In what may seem to be a counterintuitive approach to improving pedestrian safety, the Bendigo City Council, in Victoria, Australia, has decided to remove traffic signs to return its streets to pedestrians. The concept, pioneered by some European communities, is believed to create a safer environment more conducive to use by pedestrians and bicyclists.
From Planetizen:
The council will today unveil a $16 million makeover of its city centre, coined “naked streets” by commentators. It will radically alter the city centre by narrowing spaces for cars and returning the town’s wide streets to walkers and cyclists.
Under the scheme, all “visual signals” that streets are for cars first and walkers second will go. Footpaths will be dramatically expanded and filled with street furniture and public art.
Continue reading Tear Down That Stop Sign!
22 responses to “Tear Down That Stop Sign!”
One only neeeds to look at Eugene where the SC outlawed driving on downtown streets a few years ago… nice but the businesses went belly up as a result… take a look…
Dick, they’re not talking about banning automobile traffic. They’re talking about making the streets more pedestrian friendly and banning most traffic controls.
The Eugene pedestrian mall was a disaster because it was very, VERY poorly planned. I’ve seen pedestrian-only streets elsewhere in the world that were thriving — but they all had two or three or four stories of housing and/or work space over every single business.
One only neeeds to look at Eugene where the SC outlawed driving on downtown streets a few years ago… nice but the businesses went belly up as a result… take a look…
Dick –
That is an entirely different idea. This idea is that automobiles share the space. Think of that Eugene center (it wasn’t all of downtown) with cars and people sharing the space. Or Oregon’s beaches that still allow vehicles.
Take a look at this Google Map of NW Cliff Street in Newport, OR. (The North-South street closest to the beach.)
It’s hard to tell from the Satellite photo, but this street is designed with auto and ped/bike traffic all at the same grade, with special paving materials. Cars park between the lamp posts, rather than the streetlights being in the pedestrian spaces.
As I recall, there is still a small sidewalk area (delineated by a different kind of paving material) but in general all modes share the main street at a low speed. As you can also see, on the “normal” streets in this neighborhood, large curb extensions have been added at various intersections.
Bob R.
This is awesome! I know that the Naked Street concept is not well suited to every roadway, but there are some great examples of where it works exceedingly well.
Personally I love the idea of banning automobiles.
But, this is America, and the auto is ingrained in our psychology.
If they can’t drive to it, they won’t go there.
God bless America, land that I love!
“Walking isn’t a lost art: one must, by some means, get to the garage.”
{another famous quote}
“return its streets to pedestrians?”
When did the street belong to pedestrians in the first place? They belonged to horses vehicles; should we bring back horses too?
This idea works great on a specific street, not widespread. I’ve seen how it works in Germany (again, great on a specific street, with vehicles re-routed to other, nearby streets or designated crossings). In fact I think this idea would work great in downtown McMinnville, where downtown is situated on ONE street (East Third Street) and motor vehicles could easily be accomodated on a combination of 1st, 2nd, 4th and 5th Streets (either as a pair of one-way couplets, or using second and fourth as a one-way couplet and 1st and 5th as two-way streets).
I just can’t imagine where in Portland this would work; except maybe on Broadway in Beaverton. Except that easy access to public transportation was built to the north and TriMet has failed to properly invest in quality bus stops in downtown Beaverton.
Corvallis has a similar street (along its waterfront) and Albany is planning such a street on Front Avenue. However neither of these streets have “encouraged” development.
Back to Germany, there are still vehicle streets that cross the pedestrian zone (which was actually closed to motor vehicles during the day, but vehicles could use it after hours and on the weekends). And pedestrians/bicycles still had a traffic signal at those streets. Of course in the U.S., this will simply increase traffic/congestion on those streets that are open to motor vehicles, and make it more difficult for pedestrians to cross those streets.
(Try crossing Clay/Market within the South Park Blocks.)
Corvallis has a similar street (along its waterfront) and Albany is planning such a street on Front Avenue. However neither of these streets have “encouraged” development.
