|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
There is so much going on around us. A lot of time, it’s just hot air and bluster. Still, these projects deserve a quick peek once in a while to remind us they are still there. This quick three-peek is all about Redwood City traffic projects. At one point or another, all three projects have been advertised as ‘Traffic Calming’ projects. In the Bay Area, these kinds of projects are best described as ‘trickle-down traffic safety’ projects.
The goal is simply to reduce the volume and speed of vehicles along the corridor, which somehow magically leads to safety for all vulnerable road users – or so the story goes. With the methods they are using, however, reducing speed and reducing volume are basically mutually exclusive. As soon as volume goes down, speeds go up again. So, in short, trickle-down traffic safety works just as well as the trickle-down economy or the trickle-down housing promoted by YIMBYism. ‘Trickle-down’ is a lazy shortcut that just never seems to lead to success. But you can waste (or make) a lot of money while trying.
Roosevelt Ave – Traffic Circle or Roundabout?
Roosevelt Avenue is not a bicycle or pedestrian project. It’s always about safety for automobiles. One unsafe spot for cars was the intersection with McGarvey Ave because drivers on Roosevelt Ave were speeding around that blind curve quite a bit. Hence, the intersection became a modern European roundabout. Or is that still a bad U.S. Traffic Circle? A modern roundabout might consider bicycles, but a traffic circle usually makes things worse for people on bicycles. This one does not do anything for bicycles, but still, SMC TA granted the city’s request to misuse $1.2 million in bicycle funding on this.
But the biggest difference I have seen around here between U.S. Traffic Circles and the Modern Roundabout is the STOP signs. A real roundabout does not make you stop – everything has to be a YIELD. That is why European traffic engineers love the modern roundabout; it improves traffic flow and safety and reduces speed as well. Redwood City could not decide if it will be a traffic circle with STOP signs on McGarvey Ave or a roundabout with all YIELD. Ultimately, they made it into a solid roundabout but kept naming it a traffic circle.
Many Americans pretend to hate roundabouts, claiming they don’t understand the concept. First of all, people who understand the nonsense called “All-Way-Stop” should be able to handle a modern roundabout. Secondly, if the French (42,986 roundabouts), the British (25,976), the Italians (18,172), or Iceland (421 per 1M people) can understand the concept, I don’t see why Americans would falter. [Note to myself: It’s not a good time to mention the metric system! Only one ‘modern’ solution at a time].
“Vera Ave Bicycle Boulevard” – There goes our hope
School Segregation is a choice, and so is NOT to provide Safe-Routes-To-School. ‘Trickle Down Safety’ does not work for Safe-Routes-To-School. Road Safety policies require bike lanes to allow All-Ages-And-Abilities (AAA) or 8-80s.
This project is supposed to be the city’s first major Safe-BikeRoutes-To-School project. But it does not require a math genius to figure this one out. Before the Vera Avenue “traffic calming” project started the street had 4 lanes for cars, 2 sidewalks, and zero lanes for bikes. After the project “Vera Ave Bicycle Boulevard” still has 4 lanes for cars, 2 sidewalks, and still zero lanes for children on bicycles.
According to the Geneva Convention, ‘zero’ means …
- no improvements for people on bicycles, wheelchairs, or knee-scooters have been made.
- the goal is to continue using children on bicycles (5mph) to slow down 30mph tanks (see Project PACE).
- the larger the trucks and SUVs become, the more blind spots they have.
- “Vision Zero” and “Transportation Equity” are clearly violated here.
- no real bicycle advocate would defend this project – those who try …
None of these points encourages more people to let their children ride here. Without the ‘more,’ this project does not qualify for Measure A/W bicycle grants from SMC TA.
And yet, our new Transportation Director, our new equity hope in city hall, is failing these low-income kids right out of the box. That is a shame, but to add insult to injury, she is trying to take away $1.3M in bicycle funds from other cities with real bike projects. Similar to Hopkins Ave and Roosevelt Ave, these bicycle grants – that could be doing some real good in other cities – are going to waste in Redwood City on projects with absolutely no improvements for bicycles. This makes “Vera Avenue Bicycle Boulevard” just another funding scam without doing anything. You know you got it wrong when no real bicycle advocate would ever dare to defend your SRTS “Bicycle Boulevard” against entitled Squatters, Rankers and Dead Parkers.
