In the late 70s, Dutch traffic planner Hans Monderman experienced the kind of insight that gets people sent to an asylum. ”Let’s eliminate all traffic signals and signs and remove the divisions between the road and sidewalk where cars and people interact. There will be fewer accidents and traffic flow will improve.” Monderman’s approach seemed completely radical: roads that seem dangerous are safer than roads that seem safe. The concept was a smack in the face of convention.
Accepted traffic planning methods date back to 1929, to Radburn, New Jersey. The residential area was launched as ”The Motor Town of the Future.” It was, in effect, a study in near total human/traffic non-interaction. The reasoning was obvious: cars are big, fast and hard; people are slow, soft and fragile. Segregate the two and people can walk safely and cars can move quickly from A to B. The result became a model for road planners in all developed nations and a blueprint for the world.
The system had an unintended consequence: endless stop-and-go. Where drivers and pedestrians [eventually and inevitably] interact, they both face countless interruptions to their natural flow. They have to stop. Monderman’s counter theory: go slower to move faster. To help road users go with the flow, Monderman recommended bringing cars and people into greater proximity– without signs or signals. Monderman argued that human contact through the windshield creates a self-regulating and efficient traffic flow, as users negotiate with one another for right of way.
Monderman’s ideas were met with near biblical outrage. The Dutchman persisted, until the Netherlands gave him permission to test his theories. In several Dutch towns, engineers ripped out signs and signals, flattened sidewalks and created radical new road-flow patterns. The result: a statistically verified reduction in accidents and fatalities. Monderman’s success with ”human contact flow” has lead to changes in roadways throughout the European Union and the U.S.
An American named Walter Kulash added to the growing ”liveable traffic” (r)evolution. The Senior Traffic Engineer at the Orlando community-planning firm of Glatting Jackson Kercher Anglin Lopez Rinehart Inc. saw that outdated planning had created islands of inactivity in both suburbia and urbia. At night, downtown areas are abandoned. During the day, outlying residential districts are desolate. People spend a lot of time driving from one to the other, usually negotiating traffic snarls.
Kulash believes in creating more efficient habitats, by manipulating street geometry and introducing mixed use of space. Working with planners intent on transforming West Palm Beach from a dead end darkworld to a 24-hour address, Kulash helped create a liveable town out of what used to be shops and parking spaces. Developers have seen property values increase three and four-fold after Kulash’ interventions. His traffic-calming and urban design methods are helping create numerous ”liveable traffic spaces” across North America, where people work, live, shop, play AND drive.
Monderman’s flow generation and Kulash’ traffic calming principles could trigger a shift in automotive tastes. Transportation analysts estimate that the average U.S. vehicle travels roughly 30 miles a day. Encouraged by the ”New Urbanism” planning scene, drivers may finally abandon the idea that their cars must be capable of transcontinental transportation, and shift to lower speed plug-in hybrids and electric vehicles. Rising gas prices and increasing environmental/political consciousness will only accelerate the transition.
A year ago, I asked Walter Kulash’s opinion about a car platform bound for the U.S. Kulash said that the new car fit within his critical ”effective turn-radii” requirement; it would be able to get around the new townscape with ease. In other words, Kulash is creating roads where big cars are as out of place as a sumo wrestler in a ballet troupe.
To conform to American tastes, these vehicles would have to be small on the outside, yet feel big on the inside. The Nissan Versa understands the equation. But the genre needs a premium player to overcome the stigma of ”small = cheap.” In that regard, the long-delayed SMART car is the one to watch. Originally planned as an EV city runner, the Smart cars now sip gasoline. Don’t be surprised to see the platform get new drivetrains as DCX reaches for profit opportunity.
The rise of car sharing companies like Flexcar and Zipcar also show that a growing percentage of drivers are willing to abandon the gratification of ownership for the ease and economy of more practical personal transportation. Where these companies are going, the majors should follow. American carmakers would be wise to adjust their future products to match this merging of urban and suburban environments.
The Big Two Point Five should build products that exploit the new, more people-friendly asphalt paths through our streetscapes. By catering to the switch from gas-guzzling land yachts to economical, environmentally-friendly runabouts, Detroit may discover the economic reinvention it so dearly needs.
75 Comments on “The Road Ahead...”
Back to TopLeave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
You can also login using Facebook Connect.
