City of Davis by Steve Tracy
This past Tuesday evening the City Council considered changes to the design of the 5th/Russell corridor, between A and L Streets. Opportunities to put missing bike lanes on the street and deal with ongoing safety issues have been missed in the past. We hope this time the community can learn from the experience in other similar situations, set aside fear and emotion, and support a decision to create a safer street that will serve everyone better.
In February of 2005, the timing of the traffic signals was modified at the intersections where F and G Streets meet 5th Street. The new timing, called “split-phase” in traffic engineer vernacular, allows only one direction of traffic on 5th Street (eastbound or westbound) to flow at a time. Now left turns off of 5th Street at those intersections are “protected” because oncoming traffic is stopped with a red light. This eliminated many dangerous broadside accidents at the F Street and G Street intersections. The Public Works Department should be applauded for addressing a serious problem created when drivers rushed into unsafe left turns against oncoming traffic.
However, the changes fixed only part of the safety problem on the 5th Street corridor. The new signal timing brought on an additional 30 seconds of delay for most drivers using the corridor, which has led to other hazards.
image by Maren Walker, Landscape Architecture student, UC Davis
In the four years since the split phase signals were installed, accidents have continued or worsened, especially at the unsignalized intersections in the corridor. This is the record from March of 2005 through the end of 2008 for the entire corridor, A Street to L Street:
109 accidents total
19 pedestrians or bicyclists hit by cars
63 personal injuries requiring treatment
With the current financial crisis threatening City services, we have a situation where 10% of all traffic related calls made by the Police and Fire Departments on streets in the entire City occur on 10 short blocks of a single street.
A recent AAA study reveals that the cost to individuals and society of a single injury in an automobile accident averages $70,000. So in less than 4 years we have run up a 4 million tab on 5th Street. Please, it’s past time to correct this situation.
The best solution also happens to be the cheapest:
It is shown in the graphic above. It’s commonly called a “road diet.” This sounds like a bad term, because we usually don’t like diets, but this one leads to a healthy street. This design technique has been used in literally hundreds of similar situations across the country. Yes, there was initial opposition in many cases, but the results speak for themselves. We are aware of only two cases where the design was completely or partially undone. In fact, many cities went on from their first trial road diet to redo other streets. It works.
This design merges the two center lanes into a single lane for left turns. In time, portions of this lane can be landscaped to beautify the street. We gain a lot of flexibility by merging the left turn lanes: It provides the room to paint in the missing bike lanes. It provides for faster through travel because demand activated left turn arrows can be installed. This all fits between the existing curbs on 5th Street. It requires only paint, and some new traffic lights at F and G. The existing lights can be reused elsewhere.
Between A and B Streets, the only change would be to restripe the vehicle lanes to remove excess width, and stripe in bike lanes. Again, this all fits between the curbs. Almost 50% of the traffic coming east from UCD in the evening rush hour turns off of Russell at B, so this is the logical place to drop the extra lane which isn’t needed beyond that point.
Other communities engaged in road diet projects to address safety issues, with great results. Accident reductions often have been at or over 50%. The severity of crashes and injuries has seen an even more dramatic reduction, because vehicle speeds are lower, set by the prudent drivers at the head of the lines. Aggressive speeding is virtually eliminated. More information and examples are available at the Old North Davis website.
(Click on the top right to expand and view the full PowerPoint presentation)
Arguments that have been made against fixing 5th Street:
We need 4 lanes to carry the car traffic—That is not what the model conducted in 2005 showed. In fact, it revealed that travel times in the corridor between A and L Streets will in fact go DOWN as through traffic flow is better organized in a single lane. That is why so many other cities that have removed lanes from 4 lane streets have seen traffic volumes go UP after the street was fixed. These reworked streets often carry 50% more traffic than 5th Street does. It seems counter to logic, but here is why it works: We do not really have a 4 lane street on 5th between B and L at this time—we have a 2 lane street with 2 left turn lanes. Many drivers make left turns at the frequent cross street intersections. While waiting for a gap in through traffic, they sit in the middle lane and block the cars behind them. Stopped buses (70 a day on this section of 5th), bicyclists, and cars slowing down for right turns also impede traffic flow in the lanes next to the curbs. Aggressive speeders slalom through these obstacles, threatening every user of 5th Street.
