L.A. Times op-ed piece re local "road diets"

[sparker]

An op-ed article published in the April 5 edition of the Los Angeles Times and written by one Michael MacDonald (cited as the winner of the "2018 Biddy Mason Community Advocate for Walking Award", given by the advocacy group L.A. Walks).  The gist of the piece was to compare vehicle violence against pedestrians to recent incidents of gun violence -- and to excoriate L.A. public figures for declining to join in their campaign to institute citywide "road diets".  They go on to claim that "anti-safety activists" (unnamed) have derailed the process by opposing these measures.  This article might have been just another in a spate of screeds addressing this particular area of concern -- except for one specific claim:  the "primary cause of traffic violence: roads that are designed to encourage speeding".  Apparently the author seems to consider any arterial not given a "diet" to prompt excess speed (regardless of posted limits), and not in the spirit of the local "Vision Zero" criteria. 

Now, I spent 40 of my 68 years in greater L.A. -- but with a few prominent exceptions, the only roads within L.A. proper intended to promote speed are the freeways; everything else, at least in the "flatlands",  consists of city streets where one is fortunate to go a couple of blocks without stopping -- outside of peak travel periods.  Apparently there are advocates out there -- and I'm certainly not going to call into question their commitment to their vision of pedestrian safety -- who think that the only way to deal with city traffic is to place physical obstacles in the path in order to effect the lower speeds they desire.   IMO there are certain L.A. areas where such an approach might be worthwhile:  Westwood, Hancock Park, Silver Lake, Venice, and even parts of Hollywood, where there are confluences of heavy pedestrian usage and attractants for vehicular access.  The separate city of West Hollywood put the relinquished CA 2/Santa Monica Blvd. on such a "road diet" several years back, and it didn't result in significant losses of business to local merchants.  That being said, trying to apply this citywide might just instigate the self-fulfilling prophesy of organized opposition to the pedestrian advocacy (just try applying this to San Fernando Valley streets and see what kind of reaction occurs!).

What I find troubling about this article is the lack of specificity as to the opposition to road diets and other safety measures advocated by this and like-minded groups -- the author cites "anti-safety activists" without any further identification; it would seem that he's setting up "straw men" to draw the fire of the advocates -- but where are they going to fire?  If Mr. MacDonald is going to publish such claims without references, then he's simply "preaching to the choir" here.  And portraying the L.A. driving public as prone to reckless driving habits unless specifically subdued by physical obstacles isn't going to win him or the cause he favors any new support.  And the conflation with firearm violence is, plain & simple, an affront to both the driving public and the movement to curtail such violence. 

Again, I can't fault the author for being an advocate for his cause -- but he should drop the hyperbole and the mindless conflations and at least provide cites for actions taken by what he considers opponents -- in short, do his homework before sending screeds off to a major newspaper. 

Link to op-ed article: http://www.latimes.com/opinion/liveable-city/la-ol-macdonald-gun-street-violence-20180405-story.html#nws=mcnewsletter

[nexus73]

We are seeing "road diets" (4-lane to 3-lane with bike paths) over here on the southern Oregon coast show up with more planned.  The best one I saw was in a small hamlet called Camas Valley on SR 42.  On both sides of the dieted road were 4-lane stretches to allow for passing, which got the speeding moved from where the people were to where they weren't.  As for inside the city driving, in Coos Bay OR on Ocean Boulevard, most of which was "dieted", no problems so far but this is not exactly Southland traffic volume!

It will be interesting to see what strategies and innovations show up in the major West Coast metro areas since they are so jammed up.  After seeing how well the Wasatch Front I-15 modernized section flowed fast with plenty of traffic, the "Big Freeway" concept worked well there but it seems like no matter how big the freeway is in Seattle, SF Bay Area or LA and the surrounding environs, they can't get a win in the fight to keep the flow going.  Portland being smaller might be able to do a "Big Freeway" solution if the money was there in the billions to build it out but that seems to be the upper limit for size of metro area in the West for this solution to work.

Rick

[hotdogPi]

Portland being smaller might be able to do a "Big Freeway" solution if the money was there in the billions to build it out but that seems to be the upper limit for size of metro area in the West for this solution to work.

Even if Portland had the money, they would spend it on public transit instead of "big freeways", according to what some other users on this forum have posted.

