Alternative Traffic Strategies

[IEFBR14]

Traffic lessons from a visit to Rome: Chaos works (http://news.therecord.com/News/Local/article/705076)
I was recently lucky to vacation in Italy. When not marvelling at the glory that is Rome, I found myself watching traffic. I know it sounds weird.

I even made a side trip to the Appian Way, the famous Roman road built to surprisingly modern standards 2,300 years ago. Sections are still used today, lined by ancient ruins and tombs.

We chuckled at the tiny toy cars they drive. You quickly grasp why small cars make sense. There’s little space for parking, urban roads are very narrow, and fuel costs twice what it does here.

I never saw an SUV. A parked Dodge minivan stood out like a full-sized Hummer does here. I could never have driven my truck there.

Roman drivers are experts in parallel parking. They squeeze into way-tight spaces and you wonder how they’ll get out. Then you notice all the scrapes and dents on so many fenders and bodies. Here, the rust would eat your car alive. But Rome is temperate so I presume the damage can go unrepaired.

Sometimes we watched tiny cars park perpendicular to the curb, in scooter spaces. Their snouts barely reached the driving lane. The parking credo seems to be: Whatever works.

Cars are restricted in Rome’s most popular pedestrian areas. We walked a lot so that helped. I can’t see it translating here because our most popular streets have only the tiniest fraction of pedestrians by comparison.

Even on wider Roman streets I didn’t see many painted lanes. Cars, small trucks and lots of scooters all competed for asphalt. Drivers seemed to pay attention to each other. Vehicles would yield and merge without signs telling them when and how.

The bicycle lanes I saw were segregated from traffic by a curb or painted on a sidewalk.

You had to be careful and use pedestrian crosswalks near faster commuter roads. But on lower-speed urban streets you could often step into the lane and drivers would stop for you, without leaning on horns.

My sense is that Roman drivers tend to view roads as shared spaces in which everyone uses their best judgment. That’s how I hope roundabouts will work here, to make us better drivers.

It may sound and look like traffic chaos. But there’s a lot to be said for fewer rules, better judgment.
Yes Jeff, but will it work here where driving a car is the last thing on the typical distracted car driver's mind?

[Waterlooer]

The transportation system in Euope is far more better than in North America. Everything's too rush rush rush here too many peolpe depend on cars.

[mpd618]

Traffic lessons from a visit to Rome: Chaos works (http://news.therecord.com/News/Local/article/705076)
Yes Jeff, but will it work here where driving a car is the last thing on the typical distracted car driver's mind?

The only reason that's the case is because the roads are designed so you don't have to pay attention. Design the roads so drivers have to pay attention, and you'll find them doing so.

[IEFBR14]

<start of rant>
Stop the sign madness! (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-drive/car-life/road-sage/stop-the-sign-madness/article1559357/)
I approach the four-way stop with trepidation. It is my fifth in 10 blocks and the ritual is beginning to grate.It's also dangerous because you're never sure which intersections have a 4-way, only a 2-way or no STOP at all. I find this a real problem in my own neighbourhood because it's never clear which drivers are going to blow through the intersection because (a) they don't have a STOP, (b) they do but they don't see it, (c) they do but they don't care, (d) they do but they're only going to slow down at best or (e) they do and they're going to slam on their brakes at the last minute. So even if I think I have the right of way and can legally proceed, I still have to wait to see what they actually do. Which only exacerbates the succession of STOP signs I have to navigate through.


I come to a halt at roughly the same time as two other cars, one to my left, one opposite me. The law is pretty clear: you yield right of way to the first vehicle to come to a complete stop. If two arrive at the same time the vehicle on the left must yield.

But we’re Canadians, so instead we try to do the polite thing and each of us attempts to out defer the other one. It is time to do the “Canadian Crawl.”

“After you,” I mouth with a gesture.

“No, after you,” the other guy replies.

“No, no, after you,” the driver to the left says.

“No, after you.”

And so it goes …

With each stuttering start the co-operative oh-so Canadian glow turns to frustrated fury.

“I’m letting you go, idiot, I’m being polite and cordial,” we’re all thinking. “Just drive your f***ing car through the four-way stop so we can all get going.”He assumes they're all being polite. The rest of us know better; some of them may be polite but most of them are just ignorant doofuses ;)


Finally, as one of us is just about to take the initiative, a cyclist blows through the four-way without even slowing down. Why should he, right? Stop signs are for suckers and motorists. What if one of us car-dwellers also decided to ignore the stop? Apparently this scenario never crosses bicycle man’s cerebral cortex. United in our disbelief we finally putter on our way – until 15 seconds later when we will all inevitably find ourselves stuck at other four-way stops.No comment from me lest I hit any closer to home with the cyclists here :D


Sound familiar?