We need a 4 lane street for trucks to get in and out of downtown—This simply is not true. The only 4 lane truck access to downtown requires trucks from Sacramento to go completely around Davis on I-80 and Hwy 113, then come in from the west on Russell Blvd. No many do that. Even then, they must negotiate 2 lane streets all through downtown, as delivery truck drivers have successfully done for years. All other truck route access to downtown, from Richards Blvd., B Street, L Street, 1st Street, and 2nd Street is on two-lane streets.
Fire trucks will not be able to get down 5th Street—In fact, emergency responders will have it easier. The bike lane will be available for the single lane of cars to pull into, clearing the way. This is quicker and safer than two lanes of vehicles trying to merge into a single line.
There will be long lines backed up at the traffic signals—Again, this is simply not true. Restoring conventional signal operations at F and G Streets will eliminate 30 seconds of delay. Currently, a driver caught at a red light must wait out green lights for two other traffic streams. That wait will be cut in half, and so will the number of vehicles joining the line at the red light. The single line will be the same length as the current double line.
Bicyclists need to ride somewhere else—This is not consistent with federal, state, or City of Davis policy. As we struggle to reduce global warming, all levels of government must promote clean transportation technologies. A recent Complete Streets directive from Caltrans headquarters (DD-64-R1) states “Therefore, the Department and local agencies have the duty to provide for the safety and mobility needs of all who have legal access to the transportation system.” The Davis General Plan “Primary Bicycle Network” map shows bike lanes on 5th Street between A and L Streets. Let’s get them painted, to accommodate the hordes of cyclists now riding in the gutter, in the lanes, and both directions on the sidewalks.
Pedestrians need to go to the signals to cross—This is unfair, and also unsafe because of the heavy traffic volumes at those intersections and all the cars turning across the crosswalks. It takes over 5 minutes for a pedestrian who wishes to cross 5th Street at J Street or D Street to detour to the nearest traffic signal and then walk back to their route, gaining only 50 feet on their trip in the process. Why expect this of people on foot, when the redesign will reduce delay for the people sitting in air conditioned comfort in their cars?
Only the selfish people in Old North Davis want this—At the City Council hearings on this issue, 3 dozen people from all over Davis spoke up in support of the redesign. They talked about the chaotic street that makes them not want to drive downtown to shop, about the automobile accidents they had been in, and how hostile the street is for them on bicycles. Yes, we in Old North want 5th Street fixed. We are shocked that the business owners are so entrenched in their opposition, in spite of all the evidence that this design works. We are their best customers. Many of us are downtown every day spending money. We don’t clog up the streets, and we don’t take up parking spaces. We just want to get there safely.
It will never work in Davis—It already does. We don’t have to look any farther than B Street. Between 1st and 5th Streets, B Street carries almost exactly the same number of vehicles daily, and more bicyclists. These are the same drivers, in the same town, on a street that is the same width between the curbs. It has a single lane in each direction, a shared left turn lane, and bike lanes. Just like the design for 5th Street that is in the General Plan.
There were 30 accidents on the 4,000 feet of 5th/Russell between A and L Streets in 2008, 8 of them involving bicyclists or pedestrians. In contrast, the 2,000 feet of B Street between 1st and 5th Streets had only 6, one involving a bicyclist. This is the safety improvement we can expect on 5th Street with the proper design.
As we stated at the top of this essay, our Public Works Department has demonstrated in the past that safety is their priority. The solution to the safety issues on 5th Street is right before us. It’s time.
For updates go to: http://www.oldnorthdavis.net/
Why not throw in short right turn lanes for people heading east and wanting to make right turns toward downtown? Looks like it could be done easily at every intersection except D. B is already taken care of.
To extrapolate that the AAA figure of 70,000 dollars per injury applies to the 5th street situation seems a stretch. One car a minute turning left on F from fifth seems low to me. I live there and observe that intersection daily. It might be better to look at the lefts onto g st as well since the controls are designed for stopping at F but being able to make the light at g ona single traffic cycle.
I have been skeptical about this idea, but after reading your article, I am convinced it is worth a try. Mainly to give cyclists a safe place to bike. But I am intrigued with your reasons it may actually speed up traffic, rather than slow it down. It is an inexpensive alternative, and ought to be given a trial period.
Excellent commentary, Steve. Who knows how many people have avoided downtown because of the current traffic situation? Road diets have worked all over the country and the result is – traffic flow is better and commerce in local businesses has increased. I say do it. If there is a business downtown that a person wants to get to and buy something, eat something or do business, that person will find a way there – it's called a …destination… – it doesn't matter if it takes a minute more in traffic or not – and it looks like this will speed up traffic flow and provide safety to cyclists. Isn't that what Davis is all about?
