Libraries of the future will further develop their social and community aspect. Already in rural areas libraries often offer access to broadband that is not available or utilized within the home. This public access to all sorts of technology and knowledge will continue to be an equalizer and excellent alternative for those who do not have the financial means and/or desire to have these technologies in the home or at work.
In addition to quiet, focused work spaces, libraries will offer spaces that allow and even encourage people to interact, converse and learn about each other, contributing greatly to the community aspect of the library. Whether people rent a book from the library, use a library computer, or bring their own books or laptops, people will find future libraries great places to study, to relax, to collaborate and to read. The sense of place, community and belonging amongst others that a library can provide will never be replicated by technology.
Already, in coffee shops and cafes such as Starbucks, all over Boston, people have shown that they not only enjoy doing work and relaxing in the company of others, but that they are willing to pay for it. I personally spent many hours in the library of my university relaxing and reading the newspaper in the comfortable chairs and sofas provided. I hope that in the future, libraries will continue to be a place in which I can meet new people and old friends, start and develop relationships, and of course further educate myself on my community and the world around me.
Thursday, October 7, 2010
Thursday, August 5, 2010
How they do it in Copenhagen
Basically turning parking lots into public space and lowering speeds. I guess it's not complicated! Good video
Tuesday, April 27, 2010
NYC Cycling report has some good stuff!
I just saw in this blog post that a Rutgers University team has released a report entitled Cycling in "New York: Innovative Policies at the Urban Frontier". I just read over most of it and there's some very good stuff in there.
Here is a summary of what I found most interesting:
- The percentage of female cyclists on any certain bike route seems to be proportional to the degree of separation from big vehicle traffic. (pp 6-9) (Also check out this article)
- Page 28 mentions traffic calming as a cycling facility that is absent in most U.S. cities. Traffic Calming is certainly a pedestrian and family friendly facility as well. In residential neighborhoods, traffic calming slows traffic to a human speed (20 mph or preferably even less), increasing safety, reducing car-bike speed conflicts and encouraging walking and biking for short routes.
- Page 13 notes that one big contributor to increased bike safety is the "safety in numbers" effect. I personally believe that most if not all safety benefits of bike lanes are a result of the increased number of bikers they do seem to encourage. I think it is extremely important to remember that many of the safety benefits of bike lanes come from the non-bike lane aspects. This includes narrower (and thus slower) big vehicle lanes. Many of these benefits could be had otherwise, for better or worse.
- Further in, the report goes into detail about bike parking. Obviously, if one does not have a safe and secure place to park a car or bike both at home and at every or most possible destinations, that person will be unlikely to use a car or bike or at least to drive to that destination. So bike parking is critical. However my own take is that maps showing the locations of bike parking are somewhat useless unless they aim to point out the more advanced facilities, such as those with maintenence stations, rooves, showers or etc. How often do people utilize a map of car parking locations? I think a better strategy is to come up with a level of service rating. This might be one bike rack in front of each store front. Or maybe two bike racks per each car parking space. Then it would be easier to remember that Davis Square or Hanover St, for instance, will have a rack nearby.
Anyway those are my thoughts, I don't mean to diminish the other points made in the report, but I think the ones I just pointed out are super important when it comes to encouraging bicycling.
Here is a summary of what I found most interesting:
- The percentage of female cyclists on any certain bike route seems to be proportional to the degree of separation from big vehicle traffic. (pp 6-9) (Also check out this article)
- Page 28 mentions traffic calming as a cycling facility that is absent in most U.S. cities. Traffic Calming is certainly a pedestrian and family friendly facility as well. In residential neighborhoods, traffic calming slows traffic to a human speed (20 mph or preferably even less), increasing safety, reducing car-bike speed conflicts and encouraging walking and biking for short routes.
- Page 13 notes that one big contributor to increased bike safety is the "safety in numbers" effect. I personally believe that most if not all safety benefits of bike lanes are a result of the increased number of bikers they do seem to encourage. I think it is extremely important to remember that many of the safety benefits of bike lanes come from the non-bike lane aspects. This includes narrower (and thus slower) big vehicle lanes. Many of these benefits could be had otherwise, for better or worse.
- Further in, the report goes into detail about bike parking. Obviously, if one does not have a safe and secure place to park a car or bike both at home and at every or most possible destinations, that person will be unlikely to use a car or bike or at least to drive to that destination. So bike parking is critical. However my own take is that maps showing the locations of bike parking are somewhat useless unless they aim to point out the more advanced facilities, such as those with maintenence stations, rooves, showers or etc. How often do people utilize a map of car parking locations? I think a better strategy is to come up with a level of service rating. This might be one bike rack in front of each store front. Or maybe two bike racks per each car parking space. Then it would be easier to remember that Davis Square or Hanover St, for instance, will have a rack nearby.
