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

"Clark F Morris" wrote in message
...
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,

Would that be profiling or stereotyping?

Clark F Morris wrote:

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.

I'm sure it varies by area. My area is about 75% Democratic/25%
Republican, though that doesn't necessarily translate to how people
vote. For example, the precincts in my area vote overwhelmingly for
Arnold (including myself) because the Democratic candidate was too
horrible to consider.

Oh, and there are multiple ways in and out of the neighborhood. The
residents have to go out by a different route during peak commute time.
Not a big deal to detour by a couple of blocks when you're driving.

Sancho Panza wrote:
"Clark F Morris" wrote in message
...
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,

Would that be profiling or stereotyping?

Neither. That would be generalizing.

"Stephen Sprunk" wrote in message
.. .
"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.

It is safe to assume that he was talking about California (since this is
ba.transportation) and California does maintain some major surface streets.
One in particular is El Camino Real down through the Peninsula.

--
-Don
Ever had one of those days where you just felt like:
http://cosmoslair.com/BadDay.html ?
(Eating the elephant outside the box, one paradigm at a time)

Don Freeman wrote:

It is safe to assume that he was talking about California (since this is
ba.transportation) and California does maintain some major surface streets.
One in particular is El Camino Real down through the Peninsula.

Right. Also, the expressways (not freeways) are usually county or state
roads. I called once to report an accident on Lawrence Expressway in
Sunnyvale, and the Sunnyvale police even said that the CHP investigated
accidents on that road, and that I should call them.

Some cities make their neighborhood streets so convoluted that many
drivers avoid them because they can't find their way through the maze.
For example, the neighborhood route from Cupertino to downtown Saratoga
goes on about thirteen different streets in about four miles, while the
arterial is a straight shot on one road.

"Don Freeman" wrote in message
...
"Stephen Sprunk" wrote in message
.. .
"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.

It is safe to assume that he was talking about California (since this
is ba.transportation) and California does maintain some major surface
streets.

If you're going to cross-post to national and world-wide newsgroups,
then you need to specify if you only want responses relating to a
particular city so the rest of us can ignore you.

One in particular is El Camino Real down through the Peninsula.

I'm familiar with it. If road advocates had their way, they'd rip down
the thousands of businesses along ECR and turn it into a freeway. The
Peninsula needs another good N-S route, right? Why spend less money on
CalTrain when you can displace people from their homes and offices and
build yet another eyesore for billions of dollars?

CalTrans doesn't do that much, though, AFAICT. Nearly every arterial in
Denver and Chicago has a state highway number on it; in comparison,
CalTrans mostly restricts themselves to freeways or rural highways and
leaves the surface roads to counties/cities. Same with Texas, Florida,
etc. ; The few counterexamples can usually be shown to originally be
rural highways that got swallowed up by growing cities.

(Interesting correlation: states with only one major city seem to act
heavily within that city, whereas states with multiple major cities seem
to focus on rural areas and let the cities handle their own problems. I
wonder which is cause and which is effect...)

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

"Stephen Sprunk" writes:

"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.

Many traffic calming measures are only "worse" from the point of view
of someone who wants to drive 40 mph on a residential street. From
the point of view of people who live along that street or want to walk
or bicycle along that street it's much better not to be sharing it
with speeding cars.

-- Patrick

kkt wrote:
"Stephen Sprunk" writes:

"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.

Many traffic calming measures are only "worse" from the point of view
of someone who wants to drive 40 mph on a residential street. From
the point of view of people who live along that street or want to walk
or bicycle along that street it's much better not to be sharing it
with speeding cars.

Well-stated.

However the issue is a little more complex than Mr. Sprunk thinks. The
goal of traffic calming is to get commuters from using neighborhood
streets to avoid clogged arterials. If the traffic calming were not in
place, there would be very little impetus for the arterials to be
improved. It's basically the cities with suburban neighborhoods forcing
the counties, states, and feds to take responsibility for regional
traffic problems.

SMS spake thus:

kkt wrote:

"Stephen Sprunk" writes:

"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.

Many traffic calming measures are only "worse" from the point of view
of someone who wants to drive 40 mph on a residential street. From
the point of view of people who live along that street or want to walk
or bicycle along that street it's much better not to be sharing it
with speeding cars.

Well-stated.

However the issue is a little more complex than Mr. Sprunk thinks. The
goal of traffic calming is to get commuters from using neighborhood
streets to avoid clogged arterials. If the traffic calming were not in
place, there would be very little impetus for the arterials to be
improved. It's basically the cities with suburban neighborhoods forcing
the counties, states, and feds to take responsibility for regional
traffic problems.

groan At the risk of further clouding these already murky speculative
waters (as always happens when rank amateurs discuss the dreaded subject
of "All About Roads and Why They Are The Way They Are"), let me just say
that it ain't necessarily so. Sometimes the goal of traffic calming is
just, well, *traffic calming*. I'm pretty sure that's the case in my
'hood, as the speed-bumped streets in Oakland, Berkeley and Emeryville
are between arterials (San Pablo, Market, Adeline, Alcatraz) that aren't
clogged at all. It's just that people like to drive too fast on these
streets without the speed bumps. And keep in mind how some of these
speed bumps got the by dint of a certain number of residents
petitioning the city for their installation. (I think that's pretty much
standard practice around the country.)


--
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)

-
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------


"Stephen Sprunk" wrote in message
.. .

"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 necessarily. Better might be to look at why so many cars/people need to
use this arterial and
a) provide transportation alternatives
b) look at your "built form" and see if you've got destinations located in
the wrong area.