Paul Hamilton’s thoughts on human lives vs Transportation “efficiencies”
3 views
Skip to first unread message
Tim Potter
Oct 5, 2021, 8:00:38 AM10/5/21
to tc...@googlegroups.com
Stumbled on to this classic email yesterday from Paul (which Julie Power referred to as “War and Peace” emails). We really need another person in a place of influence with his passion for people who walk and bike in Tri-Co. Regional Planning Comm to help hold our county staff to a higher standard.
>
> ******************************
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: tc...@googlegroups.com <tc...@googlegroups.com> On Behalf Of Paul Hamilton
> Sent: Thursday, January 13, 2011 2:49 PM
> To: bi...@msu.edu
> Cc: Mid-Michigan Active Transportation Coalition <tc...@googlegroups.com>
> Subject: Re: [tcatc] MMATC Letter in City Pulse
>
> THIS ONE IS FOR BOB KOCHINOWSKI ("KOCH")
>
> Hi gang--
>
> I don't usually bait public callers on topics when they are expressing an opinion on something before us, but I had an interesting call and discussion a couple of days ago with some one opposed to the Waverly Road project which we've all been engaged on lately.
>
> This individual identified himself as an insurance agent from Holt who was upset about the cost of the project-- when so many of his clients were canceling their insurance policies and having their homes foreclosed and he thought the 1.3 million for this project was an outrage.... blah blah.
>
> {NB--Not counting my ongoing dialog with peeps in this group-- which probably would tilt the odds dramatically, my actual citizen calls right now are running one for and one against so far, but then calls to me are not what will matter in the end on this-- so I am suggesting to all parties that they should let their opinions be known to Lansing, Lansing Township and the Road Commssion.....]
>
> But I just couldn't resist-- so I asked the guy --since he was an insurence agent--
>
> "What is the figure either you would use, or which is currently accepted by the Insurence Insitute for Highway Safety for the cost of a human life, in today's dollars??"
>
> Now we all probably know somebody who has been hurt or perhaps even killed in a crash, whether between cars, and/or as a rider or a walker who has gotten maimed or killed.
>
> In my case, one example is a colleague--Bob Kochinowski ( for short "Koch", like the cola) who used to be the Executive Director of the MPO in Pittsburgh-- a guy who probably had done more to make Pittsburgh a safer place for all users single- handedly than all of the other activists in Pittsburgh had up to that point, and who was an unsung hero to Pittsburgh turning itself around from being the dirty steel capital of the world to a pretty booming place today. Koch literally, with the force of his abilities and his skills as a
> leader-- was probably personally responsible for creation of hundreds of millions of dollars worth in economic development investments in his region and billions (over the years) on infrastructure improvements, creating hundreds of thousands of new jobs all across PA -- and a guy who I used to have drinks and dinner with at pretty much every national MPO conference I went to, including one very memorable experience in Dallas--just a few weeks before he was killed-- while jogging on his way home form his office--and I could never ever place a value on a friend like Koch, who I learned a lot from both while he was alive --and by his passing-- and we all know that no dollar value can truly replace or compensate for anybody like that, or for anybody at all, but I just couldn't resist the irony of this insurance guy's position.
>
> He, some what taken aback by (and not expecting) my question, said something to the effect of:
> "About 800 dollars towards the cost of a burial."
>
> Okay I baited him --but I wasn't going to debate him-- and the question alone made the point I wanted to make without having to argue over the answer, but just in case project cost figures do keep coming up, and somebody wants to play with that cost versus safety argument a bit more than I wish to publicly--I dodged the question when the Pulse interviewed me for various reasons--but some of you may find this useful.
