October 1, 10:22 AM click here to comment > 12
Public Health: Center turn lane projects
[NOTE: The following is a guest blog post by Tony Gomez, Injury and Violence Prevention Manager, Public Health - Seattle & King County. To find out more, please click HERE.]
Center turn lane projects – sometimes called a “road diet” or “rechannelization” – converts four-lane undivided roads into three-lane roads featuring a center turn lane, bicycle lanes, sidewalks, and/or on-street parking. Center turn lane projects improve the safety and efficiency of roadways operating under full capacity. They can also improve the health and quality of life of roadway users and neighborhood residents. How do these changes occur? They happen through two primary means: prevention of unintentional injuries and creating an environment that makes physical activity an easier choice.
Center turn lane projects decrease the rate of motor vehicle collisions, which are the fourth leading cause of injury-related death in King County. Fewer lanes mean fewer lane changes for drivers, fewer lanes for pedestrians to cross, and lower overall driving speeds. Encouraging drivers to follow the speed limit is no small matter – consider that excessive speed is a factor in almost one third of fatal crashes and that pedestrians hit at 40 miles per hour have only a 15 percent chance of survival.
The Federal Highway Administration recently concluded that center turn lane projects decrease overall crash frequency by 6 percent. Local studies, such as the Seattle Department of Transportation Stone Way N Rechannelization Before and After Study, have found even larger safety improvements. After the 2007-2008 Stone Way rechannelization, there were 14 percent fewer overall crashes, 33 percent fewer crash injuries, and fewer bicycle collisions per trip than before construction began. Angle collisions, which can be caused by changing lanes, declined by 56 percent, and the number of motor vehicles speeding by 10 miles per hour or more dropped by 75 percent. The study also found that traffic on adjacent streets did not increase after the project.
Beyond immediate traffic safety improvements, center turn lane projects create an environment that makes it easier for residents to live active, healthier lives. Center turn lane projects can also include infrastructure improvements to sidewalks, crosswalks, and bike lanes that encourage walking and biking. These are valuable forms of moderate physical activity that can help combat obesity and associated conditions such as heart disease and diabetes. Numerous studies have shown that walkable neighborhoods have higher rates of non-motor vehicle travel. SDOT found that bike traffic on Stone Way increased by 35 percent after rechannelization. Parents who perceive local traffic as dense and dangerous are less likely to let their children walk or bike – it comes as no surprise that children who live in areas with sidewalks and controlled crossings are more likely to walk or bike to school. Active travel is even related to health at the city and state levels. Residents of cities and states with a higher percentage of trips and commutes by walking or cycling are more likely to get the recommended amount of daily physical activity. These cities and states also have lower rates of obesity and diabetes. Evidence increasingly suggests that the design of our communities and neighborhoods has a direct impact on our well-being. Center turn lane projects are one way to improve that design.
Center turn lane projects are not the only way to make King County area communities safer, and it isn’t the right solution for all roadways. However, with careful evaluation and planning, it can be a successful approach to create an environment that works for all area residents – drivers, bikers, and walkers alike.
Posted by: Aaron Pickus, Assistant Communications Director
Comments
Comment from Sean ngo
Time October 4, 2010 at 11:38 am
No more $$$ for these silly used biker lanes. I drive on beacon hill avenue thru Chinatown to work for last 5 years, I only see one biker on the road per month is the most. This mayor gets to go… Hopeful one-term mayor
Comment from Aaron Pickus, Assistant Communications Director
Time October 5, 2010 at 11:27 am
Nhan,
Projects like center turn installations are already funded through existing resources in the Seattle Department of Transportation. Thank you for supporting these important pedestrian projects. If you’d like to get involved in supporting sustainable transportation projects like these, please contact rebeccah.deehr@seattle.gov in our office.
Comment from Sunduvan
Time October 6, 2010 at 11:58 pm
I hope it works as planned. Good for the people
Comment from LWC
Time October 7, 2010 at 11:29 am
Just the type of “facts” that the powerful bicycle lobby likes to wave about to serve their own nefarious interests and decimate industry in Seattle…
Oh wait. This isn’t the Seattle Times.
Thanks for the writeup, and I hope that the citizens of this city can be convinced that these types of rechannelizations will benefit everyone!
Comment from JRF
Time October 7, 2010 at 12:35 pm
How much does it cost the city (taxpayers) to dispatch an emergency response to various levels of collisions, from fender-bender to fatal? How much does it cost the city (taxpayers) to investigate injury or fatal collisions? How much does it cost the city (taxpayers) to police streets where people consistently drive at unsafe speeds?
These are all recurring costs that will continue piling up year after year. A one time investment in safety yields savings on recurring costs will pay for itself and ultimately save taxpayer dollars.
Does the city have data to quantify this return on investment? For example, actual estimates of cost savings to SFD and SPD for the reduced incidents on Stone Way?
Comment from archie
Time October 8, 2010 at 9:04 am
Did you not read the whole post? These projects aren’t about bike lanes, they are about improving the safety of our roads. It’s shocking how many people resist changes that are proven to reduce injuries, even if the bike lanes never get used. Thank you mayor and SDOT for improving the safety and livability of our neighborhoods
Comment from Ian Guay
Time October 13, 2010 at 6:22 pm
I oppose this change to Greenwood Avenue north od 85th. The logic of this argument breaks down when you see there are no neighborhood sidewalks, the road is not a major bike path and the neighborhood is not major sorce of employment for the residents. Stop this project today…before the community asks you to undo it
Comment from Gregg D.
Time October 21, 2010 at 8:08 am
This is not about safety, it is about the master plan to get us out of cars. All this attention paid to the few bikes which do nothing to support commerce in the city. The goal of city government should be to make it as easy as possible to navigate the city for commerce. Commerce drives everything else. How much commerce is done on a bike? Why are we giving up our streets to bikes? Does not make sense.
Comment from John
Time October 24, 2010 at 9:35 am
It’s disingenuous for the author of this article not to present facts from all sides. For example, the number of accidents might have been reduced by 6 percent. Did the author bother to present just how many cars were able to travel on the arterial roadway reduced to one lane in each direction during peak hours?
It’s simple physics. If you reduce the size of the pipe, you will move less water in that pipe for a given time period. The only way to move the same amount of water is to increase the pressure or velocity. Applied to cars, I’m sure most people would not like the speed limits increased after a road diet.
I have a novel idea: Why not deal with facts objectively, and not slant the discussion to one side by presenting some data and not others that aren’t favorable to one’s biases?
Comment from Peter
Time October 27, 2010 at 12:03 pm
@ Gregg D.: Since when is the only function of a city commerce. Some of us like to live here too. It seems like there needs to be a balance between commerce and the ability to live. Plus, do you really think that every car that passes down the road is engaged in the commerce?
@ John: 1. Cars aren’t a fluid and don’t travel through pipes. Road diets make for a steadier flow of traffic that isn’t subject to so many compression waves. 2. This was an article about health benefits, not car road capacity. If it were about road capacity of cars, I think you’d find that your intuition about how traffic volumes work doesn’t bear out in the real world.
Comment from Sarah
Time November 1, 2010 at 12:02 pm
I oppose the change to Greenwood Avenue north od 85t also. I do think the health center could benefit from it though.
Comment from Nhan Thai
Time October 4, 2010 at 11:01 am
I like this idea. But how do we pay for this project?