What is second-generation traffic calming?

David Engwicht

The goals of traditional traffic calming and 'second generation traffic calming' are identical - to create more livable and vibrant neighborhoods by slowing traffic. However, while traditional traffic calming concentrated almost exclusively on slowing traffic through engineering interventions, second generation traffic calming uses a much wider range of interventions. Designing second generation traffic calming interventions is grounded in an understanding that traffic problems emerge from a very complex interplay of mental, psychological, social, cultural, economic, physical and political realities.

Here are some of the understandings that make second generation traffic calming very different from first generation traffic calming:
 
People hold contradictory values and desires (which is a good thing - and the key to working for change). In our 'motoring persona' we want traffic to go faster. In our 'resident persona' we want traffic to go slower (or stop altogether). Second generation traffic calming is built on working with these internal contradictions and helping people find a more creative way to balance these contradictory needs. These contradictory desires are not a bad thing - in fact they make large-scale cultural change relatively easy.

What the community is talking about when it talks about a 'problem' is really the tension created when legitimate contradictory needs get out of balance. For example, traffic is not a problem per se. It only becomes a problem if as a society we allow our need for movement, speed and adventure to ride roughshod over our need to reside and be 'grounded' (a sense of home and nurture). If we allow this to happen (usually an unconscious process) we begin to feel like one or more of our basic needs are being denied or subjugated. It is this denial or subjugation of a basic need (not the need for speed and adventure) which is the 'problem'.

First-generation traffic calming sought to redress the imbalance between 'motorist' and 'resident' by confronting head-on the 'motorist' and their desire for speed. Second generation traffic calming recognizes that 'problems' are not dealt with by simply attacking and trying to reduce the power of the need or desire that has taken the dominant position (what I call 'the dominant voice'). This simply evokes a negative reaction from the 'motoring' part of us that has very legitimate needs and desires. Implicit in the whole notion of second-generation traffic calming is the idea that significant social change only happens when we amplify the paradoxical 'submerged voice' as opposed to tearing down the 'dominant voice'. It is only when the 'motorist' and the 'resident' have equal status at the negotiating table (within the head of each individual and within social discourse) that we can find truly creative ways to satisfy what are both legitimate but contradictory desires and needs. Programs, such as the Pace Car, even go as far as to enlist the 'dominant voice' as an advocate for the 'submerged voice': that is, it uses the car as the vehicle for giving voice to the needs of 'the resident' that lives in all our heads.
 
Traffic problems cannot be properly addressed while feeding the 'politics of blame'. One way we deal with our own internal contradictions is to keep our contradictory parts separate and we flip-flop between which one is in charge. So when we are driving, our motorist is in charge and residents who let their kids play in the street are just slowing us down. But when we get home and want to relax with the family, we blame 'irresponsible motorists' for destroying our sense of home. Most residents see the traffic problems on their street as being caused by 'those bad motorists'. And it is someone else's responsibility (usually the city) to fix this problem. These residents rarely stop to think that every time they drive they are doing the same damage to the livability of other people's neighborhoods as is being done to theirs. First-generation traffic calming covertly encouraged people to continue this externalizing of the blame for traffic problems by promising a solution that would 'stop those bad motorists from the other side of town speeding in your street'.

However, until residents accept responsibility for their part in the total traffic problem, (including the damage they are doing to other neighborhoods each time they drive) traffic 'solutions' will only treat symptoms rather than tackling the core issues. And by city authorities promising residents a 'solution' (such as traffic calming) that does not require the residents to face their own contradictory needs, they actually make the problem worse in the long run.
 
Residents have retreated psychologically from their street, and each retreat has been an invitation for traffic to go faster. One way that residents contribute directly to the traffic problems on their own street is that they have retreated psychologically over time. This may have started with parents asking their kids to stop playing on the roadway and to instead play on the sidewalk. As a result, motorists went faster in the street. So the parents told their kids not to play on the sidewalk and to play in the yard or at the park. This invited motorists to go even faster. This is not to say that the parents didn't feel a genuine sense of threat. However, by choosing to retreat rather than confront the threat, they gave an open invitation for traffic to go faster. This caused further psychological retreats from the street: no longer using the sidewalk for adult socializing; no longer walking or allowing their children to walk; the elderly and disabled no longer using the street as their outdoor meeting place; and eventually not even parking their car in the street. Each psychological retreat encouraged traffic to go faster. Traffic automatically slows if residents begin reclaiming their street and bringing these traditional functions back into the street. (The reasons for this are explained further below.) Simply putting physical devices in a street is no guarantee that the residents will psychologically reclaim their street and rebuild their neighborhood life.
 