I live in NYC and always preferred large cars; 6 month ago I got rid of big V8 in favor of a Mazda 3, it took me some time to get used to it, but now I’m very happy with it and wonder why did I wait so long.
Traffic is getting heavier year to year, it become impossible to drive a car in midtown at any time during the day.
Analysts predicts that at 2030 we will have rush hour all day unless some changes will take place like charging premium to enter Manhattan from anywhere below 60th street, it worked just fine right after 9/11.
I thing a similar thing was done in London, mass transit will improve as well if it can flow better with less “one driver cars” in metro areas.
The problem with revolutionary ideas is that they take time. You can’t change that sort of thing over night. If you implement that sort of thing in a big city, the distances will be the same at first and it’s gonna take really long until people move into the new residential areas, shops open and so on.
I’m all for revolutionary ideas, but they’ll have to be proven on a larger scale before they can be implemented everywhere. It’s not enough to work in some small Dutch towns, where the infrastructure is similar to Kulash’s vision anyway.
While I agree with the comment above about radical ideas taking time to bcome realities, I’m all for experimentation, whether the subject is traffic or health care financing. As for the predictions of all-day rush hour in NYC, and the like, we need desperately to stabilize the US population. The population has about doubled since Eisenhower, and at the current rate, we’ll be pushing half a billion by mid-century.
America’s traffic problem has it root in the post-war urban renewal process that moved residential dwellings out of metro areas and into surrounding suburbs. While this created more private living space for families, it also created the bedroom suburb where the car was a dominant means of transportation from going to work to getting a gallon of milk. Cities that refused the urban renewal process, such as Manhattan, still have traffic but car ownership is not essential as the population density makes public transport a true alternative to car ownership.
While smaller cars are a good start, there needs to be a recognition by US town planning authorities everywhere that urban sprawl is getting us stuck in traffic for too much of our lives. We need a housing density that makes public transport effective and start to plan cities around people rather than cars.
I’m a self confessed autophile, but there is no joy in getting to work via an hour of stop and go traffic – I’d rather be on a train reading the morning paper.
No traffic rules? We have had that in New Jersey for years! We have “traffic circles”, called roundabounts across the pond, where each road (usually a 4 way intersection) feeds into a circular road with an island in the center. Generally, its every man for himself when in the circle. The only time it slows down is when you get someone who thinks it’s safer to come to a complete stop prior to entering the circle. The way to drive a traffic circle in NJ is similar to running a guerilla war! Personally, I think that the State’s quest to eliminate traffic circles in NJ will cause more delays, not less.
The problem with revolutionary ideas is that they take time.
Actually revolutionary ideas do happen overnight. Evolutionary ones take time. The real problem convincing authority to give up its authoritas.
Kenny Galbraith came up with idea of Private Affluence/Public Squalor but never figured for a moment that if you increased public goods then you would have more squalor at the expense of affluence.
the Kalash/Monderman is an excellent start but the next step would to privatize the road network.
Actually revolutionary ideas do happen overnight. Evolutionary ones take time. The real problem convincing authority to give up its authoritas.
Okay, you got me there. Of course it’s easy to get rid of all traffic signs and so on. But for it to work like Kalash imagined will take very long. That’s what I was trying to say.
the Kalash/Monderman is an excellent start but the next step would to privatize the road network.
Now that would be horrible. Do you think privatly owned roads would be fixed as often as public roads? And I can’t imagine the delays it would cause if you had to pay a toll on every right/left turn you make because the street you’re just entering is owned by some other company than the one you’re coming from.
There is nothing less conducive to community spirit than the new America mainstreet. When I see the endless parades of Chilis, Home Depots, Starbucks, Toys R Us, Wal-Marts, etc. that passes for commercial architecture, I understand the democratic capitalist ethos, but decry the psychological effects of such dehumanized spaces (most don’t even have sidewalks).
As someone who’s always lived in semi-urban areas with sidewalks, driveways, wide streets and interesting architecture (Providence, Midtown Atlanta, Manhattan, Windsor[UK], etc, I like to believe that most people would choose this kind of traditional neighborhood over cookie cutter suburbs. It’s a question of money.
