<http://www.boingboing.net/2004/06/18/everything_we_know_a.html>
Everything we know about traffic-calming is wrong
Mind-blowing article about the European and Chinese challenges to the
received wisdom on traffic planning and calming, arguing that the
separation of peds and cars leads to less-safe streets:
"The more you post the evidence of legislative control, such as
traffic signs, the less the driver is trying to use his or her own
senses," says Hamilton-Baillie, noting he has a habit of walking
randomly across roads -- much to his wife's consternation. "So the
less you can advertise the presence of the state in terms of
authority, the more effective this approach can be." This, of course,
is the exact opposite of the "Triple E" traffic-calming approach,
which seeks to control the driver through the use of speed bumps,
photo radar, crosswalks and other engineering and enforcement
mechanisms.
The "self-reading street" has its roots in the Dutch "woonerf" design
principles that emerged in the 1970s. Blurring the boundary between
street and sidewalk, woonerfs combine innovative paving, landscaping
and other urban designs to allow for the integration of multiple
functions in a single street, so that pedestrians, cyclists and
children playing share the road with slow-moving cars. The pilot
projects were so successful in fostering better urban environments
that the ideas spread rapidly to Belgium, France, Denmark and Germany.
In 1998, the British government adopted a "Home Zones" initiative --
the woonerf equivalent -- as part of its national transportation
policy.
"What the early woonerf principles realized," says Hamilton-Baillie,
"was that there was a two-way interaction between people and traffic.
It was a vicious or, rather, a virtuous circle: The busier the streets
are, the safer they become. So once you drive people off the street,
they become less safe."
Salon Link (Reg/Ads Req'd) (via Kottke)
<http://www.salon.com/tech/feature/2004/05/20/traffic_design/>
Why don't we do it in the road?
A new school of traffic design says we should get rid of stop signs
and red lights and let cars, bikes and people mingle together. It
sounds insane, but it works.
May 20, 2004 | It's rush hour, and I am standing at the corner of
Zhuhui and Renmin Road, a four-lane intersection in Suzhou, China.
Ignoring the red light, a couple of taxis and a dozen bicycles are
headed straight for a huge mass of cyclists, cars, pedicabs and mopeds
that are turning left in front of me. Cringing, I anticipate a
collision. Like a flock of migrating birds, however, the mass changes
formation. A space opens up, the taxis and bicycles move in, and
hundreds of commuters continue down the street, unperturbed and
fatality free.
In Suzhou, the traffic rules are simple. "There are no rules," as one
local told me. A city of 2.2 million people, Suzhou has 500,000 cars
and 900,000 bicycles, not to mention hundreds of pedicabs, mopeds and
assorted, quainter forms of transportation. Drivers of all modes pay
little attention to the few traffic signals and weave wildly from one
side of the street to another. Defying survival instincts, pedestrians
have to barge between oncoming cars to cross the roads.
But here's the catch: During the 10 days I spent in Suzhou last fall,
I didn't see a single accident. Really, not a single one. Nor was
there any of the road rage one might expect given the anarchy that
passes for traffic policy. And despite the obvious advantages that
accrue to cars because of their size, no single transportation mode
dominates the streets. On the contrary, the urban arterials are a
communal mix of automobiles, cyclists, pedestrians, and small
businesses such as inner-tube repairmen that set up shop directly in
the right-of-way.
[...]