London-based writer. Often climbing.
I think we broadly agree here! I think lower speed limits are an incentive to walk or cycle. Collisions at lower speeds are significantly less dangerous, and roads with lower speed limits feel a lot safer, too.
Lower speed limits are also not really a disincentive to drive, because they don’t make journey times much slower. And, of course, they make things safer for motorists, too.
I totally agree that you need to introduce whole packages of measures. Speed limits are an important measure, but not the only one, and not the most important.
In urban areas, speed limits make very little difference to journey times because you spend so much of your journey either stationary at junctions or accelerating or decelerating out of and in to junctions. If you were to track how much time you spend actually doing ~30mph in a journey through a 30mph zone, you’d find it’s very little of it!
You’re right that we need more than just lower speed limits, and the article acknowledges that.
That said, lower speed limits are a good place to start. They make roads safer and also make them feel safer, which encourages more walking and cycling. With more walking and cycling, you have more people using the associated infrastructure and it’s then easier to advocate for more of it.
As someone from outside the US, I just want to say: please do vote again for Joe Biden. He is without doubt the most pro-environment US President there has ever been.
EDIT: Thanks to !memfree@beehaw.org, I’ve been reminded to update this post to say:
Vote for Kamala Harris, the Vice President to the most pro-environment US President there has ever been!