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 04-23-2013, 07:23 PM
 
Location: Laurentia
5,593 posts, read 6,373,602 times
Reputation: 2388

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by KeepRightPassLeft View Post
This one is INSANELY stupid, right over the bridge in New Jersey.
Indeed, and there are hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of intersections in North America that do not require drivers to come to a full stop at all times*, which is what a stop sign mandates. If it's a residential intersection, I can see for a quarter-mile, and there are no cars in sight, why should I come to a full stop as opposed to crawling at 10 mph or so? All it does is waste gas and waste time.

Thankfully I pretty much never see the sort of stupidity that you posted. Why should people be required come to a complete stop on an onramp? Assuming you have a suitable gap in traffic to merge into, you should speed up, not come to a stop. Only if there is no gap in traffic should you come to a stop - that's what a yield sign is for - you go in if it's clear and you yield the right of way when it isn't clear.

*I'm speaking about the design of the intersection, traffic speed, visibility, etc that would induce a prudent driver to come to a complete stop. That's different from a legal requirement.

Quote:
Originally Posted by cisco kid View Post
To me there's nothing worse than a looping on-ramp that suddenly merges into a busy interstate freeway with 65mph cross traffic. There's no stop signs or anything but you can only go 15-20 mph while in the loop. But once near the end of the loop it only gives you about 4 seconds to accelerate to full highway speed before being merged immediately onto the interstate and into a 65mph freeway lane.
That's not only a waste, that's simply dangerous. Having a local/express lane setup or a long ramp or lane to speed up in solves that problem.

By the way, how did a thread about traffic calming turn into a discussion about onramps ? Not that I mind discussing onramps as opposed to strangling traffic with speed humps, but I don't see how loop ramps on freeways fit into the picture.

Last edited by Patricius Maximus; 04-23-2013 at 08:10 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 04-24-2013, 11:48 AM
 
2,553 posts, read 2,004,486 times
Reputation: 1348
Quote:
Originally Posted by Patricius Maximus View Post
By the way, how did a thread about traffic calming turn into a discussion about onramps ? Not that I mind discussing onramps as opposed to strangling traffic with speed humps, but I don't see how loop ramps on freeways fit into the picture.
This:

Quote:
Originally Posted by KeepRightPassLeft View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by cisco kid View Post
Can you give a real-world example of a location where you think a stop sign isn't necessary and ought to be removed?

(Stop signs are commonly used at low-volume/low-traffic intersections, primarily in residential areas...where roundabouts would be ineffective and useless. So what do you suggest they be replaced with?)
This one is INSANELY stupid, right over the bridge in New Jersey.

Google Maps

It'd be much smarter if it were a yield sign, as it basically has a merging lane and goes into a 50 mph highway (with average speeds probably closer to 60-70 at times). It's also on a weird angle, so most people don't even know its there and don't expect it because it's completely idiotic. The good thing is, most people simply don't stop at it and treat it as a yield, it's only when people come to a full stop that there are near accidents every time, sometimes I've even seen some bad rear enders also. This whole intersection needs to be reconfigured and upgraded from it's 1930s-ish design anyway, but thats a whole 'nother thread.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-24-2013, 01:09 PM
 
3,944 posts, read 4,039,107 times
Reputation: 4400
Quote:
Thankfully I pretty much never see the sort of stupidity that you posted. Why should people be required come to a complete stop on an onramp?
Man you are lucky. Many freeway entry ramps in SoCal have traffic lights which only allow one car at a time. So you go up the entry ramp, then come to a complete stop before you can enter the freeway. SoCal freeways are crowded, but not that crowded, and those things are so unnecessary it's not even funny.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-24-2013, 01:15 PM
 
Location: North Baltimore ----> Seattle
6,473 posts, read 11,099,778 times
Reputation: 3117
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheOverdog View Post
SoCal freeways are crowded, but not that crowded, and those things are so unnecessary it's not even funny.
The reason they are not that crowded is because of the lights:

Ramp meter - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You should be thankful for them. They do not exist simply to annoy you.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-24-2013, 01:25 PM
 
Location: North Baltimore ----> Seattle
6,473 posts, read 11,099,778 times
Reputation: 3117
Illustrative paragraph from that article:

