Bridging Theory and Practice Since 1974

Tag: Safety

Flipping the Script: Understanding Pedestrian and Bicyclist Safety in Chapel Hill-Carrboro

By Emma Vinella-Brusher, Angles Managing Editor

Each year, over 3,000 pedestrians and 850 bicyclists are hit by vehicles here in North Carolina, making our state one of the least safe states for walking and biking[i]. Last month, the UNC Department of City & Regional Planning and Collaborative Sciences Center for Road Safety were joined by Tom Flood of Rovélo Creative and Arleigh Greenwald aka Bike Shop Girl for a free, two-day workshop on addressing this crisis.

A “ghost bike” sits at Franklin and Graham in Chapel Hill, in honor of cyclist Nick Walton who passed away earlier this year (Source: author)

The April 22-23 Flipping the Script on Traffic Violence event featured a guided bike ride and walk, a facilitated discussion about marketing/storytelling, and a workshop to develop marketing content. Students, academics, professionals, and elected officials gathered together to learn how to better communicate the critical issue of traffic violence towards our most vulnerable road users.

Flipping the Script kicked off at 1 PM Friday with a casual bicycle ride through the streets of Carrboro, Chapel Hill, and the UNC campus. Participants covered ~4.5 miles and stopped to photograph and discuss traffic safety concerns along the way. This was followed by a one-mile walking tour of downtown Chapel Hill, for another opportunity to identify safety challenges for pedestrians and bicyclists in the area. The day concluded with a facilitated debrief of both tours and discussion of opportunities to advocate for and improve local road safety.

The bike route, starting at Wilson Park in Carrboro and ending at New East on UNC’s Chapel Hill campus (Source: author)
Walking tour participants critique a Chapel Hill pedestrian crossing (Source: Tom Flood)

Day 2 of Flipping the Script consisted of an afternoon hands-on workshop, where participants practiced crafting effective media messages about road safety challenges. The group developed messaging around the safety concerns facing pedestrians and cyclists to share with the public and local elected leaders in the hopes of making our streets safer for all.

Tom Flood shows participants the language used by the media to describe crashes resulting in injury or death (Source: Collaborative Sciences Center for Road Safety)

Thank you to Tab Combs, Seth LaJeunesse, Tom Flood, Arleigh Greenwald, and everyone else in putting on this fantastic event!


[i] Watch for me NC, “Crash Facts.”


Featured image: Bicyclists participate in the 2022 Durham Ride of Silence to honor cyclists who have been killed or injured while cycling on public roadways, courtesy of author

A Primer on Nuisance Ordinances and Domestic Violence

By Amy Sechrist

Nuisance property ordinances are not a new concept, but their continued prevalence and persistence across the United States has many unintended consequences. So, what exactly is a nuisance ordinance? This short explainer will provide an overview of these challenging policies and what can be done to lessen their effects. 

Nuisance property ordinances are part of a larger trend known as “third-party policing”, where the responsibilities for maintaining law and order are assigned to non-police actors—in this case, to landlords. These ordinances include “local laws and policies that penalize landlords and tenants when police are called too many times to the premises within a certain time period, or for certain activity occurring at the property” (Williams & Cook-Thajudeen, 2018). Simply put, a nuisance property ordinance punishes a property owner if a tenant calls the police or has the police called on them too much. By punishing the property owner, these laws usually result in the eviction of the “problem” tenant. 

Under these laws, there is little reason for landlords to work with tenants to address issues. Instead, eviction is incentivized—in one study of landlords who received nuisance citations, 83% evicted or threatened to evict the offending tenants (Desmond & Valdez, 2012). Many nuisance ordinances do not make exceptions for calls made by those who require police or emergency assistance, even in cases of domestic violence. As a result,  landlords may pressure tenants to not to contact the police, even in an emergency situation. 

Nuisance ordinances are active in both urban and rural communities across the United States. They are normally passed at the municipal level, and as a result vary in how they are structured, what they prohibit, and how they are enforced. The local nature of these laws also makes them incredibly difficult to track at the state or national level. 

In their ground-breaking study of Milwaukee nuisance citations, Matthew Desmond and Nicol Valdez found that domestic violence was the third most common reason for a nuisance citation. Domestic violence calls comprised 3.9% of all 911 calls during their period of study, but made up 15.7% of nuisance citations (Desmond & Valdez, 2012). This suggests that domestic violence-related incidents may be more likely to result in nuisance citations and evictions. 

