You don't really know anything about how traffic works

Surprise - turns out you don't know as much about how traffic works ("I've seen the driver ahead of me confused by a roundabout!!") as guys who have spent their lives studying the relationships between vehicles and they roads they travel.

In "The Traffic Guru," Tom Vanderbilt (who must have the best PR firm in the country working for his book, Traffic: Why We Drive the Way We Do) profiles Hans Monderman, a traffic engineer who has found a way to make traffic safer and more accommodating to non-vehicular life forms by removing signs and street guidelines.

Monderman suggested to the villagers, who as it happens had hired a consultant to help improve the town’s aesthetics, that Oudehaske simply be made to seem more “villagelike.” The interventions were subtle. Signs were removed, curbs torn out, and the asphalt replaced with red paving brick, with two gray “gutters” on either side that were slightly curved but usable by cars. As Monderman noted, the road looked only five meters wide, “but had all the possibilities of six.”

The results were striking. Without bumps or flashing warning signs, drivers slowed, so much so that Monderman’s radar gun couldn’t even register their speeds. Rather than clarity and segregation, he had created confusion and ambiguity. Unsure of what space belonged to them, drivers became more accommodating. Rather than give drivers a simple behavioral mandate—­say, a speed limit sign or a speed ­bump—­he had, through the new road design, subtly suggested the proper course of action. And he did something else. He used context to change behavior. He had made the main road look like a narrow lane in a village, not simply a ­traffic-­way through some anonymous ­town.

From The Wilson Quarterly:

The Traffic Guru:

If you were asked to name a famous traffic engineer, in some pub quiz gone horribly wrong, chances are slight you could hazard a good guess. It is true that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, president of Iran, was trained as a traffic engineer, but his notoriety does not derive from tinkering with the streetlights in Tehran. Bill Gates got his start developing software for a device to count car traffic, but he was a computer boffin more interested in the technology than the traffic. Your memory might flicker in recognition at the names of William Phelps Eno, the putative “father” of traffic control, or Henry Barnes, the onetime New York City traffic czar credited with inventing the “Barnes Dance,” wherein an entire intersection, for a moment, is given over to a ­four-­way pedestrian ­crossing.

Traffic engineers are rather obscure characters, though their work influences our lives every day. A geographic survey of East Lansing, Michigan, for example, once found that more than 50 percent of the retail district was dedicated to “automobile space”—parking, roads, and the like. By and large, the design and management of this space is handed over to traffic engineers, and our behavior in it is heavily influenced by their ­decisions.

In the last few years, however, one traffic engineer did achieve a measure of global celebrity, known, if not exactly by name, then by his ideas. His name was Hans Monderman. The idea that made Monderman, who died of cancer in January at the age of 62, most famous is that traditional traffic safety ­infra­structure—­warning signs, traffic lights, metal railings, curbs, painted lines, speed bumps, and so ­on—­is not only often unnecessary, but can endanger those it is meant to protect.

As I drove with Monderman through the northern Dutch province of Friesland several years ago, he repeatedly pointed out offending traffic signs. “Do you really think that no one would perceive there is a bridge over there?” he might ask, about a sign warning that a bridge was ahead. “Why explain it?” He would follow with a characteristic maxim: “When you treat people like idiots, they’ll behave like idiots.” Eventually he drove me to Makkinga, a small village at whose entrance stood a single sign. It welcomed visitors, noted a 30 kilometer-per-hour speed limit, then added: “Free of Traffic Signs.” This was Monderman humor at its finest: a traffic sign announcing the absence of traffic ­signs.

Monderman wasn’t an obvious candidate to become a traffic revolutionary. Born in the small Friesland village of Leeuwarden, son of a headmaster, he worked as a civil engineer, building roads, then as an accident investigator, examining how crashes happen. But he was an unusually fluid thinker. Over lunch during my visit, he excitedly told me that he had been reading about the theory that delta societies tend to foster innovation because of their necessary flexibility in dealing with potentially changing landscapes. He saw a parallel with the ­low-­lying Netherlands. “I think the Dutch are selected for that ­quality—­looking for ­changes—­by the landscape.”

And Monderman certainly changed the landscape in the provincial city of Drachten, with the project that, in 2001, made his name. At the town center, in a crowded ­four-­way intersection called the Lawei­plein, Monderman removed not only the traffic lights but virtually every other traffic control. Instead of a space cluttered with poles, lights, “traffic islands,” and restrictive arrows, Monderman installed a radical kind of roundabout (a “squareabout,” in his words, because it really seemed more a town square than a traditional roundabout), marked only by a raised circle of grass in the middle, several fountains, and some very discreet indicators of the direction of traffic, which were required by ­law.

