There is a lot of talk around the neighborhood regarding the new striping of Wilbur Ave. on the 2 mile stretch between Chatsworth and Nordhoff St. Many people who have a stake in the neighborhood were bewildered to see the appearance of two wide bike lanes, a contiguous center turning lane, and the disappearance of 2 travel lanes. This configuration is known as a Road Diet and it is a federally approved design engineered to "calm" traffic. You can read the official federal explanation here, and the Wikipedia entry here.
Many people have asked why did Wilbur need a Road Diet?
The answer relates to many issues. But the biggest reason is embedded in the fight in 2009 to save the crosswalks at Prairie and Superior. The LADOT had posted signage stating that they were going to remove them. But the residents revolted against that idea. Paul Kirk, collected 600+ petition signatures stating that the residents WANT their crosswalks! This prompted the LADOT to respond by making Wilbur a safe street to cross. Be engineering a reduction in average speed, the road diet has made it safer to cross.
Average speeds along the road that under the old 4 lane configuration typically broke the 40mph speed limit - a limit which one could argue is quite high for a residential area with 3 schools within a block or two of the street. With non peak hour traffic speeds easily reaching 60, 70 even 80mph the situation was quite dangerous for people pulling in and out of their driveways, for people crossing at marked and unmarked crosswalks and for the drivers negotiating the natural bottlenecks that occur at Plummer and Dearborn.
For the residents of the area, everyone knows just how typical it was to see serious collisions at the major cross streets such as Plummer, Lassen and Dearborn. As a long time resident, I've personally witnessed many over the years and have myself experienced a car rear ending my vehicle with such force that it launched the car up the curb and onto the front yard of our house. This was due to a speeder who lost focus and did not recognize that our vehicle was in the process of slowing and signaling a turn into our driveway. From talking with neighbors I know my experience is not rare.
Traffic Collision Stats
According to Alex Thompson, LAPD Bike Task Force member and Bikeside chairman, the CHP's SWITRS database reports 200+ serious collisions and 5 deaths along that stretch of Wilbur from 2000-2008. This is simply unacceptable for any street let alone a residential one such as Wilbur Ave.
Since the implementation of the Road Diet last September, the flow of traffic has become much more civilized. It is now less likely that speeders reach 50mph as the single lane configuration has done it's job of inspiring drivers to slow down. The psychological impact of the lane constraint has proven to calm drivers.
Benefits of the Road Diet.
Home values go up in neighborhoods with calm people friendly streets. Calm civilized traffic makes for a deterrent to those who would use the street as their "cut through" street or "Speedway" as LA Times columnist and Porter Ranch resident Sandy Banks recently referred to it as. Reduced cut through traffic improves the quality of life for local residents. As pollution and noise decline people come out of their homes, go for walks, enjoy their neighborhood more...
Better neighborhood connectivity occurs when people feel like they can cross the street safely. In the case of the road diet, cars are still reaching speeds above the 40mph limit, however now there are only 2 travel lanes to negotiate rather than 4.
Safe routes to schools. With the newly re-striped and better visible crosswalks at Prairie and Superior, cars are more likely to yield to pedestrians many of which are simply looking for a way to walk to the area schools. Remember the days when kids used to walk, bike and skateboard to school? I must be old.
Yes. There is back up.
According to two separate counts there is no denying that back up occurs. The counts done by the LADOT immediately after the Road Diet's implementation showed that during a 15 minute period from approximately 7:35-7:51AM the traffic line at the Devonshire south light backs up towards Chatsworth. This is due to Nobel Middle School drop off. A second count was done recently that shows the same scenario occurring. This is an issue that is causing parents frustration and to choose alternate routes to school. The fact is, that there was always back up and traffic has always been unruly during school drop off. A simple solution would be for parents to drop their kids off a few blocks from school or even encourage their kids to bike to school. After all, there are brand new bike lanes to be used. Still, the desire is strong to drive kids right up to the school and it is a hard fight to convince them otherwise. The days of parents being able to brag to their kids about walking six miles in the snow uphill in both directions are long gone. This generation will have no such stories. Instead, this generation may actually brag about how difficult it was to avoid the alarming obesity trend that is befalling our nation.
