U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Colorado > Denver
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 03-09-2018, 10:47 AM
 
Location: Denver
1,303 posts, read 436,599 times
Reputation: 1239

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Quietude View Post
Ka-ching.

All that logic and calculation wasted.
Did you read my reply? While it might be the case say 70% of the time, the lights are time-based rather based on conditions of the highway. There are frequent times where the lights are on and traffic is flowing at or near the posted speed limit, thus these intersections become dangerous.

So no, the calculation isn't "wasted".

In a more productive note, who would be the best to contact about this? CDOT? State Police?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 03-09-2018, 11:20 AM
 
Location: Aurora Denveralis
8,717 posts, read 3,091,453 times
Reputation: 13069
Quote:
Originally Posted by illinoisphotographer View Post
While it might be the case say 70% of the time, the lights are time-based rather based on conditions of the highway.
My experience with them in several locales (some bordering on professional) say otherwise. While metering lights are both time-of-day and traffic-flow sensitive, most do not require full waits in any suitably light traffic.

Quote:
In a more productive note, who would be the best to contact about this? CDOT? State Police?
However, this is Colorado, which has some of the most abysmal traffic engineering I have ever encountered. Into the stupid, brainless, thoughtless and downright dangerous levels. So it's possible CDOT set the times on the metering lights and went back to their coffee break.

While you're yelling at them, mention that every fraggin' yellow light in the city is at least 10% too quick. I don't know what standard they are using, but I have never spent more than a few days (to decades) anywhere that every single light change is a choice between hard braking or ticking the red. Until here.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-09-2018, 04:41 PM
 
442 posts, read 702,500 times
Reputation: 590
Quote:
Originally Posted by illinoisphotographer View Post
Not always, but it furthers the point that either the merge lanes need to be longer at some intersections or there needs to be better timing on the lights to actually be reactive and disable themselves when traffic at that section is above a certain speed, rather than a time of day.




A "I didn't realize that, thanks" would have sufficed rather than a passive aggressive response when you learn something new.
I'll take that under advisement...for when I learn something new.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-09-2018, 04:46 PM
 
442 posts, read 702,500 times
Reputation: 590
Quote:
Originally Posted by SkyDog77 View Post
You clearly do not understand how engines work. A non forced induction (turbo or supercharged) engine has no way of magically adding oxygen to the combustion process. 17% less air is 17% less horsepower. That’s why turbos rule in high altitude racing.
Read the second part of my blurb. Even assuming less power...it's from a starting point of overpowered for the job. Cars today are not like cars in the 60s. They can and (in an overwhelming majority of cases on I-25 these days) do accelerate with plenty of oomph to get to freeway speed in the area allocated for most onramps.

We've got two camps here: One who is mathematically obsessed with ensuring everyone knows that higher altitude equals lower power; and another camp who is simply saying that doesn't matter, because 1) you're starting from a very high power place to begin with; 2) we're talking 5,500 feet here, not 10,500 feet; and 3) every car we're blathering on about is at the same altitude, and is affected by the altitude equally.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-09-2018, 09:36 PM
 
Location: Washington Park, Denver
6,965 posts, read 6,579,150 times
Reputation: 7512
Quote:
Originally Posted by DenverBrian View Post
Read the second part of my blurb. Even assuming less power...it's from a starting point of overpowered for the job. Cars today are not like cars in the 60s. They can and (in an overwhelming majority of cases on I-25 these days) do accelerate with plenty of oomph to get to freeway speed in the area allocated for most onramps.

We've got two camps here: One who is mathematically obsessed with ensuring everyone knows that higher altitude equals lower power; and another camp who is simply saying that doesn't matter, because 1) you're starting from a very high power place to begin with; 2) we're talking 5,500 feet here, not 10,500 feet; and 3) every car we're blathering on about is at the same altitude, and is affected by the altitude equally.
Referring strictly to your first paragraph where you made incorrect assumptions about how cars work.

I’m in the 3rd camp saying that cars in the merge lanes during rush hour (when the metering lights are on) are going 30mph tops, so power doesn’t matter.

PS. Forced induction cars are not affected equally.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-10-2018, 09:11 PM
 
Location: Denver
1,303 posts, read 436,599 times
Reputation: 1239
Data point: east bound C470 from Wadsworth at 6:15PM yesterday. Lights enabled. Traffic when merged was at 60 mph.

Perhaps some lights are based on speed and others based on time.

Regardless, all should be based on speed in order to avoid dangerous situations. The whole point I was trying to make is that there are some on ramp that are too short if the lights aren't speed based, which not all appear to be.

Last edited by illinoisphotographer; 03-10-2018 at 09:28 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-13-2018, 01:28 PM
 
Location: Denver via Austin
3,117 posts, read 6,505,222 times
Reputation: 3542
Quote:
Originally Posted by illinoisphotographer View Post
Did you read my reply? While it might be the case say 70% of the time, the lights are time-based rather based on conditions of the highway. There are frequent times where the lights are on and traffic is flowing at or near the posted speed limit, thus these intersections become dangerous.

So no, the calculation isn't "wasted".

In a more productive note, who would be the best to contact about this? CDOT? State Police?
Considering CDOT servers have been down for three weeks from an executive falling for a phishing email, your request will likely fall on deaf ears. They are the ones to contact if they can ever get things back up and running.

CDOT signal timing is absolutely abysmal. CDOT does a pretty decent job in every other category of roadway engineering, but it's almost as if they have never even heard of signal optimization.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-13-2018, 02:36 PM
 
Location: Aurora Denveralis
8,717 posts, read 3,091,453 times
Reputation: 13069
Quote:
Originally Posted by Westerner92 View Post
CDOT signal timing is absolutely abysmal. CDOT does a pretty decent job in every other category of roadway engineering, but it's almost as if they have never even heard of signal optimization.


I'm not sure their other engineering is all that great, other than a mad obsession with left-turn systems. The Hampden/225/83 interchange was rejected by Escher as too convoluted.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-13-2018, 02:46 PM
 
2,103 posts, read 1,841,785 times
Reputation: 1982
I drive a 2010 prius with a whopping 98 HP, and I can a test that merging onto the interstate from a timer light can be a struggle. Especially if there are passengers or the ramp is uphill.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Options
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2016 data
Loading data...

123
Hide US histogram

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Colorado > Denver
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top