It’s FAR cheap to build the Radburns than the Providences of the world. Which makes it FAR cheaper to live in them. The trick is to convince developers that they can make more money building mixed use developments than housing farms and their outlying strip malls.
Anyway, this article tells me that different disciplines are moving in the same better direction. Stein is right: car design will follow.
For this in terested in more about Walter Kulash and similar attempts at integrating humans into their environments check out James Kunstler’s “The Geography of Nowhere.” He spends a great deal of time talking about land rendered useless by automobiles. And not just roads and parking lots (which are useful) but the little Island of nothing created by onramps, etc.
He has a good blog, too.
http://jameshowardkunstler.typepad.com/clusterfuck_nation/
Also, Robert, do not criticize the cookie cutter chain restaurants unless you want to be called a altte-drinking volvo commie. Applebee’s somehow = America…
Everyone needs a Volks Rabbit or an A3! Traffic problems solved!
Actually, yes, private roads would be fixed more often and better still safer and quicker because private companies have an incentive to please their customer – to make money. What incentive does the DOTs have?
As for the idea that tolls will cause a headache for drivers, again, it would be in the interest of the road companies to develop a system of interoperability. Illinois uses a transponder system on its road network and Im lead to believe that some eastern states do the same using a link system.
Thr train networks could go back to private as well. New York’s subway system was developed by private enterprise until the city squeezed them out and in the early 19th century it was entrepreneurs who developed the turnpike system.
and also what would be better for residents to own their own streets this might do wonders for community spirit and meeting your neighbours
Actually, yes, private roads would be fixed more often and better still safer and quicker because private companies have an incentive to please their customer – to make money. What incentive does the DOTs have?
Polititians want to be re-elected, private organisations don’t. And why should they please you? What other choice do you have but to drive to work on their roads?
But you’re right about the transponder system…that at least would make it easy for the drivers.
You know, certainly traffic patterns, flows, requirements, and controls change over time. The article was fine in that regard until the last sentence which states the Big 2.5 need to change. It’s not just a big 2.5 thing, its basically every company. Smart cars have been around for 5 to 7 years, but are they here? Blame Smart or MB. Nissan’s been building Micras for how long and not selling them here? Blame Nissan. There’s a reason why these vehicles are not sold here. Probably because it’s not worth the effort ….. yet. To take the Big 2.5 and only the Big 2.5 to task for that is simply unfair.
That being said, a lot of this harkens back to the 1% Solution thread a few days ago where everybody wants everyone else to, as I said, “zip it and do precisely what I say” so the world will be a utopia. I know it would if you all would just follow my rules to the letter.
Politicians certainly do want to be elected but seem to more in tune with their campaign contributors than with their voters. After Katrina sunk New Orleans, American society turned up to help from giant corporations to guys with boats and the Government turned them back, in case we all need reminding.
Private organisations don’t. And why should they please you?
I remember reading something recently, forget where exactly but some bloke talked about a death watch, whatever they meant by that.
@WaaaaHoooo
Don’t think you can read the ending of my article as taking the majors to task – rather pointing out an emerging opportunity!
And utopia actually means nowhere, so we’re both in agreement on that one. Won’t happen.
Yet people have become intensely aware of the health benefits that come from reexamining how we live, eat, breathe and work. There are already strong pressures influencing decision making, private and political, in these areas – and this won’t go away.
London seems to be moving ahead forcibly, with severe tolls to be paid by owners of SUVs and trucks who wish to enter the center of the city with their cars. They are to pay the equivalent of USD 47/day starting in 2009.
Clearly this will influence car design – but also the public’s attitude to the larger cars, something that will be just as influential as tolls levvied.
(And if you think public censure is without power, then just try firing up a cigarette in an LA restaurant!)
Ken Livingston’s London is just the world that should be avoided where smokers and SUV drivers are held as social pariahs because the powers that be take every opportunity to squeeze the taxpaying driver (and smoker) and for them on to the squalid antiquated public transport system that is patently disfunctional yet costs insane amounts every year.
In fact i would go as far as to say that this is the rough equivalent of 15th century proscriptions of surviving black death peasants daring to cloth themselves as their lords did.
@HEATHROI
Well, as a non-smoker I have to confess I don’t mind bars and restaurants having breatheable air!
