Mobilizing the Region

The New York State Legislature’s recent passage of a Complete Streets law is just the latest step in a nationwide movement for balanced streets that are safe for everyone who uses them.  Almost every state has at least one city or town – over 200 jurisdictions in all – that has already adopted or implemented some type of Complete Streets policy.  The National Complete Streets Coalition explains that Complete Streets “are designed and operated to enable safe access for all users” and “by adopting a Complete Streets policy, communities direct their transportation planners and engineers to routinely design and operate the entire right of way to enable safe access for all users, regardless of age, ability, or mode of transportation.”

Despite this strong movement, there have been and continue to be difficulties in this process of caring for the needs of all roadway users.  One concern in particular is legal liability.  Tri-State has worked with municipal officials regarding Complete Streets policies and, on several occasions, these officials have expressed concerns about liability that might arise from implementing Complete Streets policies in their communities.

Tri-State previously wrote about liability in a similar context in 2008.  That article addressed liability concerns arising from the implementation of traffic calming measures in Connecticut.  At the time, Tri-State’s opinion was that liability fears related to implementing traffic calming measures were unfounded:

Liability issues have caused some municipalities to balk at traffic calming, but in practice these concerns have proven to be unfounded. A 2003 Transportation Quarterly article by Reid Ewing found that there had been only two successful lawsuits against traffic calming programs, one of which was overturned on appeal.

Connecticut (and New Jersey and New York, for that matter) have immunity by law for the design of road improvements and the decision to use traffic calming on a given street. True, if speed humps are designed so poorly that vehicles get damaged solely by driving over the calming device as intended, the town may be liable. Connecticut courts have used the words “totally inadmissible” and “obviously in need of correction” to describe such grossly negligent designs… Many states and municipalities have adopted design standards for traffic calming. Thanks to the design work of the Institute of Transportation Engineers and other groups, it should be easy for a town to build improvements – even old fashioned speed humps – that don’t cross the line from deterrence to damage and danger.

» Continue reading…