Jax the 41st Most Traffic Congested Metro in the US

[simms3]

When will we wake up to the fact that everyone in their own car trying to go to the same places at the same time is a failed transportation policy?  We can never build enough roads to accommodate them all.

And yet London, Madrid, New York, Paris, and Tokyo are about the most congested cities/metros in the world when it comes to vehicular traffic.  The best subway system in the world won't get rid of auto congestion.  The bigger and denser the city, the worse the traffic.

We still need a well designed roadway system.  In a developed country, people aren't going to willingly give up their cars.  And Skandinavian countries are an anomaly and their cities are rather small anyway.

[finehoe]

And yet London, Madrid, New York, Paris, and Tokyo are about the most congested cities/metros in the world when it comes to vehicular traffic.  The best subway system in the world won't get rid of auto congestion.  The bigger and denser the city, the worse the traffic.

We still need a well designed roadway system.  In a developed country, people aren't going to willingly give up their cars.  And Skandinavian countries are an anomaly and their cities are rather small anyway.

At least in London, Madrid, New York, Paris, and Tokyo you have a choice other than driving.  Yes, we need a well-designed roadway system.  We equally need a well-designed transit system.

[simms3]

^^^Yea, but Jax also needs to bring its density up from 2-3,000 ppsm to 10-20,000+ ppsm, at least along transit lines.  Where can we make that happen?  Just food for thought, my bus line in San Francisco, which travels fewer miles (~5 miles) carries nearly 3x as many people as Charlotte's 9 mile light rail line.  And it carries about 20x as much as Austin's rail line.  That's just one bus (albeit a more busy one, but by no means the busiest) in one fairly small city (as far as population is concerned).

Also, where is Jax going to get the hundreds of millions, perhaps billions, needed for a decent starter system?  Are we considering downtown the focal point such that all new lines start/end downtown?  What if despite all of our efforts in that department, the JTB corridor continues to be the "focal" point of business in the area?

Just playing devil's advocate is all.  I think Jax needs a cute light rail line and development around it to "compete" and be part of the new south and look progressive, provide those "options" as you say to the thousands who might call this newly developed area home.

But I really don't think Jax "needs" rail transit like a real, urban city needs rail transit or a super large sprawling city needs rail transit.  Jax is a tiny sprawled out town in FL with an emphasis on beach/suburban/country club lifestyle and a practically dead downtown that may never revive.  We all have hope, but that is the reality.  I just don't see it being large enough to "need" transit like Atlanta or Dallas or LA needs rail transit, for a while, and I don't think Jax will ever be "urban", which requires rail transit.

[thelakelander]

^Imo, Jax's context strongly suggests that the best end points for a "cute" small starter LRT system would be DT/Urban Core with the Town Center area. Two areas, as bookends, where there shouldn't be problems encouraging higher density.... with the center being the Philips corridor (which needs to be rezoned to allow for infill anyway).

[Buforddawg]

I also think that the airport and the stadium should be considered stopping points for rail system in Jax.

[David]

In most of the city traffic's not that bad, but ask anyone who commutes on 295 through Orange Park, Mandarin or up towards the town center. It can take a while even on an average day.  It's worse than it used to be, but still not quite grid lock. 

Rush hour is still fairly short here, I get around it by leaving work when I can before 430 or waiting it out in Riverside until 6-630pm.

[ronchamblin]

My observation is that outdated, "dumb", traffic signals along heavily travelled corridors such as through Orange Park, from Doctor's Lake Bridge to Collins Road, actually "create" bumper-to-bumper traffic jams -- stopping vehicles too often for "no reason" -- delaying Joe Blow and Peggy Sue on their trips from "A" to "B", so that they must engage the other vehicles also delayed by the same dumb lights.  The cumulative delays via poor signalling ensures that traffic jams will occur.

