Why our cities are paralyzed by traffic jams

2024 Author: Seth Attwood | [email protected]. Last modified: 2023-12-16 15:55

I quite often have to enter into polemics on the organization of traffic with representatives of relevant departments, then with public figures, then with motorists. Basically, they are sure that roads need to be widened, pedestrian crossings (BCPs) should be minimized, and every house should have parking to the maximum - that is, everything, as you understand, is only for the convenience of motorists. And if you point out to them the disadvantages of the PP (inconvenience of location, the duration of the waiting time of the enabling signal, etc.), then this is most often perceived negatively, the convenience of motorists is again used as arguments: a decrease in throughput, a forced change in the trajectory of the car, waiting time for traffic lights, etc.

Nobody takes into account a few facts:

- The best and the largest part of the city space has been allocated for car traffic. In 2016, according to the traffic police, 44.2 million passenger cars were registered in the Russian Federation, and the number of residents in 2016 was 146.5 million. So, there are 100 million more people who do not have a car, but at the same time, the central and best part of the urban space is given to motorists (the remaining 46 million)! Despite the fact that there are far fewer active car users than pedestrians, their interests are more often taken into account. When reconstructing city streets, officials and public figures most often insist on expanding roads, parking spaces, eliminating, in their opinion, “unnecessary” PPs and, on the contrary, negatively perceive even a slight expansion of pedestrian spaces, that is, the convenience of pedestrians. It should be noted that the number of pedestrian crossings we already have is humiliatingly small, about 200,000 - this is the largest country in the world! For comparison, in tiny Switzerland this figure is 50,000. With the daily needs of every Swiss for mobility of tens of kilometers and higher motorization than in Russia, no one there complains about too many crossings. Including our esteemed officials and businessmen who own real estate there.

Misconception - roads need to be widened, pedestrian crossings (BCPs) should be minimized, and every house should have parking lots to the maximum

This path leads to a deterioration in the position of the motorist himself, since it paralyzes the fluidity of the traffic flow, leads to a deterioration in the work of public transport, since the speed of its operation and accessibility to passengers drops sharply. Roads of more than 2-3 lanes divide whole blocks into parts. The availability of objects of attraction is decreasing, now it becomes difficult for people without a car to get even to school, work or an ordinary bakery.

As a result, more people are forced to buy cars. It is physically impossible to create an ideal city for 100% of residents who will only travel by car every day. They tried to create such cities in the USA, China and many other countries, but they all fell into decay and degradation and were soon rebuilt (in the USA, tram traffic is now being organized in many cities).

- In a car, a person always feels more comfortable and safe than a pedestrian. I often hear from representatives of the traffic police or car-oriented communities that, they say, pedestrians generally need to be removed underground and set up a bunch of underground passages in the city center, and ground ones should be eliminated altogether or their number should be reduced to a minimum. And, most interestingly, experts like to count the flow of cars and pedestrians, comparing them and justifying the expediency of a pedestrian crossing in a specific place, they say, if there are few pedestrians, then the crossing is not needed. But this is true only if pedestrians and motorists are in the same comfortable conditions, which, of course, is impossible. A person in a car is always in more comfortable conditions, in his favorable microclimate and is not engaged in physical labor. A pedestrian is always under the influence of weather conditions (frost, rain, wind, heat, etc.), he is engaged in manual labor (walking, carrying things, etc.). Who is it harder at the moment, and why are the conditions accepted equal? Pedestrians are offered to stand at the checkpoint for a longer time, waiting for the permitting signal, then go further to it, and in general they pay much less attention to the logistics of pedestrian traffic.

Some "specialists" (not always even specialized departments) live according to the principle after us, even a deluge. By developing public transport, we clear up traffic jams, by removing the parking lot next to the pedestrian crossing, we provide visibility and reduce mortality. By creating spatial planning, we ensure sustainable and correct growth, improving the well-being of citizens, their satisfaction and the maximum return of the city's economy.

Making the surrounding world uncomfortable for pedestrians, destroying public transport, we create a new traffic flow on the roads, regardless of the size of the city and its development. Therefore, we create traffic jams in progression. Not only is it unfair to people, but it also oppresses the city's economy and slows down its development.

Is this fair?

Therefore, in my opinion, it is necessary to change your views and design the road network (UDS) in such a way that it is comfortable for all road users (DD) and, naturally, focus on the convenience of pedestrian movement, as the most unprotected participants in DD.

This does not mean that you need to equip pedestrian crossings literally at every corner or build only pedestrian streets, eliminating roads. It is necessary to approach the issue in a balanced way, taking into account the conditions in which each participant of the DD and the category of space is. If this is a city center, then the pedestrian should also have priority, there should be more convenient and safe checkpoints, pedestrian paths should be short, for the convenience of a minority, most people should not be driven underground or forced to pass mazes for the convenience of a minority. Thus, you make pedestrian traffic in the city convenient and comfortable for people, people walk more often, it is not difficult for them to walk several streets - such an urban space does not require a large number of parking spaces, it will be enough to have them in the so-called "intercepting parking lots". Now the opposite situation is observed - the city is convenient only for the movement of cars! Well, what are we waiting for, what kind of traffic jams are we struggling with? We create them! And the opposite situation, if this is not a sleeping area and not the city center, then in this case the car has priority, and the number of pedestrian crossings should be minimized.