Speed and attitudes to driving are influenced by the driver's 'mental state' and this can be greatly influenced by the design of spaces and how the space is used. There are two psychological factors that automatically cause motorists to slow down; intrigue and uncertainty. Most motorists have a fixation on their destination and getting there as quickly as possible. The more predictable and boring the space they pass through the greater this fixation and the greater their desire for speed. However, an environment that contains high levels of intrigue and unpredictability breaks this 'fixation' and causes the motorist to engage mentally with the environment they are passing through. This shift of mental focus automatically causes the motorist to slow down. For example, one street reclaiming technique is to get residents and children to give a friendly wave to motorist. This taps into the intrigue factor. The motorist wonders if they know the person, or why the person is waving. Their attention moves from future anticipation to engagement with the present moment, and they automatically slow to absorb that moment. The same phenomenon happens if there is something new and engaging in the street, like a new sculpture or someone reading a book on a chair in the parking bay outside their house. (We have all seen how this works when there is an accident on the side of the road.) Design can be used to deliberately create these shifts in mental focus and therefore produce a drop in speed. (For those who think that such diversions and unpredictability compromises safety by causing 'rubber-necking' see the article Does Intrigue and Uncertainty Compromise Safety.)
 
Social programs can also greatly influence people's mental attitude when driving. There is another dimension to understanding the 'mental state' of motorists and that is to understand what drives them to drive. For example, many parents drive their kids because of perceptions of traffic danger and stranger danger. Addressing these mental perceptions through social programs (for example, the Walking School Bus or Red Sneaker Week) is often much more effective than trying to address them through changes to the physical environment (traffic calming or building a larger drop of zone). Successful second-generation traffic calming programs must understand and deal with these perceptions rather than simply attacking the physical manifestation of these perceptions - for example, the traffic chaos around a school.
 
The design and uses of spaces puts us in a particular mental state. Engineers now understand that in some cases painting a pedestrian crossing may increase chances of an accident because the pedestrian assumes it is safer to cross here and is not as vigilant (a mental state). I am not using this example to argue against pedestrian crossings (quite the contrary), but rather to illustrate the connection between design and mental stance and the shallowness of our current analysis. What is not currently considered in this discussion on crossings is how the absence of marked crossings may impact psychologically on drivers and pedestrians over time. The absence of marked crossings will increase the perception of drivers that the road space belongs exclusively to them (there being no visual clues that the opposite is true). Over time, the drivers will increasingly view pedestrians as intruding into their space. They may therefore become more aggressive to these 'intruders'. The pedestrians will feel increasingly marginalized and may reduce their walking trips to an absolute minimum. Less pedestrians crossing the road will reinforce the drivers growing perceptions that the road is their space, and the vicious cycle will escalate.

Now I happen to think that there are much more creative ways of signaling to drivers that streets are a shared space than painting standardized crossings. What I am demonstrating here is that there is much to learn in this new field of 'space psychology'. For example, as stated earlier, intrigue and uncertainty are two key 'mental states' that automatically cause drivers to slow down. This suggests a raft of new 'design criterion' for slowing traffic. For example, standardized signage and use of standardized road markings should be reduced to a minimum as they create predictability and contain no intrigue. They also reinforce that a street belongs exclusively to the motorists. Messages can be conveyed to motorists in a much more creative way than by using these standardized devices. This not only helps slow traffic but creates urban environments which are richer and more stimulating.
 
Existing 'problems' are usually the result of a long line of actions and reactions which often include feedback loops. These 'problems' therefore require interventions 'up-stream'. We have already given two examples of how traffic 'problems' are often the end result of a feed-back loop. Residents take their children off the roadway because traffic is going too fast. So the traffic goes faster. So the parents take the children off the sidewalk. And the traffic goes faster. Because the traffic is going faster they drive the kid to school. This increases perception of danger from traffic and so-called 'stranger danger'. So more parents drive. In the past we tackled these problems 'at the site of manifestation' - in the street or at the school. But by 'going up stream' (mapping how the 'problem' arose) the problem can be tackled closer to the source. For example, the Walking School Bus was designed to address perceptions of traffic danger and stranger danger. By breaking the feedback loops at this level, a more innovative and eloquent intervention was designed. The same is true of Street Reclaiming. Instead of putting speed bumps in the street it deals with how the problem began; the psychological surrender of the street. The beauty of going upstream is that it usually yields interventions that are far more efficient and often deliver a raft of additional benefits not connected to the immediate problem. For example, the Walking Bus is used by some parents as a way of getting regular exercise and as a social outing.
 
Celebration and humor are more powerful agents of change than 'punishment'. Traditional traffic calming tends to rely on overt disincentives to speeding such as speed bumps or law enforcement. Second generation traffic calming relies much more heavily on incentives and celebrations because its goal is to build the 'submerged voice' rather than trying to tear down the 'dominant voice'. For example, street reclaiming encourages residents to build a vibrant street life. A by-product of the uncertainty and intrigue created by these street activities is that traffic goes slower. When the traffic goes slower, residents feel confident to reclaim even more of their street. A result of this changed view of their own street is that many residents change their behavior when driving in other people's streets.
 
In conclusion: Second-generation traffic calming accepts that it is impossible to plan changes to people's physical environment without taking into account there 'mental topography' (their beliefs, values, mythologies and many 'frames of mind'). This includes an understanding of their contradictory desires and values and how they are currently resolving that conflict. It also includes an understanding of the 'psychology of space' -- how the arrangement of physical space can change a person's mental space and hence what they value at any one point in time. To change physical realities you must integrate planning in three domains: mental, physical and social/cultural.