Three more West Seattle pop-ups planned to talk about newly released draft Seattle Transportation Plan. Here’s some of what’s in it

At noontime today at Delridge Library, SDOT reps hosted their first of four West Seattle pop-ups to talk about the newly released draft Seattle Transportation Plan. You probably haven’t read it yet. You might not even have heard about it. But the city’s intent on getting your thoughts about it.

The draft plan – more than 1,000 pages long – went public Thursday, ostensibly (among other things) a prelude to the next transportation levy, and “a 20-year vision for the future of Seattle’s streets, sidewalks, and public spaces informed by thousands of people who live, work, and play in Seattle.” SDOT says it incorporates 18 months of community feedback, and the lengthy document features many recaps of that feedback. They’re looking for more feedback now before finalizing the plan; they’ve set up an “engagement hub” from which you can read and comment on it in a variety of formats, including the in-person pop-up events that started today. More on those later. First, here’s what you might consider the overview – six overarching goals, and the toplines of how SDOT hopes to achieve them:

Lead with Safety
Goal: Prioritize safety for travelers in Seattle, with no serious injury or fatal crashes
• S1: Reduce vehicle speeds to increase safety
• S2: Concentrate safety investments at the most collision-prone locations
• S3: Make all journeys safer, from departure to destination
• S4: Provide safer routes to schools, parks, transit, community gathering spaces, and other common destinations

Transportation Justice is Central
Goal: Co-create with community and implement restorative practices to address transportation-related inequities
• TJ1: Center the voices of communities of color and underrepresented groups in planning and decision-making processes
• TJ2: Address inequities in the transportation system by prioritizing investments for impacted communities
• TJ3: Remove cost as a barrier so everyone can take the trips they need to make

Climate Action
Goal: Respond to climate change through innovation and a lens of climate justice
• CA1: Improve neighborhood air quality and health outcomes by promoting clean, sustainable travel options
• CA2: Green city streets with landscaping and street trees to better handle changing climate
• CA3: Foster neighborhood vitality and improved community health
• CA4: Support the transition from fossil fuel to electric vehicles for personal, commercial, and delivery trips
• CA5: Advance mobility management strategies to encourage walking, biking, and transit trips

Mobility – Connect People and Goods
Goal: Provide reliable and affordable travel options that help people and goods get where they need to go
• PG1: Create seamless travel connections
• PG2: Make walking, biking, and rolling easy and enjoyable travel choices
• PG3: Create world-class access to transit and make service more frequent and reliable
• PG4: Enhance economic vitality by supporting freight movement and growth in deliveries
• PG5: Manage curbspace to reflect city goals and priorities

Livability – Streets for People, Places We Love
Goal: Reimagine city streets as inviting places to linger and play
• PP1: Boldly reallocate street space to prioritize people while preserving access for goods delivery and emergency response
• PP2: Transform community and mobility hubs into welcoming places
• PP3: Co-create and enhance public spaces for playing and gathering to improve community health
• PP4: Activate and maintain public spaces to create a welcoming and age-friendly public realm

Maintenance & Modernization – Streets that Work, Today and in the Future
Goal: Improve city transportation infrastructure and ready it for the future
• MM1: Transform city streets for safety and sustainable travel choices through optimal timing of asset maintenance and replacement
• MM2: Reduce neighborhood disparities in the quality of streets, sidewalks, public spaces, and bridges
• MM3: Ready city streets for new travel options and emerging trends and technologies

We grazed through all 1,000 pages looking for West Seattle specifics – or, at least, items of particular local interest. The most local components of the draft STP are maps used to illustrate numerous sections – from transit routes to bike routes to “high-collision” areas, and more. It does get into some specific proposals, especially regarding bicycle and pedestrian connections. In Highland Park, the plan envisions a “multi-use trail on the west side of Highland Park Way” as well as protected bike lanes on SW Holden. Heading further east, a multi-use trail is envisioned on Sylvan Way, and there’s a mention of a Junction connection to light rail via California and Alaska.

