Came across this concept in a (surprise!) libertarian forum I visit. Sounds just crazy enough to try. Maybe in core to shore?

Shared space - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shared_space)


Shared space is a traffic engineering concept involving the removal of the traditional separation between motor vehicles and pedestrians and other road users, and the removal of traditional road priority management devices such as kerbs, lines, signs and signals. The reasoning behind the idea is that it will result in improved road safety by forcing users to negotiate their way through shared areas at appropriate speeds and with due consideration for the other users of the space, using simple rules like giving way to the right.

Here's a long, but very interesting article in places where they have implemented this blurring-of-the-traffic-lines.

Wired 12.12: Roads Gone Wild (http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/12.12/traffic.html?pg=1&topic=traffic&topic_set=)


With that, Monderman tucks his hands behind his back and begins to walk into the square - backward - straight into traffic, without being able to see oncoming vehicles. A stream of motorists, bicyclists, and pedestrians ease around him, instinctively yielding to a man with the courage of his convictions.


The old ways of traffic engineering - build it bigger, wider, faster - aren't going to disappear overnight. But one look at West Palm Beach suggests an evolution is under way. When the city of 82,000 went ahead with its plan to convert several wide thoroughfares into narrow two-way streets, traffic slowed so much that people felt it was safe to walk there. The increase in pedestrian traffic attracted new shops and apartment buildings. Property values along Clematis Street, one of the town's main drags, have more than doubled since it was reconfigured.

I like it!

I have seen this before many years ago and was intrigued by the idea.

Interesting.

Ummm... High speed chase? :LolLolLol

Seriously? This concept is in action all over the world IN THIRD WORLD COUNTRIES and is horrible.

Of course it works in West Palm Beach where the customs and order of Western civilization are firmly entrenched. But leaving traffic safety up to the good will and self control of the masses sounds like a bad idea to me. People flout the rules we have now blatantly (red lights, speed limits). 90% of people would probably drive safely and conscientiously in a "shared spaces" environment... but that other 10% would get somebody killed.

It might work for new roads in high density, low speed, urban areas, but most of our current roads are not intended for pedestrian traffic at all, except for crosswalks. I don't know of too many people who would be comfortable walking down the middle of May Ave or Broadway. There is no point anyway. Use a sidewalk.

90% of people would probably drive safely and conscientiously in a "shared spaces" environment... but that other 10% would get somebody killed.

Ya' can't just make up statistics when there are actual statistics show otherwise. As shared spaces have shown, they are safer than our current system of traffic engineering.

Actual statistics? From where, a limited implementation in super upscale Palm Beach?

I freely admit that seeing North Korea on the list of successful implementations of this theory on the Wiki made my hair catch on fire.

After we tear down all the stop signs, we can all hold hands and sing "kum-bye-yah". Then someone will come along and want me to redistribute my wealth.

(You do know I am just teasing you, right???)

Actual statistics? From where, a limited implementation in super upscale Palm Beach?

The Wired.com article had more places where this is implemented.


After we tear down all the stop signs, we can all hold hands and sing "kum-bye-yah". Then someone will come along and want me to redistribute my wealth.

What I've posted is a libertarian idea. Libertarianism is far from "singing kum-bye-yah" and redistribution of wealth.

I'd argue that libertarianism is true conservatism.

It sounds like a great idea that would work in some places where there are more pedestrians/bicyclists, and the people that do drive are courteous of such individuals (i.e. small European cities, as in that Wired article.) Sadly though, I don't see it working in Oklahoma, where walkability and bike lanes are close to nonexistent, and there are plenty of arrogant and self-centered drivers that couldn't care less about pedestrians.

After we tear down all the stop signs, we can all hold hands and sing "kum-bye-yah". Then someone will come along and want me to redistribute my wealth.

Ha! Deregulated streets equals communism. Classic.

I don't know about removing signs and structure from infrastructure, but there is no doubt that narrower streets promote more pedestrian activity, which, in most places, equates to more commerce. However, this only really makes sense downtown and in some specific districts in Oklahoma City. Most here simply aren't interested in walking anyway. However, it is essential for places trying to cultivate pedestrian activity to augment the infrastructure to favor walkers.

No traffic control =/= Libertarianism.

Closer to the definition of anarchy, really.

I don't liek the idea of no control. I do like the idea of thinking outside the box.

Rome has no traffic signals or crosswalks or curbs on several intersections and major multilane roads. I found it do be intimidating at first, but all you have to do is step out in front of the speeding traffic and it stops for you, so there is never any waiting for pedestrian lights to turn green. You just have to take a big breath before you cross.

So as the car driver, on the road built FOR me...now I have to stop every 200 ft for someone to NOT use a cross walk? Screw that, I'll just plow em down. There is everything wrong with this idea. The road is FIRST for a CAR, second for people. If you don't want to wait for the cars to be clear, then don't walk.

Surely you are being sarcastic...however, I doubt it.

Sadly bombermwc is probably not joking, sad really, as that is definitely the stereotypical Oklahoman.

ive always thought that ALL intersections could be effectively and permanently removed just by instituting an overpass for any one given direction of traffic. one lane passes underneath, one lane passes over...easy..no more stop signs, and no more stop lights.

No control = dumb, unsafe idea. It would either slow down traffic or get people hurt. There's nothing particularly Oklahoman about that. And Rome is NOT a city that you want to present as a model for safe driving.
Rome most dangerous city in Europe for traffic accidents - Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/italy/3198659/Rome-most-dangerous-city-in-Europe-for-traffic-accidents.html)


"Rome is a city at great risk and the main reason is traffic congestion which has brought a remarkable increase of the number of motorbikes on the streets," said Transport Under-Secretary Roberto Castelli. "They are the most dangerous type of traffic." Italy has one of the highest densities of car ownership in the world and road accident statistics bear out its image as a country of crazed drivers with little regard for the law or the rights of pedestrians.