[mgk920]

Many or most of these four lane to three lane 'road diets' actually improve the streets' traffic flow and safety in that they remove traffic waiting to turn left onto minor side streets and driveways from what should be free-flowing traffic lanes.  No more need for the über-annoying left lane STOPSTOPSTOPSTOPSTOP in such commercial areas.

Mike

[skluth]

I have mixed feelings about road diets because I've seen them used in areas where they were needed and areas where someone got carried away with the concept. My experience is almost entirely in the St Louis MO metro area (where I currently live, though I plan to move to Palm Springs later this year). All my references are St Louis city streets.

Pros:
Safer for non-motorized traffic
Can significantly cut down on speeding (I used to regularly get passed on Manchester by idiots doing 55+ in a 30 zone. And it needed to be a 30 mph zone.)
Moves traffic from residential and commercial streets to roads designed for high speed/volume traffic
Can increase available street parking (mostly on streets where a lane was lost that allowed parking during non-rush hours)
Less pollution

Cons:
Road remains congested
Some places don't have alternative traffic routes
People park in bike lanes
When put in areas where not needed, hardens attitudes of those against it in the first place

The main misuse locally is trying to reduce traffic in neighborhoods where there will never be much bicycle or pedestrian traffic (Chippewa). Drivers then get mad and sometimes drive in or deliberately block bike lanes. But it can really be useful in older cities where extra lanes were squeezed onto streets, often with narrow lanes. This is especially bad in light commercial areas where trucks often needed two lanes and resulted in frequent accidents (South Grand). Like nexus73, I've also seen plenty of road diets where four narrow lanes were exchanged for two plus center turn lane which is probably the best conversion. However, much of Gravois is going from six narrow lanes down to four with a center lane which actually makes more sense given the traffic volume (and almost nobody used the right lane either way unless they were speeding and weaving through traffic).

[Bobby5280]

Road diets can work in some places. But, just like roundabouts, they don't work everywhere.

The people arguing for more road diets ought to look at some bigger picture situations, such as the worsening "retail apocalypse." Online merchants have already been laying waste to many brick and mortar businesses. Lots of small, locally owned "mom and pop" businesses have been dying right along with bigger retail chains. I've already wrote numerous times about the time-draining down-sides of using mass transit. If we make it even more difficult to car drivers to get from point A to point B then we will just encourage people to do even more of their shopping and get more of their entertainment online.

Walk-ability in a community is important. And it can help encourage people to get out of the house, walk more, ride bicycles more and improve their health. But like I said, sidewalks, bike paths and road diets are not appropriate everywhere. The various camps arguing over the issues have to stop treating it all like a zero sum game.

And portraying the L.A. driving public as prone to reckless driving habits unless specifically subdued by physical obstacles isn't going to win him or the cause he favors any new support.  And the conflation with firearm violence is, plain & simple, an affront to both the driving public and the movement to curtail such violence.

It's nothing new for all kinds of people, including politicians, to make emotionally charged arguments and doing so with nonsensical comparisons and offering little in the way of specifics to back up the argument.

And I think it's morbidly funny the op-ed writer would use "gun violence" as a target for comparison. The topic of "gun violence" itself is often wildly distorted with hyperbole and misinformation. When people, politicians or the press mention "gun deaths," they rarely ever get into the specific breakdown of causes of those deaths. They get more emotional play out of implying that all 30,000+ deaths by firearms each year are all via murder. They don't like mentioning the fact that roughly two out of every three gun deaths is from suicide. There's lots of accidents too, some of which might actually be suicide too. The nation's per capita homicide rate has been rising the past couple or so years, but that's after it reached a low point not seen in over 60 years. The nation's per capita homicide rate is less than half what it was in 1980. We don't hear much about that trend because good news doesn't generate good TV ratings. Keeping viewers angry and scared does. Just my opinion, but I consider most 24 hour cable news networks to be purveyors of "anger pornography."

[theroadwayone]

And I think it's morbidly funny the op-ed writer would use "gun violence" as a target for comparison. The topic of "gun violence" itself is often wildly distorted with hyperbole and misinformation. When people, politicians or the press mention "gun deaths," they rarely ever get into the specific breakdown of causes of those deaths. They get more emotional play out of implying that all 30,000+ deaths by firearms each year are all via murder. They don't like mentioning the fact that roughly two out of every three gun deaths is from suicide. There's lots of accidents too, some of which might actually be suicide too. The nation's per capita homicide rate has been rising the past couple or so years, but that's after it reached a low point not seen in over 60 years. The nation's per capita homicide rate is less than half what it was in 1980. We don't hear much about that trend because good news doesn't generate good TV ratings. Keeping viewers angry and scared does. Just my opinion, but I consider most 24 hour cable news networks to be purveyors of "anger pornography."

