Frequently Asked Questions
Q. Are you proposing to narrow Island Crest Way?
No. The pavement would remain as it is today. The lines on the road and the existing islands would be removed and replaced with new stripes and a few new pedestrian islands. The resulting road would be safer and friendlier...but the same width.
Q. What is a 'road diet'?
The phrase 'road diet' is used to describe any reconfiguration of a road that involves a reduction in the number of vehicle lanes. In the case of Island Crest Way, the proposed reconfiguration would involve conversion of four vehicle lanes to three vehicle lanes. It sounds crazy at first, but after reading through the material on this website, we hope you'll appreciate the compelling reasons for change.
Q. Where would the three lane configuration begin and end?
Council originally voted for reconfiguration from the 4100 block (a bit south of 40th St.) to the point where it converges to two lanes today (around 53rd). The Citizen Advisory Panel suggested two shorter options, from Merrimount to 53rd or from Merrimount just to 46th. So three options have been considered.
Q. What evidence do you have that collision rates will drop?
Four lane to three lane conversions have been implemented and studied in many other locations. A study of nine projects in Seattle found an average 34% reduction in accidents. In Minnesota, a study of nine projects found a 37% reduction in collisions. And in Iowa, a study of 15 projects found a 25% decline. The results are consistently positive.
Q. Will a three lane configuration cause back ups on Island Crest Way?
No. The best evidence we have (according to the city's traffic consultant) is that the existing constriction at Merrimount does not cause back ups. Computer modeling leads to the same conclusion.
The constriction that does cause serious back ups on ICW is school activity at Island Park Elementary. When school starts and school ends, significant back ups occur. This problem won't be made better or worse by the proposed reconfiguration. Northbound traffic will back up at the school and then flow freely beyond the school--whether in two lanes or one. Similarly, southbound traffic will back up at the school and the line up will extend north whether in two lanes or one.
Q. I drive ICW regularly and am concerned about getting delayed behind slower drivers.
If you're traveling in the 35-40mph range, you will occasionally lose a few seconds behind a slower driver. Compare that with the time you will lose if a signal is installed at Merrimount.
If your target speed is above 40mph, we hope you will get delayed behind slower drivers. You need to slow down.
The city's traffic design consultant modeled the ICW corridor and calculated peak travel times. They found that whether the city installs a signal, installs a short three lane or installs a longer three lane, the time was essentially the same. You can see the data here.
Q. Isn't a signal at Merrimount /Island Crest the safest solution?
Probably not.
A signal will likely cause an increase in top speeds along the corridor (a return to speeds measured before the current Merrimount configuration), which isn't good. In addition the more affordable signal option (four lanes) will expose left turning vehicles on Island Crest to rear end accidents. Also bad.
The Merrimount/ICW intersection is difficult today in large part because the lanes are too narrow and the sight lines have not been improved. But since the installation of the temporary experiment at Merrimount/44th and ICW, the accident rate at that intersection has dropped and there have been no injury accidents there (as of end of 2008). Merrimount no longer stands out as a more serious problem than the rest of the corridor.
The proposed three lane installation would widen lanes and improve sightlines at Merrimount--reducing the sense of unease we feel there today. And a three lane configuration will improve safety along the whole corridor rather than just at one intersection.