Slip lanes at intersections, where the curved slip lane cuts a pedestrian crossing, seem designed for maximizing vehicular speed rather than pedestrian safety. When walking the dog, I watch the behavior of drivers in my neighborhood's major arterial road intersection. The popular way of approaching the slip lane (and its associated pedestrian crossing) is for drivers to proceed at a high rate of speed, seemingly in order to facilitate merging left after the turn, and then focus their attention on looking backwards at the cars on ghe cross street.
As the drivers go through the pedestrian crosswalk, instead of being concerned with pedestrians and cyclists who might enter the crosswalk, the drivers are looking backwards. The goal: merging with cross street traffic, ideally without slowing down. A few weeks ago, as a driver did this maneuver, two 12-year-old boys were waiting at the crosswalk. Even with the boys a few feet away (and having right of way to walk into the pedestrian crosswalk), the driver followed this "drive fast, look backwards for cars, merge" approach.
The driver had to stop due to oncoming cars, so the boys started to cross, but the now-stopped driver's attention stayed firmly on the oncoming cars on the cross street. When the road was clear of cars, he accelerated forward, with nary a glance around him at the now-walking boys.
The urbanist belief that eliminating parking minimums is always good is actually a class issue as well as a safety and economic issue and it is complicated. What I have seen happen in Seattle over the last 10 years is that more and more buildings are built without any parking or with very little parking —yet virtually everyone in the buildings have cars and they park on the streets. Our many older neighborhoods were not built with wide streets. When they are packed on both sides with cars, they become effectively one-way streets that are extremely dangerous. Again, and again a driver ends up in a face off with an oncoming car. One or the other car then has to back up into a sometimes very busy street. There is also the risk of road rage incidents and simply hitting other cars while trying to get through these narrow corridors.
In the neighborhood, commercial districts, this residential parking of cars due to lack of parking garages takes away the parking for businesses, and one by one they have gone under. Instead, Amazon rules, DoorDash and delivery rules and small businesses are crushed.
I have yet to see rent do anything but go up even though of course the claim is that not having parking makes apartments and homes less expensive. I have been trying to get city or state legislatures to require open books on exactly where that no parking provided discount is indicated in lower rent with no luck.
Working class and lower income people often have multiple jobs starting very early and ending very late. I have been that person. I spent daily at least three hours on the bus or walking up to 5 miles in a given day to get to my jobs. When I got a car, my income and my options were exponentially larger. Studies on the increased job opportunities for people with cars have backed my experience up.
When we take away protected parking, we take away protections for those who need to use their car to get to work. Seattle is a high car theft city, and when a low income person loses the only car they have it is an enormous financial blow. I just don’t buy the movement to lift parking minimums as a benefit to society. Here and there it may be appropriate but overall what I see in Seattle is a net negative.
Maybe. I deliver food for a living on a maxi scooter. Cell phones are a menace. Aggressive homicidal driving tendencies are a menace. Obliviously arrogant pedestrians and cyclists are a menace to themselves. Those should be free to ameliorate but they’re not because they would require a religious and moral people for our ordered liberty. And that is apparently a price no one is willing to pay. The built environment isn’t killing 100 people a day. People are killing 100 people a day.
Respectfully disagree. The built environment is what ALLOWS this behavior. Yes, some people will always choose to be rude and ignore the rules but with speed being the #1 factor in road deaths, the true culprit is road design. Simply saying that it's "people" is lke saying bullets kill people, not guns.
You have your catechism out it would appear. Neither guns nor bullets indeed kill. It is the human. I told you I ride for a living. It’s rare that a road design is dangerous to me. The absolutely appalling road surfaces are considerably the number one distraction and the number one danger comes from utterly criminal driving behavior. The pseudo legal doctrine of disparate impact this past decade and more has greatly encouraged the calamitous decline in driving standards. I talk to different police departments and they all say the same thing that they are not allowed to pull anyone over.
I’m sure there’s lots of money to be made redesigning the built environment but the dirty work of enforcing driving standards is the key. Not money centric publicity campaigns about Campaign Zero and sexy expensive stuff like infrastructure investment boondoggles that only result in empty bicycle and bus lanes which make a parking spot search an even higher stakes endeavor for impatient and stressed out drivers.
Big intersections can be calmed with monuments and brick road segments, however this creates transition points which are dangerous and though they may awe they do not conduct the drivers attention into a more complete presence with respect to people around them.
In Stuart circle, the surrounding buildings monumentalize the space and we are able to participate in the space in such a way that our attention participates in radiating outward rather then being captured inward.