BTW – you should be aware that the insurance industry has a heavy hand in this legislation – due to the liability claims that can be brought against cities (or bar owners) for not ensuring that people living and working in them have clean air and water.
(China is expected to pass particularly draconian (pun intended) legislation when it comes to acceptable drive-trains for city traffic.)
We can close our eyes to what’s going on, or we can begin designing cars and transportation solutions that match emerging requirements.
Sorry Stein but to the argument that laws create positive effects is like saying slavery was terrible as idea but good in practise because it created low cost, high quality cotton for everybody, (that is an extreme example of course)
It’s not a surprise that the Insurance Industry is lobbying for new rules enforcing ‘behavior modification’ but it seem to me simpler for insurance companies not to pick up the tab for high risk clients
Incidentally the best way of reducing smoking would be increasing an individuals wealth as studies show smoking is primarily a ‘working class’ pursuit and as income increases the incidence of smoking declines.
Stein – Excuse my etymological curiosity, but I always thought the word draconian comes from a 6th century BC Greek ruler by the name of Draco. How is it a pun when used used in reference to China?
Maybe Stein’s pun was that the dragon is China’s symbol.
At any rate, I don’t share the view that laws can’t create positive effects. And I am basically civil libertarian, for example I think motorcycle helmet laws are a bit hard to justify, particularly if we don’t require auto drivers to wear helmets given the many auto deaths from head injuries.
@carguy and HawaiiJim
Chinese rule is best characterized as “exceedingly harsh” and we’ve already seen how they institute new regulation overnight – with their “cleaner coal” stipulations, for instance.
No dragons intended.
What incentive does the DOTs have?
DOT has every incentive to keep roads in disrepair. The Ruling Class knows that their serfs will give up more of their earned property for better roads. The Ruling Class will rob you with a promise to fix the roads and of course instead of better roads they will hire their entire extended family/supporters into more do-nothing Government yobs.
(They also have every incentive to keep your children stupid/Gov’t-worshipping with their public education system. The serfs will give up more of their property to educate their kids. It has an added benifit to the Ruling Class in that stupid/Gov’t-worshipping people can be suckered out of their property more easily.) I think Wal-Mart should get into the road building business.
The Traffic Circle is a great idea. For those posters that live in N.J., Who has the right-of-way in a N.J. traffic circle ? Seems to me it is just a free-for-all there.
Fine, fine, fine article. Bravo! I applaud this kind of thinking.
If i am lucky, I will be able to sell my beloved but aging Golf III, and join a car sharing service. In philadelphia it is called Philly Carshare. http://www.phillycarshare.org/index.html.
Then I wlll have am entire fleet of cars to choose from, not just one! I cant wait. For way less then even the cost of insurance on my car, i get to choose from all sorts of vehicles, pretty much whenever i want. Its a dream come true.
The town of Reston, Virginia is a planned town with the concept of self-containment and therefor managable traffic. It did not quite turn out as planned though because people ended up commuting in and out of Reston. It still is a very nice place.
http://www.reston.org/
Luther:
THE TRAFFIC CIRCLE IS A GREAT IDEA? ARE U MAD? I grew up not far from a HUGE circle in NJ -the one in Maple Shade connecting RT 38, 73 and Kings Hwy — I recall the traffic even in the 60’s would be tied up for miles every day! It was replaced – thankfully – a long time ago. And the traffic cleared up magically! Now of course, its all tied up again, more because of the endless ex-urbs and general suburban sprawl. But thats another story.
But traffic cirleles! ON NO – they are a blight on humanity!
Trafic circles are indeed a great idea. However, they only work up to a certain limit of traffic. If there’s more than that, it won’t work…
jerseydevil:
Maybe I should have qualified my statement:
Traffic Circles are a great idea… Except in N.J… LOL
I lived in Moorestown for awhile (Not far from Maple Shade). I never figured out the traffic circle right-of-way so I tried to avoid them. I also lived in Europe for many years and the traffic circles worked perfectly.
If you ask 10 N.J.ites who has the right-of-way in a traffic circle you will get 10 different answers. This may have changed since I lived there though.
Anyone who has ever negotiated a traffic circle in Massachusetts will recognize what a bad idea this is.
