Hans Monderman was a Dutch road traffic engineer and innovator. He was recognized for radically challenging the criteria by which engineering solutions for street design are evaluated. His work compelled transportation planners and highway engineers to look afresh at the way people and technology relate to each other. Functional models of his designs are changing the way people view the street in northern Holland, and tried also in Spain, Denmark, Austria, Sweden and Britain.
Hans Monderman died of prostate cancer on January 7, 2008, at the age of 62
For your weekend reading pleasure, I thought I would pass along this reprint from an old New York Times article documenting Sarah Lyalls time spent with this iconic traffic engineer
Road design? He calls it a revolution
by Sarah Lyall
The New York Times
Saturday, January 22, 2005
DRACHTEN, Netherlands "I want to take you on a walk," said Hans Monderman, abruptly stopping his car and striding - hatless, and nearly hairless - into the freezing rain.
Like a naturalist conducting a tour of the jungle, he led the way to a busy intersection in the center of town, where several odd things immediately became clear. Not only was it virtually naked, stripped of all lights, signs and road markings, but there was no division between road and sidewalk. It was, basically, a bare brick square.
But in spite of the apparently anarchical layout, the traffic, a steady stream of trucks, cars, buses, motorcycles, bicycles and pedestrians, moved along fluidly and easily, as if directed by an invisible conductor. When Monderman, a traffic engineer and the intersection's proud designer, deliberately failed to check for oncoming traffic before crossing the street, the drivers slowed for him. No one honked or shouted rude words out the window.
"Who has the right of way?" he asked rhetorically. "I don't care. People here have to find their own way, negotiate for themselves, use their own brains."
Used by some 20,000 drivers a day, the intersection is part of a road-design revolution pioneered by the 59-year-old Monderman. His work in Friesland, the district in northern Holland that takes in Drachten, is increasingly seen as the way of the future in Europe.
Variations on the shared-space theme are being tried in Spain, Denmark, Austria, Sweden and Britain. The European Union has appointed a committee of experts, including Monderman, for a Europe-wide study.
His philosophy is simple, if counterintuitive. To make communities safer and more appealing, Monderman argues, you should first remove the traditional paraphernalia of their roads.
That means the traffic lights and speed signs; the signs exhorting drivers to stop, slow down and merge; the center lines separating lanes from each other; even the speed bumps, speed-limit signs, bicycle lanes and pedestrian crossings. In his view, it is only when the road is made more dangerous, when drivers stop looking at signs and start looking at other people, that driving becomes safer.
"All those signs are saying to cars, 'This is your space, and we have organized your behavior so that as long as you behave this way, nothing can happen to you,"' said Monderman. "That is the wrong story."
The Drachten intersection is an example of the concept of "shared space," a street where cars and pedestrians are equal, and the design tells the driver what to do."
It's a moving away from regulated, legislated traffic toward space which, by the way it's designed and configured, makes it clear what sort of behavior is anticipated," said Ben Hamilton-Baillie, a British specialist in urban design and movement, and a proponent of many of the same concepts.
Highways - where the car is naturally king - are part of the "traffic world" and another matter altogether. In Monderman's view, shared-space plans thrive only in conjunction with well-organized, well-regulated highway systems.
Monderman is a man on a mission. On a daylong automotive tour of Friesland, he pointed out places he had improved, including a town where he ripped out the sidewalks, signs and crossings and put in brick paving on the central shopping street. An elderly woman crossed slowly in front of him."
This is social space, so when Grandma is coming, you stop, because that's what normal, courteous human beings do," he said.
Planners and curious journalists are increasingly making pilgrimages to meet Monderman, considered one of the field's great innovators, although until a few years ago he was virtually unknown outside of Holland. Hamilton-Baillie, whose writings have helped bring Monderman's work to wider attention, remembers with fondness his own first visit.
Monderman drove him to a small country road with cows in every direction. Their presence was unnecessarily reinforced by a large, standard-issue European traffic sign with a picture of a cow on it.