>
> The current economic value determined objectively by the National Safety Council of the social cost of a human life and personal injury and property damage values are pegged at:
>
>
> Average Economic Cost per Death, Injury, or Crash, in 2009 dollars as follows:
> Death-- $1,290,000
> Nonfatal Disabling Injury-- $68,100
> Property Damage Crash-- (including nondisabling injuries) $8,200
>
> These values are updated annually and can be found at the link below, along with other values, which may also be appropriate for reference under certain circumstances, but I am trying to keep this somewhat
> simple:
>
> http://www.nsc.org/news_resources/injury_and_death_statistics/Pages/EstimatingtheCostsofUnintentionalInjuries.aspx
>
> Now-- if anybody wants to argue like a safety engineer--which I am not--but I have had the argument, however--on our web page is a the document we use to prioitize projects for the TIP called "Surface Transportation Program Priority Assesment Guidelines" and someplace around page 38 and on (or so) there's a section on calculating Time of Return on safety projects, which uses these generally accepted values to determine the cost/benefit ratio for safety projects as a Time of Return, which involves normalizing crash data, and estimating the cost effectiveness of various safety countermeasures and the number of years it would take to recover the expended public funds (or, time to return the cost to the public) based on the social cost savings versus the price of the safety investment. Most of of the info there is not on point to this discussion, but if anybody wants to see how to do the technicallly correct calculations, there's a worksheet and default values for many common countermeasures for vehicle crashes there which can be used to complete a TOR analysis. It is tough to do this with bikes/preds projects because the crash data is too random in most localtions unless you have big clusters of numbers and the injuries and fatals are probably not concentrated on the link in question enough to result in any meaningful answer, but my point, in going all this way, is that-- generally speaking --safety engineers or going to say any safety project with a TOR, time of return under 10 years is cost effective.
>
> So given the cost arguments being bandied about in the media, even without fatals at that localtion to specifically apply the formulas to on this segment--thank god--is that the 1.3 million cost estimate will essentially have a time of return of very close to 1 (1.300,000 million, divided by 1.290,000) if it saves even one life over the next ten years.
>
> Then again, the next life we save with this project (or the next one) could very easily be some guy like my friend Koch, in which case, the social cost to an entire region and-- as a voice in a national association of professional experts on this stuff we do-- a voice which was heard throughout the halls of Congress and the Pennsylvania legislature as well as his entire region--as a voice for saneness and compassion and re-building our cities into things that work and provides work and a healthy sustainable place for people to work in---is truly a devastating price to pay/
>
> so Koch, this one is for you my friend........nostrovia!
>
> Regards,
> Paul Hamilton
>
>
>
>> On Wed, Jan 12, 2011 at 3:13 PM, Tim Potter <bi...@msu.edu> wrote:
>> Thanks for the tip Rory. I had some difficulty finding the letter to
>> the editor section and eventually found it here for those of you who'd
>> rather not hunt for it:
>> http://npaper-wehaa.com/citypulse/#2011/01/11/?page=4&dpg=1&z=70
>>
>>
>>
>> Tim
>>
>>
>>
>> ********************
>> Tim Potter
>> Manager, Bike Service Center
>> MSU Bikes Service Center
>> B10 Bessey Hall/ Michigan St. University Along the N. River Trail, 300
>> ft. west of Farm Ln. Bridge E. Lansing, MI 48824-1033
>>
>> Ph: 517/432-3400
>> Fax: 517/432-2743
>> Email: bi...@msu.edu
>> Web: www.bikes.msu.edu
>>
>> "Where there is a wheel there is a way."
>>
>> Motto of the Good Roads Movement, early 1900s
>>
>> ************************************
>>
>>
>>
>> From: tc...@googlegroups.com [mailto:tc...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf
>> Of Rory L. Neuner
>> Sent: Wednesday, January 12, 2011 10:28 AM
>>
>> To: tcatc
>> Subject: [tcatc] MMATC Letter in City Pulse
>>
>>
>>
>> Kudos to Nancy Krupiarz and John Lindenmayer for putting together the
>> letter to the editor that appears in today's edition of the Lansing
>> City Pulse on the Waverly Sidewalk Project.
