Apologies for the onslaught of traffic speed-related articles this week, but this one from Yale Climate Connections is particularly clear, comprehensive, and useful. Just a reminder that about...
Apologies for the onslaught of traffic speed-related articles this week, but this one from Yale Climate Connections is particularly clear, comprehensive, and useful.
Just a reminder that about 43,000 people die every single year in the United States alone from absolutely, completely, universally, undeniably preventable traffic collisions, and that number is on the rise.
This is not to mention the myriad health impacts that driving has on people. Greenhouse gas emissions (smog) are the most obvious ones, but a growing body of evidence suggests that tire particulate matter (microplastics) are toxic to human health. These factors all contribute to asthma, lung cancer, and premature death. Various cardiovascular conditions are the leading cause of premature death in the US, and transportation emissions are a major contributing factor.
20 mph is the maximum safe speed anywhere pedestrians would realistically walk and cyclists would realistically peddle. Not 25 mph. Not 30 mph. Twenty miles per hour—that’s 30 km/h. We have to normalize slow driving in cities and explicitly criticize policies that enable speeds above that.
Cities across the U.S. are following Seattle’s lead, with speed limits dropping from Denver and Minneapolis to Washington, D.C., and Hoboken. Although these changes are motivated by the need to reduce deaths and injuries from car crashes, there’s a growing recognition that they also benefit the climate.
Transportation is the largest source of emissions in the United States, and passenger vehicles are the leading offenders within the sector. Electric vehicles can help reduce these emissions, but they’re not a silver bullet — many experts agree that meeting climate targets will also require car use to fall. As a result, it’s vital for governments to help people meet their needs by walking, cycling, and taking public transportation (which often requires traveling on foot to a transit stop).
Vehicle speed plays a major role in [fatal] incidents, with faster motion leading to more and deadlier crashes. Higher speeds are especially dangerous for people outside cars. According to the AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety, a pedestrian struck by a vehicle traveling at 23 miles per hour faces a 10% risk of death. At 46 miles per hour, this rises to 90%.
And some discussion on the “85th percentile rule,” which has been the target of criticism in the new edition of the Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices for its obvious safety issues and fundamental disconnection from reality:
The traditional [pseudoscience] method [the “85th percentile rule”] essentially allows drivers themselves to determine speed limits. In this model — still used in much of the country — transportation officials measure the speed at which all cars on a particular road are moving during a given period with no traffic congestion, then determine the speed above which the fastest 15% of this group are traveling. This number (rounded) then becomes the new speed limit for the road. However, since some drivers travel above the posted limit, this approach causes speed limits to rise over time.
I’m surprised how many people in transportation infrastructure and policy circles are talking about this rule in particular. I thought it was too arcane to highlight prominently, even for safety enthusiasts. But it’s good that people are paying attention to the BANALITY OF EVIL that traffic engineers knowingly enforce in our cities.
On a completely selfish and indefensible note, I honestly want ideas on how I can live with 30 km/hr. And I'm rich ++ I have a stable job in a money making field, in good health, some decades...
On a completely selfish and indefensible note, I honestly want ideas on how I can live with 30 km/hr. And I'm rich ++ I have a stable job in a money making field, in good health, some decades before retirement, and have some savings.
I live 200+ km away from my nearest airport and 50+ km from groceries. I flew 8 times last year across the continent. These are crimes against the planet and the future generations. I know that.
But the alternate, which I desperately want, is to live near aging family in Vancouver that I was visiting, within walking distance from them and from groceries. And to continue to have 0km commute by working from home.
That option is limited by housing: the closest approximation to my current housing situation, moved to Vancouver, costs 4.8 million dollars. The "farm land" is sitting behind these ridiculous mansions that belong to people who don't intend to farm whatsoever, paying nearly no property tax to deni local people of food.
Let's compromise to "merely" 1ac of land just under a million, in a century old fixer upper. 82km away. If everyone in Vancouver drives 30km/hr the congestion will mean I won't get to family in less than 3 hours each way. That's a lot of pollination as well.