The Wilbur Working Group Ad-Hoc Committee.
Councilman Greig Smith, in an effort to alleviate complaints from people living to the North of the road diet, has set up the Wilbur Ave. Working Group Ad-Hoc Committee. This committee was to be comprised of 3 members from Northridge West Neighborhood Council and Porter Ranch Neighborhood Council. Each of the members were to be appointed by each NC's president. Unfortunately for the residents of Wilbur Ave, NONE of them were included as a voice in the process and only one person living south of Devonshire where 80% of the road diet exists, was included on the committee. Recognizing that imbalance I sought to alert the residents of the working group and petitioned to be included on the committee as a representative of the residents who actually live on the street. Shouldn't they have a say in this? As it turns out, I gathered 55 signatures from nearly every home I could get an answer from one Sunday afternoon. I brought the signatures to the councilman's office where I was flatly denied inclusion on the committee by Smith Chief of Staff and council candidate Mitch Englander. I did my best to plead the case that the residents on the street should have a say in the matter and at every turn of the conversation it was obvious that Smith's office had no intention of letting me in.
I left the office dismayed, wondering what the next step was. Fortunately, I was notified by Smith's office that I would be allowed to attend the second and third meetings but by then the design was already decided upon.
As I found out in the second of the 3 (known) committee meetings, the revised "compromise" plan presented by the LADOT based on feed back from the 1st meeting included a painted merge rated for speeds of 45mph that culminates at Mayall south of Devonshire. It was quite obvious to myself and Paul Kirk - the only other member of the committee who lives south of Devonshire that this merge presents a similar issue that the road diet solved for the bottle necks at Dearborn and Plummer both sites of numerous high speed crashes over the years... Only with the newly proposed bottleneck the drag race starts with the green light at Devonshire, the finish line being the unmarked crosswalk at Mayall. Pedestrians at Mayall who wish to cross, will have to deal with distracted drivers speeding towards them and looking to their left mirrors as they negotiate their place in line before the upcoming lane merge.
We need a crosswalk not a finish line!
The final two meetings of the Wilbur Working Group Ad-Hoc committee were basically back and forth talk sessions that lead to no changes what so ever to the proposed design. It was frustrating not to get answers from the LADOT about the traffic counts and the cost of the re-design itself. Every time I attempted to corner an answer from the LADOT about the cost, Mitch Englander interrupted and changed the topic. At one point Englander answered "It's within budget" to which I asked "What is the budget?" to which Englander replied, "it is not known."
The final vote.
From the beginning, the process outlined by Councilman Smith was never clearly defined. How exactly was the voting process to occur between the two Neighborhood Councils? Would it be a cumulative vote or would each board vote separately? What if there was a tie? Where would the vote be held? NONE of these questions are answered as of yet. There have been proposals to hold the meeting at the Porter Ranch neighborhood council... but why should a matter that occurs completely within the Northridge West district be decided in Porter Ranch? Fortunately that idea was discarded and things are looking like they will be held at Nobel Middle School.... The next issue is whether this is a joint cumulative vote or will each board vote on it's own. As we speak, the powers that be are pushing for a joint vote. I ask... Why? Porter Ranch has completely different interests in this matter than Northridge West does.
Porter Ranch Interests - MORE Cut through streets
It is no secret, Porter Ranch needs traffic outlet channels. It is a relatively new and growing development and with all the new residents there is great pressure to open up streets like Wilbur to MORE cut through traffic. But that degrades the neighborhood that has existed intact for decades with more and more car traffic. We've all seen streets in the valley which not long ago had a neighborhood character to them only to become shut off homes, walled off with side entrances becoming main entrances as residents retreat from their polluted noisy front yards. It's sad to see neighborhoods carved away by traffic.