"He said, 'What do you expect to find here? Wallabees?"' Hamilton-Baillie recalled. "'They're treating you like you're a complete idiot, and if people treat you like a complete idiot, you'll act like one.'
"Here was someone who had rethought a lot of issues from complete scratch," Hamilton-Baillie said.
"Essentially, what it means is a transfer of power and responsibility from the state to the individual and the community."
Dressed in a beige jacket and patterned shirt, with scruffy facial hair and a stocky build, Monderman has the appearance of a soccer hooligan but the temperament of an engineer, which indeed he trained to be.
His father was the headmaster of the primary school in their small village; Hans liked to fiddle with machines. "I was always the guy who repaired the TV sets in our village," he said.
He was working as a civil engineer building highways in the 1970s when the Dutch government, alarmed at a sharp increase in traffic accidents, set up a network of traffic-safety offices. Monderman was appointed Friesland's traffic safety officer.
In residential communities, Monderman began narrowing the roads and putting in design features like trees and flowers, red brick paving stones and even fountains to discourage people from speeding, following the principle now known as pyschological traffic calming, where behavior follows design.
He made his first nervous foray into shared space in a small village whose residents were upset at its being used as a daily thoroughfare for 6,000 speeding cars. When he took away the signs, lights and sidewalks, people drove more carefully. Within two weeks, speeds on the road had dropped by more than half.
In fact, he said, there has never been a fatal accident on any of his roads. Several early studies bear out his contention that shared spaces are safer. In England, the district of Wiltshire found that removing the center line from a stretch of road reduced drivers' speed without any increase in accidents.
While something of a libertarian, Monderman concedes that road design can do only so much. It doesn't change the behavior, for instance, of the 15 percent of drivers who will behave badly no matter what the rules are.
Nor are shared-space designs appropriate everywhere, like in major urban centers, but only in neighborhoods that meet particular criteria. Recently, a group of well-to-do parents asked him to widen the two-lane road leading to their children's school, saying it was too small to accommodate what he derisively calls "their huge cars."
He refused, saying that the fault lay not with the road, but with the cars. "They can't wait for each other to pass?" he asked. "I wouldn't interfere with the right of people to buy the car they want, but nor should the government have to solve the problems they make with their choices."
Monderman's obsessions can cause friction at home. His wife hates talking about road design. But work is his passion and his focus for as many as 70 hours a week, despite quixotic promises to curtail his projects and stay home on Fridays.
The current plan, instigated by Mrs. Monderman, is for him to retire in a few years. But it is unclear what a man who begins climbing the walls after three days at the beach ("If you want to go to a place without any cultural aspect, go to the Grand Canaries," he grumbled) will do with all that free time.
"The most important thing is being master of my own time, and then doing things that we both enjoy," he said. "What are they? I don't know."
Saturday, January 19, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
21 comments:
The following deserves its own article Chris but I don`t have the time to deal with it.
We had and still might have a chance to convert one way's to two ways. Almost all other cities are doing this because they say it acts as a traffic calming measure, it fosters business recruitment as businesses prefer to be on two way streets vs. one way
This is an opportunity that the DWBIA has not had the resources or manpower to take advantage of
Opportunity:
Pelissier and Victoria
Chatham and Pitt
Challenge. Chatham and Pitt have a separate problem of the delivery trucks for the restaurants. If they get converted to two way the trucks will have a problem stopping like they currently do
Challenge: The traffic department has created an arbitrary number of wanting 60% of all busineses to endorse this change before it gets adopted
I think we could get that endorsement on Pelissier and Victoria but not on Chatham and Pitt. We have not explained this too them well and it has not been accepted
The bus station was designed so that it could adapt to a two way conversion at any time.
Time is running out on this one time opportunity if it hasn`t run out already.
Too bad the DWBIA doesn't have the resources to work on this.