Also of West Seattle interest is a freight-lane pilot for the “South Spokane Street corridor,” including the low bridge, with a note that this would have to be suspendable if something on the high bridge required general traffic to use the low bridge.

The plan talks about how progress will be measured – for example, on page 103 of the first part, two major measurements will be moving toward zero fatalities – which has been the city’s stated goal for years now – and traveling “fewer vehicle miles,” with a higher percentage of trips taken using some mode other than cars. And new ways of evaluating streets are suggested, such as a “Pedestrian Crossing Level of Service.” The city’s need to improve pedestrian conditions is discussed in depth, including the observation that 26 percent of the city is missing sidewalks (there’s a map for that, too, and plan readers are also shown where existing sidewalks are too narrow).

The draft STP talks a lot about transit, though most of those services are provided by other governments/agencies – Metro, Sound Transit chief among them, even envisioning where light rail might be expanded beyond the current Seattle plan (West Seattle in 2032, Ballard in 2039).

And the plan talks about that thorny transportation topic, vehicle parking – at the very least, expand street parking, it suggests, also suggesting that RPZs be reviewed – with the thought of removing some altogether or modifying them. There’s even the idea of charging for all residential street parking, via a “resident vehicle fee,” which the plan says Chicago has.

When it gets to “emerging technologies” such as self-driving vehicles, the plan has a fairly sunny view, saying they could be less polluting, more safe, more affordable.

That’s just a bit of what you’ll find in the plan. If you want to go through it raw, here’s part 1 and here’s part 2 (the second part isn’t as long as it looks – the “elements” in the back include repeats of sections found earlier). Or you can graze it chapter by chapter at the Online Engagement Hub, where myriad ways to comment are offered too. If you check out all the tabs on that page, you’ll even find one with the maps we mentioned earlier.

If you want to comment and/or ask questions in person at SDOT’s upcoming pop-ups – here are the three yet to come in West Seattle:

*Thursday, August 31, 11 am-noon, West Seattle Library (2306 42nd SW)
*Tuesday, September 5, noon-1 pm, High Point Library (3411 SW Raymond)
*Wednesday, September 6, noon-1 pm, Southwest Library (9010 35th SW)

SDOT says the plan will be updated this fall after this round of community feedback – set to continue until October 23rd – and the plan eventually will go to the City Council for adoption late this year or early next year. As for what follows its adoption – that’s up to mayor/council budgeting as well as the next transportation levy; the current one, passed in 2015, expires next year.

51 Replies to "Three more West Seattle pop-ups planned to talk about newly released draft Seattle Transportation Plan. Here's some of what's in it"

  • Ryan August 29, 2023 (10:26 pm)

    How do I get my thoughts out to the decision makers? It’s important that there is a plan of action in their vision for adding sidewalks along Brandon st between 30th ave sw and 26th ave sw.  It’s a primary through way for cars & residents between 35th and Delridge. It also has a large pedestrian presence for community members, park goers and visitors to the green belt and camp long.

    • soooo tired August 30, 2023 (8:51 am)

      “How do I get my thoughts out to the decision makers?”Isn’t that what this article is about?  The multiple ways to provide feedback and comments?

  • AG August 29, 2023 (11:19 pm)

    “Zero fatalities” is a lovely fantasy, but that’s really not how reality and physics work. Sorry about it. Now, any chance we’ll one day get some grownups to assist Seattle with its infrastructure planning? 

      • Chemist August 30, 2023 (10:40 pm)

        Those Helsinki and Oslo examples are not Vision Zero “no traffic deaths”…. just no pedestrian deaths in 2019, by the article you linked to JoeZ.

        The goal hasn’t been achieved yet, however. Although both cities recorded zero pedestrian fatalities in 2019, in Helsinki three drivers died in traffic crashes last year, while in Oslo one driver died. A pedestrian has also been killed in the city this year.

