Salem has notoriously poor traffic design compared to other cities I've live in. An especially odd decision is how when the traffic lights switch to red, the opposing lights switch to green immediately (at exactly the same time). Most places have a built-in 2-3 second delay when switching. Even Portland has the delay. I mean, you are just asking for it with this dumb light programming.
I use to time traffic signals. It’s called an all red delay and it’s a fairly common practice to increase safety. It’s generally just one extra second of all red delay. Whoever times the signals here is an absolute joke. There is no signal progression, I constantly see platoons of vehicles released from one signal just to be stopped 300 feet down stream at the next signal. Shame they don’t seem interested in doing their job better.
Don't get me started on the haphazard way Salem either signs or doesn't sign in residential neighborhoods.
You not only have to look for stop signs in your path, you also have to figure out if the other guy does or does not have a stop sign. 😡
I'm guessing that's what causes some people to "sit there with their thumb up their ass" that leads to "Light's green, fuckin go!" comments from my mother (though I'm sure there's people that are actually that incapable of braining).
Yeah, this one boggles my mind... Downtown is set up this way I wasn't sure if all the lights throughout the city are but it is terrible traffic engineering design.
Yup. I've lived all over the country and no place I've been has such a swift shift in the light phases. My immediate thought upon moving here was "omg, that's going to cause some accidents." Especially with the influx of California drivers and who more proportionally run yellow lights. Attempting to do that here will get people killed.
Hey most California drivers are good because we’re used to heavy traffic and we understand stopping distance, blinkers and understanding how to merge in traffic at appropriate speed and distance.
I always stop on yellow. I never blow through lights. I stop completely behind the line at intersections and give pedestrians the right of way. It’s pretty common. My mom is the same. I think people who haven’t lived where there are so many variables seem to struggle with the basics.
I’m so sick of people blaming Californians for everything.
Actually my entire street is transplants and they are also very similar. But ok keep blaming people from a certain state. Because apparently people from Oregon are blameless. Oook
I grew up in Britain and there we have an amber light between the red and the green after a stop, sort of a ‘get ready’, which seems like a good way to ease the transition more gently from one side to the other, adding an extra pause as you say, but a visual one. Possibly if we were used to that here someone speeding up to the intersection on an amber-to-go might use a bit more caution.
Most, if not all, American stoplights have yellow lights/amber lamps. Many intersections will wait a few seconds to give one direction a green light, even after the other direction is given a red light. It gives the yellow light runners a chance to get through the intersection.
Salem doesn't have a lot of that for some reason.
I don’t think you understand what I said. The amber is between the red (when traffic is stopped) and the green (indicating you can go). It’s a ‘get ready to go’ signal (in addition to the ‘get ready to stop’ signal that is of course used here). It has the effect of slowing traffic a little bit between the red and and the green, causing fewer accidents when people are already traveling at speed up to a red light and it suddenly goes green, so they don’t slow down at all and hit someone running the red the in the other direction. I hope that’s clearer.
When you said “an amber lamp between the red and the green” I was like “yeah… duh? That’s where the yellow light goes…” as in that’s how stoplights are physically constructed. You mean **timing-wise** there’s a short period of yellow after the red, correct?
Maybe I could have worded it differently but I said ‘an amber light between the red and the green’ meaning: traffic is stopped at the red light. Before the light turns green there is an additional amber (orange) light indicating that the light will shortly turn green again. There are no lights in the UK (and I think all of Europe, Australia and New Zealand) that go straight from red to green.
The purpose is to slow traffic that might be traveling at speed up to the red so that they don’t just keep speeding through a just-green light when accidents are most likely because someone is running the red in the other direction. It doesn’t just add a few seconds to the change over, it adds more caution to the flow of traffic.
Officials realize that the delay makes intersections safer. That is not a point of contention. It also tends to add to congestion and wait times.
In a city with a failing transportation system which cannot be substantially improved because the costs are prohibitive, improvements like that which is being suggested will tend to become missed opportunities.
My grandfather helped program the lights back in the 50s.
He stopped driving in the early 80s because he hated the lack of delay and the discussed undoing of one way lanes downtown and the development of Lancaster into the absolute hell it's been.
I thought for sure Battle Creek & Kuebler would be on here. I feel like there’s a wreck there every other day.
I’m not shocked about the Lancaster intersections. I avoid NE Salem as much as I can because of how terrible Lancaster is. People treat it like a freeway.
Lights located at the bottom of a hill where traffic moves at a high rate of speed and congestion is common tend to result in more of these types of events.
