Daylighting bill adds street danger

For a large part of the 20th century, transport engineers thought that the larger streets were safer streets. Conventional wisdom was that the larger roads offered greater visibility and more space for vehicles to avoid collisions. This principle of road design quickly collapsed in transport services across the country and university establishments that have formed their employees. But, this conventional wisdom has proven to be a false hypothesis – that which had fatal consequences.

When wider streets have been put to the test using difficult data, it has become clear that the opposite of what was supposed was really true. We now know that wider roads generally encourage faster and more negligent driving that increases the danger for everyone. Meanwhile, narrower streets make drivers slow down and are more attentive to their environment. If you’ve already driven out a narrow street and an interstate highway, you know exactly what I mean.

The ideal street width is one of the many examples when the transport planners were mistaken when they were guided by hypotheses instead of data. This is why I am seriously concerned about intro 1138, law currently before the municipal council. The bill would considerably change 40,000 intersections across the city by instituting a universal “daylight”, which would prohibit parking a vehicle less than 20 feet from a pedestrian passage.

It is a well -intentioned bill that aims to improve visibility so that drivers and pedestrians can more easily see. It is an idea that has a lot of meaning on the surface, but a study of several years, which is of its kind, carried out by NYC Dot revealed that this could lead to up to 15,000 additional traffic injuries each year.

How is it possible? Candidly, this is not the conclusion that we expected. We have evaluated nearly 8,000 intersections across the city and found that the intersections with the lighting of the day required by this bill had more traffic injuries than comparable intersections without it.

Although these intersections have gained additional visibility which should have allowed drivers and pedestrians to see themselves more easily, the data suggests that it has also changed the driver’s behavior in a way that has reduced security. Our study suggests that by removing the physical barrier caused by parked cars, a wider turn of turns allowed drivers to turn faster and faster at intersections.

Our results are strangely similar to the hypotheses on the broader streets. Just as transport planners later realized that narrower roads generally improve safety, not wider, our study notes that a tighter turnover is preferable to a wider department. We even contacted the country’s cities to see if they have conducted similar studies so that we can take these results into account, but we found none.

Like the hypotheses on the safety advantages of the broader streets, hypotheses were made on the universal lighting of the day which are not supported by a rigorous analysis.

Our study revealed that the lighting of the “hardened” day – where you replace a car parked by a smaller physical object near the intersection – can have safety benefits. Indeed, you benefit from an improvement in visibility while retaining the tighter turning radius.

We have long used hardened lighting as one of the many tools to make the streets safer. We apply it situationally by placing objects such as concrete blocks, bike carriers or flower planters near certain intersections. We will continue to use this treatment where it can be the most effective. And, we will use other street design techniques where they make sense. There is no unique response to street safety, and we have to do what works and do it in the places where it is most necessary.

I was proud to be a street security defender throughout my career. Whether as a DOT commissioner or sitting on the municipal council, including as chairman of the transport committee, I fought hard for security – even when it was difficult.

Throughout this period, it was an honor to stand in the shoulder with other defenders of transport security and families who have lost dear beings because of traffic violence. I know that many of them are deeply careful about this bill, but the dedicated career professionals of NYC Dot who carefully and meticulously studied this issue revealed that the universal daylight would make our streets less safe. This is why I firmly oppose this bill and encourage my former colleagues from the municipal council to do the same.

Let’s work together on daring street overhaul projects, widening the day -to -day daylight if necessary and prioritize the most effective policies that make our streets safer for all.

Rodriguez is New York Transport Commissioner.