[sustran] Pedestrian overpasses redux

Eric Britton eric.britton at ecoplan.org
Tue Mar 16 00:31:22 JST 2010


This conversation is coming along very nicely, and I thank you all for your
insightful observations.  I very much look forward to publishing one or more
pieces on it in World Streets, as I mentioned earlier, and anybody who wants
to get involved in providing an overview or overviews is invited to get in
touch.  
 
We are not talking here about a minor technical detail.  This is a central
issue of good governance and social responsibility which contains in
microcosm so many of the big issues that we need to deal with in a unified,
consistent, and strategic manner.  Ad hoc problem-solving will only make
more problems.  We have as many proofs of this as anyone can reasonably ask
for.
 
So what is the bottom line when it comes to pedestrian overpasses?  There
are three:
 
Bottom line 1: People driving motor vehicles will drive just about as fast
as they can.  That is not because they are inherently evil or even selfish,
but rather that they are just human and it requires quite a state of
advanced civic behavior to expect otherwise.  The number of places in the
world that fit this latter pattern can be counted on a hand or two.
 
Bottom line 2: So if we want to make it safe for pedestrians, including for
example at a crosswalk, the only way to do this is through incontrovertible
modification of the street architecture.  Bingo!  It should not be the
responsibility of the pedestrian to make it her or his way across the street
in the battlefield circumstances which we are seeing all too often in many
of our cities today.  We need to shift the onus to the cars and of course
their drivers, bearing in mind that they are human beings and that human
beings need pretty special treatment.
 
So rather than spend our money and other resources in figuring out how to
remove pedestrians and cyclists from traffic through these awful overpasses
that turn them into earmarked last-class citizens, we need to redesign the
traffic system so that they can safely make their way across the street.
Every time! 
 
This is a splendid engineering problem and is one that we are not without
good examples of.  So let us get to work on it.
 
I would imagine that I do not have an overwhelming consensus on this, but
here is the third bottom line that you have perhaps forgotten: I am right.
 
With all good wishes,
 
Eric
 
Eric Britton 
 
Note: New Paris tel. +331 7550 3788 . Kindly change your records.
 
World Streets  .  www.worldstreets.org    Open Edition:
www.open.worldstreets.org  
8/10, rue Jospeh Bara  .  Paris 75006 France
+331 7550 3788  .  eric.britton at newmobility.org  .  Skype newmobility
New Mobility Partnerships   . www.partners.newmobility.org 
9440 Readcrest Drive  .   Los Angeles, CA 90210
+1 213 984 1277 .  fekbritton at gmail.org .  Skype ericbritton
 
-----Original Message-----
From: sustran-discuss-bounces+eric.britton=ecoplan.org at list.jca.apc.org
[mailto:sustran-discuss-bounces+eric.britton=ecoplan.org at list.jca.apc.org]
On Behalf Of Walter Hook
Sent: Monday, 15 March, 2010 15:44
To: Colin Brader
Cc: Global 'South' Sustainable Transport
Subject: [sustran] Re: Pedestrian overpasses
 
we've been asked to advise on this issue in many cities and under many
contexts.  I believe that some basic general principals can be followed but
also a gut feeling is usually to be trusted.  People can normally cross two
lanes of reasonably high speed traffic reasonably easily but not three or
more if they are not at a traffic signal that is going to be respected.
 even two lanes are hard if the average speeds are very high, but as a rule
of thumb, i would say two lanes of mixed traffic, at grade, and three lanes
of mixed traffic probably a flyover is better.
 
Walter Hook
Executive Director
Institute for Transportation and Development Policy
127 W 26 St, Ste 1002
New York, NY 10001
1-212-629-8001
www.itdp.org
 
 
 
On Mon, Mar 15, 2010 at 5:47 AM, Colin Brader <brader at itpworld.net> wrote:
 
 Dear Carlos
 
 I think you may be generalising a little. Having undertaken  user needs
 analysis, as part of developing a BRT conceptual design in the
 Philippines, I have found a strong preference for at-grade crossings. I
 believe it is then the designers job to either ensure that the at-grade
 crossing is safe - adequate green times for predicted pedestrian volume,
 appropriate sight lines and signal design, or if the locality is such
 that safety cannot be assured, design an over bridge that does not
 require overt effort to use. The designers appraisal must take full
 consideration of the conditions within which the crossing is being
 placed.
 
 
 Regards
 Colin Brader
 Director
 Integrated Transport Planning Ltd
 
 
 -----Original Message-----
Behalf Of Carlosfelipe Pardo
 Sent: 15 March 2010 01:42
 To: Global 'South' Sustainable Transport
 Subject: [sustran] Pedestrian overpasses
 
 Hi,
The issue of everyone preferring pedestrian overpasses instead of
 level-crossings is pretty much ubiquitous in developing countries in
 Asia and Latin America (I assume Africa, but I don't know this as a
 fact). But the most interesting part is that many "experts" and even
 pedestrians prefer those overpasses, and when asking for "safety" in a
 crossing they ask for an overpass instead of an adequate crossing! I've
 been shouted at in meetings where I deny the need to have a specific
 overpass and urge planners to design a crossing instead... they don't
 understand that overpasses should be the last recourse, that they are
 also much more expensive and provide a very negative message to many
 (you, pedestrian, must do extra effort to cross, while the car must just
whizz by).
 
 This just shows how much we still have to work on these issues...
 
 Best regards,
 
 Carlos.
 
 
 On 12/03/2010 01:25, jane. wrote:
 
  Here there is no reason given. Like most things in China, they simply
 just one day appear. Well, it was announced in the newspapers just
 before construction started, but as I recall, they were simply notices.
 But I suppose the justification would be something along the lines of
 "improving traffic."
 
 
  From: Eric Britton<eric.britton at ecoplan.org
  To: Cornie Huizenga<cornie.huizenga at slocatpartnership.org;
 jane.<voodikon at yahoo.com
  Sent: Thu, March 11, 2010 11:04:11 PM
  Subject: Pedestrian Budget
 
  Just to be sure I understand rightly the basics on this one.
 
  The idea, if one scratches, is to get the "other stuff" - i.e.,  walkers,
cyclists -- out of the way of motorized traffic so that drivers can  arrive
unencumbered and on time at their destinations? (No matter how the  concept
is otherwise billed.)
 
  Do I have that right?
 
  Kind thanks for informing,
 
  Best/Eric Britton
 
  PS. If anyone is up to it, this could be  an excellent truth-seeking
piece   for World Streets, with the necessary independent balanced coverage
of   course. Candidates?
 
  Note: New Paris tel. +331 7550 3788 . Kindly change your records.
 
  World Streets  .  www.worldstreets.org
  8/10, rue Jospeh Bara  .  Paris 75006 France
  +331 7550 3788  .  eric.britton at newmobility.org  .  Skype newmobility
  New Mobility Partnerships   . www.partners. 
 
 
 
 
 
 


More information about the Sustran-discuss mailing list