Looming in the Future - Connecting Wilbur North to Wilbur South via an at grade track crossing at Parthenia.
Wilbur is the last stand and the Road Diet has helped to cement the neighborhood together. Looming in the future? An at grade crossing that will connect Wilbur South with Wilbur North. The plans have been designed but are currently shelved due to budget constraints. But beware, train tracks are under different jurisdictions and the money can pop up at any time. Once the street is connected, Wilbur will become a major thoroughfare across the valley. Expect Wilbur traffic to double and triple. At that point the neighborhood will cease to exist, cut in half and crusted at the seems by constant traffic. Home values will drop through out the neighborhood not just for the residents who live on the street. The existence and preservation of the road diet creates a less than feasible scenario making the at grade crossing less likely to become a reality.
Porter Ranchers should stay north of the freeway where they belong...leave Northridge alone.
ReplyDeleteWhat is the rush of changing this! I don't see how this is that big of a deal that it has to be re-worked right away. I suggest it be left for a year and see how it plays itself out. Then people can really judge if this is in public's best interest.
ReplyDeleteI live in Granada Hills and wasn't crazy about it at first. After traveling on it a few times, it not really that big of a deal either way. Its not slower and I'm not really inconvenienced in any way.
A neighbor and I where talking about this and she said she liked it. She said she wouldn't be opposed to riding a bicycle if more streets where like this.
From what I understand the people who live on this street overall really like this new striping of the lanes. They should be the ones who make the decisions on what happens on their street.
Did Councilman Greig Smith really set up a Ad-Hoc Committee on this and not include a representative from Wilbur? It was a good thing he didn't run for re-election. He obviously doesn't care about the people in his district.
ReplyDeleteFrom what I understand, what Councilman Smith did was task the Presidents of both Porter Ranch Neighborhood Council and Northride West Neighborhood Councils to choose 3 stakeholders to each represent their community on the Wilbur Ave Ad Hoc committee. The committee was also to include resentatives 1 each from the Ridgegate and Belcourt Gated Communities. I asked to be included on the committee as a representative of the people living on Wilbur Ave. but was denied. Frustrated that no one who actually lives on the street was being represented, I gathered 55 petition signatures from the people living on the street to be their representative. I found near unanimous support for the road diet from houses who I was able to contact. 1 person did not like the new configuration but signed anyway, and 1 did not like the road diet and didn't sign.
ReplyDeleteIt really irks me at how much you and the supporters of this Road Diet continue to talk about Wilbur as your street and knowing what's best for it. We are all tax payers. We all use our cities' streets in various areas. Wilbur is not YOUR street. It is for use by all of us so stop acting like you guys should get the final say just because you live on the street.
ReplyDeleteAlso, if you all were so concerned about speed of traffic on the street then when did you move to a house on a 4 lane street in the first place!? It's not our fault that you chose to move there so don't go giving us the sob story about how cars are going too fast on the street and that they should be slowed down with this rediculous Road Diet. Stop being so selfish by trying to inconvenience the rest of us who have always been using Wilbur to driver here and there our whole lives. I actually now feel like I should make an effort to drive all the way through this corridor of Wilbur whenever I am in the area just in defiance and protest of these Road Diet limiting lanes. I have no intention of taking other routes either.
The psychological impact of the lane constraint has not calmed me at all. Quite the contrary. I shake my head everytime I drive up and down the street, thinking at how inefficient the street has become due to the Road Diet.
And if you guys are more interested in your property values going up as a result of this and as a hopeful result of the grade track crossing not going forward than anything else then please just say so from the get go as opposed to hiding behind the veil of safety. Yet again, as much as you all talk about the greater good of the community, it still comes back to a money issue and the values of your properties at the behest of the rest of the community who prefer a 4 lane street.