Nuisance ordinances negatively impact victims of domestic violence in many ways, including:

  • Placing responsibility on the victim for ending their own abuse
  • Discouraging reporting of abuse
  • Exacerbating existing housing barriers including evictions

As stated in the 2016 guidance from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, the only way to prevent the harmful effects of nuisance ordinances is to either prevent their creation, or where they already exist, repeal them completely. Partial solutions, such as domestic violence exceptions in existing ordinances, can help reduce the harm created by these laws, but do not completely protect domestic violence survivors. While these solutions appear to be a step in the right direction, they are difficult to enforce as they require the accurate identification of domestic violence and do not account for the complex nature of abuse. 

Due to the local nature of nuisance ordinances, it is extremely difficult to track where these laws have been implemented and their comprehensive effects. Several legal cases have been brought against such ordinances but all have settled before trial, including cases in Pennsylvania, Arizona, and New Hampshire. The National Housing Law Project and the American Civil Liberties Union have both dedicated resources informing the public of these laws and providing support for domestic violence survivors, including a survey where victims can report if they have been evicted or pressured with eviction by their landlords under a nuisance ordinance. 

Nuisance ordinances were not created to target victims of domestic violence, but current research indicates that the effects of these laws can be life threatening. By criminalizing the use of emergency services, nuisance ordinances don’t make our communities safer—they just punish victims.

About the Author: Amy Sechrist is a first year Master’s candidate in the Department of City and Regional Planning at UNC-Chapel Hill with a concentration in Housing and Community Development. Her research interests include affordable housing, planning for equity, and the intersection of gender and planning.

References:

Desmond, M., & Valdez, N. (2012). Unpolicing the Urban Poor: Consequences of Third-Party Policing for Inner-City Women. American Sociological Review, 78(1), 117–141. https://doi.org/10.1177/0003122412470829

Williams, R., & Cook-Thajudeen, A. (2018). Nuisance and Crime-Free Ordinances/Policies: Protections for Survivors of Domestic and Sexual Violence. National Housing Law Project.

Viewpoints: Will Washington, D.C. Achieve Vision Zero?

Is a city with no serious accidents or fatalities from traffic collisions an achievable vision? In February 2015, Washington, D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser launched the city’s Vision Zero Initiative. Its stated objective: “By the year 2024, Washington, DC will reach zero fatalities and serious injuries to travelers of our transportation system, through more effective use of data, education, enforcement, and engineering.”

Having both lived and worked in the capital city, Editorial board members Katy Lang and Brian Vaughn discussed Vision Zero in DC.

Angles: Why are you both engaged in this topic?

BV: I took a class with planner/architect/engineer Tony Sease in the spring of 2016 that delved into the hierarchical street network (local, collector, arterial). It is now blatantly obvious to me when street networks are designed to move the greatest volume of traffic possible, and do not prioritize other goals like safety or pedestrian access. When I moved to DC in summer of 2016, I perceived that DC had progressed considerably in engineering streets that integrate bicycle and pedestrian safety, too.

streetmix_2

Improved street design can help achieve the goal of creating a safe street for all users. Credit: Brian Vaughn

KL: I moved to the DC area in 2009 and gave up my car almost immediately. I rode the bus and took Metro to work downtown every day, which also meant that I did a ton of walking. Over the years, this became such a huge part of my life that I turned my attention more and more to the local transportation community and its initiatives. While DC is more pedestrian-friendly than, say, the New Jersey suburb where I grew up, I still see room for improvement. I’ve lost count of the number of times a car has nearly run me over while I was walking. I had to assert my right to walk on a daily basis.

Angles: Do you think Vision Zero as a goal is worth striving for? What do you think of the Vision Zero concept overall?

BV: Vision Zero originated in Sweden, and it refers to initiatives that aim to bring the number of fatalities or serious injuries in roadways to zero. Vision Zero campaigns have really taken off in the United States recently. The Vision Zero Network has 18 active campaigns, with at least a dozen cities considering it. Given that road standards are often set at the federal level, I wonder how lower levels of government that adopt Vision Zero could be effective. The state of North Carolina has chosen to launch its own initiative with a partnership of multiple departments and advocacy organizations. The first-ever Vision Zero initiative was launched by Sweden’s national government, but most American initiatives are taken on by cities.