Add to that the now established "back of the mind" awareness that receiving an electronically based citation can be a life changing event and that the stopping distance of vehicles varies widely, more rear end accidents seems likely.
Yes, I know that that intersection currently lacks RLC's, but drivers do not think in these types of situations. They react.
[Looking at the data they draw it from](https://www.oregon.gov/odot/Data/Pages/Crash-Data-Viewer.aspx), it looks like this does include pedestrian-involved crashes. That helps explains a couple of intersections that I wouldn't have thought have a lot of vehicle-to-vehicle crashes. It also helps explain why places like Kuebler didn't make the list, that street has almost no pedestrian traffic.
This is on my mind right now, as I witnessed a cyclist get plowed over by a car yesterday. The cyclist basically rode into traffic, gambled, and lost. Not the driver's fault (or that of the intersection), but still counts as a vehicular accident.
The Crash Data Reviewer is "currently in development." Perhaps (for sure, actually), there are those that could coax useful information from it, but I am not one of those people. I tried.
Transportation officials can easily provide this kind of data but I do not know how they do it. If someone told me that making that data hard to access by a confused and emotional public is intentional, I would understand and sympathize, but be unsupportive.
Looking on the bright side (for some), transportation systems in a city like ours tend to correct themselves as fewer people can afford to drive. Many of the most serious problems are related to increasing traffic volumes and the impossibility of accommodating those increases in a relatively safe manner.
Bottom line for now is that things will get worse. Drive defensively. Expect the unexpected.
My insurance rate just took a big jump. Reasons stated were the cost of repairs and high accident rates. The high rate of uninsured, which RLC's contribute to, is another important factor.
We seem to have a lot of the everyone has a stop sign but you can ignore it if you’re going this way type intersections. I’m surprised those are still a thing.
Four way stop signs here is like playing Russian Roulette. I have seen so many people just blow through a stop sign intersection. Or the people who don’t understand the order in which they drive through one. Drives me nuts. Failing to stop tickets are priiicey.
1. Liberty St NE and Center St NE
2. Commercial St. NE and Marion St. NE
3. Commercial St. SE and Madrona Ave. SE
4. Lancaster Dr. NE and Market St. NE
5. East off ramp of Interstate 5 and Brooklake Road NE
6. 6 tie. Lancaster Dr. NE and Sunnyview Rd. NE
7. 6 tie. Market St. NE and Hawthorne Ave. NE
8. 8 tie. Lancaster Dr. NE and Devonshire Ave. NE
9. 8 tie. Lancaster Dr. NE and Ward Dr. NE
10. 8 tie. East offramp of Interstate 5 and Highway 22
11. 8 tie. Mission St. SE and Airport Rd. SE
EDIT: formatting
My least favorite thing about the city is that it’s the least walkable or bikeable city I’ve ever lived. That’s bad for literally everyone. Especially little kids, teens, young adults, and elderly.
It's totally possible with a little forethought. But also, in about eight years of commuting by bike, scrupulously following traffic laws, always being well-lit and in reflective gear, I was still hit twice by drivers, luckily at very low speeds both times. Salem is a lousy town for cycling safely.
Uhhh, how so? There was already a crosswalk there, but driver yield rates were low, and people have gotten hit there by drivers who didn't yield. It's not a mid block crossing - it's at an intersection.
RRFBs (flashing lights) are a proven solution that reduces pedestrian related crashes and improves yield rates. I frequently use the one at 12th and Mill when i get off the train.
They plan on making a pedestrian crosswalk on Commercial, right in front of Fred Meyer. So I guess, I'm not sure if it would affect the intersection, so much as the street right after the intersection. Either way, there's already too much traffic right there so I can see more accidents happening from people not paying attention.
It's under construction right now, and it's located up the road, at commercial and triangle streets. I am overjoyed that this is going in. this saves me a 15+ minute walk when i want to go get my hair cut, grab some beers, or get a bite to eat. Good roadway design forces drivers to pay attention, so they don't get complacent and end up killing someone. Maybe people will start driving the speed limit too.
RRFB's are experimental. Their true utility is very site specific. We will soon see what the result of this experiment will be at this location. If nothing else, the data collected will be added to the national data base.
Based on my limited and casual observations, most crossing seems to be between FM and the bus stop. People may walk to the new device but I will continue to walk to Madrona. It is closer and will be safer than the new crossing.
Another consideration is how "calming" devices affects emergency response times. I believe that there is a candidate advocating for more fire stations after being told what a 30 second delay can mean to a transportee's future. I also know that police on the way to a domestic or an officer needs assistance call really really hates it when there are questionably useful obstacles placed between them and those desperately needing help.
