Stop, Drop and Roll

06 July 2007 | Alameda Community, Alameda Community Development Forum | John Knox White

Last Thursday, the Alameda Sun brought a blast from the past in the form of a new Tom Billings editorial. Billings used to write a regular editorial column for the Alameda Journal. His columns regularly put forth a unique perspective, and honestly, I think they probably upset people as often as people found themselves agreeing. At least that’s my recollection from the letters to the editor. That said, I have always appreciated his willingness to put forth strong views on the issues of the day. Just as often, I don’t agree with him when he writes about traffic and transportation. Last Friday’s editorial was no exception.

While much of the piece rubbed me the wrong way, including the bemoaning of the lack of 10,000 (instead of 3,000) homes on Bay Farm and a bridge across San Leandro Bay. But what took me back (back to 2002) was this section:

Many traffic controls exacerbate congestion by hampering rather than expediting traffic flow. Unrealistically slow speed limits on major thoroughfares provoke law-scoffing as do a plethora of gratuitous stop signs and speed bumps. Most egregious is the arbitrary constraint of traffic to a single lane on roads designed for two, sometimes apparently in the mistaken notion a few bicycles will reduce rather than aggravate congestion by slowing drivers wary of endangering cyclists and/or their insurance premiums.

On ambience, Measure A effectively preserved much of Alameda’s small-town historical look and feel, minimized increasing congestion, and thwarted greedy, irresponsible developers from creating a horrific blight in lieu of Victorian homes. It wasn’t perfect, but it achieved crucial, lasting objectives set forth in 1973.

I find it interesting that somehow small-town historical look and feel is the same as high-volume, high-speed traffic through its neighborhoods. Fernside, Otis, Broadway, Grand, etc. should all be four-lane roads with no stop signs, so that people can drive through them quickly without interference. As a semi-active member of BikeAlameda, and a long time bicycle advocate, I loved the “mistaken notion a few bicycles will reduce rather than aggravate congestion by slowing drivers wary of endangering cyclists and/or their insurance premiums.” As if the only reason that accommodating bicyclists (we’ll get to pedestrians in a second) would be to reduce congestion.

The livability of an area can be measured in its bike and walkability. Healthy, vibrant neighborhoods have both. Bike lanes, something that a large majority of Alamedans support, create a sense of security for families and riders uncomfortable with taking-the-lane (as is allowed by state law) and worrying about Mr. Billings driving up, impatiently from behind. My family bikes a lot, and I can tell you that we try and use the bike lanes as often as possible, many Alameda friends bemoan the paucity of lanes throughout the island and drive because they feel uncomfortable hitting the streets.

But enough about bikes, I was reminded of the “Safety at what price” editorial (available at the public library on Microfilm or for $2.95 from the Contra Costa Times) from June 14, 2002 in which Mr. Billings wrote:

Efforts to ameliorate congestion and expedite traffic flow in Alameda are already frequently bogged down by such misguided efforts to improve pedestrian safety as unrealistic speed limits, narrowed thoroughfares, mis-programmed stop lights and superfluous stop signs.

It’s impossible to achieve 100 percent safety and, beyond some rational point, it’s foolish to try. Eventually, each small increment of statistically-probable safety comes with an increasingly huge price tag in terms of congestion, pollution, wasted fuel, road rage and, yes, even loss of human life.

We overlook lost lifetime when it’s lost a few minutes at a time, but lengthening drive time by five minutes for 13,000 High Street drivers each day would squander three score and ten years of human lifetime in just two years.

Like the proverbial nonexistent free lunch, safety’s never free. Even where cost isn’t reckoned in lost human lifetime, it’s usually measured in constraint of freedom and quality of life.

Yes, you read that right (though the math is really bad), trying to improve pedestrian safety on the East End is not worth it because every two years not-quite one-persons worth of lifetime (70 years) would be lost. Nevermind that 13,000 people don’t drive daily on High Street or that nobody takes five additional minutes to drive down High Street because of pedestrian safety (bridge going up, freeway back up, sure, but not even everyday peak hour traffic, none of which is related to pedestrian safety, causes that kind of delay). Or that most of the time you can drive down High Street almost without slowing down. And nevermind that the time difference between driving at 23MPH and 35MPH over the length of High Street wouldn’t come out to 5 minutes. (if you were to drive from Otis to the Bridge without stopping for red lights, you would save 44 seconds and thus the aforementioned 13000 people would take about 11 years to collectively lose the aforementioned 70 years).

But let’s assume that everyone driving on High Street is delayed by five minutes because of pedestrian safety. Assuming that because of pedestrian fatalities and collisions, the city installed stop signs at every intersection on High Street and some in the middle of the block too, is Mr. Billings really in such a hurry that he would argue that it is worth hitting a couple of people (and possibly killing some), in order to save five minutes on his commute?

It’s pretty incredible. I have to assume that Mr. Billings lives on Bay Farm, given his concern about commutes on Fernside and High Street. It’s interesting that he is willing to give up others quality of life and neighborhood in order to support his decision to live in an area with cul-de-sacs and limited access, which by definition channel traffic onto select roadways that tend to clog up with congestion because they have nowhere to go. Bay Farm Island could have been planned to better accommodate the growth that it has seen, including better access to regional roadways for bikes and transit. Some of which would have helped to alleviate the traffic that crosses Fernside and High.

One need only to look to Houston, TX to see where the ultimate road layout of Mr. Billing’s roadway philosophy lies (seriously, check it out). There, the car trumps all other uses everytime, and the next freeway to be built is going to be the one that alleviates all that nasty congestion.

I agree that we need to preserve Alameda’s small town-ambience, but to me, that includes slowing down (in car or in life) and not letting a 2 minute delay during a cross-town drive become a life threatening brain embolism.