Jacksonville is the 41st most congested metro in the US, and 133rd in the world. Not too bad, despite that I'll still say the usual 'proactive' talking points: 'Further proof that we need better transit' and blah blah blah.... Istanbul is the world's most congested BTW.
http://www.tomtom.com/en_us/trafficindex/#/list
Just for the sake of clarity:
Jacksonville ranked 41st most congested of the 53 U.S. metropolitan areas with populations over 800,000.
An equally appropriate headline might be, "Jacksonville 12th least congested major metropolitan area in America."
There are almost 400 MSAs in America.
Would be interesting to see where Jacksonville stacks up overall.
^^^Right on.
How many lanes vs intensity of traffic. LA's 405 having 14 lanes does in no way compare to Jacksonville. I remember living in Pittsburgh/ Philly, where 376 and the Schuykill would back up because it turned into 4 lanes in places.
As a person who has traveled coast to coast looking for a place to live when I retire, I can tell you Jacksonville has no traffic problem, comparatively speaking. It is incredibly easy to get around in this town, and a bad day at the SJTC beats a normal day in a place such as Austin, and just about anywhere in California.
Traffic in places like Los Angeles and DC is hellish. Just a nuisance here.
There should be a poll of when its dry and when it rains. Jax would be closer to number 1 when it rains.
no kidding. It is like anarchy/ mad max
Quote from: jcjohnpaint on April 02, 2015, 01:52:05 PM
How many lanes vs intensity of traffic. LA's 405 having 14 lanes does in no way compare to Jacksonville. I remember living in Pittsburgh/ Philly, where 376 and the Schuykill would back up because it turned into 4 lanes in places.
The 405 is horrendous. Trying to get ON the 405 is horrendous. Luckily, I've never had trouble on it when trying to get to LAX.
Quote from: TimmyB on April 02, 2015, 02:07:32 PM
As a person who has traveled coast to coast looking for a place to live when I retire, I can tell you Jacksonville has no traffic problem, comparatively speaking. It is incredibly easy to get around in this town, and a bad day at the SJTC beats a normal day in a place such as Austin, and just about anywhere in California.
I've heard Austin's traffic is brutal because there is only one highway into and out of town (like 4 in Orlando, except worse because there aren't even any alternatives). CA's traffic is notorious. LA's highways are stopped up in either direction nearly 24 hours a day. In the Bay Area there are usually 1-2 highways following the Bay on either side that support 8 million people, so they back up pretty bad. In SF City, it's probably the closest to "Manhattan" traffic in that due to lights, pedestrians, urban congestion, etc, it can take an hour just to get a few blocks (yes - that is true for a few streets culminating in tough intersections in the financial district).
Quote from: mtraininjax on April 02, 2015, 05:31:55 PM
There should be a poll of when its dry and when it rains. Jax would be closer to number 1 when it rains.
Eh...relative to Jax traffic when it's not raining, lol.
Atlanta traffic from my experience is about as bad as it can get. Not IN the city, but coming into, going out of, or along the perimeter north of the city and all the roads that feed those highways. Just horrendous. I could never live in suburban Atlanta as a result. I imagine DC's is similar, maybe even a tad worse. Everyone always talks about how bad S FL traffic is, and I know it is, but I've only ever seen it at its worst/been stuck in it a couple of times, and it didn't seem quite as bad as Atlanta traffic to me. The worst/slowest traffic I've encountered down there is at the beach, heading south into South Beach.
I would agree with others in that Jax doesn't really have "traffic", but can get a little slow at times. I've talked to my parents on the phone during rush hour over there where it still took them around ~30-40 minutes to get from SS/JTB to Ortega/Avondale, across town. To go that distance in that time during basically any part of the day in other cities/metros is all but impossible. Takes me that amount of time either to ride the bus or walk from my apartment to the financial district, less than 2 miles away (in other words, my daily 2 mile commute each way is about 25-45 minutes depending...try that one on for size).
Traffic in Jax is a picnic compared to Atlanta, 285 or 75/85 in rush hour. Miami is crazy, and Orlando is the worst. I pay to take the toll road around Orlando just to avoid I-4.
Yeah, Simms, Austin is just dreadful. There are simply not enough major roads, as you mention, and if you want to go out to eat dinner at 6 PM, you better leave by 4:30!
Atlanta, which I visit regularly, is not that bad, except in your afternoon crush time of 4-6 PM, and (again, as you noted) on the perimeter. You get caught in that, your evening is shot! >:(
Jax is the 40th largest MSA in the country. Being the 41st most traffic congested MSA would fall in line, considering our size in comparison with peer communities.
