Making a street safer does not increase emergency response times, a recent study published in the peer-reviewed journal Transportation Research Interdisciplinary Perspectives found. It is the first significant study on the topic, according to the journal article.
Specifically, the study looked at the actual change in emergency response times on streets in Cedar Rapids, Iowa, that went through a 4-to-3 lane conversion similar to Seattle’s most common style of safe streets redesign. Researchers Nicole Corcoran, Cara J. Hamann, Michelle L. Reyes, Stephanie Jansson, and Joseph E. Cavanaugh looked at actual EMS response time data and conducted a survey of emergency responders to gather their perceptions. They found “no difference in emergency response rates from before to after” implementation.
They also surveyed emergency responders to record their perspectives and found that “over half of EMS responders thing that [the safety projects] don’t affect emergency response times,” according to the journal article. The most common issue EMS responders reported was people not properly yielding to an emergency vehicle, which led researchers to suggest that “public guidance on how to properly respond to the presence of EMS vehicles on these roadways may be needed.”
Hopefully, this study helps put to rest one of the most frustrating and persistent arguments against safe streets projects. Every time I hear someone use emergency vehicles as an excuse for keeping an outdated and dangerous road design, I want to pull out my hair and scream. These arguments can be effective because it’s scary to think that assistance in an emergency might be delayed due to a city street project. There are emergencies, such as heart attacks, where every second counts. But the argument is often used as a convenient cover for people who simply don’t want the project to happen. It is also buried under many layers of misunderstanding at best and disinformation at worst.