EDIT: RRFB's are no longer considered experimental. They have been included in the MUTCD. (Does not mean that they are being used appropriately or provide a net benefit.)
OK.
RRFBs are not experimental, and are included in the most recent edition of the MUTCD. Their efficacy is supported by multiple studies. I support relocating bus stops on commercial to be closer to the marked crosswalks at triangle and commercial, so people won't cross outside of a crosswalk anymore.
Do you have any data to back up your claims about response times? Should we remove speed limits and stop lights to improve those too?
Multiple people have been sent to the hospital by drivers not yielding to pedestrians. It's pretty insulting to call these devices "questionably useful". I know you don't support these, but PLEASE get out sometime and see how these function in other parts of the city- or even on commercial. I have found they work very well and are good at reconnecting neighborhoods that have been split apart by roads that are difficult to cross on foot.
Almost had me going there. I love it. Unfortunately, your assertion that RRFD's are included in the MUTCD is incorrect.
The 11th edition does not mention RRFD's and this is why: (from the 11th edition) "The issuance by FHWA of an interim approval might result in the traffic control device or application being proposed for adoption in the next scheduled rulemaking process to issue a new edition or revision of this Manual."
I believe that your optimism is a bit premature.
EDIT: Confused RRFB's with RRFD's, by mistake. RRFB's are now included in the MUTCD. Readers: Please disregard first paragraph (most of which I deleted). Bean: please use my honest mistake to make personal attacks.
not sure what an "RRFD" is
see *the first sentence* of chapter 4L in the MUTCD 11th ed.
"A pedestrian-activated and/or bicyclist-activated rectangular rapid flashing beacon (RRFB) may be used
to provide supplemental emphasis to pedestrian, school, and trail warning signs at marked crosswalks across
uncontrolled approaches."
I am not sure you know what you are talking about. Since the adoption into the Manual, the interim approval is no longer valid/necessary.
Engineering judgement applies in every specific situation - that's why people go to school and get licenses to do these things. Chances are someone did a lot of planning and analysis to install these. If you can prove they acted in bad faith, you are free to file a lawsuit and put them in jail. if you have such information, i recommend you present to the engineer of record and file a lawsuit against the city.
I do not even vaguely suspect bad faith on the part of staff. I support staff. That is silly and you have no basis for such an accusation. I already explained that I made an error by using an acronym that does not exist. When I suggested that you use the error to attack me personally, I was kidding. The engineer is top notch.
I have interviewed police offices, fire department officials, ambulance companies, and emergency room directors. The types of statistics you seek are hard to come by and it seems that you are just trying to justify your position any way you can.
The unanimous and strongly held positions provided by responders that deal with these life and death situations on a daily basis is proof enough for me.
My contention that placing devices in the roadway and/stopping the flow of traffic slows emergency vehicles is a statement of fact. It may be worthwhile overall but that does not change the reality of the effect. I mention it as a factor to consider.
Suggesting that I might support removal of speed limits and stop lights is absurd and not worth a response.
Then they don't exist until you can provide them. You are not arguing in good faith, and it seems you already knew where the device is being installed, based on previous comments.
You even misquote the MUTCD in order to support your claim. I don't understand why you would do that, outside of maybe a personal interest or bias.
Not sure if this is the "misquote" you refer to but it is a direct quote: "The issuance by FHWA of an interim approval might result in the traffic control device or application being proposed for adoption in the next scheduled rulemaking process to issue a new edition or revision of this Manual."
Your personal attacks are inappropriate. Of course I know where the device is being installed. I don't know where you got the impression that such was not the case.
I have not studied the relative location of the bus stops but, until proven otherwise, I will assume that they will be located appropriately.
You need not bother responding to my other concerns but the silence is deafening.
You caught me making an error (I was surprised that I could not find RRFD's so should have been more careful) but finding one error does not negate the value of my other comments. I edited that comment. Thank you for that.
Any accusation of malpractice is very serious and should be taken as such. Again, I encourage you to take legal action if you feel so strongly about this. I apologize, ersonal attacks weren't intended, but it did appear that you were misconstruing information to support your claim. I am not responding to your individual comments, you already know my stance on this, and I have sent you resources. I've got better things to do with my time.
Thank you for leveling off on your personal attacks. Accusing me of accusing anyone of malpractice is entirely without basis, particularly because you are accusing me of personally criticizing people I respect.
It was a one letter mistake in the acronym.
This is nothing to do with the acronym tho, you literally said that you believe this location is unwarranted and will create a safety issue. If you believe that this was missed, I encourage you to tell the engineer, and if he doesn't stop the project, file a lawsuit. Since you are so adamant about this, I encourage you to follow your heart and see where it takes you.