I hate going to Austin on business.
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.
Quote from: finehoe on April 03, 2015, 11:19:21 AM
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.
You're preaching to the choir. I live in Michigan, where the Big Three defeated every single mass transit possibility for decades. Boy, are we paying for it now. Too many roads with too few tax dollars to support them, and other than buses, no means to get around in any city.
Quote from: finehoe on April 03, 2015, 11:19:21 AM
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.
Quote from: simms3 on April 03, 2015, 12:12:22 PM
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.
^^^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.
^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).
I also think that the airport and the stadium should be considered stopping points for rail system in Jax.
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.
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.
Quote from: ronchamblin on August 24, 2015, 01:59:06 AM
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. (http://www.howwedrive.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/trafficflow11.jpg)
Quote from: finehoe on April 03, 2015, 12:41:49 PM
Quote from: simms3 on April 03, 2015, 12:12:22 PM
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.
Quote from: Adam White on August 24, 2015, 12:01:32 PM
Quote from: finehoe on April 03, 2015, 12:41:49 PM
Quote from: simms3 on April 03, 2015, 12:12:22 PM
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.
Quote from: CCMjax on August 24, 2015, 12:43:02 PM
Quote from: Adam White on August 24, 2015, 12:01:32 PM
Quote from: finehoe on April 03, 2015, 12:41:49 PM
Quote from: simms3 on April 03, 2015, 12:12:22 PM
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!
Quote from: ronchamblin on August 24, 2015, 01:59:06 AM
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....
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. :)
^ 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.
Quote from: southsider1015 on August 26, 2015, 06:12:12 AM
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.
TTI lists us at 43:
http://mobility.tamu.edu/ums/media-information/press-release/
And if people just drove the posted speed limits and went with the flow of the traffic everyone could make it to the place they want to go. Slow down people smell the fresh air and enjoy life. :)
Quote from: southsider1015 on August 26, 2015, 06:12:12 AM
^ 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.
SS1015 ... the "law" I mention is not a law of the type a city or legislator would create so as to control human behavior. It is more like a natural or physical law that already exists ... in this case, in a somewhat complex traffic system. For example, if we suggest that the "traffic problem" we are discussing actually involves a somewhat complex system of interrelated phenomena, we might not be surprised to discover that within the system exists certain "laws" or "principles". My suggestion that "All signals should function so as to never delay vehicles without good cause." is being offered as a principle that should influence the traffic engineers as they "design" traffic signal solutions. Surely one cannot suggest otherwise; that is, that signals should "delay" vehicles without good cause to do so -- which is exactly what many actually do in the current poorly designed signalling systems. The "principle" I refer to is one that cannot be ignored when one addresses solutions to the traffic problems.
BTW SS1015, although ranting is fun, I am not simply ranting above (further down is a rant), but attempting to describe a problem, followed by a solution to it.
And I don't mind referring to most governmental employees as something other than the most efficient and effective ... as they are too often bumbling mediocrities as a consequence of being spared the much needed pressure to succeed and survive in a world of private competition. These individuals about whom I speak should appreciate my occasional criticisms, as it might provide a bit of much needed motivation to improve performance, and one's determination to achieve greater job excellence and efficiency. Sometimes, individuals need to feel the fear of failure or survival, as it can motivate one to think critically ... to act with determination to perform so as to achieve important objectives set by the essence of their jobs.
Concerning the cost of installing "smart" signal controls at appropriate intersections, one might consider the cost of not doing so. Fuel consumption at idle, if one averages autos, trucks, and buses -- is about 0.40 gallons / hour, or about 0.007 gallons / second. If a vehicle is held stopped for ten seconds without cause at an intersection, the total fuel waste for ten seconds would be about 0.007 x 10 = 0.07 gallons. If twenty vehicles are held ten seconds, the fuel wasted would be 0.07 x 20 = 1.4 gallons. At $3.50 / gallon, the monetary waste during those ten seconds at that intersection would be $4.90.
Multiply this waste throughout the city ... then the nation, and one will discover a yearly waste of perhaps several billion dollars. And what of the pollution ... and time wasted?
You see SS1015, we must initiate installation of these smart intersection signals so our nation will have, yearly, additional billions of dollars to buy more bombs, missiles, rockets, killer drones, ammo, aircraft, ships, "fuel", soldiers, marines, and sailors. Just think of all the wars we can cultivate and promote so as to continue enjoying the suffering, death and destruction ... all, live on TV. My god man (or woman) ... think of the fun we could have killing all the civilians and children. Jesus fucking christ. We could have a goddamn ball ... killing, killing, and killing.
