Our Sponsors

Search this Site
Hidden Stuff

Entries in Fire Trucks (6)


Change the ground rules, then debate

So often those of us that want change in our towns and neighborhoods are trapped debating the issues of our day within the construct established by purveyors of the status quo. We use their terms. Their rules. Their measurements of success. We do this despite our understanding that their circular, self-reinforcing logic is tragically flawed. We need to stop.

On Monday, February 28, we ran a post titled "Overcoming opposition to narrow streets" that was the culmination of a multi-part series on the clash between public safety and building places that are financially strong and resilient. The piece was distributed pretty widely through social media (thank you, everyone) and I got a lot of positive feedback and great examples emailed to me. 

But our commentors here were not quite satisfied. In fact they wanted more. More specifics, more details, more examples... Let me quote from them directly:

From Josh:

I live in a residential neighborhood where local opposition to narrower streets is preventing a sidewalk being added to a street that currently has none. I am in favor of the new sidewalk and find the arguments of the opposition to be unconvincing. Most of them involve worries about the fire department having access. So I saw this post and was eager to read it to get ideas.

However, my main response to the posting is "huh?"....What are you talking about? I guess this must be appropriate for some particular neighborhood. It is certainly not necessarily useful in a generic sort of way. And the argument that - oh, we'll just replace the fire trucks with narrower ones is hopelessly naive.

From Jeffrey:

I have to say I see Josh's point. The 10 items listed above are all good, but there's very little meat in them. They provide the framework for an excellent discussion, but it's so generalized as to be of little practical use at this point.

The list really needs to be fleshed out with examples and some real evidence. For instance, if a particular road is widened (or narrowed), how do those costs compare to that of a new fire truck or the cost of firefighters? How exactly do the Danes or Germans fight fires on pedestrian-only streets? What about in Venice? Only the main canal is passable for motorized boats for example. Exactly how wide should a street be to accommodate a fire truck without being a highway too? Would it be more cost-effective to pay for the installation of a sprinkler system in homes than to build and maintain these wide streets? Would a more nimble "immediate response" vehicle and more closely-spaced fire hydrants be better? And on and on.

I understand and respect all of this criticism, but I can't help with these shortcomings. I don't know the exact right width for a fire truck. Or the street in front of your house. I don't know what the cost savings is versus the increase in insurance rates versus the cost of a truck versus the actuarial value of a third degree burn.

But neither does anyone else, including those that argue for wider streets?

So how wide is wide enough? Why does a lane need to be 14 feet wide for fire protection? What makes that adequate? Would it not be better at 18 feet wide? Wouldn't we provide faster response times if we just designed each street with a dedicated emergency access lane down the center? In fact, why not two dedicated lanes, which would really prioritize safety?

Come on Chuck....you're just being silly now.


Ask yourself by what measurement are these questions of mine absurd? The answer is obvious: they are silly versus the status quo. Versus a status quo that we have come to accept. And why do we accept it? We accept it because it is the status quo.

If we have to mathematically prove every design parameter in order to change anything, we're done. Let's just give up and go home because it won't happen. There will never be enough proof to convince people who don't want to change that they should. Do you think there is any evidence that we could measure or derive with a formula or experiment that would convince our fourth commenter, Tom, to change his mind? Here was his comment:

When emergency vehicles are slowed and tragedy results no one listens to dubious notions of making 'more prosperous and productive places'. Adequate and timely fire protection is a given for prosperity and productivity, if you haven't noticed.

You really ought get out and see the rest of America before you lecture us. If streets are wide, they were intended to be wide for a good reason. Stick around and observe; or ask and someone might educate you. 

And, don't insult me by saying I'm 'well-intentioned'.

Our entire series was about making two points. First, we have to change our towns and places to make them more productive, and that will mean changing our approach to fire fighting to meet new realities. Second, our system of fighting fires is not the only one and, in fact, there are many other approaches we have used throughout our history here in America just as there are many different approaches being used around the world today. There is a lot of room for change.

For someone like Tom, those points mean nothing. Streets are wide "for a good reason". That our towns and neighborhoods are going bankrupt and that the issue is vastly more complex than 'wide street = safe' is of no concern to him. There are no statistics, studies, or simulations that are likely to change his mind. And if we had them, he would point to a delay in getting somewhere and the tragedy it caused. There is no way to win an argument on those terms.

We don't need statistics and studies. What we need are local leaders with an understanding of what is really going on in their community and a vision for how to change things to make it all work. We can't continue to build places that we can't afford to maintain, where we don't even have a chance that we can afford to maintain them. We have to evolve our towns and neighborhoods to be more productive. Far more productive. If we don't, layoffs of fire fighters and cutbacks on equipment will be the easiest of the choices we will ultimately be forced to make.

