<head><style>body{font-size:10pt;font-family:arial,sans-serif;background-color:#ffffff;color:black;}p{margin:0px;}</style></head><body>As a pedestrian I beleive the traffic calming, where it was actually put in place, works pretty well. greg gerritt<br><br><br><blockquote style="border-left: 2px solid rgb(0, 0, 255); padding-left: 5px; margin-left: 0px;">-----Original Message-----
<br>From: Emlyn Addison <noisyblocks@gmail.com>
<br>Sent: Nov 14, 2010 9:33 AM
<br>To: ccancro@cox.net
<br>Cc: summit@sna.providence.ri.us
<br>Subject: Re: [Summit] funding traffic studies
<br><br>As I see it, there are several fundamental points here:<br><br>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.<br>
<br>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?<br>
<br>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 <b>_don't_</b> oppose the theory, I <b>_do_</b> oppose the apparent execution.<br>
<br>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.<br>
<br>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_.<br>
<br>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.<br>
<br>Emlyn<br><br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Sat, Nov 13, 2010 at 6:03 PM, <span dir="ltr"><<a target="_blank" href="mailto:ccancro@cox.net">ccancro@cox.net</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
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.<br>
<br>
You can't possibly have it both ways. I welcome any opponent of traffic calming to find the money to prove us wrong.<br>
<br>
Carol C.<br>
<br>
<br>
---- Emlyn Addison <<a target="_blank" href="mailto:noisyblocks@gmail.com">noisyblocks@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>
> Those who volunteer their time to better the neighborhood should not "feel<br>
> stung" if their neighbors happen to notice that their efforts may have<br>
> after all is said and done, been in vain. It doesn't make the work or<br>
> investment of energy any less commendable or respectable if the results<br>
> don't ultimately reflect the intention.<br>
><br>
> I heartily applaud anyone who steps up to make the neighborhood safer, but<br>
> an open forum is open for a reason: To make it known what residents think.<br>
><br>
> Of the two traffic calming examples I've identified, neither works--or at<br>
> least, does what it was designed to do. That's just my _opinion_.<br>
> Otherwise prove us wrong with hard data; we can take it.<br>
><br>
> Do I have a better idea? No I don't; I haven't studied traffic calming (or<br>
> city parking ordinances). In theory it might have worked, but in practice it<br>
> doesn't appear to. Sorry.<br>
><br>
><br>
> Emlyn<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> > Message: 1<br>
> > Date: Sat, 13 Nov 2010 15:23:13 -0500<br>
> > From: <<a target="_blank" href="mailto:ccancro@cox.net">ccancro@cox.net</a>><br>
> > To: "<a target="_blank" href="mailto:summit@sna.providence.ri.us">summit@sna.providence.ri.us</a>" <<a target="_blank" href="mailto:summit@sna.providence.ri.us">summit@sna.providence.ri.us</a>>,<br>
> > <a target="_blank" href="mailto:summit-bounces@sna.providence.ri.us">summit-bounces@sna.providence.ri.us</a>, <a target="_blank" href="mailto:scottricongress@yahoo.com">scottricongress@yahoo.com</a>,<br>
> > "Thomas Nosal, Mr" <<a target="_blank" href="mailto:thomas.nosal@mail.mcgill.ca">thomas.nosal@mail.mcgill.ca</a>><br>
> > Subject: [Summit] traffic calming, respecting others' efforts<br>
> > Message-ID: <20101113152313.CFCXW.54328.imail@eastrmwml40><br>
> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8<br>
> ><br>
> > I must say, hopefully for the last time, that if I feel stung everytime<br>
> > someone complains about traffic calming, know that many others in this<br>
> > neighborhood do as well. Several of us worked innumerable uncompensated<br>
> > hours to see only a fraction of our original plan implemented.<br>
> ><br>
> > Our goals were neither to annoy anyone nor create more accidents; rather to<br>
> > recognize that the needs of pedestrians must be balanced with those of<br>
> > vehicles. This is not a new or unstudied area: many cities in Europe and<br>
> > throughout the United States have implemented traffic calming.<br>
> ><br>
> > The work was funded by community development block grant money. If you<br>
> > don't like it, come up with something better. (And recognize that the<br>
> > neighborhood association may then look even more absurd to outsiders than it<br>
> > already does.)<br>
> ><br>
> > A neighborhood can be destroyed by a circular firing squad. I must request<br>
> > that, while this is an open forum, people think before they post.<br>
> ><br>
> > It doesn't harm anyone to respect others' work, even if you disagree with<br>
> > it or feel it could have been done better. This is as true for the fountain<br>
> > project as it is for traffic calming.<br>
> ><br>
> > It's hard enough to get people interested in working to make our<br>
> > neighborhood a better place. Unproductive debate and endless rehashing of<br>
> > old projects will certainly not inspire anyone to do so.<br>
> ><br>
> > Carol C.<br>
> ><br>
> ><br>
> ><br>
<br>
</blockquote></div><br>
</noisyblocks@gmail.com></blockquote></body>