Not only would the killing and suffering inflicted on innocent children and civilians be hilariously fun to watch, the money saved via the "smart" signalling at intersections would eventually, by way of the military industrial complex and wall street/political connections, end up in the pockets of those needy persons who already own and operate this country.
So ... you can see why I am concerned about getting rid of the dumb signals at intersections SS1015. We must save money currently wasted on fuel so as to pay for more war and suffering and death; thereby providing the higher quality reality TV for our growing population of imbeciles who seem to think that the status quo is acceptable, and thus qualifies them to continue voting for the cretin politicians, many of whom should be considered candidates for execution -- after of course, proper trial and conviction for ... well ... something good ... crimes against humanity perhaps.
Maximum Profits. Extreme Wealth. The American Dream SS1015. Nothing else matters in life. At all costs ... by any means possible ... we all must be RICH, as Trump has commanded. Nothing else matters.
The above is a rant SS1015.
Not sure why I even tried to respond in the first place. But I'll try to help...
No traffic signals are designed to delay traffic, unless you're talking about traffic meters, which you won't find in Jacksonville. Signals are designed to move traffic as safely and quickly as possible through the intersection. Signal phases are designed to favor heavier movements to allow more green time for specific phases, which corresponds with more red time for an opposing phase.
Many of the signals around town have multiple variations for movement timing for peak and off=peak hours. This greatly improves intersection operation, reducing unnecessary red time for heavy movements.
Another issue you're concerned with is signal timing between multiple intersections. Many of the newer signals do have interconnect lines between signals that communicate to allow a longer green time for the same movement between signaled intersections? Most intersections, especially older signals, don't have these interconnect lines, therefore, these signals don't work in unison and can really slow down traffic movements.
The lovely world you're ranting about is all possible. New innerconnection lines, new "smart" traffic signal cabinets, new mast arms, new microwave detectors, and other new signal technology all cost money. Lots of money, actually. And there have been studies conducted around the country that demonstrate a real savings in the gas/time/money connection that you touched on. Some of these studies proved that the initial capital costs were worth it in the long run. Some of these studies also proved otherwise.
We don't have traffic signal issues because traffic engineers and public employees are lazy. We have these issues because budgets are tight and we don't value infrastructure spending enough.
Source: Transportation Engineer partly responsible for the traffic issues you're complaining about.
Thanks for the input SS1015, as it urges further thinking about how best to approach explaining my "plan for solving the nation's traffic problems". :) In addition to saving hard earned money for the average folk, solving the gridlock problems will reduce somewhat the need for oil drilling, and will reduce somewhat harmful emissions into the atmosphere.
SS1015, I suspect that our haste has allowed us to continue dancing around different aspects of the overall traffic gridlock problem, which for decades has been solved by adding roads and lanes.
Perfecting the traffic signal light system would preclude the necessity to add more roads and lanes. If one were to imagine a perfect traffic light signal, one might suggest that it would assume a condition perfect for every passing second. But ... perfect for what? What must the light do in order to be perfect?
Your statement that ... "Signals are designed to move traffic as safely and quickly as possible through the intersection." ... is mostly correct, but is inadequate for design purposes. If one is to achieve optimum guidance toward design perfection of traffic control in general, and traffic signal light switching specifically, one might entertain the idea of "laws" or principles which cannot be ignored as to their impact on ultimate goal of reducing or eliminating traffic gridlock. As mentioned in an earlier post, one principle might be .. "All traffic control signals should function to ensure that no vehicle is held stopped without good cause."
This principle is profound in ways similar to the behavioral principle .. "One should treat others as one would like to be treated." Just as this behavioral principle, if followed, will result in optimum conditions, implementation of the "no vehicular stoppage without good cause" principle will result in optimum traffic conditions.
Brace yourself SS1015, for deliverance of a second principle which, if implemented, facilitates achieving the first. The second ... "Every smart computer/camera traffic signal controller should function independently from any adjacent, and with the same effectiveness and accuracy as would be achieved by a trained human controller.
The traffic signal operators (TSO ??) ... 'decision-makers" ... which are basically camera/computer interfaced controllers, would make accurate and effective decisions comparable to that of an intelligent individual who is placed in a position offering optimum views of area traffic.
Because the proposed system would require installation of one TSO at most intersections, the cost per unit would be quite reasonable. The TSO would be interfaced with existing switching mechanisms, and would engage the same safety interlock currently making it impossible to have two greens lights simultaneously on two streets.
Well SS1015, what do you think so far in our design progress? There is more to come. It is late ... time for another beer.
