Dog’s Best Friend?

Someone should update Francisco and tell him that policy directive was for the old council. That intersection is indeed very dangerous. I've almost been hit while on foot on while driving numerous times. Having lived in a neighborhood with "bulb outs", it's really only people who like to speed (hence risking people's lives and necessitating bulbouts) that are truly against them. In addition these bulb outs have made sidewalks more accessible to people in wheelchairs and who have trouble walking (as well as safer.)
The roundabout at Olive and Sola has also done wonders to slow people down.
We can try to influence people to drive more safely til we're blue in the face, or we can create an environment in which they are forced to drive safely instead of leaving others at risk because of their selfishness.
In addition every bulbout I've seen has been a very attrractive addition to the neighborhood.
Why Francisco et all would be against these job creating bulbouts speaks volumes as to how much they really care about their community as opposed to just grasping at any issue to make themselves look more right-wing.

PS. As an avid skateboarder I can tell you that many if not most of the pedestrian walkways in nontourist areas are in blatant violation of the "Americans with Disabilities Act" around the city and county. If the Coucil is somehow impeded from taking action (i.e. the bulbouts) maybe someone should force the issue.

If a driver is inconvenienced they most likely are going too fast!

OHMYGAWDOHMYGAWDTHETRANSPORTATIONANDCIRCULATIONCOMMITTEEJUSTREQUESTEDMOREBULBOUTSFORMILPASSTREETDURINGTHEMEETINGTHEYJUSTHADTONIGHTABOUTPEDESTRIANSAFETYOHMYGAWDOHMYGAWD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Oh the horror Mr. Adams.

That's cool. John_Adams broke the Indy web site. :-)

John_Adams is a hacker! That IS cool!

Instead of making the "anti bulbout/stop wasting money crowd look bad", the article implies that the pro bulbout people may have some ACTUAL DATA and facts to support spending 100's of millions of dollars. What a concept if true!
The proposed design, supposedly based on fact, sticks out 4' less than previous designs. WOW, this sounds like a CROSSWALK! There's another traffic calming device we could experiment with, I've seen them before, they're called stop lights!

The ACTUAL DATA of traffic activity and collisions do not warrant a stop light signal at that intersection. That has been discussed at length during many public meetings and in many reports. The 4 foot figure is different from previous designs because previously designed streets are different.

If you're gonna act like you know it all, you need to.

The only fault with the arguments presented here is that the concept that bulbouts increase safety. This is based upon the concept that by decreasing the walking distance from curb to curb, the chance of being hit by a vehicle in the street ONLY while crossing at that point is decreased. What is not mentioned is that the chance on being hit on the curb is higher. It also gives the pedestrian that standing on this peninsula in the street a false sense of security that this peninsula will somehow prevent a car from hitting him while he's standing on it. There are no credible studies that show these devices increase safety and they are incredibly expensive. Our precious city resources can be better spent.

What is being missed by the anti-bulbout crowd is that they force drivers to slow down (the outrage!) and thus avoid hitting people. And I plan on pushing the Americans with Disabilities Act on this issue. And every opponent can live in a wheelchair for a week and try to maneuver around nontourist areas of SB.

John Adams says the data do not warrant a stop light (which I think would be way less controversial than a bulbout) and Botany says there are no data that shows bulbouts increase pedestrian safety. So, are there data that show a bulbout is warranted?

I know I always feel exposed, standing on a bulbout, waiting to see if oncoming traffic will notice me and let me cross, or not notice, and hit the bulbout. As a driver, I find bulbouts distracting because they narrow the road so much that my eyes are directed more to the road than to the curbs where pedestrians might be. Even a car that has slowed down can do a great deal of damage if it hits a person. So... I can see how bulbouts might not help with pedestrian safety.

There is a 1996 study by the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia that looked at crash reduction of various traffic calming measures. For roadway narrowings such as bulb-outs, crashes were reduced by 74%. Being an insurance company, they want to promote anything that reduces the claims they have to pay.

At a Council meeting a year ago, Councilmember Michael Self complained that she didn't like bulb-outs because when driving she had to slow down when turning. That's exactly what gives her and other right-of-way users longer reaction times, making our community safer.

The current Council voted for overall safety, not motorist speed.

Last Sat. (1/21) morning about nine a.m., I was coasting eastbound on State toward a red light at Las Positas. To the right, traveling faster than me, came a black Lexus toward the driveway for Loreta Plaza next to the nursery. The driver gave me a look that could kill for having my little white Camry where it forced her to slow down, nay, even stop, before turning right onto State. I believe the driver was a certain former one-term council member.

I'd say the comment by Nitz sounds like the driver in the Lexus.

Before anyone really has credibility and entitlement to opine about pedestrian crossings of De la Vina Street, they need to try it a few times in the late afternoon on any weekday at an unsignalized (no stop light) street intersection there, such as at Figueroa Street or Canon Perdido Street. How often does anyone really think that current or former city council members Hotchkiss, Rowse, or Self really have done that?