Seems very expensive to …TRY…; How does one TRY this? People are fickle-if they abstain from the new design on 5th, it WILL push all that additional traffic onto 4th and 3rd. 4th will have stop signs every other block-that pisses people off. I don't know HOW the city will pay for this–ah, yes, another reason for me to reject any new or RENEWAL of a tax. Thanks.
…We gain a lot of flexibility by merging the left turn lanes: It provides the room to paint in the missing bike lanes….I support giving the …road diet… idea a try. I think the chances are good that it will work well, just as the Old North advocates have been saying. Compared with what we have now, it seems superior in every sense. It is just how Anderson Road is striped, and traffic flows on it much better.However, I have one minor alteration I would suggest to their plan:I would increase the maximum speed limit on 5th Street from 30 mph to 35. That would help speed traffic and discourage drivers from using 8th Street, where the speed limit is 25 mph. I don't think moving the speed limit up, in the context of the road diet, would cause safety problems*.If bicyclists feel less safe cycling east-west next to cars going 35 mph, then can take 8th Street or 4th Street.* I'm willing to change my position if my assumption about safety is wrong.
……………* I'm willing to change my position if my assumption about safety is wrong…………….Of course your wrong Rich , more bicycle's next to cars with more speed , any elementary student could figure that one out !
If it's as …elementary… as you presume — and you may be right; I'm not a dogmatist — then perhaps you would suggest that the speed limit on 5th, which for 50 years was 25 mph not 30, should go back to its erstwhile limit, due to the introduction of bicyle traffic?Anderson Road is an interesting test case, because part of it is 25 and the rest is 30. I doubt bikes are at any more risk in the stretch between 8th and Covell (where it is 30), than on the rest of that road. But if they are, then it would be …elementary… to have all of Anderson set at 25.———I'm aware, of course, that state law prohibits cops from giving people speeding tickets (based on radar readings) if they exceed the posted speed limit, but most drivers (85%) go over that speed. That is why, I think, the speed limit was increased in various parts of town — because many people drive as fast as they can get away with.
Friends.I will try to cover most of the comments and questions that have been posted so far in this one note.Anonymous: Adding those …slip lanes… like B Street has takes up land, makes the pedestrian's trip across the street more difficult, and encourages drivers to make faster right turns like on a freeway onramp. The vehicle code requires drivers to merge into the bike lane as they approach the intersection to turn right (carefully, of course). That's why the bike lane lines are dashed near corners. So the bike lane serves as an informal slip lane.Luddie: The AAA counted medical costs, lost work, property damage, and emergency response costs. I believe their research is solid.In the last full traffic count that was made, during the evening rush hour, 68 cars turned left from eastbound 5th Street onto northbound F Street. 1.13 cars per minute. That's the number.Go For It: The lane reduction doesn't really speed up traffic, but it does speed up the trip. By removing the unnecessary delay caused by the third green light phase in the cycle for the signals at F and G Streets, the through trip will be faster for the average driver. Vehicle speeds tend to come down 5 MPH with the full raised median design we should get ultimately.FastFwed: The former City Engineer estimated 10 to 20 thousand dollars to repaint the street. We would also need new signal heads at F and G Streets. If the trial fails, they can be reused elsewhere, he said.Lexicon Artist: Raising the speed limit is a BAD idea. Please review the 3rd slide in the PowerPoint presentation in the blog. Your odds of surviving a hit by a vehicle if you are not in a car are over 80% at 25 MPH. At 35 MPH, your suggested speed limit, the odds of dying in the impact are 80%.I appreciate this exchange, and look forward to more educational opportunities. The bottom line with this lane reduction approach is that there are no losers.Steve Tracy.
Why wouldn't signals at 5th and F and G be able to be staggered RATHER than all or nothing, e.g., west goes first with a green arrow and a green then part way through arrow goes away yet green still on while east is green then west goes red while east is green and green arrow. That is what I recommended to the city years ago before they changed. I had an office at 5th and F and we heard/saw accidents at least every two wks.
