Call for narrower streets rejected by fire code officials
ROBERT STEUTEVILLE DEC. 1, 2009
International Code Council turns down a CNU proposal, and instead recommends giving fire officials veto power over traffic-calming measures.
A campaign for more-flexible street standards — which has been under way since autumn 2007— suffered a setback in late October at the hands of the International Code Council (ICC) Fire Code Committee. The committee rejected a Congress for the New Urbanism (CNU) proposal that would have allowed fire officials to approve streets containing less than a 20-foot width of “clear space” — space free of parked cars.
CNU, through a cooperative effort with fire marshals, including Carl Wren of Austin, Texas, and Rick Merck of Montgomery County, Maryland, had asked that fire officials throughout the US be given the flexibility to approve streets and roads with less than 20 feet of clear space. The proposal — submitted for inclusion in the 2012 International Fire Code and known as Proposal F16 — asked that fire officials be permitted to take into account factors such as street connectivity, turning radii, traffic safety, and the presence of sprinkler systems.
New urbanists argued that when streets are open to fire apparatus from more than one direction — as is true in traditional street grids — it is often not necessary to have a 20-foot-wide swath of pavement free of parked vehicles for an entire block. It was also pointed out that many more Americans die in traffic accidents than in fires; narrowing the streets brings down the speed, thus reducing traffic fatalities.
The Fire Code Committee turned down the proposal by a 9-4 vote during three days of discussions in Baltimore that were part of the ICC’s overall code hearings process. The committee then adopted a separate proposal, F17, introduced by ICC’s Joint Fire Service Review Committee, that would prohibit “traffic calming” devices unless they are approved by the local, county, or state fire code official. Traffic-calming devices were defined so broadly as to include virtually any street design element — including speed bumps, speed tables, bump-outs, and changes of alignment.
“We like this,” Rolland Crawford of Loma Linda, California, a former chairman of the ICC Fire Code Committee, told New Urban News. “It puts us at the table. … We get ignored too often.”
Jumping on the table
“It’s understandable that the fire service wants a seat at the table,” said CNU CEO John Norquist, “but F17 is more like jumping on the table.” The proposal would empower fire officials to overrule transportation engineers and community planners. Indeed, Crawford seemed intent on claiming broad prerogatives, saying, “In California the fire chief is almost a god; the fire chief has tremendous authority.”
Jon Davis, project manager for CNU’s Emergency Response and Street Design Initiative, said the aggressive stance of the ICC is the result of “fire officials being ignored by local planning officials.” Davis explained that fire officials are sometimes surprised — and unhappy — to find newly installed speed bumps, which can tear up their chassis, and bulb-outs, which can slow firefighters’ response time.
How much power fire officials should have became a recurring issue during CNU’s transportation summit Nov. 4-6 in Portland, Oregon. Patrick Siegman of Nelson\Nygaard consultants, who presented CNU’s thinking to the ICC in Baltimore, argued that fire officials, lacking a background in transportation engineering and design, should be wary of making themselves de facto transportation authorities. He questioned whether fire officials really want the legal liability that may accompany that power.
The model code is being prepared on a three-year timetable so that it can be adopted by states, counties, and municipalities beginning in 2012. In some states, the code is adopted at the state level and made mandatory in all lower jurisdictions. In others, it is adopted at the county or municipal level. A state has the right to modify the code and eliminate any disagreeable provisions. County and municipal governments in some states also have the right to alter the code or adopt only the parts that they consider useful. In Oregon, for example, “state law says standards for width of streets established by local government supersede and prevail over any specifications set by the International Fire Code,” Siegman noted.
The ICC began seeking public comments in November, and will continue accepting them through Feb. 8, 2010. Its “Final Action Hearings” will take place in the spring and fall of 2010. At CNU’s invitation, Crawford attended the transportation summit and offered to help devise wording that might eventually lead to adoption of CNU’s proposal.
Disappointment over rejection of the principal CNU proposal and over fire officials’ attempt at intervening in traffic-calming measures was offset somewhat by another decision: The committee voted to include a separate CNU-prepared text on fire and traffic safety as an appendix in the 2012 code. The text, Appendix K, prepared by Siegman with help from Peter Swift and others, would have no legal standing, but sources said it would be a useful step toward helping fire officials to understand new urbanist perspectives.
