LA Times: U.S. Love Affair With The Car Ending

SMS wrote:
DaveW wrote:

I'm afraid I must agree. "traffic calming" is anything but calming for
those subjected to it.

It works great in the Bay Area, in Palo Alto, Mountain View, etc. It's
created a way to safely NOT drive, either by walking or bicycling. It
often does make vehicles go around closed off streets, or slow down
around round-abouts, but that's the whole idea--to slow traffic on
neighborhood streets, and encourage vehicles to use arterials.

But of course, the vehicles were using the residential streets in the
first place because the arterials were congested. So, what do you get?
Even more congestion on the arterials! Add to that more use of brakes,
accelerator, etc. on residential streets.

My dad lives on a street that goes for 2 blocks perpendicular to two
arterials. There is a stop sign at the interim block. About 15 years
ago, they installed "speed humps" on his street. The result? Same amount
of traffic, cars constantly speeding up/slowing down for the humps,
which is noisy, and debris all over from things falling off of vehicles
that take the humps too fast. Nice!

Regards,

DAve

In article , Doug McDonald
wrote:

SMS wrote:


Traffic calming measures in cities attempt to direct traffic to major
arterials instead of allowing motorists to take short-cuts

This is a wonderful example of the "NewSpeak" of the left.

"Traffic Calming" actually means "traffic infuriating"
or "causing aggressive driving". We have it here in
Champaign-Urbana IL, and it is a disaster.


It's only infuriating to those who insist upon driving through
neighborhood streets at high speed and are slowed down by obstacles that
are put in their way to keep them from killing people.

My own preference would be tire spikes.

--
-Glennl
The despammed service works OK, but unfortunately
now the spammers grab addresses for use as "from" address too!
e-mail hint: add 1 to quantity after gl to get 4317.

spake thus:

In article , Doug McDonald
wrote:

SMS wrote:

Traffic calming measures in cities attempt to direct traffic to major
arterials instead of allowing motorists to take short-cuts

This is a wonderful example of the "NewSpeak" of the left.

"Traffic Calming" actually means "traffic infuriating"
or "causing aggressive driving". We have it here in
Champaign-Urbana IL, and it is a disaster.

It's only infuriating to those who insist upon driving through
neighborhood streets at high speed and are slowed down by obstacles that
are put in their way to keep them from killing people.

My own preference would be tire spikes.

Caltrops.


--
Don't talk to me, those of you who must need to be slammed in the
forehead with a maul before you'll GET IT that Wikipedia is a
time-wasting, totality of CRAP...don't talk to me, don't keep bleating
like naifs, that we should somehow waste MORE of our lives writing a
variorum text that would be put up on that site.

It is a WASTE OF TIME.

- Harlan Ellison, writing on the "talk page" of his Wikipedia article
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Harlan_Ellison)

DaveW wrote:
SMS wrote:
DaveW wrote:

I'm afraid I must agree. "traffic calming" is anything but calming
for those subjected to it.

It works great in the Bay Area, in Palo Alto, Mountain View, etc. It's
created a way to safely NOT drive, either by walking or bicycling. It
often does make vehicles go around closed off streets, or slow down
around round-abouts, but that's the whole idea--to slow traffic on
neighborhood streets, and encourage vehicles to use arterials.

But of course, the vehicles were using the residential streets in the
first place because the arterials were congested. So, what do you get?
Even more congestion on the arterials!

For a time. The arterials are usually under the control of the county or
state, and when they are too congested these entities address the
problem by widening, or by other method, such as turning an expressway
into a freeway. The cities are chartered to protect their neighborhoods,
and one of the major complaints is always that non-neighborhood traffic
is using the neighborhood to avoid congested arterials.

My dad lives on a street that goes for 2 blocks perpendicular to two
arterials. There is a stop sign at the interim block. About 15 years
ago, they installed "speed humps" on his street. The result? Same amount
of traffic, cars constantly speeding up/slowing down for the humps,
which is noisy, and debris all over from things falling off of vehicles
that take the humps too fast. Nice!

They should have done some other sort of traffic calming if the humps
didn't work. One thing that worked well where I am is automatic gates
that close off neighborhood streets during peak commute times, but are
open at other times to avoid inconveniencing residents of the neighborhood.

wrote:
In article , Doug McDonald
wrote:

SMS wrote:

Traffic calming measures in cities attempt to direct traffic to major
arterials instead of allowing motorists to take short-cuts
This is a wonderful example of the "NewSpeak" of the left.

