July 19, 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: Food Water and Energy Part 1 of 3

July 14, 2024

July 14, 2024

Civilization, as we know it, requires many things, but the most critical and fundamental is an uninterrupted supply of three...

Letter to the Editor: Criticizing Israeli Policy Is Not Antisemitic

July 10, 2024

July 10, 2024

In the past several months, we’ve seen increasing protests against Israel’s actions in Gaza. We have also seen these protests...

SMA.R.T. WISHES ALL A VERY HAPPY 4TH OF JULY WEEK

July 7, 2024

July 7, 2024

We trust you are enjoying this holiday in celebration of Independence. Independence to be embraced, personally and civically, thru active...

SM.a.r.t Column: Santa Monica Under SCAG’s Boot

June 30, 2024

June 30, 2024

Four years ago, our esteemed colleague Mario Fonda-Bonardi wrote the prescient essay below when much of the legislative development juggernaut...

SM.a.r.t Column: The Up Zoning Scam (Part 2)

June 23, 2024

June 23, 2024

Last week’s SMart article  (https://smmirror.com/2024/06/sm-a-r-t-column-the-up-zoning-scam-part-1/)  discussed the ambitious 8895 units (including 6168 affordable units) that Santa Monica is required to...

SM.a.r.t Column: The Up Zoning Scam (Part 1)

June 16, 2024

June 16, 2024

Over the last few years, the State of California has mandated a massive upzoning of cities to create capacity for...

SM.a.r.t. Column: Shape Up – On Steroids

June 9, 2024

June 9, 2024

Nine years ago, SMa.r.t wrote a series of articles addressing the adaptive re-use of existing structures. We titled one “Shape...

SM.a.r.t Column: The Challenge of Running a City When City Staff Have Different Priorities

June 2, 2024

June 2, 2024

Living in a city has its perks, but it can be a real headache when the folks running the show...

SM.a.r.t. Column: A Path to Affordable Ownership in Santa Monica

May 27, 2024

May 27, 2024

[Note: our guest author today is Andres Drobny, a former Professor of Economics at the University of London, the former...

SM.a.r.t. Column: A Path Forward for Santa Monica: Part II

May 19, 2024

May 19, 2024

As referenced in Part I of this article, the state’s use of faulty statistics and forceful legislation has left a...

SM.a.r.t. Column: A Path Forward for Santa Monica: Part I

May 12, 2024

May 12, 2024

To quickly summarize, California grapples with an ongoing housing crisis spurred by state implementation of over 100 policies and mandates...

SM.a.r.t. Column: Where Will Our Huddled Masses Sleep? Navigating California’s Affordable Housing Mandates

May 5, 2024

May 5, 2024

Just as Lady Liberty beckons the “huddled masses” of immigrants to America, cities like Santa Monica have an ethical obligation...

SM.a.r.t Column: SMCLC SPEAKS

April 28, 2024

April 28, 2024

SMart (Santa Monica Architects for a Responsible Tomorrow) periodically invites guest columnists who have made a significant contribution to the...

SM.a.r.t Column: Building Modern Boxes Lacks Identity

April 21, 2024

April 21, 2024

In the relentless pursuit of modernity, cities worldwide have witnessed the rise of so-called architectural marvels in the form of...

SM.a.r.t. Column: Santa Monica Needs Responsible Urban and Architectural Design

April 14, 2024

April 14, 2024

[SMa.r.t. note: Eight years ago, our highly esteemed and recently-passed colleague Ron Goldman documented his thoughts on the need for...