I have not historically gotten involved in decisions where the politicians made plans regarding traffic and planning on the Island. It has always seemed to be their process: facts plied in a political context for best practices in a less than critical financial context.

But the banter and financial impact of those advocating the Island Crest road diet makes no sense to me. Those advocating it seem to be ignoring the clearly documented facts and are ignoring the magnitude making it a ridiculous waste of a large piece of annual municipal funding — and at a time when every dollar, regardless of funding restriction, absolutely matters. So look at the two big selling points of the pro-ICW road diet, one at a time:

Road diet is safer. True? Well, no. The very study that the city and its advisors cite as supporting evidence (“Evaluation of Lane Reduction ‘Road Diet’ Measures and Their Effects on Crashes and Injuries,” from the Highway Safety Information System) says it is not true in the case of our ICW. How? The city’s own measurements of ICW traffic flows show the thoroughfare load to be significantly above the threshold of the study’s finding any enhanced safety. And, the study goes on to add, “Crash severity was virtually the same at road diets and comparison sites and did not change from the before to the after time period … however, angle collisions were somewhat higher for the road diets.” Safer? Not in the context of ICW, per the very study they lean on.

Number two claim: ICW commutes on a road diet will not be significantly slower or longer than now. True? Very likely not so, if you read the city’s own assessment of the Merrimount changes in effect over the last many months. Why do I say this? Because the city’s own measurements of ICW traffic pre- and post-Merrimount reconfiguration show a 2,000 vehicle per day drop in ICW traffic. Are fewer people driving due to Merrimount accommodations? I think not. That’s 2,000 more vehicles every day searching for a better route — now using East and West Mercer and going through neighborhoods because of the Merrimount chokepoint. And the road diet is going to add even more single-lane chokepoints — essentially at every intersection. Now is that a safer Mercer Island for kids and other pedestrians using the same side streets to bus stops and the library and whatever else? I believe not. Does it improve the safety of cyclists? Probably not. But the city doesn’t want you to know this set of data from their own internal assessments of real facts, not expert opinion (that can be bought and sold for a consulting fee from a committee).

So why does the City Council want us to spend a million dollars plus on the ICW road diet? Simple: they have failed to find a real solution to Merrimount and now they want political cover to hide behind another bigger solution. Hey, it’s not their money! (But it is their political salvation.)

Question my statements. Do the research. But once you have convinced yourself of what the truth embodies, please don’t allow a few of the Council members to waste our community funding on an albatross. We elected them, but they need to see and hear that we expect better processes, leadership and spending decisions.

The facts reveal their bias. Be smarter and demand that they spend our money on our needs, not theirs. Where would you spend a million and a half dollars? I’ll bet it isn’t on an ICW road diet.

Erik Jansen