Cities Should Handle Car Crashes Like They Handle Frat Houses
Usually, when people are faced with an unsafe street, the default response or initial proposed solution is to increase enforcement. Increased enforcement includes both additional police officers and tools like speed cameras or red light cameras. This is the default response because people are already accustomed to calling the police when there is a lack of order. However, traffic enforcement only responds to the symptoms of a larger problem, not the root causes.
Time and time again, I hear people saying that streets would be safer if only the police increased enforcement. If the police just started ticketing more, people would change their behavior, they insist. However, studies show that, while folks do comply with active enforcement, they return to risky behavior and speeding as soon as that enforcement leaves.
This is not a sustainable pattern because it fails to address the root cause.
Police departments are asked to do a lot of really important things, including maintaining public safety and order, enforcing laws, and preventing and investigating criminal activity. These responsibilities require specialized training and equipment so police are prepared to respond to the most serious of needs. Setting up a speed trap to force drivers to slow down on a stroad is not really the best use of their time. There are a lot of issues in every community that would benefit more from this finite resource.
This is not a new idea. Many communities run into situations where their efforts to prevent disruptions to public safety and order end up wasting police resources. When those disruptions are recurring and the cost of enforcement exceeds the resources available, the community does simple things to curb those behaviors. Generally, they start to discuss the root causes and where they can be proactive, and the city council usually passes an ordinance to address the root cause of the disruption.
Let's look at an example of how communities can address the root cause of a problem that threatens public safety and order.
An extreme example that comes to my mind is a college town that transforms on football weekend. These are the schools that make the list of the top 10 party schools, where either the fraternities or the near-campus housing become a rowdy mess of mischief. These are the places where tailgating turns into all-night parties which conclude in the wee hours with dumpster fires and burning sofas.
These are the schools that make national news as a result of this unrest. When these places emerge, people call on the police department to step in and restore order. These calls usually come at the height of the unrest, requiring an enormous amount of resources to maintain some semblance of order. People are asking the police to manage the problem at its peak when the root of the situation was initiated many hours before.
The police department will respond to these calls once or twice, but if there is a pattern, they’ll go in front of a city council to request assistance.
This is when the city councils in these college towns begin to address the root causes by passing new ordinances and mobilizing existing municipal departments. They may pass ordinances to alter certain behaviors like restricting alcohol sales or limiting where football fans can tailgate. They may improve property maintenance by requiring rental registrations and compelling landlords to maintain their rentals through code enforcement. Cities might also mobilize city services by increasing the frequency of trash pickups prior to the weekend or by being more vigilant with parking regulations.
All of these ordinances cost nothing to pass and require very few resources to implement. More importantly, these small actions free up resources that could be more efficiently deployed throughout the community. These communities recognize the contributing factors of a local struggle and are responding to these root causes. College towns have figured this process out, and this is an approach that can be repeated at scale across North America.
I use college towns and party schools as an example because everyone can agree that alcohol-fueled parties that result in near riots and dumpster fires are a serious problem. Everyone also can recognize that it's easier to resolve the problem before it occurs than to address it at four in the morning. Trying to address the symptoms when the problem is at its peak is a futile effort.
There is a significant problem with the streets in all communities. Although the problem has become normalized, it is no less serious than an out-of-control college kegger. For both problems, communities are asking police departments to address the symptoms at the problem's peak instead of taking the time to explore the contributing factors and address them at the source.
Many contributing factors are resulting in roads being unsafe. The top contributing factor found in the Crash Analysis Studio was speed. Drivers feel comfortable driving fast because North American roadways are designed for the movement of cars above all else. Understanding these root causes gives cities the ability to address the problem before it starts.
A first step is for city councils to adopt resolutions that safety for all users is the highest priority for municipal staff, above all other design priorities. It costs nothing for a city council to share this vision and modify its development standards in this way.
This type of bold direction can then mobilize existing municipal departments to use their existing resources to undertake the next smallest steps towards safer streets. This might begin with changes in signalization or adding paint and bollards to an overly wide intersection. Over time, as roads are repaved or as development emerges, these changes can be made permanent.
Safer streets can be implemented through simple incremental approaches so communities don't have to wait for multimillion-dollar projects or large government earmarks. Cities can do this with simple things like paint and cones. They can change signal lights. They can do all different types of things on roadways that result in the speed they desire.
By designing the physical environment, cities can solve the root causes of their problems and reserve the resources of enforcement to address other higher-priority concerns within the community.
So, when you are complaining about a roadway because it's unsafe or has high speeds, I would encourage you to explore a different approach. Look at the ways your city deals with the root causes of other issues in your community. What rules and standards did your local government adopt to address these problems? And what similar action could they take to address the unsafe streets in your community?
By asking these questions, cities can take the hundreds of thousands of dollars that would be dedicated to enforcement and better utilize that to make their community's streets safer and more productive.
Edward Erfurt is the Director of Community Action at Strong Towns. He is a trained architect and passionate urban designer with over 20 years of public- and private-sector experience focused on the management, design, and successful implementation of development and placemaking projects that enrich the tapestry of place. He believes in community-focused processes that are founded on diverse viewpoints, a concern for equity, and guided through time-tested, traditional town-planning principles and development patterns that result in sustainable growth with the community character embraced by the communities which he serves.