[ A quick note for future reference: the Silicon Valley Bicycle Coalition (SVBC) does support Redwood City in taking $1.3M in bicycle funding away from real SRTS programs and towards this fake “Bicycle Boulevard” that violates 8 out of 8 criteria supported by NACTO and national bicycle advocacy groups. Strange, to say the least! ]
Woodside Road and “The Need” for Parking
Woodside Road is also known as State Route 84. Finally, after years of complaining to Caltrans, they have been repaving Woodside Road since August. The community also hopes for an upgrade to the dangerous intersection of Woodside Road and Alameda de Las Pulgas (ADLP).
Strong Towns refers to a street that wants to be a road, as ‘stroads.’ For most of its length, SR84 is mostly a state road, and then through Redwood City, it wants to be a street. Like all typical stroads, SR-84 has one of two binary states: either people are speeding, or it’s congested. This is a sign of bad engineering; it means either the road has too many intersections or the street is too car-centric.
But the community’s biggest concern about Woodside Road seems to be “The Need for Parking.” But parking on a California State Route is wrong on so many different levels. While transportation is all about the movement of people and goods, parking is the exact opposite. And while short-term service parking creates some value, long-term car storage does not. Parallel parking along a high-speed transportation corridor is way too risky. It requires skill and practice and it’s something the DMV does not even check anymore. But there is more.
Parallel parking along a high-speed corridor should never be allowed, since …
- The perceived ‘Right-to-park in my favorite spot’ leads to cars circling around the block a few times, which can reduce traffic flow and increase congestion.
- Getting in and out of the car is dangerous, which can lead to higher costs for emergency response and health care.
- Mixing speeding and parked cars can lead to sideswiping, leading to higher insurance rates for everybody.
Higher costs for health care, emergency response, insurance rates, time, and congestion are some of the many externalities in which society pays for the benefit of a select few.
Nobody would endorse parking on freeways like US-101 or I-280. There are very few places along SR84 where people would park their cars on the street with the expectation not to be towed. However, within Redwood City, is parking on Woodside Road supposed to be a real need? During the re-pavement project, we saw the undeniable proof that everyone wants free parking—but that doesn’t mean they really need it.
This photo of Woodside Road proves without a shadow of a doubt that people don’t need that parking. The construction crew put up a few signs switching from ‘free parking’ to ‘parking with a cost,’ and the additional risk of payment led people to suddenly find other solutions to store their private vehicles.
Capitalism won the day; as soon as they put a price tag on “free parking,” the demand for parking mysteriously disappeared. We don’t know where those cars went to, but since there are 4-5 empty parking spots for every car in America, we don’t really have to care. Those price tags now create valuable transportation space, which can be used to reduce congestion. They could be used for high-density transportation needs like Public Transportation (aka bus lanes) or Active Transportation (aka bike lanes). There are even a few spots where temporary parking and loading could be allowed for services.
Bringing it all together
While circling around Roosevelt/McGarvey is a good thing. Circling around Woodside Ave creates more congestion. All three projects are still car-centric, but at least Caltrans grants some extra space to people without cars, which can save a lot of money.
Caltrans is the agency that fired its equity director last year, and Redwood City hired its transportation equity director this year. Caltrans is the agency with a destructive love for highways, and Redwood City is the jurisdiction claiming to be all about “Transportation, Children, and Youth.” And yet, if Caltrans pulls through on the bike lanes on SR84 and improves the intersection with Alameda de Las Pulgas, then Caltrans has done more for SRTS in Redwood City than our city council has done over the last 30 years.
Which just proves, you can’t judge a plan by its cover, you also need to keep peeking at all times.
More Information
- Vera “Bike Boulevard” Grant Application
- Woodside Road Construction Project
- Countries with the most Roundabouts
- Strong Towns: The Stroad
Editor’s Note: The views and opinions expressed in all blog posts are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the Redwood City Pulse or its staff.
