What’s So Controversial About Safety?

I’m going to repost a comment I made over in a Seattle Transit Blog thread (http://seattletransitblog.com/2010/08/25/road-diet-disconnect/).

Let’s calculate the lost time and money for drivers versus the expense of collisions and injuries using the data from the Stone Way report (http://www.publicola.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/StoneWaybeforeafterFINAL1.pdf). Now admittedly, the Stone Way report lacks travel time information which certainly is critical information. So instead let’s just use the reduction in mph at the 85th percentile level which was 3 mph (37mph to 34mph southbound).

Stone Way from 45th to 34th is 0.9 miles. Thus this represents an increase in travel time of 7.7 seconds without taking into account intersection delay. Now that may not seem like a lot, but let’s remember that collectively about 14,000 vehicles used to travel daily on Stone Way. Therefore assuming every one of these drivers experienced that delay, on a yearly basis that is a per-capita delay of 47 minutes but 1.25 years collectively. For further comparison, let’s multiply those 1.25 years by the PSRC observed value of time (http://www.psrc.org/assets/1820/ValueofTimeMemo-updated.pdf) which we’ll round up to $25 per hour giving us a total of $274,185.20.

Collisions decreased from 159 (52 with injuries) between 2005-07 to 137 (35 with injuries) between 2007-09 (both were 28 month periods). So that’s about 10 less collisions or 8 less with injuries. Now the report doesn’t mention if there were any fatalities, so let’s assume nobody died (my sincere condolences if anybody did). I’m not going to dig into it, but people can use their imagination on what might happen in an injury in terms of lost time and also money.

The point is, if these annual 10 collisions including those 8 with injuries caused more than 1.25 years of “wasted time” or a financial loss of more than $274,185.20 than the road diet was worth it.

You don’t seem to know what “delay” means, and you are justifying illegal behavior. Not being able to drive 10 over the legal limit does not constitute delay.

What if I suggested we invent a device that read a road’s speed limit off of radio transmitters/RFID in the curb, and physically prevented your car from speeding? 30 mph? Great: you can’t exceed 30 mph.

What’s to say that SDOT couldn’t simply choose to raise the speed limit to 40mph since 15% of people are driving at least that fast anyways?

That is where this comparison comes in. I redid the numbers for 125th assuming that all 16200 vehicles drove at 40mph (now the hypothetical legal limit) along all 1.3 miles of the corridor – but now all drove at 30mph. That is a collective annual 7.3 years of lost time or annual $1,601,438 of lost money.

The question I’m hoping people will ask themselves is whether the benefits in safety or any number of other measures one can come up with outweigh slower travel times.

The sooner your future car devices get here, the better. Until then, I propose a road diet.

This analysis makes no sense.

Let’s just make it so that all cars and bikes and walkers can only go 1 mph. This will be the safest bet of them all. What? You don’t like this idea, you anti-safety fascist??

Everything we do is a trade-off between safety and life. Road diet would increase safety and life for bikers and walkers and probably safety slightly for drivers, while slowing driving.

To me, the real debate is that are these trade-offs worth it? We are talking about over 16,000 driver/day against hundreds(?) of pedestrians and bikers.

Also, who know, maybe with this safer road diet, SDOT could raise the speed limit to 40 mph. Now that would be a win-win.

This analysis looks at the issue through a set of values or objectives which seems to be how fast I can get where I am going driving in my single occupancy vehicle.

My personal values are different. Road diets are one very effective tool in making communities more walkable, bikable and transit focused. You have to take actions to make it easier to be a pedestrian, bicycle rider, transit rider.

Creating our communities so that people can take transit, bike and walk to accomplish their daily activities not only creates huge efficiencies by reducing per capita infrastructure costs but it also has huge advantages for public health, reducing carbon emissions, and saving the consumer (i.e. the traveler) on combined housing plus transportation costs.

Road diets are one small tool in moving Seattle closer to achieving its values. I have experienced a wonderful ‘road diet’ on Fauntleroy in West Seattle. Sometime I need to drive my car to pick up my son from daycare (which believe me, I don’t want to be late and have to pay late fees) and I drive this corridor post rechannelization and I can attest to the fact that its more efficient and safer for drivers too because of the center turn lane. I have experienced absolutely no delay issues with the road diet in this corridor.

That’s not how or why speed limits are set, and it could be that driving 30mph through here is nearly as fast as 40 mph because the traffic lights can be timed to facilitate progression. Delay is usually measured at intersections, and the only place I’ve seen an intersection not clear in one light cycle here is at Lake City Way. More factors come into play than lost time and money but you are on the right track.

