Innovations Towards Zero. Upcoming event at House of Sweden re: electrification and safety in vehicles

 

9th of June, 2011 ∙ House of Sweden ∙ 2900 K Street, NW ∙ Washington, DC

Join us for a seminar that will focus on the latest findings on safety and electrification of 

vehicles and discuss how manufacturers, government and the public can work together to 

reduce emissions as well as reduce fatalities and injuries on our roads.

Agenda

8:30 - 9:00 a.m. Breakfast around exhibition in Anna Lindh Hall
 Exhibition will include:

Seven Corners Pedestrian Bridge follow up

This is a follow up to the May 19 post that generated a great discussion on GreaterGreater Washington (see post and comments here). I attended the ribbon cutting on May 20 and subsequently collected data on two occasions.

I learned at the ribbon cutting that original discussions about a pedestrian overpass in this vicinity began as long ago as 25 years. I also learned that the "all in" costs, including engineering, design, etc. for the bridge was about $8 million, which is a lot more than what I reported in the original post (which may have just been construction costs; I don't know). I also met Penny Gross, the local politician who was instrumental in maintaining pressure on the county to get this bridge completed.

I had a conversation with the Pedestrian Program Manager for Fairfax County and pointed out some of the improvements I thought would make the facility more useful. He was very interested in hearing my point of view and seemed genuinely interested in improving pedestrian experience in Fairfax.

One key improvement that is needed is improving how pedestrians get from the bridge to the stores. Here are two photos: the first is the sidewalk if you take the stairs and the second is the sidewalk if you take the ramp. Both just end abruptly with the Starbucks and B&N beckoning across the lot.


Despite the fact that this area is quite unfriendly to pedestrians, it actually has a lot of pedestrian use. Here are the statistics I gathered on two different dates: Thursday, May 21 from 10:05 to 11:05 AM and Tuesday, June 16 from 1:30 to 2:30 PM. Both days were excellent weather with temps in the 70's.(Caveats about these data are at the end of the post)

In both cases there were more users at the Patrick Henry crossing than on the bridge itself, underscoring the continuing need to make that intersection safe and pleasant for pedestrians. I was surprised that no cyclists used the bridge. It may be that it is still early and they may not be aware. It will be interesting to follow up a year from now.

I also learned from the Pedestrian Program Manager that the county has plans to add signals and crosswalks at Seven Corners itself, which would be a definite improvement to the worn footpaths and crossing-fingers-that-the-light-is-red situation that exists there now.

The people who made the "Mad Dash" across Route 50 did so in three locations: 6 of them crossed between the bridge and Seven Corners; 2 crossed between the bridge and Patrick Henry and 2 crossed 50 yards or so east of Patrick Henry.

The bridge will, of course, require maintenance, and hopefully the county has budgeted for that. Already the bridge has become a magnet for graffiti; I took some photos.

I also noted this overflowing trash receptacle. Over time, if the facility is allowed to become run down, some people will choose not to use it any more. After only a month, this one seems to already be neglected.

During my May 21 data gathering hour, I had conversations with a few bridge users:
- A gentleman carrying a batch of Starbucks coffee (presumably for himself and coworkers) who said he lives in the area. Was skeptical while it was being built but now he really likes it. Admitted to making the mad dash on many occasions, but said he won't need to anymore.
- A mother walking with a young child going to story hour at Barnes and Noble. Used to cross at Seven Corners but now thinks the bridge is a much better option. Never dashed in the past.
- Long-time resident was aware of the numerous pedestrian deaths at this location. Generally pleased with the bridge. Declined to comment when I asked if he had made the mad dash in the past.
- A gentleman from outside the area who had parked in the nearby lot and was just checking the bridge out for curiosity's sake.
===================
Caveats on table data:
Data was gathered while sitting on the bridge. Accuracy as follows:
Bridge users: 100% accurate
PH Drive: Likely undercounted by 10-20% due to distance and sight line. Better data on second date due to learning curve.
Seven Corners: Likely undercounted by a lot due to sightline and inability to see parts of the crossing area
Mad Dash: 100% accurate; no way anyone could cross without being seen.

Pedestrian Improvements in Greater Washington

It's almost done; ribbon cutting is scheduled for May 20. Even before I moved to a part of Arlington that is not far from Seven Corners, I was aware of the significant number of pedestrian deaths that were occurring along the stretch of Route 50 (Arlington Boulevard) near Patrick Henry Drive and Seven Corners (right by the Home Depot to point out a familiar landmark). It is the deadliest intersection in all of Fairfax County, accounting for approximately 25% of all pedestrian fatalities in the county: on average 2-4 per year. The county has known this is a problem area since at least 1987. I don't have the statistics, but extrapolating from known numbers, more than 50 pedestrians may have been killed here in the last 20 years. Here's a map of the area (one detail: the actual location of the bridge is somewhat west of what is shown. This is taken from the official VDOT site).

