Category: traffic

Can traffic deaths go the way of smallpox?

In the United States we have become desensitized to traffic deaths. That doesn’t mean we don’t mourn, of course, but it means we seem to have accepted them as just a normal part of living – much the way people used to accept death from smallpox or cholera. I’ve never understood why the continual stream of students killed driving to and from school is not cause for the sort of national campaigns that attended, for instance, the now-debunked idea that inoculations cause autism.

Isn’t there a different way to view traffic safety? There is. A New York Times article this week described how Sweden is pushing to reduce the country’s traffic deaths to as close to zero as they can get.

In “De Blasio Looks Toward Sweden for Road Safety,” reporter Matt Flegenheimer describes how the Swedish Parliament adopted Vision Zero in 1997 as the national foundation for all its road safety operations. Since then the number of traffic fatalities in Sweden has been cut in half. The fatality rate in Stockholm, 1.1 deaths per 100,000, is less than one-third of New York City’s rate. The national rate in Sweden, 2.7 deaths per 100,000, is the world’s lowest.

The article notes that in American states with Vision Zero policies, including Minnesota and Utah, fatality rates fell more than 25 percent more quickly than the national rate.

And, it says, Swedish authorities weren’t keen on the value of education or enforcement on pedestrian safety. (In 2012, after two men were hit in two days at Stonewall and College streets in uptown Charlotte, and one died, Charlotte-Mecklenburg police began a brief campaign of ticketing jaywalkers, although the two men who were hit were crossing the street in crosswalks.)


One-way to higher traffic accidents?

I don’t want this bit of city-traffic-related news to get lost in the recent deluge of news about Charlotte’s airport. The numbers raise a question, in my mind at least, about the safety of one-way streets uptown.

Earlier this month Charlotte’s Department of Transportation released its annual list of High Accident Locations. To see it, download it here. (Be sure to notice what it does and doesn’t measure; for instance it doesn’t measure traffic accidents on interstate highways.) The report drew a news article in  The Charlotte Observer, “Report: Charlotte traffic collisions down; fatalities up.”

Here’s what I noticed: Among the Top 10 high accident locations, seven were either uptown or nearby. Of those seven, all but one involved one-way streets. The only one of those seven that did not was East Seventh Street and Hawthorne Lane, in the Elizabeth neighborhood.

The city’s top high accident location was Cambridge Commons Drive and Harrisburg Road (average daily traffic of 15,000), in east Charlotte near I-485, with a three-year total of 49 accidents and a crash rate (a formula taking into account the traffic volume – to know more download the report) of 2.98.

Other in-town streets:
2. North College Street and East Eighth Street.
3. North College Street and East Ninth Street.
5. Third-fourth Connector Street and East Fourth Street at Kings Drive.
7. East Seventh Street and Hawthorne Lane.
8. South Church Street and West Hill Street and the ramp to West Belk Freeway.
9. East Seventh and North College Street.

If you’re thinking that correlation (one-way streets and high number of accidents) does not equal causation, of course you are right. The streets were converted to one-way years ago by traffic engineers who wanted to get vehicles into and out of uptown as efficiently as possible. That was the thinking several decades ago. So busy streets are going to have more accidents.

But the crash rate takes the street’s business into account. What else might account for the striking number of uptown one-way streets that are atop the high accident list? Could it be speed? Could it be people driving home from work and just not taking as much care? (The report also shows that mid- to late afternoon rush hour is the time of day with more accidents.)

But notice something interesting: The No. 11 High Accident Location was  East Fifth Street and North Caldwell Street. Notice the accident numbers over three years: 10 in 2010, 11 in 2011 but dropping to 6  in 2012.  That intersection used to be where two one-way streets crossed. But from Fifth Street south, Caldwell has been converted to two-way. Did that cause the lower number of accidents in 2012?

I’ve emailed CDOT Director Danny Pleasant, to see if he had comments.  I’ll add them if he responds.

