[sustran] Re: Pedestrian overpasses redux

Zvi Leve zvi.leve at gmail.com
Tue Mar 16 01:09:02 JST 2010


There seems to be an implicit assumption here that cars and pedestrians (and
other non-motorized vehicles) will be *sharing the same infrastructure*. One
of the things which has most impressed me in certain Northern cities is that
they have well-connected *networks* which are dedicated to other forms of
transportation. Pedestrians and bicycles can get around large parts of the
city without coming into frequent contact (and conflict) with motorized
vehicles.

Connectivity and proper access to destinations is the key. If people cannot
comfortably reach their destinations by foot, then it is only natural that
they will resort to the car. There is a battle going on for the 'right of
access'. This is not the first time that such a 'war' has been played out,
and we are all too familiar with the results.  Automobiles and the
associated 'development' industries have a huge amount of financial
resources behind them. Who is championing 'sustainable' development? Unless
we can find some way to leverage this form of development to produce
positive economic results, we are destined to find our planet as just more
'road-kill' on the highway to prosperity....

Zvi



On 15 March 2010 11:31, Eric Britton <eric.britton at ecoplan.org> wrote:

> 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<sustran-discuss-bounces%2Beric.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.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------
> To search the archives of sustran-discuss visit
> http://www.google.com/coop/cse?cx=014715651517519735401:ijjtzwbu_ss
>
> --------------------------------------------------------
> If you get sustran-discuss via YAHOOGROUPS, please go to
> http://list.jca.apc.org/manage/listinfo/sustran-discuss to join the real
> sustran-discuss and get full membership rights.
>
> ================================================================
> SUSTRAN-DISCUSS is a forum devoted to discussion of people-centred,
> equitable and sustainable transport with a focus on developing countries
> (the 'Global South').
>


More information about the Sustran-discuss mailing list