I guess we'll know what happens after tomorrow's meeting. And yes, I'm planning on attending, this being my first ever NC I've gone to. And that's how much this Wilbur Road Diet pissed me off. To the point where I'd love to see those like you who like to make everyone else's lives harder in our society. That's what I call selfish.
I'm not asking for the final say. I'm simply asking for a say. At every turn, this process has been designed to exclude or minimize the voices of people who live on that actual street. Shouldn't they have some say in this?
ReplyDeleteYou are arguing that speed limits are only recommendations and can legally be broken.... Fine. Maybe that is true, can I ask if you have a threshold at all for speeding? Does it matter to you if there are schools and homes in the area?
I for one hope that the road diet stays. Its a step in the right direction for Los Angeles. If more roads were like Wilbur, people would actually bike to nearby destinations instead of getting into their cars and burning through ever increasingly expensive fossil fuels. The valley is set up in a grid system, which by its very nature gives you many options for travel. If the gentlemen who opposes the road diet were rational, he could just choose to drive down Tampa or Reseda instead of barreling down Wilbur. It's hard to imagine so many people getting upset over the loss of one travel lane....
ReplyDeleteDon, I absolutely do think people who live on the actual street should have a say, just as much as anyone else in the neighborhood or community. Everyone should have an equal say in the matter but after attending last night's meeting, there was an obvious majority of the attendees that were in favor of reverting back to the 4 lane street it once was, including Mitch Englander and Greig Smith. In a democracy, majority vote wins, as I'm sure you know.
ReplyDeleteAnd for those who live on the street who think that they should have more of a say in the matter, I call BS on that. Don't burden us with your personal issues of wanting a slower street outside your front door. That street has been a 4 lane street for a long time. It's not our fault that you chose to live there so don't burden us with your personal choice to move or live there and try to make the rest of us who prefer it be a 4 lane street, accomodate the minority vote.
Also, Don, regarding the speed limits. Of course I have thresholds. I am not arguing the point for speeders. I don't condone that at all, I was merely setting the record straight regarding the speeding laws because they were inaccurately described in one of the comments above. And also, keep in mind that if one were driving on a street where there's a school, by law and during normal school operating hours, one must slow down to 15mph in the area around the school. Though in the case of Wilbur, I don't think this law applies since the school is not on Wilbur itself.
Anonymous, it's only a step in the right direction for Los Angeles if you wish to slow down our society to a crawl. I don't know about you, but I have productive life with work and other things to do in my life instead of sitting at home all day long counting the birds on the telephone wires in the backyard.
And who are you to assume that more people would use bikes to get to nearby destinations. Don't make assumptions, that's not an intelligent thing to do. I for one would not bike at all, regardless of how many two lane streets there are. I'm very happy driving my car from place to place and burning that oil you speak of. Let me worry about how much I have to pay for it and you keep your biking dreams to yourself, thanks.
And you call me irrational just because I prefer I drive down a street that I've been using my whole life as a resident in the community? On what grounds? Because I won't submit to what you want? Because I'm part of a majority that wants it changed back? There is a reason I have used Wilbur my whole life. It's so I can AVOID streets like Tampa and Reseda. And once again, you look like a complete moron assuming that I "barrel down Wilbur" because I don't do that. I drive the speed limits and am well aware of them all but I do have a problem when I'm on the 2 lane street now and am stuck behind someone going 25 - 30mph the whole way down the street.
I really think that the street should be reverted back to 4 lanes and then throw in those nice light-up crosswalks at every small street intersection down the street. Those crosswalks seem to work very well in front of CSUN on Zelzah near Plummer because they light up on the ground, thus giving fair warning to drivers from afar.
"I really think that the street should be reverted back to 4 lanes and then throw in those nice light-up crosswalks at every small street intersection down the street. Those crosswalks seem to work very well in front of CSUN on Zelzah near Plummer because they light up on the ground, thus giving fair warning to drivers from afar. "
ReplyDelete@Peter
I like the idea of lighted crosswalks to a degree... but I'd rather see lights installed so people in cars can get out easier at Mayall east and the Prairie west street locked communities. Superior could also use a light and the over all speed limit should be 30mph.
