U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Urban Planning
 [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 09-23-2012, 06:04 PM
 
4,023 posts, read 3,269,945 times
Reputation: 2924

Advertisements


Tour of the "pedestrian friendly" diverging diamond - YouTube


so why do traffic engineers suck so much hairy monkey *bleep*?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 09-23-2012, 06:05 PM
 
Location: SW Missouri
15,847 posts, read 30,389,224 times
Reputation: 22357
Quote:
Originally Posted by cisco kid View Post

Tour of the "pedestrian friendly" diverging diamond - YouTube


so why do traffic engineers suck so much hairy monkey *bleep*?
Here they have several "diverging DOUBLE diamonds" and I will drive 10 miles out of my way to avoid them. And they DO NOT improve the flow of traffic, that is a lie.

20yrsinBranson
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-23-2012, 10:10 PM
 
2,553 posts, read 2,007,618 times
Reputation: 1348
Quote:
Originally Posted by cisco kid View Post

so why do traffic engineers suck so much hairy monkey *bleep*?
The narrator doesn't really describe his complaints. He simply complains, adds some commentary, and, maybe, some evidence that is irrelevant because it's an apples-to-oranges comparison.

He complains about the ditch. Reasonable in and of itself. In the context of the area, his complaint seems largely irrelevant because it doesn't look like an area that incentivizes walking to begin with.

He complains about cars not yielding to pedestrians, then posts a video of Britain as an example. But, he's comparing a major intersection in an area designed to prioritize vehicle traffic to a much smaller street in an area in Britain that looks far more dense and urban. It's not a straight comparison.

He complains about the situation with "bikes." Again, largely irrelevant because there doesn't appear to be much reason to ride a bike in that area.

As far as I can tell from the video, the diverging diamond is doing it's job of reducing points of conflict between vehicles.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-23-2012, 10:58 PM
 
Location: Thunder Bay, ON
2,610 posts, read 3,766,137 times
Reputation: 1616
This is basically putting lipstick on a pig. No matter what you do, an interchange in the middle of an auto oriented area will not be nice for pedestrians. The engineer who made the original video seems to be very enthusiastic about how the diverging diamond is great for pedestrians when the improvements will make little difference because no matter what, few people will walk here. If you want to help pedestrians, creating truly walkable urban places, like London, will make a much bigger difference, and the location for these kinds of pedestrian friendly projects would probably be elsewhere.

I mean, really, who would walk here (I think this is . Just getting across the interchange by foot takes about 5 minutes, no matter how you design it, you will be surrounded by cars and roads, so those 5 minutes will be pretty unpleasant. Even if you lived just across the interchange from your favourite store, I think you would drive if you had a car. This is on the outskirts of town, and the surroundings consist mostly of low density SFH and highway strip businesses.

I think Chuck is saying that if you have car oriented roads, it doesn't really matter if you make concessions to pedestrians, which I agree with. However, I also get the impression that he thinks this area should be designed to be pedestrian oriented, which I disagree with, I think efforts to make places pedestrian oriented should happen in areas that have at least half decent bones in terms of urbanism.

For instance, with roads like this: Missouri, United States - Google Maps
Chuck Marone seems to feel left turn lanes are inappropriate in urban settings with pedestrians, and it might be better to remove them in a place like this in exchange for on street parking, wider sidewalks, wider grass strips or bike lanes.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-24-2012, 10:14 AM
 
Location: Mt. Airy
5,311 posts, read 5,339,857 times
Reputation: 3562
Quote:
Originally Posted by memph View Post
I think Chuck is saying that if you have car oriented roads, it doesn't really matter if you make concessions to pedestrians, which I agree with. However, I also get the impression that he thinks this area should be designed to be pedestrian oriented, which I disagree with, I think efforts to make places pedestrian oriented should happen in areas that have at least half decent bones in terms of urbanism.
Highways are in my top 3 "avoid at all costs" while on a bike. Unfortunately, there's no way around it sometimes because highways have a way of acting like a lasso. It's hard to tell if the area is a critical point between two locations that is the only way to connect the two (more from a cycling perspective). If so, I'd prefer to have the infrastructure, but I would still avoid it like the plague. Depending on its critical location, these improvements may be a complete waste of money.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-24-2012, 10:40 AM
nei nei won $500 in our forum's Most Engaging Poster Contest - Thirteenth Edition (Jan-Feb 2015). 

