紐約市街道重新縮編
城市街道不是越寬越好
自1月1日以來，在曼哈頓上西城一處半徑為兩個街區的區域
內，就有三名行人在不同的交通事故中喪命。今年年初以來，還有19人在紐約的其他地方遇難。這22個人只是紐約市大量的交通死亡事故中的最新案例。警方數
據顯示，去年，該市有176名行人被小汽車或卡車撞死，這是自2008年以來的最高數字。
最近，紐約市長白思豪(Bill de
Blasio)宣布了一項針對交通死亡事故的新行動——「零死亡願景」(Vision
Zero)，措施包括開更多罰單，降低最高限速，重新設計十字路口。與此同時，警方也已經開始處罰亂穿馬路的行人，放置指示牌和柵欄，鼓勵人們按照紅綠燈
過馬路。紐約市警察局正在購入激光測速槍、測速和紅燈攝像頭。這都是些好主意。但問題不只是警方監控不足、行人注意力不集中、司機魯莽大意，問題在於街道
的設計不符合它們的使用方式。
- 檢視大圖
Mügluck
在城市規劃領域，城市街道通常被認為是最安全的道路之一。
它們往往設有較窄的車道，很多直角，一片熙熙攘攘的景象，交通規劃人員稱之為「社會摩擦」(social
friction)。街道上有樹、停放的汽車和其他「固定物體」，與寬闊的鄉村道路相比，司機需要更加精確地駕駛，繞過這些東西。
紐約市到處都是這樣的街道。那為什麼行人死亡事故在不斷增加呢？
讓我們看看大多數行人死亡事故發生在哪裡。去年，皇后區是
行人死亡事故最多的一個區，很多事故發生在寬闊的主幹道上，這些道路上車速較快，比如北方大道(Northern
Boulevard)、跨島快速道路(Cross Island Parkway)和皇后大道(Queens Boulevard)。
布朗克斯區也有很多這樣的道路，該區去年交通死亡事故的增長率最高，是2012年的兩倍多。布魯克林展望公園西路(Prospect Park West)、曼哈頓西端大道(West End Avenue)等風景優美、車速較快的道路上也發生了很多死亡事故。
這些道路不是緊密的鄉間街區，這些主要道路更像是交通動脈。這些有四到八條車道的快速道路連接着各個郊區城鎮，車速限制為60英里每小時（約合96公里每小時）。
對於行人來說，這些道路極其危險。佛羅里達大西洋大學
(Florida Atlantic University)城市與區域規劃學院(School of Urban and Regional
Planning)院長埃里克·鄧博(Eric Dumbaugh)發現，主幹道每增加一英里，交通死亡事故的增加幅度最高可達15%。
但紐約市的快速道路與郊區主幹道有很大的不同：路上除了汽車，還有數百萬的行人。在這個行人日益增多的城市，我們的道路卻是圍繞着汽車設計的。
任何減少交通死亡事故的綜合方案都必須包括對道路的重新設
計。例如，皇后大街不是一條城市街道，它其實是一條裝扮成城市街道的高速公路。我們要麼把它當成高速公路，設立隔離帶和防護欄，甚至人行天橋，要麼把它當
做城市街道，縮窄車道，增加交通信號燈和人行橫道，以及各種障礙物和其他類型的「社會摩擦」裝置。（另一個方法：延伸到街道的樹枝可以創造一個遮篷，充當
自然的減速裝置，就像社會摩擦裝置一樣。）
道路規劃者一直在談論「道路瘦身」的種種好處。「街道瘦
身」是指縮小機動車道，同時增加單車道、花壇、以及步行廣場等元素，廣場上可以配備桌椅。看看前紐約市交通局長珍妮特·沙迪-汗(Janette
Sadik-Khan)那些頗具開拓性的相關工作就知道了。她把這個城市許多龐大的交叉口重新設計成了公共廣場，其中最負盛名的項目是，把紐約時報廣場
(Times Square)的那一段百老匯大道改成了新的、面積為2.5英畝的步行空間。在做出這些改變之後，車禍的傷亡率下降了40%。
這些舉措不一定需要花很多錢：沙迪-汗最初只用油漆和長椅就改造了時報廣場。除此之外，這似乎是大企業參與公益事業的良機，而這個事業與公共單車同樣崇高，而且還能挽救生命。
我們不能把所有責任都歸咎於司機開車太快。有些道路就是用來讓車輛快速行駛的。怪行人不夠小心也是不公平的，他們已經很機警、很警惕了。真正的問題在於，我們把車和行人混在了一塊。
如果我們在機動車司機可以全速行駛的地方鼓勵人們步行，放置再多針對行人的安全提醒也沒有意義。這就好像把帝國大廈樓頂的圍欄拆掉、然後讓人們靠常識來避免失足跌落一樣。
致人死亡的交通事故與那些最令人焦慮的公共衛生問題不同。
這些公共衛生問題，比如自閉症或癌症，沒有明顯的解決辦法。但要解決交通事故的問題，已經有了一個清晰，並且行之有效的方法。既然能輕鬆解決問題，而且又
是該做的事，何樂而不為呢？顯而易見的是，未來的街道會更窄、更安全，而且風景更好。
利·加拉格爾(Leigh Gallagher)是《財富》(Fortune)雜誌的副主編，著有《郊區的終結：美國夢的方向》。翻譯：許欣、王湛
The Mean Streets of New York
March 03, 2014
WITHIN a two-block radius
on Manhattan’s Upper West Side, three pedestrians have lost their lives
in separate traffic accidents since Jan. 1. Nineteen more have been
killed elsewhere in the city since the beginning of the year. Those 22
are just the latest in the city’s epidemic of traffic fatalities. Last
year 176 pedestrians were killed by cars and trucks in the city,
according to police data, the most since 2008.