Do we need every answer before we proceed? No, we don't. If I'm a city council member, I tell my engineer to build streets to a neighborhood context. I tell my planner to change the codes and get the bureaucracy out of the way so we can start recapturing value in our neighborhoods. And I tell the fire chief to come up with a plan to adapt to the new reality that will be evolving from these other decisions. These people are all professionals. They'll get it done. And if they don't, I replace them with people that can. That's leadership.

Nobody arguing for wider city streets has any data to support their argument that the current approach is the absolute best. The only thing they have to argue is that they are backing the status quo, the way it is currently being done. If you allow yourself to be forced to provide detailed data to support every increment of change, you are being tricked into fighting a straw man argument. Don't go there.

If you are forced to debate actual numbers, start with your local budget.


We started a campaign to connect with 100 of our blog readers willing to give a tax-deductible contribution of $25 each, with the money raised going to produce a video version of the Curbside Chat presentation. We got off to a fast start, but have stalled out with 91 remaining. I see the stats on how many of you are reading each day. Wow! If just a small percent of you contributed, we'd be there very quickly. This is important, not just for our goal of getting a wider distribution for the Chat but also to demonstrate our overall ability to raise funds from a broad audience. Please do what you can, and thank you for supporting Strong Towns. 


Overcoming opposition to narrow streets

Advocates for change working in the neighborhoods of our communities run into well-coordinated and powerful opposition from fire chiefs and fire safety advocates when the discussion turns to narrowing streets. There is inevitably a story accompanying their argument to demonstrate how our wide streets and huge trucks narrowly averted a disaster and how, to stay vigilant, we actually need to do more of the same. A better counter-argument needs to be made.

Strong Towns would like to thank Betsey Buckheit for her ongoing support of this blog. She also has a birthday this week (source: Facebook) and so we'd like to wish her an extra special day as well. It is people like Betsey that make what we do possible and, as she is someone who is also working hard to build a Strong Town in her community, she's also the reason we are here. Thank you, Betsey.

Strong Town advocates are often frustrated in their quest to build more prosperous and productive places by well-intentioned, politically-powerful public safety advocates. Last Monday we looked at one intentionally-distorted, but nonetheless impactful, photo used to argue for ubiquitous wide streets. This approach to streets is bankrupting us, which is ultimately also a public safety issue.

On Tuesday and Wednesday we looked at other approaches to providing fire protection, first in the United States and then abroad. On Thursday we took a look at arguments for change being made here in America. There is widespread consensus by block-level advocates that a change in our approach is desperately needed if we are have neighborhoods that are prosperous.

Today we want to give those advocates the outlines of an argument to make at that city or town council meeting when this issue is brought up. Using a quasi-Socratic method, here's the way we would argue for change in front of a local unit of government.

1. Public safety, including fire protection, is very important.

We acknowledge this is a critical issue. People want to and need to feel safe in their homes. We also acknowledge that we sometimes actually undervalue fire protection, at least until it is our house on fire. Providing a high-level of protection, including reducing response times, is a community priority. 

2. As budgets are tightened, we are forced to make choices in how we provided local services.

Unfortunately, the state of our public budgets is forcing us to make some very difficult choices. And we can see, in communities across the country, that many are opting to reduce fire fighting capabilities, including force reductions and extending the life of equipment further than it should be. These are dangerous precedents to set in what are likely early rounds in a long, multi-year budget crisis.

3. If we stick with the current approach, we may have wide streets, but we won't be able to afford to maintain them, or even pay for the fire department to drive on them.

The amount we spend on our fire department is dwarfed by the amount we spend on maintaining our roads and streets -- or would be spending if we were actually maintaining them. This is the elephant in the room, the thing we never talk about. We have chosen to invest in a pattern of development that is prohibitively expensive to maintain, and it is crowding our the other parts of our budget.

4. If we are going to be successful and have financial stability, we need to make our places more productive.

The problem is not simply the amount we spend on infrastructure, it is how that spending has actually created places that are less productive. As we've widened neighborhood streets to increase safety and mobility, we've actually made these places less inviting for people actually wanting to live there. The result is that our neighborhoods -- the places where we have the highest levels of infrastructure investment already in place -- have starved for private-sector investment. That private-sector investment has been redirected to the periphery of town, where the public safety response time and the cost of providing public services is greatest.

5. Narrow, slower streets scaled to the neighborhood served are a key component of a productive place.

If we want to reverse the six-decades-old trend and start inducing private-sector investment in our neighborhoods, we have to make them great places to live. This not only means a narrower street to slow traffic and thus expand the living space of each home, but it also means a new understanding of parks, sidewalks, lighting, public buildings and all of the physical components of our built environment.

