Fact: Road Diets Work.

The data also shows pedestrians are three times more likely to be killed on a Monday as they are on a Wednesday.  Maybe the City should implement a Week Diet and repaint Monday into the weekend.

Opinion: Road diets work. Fact: Most of that traffic has diverted to 35th, where thankfully there are still two lanes in each direction. Fact: SDOT’s “data” is not to be taken at face value, except for faith-based cultists. Fact: SDOT rammed this road diet down the neighborhood’s throat, just as it is doing with the SW Alaska St. road diet near the Junction. Fact: SDOT has an agenda and will produce date to support that agenda, Fact: Erica C. Barnett will call anything a “fact” that suits her preconceived biases.

The traffic count is a glaring omission in your article. As we know, people will take alternative routes and times if they anticipate congestion. We also know that economic conditions will increase and decrease traffic volumes.
You make you look like you are pandering to bureaucrats and elitist control freaks.
Give us the full story for better or worse.
Yeah, so thanks for the traffic puff piece.

that statistic that travel times increased 76 seconds would be more meaningful with a denominator.  76 seconds out of 200:  2000?  20?  also you’d want to know if the travel time was basically same, but was the total vehicle count way down.  if the road diet worked by incuding 40% of all drivers to not drive on that road, and that’s how the travel time stayed mainly the same, you could decide the road diet worked by eliminating driving, or it didn’t work because it eliminated driving, depending on your agenda.

When SDOT says they have data showing bike ridership is down, you go into denial. When SDOT does an engineering study saying 10 mph speed limit signs are ineffective in slowing traffic down, you go into denial. When SDOT has data about road diets that you happen to like, then all of a sudden you take the traffic engineers’ data at face value.

That right there IS pro-cycling, anti-car propaganda talking. Putting data you don’t like through the wringer and poking holes in it for spurious and fanciful reasons, while credulously embracing data you like. That’s pure propaganda. 100% Grade A Texas bullshit.

And it is this kind of selection bias that we want to avoid in keeping decisions about things like speed limits and traffic calming in the hands of engineers instead of politicizing them. Mayors and city councils and journalists see what they want to see, and they always have an agenda.

Big Bike always gets its way.

As repeatedly posted and demonstrated in the last several weeks, Publicola are frequently incapable or unwilling to write accurate headlines.

The plural of anecdote isn’t data. If the headline is “Fact” any road is made safer by removing lanes. Clearly that isn’t the case, as capacity and demand are entirely ignored.

SDOT studies are politically yoked laugh fests based on myopic data sets. Since their “there’s no negative impact on traffic because of the road diet” assertion after the Nickerson disaster nobody takes anything they have to say at face value.

This author’s inability to factor redirected traffic flows, opportunity costs and the fact that many people disagree with the “goals” of road diets isn’t doing this any favors either.

Why was some data excluded?

Your “facts” are opinion too, Ivan.  Most of the traffic hasn’t diverted to 35th, only a few Vashon speeders like you.  Prove traffic counts went up on 35th.  There is real data. SDOT did public process, you just didn’t like the process because you didn’t like the result.  And if you want to claim that SDOT manipulates data, than prove it.  Otherwise it is opinion.  You are as sloppy as you always claim ECB is in this post.

The opportunity cost = the opportunity we’re passing up to put thousands of people in greater danger every day in order to save speeders a few seconds.

When I hooked up with Publicola I thought I had really found an interesting blog to keep reading and/or commenting on but I’ve noticed a lot of facts are either wrong or omitted in a lot of Erica’s pieces.  If you are going to editorialize what you are reading supposedly for your readers’ benefit, would you please link us to the article you are taking your notes from so we can get the whole picture not just your point of view?  Thanks.

helped with the extrapolation

i refuse to believe that the accuracy level of 4 seconds one way and 45 seconds could be achieved. This is a propaganda piece.

“Fact”: “Road Diets” “Work”.

This article is such a stupid piece of shit.  It is pure Erica.  lol

To be fair, she did give a link to the study in her other article about it today:

http://www.seattle.gov/transportation/docs/2010%20Traffic%20Report%20final.pdf

The Fauntleroy road diet data is on page 6-3.

So here is the relevant data on the Fauntleroy road diet:

In the morning peak direction, before the road diet, from California to Alaska took 2:52;  after the road diet this trip took 45 seconds longer.  This is an increase in travel time of 26%.