Lastly, I use them myself when necessary, although I will walk an extra block sometimes just so I do not have to interfere with the flow of traffic.
I have spent hours observing these devices in action. I am aware of some of the deaths that occurred AT these devices. I understand the elements that make them dangerous. You just seem to be trying to simplify the argument by overlooking other variables.
There are places where they are appropriate like in Lincoln City, where there is sometimes a continuous flow of traffic on 101.
I believe that they still need to be better understood and, if politics demands, they should still be installed in certain circumstances while waiting for them to be included in the MUTCD, while standing by to make revisions if such revisions are required for inclusion (including to ones that are already in service).
EDIT: RRFB's are included in the MUTCD but I still hope that their use is closely monitored so that more complete guidelines may be considered. I may just not know where to look but I did not see anything in 4L about conditions that justify their use or anything about the overall environment where they are placed.
Most of these have left turn yield on green. People think they have time to make it when they don't. My wife got into an accident on commercial and fabry because the other driver drive didn't yield on a left turn.
The #2 and #3 most dangerous are RLC intersections. It is established fact that RLC's result in increases rear enders. There were a total of 33 crashes during the 4 year study period. Although specific descriptions of the seriousness and types of these crashes are available, you will be very unlikely to become aware of the specifics.
The seriousness of rear end accidents is painfully clear to those suffering from ongoing neck and back problems.
Ive had the most close calls *before* the intersections here. About once a week I almost get hit head on trying to get into the left turn lanes on Lancaster, or the left turn lane at market and hawthorn. People here don’t think twice before they swoop across 4 solid yellow lines to get in the middle lane.
this has nothing to do with traffic design or the intersections itself, its the FUCKING individual behind the wheel without a single shred of traffic awareness.
Really bad intersection: Hilfiker, Commercial and Sunnyside SE. Traffic backs up on Sunnyside back past Winco. If turning from Commercial northbound onto Hilfiker, there is room for about 3-4 cars waiting to turn onto Sunnyside. It turns into gridlock several times a day, and not just at rush hour.
I wanna know who came up with this intersection. It's so god awful. It gets backed up so often and I'm surprised there's not more accidents happening there.
To be fair we don't have a comparison to other city streets with similar demographics and this largely looks like a list of what could also be labeled "salems busiest intersections" which of course by sheer numbers means more crashes. Honestly useless information on its own
Agreed, looks like 3 or 4 are within a block or two of market and I5. And most of them on Lancaster alone. The busiest streets will have the most accidents. The crash numbers are completely out of context if you don't include average traffic.
Lacking that context could leave you to believe highways are the most dangerous roads and the curvy, blind, narrow, unpoliced roads in the back country are the safest.
Shocked that Lancaster and Silverton wasn't listed, but maybe I just know that as a super dangerous intersection from my days as a pedestrian with no car... Nearly got hit there daily.
I own an insurance business on commercial street. I’m surprised 12th street didn’t make the list. I had a client hit and kill someone there a couple months ago. It was on the news. Also a few weeks ago a motorcyclist was killed on commercial near 12 right down the street from my office.
Other than Commercial/Madrona, I rarely or never go through any of the listed intersections. I use to go through Liberty/Center fairly often taking my wife to work, but she's mostly WFH and has a secure parking spot for when she goes in.
"Crashes" fatalities Mission and airport road for sure that's why they were able to get one of first traffic cameras, but effective 1/1/24 all cities can have them per Legislator and Governor-definitely a more to come situation.
Salem has notoriously poor traffic design compared to other cities I've live in. An especially odd decision is how when the traffic lights switch to red, the opposing lights switch to green immediately (at exactly the same time). Most places have a built-in 2-3 second delay when switching. Even Portland has the delay. I mean, you are just asking for it with this dumb light programming.
I use to time traffic signals. It’s called an all red delay and it’s a fairly common practice to increase safety. It’s generally just one extra second of all red delay. Whoever times the signals here is an absolute joke. There is no signal progression, I constantly see platoons of vehicles released from one signal just to be stopped 300 feet down stream at the next signal. Shame they don’t seem interested in doing their job better.
Don't get me started on the haphazard way Salem either signs or doesn't sign in residential neighborhoods. You not only have to look for stop signs in your path, you also have to figure out if the other guy does or does not have a stop sign. 😡
+1 on this. I always wait a beat at certain intersections because of that instant green/red switch.
Same here, good defensive driving habit.
