Jax the 41st Most Traffic Congested Metro in the US

[finehoe]

TTI lists us at 43:

http://mobility.tamu.edu/ums/media-information/press-release/

[The_Choose_1]

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.

[ronchamblin]

^ 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.           

[southsider1015]

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.

[ronchamblin]

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.
     

[ronchamblin]

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 , 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 

[southsider1015]

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.

[ronchamblin]

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.   

[ronchamblin]

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)   

[TimmyB]

...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.

[ronchamblin]

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.   

[TimmyB]

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, ...