As-it-happened: Mayor’s road-safety-summit stop in West Seattle

6:16 PM: We’re at Southwest Community Center, awaiting the start of the final stop on the citywide tour for Mayor Mike McGinn‘s “road safety summit” (explained here). Seattle Channel is not livecasting this, a rare occurrence; we’ll publish updates as it goes. The mayor’s just about to step to the podium. We’d estimate the crowd at more than 50.

6:24 PM: The mayor says Councilmember Tom Rasmussen will join the meeting shortly. “What prompted me to put together the road-safety summit is, it’s become clear to me … people feel very strongly about how we use our roads, how we share our roads, how others use the roads … I’ve heard bicyclists complain about drivers, drivers complain about bicyclists” (and so on), he opens. “No matter how you get around,” there are “tragic deaths” on our city’s roads. He tells the story of the Greenwood crash that left a teenage boy injured for life. He says engineering, education, enforcement, and empathy are needed to address the problem. Yes, we can change, he insists, citing the dramatic shift in how smoking in public is treated – 30 years ago, this room might have been full of people smoking, ashtrays on the tables in front of them, and that is now illegal and unheard of. “We CAN change,” he says. But he says, “I don’t have all the answers” – he believes the community does.

6:32 PM: Dr. David Fleming, who runs Seattle-King County Public Health, takes the podium. He says traffic injuries and fatalities are a public-health issue. He says car fatalities have dropped 25 percent in recent years, but bicycle and pedestrian fatalities have stayed about the same. He explains why he uses the term “traffic crashes” versus “traffic accidents” – because crashes are not things about which nothing can be done. (Editor’s note – that’s part of our style guide, too.) “Fundamentally, these deaths are the result of actions that are under our control, and that we can do something about, and that’s why we are here tonight,” Dr. Fleming says. There’s not “one solution,” he cautioned, but instead, a “more robust toolbox” should and could be developed. He adds another “E” to the list above – “expectation,” with everyone engaging in the behaviors that will make a difference. And yet “defensive driving” matters, he says, since you need to anticipate that someone else might not meet your “expectation.”

The end result of efforts to change and improve, he says, could be “safe and vibrant streets.”

6:41 PM: Rick Sheridan, SDOT communications director, now at the podium, explaining what people at tables are being asked to do for the next 15 minutes or so, before reporting back to the full group.

(Our as-it-happened coverage, after the jump)

Each table has a city facilitator, he points out. He also asks that if you’re sitting with people you already know, please mix it up. The questions are the same as on the mayor’s website:

1. What do you think are the highest priority safety problems to solve on Seattle roads?

2. What do you think are the most important things to do to make Seattle roads safer?

3. We often talk about what government can do to promote safety. What are the ways that groups and individuals can promote safety?

So, with that, we go around the table. George Allen is our moderator. He says he did the same thing at the earlier Northgate summit. (The mayor is roving around the room.) We’ll take notes from our table, question by question:

HIGHEST-PRIORITY SAFETY PROBLEM? and MAKING SEATTLE ROADS SAFER: (The group we’re with naturally segued between the two.) Cell phones, says one man. Obeying that law and others, says another. There don’t seem to be any consequences, he adds. “Better lane markings,” a woman suggests. Moderator George then brings up the bicyclist-vs. driver tension. Education might ease that, one participant offers. Can crashes be avoided, realistically? wonders another. Pressed for his suggested solution, he says “better transit” would make a difference. Another suggestion: More crosswalks, and people stopping for those who cross the street. But, comes the counterpoint, “this (graph) says most deaths are in marked crosswalks.” Meantime, the widespread knowledge of the “speed van” has a deterrent effect, one person notes; you’re not sure if it’s up and running but you know someone who got a ticket as a result, so you decide not to take your chances while going down that stretch.

Moderator George brings up the cars vs. bicycles issue again. Should bicycles be licensed? he asks. Maybe – some say – but what about the 6-year-old who has a bike? Another suggestion – if they break the law, bicyclists should perhaps pay a lower fine, “since they’re not as much of a risk to others.” Or is the bicyclist? asks another – what if they cause a crash by running a light? (There is a brief side tangent in which it’s revealed not everyone is fully familiar with the laws, and a solution to that is suggested – maybe signage that reminds people about the laws.) Another suggestion: Cars and bicyclists show “old-fashioned courtesy” to each other. What about bike lanes and road diets? One person at the table is not a fan of them. How was life in West Seattle when the Viaduct was closed? George asks. It was great, says a person who identifies himself as a bike commuter. (Then a side discussion about exercise breaks out.) Next, George brings up ‘neighborhood greenways.” The bicycle commuter says that the more convenient you can make it, the more people will commute by bicycle.

