A year-and-a half after putting Nickerson Street on a road diet, the city says collisions and speeding have been reduced. The controversial project, which was completed in August 2010, reconfigured the four-lane road into one lane in each direction, a center turn lane and bike lanes on either side.
?As our recent Road Safety Summit highlighted, all of us want to reduce collisions on city streets while working toward zero fatalities and serious injuries,? said Mayor Mike McGinn. ?The first year of data is in. Nickerson is a safer street without reducing its ability to handle traffic.?
Since completion of the rechannelization project in August of 2010, the city says the changes have:
According to a city press release, the cost to rechannelize the street was $241,973. This includes the addition of two crosswalks, changes to the sharp curve at 8th Ave W and widening lanes from 12 to 13 feet.
Let’s see what “success” looks like: same traffic volume + slower speeds = congestion.? And it only cost $241k.? Gee thanks.??
?That $241 included repaving large sections of the deteriorated street. Are you saying the city shouldn’t fix roads anymore? And the road carries exactly the same number of vehicles as it did before, but 23 percent fewer of those cars crashed into each other. I’d say that’s as close to “success” as I can imagine for a road project. Average speeds are still above the speed limit.
I have found the route much more congested during peak hours (rush hour)…at other times, no change.? Personally I hate these “road diets”….as Jeremy Clarkson of “Top Gear” on the BBC says:? “Trespassers
in the motorcars domain, they do not pay road tax and therefore have no right to
be on the road, some of them even believe they are going fast enough to not be
an obstruction. Run them down to prove them wrong.?
? lol? I actually give the right of way to bicycles, but am opposed to reducing traffic lanes…our transporation future will not be based on bicycles…or ox carts for that matter.
?That’s not funny.
You like that “run them down” line Billy? You should call up Mike Wang’s widow and two children and let them know you think running over bicyclists is funny.
As to your belief about who pays for local roads(local property taxes, not car owners): do?just a tiny amount of research of the facts.??Your ignorance can be corrected. Your?hate, maybe not.
Lighten up Scooter, it was a joke, clearly stated as such and I clearly stated I personally give right of way to bicyclists as they deserve.? I own a bicycle myself.? Yes, bicyclist do pay a (very small) portion of road taxes.? But again, the quote was Jeremy’s not mine…
Understand that the majority of roads are paid for by gas taxes…it is significant enough that even our very liberal state government saw the potential problem with electric vehicles not paying their fair share to require a new $100 excise tax on their registrations.? You can be certain?this will trickle down to bicyclists if they continue to insist on their own private lanes…
Joking about someone being killed isn’t funny.
You?are still wrong: Local roads are paid for primarily through property taxes. Highways are paid/maintained partly with gas taxes. Read up a little:
http://www.governing.com/topics/transportation-infrastructure/Do-Roads-Pay-Themselves.html
?
I get my sources from the City of Seattle website, not from links provided by the Cascade Bicyle Club.? I quote from the city website:” The City of Seattle pays for work on streets, bridges, and other parts of the
transportation system with from a variety of sources. They include federal and
state grants, (gas tax revenues), local fees, and the City ‘s General Fund.
Federal and state grants must be matched with local funds.”
http://www.seattle.gov/transportation/streetmaintenance.htm#btg
The city of Seattle is also looking to raise car tab fees to pay for more road maintenance via a Senate bill likely to pass soon…
?Even if your perceptions were more valid than the data collected (they aren’t), you seem to be completely ignoring safety concerns to focus on your convenience.?? Self-absorbed much?
?As much as some people want bikes to become the future, it simply is NOT going to happen. For many of us, riding a bike is simply not a an option. There are those of us that have children who need to get to school or day care, elderly people who would not be safe on bikes, people with physical limitations, or those who think riding uphill in the pooring rain while it’s 40 degrees out is simply stupid.? Even if you add a couple percent to the number of bikers they will always be the minor minority period.? Meanwhile the city will continue to grow as will it’s traffic because we have a bunch of two lane roads with barely utilized bike lanes.?
And your point regarding safety for driver and pedestrian is….?
?My point is that slowing everyone down to a crawl and taking away lanes if not in our best interest as a growing city.? Life is dangerous and until we invent pillow cars we are all rolling the dice with everything we do.
?You’re right! People are dying in droves, and traffic collisions is the number one cause of death among young people. We better not do ANYTHING to fix it, even though we know how.
When someone you love is seriously hurt in a traffic collision, maybe you’ll understand how callous you sound. People who die and are injured in traffic are people’s brothers, mothers, wives, daughters. They aren’t just numbers. It’s a senseless destruction of life.
So what if a couple times a day when the bridge goes up some people’s trips down Nickerson is a tiny bit longer? (assuming that’s even true, which I have not seen demonstrated) It’s small price to pay if even one life is saved.
?Yup, we should all bubble wrap ourselves up every morning if it will save one life.
I think you should maybe. Then we wouldn’t have to hear your absurd suggestions. The road diet, factoring out all bike debates, has made Nickerson more driveable and safer. It used to be a white knuckle, hair pin turn. That turning lane has taken away the risk. It’s not bubble wrap, it’s just common sense!
I don’t think there was ever any doubt that this change would improve safety, although it’s good to see that presumption backed up with data.?
But since this report is about the numbers, it would be good to know:- whether (and how) travel times have changed for cars- whether there’s been any change in the number of bicyclists using the road, and any related stats (accidents involving bikers, etc)