|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Salon article on a new school of traffic design
The following link might be of interest
http://www.salon.com/tech/feature/20...ign/index.html It describes what sounds like a completely chaotic method for "controlling" traffic. |
Ads |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Salon article on a new school of traffic design
Joe Riel writes:
The following link might be of interest http://www.salon.com/tech/feature/20...ign/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 |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Salon article on a new school of traffic design
Bill Z. wrote:
Joe Riel writes: The following link might be of interest http://www.salon.com/tech/feature/20...ign/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 |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Salon article on a new school of traffic design
Joe Riel writes:
Bill Z. wrote: Joe Riel writes: The following link might be of interest http://www.salon.com/tech/feature/20...ign/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 |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Salon article on a new school of traffic design
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. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Salon article on a new school of traffic design
"Joe Riel" wrote in message ... The following link might be of interest http://www.salon.com/tech/feature/20...ign/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. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Salon article on a new school of traffic design
=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_ |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Salon article on a new school of traffic design
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_ |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Salon article on a new school of traffic design
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_ |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
"Actually you are the first person to bring up this issue" | James Annan | Mountain Biking | 428 | April 4th 04 08:59 PM |
Reports from Sweden | Garry Jones | General | 17 | October 14th 03 05:23 PM |
Reports from Sweden | Garry Jones | Social Issues | 14 | October 14th 03 05:23 PM |
Hasty generalizations of the day | Kerry Nikolaisen | General | 16 | October 6th 03 12:39 PM |
Riding facing traffic | Bruce G Patrick | General | 4 | August 12th 03 08:11 AM |