Another person joins our table. He too is “an avid cyclist.” He says, “If you’re on the road, you have to behave like a car.”

WHAT CAN NON-GOVERNMENTAL GROUPS AND INDIVIDUALS DO TO PROMOTE SAFETY? Bicycle lights, helmet-wearing, and fluorescent pedestrian vests have come up so far. “What about making (people) sign a Be Polite Act?” is one semi-knowing response that draws a chuckle around the table. How about reminders about the laws, in places like athletic clubs and universities? (Note – as of 7:30 pm, we’d up our estimate to more than 60 people here. Just noticed Councilmember Rasmussen is here, too. Sheridan is asking everyone to wrap up conversations and collect the table’s ideas, to be announced to the entire room shortly.)

7:35 PM: Time to report. The mayor says “Let’s be really bold and be done at FIVE TILL EIGHT” (as opposed to the scheduled 8). He’s suggesting everybody summarize in a minute and a half per table.

FIRST TABLE: *Need to be able to pay for road maintenance (mentioning later, a levy or some other $ structure)
*Education – defensive driving/cycling/walking, understand expectations/environment
*Better street lighting
*Talk to your elected officials, bypass the departments (“Ya hear that, SDOT?” the mayor smiled over at where their managers stood.)
*Public-service announcements on TV/radio
*Embedded strobe lights in crosswalks
*Education about stop lines in roads

SECOND TABLE: *Speeding is the highest-priority safety problem
*Improve road visibility
*Road maintenance, “many are in abysmal condition”
*Level of coexistence with bicyclists “is not what it could be”
*Online advice on routes
*Speed bumps in neighborhoods, understanding the process

THIRD TABLE: *Educate all who drive/ride/walk “on who knows the right of way”
*Aggressive driving
*Road design issues – intuitive design, rumble strips to warn of crosswalk ahead
*Distracted driving
*Enforce cell-phone laws
*Bike clubs do their own self-policing
*Block Watches band together to cut back blocking shrubbery

FOURTH TABLE: *Road repair
*Need sidewalks where they do not exist now
*Speeding “is huge”
*Impaired/distracted driving
*Education – retest on driver’s-ed issues, knowing the rules, your equipment
*Better funding from government to neighborhood organizations to make streets safer

FIFTH TABLE: *Safer throughways
*Viable pedestrian channels
*Public-service announcements “fostered by local government so citizenry can have that conversation” about safety

SIXTH TABLE (the one we’re at): *Distracted driving (texting, cell phones)
*Roads need better markings
*Education/awareness campaign
*Road diets with a clear boundary between vehicles and bicyclists
*Overpasses/underpasses “to separate people”
*Better eye contact and waving between pedestrians, cyclists, car
*Put transponders in bikes – if a bicyclist runs a red light, get a little cyber ticket (lower cost than cars)
*Personal responsibility

SEVENTH TABLE
: *Aggressive, reckless drivers are a pervasive problem
*Drivers should be held accountable
*Making for the City of Seattle, driving tests (online, in the library?) mandatory if you get a ticket
*Help communities get involved in construction of safer pedsetrian

EIGHTH TABLE: (A high-school student spoke for this table) *Aggressive driving
*Shared space
*Better and more incentives for car pooling
*Same for light rail
*Teach street rules and street-smart stuff in schools
*Advertise public-service announcements
*Take a test about safety while
*Seattle Night Out should do something about road safety
*Know your neighborhood – walk around it
*Make it fun to walk around your neighborhood
*Use social media to advertise

NINTH TABLE: *Roadways too narrow
*Traffic laws not obeyed
*Enforce the speed limit
*Remove bike lanes from arterials and put them in neighborhood greenways
*Better maintenance, license bicyclists
*Safety booklets/boards at bike shops
*Take personal responsibility

TENTH TABLE: *Aggressive drivers
*Lack of street lights
*Freight
*Free right-on-red turns
*Impaired driving
*Enforcement
*More visible signs
*Educate yourself and others
*Advocate for policies that put safety first

7:57 PM: Councilmember Rasmussen, who chairs the council’s Transportation Committee, is speaking now (and apologizing for being late – it didn’t get onto his calendar, he explained, but got a “where are you?” call and hurried as fast as he could). He thanks the crowd for helping build a safer city. … And now the mayor, wrapping up, saying he was struck by the commonalities between the tables’ lists – and some things he hadn’t heard before, like testing, or having more people help (like Block Watches). Then he veers off to remind people to check the storm drains on their streets, with all the rain supposedly moving in. “Have a safe ride home,” he concludes.