Above there is a picture of the Cincinnati water front with Paul Brown Stadium and Great American Ballpark. There is also a drawing labeled “Cincinatti[sic], in Kulash’s dreams.” As nearly as I can tell, they are the same scene from slightly different perspectives. What was the point? Over the last ten years or so, The area was rebuilt with new facilities (Paul Brown and GAB) and with better integration with the downtown street grid. Did Kulash plan that? They did not abolish I71 or US50
Traffic circles work perfectly if drivers are properly trained to work together and therefore show a good degree of self discipline and driving skill. Which is why it works in Europe and not in New Jersey. Even in the UK however, some circles have now been endowed with traffic lights, because at rush hour, giving way to your right takes half an hour.
Driving in Europe is like neurosurgery. Driving in the U.S is like a frat party.
I’m skeptical that privatizing road networks would create some sort of capitalistic traffic utopia. Corporations wouldn’t necessarily have an incentive to keep roads in good order since there aren’t many viable alternatives. Commuters have to use the roads even if they are in poor shape. The archaic nature of the US energy system is a perfect example of this: maintain things to a barely usable level and no more.
Traffic entering the circle has the right of way over traffic already in the circle.
maintain things to a barely usable level and no more
edit: grin, yeah, that’s how we do things here.
not trying to start a flame war, but as I see it “adequate and no more” is the way _everything_ is done nowadays.
As an out of towner who had to adjust to traffic circles and jughandles in New Jersey, I tell you from personal experience that they are a blight upon urban design. Who has the right of way in a traffic circle? First come, first serve, and it all depends on how well your car accelerates, and the speed of your reflexes to hit the brakes, and the horn.
I dunno about you, but Monderman’s idea scares me. No lights, no signs? It reminds me of a YouTube video some guy took of a traffic intersection in downtown Ho Chi Minh City. One word: Chaos. Another word: Gridlock. It’s a fine idea if you want to frustrate a driver to the point that he’d rather set his car on fire and take a Schwinn to work, though.
Those ideas about sign-free roads can work pretty well in areas where there isn’t that much traffic – villages or quiet corners of a city. You cannot do that in a larger city or on busy areas of road. Besides, I think the idea behind that theory is not so much speed, but safety. If the situation on the road ahead is a bit confusing, you have to drive a bit slower, a bit more careful.
About traffic circles – I’m from Berlin, and there is one particulary large traffic circle in this town, around the Siegesäule (To get the idea, check this
As long as it works.
If removing traffic signs and signals makes us safer, or at least works in certain environments, do it. I don’t care what it is if it works. I think if it works in town in the Netherlands than in similar towns anywhere else there is reason to believe that it would work. Just make sure you know how and why, because I’ve heard about traffic in China, India, and other places where it’s very anarchic and dangerous.
As much as I love cars I think that we do need to move away from a car centric cuture and way of life. I lived in Boston for a while myself, didn’t have a car, and rather liked it. However, Boston was built before cars so it was done right the first time and public transport there will actually take you where you want to go in fairly good time. A couple things that must be kept in mind about public transport – it has to come often (at least every 15 minutes) and it has to run early and late. Boston had that.
I think it will be much harder to fix the suburbs and strip malls of today. The hard question is how to turn areas that have been built in that fasion into usable, walkable towns – restoring formerly walkable towns and streets is easy in comparison. Once the roads and suburbs are there it becomes very hard to change back. That said the obvious first step is to restore those walkable places… Here in Florida (Pinellas county, Tampa Bay area) there are a few pockets of usable space (parts of the beaches, downtown Dunedin, downtown St. Pete, etc.) but the area as a whole is a commuter nightmare. The roads get bigger and bigger but the traffic just gets worse and worse.
I think current zoning laws and urban/suburban planning are in a sort of evil feedback loop that’s hard to fix. If somebody has an idea on how to do it better than more power to them – the current state is near intolerable.
dror:
December 17th, 2006 at 8:56 am
I live in NYC …
… unless some changes will take place like charging premium to enter Manhattan from anywhere below 60th street
Been there done that. Differentiated cost depending on time of day – free at night. Charging fees via cameras reading registration plates or radiowave-transponders.
http://www.stockholmsforsoket.se – In English – Read More
I moved from an old suburb to a newer suburb farther “out” about ten years ago. It is much quieter and I still have deer occasionally forage in the back yard. I must admit that we feel isolated in the fact that we must drive to get anywhere. When I lived farther “in” we had treelined streets and sidewalks. You could always walk to the grocery store or to a sandwich shop. The new developments have sidewalks, but only within each development. The old existing township roads between the developments are still narrow and dangerous for pedestrians or even bicycles. I really do miss walking to the store on a warm summer night.
