Traffic safety improvements

Before making investments in this strategy, city and county leaders should ensure it addresses local needs.

The Urban Institute's Upward Mobility Framework identifies a set of key local conditions that shape communities’ ability to advance upward mobility and racial equity. Local leaders can use the Upward Mobility Framework to better understand the factors that improve upward mobility and prioritize areas of focus. Data reports for cities and counties can be created here.

Several indicators in the Upward Mobility Framework may be improved with investments in traffic and street safety improvements. To measure these indicators and determine if investments in these interventions could help, examine the following:

• Access to transportation: Indexes for transit trips and transportation costs. These estimates are available from the Department of Housing and Urban Development’s Location Affordability Index.

• Environmental quality: Examine air quality. These data are available from the Environmental Protection Agency’s Air Quality Index.

• Safety from trauma: Number of deaths due to injury per 100,000 people. These data are available from the National Center for Health Statistics’ Mortality File and the CDC’s WONDER database.

• Encouraging land use that supports modal shift: Jurisdictions should proactively encourage compact, connected development. When diverse land uses are concentrated (e.g., co-locating residential, commercial, and recreational assets), walking, biking, and riding transit become more competitive with, or superior to, driving. As the vast majority of transportation-related fatalities involve a motor vehicle, reducing the number of motor vehicle trips also reduces the risk that crashes will result in serious injury or death. Key policy levers that local governments have to promote compact, connected development include zoning reform, reducing or eliminating parking minimums, and strategic use of development incentives. In suburban and rural contexts, where creating compact, connected development is more challenging, local governments may target their investments to increase walking, biking, and transit trips on high-demand destinations (e.g., connecting residential housing areas and schools with safe bike infrastructure).

• Designing for lower speeds: The chance of a crash resulting in a serious injury or death rises exponentially as vehicle speeds increase. As such, the National Association of City Transportation Officials recommends speed limits of between 10 and 25 miles per hour on most city streets. While lowering speed limits is associated with decreased traffic crashes and fatalities, lowering speed limits alone may not be enough to consistently achieve reduced vehicle operating speeds. To achieve safe operating speeds, jurisdictions should focus on the design of their streets. For a list of traffic calming measures that are effective at reducing operating speeds, see the Federal Highway Administration’s Traffic Calming ePrimer.

• Separating road users and improving visibility: In contexts where vehicle speeds are greater than 20 miles per hour, separating road users is recommended. Users can be separated either in “time” or in “space.” In the former, users occupy the same street space, but at different times (e.g., through leading pedestrian intervals); in the latter, users moving at different speeds are given a dedicated part of the right-of-way. As strategies that separate road users in time rely on compliance to be effective, separating users in space is recommended when feasible. Regardless of speeds, all road users benefit from street design that maximizes the visibility of other users. Improving street light coverage and “daylighting” intersections by preventing parking next to crossings to keep sight lines clear are common strategies to increase visibility on streets.

• Focusing education efforts on safe systems: Ultimately, system-level interventions, like those described above, should be prioritized over approaches focused on changing individual behavior. However, education campaigns can still play an important role in improving traffic safety. When there is strong public support for traffic safety improvements, jurisdictions are typically able to implement solutions more quickly and effectively. As such, public education efforts should describe the impact of traffic violence on the community and what changes to the local transportation system can be made to mitigate the problem.

• Targeting enforcement at dangerous driving behaviors: Traffic enforcement can be effective at reducing the incidence of dangerous driving behaviors, like alcohol-impaired or distracted driving. However, enforcement can have negative and inequitable consequences for the community. To manage this risk, jurisdictions should refocus enforcement from low-risk behaviors (e.g., riding a bike on a sidewalk) to violations that most often cause serious injury or death (e.g., speeding). Additionally, when designing a new enforcement strategy, jurisdictions should clearly communicate the change in strategy to the general public. Well-publicized enforcement interventions are more likely to be effective at deterring unsafe driving behaviors and may be seen as fairer than interventions that break with past norms and “surprise” drivers.

• Prioritizing investment for those most impacted: Black, Hispanic, and Native Americans and those living in low-income neighborhoods are disproportionately likely to die or be seriously injured in traffic collisions. To reduce these disparities, jurisdictions should use crash data to identify their most dangerous street segments and prioritize these locations for traffic safety improvements. Incorporating crash data into infrastructure project scoring matrices is one approach local governments can take to institutionalize a commitment to equity. At a broader level, access to a personal vehicle is virtually necessary to perform daily tasks in many communities. As such, jurisdictions may also prioritize areas with low rates of car ownership for traffic safety improvements. Typically, these investments will disproportionately benefit low-income residents, who are less likely to have reliable access to a personal vehicle. Finally, jurisdictions should prioritize infrastructure investments that increase accessibility for individuals with disabilities and those who use mobility devices (e.g., wheelchairs), as roadway design disproportionately impacts this community.

