Traffic Calming does not work
The city of Vancouver is undergrowing phenomenal growth, as are many other large cities around the world. The Broadway Plan in Vancouver alone may result in as many as 100,000 new citizens on the south side of the city. That means tens of thousands more vehicles on the roads, and while countless numbers of cars will be added to an already congested traffic grid no new roads are going to be built. Congestion will soon turn to mayhem.
Years ago I wrote a cover story for the Vancouver Courier revealing that “traffic calming” as we know has actually increased vehicular accidents, according to the Canada Safety Council, who keep track of such statistics. The reaction to my article was fast and furious, just like the way some drivers behave. Letters to the editor condemned my article. One former city councillor labelled me a “contrarian” trying to stir the pot. As a dedicated cyclist very interested in the topic of traffic safety, I pointed out in the article there are better ways to reduce traffic accidents than just to build endless barriers that serve to anger drivers.
As the saying goes, a “a picture is worth a thousand words.” Have a look at the photos included in an article published in Strong Towns.org. Making streets safer means building smart streets and avoiding political expediency that sees voters clamouring for traffic to be moved to someone else’s neighbourhood. Remember, the accident you avoid could be your own.
https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2023/9/15/how-to-use-optical-narrowing-to-make-a-street-safer
Traffic calming creates more problems than it solves
Vancouver Courier
Friday, July 3, 2009.
Although “traffic calming” continues to expand in Vancouver, long-term beneficial results remain impossible to ascertain because no studies have been done. Initially, the societal benefits were supposed to reduce collision frequency and severity, increase the safety for non-motorized users of streets, enhance the street environment and increase the quality of community life. These days, the crusade against the use of automobiles may be added to that list, but it appears that trying to force people out of their cars, whether closing lanes for bicycles or the installation of barricades, has never worked in any city.
Traffic calming in Vancouver harkens back to the 1970s, when the campaign against freeways was successful but no clear public transit alternatives were offered. The increase in population forced drivers to take side streets to get to their destinations. When drivers started to use back alleys as regular thoroughfares, the traffic calming campaign kicked into high gear, starting with the West End.
Brent Granby, president of the West End Residents Association (WERA), says traffic calming in his neighbourhood still needs to go a lot farther. Granby cites several streets and intersections in the West End that are not safe for pedestrians or the elderly. He claims that traffic on Pacific Boulevard does not adhere to the speed limits and, among other initiatives, WERA would like to see a lowering of the speed limit on residential streets.
“I think the engineering department has a built-in cultural bias towards the automobile,” he says. “We complain about certain intersections and they respond that ICBC stats indicate few accidents on that particular corner. We talk to city hall about lowering the speed limit in certain neighbourhoods and councillor Suzanne Anton responds about the cost of placing new signs.”
Traffic calming initially started in the West End, first with speed bumps, then speed humps, speed tables, and speed cushions. Citywide, narrowing traffic lanes by increasing the width of sidewalks and adding bike lanes followed, then chicanes (artificial curves), raised pedestrian intersections, curb extensions, bus bulges, intersection shoulders, median diverters, cobblestones, one-way streets, yield barriers, chokers (reducing two lanes to one), cul-de-sacs, boom barriers, median diverters, median islands and traffic circles. Many Vancouver neighbourhoods like the West End, Kitsilano, Shaughnessy, Strathcona, Mount Pleasant and Grandview-Woodlands now resemble medieval mazes where you need a map to find your way through.
Initial criticism of traffic calming came from emergency responders such as firefighters and paramedics, who cited an increase in response time. Granby says firefighters in the West End still complain about barriers and impediments. Other complaints came from drivers and pedestrians who suffered vehicle damage and injury (mainly back and neck injuries) from speed bumps, and city crews doing street maintenance. Other early criticisms included installation costs and restricted neighbourhood access to delivery personnel. Some early critics worried about “traffic migration,” shifting traffic and accidents to other neighbourhoods. Over the years, however, most people adjusted and life went on, but now that so much of Vancouver has been “calmed,” new and negative issues are emerging.
A recent report posted on Drivers.com shows that traffic calming has no effect on the accident rate per capita per year. In fact, the accident rate per unit distance driven has risen. Critics suggest a hidden agenda that has little to do with safety and more to do with nimbyism. Such arguments, however, carry little weight among citizens focused on their own neighbourhoods. “WERA has been working on a lot of developments,” Granby says. “We are looking not just at safety but also the perception of safety. Some people, like the elderly, are afraid to cross some streets.”
