HEALTH AND SAFETY
The Center for Neighborhood Technology
www.cnt.org
August 2003
This review will be more easily understood as annotated comments on problem areas in the 2030 RTP.* The 2030 RTP was considered from the point of view of public comment
during 2001 and 2002, particularly the comment found in
Changing Direction: Transportation Choices for 2030.**
Thematic issues that impact this section include:
·
Fails to specify a share for pedestrian and bicycle improvements or for general bus expansion. Agreement to "retrofit" environments where highway infrastructure
creates hostile conditions for pedestrians and bicyclists only applies when the road is undergoing major construction.
·
Casts doubt on the commitment to Context Sensitive Design and multi-modal use because increased speed, freer traffic flow and reduction in the number of traffic
signals are explicit priorities.
·
Retreats from "Universal Design" to special treatment for marginalized populations like "seniors and the disabled." Fails to account for wide usage of Universal Design
by others, like parents with children in strollers/on bikes, people temporarily using crutches, or shoppers using carts.
* Available at
http://www.sp2030.com/CommentSite/index.html
.
**Available at
http://www.cnt.org/tsp/trans/ctaqc/cc/theplan.htm
The chart below offers specific page references and quotes from the Regional Transportation Plan and commentary on why each quote is relevant or problematic
Page Quote
Comment
18
Regional transportation policy should address
comprehensive public health and safety concerns.
Original statement was, "Regional transportation policy should
address public health and safety in ways beyond the traditional
acknowledgement of vehicular safety and air quality concerns."
The relationship between active life-style and transportation
investment is less apparent in the new text.
88
With regard to highway vehicle safety, most operational
improvements to major highways and arterials are
intended to increase the ability to operate a vehicle safely.
The improved flow of traffic and the removal of possible
conflict points, common in many projects, are principally
intended to reduce the possibility of crashes.
The safety section has been diluted from the first draft, where
there was a primary emphasis on vulnerable travelers. Now
vehicular safety has precedence; dollars are allocated on the
basis of priorities set by the plan. If some resources are to be
directed toward pedestrian/cyclist safety that has to be primary,
not buried under continued investment in improved traffic flow.
89
Safety issues are also considered at a local level. In most
cases, these local solutions focus on specific problems
and are typically not indicative of any system-wide or
long-term safety deficiency.
Wider, faster arterials, with fewer traffic signals are promoted as a
systemic regional goal. Responsibility to reduce traffic deaths and
injuries can not be delegated to local officials.
89
Many projects intended to increase capacity, reduce
congestion or provide alternative travel choices have
safety benefits that cannot easily be isolated from the total
Agencies spending public funds need to be transparent and
accountable about how and where the funds are spent. The
public can not be expected to accept on faith that investments to
