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
Hippie Hedgehog
Feb 19, 2007

Ever cuddled a hedgehog?

That sure is one way to eat up a lot of real estate with no appreciable benefit.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Devor
Nov 30, 2004
Lurking more.

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.

Lobsterpillar
Feb 4, 2014


What happened to that person who was going to post the plans for their cities cycleway? I'm curious to see what it was

barnold
Dec 16, 2011

...but i didnt finish




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

Hippie Hedgehog
Feb 19, 2007

Ever cuddled a hedgehog?

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 20:11 on May 21, 2020

barnold
Dec 16, 2011

...but i didnt finish




Hippie Hedgehog posted:

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".

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

Guy Axlerod
Dec 29, 2008


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

Devor
Nov 30, 2004
Lurking more.

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

Varance
Oct 28, 2004

Ladies, hide your footwear!

Nap Ghost

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 03:23 on May 22, 2020

cyberbug
Sep 30, 2004

The name is Carl Seltz...
insurance inspector.


Carbon dioxide posted:

Pedestrians and cyclists have zero rights in America so turn-right-on-red makes sense there.
I don't get this... I don't live in the US but when I was there I found it much easier to watch out for people crossing right in front of me on turn-right-on-red than the ones on the street I'm turning onto when turning on green.

pun pundit
Nov 11, 2008

I feel the same way about the company bearing the same name.



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?

RFC2324
Jun 7, 2012

http 418



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.

silence_kit
Jul 14, 2011


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.

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.

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 14:47 on Jun 5, 2020

u brexit ukip it
Oct 30, 2004


Exciting Lemon

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.

silence_kit
Jul 14, 2011


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?

AreWeDrunkYet
Jul 8, 2006



silence_kit posted:

? 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?

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.

PittTheElder
Feb 13, 2012

Yes, it's like a lava lamp.



silence_kit posted:

? 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?

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.

u brexit ukip it
Oct 30, 2004


Exciting Lemon

silence_kit posted:

? 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?

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.

Peanut President
Nov 5, 2008





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.


?

Carbon dioxide
Oct 9, 2012



How would you handle the signals in combination with right on red in this case?

Peanut President
Nov 5, 2008





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

Happy Noodle Boy
Jul 3, 2002



Sorry to interrupt bike chat but this owns


https://twitter.com/markkrueg/status/1269073081231740928?s=21

Blue Moonlight
Apr 28, 2005
Bitter and Sarcastic

Carbon dioxide posted:

How would you handle the signals in combination with right on red in this case?



Well, youíd recognize that youíre 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 itís never built in the first place.

Serious answer - per CA law, the signals in that picture already do that, as youíre not allowed to right-on-red against a red arrow, only a solid red. Of course, thatís not standard across the US, and itís very much approaching ďdriverís test esotericaĒ because theyíre so rare in the first place.

In my unprofessional opinion, it seems like itís tempting fate to have a stopped lane of traffic surrounded by moving lanes of traffic anyway.

Carbon dioxide
Oct 9, 2012



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?)

Blue Moonlight
Apr 28, 2005
Bitter and Sarcastic

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.

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.

Yeah, I wouldnít 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.

Lead out in cuffs
Sep 18, 2012

"That's right. We've evolved."

"I can see that. Cool mutations."



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.

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.

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

edit: you could also just put a sign that says "NO RIGHT TURN ON RED" ez

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

Sri.Theo
Apr 16, 2008


They have right on red in Denmark and I hate it. Itís 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.

less than three
Aug 9, 2007





Fallen Rib

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.

Devor
Nov 30, 2004
Lurking more.

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!

Fuschia tude
Dec 26, 2004

THUNDERDOME LOSER 2019




What the hell is that person driving in the pedestrian path? A golf cart?

Varance
Oct 28, 2004

Ladies, hide your footwear!

Nap Ghost

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.

Carbon dioxide
Oct 9, 2012



Varance posted:

Yes. Probably National Park Service maintenance. This is common on all the touristy bridges.

Wait, in America bridges counts as national parks?

Happy Noodle Boy
Jul 3, 2002



Carbon dioxide posted:

Wait, in America bridges counts as national parks?

Thereís some forts and additional stuff around each end of the bridge. Itís not just a bridge.

stevewm
May 10, 2005


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...

Peanut President
Nov 5, 2008





Carbon dioxide posted:

Wait, in America bridges counts as national parks?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Gate_National_Recreation_Area

Chris Knight
Jun 5, 2002

And I'm only saying this because I care.

There are a lot of decaffeinated brands on the market today that are just as tasty as the real thing.




Fun Shoe

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

mamosodiumku
Apr 1, 2012

?

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=CfXP6KOVBOY

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 00:49 on Jun 16, 2020

Dik Hz
Feb 22, 2004

Fun with Science



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=CfXP6KOVBOY
The bike bridge video just popped up in my feed also. YT algorithms are weird. It was a great watch though, very interesting.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=McvZ68qlho4

Carbon dioxide
Oct 9, 2012



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.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Hippie Hedgehog
Feb 19, 2007

Ever cuddled a hedgehog?

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.

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