Creating separate pedestrian facilities is often not the best solution. What I, and many progressive urban planners believe is better, is to make our streets and roads more accessible, safer and more usable for all users: pedestrians, cyclists, Segway riders, and cars. Sometimes planners will create a poorly designed or planned pedestrian facility that will then "relieve" them of their responsibility to think more holistically about the interactions of road users. I agree with this viewpoint, but in this case, the pedestrian bridge at Seven Corners is a big, big improvement, and probably is the only reasonably safe enhancement that can be implemented in the short term. It also is located where pedestrians have generally wanted to cross and where many have been injured or killed.

Prior to the construction of this bridge, the only possible crossing points were at Patrick Henry Drive (not all that safe either: pedestrians have been killed in the crosswalk; the county has improved this crossing in the last couple years, but it's still a 6-lane highway) and Cherry Street, a distance of 1.3 miles from each other. Although one could cross at the Seven Corners overpasses, it requires a brave and fleet person to do so. There are no actual pedestrian facilities like sidewalks or lights there. So crossing at either Patrick Henry or Cherry St. requires a very long schlep, thus many people choose to make the mad dash across Route 50. For years the county tried to force pedestrians to the crossing at Patrick Henry rather than find a safe solution to their need to cross closer to their destinations.

There are homes, apartments and significant commerce on both sides of the highway, so there are lots of reasons for people to cross. One would think that the businesses would have an interest in making it easier for people to reach their establishments, too. I do not know if they were engaged in the project, though. On more than one occasion I have been in the Sunflower Restaurant looking out at the Guitar Center, seemingly close enough to touch--or at least hit with a golf ball. I measured with Google, and it's about 200 yards, so a golfer could conceivably hit one onto the Guitar Center roof from the restaurant. However, if I wanted to walk there, I could not do it. Impossible. Perhaps one could walk down Route 7 to Patrick Henry, cross there and go back up, a distance of 1.2 miles. I'm not sure there are sidewalks along this entire route, though.

By the new bridge, this distance is now still about 1/2 mile, but considerably more direct, doable and obvious to potential pedestrians.

So all in all, I believe this is a significant improvement. However, the county needs to continue to improve this area as well as the entire length of Route 50 inside the Beltway, where usable pedestrian crossings are few and far between. Here are my thoughts about this project:

- Way, way overdue, as mentioned above.
- It took a long time. This project was started in the fall of 2007. Originally it was supposed to be complete last November. Unfortunately, the original truss that was delivered was cracked, which caused a several-months delay.
- Why does the north side empty out inside the frontage road, so people still have to cross another lane of traffic to get to the sidewalk (see photos)? If the frontage road had been shifted a little southward, the bridge would need to be somewhat longer, but not much. They completely rebuilt this entire area, so it could have been designed that way. I often wonder why--when we're building a piece of infrastructure that will be there for 40 years or more--that more thought isn't put into these details.
- Pedestrian access on both sides needs to be addressed now that the bridge is complete. Completing well designed sidewalks and creating pedestrian access to cross the parking lots will make the bridge much more usable.
- There are still way too few ways to cross in this 1.3 mile stretch. Seven Corners itself needs to be rethought and redesigned to accommodate other road users besides cars (and it doesn't even do a very good job with those!) [Update: I learned at the ribbon cutting that this will happen in a couple of years.]
- It probably cost too much (I've read $2.6 million) [Update: I learned at the ribbon cutting that total costs were more like $8 million!]. Although it appears to be an excellent facility, Fairfax County is not known for its willingness to invest in bike/ped facilities. I suspect that the next time someone suggests an improvement, the county will say, "But that one at Seven Corners cost so much; we can't afford to spend that kind of money willy nilly on pedestrians."

I've also included a number of photos below, which you can expand by clicking. There's also a great article in the Falls Church News Press by Penny Gross describing the placement of the main bridge section a couple of weeks ago.

Taken in February from the Barnes & Noble parking lot prior to installation of the bridge (click to enlarge)

Looking east from Seven Corners. Home Depot is behind the bridge to the right (click to enlarge).

Looking West along Route 50. You can see the ramp pedestrians will come down and then have to cross the frontage road on the right to get to the sidewalk. Dumb. (Click to enlarge)

At the top of the ramp looking south across the bridge. Still a little work being finished up.