KL: It is absolutely a worthwhile goal. Anything that draws more attention to how many pedestrians and others are killed each day on our streets has value.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nK1AB_7RwiQ&feature=youtu.be

Angles: What about DC’s Vision Zero makes sense to you? Where are its drawbacks?

BV: Street engineering, a fancy term for how much street space is given to drivers, cyclists, and pedestrians, is a central part of DC’s Vision Zero Action Plan. Those working on the initiative have also partnered with the National Association of City Transportation Officials (NACTO), which could facilitate sharing of best practices of peer cities and influence street engineering with NACTO’s multiple design guides.

Washington is a national leader in bicycle infrastructure. Its downtown was rated the 7th most bikeable place in the country in 2016, largely because it built a safe network with committed and separated bike lanes and cycletracks.

dc-cycletrack

Cycletrack in DC with a parking lane between cars and bicycle traffic. Source: Brian Vaughn

It is also ambitious! Aiming for no deaths or serious injuries by 2024 is a tall order, but as we’ve seen with other initiatives to make big changes in transportation infrastructure in cities, ambitious goals yield desirable results.

KL: I appreciate the published Vision Zero action plan and the coordination among 20 different DC agencies. That kind of cooperation is key for the changes that need to take place, particularly prioritizing the safety of people over the free and unimpeded movement of cars.  I see that this prioritization requires a culture change within planning and engineering professions. Interagency cooperation makes sense to me, and so does the comprehensive focus on the five Es: engineering, education, encouragement, enforcement, and evaluation and planning. The drawback of the plan is that this kind of culture change takes time. Unfortunately, I can think of specific places where recent road upgrades have not embraced the prioritization of people’s safety, especially pedestrians. DDOT installed new “beg buttons” on Maryland Ave. and 14th St. that lengthen the amount of time pedestrians have to wait to cross. The District also closes sidewalks without providing adequate pedestrian detours (including the 16th & I Street intersection I walked through every day in 2015 to get to my office), and fails to maintain bike lanes in snow events. The regional Street Smart campaign continues to put out pedestrian-shaming and victim-blaming ads. None of these things are aligned with a culture that puts the most vulnerable street users first.

dcsidewalks16andeyev

16th and I Street NW in November 2015, a block from two Metro stations. Two closed sidewalks made crossing the intersection nearly impossible. Credit: Google Maps

Angles: What can be learned from the case of DC? If we were to apply it here in Chapel Hill, what would you want to see?

BV: A Vision Zero initiative is not merely a public relations campaign, even though North Carolina’s iteration is operating as one. We’re doing a disservice to our most vulnerable users if we’re blaming and shaming them. Asking pedestrians to wear visibility vests or look both ways before crossing the street is as condescending as it gets, and an indication to me that North Carolina’s Vision Zero Initiative is hardly more than a series of tweets and public service announcement videos. I think we need more engineering solutions, such as the adoption and meaningful incorporation of design principles championed by the National Association of City Transportation Officials.

Failing to ignore transportation engineering in Vision Zero may prove deadly. Peer-reviewed studies suggest that engineering roads for high volumes of vehicle traffic without incorporating pedestrian-safe designs is dangerous. Studies find that arterial routes in central business districts yield comparatively high crash rates for vehicles and pedestrians. In addition, the development encouraged by particular types of roads creates unsafe conditions for all road users. One study found that urban arterials, strip commercial developments, and big box stores are associated with higher incidence of crashes and injuries than pedestrian-oriented retail development.

KL: As a news article about DC’s Vision Zero noted just this past month, “public outreach efforts at education must succeed, not only in getting reluctant commuters to accept narrowed roads, but in rolling back the assumption that at least some traffic fatalities are inevitable.” Simply changing posted speed limits and publishing a flashy document don’t go far enough. If Vision Zero was implemented in Chapel Hill, communities will have to accept that some streets will need to be re-engineered for the safe movement of all users in order to save lives.

About the Authors:

Brian Vaughn is a junior undergraduate student at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. He has studied planning and energy issues in Spain and Germany and worked for the US Department of Transportation in our nation’s capital.

Katy Lang is a masters student in the Department of City & Regional Planning. She spent seven years in the Washington, DC area and as a result, she has a love-love relationship with DC’s Metro system and all things urban and transportation. She is passionate about pedestrian safety and the pedestrian’s right to the city and the street. Prior to coming to UNC, Katy worked in change management. She likes long runs on Carrboro’s short bike trails and eating popcorn.