Initial thoughts following the Dave Salovesh murder

On Friday Dave Salovesh was killed by a driver in a stolen van who was speeding away from a police stop, ran a red light, hit a car and ricocheted into Dave. This was at Florida and 12th, NE. The driver was charged with 2nd Degree Murder. 

Dave

Dave and I only met a couple of times, but we disagreed on Twitter often. Dave saw incrementalism as accepting defeat and I saw it as being reasonable, and this was the source of our conflict. The last time I saw him he approached me to bury the hatchet as it were. I was still smarting from our last exchange but I came around and we shook hands and agree not to argue anymore and that we were on the same side. He was the better of us because I would have just left things in a bad place and I'm glad we didn't. 

I still believe that we should take the wins we can and move the ball forward, but Dave wasn't wrong. I remember reading in college about an white abolitionist who, in 1850, had a compromise plan to phase out slavery over the next 100 years. I'm sure he thought he was being reasonable, but the idea that we'd have still had slaves in America in 1949 is just insane. In 1850, the right time to end slavery was 1850. Dave is right that anything less than facilities that meet our goals of safe, green streets - especially in the name of congestion relief an on-street parking is morally wrong. The right time to build safe streets is 2019.  

Florida Avenue

It is not lost on anyone that the street on which Dave died has been part of a study process since 2009, and one that has missed numerous deadlines. One that made choices based on congestion, parking and automobile throughput to the detriment of safety. Dave was hit by a large vehicle, going at high speed and one could argue that even with a protected bike lane the outcome would have been the same. But even if you think that a protected bike lane would not have saved him, that's no less reason to be angry about the way the Florida Avenue redesign - and Vision Zero - have been carried out. 

The 2009 NoMa Neighborhood Access Study & Transportation Management Plan didn't include bike lanes on Florida, but it did recommend implementing a road diet and sidewalk widening over the next two years. That would have been early 2012. That work has not been done. 

In June 2013, following the death of a pedestrian in a crosswalk on Florida, they started the Florida Avenue Multimodal Transportation Study. That study came up with three alternatives, of which Alternative 3 included regular bike lanes on Florida Avenue east of West Virginia - the section where Dave was killed. But that option was dropped due to concerns about automobile throughput. For the same reasons, the sidewalks in this section are not to be widened either. This is actually in keeping with the purpose.

The purpose of the Florida Avenue Multimodal Transportation Study is to improve safety for all roadway users, particularly the most vulnerable (pedestrians and bicyclists), while ensuring safe access and improved mobility
for all modes within and through the study area.

Notice that language - improved mobility for all modes must be ensured, but improving safety is not. It also prevents certain trade-offs. Anything that would improve safety while hampering the mobility of drivers is out-of-scope. There's a whole section entitled "importance of motor vehicle access and mobility".

Look at this chart on the alternatives analysis. 

There's a whole section on auto safety; which is not to imply that isn't important too, just that it's called out and no one else's is. Nor is there simply one "safety" metric. Alt 3 is objectively better for pedestrians, cyclists, and transit users but has "local street impacts" when compared to the selected alternatives (a combination of 1 and 2 that doesn't even take full advantage of the improved auto safety alternatives). But the 5 level ranking doesn't give us enough of an idea of how much better or worse things are. A metric I'd like to see is "number of expected deaths". Let's just lay the choices out there. 

Part of the importance of auto efficiency is due to federal requirements. Florida Avenue is part of the highway system and must meet federal requirements and comply with applicable Federal regulations on performance (as defined by the FHWA). And part is likely explained by the fact that this predates Vision Zero. And the other part - because the purpose of the project wasn't defined with safety as a premium. 

Similarly, the study recommended bike lanes on West Virginia - if it didn't impact parking too much. Those have been on the books since at least 2005, but they still aren't there. 

If congestion in that section is really the problem as the study states it seems like that could be solved by removing the parking/peak traffic lanes and replacing them with bus/bike lanes (enforced with traffic cameras and barriers. Moving the 12 bus routes through the corridor faster would encourage fewer people to drive. You know what else would help? A downtown congestion charge. Because the benefits of congestion charging extend beyond zone where the charges occur. That would be the vision zero design. 

But even if we live with the recommended alternative from 2014, we're still left being angry at the pace. The multimodal study was to finish in May of 2014 but didn't until February of 2015. In 2017, they were to be done with the 100% design in Spring of 2018. They were still at the 30% design this past January with the 65% and 100% designs still to go.

They aren't working towards streets that maximize safety and then they aren't hitting their own deadlines to build the safety-compromised alternatives they've selected. No wonder the roads aren't getting safer.  

Vision Zero

And of course this is all emblematic of the larger problems of Vision Zero, which Dave often pointed out.

At least the Florida Ave study didn't pretend to be anything other than it was - an attempt to improve safety without making driving any worse. Vision Zero, on the other hand, is an attempt to create a city where people don't die or get seriously injured due to simple mistakes. But we are not taking the bold steps needed to reach such an audacious goal on the timeline we set. Or any other timeline either. It's as though the purpose of the Florida Ave study is the real idea - make roads safer, but let's not make driving any worse. And it's not limited to DDOT. Not only are we not tearing out miles of curbside parking and auto lanes to put in transit lanes, bike lanes and wider sidewalks, we aren't doing things we know will work - like a congestion charge. We still don't enforce traffic laws that are regularly broken in a way that make the roads safer. We could use cameras to enforce crosswalk violations and bike lane incursions for example. 

I've talked to many legislators who know that driving while talking on the phone is dangerous, hands-free or not, but like guests in the Exterminating Angel they seem to feel unable to make that illegal. "People would never put up with it" one told me. But they'll put up with deaths of their loved ones, I suppose?

It doesn't have to be this way. New York City is moving with real purpose - and that's with their own admission that they don't have full control of their own laws. They have to get the state to change laws for them. 

Maybe the problem is with the Mayor and DDOT. If so Council can follow the example of Cambridge, MA and force them to build safer streets. 

Cambridge, Massachusetts, passed a law on Monday directing the city to build new protected bike lanes whenever it does road work on certain streets. Known as the Cycling Safety Ordinance, it applies to all streets mapped out in the Cambridge Bicycle Plan, which recommends 20 miles of protected bike lanes throughout the 7-square-mile city, and effectively puts the weight of the law behind cycling infrastructure.

DDOT sometimes seems reluctant to follow through with their own ideas because of community opposition. This could give them the cover they need by saying "look, it's not up to us. We're just following the law." That might require council members to take the heat and risk losing their seats. But that seems like a better option than allowing people like Dave to lose their lives. 

Also, I updated this. 

 

Comments

[washcycle]

I also want to add that there are a lot of people who knew Dave better than me and I recognize how much more painful for you this all is. I'm so sorry for your loss. My heart goes out to you and your loved ones. I never know exactly what to say in these times, but I want you to know that I am with you in thought and wish you comfort and peace.

[Bossi]

This short thread of mine might be of interest here:
https://twitter.com/thisisbossi/status/1119655638051753985

[IMGoph]

I'm so glad you and Dave had a chance to bury the hatchet.

This is a great summary.

[darren]

i can't even digest this whole post right now, but thanks for writing it.

as you might imagine, dave and i had similar clashes, and i never opened myself up for reconciling. i'm trying to make amends through action.