It appears that some people’s concept of common sense is at variance to my own. If you can suspend your disbelief, imagine all automobiles traveling in the Central Business District under 15 mph.

At this speed, simple roundels could replace traffic signals, drivers would be comfortable with narrower lanes, and there would not be a need for separated bike lanes. It should be pointed out that traveling just 10 mph faster increases the momentum over 2.5 times, making damage done in any collision (or, indeed, wear to the cars and road) that much worse. But of course this is folly.

We cannot even expect to have traffic move at the posted 25 mph. So, a trip through town, which, at 15 mph, would take less than 4 minutes, dramatically reduce danger to pedestrians, eliminate the need for separated lanes while increasing sidewalk area, and saving the cost of wear on both the cars and the road itself is deemed entirely unrealistic. Keep in mind that as things stand, you can expect to spend a significant fraction of this time sitting idle behind a red light (or afraid to merge with fast-moving traffic).

To recap, we are poised to spend tens of millions of dollars because drivers cannot be expected to drive anywhere near appropriate speeds. We are poised to create a needless barrier through town to further separate people from cars, instead of expanding space for the same people we’re hoping will visit. We are expected to take seriously not only complaints from drivers about restricting their velocity, but that there will be a reduction of parking spaces fully one-third the absolute minimum I’ve seen vacant in the garage we spent millions on.

We hear complaints that it’s too onerous to ask drivers to parallel park, even though demonstrating this skill is a condition of licensure. If more spaces are the issue, why has no one suggested making the spaces smaller? Those who insist on driving asinine jumbo-mobiles should be invited to use special spaces on the periphery.

James Maiewski

Florence