    • AO August 30, 2023 (6:02 am)

      It has to be the goal. Otherwise the question becomes how many deaths are acceptable. Mobility shouldn’t require blood sacrifice.

    • DH August 30, 2023 (8:01 am)

      This is the new government speak. Aspirational goals. Zero Suicide, Traffic Zero, etc. 

    • Jort August 30, 2023 (10:06 am)

      Do the “reality and physics” differ here in Seattle vs the rest of the developed world, where road fatality rates are all universally lower? Please, tell me, why are the “reality and physics” so much different here? The rest of the developed world has taken concrete, tangible action to reduce traffic fatalities. Unless you’re saying that Seattle uniquely requires us to sacrifice certain amounts of human lives to sustain the currently-built transportaiton environment? If so, which people do you propose we sacrifice? Perhaps somebody you know and love? Which “grown-ups” are you proposing to make determinations about the acceptable level of deaths on the roads in order to facilitate marginal improvements in driver convenience and their desire to speed their vroom-vroom cars a little faster? You say, “Sorry about it.” Sorry about what? That you believe that there is an acceptable level of death and injury to human lives in order to facilitate marginally easier driving? Seriously. Please. Honestly, please. Explain this for me. Please.

    • Blueberry September 4, 2023 (9:22 am)

      Cause god forbid we imagine and strive for a better world. 🙄

  • Wseattleite August 29, 2023 (11:46 pm)

    Can we please put maintenance at the top of the list?  And what is climate justice?

    • Spencer August 30, 2023 (7:02 am)

      Great question, WSeattleite! Climate justice means that the organization (in this case, SDOT) acknowledges that climate impacts – and even sustainability efforts – can be harmful to marginalized communities if done haphazardly. We gotta be careful! It’s an extension of equity principles.

    • Bridge maintenance please August 30, 2023 (4:52 pm)

      I found it surprising given the SDOT acknowledgement of the low quality and high risk for failure of multiple SDOT owned and managed bridges that it is not a specific bullet for safety.SDOT Blog September 2020$100 million bond to fix old bridges

  • Meeeee August 30, 2023 (7:03 am)

    Yes to maintenance  comment above.I want repairs done to existing roads, stairways, sidewalks before building out anything new.

  • WS Citizen August 30, 2023 (7:32 am)

    Thank you, WSB, for plowing through this complex subject for us!  No easy solutions.  The 35th Ave SW “road diet” has unfortunately created frustrating traffic jams and speeding through neighborhood side streets since lanes were completely eliminated a few years ago.

  • Don Brubeck August 30, 2023 (7:36 am)

    We need transportation that works for everyone.  Safe, efficient, equitable for all whether traveling on foot, in a wheelchair, by bike, scooter, bus, train, car, delivery truck, tractor-trailer, ferry, or any combination.  Sidewalks, crosswalks, traffic calming, frequent bus service with shelters, paving maintenance, street sweeping, snow removal, bridges that will survive earthquakes, separation of bike traffic from heavy truck and high speed car traffic,  connected bike routes that are safe all the way to the major destinations, load zones for businesses, efficient port access to serve industries and agriculture. All sharing the same land and water and reducing air and water pollution and carbon emissions even as the population grows.  And we have to pay for it. Lots to consider for this plan.

    • Mike August 30, 2023 (12:24 pm)

      “Safe, efficient, equitable” for all modes is a guaranteed failure for all modes. This is why cities leading on climate, livability, and mobility place single occupancy vehicles at the bottom of the mobility pyramid.

      • Don Brubeck August 30, 2023 (9:01 pm)

        Mike, Safe, efficient and equitable for all modes is not at all in conflict with that inverse pyramid. Planes and private and shared motor vehicles already are safe for their occupants and the infrastructure is already built favoring their efficiency and safety.  We need to apply much greater effort to make the modes at the top of the pyramid as safe and efficient and that can go a long ways to provide equity and sustainability. But we can’t just ignore our needs for the modes at the bottom of the pyramid. They all have to work. Improvement to one mode does not logically guarantee failure for other modes.

