Study: Low-Income Neighborhoods Much More Likely to Have Dangerous Roads

Who suffers most from bad road design? Not surprisingly, the answer is poor people, according to a study published in the American Journal of Public Health.

Poor people are much more likely to live near wide, high-traffic streets and are thus much more likely to be injured by a car, according to a new study. Photo: ##http://www.naplesnews.com/news/2010/jul/30/dangerous-intersections-us-41-accident-central-thr/## Naples News##

Researchers examined injury rates for pedestrians, drivers and cyclists over a five-year period in Montreal. They found pedestrians living in low-income neighborhoods were more than six times more likely to be injured by a moving vehicle than those from high-income neighborhoods.

Motorists and cyclists in low-income neighborhoods didn’t fare much better. These drivers were 4.3 times more likely to be injured. For cyclists the ratio was 3.9 to 1.

The reason, researchers said, was “exposure to traffic.” The study found that low-income neighborhoods were more likely to contain major arterials and four-way intersections — two of the biggest risk factors for those traveling by any mode. The study also found low-income neighborhoods were subject to traffic volumes 2.4 times greater than high-income — one of the best predictors of injury.

“Traffic volume at intersections increased significantly with poverty,” the authors wrote. “If the average daily traffic at intersections in the poorest census tracts were equal to that in wealthiest census tracts, … there would be 21% fewer pedestrians, 19% fewer cyclists, and 25% fewer motor vehicle occupants injured at intersections in those areas.”

Low-income residents also faced additional risk factors. They were much more likely to rely on walking or transit to get around. They tended to live in higher-density areas, a factor that was associated with high traffic volumes.

So what’s the best way to reduce injury? Study authors say promoting alternatives to driving is an important strategy.

They recommended “a paradigm shift in favor of more sustainable transportation that would reduce traffic volumes and prioritize public transit.” Adding, “recently, large reductions in road fatalities in the United States have been attributed to reductions in distances driven.”

Researchers also recommended complete streets and traffic control measures like the UK’s 20-mile-per-hour zones.

  • “The study found that low-income neighborhoods were more likely to contain major arterials and four-way intersections — two of the biggest risk factors for those traveling by any mode. The study also found low-income neighborhoods were subject to traffic volumes 2.4 times greater than high-income — one of the best predictors of injury.”Could there also be a a correlation between bad road design actually causing the value of surrounding area to decline? Therefore the poverty, is in part, caused by these large arterial roads?

  • 50 MPH as a speed limit – that’s a very hostile environment to walk in, not to mention live in.

  • eric

    “Low-income residents also faced additional risk factors. They were much
    more likely to rely on walking or transit to get around. They tended to
    live in higher-density areas, a factor that was associated with high
    traffic volumes.”

    That paragraph tends to support the idea that suburbs are safe and dense urban environments are not, and provides a pretty funny contrast with the two paragraphs that follow, which call for more public transit.  I assume that this is a case of the suburbs being, like SUVs, safer in some ways for the occupants but less safe for everyone else.  But I also hope, since I’m a city-dweller, that cities are safer overall–or can be made so.

  • tosenheejk

    Did they really need a study to come to the conclusion in the headline! 

ALSO ON STREETSBLOG

Arizona DOT Study: Compact, Mixed-Use Development Leads to Less Traffic

|
Does walkable development really lead to worse traffic congestion? Opponents of urbanism often say so, citing impending traffic disaster to rally people against, say, a new mixed-use project proposed in their backyards. But new research provides some excellent evidence to counter those claims. A recent study by the Arizona Department of Transportation [PDF] found that […]