FYI ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Grant Foster <[email protected]> Date: Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 11:35 AM Subject: Metro Audible Alert System To: [email protected], [email protected], "Ahrens, David" < [email protected]>, Rebecca Kemble <[email protected]>, [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]
Transit & Parking Commission: I wanted to provide my thoughts on the review of Metro’s audible turn signal program and have organized them in terms of costs vs benefits. I appreciate your thoughtful deliberation on this issue. *Benefits:* I have not seen any data that suggests that the implementation and use of this audible alert system decreases the number or severity of collisions. I don’t believe there was any data available at the time the system was implemented and I don’t believe there is any data that suggests we have seen any such decrease since implementation. If there is no data that suggests that this is an effective tool, I honestly cannot understand the benefit other than that of public image management (i.e. we care about bike/ped safety and we’re doing something to improve things). If this is really the main driver of the implementation and continued use, I find it disconcerting and potentially dangerous if it doesn’t actually bring about the increased safety it promises. *Costs:* · Financial: I haven’t seen the numbers related to the purchase and installation of this system and those are obviously sunk costs at this point. But I would expect there to be annual operating costs for maintenance and repair of the system as well as life cycle replacement costs for the product. Undoubtedly, the manufacturer is working on a bigger and better version that could entice us to upgrade at some point down the road. · Quality of life: You’ll likely hear from many folks who are bothered to one degree or another by the alerts. It’s reasonable to understand that those who live or work in very close proximity to turning buses (bus stops and key intersections) have the greatest exposure and may be the most bothered. I live very close to a bus stop and can hear the alerts through my bedroom window, but am not terribly bothered by them. If I were one or two houses closer to the bus stop, I have a feeling the impact would be much greater. I also work an 8-5 job and don’t have to block out the noise while I sleep. Others who work a 2nd or 3rd shift job likely have a different impact as well. I am annoyed by the sounds in other areas of the city. State St. is a great example of a place where this additional noise impacts everyone around. Just yesterday I was sitting at the tables at the Wilson St. side of the Monona Terrace approach and was consistently bothered by the beeping of buses turning onto and off of MLK at Wilson. I know I’m more sensitive to noise pollution than some, but I’m not that extreme. The noise is unpleasant and doesn’t support my use and enjoyment of our outside spaces. · Safety: I think this is the biggest cost and one that I hope gets some attention. As a transportation cyclist, I spend 1-2 hours a day on our city streets on my bike. I can tell you that this alert system has never helped me negotiate our streets nor my interactions with buses and is just one more distraction as I try and do so. A great example is coming down Jenifer St. after dropping my boys off at Marquette Elementary school. Most mornings I’m riding in front of or behind 3 buses from Baldwin St. to Williamson St. With the alerts, these buses are beeping at least 80% of the time in this stretch (right signal as they approach a stop, signal on while they’re loading, left signal as they leave the stop). This beeping gives me no useful information and is distracting. When a bus is behind me and beeping, I don’t know if it’s planning on pulling into a stop behind me or attempting to pass. And even if I did know, that information isn’t useful and doesn’t change how I need to ride to keep myself safe. And that’s what I find particularly dangerous about this system. I haven’t seen any clear articulation of the use case for when this will help prevent a collision. I’ve heard that this was implemented at least in part as a response to the tragic death of a pedestrian by a Metro bus several years ago. In this case, a pedestrian was crossing in a marked and signalized crosswalk appropriately and a Metro bus operator failed to follow protocol to effective check a blind spot and ultimately failed to yield the right of way to this pedestrian. Is there really a belief that this would have been avoided if the bus had an audible alert system at the time? Would the presence of the beeping have alerted the pedestrian to the bus driver’s inattention and provided an opportunity for the pedestrian to dive out of the way? Do we expect pedestrians crossing at marked and signalized crosswalks today to dive out of the way any time they hear the beeping? In this same situation, if the bus pulls partially into the intersection with their signal (and beep) on appropriately waiting for the pedestrian to cross before completing the turn, do we expect that the pedestrian should now double back and retreat from crossing because they hear the beeping? I also watched the Safe Streets press conference from November of last year (http://www.cityofmadison.com/metro/safestreets/) including the surveillance video compilation that was presented: http://media.cityofmadison.com/Mediasite/Play/0643247b29a24605a8e47fcacb04248f1d I was struck by a few things: 1) there was some very dangerous and bad behavior by people on foot, on bike and on skateboard 2) there was some great driving by Metro drivers to avoid injury in many of these cases 3) the montage didn’t include bad behaviors by other motorists 4) the montage didn’t include bad behaviors by Metro drivers. It may not have been intentional, but I think presenting such a compilation as part of a Safe Streets initiative paints a picture that the main problem is with people on foot, bike, or board behaving badly. I don’t think that’s an accurate picture of the reality and feel like this sort of misrepresentation can lead us away from clearly understanding the problems and coming up with appropriate solutions. I appreciate the attention around ped/bike collisions and think it’s appropriate given that 6 out of 7 traffic fatalities in 2013 involved a person on foot or on bike. But as cited in the press conference, only 42% and 32% respectively involved an at fault pedestrian or cyclist. This means that well over half the crashes on our roadways involving a pedestrian or cyclist involves an at fault motor vehicle operator. The numbers may be slightly different for Metro involved collisions, but a focus on changing ped/bike behavior is probably not the highest leverage opportunity. And while I would support efforts to raise awareness and provide supports for people on foot and on bike to minimize collisions and injury, this specific initiative seems to really miss the mark. Take a look at the video and ask yourself in each of the 12 examples shown if the audible alert system would have helped. In my opinion, it would have helped in 0 out of the 12 incidents. It really seems like this implementation is an answer in search of a question and I would hope that we have the courage to pull the plug and focus our efforts on things that will actually improve safety for our community. Things like changing the style/position of our side mirrors, continued education for Metro drivers on challenging locations, video footage review, etc. all seem like strong strategies to minimize dangerous conflicts and should receive the commitment of dollars and time that is currently being spent on this system that seems to have very little value and a fair amount of negative impact. Thanks for the time and energy you spend on the commission and on deliberation of this issue. Grant Foster
_______________________________________________ Bikies mailing list [email protected] http://lists.danenet.org/listinfo.cgi/bikies-danenet.org
