In my last post, I began to write about an on-line
neighborhood chat on the subject of teenager drivers traveling with excess
haste on residential streets. However, I
was distracted by the participants in the chat, many of whom belong to my
generation, calling for reduced freedoms for high school students. The advocacy was sufficiently unexpected that
it took me down a path of memories of student battles fought and student freedoms
won when I was young.
Today, I’ll
stay on topic.
The on-line
chat, which happened during the run-up to a meeting between the administration
of the nearby high school and concerned neighbors, was an attempt to list the
topics that the neighbors wanted on the agenda.
The most significant concern, by far, was speeding and other aggressive
driving behavior in the surrounding neighborhood.
Being a
resident of the neighborhood, I can confirm that the issue is legitimate. I don’t find the driving to be so obnoxious
that it affects my everyday life, but there are a handful of drivers who
consistently drive with unreasonable aggressiveness. A neighbor recently told me of being passed
on her street while she was driving near the speed limit, a driving decision that
is clearly inappropriate in a residential neighborhood, especially a walkable residential
neighborhood.
Having identified
driving as the principal worry, solutions were offered by the parties. Someone suggested a need for speed
bumps. Someone else correctly noted that
most fire departments don’t allow speed bumps because they slow emergency
vehicle response times.
The
conversation then turned to increased policing, either through the use of local
police or through the neighbors reporting license plate numbers to the school.
Before
wandering off into questions of closed campuses and dress codes, someone stated
that, student driving concerns aside, it nonetheless remained true that the
streets had been built for cars.
Although I
didn’t have the time to participate in the conversation, there many comments I
wanted to interject. This is my chance.
Vertical
Traffic Calming: Speed bumps belong to a group of traffic management
tools generally known as vertical traffic calming. Related tools are speed humps, which are
widened speed bumps that can be driven safely at speeds of 20 mph or more
depending on the design, and speed tables, which are expanded areas of raised
pavement, often at drop-off points for stores, and are intended to make drivers
feel as if they are in the pedestrians’ realm, rather than the pedestrians
being in their realm.
It’s true
that fire departments generally oppose vertical traffic calming on the grounds
that it slows emergency vehicles.
Personally, I find the opposition is a fine example of giving infinite weight to one decision element,
emergency response time, over another decision element, slowing everyday
traffic.
Of course,
bringing more reason to fire department policies will be a long and difficult
battle. In the meantime, we can observe
the irony of fire departments arguing for public safety by arguing against
measures that would slow traffic. I love
a good bit of irony.
Horizontal
Traffic Calming: Although still not a favorite of fire departments,
horizontal traffic calming is more likely to gain approval and can often be more
successful at reducing speeds. It was a
disappointing, but not unexpected, that the chat participants didn’t even
mention horizontal traffic calming.
Although effective, horizontal traffic calming measures are not among
the tools of which most people think.
Typical
horizontal traffic calming measurements are reduced lane widths through paint
or relocated curb lines, bulb-outs at intersections, reduced curb radii at
intersections, and even parking that alternates between sides of the street,
resulting in a chicane for drivers to traverse.
The SMART
Codes that many cities, including Petaluma, now use to regulate their downtowns
include a number of horizontal traffic calming measures. One can visit the Theatre District of
Petaluma to observe lesser lane widths and bulb-outs. The recent Petaluma Boulevard road diet also
includes horizontal calming.
Horizontal
calming is important because it induces drivers to reduce speeds by making them
feel uncomfortable at higher speeds. As California
speed limits are set by the actual measured speeds of drivers,
horizontal calming can also lead to reduced speed limits.
And reducing
average speed is important because it makes the street more safe while also limiting
how fast much the occasional reckless driver may travel. Horizontal calming, and the resulting reduced
speed limits, are key elements of the European Twenty is Plenty movement, which argues
that 20 mph is an appropriate speed for most neighborhoods, and the parallel
Vision Zero movement, which targets zero pedestrian death through numerous measures
including lower vehicle speeds. Vision
Zero has been implemented in New York City with a widespread speed limit of 25
mph.
The Twenty
is Plenty and Vision Zero movements grew out of the fact that we’ve
consistently built streets that can be comfortably driven at speeds in excess
of the speeds for which we had hoped. Perhaps
it’s my sense of humor, but I find it funny that one of the biggest problems
encountered during a recent cross-country driverless car experiment was the
frustration of other drivers that the driverless car wouldn’t exceed the posted speed limit.
Also, slower
speeds have multiple benefits, from reduced stopping distances to increased
awareness of other street users, as described in this article from Minneapolis about the benefits
of reducing travel speed by just ten mph.
If we want
safer streets, we need slower travel speeds.
And slower travel speeds don’t need speed bumps when bulb-outs and
striping will work just fine.
Policing:
Policing can be a valid strategy to reduce traffic speeds, but it’s expensive
and its effectiveness often has a limited duration. The sight of a cruiser parked at the curb
with an officer observing traffic or of a motorist awaiting a ticket will slow
traffic that day and maybe for a couple of days afterward, but speeds will soon
return to prior levels.
Most of us
have probably observed this phenomenon on freeways where the sight of a police cruiser
causes the average speed of the car pack to drop from 75 mph to 65, only to
return to 75 within a few miles.
Policing is
a bandage on streets that weren’t designed consistent with the intended travel
speeds.
Street
Uses: Lastly, I want to visit the comment that streets were made for
cars. It’s a particularly ironic, and
incorrect, comment in my neighborhood.
I don’t know
when the nearby streets were first paved.
But I know that my neighbor’s home was built in 1918, with my home following
two years later. And I don’t think
either home was among the first in the neighborhood.
It seems
likely that the streets were first laid out in 1910 or before. And in 1910, the predominant street users
would have been adults walking or bicycling to work or to errands, children
playing, and horse-drawn carts delivering milk or hauling agricultural products
to market. If there were any cars, they
were likely putt-putting along under a speed limit of 10 mph or less.
It wasn’t
until the 1930s that automotive industry campaigned to dedicate streets
primarily to cars, including inventing the word jaywalking.
I’m not
arguing that cars should be excluded from streets. They serve a legitimate purpose and make our
lives more convenient. But the balance
between cars and other possible users of the street has been renegotiated in
the past. There would be nothing wrong
with another renegotiation, including one that slows cars to make the street friendlier
for all.
I understand
that most neighborhood discussions about traffic speeds quickly turn to speed
bumps and police. But there is a wealth
of other strategies that work better and create better communities. We only need to become more knowledgeable.
Next time, I’ll
write about the basic stuff of streets, asphalt. Petaluma recently lost a sustained battle
against a new asphalt plant in town.
Years ago, I weighed in on that controversy. Now, I want to revisit my old words and to
note that others are supporting a related position that I took at the time.
Schedule
In recent
months, Petaluma Urban Chat has become consumed with the question of the Fairgrounds,
resulting in extra meetings and changing locations. But, our standard meeting time and place remained
the second Tuesday of the month, 5:30pm, at the Aqus Café. This month, that date will fall on April 14th.
Let’s gather at Aqus, 2nd and H Streets in Petaluma for an update on the Fairgrounds
effort and to discuss future Urban Chat topics.
All are welcome.
As always,
your questions or comments will be appreciated.
Please comment below or email me.
And thanks for reading. - Dave Alden (davealden53@comcast.net)
No comments:
Post a Comment