Don't you just love it when people make apples-to-oranges comparisons?

[skluth]

And I think it's morbidly funny the op-ed writer would use "gun violence" as a target for comparison. The topic of "gun violence" itself is often wildly distorted with hyperbole and misinformation. When people, politicians or the press mention "gun deaths," they rarely ever get into the specific breakdown of causes of those deaths. They get more emotional play out of implying that all 30,000+ deaths by firearms each year are all via murder. They don't like mentioning the fact that roughly two out of every three gun deaths is from suicide. There's lots of accidents too, some of which might actually be suicide too. The nation's per capita homicide rate has been rising the past couple or so years, but that's after it reached a low point not seen in over 60 years. The nation's per capita homicide rate is less than half what it was in 1980. We don't hear much about that trend because good news doesn't generate good TV ratings. Keeping viewers angry and scared does. Just my opinion, but I consider most 24 hour cable news networks to be purveyors of "anger pornography."

Don't you just love it when people make apples-to-oranges comparisons?

This case was more apples to throw pillows. But 1/3 of 30K+ deaths being murder and accidents are far more than other Western country. Having a death by firearm rate of over 300x the typical Western country (most range from .03 to .12 per 100K while the US is about 3.8 per 100K) to only over 100x the rate by removing suicides is still an ugly fact.

[Bobby5280]

While the US leads rich "developed" nations in per capita homicide rate, the rate is definitely not 300 times greater than other developed nations. What is the source of that 300 times claim?

Currently the US has a per capita annual homicide rate just over 5 per 100,000 people. The US reached a 60+ year low of 4.2 per 100,000 in 2012. Canada's rate is approx. 1.5 per 100,000. France is about the same. The rate for the UK is just under 1 per 100,000. Japan has the lowest homicide rate out of modern nations with large populations, .3 per 100,000.

It's also interesting to look at countries with worse homicide rates than the US, just to put things into a bigger perspective. The most current numbers available for Mexico show a rate of 16.3 per 100,000 people. Puerto Rico (a US territory) has a similar homicide rate. The rate in Cuba is 4.19. Russia has a rate of 11.3 per 100,000 -which is double the US rate. Brazil has the most total homicides in the world (over 50,000 annually) and a per capita rate of 26.7 per 100,000. Venezuela has a rate of 57.1 per 100,000. Honduras' rate is 63.75 per 100,000. El Salvador has the world's worst homicide rate, 108.6 murders per 100,000 people.

IMHO, there are more factors that contribute to homicide rates than the mere availability of firearms. Culture (local, regional & national) and the economy both play a part. The government plays a big role too. Countries with the worst homicide rates have high levels of corruption in levels of government, their police departments and court systems.

[skluth]

Source: Institute for Health Metrics at the University of Washington (compiled by NPR). The US has >100x more per capita violent gun deaths (3.85 per 100K) than Singapore which has the lowest number of deaths (0.3). It's 8x the rate in Canada (0.48), and 27x the rate in Denmark (0.14). The UK rate was 0.07 in 2016. I got the 300x wrong. You have a bunch of other things wrong. But when you're saying the US is safe compared to Venezuela and Honduras, bars don't come much lower.

[Bobby5280]

I got my numbers from the FBI UCR database for US statistics and the UN's ODC database for other countries. I didn't just conjure them out of thin air. The idea that your numbers don't look idential to mine just shows that many countries can be inconsistent at reporting crime numbers and even sugar coat the stats. The FBI database is very good at showing an accurate picture for America's crime rates, down to specific cities and towns, warts and all.

This is a topic I've been looking at for a long time. My interest started out from the motivation to shoot holes through some long-repeated myths about crime in my town (Lawton, OK). One myth is that Lawton is the most dangerous small city in America. Statistically it is something that has never ever been true, yet many locals continue to believe that lie and spread it around, regardless of how that can adversely affect the local economy. My interest grew from there to learn just how much our news media has everyone thinking America is more dangerous than ever when the numerical fact is we haven't been safer in half a century. The media makes a lot of advertising money by keeping viewers angry and scared.

But when you're saying the US is safe compared to Venezuela and Honduras, bars don't come much lower.

