My apologies if this has been posted before. I think this makes sense.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=removing-roads-and-traffic-lights#comments
That's interesting stuff. You wouldn't think that doing things like removing roads, traffic signals, and parking spaces would decrease traffic congestion.
That's interesting stuff. You wouldn't think that doing things like removing roads, traffic signals, and parking spaces would decrease traffic congestion.
I don't think it would work in every scenario. A lot of modeling and mathematics would need to go into it before we start tearing up roads!
I don't think you'll see much of this in the US, though. Perhaps I am pessimistic, but it seems that it's always viewed as a positive thing when people are promised more roads. I doubt any city councilman would stand a chance by advocating for tearing out a road and putting in a park!
Yeah, really fascinating. The part about driver anarchy and making drivers take more responsibility for their actions (and thereby increasing safety) is definitely counterintuitive.
Back during one of my architecture classes in college we had a lecture about urban planning and the expansion of the highway system in the US. I remember my professor saying conventional wisdom is that if you build another bridge (or road or what have you), that you'll decrease congestion. But that we also can't forget the psychological factors of people thinking, "Hey! There's another bridge. It'll be faster to get where I'm going. I think I'll drive." And of course, that means MORE people on the road....which means the same level (if not more) congestion.
But it's even more interesting to think about taking away roads.
Perhaps they should consult with behavior specialists, as well!
