Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Suburban mentality: "Traffic deaths are A-OK! It'll never happen to me!"
The road diet isn't about bicycles, it's about speeding. A city street that kills people is designed wrong - period. How can anyone argue that a few minutes of delay is worth 1 person dying every couple of years?
Suburban mentality: "Traffic deaths are A-OK! It'll never happen to me!"
The road diet isn't about bicycles, it's about speeding. A city street that kills people is designed wrong - period. How can anyone argue that a few minutes of delay is worth 1 person dying every couple of years?
Ah yes, design roads to be clogged with traffic so people can't speed, genius!
Err, what? There are many families who have lived here for well over 65 years. (That was my point!)
But it wasn't mine, and your point was a response to mine. I am not talking about families. I am talking about people. We don't rationally set policy by considering the desires of people who just happened to have a great grand-parent in the same house 100 years ago. If you really want to set policy that way, then let's do it right--close all the roads because Native Americans didn't need them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by artemis78
In fact, several older residents live in the homes that they grew up in that their families built in the 1910s.
But they've had 65 years (i.e., since the key system was dismantled--a private company act, I might add) to move to a place that has less car traffic if that is their desire. I can't believe they've had not a single other option of a place to live in all that time.
Quote:
Originally Posted by artemis78
And yes, there was gridlock during rush hour on this stretch of Broadway prior to the lane reduction, even if you fortunately did not have to experience it.
We must have different definitions of grid-lock. We must because you claim Harrison and Oakland had gridlock. Heavy traffic is not gridlock. By your definition, 880 is always gridlocked. No, it is almost always heavy traffic. But the traffic moves.
Quote:
Originally Posted by artemis78
There is not a grid pattern east of Broadway below 40th Street. This is not an opinion--anyone can see this easily by looking at a map.
True. But there is west of Broadway. Webster goes a lot further than MacArthur. Also, why would you take a street east, that's hilly, not the best for many bicyclists. West is flatter, that's why you take Shafter or Webster.
Quote:
Originally Posted by artemis78
It's an ongoing challenge, because it does mean there's no easy way to designate an alternate bike/pedestrian path on an adjacent street. Webster and Piedmont do have bike lanes, but they both dead end into Broadway. I doubt many are taking side streets, because which side streets would you take?
Hmm. Methinks you should do some fieldwork. I'm surrounded by bikes as I drive Webster and Shafter. And I see cars speeding along endangering them. More now that Broadway has changed. But the studiers just look at averages--its 11:58pm on a Tuesday night, I doubt there is any delay at all to go down any of those streets. So the traffic studiers met their targeted average, all is well--no matter that there's gridlock at key times people really need the street to function well.
Quote:
Originally Posted by artemis78
Very little connects, which was the problem to start with.
Which is why losing a major car artery is going to really bite in an emergency. Those roads for cars. They are there for ambulances, fire engines, police cars, and more first responders. But, hey, let's reduce capacity, so a few bikers have yet ANOTHER option they can use to saunter up the hill.
Quote:
Originally Posted by artemis78
Ours is one of the few side streets people do try to cut through on, and as it turns out, the left turn delay solves that problem handily.
Very odd. I thought about half the turns from any two-way street were right-hand turns.
Quote:
Originally Posted by artemis78
That said, the left turn issue is a problem that is fairly easily solved (and I presume they intend to solve it)--you just need a left turn arrow as part of the light cycle so that people waiting in the dedicated turn lanes have a protected turn. The left turners aren't affecting the flow of traffic otherwise.
In other words, they are affecting traffic. And they had less effect before. Glad we agree on something.
Quote:
Originally Posted by artemis78
With respect to Harrison Street and Oakland Ave, I'm talking about the stretch between MacArthur and 27th Street.
As am I. Its residential, except for a church and a school, and a mom-and-pop corner store on Harrison.
Quote:
Originally Posted by artemis78
There is one mid-block pedestrian signal there, but it was put in as part of the Whole Foods mitigation nine years ago, not as part of the more recent lane reduction. (It has helped enormously too but it was a separate project, and did not slow traffic noticeably--it just provide a protected pedestrian crossing point.)
Again, the point is not to slow traffic, the point is to create safety. Looks like the mid-block signal did the latter without doing the former. Why is that not enough?
I speak of Broadway. As I indicated, Harrison and Oakland are different, they are residential (even in that built up area) and the lane reduction strategy plays out differently there.
Quote:
Originally Posted by artemis78
The traffic slowed after the travel lane was removed. (It was much discussed at the time, as many neighbors believed it was a honeymoon period, but we are a couple of years in at this point and speeds are still slower, which is promising.) I agree entirely that it's a different street environment given its residential nature, but the problem was very similar, and the hoped-for outcome--slower traffic with safer spaces for cyclists and pedestrians--was also very similar.
See comments above.
Quote:
Originally Posted by artemis78
All of the studies of impact on traffic for the Broadway changes considered parallel streets and nearby intersections, and what the effect would be on traffic patterns there. It's required by law. The intent of such studies is to understand what the cost to the overall road network is if you make changes to specific roads; it's holistic by design (and often changes are made to other intersections to mitigate any effects on them).
As I said, I'd like to see those studies. I believe they are counting all hours equally, and ignoring clumping. I've seen the strips transport engineers put down to clock speed and count traffic. They sit there all day and night. An average of such data would be meaningless. It'd be like deciding the live in death valley because the average temperature is a comfortable 77.2 degrees F, and ignoring that the average high in January is 67 F but the average high in July is 116 F (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_Valley )
Quote:
Originally Posted by artemis78
You're right that not everyone has the option to avoid driving if they're going somewhere where either destination or time constraints make transit or walking or biking infeasible. There will be a cost to those drivers (and I'm often among them, when I drive). But many of them do have other options--the freeways, for one, which are not available to pedestrians, bikers, or local buses. And their needs are not inherently more important than the needs of the other users of the road, which is the broader point. It's a delicate balancing act of costs and benefits, and one group should not reap all of the benefits or bear all of the costs.