In the afternoon peak direction, before the road diet, from Alaska to California took 2:46; after the road diet this trip took 76 seconds longer.  This is an increase in travel time of 46%.

Between Alaska and California on Fauntleroy is about 1.25 miles.  So, to put the numbers in speed of travel in mph:

Before the road diet, morning northbound averaged 26 mph;  after the road diet the average speed slowed to 21 mph.

Before the road diet afternoon southbound averaged 27 mph;  after the road diet the average speed slowed to 18.6 mph.

So, when Erica says the Fauntleroy road diet works, what she means is that the road diet increased travel times in the morning peak direction by 26%, and in the afternoon peak direction by 46%.  In other words, this is what road diets are designed to do:  make travel by motor vehicle slower and less convenient.  So, in Erica’s mind, she is correct — the Fauntleroy road diet definitely has made travel by motor vehicle much slower and inconvenient.  So, from the perspective of car haters, like Erica, road diets do, indeed “work”, by making cars take a lot longer to get where they are going.

It makes sense.  There is much more traffic in the peak direction — going to downtown in the morning, and away from downtown in the afternoon — than in the opposite direction.  So, in the off-peak direction reducing the number of traffic lanes doesn’t make much difference, since there is not much traffic in that direction.

In the peak direction, however, reducing the number of traffic lanes has a very significant negative impact on travel times — as shown in the study – since there is a lot more traffic in the peak direction.

Page 6-3 in the report or page 32 of the PDF.
http://www.seattle.gov/transportation/docs/2010%20Traffic%20Report%20final.pdf

All measurements are from Alaska to California. (Erica’s numbers for the afternoon commute are different.)

Morning peak travel time
2009 Northbound 172 seconds
2011 Northbound 217 seconds (45 seconds or a 26.2% increase)

2009 Southbound 171 seconds
2011 Northbound  175 seconds (4 seconds or a 2.34% increase)

Afternoon peak travel time
2009 Northbound 154 seconds
2011 Northbound 219 seconds (65 seconds or 42.21% increase)

2009 Southbound 166 seconds
2011 Southbound 220 seconds (54 seconds or 32.53% increase)

The minor overall increase in Seattle traffic also seems to be reflected on Fauntleroy, which might call into question large numbers of people shifting routes to avoid the road diet. (SDOT needs to systematically study and report data on adjacent streets to understand this aspect of road diets). From a table on the same page:

2008 Peak Morning Traffic Northbound 1,021 vehicles
2011 Peak Morning Traffic northbound 998 (-23 vehicles or 2.25% decrease)

2008 Peak Morning Traffic Southbound 378
2011 Peak Morning Traffic Soundbound 423 (+45 vehicles or 11.9% increase)

2008 Peak Afternoon Northbound 497
2011 Peak Afternoon Northbound 537 (+40 vehicles or 8.05% increase)

2008 Peak Afternoon Southbound 977
2011 Peak Afternoon Southbound 940 (-37 vehicles or 3.79% decrease)

For reference, my interpretation of the overall traffic from the graph on page 2-3 (PDF pg 6) of the report shows daily traffic in Seattle overall increased by 1.11%

wow actual data.  it seems to show minor changes in traffic count but increases in travel time of 23 or 46%.

I’d love to see similar stats for ferry peak traffic.  Where “road diets” truly suck is in peak flow event times….

David : If you travel the speed limit, it takes longer.  You like this, right?  A minute longer in a commute is worth protecting pedestrians, right?  It takes people longer to travel through Maple Leaf now that most everyone goes the speed limit on your arterials (people go 30 on 15th instead of the 40+ they used to travel).  This is good, right?  Everyone wins even if we all have to make sure we have to budget more time in our day to make sure we follow the law and protect others.

Travel times increased because fewer people were breaking the law by speeding. Sounds good to me.

A “public process” where SDOT rams their plans up an unwilling communities collective ass is that in name only.

a few speeding commuters does not make a community

a minute is worth a life, right?

I don’t speed, bubba, because it’s against the law. And I don’t take anything that SDOT (Slow Down Our Traffic) takes at face value.

As for the process, I was there, at more than one meeting. I doubt that you were, or you wouldn’t dispute what I’m saying. Their minds were made up and they as much as told us so. When people tried to reason with them, they just said, in effect: “we disagree, and that’s that.” I didn’t like the process AND I didn’t like the outcome, because they might as well not had any process.

46% = 1 minute.  So, you care more about getting to work a minute earlier than about public safety?

