Let’s redesign streets for the benefit of the people who live there, rather than the speed and convenience of the cars that drive through. I’m sick of the noisy and dangerous traffic around the place where I live, and I can’t afford to move.
Stroads: The infrastructure that sucks for everyone, pedestrians, cyclists, transit users, and drivers all the same.
But that’s the Canadian way. Everyone gets a trophy. We’re too “polite” to pick a favourite. We hope that in doing so we can make everyone happy, but end up making everyone unhappy.
The people of the Netherlands are known for being much more, let’s say, blunt. They’re not afraid to choose a winner.
Just need speed bumps. Speed bumps every few blocks on every street where the limits are below 60km/h. There’s no more sure way short of rebuilding the entire roads.
Tire degradation comes from heat. Going slower produces less heat and therefore less pollution. On top of that, slower speeds are better for fuel economy as you aren’t dealing with wind resistance as much. That’s why the u.s. set the national speed limit to 55 during the 70s oil crises. Of course today’s cars that use hybrid and cvt transmissions are even more efficient at slower speeds than cars from 50 years ago.
Going slower may produce less heat but does decelerating produce less heat? Some may drive slower but most will speed up and then brake before each speed bump.
When you brake the tires rubber is what actually slows the vehicle for the most part, and many may skid if they accidentally brake to hard before a speed bump, contributing to more rubber being washed away into nearby catch basins and creeks.
I can accept what you’re saying about heat as true, but I don’t think you’re addressing the issue of repeated acceleration and deceleration as it relates to speed bumps. Some amount of extra tire wear will occur due to the extra forces involved in acceleration and deceleration, regardless of the temperature of the rubber.
I agree that slower speeds are better for fuel economy due to the wind resistance issue, but that’s very different from saying that a road with speed bumps is better for fuel economy when many of the drivers will be accelerating and braking between each bump, instead of traveling at a constant speed.
On side is a park, the other side is residential.
This is the exact place where you’d want low speed limits. Some cities treat the roads beside parks like school zones, dropping the speed to 25 or 30 kph.
Which is why we need to design our streets so that the speed at which drivers are comfortable matches the speed that is safe and sensible for the other people sharing the street, such as pedestrians and cyclists. Raised crossings, in-street traffic calming, narrow winding streets, paving stones, etc.
If a single location consistently has a problem with speeding drivers, you’ve got a poorly designed road.
Definitely. And yet they never seem to redesign the roads for the speed we want.
Let’s redesign streets for the benefit of the people who live there, rather than the speed and convenience of the cars that drive through. I’m sick of the noisy and dangerous traffic around the place where I live, and I can’t afford to move.
Stroads… Canada is FULL of them. I wish they’d design streets here like they do in the Netherlands. I lived there for years and it was awesome.
Stroads: The infrastructure that sucks for everyone, pedestrians, cyclists, transit users, and drivers all the same.
But that’s the Canadian way. Everyone gets a trophy. We’re too “polite” to pick a favourite. We hope that in doing so we can make everyone happy, but end up making everyone unhappy.
The people of the Netherlands are known for being much more, let’s say, blunt. They’re not afraid to choose a winner.
How else do they get money from the people?
Just need speed bumps. Speed bumps every few blocks on every street where the limits are below 60km/h. There’s no more sure way short of rebuilding the entire roads.
That will certainly fuck the environment, up to tripling the emissions per mile of vehicles. Well done.
There’s a study that says most pollution from passenger vehicles is from tire dust.
Linky?
https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2022/03/tire-particle-pollution-may-be-harming-freshwater-and-estuary-ecosystems/
That says tire pollution is a big problem but I can’t find where it backs up your claim that it’s the biggest pollutant from cars.
So the repeated braking and acceleration will add even more tire dust, making it more than 3x worse?
Tire degradation comes from heat. Going slower produces less heat and therefore less pollution. On top of that, slower speeds are better for fuel economy as you aren’t dealing with wind resistance as much. That’s why the u.s. set the national speed limit to 55 during the 70s oil crises. Of course today’s cars that use hybrid and cvt transmissions are even more efficient at slower speeds than cars from 50 years ago.
A more narrow road will also cause drivers to slow down, they could put up barriers for bike lanes and repaint the lines
we could create a system where cars can link together and use a low friction guided surface that doesn’t require rubber tread.
I’ve been optimistic my whole life that cars will be banned by 2030, still not too late
Going slower may produce less heat but does decelerating produce less heat? Some may drive slower but most will speed up and then brake before each speed bump.
When you brake the tires rubber is what actually slows the vehicle for the most part, and many may skid if they accidentally brake to hard before a speed bump, contributing to more rubber being washed away into nearby catch basins and creeks.
I can accept what you’re saying about heat as true, but I don’t think you’re addressing the issue of repeated acceleration and deceleration as it relates to speed bumps. Some amount of extra tire wear will occur due to the extra forces involved in acceleration and deceleration, regardless of the temperature of the rubber.
I agree that slower speeds are better for fuel economy due to the wind resistance issue, but that’s very different from saying that a road with speed bumps is better for fuel economy when many of the drivers will be accelerating and braking between each bump, instead of traveling at a constant speed.
…thats constant speed.
Constantly slowing and accelerating due to speed bumps is horrible for fuel efficiency.
Feature, not bug. It’s a revenue-enhancing device, not a safety-enhancing device. These things usually cause crashes rather than prevent them.
Just add bike lanes on both sides. :P /s
Or the speed limit is too low
On side is a park, the other side is residential.
This is the exact place where you’d want low speed limits. Some cities treat the roads beside parks like school zones, dropping the speed to 25 or 30 kph.
Yeah in Victoria it’s been lowered to 25. Nobody drives that speed though. People drive what speed they feel comfortable despite what the signs say
Which is why we need to design our streets so that the speed at which drivers are comfortable matches the speed that is safe and sensible for the other people sharing the street, such as pedestrians and cyclists. Raised crossings, in-street traffic calming, narrow winding streets, paving stones, etc.