Minneapolis-Saint Paul ramp meter experiment
In 2000, a $650,000 experiment was mandated by the Minnesota State Legislature in response to citizen complaints and the efforts of State Senator Dick Day [2]. The study involved shutting off all 433 ramp meters in the Minneapolis-St. Paul area for eight weeks to test their effectiveness. The study was conducted by Cambridge Systematics and concluded that when the ramp meters were turned off freeway capacity decreased by 9%, travel times increased by 22%, freeway speeds dropped by 7% and crashes increased by 26%. However, ramp meters remain controversial, and the Minnesota State Department of Transportation has developed new ramp control strategies. Fewer meters are activated during the course of a normal day than prior to the 2000 study, some meters have been removed, timing has been altered so that no driver waits more than four minutes in ramp queue, and vehicles are not allowed to back up onto city streets.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-24-2013, 02:20 PM
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
45,987 posts, read 41,947,535 times
Reputation: 14804
Long Island parkways have ramp meters at rush hour. Get the full use of car's engine afterward!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-24-2013, 03:48 PM
 
2,553 posts, read 2,004,486 times
Reputation: 1348
Quote:
Originally Posted by handsupthumbsdown View Post
illustrative paragraph from that article:

Minneapolis-saint paul ramp meter experiment
in 2000, a $650,000 experiment was mandated by the minnesota state legislature in response to citizen complaints and the efforts of state senator dick day [2]. The study involved shutting off all 433 ramp meters in the minneapolis-st. Paul area for eight weeks to test their effectiveness. The study was conducted by cambridge systematics and concluded that when the ramp meters were turned off freeway capacity decreased by 9%, travel times increased by 22%, freeway speeds dropped by 7% and crashes increased by 26%. However, ramp meters remain controversial, and the minnesota state department of transportation has developed new ramp control strategies. Fewer meters are activated during the course of a normal day than prior to the 2000 study, some meters have been removed, timing has been altered so that no driver waits more than four minutes in ramp queue, and vehicles are not allowed to back up onto city streets.
+1
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-25-2013, 04:45 AM
 
Location: Vallejo
14,061 posts, read 16,074,613 times
Reputation: 12636
Quote:
Originally Posted by HandsUpThumbsDown View Post
Illustrative paragraph from that article:

Minneapolis-Saint Paul ramp meter experiment
In 2000, a $650,000 experiment was mandated by the Minnesota State Legislature in response to citizen complaints and the efforts of State Senator Dick Day [2]. The study involved shutting off all 433 ramp meters in the Minneapolis-St. Paul area for eight weeks to test their effectiveness. The study was conducted by Cambridge Systematics and concluded that when the ramp meters were turned off freeway capacity decreased by 9%, travel times increased by 22%, freeway speeds dropped by 7% and crashes increased by 26%. However, ramp meters remain controversial, and the Minnesota State Department of Transportation has developed new ramp control strategies. Fewer meters are activated during the course of a normal day than prior to the 2000 study, some meters have been removed, timing has been altered so that no driver waits more than four minutes in ramp queue, and vehicles are not allowed to back up onto city streets.
Some people just don't like stuff. I'd rather spend longer driving because I don't like it. /sigh.

Doesn't mean there's not room for improvement, and it sounds like they found some. There's some lights here that backup onto city streets.... generally they're in places with plenty of road (suburbs, dedicated free-way online lane for a quarter mile), so it isn't an issue. But if you've got a downtown on-ramp where people are backing up into intersections... yeah, not so good.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-25-2013, 05:47 AM
 
Location: North Baltimore ----> Seattle
6,473 posts, read 11,099,778 times
Reputation: 3117
Quote:
Originally Posted by Malloric View Post
Doesn't mean there's not room for improvement, and it sounds like they found some. There's some lights here that backup onto city streets.... generally they're in places with plenty of road (suburbs, dedicated free-way online lane for a quarter mile), so it isn't an issue. But if you've got a downtown on-ramp where people are backing up into intersections... yeah, not so good.
A common retrofit has been to open the flow onto the highway when traffic queues up onto the street, creating a new problem.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-25-2013, 08:50 AM
 
4,023 posts, read 3,265,560 times
Reputation: 2924
Quote:
Originally Posted by Patricius Maximus View Post

By the way, how did a thread about traffic calming turn into a discussion about onramps ? Not that I mind discussing onramps as opposed to strangling traffic with speed humps, but I don't see how loop ramps on freeways fit into the picture.

Freeways could use some form of traffic calming too, since no one pays attention to the 65mph limit. The freeways are scary enough without every idiot doing 80mph (when it isn't backed up with bumper to bumper traffic). What's the point? It accomplishes nothing but wastes fuel and creates stress and road rage, and pollution. And kills more people. I don't think people should be allowed to go any speed they want on the freeways.

I would propose putting those red light cameras on every freeway and start mailing out $500 speeding tickets en masse. And double the fine for repeat offenders. After the first ticket their insurance rates will probably double too. That should take care of the problem real quick. It's simple. You break the law, you pay the price.
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