A little digression SS1015, before continuing on the project of solving the nation's gridlock problem. Anyone who drives in the city core will notice that throughout the core motorists are stopped at intersections without cause, sitting with no other vehicles in sight; not only wasting fuel and money, but time and patience. And how much does air quality suffer as a consequence of excessive idling and gridlock crawling ... and the summer temperatures rise.
Any city; that is, those within it who possess the responsibility to encourage its emergence to vibrancy, will want to remove negatives and introduce positives. Being held stopped without cause, gridlock, and crawling traffic in the core, or anywhere in the city, are negatives which existing technology can eliminate if those responsible for innovation and problem solving will engage the technology. Complacent? Too comfortable? WTF. Perhaps they can pretend they are in a private firm, wherein fundamental objectives must be achieved in order to survive.
As the city core becomes more populated with residents and workers having vehicles, and as the city gains attributes drawing more visitor vehicles into the core, the somewhat moderate gridlock and crawling traffic will, unless something is done, become nightmarish -- a huge negative. Most city cores have enough negatives.
The time to do something is now. I suggest that the city be one of the first to install "smart" traffic signal operators (TSO's) in its core so as to remove the big negative. The TSO's will ensure that the newly discovered law in traffic engineering is not broken. The law -- "No vehicle shall be stopped, or held stopped, without cause."
The TSO's are camera/computer modules (one mini-computer and four cameras - one to view each street, placed about 20 feet above the interection), using technology that allows zones in the camera image to interface the computer. The computer is every second made aware of the vehicle population in the various zones, the distance to the vehicles, the speed, and the intentions in some cases ... the lanes in which the vehicle is traveling. The module will, based on the input, make decisions when to change a signal to green or red ... just as if a trained individual, observing (hidden) was making decisions. Neither the TSO nor the trained individual controller would ever stop a vehicle without cause.
The currently used outdated "dumb" signal operators actually create gridlock and crawling traffic when they stop vehicles for no reason, prolonging the vehicle's journey so that it must engage other vehicles also delayed for no reason.
For example, vehicle "A" starts on the edge of the core on a journey to cross to the other side. Dumb existing signals stop, without cause, the vehicle several times on the journey. Therefore, it remains on the journey in the core for several minutes longer than was necessary. Vehicle "A" could have been out of the core by the time vehicles "B" and "C" entered it. Multiply this scenario a few dozen times. You see SS1015, the dumb signals create gridlock because they delay vehicles, lengthening each journey, forcing more vehicles to engage other vehicles. etc etc. ... an accumulative effect, slowly creating gridlock when it doesn't have to be.
How many times have you approached an intersection with a green light, observing two vehicles held stopped on the cross street. As you near, the light goes to red (yellow first). You stop. The two side street vehicles proceed. You wait for a spell, and then get a green.
If smart TSO's were in use, no vehicle in the above scenario, and many other scenarios, would have been held stopped, unless cause exists. Multiply this kind of waste a hundred times each ten minutes in the core. This kind of mediocre design on the part of traffic engineering is pathetic, unnecessary, and should be unacceptable by the powers at be (whoever they are), given the technology available. The entire traffic engineering group should resign immediately ;D, and competent individuals hired ... individuals possessing the energy and focus to perceive the dynamics involved, understand the cause of the traffic gridlocks and delays, and who will entertain the idea of taking action to install the new technology.
The proposed TSO's will make perfect signal decisions so as to not break the newly discovered "law", as described above. As a test for the "solution", the city could place officers (hidden) at each intersection. The officers would make decisions (change the signals) according to common sense, and according to the "law" or "principle" as offered above as a goal for traffic engineers.
If the above experiment was performed, I am confident that we would discover that there would be no gridlock ... no crawling traffic in the core. BTW, the new technology means there would be no need to install any more of the expensive underground sensor loops.
It is important to remember that once traffic gridlock exists, all is lost ... no system will resolve it. The great gain via the smart TSO's is that, by making the best decisions every second, they prevent the "beginnings" of gridlock ... which is the key. This kind of perfection in traffic signal control will become much more important as more workers, residents, and visitors engage the core. We must perceive the ideal ... obsess on it, and strive for it.
More later SS1015. Sorry
Why post all of this here, if you've got it all figured out? Sounds like you should look into some patent and trademark law to protect your "ideas".
Good luck.
Quote from: southsider1015 on September 13, 2015, 11:41:50 AM
Why post all of this here, if you've got it all figured out? Sounds like you should look into some patent and trademark law to protect your "ideas".
Good luck.