If studies lead City professional staff to recommend against the road diet, and if the City Council chooses to implement the road diet based on Mr. Tracy's professional recommendations and support of the concept and public sentiment, and if the implementation of the road diet results in significantly increases crashes/injuries (and God-forbid) deaths, who will be morally and/or financially responsible? Just curious…
What are Steve Tracy's credentials? Planner, transportation planner, engineer, traffic engineer? His comment re: traffic turning left at F Street sounds 'suspicious'… usually, queues are dictated by how many turn movements per traffic signal phase, permitting the movement. In many instances, …road diets… have been shown to work well. In many others, even when they are …tried… due to the frequency of intersections (short blocks versus long blocks) in several jurisdictions they had …unintended consequences…, and were abandoned, in part, due to …loss of life…… an earlier anonymous post asked a good question… who would be responsible if this …fails…?
I studied these road diet issues carefully several years ago with Steve Tracy, and what became very clear is the man is right. I will support whatever he wants to do with this matter.
Friends. I will again address these to the comments that were made last night.SODA'ite: You make an excellent point. As far as I know, all the other signals in town have the more conventional setup that you suggest. Either staggered, or having both left turn arrows on at the same time, it achieves the same end. That is, the left turning arrows are only on long enough to clear the cars waiting in the turn pocket (sitting on detection wires embedded in the street). This reduces the delay for oncoming traffic, which is almost always the heaviest volume.This could be done with the street striped as it is now, but that would create a mixed-destination line of cars in the leftmost lane. Once the left turn arrow goes out, drivers in that lane wanting to go straight would be trapped behind any cars waiting to turn left. Impatient drivers will likely then take chances to get out of that lane and pull in front of through traffic in the curb lane.Look at eastbound traffic at L Street to see how this problem is dealt with at that location: The leftmost lane is converted into a left turn only lane. This forces all other traffic into the curb lane. That would not normally be a problem, but because the street is so narrow, there is no shoulder or bike lane. So there is no space drivers can use if they want to ease up to the intersection when the light is red and make the right turn allowed by law (when safe). These 100 drivers each peak hour have to wait behind the traffic going straight, which adds to the length of the line at the signal. At times this makes the line of cars so long is does not clear when the light is green.With the lane reduction, at F and G Streets there would be a dedicated left turn pocket and a through lane in both directions (actually, all 4 directions). As we do all over Davis, drivers wanting to turn right when the signal is red could ease up to the intersection by carefully merging into the bike lane (as required by law). This greatly improves the flow of traffic.Anonymous: I am not aware of a single instance where accidents and injuries have gone up. Quite the contrary, they are dramatically reduced in every situation where we have numbers.Since the light configuration was changed 4 years ago, there have been 140 accidents in the 5th Street corridor resulting in 80 injuries. Whatever the reduction would be, it is safe to say that a lot of damage, city response expense, and personal trauma would have been avoided if this solution had been implemented back then.So although I am not an attorney, I wonder if the City is more vulnerable from a liability standpoint for NOT doing this. For the past four years they have seen a mountain of evidence about the ongoing accident problem and the safety benefits of the lane reduction (road diet) solution, and not acted.Second Anonymous (is this the same person?): I have avoided touting my credentials, because I think the most relevant facts can be found in the evidence we have provided, not my personal background. But if it is becoming an issue, here goes:No, I am not an engineer, but yes, I am a transportation planner. I have a BA in Anthropology from UCSD, a BS in Environmental Policy Analysis and Planning from UCD, and an MS in Ecology from UCD. The last degree was essentially in Transportation Planning, as my committee crafted a program that wasn't otherwise offered here.I have co-authored articles published in peer-review situations like the Transportation Research Record and the Journal of the American Planning Association. A few years ago I authored a handbook titled Smart Growth Zoning Codes.For 15 years I led the transportation planning group on the General Plan Team in the Sacramento County Planning Department. For over ten years since I have worked as a Senior Research Analyst for the Local Government Commission in Sacramento. In that capacity, I have given, at times with partners, workshops on street design all through California, and in other states. I also continue my education with frequent classes and seminars on street design, most recently three days of courses put on by the Federal Highway Administration on pedestrian safety, new legal requirements, and road diets.I spend several weeks each year working alongside the best street designers in the country, some of them engineers. We often recommend the same solution proposed for 5th Street, in communities eager to reduce the accident toll of dysfunctional 4-lane streets.I was a member of the citizens advisory group for the Mobility Element of the General Plan update in the 1990s here in Davis. In that same time frame, I chaired the Task Force that prepared the Core Area Specific Plan for the City of Davis. I also have experience in hazardous materials management and airport planning, but that's not relevant here. From now on, I hope we can focus on the facts, not anyone's credibility.To your other comments:I don't know what can be 'suspicious' about my quoting the number of cars turning left at F Street directly from the traffic consultant's worksheet. I a have asked the moderator of this blog to post a copy of that sheet on the website. If that isn't possible, I'll figure out some other way to satisfy this group that the number I quoted is not suspicious at all, but accurate.You have put quotes around other terms in your comment. I am eager to learn of these situations where there were …unintended consequences… and …loss of life… after roads received the lane reduction treatment. These are harsh accusations, so please bring your evidence forward.For the record, I am aware of only 1 1/2 situations where a road diet was tried, then removed. One in Montana (Billings or Missoula?), and 1/2 a street in an East Bay community (I think San Leandro). Interesting, according to people I have spoken with who were directly involved in both places, the new design worked fine. But a political decision to remove it was forced by people opposed in the first place whonever quit complaining and lobbying.Mike Harrington: Finally, I agree with everything Mike says.Thank you all for continuing this exchange in a civil manner.Steve Tracy.