Looking at congestion a different way

A new report on urban traffic skewers methods used by the widely quoted Texas Transportation Institute. In traffic circles, this is huge. The TTI’s Urban Mobility Report is frequently used by cities to justify huge expenditures for wider streets and intersections. But it is deeply flawed, says a new report, “Driven Apart,” from the nonprofit group CEOs for Cities. It doesn’t consider that in some cities you don’t have to drive as far as in other cities. The more compact cities, where you don’t have to spend as much time in traffic, actually can end up looking more congested, because of the TTI’s formulas.
Follow the links above to read the report.

Also, Streetsblog New York City has a good, readable analysis of it here. It opens this way:

Imagine two drivers leaving downtown to head home. Each of them sits in traffic for the first ten miles of the commute but at that point, their paths diverge. The first one has reached home. The second has another twenty miles to drive, though luckily for her, the roads are clear and congestion doesn’t slow her down. Who’s got a better commute?
Shockingly, the standard method for measuring traffic congestion implies that the second driver has it better. The Texas Transportation Institute’s Urban Mobility Report (UMR) only studies how congestion slows down drivers from hypothetical maximum speeds, completely ignoring how long it takes to actually get where you’re going. The result is an incessant call for more highway lanes from newspapers across the country.

“Driven Apart” shows how the key tool contained in the Urban Mobility Report – the Travel Time Index – penalizes cities with shorter travel distances and conceals the additional burden caused by longer trips in sprawling metropolitan areas. It also looks at the reliability and usefulness of the methodology used in the UMR and finds it doesn’t accurately estimate travel speeds, exaggerates travel delays and overestimates the fuel consumption associated with urban travel.

The report essentially makes the point that longer commutes are the main cause of time in traffic, not congestion per se.

“In the best performing cities – those that have achieved the shortest peak hour travel distances – such as Chicago, Portland and Sacramento, the typical traveler spends 40 fewer hours per year in peak hour travel than the average American. In contrast, in the most sprawling metropolitan areas, such as Nashville, Indianapolis and Raleigh, the average resident spends as much as 240 hours per year in peak period travel because travel distances are so much greater. These data suggest that reducing average trip lengths is a key to reducing the burden of peak period travel. Over the past two decades, for example, Portland, Oregon, which has smart land use planning and has invested in alternative transportation, has seen its average trip lengths decline by 20 percent.”

If you want to see the chart showing all the metro areas studied, see page 7 of this link.

On page 10 of that link is a section showing why the report’s authors say the Texas Transportation Institute’s Travel Time Index (the TTI’s TTI?) is flawed. The index is the ratio of average peak hour travel times to average free flow travel times. Here’s what it says, using Charlotte and Chicago as examples:

“Chicago has a TTI of 1.43 (the second highest overall, behind only Los Angeles), while Charlotte has a TTI of 1.25 (just about equal to the average for all large metropolitan areas). This would appear to indicate that urban travel conditions are far worse in Chicago. But the traffic delays in the two regions are almost identical (40 and 41 hours per year, or about 10 minutes per day). Chicago has average travel distances (for peak hour trips) of 13.5 miles, while Charlotte has average travel distances of 19 miles. Because they travel nearly 50 percent farther then their counterparts in Chicago, Charlotte travelers end up spending a lot more time in traffic, about 48 minutes per day, rather than 33 minutes per day.”

But the TTI makes it look as if drivers in Chicago have it worse. But if you look at hours spent in traffic they have it much better. The gives a flawed view of reality, the report says.

In sum, says the report:
“The Urban Mobility Report’s key measure – the Travel Time Index – is a poor guide to policy, and its speed and fuel economy estimates are flawed. In the aggregate, the analysis appears to overstate the costs of traffic congestion three-fold and ignores the larger transportation costs associated with sprawl.”

It points out, for example, “There are strong reasons to doubt the UMR claim that slower speeds associated with congestion wastes billions of gallons of fuel. The UMR estimates of fuel consumption are based on a 29-year-old study of low-speed driving using 1970s era General Motors cars, which is of questionable applicability to today’s vehicles and to highway speeds.”

Photo caption: Raleigh-Cary traffic, from photographer Shawn Rocco, [Raleigh] News & Observer

Safer driving in Charlotte? Or just less driving?

