Slow Streets Initiative

This project tackles the issue of speed on urban streets in relation to urban transportation. It is statistically proven that travel speeds above 20 mph are significantly more deadly than those below, which has led to less inviting pedestrian access and increased traffic related fatalities and injuries. This trend of fast, auto-centric streets has made roads less approachable and inviting to anyone choosing to travel outside of a car. Additionally, fast vehicle speeds increase noise within cities, and make public spaces and streets less pleasant, more dangerous, and less livable overall. The rapidly changing use of streets with the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic brought to light a myriad of new and creative opportunities to alter the use of streets to adapt to a more inclusive and accessible environment for human scaled transportation. Through design and regulation interventions focused on catering to human scaled urban transport, the slow streets initiative aims to create safer streets for pedestrians and cyclists while fostering a more livable and comfortable environment for alternative modes of travel.

Safety

A common barrier of understanding in urban design is applying theory into practice in a way that confirms and justifies desired interventions. The idea of slow streets is met with a majority of optimism and it seems to have drastically different acceptances and apprehensions. In the realm of urban transportation, this concept is relatively well received and encouraged among progressive urban designers but the question still remains, will this theory work in practice? Though our own plan of phased implementation is a key step in this process, it is also necessary to study existing designs that have encouraged this type of urban transportation network design in order to reimagine an urban context that prioritizes safety at all scales of transportation modes.

Speed and Safety

Different forms of changing the behavior of drivers in the context of speed in urban environments have had varying impacts and pushbacks. In São Paulo, they reduced speed limits on highways from 90 to 70 km/h in 2015. The controversial policy became a major focal point of the mayoral election in 2017, and the new mayor reversed the policy. This allowed the researchers to compare accidents at three points: before, during, and after the reduction in speed limits. They found that over a period of 18 months, accidents decreased by 21.7% on roads affected by the policy. That equals approximately 1,889 averted accidents and 104 averted fatalities. Furthermore, researchers found that 86% of the benefits from reduced accident damages involved low-income residents; primarily pedestrians and motorcyclists. Additionally, AAA’s 2019 Traffic Safety Culture Index reported that 64% of surveyed drivers considered speeding over 10 mph on residential streets to be extremely or very dangerous. However, about 41% of drivers reported doing so within the past month. A study published by AAA in 2011 examined vehicle speeds when they crashed into pedestrians and found that 10% of pedestrians died when hit by vehicles traveling at 23 mph. That figure increased to 25% if the car was going 32 mph, 50% at 42 mph and 75% at 50 mph. At 58 mph, 90% of pedestrians died. In 2019, 9,478 deaths, or 26%, of all motor vehicle fatalities, occurred in speed-related crashes.

COVID-19 and Slow Streets

Changes to streets and their uses have dramatically shifted due to COVID-19 and many urban downtowns have started to question the legitimacy of how their streets are being used primarily for auto-centric purposes. Temporary designs, while still impermanent and avant-garde, have provided a new perspective on a street’s purpose and user response and can be a valuable tool to take into consideration with the design interventions that have been proposed with regards to slower streets.

The temporary nature of these slow streets seem to have a positive influence on the Tenderloin Neighborhood but it seems that if these interventions have a more established permanence, struggles are more likely to ensue. The big takeaway with the COVID slow streets initiative is that these interventions are a rapid solution for safe recreation and social distancing. These changes to the ways that streets are used need more established permanence if they are to remain pedestrian oriented and encourage other modes of travel once socializing becomes a more common occurrence again. Adaptations to the streets were relatively well received mostly because there was no alternative pushback; people were not driving as much and therefore they could adjust their car commute easier. If these streets remain oriented around the pedestrian once more traffic comes back to the streets, these changed streets might present more of a problem than before. Temporary design interventions seem to have a positive influence on the Tenderloin but if these proposals want to accomplish a more established permanence, difficulties are much more probable.