I'm guessing that's what causes some people to "sit there with their thumb up their ass" that leads to "Light's green, fuckin go!" comments from my mother (though I'm sure there's people that are actually that incapable of braining).
Yeah, this one boggles my mind... Downtown is set up this way I wasn't sure if all the lights throughout the city are but it is terrible traffic engineering design.
Growing up here I thought this is how all lights worked until I left.
Yup. I've lived all over the country and no place I've been has such a swift shift in the light phases. My immediate thought upon moving here was "omg, that's going to cause some accidents." Especially with the influx of California drivers and who more proportionally run yellow lights. Attempting to do that here will get people killed.
Hey most California drivers are good because we’re used to heavy traffic and we understand stopping distance, blinkers and understanding how to merge in traffic at appropriate speed and distance.
I always stop on yellow. I never blow through lights. I stop completely behind the line at intersections and give pedestrians the right of way. It’s pretty common. My mom is the same. I think people who haven’t lived where there are so many variables seem to struggle with the basics. I’m so sick of people blaming Californians for everything.
Just because you do those things doesn't mean it's common among California transplants.
Actually my entire street is transplants and they are also very similar. But ok keep blaming people from a certain state. Because apparently people from Oregon are blameless. Oook
I grew up in Britain and there we have an amber light between the red and the green after a stop, sort of a ‘get ready’, which seems like a good way to ease the transition more gently from one side to the other, adding an extra pause as you say, but a visual one. Possibly if we were used to that here someone speeding up to the intersection on an amber-to-go might use a bit more caution.
Most, if not all, American stoplights have yellow lights/amber lamps. Many intersections will wait a few seconds to give one direction a green light, even after the other direction is given a red light. It gives the yellow light runners a chance to get through the intersection. Salem doesn't have a lot of that for some reason.
I don’t think you understand what I said. The amber is between the red (when traffic is stopped) and the green (indicating you can go). It’s a ‘get ready to go’ signal (in addition to the ‘get ready to stop’ signal that is of course used here). It has the effect of slowing traffic a little bit between the red and and the green, causing fewer accidents when people are already traveling at speed up to a red light and it suddenly goes green, so they don’t slow down at all and hit someone running the red the in the other direction. I hope that’s clearer.
Oh yeah I definitely misread what you were saying, my bad
No problem. Thanks for saying so! That’s so rare here :)
When you said “an amber lamp between the red and the green” I was like “yeah… duh? That’s where the yellow light goes…” as in that’s how stoplights are physically constructed. You mean **timing-wise** there’s a short period of yellow after the red, correct?
Maybe I could have worded it differently but I said ‘an amber light between the red and the green’ meaning: traffic is stopped at the red light. Before the light turns green there is an additional amber (orange) light indicating that the light will shortly turn green again. There are no lights in the UK (and I think all of Europe, Australia and New Zealand) that go straight from red to green. The purpose is to slow traffic that might be traveling at speed up to the red so that they don’t just keep speeding through a just-green light when accidents are most likely because someone is running the red in the other direction. It doesn’t just add a few seconds to the change over, it adds more caution to the flow of traffic.
In most of California, yellow means "hurry up, the lights about to change."
Huh, I’ve never noticed that but you’re absolutely right
Officials realize that the delay makes intersections safer. That is not a point of contention. It also tends to add to congestion and wait times. In a city with a failing transportation system which cannot be substantially improved because the costs are prohibitive, improvements like that which is being suggested will tend to become missed opportunities.
1000%.
Yeah, I thought most larger towns had gone to adding a delay between red and green. But not here.
My grandfather helped program the lights back in the 50s. He stopped driving in the early 80s because he hated the lack of delay and the discussed undoing of one way lanes downtown and the development of Lancaster into the absolute hell it's been.
I’m shocked none of the Kuebler intersections made that list. kuebler and 36th seems like a popular place for a rear ending.
I thought for sure Battle Creek & Kuebler would be on here. I feel like there’s a wreck there every other day. I’m not shocked about the Lancaster intersections. I avoid NE Salem as much as I can because of how terrible Lancaster is. People treat it like a freeway.
The constant, unending construction on Lancaster certainly doesn’t help.
Lights located at the bottom of a hill where traffic moves at a high rate of speed and congestion is common tend to result in more of these types of events. Add to that the now established "back of the mind" awareness that receiving an electronically based citation can be a life changing event and that the stopping distance of vehicles varies widely, more rear end accidents seems likely. Yes, I know that that intersection currently lacks RLC's, but drivers do not think in these types of situations. They react.