I did a public records request on the 125th “road diet”, and comments were running close to 10 to 1 against from people in the neighborhood….

ZOMG – it’s for the CHILDREN!!!!!!!

Fuck your view of public safety. 

Do you have kids?  

I am sorry that you are such an angry and bitter person. I hope life gets better for you.

I don’t need to swear to disagree with someone.  But then, I am a happy person and have a lot going for me in my life.  Again, I hope things get better for you.

Probably should have used “screw” there.

Fear not, I have a beautiful partner, a great job, and am gonna be playing a very fun gig later tonight.  But your faux concern is touching.

How about focusing on speeding by …..enforcing speed limits? 

Because it costs more than a road diet.  And, the outcome is the same: people travel slower.  

I “care more” about safety than getting to work “a minute earlier”So we should have a speed limit of 0 mph
and roads that are o lanes wide, a real super diet.

It’s for the children.

a few speeding commuters do not make a community

That is one minute 16 seconds, on a 1.25 mile stretch of road.  If you had a ten-mile commute, at 1 minute, 16 seconds per each 1.25 miles that would add up to 10 minutes per trip, or 20 minutes per day round trip.

How much time savings will buses get from the millions of dollars wasted on “faster transit” in Prop 1?  Will it speed up buses as much as 1 minute 16 seconds for every 1.25 miles?  Is that a significant difference?  Will it speed up buses at all?

Do you feel that 26 or 27 mph is too fast for Fauntleroy, a major arterial?  That is what the average speed was before the road diet.  Is that too fast for you?  You think motor vehicles on major arterials should average only 18 to 21 mph?

Or, do you just hate cars, and want to make it less convenient to drive in Seattle, like McGinn and Erica?

Yes, Yes, Yes. Depends on how we accomplish the first three (treating your last sentence as a question).

I’m pretty sure our “guest” is an employee of the Cascade Bicycle Club, and the answer to your last question is “yes”

No. HB 1217 was nailed in the Senate by the 80 street stakeholder groups.

The term “road diet” means it can handle only 50% of the traffic. Ok, now I get it

a lot longer? an extra minute and 16 seconds is “a lot longer”? Seriously?

I love how no one bothers to mention the other data in the SDOT study – that safety is significantly improved as the result of this project. I suppose posters don’t want to admit that slowing down vehicles has impacts above and beyond just making your trip take an extra minute and 16 seconds.

Maybe your minute…. if it’s my minute from my life, it’s pedal to the medal baby, as soon as I see that yellow light…  and what’s up with this waste of laneage going the other direction?  It’s my way or the driveway!  Damn straight…

You said that already. It was horseshit the first time.

The average speed on Fauntleroy between Alaska and California was 26 or 27 mph, before the road diet, according to the data.  After the road diet, the average speed in the peak direction during commute peak hours is 18.6 to 21 mph.

What is the speed limit on that stretch of Fauntleroy?

Is 26 or 27 mph “speeding” on Fauntleroy between Alaska and California?

In general, at least going from West Seattle to Downtown, it appears that travel times have increased due to diminished road capacity.  Road Diets hurt cars, but they also hurt public transportation since the buses are crawling on the same roads as the cars.

Road Diets don’t work as long as buses don’t have dedicated right of way options.

In the peak hour peak direction before the road diets, average speed on Fauntleroy between California and alaska was 26 to 27 mph.  Is 26 of 27 mph ”speeding” on that stretch of Fauntleroy?

Over a stretch of road 1.25 miles long, at the speeds traffci was traveling before the road diet, a minute and 16 seconds represent a 46% increase in travle time on that stretch.  Is a 46% increase in travel time a “lot longer”?  Most people would say yes.

What are the promised travel time savings for buses in Prop 1, which is supposed to create “faster transit”?  By what percentage would those changes supposedly reduce travel time?  “A lot”?  If so, what percent decrease in travel time on buses is considered to be “a lot”?  If travel time on buses would not be reduced “a lot”, then why bother?

no a bad idea, but then Tuesday will be the new Monday and we’ll be back where we started.

The speed limit was 35. Still is, as far as I know.

Stop your crap. Nobody’s talking about “speeders.” We’re talking about people who want to drive at the posted speed limit — but can’t — because two lanes of highway are now one.

Anybody who was at those phony “community meetings” to give “input” — which was ignored because SDOT had no intention of listening to any of it in the first place — heard all their traffic engineers, most notably the head liar-in-chief, Eric Widstrand, now thankfully gone to LA, assure us that mobility actually would INCREASE with the road diets, because traffic wouldn’t be stuck behind people making left turns.