I wish NE 125th was a longer road so I could speed for a greater distance
before I have to slow down at lake city or the light at 15th ave… I just cant get my car up to 80mph unless im going downhill – and by the time I hit 80, I have to start slowing down. Peds and bike and kids and grandmas better watch out – get outta my way!

-North Seattle Car Crank

I had this idea when I was 8 years old. Except it was using lasers to read barcodes on speed limit signs.

I get your point, and it seems you are using the money angle to prove that a road diet is worth it, but seems cynical, or ‘reverse-psychology’ cynical.

According to the PDF on the web site, SDOT is putting in no new crosswalks as part of this project. This calls into question whether this project is about pedestrian safety. http://www.seattle.gov/transportation/bikeprojects/documents/NE125projectplans.pdf
http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&q=&vps=2&jsv=270a&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=63.384331,135.263672&ie=UTF8&geocode=FVEl2AIdyZK1-A&split=0

Slower traffic may increase pedestrian safety, but not as much as crosswalks and other appropriate controls (which, incidentally, also slow traffic). Will this reconfiguration reduce speeds? Maybe, maybe not. The Stone Way example suggests it might. On 15th NE in Maple Leaf, we’re also 5+ mph above the 30mph posted speed. It’s a single lane in either direction with few traffic controls, so simply reducing the number of travel lanes may not accomplish the desired speed reduction.

SDOT is currently fascinated by restriping projects. I’m worried they are fascinated so much they continues to evade taking responsible action for pedestrians. I’m worried this fascination will continue to enable them to ignore data that crosswalks (with and without controls, depending on the location and expected user profile) are a better way of increasing pedestrian safety. Again, I note crosswalks with controls do decrease speeds.

In Maple Leaf, SDOT is restriping 30 blocks of Roosevelt based upon a count of 10-15 riders per hour across the entire 30-block area. To get a crosswalk, however, we have to have 20 crossers per hour at a single street.

I question the equity in that calculation.

This is *NOT* an argument against this particular plan or against restriping in general*. If the neighborhoods involved believe this solves their problem, it’s their decision (assuming there aren’t transit throughput degredation that affects other areas).

This is a statement of concern that we’re allowing SDOT to gloss over their fundamental resistance to pedestrian safety.

* Much has been written here, inaccurately, about the Maple Leaf Community Council’s “opposition” to the restriping on Roosevelt. SDOT’s original plan was to restripe 75th to 115th. The MLCC endorses the restriping from 85th to 115th and is looking forward to that work starting soon. (We continue to advocate for additional corsswalks, however.) The 10 blocks from 75th to 85th we questioned because the loss of bypass lanes in the morning commute would critical bus routes on Roosevelt. We asked SDOT to hold off and work with us, Metro, and others to see if we could come up with an improved alternate solution in that area.

SDOT agreed. We thought this 10 blocks this would be a process that could start immediately and take a few weeks to work out, but SDOT wants to postpone it until next year after the 15th Ave NE bridge is open at 103rd. Their reasoning is they want to look at “normal” traffic patterns (the 15th NE Metro routes are running on Roosevelt during the bridge closure). The MLCC looks forward to working with SDOT and Metro at that time to improve pedestrian safety, transit throughput, and bike safety along those 10 remaining blocks.

One quick clarification. SDOT has not said, nor is Renee, in this op-ed, that it will fund new crosswalks as part of this initial project. However, without this rechannelization, NO crosswalks can ever be considered due to the lane configuration.

I am so surprised to see folks who want to keep their little neighborhoods sleepy little, anti-growth hamlets opposed to these projects which will ultimately serve this purpose. Then, again, I guess car-dependency does create strange bedfellows.

It’s sad that David ran for city council on the “wonky” platform yet his comments on these projects are so off base and ignorant of the facts.

The best solution to this is to use some of the clever engineers in this town, Seattle has lots of them.
Leave NE 125 as 2 lanes each way from 35 Av NE to 27 Av NE, which contains 3 major intersections. Abolish the parking on NE 125 in this area, the spaces in front of the Subway and library are totally destructive to the flow of traffic.

Go to the 1 lane each way plus left turn lane to climb the hill, which accomplishes helping the bike people and the peds. Go back to the 4 lane configuration at the busy intersections.

One reason this plan is met with such opposition is because it is being pushed by a relatively small group of people, and ignores the larger area the road serves. Most people in the area don’t even consider Pinehurst a neighborhood. You are either in Lake City, Northgate to the South, or Shoreline to the North.

Let’s not jump to conclusion about whether to do a “road diet.”

I think that there is general agreement (even you PS) that some degree of traffic calming is a way to get to walkable urbanism.