Over $104,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum and additional contests are planned
 
Location: Long Island / NYC
45,992 posts, read 42,037,172 times
Reputation: 14811
Quote:
Originally Posted by darkeconomist View Post
He complains about the ditch. Reasonable in and of itself. In the context of the area, his complaint seems largely irrelevant because it doesn't look like an area that incentivizes walking to begin with.

He complains about cars not yielding to pedestrians, then posts a video of Britain as an example. But, he's comparing a major intersection in an area designed to prioritize vehicle traffic to a much smaller street in an area in Britain that looks far more dense and urban. It's not a straight comparison.

He complains about the situation with "bikes." Again, largely irrelevant because there doesn't appear to be much reason to ride a bike in that area.
It's still relevant. There will always be some who happens not to have a car (teenagers for example). Or someone biking from elsewhere he happens on the intersection.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-24-2012, 11:45 AM
 
Location: Mt. Airy
5,311 posts, read 5,339,857 times
Reputation: 3562
Quote:
Originally Posted by nei View Post
It's still relevant. There will always be some who happens not to have a car (teenagers for example). Or someone biking from elsewhere he happens on the intersection.
I agree that it's still relevant, but things like brick accents and other items are wasteful spending IMO. The other thing that should be considered is how widespread design like this is expected to be. If it's something that exists on one highway overpass, while 37 others have nothing, then I'm not sure how much it's helping.

In a country with such second thought to anything but the car, I start to see islands of improvement and feel that it's a lost cause.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-24-2012, 12:38 PM
 
Location: Thunder Bay, ON
2,610 posts, read 3,766,137 times
Reputation: 1616
This is the interchange, basically on the outskirts of Springfield, MO: N Kansas Expressway and Interstate 44, Springfield, MO, United States - Google Maps

There a few houses and a small zoo on the other side of the interchange, but that's it. The other interchanges, which are quite spread out don't have any pedestrian facilities. One of them has a 5-8ft shoulder I guess one could use, but for the other two, your best bet is probably to take control of a lane (ie walk in the middle of it), even if you're a pedestrian... so pretty bad. I think something along the lines of urban interchanges in my area would be good enough as well, although I don't know if it's cheaper or not: Waterloo, ON - Google Maps
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-24-2012, 12:50 PM
 
Location: North Baltimore ----> Seattle
6,473 posts, read 11,112,325 times
Reputation: 3117
Quote:
Originally Posted by AJNEOA View Post
In a country with such second thought to anything but the car, I start to see islands of improvement and feel that it's a lost cause.
Nice choice of words with "islands."

I do see these pedestrian "islands" like the diverging diamond as a step in the right direction, perhaps not in the sense of an overhaul of urban design to where walkabilty fans would like to see it, but a real win for safety. I regularly have to walk across the junction at which 6-lane and 5-lane arterials meet in suburban Baltimore. Recent improvements (last 5 years or so) have created similar pedestrian "islands," which ensure that when the "walk" sign is lit, there is no traffic turning into the crosswalk.

It's a world of improvement as far as safety is concerned. There are lots of pedestrians in these areas I'm familiar with; the low wage, service jobs in suburban strip malls here employ tons of people who can't afford cars and use transit to get work. So while the customers in Suburb X may not be traveling on foot, a much higher percentage of workers are.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-24-2012, 07:52 PM
 
9,520 posts, read 14,857,889 times
Reputation: 9769
I don't see what's so "pedestrian friendly" about it. It switches the direction of the two roadways to avoid left turns. But a pedestrian crossing it still has to cross two unsignalized roadways, and wait for at least one signal. If I was the pedestrian, I'd say "forget it" and either cross at the first island, or just scoot across where the gas station is. In this case, it's kind of academic anyway; there's nothing to cross to where the intersection is, on either side.

A conventional intersection with left turns doesn't seem more difficult to cross (not any easier, either), and I'd rather take the conventional one on a bike.
Royersford, pa - Google Maps
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:


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 > General Forums > Urban Planning
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