Now it’s 6 MPH slower. At an average of 27 MPH before the road diet — if those figures are accurate — “thousands of people” were not in greater danger every day. The statistical probability of zero accidents is not exactly a realistic scenario, except to nanny-staters like you. Normal people learn to manage risk. 

Obviously you don’t understand what an average is.

I certainly do. 

I joined this website “Get Official Samples” and i got free stuff from it, it took about a week for me to receive? something i actually wanted so just join them and it is easy and free

You stupid fool, don’t you realize that any true activist loves neighborhoods until they don’t want to follow the orders issued by their liberal, benevolent betters?

Guest, if I had your kids, I’d probably want to raise neighborhood speed limits to 90

Publicola is fun because of its earnestness, but the people who run it wouldn’t know a “fact” if it slithered up and bit ‘em on the ass.

Road “calming” is actually the opposite. The whole idea is to make it such a pain in the ass to drive a car that people will throw up their hands and get a bicycle instead.

I’d say adding a minute to every mile driven is “a lot longer.”

You don’t live in the neighborhood, Ivan or Mr. X.  I live nearby.  And I was at several meetings. West Seattle is a better place for this improvement.  Fauntleroy was a speedway, and Vashon Islanders hurrying for a ferry were a big part of it. The time difference is miniscule.  How important is it for you to save a half minute?  Important enough to endanger the many youth soccer teams that play at Fairmount who used to have to rush across four lanes of speeding motorists?  Important enough to make the only flat route through West Seattle a dangerous place for bikes?  Important enough to make a street like a freeway through a single family neighborhood.

I don’t approve of all of the road diets proposed, but Fauntleroy was a clear winner.  Frankly, the attitude that streets and roads are only for cars and shouldn’t be safe for pedestrians and bikes and the neighborhood is simply ridiculous.

Stop your crap, Ivan.  You know that even if you didn’t speed that many people drove 45 or 50 on Fauntleroy just like they do on 35th SW today.  The street is safer for cars, bikes, and peds and better for the neighborhood.  Normal people aren’t so self important that they can’t recognize this. 

I’ll bet you don’t live in West Seattle or drive this road regularly.  Plenty of people drove 45 or more on this road, especially folks heading for the Vashon/Southworth ferries.

Fauntleroy was a good candidate because even at rush hour, the traffic counts were low enough to make a road diet a good idea.  You don’t do a lane diet on a busy road.

I don’t own a bike and I drive to get where I need to go most of the time.  

David : Uh huh.  Cause you have no objective and clear criteria.  You just say what ever you like at the moment.  And, usually you say whatever you can to seem contrary to common sense or to what the City wants to do.  It helps for one to have clearly defined criteria and to be objective.  It also helps to be a team player and to get along with the other kids.

Not that you really care, but data on traffic volume and time comes from a methodology that makes a lot of sense — wires across the road that actually count the cars that pass it.

The methodology for bike counting was to get volunteers to stand in certain spots and count.

One provides a pretty-much 100% accurate count for a specific roadway; the other provides a fun experience for volunteers, but isn’t a really reliable or accurate count of bikes citywide.

So no, it’s not data selection bias. It’s not pure propaganda. It’s an actual engagement with methodology, and a critical view of what data that results from different kinds of methods actually means.

But it’s easier to be angry and yell “Bias!” So go for it.

ECB had no problem with the bike count methodology when the numbers were up. Wasn’t just “fun” for her or McGinn or the other bike activists when the numbers seemed to favor their ideology. When the numbers were up you didn’t here the bike army questioning the validity of the count; they were too busy nodding in unison and saying I told you so.

And many others have belabored the critical question of drivers who take alternate routes after the road diet. The study only counts 100% of the cars that are there now; it counts 0% of the ones who were there before and went elsewhere. Nor does it add up increased travel times on the other routes that now carry a heavier load.

You might want to ask yourself if you’re living in a bubble. Just a suggestion.

It would be even safer if the cyclistas reached their ultimate goal of eliminating all cars.

Face it, cyclista, you hate cars and drivers. Everything you advocate revolves around your hatred.

I do so love the Kabuki theater that is SDOT, and McGinn, “community meetings” for input.

