[sustran] Re: Comment on video - In Your Car No-one Can Hear You Scream!

[Paul Barter]

My comment on the video clip (In Your Car No-one Can Hear You Scream) is
too long for youtube comments. So will post it here and maybe Eric can
forward to the filmmaker?
 
I found this clip very stimulating, confronting and thought provoking.
The footage of the same four-way intersection with and without its
traffic lights is striking and persuasive. The film promises to be a
strong missive in favour of wider application of shared space ideas.
 
BUT I notice THREE PROBLEMS. 
 
ONE, the clip fails to sell a key benefit of shared space (at least as I
understand it, so far). This is the creation of a lower-speed street
environment in which vulnerable road users can share comfortably and
safely (including being a great boon for bikes, blades, wheelchairs and
other 'personal mobility devices'). In high speed traffic the human mind
is not capable of negotiating by eye contact. We can only do this below
30km/h. By coming close to suggesting that speed limits are not needed
at all, the film's arguments are likely to lose a key set of allies,
namely people concerned with road danger for vulnerable road users. 
 
TWO, it over-reaches by not recognising the limits of the approach.
Monderman and the other shared space 'gurus' make clear that their ideas
apply only to the part of the network that can be designated as 'public
realm', where speeds should be no more than 30km/h or so. This includes
many streets where we have currently allowed traffic to dominate but it
does not include most major multi-lane arterials (main roads). In
traffic space, speeds are high and traffic engineering and control will
need to remain. In the public realm we can and should design for lower
speeds, especially at intersections, and eliminate most signs and
controls, and rely much more on common-sense and social interaction. 
 
THREE, the film seems to misunderstand congestion to some extent. And
therefore takes aim at some of the wrong targets, such as congestion
charging (or demand management more generally) and bus priority
measures. Again you lose some potential allies for no good reason.
Congestion will apparently not be worsened by removing many traffic
controls and unnecessary delays at off peak times can be reduced. BUT
this approach cannot magically solve peak period congestion altogether.
The peak problem will remain unless the demand side is tackled somehow.
Some kind of demand management and some kind of priority for public
transport are necessary. Shared space will have no hope politically
(since it requires a lower speed street environment) unless it is
complemented by its natural allies, which include bus priority and
demand management. Otherwise, we will keep seeing demands to expand the
traffic space and shrink the public realm as we have for the last 50
years.
 
Paul
 
Paul A. Barter | Assistant Professor | LKY School of Public Policy |
National University of Singapore | 29 Heng Mui Keng Terrace | Singapore
119620 | Tel: +65-6516 3324 | Fax: +65-6778 1020 | Email:
paulbarter at nus.edu.sg | http://www.lkyspp.nus.edu.sg/faculty/paulbarter/
|   I am speaking for myself, not for my employers.

Perspectives on urban transport in developing countries:
http://urbantransportasia.blogspot.com/ 
 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://list.jca.apc.org/public/sustran-discuss/attachments/20060818/45a90d9f/attachment.html