Mark, delivery trucks don't just go to the restaurants. I do delivery runs downtown every day to various locations and would be affected as you described, but I don't stop at any restaurants. This would also impact couriers like Fedex, UPS, et al. and probably alot of other services we didn't think of, not just the Beer Store truck. ;)
OTOH I have noticed that the extra lanes on the abovementioned streets are used more for impatient drivers jockeying to get ahead of the pack, not to accommodate extra traffic. I'm willing to bet the traffic calming argument is a very valid one, especially in Windsor's case.
Even before I learned anything about transportation and land use planning, I have never like our obsession with one-way streets in our downtown.
Even as a resident they confuse me, can you imagine what they do to visitors? We are supposed to make our downtown enticing to tourists, not keep their eyes on street poles hoping to figure out where to go all the time.
And then I learned that traffic regularly moves 20% faster on one-way streets. The need to "think" is relegated to the recycle bin on these traffic corridors. They are definitely not business or pedestrian friendly.
I agree with you that these aspects of our downtown need to be addressed as well, especially with the current focus on revitalization.
Windsor has invested $$$ and administrative time drafting a traffic calming bylaw, so they know there's a need to control the "bad" aspects of motor vehicles.
Just like the after-hours bylaw is just a piece of the puzzle, once you start adding other pieces like this, you will start to see a cohesive whole appearing that begins to show the qualities of life again.
You're right about the delivery trucks, I just mention restaurants because Chatham street is known as "restaurant row" and restaurants have daily deliveries (many times more than one) whereas the the rest of the addresses on the street have far less
But delivery truck stops would not be a problem on Pelissier and Victoria where ample parking and commercial spots are available
At a minimum Pelissier and Victoria should be converted.
Chatham and Pitt should at least be looked at to see what other cities do that have two way parking
P.S. One way streets have been noted by CPTED, Crime prevention through Environmental design as a contributor to crime due to the ability of criminals to use them to easily circle and make drop offs and pickups whereas two way streets would draw more attention to them.
Well... I realize my situation may not be indicative of all others but I know if I had to use an available parking space for any of my stops I'd be carrying my stuff half a block or more most the time, or parking illegally. But of course decisions are made for the greater good, not the few. No big deal. I honestly would like to see downtown become more of a pedestrian friendly zone.
You'll have to pardon my obvious ignarance regarding the inner-most workings of downtown businesses, but isn't there service alleys behind most of our downtown establishments? Whether or not they are up-to-task to actually handle servicing the businesses, I don't know, but they are in place to provide for these tasks are they not?
If they are not, maybe we should investigate their shortcomings and work to separate the utilitarian delivery use of the storefront street from the pedestrian/mobility useages?
Personally, I have no problem with a delivery truck parking in the middle of the street with it's 4-ways on while it makes its deliverys. As a pedestrian/cyclist it doesn't impede my ability to move about.
Interesting column but then again Europe isn't as litigation nuts as the USA and hence Canada.
As for two way streets, not a problem if it doesn't mean MORE busses passing by and the albatross of having to move cars on one side of the street to the other every few months.
As Chris points out it is a nightmare! At least 3 times a week I see people turning the wrong way onto the various streets and then backing up. I get asked every other day in nice weather for directions because visitors cannot figure out how to navigate through the area. Not to mention the running of stop signs and I mean blasting right through them!
The street signs aren't very good either. Why not put in nice fancy style street signs that are easy to read with decent poles (not aluminum stakes). Why not fancy up the place a bit?
if chatham/pitt cannot be converted, is it possible for the extra lane be changed into diagonal parking spots, similar to the spots on Victoria between University and Chatham?
First off, we shouldn't give up on chatham and pitt too easy. We just have to show the businesses how other cities manage the identical problems.
Secondly, I agree and had actually originally written that the litigious nature of our society would not allow many of the changes in the original posts' article
There is no continuous alley on the chatham pitt blocks because it gets interupted by the post office west of Ouellette and it is unmaneuverable east of ouellette.