Street Networks and Homogeneous Connectivity

Many insights can be drawn from these two cities but it is important to continue to reinforce the differences between a slow street (eg. one singular closed street) and a slow street network (eg. city/neighborhood wide initiative to reduce car speeds in urban areas). The slow streets initiative has been very beneficial in many areas but there are still major issues that need to be addressed if this change in street design is going to become permanent. The shutting off of car traffic from certain streets does not decrease the usage of the car, it only redirects the traffic along a different route. A homogeneous application of this idea is necessary to ensure that this initiative is not simply moving the problem elsewhere. The underlying issue with regards to a fast and car dependent culture is that there really isn’t an alternative being offered. COVID changes started creating an idea of what this could look like but people are still very dependent on fast moving travel. Closing streets is only the beginning of a future with slower car travel, but more thoughtful and intentional street design and regulation is an essential part of making this idea a reality in American cities.

Another common misunderstanding is the type of streets that are most suitable for these kinds of changes. A main arterial roadway may have a higher level of resistance and pushback because of how many cars use these kinds of roads for commutes and to get to destinations in the quickest way possible. Smaller collector roads and neighborhood corridors can afford to make these changes because the uses of these streets are already catering to multiple groups of users. By prioritizing pedestrian and bicycle travel, the car will still be a necessary use, but it will not consume the entire mode of transportation for the street. The changes of streets that COVID brought to our attention also brought a strong argument of feasibility; these changes were met with little resistance and because of this there is a light of hope that the uses of streets can change in a way that more aptly supports non-autocentric modes of transportation. The way that streets have changed to meet user’s needs at a human scaled level during the past year is concrete evidence that the safety of pedestrian scaled transportation is an essential element to the success of an urban transportation network in which safety for all users is of the utmost priority.

Drawbacks of Slower Streets

As we’ve discussed, there are many advantages to reducing speeds. However, it should also be noted that there are numerous drawbacks to slow street programs, and pitfalls to avoid when implementing these programs. Although many of the problems associated with slow streets seem to be situational as they often relate to specific variables within certain communities, there are a few common drawbacks that many projects seem to experience. It is important to identify these weaknesses in order to avoid mistakes, while trying to create the most equitable and efficient streets as possible.

The two most common drawbacks of slow street programs are their integration with surrounding streets and the rest of the city, and the current norm and practice of multi phase rollouts. Without a properly developed cohesive system, the seamless connections between varying types of streets required to gain support and use become extremely difficult to achieve. The all too common use of Multi phase plans is also quite detrimental to implementing change in certain areas as it can greatly deter communities from being open to and adapting to new regulation and design.

Properly integrating slow street networks within existing environments can be a very difficult task. Similarly to the many failed bike programs implemented throughout the nation over the years, such as Denver, Colorado’s B-Cycle program, the connections between changed and unaltered roads can make or break the effectiveness and adaptation of a network. Without seamless connections to and within the network, users can become frustrated. They may even lose interest in supporting similar change in the future due to their negative experiences interacting with such a poorly designed and developed program. We as planners are tasked with making the user experience as pleasant as possible so that we can increase equity and efficiency for all. This can not be achieved without creating smooth and flawless connections to existing infrastructure.

Without an entirely uniform system and seamless connections, slow streets can actually negate what is trying to be accomplished. Connections to existing infrastructure must be clear and concise, avoiding confusion and maintaining acceptable efficiency. People become frustrated when they are inconvenienced, which can lead to many other related problems such as confrontation and even violence. We want to avoid this at all costs for the sake of our users and their personal experiences as well as to maintain the attractiveness of slow street programs.

Multi-phase rollouts of slow street programs also tend to be seen as a drawback and frustrating to users and residents. Unfortunately, such programs are often not single stage projects but instead require multiple iterations and/or phases in order to properly create entire cohesive networks. Although there are some positives to a multi phase program, many of those who are affected during construction only see the negatives. One of the main benefits usually associated with a multi phase process is that it has the ability to receive and consider feedback from users for the remaining phases. This allows for incremental change to possibly occur without greatly negatively affecting the timeline or community. On the other hand, no one likes road work and construction, especially when they’re directly affected. People become very frustrated and upset when you tear up their streets for anything more than necessary maintenance. The all too common and relatable story of a seemingly endless road work project on the busiest street in town seems to scare people away from ever wanting to trust the system again. We either need to reestablish trust with residents or move towards a single phase model. Constructing a slow street network can be extremely beneficial, but if people are spiteful of the way it was implemented and have negative connotations they now associate with it, even the best programs can fail if they are not adopted and supported by the local population.