The city of Charlotte’s annual study of High Accident Locations found an overall drop of 26 percent in total number of collisions in the city for 2009, compared with 2008, with fatal collisions down 5 percent.

Are we safer drivers? Would that were so. The Charlotte Department of Transportation memo to the City Council says, “While the total numbers of collisions vary from year to year, CDOT attributes some reduction in collisions to reductions also seen in vehicle miles travelled. This is a trend occurring across the country.”

The top two causes for accidents? Inattention (cited 22.4 percent of the time) and “Failure to Reduce Speed” (cited 18.9 percent of the time). Alcohol use is the cause of 1.67 percent of the accidents. So while I applaud the police efforts to keep people from drinking and driving, it would seem that a far more effective way to reduce accidents and their costs (in human deaths, injuries, lost productivity and costs to those involved) would be to crack down on speeding.

Of course, I suspect that, like many drivers, some police officers just don’t think speeding is a very big deal. One example among many I’ve : The other night in the 35 mph section of Providence Road a patrol car blew past me. I sped up to see its speed: 55 mph. No siren, no blue lights, and a mile farther down the road (I had slowed back to the speed limit by then but a traffic light had slowed the cars ahead of me) the police car was just cruising along, not appearing to be heading to any crime scene.

Here’s the most recent accident report. And here’s a link to the previous year’s report (on 2008 accidents).

Have a great Labor Day weekend, and drive safely.

Safer driving in Charlotte? Or just less driving?

The city of Charlotte’s annual study of High Accident Locations found an overall drop of 26 percent in total number of collisions in the city for 2009, compared with 2008, with fatal collisions down 5 percent.

Are we safer drivers? Would that were so. The Charlotte Department of Transportation memo to the City Council says, “While the total numbers of collisions vary from year to year, CDOT attributes some reduction in collisions to reductions also seen in vehicle miles travelled. This is a trend occurring across the country.”

The top two causes for accidents? Inattention (cited 22.4 percent of the time) and “Failure to Reduce Speed” (cited 18.9 percent of the time). Alcohol use is the cause of 1.67 percent of the accidents. So while I applaud the police efforts to keep people from drinking and driving, it would seem that a far more effective way to reduce accidents and their costs (in human deaths, injuries, lost productivity and costs to those involved) would be to crack down on speeding.

Of course, I suspect that, like many drivers, some police officers just don’t think speeding is a very big deal. One example among many I’ve : The other night in the 35 mph section of Providence Road a patrol car blew past me. I sped up to see its speed: 55 mph. No siren, no blue lights, and a mile farther down the road (I had slowed back to the speed limit by then but a traffic light had slowed the cars ahead of me) the police car was just cruising along, not appearing to be heading to any crime scene.

Here’s the most recent accident report. And here’s a link to the previous year’s report (on 2008 accidents).

Have a great Labor Day weekend, and drive safely.

Less traffic downtown?

I’m working on non-blog matters today (I’m writing my regular Saturday oped column, this week about the Soul of the Community survey, and what people really want in order to feel loyalty to where they live. Read it Saturday at www.charlotteobserver.com/marynewsom)

So I’ll just share this interesting info, which rolled into my e-mail inbox a few minutes ago. Weekday morning traffic in downtown Charlotte is down. It’s from the city’s Department of Transportation. In their words:

CDOT has released results of a traffic count study conducted in September 2009. The area examined was uptown Charlotte. Counts were collected during workdays from 7:00 to 9:00 a.m.

Analysis of the data indicates:

1. Counts of vehicles declined from 2006 to 2009 by over 6,000 cars (approximately 15%) to the volume last seen in 2005.
2. The average number of people in vehicles has remained fairly constant since 1997 at about 1.1.
3. While certainly the downturn in the economy has played a part in the change, the increased use of mass transit (CATS buses-local and Xpress and LYNX light rail) has contributed to less rush hour congestion as well.
4. Another contributing factor is the increase in uptown dwellers walking to work and school.
5. Many companies allow workers to telecommute.
6. Traffic counts were not conducted in 2007 and 2008 due to numerous large road construction projects in uptown.