They talk of air pollution and noise pollution. They even warn us about light pollution. Here’s one more to add to the environmental list: sign pollution. We’re lost in a forest of signage.

What, you might ask, is wrong with a stop sign? Nothing, when needed, but the stop sign is now the default resolution to any and all traffic problems (second only to speed bumps). It’s simple for local planners and politicians (and most road regulation is done at the local level) to throw up a stop sign any time they don’t know what to do. It’s an easy fix. Have you got a street in need of a real solution but lack the will or smarts? Throw up a stop sign or better yet a four-way stop. Problem solved.

This pat answer has a troubling effect. We become inured to the signs erected to save us. John Straddon, an emeritus professor at Duke University in North Carolina, has been vociferous in his condemnation of the North American approach to road safety. Stop signs, he argued in a 2008 article in the Atlantic Monthly, are placed off to the side of the road, often hidden by trees (not in front of the driver where he should be looking). “Stop signs are costly to drivers and bad for the environment,” he wrote. “Stopping and starting uses more gas and vehicles pollute most when starting from rest.”I should add that few drivers who stop at a STOP sign actually stop where they're legally supposed to -- before the STOP sign, not into the pedestrian crossing or even into the intersection.


Currently there are two popular methods for dealing with stop signs. Some motorists observe them with obsessive scrupulousness. They come to full, vigorous stops. Wait, even if no one is around, and then plod on. These folks are annoying beyond description but not dangerous.

Others ignore stop signs entirely. It is now common to watch cars cruise through stop signs obliviously. The legendary “California Roll” or “Hollywood Stop” in which the driver cruises slowly through a stop sign was once a rare occurrence on Canadian streets but is now the norm. While this move feels safe for the driver it is fairly dangerous. For instance, when the “roller” glides through a stop turning right, he generally looks left (scanning for oncoming traffic) not right as he should be. Pedestrians beware.Damn right, er, wrong -- and highly dangerous ;)


Roads are now so “signed” that many motorists have stopped driving. We merely obey. Human judgment and skill get lost. Driving becomes robotic and inefficient. The worst side-effect of the stop sign glut is that it causes drivers to be less aware of cross traffic when driving. The responsibility shifts from the driver to the sign. “They look for signs,” Staddon observed, “and drive according to what the signs tell them to do.”And even so, the more robotic the driver the more likely they are to miss the STOP altogether.


The Solution? Staddon wants to replace the four-way stop with roundabouts (common in Europe) and to emulate the “naked streets” wave that has been employed in 30 communities in Holland. This involved removing as many signs as possible and making motorists, cyclists and pedestrians actively share the road. No one has the right of way and everybody slows downs and drives smarter.By jove! I think he's "got it."


Of course, we’re not Europe and that may be the problem. Europeans, it’s fair to say, take driving very seriously. It’s much more difficult to get your driver’s license and owning a car in Europe is a status symbol. In North America, it’s a sign you need to get from Point A to Point B. Progressive European motoring solutions reflect this investment in car culture. Mindless North American solutions reflect the love-hate relationship we have with the automobile. We love cars but are ashamed to admit it.Yup. Look at the reception roundabouts have received by some of the more neanderthal drivers in the region. Imagine the collision and death toll if we tried "naked streets." Still it's worth considering. Any pilot projects on this side of the pond?


It’s likely that in the time it took to read this article someone stuck up a stop sign. There is such an abundance of stop signs that people are now harvesting them. In Ontario’s Durham Region, more than 60 stop signs have been cut down. Police say the thief may be using the pressure treated wood to build a deck. Well, I don’t agree with the method but the idea is sound.Using the posts to build a deck should be the least of the cops' worries. How about the increased danger to drivers from people who blow through an intersection because there's no STOP sign to at least slow them down?
<end of rant>

[Urbanomicon]

I love the idea of converting 4-way stops into roundabouts. I'm not sure I'm keen on the "naked streets" idea though. I just envision 16 year olds going "There's no stop signs, I'm going to blow through all of the intersections going 80!" There were a number of people that did this during the 2003 blackout when none of the traffic lights were functioning. Maybe put speed bumps at these intersections to make drivers slow down.

On a side note, I saw something on television a little while back where they were trying to prove that there are so many signs on the road that drivers don't pay attention to them. They pulled cars over on a country highway and asked them what the last sign they passed was. Less than 10% got it right.

