dpk’s weblog

They were thorough enough to include balls. Impressive.

On my way in to work today I read an article about projects to help the homeless. (I shamelessly copied the title). They made mention of two specific projects: Plymouth Housing Group‘s Plymouth on Stewart and Downtown Emergency Service Center‘s 1811 Eastlake.

PHG’s mission is to provide permanent housing for the homeless. DESC’s mission for 1811 is targeted specifically to the chronically drunk homeless population. 1811 has been controversial since it was planned, with the bulk of the criticism aimed at their policy of allowing tenants to drink in their homes.

The article focuses on the dollars saved by the city and county, but I think there is more to it than that. The amount of time spent by hospital and on-site nursing staff on these homeless-now-with-homes has been reduced significantly. 1811 reports that their tenants are getting drunk less often. The visits to the “drunk tank” tanked (heh).

I think this is all good news. I’m sure it won’t stop the detractors from voicing their standard arguments: “There are homeless in Seattle because Seattle is good to the homeless”, “They spent MY money on THEM”, etc. However, it seems to me that this is another case where the public wealth can help the needy and the taxpayer at the same time: the hospitals are that much less overloaded; the ambulances are that much less busy transporting drunks; the police are that much less busy dealing with the homeless on the streets. More of their resources can now be spent servicing the taxpayer.

This looks like a big win for the region, and at a small price, too.

Full disclosure/shilling: I don’t know if this is necessary (I’m concerned it might come across as self-congratulatory bragging). I am a regular donor to PHG. Although they are affiliated with a church, I think their mission is still sound, and all of the reports I’ve read suggest that most of the donated money goes directly to their chartered services. Check ‘em out.

Danny Westneat’s editorial on Ron Sims changing his mind about light rail. I agree with his main point: it sounds like Ron Sims could use a break. In an earlier story his wife had to remind him of his duty to the people that, as a public figure, he needs to speak out for or against matters of public interest — especially those that he himself worked so hard to promote. That is in my non-expert opinion a classic sign of burn-out.

I also agree with Ron Sims (assuming he’s quoted correctly). It is disappointing that it will take so long and cost so much to complete the light rail project. It’s disappointing that when we put out a request for bids for a key rail station, we get one response, and it is double what we expected it to be. I would also like to see some toll roads built, and some additional congestion reduction plans (specifically, bringing 520 all the way in to Seattle, instead of only to I-5. How many man-years/billion tons of CO2 would that one act save?).

That all said, the fact remains: we need to do something about our region’s roads and our woefully inadequate transit system. More lanes, built smartly and in the right places, can reduce congestion. Faster, more attractive (read: frequent, clean, and not full) transit options can reduce the number of cars on the road. Doing nothing will only mean more congestion and an ever-less-viable transit option (as buses and trains run over capacity), and ultimately an even more expensive bill when we eventually do decide to address it.

Seattle Times article about Seattle’s plans

The good:

The effort includes public-service announcements on television and radio, repainted crosswalks, billboards and signs encouraging safe driving, and stepped up enforcement of pedestrian-safety laws.

The really, obscenely bad:

The city also will start installing traffic cameras to photograph cars that run red lights.

I won’t go in to the whole “anti-red light camera” argument here — plenty of sites cover that already — but suffice it to say I am wholly against red light cameras and how they are implemented.

This plan for pedestrian safety completely fails to take into account the realities of driving in downtown Seattle. Pedestrians tend to cross whenever the traffic light is green or yellow, regardless of the walk/don’t walk signal’s status. Pedestrians rarely seem to look or care where they are walking. In part, I blame parents and the educational campaigns. How many times have you seen parents dragging their kids across the middle of the street, not even at a crosswalk? I was taught early on that “pedestrians always have the right of way”. Luckily, I was also taught (or born with? I dunno) enough smarts to know that just because I have the right of way doesn’t mean I can be a jackass and expect that everyone will avoid hitting me 100% of the time.

A real pedestrian solution to downtown Seattle would involve more “delayed start” walk signals. This would allow some cars through every light, and still give pedestrians a chance to cross the street. As it is now, it is lucky if two or three cars make a right turn during a green light.

Additional enforcement of crosswalk laws would help a lot, too. Convince people to stop entering the crosswalk when “don’t walk” is flashing.

And for the busiest intersections, overhead or underground crosswalks could be installed, such as used in Las Vegas. Help the pedestrians stay safe by simply removing them from traffic.

Until Seattle addresses the pedestrian safety issue using methods other than simple education or signs, it will continue to be a serious problem for the city.