, and write a memo equivalent to the one described in Task 3. If possible, also read the Bent et al (2008) article listed under the recommended readings for the April 9 class.

Alternative C: Visit a 3-mile or longer stretch of a major commercial corridor. The corridor should have commercial development along at least part of the stretch, and the street should have at least four lanes of traffic (two in each direction). In the East Bay, for example, San Pablo Avenue or Telegraph Avenue would be good choices. After you do your observations, write a memo equivalent to the one described in Task 3.

Acknowledgment: Rob Swierk designed the concept for this memo assignment.

Week 12: April 22

Due: Memo #10: Parking Policy at SJSU (see below)


  • Guest Ying Smith (Transportation Planning Manager, VTA): VTA’s role in land use-transportation planning integration
  • Parking management strategies
  • VTA Class Project: review final results from the submitted surveys from respondents; review the final compilation of database results from completed surveys from respondents; student teams to present final data summaries (tables, charts, graphs, etc); discuss the writing assignments for the draft technical reports

Required Readings:

  • New reference from Ying Smith (This document will be e-mailed to you.)
  • Litman, Todd. "Parking Management: Strategies, Evaluation, and Planning." Victoria Transport Policy Institute, November 5, 2008. Available at http://www.vtpi.org/park_man.pdf.
  • Shoup, Donald. "Roughly Right or Precisely Wrong." Access, no. 20 (2002): 20-25. Available at http://www.uctc.net/access/access20.pdf.

Recommended Reading:

  • Shoup, Donald. The High Cost of Free Parking. Chicago: American Planning Association, 2005. (Check SJSU MLK library for availability.)

Memo #10: Parking Policy at SJSU

Members of SJSU's Parking, Traffic, and Transit Committee (PTTAC) want to encourage more employees to switch from driving alone to work and parking in campus garages to, well, anything else. (Carpooling, walking, biking, taking transit, bouncing on a pogo stick)

Right now the university charges staff $86 a semester for a parking pass (with some discounts for those who only want to park one or two days a week). Staff who buy parking year-round can do so with pre-tax dollars. Staff are always guaranteed to find a space in a garage on campus.

The main programs designed to encourage alternative commute modes are:
- Preferred parking spots for registered carpoolers.
- "CommuterCheck," a program that lets staff buy transit tickets and passes with pre-tax dollars.
- Semester passes for VTA buses and light-rail that staff can buy from an office on campus for $25/semester.
- Assistance finding carpool partners.

Some PTTAC members have proposed raising the price of on-campus parking to $2/hour, or a maximum of $8/day. No long-term passes would be available. Other PTTAC members oppose this idea as a hardship on staff and say it would be better to instead allow staff to buy up to $50/month in free transit tickets (the university would pay for this). Now the committee is at an impasse, with neither side budging. The members would like you to write a one-page memo advising what policy/policies they should support, explaining the rationale behind your recommendation.

When you write the memo, be sure to cite the day's reading by Litman.

Week 13: April 29

Due: Memo #11 – The Land Use-Transportation Connection (see below)


  • Guest Steve Colman (Principal at Dowling Associates): Traffic impact analysis
  • Transportation and land-use planning: How do they connect?
  • VTA Class Project: discuss the status of the Draft Technical Report; reconcile any remaining technical or production issues; discuss the project production process and identify potential improvements for future class projects

Required Reading:

  • New reference from Steve Colman. (This document will be e-mailed to you.)
  • City of Napa, Public Works Department, Transportation Engineering Division. Policy Guidelines: Traffic Level of Service (LOS) Criteria For Private Development Review. July 2004. Available at http://www.cityofnapa.org/images/publicworks/Traffic/TACpolicies/tac_03.pdf
  • Handy, Susan. "Smart Growth and the Transportation - Land Use Connection: What Does the Research Tell Us?" International Regional Science Review 28, no 2 (2005): 146-167. Available at http://repositories.cdlib.org/postprints/670/.

Recommended Reading:

  • Highly recommended for those unfamiliar with CEQA: Fulton, William, and Paul Shigley. "Chapter 9: The California Environmental Quality Act." Guide to California Planning, 3rd edition, 155-179. Point Arena, CA: Solano Press Books, 2005. (Available in the SJSU library.)
  • San Francisco County Transportation Authority. Automobile Trips Generated: CEQA Impact Measure and Mitigation Program: Final Report. October 27, 2008. Available at http://www.sfcta.org/images/stories/ATG_Report_final_lowres.pdf.