Another drawback of reducing speeds through design and regulation is its often discussed association with gentrification. Unfortunately, the connection is much stronger than most people realize. Entire communities continue to fight existing and future change related to speed explicitly due to fear of gentrification and the ensuing aftermath. Properly implemented change requires a very intense and involved bottom up approach in order to make sure local communities are accurately represented. There is an inevitable need for interaction and feedback regardless of the initial approach, therefore slow street plans can only benefit from doing so beforehand.

The all too common theme of cities and planners failing to properly serve residents and achieve their goals seem to be particularly prevalent in these new slow street programs. With such new and progressive regulation and design being implemented across the United States, it is understandable why there may be a few mishaps along the way. Although some cities have done significantly better than others, there are still many simple steps that have somehow yet to be considered essential to the development process. For example, one of the most prevalent problems we currently face is the lack of representation and engagement within communities of color. This problem is deeply rooted in racist urban planning practices of the past and interconnected with a majority of the other issues we are trying to mitigate.

Gentrification is one of the most difficult drawbacks to combat in regards to slow street programs because of its deeply rooted historical context. The reason gentrification is commonly associated with slow streets is because of the historically racist nature of planning in the United States. In the past, minorities and communities of color were largely disenfranchised and did not receive nearly as much support and infrastructure as predominantly white communities. Now the conversation has turned to how do we try and mitigate these wrongdoings. Many planners have felt they could create change and alleviate some of this inequality by explicitly creating slow street programs that greatly affect areas associated with communities of color.

The problem is that many of these types of programs only accounted for the regions, not the community members themselves. Somehow, planners seemingly forget and/or fail to understand the gravity of the situation at hand and how, as urban designer Jay Pitter said, “We've actually designed cities to create buffers between us across race and class specifically, and this proposal completely ignores a century of planning interventions that have actually concretized deep social divisions between people” (O'Sullivan). Accepting this realization of past planning practices will hopefully allow us to move forward with a better understanding of why gentrification is such a touchy subject. We need to remove the resistance to change by actively addressing and combating the very real issue of gentrification within these communities.

As seen with Durham, North Carolina’s shared/slow street initiative, simply failing to inform residents of changes and why they are being made can cause significant backlash and failure to account for local residents insight and feedback, a crucial part to implementing any form of change. These critical steps of gathering information are essential but often overlooked until it's too late. The popular practice of trying to fix what could've easily been solved beforehand is simply due to a lack of community involvement. The same problems are being experienced across the nation. In Oakland, California, similar representation issues are affecting communities of color who became extremely frustrated with the initial rollout of their slow streets plan. Lack of community outreach again resulted in significantly lower levels of awareness, use and support comparatively. This problem is so intertwined with past planning practices and existing infrastructure that it will be very difficult to mitigate these issues that have persisted for decades. As seen with many changes in the United States, we continue to implement half baked plans only to spend more time and effort fixing what should have been done in the first place. This needs to change.

There is also an overarching theme of having to educate users. New and/or nonuniform designs can create a sense of uncertainty for users as they may be unsure of how to properly interact with particular streets. Implementing varying levels of design and regulation without properly educating users can cause mass confusion in certain areas and is something that is all too often overlooked. If residents don't even know how to correctly navigate through their own local streets, something is seriously wrong. These residents directly impacted by speed related change and intervention are often negatively affected. Specifically, people who live on these changing streets that are physically affected may be suffering from the NIMBY (Not In My Back Yard) syndrome. Although they may find the changes to be an improvement and beneficial to the community, the fact that they are directly affected and have to change their way of life to accommodate for it does not sit well with some.

