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

SMS wrote:

wrote:

As far as who pays for the streets, in Portland the sidewalks are
maintained by the local property owner.


Where I live, the city maintains the sidewalks, though technically they
are owned by the property owner (at least in the parts of town with
sidewalks). Local streets are maintained by the city's public works
department. Major arterials are maintained by the county or the state.
This is the basic conflict. The cities don't want their neighborhood
streets being used as an alternative to arterial roads. Encouraging the
traffic passing through the city to not take neighborhood streets helps
encourage the state and the county to provide sufficient arterial streets.

I don't know how traffic-calming turned into a left-wing thing, since it
really is not political at all, the desire for traffic calming by local
residents transcends politics. The neighborhood residents that don't
want commuters speeding through their narrow streets could be left,
middle, or center.


The problem is that the locals often don't want folks driving at well
below the legal limit of the street. If there is speeding there are
enforcement measurers available.

Where politics does play a part is in how the right wing, since Reagan,
has been defunding public works projects, both roads and mass transit.
Defund mass transit in areas where it is practical, and you crowd the
roads. Defund roads, and you create congestion. They never are willing
to look at the big picture and understand that a balance is needed, and
that they'll never be able to build enough roads to meet the demands of
an increasing population. The fact that they'd rather spend trillions of
dollars attacking countries that don't a threat to us, helps ensure that
there is never any money left for infrastructure in the U.S..

On Thu, 08 Feb 2007 11:14:28 -0600, Doug McDonald
wrote:

The best path to safety is to design roads that
are straight, have high speed limits, few stop signs
or stop lights, and excellent visibility.

Where I live there is no possibility of building new roads, every
intersection has a light or stop sign and the biggest impairment to
visibility is from parked cars.

The city is very resistant to any traffic calming measures, even when
there is near unanimous support for them on a block. Unless a child
is killed there is not much chance of getting one installed (which is
what a took in a nearby neighborhood).

Most roads are straight here though. You have to get out to more
suburban areas before they start to curve.

This of
course costs more because it requires lots of planning
and in some cases things like overpasses.

Are you willing to pay the higher tolls or gas taxes this would need?
--
Peter Schleifer
"Save me from the people who would save me from myself"

"Frank F. Matthews" wrote in message
...


Doug McDonald wrote:
Peter Schleifer wrote:

This is meaningless. Political laws cannot be guaranteed to protect
pedestrians. The laws of physics can.


That is one of the best arguments I have heard in favor of traffic
calming.


Its an argument AGAINST the usual "traffic calming" measures.
These require more aggression and more skill to keep up the
normal speed. In some cases, they mean going to different
vehicles, like ones that can go over speed bumps without
damage at 30 or 35 mph (the speed limit), or getting a Porsche
911 to navigate overly tight curves. This can require
extra skill on the part of the driver.

The best path to safety is to design roads that
are straight, have high speed limits, few stop signs
or stop lights, and excellent visibility. This of
course costs more because it requires lots of planning
and in some cases things like overpasses.

Doug McDonald

I have found that the best thing to do with speed bumps in the road is to
drive with one wheel almost at the curb. Then you can almost get up to
the speed limit. Traffic calming devices are often used to improperly
force folks to drive well under the speed limit.

That's how I do it, too. Speed bumps also screw up snow removal.

"Peter Schleifer" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 08 Feb 2007 11:14:28 -0600, Doug McDonald
wrote:

The best path to safety is to design roads that
are straight, have high speed limits, few stop signs
or stop lights, and excellent visibility.

Where I live there is no possibility of building new roads, every
intersection has a light or stop sign and the biggest impairment to
visibility is from parked cars.

I've always believed that streets should be for the MOVING of traffic, NOT
the storage of vehicles. ALL parking should be off street. If you can afford
multiple vehicles you should damn well provide OFF street parking for ALL
your vehicles plus those of your guests.




The city is very resistant to any traffic calming measures, even when
there is near unanimous support for them on a block. Unless a child
is killed there is not much chance of getting one installed (which is
what a took in a nearby neighborhood).

Most roads are straight here though. You have to get out to more
suburban areas before they start to curve.

