> --- Terrell Brown wrote: > > No the term "illegal" wasn't used. However, it was made clear that > visiting motor vehicles aren't welcome. I can't think of any urban > center which doesn't have traffic.
The point of traffic calming is not to prevent access, rather it is a method to encourage appropriate driving behavior. Drivers that respect the residents and businesses within a neighborhood are very welcome to be there. Those drivers that would rather drive at highway speed should use the highways. If someone wishes to drive neighborhood streets they need to respect that community. If it has been determined that traffic calming techniques are necessary, then the community is trying to tell drivers to... DRIVE CALMER. TB: > Public facilities are just that, public. No one's driving should need > to be restricted to 35W and 394 > CJ: >> The idea is that there is no reason we (the public) should make it >> EASIER for selfish commuters to terrorize our neighborhoods by driving >> through them -- no doubt breaking the speed limit, exceding noise >> ordinances and running stop signs, as the vast majority of drivers do >> but rather that those local streets be designed for the comfort and >> convenience of the people who live and work on them. You can still >> drive on them all you want, but don't complain about how slow they >> are, how narrow they are, how they hold you up. > TB: > If people are in fact breaking traffic laws, law enforcement should > deal with the problem. I, however, wasn't complaining about slowness, > what I said is they are often more efficient (that means quicker). Lets not forget that stop signs, speed limits, etc. are traditional forms of traffic calming. Their effectiveness unfortunatally is sometimes limited, and I don't see dozens of city police available to enforce traffic laws in neighborhoods. So when "traditional" traffic calming measures don't work, should we just give up and let people drive however they want? NO. If one solution to a traffic problem is not working, then the community will try other solutions. Some of these solutions will work, others won't, and some will have unforseen consequences. The unfortunate truth is that careful respectful drivers pay the price for the few bad apples. TB: > I can't think of any urban center which doesn't have traffic. True. However, the streets of Minneapolis were not designed for the level of traffic they have. The Seward Neighborhood, as with many others, was platted in the first decade of the 1900s. Around the time of the Model A I believe. The expectation when the grid pattern was established was that you would walk a couple blocks down the street and get on the street car or some other form of mass transit. The designers of the city did not anticipate SUVs running dow parked car-lined streets with subwoofers vibrating the windows of the houses nearby. Times change, communities respond. Randall Cutting Seward REMINDERS: 1. Think a member has violated the rules? Email the list manager at [EMAIL PROTECTED] before continuing it on the list. 2. Don't feed the troll! Ignore obvious flame-bait. For state and national discussions see: http://e-democracy.org/discuss.html For external forums, see: http://e-democracy.org/mninteract ________________________________ Minneapolis Issues Forum - A City-focused Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy Post messages to: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Subscribe, Un-subscribe, etc. at: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
