Hmmm. Traffic is very heavy. How to solve? Why by stopping it of course!

[andymurph64]

Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr.

I live in the Twin Cities area in MN. They do love their stop lights here! :mad:

There is a stretch of road that take on the way to/from work. The traffic gets heavy because it is only one lane. ONE LANE! The road should have at least three. It gets me across the river and the other routes are further away and just as bad.

Well, since traffic is heavy, people trying to enter from the side streets have problems because there is no room/space to enter. I let my share in but, hey, they could go back to the beginning of the line instead of barging in. The beginning of the line isn't that far away and it is easy to get on the end.

Well....how do we solve this problem? Heavy traffic having a hard time moving....people on side streets having problems getting on.....add lanes?? Nope. Block off the side streets so people cannot get stuck during rush hour or put up signs?? Nope.

I GOT IT!!!! Lets put up stop lights and stop the already heavy, slow moving traffic!!! Yeah, that's it!!!!

I'd like to meet the person/people that proposed this and 'talk' with them about this. I'd like to strap them onto my front bumber and smash them into the car in front of me everytime I need to stop on this highway all the while asking "Do you still think this was a good idea?....(SMASH)...."Do you still think this was a good idea...(SMASH)..."

What is wrong with the logic of getting traffic to flow to solve congestion??? Why do people actually think by putting up obsticles that it would help. Is that so difficult to understand?

[alice_in_wonderland]

Dude - you really need to switch to decaf.

It's only traffic.

[andymurph64]

Last I saw, this was the pit. I can rant all I want about what I want. :)

It's not just traffic, it's time. My time is important to me.

[Steve Wright]

You can still use it positively. Put a language tape in your car or something. Imagine the conversations a few years down the road.

"Your Turkish is very good, effendi."

"Thanks. I learned it waiting at stop signs, you know."

[Revtim]

I got 2 words for you: Audio Books. If you have a good one, you curse the traffic when it speeds up.

[Enki]

Obviously. Given that you've used so much of it to post this.

Somehow I think you'd feel differently, were you to have to use one of those sidestreets.

:wally

[dalovindj]

Gotta love the pit where people come to bitch and others come to put down those who bitch. Can't win for whining.

[blowero]

I don't get your rant.
Originally posted by andymurph64

Well, since traffic is heavy, people trying to enter from the side streets have problems because there is no room/space to enter. I let my share in but, hey, they could go back to the beginning of the line instead of barging in. The beginning of the line isn't that far away and it is easy to get on the end.

What does that mean - "go back to the beginning of the line"?

What is wrong with the logic of getting traffic to flow to solve congestion??? Why do people actually think by putting up obsticles that it would help. Is that so difficult to understand?
I have a feeling I'm not grasping your meaning, because the way you explained this, it sounds like you want the street YOU use to be unobstructed at the expense of the cross streets that OTHER people use. So presumably, nobody would be allowed to enter "your" street except you?

[andymurph64]

I wasn't clear, blowero. The highway currently does not have stop lights but they are going to put them in. The reason? Because traffic is heavy. :confused:

The audio books and learning Turkish is a good idea! I used to use them when I had to travel across country. I forgot about them. However, I do not like 'abridged' audio books but want the full blown thing. Where do I find unabridged?

For those who are bitchin about my bitchin.... Up Yours!!! With a rubber hose to! :D

[dantheman]

I'm kinda with blowero here, though I can certainly empathize with the OP. We're famed here for our gridlock (not counting gridlock in Congress); maybe it's pretty bad in the Twin Cities, but it's no good here, either. And there are plenty of two-lane highways that might be better served with more lanes.

One problem with these roads, though, is that people push their way in to make a left from a business onto the main road, thereby holding up traffic on the one side until it's clear on the other. They'd get the job done a lot quicker and not hold up anyone so needlessly if they made a right and then turned at the traffic light.

[JRootabega]

I think he means that, where these streets intersect the main road, there is usually a steady presence of traffic. But further up the street, a light or some other variation in the flow of cars makes pulling out onto the main road a lot easier for both parties.

