“I Correlate the Decline of Civilization to the Incidence of Roundabouts.”
If you find High Quality Acai, on the other hand, levitra properien take a look at the page here Kaunch seeds offer positive effects for enhancing the sex drive in male. You will not get these medicines in the medical tadalafil 40mg india store in UK. This entire process is commonly known as the miniaturization process. purchase viagra online Without sexual arousal, penile organ is soft and lifelike. free viagra india
To be fair, a well-designed roundabout can handle a modest amount of traffic more smoothly than an intersection with stop signs or traffic signals. But too many roundabouts are designed more to obstruct traffic than to facilitate it.
What a cry baby.
Mark Steyn said that on the radio, 1/25. He usually doesn’t comment about urban issues. Here are a few other points that he made on the program, that day.
The Antiplanner wrote:
> To be fair, a well-designed roundabout can handle a modest
> amount of traffic more smoothly than an intersection with
> stop signs or traffic signals.
This is correct. And a well-designed roundabout can replace an intersection with four-way stop signs, while reducing the frequency and severity of crashes at the same time.
If traffic volumes are heavy, the best way to increase capacity at the crossing of two streets is with a grade-separated interchange, but those are generally expensive to construct, and in some cases can use up quite a lot of land.
> But too many roundabouts are designed more to obstruct
> traffic than to facilitate it.
Some roundabouts are indeed constructed with the intention of “calming” traffic.
It is also important to distinguish a modern roundabout from traffic circles found in (for example) the District of Columbia.
But too many roundabouts are designed more to obstruct traffic than to facilitate it.
I call bullsh–.
DS
Roundabouts are boring. Let’s talk about Detroit.
AP: But too many roundabouts are designed more to obstruct traffic than to facilitate it.
Dan: I call bullsh__.
Let me Google that for you then, genius.
Damn, Dan, you’re just not even trying anymore.
Is it just me or are roundabouts about the most frustrating thing a pedestrian has to contend with. I’ve spent a lot of time in Madrid and London and hate having to walk half way down a block in the wrong direction just to cross the street. The castellano in Madrid has lots of big roundabouts which haven’t helped traffic, and the city has had to build tunnels for people to walk through just to get past these things.
I suppose they have their place, I just can’t think of where that place is.
Let us be clear: the talking point that traffic calming is “obstructing” is bullsh–.
It works on the ignorant, but the rest of the planet sees the talking point is something coughed up like a hairball.
Arguments from ignorance: still not compelling in 2010. Just like 2009. And 2011.
DS
Tomato, tomahto. To a person wishing to travel at the speed limit, “calmed” traffic is effectively the same as obstructed traffic. Your equivocation here is transparent, Dan. It was very obvious what Randal meant.
Pissing on peoples’ heads and telling them its raining: still not compelling in 2010. Just like 2009. And 2011.
Ok, since we’re not going to talk about the far more interesting news out of Detroit, what is the problem with traffic obstruction? It’s cheaper than police enforcement and less invasive. It’s environmental conditioning. It may not be the most effective means, which leaves me to wonder, is the complaint about the means, or the end? Surely we are not such radical libertarians (and I took the yesterday’s test and I am a centrist libertarian) that we think there should be no traffic laws? Or maybe we are.
Are we arguing that speeding is a right too?
is the complaint about the means, or the end?
The complaint is the means, because the end of traffic calming means fewer accidents and sudden stops and more continuous flowing traffic. Ignorance isn’t a compelling argument in 2010, same as 2009.
And let’s say my favorite guard as I was growing up (him and Phil Chenier taught me how to shoot a J) has a long history of graft and corruption to overcome. And a friend of a buddy of mine is making good things happen with urban farming there, so the ‘news’ is just talking out loud by suits now. Non-suits have had this conversation for years now, and it’s got momentum.
DS
It’s interesting how big urban farming is in the brown belt. Pittsburgh has an active urban farming community.
Detroit has big problems. It’s an interesting solution, but huge problems if it’s not done right. This could be no different than any other land grab from the poor. It could also be an amazing revitalization by concentration if the residents are given more voice and power. We shall see. I wouldn’t put money either way, but massive cojones for trying something, Detroit.
I was in a webcast last year with a guy up north from Detroit who has been all over the media for how they are handling their shrinkage, very innovative and maybe the model for how to shrink; he was so full of ideas and it was very rewarding to share that time with him. Lots of fun urban plots there.