Read the rest at The Wilson Quarterly

Comments

[Terrence Berres]

"Surprise - turns out you don't know as much about how traffic works ("I've seen the driver ahead of me confused by a roundabout!!") as guys who have spent their lives studying the relationships between vehicles and they roads they travel."

Recalling a discussion we had previously, what Mr. Monderman says appears to contradict the theoretical basis for "Complete Streets".

When I see people who've already entered the Drexel Avenue roundabout stop for traffic waiting to enter, I still think they're confused, specifically about right-of-way. And when I see people not enter the roundabout even though there's no approaching traffic, that to me still indicates confusion about the workings of a roundabout. If I missed what the article said relevant to this, perhaps you can point it out.

[John Michlig]

A) What, in your estimable mind, is "the theoretical basis for Complete Streets"? Do you believe ALL streets are the same and have the same functions?

B) This is a fact: The relaxed driver is the dangerous driver. The apprehensive driver - - confused, even - - is the safer driver.

If you missed what the article said that was relevant to the value of creating a bit of apprehension and even confusion in drivers who otherwise average 50 MPH on Drexel, then you may have a condition that makes you impervious to boldface.

To repeat:

"Rather than clarity and segregation, he had created confusion and ambiguity. Unsure of what space belonged to them, drivers became more accommodating."

Non-intuitive? Sure. But that's why there is statistical analysis; things don't always go the way we "feel" they should go.

So, you say: "I still think they're confused, specifically about right-of-way." Good. Jibs with the boldfaced "Rather than clarity and segregation, he had created confusion and ambiguity. Unsure of what space belonged to them, drivers became more accommodating."

And, you say: "And when I see people not enter the roundabout even though there's no approaching traffic, that to me still indicates confusion about the workings of a roundabout." Also good. Once again, works well with the boldfaced-for-emphasis "Rather than clarity and segregation, he had created confusion and ambiguity. Unsure of what space belonged to them, drivers became more accommodating."

(But then you say: "If I missed what the article said relevant to this, perhaps you can point it out," which is nonsensical; see my above patronizing - but requested - explication.)

You may have also decided that a proponent of traffic calming design thinks ALL roundabouts are wonderful. The Drexel roundabout, alas, is not particularity well thought-out. Still, it seems to function as a traffic-calmer, albeit in service to the subdivision across the street (and resultant from poor planning).

Or, like most people, you simply want to drive unhindered by non-vehicular usurpers to your auto's realm and can't get your mind around the idea that there is - - was - - life outside the metal cocoon that wraps us between garage and destination; and, further, that vehicular-based city design is poisoning us, creating further isolation and self-absorbtion.

I believe, Mr. Berres, that these are issues outside of your wheelhouse and you are simply amusing yourself with on-deck cup-adjusting and mighty, breeze-producing practice swings. I admire your pose, but at some point you gotta get in the box, face an actual pitch, and make some contact with the ball, so to speak.

[Martin Cassini]

John, what's your point? I was expecting a substantial comment or critique, but there's nothing there ..?

[Martin Cassini]

PS There must have been a blip on your blog. It was only after I posted my remark above that your long post revealed itself. Must dash now but I will return.

[Terrence Berres]

The examples I recall you provided indicated that "Complete Streets" generally entails physical separation of motorized vehicles, bicycles, and pedestrians. The photos you selected to illustrate the concept showed how this included additional traffic lane marking, signage, curbs, sidewalks, and so forth. The underlying principle appears to be to create clarity and segregation, contrary to what Mr. Monderman advocates.

Whether or not all streets are the same or have the same functions, the specific subject was Drexel Avenue between Highway 100 and Highway 36.

The usual "how-to" for a roundabout is that entering drivers yield and drivers already on proceed more slowly than on a straight road. You say it's good if driver's stop while circling the roundabout. The linked article said Mr. Monderman's designs "subtly suggested the proper course of action". It's one thing for heightened apprehension to lead a driver to make more cautious choices. It's another for it to leave a driver unable to choose a course of action at all.

The other example I cited is the driver who doesn't enter the roundabout even though there's no approaching traffic. You say this is forcing the driver to be more accomodating. Accomodating to whom, I have to wonder.