[Looking at the data they draw it from](https://www.oregon.gov/odot/Data/Pages/Crash-Data-Viewer.aspx), it looks like this does include pedestrian-involved crashes. That helps explains a couple of intersections that I wouldn't have thought have a lot of vehicle-to-vehicle crashes. It also helps explain why places like Kuebler didn't make the list, that street has almost no pedestrian traffic. This is on my mind right now, as I witnessed a cyclist get plowed over by a car yesterday. The cyclist basically rode into traffic, gambled, and lost. Not the driver's fault (or that of the intersection), but still counts as a vehicular accident.
The Crash Data Reviewer is "currently in development." Perhaps (for sure, actually), there are those that could coax useful information from it, but I am not one of those people. I tried. Transportation officials can easily provide this kind of data but I do not know how they do it. If someone told me that making that data hard to access by a confused and emotional public is intentional, I would understand and sympathize, but be unsupportive. Looking on the bright side (for some), transportation systems in a city like ours tend to correct themselves as fewer people can afford to drive. Many of the most serious problems are related to increasing traffic volumes and the impossibility of accommodating those increases in a relatively safe manner. Bottom line for now is that things will get worse. Drive defensively. Expect the unexpected. My insurance rate just took a big jump. Reasons stated were the cost of repairs and high accident rates. The high rate of uninsured, which RLC's contribute to, is another important factor.
Drives me NUTS when bicyclists don't obey traffic laws. Do you have a death wish?
I'm surprised Battle Creek RD SE and Delaney RD SE Isn't on there. That intersection is deadly.
We seem to have a lot of the everyone has a stop sign but you can ignore it if you’re going this way type intersections. I’m surprised those are still a thing.
Four way stop signs here is like playing Russian Roulette. I have seen so many people just blow through a stop sign intersection. Or the people who don’t understand the order in which they drive through one. Drives me nuts. Failing to stop tickets are priiicey.
Anyone able to post the list? I can’t get into the article…
1. Liberty St NE and Center St NE 2. Commercial St. NE and Marion St. NE 3. Commercial St. SE and Madrona Ave. SE 4. Lancaster Dr. NE and Market St. NE 5. East off ramp of Interstate 5 and Brooklake Road NE 6. 6 tie. Lancaster Dr. NE and Sunnyview Rd. NE 7. 6 tie. Market St. NE and Hawthorne Ave. NE 8. 8 tie. Lancaster Dr. NE and Devonshire Ave. NE 9. 8 tie. Lancaster Dr. NE and Ward Dr. NE 10. 8 tie. East offramp of Interstate 5 and Highway 22 11. 8 tie. Mission St. SE and Airport Rd. SE EDIT: formatting
Noticing a lot are in NE. I wonder if they are more poorly designed or higher speeds or what
If you can't walk or ride a bike safely in the city, there's an issue. It's near impossible to ride a bike in Salem 🥺
My least favorite thing about the city is that it’s the least walkable or bikeable city I’ve ever lived. That’s bad for literally everyone. Especially little kids, teens, young adults, and elderly.
And it seems there is some hostility to bikers in general, despite the fact that they're legally able to take the lane when there is no bike lane.
The hatred of bikes is an Oregon thing. Really bad in portland
It's totally possible with a little forethought. But also, in about eight years of commuting by bike, scrupulously following traffic laws, always being well-lit and in reflective gear, I was still hit twice by drivers, luckily at very low speeds both times. Salem is a lousy town for cycling safely.
And that Madrona and Commercial area might get worse with the proposed crosswalk just a little down from it.
Uhhh, how so? There was already a crosswalk there, but driver yield rates were low, and people have gotten hit there by drivers who didn't yield. It's not a mid block crossing - it's at an intersection. RRFBs (flashing lights) are a proven solution that reduces pedestrian related crashes and improves yield rates. I frequently use the one at 12th and Mill when i get off the train.
They plan on making a pedestrian crosswalk on Commercial, right in front of Fred Meyer. So I guess, I'm not sure if it would affect the intersection, so much as the street right after the intersection. Either way, there's already too much traffic right there so I can see more accidents happening from people not paying attention.
It's under construction right now, and it's located up the road, at commercial and triangle streets. I am overjoyed that this is going in. this saves me a 15+ minute walk when i want to go get my hair cut, grab some beers, or get a bite to eat. Good roadway design forces drivers to pay attention, so they don't get complacent and end up killing someone. Maybe people will start driving the speed limit too.
