""We have no interest in having SUVs in the city. They're dangerous to others and take up too much space," Deputy Mayor Denis Baupin told Reuters this week.
Whatever one might say in support of SUVs (although nothing comes to *my* mind), it's hard to imagine how they do an older city center much good -- they generate more pollution, take up more scarce parking space and require wider street lanes -- something that make a less pleasing pedestrian environment.
"Baupin, who often cycles around Paris to promote more environmentally friendly transport, called SUVs a caricature of a car and said they were not adapted for use in a city," Reuters reports.
Update: Pedestrians hit by SUVs or light trucks are 3.7 times more likely to be killed, and have a three times higher risk of severe injuries, than those hit by passenger cars, according to a study in the June issue of Injury Prevention, KING in Seattle notes. That's of course in addition to the greater risk of injury and death to auto passengers hit by SUVs.
June 12, 2004
June 11, 2004
MetroWest’s Top Transportation Nightmare: No Public Transit
"Public transportation -- or the lack of it -- topped a list of the region's top 10 traffic nightmares compiled by the 495 Corridor Partnership, much to [Lynn] Sand's surprise," according to an article in today's MetroWest Daily News. " 'I was very surprised,' said Sand, CEO of the Partnership. 'We were amazed, because the culture seems to be, out here, you hop in your car.' "
But many residents apparently drive so much because they HAVE to, not because they always WANT to.
I bet they'd also happily walk some places if given appealing pedestrian environments.
Meanwhile, the article notes, without some action, the roadway situation here is only going to get worse.
"Although it sees its share of traffic tie-ups, the intersection of Rte. 9 and I-495 today functions fairly well for an interchange that sees more than 140,000 cars daily, according to Robert Nagi, a project manager with Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc., and one of the main presenters of the top 10 today. But few commuters may know of the 3 million square feet of office space waiting in the wings, Nagi said this week."
Yet simply building more or wider roads is unlikely to deal with the mess. The book Suburban Nation points out that "building more highways and widening existing roads, almost always motivated by concern over traffic, does nothing to reduce traffic. In the long run, it actually increases traffic. This revelation is so counterintuitive that it bears repeating: adding lanes makes traffic worse.
“The phenomenon has been well documented … increased traffic capacity causes people to drive more – a lot more.” (Sound unbelievable? Please see my more detailed post for the book's evidence (or even better, read the book. It's great.)
But many residents apparently drive so much because they HAVE to, not because they always WANT to.
I bet they'd also happily walk some places if given appealing pedestrian environments.
Meanwhile, the article notes, without some action, the roadway situation here is only going to get worse.
"Although it sees its share of traffic tie-ups, the intersection of Rte. 9 and I-495 today functions fairly well for an interchange that sees more than 140,000 cars daily, according to Robert Nagi, a project manager with Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc., and one of the main presenters of the top 10 today. But few commuters may know of the 3 million square feet of office space waiting in the wings, Nagi said this week."
Yet simply building more or wider roads is unlikely to deal with the mess. The book Suburban Nation points out that "building more highways and widening existing roads, almost always motivated by concern over traffic, does nothing to reduce traffic. In the long run, it actually increases traffic. This revelation is so counterintuitive that it bears repeating: adding lanes makes traffic worse.
“The phenomenon has been well documented … increased traffic capacity causes people to drive more – a lot more.” (Sound unbelievable? Please see my more detailed post for the book's evidence (or even better, read the book. It's great.)
June 9, 2004
Framingham Tomorrow Master Plan
After about two years of community meetings and work by town and regional planners, tonight was the Final Community Development Plan meeting to unveil the results. I was thrilled to see "develop a plan and identify funding sources for streetscape improvements to enhance pedestrian corridors" as part of the downtown revitalization recommendations!
OK, so traffic and housing were mentioned quite a bit more frequently; and the pedestrian-friendly issue only came up that once. Still, it's progress. AND, I got to make a statement after the 2 hours of presentations, where I got to bring up two of my pet points: "pedestrian-friendly" means more than the existance of sidewalks, and Saxonville desperately needs some additional pedestrian-friendly ambience because right now it's a patchwork of great pedestrian blocks (such as the one with the Artana gallery and renovated Victorians just north of the mill) and pedestrian-hostile blocks (such as the next block south, with the mill and its metal guardrail squeezing walkers followed by the never-pedestrian-appealing self-storage). I even floated my dream of a pedestrian walkway along the Sudbury River on Water Street to replace the chain-link fence and guard rails.
But getting back to what IS in the plan....
OK, so traffic and housing were mentioned quite a bit more frequently; and the pedestrian-friendly issue only came up that once. Still, it's progress. AND, I got to make a statement after the 2 hours of presentations, where I got to bring up two of my pet points: "pedestrian-friendly" means more than the existance of sidewalks, and Saxonville desperately needs some additional pedestrian-friendly ambience because right now it's a patchwork of great pedestrian blocks (such as the one with the Artana gallery and renovated Victorians just north of the mill) and pedestrian-hostile blocks (such as the next block south, with the mill and its metal guardrail squeezing walkers followed by the never-pedestrian-appealing self-storage). I even floated my dream of a pedestrian walkway along the Sudbury River on Water Street to replace the chain-link fence and guard rails.