POSTSCRIPT: According to the city website, the next step in this process, though it wasn’t announced here, is a meeting at City Hall on December 12th to discuss … “next steps in the process.”

21 Replies to "As-it-happened: Mayor's road-safety-summit stop in West Seattle"

  • JAT November 21, 2011 (8:33 pm)

    I attended this summit and have to say the overall discussion was incredibly positive and constructive. As a reflection of population, bicyclists may have been over represented in the group, but that may be because they feel, in the current climate, they have the most to lose (factually untrue – pedestrians are getting creamed!).

    What surprised me the most was, for as facially diverse as the gathering appeared, how cohesive the perceptions of the problems and proposed solutions were. Not just the obvious (aggressive road users R bad) but the wacky as well – using Seattle’s Night out against crime as an avenue to address safer traffic behavior was mentioned by more than one table, as was more frequent drivers license testing or even abolishing free right on red.

    To that end the summit was predictably a slight let down, as nobody was there to advocate for bad driving, for speeding, for cutting people off, for intolerant driving or for being a selfish jerk on the roadways. Given how much of that is going on out there, we can hardly say that this was a representative process.

    C’mon, jerks, have your say!

  • Kim November 21, 2011 (10:35 pm)

    Thank you for your live coverage! I love the idea of the Be Polite Act. I was at the first road safety summit a few weeks ago and my conclusion was that road users will pretty much do what we can get away with. (I say this as a cyclist, pedestrian and occasional driver.) Let’s start holding ourselves and each other accountable for keeping each other alive.

  • dsa November 21, 2011 (11:31 pm)

    I sent this in:

    Add and restore lanes that have been removed. This will ease driver frustration, congestion, aggressiveness and help to improve air quality.
    .
    Eliminate left turns on selected stretches of arterials to avoid chancing the quickie left turn in heavy traffic and it will promote free flow.
    .
    There needs to be an education program established that when on a bicycle, use the roadway rules of the roadway. For safety sake do not mix sidewalk rules and roadway rules while on the roadway.

  • JN November 22, 2011 (1:04 am)

    Bicyclists feel the need to occasionally “mix” sidewalk and roadway rules because there is no bicycle infrastructure to speak of. Any trails that exist do not link to each other, and combined with the odd bicycle lane and those ridiculous sharrows, it is impossible to reliably apply one set of guidelines to every single area where you are cycling. Cyclists are forced to adapt as best they can to the current state of cars first, everyone else last. As soon as there is a comprehensive system of standardized lane widths, signage, cycle tracks/lanes and signals, then we can think about an education system like the driver’s test. Although, given the people who manage to pass that, you might as well not even have a bicycle test. And for safety’s sake? Ban cars. THEN everyone will truly be safe.

  • Al November 22, 2011 (8:16 am)

    Our table was heavily on the cyclist end, with only one regular auto driver represented…which I thought was tough because the driver was really not able to finish some of her thoughts, but like all road users, it’s really up to the individuals to moderate their actions and yield to others sometimes. Anyway, I thought the overall summary of answers to the questions was not very well iterated, but here’s my thoughts about what our group was thinking.
    1. What do you think are the highest priority safety problems to solve on Seattle roads? Lack of respect on the roadways (speeding, ignoring stop signs/lights), lack of empathy. Has there been a generational/situational change about how roadways are used/considered now that wasn’t there 20-30 years ago? How has the drivers education changed? Does a larger population play a part in how everyone uses a roadway?
    2. What do you think are the most important things to do to make Seattle roads safer? Improve roadways themselves, add lighting, improve signage, make it safer for peds/cyclists so that more people want to do it (including use mass transit). When designing/updating roadways, consider ALL users from the start – don’t start by designing for cars then add cyclists/peds as an afterthought or they will remain a marginal consideration.
    3. We often talk about what government can do to promote safety. What are the ways that groups and individuals can promote safety? We thought that this shirked SDOT’s responsibility to be a good proponent of getting the information out about how to handle different road scenarios; PSA’s, advertising, media, more interaction with the public – look to Portland, OR. Education is key and that must come from a cohesive message and that can only be done from one source, not multiple sources with different agendas.

  • RichWSeattle November 22, 2011 (8:44 am)

    My compliments to all those who attended the summit. I didn’t go, but reading these comments makes me wish I did. Thanks for your community participation.

