tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5141070.post9204998670742392789..comments2023-12-09T00:49:20.257-05:00Comments on WWVB : What Would Vannevar Blog?: Faster Isn't Smarter; Cars Aren't All The Traffic. Did We Think About This? Were We Smarter? Vannevarhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08513110035186346571noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5141070.post-18704774129123711122014-05-03T14:38:50.332-04:002014-05-03T14:38:50.332-04:00Several of my coworkers and I had a pretty lengthy...Several of my coworkers and I had a pretty lengthy discussion about this yesterday afternoon when we read this story, and I have to say I'm cautiously receptive to this project.<br /><br />Let me start by stipulating that I'd happily support a 25mph or even 20mph speed limit on the entirety of Baum, Centre, and Penn along this corridor. Having said that, I think it's important to keep in mind is that during peak periods, nobody is coming close to those limits, so the goal (from a vehicular traffic and emissions point of view) is to minimize the number of people going at 0mph because they're at a red light. The article points out that this is about "wait times", not maximizing speed, and I think that's the right thing to focus on.<br /><br />Nobody, not even pedestrians, are helped by an intersection that has a green with no cars going through it and a red with cars stacked up. The sensors are just there to manage these situations by detecting vehicles and adjusting the signal times. That's it.<br /><br />The one place where I'll admit it gets a bit hairy is where the signals are giving drivers a green arrow to turn into crosswalks that have walk signals illuminated for pedestrians, like the intersection in front of the Target. In this situation, drivers are always supposed to yield to pedestrians in crosswalks (just as they must do when turning on green), but a lot of idiots who don't understand the law see the arrow as an unlimited right of way. Perhaps some better signage reminding drivers to yield to pedestrians could help make this less of a hassle, but if this continues to be a problem, I'd be okay with eliminating this situation by making the green arrow a red signal, giving peds exclusive access to the crosswalk there.<br /><br />Anyway, I guess what I'm saying is that, yes, we don't need anyone in that area traveling faster than 20mph, but I think we do want vehicles traveling faster than zero, providing pedestrian safety can be protected.<br /><br />(Full disclosure: I work at CMU, albeit in a department completely unrelated to this project.)<br />tonycpsuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02313249764836653051noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5141070.post-76205185620949493482014-05-03T09:08:52.144-04:002014-05-03T09:08:52.144-04:00My first question is, whether or not these devices...My first question is, whether or not these devices come with immutable factory settings which indeed can only accord motorists very high or maximal priority, or whether once a City purchases them it can tinker with the preferences in such a way that non-motorists are accorded mandatory (high) minimum consideration as well. In other words, if they can't sense pedestrians, they can at least "blindly" give them a nice extended Walk signal every cycle, and when the traffic lights do change do to the genius sensory gnomes, there should be a nice healthy All Points Red interval every time regardless.<br /><br />I don't like to jump to the conclusion that street traffic (or anything else) is a zero-sum game. If "old-fashioned" traffic signals are based on arbitrary guesswork and nothing at all, I should think it's very possible that a smart enough machine could improve traffic flow for motorists, cyclists, and pedestrians all at the same time.<br /><br />And I don't know whether the aim of decreasing motorist wait time is to get the cars up from 20 to 40, or rather to get them up from 0 to maybe 10 during rush hour. When signaling is particularly bad, cars tend to stack in a gridlock -- you can't move during a green light because the following light is red, and so on and so on. (And if there's enough 0 mph going on, you end up with a lot of angry motorists on "tilt" seizing slender opportunities to dart ahead, which is its own safety hazard.) So when we're talking about speeding vehicle traffic, I don't know what the goal is.<br /><br />Basically there's too much I don't know about this yet to jump to any conclusions, but I wouldn't be comfortable with a blanket proposition that we should never do anything to improve automobile traffic flow. In terms of "traffic calming" I'd rather see things like speed bumps / humps / tables or new roundabouts, and in terms of discouraging driving in favor of other forms of transportation I'd rather see a congestion tax, emissions standards / taxes and dynamic parking prices, than simply making driving stink by failing to discourage gridlock.Bram Reichbaumhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05620172942925293407noreply@blogger.com