(Scott Manning is INDOT’s Communications director.)
…And suddenly, the state department charged with transportation is ensnarled in debates over safety.
Today, on Twitter nonetheless, INDOT’s centurion of communication, Scott Manning, reiterated that fixing the North Split is necessary due to safety.
Hold your laughter.
“Fixing” the North Split means adding lanes, which flies in the face of everything we know about traffic safety. In short, added lanes increase accident rates. [blah blah, induced demand, increased incidence of accidents with wider lanes]
This makes sense: more cars around other cars equal more chance for those cars to hit each other.
In the initial examinations of various proposals INDOT was “weighing”, traffic safety was not even listed. Instead, vehicle counts were listed first.
While neglecting to assess any data related to quality of life or safety, INDOT instead focuses on moving as many sociopathic devices as possible through neighborhoods they decimate. Lovely. Add 20 foot walls and you have a real recipe for urban greatness. I mean, bleakness.
Continue to expect this sort of roundabout rhetoric embracing North Split reconstruction, all while INDOT closes its ears and all but says, “I’m not listening”.
If this was truly about safety, INDOT would ensure a fair and equilateral public discussion about what would make roads safer. If we truly wanted to cut down on injuries, maybe curtailing the ability of cars to monopolize every bit of asphalt would be a decent start.
Rethink 65/70’s argument against adding lanes and for encouraging redevelopment is not about eliminating the car option. It’s about giving people the option to move themselves in other ways.
But in Indiana, transportation can only be connoted with the car. And thus, its DOT will ensure means to that end.
And again, it’s not about safety. It’s about promoting car-centric highway infrastructure with a devastating impact on inner-city neighborhoods. Why? Because cars are the status quo.
INDOT continues to insist on squalid and antiquated concepts of automobile-centric planning and justifying it by saying they are emphasizing safety.
This is not only wrong, but a totally baseless and erroneous gesture.