Y’all yuppies postin’ in a troll thread.

what od you mean significant improved, how about some actual numes and not absolutes, percentages too. 

wrong.  if we had consistent speeding enforcement, we’d change behaviour.  we are already paying for the cops so it doesn’t add ANY cost.  we put them on the street and ticket everyone going over the limit.  boy, you sure believe it’s okay to let half the drivers speed a lot, that isn’t safe, why are you against safety, children and little kitty cats with big eyes?

I drive a car.  I love my car.  I also love the bus.  I like to walk.  I enjoy biking. 

Face it, Mr. Motorist.  You hate anyone outside of an automobile. Everything you advocate revolves around your hatred.

enforce the laws : You are new to Seattle, right.  Because most people want to police to do things like patrol high crime neighborhoods like downtown or to prevent residential burglaries.  Most people in Seattle think that there are not enough police hours for basic patrols and 911 response let alone for telling people to mind the speed limit.

And here is an example of the majority, status quo using a derogatory term typically referring to it’s preferred industries (Big Oil, Big Three) to belittle and attempt to stifle a smaller group of people. This statement is also idiotic in that the bicycle industry is extremely small. So your “observation” is a total fail in every respect.

I think you’re a lying cyclista.

Change is hard for some.   I bet you would have hated cars during horse-and-buggy days.   Actually, I would have agreed with you then.

You have to take Frequent Reactor with a smiile and then ignore.   I’m new to this blog, but I’ve already figured out that he’s a troll.  Conversation would be more fun and interesting without him.

That’s an idiotic reply.

Funny thing is that your “progressive” crowd is phenomenally backward looking. Instead of thinking about the future transit alternatives in the emerging city, you are bent on a reactionary vision stuck in a time, 50 years ago, when cities revolved much more around their downtowns and inner cores than they do now.

Your approach is literally a failure of imagination, but you have convinced yourselves that you are more intelligent, and more open-minded, than anyone else, when in reality you are every last bit as stupid and as intolerant as the wackiest wingnut out there. Your whole “mass transit” paradigm is vanishing before everyone’s eyes, yet you refuse to see it.

Your ego fantasies would be funny if they weren’t so costly and irrelevant.

Is there really an “anti-bike lane” coalition or just unaffiliated people skeptical of anything this lame mayor proposes?  In other words, if McGinn went away, and they continued painting bike lanes, would there be as much controversy?  McGinn created his own worst enemy — himself.

Didn’t you write this article before, several times? And hasn’t everyone made all of these comments before, several times? Don’t get me wrong, I’m on board with road diets – I think they’re great. But I do grow weary of reading about certain subjects over and over again at Publicola with relatively little new information or insight.

the tohpick holding your eye lids up must have popped out. Just repeat after them, road diets work, road diets work, its not limiting cars or wasting money, you dont need more lanes, do what i say, people dont drive slow because theres a bunch of new paint and new signs all over and they dont want a ticket, they are acting like good little people and lining up in a row, if you do this slowly enough youll never realize that your recieving less paying for it to boot, road diets work, road diets work, you want to pay more so people can study juggling instead of working wherever people will pay them to work, road diets work….yes they do.

If that were the case, I think the Bike Master Plan wouldn’t be 70% unfunded.

“Douchebag” “Troll” “Has” “Nothing” “Useful” “To” “Say”

Ivan, the average speed was not the problem. The speeders were the problem. Get a clue.

Why use screw when you actually mean to say fuck? We already know you want old people and children to die in crosswalks in exchange for a few seconds.

Um, Nickels put in more road diets, bike lanes etc. than McGinn. The controversy is not new; morons need someone to blame though.

My point exactly…I don’t remember this being a controversy under Nickels…but under McGinn, anything he does or supports immediately creates an opposition.  Sooner he leaves office the better…maybe get someone in with similar green ideas who doesn’t alienate and irritate everyone, including his own base or natural allies.

I agree.  I live in the neighborhood as well, I walk, ride my bike, take the bus, drive my car and my motorcycle here.  And you know what?  It’s MUCH BETTER no matter what mode of transportation I choose to use.  It’s MUCH MUCH BETTER if I walk because I can now cross Fauntleroy even during rush hour (an impossibility prior to the road change) if I need to.  I ride my bike on Fauntleroy rather than having to take the sidewalk.  I don’t have to worry about other drivers serving into me, rear ending me if I am making a left turn.  It’s better.  Ask anyone who lives near it.  Thank you SDOT.

What?! No it doesn’t say that. Considering a single pedestrian collision happened after the rechannelization, it’s just fucking impossible.

What it did prevent was people speeding as well as sideswiping cars.