"Traffic Calming" actually means "traffic infuriating"
or "causing aggressive driving". We have it here in
Champaign-Urbana IL, and it is a disaster.


It's only infuriating to those who insist upon driving through
neighborhood streets at high speed and are slowed down by obstacles that
are put in their way to keep them from killing people.

My own preference would be tire spikes.

Well what seems to work is calling the police every couple of weeks and
asking for enforcement action. They come out with a couple of motorcycle
cops and do ticketing for speeding, stop-sign running, and failure to
yield to pedestrians. The problem is that it's a short term solution,
where-as proper traffic calming permanently solves the problem.

"SMS" wrote in message
...
DaveW wrote:
SMS wrote:
DaveW wrote:

I'm afraid I must agree. "traffic calming" is anything but calming for
those subjected to it.

It works great in the Bay Area, in Palo Alto, Mountain View, etc. It's
created a way to safely NOT drive, either by walking or bicycling. It
often does make vehicles go around closed off streets, or slow down
around round-abouts, but that's the whole idea--to slow traffic on
neighborhood streets, and encourage vehicles to use arterials.

But of course, the vehicles were using the residential streets in the
first place because the arterials were congested. So, what do you get?
Even more congestion on the arterials!

For a time. The arterials are usually under the control of the county or
state, and when they are too congested these entities address the problem
by widening, or by other method, such as turning an expressway into a
freeway. The cities are chartered to protect their neighborhoods, and one
of the major complaints is always that non-neighborhood traffic is using
the neighborhood to avoid congested arterials.

My dad lives on a street that goes for 2 blocks perpendicular to two
arterials. There is a stop sign at the interim block. About 15 years ago,
they installed "speed humps" on his street. The result? Same amount of
traffic, cars constantly speeding up/slowing down for the humps, which is
noisy, and debris all over from things falling off of vehicles that take
the humps too fast. Nice!

They should have done some other sort of traffic calming if the humps
didn't work. One thing that worked well where I am is automatic gates that
close off neighborhood streets during peak commute times, but are open at
other times to avoid inconveniencing residents of the neighborhood.

So, how do residents get INTO their own neighbourhoods during peak commute
times? Also, were the streets in that neighbourhood paid for 100% by the
local residents of that community? I thought not, therefore traffic calming
is so much bull**** LIEbrawl left wing crap.

"SMS" wrote in message
...
wrote:
In article , Doug McDonald
wrote:

SMS wrote:

Traffic calming measures in cities attempt to direct traffic to major
arterials instead of allowing motorists to take short-cuts
This is a wonderful example of the "NewSpeak" of the left.

"Traffic Calming" actually means "traffic infuriating"
or "causing aggressive driving". We have it here in
Champaign-Urbana IL, and it is a disaster.


It's only infuriating to those who insist upon driving through
neighborhood streets at high speed and are slowed down by obstacles that
are put in their way to keep them from killing people.

My own preference would be tire spikes.

Well what seems to work is calling the police every couple of weeks and
asking for enforcement action. They come out with a couple of motorcycle
cops and do ticketing for speeding, stop-sign running, and failure to
yield to pedestrians. The problem is that it's a short term solution,
where-as proper traffic calming permanently solves the problem.

So, who the **** paid for the streets? I strongly doubt that the local
community residents paid for all the streets, sidewalks etc.. Therefore ALL
taxpayers should have FULL access. If ANYONE runs a stop sign, nail em.
Betya that most stop sign runners are locals, though.

On Tue, 06 Feb 2007 08:27:02 GMT, "sharx35"
wrote:


"SMS" wrote in message
.. .
DaveW wrote:
SMS wrote:
DaveW wrote:

I'm afraid I must agree. "traffic calming" is anything but calming for
those subjected to it.

It works great in the Bay Area, in Palo Alto, Mountain View, etc. It's
created a way to safely NOT drive, either by walking or bicycling. It
often does make vehicles go around closed off streets, or slow down
around round-abouts, but that's the whole idea--to slow traffic on
neighborhood streets, and encourage vehicles to use arterials.

But of course, the vehicles were using the residential streets in the
first place because the arterials were congested. So, what do you get?
Even more congestion on the arterials!

For a time. The arterials are usually under the control of the county or
state, and when they are too congested these entities address the problem
by widening, or by other method, such as turning an expressway into a
freeway. The cities are chartered to protect their neighborhoods, and one
of the major complaints is always that non-neighborhood traffic is using
the neighborhood to avoid congested arterials.