With slow streets being a relatively new concept here in the United States, there is still much uncertainty. Cities and states are putting their own spin on things to try and create the best outcomes with what they have. The subsequent creation and use of non uniform designs will continue to complicate the education process considering the multitude of options currently available. Once design and regulation changes become relatively uniform, the public education process will be much easier to rely.

Another facet of the education drawback that should be addressed is the accountability and enforcement of this information. In Washington, DC, slow Streets are “designed to be self-enforcing”. The problem with that is it was also noted that police and District officials “will not be consistently enforcing them”, meaning that there are no real repercussions for failing to properly use or entirely disregard slow street programs. Washington, DC is also encouraging residents to report violations directly to a District Department of Transportation (DDOT) community engagement specialist instead of directly interacting with the culprits in order to avoid any possible confrontation or hostility. Without any accountability and not much incentive for those breaking the rules to abide, some form of personal responsibility must be put in place to ensure the education of users and proper use of slow street networks.

Poorly executed slow street programs can even make some streets less safe. Drivers being diverted from their normal routes are now speeding on other streets in response to the detours and slightly longer trips. This not only is disrupting traffic patterns, but more importantly negating one of the main reasons there is even a call to change in the first place, safety.

This shift can be best seen when analyzing city statistics. The city of Oakland, California and the OakDOT (Oakland Department of Transportation) issued a Slow Streets Interim Findings Report in September of 2020. The report summarized what they've done, what they plan to do, and how their sources and data have brought them to said conclusions. One of the most interesting parts of this report specifically related to traffic was the “Complaints of More Car Traffic on Adjacent Streets” data. Although Oaklands data proves that they were in fact successful at lowering overall vehicle volumes (while not disrupting essential roadway functions), there were many respondents that felt the need to report they experienced “negative traffic impacts on adjacent streets on the General Programmatic Feedback Form”. This discrepancy may be due to a lack of data, and/or the powerful and valuable local user insight that is unfortunately all too often overlooked. It is important to acknowledge the fact that data may be skewed and to always investigate further.

Connecting non-car users to traditionally car dominated areas is also a very big factor of this drawback. Another all to common theme we tend to see are these slow street programs failing to connect users to desired destinations. The whole point of slow streets is to increase the safety and use of city streets for all forms of transportation. Therefore, planners must address the hierarchy of destinations within the network as well as how they relate to the existing streets. For example Oakland, California had many connectivity problems with their initial program. Laura Bliss, a Bloomburg CityLab journalist wrote about an example where “It initially failed to catch the fact that, on certain corridors, residents didn’t even feel safe crossing a major artery to get to the grocery store, a problem that predated the pandemic — and that Slow Streets did little to solve”. If we want people to actually use these slow street networks we must design for their needs, or face the demise of a once promising idea.

The good thing about all of these drawbacks is that there are solutions to the problems. We may still be working through the kinks so to speak as seen in multiple precedent studies, but we believe a solution is near. With such new and foreign ways of thinking through and addressing these problems associated with slow streets, creative and revolutionary ideas are sure to be developed.

1. The first phase introduces new regulations to be built on by future phases. We recommend that cities use this phase to lower speed limits universally across the streets under their control, usually by a margin of at least 10 mph. Speed limits currently set at 25 should be reduced to no more than 15, 35 should become 25, and so on. While the model is focused on local and collector streets, speed limit reductions can and should be applied to arterials as well. Between phases 1 and 2, the city in question should take its time to measure the efficacy of speed limit reductions. In addition to the streets recommended by Team Where, cities should focus their efforts for the next phases on the streets wherein the actual speed of vehicles does not closely match the speed limit set in phase 1.