  • Huindekmi November 22, 2011 (9:04 am)

    I wonder if the person who suggested “Put transponders in bikes – if a bicyclist runs a red light, get a little cyber ticket” would also agree to a similar proposal to put transponders in all cars, which would send them a cyber ticket if they exceeded the speed limit, ran a red light, came to a stop past the stop line (and into the crosswalk) at an intersection, etc.

  • JAT November 22, 2011 (9:48 am)

    Huindekmi,
    I suspect they actually would support that – the table spokesman that forwarded the transponder/cyber ticket was an avid cyclist.

    Al above does a remarkably good job of distilling the atmosphere at many of the tables that may not have come out upon the final recitation of ideas.

  • JAT November 22, 2011 (9:52 am)

    Which reminds me WSB, do you know whether W.S. Bridge bus lane violators can be reported through the WSDOT HERO Program Report Violation page (http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/HOV/reporting.htm)? Or do they fall though the cracks as it’s not a state facility but a city one?

    Today’s blatant selfish scofflaw: a Prius! Abandon all hope!

  • Charles Warsinske, ASLA November 22, 2011 (10:12 am)

    We should remove parking along most arterials to allow for LID stormwater features and designated bicycle lanes.

  • Tracy White November 22, 2011 (11:38 am)

    Cyclists are forced to adapt as best they can to the current state of cars first, everyone else last.
    .
    If that were truly they case they wouldn’t be taking away car lanes to add bike lanes.
    .
    I think the best thing we could do for road safety is to whack about half of the population. Aggressive driving and riding is caused by two things; excitement and frustration. Frustration is also what fuels the bike/car debate. The majority of the aggressive driving during the day is due to people who are frustrated with how may lights they need to wait through, how many turns are missed because a pedestrian had to make it across despite the flashing red light, and in general how much of the drive is spent sitting and not driving. Clearly we need to forcibly remove half of the population!
    .
    So who’s with me?
    .
    OK, so maybe some more realistic thoughts:
    .
    * Increase the no parking areas around smaller street intersections and the ferry lines so that people can actually see oncoming traffic and don’t have to lunge out and pray.
    .
    * Better striping and definitions/restrictions so that intersections like 35th & Barton don’t have frustration from groups of people going around the left turning people – and thus making the opposing traffic nervous and frustrated as to whether or not they can safely turn left or not.
    .
    * Wider parking lanes. There was (maybe still is.. I don’t drive it any more) a corner near California and Fauntleroy where a large pickup parked on the street and the combination of it’s width and larger-than-normal side mirrors pushed cyclists out of their lane to get around it, which slowed down car traffic. An extra foot or three of width in the parking lanes would go a long way towards a smoother interface between these two groups.
    .
    In my opinion bicycles need their own roads or paths. Get ’em off the streets; bikes and cars DO NOT MIX. The current fad of the bike lane is not a *good* (it might be the best we can do, but it’s not good) solution. Cyclists are (rightfully) worried about car doors opening and hug the left side of their lane, putting them right next to the traffic, thus making car drivers nervous and frustrated. I don’t see how it can be made economically viable unless we toll the bike paths, but there it is.

  • JN November 22, 2011 (12:15 pm)

    It actually is extremely economically viable to put in bike paths, cycle tracks, lanes, etc, especially compared to adding another lane to a highway or repaving a street due to damage from so many vehicles. It is much more akin to adding a sidewalk, so there really is no economic reason to be against such paths. A bicycle lane could be a very good solution if there were some sort of barrier, like pylons or something, that would prevent cars from entering into the lane (if the lane was up against the curb). And proper bicycle lanes, i.e. not in the door zone, do not take away space from cars (it was never “yours” in the first place), they simply add a viable way for a cyclist to get around.

  • Tracy White November 22, 2011 (12:59 pm)

    I’d like to see your figures supporting that gaining right-of-way alongside I-5 is extremely economically viable?
    .
    Additionally, I wasn’t claiming the space, but stating that more space for separation was needed. The main issue in my experience is that the city is trying to fit too much use into too little space. Hence bike lanes and car parking “Door zones” being in the same space.

  • Al November 22, 2011 (1:59 pm)

    “The main issue in my experience is that the city is trying to fit too much use into too little space. Hence bike lanes and car parking ‘Door zones’ being in the same space.” This is a much more coherent argument than saying “get ’em (cyclists) off the streets.” There’s simply no economically feasible way to build separated bike routes along every major and minor corridor. The point is that roadway design (whether new or just a roadway reconfiguration) must take into account all road users from the start. Just slapping down Sharrows because there’s no room for a bike lane does not mean that drivers/cyclists will recognize or use that street as a viable bike route. Yes, we can all share the roadways, it’s possible with respect for everyone’s right to be there. Just not at the particular 6’x6′ or 12’x12′ square of occupied pavement at the same time.

