Wednesday, January 7, 2009
City Cycling Safety: Portland v. Seattle
Posted by Erica C. Barnett on Wed, Jan 7, 2009 at 12:58 PM
According to Bike Portland (Oregon), that city had zero bike fatalities in 2008—a fact Portland traffic safety manager Greg Raisman told the blog he attributes to more awareness of cyclists on the road (and more cyclists on the road, period). Additionally, Raisman told Bike Portland, the city has engineered its roads to slow drivers down, added more bike facilities, promoted cyclist and driver education, and enforced traffic laws. It's no wonder, then, that 13 percent of employees in Portland's central city commute by bike.
Meanwhile, in the past month, one Seattle cyclistone Seattle cyclist has been struck by a car and killed and another remains in the hospital with life-threatening injuries from a hit and run. As of 2007, between one and two percent of Seattleites commuted to work by bike, but surveys have suggested that up to eight percent would if they felt safer on city streets.
The Cascade Bicycle Club, which advocates for pro-cycling transportation and land use policy, announced its legislative agenda this month. It includes: Pushing for Transit Oriented Communities legislation supported by many other environmental groups (promoting incentives for dense, bikeable, walkable, transit-oriented communities); funding for safe routes to school; incentives for school districts to locate schools in places accessible by walking, biking, or transit; a requirement that a percentage of big capital projects be dedicated to nonmotorized transit; and (hooray!) legislation requiring traffic detectors at stop lights to be calibrated to detect cyclists and motorcyclists.
Share via
2
I was just down in Portland to visit a friend and spend New Years Eve at his Texas Hold 'em Party.
It's clearly noticeable that Portland is extremely bicycle friendly. Bikes permeated the streets. There are bike lanes everywhere.
One thing Brian pointed out was that Portland is able to use side streets on the grid for bike lanes, rather than simply painting a bike lane on a heavily trafficked and therefore dangerous car oriented thoroughfare.
Portland also posts lots of speed signs and has speed bumps and other devices to slow traffic down. Around Puget Sound it's not unlikely to see the idiots revving up engines just to go 0 to 60 for one block in a residential area.
It's clearly noticeable that Portland is extremely bicycle friendly. Bikes permeated the streets. There are bike lanes everywhere.
One thing Brian pointed out was that Portland is able to use side streets on the grid for bike lanes, rather than simply painting a bike lane on a heavily trafficked and therefore dangerous car oriented thoroughfare.
Portland also posts lots of speed signs and has speed bumps and other devices to slow traffic down. Around Puget Sound it's not unlikely to see the idiots revving up engines just to go 0 to 60 for one block in a residential area.
3
Let's see...first of all, Portland's bike usage is higher at least partially because it's an easier city to manage on two wheels (smaller, less hilly). The bike facilities and traffic laws help (as does the aggressive promotion of a pro-bike culture), but don't tell the whole story.
Second, while enforced traffic laws are a factor in the fatality rate, there is also way less traffic on the arterials and roads of Portland than in Seattle. This might also have some bearing on the statistics...more drivers in more of a hurry (and more bikers hurtling down more hills) means more risk of accident.
Sorry if this all sounds a little contrarian, but I tend to get pissy when people make direct comparisons between Portland and Seattle. They're very different places in terms of population, terrain, layout, metro area, priorities, culture, etc.
Second, while enforced traffic laws are a factor in the fatality rate, there is also way less traffic on the arterials and roads of Portland than in Seattle. This might also have some bearing on the statistics...more drivers in more of a hurry (and more bikers hurtling down more hills) means more risk of accident.
Sorry if this all sounds a little contrarian, but I tend to get pissy when people make direct comparisons between Portland and Seattle. They're very different places in terms of population, terrain, layout, metro area, priorities, culture, etc.
4
Portland's laid out a lot differently than Seattle, too. Their streets are narrower, and of course they're much, much flatter. And their grid is much more consistent and integrated with the rest of the city. You can get almost anywhere in the city just by traveling in a straight line along any number of parallel arterials. Seattle is a city of chokepoints, in contrast, and has more large arterials that simply cannot be made more bike-and-ped friendly -- there's nothing on them to slow traffic for any reason than just slowing traffic for the heck of it, which doesn't work.
5
#3:Second, while enforced traffic laws are a factor in the fatality rate, there is also way less traffic on the arterials and roads of Portland than in Seattle.
No, this is a critical, critical point. Portland went to the trouble of building lots of freeways and highways in its city and suburbs. It's easy to jump on and off a highway to get where your going.
The result? Lots less traffic on city streets. Seattle? Nope, in the same way the Loons keep salt off the roads, they've prevented any type of highway building and therefore cars use local roads not intended for such heavy volumes instead of being able to use highways. The complete ab sense of any east-west highways other than 90 is a clue to lack of available roadway, and hence the high volumes and dangerous amounts of traffic on regular streets!
No, this is a critical, critical point. Portland went to the trouble of building lots of freeways and highways in its city and suburbs. It's easy to jump on and off a highway to get where your going.