The whole real-world reality of the necessity of being visible to drivers approaching in two lanes at 35 mph becomes a literal life-and-death issue for pedestrians at such intersections on De la Vina Street.

Without a bulbout to stand on and to be seen by approaching drivers, such pedestrians are then forced to stand in the traffic lane instead, which is the same paved real estate that some city council members and commenters say that needs to be free and open space on the street for the benefit of drivers in their vehicles to speed and turn unimpeded.

I've walked the Figueroa St crossing many times J_A. That's why I advocate for a stop light which you mentioned in the last post but deemed unsatisfactory a few posts back.
Sticking people out in traffic going 35 mph with a false sense of security is just stupid.
The one way streets through town are mini highways and they are all dangerous(De la Vina, Bath Castillo etc). Sticking a bulb out on the corner does NOTHING to cut down on the linear speeding. Stop lights magically, actually make most cars stop...

"Without a bulbout to stand on and to be seen by approaching drivers, such pedestrians are then forced to stand in the traffic lane instead"

There's the rub? Why does standing on a bulbout make them able to be seen. Does being 8 inches taller make the difference? Or are they invincible if they are standing on this protrusion instead of the the blacktop? Is there some kind of invisible barrier that keeps the car from hitting them while standing on this thing? Please inform us narrow-minded people how this 8 inch curb somehow makes them invincible or that much easier to see. All I see is a false sense of security that this thing might give some people.

Botany, crosswalks often give foolish pedestrians the same false sense of security, without the physical impediment of a prominently marked curb extension. By the same logic, how would a person standing on a corner as it exists today be safe from a driver who's so heedless as to jump the curb, esp. while turning? And yes, as a pedestrian, I've often had to step back from drivers who have jumped curbs or come very close, esp. trucks with large side mirrors.

And italiansurg, are you really suggesting much more expensive traffic signals, each just one block on either side of Carrillo at Figueroa and Canon Perdido? Wow.

I'm down for a traffic signal as long as the sidewalks are wheelchair friendly. Either way, signal or bulbout: action must be taken before another life is lost to some selfish jerk behind the wheel.

Greg, if someone enters a crosswalk without looking for oncoming traffic, they are foolish. But people standing on the curb generally don't have that degree of trepidation. What they may or may not realize is that the curb at that point in a bulbout extends into the street, making them much more vulnerable to a negligent driver than if they were standing in a sidewalk or curb running parallel to the street. I am certainly advocating safe and responsible driving, but the idea that these things somehow increase safety has no basis in fact.

It's odd how insistent Botany and other commenters are that "the idea that [bulbouts] somehow increase safety has no basis in fact," when I able to find a number of state and federal studies which suggest they do.

The studies do not suggest bulbouts are the complete and only cure to protecting pedestrians -- the range of driver habits and aptitude, driving and site conditions, are just the most obvious variables -- but they do list and note the benefits, which are far beyond "none."

Bulbouts do protect pedestrians, and they do reduce speeding in the right application.

"In terms of intersection safety, there is still much debate about the safety value of bulb-out intersections. Some can clearly see safety benefits that they offer to pedestrians by reducing the width needed to cross. Others see safety benefits more in terms of traffic calming benefits. There is intrinsic safety value if motorists drive slower. Since bulb-outs are perceived to induce drivers to drive slower, some perceive that safety benefits are accrued from their implementation."
http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/intersecti...

"The findings of this research suggest that curb extensions contribute to a significant reduction in
the average number of vehicles that pass a waiting pedestrian before yielding to the pedestrian...there are other safety benefits that curb extensions provide
to the pedestrian. These benefits include improved sight distance, elimination of exposure to
turning vehicles and shorter crossing distance."
http://www.oregon.gov/ODOT/TD/TP_RES/...

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/...

"Neckdowns, also known as corner extensions, bulb-outs, and sidewalk expansions, narrow intersections by extending the curb at the corner...Neckdowns have reduced overall severity rates in four out of six surveyed areas in New
York City. In two of three locations, they reduced the injury severity when a vehicle does crash into a pedestrian."
http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/...

binky-I went to those links. They all over the place with regards to your supposed proof if you look at their native data when available. Did you actually read them or just pick some phrases that seem to agree and hastily cut and paste them?

Yea Greg, I'm REALLY SUGGESTING that traffic signals which are not necessarily more expensive than the idiotically engineered bulb out and brick crosswalk configurations we've been putting in ARE FAR BETTER IN THIS CASE. Go walk the Figueroa/De la Vina intersection and explain how making a glorified crosswalk is going to slow cars down that have been barreling way too fast down de la Vina from at least Anapamu which is the last light and typically from much further up since the Anapamu/de la Vina light is favorable to the de la Vina traffic ? For gawdsakes, we know cars are going too fast, we know that stop lights actually make most cars STOP, the lights can be timed with the next major intersection to make cars travel at the legal limit, pedestrians typically respect a stop light and actually WAIT until told to walk. Instead of making this tied to a political argument how about we just put in something that works for many reasons and move on to some other problem without an easy solution.