[andymurph64]

Oops, forgot to explain the 'end of the line'. JRootabega has it right. The traffic narls up going across the river. The side streets could enter further down the road where the traffic is much lighter. That spot is probably less than 2 miles away. Traffic does flow, but slowly. They choose to try to enter where the traffic has no space probably in hopes of jumping the line.

I guess what I'll do is try to enter at the furtherest stop light when it is installed. I don't like it but have to play 'the system'

[Barbarian]

You're still using a car to get around? Man, those things are as dumb as sacred cows in India.

I've been to the Twin Cities, and have to agree that driving around there is ludicrous. Big hills, narrow streets, and all that damn snow. If it weren't so damn cold, I'd tell you to ride a bike. Hey wait, I've done that through a Montreal winter...

So I guess I'll have to suggest you move so you're within a 15 minute walk from your office. Your time is valuable, right?

[blowero]

Originally posted by andymurph64
Oops, forgot to explain the 'end of the line'. JRootabega has it right. The traffic narls up going across the river. The side streets could enter further down the road where the traffic is much lighter. That spot is probably less than 2 miles away. Traffic does flow, but slowly. They choose to try to enter where the traffic has no space probably in hopes of jumping the line.

I guess what I'll do is try to enter at the furtherest stop light when it is installed. I don't like it but have to play 'the system'
O.K., I think I kinda see what you are saying. But if people are going down side streets and then entering the highway further down, I would think that stoplights might SOLVE your problem, rather than making it worse. Here's why: they will undoubtedly make the green light last much, much longer for the highway users. So those who try to go down the side streets will probably get stuck at a long red light when they try to re-enter the highway, which should tend to discourage such behavior.

[andymurph64]

they will undoubtedly make the green light last much, much longer for the highway users.


Logic would seem to make this true. However, if they do it like many stoplights around here currently up it will not have a lengthy green time and the side streets green to long. That is another stoplight rant of mine I will save...along with the red left turn arrows.
;)

[Revtim]

Originally posted by andymurph64
The audio books and learning Turkish is a good idea! I used to use them when I had to travel across country. I forgot about them. However, I do not like 'abridged' audio books but want the full blown thing. Where do I find unabridged?
I've seen a lot of both abridged and unabridged audio books in the big US bookstores, like Borders and Barnes & Noble. Check out used book stores as well, many of those (in my area at least) also carry audio books.

[aenea]

Fuck all of these smart-ass comments.


I hear your pain, my friend.

Stupid people that design stupid traffic flows should be forced to drive that flow every day, twice a day.



And for the record, yes, it's my fucking street, get outta my way dammit! :mad:


Aenea, who gets MIGHTY irritated by stupid traffic and rubberneckers who slow it further

[chique]

MNDOT spent millions of dollars building a bridge and a four-lane, divided highway (MN 15) north of St. Cloud. Beautiful road. Thousands of cars a day travel it from the Little Falls area south to St. Cloud.

A year later? They put up stoplights. Fucking nitwits. Who the hell would build a road to efficently carry traffic in and out of town and then put fucking stoplights on it?! If they were timed lights it wouldn't bother me so much, but no - every time someone approaches from the side roads they trip the fucking signal.

Fucking MNDOT.

[Princhester]

The problem is that there are too many cars, and too many people using them to go in too many directions for any system to be able to cope well enough to please everyone. And everyone considers any changes that detriment them (even if they advantage others) to be stoopid.

If you actually read anything about traffic engineering you will learn that there are subtleties way beyond what your selfish bitching will allow you to acknowledge. Such as that cutting in and weaving lanes and playing the system in the way that you propose slows everything down. And that building faster roads encourages more people to use them, till they are saturated and no longer fast.

[Magickly Delicious]

Oh my God. Maybe I really shouldn't be a transportation engineer...for my own health.

(SMASH)

[blowero]

Originally posted by andymurph64
Logic would seem to make this true. However, if they do it like many stoplights around here currently up it will not have a lengthy green time and the side streets green to long. ;)
Yeah, if they do that, then they suck.

That is another stoplight rant of mine I will save...along with the red left turn arrows.