So all the new restaurants/pubs, boutiques, and condos that cropped up during and after the reconfiguration of 1st Ave. in Corvallis were completely unrelated happenstance?
Granted, a number of the more popular venues were established a year or two prior to groundbreaking on the road project, but downtown business owners were instrumental in bringing the whole project to fruition.
Google Map of Corvallis Waterfront
Erik – Can you give me a list of those 150ft blocks you mentioned were constructed in the Pearl District and South Waterfront over in the Speed in the UK discussion?
– Bob R.
Personally I love the idea of banning automobiles.
Al, this is not about banning automobiles.
The concept is to recreate roadways in certain dense, urban areas so that they do not primarily cater to automobiles. There would be clearly marked (painted or textured) areas on the pavement for automobile use, but the streets would be very low-speed and geared for mixed use: catering to pedestrians, bikes, and autos alike.
As Kirsty says, this is not suitable for every roadway in every part of town (i.e., not for Barbur Blvd), but perhaps for the Pearl district? Old Town? The downtown area of Milwaukie or Tigard?
An example of the development on Corvallis’s riverfront which was not “encouraged” (according to Erik) by converting 1st St. to a pedestrian-oriented space (with auto access an parking still allowed): The Renaissance, a 7-story mixed-used condo complex.
Also, take a look at this Gazette Times article on Corvallis Riverfront Development from last April:
– Bob R.
“When did the street belong to pedestrians in the first place? They belonged to horses vehicles; should we bring back horses too?”
I don’t think this is true. Only the wealthy used horses or carriages. Everyone else walked, mostly in the street.
Here’s a page about the Corvallis Riverfront winning a national design award which shows a good birds-eye view of 1st street.
Note that the technique used here differs from the complete integration of “naked streets”, with the street areas largely segregated by use.
Features include raising each intersection (the intersection is essentially a big “speed hump” which cars must enter at a slow speed) and an additional raised pedestrian crosswalk mid-block. The mid-block crossings combine a “speed hump” again with a crosswalk, requiring cars to keep driving slow even mid-block.
Additionally, a multi-block segment has permanent gates which may be closed for special events, including the Farmers’ Market — similar but not exactly the same implementation as the gates in front of the Portland Performing Arts Center at Broadway and Main.
– Bob R.
“I don’t think this is true. Only the wealthy used horses or carriages. Everyone else walked, mostly in the street.”
Well, sort of. On unpaved streets, (which were most of them in in the early days of Stumptown,) the streets were covered in dirt and horse “pollution,” which quickly became very disgusting in the rain… And so in good neighborhoods there were sidewalks along the sides of the street, and people walked there instead… But if the street was paved, (brick, cobblestone, etc, like in a lot of older cities,) then yes people did walk on the street…
Sounds like the street I grew up on in SW…unpaved, potholes (random speed bumps), no sidewalks. We walked in the street, played in the street, biked up and down the street, even our dog slept in the potholes waiting for the occasional car to chase. And yes there were cars who once and a while “violated” the laws of physics and went too fast. We collected mufflers, license plates, bumpers, etc. Our ball field was a segment of 36th Avenue that the home owner lawned over. Our mom reminded us…its still a pubic space, so play on.
Also makes me wonder how residential streets with stop signs alternating compare crash-wise with intersections with no signage at all. Do you trust drivers to stop just because there is a sign?
ok, so its got a lot of autos on it, but
http://www.archive.org/details/TripDown1905
thats a great resource for knowing what traffic was REALLY like in 1905. answer: CRAZY and slow.
Too bad the City of Portland is continually moving in the opposite direction. My bicycle commute continually sprouts new stop signs along the residential streets. At residential speeds, stop signs should rarely be necessary. I don’t know if the new ones are due to accidents but the huge number of stop signs (that most bicyclists simply ignore) lead to a false sense of security when there isn’t one.
Also makes me wonder how residential streets with stop signs alternating compare crash-wise with intersections with no signage at all. Do you trust drivers to stop just because there is a sign?
