Salon article on a new school of traffic design

[Joe Riel]

The following link might be of interest
http://www.salon.com/tech/feature/2004/05/20/traffic_design/index.html

It describes what sounds like a completely chaotic method for
"controlling" traffic.

[Bill Z.]

Joe Riel > writes:

> The following link might be of interest
> http://www.salon.com/tech/feature/2004/05/20/traffic_design/index.html
>
> It describes what sounds like a completely chaotic method for
> "controlling" traffic.

The web site doesn't work - I won't subscribe nor let them set
cookies, and I've no idea what their friggin "commercial" is, but I've
no reason to trust them.

The idea sounds like something that's been tried in the Netherlands,
where residential areas allow cars, pedestrians, and bikes to share
the same space. This can be appropriate for short distances, where
the primary function of the road system is to provide access to
residences, and where traffic will tend to be very light.

In some cases, you might have a parking lot on the outskirts, but can
still drive in to drop off some bulky object you just purchased.

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

[Joe Riel]

Bill Z. wrote:
> Joe Riel > writes:
>
>
>>The following link might be of interest
>>http://www.salon.com/tech/feature/2004/05/20/traffic_design/index.html
>>
>>It describes what sounds like a completely chaotic method for
>>"controlling" traffic.
>
>
> The web site doesn't work - I won't subscribe nor let them set
> cookies, and I've no idea what their friggin "commercial" is, but I've
> no reason to trust them.

I read salon.com frequently---probably should subscribe---but have
never had a problem with their commercials misbehaving.

> The idea sounds like something that's been tried in the Netherlands,
> where residential areas allow cars, pedestrians, and bikes to share
> the same space. This can be appropriate for short distances, where
> the primary function of the road system is to provide access to
> residences, and where traffic will tend to be very light.

That's pretty much what the article is about.

Joe

[Bill Z.]

Joe Riel > writes:

> Bill Z. wrote:
> > Joe Riel > writes:
> >
> >>The following link might be of interest
> >>http://www.salon.com/tech/feature/2004/05/20/traffic_design/index.html
> >>
> >>It describes what sounds like a completely chaotic method for
> >>"controlling" traffic.
> > The web site doesn't work - I won't subscribe nor let them set
> > cookies, and I've no idea what their friggin "commercial" is, but I've
> > no reason to trust them.
>
> I read salon.com frequently---probably should subscribe---but have
> never had a problem with their commercials misbehaving.

If a site requires cookies to just browse web pages, that is an
indication that the site is up to no good and should not be
trusted.

If a site is abusing you by selling information about what you
read, using the cookies to determine your identity (possibly
indirectly if cookies are shared between sites), it is almost
impossible for you to tell. Privacy policies can mean something
quite different than you think due to multiple servers, each
separately administered and each with its own policy.

And, every time someone tries to get privacy legislation passed,
big business opposes it. You can guess why.

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

[Fritz M]

On Fri, 21 May 2004 01:01:20 GMT, Joe Riel > wrote:

>It describes what sounds like a completely chaotic method for
>"controlling" traffic.

I tried an experiment today: I walked across a parking lot. I pickup
truck and a BMW both gunned their engines to try to beat me to an
intersection, but I made it clear I wasn't stopping for them and kept
right on walking, forcing them to stop.

Parking lots should not be considered pedestrian-free zones, yet
somehow even here peds cower in fear of the cars. It's time to change
the paradigm.

RFM
--
http://www.masoner.net/
Email: richard is at the given domain.
RFM
--
http://www.masoner.net/
Email: richard is at the given domain.

[Cathy Kearns]

"Joe Riel" > wrote in message
...
> The following link might be of interest
> http://www.salon.com/tech/feature/2004/05/20/traffic_design/index.html
>
> It describes what sounds like a completely chaotic method for
> "controlling" traffic.

Actually, it sounds like our back streets to school. The main entrance to
the elementary school is on a two lane main street with a wide sidewalk
down one side and bike lanes on both sides of the street. Speed limit
is 25mph, and there is a crossing guard to get folks from the sidewalk
side to the school side of the street. There is almost enough parking
in the lot, and some street parking. In general, despite all this in place,
people look at the front of the school and are forever deriding it as
unsafe. Yet, there is a back street to the school. It is residential,
and in parts is not wide enough for two cars to pass. There are
no sidewalks or bikelanes. All the kids walk or bike, and the
few cars that venture onto the street creep along extremely
slowly worried about the pedestrians and bicyclists. It works
well, and there have been no accidents that I know of since my
kids started walking or biking to school there 10 years ago.
(And I get the official accident reports due to a city
bicycle committee I am a member of.) You need critical
mass of bicylists and pedestrians, but it really works.

[Jym Dyer]

=v= I got ahold of this article (the stupid interactive
Javascript ad wouldn't actually work, but I have my ways),
and found it to be pretty odd.

=v= I'm not sure what "second generation" traffic-calming is
supposed to mean, because the principles mentioned are the same
as regular ol' ("first generation?") traffic-calming. Maybe
it's just marketing. Maybe it has something to do with the
"evolutionary biology" veneer. I dunno.

=v= That said, it's nice that a _Salon_ writer is delivering the
concepts to a new audience, whatever she's labelling them. It's
unfortunate that her point of departure is Suzhou, China, since
the sudden disastrous increase in car traffic in Chinese cities
has killed many pedestrians and bicyclists. I would point to
Manhattan as a much better example of "no rules" that works much
better. (Neither example is really a "Woonerf," though!)
<_Jym_>

[Jym Dyer]

> It's much better to read the original - here it is:
> http://www.lesstraffic.com/Articles/index.htm

=v= Yeah, I looked up lesstraffic.com myself. Here's
David Engwicht on what he calls "second-generation
traffic calming:"

http://www.lesstraffic.com/Articles/Traffic/SGTC.htm

It's quite different from what the _Salon_ article
was saying.
<_Jym_>

[Cathy Kearns]

Thanks, I needed this article.

"Jym Dyer" > wrote in message
...
> > It's much better to read the original - here it is:
> > http://www.lesstraffic.com/Articles/index.htm
>
> =v= Yeah, I looked up lesstraffic.com myself. Here's
> David Engwicht on what he calls "second-generation
> traffic calming:"
>
> http://www.lesstraffic.com/Articles/Traffic/SGTC.htm
>
> It's quite different from what the _Salon_ article
> was saying.
> <_Jym_>