Don, the reason so many people are in favor of reverting back to 4 lanes just the way it was is because it provides everyone with a quick route up Wilbur. Plain and simple.
ReplyDeleteI'm pretty sure that 99% of those in favor of reverting back to the 4 lane street would want traffic lights installed. That defeats the whole purpose of going back to 4 lanes. Might as well keep it as is now which would be even better than if there were traffic lights installed. That would bring the street to a complete stand still, thus rendering it useless as a route that most people would like to take instead of Reseda and Tampa. I know that sounds good to you, but the majority will not go for it.
I know you don't need me telling you that the majority of people want it back to 4 lanes and keep the speed limit at 40. People want to get home faster, not slower. It really is as simple as that. I'm sure some light up crosswalks would be feasible and accepted by that majority, like me, because it would only impact the flow of traffic at those exact times where the street needs people to slow or stop due to pedestrian crossings.
Sorry, first sentence of second paragraph... meant to say people WOULDN'T want traffic lights installed.
ReplyDelete@Peter
ReplyDeleteOk then if people demand to be able to get home quicker, but as the statistics show, must come to terms with a higher collision and fatality rate... what is that thresh hold? What would you say is an acceptable death rate in that 2 mile stretch that is worth the time saved driving through there...?
Let's establish what you think is reasonable or was a death every year or two acceptable to you for that stretch of Wilbur?
Also lets establish what you think would be a reasonable amount of time to traverse a two mile stretch of road that has residential homes on it and major and minor cross streets with driveways and street locked communities...
ReplyDeleteHow long to get from Chatsworth to Norhoff...
Should it be... 2 minutes? 5 minutes?
And what are the chances of getting into an accident if one chooses to drive on another street like Tampa or Reseda which are much busier and probably more likely to be at a risk of getting into an accident compared to Wilbur? You are looking at it one sided as if one is only subject to accidents on Wilbur but not other streets. There is no number of deaths that I consider reasonable, not on Wilbur or any other street. But I am not going to avoid a street just out of fear of getting into an accident. Anyone can get into a fatal accident on ANY street, no matter what the posted speed limit is.
ReplyDeleteAnd by the way, despite the two lane road that Wilbur is right now, I am constantly seeing people break the laws on that street, specifically people driving around slower drivers and into the bike lane to get around these people. To me, it seems that it has become more dangerous now than it was, due to these behaviors going on. Just yesterday, someone ran ahead of another when the light turned green because they didn't want to drive down the street behind the slower drivers. It almost seems as if there are more dangerous driving habits going on now compared to before.
As for how long it should take, I have no predetermined time in my head on how long it should take. I only have ever followed the law of the street and if there's a posted 40mph sign then great, it should take as long as it takes to get from one end to the other at that speed if no one is going slower than that.
I just really enjoy having the option to drive around someone who prefers to drive 25-30mph and that can only be done on a 4 lane highway. Some people drive slow, others drive faster. There's typically no problem with that scenario when you have 4 lanes. Now with 2 lanes, someone who wishes to drive close to the street speed limit of 40mph is now constrained by the person in front of him and that can be very irritating if it's someone who's driving 25mph down the street. I'm sorry, but I don't care to have a slower driver in front of me decide on how fast I should be going down the street, so long as I'm within the limits of the law. 2 lanes causes that dilemma.
"And what are the chances of getting into an accident if one chooses to drive on another street like Tampa or Reseda which are much busier and probably more likely to be at a risk of getting into an accident compared to Wilbur? You are looking at it one sided as if one is only subject to accidents on Wilbur but not other streets. There is no number of deaths that I consider reasonable, not on Wilbur or any other street. But I am not going to avoid a street just out of fear of getting into an accident. Anyone can get into a fatal accident on ANY street, no matter what the posted speed limit is."