  • oerthehillz August 30, 2023 (7:49 am)

    Maintenance near and at the bus stops is a must. Garbage everywhere. If we want increased ridership, let’s work on making it more appealing.

  • WSDUDEMAN August 30, 2023 (8:22 am)

    Would love to know how much this draft cost.Its fantasy land going for zero fatalities. Reduced fatalities would be realistic.Self driving cars could be more affordable? Than what? Haha.An idea for charging for ALL residential street parking?!?!? Because Chicago does it? These people are so out of touch with anyone other than their affluent neighbors. 

    • PaidParking August 30, 2023 (10:00 am)

      free parking has been a government subsidy for car owners since the beginning. the streets are publicly funded, so why would you feel entitled to owning a section of it for your personal vehicle? car owners should be paying the real cost of ownership, not having tax payers foot the majority of the bill.

      • wscommuter August 30, 2023 (11:29 am)

        Street parking is not a “government subsidy” and it’s ignorant to say so.  And to be clear, I’m one of the lucky folks who can park in a garage so I don’t use street parking.  But thousands of people do have that need because they don’t have access to off-street parking.  Ironically, those most dependent on street parking are more likely to be mid/lower income folks so the idea of taxing those folks for parking on the street is an unfair burden on those least able to pay it.  I understand that the far left fringe loves the silliness of calling it a “subsidy” because it fits their anti-car narrative.  Street parking never was never an issue until modern problems of congestion, etc. presented themselves – there was never any governmental policy adopted to “subsidize” street parking and no one ever referred to street parking as a “subsidy”.   Saying otherwise is patently dishonest.  

        • soooo tired August 30, 2023 (11:56 am)

          Not only is it indeed a subsidy, but most other aspects of car ownership are also subsidized!  Saying otherwise is, in your words, patently dishonest.

        • WestSeattleBadTakes August 30, 2023 (11:59 am)

          All the words, and you still didn’t refute the fact that street parking is a subsidy.

          • soooo tired August 30, 2023 (1:16 pm)

            What’s worse, is this person SHOULD be able to get it.  WSCOMMUTER previously wrote “There is no such thing as “free housing”.  Someone pays for it.” (This blog, February 2023 comment section on Video: City Council Candidate Chat).  Free housing for people?  WHY ARE YOU TALKING CRAZY?!?  Free housing for cars?  YES PLEASE, AND DON’T YOU DARE CLAIM IT’S BEING SUBSIDIZED!  Lol

          • WestSeattleBadTakes August 30, 2023 (1:50 pm)

            Bringing the receipts, I love it!

          • wscommuter August 30, 2023 (1:39 pm)

            Try a dictionary to start.  The all-caps histrionics notwithstanding, I understand that the anti-car, far left cling to these ideas, so there’s nothing anyone can say to dissuade those folks from that perspective.  So be it.  It is mildly amusing that you’ve gone to the effort of researching old posts to take my words out of context, but go for it if it makes you feel better.  Your definition of subsidy apparently is that if government pays for a road and a stationary car is parked on that road, the car owner is receiving a “subsidy” by not using the road exclusively to drive upon?  Good luck selling that perspective, especially the tax burden you’d apparently like to have hit poor people disproportionately.       

          • sooo over idealistic self righteousness August 31, 2023 (5:09 pm)

            Thank you for your common sense wscommuter!

          • soooo tired August 30, 2023 (3:01 pm)

            Cling to what ideas?  That free parking is a form of government subsidy?  But, uh, that’s simply the truth!  There aren’t two sides to that argument–it’s just a fact!  Roads themselves are totally subsidized–gas tax, vehicle registration, etc., doesn’t cover their maintenance!  Did you really not know this?  Look it up!

