Rumble strips are a misuse of funds | Letter to the Editor


August 21, 2012 · 12:49 PM

In portraying their decision to continue installing rumble strips that defy Federal Highway Administration and Washington State DOT safety guidance, county officials present their new plan as a “compromise.”

The High Risk Rural Road Program (HRRRP) grant funds used for this project have a very simple, clear rule: Rumble strips must “not adversely affect the safety or mobility of bicyclists, pedestrians, and the disabled.”

HRRRP funds simply cannot be used for rumble strips that create any hazard for bicyclists or any access difficulties for the disabled. There’s no “unless local officials think the adverse effect is a reasonable compromise” clause in that rule.

Calling their design a “compromise” is, in my opinion, an admission to misuse of federal funds.

 

— Joshua Putnam

 

Comment on this story.

COMMENTING RULES: We encourage an open exchange of ideas in our online community, but we ask you to follow our guidelines for respecting community standards. In a nutshell, don't say anything you wouldn't want your mother to read. Please see our FAQ if you have questions or concerns about using Facebook to comment.

So keep your comments:

  • Civil
  • Smart
  • On-topic
  • Free of profanity

We ask that all participants own their words by logging in with their Facebook account. It's a simple process that will take seconds and helps keep our comments free of trolls, cranks, and “drive-by” commenters. We reserve the right to remove comments from anyone using screen names, pseudonyms or false identities. Please refer to our Terms of Use for full detail on participating on our site.