Read on Twitter
So, I am a week into my self-education on safe street design. This is my current understanding (this is nuts!):
Cars are #1 killer of kids in the US. As many people are killed by cars as by guns.
Most of it is needless death. We simply don’t build safe streets. 1/
Cars are #1 killer of kids in the US. As many people are killed by cars as by guns.
Most of it is needless death. We simply don’t build safe streets. 1/
Netherlands streets in the 70s were 20% more dangerous. Today US streets are 50% more dangerous than Netherlands. That’s tens of thousands of deaths a year difference.
How? The Netherlands started building safe streets in the 70s. (Google “Stop de Kindermoord” movement.) 2/
How? The Netherlands started building safe streets in the 70s. (Google “Stop de Kindermoord” movement.) 2/
Want to build safe streets in SF? Guess what. It’s not allowed.
Cities in the US are bound by federal design standards from the 1920s (the “MUTCD”). If they stray from these standards they risk losing immunity from being sued.
The standards are asinine, braindead!
/3
Cities in the US are bound by federal design standards from the 1920s (the “MUTCD”). If they stray from these standards they risk losing immunity from being sued.
The standards are asinine, braindead!
/3
Example: What is the right way to set a speed limit in a city? Remove all speed limits, see how fast people want to drive, and go with 80% of that.
Oh is that speed unsafe? Too bad. Those are the rules. /4
Oh is that speed unsafe? Too bad. Those are the rules. /4
Want to add a crosswalk? You get a crosswalk when three pedestrians are injured per year. Then you can have your crosswalk.
Confounding all of this, the street design field is mostly done effectively by pen and paper... /5
Confounding all of this, the street design field is mostly done effectively by pen and paper... /5
Like some planning departments literally use pen and paper. But the advanced on (as far as I know) are just using design tools like CAD.
There appears to be very little modeling and use of data. I assume when modeling done, its kind of a one off and expensive static asset. /6
There appears to be very little modeling and use of data. I assume when modeling done, its kind of a one off and expensive static asset. /6
Well why does this matter? Because for what little analysis I am finding, it’s all backwards looking.
One example — many traffic planners believe trees / obstacles on streets in cities are inherently dangerous. Why? Because when people crash, they often crash into them. /7
One example — many traffic planners believe trees / obstacles on streets in cities are inherently dangerous. Why? Because when people crash, they often crash into them. /7
But it turns out streets that have trees / obstacles “calm” traffic, drivers drive more carefully, and this prevents collisions. Removing them does the opposite (more dangerous).
But if you are designing with pen and paper without access to modeling, this would be confusing. /8
But if you are designing with pen and paper without access to modeling, this would be confusing. /8
I mean this is classic “bullet hole misconception” but this is 2020, not WWII.
http://www.naturewithin.info/Roadside/TransSafety_JAPA.pdf
/9
http://www.naturewithin.info/Roadside/TransSafety_JAPA.pdf
/9
Ok so now you are thinking, well this must be a conspiracy! Big oil and big car industry must have their lobbyists all over it.
Not really as far as I can tell.
There is a conspiracy but of a way more infuriating variety... /10
Not really as far as I can tell.
There is a conspiracy but of a way more infuriating variety... /10
The standards body for street safety ( @ncutcd) is “captured” by a ~300 boomer white guys who don’t really care about safety. They think their job is to make cars go fast.
And yes, BIPOC communities are where unsafe streets kill the most. That’s how we design our cities. /11
And yes, BIPOC communities are where unsafe streets kill the most. That’s how we design our cities. /11
So here we have a case of needless mass killing via engineering ineptitude and generally not giving a shit about the impact of the decisions you make that end up costing lives in communities you don’t live in.
Like I said, this is nuts.
/12
Like I said, this is nuts.
/12
But *if* you happen to live in a city where the planning department IS enlightened and want to make safe streets, you are still probably hosed.
There are ways to get around much of the MUTCD.
But then you have to deal with the street safety equivalent of NIMBYs.. /13
There are ways to get around much of the MUTCD.
But then you have to deal with the street safety equivalent of NIMBYs.. /13
Well who would try to block street safety improvements? People who love parking and driving of course.. but they usually aren’t the hardest obstacles..
A) Fire Departments often fight street safety. Why? Because they too want to drive big trucks through cities fast. /14
A) Fire Departments often fight street safety. Why? Because they too want to drive big trucks through cities fast. /14
B) City institutions with muscle who don’t want to be affected by change. Here in SF it’s our museums (Cal Academy, de Young) who are the biggest obstacles.
C) Merchants who mistakenly believe that customers don’t want to walk or bike. (Safe streets in fact grow local biz.) /15
C) Merchants who mistakenly believe that customers don’t want to walk or bike. (Safe streets in fact grow local biz.) /15
Ok so do you want some hope? I got some hope.
Word is @PeteButtigieg wants to blow up the MUTCD. That’d be huge.
Also, nobody AFAIK has tried just running the Stop de kindermoord playbook in an American city. We are going to do that: http://KidSafeSF.com . /16
Word is @PeteButtigieg wants to blow up the MUTCD. That’d be huge.
Also, nobody AFAIK has tried just running the Stop de kindermoord playbook in an American city. We are going to do that: http://KidSafeSF.com . /16
I see street safety as a sister movement with YIMBYsm.
All of this is just good old-fashioned civic urbanism.
But I like the politics of street safety much more than housing. Way less contentious. And given the lives at stake, a palpably moral issue. /16
All of this is just good old-fashioned civic urbanism.
But I like the politics of street safety much more than housing. Way less contentious. And given the lives at stake, a palpably moral issue. /16
Yes, most City government "Vision Zero" programs are failures today. But for obvious and fixable reasons. I think our prospects of success are quite high.
So wish us luck. Or better yet, help! Follow up here and we’ll get you engaged.
So wish us luck. Or better yet, help! Follow up here and we’ll get you engaged.
