Why Traffic Calming?
September 14th, 2008Mikel Murga is the co-instructor of Urban Transportation Planning, a course I’m taking this semester that is packed full of great information. Actually, if you want to be technical I am not taking the class but am listed as a listener do to time constraints. At least that is what I keep telling myself, but I still manage to watch a healthy dose of football each weekend. Not sure how that works…but heh, Boomer Sooner!
Anyhow, in Friday’s class he did a presentation on traffic calming techniques that he has successfully employed around world. Fascinating stuff and I now have a list of ideas I can’t wait to see happen in OKC! Still, one particular diagram – one that explains the reason we need traffic calming – is what really stuck out:
It is abundantly clear that pedestrians and cars traveling over 30 mph do not mix well! Doesn’t necessarily matter what the sign says if the cars are traveling faster. Not sure if OKC keeps data on marked speed compared to actual speed, but it would be interesting to see what the speeds are in areas that are commonly used by pedestrians (e.g. Bricktown, Downtown, Western Ave, etc).
Anyway, I am sure that I will post more from this class, but If this type of stuff really interest you then you have to check out MITOPENCOURSEWARE, which makes available presentations, lecture notes, assignments, etc, from a number of courses including this one – which you can find here: 11.540J Urban Transportation Planning!
September 15th, 2008 at 9:18 am
I’m not sure exactly what the term “traffic calming” includes…but I wonder if it considers the driver’s level of calmness as well. In many cases, lower speed limits (and numerous stoplights) increase the driver’s agitation. Have you discussed how to achieve driver calmness along with safety? Does it come with education alone, or are there design aspects that achieve the effect?
I know of a neighborhood in Omaha that intentionally keeps its road bumpy and uncomfortable because that keeps people from driving through. The homeowners are willing to slow down and suffer the bumps to keep their neighborhood safe for children. Apparently one cannot get through the neighborhood any faster than 10 mph! Genius!
September 15th, 2008 at 10:28 am
Jan –
We definitely don’t want agitated drivers, so calm is probably a good thing. However, if drivers become too comfortable, or feel too safe, often they travel faster than they should and become less aware of their immediate surroundings. Hans Monderman, a dutch traffic engineer who sadly passed away this last year, always said that the best way to make roads safer was to actually make them feel more dangerous; so his “naked streets” concept proposed ditching all of the stop signs, curbs, speed limits, etc in areas frequented by pedestrians and forcing pedestrian, bikes, and cars to work things out by communicating. Needless to say, in such conditions, everyone slows down a little, becomes more friendly, and traffic still flows very steadily. Sounds like your friends in Omaha have been able to create conditions that are probably even more unpleasant for cars to navigate – I guess that works to some degree, but I can’t say that I endorse bad streets (though the mechanic charging to fix people’s shocks probably could).
Prof. Murga went over a number of traffic calming techniques that manage to calm traffic while providing some other benefit to the streetscape. I will try to compile a list of some of these and throw them up.
Thanks for reading!
September 16th, 2008 at 1:52 pm
I like the way Vermont handles street/traffic signs…very minimal. They do this, I think, to try not to disturb the natural beauty of Vermont rather than the safety. I would be interested to know if they have less traffic accidents in the state compared to others with more signs?
September 16th, 2008 at 8:08 pm
For some reason I don’t like the idea of dropping the speed limit as a glorious solution to a major problem. In fact the whole idea sounds counter intuitive when you think about it. We approach planning in the urban periphery the same as we do in the city center–with speed limits as the solution to problems. We put up a sign and then no matter what we expect people to only go that fast and no faster. For decades, ever since the rise of the highway, this has been the main question of city planning it seems.
Changing speed limits does not change the urban scene outside of someone’s car, and that’s what’s fundamental. There is no reason for me to NOT want to blaze through an urban environment that’s not worth caring about at 50-60 mph or greater. On the flipside, I want to drive slower, maybe 25-30 mph through a worthier urban environment. For instance I get impatient when I’m stuck behind a string of cars driving 60 down I-35 between Moore and OKC, while I have no problem at all going 25-30 through a great urban area such as Central Norman. I never see people complain about the 30 mph speed limit on Boyd Street in the heart of Norman, but everyone that’s alright can’t stand the 60 mph speed limit on I-35. What gives?
It’s a psychological issue. I’m driving, I see an urban scene not worth caring about, I want to get where I’m going, or at the very least, I’m focused on the ROAD. It’s the complete opposite in an area like Central Norman and it has nothing at ALL to do with the speed limits. If people complain that cars are driving too fast down East Reno in Bricktown, then I would say that the problem is not the cars, that it’s actually East Reno in Bricktown. Traffic calming measures are nice ways of aggravating people and forcing friction with inadequate and uninteresting urban environments, and the people will always win. It seems like fixing the psychological issue would be a much better solution.
September 16th, 2008 at 9:06 pm
By the way since I’ve moved to Calgary to finish my arch degree, I’ve probably used public transit as much as I use my car. Makes life much cheaper and much more fun. A lot of folks up here where the sun don’t shine (kidding) aren’t affected by whether the speed limit on Crowchild Trail is 80 kmh (which equates to about 50 mph) or if it should be bumped up to 100 kmh (which is what commuters in the far burbs want). I use the freeways and roadways when I am too tired to walk or when I don’t have enough time to wait 3 minutes for a train. Think about it this way: Would you rather get around by flipping off people that cut you off and scanning the road ahead for cops wielding radar guns, or a nice comfy seat, you can listen to your iPod or read the newspaper and hit on the girl next to you. I know which one I’d choose.
September 17th, 2008 at 10:12 pm
Nick, you are right. Street design and adjacent buildings definitely matter more than posted speed limits. Everyone can tell whether a street is designed for people, for people & cars, or just cars. The only problem in OKC is that almost all of our streets are designed for just cars; where’s a pedestrian to go?
I hear what you are saying on trains. I can’t relate completely because I am a married man, but your points are well taken. I will say that you have it good when you can decide to take a car when it is more convenient. Going completely carless requires some sacrifices and sometimes the freedom is sorely missed. In the long-run the goal should be to give people many different options that are all offered in an effective manner.
Maggie – not sure about Vermont’s safety record, but I will let you know if I come across anything.