I agree with the general sentiment. Where we part is you keep referencing "the road" whereas I reference "the roads". Each road/street is part of a system. Just as bike paths prioritize bikes (but pedestrians can use them), and sidewalks prioritize pedestrians (but skateboarders can use them), different streets can prioritize different transport modes. It is okay, wise even, to have a throughway that goes from North Oakland all the way to the bay. It is wise to have that be a higher speed road with more lanes to avoid congestion. What it buys you is lower speeds and less traffic on side streets, where residents and kids spend most of their time. What you seem unwilling to see is that there is an inherent trade-off. People won't stop driving just because the traffic got congested if they live in Uptown and they have to drop a kid off at daycare in North Oakland. They'll find other ways to accomplish the task, and they'll try to get the time back down to what worked for them before. And that is what produces higher side-street volume.
Quote:
Originally Posted by artemis78
(Sorry to hijack, for those reading for info on Farm Hill Road, which is another situation entirely!)
Sorta. But the Farm Hill Road thread asked "why?" and the answer is "poor non-holistic planning seems to be increasing." The Broadway re-striping is yet another example. Very sad.
Last edited by SocSciProf; 09-16-2015 at 01:15 AM..
Reason: Fixed quote programming error
Suburban mentality: "Traffic deaths are A-OK! It'll never happen to me!"
The road diet isn't about bicycles, it's about speeding. A city street that kills people is designed wrong - period. How can anyone argue that a few minutes of delay is worth 1 person dying every couple of years?
I think this is what it all really boiled down to.
Suburban mentality: "Traffic deaths are A-OK! It'll never happen to me!"
The road diet isn't about bicycles, it's about speeding. A city street that kills people is designed wrong - period. How can anyone argue that a few minutes of delay is worth 1 person dying every couple of years?
I oppose excessive speed. I hope you oppose insufficient speed. I don't have the document handy at the moment, but research shows it is variable speed that causes the real problem. Think of a pedestrian trying to cross the street at an intersection without a light (there are a few on Broadway). Which will cross more safely, the one where a bunch of cars whiz by going 40 mph but all in a clump, or the one where cars come by at variable speeds--20, 25, 30, 35, 40--such that there's rarely a safe gap one can use to cross the street?
The way you deal with excessive speed is you put up stop signs and traffic signals, even in the middle of blocks. Reducing capacity just increases the likelihood of road rage. Or shunts traffic onto side streets that were not designed to handle the speed and volume.
I oppose excessive speed. I hope you oppose insufficient speed. I don't have the document handy at the moment, but research shows it is variable speed that causes the real problem. Think of a pedestrian trying to cross the street at an intersection without a light (there are a few on Broadway). Which will cross more safely, the one where a bunch of cars whiz by going 40 mph but all in a clump, or the one where cars come by at variable speeds--20, 25, 30, 35, 40--such that there's rarely a safe gap one can use to cross the street?
The way you deal with excessive speed is you put up stop signs and traffic signals, even in the middle of blocks. Reducing capacity just increases the likelihood of road rage. Or shunts traffic onto side streets that were not designed to handle the speed and volume.
I'm an urban planner. I wish I had the time and the energy to tell you just how wrong you are.
This is Farm Hill - there are no side street alternatives!
At an intersection without a light, motorists are required to yield to pedestrians. Pedestrians are not required to "find a gap" in traffic and then run across the road.
Lives are more important than travel times. If driving makes you angry, then ride the bus.
This is Farm Hill - there are no side street alternatives!
From the 280 take Edgewood to Cordilleras to Canyon to Jefferson to avoid the idiotic disaster on Farm Hill Rd. Or take Edgewood to Alameda de las Pulgas. Or one could even take the 280 from Edgewood to Canada Rd to Jefferson but this would be an insane choice.
Suburban mentality: "Traffic deaths are A-OK! It'll never happen to me!"
The road diet isn't about bicycles, it's about speeding. A city street that kills people is designed wrong - period. How can anyone argue that a few minutes of delay is worth 1 person dying every couple of years?
If it's about speeding then why the bicycle lanes and the reverse left turn lane? Plus, name the dates and times someone has died on Farm Hill in a traffic crash during commute hours. There have been crashes on Farm Hill but those were during the middle of the night. Those people who choose to speed on Farm Hill in the middle of the night are going to do it regardless of the silly "time-out" paintings on the asphalt.
In regards to a few minutes, it's going to be a whole lot more then just a few minutes. It's a few minutes more at 6pm on the weekend.
I'm an urban planner. I wish I had the time and the energy to tell you just how wrong you are.
This is Farm Hill - there are no side street alternatives!
At an intersection without a light, motorists are required to yield to pedestrians. Pedestrians are not required to "find a gap" in traffic and then run across the road.
Lives are more important than travel times. If driving makes you angry, then ride the bus.
I'm not talking about FHR. Go back and read the earlier posts. The thread became about general traffic mess-ups created by "traffic calming." As I said in my earlier note, some places it works, some places it does not.
As for yielding to pedestrians, as I driver I do. Some others do not. As a pedestrian, you may be willing to count on the driver yielding. As a pedestrian, to save my life I try to find a gap in the car traffic. I walk defensively, just like I drive defensively. I'd rather be delayed and alive, than certain of my rights and dead.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