Why not agree in general, as I think that most of us (except car maniacs) do, to traffic calming and then figure out the best way?

i would just like to say that i love close to the recent “road diet” on fauntleroy way in west seattle and i personally have experienced this as an enormous success. i equally drive, bike and walk on this road and it is now better for all three of these things.

“i love close to the recent “road diet” on fauntleroy”

Now if anything will slow traffic, that will.

Miller may be wonky here (and everywhere) but I prefer someone who speaks with knowledge rather than the b.s. typically found in these comments or from the mouths of our electeds and public servants.

So what in his comment is “off base and ignorant of the facts”? I have found too that SDOT prioritizes cars over pedestrians even in supposed ‘safety’ projects.

There are crosswalks there already, making your statement incorrect.

And, to be clear, MLCC is not opposed to this project nor the project in Maple Leaf. I’m not personally opposed to them either. My WORRY is SDOT is hiding behind bike lane striping instead of dealing with real pedestrian safety improvements.

Nice claim. I’d be interested to see where you think I’m off base on the facts.

Would you say it’s your CONCERN? They have objective data that shows a three-lane cross section is safer than four.

David Miller’s MO:

1. Wow them with long winded not always accurate data
2. Always bring it back to Maple Leaf, the center of The Known Universe
3. Criticize all City departments, unless of course, they are on your side this time (which doesn’t happen often)
4. Question the motives of all who disagree with you
5. Worry/show “concern” a lot (when you can’t otherwise support your position)
6. Post often regardless of whether you make any sense

I would say that assuming more crosswalks equals more safety is off base. And I would believe that David was genuinely “concerned” and not just cloaking his visceral response with a brain fart of information, some true, some irrelevant except when he writes things like, “In Maple Leaf, SDOT is restriping 30 blocks of Roosevelt based upon a count of 10-15 riders per hour across the entire 30-block area…” it does not demonstrate that he understands the goals of or reasons for the project, even as he accuses SDOT of not caring about pedestrian safety without examples or data. That’s what I see as the difference between being “wonky” and just bullshitting.

You would say. And who the fuck are you anyway? David and I at least use our real names and have somewhat of a profile. All we know about you is you’re a virulent car-hater and a rather unpleasant urbanazi jihadist who spouts the Bertolet/Steffen party line as if by reflex.

My car is sitting outside my office right now.

Sorry for that last comment Ivan; I know cognitive dissonance is unpleasant.

Don’t flatter yourself that you inspire cognitive dissonance in anybody. As far as I’m concerned, you’re just a parrot.

Data show crosswalks encourage pedestrian use. Crosswalks appropriately sited and accompanied (when necessary) with additional controls are safe for pedestrians.

You’re right that all things equal, two lanes plus a turn lane is safer than four lanes. That doesn’t mean it’s safe for pedestrians. Making it safe AND inviting for pedestrians means doing that and adding crosswalks — which SDOT routinely and with no backing data opposes.

The Maple Leaf situation is relevant. Roosevelt in that stretch has not been shown to be consistently over speed limits. It has wide shoulders in 30 of the 40 blocks they wanted to restripe. It has none of the congenstion or other characteristics normally associated with wanting to be a target for a road diet (which is why I don’t think anyone seriously called the Roosevelt project in our n’hood a road diet).

If you’ve spent any time trying to get SDOT to do improvements in your neighborhood, you know they live for their statistics and by their budget. Most requests are turned down for one or both. Crosswalks, simple signage, and other painting-associated projects are not costly and are mostly rejected due to statistics like not enough crossings per hour (which ignores added crossings that come when the crosswalk is painted, but that’s a whole other argument).

McGinn says he’s got the backs of pedestrians and cyclists and he’s a neighborhood guy. OK. He’s authorized 40 blocks of restriping for 10-15 riders per hour. This is relevant because it’s a lot of paint for not a lot of people according to historic SDOT criteria.

So we pointed out that it’s not consistent policy to stripe 40 blocks for 10-15 people an hour but refuse to paint one crosswalks at one street corner because we don’t have 20 people per hour.

I understand the goals of the project just fine. I’m OK with those goals. I’d just like the criteria that resulted in Roosevelt to be chosen for bike lane restriping to apply to our requests for crosswalks.

FYI, the center of the universe is Fremont.

David – There is nothing factually incorrect with my statement. I didn’t say there were no crosswalks. Based on Renee’s op-ed and my limited knowledge of 125th, there is one in a stretch of road that has a number of bus stops. My point was that the current alignment precludes the creation of future crosswalks according to current safety standards.

SDOT’s current standards are based upon faulty data and faulty interpretations of those data. Citing them as proof of anything isn’t convincing.

In any case, current safety standards allow for crosswalks over 4 lanes as long as they are accompanied by signals. This, incidentally, would also slow down traffic.

