HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning 2011-11-10 Safety ArticleFEATURE
What Do We Mean By "Safe
we think about plan
en
or safe communities, we
need to start by asking two basic
questions. What do we mean by safe?
And what do we mean by dangerous?
For the past twelve years, Morgan
Quitno, a national research and publish-
ing company has released its annual
Safest and Most Dangerous Cities reports.
These reports enjoy widespread media
coverage. But Morgan Quitno only looks
at crime categories murder, rape, rob-
bery, aggravated assault, burglary, and
motor vehicle theft to determine, as the
report puts it, "which cities and metro-
politan areas were safest and most dan-
gerous."' Is an exclusive focus on crime
the best way to measure how "safe" our
communities really are?
University of Virginia planning pro-
fessor William H. Lucy has instead
focused on crime and on another aspect
of safety: motor vehicle accidents. Lucy
measured rates of fatal motor vehicle
accidents (a sadly common occurrence)
and rates of homicide -by- stranger (rare,
but a crime widely feared) A startling
pattern emerged: the most dangerous
parts of the metro areas were the most
rural, exurban sectors. For example,
rural Grundy County, Illinois (popula-
tion just over 37,000) was, by Lucy's
1 City Crime Rankings, 12th Edition (Morgan Quinto
Press, 2005).
2 William H. Lucy and David Phillips, Tomorrow's
Cities, Tomorrow's Suburbs (Planners Press, 2006).
by Evan Lowenstein
measure, more dangerous than Cook
County (Chicago). Why? Because the
death -by -auto rate was three times high-
er than the rate in Cook County.
Lucy's research provides an important
service to planners by highlighting that
while crime is the danger that preys most
on Americans' imaginations, there is
more to safety and danger than just
crime.
How can planners make for safer
communities? One step is to scrutinize
the way our communities are designed
and laid out. Planners and public safety
officials must look through the other's
lens to learn more about what can make
their community safer.
William Lucy's research shows us that
the single most important thing we can
do to increase the safety of communities
is reduce the risk of high -speed automo-
bile accidents. High -speed two -lane local
roads and wide arterials are the riskiest
for motorists and for pedestrians.
Seventy -seven percent of fatal auto
accidents occur at high -speed in acci-
dents on rural roads.' In addition, in
many of the fast growing suburban and
exurban regions of the country, the rate
of pedestrian fatalities is going up, even
though fewer people are walking'
According to an American Associa-
3 William H. Lucy, "Watch Out: It's Dangerous in
Exurbia," Planning (November 2000).
4 Mean Streets 2004: How Far Have We Come? (Sur-
face Transportation Policy Project, December 2004).
5 NCHRP Report 500: Vol. 10, A Guide for Reducing
Collisions Involving Pedestrians (Transportation
Research Board, 2004).
tion of State Highway and Transportation
Officials sponsored report, "a pedestrian
hit at 40 mph has an 85 percent chance
of being killed, while at 20 mph, the
fatality rate is only 5 percent. The dan-
ger is exacerbated by the fact that these
roads located in increasingly residential
areas often lack- adequate aprons, side-
walks, and crosswalks.
Of course, while automobiles pose a
major safety challenge, crime is also a
real danger in our communities. Crime
prevention is not the work only of law
enforcement, but also very much the
purview of planners. "Crime prevention
through environmental design" (com-
monly referred to by its acronym,
OPTED) is an approach that recognizes
that "the proper design and effective use
of the built environment can lead to a
reduction in the fear and incidence of
crime and an improvement in the quality
of life." JS� "Understanding CPTED"
The way uses are separated or mixed
within a community can also influence
the type and incidence of crime. Busi-
nesses and houses sited together within
mixed -use neighborhoods can recipro-
cally watch one another, as their occu-
pied and vacant hours tend to be
complementary. Mixed -use development
enables more "24 -hour neighborhoods,"
which can mean more eyes and feet on
the street more hours of the day and
night. Development characterized by
separation of uses and significant dis-
tance from community cores often expe-
rience longer response times from police,
ambulance, and fire services.
Density of development affects safety
too. Despite the safety concerns often
raised in opposition to higher- density
development, research shows that well
designed, higher- density development
can actually curb crime. An Urban Land
Institute study of Greenwich, Connecti-
cut revealed that higher- density housing
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS JOURNAL NUMBER 64 FALL 2006
21
was substantially less likely to be bur-
glarized than its lower- density, single
family counterparts .6
Making communities safer through
planning and community design poses
many challenges and more than a few
dilemmas. In its "Sustainable City
Progress Report," the City of Santa Mon-
ica, California describes one such dilem-
ma. The city has implemented traffic
calming measures to improve bicycle and
pedestrian safety, addressing the increase
in the number of reported accidents
involving motor vehicles and pedestri-
ans. However, fire trucks have difficulty
navigating the speed
bumps and traffic
circles, and emer-
gency response times
have worsened.