Let's compromise and give up on land and our pets and our entire current way of life and squeeze into two bedrooms across the street from my family, mental health impacts be darned. Half a mil.
Give up on land holding value and buy leasehold building with questionable future that can go to $0 in 20 years: $300k plus $800+ a month in maintenance fees.
Give up on ownership entirely, subject my family to constant cycles of renoviction: $3000/month for that privilege.
I can't afford any of these options.
If anyone asks me, I think the biggest hurdles to sustainable living are completely fixable: affordable housing, local food security, basic income so people can stop commuting. If families can stay fairly close without the kids having to move out of state or overseas to make a meager living, we'd see a lot more care for seniors and quality of life improvements as well.
But as long as we live to work and pay mortgages to banks, the driving and pollution is how we stay alive under this awful system.
The 30 km/h limit isn't for all roads, and nor should it be. It's for downtown and residential areas. Your 82 km journey should use a number of arterial roads, rural roads, and highways, whose...
The 30 km/h limit isn't for all roads, and nor should it be. It's for downtown and residential areas. Your 82 km journey should use a number of arterial roads, rural roads, and highways, whose speed limits aren't going to change.
Most of the ideal areas for such a change are already congested and/or have numerous stop signs and traffic lights. The average travel speed won't change much and is much safer for pedestrians.
I would still like to see significantly lower speed limits on collector/arterial roads, but I would put up with 20 mph (30 km/h) for local roads and 30 mph (50 km/h) on collectors/arterials...
I would still like to see significantly lower speed limits on collector/arterial roads, but I would put up with 20 mph (30 km/h) for local roads and 30 mph (50 km/h) on collectors/arterials adjacent to local roads.
Collectors/arterials still have significant pedestrian activity and are the source of most pedestrian deaths in the US right now. Currently, speed limits on such roads is anywhere from 35 to 55 mph, which is way too fast.
It is obviously unrealistic to set a 20 mph speed limit on an actual highway. It is also pointless because there are few or no pedestrians on highways. In these cases it is appropriate to drive at higher speeds.
I think with proper city design, pedestrian traffic could be diverted away, or at least properly separated, from arterial roads which would allow for a better experience for both pedestrians and...
I think with proper city design, pedestrian traffic could be diverted away, or at least properly separated, from arterial roads which would allow for a better experience for both pedestrians and drivers without the need to reduce speed limits.
Of course, that's certainly not something that will just come with changing a sign - it'll require a lot more investment and planning.
Here in Ontario, Canada, most arterial roads are 60 km/h and very rarely 70 km/h. You don't see 55 mph (90 km/h) until getting to highways or rural roads (which come with their own set of issues for pedestrians).
Some of the difficulty here is that in the US, most arterials in cities are also heavily populated. I don’t know how it’s even possible to divert pedestrian traffic from these places short of...
Some of the difficulty here is that in the US, most arterials in cities are also heavily populated. I don’t know how it’s even possible to divert pedestrian traffic from these places short of putting all car roads underground or building pedestrian bridges at every intersection.
I would classify a lot of these as “stroads,” though some have been subject to traffic calming measures. They are still arterials as in they are roads that connect to highways—local roads almost never do—but their high level of development means that some are treated like semi-local roads as far as speeds are concerned. In my opinion it is OK to slow down urban arterials considerably—and this is probably better than banning pedestrians.
In Philadelphia, Washington Avenue (which received some media attention last year) has so many apartments and businesses that pedestrians and cyclists are really part of the fabric of the area. How could they be removed? The only feasible idea I can come up with is a boulevard-style set of side streets separated by a curb from one fast lane in each direction in the center.
To be honest, the way engineers break down roads into local/arterial/highway categories doesn’t necessarily make sense in cities. The real world isn’t so neat.
@thecakeisalime gave the answer I would have given. Long-distance travel uses dedicated, separated roadways to which these remarks do not apply. Your trips to your family would almost certainly be...