No traffic control =/= Libertarianism.

Closer to the definition of anarchy, really.

Whoa... in some other forum, that statement could spark a very interesting discussion of the political and etymological history of the relationship between anarchism and libertarianism...

But, for now, I think we could vastly improve the commerce synergy of our more urban or urban minded districts without abolishing traffic signs. I think it would go a long way just to push for narrower streets and simply automatically time lights for pedestrians. At the risk of falling prey to the Traffic Avenger (aka bombermwc), some districts really could benefit from making the pedestrian the priority over the car, but I don't think we need to go as far as try and achieve order through chaos.

The road is FIRST for a CAR, second for people. If you don't want to wait for the cars to be clear, then don't walk.

Not really. The history of roads and pedestrians goes back thousands of years. The history of roads and cars goes back about 100 years. We're not born coming out of the womb with a Ford around us; we're born with legs.

And if God had intended us to go naked, we would have been born that way. lol

Bristol, I think BPD put it best. Roads here were built 100 years ago too....funny you should mention that. Roads in America were built first for trasnport (horse and buggy or car), not people. If they were built for people first, we'd live in narrow street areas like old Paris or some crap. America is a car culture...and there isn't a damned thing that can be done about that.

Mireaux, that's called an interchange....they have them on interstates. You want to spend that much money in-town on right of ways to do that....or to build the bridge...uh no.

If they were built for people first, we'd live in narrow street areas like old Paris or some crap.

Yea...Paris sucks.

Bristol, I think BPD put it best. Roads here were built 100 years ago too....funny you should mention that. Roads in America were built first for trasnport (horse and buggy or car), not people. If they were built for people first, we'd live in narrow street areas like old Paris or some crap. America is a car culture...and there isn't a damned thing that can be done about that.

But that's my point exactly. I'm not saying roads are for pedestrians OVER cars, I'm saying your typical road (not highway) is for BOTH. In other words, a shared space.

You're right, our roads did begin to be built around 100 years ago...when cars were not owned by the majority! Meaning our specific history also backs a shared pedestrian/car relationship!

And as far as America being a car culture, there's plenty that can be done...some people may just not prefer it because it would change their routines.

Roads should be built for EVERYONE...whether it be an automobile, pedestrian, or bicycle. Sadly, a lot of people in Oklahoma don't understand this and couldn't care less about anyone but themselves and (in some cases) other car drivers. There are plenty of people that do not drive cars everywhere because they a) cannot afford a car, b) have the courtesy to walk/bike places rather than drive a 3000+ lb oil-burning hunk of metal everywhere, c) simply enjoy biking/walking, or a plethora of other reasons.

People simply need to learn to share the road and be courteous towards each other. Of course it's not just auto drivers...I've seen plenty of pedestrians/bicyclists that have been a bit inconsiderate of others, and in their case done things that could very easily hurt them. (i.e. bicyclists speeding through red lights at intersections, pedestrians walking on a crosswalk in front of cars that are about to go, etc.)

And I'll agree with bristolscene...our obsession with the automobile needs to change sooner or later. I don't want to make this insanely political....but simply think about it: could the earth sustain every person on the planet driving an automobile and consuming like us Americans do? Could the earth even sustain the lifestyles of Americans for more than a few hundred years? (I'm not just talking about climate change...think about all of the materials that are used to build our cars, houses, and all of the other luxuries that we enjoy!) I'm not saying that everyone should drastically change their lifestyle now...but at least give some consideration to those who don't drive a car everywhere!

But people won't change. They don't have a reason to. We have too much open space in the U.S. for people to get it through their skulls how inefficiently we use space. In Europe, things are much more compact because there are several hundred and even thousand years worth of development that have worked to fill in and squeeze people closer. That means more people on mass transit...which means more people walk.

Somewhere like OKC, it's just not going to happen. And you can't take one area and say "we're going to throw the book out here, but not over there". That's when it's dangerous and people end up killing people with their cars because they don't know. It's one thing to educate the local population, but what about visitors? You have about 2 seconds as you enter a city to know all their laws...that's why interstates use federal law, not state...and for goodness sake, not city.

I don't happen to think that intersections and crosswalks work badly. How often do you go to a cross walk and have to wait any longer than someone in the car next to you? You have the benefit of being able to cross when you want...the car can't run the light....or squeeze through traffic.

Just as a side note, I'd like to say....I would love to be able to hop on a train in OKC and get to work or wherever i'm going and never need a car. But I live in OKC, not NYC or Chicago.

While I think throwing out all signs is a bit much, there is statistical data that the more dangerous an intersection feels, the fewer accidents it will have.

The same rule applies to narrow streets. As a developer I would love to be able to take a 26' street down to 24' to slow traffic. 2' may not sound like much but it makes a world of difference (as do curved streets and close building set back lines) in keeping community streets safe. Did I mention the cost savings in paving?:smile:

I just came from NYC where they are doing a little experiment, taking the busiest traffic area in the world - Times Square - and making it pedestrian friendly. They took six lanes of traffic and made one lane of cab and bus only with the other five lanes pedestrian only. This was for five blocks.

However they went a step farther than just making it pedestrian friendly. They put lawn chairs in the middle of the street - 500 lawn chairs - so pedestrians could take a rest, cool off, buy a treat from a street side vendor and sit down in a lawn chair and relax. They've turned Times Square into a walking mall without shutting traffic down completely.