2. Phase 2 is made up of informal, inexpensive, easy to implement design changes, like repainting streets to reallocate space. This phase is meant to give cities the opportunity to explore different design strategies and may be repeated several times on the same street if necessary. One of the major steps for cities during this phase is almost always going to be the removal of parking, as that’s a factor that makes a significant difference in whether or not people will drive to the area. Parking takes up valuable street space that could be better devoted to modes other than cars, and the removal of parking can also help spur transit usage in areas where it’s available. For larger roads, this phase will usually introduce lanes for alternative modes of transit, focusing now on bicycling, but may also include space for mini or micro mobility options as we move into the future. In contrast, smaller streets with less traffic may opt for a deregulated approach, mixing modes and implementing a completely different set of designs. More information regarding the design needs of each type of street can be found in the toolkit below. Between phases 2 and 3, the city should again collect speed and usage data for the affected streets. It’s acceptable, and will likely be common for cities to repeat phase 2 multiple times based on community feedback and the emergence of new street designs. Once the city is satisfied with its rough design, it can move on to phase 3.

3. The third phase formalizes design elements, using physical barriers and more expensive materials to make more permanent changes to the street. This phase can also intensify or modify designs made in phase 3, depending on the data collected between phases. It’s important to be fully committed to the design produced for phase 3, as this is the most expensive and least easily reversible phase. Some municipalities may be tempted to skip phases 1 and 2 and launch directly into formalized design. While this is technically an option, it’s far more useful in most scenarios to use informal design to test out multiple possibilities (and public reaction to them) before settling on a final set of elements. Unless the city in question has extremely specific, well researched ideas about what they’d like to introduce to the streetscape, it’s a much better idea to go through the informal phases first.

4. Finally, the fourth phase adjusts regulations if deemed to be necessary. This allows for minor tweaks to be made to the finished product, like a further reduction of speed limit. These regulations could also include new traffic laws for mini and micro mobility users, or specific rules about how mixed-mode local streets should operate, for example.

These steps can be implemented differently depending on the needs and available resources of the city in question. For example, cities with less expendable funds should focus on the first two phases, as they’re both relatively inexpensive, requiring primarily paint and signage. Cities hoping to make changes quickly may choose to severely reduce speed limits according to phase 1, and then wait until more resources are available to follow up with designed interventions of any kind. Cities with more expendable time and money will likely focus on the later stages, implementing beautiful formalized designs and fine-tuning over long stretches of time.

Considerations and Needs to Account for

Our investigation is primarily focused around and invested in the streets that people experience most often, especially outside of cars. Because of that, our considerations about the design needs of each street type is limited to residential, mixed use, and commercial land uses, as well as to local and collector scales. While this toolkit discusses the needs of each street type, recommendations regarding the actual designed elements that are possible to introduce to the street can be found in NACTO’s Urban Street Design Guide.

1. Land Use is a factor that significantly affects the way that streets are used, and should therefore equally affect the way streets are designed.

   1. Mixed Use streets require the most attention, as they’ll likely be the most used overall, catering to residents, workers, consumers, and recreators all at once. It’s necessary to create dynamic space in mixed-use areas, as there are more factors to consider here than anywhere else. Storefronts, sidewalks, parking, transit, and vehicle flow can all be adjusted to make the space more inviting and more effective. Typically, the best economic and social gains will be realized by narrowing or removing travel lanes and parking, introducing or better catering to transit, and expanding storefront space and sidewalks when possible. It’s also important to provide for as many different types of traffic as possible. Mixed use areas are perfect for introducing spaces made specifically for mini or micro mobility, as these typologies thrive in mixed-use settings.

   2. Commercial streets are similar to mixed use streets in many ways, and most of the same principles apply here. The main difference is that the lack of local residents removes a group that should be catered to. While transit connections are important in commercial areas to allow users to reach the space, they can be somewhat less frequent here thanks to the lack of residents.

   3. Residential streets usually see less use than commercial or mixed use streets, as the only users on such streets are those passing through or residents on the street itself. This allows for mode mixing and deregulation in many cases, or even in some instances the development of Dutch-style ‘Woonerfs,’ which can make residential roads significantly more inviting, creating opportunities for residents to make more use of the street as public space.