How can this be?  Traffic control "engineers" are ... well .... governmental persons.  The poor traffic "solutions" persist, and therefore the jams, because the tendency to avoid critical problem solving stabilizes within most governmental agencies not pressured to efficiency.   Apparently many of these "experts" flourish in a world of bureaucratic bumbling complacency ... sipping coffee while gross wastes in time, fuel, and environmental quality torments motorists.  Similar attitudes in a private concern would result in their replacement by individuals who actually analyse and solve problems. 

[The_Choose_1]

My observation is that outdated, "dumb", traffic signals along heavily travelled corridors such as through Orange Park, from Doctor's Lake Bridge to Collins Road, actually "create" bumper-to-bumper traffic jams -- stopping vehicles too often for "no reason" -- delaying Joe Blow and Peggy Sue on their trips from "A" to "B", so that they must engage the other vehicles also delayed by the same dumb lights.  The cumulative delays via poor signalling ensures that traffic jams will occur.

How can this be?  Traffic control "engineers" are ... well .... governmental persons.  The poor traffic "solutions" persist, and therefore the jams, because the tendency to avoid critical problem solving stabilizes within most governmental agencies not pressured to efficiency.   Apparently many of these "experts" flourish in a world of bureaucratic bumbling complacency ... sipping coffee while gross wastes in time, fuel, and environmental quality torments motorists.  Similar attitudes in a private concern would result in their replacement by individuals who actually analyse and solve problems.

I once came from Green Cove Springs to my job in Jacksonville Florida. I would get up early during the work week to make it work on time by 9am. If you drive the posted speed limit or under the posted speed. You can make a lot of the traffic lights any place in Jacksonville Florida. But the real problem is the Idiots in the nice cars that believe it's OK to speed between traffic lights. Or the fool that drives slow in the fast lane. At best if the local traffic departments would put up speed signs that under the posted speed said in a digital readout what the flow of trafic is moving we could all get to places faster.

[Adam White]

And yet London, Madrid, New York, Paris, and Tokyo are about the most congested cities/metros in the world when it comes to vehicular traffic.  The best subway system in the world won't get rid of auto congestion.  The bigger and denser the city, the worse the traffic.

We still need a well designed roadway system.  In a developed country, people aren't going to willingly give up their cars.  And Skandinavian countries are an anomaly and their cities are rather small anyway.

At least in London, Madrid, New York, Paris, and Tokyo you have a choice other than driving.  Yes, we need a well-designed roadway system.  We equally need a well-designed transit system.

And TfL actively works to discourage people from driving and encourage them to use public transportation. And central London has a congestion charge zone where you have to pay a fee to drive in it during prescribed hours.

[CCMjax]

And yet London, Madrid, New York, Paris, and Tokyo are about the most congested cities/metros in the world when it comes to vehicular traffic.  The best subway system in the world won't get rid of auto congestion.  The bigger and denser the city, the worse the traffic.

We still need a well designed roadway system.  In a developed country, people aren't going to willingly give up their cars.  And Skandinavian countries are an anomaly and their cities are rather small anyway.

At least in London, Madrid, New York, Paris, and Tokyo you have a choice other than driving.  Yes, we need a well-designed roadway system.  We equally need a well-designed transit system.

And TfL actively works to discourage people from driving and encourage them to use public transportation. And central London has a congestion charge zone where you have to pay a fee to drive in it during prescribed hours.

This is what they teach in transportation 101 . . . well perhaps 102.  There comes a point where there isn't much you can do to ease automobile congestion because if you add more lanes or improve the signaling all that does is cause more people to use that corridor, thus you are eventually back to the original problem you spent millions of dollars trying to fix.  Alternative forms of transportation are really the only good option.  The busy corridor will remain busy and congested but at least one could possibly have the option of hopping on a train and skip sitting in traffic.  The problem is the general public is naïve to this so the public outcry is for wider roads with more lanes. 

[Adam White]

And yet London, Madrid, New York, Paris, and Tokyo are about the most congested cities/metros in the world when it comes to vehicular traffic.  The best subway system in the world won't get rid of auto congestion.  The bigger and denser the city, the worse the traffic.

