Get to work, crackheads
EDIT: since apparently a bunch of people woke up with the wrong foot this morning or forgot to check the group they’re in:
This is a joke. Do not steal or vandalize speed enforcement cameras (or anything else for that matter). That’s against the law and you will likely get arrested.
If you’re addicted to crack or any other drugs, please seek professional help.
You are viewing a single comment
It's simple. If you design the road to be wide, straight, with wide, clearly marked lanes, clear sides and a smooth surface, people will naturally be inclined to drive faster. This is based on experiences with forgiving design. For motorways, this is fine. But for residential neighbourhoods and school zones, it's a bloodbath waiting to happen.
So out there, you do the exact opposite. Make the street so narrow that anything bigger than an average pickup truck barely fits in a lane. Make it out of brick and don't mark the centre of the road. Surround the street with shrubs and other obstacles, and stick it full of sharp chicanes.
This is the deliberate inverse of forgiving design, called traffic calming.
School buses are a thing.
They used to be. Now everyone drives their kids to school for reasons.
The urban planning in many cities is so absurd and not meant for buses. This means school bus routes are absolute madness and can take hours to get everyone home
No, not here.
School busses do nothing to solve the problem of speeding in school zones.
I specifically quoted the part about making the road in front of a school so narrow a pickup truck would have trouble.
If it's too narrow for a pickup truck, how are school busses supposed to function?
Then let me specify:
Wide enough for one pickup and no opposing traffic, but so narrow that two pickups are going to really have to negotiate to move around each other.
Schools have more than one bus and they have to pass each other. There are also school buses for the other nearby schools like the middle school and high school running at the same time even when school starts times are offset.
No they don't they can enter from the same side. You're just looking for excuses. Also why do you need buses in the first place why aren't the kids walking or biking.
My elementary school was 15 miles from my house. You think that's a safe distance for a 6 year old to travel alone?
Let me look at a map... maybe 1km max anywhere in my 30k town to the next primary school and that's when you're living on the very very edge of town. Should be under 500m for most pupils.
If you're living in a rural area, outside of the next village (which will have a school), which is an absolute exception as things tend to cluster into villages in rural areas, it might be 5km. Not really an issue with a bike, I biked what 3.5km to Kindergarten (together with my mom). If you have less density than that you probably should have boarding schools.
For secondary education, if you're living in a village you'll probably have to take the bus to the nearest city. Regular public transport though the schedule will take school times into account. Yes, kids can walk 500m to the nearest station.
Bonus: All that school density -- smaller but way more of them -- means that there's obvious places to hold elections as there's a municipality-owned place in Sunday stroll distance to pretty much everywhere. The only downside are the ludicrously low tables.
Above you wondered why we need buses and I said that when I was 6 I lived 15 miles (24 km) from my school (and it was suburban, not rural). You then said that your school was 3.5 km away. I don't see how that answers my question.
US suburbia has a higher density than the German countryside, having to travel 24km is nuts. That'd be defensible if you live in a tiny settlement 24km from a place with more than two dozen houses -- I'm sure those exist in the US but suburbia isn't that.
How many pupils were there at your school? My state has 106240 pupils in 393 primary schools, that's an average of 270. Minimum size under ordinary circumstances is 80, the smallest is on Nordstrandischmoor: An island, 18 inhabitants, five families, one school, one teacher, two students, here it is. That's because we don't do boarding in primary education so there's a maximum tolerable commute time/distance, once those kids are old enough they'll spend Monday through Friday on the mainland.
If your system insists that a school have at least 2k students or such then, yes, of course, walking to school will be an impossibility for most. Fix your school sizes and like 99% of students will be able to walk or bike, use buses or minivans or whatnot for the rest we do that too (not really possible in Nordstrandischmoor, thing doesn't even have a ferry but a rail link that's only usable when the tide is low).
And no it wasn't my school it was my Kindergarten, which wasn't, by a long shot, the closest to home it was the one my parents chose. I mentioned it to say that biking 3.5km is something a 4yold can do, physically, without any issue at all really.
You have one bus going in one direction to a school passing another bus going to another school.
Have you only lived in an inner city where roads can be one way because they alternate in direction every block?
???? If that's your solution then why is there a road to begin with? Just ban cars. Simple.
In front of a school? Are your schools connected directly to highways or something?
We don't have blocks.
Roads are typically 2 lanes one in each direction. You already know this because you said a solution would be to remove the lane marker.
So you have a road with an elementary school, and 2 miles further down is a middle school. Even without that you have buses passing each other during pickup because busses only pickup kids on one side of the street so you don't have young kids crossing roads. So one bus runs in one direction down a road picking up kids direction down the road.
What do you call a section of inner city bounded on all sides by a road in your country?
I'm someone else.
Lots of questions here: Why can't kids walk 500m to the next bus stop? Why are streets so unsafe so that kids can't cross them?
