<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)
<salon.comtraffic desigOpen ↗
n/>
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.
[...]