>>
>> Grab a paper copy, or go here:
>>
>> http://www.lansingcitypulse.com/lansing/
>>
>> I'll also note that yesterday, Chad Gamble (Director, Public Service
>> Dept., City of Lansing) and Andy Kilpatrick (Director, Transportation,
>> City of
>> Lansing) attended the monthly Walk and Bike Lansing! Taskforce Meeting
>> to give us an overview of that project. The full scope of the project
>> is greater than I think it being portrayed in the media, and includes
>> improvements slated to be made by both the City of Lansing and the
>> Ingham County Road Commission. If completed, this would be a huge
>> benefit to the walkability / bike-friendliness of Southwest and West
>> sides of the City of Lansing, and to surrounding areas. Work is being
>> done to apply for a Transportation Enhancement grant, as well as other
>> grant programs, which would reduce the local cost to construct.
>> Maintenance is also being discussed.
>>
>> As has been mentioned, a public meeting will be scheduled in February.
>> I'll encourage MMATC members to attend once we have a date.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Rory
>>
>> --
>> Rory L. Neuner
>> ro...@aya.yale.edu
>> 517.515.3535 (cell)
>> 517.580.8415 (office)
>>
>> --
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the
>> Mid-Michigan Active Transportation Coalition Google Groups "tcatc" group.
>> To post to this group, send email to tc...@googlegroups.com Replies
>> are sent to the author of the message NOT to the whole group, so if
>> you want to reply to the whole group be sure that
>> tc...@googlegroups.com is included in the To or CC field.
>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
>> tcatc+un...@googlegroups.com
>> For more options, visit this group at
>> http://groups.google.com/group/tcatc?hl=en
>>
>> --
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the
>> Mid-Michigan Active Transportation Coalition Google Groups "tcatc" group.
>> To post to this group, send email to tc...@googlegroups.com Replies
>> are sent to the author of the message NOT to the whole group, so if
>> you want to reply to the whole group be sure that
>> tc...@googlegroups.com is included in the To or CC field.
>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
>> tcatc+un...@googlegroups.com
>> For more options, visit this group at
>> http://groups.google.com/group/tcatc?hl=en
>>
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Mid-Michigan Active Transportation Coalition Google Groups "tcatc" group.
> To post to this group, send email to tc...@googlegroups.com Replies are sent to the author of the message NOT to the whole group, so if you want to reply to the whole group be sure that tc...@googlegroups.com is included in the To or CC field.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> tcatc+un...@googlegroups.com
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/tcatc?hl=en
>
> ******************************
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: tc...@googlegroups.com <tc...@googlegroups.com> On Behalf Of Paul Hamilton
> Sent: Thursday, January 13, 2011 2:49 PM
> To: bi...@msu.edu
> Cc: Mid-Michigan Active Transportation Coalition <tc...@googlegroups.com>
> Subject: Re: [tcatc] MMATC Letter in City Pulse
>
> THIS ONE IS FOR BOB KOCHINOWSKI ("KOCH")
>
> Hi gang--
>
> I don't usually bait public callers on topics when they are expressing an opinion on something before us, but I had an interesting call and discussion a couple of days ago with some one opposed to the Waverly Road project which we've all been engaged on lately.
>
> This individual identified himself as an insurance agent from Holt who was upset about the cost of the project-- when so many of his clients were canceling their insurance policies and having their homes foreclosed and he thought the 1.3 million for this project was an outrage.... blah blah.
>
> {NB--Not counting my ongoing dialog with peeps in this group-- which probably would tilt the odds dramatically, my actual citizen calls right now are running one for and one against so far, but then calls to me are not what will matter in the end on this-- so I am suggesting to all parties that they should let their opinions be known to Lansing, Lansing Township and the Road Commssion.....]
>
> But I just couldn't resist-- so I asked the guy --since he was an insurence agent--
>
> "What is the figure either you would use, or which is currently accepted by the Insurence Insitute for Highway Safety for the cost of a human life, in today's dollars??"
>
> Now we all probably know somebody who has been hurt or perhaps even killed in a crash, whether between cars, and/or as a rider or a walker who has gotten maimed or killed.