==========

(Cross posted with lots of comments on GreaterGreaterWashington)

Get a Grip! Swine Flu Hysteria

I sure wish we could figure out a way to harness the emotional energy associated with people's reaction to the new flu virus, and use it to help us transform our society and our world. Or, for that matter, engage our media at that kind of level.

This has been a page 1 story for days now. It is totally out of control and out of proportion. This blog (fivethirtyeight) reported about a study asking people if they knew someone who had gotten swine flu. 3.2% said they did! 3.2 percent!! They backed these numbers out to show that we'd need about 35,000 cases of swine flu for that many people to report they know someone with it, yet there are only a couple of hundred confirmed cases in the US. What is going on?

Here are some facts about this year's ('08-'09) flu season: the non-swine flu that has been circulating since last fall.

- Through its normal sampling testing, CDC has tested more than 25,000 positive specimens for flu, representing 14% of all samples they tested--indicating that literally millions of people have contracted the flu this season.
- 55 pediatric deaths have been attributed to the flu this season
- There have been at least two pediatric deaths every single week since the last week of January
- There were 10 pediatric deaths due to flu the week of February 28 (but no page 1 story; in fact, no story at all that I can recall)
- Just 3 weeks ago more than 7% of ALL deaths reported in the US were due to the flu. That would represent something like 3,000 people just in that one week.
- 13,000 people have died this year from flu
- In 2005, 63,000 Americans died of the flu. 63 THOUSAND!! Where were the news stories?
- Just two months ago 31 states reported "widespread influenza activity."

Today's Washington Post quoted a woman named Beth Pendergast:
"I heard this morning that a toddler died in Texas. And now, suddenly, there's a case in my back yard," Beth Pendergast, whose daughter Danielle is a third-grader at Folger, said late yesterday. "To be honest, my family is scared, and I'm scared. Even though they're taking all the precautions, it's still my child. At this point, there's no way I'm sending her to school tomorrow."

HELLOOO! Did she keep her child home all winter long, too? Children were dieing every week from the flu, and presumably other children in her kid's school had it. At this point there is no indication that this particular virus is either more contagious nor more virulent than the dozens of other flu viruses currently in circulation. In other words, people should take the same precautions and behave the same way now as they do during any winter month when flu is going around. (Be careful crossing the street, too.) This stuff drives me nuts.

How can we get a person like Ms. Pendergast equally engaged on fighting global climate change? In the end, the world her child grows up in will be far more affected by climate change than by this flu virus. And it's likely it will have a greater affect on her child's health and life expectancy, too--not to mention her quality of life as well.

On the other hand, it makes for some mighty fine entertainment and insights:
MinnPost
TechCrunch
Swine Flu vs. Financial Panic

Land-Use Transformation to Reduce Teenage Deaths (a Personal Plea)

I am terribly saddened by the death of my brother's and sister-in-law's niece, 16. She died last week, several days after a severe car accident that was survived by the three other teens who were in the car. She was a passenger in the rear seat. I don't know all the details of the accident.

There are, of course, reams and reams of statistics on teen driving accidents and scientific research in neurology and sociology that try to explain some of this. Many states have taken actions such as progressive licensing, driver training, seatbelt laws, and more to protect our teenagers essentially from themselves and their friends--and not without some results. Teenage driving deaths have declined over the last fifteen years.

However, thousands of teenagers continue to die in car accidents every year, and teens will always be more likely to have accidents than others no matter what we do, because of their inexperience as drivers and their not-yet-completely-developed judgment. This second point is not a criticism of teenagers; it's a neurological fact. When it becomes personal, though, all of this information is meaningless. My family has lost a loved one, a piece of our lives that cannot be replaced.

Everywhere I read about the teenage driving "epidemic" (if it were a disease killing thousands of teenagers every year, imagine the response of our government), the solutions are always about changing licensing, rules, training, parental responsibility, etc. Never do I read about changing society so that teens (and others) just don't need to drive--or as much.

A significant part of this problem lies in the way we have created our urban and suburban forms. Teenagers want to have fun; they want to be with their friends; they want to take advantage of things going on in and around their schools and communities. In most communities, however, the only way they can do these things is to drive or be driven. This blog is about transformation--primarily to reduce our environmental impacts. But transforming the way we develop our communities will provide so many additional benefits, too.

If our teens could easily walk or take the bus or rail to where they want to go. If they could safely bike to their friends' houses and to the local shops and theaters. If the fun stuff they want to do was accessible to them. I believe not only would that improve the quality of their lives--and their parents' lives, but it might save hundreds of their lives, too. Somehow we have to change the culture, too. Driving is cool to many teens; I can't change that in the short term. In the long run, though, perhaps we can.