Memo #11 - The Transportation-Land Use Connection

Many people believe that planning building relatively dense and/or mixed-use and/or transit-oriented communities will lead people to reduce their driving and increase their travel by transit, walking, and biking. (Or, to go back to one of the five evaluation metrics for the class, they believe that this type of community enhances multi-modal accessibility for residents.)

You work as a planner for Green Acres, a city that has several square miles of undeveloped land in a district informally known as Golden Futures. Several developers are all chomping at the bit to get permission to build large projects in Golden Futures. Your city council wants to know if developing this land in the form of dense, mixed-use, and transit-oriented neighborhoods will lead the future residents to drive less and use alternative modes more than they would if Golden Futures were developed as low-density residential suburbs.

Write a one-half to one-page memo advising your council members on how residents' travel patterns would likely differ if the city were to require all major new developments in Golden Futures be compact, mixed-use, and transit oriented versus developing low-density residential suburbs. In your memo, cite the day's reading by Susan Handy.

Week 14: May 6

Furlough day--no class.

  • VTA Class Project: student teams to finalize their sections of the Draft Technical Report for the VTA Parking Demand Survey of Selected TODs; student teams to collaborate to compile the full Draft Technical Report; leader student team to edit full Draft Technical Report for internal consistency, professional formatting, citations/references, proper tone, etc.

Week 15: May 13

Due: VTA Class Project: Student Team Presentations for the VTA Parking Demand Survey of Selected TODs


  • Student evaluations of the class (SOTES)
  • Student team presentations of sections of Draft Technical Report for VTA Parking Demand Survey of Selected TODs in front of VTA Staff (Robert Swierk and Ying Smith)

No reading and no memo.

Final Exam Week: May 20

No Final Exam.

Due May 20: Full Draft Technical Report for the VTA Parking Demand Survey of Selected TODs.
Student peer evaluation of teammates re. contribution to VTA class project due via e-mail.

Instructor Bio

Eduardo C. Serafin, PE, AICP serves as Technical Program Manager of the Technology Transfer Program (Tech Transfer) of the Institute of Transportation Studies (ITS) at the University of California, Berkeley. Eduardo is a nationally certified planner (specializing in urban and transportation planning) and a professional traffic engineer registered in the State of California. He has over 24 years of professional traffic / transportation experience covering planning, policy, environmental impact analysis, preliminary design, engineering operations and safety. He brings together his professional experience from California, the Northeastern U.S. states, Texas, and his native Philippines.

As a transportation professional, Eduardo strives to champion multi-modal transportation planning, integrated land use-transportation planning, transit planning and transit oriented development (TOD) planning, comprehensive pedestrian and bicyclist planning, environmentally sensitive land development, context-sensitive transportation infrastructure planning and the ethical practice of professional traffic engineering. Previously, Eduardo served as the first Senior Traffic Engineer for the City of Napa. In addition, he has over thirteen years experience in top private consulting firms specializing in transportation engineering and planning, as well as over six years in applied research and training in major universities. He is also an adjunct graduate lecturer at the San Jose State University in the Master of Urban Planning program.

At Tech Transfer, Eduardo leads the technical management of ongoing training and professional development programs. He is also key in the development of future training programs to address the dynamic needs of the California professional community in transportation engineering and planning.


  • M.S.T.M., Transportation Management; Polytechnic Institute of New York University, Brooklyn; 1997
  • M.S.E., Transportation Engineering and Planning; University of California, Berkeley; 1990
  • Land Use & Environmental Planning, University of California, Davis Extension; 2006
  • Graduate Studies, Urban Transportation Planning; New Jersey Institute of Technology, Newark; 1986
  • B.S.C.E., Civil Engineering; University of the Philippines, Diliman; Quezon City, Metro-Manila; 1983


  • Professional Engineer (PE) in Traffic Engineering, State of California (TR1734), 1993
  • Certified Planner, American Institute of Certified Planners (AICP) (101394), 1998
  • Engineering License in Civil Engineering, Republic of the Philippines, 1985

