[Summit] funding traffic studies

Sun Nov 14 14:33:42 UTC 2010

As I see it, there are several fundamental points here:

1. If one participates in neighborhood projects, one must expect a variety
of reactions for a variety of reasons. One can't allow oneself to become
thin-skinned about these things. In any criticism, no disrespect is meant
and no diminishment of effort is implied; this must be recognized and
understood long before embarking on any neighborhood project.

2. The suggestion is that neighbors should only voice their concerns about
projects in which they've had a direct hand, otherwise to be quiet. By this
reasoning only a scant few among us should ever been in a position to speak
up when the trees at Lippitt Park were being felled. Isn't it a good thing
we all spoke up when we did?

3. One can't confuse intent with outcome: The plan to calm traffic is
_unquestionably_ a good one, but if the resultant devices don't actually
work and perform as intended (as I and others here believe they haven't)
shouldn't there be some means to address it, if not at least make our
concerns known? What is our recourse if not in this open forum? These
traffic calming models might well have worked in a European town, but
transplanting and implementing them here is no guarantee of success. I *
_don't_* oppose the theory, I *_do_* oppose the apparent execution.

4. Yes, talk IS cheap and as we've already been cast as "opponents of
traffic calming" all this exchange has done is to establish an
us-versus-them adversarial mindset. How does this help but to create a
standoff?? To be perfectly honest, I wouldn't have had a clue that
neighborhood volunteers were involved with road works of this type; call me
naive or misinformed. It struck me (and others, no doubt) as just another
bizarre city expenditure at a time when our road surfaces were in dire need
of attention. Now it's turned into an issue of one party or another proving
or disproving the efficacy of the project. Good grief, it's like election
season all over again.

Nobody wants to "have it both ways"; the only reason "hard data" came up in
the first place is because of the traffic calming devices themselves. If
money and effort was (presumably) already spent properly researching and
developing these devices, then any after-the-fact data would be largely
moot. One came before the other and so all we have to go on is _what we
see_.

I can only speak for myself, but while I _understand_ and _agree_ to the
plan of calming traffic in this neighborhood, I fail to see a demonstrable
connection between the aims of the plan and the effects of the actual,
physical constructions (at least, of the two I know of). This is not an
issue of whether we believe that traffic calming works, it's an issue of
execution. For my part, I'm unconvinced and apparently I'm not alone.

Emlyn

On Sat, Nov 13, 2010 at 6:03 PM, <ccancro at cox.net> wrote:

> Talk is cheap, hard data isn't.  The two of you who have spoken out most
> recently against traffic calming oppose it, at least in part, because of its
> cost.
>
> You can't possibly have it both ways.  I welcome any opponent of traffic
> calming to find the money to prove us wrong.
>
> Carol C.
>
>
> ---- Emlyn Addison <noisyblocks at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Those who volunteer their time to better the neighborhood should not
> "feel
> > stung" if their neighbors happen to notice that their efforts may have
> > after all is said and done, been in vain. It doesn't make the work or
> > investment of energy any less commendable or respectable if the results
> > don't ultimately reflect the intention.
> >
> > I heartily applaud anyone who steps up to make the neighborhood safer,
> but
> > an open forum is open for a reason: To make it known what residents
> think.
> >
> > Of the two traffic calming examples I've identified, neither works--or at
> > least, does what it was designed to do.  That's just my _opinion_.
> >  Otherwise prove us wrong with hard data; we can take it.
> >
> > Do I have a better idea? No I don't; I haven't studied traffic calming
> (or
> > city parking ordinances). In theory it might have worked, but in practice
> it
> > doesn't appear to. Sorry.
> >
> >
> > Emlyn
> >
> >
> >
> > > Message: 1
> > > Date: Sat, 13 Nov 2010 15:23:13 -0500
> > > From: <ccancro at cox.net>
> > > To: "summit at sna.providence.ri.us" <summit at sna.providence.ri.us>,
> > >        summit-bounces at sna.providence.ri.us, scottricongress at yahoo.com,
> > >        "Thomas Nosal, Mr" <thomas.nosal at mail.mcgill.ca>
> > > Subject: [Summit] traffic calming, respecting others' efforts
> > > Message-ID: <20101113152313.CFCXW.54328.imail at eastrmwml40>
> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
> > >
> > > I must say, hopefully for the last time, that if I feel stung everytime
> > > someone complains about traffic calming, know that many others in this
> > > neighborhood do as well.  Several of us worked innumerable
> uncompensated
> > > hours to see only a fraction of our original plan implemented.
> > >
> > > Our goals were neither to annoy anyone nor create more accidents;
> rather to
> > > recognize that the needs of pedestrians must be balanced with those of
> > > vehicles.  This is not a new or unstudied area: many cities in Europe
> and
> > > throughout the United States have implemented traffic calming.
> > >
> > > The work was funded by community development block grant money.  If you
> > > don't like it, come up with something better.  (And recognize that the
> > > neighborhood association may then look even more absurd to outsiders
> than it
> > > already does.)
> > >
> > > A neighborhood can be destroyed by a circular firing squad.  I must
> request
> > > that, while this is an open forum, people think before they post.
> > >
> > > It doesn't harm anyone to respect others' work, even if you disagree
> with
> > > it or feel it could have been done better.  This is as true for the
> fountain
> > > project as it is for traffic calming.
> > >
> > > It's hard enough to get people interested in working to make our
> > > neighborhood a better place.  Unproductive debate and endless rehashing
> of
> > > old projects will certainly not inspire anyone to do so.
> > >
> > > Carol C.
> > >
> > >
> > >
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://sna.providence.ri.us/pipermail/summit_sna.providence.ri.us/attachments/20101114/aa9d288c/attachment.htm>