ReplyDeleteThat's a great question. My answer is that should be considering the speeds and safety on Reseda and Tampa as well as every street. I would say speed is an important factor in safety but not the only factor, on streets on which there is a lot of local access… Obviously on streets with businesses, driveways, crosswalks, schools, residential homes especially, there should be calming of speeders…. Wilbur south of Chatsworth fits the profile of a residential street with need for local access and on street homes with frontages. The speed limit needs to be lower. And when I say speed limit, I really mean ACTUAL speeds because we all know that the "speed limit" is easily ignored on certain streets like Wilbur in favor of 50-60mph or more. The number one cause of crashes on Wilbur is badly times left turns into oncoming traffic which is caused by difficult to gauge speeders in oncoming traffic. The road diet fixed this problem.
"And by the way, despite the two lane road that Wilbur is right now, I am constantly seeing people break the laws on that street, specifically people driving around slower drivers and into the bike lane to get around these people. To me, it seems that it has become more dangerous now than it was, due to these behaviors going on. Just yesterday, someone ran ahead of another when the light turned green because they didn't want to drive down the street behind the slower drivers. It almost seems as if there are more dangerous driving habits going on now compared to before."
I completely agree with you Peter. I just find it hard to justify being angry about drivers going 25-30mph…. This is a 2 mile zone in which there are 3 schools, 2 marked crosswalks, 4 major lights and residential homes…. It's vicious and deadly for these scofflaw drivers to race through the bikes lanes with no regard for the law. Someone will get killed and these people will be accountable for their crimes. I wouldn't want to be that person but apparently others are willing. There has been talk of having rumble strips in the parking lanes or police officers on duty to help calm this kind of behavior. Im more in favor of having rumble strips rather than officers but perhaps officers for the temporary fix and rumble strips for a long term fix.
"As for how long it should take, I have no predetermined time in my head on how long it should take. I only have ever followed the law of the street and if there's a posted 40mph sign then great, it should take as long as it takes to get from one end to the other at that speed if no one is going slower than that."
ReplyDeleteIt's hard to argue over travel times if there is no concept of what an acceptable time is… But lets take your 40mph figure. When we had 4 lanes, that limit was rarely observed. Now with the road diet I'd say the average is 35-45mph. I still reach 50mph on the non peak times. But of course we need to factor in the lights. It would be interesting to do a study on peak traffic time vs. all other times to see what the true average speed of the street is…. I wish our LADOT had the resources to do something like this. They are always claiming budget problems…. Perhaps we could do another citizen count. Would you want to help with that?
"I just really enjoy having the option to drive around someone who prefers to drive 25-30mph and that can only be done on a 4 lane highway. Some people drive slow, others drive faster. There's typically no problem with that scenario when you have 4 lanes. Now with 2 lanes, someone who wishes to drive close to the street speed limit of 40mph is now constrained by the person in front of him and that can be very irritating if it's someone who's driving 25mph down the street. I'm sorry, but I don't care to have a slower driver in front of me decide on how fast I should be going down the street, so long as I'm within the limits of the law. 2 lanes causes that dilemma. "
I will be presenting data and statistics that show that 4 lanes is actually a big problem when considering left turns. The reality is that 4 lanes will likely never return to Wilbur because of the left turn crash reality. Right now, a contiguous center turn lane has been implemented for the length of Wilbur. The residents near Prairie REALLY appreciate the addition of this lane. It makes all the difference to them. The issues is that under the old configuration that center turn lane couldn't exist without removing the parking even with NO bike lanes. The merge at Dearborn was always a huge issue and taking that merge out, relieved a lot of problems…. Since that center turn lane is not coming out then where does the merge happen? No one want to see the crashes come back.
As you heard from the LAPD the other night. In the 8 months since the road diet, incidents have dropped. There needs to be a compromise between travel time and collision/death rate and I think it needs to favor safety over travel time whatever the solution may be.