Why assume that there's no larger road in between those smaller roads? Roads generally form a hierarchy, you have big ones feeding into middle ones feeding into small ones. Small ones should absolutely be safe to cross, also without explicit crossings, because they're traffic calmed and don't have much traffic in the first place. That's where houses and schools are, where there's no through-traffic because even if they aren't cul de sacs who would drive through a road you can't drive fast on when there's a mid-level road that you could take.
Straßenblock. Let me put it differently: We don't have grids and nothing is regular. This is about as grid-y as it gets and if you zoom in you'll notice that the interior streets have no lane markers and some even are cobbled. Those connect to a street ( south, Hallerstraße) with bike lanes (don't need those on smaller streets because there's not enough traffic to warrant them), which connects to a four-lane (plus bus lane) street, Grindelalle, west. The intersection looks a bit crazy but it's actually safe for pedestrians and you should've learned how to cross streets safely and what traffic lights are in Kindergarten. You've also been there with your parents (going shopping or whatever) a lot of times, nothing scary really. That kind of density and housing is probably illegal to build where you are (it's illegal pretty much everywhere in the US and Canada).
And mind you Hamburg is awful when it comes to urbanism, way too car-centric. Not because of lack of public transport but because politicians are unwilling to kill off car traffic and the whole city is full of rich fucks with too much disposable income.
I suggested banning cars.
"We don't have blocks"
THAT TRANSLATES TO STREET BLOCK!
A block in the US doesn't mean a square either.
I already suggested, "Just ban cars. Easy."
It is required that children do not cross two lane roads to be picked up by school buses. I don't make the rules. I don't have a solution to US car culture. But making roads unpassable by school buses isn't an answer.
Yes, great, blame a non native speaker for expressing himself incorrectly, correcting himself, and then quadruple down on it. I was thinking of unprioritised NY-style blocks you see all over the place in US cities, gridlock magnets. You know, places where people say "down the block" and generally measure distances in blocks.
If you look back at that Hamburg link, at those streets internal to the superblock, you'll notice that they are wide enough for buses to go through. There's no regular bus lines through there (there's two metro stations and plenty of bus stops surrounding it) but a school bus isn't regular service, it doesn't need to play by the same rules. You can make a pickup at one of those very spacious intersections. It's not being done because there's schools in walking distance and German kids can cross roads but it could be done. Would you, however, ever speed on those roads.
Yup, if a school bus is coming then everyone going the other way better slow down and watch out!
It's about not making it fit "comfortably", not that it can't fit at all. Drivers who feel uncomfortable naturally slow down and pay more attention.
Congratulations, you stumbled upon the key point of traffic calming!
Firetrucks? Ambulance?
My city has exactly one road designed like this. Fire trucks have no problem
I really want to see these cities. They have a dedicated grid of streets for cyclists, a different grid for fire trucks, a different grid for pedestrians, and a Kafkaesque nightmare of curves for cars. Cars that presumably often break down and the drivers are found later fleshless with teeth marks on their bones. Somehow 4 seperate roadway structures are imposed on a single city.
I wish my suburb's streets were rebuilt to pedestrian/cyclist friendly style. It would be easy as every street has very easy access to the 80km/h square of main roads that surround it
You could block every street in the suburb in its middle and force all drivers to take the shortest path to a fast road, and let bikes and walkers take the short paths within the suburbs.
My street has about 2000 cars a day, with over 90% of them using it as a short path between two fast roads, or accessing or leaving a destination in a different part of the same suburb.
A friend lives in a suburb that's a tree structure, that's about a third best as there are no destinations from the "trunk" roads to anything but destinations within the suburbs. I'd hate to see that suburb needing to be evacuated quickly, but they're deep in suburbia and on a hill, so safe from fire and flood
I wish mine was as well. Just a nice straightforward grid. Minimize the time it takes to get anywhere by any means. Makes navigation easier as well.
Not an issue in Europe. Though granted the US would probably need to replace their fire trucks with sanely-sized ones. You also don't need to haul a big-ass ladder in a low-density area what's your plan use it to do a header into a suburban pool.
Regarding response time absence of gridlock will be more important than the last hundred metres on a residential street, consider investing in public transportation, walkable cities, and generally everything that abolishes owning and using a car being mandatory.
Hey, I live on a road like that. It's not even bricks, but good ol' cobblestone. The cars also share it with a tram.
There's a lot of pedestrians crossing. It's a residential area with shops in the ground floor of all the buildings.
There's multiple schools and kindergartens around, so they set the speed limit to 30km/h. Does that matter? No. People go 50-60 during the day and 70-80 at night. The only times that doesn't happen is when the cops set up a mobile speed camera.
The road is fairly straight, I'll give you that, but I guess they can't just demolish a few kilometres of 100yrs old houses to make to road a bit winding.
