December 12, 2024 Breaking News, Latest News, and Videos

S.M.a.r.t Column: The 30 MPH City Part One

Some ideas sound extreme when first presented but acquire more credibility when you think about it, and particularly when conditions change. One of our City’s mobility goals is called Vision Zero, which is the City’s attempt to reduce our annual traffic deaths (pedestrians, bicycles, and vehicles) to zero. This is a worthy multi-year goal that, unfortunately, has become stalled. The average traffic death toll in Santa Monica has fluctuated around four deaths per year for the last dozen years. In spite of massive efforts, including school safety programs, traffic demand management, more separated bike lanes, traffic calming changes, a traffic drop during Covid, safety improvements in cars, hands-free phone technology, traffic signal changes making pedestrians more visible, etc., etc.., all have not reduced that dismal statistic for the last decade. 

A static death rate

We could surmise the death rate might have been even higher had we not done all those things. In other words, our mobility improvements more or less exactly balanced out the increase in traffic hazards, so no reduction occurred.  But stopping here is like accepting four deaths a year is an acceptable traffic casualty rate? Or accepting that four deaths a year in a City of about 90,000 residents may, in fact, be an irreducible number? If you accept this level of traffic mortality or believe we cannot do better, read no further. 

To do better, we need to explore other approaches that might make a significant difference. Traffic mortality is always in a dynamic balance. Certain changes increase it (telephone use while driving or helmet-less scooter riders), and others decrease it (automatic braking systems on cars or increased helmet use by bike riders). So, no single credible change will get us to Vision Zero. It will take a menu of changes that we have already done and should continue doing, plus some new initiatives we should be considering. 

Changing traffic Conditions

The need for new initiatives becomes even more critical when the City’s mobility mix is significantly changing. First of all, there may be a population boom of up to 20% in the next decade as developers build out the 9000 new units over the next eight years as required by Sacramento’s newly imposed 2021-2029 Housing Element. These citizens will essentially all be new wealthy or upwardly mobile residents (to afford the pricey rent charged in the new apartments). They will all still drive or try to drive cars, the most common source of traffic deaths. The vast majority of new residents will not take the train or busses because of their perceived personal danger and because they can typically afford to own cars. 

Second, into this massive flow increase will be injected with an increasingly variable erratic mix of scooters, skateboards, electric bikes, motorcycles, wheelchairs, and other micro-mobility devices as the population responds to differing mobility pressures. These exposed micro-mobility devices, when mixed in with cars, typically increase fatality risk. While car use per person may go down, overall, the number of cars will go up. Aging seniors in our increasingly gray city will slowly stop driving, while others may forgo cars for ecological reasons or to get more exercise, and finally, many will not be able to or want to afford the expenses of car ownership. However, all of these visitors, residents, and workers, regardless of their mobility choices,  will still need some kind of mobility device, including their shoes, which will all take up more space on the public right of way. 

Because we are a built-out legacy city, our right of ways, which were laid out about 150 years ago, will not appreciably increase in size. Whether it’s bike lanes, wider sidewalks, drop-off zones, charging stations, bus lanes, or car lanes, all will need to be crammed essentially into our existing 50’ to 100’ wide right of ways. The only area where the right of way might be increased is in the future development of Airport Park. The proper insertion of traffic into that future park and development should not only provide proper safe access but must also be taken as an opportunity to solve, as much as possible, the chronic afternoon gridlock of the entire southeast quadrant (Sunset Park) of our City. This will require new intersecting cross streets linked to Venice to address the predictable increase in traffic. 

Third, the advent of self-driving cars will have an unknown effect on our traffic fatalities. It is unclear whether self-driving cars will be safer, the same, or more dangerous in their eventual rollout. Unless there is a mechanical failure or hack, self-driving cars will not go over the posted speed limit nor start unless everyone has their seat belts on. This makes them safer on paper, but real-life experience will show their real impact on fatalities.  This is an unknown variable, so we will need to wait and see. 

Speed Kills

One of the obvious ways to reduce fatalities is to slow traffic down. On paper, our City is a 25-35 mph city, which is the typically posted speeds on our major streets. Actual speeds can be much greater (e.g., Olympic Blvd). Some streets (Main Street, west end of Broadway, etc. ) are already calmed at 25 mph. Others (Wilshire, 20th Street) are already at 30 mph. We should consider reducing the remaining 35 mph streets (e.g., Pico, Olympic, East Ocean Park) to 30 mph. 30 mph would then become Santa Monica’s default maximum speed everywhere except where otherwise posted or on PCH, on the Freeway (and its on/off ramps), and obviously for emergency vehicles. School zones would remain at 25 mph but could go down to 20 mph. Portions of other selected streets based on accident history or the presence of curbside eating might also be reduced to 25 mph. 