>
> In my case, one example is a colleague--Bob Kochinowski ( for short "Koch", like the cola) who used to be the Executive Director of the MPO in Pittsburgh-- a guy who probably had done more to make Pittsburgh a safer place for all users single- handedly than all of the other activists in Pittsburgh had up to that point, and who was an unsung hero to Pittsburgh turning itself around from being the dirty steel capital of the world to a pretty booming place today. Koch literally, with the force of his abilities and his skills as a
> leader-- was probably personally responsible for creation of hundreds of millions of dollars worth in economic development investments in his region and billions (over the years) on infrastructure improvements, creating hundreds of thousands of new jobs all across PA -- and a guy who I used to have drinks and dinner with at pretty much every national MPO conference I went to, including one very memorable experience in Dallas--just a few weeks before he was killed-- while jogging on his way home form his office--and I could never ever place a value on a friend like Koch, who I learned a lot from both while he was alive --and by his passing-- and we all know that no dollar value can truly replace or compensate for anybody like that, or for anybody at all, but I just couldn't resist the irony of this insurance guy's position.
>
> He, some what taken aback by (and not expecting) my question, said something to the effect of:
> "About 800 dollars towards the cost of a burial."
>
> Okay I baited him --but I wasn't going to debate him-- and the question alone made the point I wanted to make without having to argue over the answer, but just in case project cost figures do keep coming up, and somebody wants to play with that cost versus safety argument a bit more than I wish to publicly--I dodged the question when the Pulse interviewed me for various reasons--but some of you may find this useful.
>
> The current economic value determined objectively by the National Safety Council of the social cost of a human life and personal injury and property damage values are pegged at:
>
>
> Average Economic Cost per Death, Injury, or Crash, in 2009 dollars as follows:
> Death-- $1,290,000
> Nonfatal Disabling Injury-- $68,100
> Property Damage Crash-- (including nondisabling injuries) $8,200
>
> These values are updated annually and can be found at the link below, along with other values, which may also be appropriate for reference under certain circumstances, but I am trying to keep this somewhat
> simple:
>
> http://www.nsc.org/news_resources/injury_and_death_statistics/Pages/EstimatingtheCostsofUnintentionalInjuries.aspx
>
> Now-- if anybody wants to argue like a safety engineer--which I am not--but I have had the argument, however--on our web page is a the document we use to prioitize projects for the TIP called "Surface Transportation Program Priority Assesment Guidelines" and someplace around page 38 and on (or so) there's a section on calculating Time of Return on safety projects, which uses these generally accepted values to determine the cost/benefit ratio for safety projects as a Time of Return, which involves normalizing crash data, and estimating the cost effectiveness of various safety countermeasures and the number of years it would take to recover the expended public funds (or, time to return the cost to the public) based on the social cost savings versus the price of the safety investment. Most of of the info there is not on point to this discussion, but if anybody wants to see how to do the technicallly correct calculations, there's a worksheet and default values for many common countermeasures for vehicle crashes there which can be used to complete a TOR analysis. It is tough to do this with bikes/preds projects because the crash data is too random in most localtions unless you have big clusters of numbers and the injuries and fatals are probably not concentrated on the link in question enough to result in any meaningful answer, but my point, in going all this way, is that-- generally speaking --safety engineers or going to say any safety project with a TOR, time of return under 10 years is cost effective.
>
> So given the cost arguments being bandied about in the media, even without fatals at that localtion to specifically apply the formulas to on this segment--thank god--is that the 1.3 million cost estimate will essentially have a time of return of very close to 1 (1.300,000 million, divided by 1.290,000) if it saves even one life over the next ten years.
>
> Then again, the next life we save with this project (or the next one) could very easily be some guy like my friend Koch, in which case, the social cost to an entire region and-- as a voice in a national association of professional experts on this stuff we do-- a voice which was heard throughout the halls of Congress and the Pennsylvania legislature as well as his entire region--as a voice for saneness and compassion and re-building our cities into things that work and provides work and a healthy sustainable place for people to work in---is truly a devastating price to pay/
>
> so Koch, this one is for you my friend........nostrovia!