@thecakeisalime gave the answer I would have given. Long-distance travel uses dedicated, separated roadways to which these remarks do not apply. Your trips to your family would almost certainly be on highways (which have no pedestrians) and your trips to the grocery store are probably on relatively empty "collector" roads. Some of these rural roads might technically be "local" insofar as they are not highways or collectors, but they would see so few pedestrians that they aren't really what I'm talking about either.
As for rural edge cases, Strong Towns' "Small Town and Rural Design Guide" has suggestions on appropriate speed limits for various Complete Streets roadway designs, some of which are for rural towns (development) and some of which are for empty stretches between development. I would personally adhere to the "preferred" speeds in their diagrams and not the "potential" speeds as the safe choice for speed limits.
It is a little funny to me that whenever I make a suggestion about urban planning within cities and suburbs (dense areas with a lot of Vulnerable Road Users), people get concerned about how that would make rural life impractical. If I have a proposal about roadway design that is meant to apply to a rural area, I and other urbanist-types will usually be explicit with that term. There is a reason engineers are moving away from treating every single road like a highway!
Emotionally speaking, as far as cities and other dense-ish areas go, "living with" a lower speed limit is just a matter of getting used to the new signs and (ideally) infrastructure. People will grumble for a week and then get used to it. Then forget it was ever higher. They always do. The idea of change is typically more frightening than the actual change.
It's immoral to have an entitlement or expectation to drive at a speed that, statistically, kills people at an appreciable rate. We hold most things to a higher standard but exempt traffic out of impatience. Would it be fair to stop requiring allergenic ingredient disclosure in foodstuffs and in public settings like schools? It would make things so much easier for food producing companies and distributors! Probably 90% of people would still survive. No biggie. And hey, if they want to live, maybe they should grow their own food like the rest of us. That's the sacrifice we make for progress! And society is built on progress!
I am being facetious, but the fact that we so clearly recognize the moral (and mortal) imperatives behind safety regulations involving food, asbestos, fire codes, etc. but completely give up on them when it comes to traffic speaks to, indeed, a kind of selfishness pervasive in our culture. However that cultural tendency can be abated with changes to policy. Obviously I advocate for a Vision Zero philosophy which encourages governments to use infrastructure to solve safety problems, rather than exclusively guilting people into behaving nicely, though I still think it's important that people not be fussy about infrastructure and policy that demonstrably saves lives.
That's a lot of pollination as well.
Didn't realize bees were a viable method of propulsion. Glad you are living in harmony with nature!
Haha yes if could pollinate my way around that would be awesome 😎 I think this is a far better way to go. I lived so many years in HK without ever driving and rarely even going into a taxi because...
Haha yes if could pollinate my way around that would be awesome 😎
I advocate for a Vision Zero philosophy which encourages governments to use infrastructure to solve safety problems, rather than exclusively guilting people into behaving nicely,
I think this is a far better way to go. I lived so many years in HK without ever driving and rarely even going into a taxi because mass transit is possible when there's population density. And north american cities of certain sizes are long overdue for proper mass transit infrastructure.
But we're not going to see better planning and density and transit unless the government (at least in Vancouver and Toronto) stop benefiting directly so hard from urban sprawling.
Just popping in with my own 2 cents and with some ideas that might not work with your situation. Sorry if it isn't helpful. You could forgo driving. Vancouver has a pretty good public transit...
Just popping in with my own 2 cents and with some ideas that might not work with your situation. Sorry if it isn't helpful.
You could forgo driving. Vancouver has a pretty good public transit system. If you were able to buy along a rail corridor then you could use that instead of driving to get into the city. That also requires your parents to live along a transit corridor or possible bike infrastructure to bike > train >bike. One thing that has really helped me get over the longer transit times for me locally is to view the bike portions as subsidized commute. When I drive to the climbing gym it takes 20 minutes, when I bike it takes 40 minutes. While it's an additional 20 minutes, I also didn't have to drive and got an awesome bike ride out of it. It's like 1.3 hours of riding + however long I climbed vs 40 minutes in the car. I might get to climb less but I'm still getting sweet sweet exercise.