But getting back to what IS in the plan....
‘Automobility is a fraud’
"For 50 years, we've been saying if we just had the right amount of money, we could create automobility, but we can't. Automobility is just a fraud," planning consultant and author E.M. Risse tells the Richmond Post-Dispatch. "The cause of traffic congestion is the pattern of development, not the size of the road."
That's a rather long-term proposition. However, more immediately, we can at least create communities where SOME services are within walking distance of more residents; and commercial areas where walking BETWEEN shops and restaurants is an appealing activity once you've arrived there (instead of having to to drive from strip mall to strip mall that are half a mile away or less). That's more than just installing sidewalks nobody would want to use (see Speen Street between Rtes. 9 and 30). I've said it before, but it needs repeating: This means creating an attractive streetscape for walkers.
As I mentioned in an earlier post, the book Suburban Nation points out that "building more highways and widening existing roads, almost always motivated by concern over traffic, does nothing to reduce traffic. In the long run, it actually increases traffic. This revelation is so counterintuitive that it bears repeating: adding lanes makes traffic worse.
“The phenomenon has been well documented … increased traffic capacity causes people to drive more – a lot more.”
Don't believe that? Please do see the earlier post for the book's evidence (or even better, read the book. It's great.)
Studies indicate that public-transit systems operate best when they have at least 6.5 residents per acre, a density only the most heavily populated Virginia localities reach, and communities that put most services within reach of a pedestrian or bicyclist need at least 10 residents an acre.
Creating those kinds of communities means changing habits Americans have had for the best part of a century, Risse said.
That's a rather long-term proposition. However, more immediately, we can at least create communities where SOME services are within walking distance of more residents; and commercial areas where walking BETWEEN shops and restaurants is an appealing activity once you've arrived there (instead of having to to drive from strip mall to strip mall that are half a mile away or less). That's more than just installing sidewalks nobody would want to use (see Speen Street between Rtes. 9 and 30). I've said it before, but it needs repeating: This means creating an attractive streetscape for walkers.
As I mentioned in an earlier post, the book Suburban Nation points out that "building more highways and widening existing roads, almost always motivated by concern over traffic, does nothing to reduce traffic. In the long run, it actually increases traffic. This revelation is so counterintuitive that it bears repeating: adding lanes makes traffic worse.
“The phenomenon has been well documented … increased traffic capacity causes people to drive more – a lot more.”
Don't believe that? Please do see the earlier post for the book's evidence (or even better, read the book. It's great.)
June 8, 2004
NARROWING Mass Ave Helped Rejuvenate Central Square
Very interesting "Cityscapes" in the Boston Globe magazine recently, about Central Square in Cambridge.
"The quality of a neighborhood depends on public action," write Robert Campbell and Peter Vanderwarker . "As recently as the 1980s, Central Square was seen as a place in the doldrums.
"Working with residents' groups, the city narrowed Mass. Ave. by one traffic lane. That added 5 feet to the width of both sidewalks, permitting a second row of street trees. Sidewalks were repaved in brick. They were reshaped to neck out at intersections, making the street crossing shorter and less intimidating. Monster cobra-head street lights, which cast a scary glare, were replaced by softer lights at a pedestrian scale. Where there was previously no place to sit, there are now 80 benches.
"The result is a Central Square that retains a rich mix of people and activities and has grown more humane, without becoming chichi -- not yet, anyway."
I hope those seeking to revitalize downtown Framingham take notice. What helped bring economic vitality back to Central Square was NOT widening streets but actually NARROWING the street -- making a more appealing pedestrian environment. Which is more than installing sidewalks -- it's making attractive, inviting sidewalks buffered against traffic.
"The quality of a neighborhood depends on public action," write Robert Campbell and Peter Vanderwarker . "As recently as the 1980s, Central Square was seen as a place in the doldrums.
"Working with residents' groups, the city narrowed Mass. Ave. by one traffic lane. That added 5 feet to the width of both sidewalks, permitting a second row of street trees. Sidewalks were repaved in brick. They were reshaped to neck out at intersections, making the street crossing shorter and less intimidating. Monster cobra-head street lights, which cast a scary glare, were replaced by softer lights at a pedestrian scale. Where there was previously no place to sit, there are now 80 benches.
"The result is a Central Square that retains a rich mix of people and activities and has grown more humane, without becoming chichi -- not yet, anyway."
I hope those seeking to revitalize downtown Framingham take notice. What helped bring economic vitality back to Central Square was NOT widening streets but actually NARROWING the street -- making a more appealing pedestrian environment. Which is more than installing sidewalks -- it's making attractive, inviting sidewalks buffered against traffic.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)