          • Canton August 30, 2023 (5:29 pm)

            How is the street parking a subsidy, when taxpayers bought and own those streets? We pay the government to maintain them. It’s a benefit to city residents as a whole, not any particular individual.

          • WestSeattleBadTakes August 30, 2023 (5:55 pm)

            Gah!!! You’re so close!

          • soooo tired August 30, 2023 (7:35 pm)

            Canton: what we mean here by subsidy is that those who use the thing don’t pay how much that thing truly costs.  In this case, road infrastructure, maintenance, etc., is largely paid for NOT from user tax dollars (e.g., money from gas tax, licensing fees, whatever) but from non-user tax dollars (including people who don’t own vehicles, rarely drive, etc.).  In this way roads, highways, etc., are subsidized (paid for, in part) by people who don’t use them or use them less often.  The argument for paid parking is pretty simple: it’s a straightforward way to have the people who use that good pay more of their fair share.     

          • Canton August 30, 2023 (9:31 pm)

            Your first sentence is disingenuous at best. We all pay taxes for things we don’t personally use; eg school taxes for childless families, the list could go on. The point being, we are taxed at every angle possible, whether you use a car or not. But the fact is, users pay the majority of the taxes, through property taxes(transportation levies), gas taxes, tolls, what have you. These are taxpayer assets we paid for as a community, they should be open for use for all.

          • soooo tired August 30, 2023 (10:14 pm)

            Canton: It’s not disingenuous, it’s just the bloody definition of a subsidy!  Secondly, yes, we do pay taxes for things we don’t personally use–that’s another example of subsidizing something.  But to take your example and run with it, many things we subsidize have big societal benefits.  Education, public transit, libraries–all get paid for, in part, by people who never use those things.  But it’s important that those things exist, because we (most of us) value education, don’t want to be a nation of dummies, and are trying to kill the planet a little less quickly.  You parking your car for “free” isn’t really equivalent.  And as for your final point?  Where you said things “we paid for as a community [ie, subsidize]…should be open for use for all”?  Yes, yes, I quite agree.  So what’s the barrier for entry for, say, libraries?  Nothing, they’re open for use for all.  Can anyone enroll their kid in public school?  Yep, they’re also open for use for all.  Let’s see…  ooh, what about parking spaces.  Are they open for use for all?  Not quite, seeing as how you need to first acquire an environmentally destructive machine that costs tens of thousands of dollars.  Because, of course, the real estate used for parking spaces is NOT open for use for all.  It’s only open for use for cars.  Maybe, just maybe, it’s not in the same category as social goods like education, and so maybe, just maybe, it shouldn’t be subsidized as such.  Sheesh.

          • Canton August 30, 2023 (11:22 pm)

            You can define subsidy as you will, but the definition doesn’t stick. We all pay taxes for various benefits; but subsidy equates to people paying for other people’s benefits; via gov hand outs, whatever. Personal cars are not an impediment on society, but a great resource. You will learn about it with the hardships of electrical car misgivings. Thanks for your response, sharing different ideas in this forum are awesome.

          • Sure August 31, 2023 (9:05 am)

            Schools?  You need to first acquire an environmentally destructive being that costs tens of thousands of dollars. 

        • PaidParking August 30, 2023 (6:47 pm)

          tell me you haven’t ridden a bus without telling me you haven’t ridden a bus, lol. repeat after me: not. everyone. owns. a. car. poor people need food and water, yet we still charge utilties and groceries. the truly worst off people you’re using as a shield to preserve your life style don’t have car gasp! no matter what way you look at it, i’m right in calling free parking a subsidy. look it up in a dictionary. you think cars would be sold as well if the buyers had to fully realize the costs? we all pay an equivalent amount for road maintenance and repair which is predominately benefits *ding ding* cars! so if i don’t own a car, i’m paying taxes that help cover the full costs of car usage. so my taxes are subsidizing other people to use their cars, including the concept of free parking. how does car infrastructure even jive with the people crying “far left”? it’s one of the most government subsidized things and totally flies in the face of any free market principles.