The result? Lots less traffic on city streets. Seattle? Nope, in the same way the Loons keep salt off the roads, they've prevented any type of highway building and therefore cars use local roads not intended for such heavy volumes instead of being able to use highways. The complete ab sense of any east-west highways other than 90 is a clue to lack of available roadway, and hence the high volumes and dangerous amounts of traffic on regular streets!
7
I'm sure both awareness of bikes and the traffic patterns cited by commenters both have something to do with the low fatality rate.
Often, things are caused by more than one factor!
Often, things are caused by more than one factor!
8
Since P town has at least 2% more unemployment (only those looking count) maybe people there have more time to commute er travel both by car and bike.
What is the correlation between frequency and level of obnoxiousness of critical mass events and bike fatalities in any city?
What is the correlation between frequency and level of obnoxiousness of critical mass events and bike fatalities in any city?
9
Portland's "Central City" is what, three miles across at most? So they're thrilled that people who could have easily walked to work ride their bikes 13% of the time? Even their cherry picked statistics are laughable. Does it say anywhere how much it cost per additional bike rider?
10
Portland area: 154 sq mi
Seattle area: 143 sq mi
Portland density: 4,200 per sq mi
Seattle density: 7,085 per sq mi
If you've ever been to Portland, bikers are all over the city, not just downtown. There's no good excuse that Seattle is much less bike-friendly than Portland, except that Portland values safety and the environment more than Seattle.
Seattle area: 143 sq mi
Portland density: 4,200 per sq mi
Seattle density: 7,085 per sq mi
If you've ever been to Portland, bikers are all over the city, not just downtown. There's no good excuse that Seattle is much less bike-friendly than Portland, except that Portland values safety and the environment more than Seattle.
11
@ 9: Uh, what? That's the number of people who commute TO the center city, not WITHIN the center city. Anyway, for what it's worth, the boundaries used were Johnson/Naito Parkway/Burnside and 15th in the northwest and Burnside/Naito/Jackson and 18th in southwest.
13
What about pedestrian safety from cyclists? Try walking on the Ballard and Fremont bridge with some assh*le on your ass who won't get off his f*cking bike!!
14
@12
Those don't work. Please don't waste your money.
@11
Erica, now I'm not sure what the bicyclists are 13% of. The study says "the survey is not intended to provide a statistically representative sample of people in the central city."
If it's not statistically representative, what is it? Guesswork?
Those don't work. Please don't waste your money.
@11
Erica, now I'm not sure what the bicyclists are 13% of. The study says "the survey is not intended to provide a statistically representative sample of people in the central city."
If it's not statistically representative, what is it? Guesswork?
15
The first thing might be to cut the adversarial nonsense and patronizing language like road-diets and the like. Oh and refuse to support the massholes and other bike vigilantes. When your 1-2 percent of the population alienating the majority tends not to work out all that well.
I am happy to support things I could personally give a fuck about (bikes, Opera, pea patches, etc), but not when requests for support come in the form of demands, assholishness, and other crap.
I am happy to support things I could personally give a fuck about (bikes, Opera, pea patches, etc), but not when requests for support come in the form of demands, assholishness, and other crap.
16
1) Seattle has hills yes, but it was drastically regraded during the early 20th century (Denny, Jackson, Dearborn, and about 30 less drastic regrades). Every hill has two reasonable approaches that are also relatively direct. Nobody who does ride gives the hills a second thought. In fact most cyclists enjoy hills. They break up the monotony. Riding on flat terrain sucks. It's horribly dull and you never have a downhill to relax on.
2) Portland's cycling infrastructure improves every year. Portland's had some high accident years and they've learned from them and fixed the problem, unlike Seattle where the Ballard Bridge and the South end of the U Bridge have had absolutely zero improvements of any kind at all in spite of several very high profile cyclist fatalities.
2) Portland's cycling infrastructure improves every year. Portland's had some high accident years and they've learned from them and fixed the problem, unlike Seattle where the Ballard Bridge and the South end of the U Bridge have had absolutely zero improvements of any kind at all in spite of several very high profile cyclist fatalities.
19
portland is safer because they design their streets better than seattle, period. They have less car fatalities, less ped fatalities, and less bike fatalities. maybe the SDOT should take some lessons. There's no reason why seattle streets can't be equally as safe, even with the hills, lakes, and various choke-points.
20
Since I never tire of touting Vanderbilt's Traffic, I must at this point mention that according to that well-argued and excellently-footnoted book, low accident rates for pedestrians and bicyclists are due almost always to the simple existence of many of them. The more drivers see actual, live pedestrians/bicyclists, the better job they do of not running them over. Adding signs, PSAs, special lanes and infrastructure, or law enforcement emphasis does little or nothing.
I think the key would be fooling Seattlites to believe it is flatter, warmer, and drier here than it really is, and then they would bike in large enough numbers to make it safer. In the mean time, we ought to focus on building a real rapid transit system instead of the empty symbolism of painting lines on the road.