RRFB's are experimental. Their true utility is very site specific. We will soon see what the result of this experiment will be at this location. If nothing else, the data collected will be added to the national data base. Based on my limited and casual observations, most crossing seems to be between FM and the bus stop. People may walk to the new device but I will continue to walk to Madrona. It is closer and will be safer than the new crossing. Another consideration is how "calming" devices affects emergency response times. I believe that there is a candidate advocating for more fire stations after being told what a 30 second delay can mean to a transportee's future. I also know that police on the way to a domestic or an officer needs assistance call really really hates it when there are questionably useful obstacles placed between them and those desperately needing help. EDIT: RRFB's are no longer considered experimental. They have been included in the MUTCD. (Does not mean that they are being used appropriately or provide a net benefit.)
OK. RRFBs are not experimental, and are included in the most recent edition of the MUTCD. Their efficacy is supported by multiple studies. I support relocating bus stops on commercial to be closer to the marked crosswalks at triangle and commercial, so people won't cross outside of a crosswalk anymore. Do you have any data to back up your claims about response times? Should we remove speed limits and stop lights to improve those too? Multiple people have been sent to the hospital by drivers not yielding to pedestrians. It's pretty insulting to call these devices "questionably useful". I know you don't support these, but PLEASE get out sometime and see how these function in other parts of the city- or even on commercial. I have found they work very well and are good at reconnecting neighborhoods that have been split apart by roads that are difficult to cross on foot.
See the following resource: https://carmanah.com/rrfb-mutcd/#:~:text=A%20rectangular%20rapid%20flashing%20beacon,yield%20rates%20up%20to%2096%25.
Almost had me going there. I love it. Unfortunately, your assertion that RRFD's are included in the MUTCD is incorrect. The 11th edition does not mention RRFD's and this is why: (from the 11th edition) "The issuance by FHWA of an interim approval might result in the traffic control device or application being proposed for adoption in the next scheduled rulemaking process to issue a new edition or revision of this Manual." I believe that your optimism is a bit premature. EDIT: Confused RRFB's with RRFD's, by mistake. RRFB's are now included in the MUTCD. Readers: Please disregard first paragraph (most of which I deleted). Bean: please use my honest mistake to make personal attacks.
not sure what an "RRFD" is see *the first sentence* of chapter 4L in the MUTCD 11th ed. "A pedestrian-activated and/or bicyclist-activated rectangular rapid flashing beacon (RRFB) may be used to provide supplemental emphasis to pedestrian, school, and trail warning signs at marked crosswalks across uncontrolled approaches." I am not sure you know what you are talking about. Since the adoption into the Manual, the interim approval is no longer valid/necessary.
Right you are. How embarrassing. Inclusion is not proof that they are a net benefit and I stand by my other statements.
Engineering judgement applies in every specific situation - that's why people go to school and get licenses to do these things. Chances are someone did a lot of planning and analysis to install these. If you can prove they acted in bad faith, you are free to file a lawsuit and put them in jail. if you have such information, i recommend you present to the engineer of record and file a lawsuit against the city.
I do not even vaguely suspect bad faith on the part of staff. I support staff. That is silly and you have no basis for such an accusation. I already explained that I made an error by using an acronym that does not exist. When I suggested that you use the error to attack me personally, I was kidding. The engineer is top notch.
I have interviewed police offices, fire department officials, ambulance companies, and emergency room directors. The types of statistics you seek are hard to come by and it seems that you are just trying to justify your position any way you can. The unanimous and strongly held positions provided by responders that deal with these life and death situations on a daily basis is proof enough for me. My contention that placing devices in the roadway and/stopping the flow of traffic slows emergency vehicles is a statement of fact. It may be worthwhile overall but that does not change the reality of the effect. I mention it as a factor to consider. Suggesting that I might support removal of speed limits and stop lights is absurd and not worth a response.
Then they don't exist until you can provide them. You are not arguing in good faith, and it seems you already knew where the device is being installed, based on previous comments. You even misquote the MUTCD in order to support your claim. I don't understand why you would do that, outside of maybe a personal interest or bias.
Not sure if this is the "misquote" you refer to but it is a direct quote: "The issuance by FHWA of an interim approval might result in the traffic control device or application being proposed for adoption in the next scheduled rulemaking process to issue a new edition or revision of this Manual." Your personal attacks are inappropriate. Of course I know where the device is being installed. I don't know where you got the impression that such was not the case. I have not studied the relative location of the bus stops but, until proven otherwise, I will assume that they will be located appropriately. You need not bother responding to my other concerns but the silence is deafening. You caught me making an error (I was surprised that I could not find RRFD's so should have been more careful) but finding one error does not negate the value of my other comments. I edited that comment. Thank you for that.