>
> Regards,
> Paul Hamilton
>
>
>
>> On Wed, Jan 12, 2011 at 3:13 PM, Tim Potter <bi...@msu.edu> wrote:
>> Thanks for the tip Rory. I had some difficulty finding the letter to
>> the editor section and eventually found it here for those of you who'd
>> rather not hunt for it:
>> http://npaper-wehaa.com/citypulse/#2011/01/11/?page=4&dpg=1&z=70
>>
>>
>>
>> Tim
>>
>>
>>
>> ********************
>> Tim Potter
>> Manager, Bike Service Center
>> MSU Bikes Service Center
>> B10 Bessey Hall/ Michigan St. University Along the N. River Trail, 300
>> ft. west of Farm Ln. Bridge E. Lansing, MI 48824-1033
>>
>> Ph: 517/432-3400
>> Fax: 517/432-2743
>> Email: bi...@msu.edu
>> Web: www.bikes.msu.edu
>>
>> "Where there is a wheel there is a way."
>>
>> Motto of the Good Roads Movement, early 1900s
>>
>> ************************************
>>
>>
>>
>> From: tc...@googlegroups.com [mailto:tc...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf
>> Of Rory L. Neuner
>> Sent: Wednesday, January 12, 2011 10:28 AM
>>
>> To: tcatc
>> Subject: [tcatc] MMATC Letter in City Pulse
>>
>>
>>
>> Kudos to Nancy Krupiarz and John Lindenmayer for putting together the
>> letter to the editor that appears in today's edition of the Lansing
>> City Pulse on the Waverly Sidewalk Project.
>>
>> Grab a paper copy, or go here:
>>
>> http://www.lansingcitypulse.com/lansing/
>>
>> I'll also note that yesterday, Chad Gamble (Director, Public Service
>> Dept., City of Lansing) and Andy Kilpatrick (Director, Transportation,
>> City of
>> Lansing) attended the monthly Walk and Bike Lansing! Taskforce Meeting
>> to give us an overview of that project. The full scope of the project
>> is greater than I think it being portrayed in the media, and includes
>> improvements slated to be made by both the City of Lansing and the
>> Ingham County Road Commission. If completed, this would be a huge
>> benefit to the walkability / bike-friendliness of Southwest and West
>> sides of the City of Lansing, and to surrounding areas. Work is being
>> done to apply for a Transportation Enhancement grant, as well as other
>> grant programs, which would reduce the local cost to construct.
>> Maintenance is also being discussed.
>>
>> As has been mentioned, a public meeting will be scheduled in February.
>> I'll encourage MMATC members to attend once we have a date.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Rory
>>
>> --
>> Rory L. Neuner
>> ro...@aya.yale.edu
>> 517.515.3535 (cell)
>> 517.580.8415 (office)
>>
>> --
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the
>> Mid-Michigan Active Transportation Coalition Google Groups "tcatc" group.
>> To post to this group, send email to tc...@googlegroups.com Replies
>> are sent to the author of the message NOT to the whole group, so if
>> you want to reply to the whole group be sure that
>> tc...@googlegroups.com is included in the To or CC field.
>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
>> tcatc+un...@googlegroups.com
>> For more options, visit this group at
>> http://groups.google.com/group/tcatc?hl=en
>>
>> --
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the
>> Mid-Michigan Active Transportation Coalition Google Groups "tcatc" group.
>> To post to this group, send email to tc...@googlegroups.com Replies
>> are sent to the author of the message NOT to the whole group, so if
>> you want to reply to the whole group be sure that
>> tc...@googlegroups.com is included in the To or CC field.
>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
>> tcatc+un...@googlegroups.com
>> For more options, visit this group at
>> http://groups.google.com/group/tcatc?hl=en
>>
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Mid-Michigan Active Transportation Coalition Google Groups "tcatc" group.
> To post to this group, send email to tc...@googlegroups.com Replies are sent to the author of the message NOT to the whole group, so if you want to reply to the whole group be sure that tc...@googlegroups.com is included in the To or CC field.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> tcatc+un...@googlegroups.com
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/tcatc?hl=en
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages