Well since self-driving cars are heading our way there have been articles saying that traffic signals may be obsolete by 2030, since the cars will have sensors and detect other vehicles and know when to stop and go, making traffic signals, my favorite things obsolete, and this is only 15 years away!! Thus ends an interesting part of history. :angry:
I don't see that happening. What about pedestrians? People can't be programmed and how are people supposed to know how to cross at an intersection?
IDK..... sounds like a know-it-when-I-see-it scenario. I'm still not convinced of the long-term driverless car viability yet.
I doubt it.
I may not like stopping for them but I do find them rather interesting.
And we'll have FLYING CARS, I'm sure.
I think the chances that signals will behave slightly different in 2030 is good, but I think it's a stretch to say they'll all be gone.
Sounds like science fiction to me.
And what about other countries who are more behind in infrastructure? Cars could also have a 'manual' option (meaning a human driver), which would still need traffic lights. I don't see traffic signals gone for awhile in the future.
How about the non-automated cars that will still be on the road?
I'd be amazed if that happens by 2030. My thinking on the most optimistic possible timeline:
2030- Driverless car technology perfected to the point that it becomes an optional feature on high end cars
2040- Driverless technology becomes cost effective enough that most new cars have it. There will probably be things similar to HOV lanes that are designed exclusively for self-driving vehicles on limited access highways.
2050- Driverless technology becomes a mandatory standard feature on new cars, limited access highways become more designed for driverless cars than self driving cars
2070- The majority of America's car fleet is driverless, allowing for the banishment of self-driven cars on the majority of roadways. At this point, traffic signals could be retired and we'd be able to fully realize the benefits of driverless technology.
I was also thinking about the future of road signage. If there is no human driver, and each car is 'talking' to each other, why need signs? Even BGS's won't be needed; simply enter an address into a computer, and voila, the car takes you there. Why need lanes? The cars know where they are and where other cars are, so why need dashed white and yellow lanes?
The future of traffic control as a whole could be debated. But by 2030, I don't see anything really huge happening with this.
I'd say let's give it a century. Or better, a thousand years.
Quote from: SignGeek101 on September 19, 2015, 06:06:28 PM
I was also thinking about the future of road signage. If there is no human driver, and each car is 'talking' to each other, why need signs? Even BGS's won't be needed; simply enter an address into a computer, and voila, the car takes you there. Why need lanes? The cars know where they are and where other cars are, so why need dashed white and yellow lanes?
This sort of concept could even be implemented with human drivers if cars have a screen to display signs. Indeed, WMATA runs their trains like this already - they are driverless and there are no fixed signals in the tunnels, but a screen in the cab shows whether the train has a red, yellow, or green light in case of manual operation.
Not gonna happen within my lifetime. Because of pedestrians and other conflicts not created by vehicles, I doubt that we'll see anything of the sort before everything is removed from grade. Also, what if the automated systems go down? You need a backup.
I'm pretty sure that even with driverless cars, pedestrian signals would still exist as people would still need to know when it's safe to cross the street.
Quote from: freebrickproductions on September 21, 2015, 02:54:28 PM
I'm pretty sure that even with driverless cars, pedestrian signals would still exist as people would still need to know when it's safe to cross the street.
Driver-less vehicles will probably drive much faster than we do now, so my guess is that most at-grade pedestrian crossings at major intersections will be eliminated for safety reasons. Not sure how side-street crosswalks (like school zone crossings) will work .
Quote from: freebrickproductions on September 21, 2015, 02:54:28 PM
I'm pretty sure that even with driverless cars, pedestrian signals would still exist as people would still need to know when it's safe to cross the street.
Or better yet, cars will obey the pedestrian's right-of-way when pedestrians cross the street. Right now humans in the United States have a very bad track record of this. I expect computers will perform better.
Quote from: AlexandriaVA on September 21, 2015, 05:18:56 PM
Quote from: freebrickproductions on September 21, 2015, 02:54:28 PM
I'm pretty sure that even with driverless cars, pedestrian signals would still exist as people would still need to know when it's safe to cross the street.
Or better yet, cars will obey the pedestrian's right-of-way when pedestrians cross the street. Right now humans in the United States have a very bad track record of this. I expect computers will perform better.
Wait for Skynet...
Right now I'm imagining "driverless pedestrians". All people would be implanted with a chip in their head which would take over all brain functions and movement when walking on the road system. For safety, of course. It wouldn't be safe for manually-operated pedestrians (or cars) to intermingle with the driverless cars whizzing by at 100 mph.
Of course, the NSA would be able to tap into and override both cars and pedestrians as national security concerns dictate. Even when the self-driving functions aren't engaged. You wouldn't want a terrorist to get away by not using the roads, after all.
They would also enforce copyright law. If you're at a bar or party and a song is playing that you didn't pay for the licence to listen to, the chip would rewrite your brainwaves to erase it.
Quote from: jakeroot on September 21, 2015, 03:39:29 PM
Quote from: freebrickproductions on September 21, 2015, 02:54:28 PM
I'm pretty sure that even with driverless cars, pedestrian signals would still exist as people would still need to know when it's safe to cross the street.
Driver-less vehicles will probably drive much faster than we do now, so my guess is that most at-grade pedestrian crossings at major intersections will be eliminated for safety reasons. Not sure how side-street crosswalks (like school zone crossings) will work .
Why would they drive faster? The point of speed limits is to keep speeds down in places where hazards exist, like kids and pedestrians. If anything, driverless cars will drive SLOWER because the car will automatically adhere to speed limits.
Quote from: AlexandriaVA on September 21, 2015, 05:18:56 PM
Quote from: freebrickproductions on September 21, 2015, 02:54:28 PM
I'm pretty sure that even with driverless cars, pedestrian signals would still exist as people would still need to know when it's safe to cross the street.
Or better yet, cars will obey the pedestrian's right-of-way when pedestrians cross the street. Right now humans in the United States have a very bad track record of this. I expect computers will perform better.
Of course, pedestrians in the USA also have a very bad track record of ignoring vehicles' right-of-way and walking whenever and wherever they please.
I highly doubt self driving cars will ever become mandatory. I think for the most part people like/want to drive. I don't see these types of cars ever doing well. Self driving cars will most likely strictly follow the speed limit and not be aggressive. Most drivers are somewhat aggressive and drive 5 or 10 mph over the speed limit. I feel a lot more comfortable with my ability to drive than some computer's driving.
To add to pedestrians. Something Spain does better than the US. Cars seem to have the right a way in Spain. No one is walking out into the street when the light turns green. They also have a separate cycle for pedestrians on the light. The WALK signal doesn't light up unless all the lights are red. Here in the US the WALK signal lights up when the light turns green. It's irritating to me as a driver that people are constantly in the road all the time.
QuoteI think for the most part people like/want to drive.
Not for me - it's purely a utilitarian task. I view it the same way as a laundry machine; the sooner automation occurs, the better.
QuoteHere in the US the WALK signal lights up when the light turns green.
I'd love to have pedestrian-only light cycles at city intersections here in the States. But that will never happen.
Doesn't matter what phase you have the walk signal on, people in the US will still only treat that signal as a suggestion rather than a traffic control device. The rise of cellphones, iPods, and ear buds have only seemed to make the problem worse.
Quote from: DaBigE on September 22, 2015, 09:04:52 AM
Doesn't matter what phase you have the walk signal on, people in the US will still only treat that signal as a suggestion rather than a traffic control device. The rise of cellphones, iPods, and ear buds have only seemed to make the problem worse.
MFFY towards pedestrians!
Don't even get me started on rolling-stops when people make a right-on-red.
Self-driving/driverless cars aren't ready by any means and they aren't close either. Despite the outrageous amount of hype around Google's project, it's not currently practical to use and still has several caveats.
For one, it relies mostly on map data to locate traffic signals, stops, speed limits and other TCDs, rather than computer vision. I think it still has trouble parking and/or navigating parking lots.
It's not ready and won't be in the near future, and even if self-driving cars hit the market soon, I won't trust them for at least a decade and governments cannot make them immediately a requirement and tear down all traffic signals just like that.
Quote from: AlexandriaVA on September 22, 2015, 09:07:04 AM
Quote from: DaBigE on September 22, 2015, 09:04:52 AM
Doesn't matter what phase you have the walk signal on, people in the US will still only treat that signal as a suggestion rather than a traffic control device. The rise of cellphones, iPods, and ear buds have only seemed to make the problem worse.
MFFY towards pedestrians!
That best be sarcasm...unless you're saying pedestrians have a MFFY view. Can't quite tell until I have my :coffee:
Quote from: Dr Frankenstein on September 22, 2015, 09:24:38 AM
Self-driving/driverless cars aren't ready by any means and they aren't close either. Despite the outrageous amount of hype around Google's project, it's not currently practical to use and still has several caveats.
For one, it relies mostly on map data to locate traffic signals, stops, speed limits and other TCDs, rather than computer vision. I think it still has trouble parking and/or navigating parking lots.
It's not ready and won't be in the near future, and even if self-driving cars hit the market soon, I won't trust them for at least a decade and governments cannot make them immediately a requirement and tear down all traffic signals just like that.
Agreed. Look at how many errors Google Maps and the like have...if we can't even get the maps accurate, how can anyone trust them to be used to power driverless cars?
don't buy into the "X will be gone by year XXXX" it's almost always not true. Just like this hyperloop stuff everyone is so happy about, while a great idea in concept, good luck getting the R/W for it. We have enough trouble getting new roads to be built in this country. I don't care how smart and innovative elon musk is, NIMBYS can be pretty relentless and annoying when it comes to building new infrastructure.
Highly doubt traffic signals are going away completely in 15 years. I'd give it till the end of this century though, could see no signals past 2100
I feel like non self driving cars need to be banned before signals can go away
Quote from: DaBigE on September 22, 2015, 09:04:52 AM
Doesn't matter what phase you have the walk signal on, people in the US will still only treat that signal as a suggestion rather than a traffic control device. The rise of cellphones, iPods, and ear buds have only seemed to make the problem worse.
This is what I was getting at in my prior comment that Baloo Whatever dismissed. Regardless of his opinion, pretty much everywhere in the USA pedestrians do not have an absolute right to step out into the street wherever and whenever they wish, and they have an obligation to ensure drivers have time and space to stop.
Quote from: 1995hoo on September 22, 2015, 01:17:10 PM
Quote from: DaBigE on September 22, 2015, 09:04:52 AM
Doesn't matter what phase you have the walk signal on, people in the US will still only treat that signal as a suggestion rather than a traffic control device. The rise of cellphones, iPods, and ear buds have only seemed to make the problem worse.
This is what I was getting at in my prior comment that Baloo Whatever dismissed. Regardless of his opinion, pretty much everywhere in the USA pedestrians do not have an absolute right to step out into the street wherever and whenever they wish, and they have an obligation to ensure drivers have time and space to stop.
There must be a lot of people that skipped or slept though their basic physics lessons in school. The laws of physics will
always trump any constitutional laws.
If Baloo is trying to say drivers can't hit pedestrians just because they're crossing illegally, then I have no problem with that principle. The problem is that too many pedestrians think it means they can walk with impunity. Try walking in front of a New York cab barreling down Sixth Avenue on the green wave and it won't go well for you!
A mall around me went out of business 5 years ago and the traffic signal still hasn't been removed. There are over 300,000 traffic signals in America. A traffic signal removal every 5 years means there will be no more traffic signals in 1.5 million years. I'm not holding my breath.
Even if a technology were to be implemented that renders traffic signals obsolete, it's going to take a long time to find its way across the globe. Many smaller towns won't have the funds (nor probably be able to justify the expense) to change. Maybe the authors of the articles actually meant 3020.
How many other items that have been declared obsolete have truly been 100% abandoned? Record players? Nope. Mechanical cash registers? Nope. I don't see traffic signals as being any different.
Quote from: 1995hoo on September 22, 2015, 01:43:08 PM
If Baloo is trying to say drivers can't hit pedestrians just because they're crossing illegally, then I have no problem with that principle. The problem is that too many pedestrians think it means they can walk with impunity. Try walking in front of a New York cab barreling down Sixth Avenue on the green wave and it won't go well for you!
We both drive in the same areas and I just don't know where you're getting this from.
How about this way, based on my own observations: I have witnessed cars not stopping for pedestrians at a marked crosswalk without a stop sign/stoplight (especially when it is a four-lane road with no median) than I have witnessed pedestrians brazenly walk in front of a fast-moving vehicle without concern.
Quote from: AlexandriaVA on September 22, 2015, 02:09:40 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on September 22, 2015, 01:43:08 PM
If Baloo is trying to say drivers can't hit pedestrians just because they're crossing illegally, then I have no problem with that principle. The problem is that too many pedestrians think it means they can walk with impunity. Try walking in front of a New York cab barreling down Sixth Avenue on the green wave and it won't go well for you!
We both drive in the same areas and I just don't know where you're getting this from.
How about this way, based on my own observations: I have witnessed cars not stopping for pedestrians at a marked crosswalk without a stop sign/stoplight (especially when it is a four-lane road with no median) than I have witnessed pedestrians brazenly walk in front of a fast-moving vehicle without concern.
I see it all the time near Seven Corners. Also saw it last night downtown–cars on Ninth Street approaching a green light at 35 to 40 mph and people sauntered out in front of them. Really dumb when the pavement is wet like it was last night!
Quote from: 1995hoo on September 22, 2015, 02:41:03 PM
Quote from: AlexandriaVA on September 22, 2015, 02:09:40 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on September 22, 2015, 01:43:08 PM
If Baloo is trying to say drivers can't hit pedestrians just because they're crossing illegally, then I have no problem with that principle. The problem is that too many pedestrians think it means they can walk with impunity. Try walking in front of a New York cab barreling down Sixth Avenue on the green wave and it won't go well for you!
We both drive in the same areas and I just don't know where you're getting this from.
How about this way, based on my own observations: I have witnessed cars not stopping for pedestrians at a marked crosswalk without a stop sign/stoplight (especially when it is a four-lane road with no median) than I have witnessed pedestrians brazenly walk in front of a fast-moving vehicle without concern.
I see it all the time near Seven Corners. Also saw it last night downtown–cars on Ninth Street approaching a green light at 35 to 40 mph and people sauntered out in front of them. Really dumb when the pavement is wet like it was last night!
Seven Corners is certainly a bit of a weird case though - there really aren't many ways to legally cross the major thoroughfares. I once got ticketed for an illegal U-turn there (it was a sting operation but I fully admit I was in violation of the rule) and the cop mentioned that it's the most dangerous pedestrian area in Fairfax County. Given the high amount of people without cars who live there, thus necessitating that they walk to their retail outlets or bus stops, I can totally believe that. Fairfax County recently built the pedestrian bridge of course, but that only is of value if your route happens to take you between those points. (Plus apparently people take dumps in the bridge's stairwells). I cite Seven Corners as flawed pedestrian design - I wonder how the planned redevelopment will play out.
The same issue happened further down Arlington Blvd near Graham Road. That's why Fairfax County or VDOT built the fences near Loehmann's Plaza. Too many crossings away from the intersection. Again, not a particularly safe or pleasant place to cross the street.
Downtown is a different case since there's signal-protected crossings all over. I'm more amazed that you were able to manage 35-40 MPH in the first place. Green wave of sorts?
Quote from: 1995hoo on September 22, 2015, 02:41:03 PM
Quote from: AlexandriaVA on September 22, 2015, 02:09:40 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on September 22, 2015, 01:43:08 PM
If Baloo is trying to say drivers can't hit pedestrians just because they're crossing illegally, then I have no problem with that principle. The problem is that too many pedestrians think it means they can walk with impunity. Try walking in front of a New York cab barreling down Sixth Avenue on the green wave and it won't go well for you!
We both drive in the same areas and I just don't know where you're getting this from.
How about this way, based on my own observations: I have witnessed cars not stopping for pedestrians at a marked crosswalk without a stop sign/stoplight (especially when it is a four-lane road with no median) than I have witnessed pedestrians brazenly walk in front of a fast-moving vehicle without concern.
I see it all the time near Seven Corners. Also saw it last night downtown—cars on Ninth Street approaching a green light at 35 to 40 mph and people sauntered out in front of them. Really dumb when the pavement is wet like it was last night!
I see it a bunch in Portland, though Portland is considered to be quite walkable and very pedestrian- and bicycle-friendly. I think it's a combination of motorists not knowing the law or generally unaware or blatantly ignoring the fact that a pedestrian is standing at the street corner and just blow right past them.
Keep in mind I see this mostly in built-up areas along 2-lane streets with speed limits of 20-30 mph (namely Hawthorne Blvd and tons of places in Northwest right around 21st and 23rd Aves). There are crosswalks, marked or unmarked, at every intersection in Oregon (except for when a "crosswalk closed" sign is posted) and vehicles are supposed to stop for pedestrians in these crosswalks. However, pedestrians have a duty to not cross so close to a moving vehicle that it presents a hazard, and motorists have a duty to keep from hitting pedestrians even if they're crossing the road outside of a crosswalk, marked or unmarked. It's also illegal for a vehicle to pass another vehicle going in the same direction when the stopped vehicle is yielding to a pedestrian.
However to "trigger" the right of way of the pedestrian, they must step off the curb or otherwise extend some part of their body, wheelchair, cane, or bicycle into the roadway. Problem is, I think either pedestrians don't know this or assume (rightly so) that motorists don't know this and won't stop, thus they play it safe and wait for a break in traffic. Me, I'm always keeping my eye out for those little green street signs at unsignalized intersections and for a pedestrian on the corner looking like they're about to cross, and I always stop for them. Once or twice vehicles in other lanes will breeze by while I'm stopped to allow the pedestrian to cross, completely unaware of their requirement to stop.
To add to this, in Oregon, blind persons apparently have the right of way - or at least vehicles are required to stop for them - at
any point along the road, even outside of marked or unmarked crosswalks, and vehicles must stop for them and remain stopped until they have completely crossed the roadway. The relevant law (ORS 811.035) doesn't make mention of whether or not such a roadway is controlled access, or at least I couldn't locate any language to the contrary, so theoretically vehicles could be required to stop if a blind person with a cane or guide dog attempts to cross a freeway (not that I would ever advocate such a pedestrian to do so).
Anyway, all this to say I consider it a sign of responsibility and respect to know the laws regarding pedestrians, the breadth of which I was never taught in driver's ed and didn't know until I did the research myself, and always try 100% to make things easier on them when I'm driving and they're trying to cross to stop and wait for them so they don't have to wait for a break in traffic which could take potentially minutes because drivers refuse (knowingly or unknowingly) to stop for them.
Quote from: Ace10 on September 22, 2015, 03:13:31 PM
Anyway, all this to say I consider it a sign of responsibility and respect to know the laws regarding pedestrians, the breadth of which I was never taught in driver's ed and didn't know until I did the research myself, and always try 100% to make things easier on them when I'm driving and they're trying to cross to stop and wait for them so they don't have to wait for a break in traffic which could take potentially minutes because drivers refuse (knowingly or unknowingly) to stop for them.
Driver's ed should require everyone to cross busy roads on foot before they can drive a car on them. I honestly think that some people never cross busy roads on foot and don't know the challenges/fears facing pedestrians.
Quote from: AlexandriaVA on September 22, 2015, 03:33:28 PM
Quote from: Ace10 on September 22, 2015, 03:13:31 PM
Anyway, all this to say I consider it a sign of responsibility and respect to know the laws regarding pedestrians, the breadth of which I was never taught in driver's ed and didn't know until I did the research myself, and always try 100% to make things easier on them when I'm driving and they're trying to cross to stop and wait for them so they don't have to wait for a break in traffic which could take potentially minutes because drivers refuse (knowingly or unknowingly) to stop for them.
Driver's ed should require everyone to cross busy roads on foot before they can drive a car on them. I honestly think that some people never cross busy roads on foot and don't know the challenges/fears facing pedestrians.
And change a tire on the side of the highway, so they know how it feels when they're driving past someone doing 75.
Quote from: DaBigE on September 22, 2015, 01:58:49 PM
How many other items that have been declared obsolete have truly been 100% abandoned? Record players? Nope. Mechanical cash registers? Nope. I don't see traffic signals as being any different.
Telegrams, at least in the United States. They're still heavily used in India.
Quote from: AlexandriaVA on September 22, 2015, 03:33:28 PM
Driver's ed should require everyone to cross busy roads on foot before they can drive a car on them. I honestly think that some people never cross busy roads on foot and don't know the challenges/fears facing pedestrians.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on September 22, 2015, 03:43:41 PM
And change a tire on the side of the highway, so they know how it feels when they're driving past someone doing 75.
Yes and yes! I wholeheartedly agree.
Quote from: DaBigE on September 22, 2015, 01:58:49 PM
How many other items that have been declared obsolete have truly been 100% abandoned? Record players? Nope. Mechanical cash registers? Nope. I don't see traffic signals as being any different.
I think it's been 30 years since I've seen a mechanical cash register in use.
Hmm. 8-track tapes? 8" floppy disks? Pagers? Acoustic couple modems?
Quote from: AlexandriaVA on September 22, 2015, 03:33:28 PM
Driver's ed should require everyone to cross busy roads on foot before they can drive a car on them. I honestly think that some people never cross busy roads on foot and don't know the challenges/fears facing pedestrians.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on September 22, 2015, 03:43:41 PM
And change a tire on the side of the highway, so they know how it feels when they're driving past someone doing 75.
So you two want a scared-straight program in driver's ed? Nice try.
Quote from: kkt on September 22, 2015, 04:22:56 PM
Quote from: DaBigE on September 22, 2015, 01:58:49 PM
How many other items that have been declared obsolete have truly been 100% abandoned? Record players? Nope. Mechanical cash registers? Nope. I don't see traffic signals as being any different.
I think it's been 30 years since I've seen a mechanical cash register in use.
Nothing ever disappears. It either finds its way into an antique shop or a museum at some point, but it never stops existing.
Quote from: AlexandriaVA on September 22, 2015, 03:08:15 PM
....
Downtown is a different case since there's signal-protected crossings all over. I'm more amazed that you were able to manage 35-40 MPH in the first place. Green wave of sorts?
I was standing on the corner waiting to cross the street, but yes, traffic was surprisingly light and the drivers had a string of greens.
Quote from: jakeroot on September 22, 2015, 04:32:07 PM
Quote from: AlexandriaVA on September 22, 2015, 03:33:28 PM
Driver's ed should require everyone to cross busy roads on foot before they can drive a car on them. I honestly think that some people never cross busy roads on foot and don't know the challenges/fears facing pedestrians.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on September 22, 2015, 03:43:41 PM
And change a tire on the side of the highway, so they know how it feels when they're driving past someone doing 75.
So you two want a scared-straight program in driver's ed? Nice try.
I'd at least want to make the first a requirement because the entire time I lived in Mississippi, I think I only crossed one street (two-way, four-lane with center turn lane - a pretty major street for its area) a handful of times. It wasn't until I moved to the Portland area and actually began walking to a bunch of places that I took it upon myself to read up on the fact that most states recognize the concept of unmarked crosswalks and that vehicles must yield to pedestrians within them (under certain parameters which you can glean from a few of my posts here). Certainly nothing of the sort was taught in my driver's ed, and even if it was, it didn't stick - and I paid attention and was one of the best performing students there. If only to give students that experience so that as time passes more and more drivers have been through the experience and know what it feels like for a pedestrian, they may be more aware of how things are supposed to work and everyone can get to where they're going understanding the rules and making it safe for all involved.
For the second, I just could have benefited from the knowledge and experience of changing a tire when the need finally arose years after driver's ed (I took it at 15 years old and had to change a tire around 20).
Quote from: Ace10 on September 22, 2015, 04:48:48 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on September 22, 2015, 04:32:07 PM
Quote from: AlexandriaVA on September 22, 2015, 03:33:28 PM
Driver's ed should require everyone to cross busy roads on foot before they can drive a car on them. I honestly think that some people never cross busy roads on foot and don't know the challenges/fears facing pedestrians.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on September 22, 2015, 03:43:41 PM
And change a tire on the side of the highway, so they know how it feels when they're driving past someone doing 75.
So you two want a scared-straight program in driver's ed? Nice try.
I'd at least want to make the first a requirement...For the second, I just could have benefited from the knowledge and experience of changing a tire when the need finally arose years after driver's ed (I took it at 15 years old and had to change a tire around 20).
Don't get me wrong, I want those things taught in Driver's ed, I just don't want them taught out in the real world.
Quote from: kkt on September 22, 2015, 04:22:56 PM
Quote from: DaBigE on September 22, 2015, 01:58:49 PM
How many other items that have been declared obsolete have truly been 100% abandoned? Record players? Nope. Mechanical cash registers? Nope. I don't see traffic signals as being any different.
I think it's been 30 years since I've seen a mechanical cash register in use.
Hmm. 8-track tapes? 8" floppy disks? Pagers? Acoustic couple modems?
It's 2015 and they still sell cassette tapes in Walmart, K Mart, Dollar General, and many other places. CDs don't seem to be going anywhere anytime soon either. I can bet every dollar I got stop lights will still be around in 2030.
Many transit departments publish forecasts for construction projects that go out about 10 years. If traffic lights were to be obsolete in 15 years, you would see a vastly different construction project forecast for 10 years from now.
I remember the Sim-City brochure mentioned that in the future roads will be obsolete and trains will take over, so the player should emphasize railroads over roads. It still seems more doable than 100% driverless cars. Maybe many roads can be converted to bus only less expensively than building an extensive rail network, but same idea. Then those buses can probably be driverless. Eventually all roads will be bus only and you'd just walk to the bus. This can be achieved, but probably won't be, at least in the US, due to the love affair with the car.
^^ It has less to do with a "love affair with the car" than pure logistics. Buses won't work very well for small rural areas, unless you propose moving everyone into a very dense city, at least as dense as Chicago.
The whole Americans (and Americans alone) having a love affair with the car is a myth. Most areas that have cars like them, even dense Europe. Try prying a BMW from a German's hands.
Quote from: Brandon on September 24, 2015, 04:20:02 PM
The whole Americans (and Americans alone) having a love affair with the car is a myth. Most areas that have cars like them, even dense Europe. Try prying a BMW from a German's hands.
The difference is that, usually, they don't have to drive their cars to work or to the shops if they don't want to. Ultimately, most American suburbs have zero transit infrastructure, so folks are forced to either drive or ride their bike. Most countries like their cars, of course, but America has a certain obsession with them. I think it's a forced obsession, though. We really don't have any choice, in most parts of the country, but to love our cars -- it's our only way out of suburbia.
Quote from: Brandon on September 24, 2015, 04:20:02 PM
^^ It has less to do with a "love affair with the car" than pure logistics. Buses won't work very well for small rural areas, unless you propose moving everyone into a very dense city, at least as dense as Chicago.
Rural bus service, at the very least, does serve the oldest of the population incapable of operating a motor vehicle, who often have no choice but to ride a bus.
Quote from: jakeroot on September 24, 2015, 05:18:40 PM
Quote from: Brandon on September 24, 2015, 04:20:02 PM
The whole Americans (and Americans alone) having a love affair with the car is a myth. Most areas that have cars like them, even dense Europe. Try prying a BMW from a German's hands.
The difference is that, usually, they don't have to drive their cars to work or to the shops if they don't want to. Ultimately, most American suburbs have zero transit infrastructure, so folks are forced to either drive or ride their bike. Most countries like their cars, of course, but America has a certain obsession with them. I think it's a forced obsession, though. We really don't have any choice, in most parts of the country, but to love our cars -- it's our only way out of suburbia.
Quote from: Brandon on September 24, 2015, 04:20:02 PM
^^ It has less to do with a "love affair with the car" than pure logistics. Buses won't work very well for small rural areas, unless you propose moving everyone into a very dense city, at least as dense as Chicago.
Rural bus service, at the very least, does serve the oldest of the population incapable of operating a motor vehicle, who often have no choice but to ride a bus.
The love affair with the car is absolutely real. Many bus routes are closing due to low ridership. People who can afford a car feel riding the bus is beneath them (trains are a bit different, but also a lot more expensive). You don't need for everyone to be in Chicago to provide sufficient bus service. You've got major freeways. Have a park and ride at every service area or every X miles, and frequent bus service that stops at every one. Have feeder buses from each park and ride through the neighborhoods.
Quote from: bzakharin on September 24, 2015, 06:00:11 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on September 24, 2015, 05:18:40 PM
Quote from: Brandon on September 24, 2015, 04:20:02 PM
The whole Americans (and Americans alone) having a love affair with the car is a myth. Most areas that have cars like them, even dense Europe. Try prying a BMW from a German's hands.
The difference is that, usually, they don't have to drive their cars to work or to the shops if they don't want to. Ultimately, most American suburbs have zero transit infrastructure, so folks are forced to either drive or ride their bike. Most countries like their cars, of course, but America has a certain obsession with them. I think it's a forced obsession, though. We really don't have any choice, in most parts of the country, but to love our cars -- it's our only way out of suburbia.
Quote from: Brandon on September 24, 2015, 04:20:02 PM
^^ It has less to do with a "love affair with the car" than pure logistics. Buses won't work very well for small rural areas, unless you propose moving everyone into a very dense city, at least as dense as Chicago.
Rural bus service, at the very least, does serve the oldest of the population incapable of operating a motor vehicle, who often have no choice but to ride a bus.
The love affair with the car is absolutely real. Many bus routes are closing due to low ridership. People who can afford a car feel riding the bus is beneath them (trains are a bit different, but also a lot more expensive). You don't need for everyone to be in Chicago to provide sufficient bus service. You've got major freeways. Have a park and ride at every service area or every X miles, and frequent bus service that stops at every one. Have feeder buses from each park and ride through the neighborhoods.
Maybe it's because buses don't go where people need to go and when they need to go. They do cost a lot to run, and run empty.
Buses are also a problem for people who can't count on leaving work at exactly the same time every day.
Quote from: 1995hoo on September 24, 2015, 06:32:31 PM
Buses are also a problem for people who can't count on leaving work at exactly the same time every day.
If we expanded the bus routes to reach the far-reaching parts of suburbia, and ran the buses 24-hours, I could see ridership going up. Obviously that costs money, but a transit system that people actually
enjoy don't mind using has a higher chance of being better funded (if I had to guess).
Quote from: 1995hoo on September 24, 2015, 06:32:31 PM
Buses are also a problem for people who can't count on leaving work at exactly the same time every day.
I've always thought that for city transit/commuting buses, either run the buses frequently (every 15-20 minutes per hour off peak, and every 10 minutes peak) or don't run them at all. These once-an-hour buses that run in the outer suburbs of DC don't do anyone any favors really.
I always thought it was curious that one of the purported benefits of buses (according to anti-Metrorail or streetcar advocates) is their relative cheapness (you don't need to build a right-of-way! save m/billions!) Yet I never see many serious proposals for the headways I mentioned.
Rural bus service is different of course, with lower population density and customer base.
The "love affair with the car" is very simple to explain. Freedom of choice and movement. Freedom to live wherever you want and to work wherever you want. Freedom to go do whatever you please at any time of the day. Freedom to buy all the groceries you need at one time, not just what you can carry. The car, or more precisely the car that any working person can afford, gives you that freedom. Bus lines do not.
You want me to use a bus? Fine. Have it show up at my house in tiny Independence and deliver me to the front door of my job in Hammond. Or Baton Rouge. Or New Orleans. Don't make me rely on changing buses once or more along the way. And you better be on time. The first day that I am late for my job because you were late picking me up is the last day that I use you. On second thought, forget all that. It's not going to happen.
The point was mentioned above: In order to serve rural areas, you have to run buses a lot...no less than every 1/2 hour. And you have to run them in all sorts of directions. If I need to grab a few items from a few different stores, what are the chances a bus - or a series of buses - will pick me up and drop me off at each of those individual stores, located miles apart? And how long am I going to be waiting for those buses? I could drive to a store, get what I want and leave within a few minutes, but with a bus I may have to wait a considerable amount of time.
And what if I want to go to a friend's house in the rural area? What are the chances a bus is going to happen to go by both my house and that other house?
Buses are great for heavy density areas. But the more rural the area, the less likely they will be of any assistance. And buses are expensive to run. A bus with 40 people in it costs just about the same as a bus with just a single passenger...or no passengers at all!
I don't think anyone is realistically anticipating a mass mode shift from autos to buses in rural areas, such as Louisiana. The math just doesn't add up.
I think that cities, however, should make a point to either run buses well, or not run them at all and just subsidize a taxi service for the poor/disabled/elderly. I understand that in many parts of the country, municipal bus service is just that - transportation for the poor/disabled/elderly. It would probably be cheaper just to subsidize taxi service than deal with the overhead of running a transit system.
It would also help if retail and groceries were within walking distance of your house. But that's another debate for another forum.
Quote from: AlexandriaVA on September 25, 2015, 09:39:23 AM
I don't think anyone is realistically anticipating a mass mode shift from autos to buses in rural areas, such as Louisiana. The math just doesn't add up.
I think that cities, however, should make a point to either run buses well, or not run them at all and just subsidize a taxi service for the poor/disabled/elderly. I understand that in many parts of the country, municipal bus service is just that - transportation for the poor/disabled/elderly. It would probably be cheaper just to subsidize taxi service than deal with the overhead of running a transit system.
It would also help if retail and groceries were within walking distance of your house. But that's another debate for another forum.
Really, it would be helpful if your workplace was located within walking distance of your house, since that's the place more frequented.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on September 25, 2015, 09:48:21 AM
Really, it would be helpful if your workplace was located within walking distance of your house, since that's the place more frequented.
It would also be helpful if my mother and mother-in-law lived within walking distance of my house. And my stepson's biological father, who has visitation rights.
What's your plan for dealing with those realities? My plan for dealing with them is owning a car.
I sometimes hear "live where you work" from the so-called "smart growth" crowd. It's a nice idea in theory that doesn't account for a lot of real-world realities. I'm not trying to post an exhaustive list here, but a few things that commonly factor into the decision where to live might include:
–Housing prices (people often can't afford to live closer to work or right near the subway)
–Did your job location change? Moving just because your workplace moved is often unrealistic.
–Did you change jobs? Same comment from previous question applies (though perhaps you didn't need to take that job if the commute is awful)
–Two-earner households where they have jobs in different locations/directions (my parents, who are now retired, were a good example–Dad worked downtown and Mom worked in Centreville, and they lived (still live) just east of Fairfax City, which was roughly halfway between the two....though the main reason they chose that house is addressed in the following comment)
–For people who have kids, do not underestimate the importance of which schools the kids will attend. At least in my area, a lot of parents are willing to subject themselves to a miserable commute if it means their kids will attend better schools, and I can't blame them for that.
With commuting, you are locked into the fact that you have to commute to your employer, regardless of proximity. Thus ideally, major employers are located on major transportation networks (highways, rail lines, and high-capacity bus lines). That way you get network and volume benefits from many people using high-capacity networks.
For non-commuting, such as groceries and retail, you can get much more generic - people will generally shop at the closest locations which provides the goods and services they want. I picture a situation where those services are very close to where people live.
Quote from: 1995hoo on September 25, 2015, 09:55:36 AM
I sometimes hear "live where you work" from the so-called "smart growth" crowd. It's a nice idea in theory that doesn't account for a lot of real-world realities. I'm not trying to post an exhaustive list here, but a few things that commonly factor into the decision where to live might include:
–Housing prices (people often can't afford to live closer to work or right near the subway)
Probably the biggest factor. Although I would argue that the "Metro Premium" on housing prices simply means that there isn't enough subway-proximate housing. Recent trends allow for greater density near Metro stations in the DC area, which is a good approach.
Quote from: 1995hoo on September 25, 2015, 09:55:36 AM
–Did your job location change? Moving just because your workplace moved is often unrealistic.
–Did you change jobs? Same comment from previous question applies (though perhaps you didn't need to take that job if the commute is awful)
–Two-earner households where they have jobs in different locations/directions (my parents, who are now retired, were a good example–Dad worked downtown and Mom worked in Centreville, and they lived (still live) just east of Fairfax City, which was roughly halfway between the two....though the main reason they chose that house is addressed in the following comment)
This are game-changing phenomena which old planning models have a hard time addressing. Namely, husband and wife both working professional jobs, along with the more transient nature of work these days. In years past, usually the wife wouldn't work, or would work a generic non-skilled job which could be worked at the nearest grocery store/department store/etc. That, along with the fact that guaranteed employment for the extent of your career with a single employer is basically a thing of the past (although the Federal Government is a holdover).
Quote from: 1995hoo on September 25, 2015, 09:55:36 AM
–For people who have kids, do not underestimate the importance of which schools the kids will attend. At least in my area, a lot of parents are willing to subject themselves to a miserable commute if it means their kids will attend better schools, and I can't blame them for that.
This is one of these topics which I understand why people do it, but I don't have too much patience for it either. I've found in the DC area that when people talk about wanting "good" or "family-friendly" schools, they're employing code which really means that they want a school where the population is 75+% white and Asian. What they may not realize is that a "bad" school in FCPS or Arlington is still ridiculously off the charts nationally. I went to what a lot of the whispering housewives in FCPS considered to be a "bad" school and I performed better in college than many kids I knew who went to "better" high schools. It ultimately came down to my work ethic and intellectual curiosity, which I had and they didn't.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on September 25, 2015, 09:35:07 AM
The point was mentioned above: In order to serve rural areas, you have to run buses a lot...no less than every 1/2 hour. And you have to run them in all sorts of directions. If I need to grab a few items from a few different stores, what are the chances a bus - or a series of buses - will pick me up and drop me off at each of those individual stores, located miles apart? And how long am I going to be waiting for those buses? I could drive to a store, get what I want and leave within a few minutes, but with a bus I may have to wait a considerable amount of time.
Actually, given modern communications and navigation possibilities, I wonder if a service somewhere between Uber/Lyft and conventional bus service could be developed.
In areas with high density population and established ridership patterns, you have conventional scheduled mass transit routes. But for less dense / less predictable areas, have some kind of demand service, where a bus route is dynamically created as riders call/schedule pickups, either ferrying them within those zone, transporting them to/from a transfer to a conventional route, or taking them directly to/from a commercial hub.
It wouldn't be good for impromptu trips, but if the service were good and not too outrageously priced, I could see it fitting into the commuting mix in some metro areas.
Of course, given improvements in technology, I have to imagine that the proportion of workers who telecommute will continue to grow, potentially reducing some of those transportation stresses.
Quote from: MikeTheActuary on September 25, 2015, 11:00:03 AM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on September 25, 2015, 09:35:07 AM
The point was mentioned above: In order to serve rural areas, you have to run buses a lot...no less than every 1/2 hour. And you have to run them in all sorts of directions. If I need to grab a few items from a few different stores, what are the chances a bus - or a series of buses - will pick me up and drop me off at each of those individual stores, located miles apart? And how long am I going to be waiting for those buses? I could drive to a store, get what I want and leave within a few minutes, but with a bus I may have to wait a considerable amount of time.
Actually, given modern communications and navigation possibilities, I wonder if a service somewhere between Uber/Lyft and conventional bus service could be developed.
In areas with high density population and established ridership patterns, you have conventional scheduled mass transit routes. But for less dense / less predictable areas, have some kind of demand service, where a bus route is dynamically created as riders call/schedule pickups, either ferrying them within those zone, transporting them to/from a transfer to a conventional route, or taking them directly to/from a commercial hub.
It wouldn't be good for impromptu trips, but if the service were good and not too outrageously priced, I could see it fitting into the commuting mix in some metro areas.
Of course, given improvements in technology, I have to imagine that the proportion of workers who telecommute will continue to grow, potentially reducing some of those transportation stresses.
Maybe when you get to the bus stop, you press a button (similar to a flag stop on the railroad), and a computer can plot the most efficient route to pick up everyone who has called for a ride.
To be clear, I live 41 miles away from my workplace.
Due to the road network, many people that live within 10 or 15 miles of the workplace here can take 30 minute or so to get to/from work. I live 3x-4x the distance, and I can get to work, or get home, in about 40 - 60 minutes, depending on traffic. A lot further distance mileage-wise, but not all that much further time-wise.
One annoying remark from the pro-train crowd is when a new train line, light-rail line, or train station is built, promoters will often say that you can now purchase a house near the train line and never have to drive to work. Which is true...if you are always going to work at a location accessed by that train line. And if you and your spouse/significant other/other drivers in the family all can commute via train line as well. But we all know that's generally not the case!
So in the end, it adds some significant use to the road system, which didn't get improved because the money was spent on a rail line, which in order to create use spurred the development that is overloading the road system!
Quote from: jbnv on September 25, 2015, 09:53:46 AMIt would also be helpful if my mother and mother-in-law lived within walking distance of my house. And my stepson's biological father, who has visitation rights.
Why? :confused: ;-)
Quote from: jeffandnicole on September 25, 2015, 12:35:00 PM
To be clear, I live 41 miles away from my workplace.
Due to the road network, many people that live within 10 or 15 miles of the workplace here can take 30 minute or so to get to/from work. I live 3x-4x the distance, and I can get to work, or get home, in about 40 - 60 minutes, depending on traffic. A lot further distance mileage-wise, but not all that much further time-wise.
One annoying remark from the pro-train crowd is when a new train line, light-rail line, or train station is built, promoters will often say that you can now purchase a house near the train line and never have to drive to work. Which is true...if you are always going to work at a location accessed by that train line. And if you and your spouse/significant other/other drivers in the family all can commute via train line as well. But we all know that's generally not the case!
So in the end, it adds some significant use to the road system, which didn't get improved because the money was spent on a rail line, which in order to create use spurred the development that is overloading the road system!
A good light rail system will have tons of bus connections feeding into every station, so someone living near transit-oriented development will be able to use the train for the bulk of their total commute. It seems to work pretty well, with the number of car-less households being very high near light rail stations in some areas (Portland and Seattle to name a few).