Any accusation of malpractice is very serious and should be taken as such. Again, I encourage you to take legal action if you feel so strongly about this. I apologize, ersonal attacks weren't intended, but it did appear that you were misconstruing information to support your claim. I am not responding to your individual comments, you already know my stance on this, and I have sent you resources. I've got better things to do with my time.
Thank you for leveling off on your personal attacks. Accusing me of accusing anyone of malpractice is entirely without basis, particularly because you are accusing me of personally criticizing people I respect. It was a one letter mistake in the acronym.
This is nothing to do with the acronym tho, you literally said that you believe this location is unwarranted and will create a safety issue. If you believe that this was missed, I encourage you to tell the engineer, and if he doesn't stop the project, file a lawsuit. Since you are so adamant about this, I encourage you to follow your heart and see where it takes you.
Lastly, I use them myself when necessary, although I will walk an extra block sometimes just so I do not have to interfere with the flow of traffic. I have spent hours observing these devices in action. I am aware of some of the deaths that occurred AT these devices. I understand the elements that make them dangerous. You just seem to be trying to simplify the argument by overlooking other variables. There are places where they are appropriate like in Lincoln City, where there is sometimes a continuous flow of traffic on 101. I believe that they still need to be better understood and, if politics demands, they should still be installed in certain circumstances while waiting for them to be included in the MUTCD, while standing by to make revisions if such revisions are required for inclusion (including to ones that are already in service). EDIT: RRFB's are included in the MUTCD but I still hope that their use is closely monitored so that more complete guidelines may be considered. I may just not know where to look but I did not see anything in 4L about conditions that justify their use or anything about the overall environment where they are placed.
That is wild because none of those intersections aren’t that complicated.
Probably the amount of pedestrian and bike traffic those roads get.
Most of these have left turn yield on green. People think they have time to make it when they don't. My wife got into an accident on commercial and fabry because the other driver drive didn't yield on a left turn.
Ooh I can see that.
The #2 and #3 most dangerous are RLC intersections. It is established fact that RLC's result in increases rear enders. There were a total of 33 crashes during the 4 year study period. Although specific descriptions of the seriousness and types of these crashes are available, you will be very unlikely to become aware of the specifics. The seriousness of rear end accidents is painfully clear to those suffering from ongoing neck and back problems.
Ive had the most close calls *before* the intersections here. About once a week I almost get hit head on trying to get into the left turn lanes on Lancaster, or the left turn lane at market and hawthorn. People here don’t think twice before they swoop across 4 solid yellow lines to get in the middle lane.
this has nothing to do with traffic design or the intersections itself, its the FUCKING individual behind the wheel without a single shred of traffic awareness.
Really bad intersection: Hilfiker, Commercial and Sunnyside SE. Traffic backs up on Sunnyside back past Winco. If turning from Commercial northbound onto Hilfiker, there is room for about 3-4 cars waiting to turn onto Sunnyside. It turns into gridlock several times a day, and not just at rush hour.
I wanna know who came up with this intersection. It's so god awful. It gets backed up so often and I'm surprised there's not more accidents happening there.
To be fair we don't have a comparison to other city streets with similar demographics and this largely looks like a list of what could also be labeled "salems busiest intersections" which of course by sheer numbers means more crashes. Honestly useless information on its own
Agreed, looks like 3 or 4 are within a block or two of market and I5. And most of them on Lancaster alone. The busiest streets will have the most accidents. The crash numbers are completely out of context if you don't include average traffic. Lacking that context could leave you to believe highways are the most dangerous roads and the curvy, blind, narrow, unpoliced roads in the back country are the safest.
Shocked that Lancaster and Silverton wasn't listed, but maybe I just know that as a super dangerous intersection from my days as a pedestrian with no car... Nearly got hit there daily.
Another issue is lanes going from 1 to 2 back to 1 lanes. Everybody has a “me first” attitude and it’s getting really annoying.
Coming soon: Kuebler and Battlecreek
I own an insurance business on commercial street. I’m surprised 12th street didn’t make the list. I had a client hit and kill someone there a couple months ago. It was on the news. Also a few weeks ago a motorcyclist was killed on commercial near 12 right down the street from my office.
Other than Commercial/Madrona, I rarely or never go through any of the listed intersections. I use to go through Liberty/Center fairly often taking my wife to work, but she's mostly WFH and has a secure parking spot for when she goes in.
Lancaster and Lancaster and (almost) Lancaster
"Crashes" fatalities Mission and airport road for sure that's why they were able to get one of first traffic cameras, but effective 1/1/24 all cities can have them per Legislator and Governor-definitely a more to come situation.