The problem of driving will worsen because Vehicle Miles Traveled are increasing. A roundtrip to the moon (RTM) is 477,736 miles. In 2000 in San Mateo County we did 35 RTM. In 2015 we will average 39.
Molly O'Meara Sheehan writes in Volume XXXVIII, Number 1 2001, of the Department of Public Information that: Studies in Europe show that pollution from motor vehicles can actually kill more people than do vehicle accidents. In Austria, France and Switzerland, the number of premature deaths brought about by particulate emissions from vehicles is about twice that from traffic accidents, according to a report in the Lancet medical journal.
Reducing particle emissions can improve life expectancy and deaths. But note that the WHO recommends controlling 1.8u particles instead of the 2.5u we control in San Mateo and at 50 particle density not 70. Particle pollution is toxic for us everywhere from schools to trails.
However ABAG and MTC say in Challenges and Choices For a Bay Area on the Move, that, nothing we do, can reduce levels of PM 10 pollution by 2035 ( page 13) After all the offsets are calculated in, we will be no where near the targets. The the offsets are all related to vehicle efficiency like hybrids and electric cars, and fuel types like hydrogen and ethanol, and pricing like toll lanes.
Thus the only real way is to severely reduce cars. Freight to rail can accomplish some of this. Walkable cities can ensure that only the fewest trips on the transportation pyramid should be possible by car.
Wednesday, March 26, 2008
Crashes and the walkable city
If the problem of energy use can be solved by walkable cities why aren't we there already? Why don't we implement existing technologies, like golf carts, on 20 mph city streets now?
Because the challenges to overcome for a low CO2 lifestyle is this: Walking to save the planet risks getting run over by the kid in the monster truck. As a society we penalize people who don't fit out energy consuming lifestyle- we allow them to be killed without recourse. The message is drive a golf cart on our super highway streets and get run over by the Governors hummer and its your fault.
Each year nearly 1.2 million people die and millions more are injured or disabled as a result of road crashes. Excessive and inappropriate speed is one of the most important factors contributing to this tragic toll.
Slowing down city traffic is a solution and more specifically 20 mph speed limits are essential.
From the same source: Pedestrians or cyclists survive if hit by a car travelling at 30 kilometres/hr, (17 mpg), the majority are killed when hit by a car travelling at 50km/hr (30 mph). There is a significant reduction in road crashes - between 8% and 40% - in countries where speed limits have been lowered. Reducing average speeds by 4 km/hr (1.5 mph) can reduce the number of fatalities by as much as 15%. (Similar reductions from tighter control over particulate emissions.)
So why don't we have 20 mph cities? The law in CA is schizophrenic favoring the speed trap law over the prima facie speed and since every street and intersection is a violation zone enforcement is over extended. San Mateo Police Chief Manheimer is trying to authorize cheaper automatic speeding ticket writing cameras.
But CCAG, our regional money bag for road spending, doesn’t address safety, especially the safety of non motorized low carbon users. By only looking only at Level Of Service and Capacity in determining mobility, CCAG guarantees that roads will be capricious and dangerous for other road users, through speeding and distracted driving. "The overriding goal of traffic engineering has been to improve roadway 'levels of service' (LOS), so that more vehicles may travel at higher speeds. That often means designing roads with wide lanes and shoulders, large turn radii at intersections, passing and turning lanes, and other features (Ewing, 1995)."
The CA legislature protect drivers at the expense of low carbon users. Following a recent crash that killed two cyclists the San Jose Mercury wrote : A 2004 legislative bill that would have required blood-alcohol testing for anyone involved in a fatal auto accident did not pass out of an Assembly committee.
This despite more that half of crashes involve alcohol and make up a larger portion, $136B, of the cost to society from 6.5M annual crashes. The 2004 bill was written in response to the DUI crash that killed cycists Liu and maimed Mason in 2004 in Sonoma. Author David Darlington writes: Every time we take to the open road, we entrust our lives to a safety net of legal protection and basic human decency. That system has failed.
Finally the DA in San Mateo has not prosecuted drivers for the no fault deaths of cyclists and pedestrians as this letter from San Carlos Council Member Matt Grocott says. The DA feels that a jury will identify with the driver and not convict. Naughty drivers are nice folks.
So there are some simple changes that need to happen for basic human decency to function before the average person will risk venturing out on the public road as a pedestrian.
Because the challenges to overcome for a low CO2 lifestyle is this: Walking to save the planet risks getting run over by the kid in the monster truck. As a society we penalize people who don't fit out energy consuming lifestyle- we allow them to be killed without recourse. The message is drive a golf cart on our super highway streets and get run over by the Governors hummer and its your fault.
Each year nearly 1.2 million people die and millions more are injured or disabled as a result of road crashes. Excessive and inappropriate speed is one of the most important factors contributing to this tragic toll.
