|
That sure is one way to eat up a lot of real estate with no appreciable benefit.
|
#
?
May 7, 2020 20:08
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 23, 2024 23:06 |
|
|
Hippie Hedgehog posted:That sure is one way to eat up a lot of real estate with no appreciable benefit. I bet the ROW for the cloverleaf was purchased or dedicated when 571 was built, and then when they went to build or improve the cross-street, they decided to add all the direct- and loop-ramps because hey why not, they had the ROW already dedicated so it's no cost, and it makes the operations look marginally better in the 1980's traffic simulation software.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2020 20:21
|
|
|
What happened to that person who was going to post the plans for their cities cycleway? I'm curious to see what it was
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2020 08:21
|
|
|
after all these years, I've finally found it. The World's Most Unexplainable Bus Station What do you do? Where do you go? There are no sidewalks, no walkways, no overpasses, the pedestrian bridge way up the road doesn't have an entrance from that particular street level, and the bus stop is an island platform in the middle of the interstate exit. It looks like it could fit maybe 10 cars in that little passthrough, and the island itself can't possibly hold enough people at one time to use as some kind of weird highway rideshare thing
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2020 20:46
|
|
|
Guessing here: Changing between two or more bus lines. Edit: Found the right "Erie St SE", it's the one in Minneapolis. Looks like I was right, the bus stop is called "Interstate 94 & Huron Transit Station". Seems to be served by at least bus routes 375 , 365, 355 and 94, I think they're all long distance "express" type routes. Hippie Hedgehog fucked around with this message at 21:11 on May 21, 2020 |
|
#
?
May 21, 2020 20:59
|
|
|
Hippie Hedgehog posted:Guessing here: Changing between two or more bus lines. I also looked it up and found it, and I guess the tiny island made sense for its ridership - I found it on the MetroTransit site as well shortly after I posted and it isn't on their interactive map of stations anymore. Looks like it formerly allowed the UoM shuttle to transfer to the Route 94 bus
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2020 21:08
|
|
|
https://goo.gl/maps/yEhHRhrjHWEqoujZ6 I thought maybe it was a layover spot for drivers, but there's no bathrooms or anything. I do see it listed on a couple bus route maps: https://www.metrotransit.org/data/sites/1/media/pdfs/schedules/routemaps/48/134Map.pdf
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2020 21:12
|
|
|
Tiny Tubesteak Tom posted:I also looked it up and found it, and I guess the tiny island made sense for its ridership - I found it on the MetroTransit site as well shortly after I posted and it isn't on their interactive map of stations anymore. Looks like it formerly allowed the UoM shuttle to transfer to the Route 94 bus A lot of time silly looking things like that are the result of a "legacy" land uses, like if there was an existing bus stop at the end of a roadway, and now a new project is going to dead-end that roadway at a new interstate interchange, and the division that runs buses in your town, who is under the same executive branch as the county, says, "Well how are our buses going to serve this area now, we can't very well have them turning around in a neighborhood before they get there" so the engineer looks at the client, who shrugs, and then they carve out that middle transit stop, and all the outside directional ramps move out a little bit
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2020 21:12
|
|
|
That bus loop is expressly there for UMN/METRO Light Rail shuttles to transfer with express routes on I-94, without having them completely leave the Interstate. Also to turn shuttles around. None of the shuttles are in operation right now, due to the pandemic and related school closure, so the stop is out of service. Otherwise, it provides a quick trip from Downtown St Paul to UMN, or from UMN to Downtown Minneapolis. https://www.google.com/maps/place/S...9!4d-93.2228914 METRO Green Line has made it largely obsolete, but some trips are still much faster via the 94. Varance fucked around with this message at 04:23 on May 22, 2020 |
|
#
?
May 22, 2020 04:15
|
|
|
Carbon dioxide posted:Pedestrians and cyclists have zero rights in America so turn-right-on-red makes sense there.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2020 15:42
|
|
|
When turning right on green you can see the whole crosswalk and also the sidewalk leading up to it, how is that harder than seeing people coming from behind the truck to your left at the lights?
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2020 12:46
|
|
|
I get the feeling that the people who are aghast at right on red think you just barrel on through, slowing down just enough to not roll or some poo poo. Its a stop sign. When the light is red, you treat it exactly like a stop sign if you want to turn. Its not complicated. Yes it means pedestrians have to look up and check to make sure no one is gonna run them over, but if you are crossing a street you should be doing that anyway, unless stop signals magically put up force fields over intersections outside of the US.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2020 15:23
|
|
|
RFC2324 posted:I get the feeling that the people who are aghast at right on red think you just barrel on through, slowing down just enough to not roll or some poo poo. Well, the pedestrians have the right of way in that situation, although there is a big power differential, I guess for lack of a better phrase. But you are right, for better or (likely popular thread opinion) for worse, outside of big city centers, the culture in America is that pedestrians look at the drivers and try to get eye contact from the drivers & determine what the drivers are doing before crossing the street. I too don't really get the argument that a blanket ban on allowing right turn on red is a good idea. I think the current US system makes sense, where right turn on red is banned in dense intersections with a lot of pedestrians, but permitted elsewhere. Banning right turn on red outside of dense areas is just wasting people's time. Although maybe that is the point: to purely make driving less convenient, so comparatively other modes of transit look better. silence_kit fucked around with this message at 15:47 on Jun 5, 2020 |
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2020 15:42
|
|
|
Right on red would not work anywhere you have a cycle path, as cyclists can come up on you from your rear much faster than a pedestrian can.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2020 18:31
|
|
|
u brexit ukip it posted:Right on red would not work anywhere you have a cycle path, as cyclists can come up on you from your rear much faster than a pedestrian can. ? I'm confused here. Uh, I know in the US that they often don't follow traffic laws, but aren't cyclists supposed to stop at red lights? Isn't this also a problem with right turn on green, if a bicyclist is trying to pass a car while it is turning right, but the car didn't signal properly?
