What are safer streets worth? Bridging resident preferences and policy design in traffic calming

This is the authors' abstract. We don't add key points for this paper.

Traffic calming is widely adopted, yet implementation is often contested, and little is known about which treatments residents prefer or whether they would support a funded traffic-calming program. We surveyed 1717 residents living within 650 feet of 19 corridors in Portland, Oregon. A best–worst scaling (BWS) task elicited relative preferences among eight treatments; a single-bounded contingent valuation (CVM) question elicited support for a funded traffic calming program at a randomly assigned monthly household contribution, from which willingness to pay (WTP) was derived. Median refuge islands were most preferred, followed by mini roundabouts, shared streets, and gateway treatments; diverters, speed humps, and pinchpoints ranked lowest, with diverters and speed humps the most polarizing. Support for the funded program was higher among residents who perceived nearby streets as busy, preferred walking or wished to bike more, or had young children, and lower among older residents and those concerned about crime. Derived WTP averaged US $34 per household per month (median $30). Relative design preference and support for funding did not always align: preference for median refuge islands was associated with lower support, whereas preference for shared streets and diverters was associated with higher support. The combined design is best understood as a low-burden instrument for prioritization and public engagement rather than for formal economic appraisal.