The lack of urgency shown by local officials in response to dangerous conditions on their streets is a disturbing recurring theme we are seeing since we launched the Crash Analysis Studio. This pattern is not unique to the horrific crashes nominated in the Crash Analysis Studio. Rather, it’s a consequence of standard practice in managing public streets. We need to be prepared to take immediate action when bad things happen.
I understand some of the reasoning behind the “cautious pause” approach of the typical city engineer. Public streets are a huge financial investment used by all residents. When an improvement is proposed, it makes sense to fully study all the possible outcomes on paper before you mobilize a bulldozer or roll asphalt. The intent of this approach is well-intentioned so we can do it right the first time.
At Strong Towns, we describe this as a top-down approach, one which is very orderly. Each request to modify or improve a street is reviewed in the order it is received. Regardless of the scale or complexity of the request, all of the same thorough studies and reports are completed. For example, something as small as the request to stripe a crosswalk is reviewed with the same methodical process that would be used to remove or add travel lanes.
When unsafe road conditions contribute to a person’s death, this practice of thorough deliberation becomes a barrier to taking prompt, appropriate action. We are discovering through the Crash Analysis Studio that it frequently takes months to complete a formal investigation of a crash.
The more horrific the crash, the longer the process.
If the goal of an investigation is to assign blame, it is worth the wait. The approach of this analysis and the review of these crashes should be thorough, as the outcome of these reports will forever impact all those directly involved in the crash.
But what if you have a different objective? What if the objective is not to assign blame but to prevent a similar type of crash in the future?
If we want to prevent repeating another crash, we should not wait months or years to take action. Improvements to make a street safer should be implemented within days or weeks. These horrific crashes need to be assigned a level of urgency by both the public and the city engineer. The objective should be prevention so that this incident is not repeated.
Doing the Next Smallest Thing
We have seen instances where a community responded to a crash by immediately doing the next smallest thing they could to prevent further loss of life. For instance, in Richmond, Virginia, where Mahrokh Khan was struck and killed while crossing an intersection at the Virginia Commonwealth University (VCU) campus, the university responded the very next day with a communication campaign to all university students and staff. VCU Police increased traffic and parking enforcement around campus. Within a week, the VCU Police developed a creative outreach program in which officers dressed as referees blew whistles and threw flags at pedestrians who tried to cross the street outside the marked crosswalk. These actions were immediate responses to increase the safety of the VCU student body.
These steps are all a great start to raising awareness through activism, but they do not address the underlying design issues we found when we examined these crashes. In fact, in the Richmond Crash Analysis Studio, we found through our speed study that 30 days after this enforcement campaign, 15% of drivers continue to exceed 32 mph, which is well in excess of the posted 25 mph.
If preventing future harm is our objective, what is the next smallest thing we can do today?