[Spokes]

I love the idea of converting 4-way stops into roundabouts. I'm not sure I'm keen on the "naked streets" idea though. I just envision 16 year olds going "There's no stop signs, I'm going to blow through all of the intersections going 80!" There were a number of people that did this during the 2003 blackout when none of the traffic lights were functioning. Maybe put speed bumps at these intersections to make drivers slow down.

On a side note, I saw something on television a little while back where they were trying to prove that there are so many signs on the road that drivers don't pay attention to them. They pulled cars over on a coutry highway and asked them what the last sign they passed was. Less than 10% got it right.

The only problem with the roundabout idea (which definitely intregues me) is the cost. Its not like youre getting rid of traffic lights which have a cost attached to them, stop signs have little to no costs attached to them.

[IEFBR14]

The only problem with the roundabout idea (which definitely intregues me) is the cost.
ISTM it's more than just cost, which is considerable. It's also the additional real estate that you'd need. Yes, you can build "micro"-roundabouts but then you have problems with service vehicles like garbage trucks, snow plows and most important, fire trucks.

[mpd618]

Yup. Look at the reception roundabouts have received by some of the more neanderthal drivers in the region. Imagine the collision and death toll if we tried "naked streets." Still it's worth considering. Any pilot projects on this side of the pond?

Roundabouts have certainly received a mixed reception here, but the stats on injuries are very much in favour of them versus their predecessors in the region. I agree that naked streets would receive opposition from the varied defenders of the status quo, but I don't think that would make them function here any differently than they do elsewhere.

[IEFBR14]

Roundabouts have certainly received a mixed reception here, but the stats on injuries are very much in favour of them versus their predecessors in the region.I'm certainly not against roundabouts. My concern is whether they're practical in confined spaces. All new development, especially new subdivisions and such, should be required to have them from day one. But how do we "retrofit" roundabouts into older parts of K-W where there isn't much room, never mind the will or the money, to build them?


I agree that naked streets would receive opposition from the varied defenders of the status quo, but I don't think that would make them function here any differently than they do elsewhere.As with roundabouts the challenge is going to be how to introduce them. Navigating "naked streets" requires a completely different approach than people are used to. It may not be practical to introduce "naked streets" gradually or even all at once in isolated areas, because that may cause more accidents than it avoids as drivers fail to switch back and forth between modes. ISTM this is even more problematic than roundabouts. So again, how do we pilot test them safely?

[mpd618]

But how do we "retrofit" roundabouts into older parts of K-W where there isn't much room, never mind the will or the money, to build them?

We probably just don't do it where there isn't the space. Though look at the Union & Margaret one for how small they can be.


As with roundabouts the challenge is going to be how to introduce them. Navigating "naked streets" requires a completely different approach than people are used to. It may not be practical to introduce "naked streets" gradually or even all at once in isolated areas, because that may cause more accidents than it avoids as drivers fail to switch back and forth between modes. ISTM this is even more problematic than roundabouts. So again, how do we pilot test them safely?

With clear signage and a good marketing campaign. More importantly, with a bumpy entrance to get you to pay attention to the signs and realize that you're in a different kind of street -- and the street itself should be visibly different. If this is something that is worth doing, I don't see that these barriers are particularly large. I believe Toronto is putting in woonerfs somewhere, so we should look to their piloting for now.

[IEFBR14]

I believe Toronto is putting in woonerfs somewhereInteresting. Woonerf: It's Dutch for smart city-building (http://www.thestar.com/yourcitymycity/article/779552--woonerf-it-s-dutch-for-smart-city-building)

[IEFBR14]

Across Europe, Irking Drivers Is Urban Policy
26Jun11 | ELISABETH ROSENTHAL | NYTimes | Link (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/27/science/earth/27traffic.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all)
While American cities are synchronizing green lights to improve traffic flow and offering apps to help drivers find parking, many European cities are doing the opposite: creating environments openly hostile to cars. The methods vary, but the mission is clear — to make car use expensive and just plain miserable enough to tilt drivers toward more environmentally friendly modes of transportation...

“In the United States, there has been much more of a tendency to adapt cities to accommodate driving,” said Peder Jensen, head of the Energy and Transport Group at the European Environment Agency. “Here there has been more movement to make cities more livable for people, to get cities relatively free of cars.”

To that end, the municipal Traffic Planning Department here in Zurich has been working overtime in recent years to torment drivers. Closely spaced red lights have been added on roads into town, causing delays and angst for commuters. Pedestrian underpasses that once allowed traffic to flow freely across major intersections have been removed. Operators in the city’s ever expanding tram system can turn traffic lights in their favor as they approach, forcing cars to halt.

Around Löwenplatz, one of Zurich’s busiest squares, cars are now banned on many blocks. Where permitted, their speed is limited to a snail’s pace so that crosswalks and crossing signs can be removed entirely, giving people on foot the right to cross anywhere they like at any time...