But the streets are key. Narrowing them creates an inviting platform for neighborhood growth. Widen them and private sector investment will flee to places that offer them more.

6. With our current approach to fighting fire, narrow streets create problems.

We should all acknowledge that our wide fire trucks and other equipment will have difficulty with narrow streets. We can't sweep this under the rug. We've invested heavily in the current system and it is not easy to dial back those investments. 

7. The answer is not to change our neighborhoods to be less productive, but to change our approach to fire fighting.

Most of us have experienced some unnecessary weight gain at some point in our lives. We can "solve" the problem by loosening our belt or buying bigger pants or we can actually address the problem by exercise and diet. The solution to the public safety problem posed by narrow streets and limited budgets is not to widen the streets, which may solve the concern over narrow streets but makes the budget problems far worse. The solution instead is to change our approach to providing fire service. 

8. There are models from around the world as well as here in America that we can learn from.

When we talk about learning from Europe, unless we are talking about food, clothing or reality television, Americans tend to turn off their minds. What can new America learn from the old cities of Europe?

Understand that the American development pattern is a very young experiment. In Europe they have done one specific thing that we have never been asked to do here, but will be shortly: They have maintained their places over multiple generations and with only limited amounts of growth. There is a lot we can learn there about transforming our neighborhoods, and specifically our approach to keeping them safe from fire, that will benefit us. 

9. This will take a long, sustained effort.

We can learn new approaches. The ability to adapt and change in response to stress is the historic hallmark of the American system. It took us two generations to retrofit our neighborhoods into the economically fragile and unproductive places we have today. It will take us at least a generation to undo that damage. That gives us plenty of time to adapt our fire fighting approach and equipment to a new reality, including narrower streets.

As our fleet of fire trucks age, we simply replace them with narrower trucks. This is not a revolutionary concept. It is done all over the world and was done here in the United States back before we became so wealthy that we stopped worrying about how productive our infrastructure investments were.

10. Local leadership is the key.

The key here are the council members in this room. Making a strategic choice to change our mode of operation so as to make our places more productive takes leadership. Tasking the fire chief with providing a high level of service while transitioning to a new reality takes leadership. It is that leadership which we need right now.

Our present course will bankrupt us. The lack of productivity of our neighborhoods -- our places with the greatest levels of public commitment for infrastructure maintenance -- is not financially sustainable. It will ultimately force huge cuts in public safety.

It would be tragically ironic if we had wide, unsafe and expensive streets built to accommodate fire departments that we can no longer afford to staff.


We recently started a campaign to connect with 100 of our blog readers willing to give a tax-deductible contribution of $25 each, with the money raised going to produce a video version of the Curbside Chat presentation. The Chat program has been very successful, with more demand from communities than we can reach in person. A quality video presentation will help us spread this message, and so we are turning to you. In just two weeks, we're already down to 92 - thank you for supporting Strong Towns.


Placemaking advocates meet public safety advocates

This blog post is going to be shorter than I had originally planned -- still recovering from a slight cold and took my free time Wednesday to record a new podcast on this same subject. 

This week we've focused on the issue of building Strong Towns in the face of resistance from fire fighting advocates that demand wide streets.

On Monday, the key observation was that we maintain wide, unsafe and expensive streets to accommodate fire departments that we can no longer afford to staff. If we want to keep our public safety systems intact, our places need to become more productive.

On Tuesday, we suggested that, instead of changing the built environment to accommodate the wide fire truck, perhaps we can simply modify the size of the truck. We provided a lot of examples of how fire fighters have applied ingenuity to solve more difficult problems throughout the years.

On Wednesday, we introduced the idea that other parts of the world -- places that have not adopted the American development pattern -- seem to do well (sometimes better) and could provide a model for us to learn from.

Today I want to point you in the direction of some places where solutions to this problem are being discussed intelligently. At the end of this week, I don't want any of our Strong Town advocates out there to be intimidated or out-maneuvered in the trenches by old school fire chiefs.

  • The Congress for the New Urbanism has a web page devoted to this effort.
  • CNU has also issued a 10-page report that provides background information and a good overview of efforts to resolve conflicts on this issue.
  • Blogger, planner and fire fighter Jeff Tyndall posted a link here on Monday to a piece he wrote in support of the CNU effort. This is great advocacy from someone working both sides of the discussion.

We're going to crowd source the rest of this piece. If there are resources specific to this topic, please email them to me or post a link in the comments section so that we can provide it to everyone.

If all goes well, I'll be back tomorrow with some thoughts on a Strong Towns approach.


We recently started a campaign to connect with 100 of our blog readers willing to give a tax-deductible contribution of $25 each, with the money raised going to produce a video version of the Curbside Chat presentation. In just two weeks, we're already down to 92 - thank you for supporting Strong Towns.