You said that I "may have also decided that a proponent of traffic calming design thinks ALL roundabouts are wonderful." I don't know your thoughts except to the extent you express them. You had earlier asserted you knew that claims that roundabouts are confusing were insincere. I pointed out that I see people at the roundabout who seem genuinely confused. Now you're saying roundabouts are confusing, but that the confusion is a good thing.

[John]

Claims that roundabouts are BAD because they are confusing are insincere.

"The other example I cited is the driver who doesn't enter the roundabout even though there's no approaching traffic. You say this is forcing the driver to be more accomodating. Accomodating to whom, I have to wonder."

How about: Someone - - ANYONE - - other than him or herself? What a novel concept!

[Terrence Berres]

The other possibility I had considered was that you meant:
- claims that roundabouts are inherently confusing are mistaken;
- while roundabouts can be confusing to some people who are unfamiliar with them, the benefits outweigh this transition cost; and
- some people carelessly or insincerely claim this transitional confusion to be inherent confusion in order to bolster an argument against roundabouts.
Turns out you not only mean that roundabouts are inherently confusing, but also mean that "Claims that roundabouts are BAD because they are confusing are insincere."

On the other hand, I don't consider roundabouts inherently confusing, but they do take some getting used to. If they were so inherently confusing, that would be bad, i.e., a reason to not build them. And there's always the possibility that they'll be overused, which crossed my mind when I read about DOT insisting on demolishing businesses on Oconomowoc's main street to put one in.

Despite me saying there's no approaching traffic, you still wind up saying "How about: [accomodating] Someone - - ANYONE - - other than him or herself?" You can't accomodate someone or anyone at a roundabout if there's no one there; that would be a novel concept.

[John Michlig]

Not to pick nits, but, approaching "traffic' or not, there is great value in accommodating other possible NON-TRAFFIC life forms, i.e. you don't KNOW whether there are others to consider UNLESS YOU SLOW DOWN AND LOOK AROUND. And it's been shown that people do NOT slow down and look around unless they feel they have to. Indeed, the comfortable driver (which we cultivate with poor road design) will become aggressive and actually assert his or her "right to the road." This is why it's goofy to call traffic collisions "accidents."

So, possible negative aspects of confused driver who slows or stops: A few seconds hesitation; slows you down a bit.

Possible negative aspects of a relaxed, driving-at-a-comfortably-high-speed driver (who feels secure enough, in fact, to dial a cel phone at the same time): Blood on the asphalt courtesy of the bike or pedestrian he/she didn't see.

But that NEVER happens, right?

[Terrence Berres]

"Not to pick nits"

There's no vehicular traffic, bicycle traffic, pedestrian traffic, all apparent if one slowed down as the roundabout requires. What I saw was someone stopped, apparently unsure what to do next. That can cause an accident, like a confused driver who stops at a green light.

[John Michlig]

Given the alternative, I'll take the confused, stopped driver over the relaxed, speeding, inattentive driver.

[Terrence Berres]

"Given the alternative, I'll take the confused, stopped driver over the relaxed, speeding, inattentive driver."

In this particular case, though, those would be the alternatives only if roundabouts do not have the claimed effect of making drivers slow down and pay closer attention.

[John Michlig]

To indulge your (almost comfortingly characteristic) reframing: God help the man who plans only for the "claimed effect," or expects only the expected. Is he the same man who blithely enters the crosswalk when the "walk" sign flashes, trusting his life to "claimed effects"? Call him a fatality.

Your cited "claimed effect" is a Terrence Berres INVENTION, by the way. Even so, your stopped driver does undoubtedly slow down and pay closer attention. Annoying - but positively benign in comparison to the alternative of unabated, relaxed speedsters blazing through (in a case where there is no roundabout, which is the alternative to which I referred).

Persistent and self-serving reframing is not at all conducive to discussion. Your entire second paragraph is nonsensical (I do not have to explain why, do I?), and, once again, you have not engaged the actual issue beyond simply amusing yourself.

In fact, you're smiling NOW :)

[Terrence Berres]

The issue was your August 11, 2008 critique, "Complaints that demonstrably speed-reducing, safety-increasing roundabouts are 'confusing' (i.e. 'impede my speed')?" So, no, I do not see how when I refer back to speed-reducing and safety-increasing as "claimed effects", though using somewhat different words, that this constitutes "reframing" or "invention".

[John Michlig]

No one will ever accuse you of being something so mundane as "plainspoken," Terrence.

[metal railings]

I've being reading your blog and found your post very helpful :) . I thought I would leave my first comment. I don't know what to say except that I have enjoyed reading. Nice blog!