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2020 18:36
|
|
|
silence_kit posted:? I'm confused here. A car turning right will easily clip a bicyclist stopped to their right in a bike lane if they're not aware anyone is there. Turning right on red, the driver is probably only looking to their left. It is definitely a problem during green lights also, but drivers seem to have more overall awareness of their surroundings while moving.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2020 18:54
|
|
|
silence_kit posted:? I'm confused here. In my city the bike paths often have different signals and signal timing to allow bikes to turn left across the road. So you can't have right on red there either; they also put up big signs telling you not to do it, but of course half the time drivers just ignore them.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2020 20:54
|
|
Yes, it's like a lava lamp.
|
silence_kit posted:? I'm confused here. I'm thinking more of cases where you have a separate cycle path that has green along with vehicles on the main road going straight, with right-turning traffic having red.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2020 11:49
|
|
|
u brexit ukip it posted:I'm thinking more of cases where you have a separate cycle path that has green along with vehicles on the main road going straight, with right-turning traffic having red.  ?
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2020 14:45
|
|
|
How would you handle the signals in combination with right on red in this case?
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2020 15:11
|
|
|
I wouldn't be stupid enough to build a setup like that in a state that allows right turn on red edit: you could also just put a sign that says "NO RIGHT TURN ON RED" ez
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2020 15:13
|
|
|
Sorry to interrupt bike chat but this owns https://twitter.com/markkrueg/status/1269073081231740928?s=21
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2020 15:14
|
|
|
Carbon dioxide posted:How would you handle the signals in combination with right on red in this case? Well, you’d recognize that you’re in Cupertino, and know that residents would probably claim that a separated bike lane would somehow lower their property values and then elect a crazy person as mayor to ensure it’s never built in the first place. Serious answer - per CA law, the signals in that picture already do that, as you’re not allowed to right-on-red against a red arrow, only a solid red. Of course, that’s not standard across the US, and it’s very much approaching “driver’s test esoterica” because they’re so rare in the first place. In my unprofessional opinion, it seems like it’s tempting fate to have a stopped lane of traffic surrounded by moving lanes of traffic anyway.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2020 19:45
|
|
|
These grade-separated bike lanes are the standard here in the Netherlands and they usually* have separate traffic light phases. In this case, turning right on red would never work for cars. If there's no separated bike lane, which sometimes happens in slower roads within city limits, there's usually a place for bikes to line up in front of cars turning to the right instead of to their side so that drivers can't move until the bikes have crossed. In this situation the cars going right can't go while there's still bikes waiting to go straight ahead so right-on-red wouldn't make sense either. * There are some exceptions like someone said but usually intersections that turn out to have an unsafe design get changed for the better as soon as it's time for their scheduled maintenance so I hope we can get rid of those cases soon. Anyway, that's the explanation of my somewhat facetious statement from before. There's no problem with right-on-red per se, it's just that it cannot coexist with infrastructure explicitly designed with safety in mind for those road users who aren't protected by a metal box. But this view only makes sense when you come at it with the philosophy that road infrastructure should be designed to be as fool-proof as possible, so that even if drivers are tired and not paying attention, the chance of an accident is minimized. Since America's philosophy is much more focused on being responsible for your own safety, that philosophy isn't nearly as important in traffic design there. Of course, that view doesn't take into account that you always share the road with other users so it's impossible to be 100% responsible for your own safety, you have to put a huge amount of trust into others. Much more so than when the infrastructure itself helps you and the others to drive safely. (Yes I'm subscribed to Not Just Bikes on youtube how did you guess?)