The frustrating answer is that you won't be able to get anything similar to your current living situation for the price. The benefits of the city vs the country are different and space/house size are a huge part of that. In the city you'll have access to better food, more fun entertainment, bigger acts coming through, and (if you play your cards right) very quick access to necessities. Part of what you're paying for is to be with 10 km of an airport rather than 200+ km and 5 blocks from groceries rather than 50+ km. The scale of your world should shrink and so should the time you spend doing things.
It sounds like living in Vancouver might not be the most in line with what you're excited about in life. If it were me I'd look at Squamish (just because I am a big fanboy of the area) or areas in the Vancouver "Metro" area that would allow you rail connections to your parents. If they have a spare room and you have flexibility in where you work from then maybe fewer but more extended trips might make the most sense. I'm 1.5 and 3 hours from my parents and that's how I'm making it work while still living in the boonies :)
I used to commute from Burnaby to Cloverdale every day for work. Got a lot of pokemon time in. The SkyTrain system is great. In the end we all have go make concessions and sacrifices that make...
I used to commute from Burnaby to Cloverdale every day for work. Got a lot of pokemon time in. The SkyTrain system is great.
In the end we all have go make concessions and sacrifices that make sense for our families. But yeah, sometimes that means what we want is incompatible with city life.
Some neighbors tell me that before cars on the island were common, one doesn't even go to the local village more than once a month. Think Anne of Green Gables style of living. It's about making cuts that make sense and doing what we can. Which in most cases means we can all do a lot more and live with a lot less
Apologies for the onslaught of traffic speed-related articles this week, but this one from Yale Climate Connections is particularly clear, comprehensive, and useful.
Just a reminder that about 43,000 people die every single year in the United States alone from absolutely, completely, universally, undeniably preventable traffic collisions, and that number is on the rise.
This is not to mention the myriad health impacts that driving has on people. Greenhouse gas emissions (smog) are the most obvious ones, but a growing body of evidence suggests that tire particulate matter (microplastics) are toxic to human health. These factors all contribute to asthma, lung cancer, and premature death. Various cardiovascular conditions are the leading cause of premature death in the US, and transportation emissions are a major contributing factor.
20 mph is the maximum safe speed anywhere pedestrians would realistically walk and cyclists would realistically peddle. Not 25 mph. Not 30 mph. Twenty miles per hour—that’s 30 km/h. We have to normalize slow driving in cities and explicitly criticize policies that enable speeds above that.
And some discussion on the “85th percentile rule,” which has been the target of criticism in the new edition of the Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices for its obvious safety issues and fundamental disconnection from reality:
I’m surprised how many people in transportation infrastructure and policy circles are talking about this rule in particular. I thought it was too arcane to highlight prominently, even for safety enthusiasts. But it’s good that people are paying attention to the BANALITY OF EVIL that traffic engineers knowingly enforce in our cities.
On a completely selfish and indefensible note, I honestly want ideas on how I can live with 30 km/hr. And I'm rich ++ I have a stable job in a money making field, in good health, some decades before retirement, and have some savings.
I live 200+ km away from my nearest airport and 50+ km from groceries. I flew 8 times last year across the continent. These are crimes against the planet and the future generations. I know that.
But the alternate, which I desperately want, is to live near aging family in Vancouver that I was visiting, within walking distance from them and from groceries. And to continue to have 0km commute by working from home.
That option is limited by housing: the closest approximation to my current housing situation, moved to Vancouver, costs 4.8 million dollars. The "farm land" is sitting behind these ridiculous mansions that belong to people who don't intend to farm whatsoever, paying nearly no property tax to deni local people of food.
Let's compromise to "merely" 1ac of land just under a million, in a century old fixer upper. 82km away. If everyone in Vancouver drives 30km/hr the congestion will mean I won't get to family in less than 3 hours each way. That's a lot of pollination as well.
