Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us money per month for bills, and since we don't believe in showing ads to our users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
 
  • Post
  • Reply
Drunk Tomato
Apr 23, 2010

If God wanted us sober,
He'd knock the glass over.
Awesome thread, Cichlidae. I've been reading from the beginning for the past few months now. I'm actually only about halfway through the whole thing. However, I had something to ask you so I'm skipping ahead momentarily.

I want to write a short letter to my city's public works department (which encompasses traffic and streets matters) regarding the signal length of a particular left-hand turn lane. This light is green for only enough time to allow 4-5 cars to pass, when in the morning there can be 3 or 4 times that amount waiting in the designated turning lane. This means that sometimes I wait 2 or 3 light cycles before I can turn. The designated turn lane is long enough to hold about 20 cars, so this means that the city has designed for lots of traffic. For some reason, though, they kept the light ridiculously short. This means a lot of cars end up running the red light here.

Anyway, I want to make the suggestion to increase the signal time just a few seconds in order for more cars to make the turn. Here's what I have so far. Is there anything more you think I should add to this?

My letter posted:

Good Morning,

I would like to propose a possible signal timing revision. The left-turn light traveling westbound along NE 124th Street and turning onto Slater Avenue NE is too short and creates potential problems. Often, this light is only long enough to allow four or five cars to safely turn; undoubtedly, one or two cars after the light turns will run the red light. In the morning, those turning left and not willing to run the red can be expected to wait through at least two complete intersection cycles.

I believe that increasing this signal length 5-10 seconds would make a great improvement for the intersection. This would allow several more cars to successfully make the left turn. It would also make the intersection safer, as fewer cars would be running the red light.

Thank you for your time and consideration. I await your response on this matter.


Oh, and here's the intersection in Google Maps to give you a good look.

http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&sou...6,0.004597&z=18

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Drunk Tomato
Apr 23, 2010

If God wanted us sober,
He'd knock the glass over.

Choadmaster posted:


2) People who leave massive gaps between them and the car in front of them when stopped at a signal. This may not sound too bad, but when there is a left turn lane involved it can needlessly gently caress over people who (a) could have entered the turn lane and been on their way if only they could have reached it, or (b) could otherwise have fit in the turn lane but now end up blocking the main traffic lane while they wait to get into it. There's one particularly busy intersection in town that has a double-left turn lane that is long enough for about 16 cars (per lane, so 32 total). Everyone pulls into the rightmost lane first because it is easiest, and once it's filled up it blocks access to the inner lane (there's another bit of stupidity). I routinely have to choose between blocking traffic in the main lane, or just continuing straight and taking a slower route home. Invariably, whenever I decide to go straight, I drive past three or four jackasses who have left an entire car length or more between them and the person in front. What the gently caress?


Supposedly, a friend of a friend (yeah, I know) got a ticket because he was "stopped too close to the car in front in front of him". The scenario was this:

Car A is stopped at a red light. Car B pulls in behind him (this is the guy who got the ticket). Car C, failing to apply the breaks, rear-ends Car B at a high speed and pushes Car B into Car A.

The story is that Car B got a ticket and had to pay for the damage to Car A, even though he didn't do anything. The cop said he was "too close".

This story does smell of BS to me, though.

Drunk Tomato
Apr 23, 2010

If God wanted us sober,
He'd knock the glass over.
The game "Cities in Motion" is on sale via Steam today for $6.75. Any other urban planner / transportation dorks have any experience with this game? Is it fun and/or a somewhat accurate representation of transportation systems?

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • Post
  • Reply