I think the key would be fooling Seattlites to believe it is flatter, warmer, and drier here than it really is, and then they would bike in large enough numbers to make it safer. In the mean time, we ought to focus on building a real rapid transit system instead of the empty symbolism of painting lines on the road.
21
Seattle has weird ideas when it comes to "bike lanes." Many places there is none and you get the stupid bike symbol with chevrons meaning that the cars are supposed to "share" yeah right. Other places the bike lane switches from one side of the street to the other and then just vanishes (Pine St coming into downtown.) Bike lanes are a joke.
Other wastes of money are dropped curbs. The city spent lots of bucks adding *extra* dropped curbs at Broadway and Denny when there are lots of places that don't have *any* dropped curbs like the majority of 23rd Avenue and 23rd Avenue East.
Other wastes of money are dropped curbs. The city spent lots of bucks adding *extra* dropped curbs at Broadway and Denny when there are lots of places that don't have *any* dropped curbs like the majority of 23rd Avenue and 23rd Avenue East.
23
do a real survey that is statistically sound and then lets talk - until then there is nothing to debate.
24
Way to go Erica for bringing this up.
The biggest difference between these two cities, and I've lived in both, is that each city's department of transportation has a different objective.
In Portland, all the lights are timed to 12-14 mph. Cars drive slower in Portland, even on the main arterials such as Powell, Burnside, Broadway, Grand, etc. There are bike lanes on all of these arterials too.
In Seattle, Grace Crunican fights any move for more pedestrians or bicycle use. We only have bike lanes on Dexter. Crunican also view the 25 mph working speed in downtown as a major breakthrough for traffic. Of course a 25 mph working speed means that you can drive through downtown Seattle at close to 40 and hit all the lights green. Everyone seems to bend backwards to allow this silly notion of "freight mobility" when all that is is a straw man for car traffic.
Imagine what this city would be like if we had the bicycle infrastructure of Portland. There would be bike lanes on Eastlake all the way to Lake City, on Elliot all the way up through Ballard, South 1st, 4th and Rainier as well as Beacon, Fauntleroy, Delridge. Imagine bike lanes on the major arterials. Imagine bike lanes on 4th all the way through downtown, on 1st, and on 5th and 6th. Imagine a bike lane on Broadway and Pike. Imagine a day when all the bridges are closed once a year, including I-5 colonnade and the Alaska Viaduct, just so people can ride and walk on them. That's what it's like in Portland.
Cyclists and pedestrians continue to get around despite Crunican's work with SDOT. Given the recent hearings she offered before the city council and the cross purposes she seems to enjoy with everyone except for Suzie Burke, Crunican should be fired.
The biggest difference between these two cities, and I've lived in both, is that each city's department of transportation has a different objective.
In Portland, all the lights are timed to 12-14 mph. Cars drive slower in Portland, even on the main arterials such as Powell, Burnside, Broadway, Grand, etc. There are bike lanes on all of these arterials too.
In Seattle, Grace Crunican fights any move for more pedestrians or bicycle use. We only have bike lanes on Dexter. Crunican also view the 25 mph working speed in downtown as a major breakthrough for traffic. Of course a 25 mph working speed means that you can drive through downtown Seattle at close to 40 and hit all the lights green. Everyone seems to bend backwards to allow this silly notion of "freight mobility" when all that is is a straw man for car traffic.
Imagine what this city would be like if we had the bicycle infrastructure of Portland. There would be bike lanes on Eastlake all the way to Lake City, on Elliot all the way up through Ballard, South 1st, 4th and Rainier as well as Beacon, Fauntleroy, Delridge. Imagine bike lanes on the major arterials. Imagine bike lanes on 4th all the way through downtown, on 1st, and on 5th and 6th. Imagine a bike lane on Broadway and Pike. Imagine a day when all the bridges are closed once a year, including I-5 colonnade and the Alaska Viaduct, just so people can ride and walk on them. That's what it's like in Portland.
Cyclists and pedestrians continue to get around despite Crunican's work with SDOT. Given the recent hearings she offered before the city council and the cross purposes she seems to enjoy with everyone except for Suzie Burke, Crunican should be fired.
25
I saw so many bikers chugging away uphill in the dark and the pouring rain just now. Kudos to you!
Most Commented on Slog
-
WTF? by Dan Savage
-
Your Wife Died Alone... by Dan Savage
-
PETA vs. Thanksgiving by Dan Savage
-
Meanwhile in Vancouver by Dan Savage
-
Is Your Teen Out of Control... And Smoking Hot? by Dan Savage
-
Health at Every Size by Dan Savage
-
Boy-Nerds Offended by Cootie-Ridden "Girl" Movie by Paul Constant
-
The Democrats Have 60 Votes in the Senate for Health Care Reform by Jonathan Golob
-
The Cost (and Fear) of Dying by Anthony Hecht
-
SL Letter of the Day: Hot For Twinks by Dan Savage
RSS
Facebook
Twitter
Comments (25) RSS