The way we design and develop our cities and our transportation systems has to change. We are not on a sustainable path: not environmentally sustainable, not culturally sustainable, not economically sustainable. My brother's niece is gone. . .forever. Another 10 teens will die today in auto accidents. As the father of a 15-year old, I'm not in favor of limiting our childrens' opportunities as a solution (one of the criticisms of raising driving ages and graduated licensing). Instead let's re-create our land use forms and our transportation systems in ways that make our lives better AND safer AND less resource intensive all at once.

R. S. vT., may you rest in peace.

Test of Life

I've picked on Mary Peters, Secretary of Transportation, here before, and here I go again. But I just couldn't resist.

Yesterday's Washington Post contained an article about the higher likelihood of teens being in auto accidents than other drivers (Teens 16% of Crash Victims, U.S. Says). It had this quote from Ms. Peters:
"In the test of life, teenage drivers are failing at twice the rate as the rest of us."

Test of life!!!??? Driving is the "Test of Life?" Not advancing one's self by getting a college education or developing a moral philosophy or helping the less fortunate or teaching a child how to read or battling global warming or bringing joy and happiness to one's family and friends? Driving! That's it? And I've been working so hard on so many other things. If only I'd known that's the test of life. Hey! I've passed!. . .Well, maybe not; I did have an accident once, but I was in my 20's not my teens. Does that count?

Now I certainly agree that reducing auto accidents and making teens safer drivers are laudable goals, and we should do everything we can to do these things, but I think this statement underscores how cars and driving permeate our culture to an absurd degree. If our transportation systems and land-use planning were designed differently, teenagers (and all of us) wouldn't need to drive as much--which would certainly be an effective way of reducing accidents. . .and maybe passing the "test of life."

Another Solution to Reducing Auto Accidents

Norman Y. Mineta, former Secretary of Transportation, had an op-ed published in today's Washington Post in which he pointed out the sobering fact that more than 3,000 people will die in auto accidents worldwide today. Today!

In the United States, traffic fatalities have been very steady at between 40,000 and about 43,000 annually for well more than a decade (stats here). Rates of fatalities (per driver, per mile, etc.) have slowly declined, since there are more drivers driving more miles.

Mr. Mineta focuses primarily on safer cars, safer roads and safer behavior as solutions. I would like to suggest that reducing driving would likely be far more effective. Imagine: a 10% reduction in driving would save over 4000 lives per year (and more than 80,000 injuries!). I don't know what the economic value of those avoided deaths and injuries are, but if that money were able to be invested into more and better transit, smarter development and all the other things that reduce the need to drive, I'm sure it would be a positive return.

Virginia Fines: Right or Wrong?

There has been tremendous coverage in the last month regarding Virginia's new fines for reckless driving and other lawbreaking on the roads.
(A list of the exact fines can be found in this Washington Post article)
(More: ABC News story, Marc Fisher column, list of many articles)

Recent articles have all covered the outcry and rage--seemingly unanimous, or at least widespread--over the outrageousness of these fines. What is much harder to measure, but I believe exists to a great degree, is the support from hundreds of thousands of safe drivers in Virginia. Let the record state that I support strong fines for reckless driving and other unsafe behavior. I am not the slightest bit outraged, because I have absolutely no concern that I will ever be subject to one of these fines, and if they serve to keep people focused on their driving behavior, then good.

I agree that the legislature should look at making improvements to the law. It ought to include out-of-state drivers, too. It doesn't make much sense that a speeding VA driver is somehow more dangerous than a speeding Maryland driver who happens to be in Virginia.

Judges should be given a little leeway to make decisions about those (sarcasm alert!) hundreds of pregnant women rushing to hospitals.

Finland has a progressive system in which fines are pegged to income. There's a certain elegance to this idea, essentially penalizing people with more equal amounts of pain ($300,000/year lawyer fined $3,000; $42,000/year teacher fined $420). Back in 2004, Dr. Gridlock came out opposed to this idea, and despite its appeal to fairness, I think it would be politically impossible in the US.

Is this how we should fund our transportation improvements? Probably not, although having the fines go to providing people with safer alternatives to driving is certainly a good place to put the fine dollars.
There's the odd inverse relationship between success (more safe driving) and funding. If hugely successful at deterring bad driving, the amount of money collected would plummet, and we'd have to go back and figure out something else--something more dependable and regular. As I mentioned in my post the other day, a more direct relationship between use of the system and funding would be better, i.e., tolls and congestion charges that charge people for using the roads.