Description

Personal Security refers to freedom from risk of assault, theft and vandalism. Such risks can discourage walking, cycling and transit travel. These problems can be addressed through various programs and design strategies that increase security. These can include Neighborhood Watch and community policing programs, special police patrols (including police on foot and bicycles), pedestrian escorts, and monitoring of pedestrian, bicycle, transit and Park & Ride facilities. Transit agencies can implement special programs to increase rider security.

Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) is concerned with landscape and building design strategies to maximize personal safety. Local police or CPTED specialists may be trained to perform “safety audits” that identify opportunities to reduce crime risk and help users feel secure. For example, public paths are more secure if located near residences, which provide passive surveillance. Lighting and vegetation should be located and maintained to ensure good sight lines, minimal places to hide, and ensure paths are visible to surrounding areas. The placement of bicycle parking facilities should also be well considered to reduce the likelihood of bicycle theft.

Public safety tends to increase if residents have a sense of community, opportunities to interact with neighbors, and are encouraged to take responsibility for the area where they live (LGC, 2001). This can be encouraged by providing places and reasons for residents to interact on a regular basis, including pocket parks, community gardens and corner stores. Traffic Calming and other pedestrian-oriented design features can make streets more attractive to people, encouraging interaction and a sense of community.

Urban infill, Clustered development is sometimes opposed by residents afraid that higher densities increase crime, but such concerns are often misplaced (see discussion in Land Use Impacts on Transportation and Litman, 2001). Although urban neighborhoods often have higher crime rates than suburban neighborhoods, this reflects demographic differences rather than effects of density (Thousand Friends of Oregon, 1995; de Waal, Aureli and Judge, 2000). Infill by middle-class households, and neighborhood design features that encourage social interactions among residents tend to reduce crime risk (Jacobs, 1962). Residents of low-density, exurban areas tend to have greater risk of combined traffic and stranger-murder fatalities (Lucy, 2002). Although higher density areas have slightly lower stranger-murder fatalities, this is overwhelmed by the much higher traffic fatalities of residents in suburban areas. Moving to automobile-dependent suburbs tends to increase overall risk to residents:

Crime rates per capita in Seattle, for example, vary surprisingly little across all types of neighborhoods, and most crimes are committed by acquaintances, not strangers. Still, in the extreme case, the per capita rate of violent crime might be one-tenth as high in a distant suburb – say Issaquah – as in a close-in urban neighborhood – say Queen Anne. Consider, however, that the risk of an injury-causing car crash – already a more serious risk than crime for the Queen Anne dweller – roughly quadruples in Issaquah. It does so because residents of distant suburbs commonly drive three times as much, and twice as fast, as urban dwellers. All told, city dwellers are much safer (Durning, 1996).