We still need a well designed roadway system.  In a developed country, people aren't going to willingly give up their cars.  And Skandinavian countries are an anomaly and their cities are rather small anyway.

At least in London, Madrid, New York, Paris, and Tokyo you have a choice other than driving.  Yes, we need a well-designed roadway system.  We equally need a well-designed transit system.

And TfL actively works to discourage people from driving and encourage them to use public transportation. And central London has a congestion charge zone where you have to pay a fee to drive in it during prescribed hours.

This is what they teach in transportation 101 . . . well perhaps 102.  There comes a point where there isn't much you can do to ease automobile congestion because if you add more lanes or improve the signaling all that does is cause more people to use that corridor, thus you are eventually back to the original problem you spent millions of dollars trying to fix.  Alternative forms of transportation are really the only good option.  The busy corridor will remain busy and congested but at least one could possibly have the option of hopping on a train and skip sitting in traffic.  The problem is the general public is naïve to this so the public outcry is for wider roads with more lanes.

Yeah - there is only so much land!

[southsider1015]

My observation is that outdated, "dumb", traffic signals along heavily travelled corridors such as through Orange Park, from Doctor's Lake Bridge to Collins Road, actually "create" bumper-to-bumper traffic jams -- stopping vehicles too often for "no reason" -- delaying Joe Blow and Peggy Sue on their trips from "A" to "B", so that they must engage the other vehicles also delayed by the same dumb lights.  The cumulative delays via poor signalling ensures that traffic jams will occur.

How can this be?  Traffic control "engineers" are ... well .... governmental persons.  The poor traffic "solutions" persist, and therefore the jams, because the tendency to avoid critical problem solving stabilizes within most governmental agencies not pressured to efficiency.   Apparently many of these "experts" flourish in a world of bureaucratic bumbling complacency ... sipping coffee while gross wastes in time, fuel, and environmental quality torments motorists.  Similar attitudes in a private concern would result in their replacement by individuals who actually analyse and solve problems.

This guy.   Wow.   I can't even begin....

[ronchamblin]

Well ... insomnia again ... let me help you SS1015.  Try imagining ... or thinking about the following.  When a motorist, you or me, or a few other drivers, perhaps 20 or 30, are  stopped ... idling ... at an intersection, when no vehicle is passing through or using the intersection -- well ... what does this mean? 

To me, and I suspect to many others who experience this kind of delay in fuel and time ... and the increased pollutions, this condition indicates that somebody ( a Traffic Engineer) is not doing their job.  While driving during the next few days, try observing how many times vehicles are being held stopped for no reason.  This is a sign of an outdated (dumb) control system, which is unnecessary, if one accepts that the technology exists which would control traffic lights to practically eliminate occasions where vehicles are held stopped for no reason.

The idea of coordinating a string of traffic lights, while partially successful, is shamefully inadequate ... the sign of sleeping and complacent "traffic engineers".  Every intersection's light should be controlled independently, according to the demand at every passing second.

Technology is available, in the form of a small computer/camera interface, which would control signals so as to optimize traffic flow, thereby eliminating events wherein vehicles of halted for no reason.

Currently, the poor systems along a busy corridor will, without cause (because they are dumb lights), stop vehicles on side streets and on the main run ... delaying even those who leave home early to "beat the rush".  The "no reason" delays will ensure that vehicles are still on the road so as to engage other drivers, also delayed.  Its an accumulative effect. 

Again, if one is to have a law in "traffic engineering", it might be ... "All signals should function so as to never  delay vehicles without good cause."  Another way to say it is ... "All signals should function so as to ensure that the intersection is always being used; that is, when vehicles are in the environment."

The point is that the accumulative effect of having so many signals that "do" delay vehicles without good cause, results in eventual gridlock along heavy corridors, especially if "any" slight accident or breakdown occurs along the corridor. 

Another law .. if we might entertain the idea of laws .. would be that ... "All signals should function with the same effectiveness that would achieved as if a trained and intelligent individual was controlling the signal for optimum vehicle movement ... that is, so that the intersection is never empty ... and no vehicle is ever held stopped for no reason."

