The John Locke Foundation’s Mitch Kokai recently spoke with Jenna Ashley Robinson, author of the recently released John Locke Foundation report about “traffic calming” efforts in Raleigh. The interview aired on Carolina Journal Radio. (Go to http://carolinajournal.com/cjradio/ to find a station near you or to learn about the weekly CJ Radio podcast.)
Kokai: So, you took a close look at what Raleigh is doing to deal with traffic calming. Before we get into the specific measures, remind us, what’s this traffic calming all about?
Robinson: Okay, traffic calming in Raleigh takes two forms. And the first form is Raleigh’s official definition of traffic calming, which it applies only to residential and collector streets. So, under that definition, there are only currently three projects underway in a list of 70 others that are up for consideration. The other form of traffic calming is kind of separated into other unrelated projects around Raleigh, one of which is downtown, turning one-way streets into two-way streets, and another is installing a series of roundabouts and narrowing the road on Hillsborough Street in front of N.C. State.
Kokai: The goal of traffic calming is to slow traffic down and reduce the risk of accident and injury?
Robinson: Exactly. The goals are, as you said, to reduce the speeds, reduce the capacity also, especially on residential streets that are being used as cut-throughs, and to reduce risks to pedestrians and motorists — and also to try to build a more pedestrian friendly area, especially on Hillsborough Street and downtown. That’s one of the major goals.
Kokai: You’re report, though, shows that some of these goals are not only not met by traffic calming, but the problem might be exacerbated.
Robinson: Yes, that’s very true, specifically on the downtown streets. Switching one-way streets into two-way streets is not helpful to pedestrians because they are actually more likely to be hit on a two-way street than on a one-way street. And also, it increases congestion and enable all the cars going in the same direction with fewer turns to create fewer delays, less congestion and fewer places where pedestrians and motorists can run into each other. Two-way streets, however, increase the number of intersections and increase the dangers to pedestrians while creating more congestion.
Kokai: The roundabout plan also has some problems, doesn’t it?
Robinson: The roundabout plan has some different problems. And the biggest one with the roundabout plan is that it significantly delays emergency vehicles. On Hillsborough Street, that problem is exacerbated by the fact that what is now a four-lane road will be reduced to a two-lane in that 1.2-mile stretch in front of N.C. State. When we talked to the Raleigh firefighters who go down Hillsborough Street, they said they go that route about 80 percent of the time that they get a call. And each roundabout could potentially slow their trucks five to eight seconds. If you see that there are going to be a series of those on Hillsborough Street, it can become really problematic for cardiac patients and people who need the emergency service to respond very quickly.
Kokai: Jenna, some might think that this traffic calming simply slows the traffic on a particular road or street, but your roundabout plan, I understand, would also have the other impact of shifting some traffic onto other busy streets.
Robinson: Absolutely. Because roundabouts would dissuade people from going down Hillsborough Street, city planners expect that about 30 percent of the cars that currently use Hillsborough Street as a through-street would be shifted onto either Western Boulevard or Wade Avenue. So, the traffic in the vicinity of N.C. State and near Western, Wade, Hillsborough, all of it, will be put under additional pressure because of these roundabouts leading to more congestion on both Wade and Western.
Kokai: Now, many of our listeners are outside of the Raleigh area and so don’t have specific concerns about Hillsborough Street or the downtown Raleigh area or the area around the state capital, but they might be dealing with their own local governments talking about traffic calming or putting traffic calming measures in place. In general, should people be wary of traffic calming measures?
Robinson: Absolutely. Traffic calming measures often reduce capacity, reduce speeds, and do little to address the problems that they are supposed to address. Also, each measure can be very costly, especially if there are maintenance requirements that go along with the measures, which especially happens if you have medians, center islands, roundabouts, where there is a lot of landscaping or changes that need to go on the street in order to make it possible. So, the costs are considerable. And many studies show that the effects of any particular traffic calming measure don’t usually justify those costs.
Kokai: So, this would not survive a cost-benefit analysis?
Robinson: No, except in very, very few circumstances, the measures do not justify the cost — would definitely not have more benefits than costs.
Kokai: You mentioned discussions with some firefighters, emergency personnel, about the problems linked to some types of traffic calming measures. Your report goes into further detail about studies that have been done involving emergency personnel, and it shows quite a bit of concern among these folks about traffic calming measures and the impact on, say, a heart attack patient or someone who really needs the emergency personnel to get there quickly.
Robinson: Yes, studies that have been done both in Boulder and Austin have shown that any delay caused by traffic calming devices, which are inevitable given the size of emergency vehicles, can lead to an 85-to-one ratio of survivability for, say, a cardiac patient for just a one-minute delay. And even for a 30-second delay, a cardiac patient is about—there are about 35 times more deaths. So, having those delays is very detrimental to the community surrounding, who need those emergency services.