Potena:
Sorry, old chap, but you’re wrong. In Europe, traffic already in the circle has priority. Which is why it takes so long to enter. If New Jersey is doing it the other way around, then no wonder it’s a nightmare.
@quasimondo
I dunno about you, but Monderman’s idea scares me. No lights, no signs? It reminds me of a YouTube video some guy took of a traffic intersection in downtown Ho Chi Minh City. One word: Chaos. Another word: Gridlock. It’s a fine idea if you want to frustrate a driver to the point that he’d rather set his car on fire and take a Schwinn to work, though.
Sounds like what people were telling Monderman when they were protesting his suggestions …
Traffic calming also means adjusting street layout to impede unrestricted traffic speed build-up. If you don’t, you do not get the “negotiation” through the windshield that determines right-of-way.
@Potena
Traffic-in-the-circle has right-of-way throughout Europe. Works perfectly. NJ should give it a look. The description above of winding a way through the cars sounds like a prescription for frustration.
BTW – measurements of the time people spend waiting to enter the circle, compared to the time spent waiting at regular traffic-light controlled intersections, show that circles create more flow and less waiting time.
Great article. I hope TTAC runs more “nontraditional” think pieces. These are important discussions that are all but ignored by the enthusiast magazines and trade journals such as Automotive News.
I’d argue that the single biggest reason Detroit has lost its dominance in the U.S. auto biz is because it stopped paying attention to what was actually going on out there on the street. Instead of helping people solve their changing real-world problems, Detroit has all too often fixated on creating the next fantastic styling exercise.
Look at the late 1950s. The Big Three spent enormous amounts of money creating rolling palaces. Some of them even looked good (my favorite is the 1957-58 Chrysler 300 letter series). Alas, despite much-bragged-about market research, Detroit’s investment in big cars ultimately went down the toilet. A growing portion of the public was moving to the suburbs and sought smaller, more utilitarian transportation. The VW beetle became a strikingly popular symbol of the public’s disgust with the Big Three.
Similar patterns can be seen in the late 60s and 70s. Indeed, the only thing that saved Detroit from rapidly advancing foreign automakers was the passage of CAFE standards that forced the Big Three to downsize its fleet. (Not that any Detroit executive worth his salt would admit this.)
So yes, I hope that Detroit does start paying more attention to innovative planning tools. However, I’m not optimistic. When given a choice, Detroit almost always scurries back to the styling studio in search of more adolescent glitz.
Today’s big SUVs and trucks were designed with much the same attitude that created befinned abominations such as the 1958 Buick. It’s in the gene pool.
Planners in Sweden now admit that roundabouts increase peoples uncertainty and thereby decreases speeds. This leads to more accidents, but less fatal ones. The total sum of damage thereby decreases, i.e. fewer people killed etc..
A recent trend is really tiny roundabouts replacing small town 4-way crossings.
There are also some really LARGE ones:
Valla Roundabout
Roundabouts makes you appreciate nice handling cars more than trafficlights does.
And, for the arty of you, here’s the latest trend:
The Roundabout Dog
Ordinary people making art statements in roundabouts – and to everybodies surprise the government agency decided to leave the dogs alone as they were/are!
Finally:
In most of Continental Europe, the default priority is to give way to the right, but this default may be overridden by signs or road markings. In France, priority was initially according to the social rank of each traveler, but early in the life of the automobile this rule was deemed impractical and replaced with the “priorité à droite” (give way to the right) rule, which was employed until the 1980s. At a roundabout, “priorité à droite” works this way: traffic already on the roundabout gives way to traffic entering the roundabout. Most French roundabouts now have give-way signs for traffic entering the roundabout, but there remain some notable exceptions that operate on the old rule, such as the Place de l’Étoile around the Arc de Triomphe. Traffic on this particular roundabout is so chaotic that French insurance companies deem any accident on the roundabout to be equal liability.
Priority
measurements of the time people spend waiting to enter the circle, compared to the time spent waiting at regular traffic-light controlled intersections, show that circles create more flow and less waiting time.
