From Strong Towns
In Summary:
On Anderson Avenue in Rochester, New York, residents are grappling with speeding cut-through traffic on what should be a walkable neighborhood street, only to be told by the city that conditions aren’t “bad enough” to warrant basic safety improvements like speed humps. Rochester’s current policy reflects a broader North American problem: systems that treat safety as a secondary concern and only act when data reaches severe thresholds, leaving many dangerous streets unchanged. A new approach to street safety flips that script by making safety a core organizational responsibility, empowering staff to intervene early, use low-cost tools like paint and bollards to quickly calm traffic, and partner with residents to pilot solutions. Examples from Indianapolis and recent reforms in Rochester and Monroe County demonstrate how cities can act more quickly, utilize limited resources more effectively, and build trust, all while making everyday streets safer before tragedy forces their hand.
On Anderson Avenue in Rochester, New York, residents are noticing an increase in people walking on their wide, neighborhood street. They’re also seeing cars cut through at unsafe speeds.
Related: Good cities are built from small, thoughtful decisions.
When neighbors requested that the city conduct a speed study, the results showed that 12% of vehicles exceeded the 30 mph speed limit. However, when residents requested speed humps, the city declined. Under its policy, speed humps will not be considered unless at least 40% of drivers are speeding and the 85th percentile speed exceeds 35 mph.
The lack of action frustrated residents. “They’re basically saying they’re okay with 40% of drivers speeding before they’ll consider making it safer,” resident and longtime Strong Towns member Evan Lowenstein said.
This is a familiar challenge in cities across North America. City officials and staff often operate within systems that prioritize safety as a secondary concern, one that only triggers action when the data becomes too alarming to ignore. Add to that limited budgets and staff time, and you end up with cities that reserve their safety responses for the most severe problems — if they respond at all.
Even so, streets that fall below these severity thresholds are still dangerous for the people who use them every day. Residents shouldn’t have to wait for a crisis before their street can become safe.
The good news is that city officials and staff aren’t trapped within the old system. They can try a new approach to street safety — and Rochester officials and staff are already in the process of doing just that.
In this new approach, safety isn’t a secondary priority. It’s a core organizational responsibility. Instead of scattering safety duties across departments, officials give someone the explicit authority to raise concerns, intervene in project designs, and stop dangerous plans before they’re built. When safety is part of every decision, it stops competing with other priorities and starts shaping them.
City officials and staff who follow this new approach focus on addressing dangerous streets quickly and affordably. Paint, cones, and bollards may not be permanent, but they save lives. Low-cost, rapid interventions let staff test improvements and build momentum for longer-term fixes without depleting their budget.
*****
Could Apopka use this strategy?
Apopka could adopt this emerging safety strategy by treating street safety as a core city responsibility rather than something triggered only after a tragedy or once crash data becomes extreme. Instead of relying solely on rigid thresholds for stop signs, speed humps, or crosswalks, the city could empower a designated “street safety lead” within its staff to flag dangerous conditions, intervene in project designs, and recommend quick, low-cost fixes—like paint, flex posts, temporary curb extensions, or mini-roundabouts—on neighborhood streets where residents report speeding or unsafe cut-through traffic. Apopka could also launch a small “community-powered streets” program, offering tool lending, design templates, and modest matching funds so neighborhoods can help pilot traffic-calming ideas near schools, parks, churches, and busy residential corridors. Over time, the city could fold these lessons into its repaving standards and capital projects, ensuring that every resurfacing is an opportunity to slow cars, shorten crossings, and protect people walking and biking. By moving in this direction, Apopka wouldn’t have to wait for severe crashes or alarming data—it could respond early, stretch its budget further, and visibly partner with residents to make everyday streets safer.
*****
City staff could also try tapping into the capacity of residents who are eager to help.Indianapolis’s Community Powered Infrastructure program is a leading example of this approach. The city established a lending library of tools and equipment to assist residents in launching their own pilot projects. It’ll also match funds to help those projects get off the ground. This partnership stretches limited resources and builds trust between neighbors and the local government.
Rochester is already moving toward this approach. Following a fatal crash and a community-led Crash Analysis Studio, city staff revised the design of a hazardous street, as well as their standards for all future street repaving projects. Monroe County, which includes Rochester, has also established a first-in-state Community Traffic Safety Team, focusing on identifying high-risk areas and responding to resident feedback. These are positive signs that Rochester is making safety a core organizational responsibility, thereby increasing its ability to respond to the most serious risks.
The next step for the city might be to explore inexpensive pilot projects and ways to engage residents in the process. That way, community members can help address areas where the danger may be less severe but still affects their daily lives.
These are practical steps, not expensive overhauls. They free public servants from outdated systems and limited budgets so they can do what they already want to do: protect the people who use their streets every day.
Key Points:
-
Residents see danger before the data does – Neighbors on Anderson Avenue are seeing more people walking and more cars speeding, but the city’s rigid thresholds say their concerns don’t qualify for intervention.
-
Current policies delay safety improvements – Rochester’s rule that 40% of drivers must be speeding, with an 85th percentile speed above 35 mph, before considering speed humps exemplifies a system that waits for problems to become severe.
-
Safety must be a core responsibility, not an afterthought. The article argues for designating clear authority within city government to champion safety, intervene in street projects, and halt dangerous designs before they’re built.
-
Quick, low-cost fixes can save lives – Tools like paint, cones, and bollards allow cities to rapidly test traffic-calming measures and improve safety without waiting for large budgets or capital projects.
-
Partnership with residents multiplies capacity – Programs like Indianapolis’s Community Powered Infrastructure and Rochester’s evolving practices show how cities can tap community energy, pilot projects together, and better respond to both serious risks and everyday dangers.