• Conducting outreach and addressing community concerns: When setting a jurisdiction’s vision for its traffic safety efforts, meaningful community engagement is necessary to cultivate resident buy-in. To ensure community input is representative of a jurisdiction’s demographic make-up, local governments should use data to target outreach to communities of concern (e.g., ensuring outreach is conducted in areas where many residents do not have access to a personal vehicle). Jurisdictions can also use demographic data from public engagement activities to identify where additional outreach is needed. As projects advance to implementation, residents may raise concerns about how they will impact the community (e.g., that an infrastructure project will contribute to gentrification and displacement). In such cases, messaging on how the project will increase safety in the area and how it fits within the jurisdiction’s broader vision for its transportation system may be most effective.

• Deprioritizing enforcement: While enforcement plays a role in improving traffic safety, its application can risk perpetuating racial biases through policing. To minimize this risk, traffic safety initiatives should emphasize system-level changes, like improvements to infrastructure, over enforcement targeting individual behaviors. When enforcement is used, jurisdictions may use crash data to focus enforcement efforts on the driving behaviors causing the most serious injuries and deaths and in the locations where these behaviors most often occur. That said, as communities of color are most likely to live near roads designed to invite dangerous driving behavior, jurisdictions should remain vigilant for disparate racial impacts when selecting locations for enforcement efforts.

• Minimizing the inequitable impacts of fines and fees: Additionally, jurisdictions should consider the collateral consequences of fines and fees associated with traffic citations. To address these concerns, local governments may consider lowering fines for traffic citations; offering reduced fines or payment plans for low-income individuals; or creating a traffic diversion program, which provides a pathway for fines and fees to be waived after individuals participate in a traffic safety education program.

• Executive and legislative leaders: Executive and legislative leaders play a key role in committing a jurisdiction to improving traffic safety, setting time-bound goals, and holding stakeholders accountable for making progress. In most local governments, buy-in from both legislative and executive leaders is necessary for traffic safety improvements to receive funding and final approval for implementation. These leaders can also serve as key messengers, building community support for traffic safety efforts.

• Departmental leaders and staff: When possible, traffic safety efforts should be cross-functional, engaging not only planning and public works staff, but public safety, environmental services/sanitation, and public health departments, among others. By creating a cross-functional team, jurisdictions may be more likely to proactively identify and troubleshoot any unintended operational impacts caused by new traffic safety measures (e.g., the impact of a bike lane on waste pick-up). Additionally, close working relationships across departments can unlock opportunities to advance traffic safety priorities through projects that are not explicitly earmarked for traffic safety (e.g., coordinating to install improvements as part of a utility or urban forestry project).

• Advocates and community leaders: Pedestrian, bike, and public transportation advocates, along with other community leaders, can represent an active source of support for traffic safety initiatives. Depending on the extent of their relationships in the community, advocates and other community leaders may also be able to support local governments with outreach efforts. These groups may also be able to apply cross-jurisdictional pressure, particularly in scenarios where a local government’s traffic safety goals are misaligned with a partner agency’s priorities (e.g., county or state DOT).

• General residents and community-based organizations: Engaging the general public is a critical aspect of any traffic safety initiative, particularly when setting the overall vision and priorities for the effort. Strong community buy-in for the initiative reinforces support from elected leaders and increases the likelihood that the work will be sustainable over time. To this end, community-based organizations (CBOs) are often important stakeholders for transportation projects. CBOs not only serve as conduits for jurisdictions to connect with residents, but may also be strong advocates for transportation safety improvements, depending on the needs of their client bases.

• Focus messaging around safety: Public skepticism or opposition to new traffic safety improvements is common. However, experts note that public opinion can improve rapidly if community members see the benefits of a traffic safety initiative. According to the latest research, the most effective messaging around traffic safety initiatives should: (1) make a clear connection between safe transportation and a pro-social (i.e., “bigger-than-self”) value, (2) use plain language to explain the benefits of proposed traffic safety improvements, and (3) recommend an action that community members can take to support the effort. See this technical report sponsored by the AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety for messaging guidance on traffic safety interventions.

• Fatalities and serious injuries: Jurisdictions should track the total number of traffic-related fatalities and serious injuries within their boundaries. Ideally, these data will include information on mode, location, and the demographics of those involved. These data can be used to measure progress toward a safer transportation system both across an entire jurisdiction and along specific high-crash corridors. Additionally, crash location data is necessary for local governments to identify where to prioritize future traffic safety improvements. For Vision Zero communities that have set a goal of eliminating traffic fatalities and severe injuries, these data will represent a key outcome and accountability measure.

• Number, type, and location of improvements: Experts recommend that local governments track the number, type, and location of traffic safety improvements. These data can be used to demonstrate progress toward a community’s goals and serve as a reference for how existing infrastructure improvements have been distributed across a jurisdiction.

• Operating speeds and compliance rates: Jurisdictions may use average operating speeds and compliance rates with roadway laws (e.g., yield rates at pedestrian crossings) to identify where safety interventions are most needed. These metrics may also be useful pre-post data to demonstrate the effectiveness of a traffic safety improvement.

• Modal share: Crashes involving a motor vehicle are typically the most dangerous. Since walking, biking, and riding public transportation are safer modes, increasing their use can make serious injuries and deaths less likely across a transportation system. As such, jurisdictions may track modal share as a key traffic safety outcome, setting goals to reduce the proportion of trips taken with a personal vehicle.