Re: 30kph minimum vs parking restrictions
- OK, so it sounds like the cars themselves (or the drivers) would
easily thwart legislative-only attempts to slow traffic. If it takes
all that education, effort, and money just to slow cars to 30kph, it
makes more sense to go straight to the goal, a carfree city. Thanks
for helping me work that one out.
The parking ideas sound more promising. In that case, it's easier to
see the steps required: start by removing the parking requirements on
new development, then require permits for all that "free" on-street
parking (with permit fees and fines dedicated to the mass-transit
fund), and eventually restrict the permits to "essential" vehicles
like delivery trucks in areas where passenger transit has been built
This is similar to the methods used by UC San Diego -- practically a
city in itself, with tens of thousands of residents -- to discourage
cars. Their goal is parking management instead of carfree, but to me
it seems more a matter of degree.
Again, the solution can be unpopular, but it needs to be something
that could reasonably be enforced without huge infrastructure
requirements. Changing the city council's collective mind is much
easier if there isn't a big price tag.
Any comments? Thanks for helping me hash these things out. It gives
me something to think about when I'm out dodging cars.
> Converting to Tempo 30 streets, with or without signs, humps,
> campaign is clearly not enough.
> 30 is an appropiate speed in built up areas, but even without
> touching the accelerator, cars will go faster.
> There are these remedies
> 1. ISA
> 2. Lane narrowing and/or meandering.
> 3. NEVs (& various cycles of course), for inner city trips. In
> those, 30 km/h is a proper speed.
> Still not sure which is best. Both cost a lot (in time-to-achieve and
> money, although one can achieve a lot with (2:) strategic placement
> of blocks or cones that make a lane 2.0 m wide, before crossroads and
> highspeed stretches).
- On May 6, 2005, at 6:52 AM, Chris Radcliff wrote:
>Most ideas are notoriously unpopular, or at least derided, when they
> Again, the solution can be unpopular, but it needs to be something
> that could reasonably be enforced without huge infrastructure
> requirements. Changing the city council's collective mind is much
> easier if there isn't a big price tag.
are first proposed, from Galileo's cosmology to, in fact, cars
themselves, to the Internet, to the Beatles (an early record executive
once said, in reference to them, that "No one wants to hear guitar
The only "solution" I can think of that was instantly and universally
popular was the bicycle!
Parking management will be an essential part of city planning even in
places like Detroit and Los Angeles soon, I suspect. Simply because
there's little choice. parking imposes too many costs, financial,
social, and physical--but it's only the financial argument that will
impress the moral Neanderthals of the Right. (Note to conservatives on
this list: I know there are many *actual* compassionate and moral
conservatives around--but today the Right's show is being run by loud
posturing fascists and a large population of folks who are looking for
a leader that'll make them feel good about themselves. Cf my article
on "The Appeal of Fascism,"
Sorry for the digression, but I get so tired of being lied to on
subsidy issues by pseudo-cons....
My 1¢ worth.