I recently recounted
the story of a Petaluma land use hearing during which I missed an
opportunity to suggest a project change that should have been obvious to me as
an urbanist.
The hearing addressed
a proposed apartment complex. An element
of the project was repainting the fronting street to reduce the travel lanes
from four to two, with the surplus width being redistributed to a center turn
pocket, bike lanes, and parking. The
preliminary plan showed the remaining travel lanes retaining the current lane
width of 12 feet, a typical width for public streets ranging from residential roads
to arterials and even to older freeways.
The
neighbors had a number of objections to the project. One of those concerns was excessive driving speeds
through the neighborhood. A subsequent
traffic speed study found that the 85 percentile speed was 38 mph, which is
moderately fast for a largely residential neighborhood.
The point
that I failed to make is that the 12-foot travel lanes were a part of the travel
speed problem. Reducing the lane widths
below 12 feet would have had the effect of slowing cars. The reduction happens because drivers feel
confined by the narrower lanes. It’s a
point of which I was well aware and on which I’ve previously written, but I’d
become somnolent in my backrow seat
Despite whiffing
on my chance at the hearing, the door for the comment remained open because the
Planning Commission decided to seek additional input on several points and
continued the hearing to a later date. I
used the second chance to chat with the City Engineer and several Planning
Commissioners about my lane width thoughts.
The project
returned for future consideration a few days ago. I eagerly read the updated staff report to
learn if there was any revised thinking on the lane widths.
I was
moderately satisfied. The staff report
acknowledged the possible value of reduced widths and then took the decision
away from the Planning Commission and instead made the City Engineer
responsible for the final determination during his review of the construction
drawings. It was an approach in which I
could see both good and not so good.
On one hand,
I find the City Engineer a reasonable sort and I trust him to make good
decisions. Although I’ll also forward to
him this post and my earlier one for his consideration. Also, as a civil engineer, I’m always pleased
when issues that are largely in the realm of engineering are determined by
engineers and not by laypeople.
But on the
other hand, I wished there had been the opportunity for the Planning Commission
to affirmatively endorse the concept of reduced lane widths as a traffic speed
management tool in Petaluma.
With issue at
rest until construction drawings, there wasn’t much reason for me to attend the
hearing. But I’m a sucker for the stuff,
so again found myself hanging out in the backrow.
And I’m glad
I did because another facet of travel lane widths arose.
Late in the
hearing, as the Commission was homing in on their decision, a Commissioner, noting
a pair of convenience stores directly across the street from the proposed
apartment site and shown in the photo from the project site, suggested that
children living in the apartments would occasionally visit the stores. The Commissioner asked the City Engineer
about the possibility of a painted crosswalk.
The City
Engineer, correctly in my opinion, demurred. He noted that drivers, because of a curve in
the road, might not have a clear view of the crosswalk so would be prone to responding
to it inadequately. At the same time, the
children might be emboldened by paint on the pavement and would be too quick to
assume that the cars would honor it. The
result could be a more dangerous situation that without the crosswalk.
Another
Commissioner then asked what the City Engineer believed children should do to
reach the convenience stores. He said
that they should walk down the sidewalk to a nearby arterial, cross the street
with the signal, and then walk back on the other side, a route that would add 1,000
feet to their route.
Perhaps it
was my imagination, but it seemed the several Commissioners, and perhaps also
the City Engineer, were uncomfortable with his answer but, without another
solution to offer, the discussion moved onward.
At that
point of the hearing, I had no opportunity to contribute to the discussion, but
if I had, I would have said something like.
“Are you
people kidding me? Have none of you ever
been kids? Even if a child is willing to
walk the extra 1,000 feet, his companions would call demean his timidity and
pressure him into joining them in jaywalking.
And that peer pressure would be far mightier than any assumptions we make
this evening about the walking routes children should follow.
“I know this
instinctively because I remember being a kid.
And yes, I was more of a rule follower who had to be egged into pushing the
envelope. I’m only now catching up on the rebellions that I missed
in my youth.
“And I’d be surprised
if many of the Commissioners don’t have similar memories from their childhoods.
“But if we
acknowledge that children will jaywalk and that the City Engineer is correct in
nixing a crosswalk, what’s the alternative?
“It’s the
tool that has already been given to the City Engineer in the staff report. This is the chance for the Planning
Commission to strongly encourage the City Engineer to make full use of that
tool and to reduce the lane widths to 10-1/2 feet.
“At that width,
the 85th percentile speed will drop from 38 mph to perhaps 32 mph. At the lower speed, children would be more
likely to see approaching cars, drivers would be more likely to see
pedestrians, and, if the worst occurs and a pedestrian is hit, the likelihood
of survival would be higher.
“Although
not going as far as the Vision Zero folks, who target no pedestrian fatalities,
or the Twenty is Plenty folks, who argue for 20
mph speed limits on many streets, would have us go, encouraging reduced lane
widths and the resulting lower driving speeds is a firm step in their direction.
“Ultimately
it comes down to what our roles as adults should be. Should it be to piously tell kids not to make
stupid choices so we can claim blamelessness when they do so anyway? Or should it be to build a world in which kids
can make stupid choices without spending the rest of their lives in a
wheelchair or worse? I vote for the
latter.”
Perhaps I
didn’t have the opportunity to make this plea, but I will continue to look for
windows to push this perspective, both on this project and elsewhere.
In my next
post, I’ll touch lightly upon the recent events in Paris. Without claiming to be an expert on
terrorism, I’ll note that there are aspects of the situation that bump against urbanism.
As always,
your questions or comments will be appreciated.
Please comment below or email me.
And thanks for reading. - Dave Alden (davealden53@comcast.net)
No comments:
Post a Comment