Planners can play
a vital role in mediat-
ing these discussions
and helping the
community balance
conflicting needs.
Can more and brigh-
ter lighting improve
safety without chang-
ing the character of How do we make our comrftunities'safeolaces for.kids to w'up ih?
the neighborhood?
Can landscaping be lush, or will this just
create more places for intruders and
attackers to hide? Do high- density and
mixed -use development, sidewalks, and
bike lanes fit with the character of rural
areas? Does turning drivers into cyclists
and pedestrians ever increase risk?
Informed, creative community design
can help address these challenging
questions.
Professional and citizen planners, as
key designers of our communities, are
critical to this process. By focusing on
the real dangers, planners and other
public officials can apply design solu-
tions that make our communities look,
feel, and be safer.
Evan Lowenstein runs Green Village Consult-
ing, a Rochester, New York firm dedicated to
sustainable development; <wwwgreenvillage.us
5 Marcus Felson and Richard B. Peiser, Reducing
rime through Real Estate Development and Manage
nent (Urban Land Institute, 1997).
0 Cul -de -Sacs
William Lucy and colleague
David Phillips explain in their
book Tbmorrow' Cities, Tbmorrow's Suburbs
that cul -de -sac streets may be more dan-
gerous to drivers and pedestrians than
many planners and residents think. Com-
mon belief is that cul-de-sacs are safer for
children' because they prevent through
traffic and slow traffic down. But Lucy and
Phillips point out that .cul -de -sacs' superi-
or safety,,; while touted by real estate agents
and accepted as fact by tens of millions of
Americans, is not backed up eriipirically in
plannmg and transportation research;:
Understanding CPTED
by Timothy Crowe
CPTED is based on the theory that the
proper design and effective use of the built
environment can lead to a reduction in the
fear and incidence of crime and an
improvement in the quality of life. CPTED
concepts can be applied to an individual
building as well as to an entire neighbor-
hood.
Using design to foster security has its
origins in the early history of the develop-
ment of communities. Early Sumerian
codes (4,000 BC.) identified the impor-
tance of respect for property rights, while
the Codes of Hammurabi (2,000 BC.)
introduced the responsibilities of builders
to their clients. Eighth century Chinese
practitioners of Feng Shui promoted the
design of harmony in space from the size
of the smallest rooms to the planning of
cities. Native American cliff dwellers at the
same time were developing hierarchies of
family and community identity and pro-
tection through the design of living space
building impregnable living areas on the
face of cliffs accessible only by ladders.
CPTED is based on three overlapping
strategies: natural access control; natural
surveillance; and territorial reinforcement.
Access control is a design concept
directed at decreasing crime opportunity._
Surveillance is directed.at keeping intrud-
ers under observation. Traditionally, access
control land surveillance have emphasized
mechanical or organized crime prevention
techniques. More. recent approaches to .the:
physical of environments; have
shifted the emphasis to natural crime pre
vention techniques..
This shift in emphasis has led to the;
concept of territoriality, which suggests'
that physical design can create or expand;
a sphere of influence so that users develop
a sense of proprietorship a sense of'teriti:
torial influence and potential offenders
perceive this territorial influence.
Provide clear border definition of con-
trolled space. Boundaries may be identified
physically or symbolically, and can include.
fences, shrubbery, or signs. The underlying
principal is that a "reasonable individual'
must be able to recognize the transition
from public to private space.
Provide clearly marked transitional
zones. It is important to provide clearly
marked transitional zones so that users
know when they are moving from public
to semi public to private space.
Place safe activities in unsafe locations.
Safe activities serve as magnets for norrhal
users. Within reason, this strategy may be
used to overcome problems on school
campuses, parks, offices, or institutional
settings.
Redesign or revamp space to increase the
perception of natural surveillance. The per-
ception of surveillance is more powerful
than its reality. Hidden cameras do little to
make normal users feel safer. Likewise,
abnormal users do not feel at greater risk
when they are oblivious to surveillance
potentials. Windows, clear lines -of- sight,
and other natural techniques are often
as effective as the use of mechanical or
organized (e.g., guards) methods.
Excerpted from Timothy Crowe,
"Understanding CPTED," in PCJ #16.
22 PLANNING COMMISSIONERS JOURNAL NUMBER 64 FALL 2006