I'm absolutely right to include those stats because many Americans absolutely love hyperbole and love to imply our country is very dangerous when it really isn't. I usually see white people sounding the warning alarms the loudest about this stuff. If you're white, not living in a ghetto, not involved in any illegal activity and not mired in a physically abusive relationship you're chances of getting murdered by someone else are going to be on par with Canada and some other European countries. Pretty low odds.

[kalvado]

Source: Institute for Health Metrics at the University of Washington (compiled by NPR). The US has >100x more per capita violent gun deaths (3.85 per 100K) than Singapore which has the lowest number of deaths (0.3). It's 8x the rate in Canada (0.48), and 27x the rate in Denmark (0.14). The UK rate was 0.07 in 2016. I got the 300x wrong. You have a bunch of other things wrong. But when you're saying the US is safe compared to Venezuela and Honduras, bars don't come much lower.

Ten is spelled with one zero, not 2.
But how all this relates to road diets?

[sparker]

Source: Institute for Health Metrics at the University of Washington (compiled by NPR). The US has >100x more per capita violent gun deaths (3.85 per 100K) than Singapore which has the lowest number of deaths (0.3). It's 8x the rate in Canada (0.48), and 27x the rate in Denmark (0.14). The UK rate was 0.07 in 2016. I got the 300x wrong. You have a bunch of other things wrong. But when you're saying the US is safe compared to Venezuela and Honduras, bars don't come much lower.

Ten is spelled with one zero, not 2.
But how all this relates to road diets?

And that was the conflated point made by the article's author, Mr. MacDonald.  He was comparing road "violence" (meaning traffic incidents resulting in injury and/or death) to firearm homicides -- essentially consigning automobiles to the role of deadly weapons.  Of course, a ton of moving metal can function as an incidental weapon when operated carelessly -- but cars and trucks aren't designed as deliberate projectiles!  To portray them, and the vast number of drivers out on the streets and roads, as purveyors of mayhem is at best disingenuous and at worst a pointless detour from workable public policy.  The reality is that for most of the last century streets have been shared between automotive and pedestrian/cyclist traffic -- and that unless one wishes to divide metro areas into virtual "duchies" with commerce limited to highly localized transactions and consumption, road diets -- particularly in the L.A. area -- need to be applied only when specific circumstances call for their use.  Preventing functional egress between parts of the metro area will only exacerbate the congestion that lies at the heart of the problem (just look at the photograph accompanying the article and how the author interprets that situation -- as if automobiles on the street are impinging upon pedestrians' prerogatives).  Unless one presumes that urban existence has fully morphed into a post-capitalist and post-consumer millennial paradise, the urban areas remain common ground for everyone, not just those residing within a few square blocks. 

[Plutonic Panda]

Many or most of these four lane to three lane 'road diets' actually improve the streets' traffic flow and safety in that they remove traffic waiting to turn left onto minor side streets and driveways from what should be free-flowing traffic lanes.  No more need for the über-annoying left lane STOPSTOPSTOPSTOPSTOP in such commercial areas.

Mike

Well, I would only think that could be the case depending on how the road was designed when it was wider and how much traffic used it. There are several factors to consider, but it is certainly possible to have a road with less lanes flow better than a wider one if it designed better. Same goes the other way. But what I want to know is a couple things: a) if VPH increased during certain times but VPD decreased, where the extra traffic went and I want a new report of regional traffic conditions in areas that have experienced a lot of road diets and b) if road rage has increased. I think the idea of a road is sexy because it offers a cheap solution for cities to implement change and we all know how much we're infatuated with redesigning the wheel.

It will be interesting to start to see the effects of these roads diets on large scales as that now seems to be happening. I'd say in cities like my hometown of OKC, it shouldn't be too much of an issue for now. But in cities like LA, hahahahaha...

In the past we haven't really seen large scale road diets or at least to my knowledge of cities that suffer chronic congestion. I think NYC has but they have exceptional mass transit for American standards and though I've never been to NYC, I've heard traffic is getting worse there quickly. The urbanist better be strategic about how they go about advancing their ways or they could find themselves in the hot seat with drivers(who make up the super majority of commuters) turning against them quick.

[Plutonic Panda]

I got my numbers from the FBI UCR database for US statistics and the UN's ODC database for other countries. I didn't just conjure them out of thin air. The idea that your numbers don't look idential to mine just shows that many countries can be inconsistent at reporting crime numbers and even sugar coat the stats. The FBI database is very good at showing an accurate picture for America's crime rates, down to specific cities and towns, warts and all.