It's as if we're arguing whether to take the inflatable or the wooden lifeboat off the sinking ship.

Perfect sentiment KV. At least we're engaged enough to not be claiming ex post facto that we slipped into the water and therefore left everyone else to go down with the ship...

I realize that people may have different opinions about bulbouts, but to argue that they don't improve pedestrian safety defies logic. It's as dumb as saying that people standing on a bulbout are at some increased risk of being hit by a car. They force cars to slow down at pedestrian-busy intersections. That is their purpose, and it works, just like it reduces the distance of the pedestrian crossing. If you want to argue that the crash rate at de la Vina and Figeuroa doesn't merit a bulbout, make your argument--but don't waste everyone's time with trumped-up, ridiculous statements.

This end-of-the-world fear of traffic changes is just like when some of SB's traffic Neanderthals thought putting traffic circles on Milpas and Coast Village Road would result in mass confusion and carnage. I think those work unbelievably well. How are they working out for you?

Haha Italiansurg, yep.
I was just remarking today how wonderfully the traffic circles keep everyone moving.

Well, johnvasi, at least you have offered your own anecdote and claimed it as irrefutable proof positive...
And, despite my abhorrence for bulb outs(too expensive, unproven, introduction of unknown variables), I was equally vociferous in my SUPPORT of traffic circles( proven, known variables), so you missed on that point as well.

What anecdote did I offer?

That bulbouts reduce the distance for pedestrians?

That bulbouts make cars slow down?

That a pedestrian standing on a bulbout has less of a chance of being in an accident that the 20 accidents reported for de la Vina and Figueroa over the past 10 years?

What point was anecdotal?

I'm glad you supported traffic circles, but it seems that your logic is that you don't support bulbouts because they're unproven, but they can't ever be proven because we can't try them. I guess you'll never lose any debate with that approach, but I think you'd lose to common sense.

So I go back to my original premise. If you don't like them or don't want them, make your case--but saying they don't increase pedestrian safety is really a non-starter.

I walk through 3 bulb outs, 5 days per week. Others on weekends.

The 3 on Anapamu, specifically Bath and De la Vina, have not, by any objective criteria "slowed down cars".
The intersection in front of Das' office is a glorified and very expensive traditional crosswalk controlled by traffic lights; it just cost hundreds of thousands of dollars to make it look bulb outy.
De la Vina speed has not changed and people still accelerate to make it through the light.
On Bath cars seem to speed up to get through the intersection before a pedestrian is poised out in the middle of the street.

Now that the pedestrians are closer to cars moving very fast my contention is that this is in fact MORE DANGEROUS. But again, like your opinion to the contrary, neither of us can prove our point of view. I'd just prefer to have oblivious idiots listening to their IPODS further away from 2 tons of moving vehicle...

The Bath/Anapamu intersection has been a mess since the bulb out was put in with a continued weird mix of pedestrians feeling entitled to walk out whenever they feel like it and drivers being confused about what pedestrians will do and, as noted above, speeding up to making it through the very narrow intersection in order to get through it before pedestrians make stupid decisions.

Finally-Great idea, let's build crap that is not proven to find out if it works. After all, we're rolling in dough right now...This money would be better spent on proven technology with fixed cost or feeding the poor...

Well, I don't like those bulbouts because they bulb OUT, and if you don't anticipate them, they're easy to hit, and if you don't hit them it's because you had to swerve to clear them, and both of these actions are unsafe and have the potential to cause vehicle accidents, rather than motor vehicle v pedestrian. I don't drive fast in residential neighborhoods, and may even drive below the speed limit, particularly in the dark or low light, because of tooo many close calls with REALLY STUPID PEOPLE RIDING BICYCLES WITHOUT LIGHTS WHEN IT'S DARK OUT (my personal pet peeve re cars and non-cars on streets).
I think the crosswalk lights on Hollister in Old Town Goleta are insanely effective in protecting pedestrians - flashing lights direct a driver's attention to the crosswalk, something traffic lights and bulbouts don't do.
A traffic light would be great, too. We're broke, and around $400K for bulbouts sounds absurd.
Hey, we're broke! How do we keep our kids safe walking to and from school, even at intersections with traffic lights?
WE USE CROSSING GUARDS WHO CARRY BIG STOP SIGNS. They're part-time employees with no benes who earn around $12/hr, maybe $14/hr. It works well, as far as I know. At $13/hr, a 24/7 crossing guard would cost around $113,880/year. We don't need one 24/7 at dangerous intersections, and I'm assuming the city doesn't pay worker's comp for this kind of "at will" employment, or that we could hire them as hourly contractors.
This is SB, and the cc will probably spend more in salaries to discuss the issue (city attorney Wiley is around $900/day, I think) than the budget for the project, as they did discussing whether to have a $300+/hr landscape architect oversee a $50K project to move park benches last year.