Think of it as every lane to the circle is right-on-red. The traffic flows more evenly than a light-controlled intersection. It is also beneficial to have a “zippy” car (low-end torque) with a manual transmission and excellent brakes. It is driving neurosurgery which is more invigorating than it is frustrating (In Europe anyway).
I’ve been following these experiments and thinking about how this is applicable to other locales. The reason this approach works, I believe, is because traffic signs make us feel passive, or reactive, kind of like how you felt all through middle school, everyone telling you what to do. Studies have repeatedly shown that 70% of traffic signs are ignored (try looking at ALL the signs out there, you’ll be amazed at how many you’ve never consciously noticed). When all signs, and even curbs are taken away, it engenders a sense of mindfulness and social awareness of what you are doing in your environment. You become aware of your options and choices, and negotiate with all the other players. Like a good playground (without parents) or a good party.
In my own older neighborhood, of gridded streets, there used to be very few signs, including most intersections, because folks were presumed to know the rules for uncontrolled intersections (slow down and if there is any, traffic to your right has right of way). In the last 15 years the neighborhood organization has successfully lobbied for endless signs, traffic speed humps, etc. And has it made any difference? No. But they’re lobbying for more.
What it has done is alienate drivers from the sense of connection to the neighborhood, because they feel isolated from what is really happening on the street, and they’re losing the social mechanisms to appropriately respond.
That being said, I don’t yet see how this system will work in a large, anonymous city setting. But the possibilities in small towns and neighborhoods is very compelling to me.
This is a wonderfully thought-provoking piece. It reminds me, to a degree, of the “urban village” concept which then Mayor Norm Rice was touting in Seattle, about 15 years ago. The idea that the average length of a daily commute is about 30 miles, is also the reason that compact electric cars still could be the urban vehicle of choice. Thing is, as Marshall McLuhan wrote, the modern automobile is a “mechanical bride,” a fashion and personal statement, especially in America where you oftentimes are defined by what you own. At some point however, cars such as the Nissan Versa and Honda Fit, will succeed because they will be viewed as statements such as “I am secure enough in my masculinity to know I don’t always need to be seen in a sports or muscle car,” or “I am not so stupid as to drive a four-wheel drive truck in the city without being a contractor.”
And the perfect vehicle for the urban village: (along with the Smart): the Honda Step Bus, as shown at the LA auto show. Seats five.
It has long seemed to me that the era of zoning, planning boards, redevelopment zones and the like has done at least as much harm as it has good, and probably has been a net negative.
The mixed-use ethos was standard operating practice across the USA before the professional planners came on the stage and started trying to dictate land use decisions for what they thought was the greater good. One of the dictates of planning doctrine has been that use types need to be segregated through zoning laws. We must not allow the factory owner to build their home next to the factory and certainly the farm shouldn’t be in between the apartment buildings. Wikipedia has a relatively unbiased review of the history here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoning
This idea that various elites know best what to do with various pieces of land is less than 100 years old, dating to it’s start in the 1920s.
Unfortunately the New Urbanists of today are right in their view that mixed-use is a better way to go, but wrong with their idea that their ideas of strict design guildlines and such are the way to unleash positive change. When a body of laws doesn’t produce the promised result, the simplest solution would be to get rid of said laws. But alas, one then runs into the problem of trying to change the status quo.
@ Terry Parkhurst:
It reminds me, to a degree, of the “urban village” concept which then Mayor Norm Rice was touting in Seattle, about 15 years ago.
Let’s not forget how hard the neighborhood groups fought in the mistaken belief that they could hold back the ocean of development by sheer force of will. Now, we have no good mass transit (the bus sucks. I ride it all the time), and anonymous lowest-bidder condos and townhouses are invading the neighborhoods like ringworm.
In the past 48 hours I have commuted smart and stupid: Yesterday, I pulled off a nice bus/bike to northgate. I bet it was faster to ride to the bus, catch the bus, travel on the freeway, and then ride a few blocks past all the lines of cars waiting to get into the mall and look for parking. Tonight, I drove my beater to west seattle, which was easy, but trying to park within two blocks of my house on queen anne took 15 minutes.
I wish I could just get rid of the car, but there’s often no other option to get to certain places.