The road diet may have fixed the problem of left turn accidents but I do not think it is fair at all to keep the road diet based on the idea that it makes it safer for some of the left turn people that may get into accidents. Now the rest of us are having to bow down to some of these left turn people's inability to accurately judge the speed of an oncoming car. It's not my fault that someone can't look at oncoming traffic and wait for the traffic to safely pass them before turning. It's not my fault that some of these people decide to turn left prematurely before it's safe to do so. I'm not willing to give up the luxury of a 4 lane street due to the lack of judgement of someone else. I'm very much of the idea that everyone should be accountable for their own actions. I'm not willing to slow down my life with a 2 lane street just because a select few don't know how to properly judge oncoming cars. Go take a driving school course or better yet, just wait until all oncoming cars are past you if you are having that much trouble judging speed and distance.
ReplyDeleteRumble strips would probably help make someone realize that they're not in the right spot on the street but yeah, there should be an occasional LAPD sting set up on the street from time to time to nab people from speeding, going outside of legal line limits, etc. etc. I know they do these kinds of stings on various streets in the neighborhood from time to time. But as you already know, I ultimately hope that we don't have to deal with rumble strips if 4 lanes are reinstated. But even then, LAPD should do periodic stings on that street to catch the speed breakers.
I'm not surprised that incidents have dropped since the road diet has been in place. If you slow down traffic and limit it to one lane on each side, of course there should be a drop in incidents. But what about incidents on neighboring parallel streets like Tampa and Reseda? Have they gone up?
"I'm not surprised that incidents have dropped since the road diet has been in place. If you slow down traffic and limit it to one lane on each side, of course there should be a drop in incidents. But what about incidents on neighboring parallel streets like Tampa and Reseda? Have they gone up? "
ReplyDelete@Peter
You hit the nail on the head with that statement and I couldn't agree more with you. It would be interesting to compare the incidents on Tampa and Reseda now that some of the cut through traffic is being diverted to those streets... Continuing with your very reasonable logic that slower traffic speeds equal less incidents, I would like to study that impact. Perhaps both of those streets could use calming as well... my guess is that incidents on those streets have remained level or perhaps even a slight down tick during peak travel times but perhaps an uptick during non peak hours.
As per your statement about people making erroneous left turns and how they should learn how to drive better... It comes off as insensitive to the actual issues. You have to consider that on a street that has a high frequency of driveways and streets to turn left to get into just by numbers alone you will get more incidents regardless of driver skill. I might add that if you have a frequency of left turns combined with inconsistent speeds of oncoming traffic and no center turn lane.... the problem compounds itself.
c'mon Peter. Have a heart. Blasting through that street is not as important in my mind as keeping the area safe. It would be difficult to look the mother of the 6 year old who was killed on Wilbur in 2008 in the eyes and tell her that your driving speed is more important than her ability to cross the street with her son.... The fault of the collision was placed on the driver to pre-empt your next question...
Yeah, I'd love to hear the details of that accident and how exactly it happened.
ReplyDeleteAnd as much as it would make our city a safer place, we can't just go around slowing every street in the name of safety. It's just not a feasible solution and I'm not of the party that wants slower streets. I just want to keep it as it used to be, as it was for a long time.
I'm not necessarily asking to slow every street as the only solution to deaths and collisions... Calming? yes. Civility and order? yes. Slowing? Yes, especially when it is in a residential and school zone...
ReplyDeleteRegardless.... if your entrenched position is that traffic speed is more important than human life... I have no comeback for that. It sounds like few forms of compromise are available that would satisfy you. Like the Wilbur Working Group meetings, I'm offering alternatives but the opposition is demanding a return to the past or nothing...
The people who wish for a safer street to live on know that this kind of uncompromising position is what they are up against. No one thinks that the battle for safer streets is going to be an easy one but it is a reasonable one and a battle worth waging.