Slowing down city traffic is a solution and more specifically 20 mph speed limits are essential.
From the same source: Pedestrians or cyclists survive if hit by a car travelling at 30 kilometres/hr, (17 mpg), the majority are killed when hit by a car travelling at 50km/hr (30 mph). There is a significant reduction in road crashes - between 8% and 40% - in countries where speed limits have been lowered. Reducing average speeds by 4 km/hr (1.5 mph) can reduce the number of fatalities by as much as 15%. (Similar reductions from tighter control over particulate emissions.)
So why don't we have 20 mph cities? The law in CA is schizophrenic favoring the speed trap law over the prima facie speed and since every street and intersection is a violation zone enforcement is over extended. San Mateo Police Chief Manheimer is trying to authorize cheaper automatic speeding ticket writing cameras.
But CCAG, our regional money bag for road spending, doesn’t address safety, especially the safety of non motorized low carbon users. By only looking only at Level Of Service and Capacity in determining mobility, CCAG guarantees that roads will be capricious and dangerous for other road users, through speeding and distracted driving. "The overriding goal of traffic engineering has been to improve roadway 'levels of service' (LOS), so that more vehicles may travel at higher speeds. That often means designing roads with wide lanes and shoulders, large turn radii at intersections, passing and turning lanes, and other features (Ewing, 1995)."
The CA legislature protect drivers at the expense of low carbon users. Following a recent crash that killed two cyclists the San Jose Mercury wrote : A 2004 legislative bill that would have required blood-alcohol testing for anyone involved in a fatal auto accident did not pass out of an Assembly committee.
This despite more that half of crashes involve alcohol and make up a larger portion, $136B, of the cost to society from 6.5M annual crashes. The 2004 bill was written in response to the DUI crash that killed cycists Liu and maimed Mason in 2004 in Sonoma. Author David Darlington writes: Every time we take to the open road, we entrust our lives to a safety net of legal protection and basic human decency. That system has failed.
Finally the DA in San Mateo has not prosecuted drivers for the no fault deaths of cyclists and pedestrians as this letter from San Carlos Council Member Matt Grocott says. The DA feels that a jury will identify with the driver and not convict. Naughty drivers are nice folks.
So there are some simple changes that need to happen for basic human decency to function before the average person will risk venturing out on the public road as a pedestrian.
Wednesday, March 12, 2008
Crash factors and engineering
Engineers tend to rely on prayers to stop speeding traffic.
Take for example active speed radar sign (ASRS).
There are two on San Carlos Ave and they are routinely ignored. They are much harder to ignore on a two lane road since the most cautious driver ends up governing the speed.
However on four lanes road being prudent and cautious can get someone killed because of multi threading. When the trailing vehicle swings around the cautious leading vehicle and has not seen why the leading vehicle is being cautious, there is cause for concern. Add in other distractions like the low winter sun and we have a recipe for disaster.
Many cities are fixated on ASRS rather than address the problem of speeding and the need for lower speed limits and the dysfunction in the law between prima facie and speed trap doesn't help.
Belmont for example is doing a quarter million dollar grant application from Safe Routes to School to place five of these signs near schools. Safe Routes to School as-it-is is an oversubscribed program that is "based on demonstrated need, potential for reducing child injury and fatalities, for encouraging walking and bicycling, identification of safety hazards, identification of current and potential walking and biking routes, community and other agency support."
I think we can all see the discrepancy here where walking and biking are endangered, threatened with cut off, on the route, and the money to solve it has been frittered away on another cute technological non-fix.
In an era when high tech invitation take your mind of the road engineers cannot address distraction or speeding because they are looking at Level of Service for cars instead of road way users safety.
Take for example active speed radar sign (ASRS).
There are two on San Carlos Ave and they are routinely ignored. They are much harder to ignore on a two lane road since the most cautious driver ends up governing the speed.
However on four lanes road being prudent and cautious can get someone killed because of multi threading. When the trailing vehicle swings around the cautious leading vehicle and has not seen why the leading vehicle is being cautious, there is cause for concern. Add in other distractions like the low winter sun and we have a recipe for disaster.
Many cities are fixated on ASRS rather than address the problem of speeding and the need for lower speed limits and the dysfunction in the law between prima facie and speed trap doesn't help.
Belmont for example is doing a quarter million dollar grant application from Safe Routes to School to place five of these signs near schools. Safe Routes to School as-it-is is an oversubscribed program that is "based on demonstrated need, potential for reducing child injury and fatalities, for encouraging walking and bicycling, identification of safety hazards, identification of current and potential walking and biking routes, community and other agency support."
I think we can all see the discrepancy here where walking and biking are endangered, threatened with cut off, on the route, and the money to solve it has been frittered away on another cute technological non-fix.
In an era when high tech invitation take your mind of the road engineers cannot address distraction or speeding because they are looking at Level of Service for cars instead of road way users safety.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