I mean, if the
roadstreet takes up only part of the width of the right of way, you can do a lot with blocking off half theroadstreet and alternating which side every few dozen metres. No demolition required.Upon closer inspection, what you just described is a street, not a road.
Also, even with a narrower street, with strategically placed obstacles, you can convince drivers to zig-zag and reduce their speed that way.
I didn't know there was a difference, I've been using them synonymously.
With the proposed changes traffic would have to wait constantly to let the other side pass. You would not only limit speed, but als throughput. If you just go slower because of speed cameras, the amount of traffic can stay the same.
There's a lot of cars and lorries going through here. Sometimes a road/street that has a lot of traffic just goes through a fairly residential area and we kind of have to live with the fact.
And if you think that's bad city planning call the eighteen hundreds and complain to these people.
There's a difference. A road is meant to be a fast connection between points at the ends. This calls for forgiving design and higher speeds.
Meanwhile, a street is meant to be for allowing access to the nearby land. That warrants lower speeds, and the expectation that anyone can be on any of the sides as they see necessary. A street should function less like a vehicle artery, and more like an outdoor room.
Notice that these are incompatible uses. North American traffic engineers clearly didn't, allowing main streets to become the main thoroughfare, i.e. the main roads through an area as well. This produces the most dangerous type of transportation infrastructure: the stroad. Which is both meant to be a fast connection AND access to the nearby land, and in doing so fails at both.
If this stretch of car infrastructure you were discussing is supposed to be a street, vehicle throughput should probably be one of the last priorities, and vehicles are better off on a road a few blocks over.
nah fuck brick roads. the rest sure. not brick. dangerous for panick braking (less traction), wears iunt tires and suspension prematurely
Problems that are all reduced, eliminated or rendered irrelevant altogether if traffic moves slowly, which it probably does, thanks to all the other modifications.
Plus, they add a ton of road noise inside the vehicle, further increasing the level of discomfort at higher speeds, contributing to a lower design speed.
Do you work for IBM on Lotus Notes?
Panic braking from 20 km/h isn't going to be impeded by a brick surface, even wet brick.
Main roads shouldn't be brick, but local residential streets certainly should. The speed limit should be 30 km/h or less anyway, and in a well-designed road network they should only make up a tiny portion of your overall drive, so wearing tyres and suspension isn't an issue.
Wrong. Making winding roads slows down traffic but increases the amount of time it takes to cover a given distance. Which leads to less people walking and cycling plus more local air pollution. You want nice grids. People walk in NYC they don't walk in burbs. This is what city planners refuse to grasp. You don't make driving more difficult, you make alternatives easier.
I agree with that last point, but the rest ignores the fact that this refers especially, specifically to school zones, where, as stated previously, fast traffic is a bloodbath about to happen.
Define school zone. Like real school zone or town that zoned everything a school zone so they could get rid of sex offenders?
We're talking the area just around a school where it's safe to assume there are likely to be a lot of children outside of vehicles.
Might be less children around exiting vehicles if road wasn't designed for one fucking vehicle at a time made out bricks because some moron hired a city planner. Why don't you just post snipers and shot ambulance drivers?
The road can have unnecessary curves that the sidewalks and bike lanes do not.
There are other ways to slow vehicles as well such as chicanes that narrow the street at certain points such that only 1 vehicle can pass fit through it at once, raised crosswalks, etc. There are a lot of ways to design the street to force drivers to slow down and pay attention.
Unfortunately, if drivers have room to speed then it comes at the expense of the well being and safety of everyone else (even other drivers).
I agree that winding culdesacs suck btw, but a street grid doesn't solve the problem if safety in front of a school. If designed poorly it can make it worse since long straight streets can easily be turned into drag strips of speeding vehicles. Street grids are fine and good, but they should not allow drivers to go faster than is compatible with a pleasant and safe environment for people outside of the vehicles.
I want to see a road that curves with a bike lane that doesn't that isn't so bizarre that no one would ever use it.
Hard to find exactly that with a Google search but here's an example of roughly what I was talking about
https://djelr4m41m2tz.cloudfront.net/br/t/brisbane-dec-06-kf_164.jpg
Not hard to imagine doing the same but with bike lanes and sidewalks
A. That isn't what you were talking about about
B. You can't find it because it doesn't exist
C. Congrats, this shit road is going to delay emergency responses and will cause accidents when there is even a slight amount of ice
People are going to die because of abominations like this, not like you care.
You don't do this everywhere. You do it where you want traffic speeds to be low. Residential streets, school zones, shopping precincts, and the like.
Plus, you further aid pedestrians and cyclists by having these residential streets not be through-traffic, except to pedestrians and cyclists. Use "modal filters".
The pedestrians and cyclists get good straight paths. The curves on the road are made by consuming its excess width
Cool show me an example of your fictional city. I want to see one that is a grid for cyclists+people and a burb for cars.