As far as the diagonal parking. We did discuss it and traffic showed us that it would yield suprisingly few if any additional spaces due to the amount of interruptions in the flow of the parking (alley ways and some entrance ways connecting onto chatham and Pitt
BTW, the DWBIA won't be able to touch this issue for a few months because many of us volunteer board members are spending all of our volunteer time strategizing how to ensure council implements a Bellmio recommendation it adopted in 2003.
AC - A conversation I'm involved with on another list-serve is tackling the topic of parking requirements and the costs they incur. They might have some relevance to this discussion...
Some people take the availability of places to store their cars and trucks (without having to cover the cost) very personally. They miss (and might take pains to avoid seeing) the fact that supplying parking costs and that not just wealthy empty-nesters pay those costs.
If a builder must supply just one stall per housing unit at a cost of say $30,000 per stall, the builder will build larger more expensive housing units unless customers actually value parking stalls that highly. The observed effect of parking requirements on housing supply and prices suggests that the cost of supplying parking exceeds its value to those affected housing residents.
Unlike the examples I've seen, Tottenhamers might actually value parking enough to pay its costs. If so, that should provide a profit opportunity for someone willing to provide parking nearby, provided available land exists. A builder would risk including too little or too much parking, if not for the input of zoning rules or design hearings. Government mandates have eliminated the risk of too little parking.
Bill
In regard to parking: As someone on the parking management board for my city, I see the misperceptions of parking everyday. First, no parking is free. Someone paid to build it, maintain it and other related expenses. Parking requirements for most cities are based on the ITE parking guidelines which are based on outdated approaches to parking, suburban models, no transit and the belief that parking is an entitlement and that it is free and we have an endless supply. A few cities are starting to take a new perspective with programs like shared parking (for instance a movie theatre and an office share spaces as the need for spaces are at different times of the day), unbundle parking (residential units come with no parking included and parking spaces must be bought separately or not at all), no parking minimums (required by ITE guidelines) and parking maximums. In my opinion, anyone that owns more than one car should be taxed at an outrageous amount to subsidize the land requirements to house the vehicle, pollution generated, etc. All this pavement we have created to park, and run vehicles has permanently damaged the earth's surface, caused water shortages, ground water pollution, heat island effects, disrupted wildlife, used natural resources, increased our dependance on foreign oil... the list goes on.
If you get beyond the fundamentalist viewpoints espoused in this dialogue, there are some nuggets of wisdom that we may look into building into our vision for a rejuvenated downtown.
I'm sorry - I forgot that I was actually making a point with all that.
I think I would need to see something that states equivocally that more parking is necessary in our downtown. I don't believe that is actually the case and if we are examining the elimination of vehicular lanes, I would rather see that space dedicated to pedestrian movement rather than vehicle storage.
oh don't get me wrong, i personally am of the viewpoint that parking is actually abundant in our core.
however, the perception is of there being minimal parking.
i have always thought that chatham, between ouellette and church, pelissier north of university, should be shut to vehicular traffic completely. large outdoor patios, vendors, trees, benches, outdoor music, lights draped over top the streets, even possibly fountains and sculptures. just think of how beautiful that could be.
The downtown parking situation is one of a lack of parking, but a matter of where the parking is. People generally want to be "near" their destination when parking. The perception is that the parking garage or surface lot is too far away. The perception is that the parking garage or surface lot is too far away. I typed that last sentence twice for a reason, because so many are quick to jump down my throat when I bring this up. Note I used the word PERCEPTION. The reality is that by the time you park your car at The Mall and make it to the front entrance, you've probably already used up half your footsteps you would have used downtown. AND you haven't walked by anything interesting yet except a bunch of other parked cars. ;) Now, once you are in the mall, it's usually another long walk to find the store you came for. People have long forgotten that seeing the building from their parking space didn't help a bit.