Anyway those are my thoughts, I don't mean to diminish the other points made in the report, but I think the ones I just pointed out are super important when it comes to encouraging bicycling.
Thursday, March 18, 2010
Reducing Traffic Lights 1: Modern Roundabouts
I mentioned in a previous post entitled "The evils of traffic lights" that I'm not a big fan of traffic lights. I think reducing the number of them in our cities can encourage more pedestrian and bike friendly places.
One way to do this in some cases is to install Modern Roundabouts where there had previously been a stop sign or traffic light. The key here is to not confuse Modern Roundabouts with traffic circles and rotaries, which is what primarily exist in Massachusetts. The main differences between them are the overall diameter of the circle and the typical speeds in the circle as well as entering and exiting speeds. A well designed modern roundabout will never see cars traveling higher than 25 mph in the vicinity and many keep speeds to less than 20 mph within the roundabout.
For a good video of what I'm talking about check this out.
The best examples are single lane roundabouts. They are the smallest, slowest moving and the most simple type. Traffic in these commonly moves at around 15mph around the roundabout, which is a very bike friendly speed.
Some people might not like these because there seems to be limited opportunity to draw bike lanes or paint in green. But bicycles can be easily accommodated by adding a bike bypass path outside of the roundabout wide enough for pedestrians and bikers to share. However with single lane roundabouts, these are probably unnecessary. Simply a sign saying "bicyclists use full lane through roundabout" would more than suffice.
By removing traffic lights, speeds would be reduced and the tension resulting from the temporal nature of traffic lights would be eliminated.
One way to do this in some cases is to install Modern Roundabouts where there had previously been a stop sign or traffic light. The key here is to not confuse Modern Roundabouts with traffic circles and rotaries, which is what primarily exist in Massachusetts. The main differences between them are the overall diameter of the circle and the typical speeds in the circle as well as entering and exiting speeds. A well designed modern roundabout will never see cars traveling higher than 25 mph in the vicinity and many keep speeds to less than 20 mph within the roundabout.
For a good video of what I'm talking about check this out.
The best examples are single lane roundabouts. They are the smallest, slowest moving and the most simple type. Traffic in these commonly moves at around 15mph around the roundabout, which is a very bike friendly speed.
Some people might not like these because there seems to be limited opportunity to draw bike lanes or paint in green. But bicycles can be easily accommodated by adding a bike bypass path outside of the roundabout wide enough for pedestrians and bikers to share. However with single lane roundabouts, these are probably unnecessary. Simply a sign saying "bicyclists use full lane through roundabout" would more than suffice.
By removing traffic lights, speeds would be reduced and the tension resulting from the temporal nature of traffic lights would be eliminated.
Thursday, March 11, 2010
Some art from people who do that
Hey I thought this was pretty neat so here's a link:
Envisioning Future Urbanism
Basically they just photoshop images and make buildings bigger and streets narrower. But it's cooler than that. I like the bottom one, Lancaster Blvd. the most.
Envisioning Future Urbanism
Basically they just photoshop images and make buildings bigger and streets narrower. But it's cooler than that. I like the bottom one, Lancaster Blvd. the most.
Wednesday, March 10, 2010
How Bike Lanes can teach people
I haven't posted much lately, sorry about that. I'll try to keep this one short. Basically I just saw this video on StreetFilms (at this address) and wanted to point it out:
Obviously the point of this infrastructure is to demonstrate to bikers how to avoid crossing railroad tracks at an obtuse angle, which can cause a crash. At the same time, it indicates to auto drivers that bikers are more likely to take the lane in that spot and makes them more aware of the danger.
What I would like to see is sharrows marked at intersections indicating the correct positioning for every possible bike turn, left, straight and right to teach both car drivers and bikers where bikers should be positioned for any certain turn.
Obviously the point of this infrastructure is to demonstrate to bikers how to avoid crossing railroad tracks at an obtuse angle, which can cause a crash. At the same time, it indicates to auto drivers that bikers are more likely to take the lane in that spot and makes them more aware of the danger.
What I would like to see is sharrows marked at intersections indicating the correct positioning for every possible bike turn, left, straight and right to teach both car drivers and bikers where bikers should be positioned for any certain turn.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