2. Scale of streets, while realistically made up of a gradient of street types and sizes, is generally divided into five major categories within cities: local, minor collector, major collector, minor arterial, and major arterial. Given our focus on accessibility rather than mobility, arterial street types are not considered within the scope of this project. That said, local streets, minor collectors, and major collectors all have different needs that should be accounted for within any new design scheme.

   1. Local streets present a unique opportunity to mix modes, as their less frequent usage and generally narrower width makes for slower travel speeds to begin with. Deregulated structures have the potential to work well on many local roads, especially in residential areas, as mentioned above. Speeds tend to be lower on local roads than others anyway, since they’re not being used to connect important points to one another within the city. This allows cities to pay somewhat less attention to these roads, as there is less work to do here than elsewhere.

   2. Minor Collectors make for a great space for experimentation. Since their speed limits will still be relatively low (likely between 15 and 30 mph after phase 1), this presents the opportunity to introduce alternative street models. One example is the lane speed model, which separates all traffic by speed rather than by mode. This model dictates that each lane of travel operates as a different speed; the far right lane, which also encompasses what was previously the sidewalk, would be for any person or vehicle travelling under 10 mph, with speed increasing by increments of 5 or 10 mph as we near the center of the street. This would allow for a gradient of activity, with the center of the street being used primarily by cars, the edges by pedestrians, and minicars, scooters, bikes, and other modes filling the space between depending on their speed. The small speed range represented by each lane helps enforce safety, assuming compliance of the users. This is only one option for minor collectors; there are many other ways to make changes to this flexible street type.

   3. Major Collectors, in opposition to local streets, usually require rigid mode separation. Since maximum speeds here tend to be higher than that of minor collectors, and because they’re more important traffic conduits, experimental models are often more difficult to implement effectively on major collectors. Instead, it’s best to cater to all modes as well as possible. This means wide, protected bike lanes, large sidewalks with plenty of separation from traffic, and lanes dedicated to micromobility or minimobility if these types aren’t able to conform to either car traffic or bicycle traffic in a safe and effective way.

3. Transit greatly affects the way that streets should be developed or changed, given that different types of transit require different infrastructure beyond that required by pedestrians, cyclists, and vehicles.

   1. Bus systems require stop infrastructure along their routes, which can also be used strategically to help slow down streets. By extending curbs and placing stops directly next to travel lanes, efficiency of bus routes is increased as buses don’t need to exit the travel lane to pick up and drop off passengers. At the same time, traffic speed is reduced thanks to the semi-frequent stopping of buses within the same lanes. It’s also important to provide weather shelters for those waiting for the bus when possible, maximizing the usefulness of the bus system. Transit services should always be treated as the highest priority on the road, as they carry significantly more people than any other vehicle type.

   2. Rail-based transit services, in opposition to buses, usually require stop infrastructure in the center of the street. This can be used to our advantage, providing an extra reason to introduce pedestrian crossings, which can be easily implemented alongside speed humps or tables to slow traffic. Tram or light rail stops in the center can also be used to narrow roads or reduce lanes in some cases, shifting more space away from vehicles and towards people.

When looking to apply design strategies to streets, it’s important to consider the intersections of all of these factors. While, for instance, local roads have different needs than minor collectors, local roads in residential areas need to be treated quite differently than local roads in commercial areas. There is no perfect design that can be applied universally across all streets, so it’s necessary to cater to the existing strengths of each road while minimizing weaknesses and addressing issues.

Conclusion

The slow streets initiative’s proposal of design and regulation interventions focused on catering to human scaled urban transport will begin to create safer streets for pedestrians and cyclists while fostering a more livable and comfortable environment for alternative modes of travel. The flexibility and adaptability of urban streets that COVID-19 exposed gave hope and inspiration for a more realistic opportunity to change the use of urban streets to meet the needs of transportation opportunities while prioritizing a slower street that gave opportunities for other modes of travel. The safety component of the slow streets initiative is directed at the evidence that travel speeds above 20 mph are significantly more deadly than those below. Redirecting the narrative of fast, auto-centric streets that has made roads less approachable and inviting to anyone choosing to travel outside of a car which also increases noise levels within cities, and makes public spaces and streets less pleasant, more dangerous, and less livable overall. The slow streets initiative's main objective is to address the high speed levels in urban streets in relation to urban transportation in order to create a more inclusive and less hostile environment for human scaled transportation options.