          • PaidParking August 31, 2023 (9:40 am)

            lol Canton, the “whatever” you put as a mechanism for a subsidy is how free parking is a subsidy. car infrastructure draws funds from other tax sectors because it is such a huge cost sink. the biggest indicator of a subsidy is whether something would exist with it’s full, realized cost, and for cars it is proven to be propped up: oil and gas subsidies, auto company bailouts, literal imperialism.  you keep hand waving away the label, but it’s true no matter what was you frame it. personal cars are a “great resource” because they were forced to be the only solution. i do not want electric cars; maintaining a car status quo is not a future i want. it’s disappointing you like the idea of sharing different viewpoints, but are so pedantic around the literalness of the word “subsidy” (thinking it’s only when the government sends you a check) you fail to see the greater picture.

          • soooo tired August 31, 2023 (10:50 am)

            SURE: “Schools?  You need to first acquire an environmentally destructive being that costs tens of thousands of dollars.”  Nope, you don’t need to acquire nothing–child-free people absolutely benefit from public schools: by having had access to them when they themselves were school-age, by having had public schools available to their parents when they were young, and etc., etc.  (But, yes, people are awful and it is often said the single most environmentally destructive thing a person can do is to make more people–with you on that!)

  • Forest August 30, 2023 (9:33 am)

    Apart from the local Seattle photos and some street corridor names cribbed from Sound Transit data, I don’t see anything local or specific in the SDOT report. Its proposed goals are generic planning blather along the lines of “improve connections” and “make walking safer.” I’d like SDOT to cite specific goals along the lines of “restore full transit service to destination neighborhoods” or “restripe crosswalks in neighborhood business districts and school zones.” 

    • Cal August 30, 2023 (4:18 pm)

      Agreed, Forest–this is like an exercise in manifesting. A dreamboard would have been more constructive.If they could just, say, ticket vehicles that block sidewalks I’d be thrilled. It doesn’t take much! 

  • CarsKill August 30, 2023 (10:03 am)

    i’m so confused why people have an aversion to the zero deaths goal. literally throwing bodies at our transportation system because you think that’s an appropriate reality? 2 biggest contributors to road deaths are vehicle speed and vehicle size, both things that are regulated and can be further regulated, but because you fear inconvenience you have to frame the idea of people dying as “just how things work”. talk about a passive approach on life.

    • Rhonda August 30, 2023 (1:04 pm)

      Most car accidents are due to drivers impaired on substances, both legal and illegal, greatly-excessive speed, ignoring road instruction signs, and distracted drivers. Larger vehicles are safer for occupants than smaller vehicles. It’s simple physics: if we can eliminate impaired, speeding, distracted, and inattentive drivers in too-small vehicles we can eliminate traffic fatalities.

      • Jort August 30, 2023 (3:50 pm)

        Wow, interesting! Great idea! Let’s take a look at other countries and see what they’ve done in order to reduce traffic fatalities. Surely the laws of “physics” are the same in other countries, too, right?! So, I’m guessing other countries have encased drivers in enormous, ever-growing multi-ton metal vehicles, told them to pay better attention and … viola! All fixed, right?! Or, no, wait, gosh, Oslo and Stockholm didn’t require all car buyers to get a massive SUV, did they? The things that these other places have actually done would make people lose their minds, here. Things like rigorous and strict and recurrent driver testing, blanket automated traffic law enforcement, zero tolerance impaired driving policies, taxation of larger, more dangerous vehicles (uh oh! Physics!!!), strong punishments for even minor infractions, drivers are considered at-fault for nearly all pedestrian/cyclist collisions, astronomically high driving costs, separated, high-quality cycling infrastructure, deep investments in transit, no right turns on red, narrow roads …. Is this because of physics? Maybe different physics in Europe vs here? Maybe we should ask the Europeans how they were able to accomplish such strong reductions in traffic fatalities without relying solely on police to enforce laws. Or maybe that’s what you’re getting at, Rhonda? 