Let's compromise and give up on land and our pets and our entire current way of life and squeeze into two bedrooms across the street from my family, mental health impacts be darned. Half a mil.
Give up on land holding value and buy leasehold building with questionable future that can go to $0 in 20 years: $300k plus $800+ a month in maintenance fees.
Give up on ownership entirely, subject my family to constant cycles of renoviction: $3000/month for that privilege.
I can't afford any of these options.
If anyone asks me, I think the biggest hurdles to sustainable living are completely fixable: affordable housing, local food security, basic income so people can stop commuting. If families can stay fairly close without the kids having to move out of state or overseas to make a meager living, we'd see a lot more care for seniors and quality of life improvements as well.
But as long as we live to work and pay mortgages to banks, the driving and pollution is how we stay alive under this awful system.
The 30 km/h limit isn't for all roads, and nor should it be. It's for downtown and residential areas. Your 82 km journey should use a number of arterial roads, rural roads, and highways, whose speed limits aren't going to change.
Most of the ideal areas for such a change are already congested and/or have numerous stop signs and traffic lights. The average travel speed won't change much and is much safer for pedestrians.
I would still like to see significantly lower speed limits on collector/arterial roads, but I would put up with 20 mph (30 km/h) for local roads and 30 mph (50 km/h) on collectors/arterials adjacent to local roads.
Collectors/arterials still have significant pedestrian activity and are the source of most pedestrian deaths in the US right now. Currently, speed limits on such roads is anywhere from 35 to 55 mph, which is way too fast.
It is obviously unrealistic to set a 20 mph speed limit on an actual highway. It is also pointless because there are few or no pedestrians on highways. In these cases it is appropriate to drive at higher speeds.
I think with proper city design, pedestrian traffic could be diverted away, or at least properly separated, from arterial roads which would allow for a better experience for both pedestrians and drivers without the need to reduce speed limits.
Of course, that's certainly not something that will just come with changing a sign - it'll require a lot more investment and planning.
Here in Ontario, Canada, most arterial roads are 60 km/h and very rarely 70 km/h. You don't see 55 mph (90 km/h) until getting to highways or rural roads (which come with their own set of issues for pedestrians).
Some of the difficulty here is that in the US, most arterials in cities are also heavily populated. I don’t know how it’s even possible to divert pedestrian traffic from these places short of putting all car roads underground or building pedestrian bridges at every intersection.
I would classify a lot of these as “stroads,” though some have been subject to traffic calming measures. They are still arterials as in they are roads that connect to highways—local roads almost never do—but their high level of development means that some are treated like semi-local roads as far as speeds are concerned. In my opinion it is OK to slow down urban arterials considerably—and this is probably better than banning pedestrians.
In Philadelphia, Washington Avenue (which received some media attention last year) has so many apartments and businesses that pedestrians and cyclists are really part of the fabric of the area. How could they be removed? The only feasible idea I can come up with is a boulevard-style set of side streets separated by a curb from one fast lane in each direction in the center.
To be honest, the way engineers break down roads into local/arterial/highway categories doesn’t necessarily make sense in cities. The real world isn’t so neat.
@thecakeisalime gave the answer I would have given. Long-distance travel uses dedicated, separated roadways to which these remarks do not apply. Your trips to your family would almost certainly be on highways (which have no pedestrians) and your trips to the grocery store are probably on relatively empty "collector" roads. Some of these rural roads might technically be "local" insofar as they are not highways or collectors, but they would see so few pedestrians that they aren't really what I'm talking about either.
As for rural edge cases, Strong Towns' "Small Town and Rural Design Guide" has suggestions on appropriate speed limits for various Complete Streets roadway designs, some of which are for rural towns (development) and some of which are for empty stretches between development. I would personally adhere to the "preferred" speeds in their diagrams and not the "potential" speeds as the safe choice for speed limits.
It is a little funny to me that whenever I make a suggestion about urban planning within cities and suburbs (dense areas with a lot of Vulnerable Road Users), people get concerned about how that would make rural life impractical. If I have a proposal about roadway design that is meant to apply to a rural area, I and other urbanist-types will usually be explicit with that term. There is a reason engineers are moving away from treating every single road like a highway!
