[sustran] RE: alt-transp GNGM newsletter #2

[SUSTRAN Resource Centre]

This bounced because Michael Yeates is not yet on the sustran-discuss list
and our anti-spam measures include not allowing non-members to post.


Date: Mon, 14 Jun 1999 16:45:24 +1000 (GMT+1000)
From: Michael Yeates <m.yeates at mailbox.uq.edu.au>
X-Sender: gnmyeate at dingo.cc.uq.edu.au
To: Eric Britton <eric.britton at ecoplan.org>
cc: alt-transp at flora.org, sustran-discuss at jca.ax.apc.org,
        m.yeates at mailbox.uq.edu.au
Subject: RE: alt-transp GNGM newsletter #2
..

Yes Eric, I do think you have "it" wrong , at least partially.

Remember that driving a vehicle is authorised by law and established by
behaviour. So if the speed limit is 60km/h (38mph) as it is in
Australian cities (a worst case scenario on a global basis for
comparative settings it appears), then motorists are "entitled" to drive
at or near that speed. 

Remember that the same applies in 50km/h (30mph) and in slower zones.
Similarly, that increased likelihood of enforcement will encourage
increased compliance. 

You are correct about the "road environment" however the experience of
deliberate policy (eg in Europe) and current examples (eg Beijing, Delhi)
 suggests that the slower the speed environment, the more likely people
are to walk or cycle. Hence, in lower speed environments with
"appropriate" increases in enforcement, it is likely more people will
cycle and walk and thus become in effect "mobile traffic calming
devices".

What increase in enforcement is needed? The work in Unley (South
Australia) suggests not a  lot ... PROVIDED that it responds to the
reported non-compliance as reported by residents and local road users eg
cyclists and pedestrians. 

So in a nutshell, it appears that the need for traffic calming devices
while still appropriate, is diminished and can increasingly be replaced
by enforcement once large areas of lower speed limits are in place. Much
cheaper and less controversial. 

Road killing is a crime ... it should also be controlled and policed.

If three jumbo aircraft crashed killing all aboard and many innocent
bystanders each year in Australia, governments would consider doing
"something" about it. While 1500-2000 fatalities is small in international
terms, road slaughter is one of the few crimes, sorry "accidents", we
allow in part by condoning speed limits that are too high to ensure or
reduce crash fatalities.

MY

On Wed,
9 Jun 1999, Eric Britton wrote:

> Michael Yates makes the excellent point:
> 
> >> The increasing evidence of the need to increase police enforcement and
> support it with strong community support at the local level suggests that
> the "engineering" view of traffic calming being essential is both out of
> date and too expensive.<<
> 
> My comment after years of rather careful observation in a wide variety of
> circumstances, however, is that drivers (me included) are not reasonable
> people, and they will, ALWAYS, go as fast as the street architecture
> permits.  This suggests to me that the ONLY policy that is going to work and
> make the streets safe is via physical reconstruction and the limitation of
> straight unencumbered shoots.
> 
> But we can also observe that with good community support and unrelenting
> positive pressure on the politicians, administrators, media, and the "powers
> that be", it is possible to reshape the local street network bit by painful
> bit.  Takes a bunch of years, but the real challenge is that of getting the
> ball rolling. What is more, there is a whole generation of traffic engineers
> and planners who have been cranked out of the school system in the last
> decade or so, who are often quite ready to help make this happen.
> 
> Or do I have this wrong?
> 
> Eric Britton