The point is that the technology, via cameras/computer mix, is available so as to approach the signal control perfection that would be achieved by the trained individual as mentioned above.   

There are many scenarios which illustrate the importance of eliminating "dumb" signal lights.  For example ... you and a pack of 15 motorists are approaching an intersection, perhaps a block away.  The light is green, and three vehicles are waiting on the side street ... idling, wasting time and fuel, and being delayed so they will remain in traffic to engage others.  As you and your pack of 15 approach the intersection, it turns red.  The three side street vehicles are allowed to proceed.  You and your 15 buddies wait for perhaps 5 seconds ... without cause, and then proceed when the light turns green.

Now ... if that signal had been a "smart" one, the 3 side street vehicles would have been allowed to pass through while you and your 15 buddies were a block away.  You would have never encountered a red light.

The signal "broke the law" by stopping vehicles for no good cause.  Don't you think that it's time to install "smart" controllers at most of the intersections?  To illustrate the effectiveness of doing so; that is, to demonstrate the fact that the current controllers actually "create" the frequent traffic gridlocks, one might convince the Orange Park traffic engineers, along with the gestapo, to, for one or two days perhaps, place trained individuals at each of the dozen or so traffic signals along the heavily traveled corridor on U. S. 17 (or along Blanding for that matter).   These individuals would control the traffic signals in accordance with the above mentioned "law", which simply states that a signal at an intersection should never hold a vehicle stopped without good cause.  These individuals would not be necessarily visible to the public, as they could be off to the side, positioned to give a good view in all directions.  And the public would not have to be told of the experiment -- but might be informed after some motorists begin to ask questions about why there were no more, or very few, traffic jams along the corridor.

The training would involve a good bit of encouraging their use of that often forgotten attribute called common sense, so that the accumulation of various weights (time of side street waiting for example) and pressures upon the decision to "change" the light would allow for "optimum" movement of traffic ... that is, no red lights on the main road or the side streets without good cause.

I suspect that the results of the above experiment would illustrate that the current outdated and dumb signal controllers have been "creating" the traffic jams by "breaking the law" as described above, and that we do indeed need to install "smart" signal controllers, using technology already here.

Of course SS1015, I suspect too, that the powers ... those in control of decisions regarding "traffic congestion solutions", will consider my suggestions to be those of a fucking idiot.  Well .. fuck them ahead of time.

[southsider1015]

^ You said it, not me.

Google signal timing projects, such as NYCs massive project.  Hundreds of millions of your tax dollars to get the smart timing you're dreaming about. 

But what you're really trying to describe are smarter detection systems, such as microwave detectors, rather than ground loops.  They appear to be video cameras up on the signal pole, and are typically better at detecting stopped vehicles at red lights to initialize a phase change.

It's HILARIOUS that you think the solution to an engineering problem is to write laws.  Implying that laws are needed or effective at fixing these types of issues.  Get informed buddy.

I understand you're venting on an online forum about traffic. My suggestion is to contact Clay County, City of Jacksonville, City of Green Cove Springs, etc. Instead of ranting here.  Also, I'd suggested you also not refer to them as lazy bureaucrats; they probably won't respond well to it.

[Adam White]

It's HILARIOUS that you think the solution to an engineering problem is to write laws.  Implying that laws are needed or effective at fixing these types of issues.  Get informed buddy.

That's a bit rude.

But I don't think Ron was arguing that laws are a solution to engineering problems. I think (and Ron can correct me if I am wrong) he was proposing that laws could be considered in order to require the government - those who employ the engineers - to ensure that proper care and attention is given to traffic signals and traffic engineering solutions. This is not unlike Congress passing a balanced budget law. The law won't balance the budget - but it will require the government to ensure the budget is balanced.

I think the idea of a law or laws was to use these as a stick to ensure that action is taken. The laws themselves have nothing to do with the actual solutions that will be used - that's up to the traffic engineers to decide.