Renee (or anyone else). Has SDOT shared with you their biker count on 125th?

Did you factor in the time spent trying to cross the street? A lot of people decide not to cross close to their house, but go several blocks out of there way, where there is a light. Also, since some people decide the extra walking isn’t worth it, you should factor in the increased driving. This extra driving causes extra traffic, which slows people down.

If your comment is “*NOT* an argument against this particular plan or against restriping in general” then why post it? Seriously, why not write your own editorial? As far as crosswalks are concerned, I suggest you read this one. The author clearly states “The city routinely denies neighborhood requests for more unsignaled crosswalks because the four-lane road is too dangerous.” Why is that? Think about it. We’ve all seen it, as a driver or pedestrian. A car in the outer lane stops for the pedestrian in the crosswalk (it is the law, after all). The driver behind stopped car doesn’t see the pedestrian, so he moves into the inner lane. Now other cars do the same. The pedestrian’s view is blocked, so he doesn’t see the inner car, and you’ve got yourself an accident waiting to happen. Until the city converts the road from four lanes to three, it won’t build any crosswalks.

This is a simple “big bang for the buck” proposal. It will only slow down traffic a little bit (3 lanes have just about as much throughput as 4) but will allow for a lot more pedestrian traffic.

David, read the editorial again. Renee said “The city routinely denies neighborhood requests for more unsignaled crosswalks because the four-lane road is too dangerous.” See the word “unsignaled”? Basically, she is saying that we won’t get any crosswalks, unless they are accompanied by signals. Guess what? That is expensive. Thus, we probably won’t get any crosswalks anytime soon unless the other restriping is done. If the city was adding (or planning to add) a bunch of new crosswalks (with signals) than Renee (and folks like her) wouldn’t want this project so much. Of course, adding all those signals would probably slow traffic throughput way more than shrinking the lanes from four to three. I would like to see a comparison of the projects (from a cost and traffic perspective) though (add half a dozen crosswalks with signals versus restriping).

Oh, and in what way are SDOT’s current standard based upon faulty data or faulty interpretation? I am curious, as this is a very bold claim. Do you have engineering experts who think that SDOT is making big mistakes, or are you, as a civil engineer, making your own assessment?

Jakers (& others): “To me, the real debate is that are these tradeoffs worth it? We are talking about over 16,000 driver/day against hundreds of pedestrians and bikers”.

Pardon me, but it sounds as though you are saying that if I have the unmitigated gall to travel anywhere other than in my shiny metal box, then I deserve to be killed or injured rather than cause you even a millisecond of time delay. How DARE I delay you or any other driver from your oh-so-important task? After all, you ARE the center of the universe.
Sir, numbers are no excuse. Even one person killed or injured is too many. Until attitudes of drivers are changed, and they are taught to look after road users more vulnerable than themselves (i.e., not driving Hummers), then changing the road architecture is the only way to try to control their behaviour and make them think.

I should mention that I’m a true “petrolhead” and love and race cars – but on a track, not on the road.

Get serious about this walking thing. First of all, the hill is obnoxiously steep. Secondly, how much walking do you see? There are plenty of sidewalks but virtually no one uses them. Why? Hills. Rain. Destinations. Kids and stuff to haul. Walking is a great idea downtown, not in the neighborhoods.

INteresting that SDOT refuses to say why they set the speed limit at 30…

So, how are your brakes doing when they’re ridden four blocks downhill to stay at 30?

People in the neighborhoods want arterials as well as neighborhood streets. In this case, we’re going to get a single column of cars going downhill and piling up at 35th and Lake City Way. There won’t be any bike riders going up the hill, to speak of, so, effectively, we’re hindering lots and lots of people to create a bus lane OR we’re all going to be backed up behind a bus struggling uphill. Getting in and out of Pinehurst is going to be a nightmare and safety won’t change at all. (BTW, SDOT won’t reveal the specifics of those 153 accidents so we’re just taking that number on faith.)

What do you mean by “traffic calming?” Isn’t this a phrase with no substance? I haven’t seen any frantic traffic on NE 125th…

How come advocates of fouling up traffic get space and those opposed don’t?

No, John, the term “traffic calming” is not without substance at all. Please look into it…Google “traffic calming” and you’ll see that it is an accepted technique (and set of techniques — there are lots of ways to calm traffic) among traffic engineers.

Perhaps because it’s the default arterial speed in Seattle?

To add to Ross’ thought – the reality is that significant numbers of new signals on arterials will often lead to cut-through traffic on residential side streets, as the motorist’s perception is that this is “faster” (which I suppose it is if one ignores the residential speed limit and blows through). This in turn creates more demand for traffic circles, chicanes, and other such things. Plus installing signals is expensive.