I don’t think we should trust someone to stop unless we see them slowing down or stopped. So many residential neighborhoods have visually blocked stop signs or missing signs or folks who plain just don’t stop.
Does anyone know the reason behind some intersections having alternating stop signs, then an intersection with no signage, then another one or two with signs…two without.etc. What is the pattern? This is confusing, I see near misses in my neighborhood every day and/or get honked at from cars when I slow to a crawl to make sure someone isn’t blowing through. I would guess that when folks don’t see a stop sign, they don’t think they have to stop!
“I don’t think this is true. Only the wealthy used horses or carriages. Everyone else walked, mostly in the street.”
If you want to go back far enough, everybody did indeed walk!
How far back to you want to go?
One building? You call rebuilding a ten block street a major success because ONE BUILDING was built?
Meanwhile, we have areas of Portland that are developing VERY successfully, without massive infrastructure changes, new streets (or as we call them “green streets”, Streetcar lines, etc.
McMinnville’s downtown has gone through an incredible transformation since the 1980s – with NO rebuilding of 3rd Street or expensive choo-choo trains. (Heck, McMinnville has practically no mass transit, very few bike lanes/bike paths…) And there is a new boutique hotel downtown as well in a long abandoned building.
Back to 1st Street in Corvallis – what about all of the commercial redevelopment that took place on 2nd through 6th Streets? Or in Corvallis as a whole, one of Oregon’s fastest growing cities? Is it because of ONE STREET, or is it because it is a livable city – and it didn’t even need a Streetcar!! (But Corvallis has a very progressive bus system for its size that puts most communities to shame.) And 1st Street was never a major thoroughfare, in fact the primary downtown core exists on 2nd through 4th Streets.
Erik –
It’s more than one building… read the articles again.
2nd through 6th streets in Corvallis underwent a number of pedestrian-oriented, traffic calming improvements over the years.
Corvallis a fastest-growing city? That’s wonderful news if true, but most web sites I’ve checked have the estimated population being around 53,000, which is higher than when I left but not exactly boom town growth. And that’s just fine: Corvallis has done very well with gradual, managed change.
Yes, Corvallis has a good bus system. I’ve pointed that out before. I lived in Corvallis for 15 years and bought my first home there — on a bus line. (Does that make me a “busfan”? I’ve been accused of being a “railfan” because I bought a home near MAX … do I get “bus cred” for buying a home on a bus line?)
Your original statement was that revamping 1st street in Corvallis did not “encourage” development. Many locals would disagree with you, including the ones quoted in the articles.
– Bob R.
I thought we were talking about one particular design of street; which doesn’t apply to 2nd through 6th Streets that got “streetscaping” improvements such as bulb-outs, landscaping, and pretty streetlights. (Stop signs and traffic lights still are plentiful in the rest of downtown Corvallis.)
As for population growth, 17% population growth since 1990. That’s just the city of Corvallis and doesn’t include the unincorporated areas to the south, north and northwest; nor does it include residents in the Linn County immediately east of downtown Corvallis on the east bank of the Willamette River. 17% isn’t too shabby.
Nor does it include many of the OSU students – OSU’s enrollment is 19,362 in Fall 2006. Certainly, Corvallis is larger than 35,000 full-time residents (otherwise Corvallis would be a tad larger than McMinnville, about the same size of Lake Oswego, and smaller than Albany.)
I thought we were talking about one particular design of street;
Well, we were until you brought up the other streets in question. I’m perfectly content to contain the arguments to 1st street if you are.
17% population growth in 27 years is indeed significant, but you originally claimed Corvallis was among the “fastest growing”… is it? How many are ahead of it?
I find it interesting that you simultaneously criticize first street for having only one new building (which is incorrect, as I noted earlier), while then diminishing it as a very short 10-block street. (Although it is technically 10 blocks long including the dead-end portions, the significantly remodelled section is 7 blocks long.)
So, Erik, how many new buildings and/or remodelled current buildings are necessary, on a per-block basis, for you to declare that a project is a success?
– Bob R.