The DWBIA should actually do some experiments from various parking locations downtown to popular destinations then do the same at The Mall. Do it with a pedometer. Publish the results on its website. The results would shock most Mall Rats. Ditto for the Ottawa street and to a lesser extent Erie.
Pelissier street, for example, usually has a handful of decent open street parking spaces right in front of the empty storefronts that people say are empty because there is no parking?! I see it every day. Again, PERCEPTION is really hurting downtown. And so is peoples' insistence on avoiding the bus. It's the best solution to the "parking problem"(assuming there even is one) if you are lucky enough to live on a route.
typo: The first sentence of my last comment should have read, "The downtown parking situation is *not* one of a lack of parking, but a matter of where the parking is."
Wasn't paying attn to my typing, sorry.
As to parking, I always get an earful from Jack Shanfield about parking.
There is not a downtown in North America that doesn't complain about parking.
Its actually a sign of success
What the DWBIA did was prevent parking rates in garages from being raised and ending the 1hour free parking.
There was some nastiness when the traffic department recommended raising rates exclusively in downtown and not anywhere else.
By raising on street parking rates and leaving the garages alone we encouraged a bigger differential between on street and off street parking to compensate those who have to walk further
Garages are still $1. per hour with the first hour free vs. 1.25 per hour at meters
I applaud those parking rules Mark, well done DWBIA!
I don't see why parking at angles or on the street is detrimental? In Europe cars are parked on most streets (both sides and facing each other) and it doesn't impede pedestrian traffic. Also, at most crosswalk points the road is painted and the cars stop. Here in Windsor I was told that crosswalk paint does not deter driver habits and is not warranted. Can you imagine that! So what if it doesn't deter driving habits it sure makes people feel a little more safe when crossing the street.
John is correct that those who use the mall have the PERCEPTION of being closer when the opposite is in fact true for most of the time. I know, I have counted my footsteps many times and compared them with downtown.
As for the downtown one-way streets, I found an article on microfilm from the Windsor Star from say 1955-56 or so that was all about the "temporary 6 month trial" of converting Pelisser and Victoria to one way streets. It was done in an attempt to help ease congestion downtown.
This is hardly an issue any more, and I think it could easily be restored. I'll see if I can dig out a copy of the article.
I also believe that free parking downtwon 24/7 would go a long way to helping to bring people back. It's just more of the city's greed.
That would be great, Andrew. Maybe we can make this our first collective action by SD and it's readers - getting rid of the annoying and dangerous one-way maze downtown and implement a saner transportation strategy.
I'm going to take a look through the cities Downtown Windsor Transportation Master Plan to see if they have any thoughts on our one-way street nightmare.
According to the Downtown Transportation Master Plan, the one-way streets are highlighted as "opportunities" for conversion back to two-way traffic in the downtown study area (basically Riverside Drive south to Erie, Caron east to Marentette) The streets mentioned by name as being studied are Victoria Ave (issue: Reported high travel speeds and volumes and conversion to two-way travel Opportunity: Traffic calming measure (Wyandotte Street to Erie Street), Chatham/Pitt (Issue: Support for two-way conversion in Downtown area by BIA, opportunity: Two-way conversion (McDougall Avenue to Caron Avenue) review and traffic analysis), Glengarry (issue: Event night level of service at Riverside Drive, Optimize eastbound right-turn traffic flows with westbound separate left turn phase. opportunity: Two-way conversion (Riverside Drive to Wyandotte Street) review and traffic analysis)
So, it seems as though we're not "visionary" with these thoughts of getting rid of one-way traffic downtown.
Oh, I know that conversion was stated as a policy years ago.
We have a problem in windsor, however, getting from policy to practice. Thats what Josh, Chris and I keep discussing in a side conversation. The stated policies are actually fine, as is. Its the fact that our actions do not reflect the policies that is the problem.
That should be the next munipal campaign slogan. "Implementing the plan"
Post a Comment