I posted a link to this on the front page as well, but here is the document Steve sent me:Click here
That link to the page of traffic counts didn't work, but this link will :http://docs.google.com/gview?a=v&attid=0.1&thid=11f945bb6a4a1d9d&mt=application%2Fpdf&pli=1Cumbersome, but it will get you there.Steve.
An Anonymous post Thursday evening said:…In many others, even when they are …tried… due to the frequency of intersections (short blocks versus long blocks) in several jurisdictions they had …unintended consequences…, and were abandoned, in part, due to …loss of life……Anonymous, can you please help us understand your comment? Where are the …many others… that have been taken out after a redesign was tried? What were the …unintended consequences…, and where was the …loss of life…?Just making statements like these without providing some backup is the primary reason this lane reduction was not done years ago. Don't you feel an obligation to the community to back up your statement with facts, or back down from it?Thank you.Steve Tracy.
Why wouldn’t signals at 5th and F and G be able to be staggered RATHER than all or nothing, e.g., west goes first with a green arrow and a green then part way through arrow goes away yet green still on while east is green then west goes red while east is green and green arrow. That is what I recommended to the city years ago before they changed. I had an office at 5th and F and we heard/saw accidents at least every two wks.
If studies lead City professional staff to recommend against the road diet, and if the City Council chooses to implement the road diet based on Mr. Tracy’s professional recommendations and support of the concept and public sentiment, and if the implementation of the road diet results in significantly increases crashes/injuries (and God-forbid) deaths, who will be morally and/or financially responsible? Just curious…
What are Steve Tracy’s credentials? Planner, transportation planner, engineer, traffic engineer? His comment re: traffic turning left at F Street sounds ‘suspicious’… usually, queues are dictated by how many turn movements per traffic signal phase, permitting the movement. In many instances, …road diets… have been shown to work well. In many others, even when they are …tried… due to the frequency of intersections (short blocks versus long blocks) in several jurisdictions they had …unintended consequences…, and were abandoned, in part, due to …loss of life…… an earlier anonymous post asked a good question… who would be responsible if this …fails…?
I studied these road diet issues carefully several years ago with Steve Tracy, and what became very clear is the man is right. I will support whatever he wants to do with this matter.
