When is a diet not a diet but an artery clogging activity? The answer appears to be when the Seattle Department of Transportation decides to put busy arterial city streets on the "road diet."

A "road diet" is what the city says it wants to consider on 35th Avenuc Southwest because of speeding traffic and pedestrian dangers. That will mean that four heavily used lanes of traffic on 35th will become two lanes. As explained in Tim St. Clair's story on Page One, the idea would be to make pedestrians safer because they have to cross fewer lanes of traffic.

There has been a spate of pedestrian accidents in crosswalks across the city of late incuding a fatal on Admiral Way two weeks ago.

The city seems to view crosswalks as dangerous to people because they assume that cars will stop. The transportation folks also rightly say that when crossing more than one lane of vehicles, there are times when cars in the less visible lane will endanger people crossing the street.

But out city transportation staffers say unless the public permits the "road diet" at selected places, it will take out crosswalks not controlled by a traffic lights. The idea is people will walk to the appropriate traffic light intersection to cross. Uh huh! That is a hard pill to swallow in a town where jaywalking is a participatory and spectator sport.

Seattle seems to be way ahead of the curve on this sort of innovation, pushed by national traffic gurus.

Where are the studies and the facts to back up this idea? Where has such a "smallifyng" of streets proved to save lives?

What about the state law, which trumps anything the city ordinances say, that makes every intersection a virtual crosswalk? Why can we not have more lighted and button-actuated crosswalks in high pedestrian traffic areas? Can we also not embark upon a program of education whereby schools, churches, public and private agencies help teach people how to cross streets where traffic is heavy?

This city has for years been trying to push people out of cars and to bicycles, buses and carpools. A few have grabbed onto this idea with gusto, but most have not and continue to drive to work and play. Should we abandon crosswalks because some office-bound "expert" figures they are dangerous or should we find ways (and money) to make the crosswalk safer for our people?

Let's observe reality folks, not utopian ideas that only the very few will accept.

-Jack Mayne