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.
The focus should be on improving transit for everyone (pedestrians, which are almost nonexistent at the intersection I'm describing), not making it better for one group at the expense of another (making it more difficult for cars to get around).
I can't speak for the specific improvements that were made near you, but if pedestrian improvements were made, I'd assume that the playing field was leveled a bit. Fast spead limits and insufficient sidewalks hardly sounds like improving transit for everyone; rather, it sounds like the area was built in a more car-centric fashion.
This is one of the huge issues I have with some drivers. Being delayed for less than a minute is hardly an impact; yet you're mad because it slows you down, even though it makes it safer for people who are walking and doesn't really impact your life (if you're one minute late to work or an appointment, you shouldn't have cut it that close in the first place...leave earlier). I think what you're really saying is that you're ok with improving transit, as long as it doesn't slow you down in your car.
This is one of the huge issues I have with some drivers. Being delayed for less than a minute is hardly an impact; yet you're mad because it slows you down, even though it makes it safer for people who are walking and doesn't really impact your life (if you're one minute late to work or an appointment, you shouldn't have cut it that close in the first place...leave earlier). I think what you're really saying is that you're ok with improving transit, as long as it doesn't slow you down in your car.
Hi ANJEOA--
I'm heated about it because there are almost zero pedestrians, either before or after installation of the delaying device. If there was a large scrum of pedestrians waiting to cross at each light, that's another matter - but they're needlessly slowing down cars and nobody's getting the bennies.
And yes, I'm against any transit solution that slows down anyone, including cars. As I've mentioned (especially in the automotive forum), speed is a good thing. Getting places more quickly gives people more time to do other stuff (hopefully productive things). Forcing people to slow down retards growth and development and causes people to mal-invest their time in waiting. We should be focused on getting people around both more quickly and safely.
As I said before, a single wait at a light isn't the killer - it's a wait here, a wait there, a slow down as I negotiate half a dozen speed bumps over yonder, etc. that adds up quickly.
I'm heated about it because there are almost zero pedestrians, either before or after installation of the delaying device. If there was a large scrum of pedestrians waiting to cross at each light, that's another matter - but they're needlessly slowing down cars and nobody's getting the bennies.
And yes, I'm against any transit solution that slows down anyone, including cars. As I've mentioned (especially in the automotive forum), speed is a good thing. Getting places more quickly gives people more time to do other stuff (hopefully productive things). Forcing people to slow down retards growth and development and causes people to mal-invest their time in waiting. We should be focused on getting people around both more quickly and safely.
As I said before, a single wait at a light isn't the killer - it's a wait here, a wait there, a slow down as I negotiate half a dozen speed bumps over yonder, etc. that adds up quickly.
I don't disagree with the premise, but it's impossible to make improvements to one mode while avoiding impediments to others 100% of the time. There are frequently trade-offs, unless we're talking about dedicated right-aways that don't affect the existing roads (e.g. subways). If there are no pedestrians in the area of the improvements, then why did the municipality fund it (not a loaded question, I'm genuinely curious)?
Most of the time people do not take their business elsewhere - and if they do they are just replaced by others who are attracted to that kind of road design. Now, if the road being changed is one of those 8 lane mini-expressways you find in outer suburban type places, then that is sort of a fruitless endeavor because nobody would be walking there anyways.
And honestly, as a pedestrian I can't even keep track of the times I have nearly been hit by some idiot who doesn't even look as they try to make their right turn on red. I should start keeping a hammer in my back pocket to teach them a lesson
Most of the time people do not take their business elsewhere - and if they do they are just replaced by others who are attracted to that kind of road design. Now, if the road being changed is one of those 8 lane mini-expressways you find in outer suburban type places, then that is sort of a fruitless endeavor because nobody would be walking there anyways.
that seems to be the case of henseyla's example, though it's hard to tell without a streetview / map. Even if there's very few pedestrians, I'd argue that almost every road at a minimum should be safe for a pedestrian to use. Occasionally someone might need to pass through without a car.
As to speed being a priority, I'd say it's one factor among many not an absolute. High speed traffic can be a nuisance or a danger in the wrong environment. As an extreme example, this is a four lane state highway. The city's priority is to keep traffic slow not fast, though not much effort is required on the city's part (crosswalk where drivers legally must yield to pedestrians help):
And honestly, as a pedestrian I can't even keep track of the times I have nearly been hit by some idiot who doesn't even look as they try to make their right turn on red.
New York City bans right turns on red citywide for this reason.
This would negatively impact the big, major cities, but not a lot of the smaller cities. Everywhere I lived before moving to Seattle were small towns between 1,000 people and 200,000 people. None of those towns had any real good transit system. The smaller ones literally had none- and the bigger (the 100,000 to 200,000 towns) had a bus system that had terrible routes, shut down at 7PM, and was not used by many at all except for a couple of random people here and there. So in those places if the mass transit shut down, it would have virtually no effect. Everybody drives in those places.
I'm heated about it because there are almost zero pedestrians, either before or after installation of the delaying device. If there was a large scrum of pedestrians waiting to cross at each light, that's another matter - but they're needlessly slowing down cars and nobody's getting the bennies.
And yes, I'm against any transit solution that slows down anyone, including cars. As I've mentioned (especially in the automotive forum), speed is a good thing. Getting places more quickly gives people more time to do other stuff (hopefully productive things). Forcing people to slow down retards growth and development and causes people to mal-invest their time in waiting. We should be focused on getting people around both more quickly and safely.
As I said before, a single wait at a light isn't the killer - it's a wait here, a wait there, a slow down as I negotiate half a dozen speed bumps over yonder, etc. that adds up quickly.
I see the point you're making. Small changes are cumulative and can lead to big gains or delays across trips.
In my own home city, the lack of pedestrians is the product of a car-first design in the latter half of the 20th. Would people walk if (a) it was convenient and (b) it felt safe? Probably. Minor changes aren't going to bring about a sudden flood of pedestrians.
As has been noted in this thread and others, most cities can only redistribute the utility of transit corridors between modes; making things better for one (eg, pedestrians, bicyclists) almost inherently makes things worse for another (eg, drivers). It comes down to priorities and, in recent decades, long-term budgets. Do you emphasize the quickest possible trips by driving? If so, you almost require driving for all trips, even within walking distance. And that emphasis has a limit; it encourages more driving, but the available "bandwidth" for cars is finite. In many cities, that upper bound on roadway throughput is quickly approaching or has been reached, but the need for growth remains. So, the car-first focus results in a "mal-investment".
From my perspective, a city almost inevitably must shift away from car-centricity (and the breadth of trips it encourages) towards pedestrians and public transit (and the focus on specific, nearer places).
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.
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.