The City should continue its traffic-calming initiatives. A slower city is a safer city. Next week, we will discuss all the benefits of a slower City and exactly how slowing traffic reduces casualties.

By Mario Fonda-Bonardi AIA

S.M.a.r.t Santa Monica Architects for a Responsible Tomorrow

Thane Roberts, Architect; Robert H. Taylor AIA, Architect; Dan Jansenson, Architect & Building and Fire-Life Safety Commission; Samuel Tolkin Architect & Planning Commissioner, Mario Fonda-Bonardi AIA, Michael Jolly, AIR-CRE.

For previous articles, see www.santamonicaarch.wordpress.com/writing

in Opinion
<>Related Posts

SM.a.r.t Column: Climbing The Vertical Learning Curve

December 8, 2024

December 8, 2024

The city is facing a financial crisis, the roots of which stretch back decades but have been made worse by...

SM.a.r.t Column: It’s Time To Inspect Balconies

November 24, 2024

November 24, 2024

About nine years ago, a fifth-floor balcony in a Berkeley apartment building collapsed, tragically killing several students gathered on it...

S.M.a.r.t Column: Your City is Broke

November 18, 2024

November 18, 2024

On December 10, the new City council will be seated fresh from their dominant win in the recent elections. There...

SM.a.r.t Column: Moving Ahead to the Future

November 10, 2024

November 10, 2024

As we write this, the election results are still trickling in. We’ll leave the deep analysis to others, but the...

Opinion: Fact Check: Why Vote Yes on Measure QS

November 1, 2024

November 1, 2024

Despite living in a famously progressive region, Santa Monicans are not immune from the same political misinformation and disinformation that...

SM.a.r.t Column: Lack of Oversight and No Accountability

October 31, 2024

October 31, 2024

S.M.a.r.t. periodically invites guest columnists to write opinion articles on topics of particular interests to our readers. Below is an...

SM.a.r.t Column: “Help! I’ve Fallen, and I …!!”, Cries Santa Monica!

October 25, 2024

October 25, 2024

Maybe fallen, but slipping for sure from being a desirable beachfront community that served all equally, the local residents who...

SM.a.r.t. Column: Vote

October 13, 2024

October 13, 2024

In a polarized country or City every vote counts. Regardless of which side of any issue or candidate you support,...

SM.a.r.t Column: Fact-Checking Election-Season Windbaggery

October 6, 2024

October 6, 2024

Claim: The state is requiring Santa Monica to build 9,000 apartments.Answer: Partially true, partially false. Santa Monica has a pretty...

SM.a.r.t. Column: Public Safety and Traffic Enforcement Can Help Save Lives and Revitalize Santa Monica’s Economy

September 29, 2024

September 29, 2024

We wholeheartedly endorse the candidates below for Santa Monica City Council. Their leading campaign platform is for increased safety in...

SM.a.r.t Column: Crime in Santa Monica: A Growing Concern and the Need for Prioritizing Public Safety

September 22, 2024

September 22, 2024

By Michael Jolly Over the past six months, Santa Monica has experienced a concerning rise in crime, sparking heated discussions...

SM.a.r.t Column: Ten New Commandments

September 15, 2024

September 15, 2024

Starting last week,  the elementary school students of Louisiana will all face mandatory postings of the biblical Ten Commandments in...

SM.a.r.t Column: Santa Monica’s Next City Council

September 8, 2024

September 8, 2024

In the next general election, this November 5th, Santa Monica residents will be asked to vote their choices among an...

SM.a.r.t Column: Part II: The Affordability Crisis: Unmasking California’s RHNA Process and Its Role in Gentrification

September 2, 2024

September 2, 2024

Affordability: An Income and Available Asset Gap Issue, Not a Supply Issue (Last week’s article revealed how state mandates became...

SM.a.r.t Column: Part 1: The Affordability Crisis: Unmasking California’s RHNA Process and Its Role in Gentrification

August 26, 2024

August 26, 2024

In the world of economic policy, good intentions often pave the way to unintended consequences. Nowhere is this more evident...