  • dsa November 22, 2011 (2:58 pm)

    Mayor Mike McGinn‘s “road safety summit”

    This was a carefully named facilitated public meeting and not a “summit” at all. Look up the word summit. He choose “summit” so that later it will have the sound of authority when the city says they are making changes in response to the “safety summit.

  • mcbride November 22, 2011 (4:27 pm)

    Maybe, but it sure reads a lot better than “Road Safety Facilitated Public Meeting.”
    .
    On the other hand, if you hold to the idea that the world is run by the people who show up, then the the title reads just fine.

  • JN November 22, 2011 (4:36 pm)

    “If that were truly they case they wouldn’t be taking away car lanes to add bike lanes”
    The way you phrase it makes it sound just like motorists think they own the road and that every bike lane put in is a personal affront to them. I never said anything about I-5 (don’t know how you extrapolated that from my statement), but it is extremely cheap to simply add a path, lane or cycle track. Where this kind of separated infrastructure is required is along busier arterial roads that cyclists have just as much right to safely travel on. A great example of what a successful street can become would be Dexter Ave. downtown. The finished product is exponentially better to ride on than it was before, and traffic flows much more predictably, smoothly and safely.

  • Tracy White November 22, 2011 (8:01 pm)

    You’re reading too much into my statement. You stated that it was cars first, I pointed out this was not the case.
    .
    I bought up I-5 because JN said it was economically viable to add a bike lane or path instead of another lane to a freeway. Presumably, a bike lane or path in this case would be a replacement for the same road capacity (as opposed to “we need more capacity heading north south – let’s build a bike lane from downtown to Bainbridge island!”) so in that case it would need to run parallel to the freeway. I don’t see how tearing out homes and building overpasses for a bike path is any more affordable or viable in that case than a lane of road.
    .
    And if you are trying to replace new car lanes with bike lanes then for comparison purposes you’d better be designing those bike paths to provide the same transport capacity that an equivalent car/bus lane would.

    The I-5 corridor through Seattle is at capacity regardless of whether or not we’re talking about four wheels or two.

  • Ex-Westwood Resident November 22, 2011 (9:22 pm)

    Hey JN…Motorists do OWN the roads. Cyclists can START to make that claim WHEN they start PAYING for a bike license!!!
    I have a great deal of respect for those cyclists that ride and FOLLOW the rules of the road and REALIZE that they need to be extra careful because they KNOW that if a bike and a car tangle up the bike will LOSE 100% of the time.
    Unfortunately there a fewer and fewer of those type of cyclists these days.
    If the amount of trips made by cyclists amounted to 15-20% of daily trips I would whole-heartly support bike lanes/paths, but to reduce auto lanes/capacity on the roads for 3-5% of the trips per day is ludicris!!!

  • JN November 22, 2011 (9:43 pm)

    I think this was a simple mis-communication. A bicycle path is able to carry far more users per square foot than a lane of highway and costs much less, given that a high percentage of vehicles on the road are used by one person. What I meant by my statement regarding highway vs. bike lane cost is, adding a lane to I-5 would be astronomically more expensive than adding or restriping for a bicycle path or trail (obviously not on or near I-5). So basically, a bicycle lane or preferably cycle track can easily fit up to 4 times as many users into the same amount of space. Here’s a great link that shows this, and just imagine the pure bumper to bumper gridlock if all of those cyclists were in cars as they would probably be in America: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FXw_t172BKY

  • JAT November 22, 2011 (10:21 pm)

    Tracy, Tracy, Tracy,…
    “And if you are trying to replace new car lanes with bike lanes then for comparison purposes you’d better be designing those bike paths to provide the same transport capacity that an equivalent car/bus lane would.

    The I-5 corridor through Seattle is at capacity regardless of whether or not we’re talking about four wheels or two.”
    .
    I’m sure you’ve seen the poster; we all have, of the amount of space taken up on a city street by an equivalent number of people in their cars, on bikes or on buses.
    .
    The fact is I-5 could carry FAR more people if everybody on it were on bikes rather than in cars. Overwhelmingly more people.

    I’m not advocating this, but you persist in making spurious arguments. See how that works?

Sorry, comment time is over.