Technical Specialties

  • Program and project management
  • Stakeholder outreach and community engagement
  • Metropolitan transportation planning
  • Traffic engineering, safety, and operations
  • Multi-modal transportation corridor studies
  • Transit-oriented development (TOD) planning
  • Traffic calming and neighborhood traffic management
  • Pedestrian and bicyclist safety planning
  • Traffic impact studies for environmental impact analysis
  • Traffic management of construction-related Impacts
  • Review of private development projects for traffic safety and operations
  • Quality control review of traffic signals and intersection capital improvement projects
  • Traffic safety monitoring of high-collision locations
  • Intelligent transportation systems (ITS) deployment planning
  • Travel demand modeling and traffic simulation
  • CADD engineering design plan production and management
  • Geographic information systems (GIS) as applied to transportation studies

Professional Experience – Over 24 Years

  • Over thirteen years in top private consulting firms specializing in transportation engineering and planning, including DKS Associates (Oakland, CA), Parsons Brinckerhoff (New York, NY), Wilbur Smith Associates (San Francisco, CA), and Klotz Associates (Houston, TX); served as project engineer or project manager in a variety of projects involving travel demand modeling, traffic impact analysis/environmental analysis, parking studies, transportation corridor analysis, multi-modal transportation planning, and conceptual engineering design; diverse and comprehensive technical and project management experience in small, medium, and large transportation projects of varying geographic scale and complexity
  • Over five years in local public agencies serving as senior traffic engineer and managing the transportation division (City of Napa, CA); division manager responsible for the implementation of traffic operations and safety monitoring, traffic signals capital improvement projects, citywide transportation planning, neighborhood traffic calming, bicyclist planning, traffic model maintenance, and managing the Traffic Advisory Committee; interim division manager in responsible charge of the traffic and civil engineering review of current private development projects seeking discretionary permits from the Community Development Department and the engineering plan check of parcel and subdivision maps, improvement plans, grading plans, and other related documents; extensive experience in consensus building and stakeholder outreach
  • Over six years in applied research and training in major universities, including applied research and professional development training (University of California, Berkeley, Institute of Transportation Studies, Technology Transfer Program), intelligent transportation systems (ITS) deployment planning and program management (Polytechnic Institute of New York University, Brooklyn, Transportation Research Center, Urban ITS Center), and conducting training seminars (University of the Philippines, Diliman, Transport Training Center)

Professional Affiliations

Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) – national, regional, and local chapters; American Planning Association (APA) – national, regional, and local chapters; Transportation Research Board (TRB); Registered Traffic Engineers of America (RTEA); State of California Board for Professional Engineers & Land Surveyors, Volunteer

Employment History




Mar 2009 to date

San Francisco Bay Area, CA

University of California, Berkeley, Institute of Transportation Studies, Technology Transfer Program; Richmond, CA – Technical Program Manager

Nov. 2006 to Jan 2009

Houston Metropolitan Area, TX

Klotz Associates, Houston, TX – Senior Project Manager

Oct. 1999 to Oct. 2006

San Francisco Bay Area, CA

City of Napa, CA – Senior Traffic Engineer / Transportation Engineering Division Manager; San Jose State University, CA – Part-Time Adjunct Graduate Lecturer for Transportation and Urban Planning

Wilbur Smith Associates, San Francisco, CA – Principal Transportation Engineer; Katz, Okitsu & Associates, Oakland, CA - Senior Transportation Engineer and Planner

Oct. 1993 to Jan. 1999

New York City, NY

Polytechnic Institute of New York University, Brooklyn, NY - Program Manager, Urban ITS Center and Exec21 Program

Parsons Brinckerhoff, New York, NY - Senior Transportation Engineer and Planner

Jan. 1987 to Jun. 1993

San Francisco Bay Area, CA

DKS Associates, Oakland, CA - Transportation Engineer and Planner

Institute of Transportation Studies, University of California, Berkeley - Research Assistant

Mar. 1983 to Jun. 1985

Metro-Manila, Philippines

Transport Training Center, University of the Philippines, Diliman, Quezon City - Transportation Assistant


URBP256 Course Outline Sp2010-V7

Search more related documents:Transportation Planning – Local Issues

Set Home | Add to Favorites

All Rights Reserved Powered by Free Document Search and Download

Copyright © 2011
This site does not host pdf,doc,ppt,xls,rtf,txt files all document are the property of their respective owners. complaint#downhi.com