My dad lives on a street that goes for 2 blocks perpendicular to two
arterials. There is a stop sign at the interim block. About 15 years ago,
they installed "speed humps" on his street. The result? Same amount of
traffic, cars constantly speeding up/slowing down for the humps, which is
noisy, and debris all over from things falling off of vehicles that take
the humps too fast. Nice!

They should have done some other sort of traffic calming if the humps
didn't work. One thing that worked well where I am is automatic gates that
close off neighborhood streets during peak commute times, but are open at
other times to avoid inconveniencing residents of the neighborhood.

So, how do residents get INTO their own neighbourhoods during peak commute
times? Also, were the streets in that neighbourhood paid for 100% by the
local residents of that community? I thought not, therefore traffic calming
is so much bull**** LIEbrawl left wing crap.

Given that most of the people in the single family areas probably vote
Republican, I doubt you can sustain that argument. The property taxes
in the neighborhood (depending on the state) probably do cover the
cost of the local roads.

"SMS" wrote in message
...
DaveW wrote:
But of course, the vehicles were using the residential streets in the
first place because the arterials were congested. So, what do you
get? Even more congestion on the arterials!

For a time. The arterials are usually under the control of the county
or state,

That totally depends on where you are and what kinds of roads you're
talking about. Highways and freeways are almost entirely state- or
turnpike authority-funded. Some states also build major surface roads,
where others leave that entirely to the county or city. Counties
usually only build surface roads in areas that are not part of a city.

Transit authorities make things even more confusing, as they will often
fund improvements to roads owned and/or officially funded by other
agencies in order to improve bus service or accomodate rail projects.
There's also a funny case here that turnpike authorities do not have
eminent domain power, so they often strike back-room deals with transit
agencies to acquire land in return for other services.

and when they are too congested these entities address the problem by
widening, or by other method, such as turning an expressway into a
freeway.

Or they may ignore the problem entirely. Based on congestion levels
around the country in major cities, this seems to be the normal case.

They should have done some other sort of traffic calming if the humps
didn't work.

"Traffic calming" is fundamentally flawed. If people are using
neighborhood streets because the arterials have gotten so bad, the
solution is to improve the arterials, not make the alternatives even
worse. Of course, politicians rarely consider ways to improve things;
why make the bad things good when you can, instead, make the good things
bad? It's cheaper, and both result in equality.

S

--
Stephen Sprunk "God does not play dice." --Albert Einstein
CCIE #3723 "God is an inveterate gambler, and He throws the
K5SSS dice at every possible opportunity." --Stephen Hawking


--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

"sharx35" wrote in message
news:6%Wxh.34998$Fd.21636@edtnps90...

"SMS" wrote in message
...
Well what seems to work is calling the police every couple of weeks
and asking for enforcement action. They come out with a couple of
motorcycle cops and do ticketing for speeding, stop-sign running, and
failure to yield to pedestrians. The problem is that it's a short
term solution, where-as proper traffic calming permanently solves the
problem.

So, who the **** paid for the streets? I strongly doubt that the local
community residents paid for all the streets, sidewalks etc..
Therefore ALL taxpayers should have FULL access. If ANYONE runs a stop
sign, nail em. Betya that most stop sign runners are locals, though.

New residential streets here are paid for by the developer that builds
the project, and the costs are folded into housing prices; when the
development opens the roads are sometimes handed over to the
city/county, but gated communities always keep ownership via an HOA (so
they can have non-residents arrested for trespassing, even on the
"public" streets). The city/county generally refuse to do maintenance
even if the roads are handed over, and due to light use they rarely need
it, so the HOA picks up the tab.

Older areas here without such arrangements typically incorporate a
"Property Improvement District" within the city limits, which collects
additional property taxes and does road work, signs, signals, "traffic
calming", sound walls, fancy sidewalks and street lights, etc. Some
even hire their own cops for traffic enforcement, which helps reduce PID
property taxes.

Still, why does it matter whether the residents paid for those roads?
If you're committing a moving violation, you get a ticket. All that's
changed is the level of enforcement, not who the laws are being enforced
against. Now, if he had said that residents were exempted from tickets,
I'd understand, but he didn't...

S

--
Stephen Sprunk "God does not play dice." --Albert Einstein
CCIE #3723 "God is an inveterate gambler, and He throws the
K5SSS dice at every possible opportunity." --Stephen Hawking


--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com