That reminds me of something that bugs me: the whole modern, planned, overengineered community idea. You know, the kind of newer developments where everything is so rigidly structured that you have to go six blocks out of your way because they won't allow you to make a left turn anywhere. Those kinds of places always seem to have just the same traffic problems as everywhere else, while still managing to be incredibly inconvenient.

[jeevmon]

Originally posted by Princhester
The problem is that there are too many cars, and too many people using them to go in too many directions for any system to be able to cope well enough to please everyone. And everyone considers any changes that detriment them (even if they advantage others) to be stoopid.

If you actually read anything about traffic engineering you will learn that there are subtleties way beyond what your selfish bitching will allow you to acknowledge. Such as that cutting in and weaving lanes and playing the system in the way that you propose slows everything down. And that building faster roads encourages more people to use them, till they are saturated and no longer fast.

I remember the old "SimCity" game incorporating this into the simulation. Namely, the game was programmed so that traffic would grow to fill the space provided. It was an unsolvable problem, and deliberately set up to be so. I seem to remember that several urban planners thought that this was the most realistic aspect of the game.

It would be interesting to try and set up a market to allocate the resources for driving during rush hour. Basically, anyone who wanted to drive on road X during rush hour would have to purchase a certain number of "traffic credits" in order to do so. If someone chooses to forego the privilege of driving in order to take mass transit, they would save the expense of purchasing credits or could sell any credits that they purchased to those who chose to drive. Carpooling would also be more attractive because multiple people could share the cost of the credits. It would require a retooling of how people think of driving (in the U.S., it's viewed as an entitlement up there or perhaps above free speech, right to be free from unreasonable search & seizures, etc.) But I don't think it could make matters much worse.

[andymurph64]

So I guess I'll have to suggest you move so you're within a 15 minute walk from your office. Your time is valuable, right?


Been there, done that. I lived within biking distance 5 years ago and it was great. Exercise, fresh air... However, I needed to change jobs and the new one was further away. Your advice reminds me of the flippant advice many eco-frienndly people use around here along with take the bus and so on. Well, people can't just always pick up and move when they get a different job or always find the best job near where they live. Your advice, though sounding reasonable to a few, is not helpful and unreasonable.


....because they won't allow you to make a left turn anywhere


I spent a few months in Los Angeles many moons ago. The traffic there is nothing to be proud of but they did have a system of limiting left handed turns during rush hour. At first I was irritated but it really does seem to work and, once used to it, could get to where I wanted without turning left. I think traffic flowed much better without it.

Also Blowero, the red left turn arrows bug me. I mean WTF??? I can't turn left when no traffic is coming? I can see some intersections having red left turn arrows but here in MN almost ALL of the lights have them. Do other areas of the country have them?? I have been around when younger and don't remember them.

[andymurph64]

Jevmon, I played Simcity1-3 and loved it. My cities never had any traffic problems. Even in dense areas I designed them so that traffic was never 'heavy'.

[lno]

Highway 169 in the western suburbs. I dare you to try to go north from 62 to 55 around 4 to 6 pm.

[blowero]

Originally posted by jeevmon
It would be interesting to try and set up a market to allocate the resources for driving during rush hour. Basically, anyone who wanted to drive on road X during rush hour would have to purchase a certain number of "traffic credits" in order to do so. If someone chooses to forego the privilege of driving in order to take mass transit, they would save the expense of purchasing credits or could sell any credits that they purchased to those who chose to drive. Carpooling would also be more attractive because multiple people could share the cost of the credits. It would require a retooling of how people think of driving (in the U.S., it's viewed as an entitlement up there or perhaps above free speech, right to be free from unreasonable search & seizures, etc.) But I don't think it could make matters much worse.
My objection to this idea is the same as my objection to toll roads. When you think about it, it's really a system of entitlement for the wealthy. Any plan which allows you special privileges for a fee is in effect giving wealthier people exclusive access to that which has historically been available to everyone. It seems unfair that people of modest income should be taxed, and have their tax money go towards building roads, only to be denied access to those roads. I also think you're forgetting that there are a lot of places in the U.S. that are currently inaccessible by public transportation, and that many jobs require that the employee bring their car to work in case they need to run errands for the company. And finally, I would think that building an extensive series of toll booths in order to monitor how often each person uses a particular road would cause as many traffic problems as it might help.