      • YT August 30, 2023 (4:14 pm)

        I believe you’re correct about impairment and distraction being leading causes of crashes, but as stated above, speed and vehicle size are the leading contributors to traffic FATALITIES. You’re also correct that larger vehicles are often safer for people inside them, but much more likely to kill anyone outside that vehicle. To say cars that are “too small” are the problem is a new one to me. Most of the developed world is driving cars much smaller than North America, and far fewer people are dying on their roads. 

        • Rhonda August 30, 2023 (5:11 pm)

          The big auto makers all over the globe have been making “world cars” for many years now. The late-model vehicles in Europe, Japan, China, Australia, and the Middle East are the same size (and often the same models) as those in the U.S. now.

          • YT August 30, 2023 (6:19 pm)

            Yes, large vehicles are produced and are available throughout the world, but make up a much smaller portion of overall car sales in most areas of the world. They are very popular, and unfortunately becoming more popular in some areas, but not most. The point I was making is that small cars are dangerous, but not nearly as dangerous as larger trucks and SUVs, so too say that “too small” cars are the problem seems ludicrous. 

          • CarsKill August 30, 2023 (6:20 pm)

            Rhonda you may be in the running for most wrong poster i’ve encountered! where in the world are you seeing that cars are the same size as they are in the US? have you been outside the US before? the SUV and pickup truck have been the best selling and most owned vehicles for decades, while the world purchases those same vehicles at extraordinarily lower rates. you’re just flat out wrong.

      • CarsKill August 30, 2023 (6:25 pm)

        “large vehicles are safe for occupants” i’m talking about the people outside the car, Rhonda, and the people with smaller cars now on the losing end of the cycle of inflating car sizes.

      • Jort August 30, 2023 (8:57 pm)

        Wow, interesting! Great idea! Let’s take a look at other countries and see what they’ve done in order to reduce traffic fatalities. Surely the laws of “physics” are the same in other countries, too, right?! So, I’m guessing other countries have encased drivers in enormous, ever-growing multi-ton metal vehicles, told them to pay better attention and … viola! All fixed, right?! Or, no, wait, gosh, Oslo and Stockholm didn’t require all car buyers to get a massive SUV, did they? The things that these other places have actually done would make people lose their minds, here. Things like rigorous and strict and recurrent driver testing, blanket automated traffic law enforcement, zero tolerance impaired driving policies, taxation of larger, more dangerous vehicles (uh oh! Physics!!!), strong punishments for even minor infractions, drivers are considered at-fault for nearly all pedestrian/cyclist collisions, astronomically high driving costs, separated, high-quality cycling infrastructure, deep investments in transit, no right turns on red, narrower roads, bollards block public spaces, eliminating parking requirements, charging market rates for parking …. Is this because of physics? Maybe different physics in Europe vs here? Maybe we should ask the Europeans how they were able to accomplish such strong reductions in traffic fatalities with such different physics laws? Do you honestly think that greater fear of punishment for … distracted driving in … Oslo?!??!?!?! …. is what causes fewer fatalities? That bigger cars …. make for safer roads?!?!?!?!?!?! If you were genuinely curious about what makes other countries’ roads safer than ours, there is a GIANT BOATLOAD of research about it. But none of that research aligns in any way with what you’ve asserted in these comments. None of it. 

  • Lagartija Nick August 30, 2023 (12:41 pm)

    There’s nothing confusing about people thinking traffic deaths are an acceptable trade off for convenience. For a certain segment of our society hundreds of dead kids in schools can’t move the needle on gun control. What makes you think they would care about dead pedestrians and cyclists?

Sorry, comment time is over.