Indianapolis IMHO is the model for integrating lower SES neighborhoods into decisionmaking and empowerment and utilization. New York has some great models for intense, compact food growing. Oakland, CA is doing a lot of green walls with their nice climate. A colleague of mine with whom I was on a panel in Seattle recently spent her holidays last year in Cuba, understanding how they produce so much food there per capita or per m^2. I’m doing some garden trials here for scaling up suburban food production by extending the season, and developing some software for decision-making on where shadows fall, for solar and for garden siting. Our society is coming up to the cusp of real change in urban farming and food production. Very exciting.
DS
Mike:
Many “traffic calming” techniques can create better flow and function of automobiles. Speed bumps might be considered traffic calming, but I think they’re traffic slowing. Automated on ramp light systems during rush hour might be considered traffic slowing to some, but I consider that traffic calming (which benefits the overall system when congested).
It’s a matter of semantics. It would be nice if you were a little bit more informed about traffic engineering, etc. than to just spouting off “statist” rants. Great, you can’t go 55 mph on a roundabout, but it is an effective traffic tool for intersections that maintains flow of traffic — to the betterment of traffic not to the impediment of it. Sometimes they are used inappropriately, most of the time, not.
ws,
Automated on-ramp light systems are proven winners. I would have categorized them by what they do to the traffic actually in the freeway conduit (smoothing the flow by reducing interruptions, and thus a traffic-flow stimulant, not obstruction), but referring to it as either calming or obstructive to ramp traffic is certainly fair.
I’m not even actually opposed to roundabouts themselves. We never reached that issue. There are places they work just as designed and are appropriate. I was just calling Dan on his bullshit, something that needs to be done more ’round these parts. But it won’t be. Most folks don’t have government jobs that leave them free to shill comment boards all day long. And since I live on my own ticket, I have to prioritize my visits here as purely recreational, and consider the value I may or may not be getting out of that, so I’m certainly not likely to be able to point out the relative translucency of his emperor’s wardrobe on any kind of regular basis.
I think even non-experts recognize that on-ramp lights work to the better of everyone, even if they are a pain to people on the ramp. A mile down the highway they are then glad they are there.
But what no one understands is “traffic calming” devices that make you go well below the speed limit. If a speed hump can be taken at 25 mph in a 25 mph zone, then there would not be a controversy. But the 5 mph speed hills in 25 mph zones is just crazy. You gotta love the libertarians that honk every time they reach one, thus irritating the neighbors that insist that cars in front of “their house” go 5 mph.
Why is it that the same people who hate cul-de-sacs because they delay emergency vehicles suddenly love speed hills that also delay emergency vehicles?
Speed bumps aren’t installed if Fire and Life Safety say they shouldn’t be installed. The most entertaining thing about this thread is the comical ignorance about traffic calming and improved traffic flow.
In a normal reality, it would be embarrassing to assert traffic calming is obstruction, be given a traffic engineer’s manual showing how this assertion is false, and then continue to ignoramus about traffic calming.
In a normal reality, that is embarrassing. Embarrassingly so.
DS
In a normal reality, it would be embarrassing to assert that traffic calming is never an obstruction because some manual (“Suggested Recommendations”) says it is metaphysically possible to design traffic calming techniques that are not obstructions.
In a normal reality, every person in America can identify dozens or hundreds of traffic calming installations that are obnoxious obstructions to traffic.
People live in the real world. Planners live in a make-believe world of technical manuals.
Andy,
That’s more of an applicable statement to an engineers’ world. And I am skeptical that people can identify “hundreds” of traffic obstacles in their daily lives.
ws said: And I am skeptical that people can identify “hundreds†of traffic obstacles in their daily lives.
JK: You are right. It only a few do the job of reducing mobility:
traffic circles
extended curbs
transit supportive extended curbs
chicanes
speed bumps
speed humps
transit priority traffic signals
transit priority opticon
unrealistically low speed limits
short yellow lights with “red light cameras”
More at: http://blip.tv/file/2650045
More at: http://blip.tv/file/2623809
And Portland’s crackpot Disincentives to the Automobile: http://www.portlandfacts.com/printables/Disincentives%20to%20the%20Automobile.pdf
Thanks
JK
JK: Disincentives to the Automobile
THWM: Though you some how think “disincentives to transit” are ok?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=byeSPOIffVE
Is the Dan who posts here the Dan Burden I read about in AARP, who, “…created plans to persuade residents to leave their cars at home.”?
Dan, do you ride in a car enough to understand how annoying and non-“calming” roundabouts are? I’ve seen them from a freeway on/off-ramp…a FREEWAY for crying out loud. If that’s not about discouragement, I don’t know what is.