This is a topic I've been looking at for a long time. My interest started out from the motivation to shoot holes through some long-repeated myths about crime in my town (Lawton, OK). One myth is that Lawton is the most dangerous small city in America. Statistically it is something that has never ever been true, yet many locals continue to believe that lie and spread it around, regardless of that can adversely affect the local economy. My interest grew from there to learn just how much our news media has everyone thinking America is more dangerous than ever when the numerical fact is we haven't been safer in half a century. The media makes a lot of advertising money by keeping viewers angry and scared.

But when you're saying the US is safe compared to Venezuela and Honduras, bars don't come much lower.

I'm absolutely right to include those stats because many Americans absolutely love hyperbole and love to imply our country is very dangerous when it really isn't. I usually see white people sounding the warning alarms the loudest about this stuff. If you're white, not living in a ghetto, not involved in any illegal activity and not mired in a physically abusive relationship you're chances of getting murdered by someone else are going to be on par with Canada and some other European countries. Pretty low odds.

Great post but don't let facts and logic get in the way of irrational fear.

[Henry]

In my twelve years in L.A., I have seen up close and personal why the locals treasure their car culture. Outside of Detroit and other MI cities, I can't find another place that takes their driving very seriously, though Atlanta comes the closest.

[The Ghostbuster]

I think "road diets" are stupid. Governments have been attempting to "break the grip of the automobile" for decades, by any means possible, and what success have they had in doing so? Very little.

[Plutonic Panda]

In my twelve years in L.A., I have seen up close and personal why the locals treasure their car culture. Outside of Detroit and other MI cities, I can't find another place that takes their driving very seriously, though Atlanta comes the closest.

I don't quite understand where people get this idea that people who live in car culture treasure nor do I really know what that means. I don't treasure my car culture, I just like my car. I use the subway and bike all over the fucking place. But I still love my car. I don't know if you mean subconsciously treasure it, than maybe so. But if that means not wanting to use transit, OKC treasures its car culture way more than LA does. If someone needs transportation here you suggested take the bus, you'd get a look as if you just told them you were a martian. That dog just won't hunt. I just don't understand what that means when someone says they take their driving seriously, unless it is simply meaning transportation, I would say everyone takes that seriously. It's how you move around and make money, get food, socialize, etc. I would think that is a matter to be taken seriously.

[skluth]

Source: Institute for Health Metrics at the University of Washington (compiled by NPR). The US has >100x more per capita violent gun deaths (3.85 per 100K) than Singapore which has the lowest number of deaths (0.3). It's 8x the rate in Canada (0.48), and 27x the rate in Denmark (0.14). The UK rate was 0.07 in 2016. I got the 300x wrong. You have a bunch of other things wrong. But when you're saying the US is safe compared to Venezuela and Honduras, bars don't come much lower.

Ten is spelled with one zero, not 2.
But how all this relates to road diets?

Sorry. Singapore was .03. My typo in a hurry. This will be my last comment on the subject and I hope anyone else's.

[kalvado]

Source: Institute for Health Metrics at the University of Washington (compiled by NPR). The US has >100x more per capita violent gun deaths (3.85 per 100K) than Singapore which has the lowest number of deaths (0.3). It's 8x the rate in Canada (0.48), and 27x the rate in Denmark (0.14). The UK rate was 0.07 in 2016. I got the 300x wrong. You have a bunch of other things wrong. But when you're saying the US is safe compared to Venezuela and Honduras, bars don't come much lower.

Ten is spelled with one zero, not 2.
But how all this relates to road diets?

Sorry. Singapore was .03. My typo in a hurry. This will be my last comment on the subject and I hope anyone else's.

According to this page: http://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/stats/Crime/Violent-crime/Murder-rate-per-million-people  - singapore is 3 per million (other numbers I see over years are 2.5 and 5.9) - that is 12 times below US.
And if their police is anywhere close to airline accident investigation, there are probably some accidents when a person fell on a knife they were holding - resulting in 5 stabbing wound in he back. Clearly that is  a very  unfortunate way to slip and fall, but no reason to suspect a crime..

[Beltway]

"Road diets" is a misnomer. 

A more appropriate term would be road anorexia nervosa, or road bulimia (aka bingeing and puking).