References

Ang, A., Christensen, P., & Vieira, R. (2020). Should congested cities reduce their speed limits?

Evidence from São Paulo, Brazil. Journal of Public Economics, 184, 104155.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpubeco.2020.104155

Asal, E., & Jackson, B. (2020, October 19). The Slow Streets Movement Needs More Black Voices. Gensler. https://www.gensler.com/blog/slow-streets-safe-streets-movement-needs-more-black-voices?q=slow%20streets

Bliss, L. (2021, January 6). ‘Slow Streets’ Disrupted City Planning. What Comes Next? Bloomberg CityLab. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-01-06/the-swift-disruptive-rise-of-slow-streets

Bosselman, A. (2019, November 21). BREAKING: Denver’s Bike Share Program Will Shut Down; City Will Shake up Scooter Program. Streetsblog Denver. https://denver.streetsblog.org/2019/11/21/breaking-denvers-bike-share-program-will-shut-down-city-will-shake-up-scooter-program/

City of Oakland & Oakland Department of Transportation. (2020, September). Oakland Slow Streets Interim Findings Report. https://cao-94612.s3.amazonaws.com/documents/Oakland-Slow-Streets-Interim-Findings-Report.pdf

Combs, T., & Pardo, C. F. (2021). Shifting Streets COVID-19 Mobility Data: Findings from a

global dataset and a research agenda for transport planning and policy. Shifting Streets

COVID-19 Mobility Data: Findings from a Global Dataset and a Research Agenda for

Transport Planning and Policy. https://doi.org/10.31235/osf.io/2mzuy

Fermoso, J. (2020, November 27). What do we know about Slow Streets and safety? Here’s what data and residents have to say. The Oaklandside. https://oaklandside.org/2020/11/25/what-do-we-know-about-slow-streets-and-safety-heres-what-data-and-residents-have-to-say/

Jane Andrade, D. S. (n.d.). States Look to Lower Speed Limits.

https://www.ncsl.org/research/transportation/states-look-to-lower-speed-limits.aspx.

National Center for Statistics and Analysis. (2020, October). Preview of motor vehicle traffic

fatalities in 2019 (Research Note. Report No. DOT HS 813 021). National Highway

Traffic Safety Administration.

https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/ViewPublication/813021

Oakland, C. O. (2020, May 22). Oakland Slow Streets Continues Adapting to Residents’ Needs, Launches First “Essential Places” Installation in East Oakland. City of Oakland. https://www.oaklandca.gov/news/2020/5-22-20-oakland-slow-streets-continues-adapting-to-residents-needs-launches-first-essential-places-installation-in-east-oakland

O’Sullivan, F. (2021, March 2). Where the ‘15-Minute City’ Falls Short. Bloomberg CityLab.https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-03-02/the-downsides-of-a-15-minute-city

Pascale, J. (2021, March 24). D.C. Is Ending Its Experiment With “Slow Streets.” DCist. https://dcist.com/story/21/03/23/d-c-is-ending-its-experiment-with-slow-streets/

Solomon, L. (2020, December 9). Why do people keep treating Slow Streets signs like the Kool-Aid Man treats walls? Greater Greater Washington. https://ggwash.org/view/79802/why-do-people-keep-treating-slow-streets-signs-like-the-kool-aid-man

Tefft, B. C. (2011, September). Impact Speed and a Pedestrian's Risk of Severe Injury or Death.

Car Crashes Rank Among the Leading Causes of Death in the United States.

https://aaafoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/2011PedestrianRiskVsSpeed.pdf

Yang, D. (2020). 2019 Traffic Safety Culture Index. AAA Foundation for Traffic

Safety. https://aaafoundation.org