Pragmatic Safe Streets Approach - Framing the Problem

 

First, let's double-check our framing context and be clear about goals. In my systems work, I try to always go up until the system I'm interested in, wherever I draw the line, and all of the systems it interfaces to, are in one mental picture. This frames the context for my system. Here, we said we were interested in street safety, which has so many connections it's hard to envision them all. Certainly it impacts all of the local city government, health and safety organizations, and street standards organization. Funding comes from the state and the Feds and gas taxes, so that pulls in still more. All of this is a bit of a red flag: when your system is "tightly coupled" with lots of hard-to-see interconnections, it will be tend to be hard to change, and unintended consequences can easily occur.

Still, we need to make progress, so let's focus on the local city, and along the way be mindful of the tendrils that go further out, and see if we can prune some of those off. Loosely coupled, nicely modular systems with clear interfaces tend to be somewhat more tractable, IF you can manage it.
 

We need a BHAG - Big Hairy Audacious Goal, a north start.  I'm going to go out a limb and say it's AAAA - All Ages and Abilities Accessibility - safe, pleasant, useful, interesting, convenient access to daily needs. with 15-minute neighborhoods. And walkable, bikeable, ow-traffic neighborhoods (LTNs, or woonerfs, ideally). Vibrant and safe multi-mode local streets. Options in depth for most routine needs and trips, with multiple acceptable choices available.

• Better lifestyles: Go read Bruntlett's "Curbing Traffic" - they say it perfectly.

  

• Happier, healthier populace: Happiness is complicated, and perhaps even misplaced as a goal, but a deep-dive I did a few years back indicates happiness is:
  • Increased with social interaction, especially family but also even strangers. This is true even for introverts and curmudgeons who don't really want interaction.
  • Increased with time outdoors
  • Increased with exercise. Useful exercise, like walking to the store, seems to help a lot
  • Decreased by time spent in a car.
  • Decreased heavily by long commutes (over 30 minutes). Long commutes are negative regardless of mode, but appear to be significantly worse by car. Walking and cycling are essentially "free" for 20 minutes, and perhaps even slightly positive.
  • Increased by the general notion of becoming a better version of the person you want to be. For many of, becoming lower-impact on the earth, more active and healthy, and supporting change fits into this.
• Better equity: less regressive for minorities and disadvantaged poor. Cars have been elitist since their inception, and still are. It is a horrid dynamic to essentially require a car to function successfully in society, yet have that car suck cash and sap the ability to build personal wealth.
  
  
• Better financial situation for individuals, with less car spending and better job opportunities. This is the individual "yin" for the city "yang" in the next point. Individuals benefit from access to a larger number of potential jobs. Accessibility is key, and in some cases mobility will be required (this is the drive for commuting, after all)
• Financially stable cities and suburbs (see Marohn's StrongTowns on this). The is the "yang" for the individual "yin" one item up. Cities gain value from effective networks of skilled individuals, as benefitting as their employers gain access to a broader base of potential employees. Denser multi-use inner neighborhoods tend to be significantly more profitable, while sprawling suburbs are perpetual fiscal losers both for the host city and the suburb itself.
• Self-sufficient, responsible youth: This one repeats part of the first point, and the Bruntlett's book covers this nicely. Safe streets means that kids can walk or bike to school, and bike to their own activities, so that they gain autonomy and responsibility earlier and in stages, while parents get some time back.
• Less pollution and better sustainability: this one is pretty obvious, as cars are major emitters of noxious gases but also noise and particulates (tire and brake material). What is a little less well known is that the bicycle is one of the most energy efficient modes of transport known, better even than walking, horse riding, or transit. 

• Much lower climate change impact: this is the global aspect of fossil fuel consumption, with US autos being a major component of our energy use.
• Stronger local businesses: walkable 15-minute neighborhoods are fine-grained, and that supports small family businesses better than suburban sprawl with big-box centers can. It's a virtuous cycle that supports individual wealth, successful business, and fiscally stable cities.
• Fostering of economic complexity: this is a separate personal interest I have for technology innovation, but if you're interested, the brilliant Cesar Hidalgo and insightful Geoffrey West have excellent information.

When undertaking a new effort, it's valuable to identify what we're not doing, too. What's NOT in the goals? What's out of scope?

• Rural: About 85% of Americans now live in suburbs and cities. One of the problems with cars is they are a one-size-fits-all (and therefore none) sort of solution. Rural needs are different, for accessibility, road funding, priorities, and safety. Let's work on the 85% and then see again.
• Highways and Roads - We're talking Streets, and fixing Stroads (see Marohn's work). City core, suburban neighborhoods, and related interactions. We won't cover interstates, high-speed rail, air travel, or even much about roads between city centers.
  

All the above are broad goals that go beyond our stated topic of safety, but as said a few blogs back Safety has to cross-cut our thinking and our organizations.  Street safety is a core part of accessibility, and it's probably the most important aspect since without safety no system will persist, but it is also inextricably entwined with the rest of the broader city system (as is generally the case with complex systems having thorny problems) so we know we won't fix safety without changing the city in other ways.

Let's plan to lean on our Lean Thinking, especially the fundamentals: Respect the People; Continuously Improve. One view of this is "easy on the person, hard on the system", as we should realize that individuals are deeply steeped in generations of car culture, and we should not blame average citizen drivers for emotional vesting in the status quo (thought we won't give them a pass either!)

As we look at our cities and our street safety, let's think for a bit about who benefits from the status quo, and who does not. Who pockets the gains? Who carries the costs, in terms of financial impacts and personal risk? Who has priority or advantage? Who is disadvantaged? Who suffers most overall?

Let's think about the responsibility of the populace (individually and collectively), of the government (elected) and hired (bureaucrats and staff), first responders (fire, police, ambulance), and of corporations and companies (employers). How about philanthropists? Activists? 

 
Who is the buck-stops-here person for local street safety in your city? For general health? For crime abatement? For health emergencies? What influence do these people have for how the city is run?

How do the various city departments work together for safety? Do they do so at all? What is the proper role of zoning?

How do we change a culture of vehicular mobility into AAA Accessibility?

Are there reasons the system is at it is, both good reasons that yet persist as well as perhaps bad reasons that should be deliberately un-done? Are there small things that can have an outsized impact, perhaps by initiating a small bit of movement that then gains momentum?

Next time we'll dig into the structure of city safety, and who is responsible.