Slip lanes at intersections, where the curved slip lane cuts a pedestrian crossing, seem designed for maximizing vehicular speed rather than pedestrian safety. When walking the dog, I watch the behavior of drivers in my neighborhood's major arterial road intersection. The popular way of approaching the slip lane (and its associated pedestrian crossing) is for drivers to proceed at a high rate of speed, seemingly in order to facilitate merging left after the turn, and then focus their attention on looking backwards at the cars on ghe cross street.
As the drivers go through the pedestrian crosswalk, instead of being concerned with pedestrians and cyclists who might enter the crosswalk, the drivers are looking backwards. The goal: merging with cross street traffic, ideally without slowing down. A few weeks ago, as a driver did this maneuver, two 12-year-old boys were waiting at the crosswalk. Even with the boys a few feet away (and having right of way to walk into the pedestrian crosswalk), the driver followed this "drive fast, look backwards for cars, merge" approach.
The driver had to stop due to oncoming cars, so the boys started to cross, but the now-stopped driver's attention stayed firmly on the oncoming cars on the cross street. When the road was clear of cars, he accelerated forward, with nary a glance around him at the now-walking boys.
TL:DR -- slip lanes are a menace to pedestrians
The urbanist belief that eliminating parking minimums is always good is actually a class issue as well as a safety and economic issue and it is complicated. What I have seen happen in Seattle over the last 10 years is that more and more buildings are built without any parking or with very little parking —yet virtually everyone in the buildings have cars and they park on the streets. Our many older neighborhoods were not built with wide streets. When they are packed on both sides with cars, they become effectively one-way streets that are extremely dangerous. Again, and again a driver ends up in a face off with an oncoming car. One or the other car then has to back up into a sometimes very busy street. There is also the risk of road rage incidents and simply hitting other cars while trying to get through these narrow corridors.
In the neighborhood, commercial districts, this residential parking of cars due to lack of parking garages takes away the parking for businesses, and one by one they have gone under. Instead, Amazon rules, DoorDash and delivery rules and small businesses are crushed.
I have yet to see rent do anything but go up even though of course the claim is that not having parking makes apartments and homes less expensive. I have been trying to get city or state legislatures to require open books on exactly where that no parking provided discount is indicated in lower rent with no luck.
Working class and lower income people often have multiple jobs starting very early and ending very late. I have been that person. I spent daily at least three hours on the bus or walking up to 5 miles in a given day to get to my jobs. When I got a car, my income and my options were exponentially larger. Studies on the increased job opportunities for people with cars have backed my experience up.
When we take away protected parking, we take away protections for those who need to use their car to get to work. Seattle is a high car theft city, and when a low income person loses the only car they have it is an enormous financial blow. I just don’t buy the movement to lift parking minimums as a benefit to society. Here and there it may be appropriate but overall what I see in Seattle is a net negative.
Maybe. I deliver food for a living on a maxi scooter. Cell phones are a menace. Aggressive homicidal driving tendencies are a menace. Obliviously arrogant pedestrians and cyclists are a menace to themselves. Those should be free to ameliorate but they’re not because they would require a religious and moral people for our ordered liberty. And that is apparently a price no one is willing to pay. The built environment isn’t killing 100 people a day. People are killing 100 people a day.
Respectfully disagree. The built environment is what ALLOWS this behavior. Yes, some people will always choose to be rude and ignore the rules but with speed being the #1 factor in road deaths, the true culprit is road design. Simply saying that it's "people" is lke saying bullets kill people, not guns.
You have your catechism out it would appear. Neither guns nor bullets indeed kill. It is the human. I told you I ride for a living. It’s rare that a road design is dangerous to me. The absolutely appalling road surfaces are considerably the number one distraction and the number one danger comes from utterly criminal driving behavior. The pseudo legal doctrine of disparate impact this past decade and more has greatly encouraged the calamitous decline in driving standards. I talk to different police departments and they all say the same thing that they are not allowed to pull anyone over.
I’m sure there’s lots of money to be made redesigning the built environment but the dirty work of enforcing driving standards is the key. Not money centric publicity campaigns about Campaign Zero and sexy expensive stuff like infrastructure investment boondoggles that only result in empty bicycle and bus lanes which make a parking spot search an even higher stakes endeavor for impatient and stressed out drivers.
Big intersections can be calmed with monuments and brick road segments, however this creates transition points which are dangerous and though they may awe they do not conduct the drivers attention into a more complete presence with respect to people around them.
Sic. Stuart Circle
https://maps.app.goo.gl/xbzuG87u7ihEymwv7
In Stuart circle, the surrounding buildings monumentalize the space and we are able to participate in the space in such a way that our attention participates in radiating outward rather then being captured inward.