Recently, Mayor Bill de Blasio announced a new campaign against traffic fatalities, called Vision Zero,
including more ticketing, lower speed limits and redesigning
intersections. Meanwhile, the police have cracked down on jaywalkers and
put up signs and barriers encouraging people to cross with the light,
and the department is investing in equipment like laser speed guns and
speed and red light cameras. These are all good ideas. But the problem
isn’t just inadequate policing, distracted pedestrians or reckless
motorists. It’s that the design of our streets does not match the way
they are being used.
In urban planning circles,
city streets are generally considered to be among the safest kind of
roadways. They tend to have narrower lanes, a lot of right angles and a
lot of general hustle and bustle — “social friction,” as transportation
planners call it. There are trees, parked cars and other “fixed
objects,” all things drivers need to navigate around with more precision
than, say, a wide open country road.
New York City is full of such streets. So why are pedestrian fatalities increasing?
Consider where the majority
of the pedestrian fatalities are happening. Last year, Queens was the
deadliest borough for pedestrians, with many of the deaths happening on
wide, fast-moving arteries like Northern Boulevard, the Cross Island
Parkway and Queens Boulevard.
The Bronx, also home to
many of these thoroughfares, had the biggest increase last year, more
than double the number in 2012. The fatalities have also occurred on
scenic but fast-moving roadways like Prospect Park West in Brooklyn or
West End Avenue in Manhattan.
These streets are not
intimate village blocks; they are major corridors that more closely
resemble arterial roads, those fast-moving stretches of four- to
eight-lane thoroughfares that connect one suburban town to another, on
which cars travel up to 60 miles an hour.
Such roads are famously
dangerous for pedestrians. Eric Dumbaugh, the director of the School of
Urban and Regional Planning at Florida Atlantic University, has found
that every additional mile of arterial road increases traffic fatalities
by as much as 15 percent.
But New York City’s
fast-moving roadways are different from suburban arterial roads in one
big way: The cars share them with millions of pedestrians. We have
roadways designed around the car, in a city teeming with ever more
people on foot.
Any comprehensive approach
to traffic fatalities has to take aim at redesigning these roads. Queens
Boulevard, for example, isn’t a city street; it is a highway
masquerading as one. We should either call it a highway, and build
medians, barriers or even pedestrian bridges, or treat it like a city
street and make the lanes narrower, add more stoplights and crosswalks,
and install obstacles and other elements of “social friction.” (Another
tool: trees with branches that extend over the street creating a canopy
that, like social friction, acts as a naturally occurring slowing
device.)
Transportation planners
talk about the benefits of “street diets,” efforts to slim down car
lanes and add elements like bike lanes, planters or pedestrian plazas
with tables and chairs. Just look at the groundbreaking work of Janette
Sadik-Khan, the former New York City transportation commissioner who
re-engineered many of the city’s most sprawling intersections as public
plazas, most famously turning the stretch of Broadway in Times Square
into 2.5 acres of new pedestrian space. Injuries dropped by 40 percent
in the wake of the changes.
These things don’t have to
cost a lot of money: Ms. Sadik-Khan initially transformed Times Square
with paint and lawn chairs. Besides, it seems like a natural opportunity
for a big corporate donor to own a cause that’s just as noble as bike
sharing, and will save lives.
It is wrong to place all
the blame on drivers for going fast on roads that are designed for them
to do just that, and it’s unfair to blame pedestrians for not being
careful enough when they are behaving exactly as smart, sensible
pedestrians behave. The problem is how we are mixing the two together.
All the pedestrian warnings
in the world won’t matter if we’re encouraging foot traffic where
motorists are hitting highway speeds. It’s like removing all the
guardrails at the top of the Empire State Building and expecting people
to use common sense not to fall off.
Traffic fatalities are not
like some of our most vexing public health issues with no obvious
solution or cure, like autism or cancer. There is a clear and proven way
to fix the problem. Why not go for the easy win that’s also the right
thing to do? The path forward is obvious — and narrower, safer and
better landscaped.
沒有留言:
張貼留言