Besides, isn't positive reinforcement always better than negative? If you want people to take public transportation and use carpools, the best way is to make these alternatives MORE attractive than driving. Why force people to make the choice? If traffic becomes bad enough, and public transit and carpooling become viable alternatives, people WILL start to use them. The incentive is already built into the system.

[World Eater]

Originally posted by Steve Wright
You can still use it positively. Put a language tape in your car or something. Imagine the conversations a few years down the road.

"Your Turkish is very good, effendi."

"Thanks. I learned it waiting at stop signs, you know."

Funniest thing I've read all day.

[blowero]

Originally posted by andymurph64
I spent a few months in Los Angeles many moons ago. The traffic there is nothing to be proud of but they did have a system of limiting left handed turns during rush hour. At first I was irritated but it really does seem to work and, once used to it, could get to where I wanted without turning left. I think traffic flowed much better without it.

Well, I wasn't really talking about downtown Los Angeles. That's an older area, and most of the streets don't have controlled left turn lanes, or even turn lanes at all, so they need some sort of stopgap measures to avoid total gridlock. I just think they go TOO far the other way in newer suburban areas, like Thousand Oaks, for example. There's a particular mini-mall there that has a Starbucks, which I occasionally like to stop at. As I'm coming down the main street, it's on my left. But I can't turn left. Instead, I have to go another block, wait at the red left turn arrow, make a left turn (U-turns are disallowed), go two more blocks to one of the few places where a U-turn is allowed, make a U-turn, come back two blocks, make a right turn back onto the main boulevard, and come back one block to the Starbucks. Is this really helping the flow of traffic? I'm skeptical.

[andymurph64]

Any plan which allows you special privileges for a fee is in effect giving wealthier people exclusive access to that which has historically been available to everyone.


Blowero hits this right on the head, IMO.


...the best way is to make these alternatives MORE attractive than driving. Why force people to make the choice? If traffic becomes bad enough, and public transit and carpooling become viable alternatives, people WILL start to use them.


I know I would use the bus without hesitation if it were available. I dislike driving. In fact, I once worked in downtown Minneapolis and was surprised how convenient and fast the bus service was. Now I work in one suburb and live in another and do not work for a large company. To get from there to here and back again is essentially impossible.

[Snickers]

Ino, I'll see your 169 and raise you a Hwy 100 in those same western suburbs. I refer to the Edina/62/7 area as "the bottleneck." It's a treat.

While we're bitching about Minnesota roads (and why not?), I'd like to take this space to complain about Twin Cities on-ramps. We've taken to calling them "suicide clovers." Let me on, ya bastid! I feel like Gandalf - I'm not trying to rob you, I'm merely trying to merge on. Assmasters.

Thanks for that.

Snicks

[andymurph64]

While we're bitching about Minnesota roads (and why not?), I'd like to take this space to complain about Twin Cities on-ramps. We've taken to calling them "suicide clovers." Let me on, ya bastid! I feel like Gandalf - I'm not trying to rob you, I'm merely trying to merge on. Assmasters.


Then get the hell moving! Stop trying to merge while driving 20-30 mph below the speed limit. You have an accelerator, use it! :D

Snickers, the area you mentioned made the worst 10 in the United States. I can't remember when I read this but it was in the Star Tribune.

[matt_mcl]

I remember the old "SimCity" game incorporating this into the simulation. Namely, the game was programmed so that traffic would grow to fill the space provided. It was an unsolvable problem, and deliberately set up to be so. I seem to remember that several urban planners thought that this was the most realistic aspect of the game.

Yup. Building more roads to solve traffic is like trying to cure fleas by buying another dog.

[lno]

I'd rather take 100 north than 169 -- 100 has three lanes up until highway 7, at least.

I think the solution to solving traffic woes is to install a rocket launcher on the front of my car, with a large enough warhead to blow the wreckage of the destroyed car in front of me well onto the shoulder. And enough ammunition for me to clear a path to go from Eden Prairie to Plymouth.