Emotionally speaking, as far as cities and other dense-ish areas go, "living with" a lower speed limit is just a matter of getting used to the new signs and (ideally) infrastructure. People will grumble for a week and then get used to it. Then forget it was ever higher. They always do. The idea of change is typically more frightening than the actual change.
It's immoral to have an entitlement or expectation to drive at a speed that, statistically, kills people at an appreciable rate. We hold most things to a higher standard but exempt traffic out of impatience. Would it be fair to stop requiring allergenic ingredient disclosure in foodstuffs and in public settings like schools? It would make things so much easier for food producing companies and distributors! Probably 90% of people would still survive. No biggie. And hey, if they want to live, maybe they should grow their own food like the rest of us. That's the sacrifice we make for progress! And society is built on progress!
I am being facetious, but the fact that we so clearly recognize the moral (and mortal) imperatives behind safety regulations involving food, asbestos, fire codes, etc. but completely give up on them when it comes to traffic speaks to, indeed, a kind of selfishness pervasive in our culture. However that cultural tendency can be abated with changes to policy. Obviously I advocate for a Vision Zero philosophy which encourages governments to use infrastructure to solve safety problems, rather than exclusively guilting people into behaving nicely, though I still think it's important that people not be fussy about infrastructure and policy that demonstrably saves lives.
Didn't realize bees were a viable method of propulsion. Glad you are living in harmony with nature!
Haha yes if could pollinate my way around that would be awesome 😎
I think this is a far better way to go. I lived so many years in HK without ever driving and rarely even going into a taxi because mass transit is possible when there's population density. And north american cities of certain sizes are long overdue for proper mass transit infrastructure.
But we're not going to see better planning and density and transit unless the government (at least in Vancouver and Toronto) stop benefiting directly so hard from urban sprawling.
Just popping in with my own 2 cents and with some ideas that might not work with your situation. Sorry if it isn't helpful.
You could forgo driving. Vancouver has a pretty good public transit system. If you were able to buy along a rail corridor then you could use that instead of driving to get into the city. That also requires your parents to live along a transit corridor or possible bike infrastructure to bike > train >bike. One thing that has really helped me get over the longer transit times for me locally is to view the bike portions as subsidized commute. When I drive to the climbing gym it takes 20 minutes, when I bike it takes 40 minutes. While it's an additional 20 minutes, I also didn't have to drive and got an awesome bike ride out of it. It's like 1.3 hours of riding + however long I climbed vs 40 minutes in the car. I might get to climb less but I'm still getting sweet sweet exercise.
The frustrating answer is that you won't be able to get anything similar to your current living situation for the price. The benefits of the city vs the country are different and space/house size are a huge part of that. In the city you'll have access to better food, more fun entertainment, bigger acts coming through, and (if you play your cards right) very quick access to necessities. Part of what you're paying for is to be with 10 km of an airport rather than 200+ km and 5 blocks from groceries rather than 50+ km. The scale of your world should shrink and so should the time you spend doing things.
It sounds like living in Vancouver might not be the most in line with what you're excited about in life. If it were me I'd look at Squamish (just because I am a big fanboy of the area) or areas in the Vancouver "Metro" area that would allow you rail connections to your parents. If they have a spare room and you have flexibility in where you work from then maybe fewer but more extended trips might make the most sense. I'm 1.5 and 3 hours from my parents and that's how I'm making it work while still living in the boonies :)
I used to commute from Burnaby to Cloverdale every day for work. Got a lot of pokemon time in. The SkyTrain system is great.
In the end we all have go make concessions and sacrifices that make sense for our families. But yeah, sometimes that means what we want is incompatible with city life.
Some neighbors tell me that before cars on the island were common, one doesn't even go to the local village more than once a month. Think Anne of Green Gables style of living. It's about making cuts that make sense and doing what we can. Which in most cases means we can all do a lot more and live with a lot less