This of
course costs more because it requires lots of planning
and in some cases things like overpasses.

Are you willing to pay the higher tolls or gas taxes this would need?
--
Peter Schleifer
"Save me from the people who would save me from myself"

On Thu, 08 Feb 2007 09:30:51 -0800, SMS
wrote:

Major aterials should be straight, with timed lights, left and right
turn lanes at intersections, and even have overpasses/underpasses where
appropriate, including pedestrian/bicycle underpasses and overpasses.
Speed limits should be set as high as possible.

Neighborhood streets should be calmed as much as possible.

The problem is that the second thing is often done without the first.

"RJ" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 08 Feb 2007 09:30:51 -0800, SMS
wrote:

Major aterials should be straight, with timed lights, left and right
turn lanes at intersections, and even have overpasses/underpasses where
appropriate, including pedestrian/bicycle underpasses and overpasses.
Speed limits should be set as high as possible.

Neighborhood streets should be calmed as much as possible.

The problem is that the second thing is often done without the first.

99% of the time. Once THEY move into a neighborhood, then they want to
pull up the drawbridge so that NO ONE else can drive in the neighborhood.

RJ wrote:
On Thu, 08 Feb 2007 09:30:51 -0800, SMS
wrote:

Major aterials should be straight, with timed lights, left and right
turn lanes at intersections, and even have overpasses/underpasses where
appropriate, including pedestrian/bicycle underpasses and overpasses.
Speed limits should be set as high as possible.

Neighborhood streets should be calmed as much as possible.

The problem is that the second thing is often done without the first.

It's not a problem, it forces a solution to the first--eventually. I
live in an area which is a prime example of this. The several cities
where neighborhood streets were used as commuter routes, either calmed
them, or closed off streets that navigating the maze wasn't worth it.

The result was the construction of a long planned freeway section. One
of the cities, Saratoga, made noise about not wanting the freeway
through their city, so San Jose, Cupertino, and Los Gatos agreed that
they would just dump out all the freeway traffic onto Saratoga streets,
and that commuters could find their way for two miles on neighborhood
streets. Suddenly Saratoga decided that the freeway was a good idea.

In an ideal world, the two things would happen simultaneously, but we
don't live there yet.

sharx35 wrote:
"Peter Schleifer" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 08 Feb 2007 11:14:28 -0600, Doug McDonald
wrote:

The best path to safety is to design roads that
are straight, have high speed limits, few stop signs
or stop lights, and excellent visibility.
Where I live there is no possibility of building new roads, every
intersection has a light or stop sign and the biggest impairment to
visibility is from parked cars.

I've always believed that streets should be for the MOVING of traffic, NOT
the storage of vehicles. ALL parking should be off street. If you can afford
multiple vehicles you should damn well provide OFF street parking for ALL
your vehicles plus those of your guests.

In more urban areas, streets are also for pedestrians. Unless you're
following the Robert Moses adage, "cities are for traffic," streets
simply can't function perfectly that way.

"Bolwerk" wrote in message
...
sharx35 wrote:
"Peter Schleifer" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 08 Feb 2007 11:14:28 -0600, Doug McDonald
wrote:

The best path to safety is to design roads that
are straight, have high speed limits, few stop signs
or stop lights, and excellent visibility.
Where I live there is no possibility of building new roads, every
intersection has a light or stop sign and the biggest impairment to
visibility is from parked cars.

I've always believed that streets should be for the MOVING of traffic,
NOT the storage of vehicles. ALL parking should be off street. If you can
afford multiple vehicles you should damn well provide OFF street parking
for ALL your vehicles plus those of your guests.

In more urban areas, streets are also for pedestrians. Unless you're
following the Robert Moses adage, "cities are for traffic," streets simply
can't function perfectly that way.

SIDEWALKS and trails are for pedestrians. STREETS are for vehicles. What
part of that is so difficult for you luddites to understand?

"sharx35" writes:

SIDEWALKS and trails are for pedestrians. STREETS are for vehicles. What
part of that is so difficult for you luddites to understand?

The part where pedestrians get from one block to another when the
drivers think the streets are all theirs, all the time.

-- Patrick