Street Network Management for Better Walking Conditions. from a Historical Analysis to a Radical Concept H

1 Street network management for better walking conditions. From a historical analysis to a radical concept H. Monheim 0 Preface 1 Divide et impera. "Lane by lane" separation as a basic principle of motorised cities 1.1 Consequences for street design: linear thinking killed the quality of public space 1.2 Consequences for architecture and land use 2. Traffic calming and pedestrian zones as a first attempt for correction towards a better coexistence in Traffic 2.1 Pedestrian zones as little islands in a car friendly surrounding 2.2 Woonerf and Winkelerf. The influence of Dutch examples on German Traffic calming 2.3 Systematic 30 km h limit strategies 2.4 Coexistence strategies for bicycle lanes and bus lanes 3. Models for a systematically separation of Traffic modes in "new town areas" 3.1 Horizontal "street by street" separation in a small scale 3.2 Complete horizontal "street by street" separation in new town areas 3.3 Vertical "level by level" separation in new town or new business areas 3.4 "Time Sharing" separation 4. Missing ambition for a general change. Why not ban the private car generally and domesticate the remaining motorized traffic electronically? 4.1 Car free City centre 4.2 Better use of carriageways: Cities must develop a repertoire. 4.3 Public Transport as the basis of modern mobility 4.4 Car free health resorts or tourist towns 4.5 Car free housing areas - restrictive parking management 4.6 Demotorization as a general strategy 4.7 Modern telematic: a strong support for reinforcement of social driver behavior 4.8 Car free life: A combination of all elements in a systematic approach is needed 4.9 Change of car fixated legislation 4.10 Car Sharing as an important strategy 4.11 Car free societies everywhere. Which strategy works best? 4.12 Better architecture and perfect public transport for a renaissance of urban life 0 Preface The following historical analysis tries to look back to the different steps of expert discussion and planning concepts in Germany and some other leading countries in the field of traffic calming and develops a more radical strategy which would change our mobility system generally and produce a much higher level of transport safety, environmental quality, urban quality and bring a much better urban development. Most members of the COST C 6 working groups 1 and 2 prefer moderate strategies, which try a careful step by step strategy and understand every little progress in pedestrian safety in some areas as a great success. Some progress in traffic calming in some selected areas would make them happy. They accept the traditional strategy of transport planners to define a hierarchy of street networks which relates traffic calming to small housing areas with streets of little car volumes and no importance in the busy trunk road system. They understand that most busy main arterial roads are a taboo area where changes in favour of pedestrians would be very limited. They accept that higher car speeds are to be accepted on main arterial roads. And they accept that mass motorization is an unpreventable trend which will continue world wide. So they do not understand traffic calming as a kind of demotorization strategy. But this positions are not very consequent. Most accidents with pedestrians are located along busy roads. Most lacks of comfort and free move for pedestrians are relevant on busy roads. The highest densities in housing and shopping are often located along busy roads. So a real change in urban quality and pedestrian safety needs a more radical change. My alternative strategy is as well influenced by the technical revolution. We now have modern logistic instruments which enable efficient forms of speed control with simple electronically equipment in the car and street. We do not 2 need all the very expensive elements of physical traffic calming, which take much time to be implemented and which are one of the reasons why general legislation did not react in a consequent way. By saying that only street design is a relevant means of action to influence drivers behavior legislation and administration continued the car friendly framwork. Even rich countries like Germany, Holland or Denmark had to learn the lesson, that physical traffic calming will need generations of planners and decades of time unless is will change the whole transport system. So new legislation would be necessary, which would be influenced by the principle of general traffic calming and new electronical techniques would work much more efficient: by general speed reduction, general parking restriction, general electronical speed control in cars and street equipment and general change in planning laws and civil codes. Of course my strategy still accepts reasons for a hierarchy of streets: the boulevard is more important than the little alleyway. But its importance is not defined by the number of cars and the speed of car drivers. It is mainly a result of its location, land use functions, its type of architecture (density, size of buildings, size of public space, design quality, number of trees etc.). And if hierarchy is really taken seriously the hierarchy of pedestrian networks is much more important: it ranges from the little footpath to the broad boulevard or the busy market place. Unless we discuss further strategies for "domestication" and adaptation of the car in towns we should seriously discuss the more efficient strategy of demotorization, which means to organise transport in a more efficient way, which saves lives, environment and urban qualities. And of course my strategy still accepts reasons for physical traffic calming with elements of street design. But these efforts must not mainly be designed in respect to reducing car speeds but in respect of pedestrian comfort and urban quality. So they are not part of a calming strategy but a general urban design strategy. And they can be concentrated on areas where real design and quality problems do exist. In that understanding new trees in a street are much better than humps and bumps. And fences along an intersection or an underpass under an intersection are the worst elements possible. This "efficiency and quality strategy" needs further support by COST C 6. 1. Divide et impera. "Lane by lane" separation as a basic principle of motorised cities Street design and its legal basis was mainly influenced by the concept of Separation: fast motor vehicles and slow, nonmotorized Traffic should be separated strictly and every mode of transport should have its own space: side walks for pedestrians, bicycle lanes for cyclists, carriageways for the motorcars. The design should provide broad, straight, free car lanes without any obstacles. Street furniture like lights, Traffic signals etc. were meant to be located in the side walk. Pedestrians should be supported with a sort of "bridges" in form of zebra crossings or Traffic signals for crossing safely the car lanes. The principle of separation led to a fundamental right of way for the cars which was very much related to the "normal speed" for inner urban Traffic which was defined as 50 km per hour. This speed made it extremely dangerous to walk or stand or play as a pedestrian in a car lane. Presence of pedestrians in car lanes was defined as an exception, only for crossing purposes and in the shortest possible way. The Carriageway was seen as a very dangerous, hostile space from which pedestrians should be kept away. The rules of power of strong car engines and high car speed defined pedestrians as weak creatures. 1.1 Consequences for street design: linear thinking killed the quality of public space Engineers didn't have any more interest in the design quality of public spaces, which were mainly related to the surrounding architecture. They only referred to the logic of maximum capacity for cars and a strict separation of the different modes: walking, cycling, car parking, car driving and - if meant to be necessary, special lanes for buses or trams. New built areas were equipped with streets which got 2-3 times more of width than was seen to be necessary before motorization. A car lane should have at least 3,00-3,50 m for each direction, a parking lane 2,40 m. Since both car lanes and parking lanes were meant to be necessary everywhere, even in old build up areas the space for driving and parking cars had to be taken from the existing public space: so little space was left for pedestrians and cyclists, for trees and public or private gardens. Often traditional broad side walks were divided into one half for car parking or broader car lanes and only small rests were left for pedestrians. Often trees had to be cut off to give space for cars. Often private or public gardens were sacrificed to the car Traffic. Maximum space was given to cars in intersections, where special lanes should serve cars turning left or right. To prevent pedestrians from crossing busy intersections, often bridges or underpasses were built and crossing on the surface was restricted by fences. In new built areas and along main arterial roads the chance was taken to provide car Traffic with maximum width from the beginning and to separate the pedestrians most radically from car Traffic. So the houses on both sides of a street were separated in much longer distances in modern architecture, which developed completely new shapes of motorway age architecture. Small alleyways disappeared from the repertoire of architects, the settlement density decreased steadily. The European tradition of compact high density mixed land use building was given up. 3 1.2 Consequences for architecture and land use Low rise -low density architecture became more and more popular, because it could provide maximum space for cars.

Load more