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2020 20:13
|
|
|
Carbon dioxide posted:These grade-separated bike lanes are the standard here in the Netherlands and they usually* have separate traffic light phases. In this case, turning right on red would never work for cars. Yeah, I wouldn’t be opposed to that setup with wholly separate phases. And bike boxes are becoming more common in bike-friendly municipalities in the US - I remember a lot of them in Portland, OR.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2020 21:11
|
|
|
RFC2324 posted:I get the feeling that the people who are aghast at right on red think you just barrel on through, slowing down just enough to not roll or some poo poo. IIRC there is one state in the US where you can just barrel through. Also in most places a very large fraction of drivers genuinely don't seem to know that you need to stop first. poo poo I've seen/overheard: "So Meryl got a fine the other day because she didn't stop when making a right turn on a red." "Oh, I didn't know you had to do that!" Or: Dad is out biking with kids on the back streets. Dad turns right at a stop sign, without stopping. Immediately his kids all chorus "Dad, that's illegal!". Dad goes "you're allowed if you're turning right". Peanut President posted:I wouldn't be stupid enough to build a setup like that in a state that allows right turn on red Yeah Vancouver's started using these for intersections with bike routes. The signs are kinda small and easy to miss if you're not used to them. And this gets worse for people who are used to just barrelling through without stopping or looking. e.g: https://goo.gl/maps/YWyr9uJbjmjvS5AV7 https://goo.gl/maps/FqmUtFbXaK7DTTb7A
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2020 02:16
|
|
|
They have right on red in Denmark and I hate it. It’s strictly illegal (left on red) in the UK and it makes it far more comfortable to cross the road. Drivers will always attempt to bully pedestrians out of the way if they have the choice.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2020 08:28
|
|
|
Yeah even when you have the pedestrian walk signal to cross, there's some rear end in a top hat that'll pull up at full speed expecting to turn right without stopping. Bonus for the intersections where if you stop for that driver to avoid being run over, the left turn arrow starts while you're delayed so now you have the other direction trying to turn left while you're still in the intersection.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2020 08:38
|
|
|
less than three posted:Yeah even when you have the pedestrian walk signal to cross, there's some rear end in a top hat that'll pull up at full speed expecting to turn right without stopping. Bonus for the intersections where if you stop for that driver to avoid being run over, the left turn arrow starts while you're delayed so now you have the other direction trying to turn left while you're still in the intersection. Crosswalk timings are made for grannies going 3.5 feet per second. Just hustle!
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2020 21:38
|
|
|
Happy Noodle Boy posted:Sorry to interrupt bike chat but this owns What the hell is that person driving in the pedestrian path? A golf cart?
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2020 07:55
|
|
|
Fuschia tude posted:What the hell is that person driving in the pedestrian path? A golf cart? Yes. Probably National Park Service maintenance. This is common on all the touristy bridges.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2020 10:48
|
|
|
Varance posted:Yes. Probably National Park Service maintenance. This is common on all the touristy bridges. Wait, in America bridges counts as national parks?
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2020 16:18
|
|
|
Carbon dioxide posted:Wait, in America bridges counts as national parks? There’s some forts and additional stuff around each end of the bridge. It’s not just a bridge.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2020 16:31
|
|
|
Carbon dioxide posted:Wait, in America bridges counts as national parks? Land at both ends of the Golden Gate bridge are National Park Service parks. They also run a lot of the tourist spots around that area, Golden Gate welcome center, etc...
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2020 16:33
|
|
|
Carbon dioxide posted:Wait, in America bridges counts as national parks? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Gate_National_Recreation_Area
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2020 23:02
|
|
|
A video about Copenhagen's 3 worst bicycle bridges came up in my YT recommendations, and this was another one by the same guy. Pretty neat. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CfXP6KOVBOY
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2020 14:06
|
|
|
Chris Knight posted:A video about Copenhagen's 3 worst bicycle bridges came up in my YT recommendations, and this was another one by the same guy. Pretty neat. You might watch that video, and then look at this intersection and go "Oh my goodness this is horrible!...It's even one of those horrible 3 sided crossings!!".  https://goo.gl/maps/1wQME6LVjeYc6yQNA The fine for jaywalking is 300NTD (about 10$US).  But underneath is actually an underground shopping area:  https://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E5%8F%B0%E5%8C%97%E5%9C%B0%E4%B8%8B%E8%A1%97 I came across a good number of these in Taiwan and Japan. Good way to avoid the rain too. mamosodiumku fucked around with this message at 01:49 on Jun 16, 2020 |
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2020 01:45
|
|
|
Chris Knight posted:A video about Copenhagen's 3 worst bicycle bridges came up in my YT recommendations, and this was another one by the same guy. Pretty neat. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=McvZ68qlho4
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2020 02:59
|
|
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=knbVWXzL4-4 Interesting video about traffic lights in general but also a sidenote on right-on-red (allowing it causes a 69% increase in crashes with pedestrians). I don't know how many countries have these smarter setups as shown in the video. I'm pretty sure Belgium doesn't have them at all.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2020 16:38
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 23, 2024 23:06 |
|
|
Hey traffic enthusiasts! Is there an English word for an unmarked pedestrian crossing? Example in the UK:  Decidedly not a zebra crossing (no stripes), nor a pelican/pelicon crossing (no signal). I suspect that the pictured design means "please cross here, but take care because motorists have right-of-way". Since it's in use in the UK, I assume there must be a term for it, but the Wikipedia article on "pedestrian crossing" doesn't seem to mention this type, it only seems to discuss crossing where the pedestrian has right-of-way. I see these all over the place in Scandinavia, where they often narrow the road by curb extensions, and/or add bollards for the vision impaired to find them easier.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2020 11:58
|
|