Allen,
Resources justified by need? No one wants that? You underscore my point that allegiance to the "standard" urban model dominates the discussion. It's hard to see the skyline for the buildings, I guess. We tend to accept the fundamentals of what we are used to, and believe that we can settle for "tweaking" it to minimize the carnage - asking the species to adapt rather than revolutionizing the environment. The noxious qualities of cars aside, no matter how many signs are erected, nothing will keep the occasional drunk, visually or hearing handicapped elder or energetic 5 year old from stepping into traffic. The automobile is not designed to live with people in short distance transit conditions - ordinary city streets.
I didn't say that "vehicles" need to be segregated. Golf carts and people get along fairly well, actually, and a lot more of them fit into the shared space. Furthermore, urban streets and other spaces can be designed for people far more successfully when they are free of massive vehicles capable of speeds well in excess of that dictated by their numbers and rate of flow in heavy traffic. Cars are inefficient, unsustainable, and the way they are used, silly. Trucks and public transit factored out of the discussion, the average private vehicle weighs a couple of tons. Its single occupant averages maybe 170 lbs. The ratio is .04:1. All that size, expense, fuel, danger, and environmental impact to lug around one human being doing little more than going to and from work, or running an errand. Silly.
When the infrastructure is inhumane, inefficient, dangerous, and overextended, its massive overhaul is exactly what we need. Rather than thinking of such an approach as exploring an economic and practical impossibility, think of it as developing "product" with untold economic potential and long-term human benefit.
-------------------------------------------
Gary Collins AIA
Principal
Gary R. Collins, AIA
Jacksonville OR
-------------------------------------------
Original Message:
Sent: 08-13-2014 18:49
From: Allen E Neyman
Subject: Why Pedestrian Safety Remains Elusive
Gary
Separate, segregate, sure. In my corner of reality, practically speaking, segregating vehicles from pedestrians will require resources that will never be justified by need. But there are things that could be done. For example, certain streets could be labelled "pedestrian priority", or "bicycle priority", and "vehicular" priority. A requisite change in behaviour would be attached to the classification. For example, the pedestrian priority streets could have a slower vehicular speed limit, and thus discourage traffic and tame it. Other streets could be bike friendly, and provide broader bike lanes, and so forth.
That is not say that on any street, vehicles, bikes or pedestrians have to be prohibited. Unrealistic because no one wants that. Only that they are viewed differently and practically adjusted more or less to be viable for each type of traffic. Consider minimally disruptive adjustments to perception that alter the way we are required to look at and use the street, leading to solutions that do not require "massive infrastructure redevelopment" that we tend to think of as the only solutions. It means also that all streets are not the same. . The reorganizing or prioritizing our streets is about adopting "passwords", posting street signs for cars and people, and probably pavement markings, to permanently alter the way they are perceived and ultimately used.
Allen E Neyman
Rockville, MD
-------------------------------------------
Original Message:
Sent: 08-12-2014 20:37
From: Gary Collins
Subject: Why Pedestrian Safety Remains Elusive
Allen,
Cars weigh 1.5 to 2.5 tons; trucks more, and are made of steel. People weigh 50 to 250 pounds (with a few notable exceptions), and are flesh and bone. People are typically walking at speeds up to 3 miles per hour - only a few running. Cars are travelling from 20 to 50 mph. in varying urban conditions (when they bother to observe speed limits). Pedestrians - especially very old and very young ones - make bad decisions. Drivers make bad decisions - especially the very old and very adolescent. That is all there really is to know; no matter the decision made, pedestrians do not run over cars and kill or maim them. The answer is really straightforward, but the tendency for planners is to accept the urban model of pedestrians and vehicles interacting in the same space as an inviolable norm to be somehow favorably ameliorated - a palliative response, at best. The only truly workable solution: separate people from cars as nearly absolutely as possible. Any city that cannot accomplish this separation remains seriously deficient in vastly important ways that over-exploit human adaptability.
-------------------------------------------
Gary Collins AIA
Principal
Gary R. Collins, AIA
Jacksonville OR
-------------------------------------------