Today 91 percent of the delegates to the Swiss Parliament take the tram to work. [The population of Bern, the capital, is the same as Waterloo alone...BR14]...

Sihl City, a new Zurich mall, is three times the size of Brooklyn’s Atlantic Mall but has only half the number of parking spaces, and as a result, 70 percent of visitors get there by public transport, Mr. Kodransky said...

Store owners in Zurich had worried that the closings would mean a drop in business, but that fear has proved unfounded, Mr. Fellmann said, because pedestrian traffic increased 30 to 40 percent where cars were banned...

[BuildingScout]

Across Europe, Irking Drivers Is Urban Policy
26Jun11 | ELISABETH ROSENTHAL | NYTimes | Link (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/27/science/earth/27traffic.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all)

They can do that because Europe already has the infrastructure in place to replace the car. Whenever, say, UW becomes fully connected with the rest of the city (getting pretty close as it is) that is the day you can remove parking from campus. In fact you wouldn't need to. Students themselves would rather take the already-paid-for-bus instead of driving and coughing up the hefty parking fee.

[Daev]

Evacuated Tube Transport
http://www.et3.com (http://www.et3.com/)

I am just wondering if anyone else on this forum has heard of this technology? Does it seem more of a gadgetbahn or actually something that has potential?

Here is a more explanatory video on the technology (currently patented in the US) and it's potential for future growth across the globe:

92dK_yxaKvk

[markster]

Yes, I've heard about this:
In the "Future" expansion pack for SimCity (the original) one of their futures used these instead of roads.

[mpd618]

Does it seem more of a gadgetbahn or actually something that has potential?

Gadgetbahn.

[KevinL]

Gadgetbahn.

Indeed. Lofty thinking, but if their presentation material is this shoddy I'm very skeptical of its true potential.

[plam]

Evacuated Tube Transport
http://www.et3.com (http://www.et3.com/)

I am just wondering if anyone else on this forum has heard of this technology? Does it seem more of a gadgetbahn or actually something that has potential?


Wikipedia for Pneumatic Tube. Looks like people tried to build it in New York in 1869 but it didn't go through.

[KevinL]

Wikipedia for Pneumatic Tube. Looks like people tried to build it in New York in 1869 but it didn't go through.
Ah, but magnetic levitation was but a fantasy in 1869, not so much now. It's the reduced friction - already used in some monorails - that distinguishes this technology, unproven as it is.

[bcwessel]

The only reason that's the case is because the roads are designed so you don't have to pay attention. Design the roads so drivers have to pay attention, and you'll find them doing so.

Would roads be safer and greener without red lights?
Sarah Laksow | Good | 7 December 2011 | LINK (http://www.stumbleupon.com/su/2oSK9V/www.good.is/post/would-roads-be-safer-and-greener-without-red-lights-1/)


There is an alternative to this system—eliminate traffic lights altogether: an idea sometimes called “naked streets (http://thecityfix.com/blog/naked-streets-without-traffic-lights-improve-flow-and-safety/)” or “shared space (http://www.pps.org/blog/shared-space/).” In their most extreme versions (http://www.good.is/post/goodbye-sidewalks-london-planners-break-down-boundaries-between-cars-and-peds/), naked streets have no traffic lights, surface markings, or sidewalks. But some cities, including London (http://wheels.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/09/02/london-seeks-to-reduce-congestion-by-eliminating-traffic-lights/), have been experimenting with taking out traffic lights, while leaving the rest of the road system intact. And it turns out that these streets aren’t just safer (http://www.pps.org/blog/shared-space/) for cyclists and most pedestrians, they also improve roads for drivers and lessen the impact on the environment.

Driving is nearly synonymous with freedom in America, but complicated systems of traffic lights and yield signs and left-turn lanes turn drivers into automatons, who are not responsible for making decisions but for following instructions: Stop at the stop sign. Turn at the turn signal. Slow down. Speed up. Even running a red light hardly counts as a daring act of free will: Researchers at MIT (http://www.wired.com/autopia/2011/12/mathematical-model-predicts-which-drivers-will-run-red-lights/) have developed an algorithm that can predict whether a driver will zoom through an intersection.

When signals are present, drivers respond to them mindlessly. Hans Monderman, the Dutch engineer who originated the idea of shared space, went so far as to say (http://www.pps.org/blog/shared-space/) that red lights and speed limits take away "our capacity for socially responsible behavior" on the road. He also put that same idea less delicately (http://www.wilsonquarterly.com/article.cfm?AID=1234): "When you treat people like idiots, they’ll behave like idiots."