Pot Holes: Low Cost Speed Bumps
#69, June 13, 2001

There appears to be no end in sight to the projected cost of "fixing Petaluma's streets". Sixty five million, one hundred, one sixty four. Worst streets in Sonoma County, North Bay, Bay Area. You can't attend a City meeting of any kind, it seems, without someone raising the pothole crisis.

There are several ways to view this current pothole crisis. It's our most apparent local manifestation of decaying infrastructure (the rotting sewer pipes under the streets being not so visible.) I attribute this in part to our pioneer-born culture's preference for "building" over "maintaining" (I've found this true even for tree planting and business software.). More significantly, it reflects how localities are growing poorer as the country gets richer. (Where is all the wealth going? Short answer: major shareholders of multi-national corporations, like the Texas energy companies who are now writing national energy policy.)

It's also a case of "issue du jour", a type of community "group-think." The public's assessment of the size of the problem can grow without the normal checks and balances, because people from across the political spectrum can use it for their own political purposes ("we can't afford Rainier/Lafferty, we need to fill potholes.")

Let me offer another, out-of-the-box view: potholes are concave speed bumps. They have a sophisticated impact response modulation algorithm -- vehicle damage increases in logarithmic proportion to the speed of impact. In other words, the faster you travel, the harder they hit back. Potholes also have a sensitive homing mechanism-- the faster you travel, the lower likelihood of avoiding them.

I know about Petaluma's rough roads. I drive here, and I ride a bike, even at night. What do I do to avoid pothole damage? It doesn't involve asphalt or issuing GARVEE Bonds (I thought he was a baseball player, anyway.) I SLOW DOWN.

Yes, I slow down. Bear in mind, I don't live in the figurative slow lane. Like most people, I have a lot to do and less time to do it. But the fact is: whether I drive 15 or 25 or 35 mph between stop signs and lights on city streets makes no difference, at the end of the day, what I accomplish.

Look at Sonoma Mountain Road. In an Argus interview, Supervisor Kerns said bringing it up to a "safe standard" would cost $3-4 million. But I think he agrees we shouldn't spend that fortune to convert what should be a leisurely drive up a country road into a turnpike experience, and further encourage speedway driving? Why not instead put up signs, "One lane ahead", and "Slow to 5 MPH", and let Lafferty Park visitors make up the extra 5 minutes somewhere else.

I'm not suggesting that we just let our streets randomly decay. I understand how it can be less expensive to fix streets before they get too funky. But we must recognize that when a street is smooth and wide, traffic will speed up. Not just to the speed limit, but well beyond it, beyond what is safe.

We should not let engineers dictate street standards any more than we should let them determine our energy or water policies. Let's decide what we want, and the engineers can design it. Do we want the quiet, safety, and small town feeling of modest roadways tunneling through a leafy canopy? Should we selectively narrow some of the wide racetrack streets (like mine) by letting the parking areas decay until we can plant trees in every third parking space? Should we create barriers to block through traffic along selected streets, creating safe play places for kids and throughways for cyclists?

Maybe we all need to lead by example, and SLOW DOWN ourselves. Start by ignoring those annoying commercials that flaunt frenetic driving. For the next week, try driving five mph UNDER the posted speed limits, and coming to a COMPLETE STOP at every stop sign (and take a deep breath and smile). You will likely end up with lower blood pressure, safer streets, and more money in your pocket. Think: what else might we do with all those millions?