Tnx SS1015. Actually, my ideas are free to all, especially to those without the resources to create them. I have no desire to protect my investment in ideas from those who might see the way to capitalize on them. Besides, I have enough riches to sustain my rather simple lifestyle. And I post them here because .... well .... I presume thats the essence of a forum sir ... or madam. :)
I recently read an article in the NYT about the autos and bicycles vying for use of city streets and lanes. Apparently in Beijing, bicycles are being pushed out of lanes as the auto population increases.
Many commuters are forced to give up bicycles because of increasing auto aggression and increased eye burning from pollution. And too, there are not enough parking places in the city. Autos simply park on the side of the road. There is a sea of vehicles entering and leaving the city each day.
If we mix this scenario with the idea of self-driving autos, one might perceive a situation wherein the sea of private vehicles approaches that of a sea of mass transit vehicles. The owner of a private self-driving vehicle becomes a passenger, just as would an individual occupying a mass transit vehicle such as a bus, train, or subway.
As self-driving vehicles tend to remove the "control" feature from commuters, the advantage of having one's own vehicle decreases. In both the self-driving vehicle and the large mass transit vehicle or train, one rides as a passenger, without thinking about traffic and control.
Given the negative factors of pollution, parking, congestion, and fuel waste, it seems that practicality and efficiency will encourage a trend to mass transit. I suspect that, even in Jax, these same dynamics will eventuallyincrease the trend to more creative mass transit systems.
Current drivers are busy "doing" something important and challenging; that is, driving, as they commute. Self-driving autos will remove the challenging act of driving. Is automation encouraging humans to think less? Will the Darwinian pressure to "improve" be further removed by self-driving autos? Individuals tending, by some innate features, to idiocy, or idiotic driving, will survive and procreate ... being saved from an otherwise deadly crash by the calm efficiency and accuracy of the self-driver.
The first stages of automation, appearing with the electro-mechanical contrivances in the twentieth century, was for the most part a plus for efficiency, and harmless to the evolution of the sea of average human genetic mental qualities.
It seems that the increasing automation and robotics, including the self-driving autos, and the increasing number of plastic throw-away products, about which it is unnecessary for operation and repair to be understood, will further remove the pressure to solve problems ... to think critically. Is our society allowing for the survival and procreation of individuals who, in former times, would have been limited by the application of the methodical, often cruel, and often necessary, realities of nature?
Is our society, as a consequence of increasing automation and robotics ... along with bimbo television programs ... producing more bimbo brains? Look at most of the GOP politicians, especially those running for president. What a fucking group of idiots ... or... What a group of fucking idiots. (Expletives for impact only)
Quote from: ronchamblin on November 14, 2015, 02:22:04 AM...Is our society, as a consequence of increasing automation and robotics ... along with bimbo television programs ... producing more bimbo brains?
That's already happening, Ron. However, it doesn't mean that ALL members of society will gravitate downward. Fortunately, there will always be those who LOVE to solve problems. Some, like myself, have an intrinsic love for it; they love the challenge of doing something difficult, or that which they were told cannot be done. Others will love this challenge because they see an opportunity,usually economic; they realize their brain is superior to those bimbos around them and will take charge in order to make sure they are able to profit from that.
The great myth of all "educational" programs that come from governments is that "all children will be able to...", at this level, at this time, ... It simply is not reality. It's like pretending that if we just coached basketball "better", all kids would be able to be like Mike. We will always have the "bimbos" and (fortunately) we will always have the thinkers and doers in society. Unfortunately, a lot of our political "leaders" come from the former category, simply because their mommies and daddies had money, but that to me is another discussion.
TB ... Agree that many of us human types enjoy immensely the idea of problem solving; so much so that we actually seek problems ... searching for what can be fixed or solved. Some of us would endure quite stressful lives without a good number of rather difficult challenges. This tendency perhaps was cultivate millions of years ago as prehuman types evolved the habit of solving problems to survive as individuals and as species.
And I don't mean to be too hard on the poor Republican mediocrities, but my god ... er ... goodness ... what some of these GOP persons say is amazing ... too far from reality ... and too often simply humorous.
Quote from: ronchamblin on November 14, 2015, 09:01:07 AM
TB ... Agree that many of us human types enjoy immensely the idea of problem solving; so much so that we actually seek problems ... searching for what can be fixed or solved. Some of us would endure quite stressful lives without a good number of rather difficult challenges. This tendency perhaps was cultivate millions of years ago as prehuman types evolved the habit of solving problems to survive as individuals and as species.
And I don't mean to be too hard on the poor Republican mediocrities, but my god ... er ... goodness ... what some of these GOP persons say is amazing ... too far from reality ... and too often simply humorous.
Humorous...if we knew they had no chance of being elected. But, with so many bimbos running around, ... :o :o :o