The US Environmental Protection Agency’s Smart Growth office is a partner with CNU on the emergency response initiative. For more on the ICC proposal, go to www.iccsafe.org/cs/codes/pages/cycle.aspx
A campaign for more-flexible street standards — which has been under way since autumn 2007— suffered a setback in late October at the hands of the International Code Council (ICC) Fire Code Committee. The committee rejected a Congress for the New Urbanism (CNU) proposal that would have allowed fire officials to approve streets containing less than a 20-foot width of “clear space” — space free of parked cars.
CNU, through a cooperative effort with fire marshals, including Carl Wren of Austin, Texas, and Rick Merck of Montgomery County, Maryland, had asked that fire officials throughout the US be given the flexibility to approve streets and roads with less than 20 feet of clear space. The proposal — submitted for inclusion in the 2012 International Fire Code and known as Proposal F16 — asked that fire officials be permitted to take into account factors such as street connectivity, turning radii, traffic safety, and the presence of sprinkler systems.
New urbanists argued that when streets are open to fire apparatus from more than one direction — as is true in traditional street grids — it is often not necessary to have a 20-foot-wide swath of pavement free of parked vehicles for an entire block. It was also pointed out that many more Americans die in traffic accidents than in fires; narrowing the streets brings down the speed, thus reducing traffic fatalities.
The Fire Code Committee turned down the proposal by a 9-4 vote during three days of discussions in Baltimore that were part of the ICC’s overall code hearings process. The committee then adopted a separate proposal, F17, introduced by ICC’s Joint Fire Service Review Committee, that would prohibit “traffic calming” devices unless they are approved by the local, county, or state fire code official. Traffic-calming devices were defined so broadly as to include virtually any street design element — including speed bumps, speed tables, bump-outs, and changes of alignment.
“We like this,” Rolland Crawford of Loma Linda, California, a former chairman of the ICC Fire Code Committee, told New Urban News. “It puts us at the table. … We get ignored too often.”
Jumping on the table
“It’s understandable that the fire service wants a seat at the table,” said CNU CEO John Norquist, “but F17 is more like jumping on the table.” The proposal would empower fire officials to overrule transportation engineers and community planners. Indeed, Crawford seemed intent on claiming broad prerogatives, saying, “In California the fire chief is almost a god; the fire chief has tremendous authority.”
Jon Davis, project manager for CNU’s Emergency Response and Street Design Initiative, said the aggressive stance of the ICC is the result of “fire officials being ignored by local planning officials.” Davis explained that fire officials are sometimes surprised — and unhappy — to find newly installed speed bumps, which can tear up their chassis, and bulb-outs, which can slow firefighters’ response time.
How much power fire officials should have became a recurring issue during CNU’s transportation summit Nov. 4-6 in Portland, Oregon. Patrick Siegman of Nelson\Nygaard consultants, who presented CNU’s thinking to the ICC in Baltimore, argued that fire officials, lacking a background in transportation engineering and design, should be wary of making themselves de facto transportation authorities. He questioned whether fire officials really want the legal liability that may accompany that power.
The model code is being prepared on a three-year timetable so that it can be adopted by states, counties, and municipalities beginning in 2012. In some states, the code is adopted at the state level and made mandatory in all lower jurisdictions. In others, it is adopted at the county or municipal level. A state has the right to modify the code and eliminate any disagreeable provisions. County and municipal governments in some states also have the right to alter the code or adopt only the parts that they consider useful. In Oregon, for example, “state law says standards for width of streets established by local government supersede and prevail over any specifications set by the International Fire Code,” Siegman noted.
The ICC began seeking public comments in November, and will continue accepting them through Feb. 8, 2010. Its “Final Action Hearings” will take place in the spring and fall of 2010. At CNU’s invitation, Crawford attended the transportation summit and offered to help devise wording that might eventually lead to adoption of CNU’s proposal.
Disappointment over rejection of the principal CNU proposal and over fire officials’ attempt at intervening in traffic-calming measures was offset somewhat by another decision: The committee voted to include a separate CNU-prepared text on fire and traffic safety as an appendix in the 2012 code. The text, Appendix K, prepared by Siegman with help from Peter Swift and others, would have no legal standing, but sources said it would be a useful step toward helping fire officials to understand new urbanist perspectives.
The US Environmental Protection Agency’s Smart Growth office is a partner with CNU on the emergency response initiative. For more on the ICC proposal, go to www.iccsafe.org/cs/codes/pages/cycle.aspx