Other neighbourhood associations and thousands of individuals across Vancouver reflect WERA’s concerns. Traffic calming remains politically popular and there is no end of community activists clamouring for more, and any municipal politician looking to get elected is listening, as are the bureaucrats.
In his 11th floor office at city hall, transportation engineer Scott Edwards heads up the Greenways and Neighbourhood division of the engineering department. Traffic calming comes under his jurisdiction. The hunger for installation of even more devices across the city is never-ending, he admits, and his staff can’t keep up with the demand.
“We get complaints every day, usually from individuals who want to know how they can get something installed in their own neighbourhood,” he says. “We have our own tool kit we use to study the complaints, and we won’t necessarily act if we don’t think it’s needed. There is a process to undergo (for the installation of any device) and we follow that closely.”
Costs range from a few hundred dollars for a traffic sign, to $1,000 for a speed bump, and up to $40,000 for a traffic circle. The city’s traffic calming budget is $4 million for the next three years, but that’s just the tip of the iceberg. The greenways and cycling budget is $5 million over the next three years, which will also contain traffic calming initiatives.
Then there is the budget for collector and arterial streets, which will likely include more traffic calming. The city also has a separate budget for building corner bulges and pedestrian accesses. Edwards does not have an exact figure on the annual or cumulative costs, but a rough estimate — estimating a figure of perhaps $5 to $10 million per year — might surpass $200 million since the “calming” concept caught on in the 1980s. The city installs as many devices as its budget will allow, but does not have an accurate count available. Installation is based on demand; some neighbourhoods, says Edwards, have very few complaints.
What other tools does city hall have in its kit to address traffic safety aside from turning the entire city into a giant maze? “We are looking at maybe lowering the speed limit from 50 to 40 kilometres per hour on residential streets. We are working with the provincial government on changing the Motor Vehicle Act,” Edwards says.
Some cities have started removing several types of barriers and are now looking at more creative alternatives. Vancouver has often followed the model set by Portland, and Ellen Vanderslice of the Portland Office of Transportation names David Engwicht, a writer and self-proclaimed “social innovator,” as a visionary whose work deserves public attention. Vanderslice says Engwicht’s book Mental Speed Bumps, The Smarter Way to Tame Traffic clearly shows that “traffic is a social problem, not a design problem.”
Engwicht suggests that “we cannot build our way out of this problem;” new, radical and creative ways are needed to “achieve an outbreak of civility” on our neighborhood streets.
“I have conducted dozens of Instant Street Reclaiming events in cities all over the world,” Engwicht writes. “We never close the street to traffic or put up barricades. The rationale is quite simple. We are demonstrating how neighbourhood activity and car movement can coexist spontaneously in the same space. Uncertainty forces motorists to slow down without them even being aware that they are slowing down. Intrigue and uncertainty are twins that keep us engaged with our immediate surroundings, to make us drive slower. The more neighbourhoods that build the social life of their street, and the more prevalent this social life, the greater the uncertainty that is created in the motorist’s mind even when there is no social activity in the street.”
Signs of any sort depersonalize any space, making the street feel anonymous, Engwicht writes. The subtext is that no one in particular owns a space, so motorists no longer have to act responsibly. Some signs also treat motorists as idiots. Take, for example, Keep Right signs. “If we really believe that mo torists are so stupid they don’t know which side of the street to drive then they should not have a license. Treat people like an idiot and potential troublemaker, and they usually fulfill your expectations,” Engwicht writes.
How successful has traffic calming been in its initial quest to create more public safety? Not very, according to senior officials at the Canada Safety Council. “To plan and implement traffic calming measures is expensive yet their repercussions have not been seriously studied,” spokesperson Raynald Marchand says. “Often they are installed as a quick fix in response to political pressure, when other safety alternatives would be more effective.”
The CSC says that, for instance, stop signs were designed to control right-of-way, but “rolling stops” have become common practice. Worse, many people now ignore stop signs completely. Safety experts and educators fear so much harm has been done from over-signage, according to the CSC, that respect for the stop sign as a prime traffic control device has almost disappeared.
Turning the road into an obstacle course also creates road rage, says the CSC, leading to dangerous moving violations. Frustrated motorists make dangerous turns or run red lights. Drivers swerve around speed humps into bicycle lanes to avoid damage to their vehicle. Some studies on traffic calming do show reduction in traffic volume and speeds and moderate crash reductions, admits Marchand, but they do not assess to what extent traffic, speeding and collisions were diverted to other residential streets or added to roads already congested.