In Call to Ban Camping, Lawsuit Misses on Road Design

Today's paper has an update on the horrific crash nearly two years ago on Front Street just north of the Union Street Bridge.

A new lawsuit identifies overserving alcohol and failure to ban camping as causes.

Today's paper (yellow added)

Proving negligence in overserving alcohol would be a very serious finding.

But the camping is less obvious. There's a sidewalk and bike lane right there at the crash site, and a person walking or biking would be vulnerable in the same way as those camping. Any bystander or passers-by would be at risk, not merely those camping. Another driver, too, going in the opposite direction would be at risk.

The camping itself is not the essential risk factor here.

Approximate trajectory of crash

Failing to veer right

Instead, the crucial factor is speed in jaydriving and street racing.

Even a sober person racing here at 70mph poses a very similar danger.

What is bitterly fascinating in these suits and discussions, over and over, is the street design is not often mentioned, and when it is mentioned it is not given sufficient weight.

This area is a known safety problem

But in fact, the High Crash Corridor list the MPO published in November identifies Commercial at Division and Union Street at Front as areas of concern. The data for this list ends in 2021, so the crash the lawsuit specifies, which occurred in 2022, is not included.

Why do we have urban streets and stroads on which it is all too easy to accelerate to speeds of 70mph and more, which seem designed to "forgive" significant errors in speeding past posted speed (and may also have posted speeds much too high)?

On I-5 in 2014

The suit might have called for Jersey barriers in the median or bike lane. You might recall a crossover crash from 2014 on I-5 where cable barriers had been scheduled to be installed. The crash and its aftermath hastened the installation there and elsewhere along I-5.

We need to harden our road and street infrastructure to protect more vulnerable road users, including those who might be camping, and we need to reconfigure urban streets so speeds of 70mph are not feasible.

That is the solution, not banning camping under a policy for hobo removal.

And the solution to camping starts with more housing at all price points and more housing at affordable prices, including subsidized housing options for those who need it.

Banning camping does not improve traffic safety in durable ways.

Reducing speed is the answer.

They knew better in 1937
(State Library of Oregon)

Separately, at Salem Reporter a story on gun and gang violence features substandard street design as one ingredient in degraded community safety.

On Sunnyview at Byram the sidewalk ends

It highlights disproportionate investment in sidewalks and also the lack of walkable neighborhoods.

We may return to this, as during the Our Salem process neighbors on Brown Road opposed a small pocket of neighborhood hub zoning at the park. Better walkability was not so attractive to them, and they seemed to understand walkability with much less emphasis on proximity. A two mile walk seemed plenty walkable.

There may be some important tensions in discussions on walkability to look at more closely.

Even with those tensions, it remains true that Sunnyview between Byram and Evergreen lacks sidewalks, and Sunnyview is too zoomy for this. (The MPO's "High Crash Corridor" list includes Sunnyview, but east of this segment.)