Friends. I will again address these to the comments that were made last night.SODA’ite: You make an excellent point. As far as I know, all the other signals in town have the more conventional setup that you suggest. Either staggered, or having both left turn arrows on at the same time, it achieves the same end. That is, the left turning arrows are only on long enough to clear the cars waiting in the turn pocket (sitting on detection wires embedded in the street). This reduces the delay for oncoming traffic, which is almost always the heaviest volume.This could be done with the street striped as it is now, but that would create a mixed-destination line of cars in the leftmost lane. Once the left turn arrow goes out, drivers in that lane wanting to go straight would be trapped behind any cars waiting to turn left. Impatient drivers will likely then take chances to get out of that lane and pull in front of through traffic in the curb lane.Look at eastbound traffic at L Street to see how this problem is dealt with at that location: The leftmost lane is converted into a left turn only lane. This forces all other traffic into the curb lane. That would not normally be a problem, but because the street is so narrow, there is no shoulder or bike lane. So there is no space drivers can use if they want to ease up to the intersection when the light is red and make the right turn allowed by law (when safe). These 100 drivers each peak hour have to wait behind the traffic going straight, which adds to the length of the line at the signal. At times this makes the line of cars so long is does not clear when the light is green.With the lane reduction, at F and G Streets there would be a dedicated left turn pocket and a through lane in both directions (actually, all 4 directions). As we do all over Davis, drivers wanting to turn right when the signal is red could ease up to the intersection by carefully merging into the bike lane (as required by law). This greatly improves the flow of traffic.Anonymous: I am not aware of a single instance where accidents and injuries have gone up. Quite the contrary, they are dramatically reduced in every situation where we have numbers.Since the light configuration was changed 4 years ago, there have been 140 accidents in the 5th Street corridor resulting in 80 injuries. Whatever the reduction would be, it is safe to say that a lot of damage, city response expense, and personal trauma would have been avoided if this solution had been implemented back then.So although I am not an attorney, I wonder if the City is more vulnerable from a liability standpoint for NOT doing this. For the past four years they have seen a mountain of evidence about the ongoing accident problem and the safety benefits of the lane reduction (road diet) solution, and not acted.Second Anonymous (is this the same person?): I have avoided touting my credentials, because I think the most relevant facts can be found in the evidence we have provided, not my personal background. But if it is becoming an issue, here goes:No, I am not an engineer, but yes, I am a transportation planner. I have a BA in Anthropology from UCSD, a BS in Environmental Policy Analysis and Planning from UCD, and an MS in Ecology from UCD. The last degree was essentially in Transportation Planning, as my committee crafted a program that wasn’t otherwise offered here.I have co-authored articles published in peer-review situations like the Transportation Research Record and the Journal of the American Planning Association. A few years ago I authored a handbook titled Smart Growth Zoning Codes.For 15 years I led the transportation planning group on the General Plan Team in the Sacramento County Planning Department. For over ten years since I have worked as a Senior Research Analyst for the Local Government Commission in Sacramento. In that capacity, I have given, at times with partners, workshops on street design all through California, and in other states. I also continue my education with frequent classes and seminars on street design, most recently three days of courses put on by the Federal Highway Administration on pedestrian safety, new legal requirements, and road diets.I spend several weeks each year working alongside the best street designers in the country, some of them engineers. We often recommend the same solution proposed for 5th Street, in communities eager to reduce the accident toll of dysfunctional 4-lane streets.I was a member of the citizens advisory group for the Mobility Element of the General Plan update in the 1990s here in Davis. In that same time frame, I chaired the Task Force that prepared the Core Area Specific Plan for the City of Davis. I also have experience in hazardous materials management and airport planning, but that’s not relevant here. From now on, I hope we can focus on the facts, not anyone’s credibility.To your other comments:I don’t know what can be ‘suspicious’ about my quoting the number of cars turning left at F Street directly from the traffic consultant’s worksheet. I a have asked the moderator of this blog to post a copy of that sheet on the website. If that isn’t possible, I’ll figure out some other way to satisfy this group that the number I quoted is not suspicious at all, but accurate.You have put quotes around other terms in your comment. I am eager to learn of these situations where there were …unintended consequences… and …loss of life… after roads received the lane reduction treatment. These are harsh accusations, so please bring your evidence forward.For the record, I am aware of only 1 1/2 situations where a road diet was tried, then removed. One in Montana (Billings or Missoula?), and 1/2 a street in an East Bay community (I think San Leandro). Interesting, according to people I have spoken with who were directly involved in both places, the new design worked fine. But a political decision to remove it was forced by people opposed in the first place whonever quit complaining and lobbying.Mike Harrington: Finally, I agree with everything Mike says.Thank you all for continuing this exchange in a civil manner.Steve Tracy.
I posted a link to this on the front page as well, but here is the document Steve sent me:Click here
That link to the page of traffic counts didn't work, but this link will:http://docs.google.com/gview?a=v&attid=0.1&thid=11f945bb6a4a1d9d&mt=application%2Fpdf&pli=1Cumbersome, but it will get you there.Steve.
An Anonymous post Thursday evening said:…In many others, even when they are …tried… due to the frequency of intersections (short blocks versus long blocks) in several jurisdictions they had …unintended consequences…, and were abandoned, in part, due to …loss of life……Anonymous, can you please help us understand your comment? Where are the …many others… that have been taken out after a redesign was tried? What were the …unintended consequences…, and where was the …loss of life…?Just making statements like these without providing some backup is the primary reason this lane reduction was not done years ago. Don’t you feel an obligation to the community to back up your statement with facts, or back down from it?Thank you.Steve Tracy.