What would happen if major freeways had to be built TODAY?

Started by Zeffy, December 23, 2014, 12:00:54 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

kkt

Quote from: vdeane on January 06, 2015, 01:22:14 PM
In boating, the principle is that traffic that can more easily yield is the one that yields; sailboats yield to ships, power boats yield to sailboats, and everyone else yields to power boats.  But for road traffic we do the reverse!  I've never understood that.  It seems to me that it would be safer to have pedestrians, who can stop immediately, yield to vehicular traffic, which can't.  To me, having it the opposite essentially makes the statement "pedestrians are more important", and assertion which I've never understood.  It feels like cars are being treated more and more like second class citizens by planners and politicians, and as someone who won't be giving up her car as her primary/only means of transport in the next few decades, that stings.

I tend to avoid driving in cities specifically for this reason, but it really sucks when I do have need to go in one.  It's not a case of being in a hurry either - even if I have plenty of time, it drives my brain nuts to deal with constant stop and go or to sustain a speed lower than what I would have selected for the roadway condition.  I'm not a patient girl.

The boating analogy fails for a couple of reasons.  Cities are densely packed, and no one gets to go as fast as they please.  It's rare for boats to be that closely packed, and when they are there are rules beyond the "burdened vessel" rule for determining where and how fast they can go -- speed limits, channels which you can only use in one direction.  A few places have controllers much like air traffic.  You might be able to go 75 mph down Broadway if only all those people and cars weren't in your way, but it's never going to happen.  There are always unexpected events, people turning, restricted visibility, and pedestrians already in crosswalks when you approach.

Second, the burdened vessel rule applies between adult, trained boaters.  The pedestrians are burdened by reason of not necessarily having adult judgement for how long it takes a car to turn or stop, or where it's likely to go next.  The streets are for everyone, not just for cars, therefore the driver must drive accordingly. 

It's not really that much to ask to yield to people already in a crosswalk or in the act of stepping into one.

I've seen more police involved in jaywalking stings than in failure to yield to pedestrians stings.



froggie

It fails for other reasons as well.  Having spent numerous years on the sea, it is not as simple as val portrays it.  For example, sailboats do not necessarily yield to ships (I have had personal experience with this off the Outer Banks).  On the open seas, it depends much more on direction of travel than what type of boat you are.

US71

Quote from: NE2 on January 06, 2015, 01:42:01 PM
Quote from: vdeane on January 06, 2015, 01:22:14 PM
To me, having it the opposite essentially makes the statement "pedestrians are more important", and assertion which I've never understood.  It feels like cars are being treated more and more like second class citizens by planners and politicians, and as someone who won't be giving up her car as her primary/only means of transport in the next few decades, that stings.
It's your assumption that cars are citizens at all that's entirely bogus.
But corporations are people ;)
Like Alice I Try To Believe Three Impossible Things Before Breakfast

Pete from Boston

#103
Quote from: vdeane on January 06, 2015, 01:22:14 PM
In boating, the principle is that traffic that can more easily yield is the one that yields; sailboats yield to ships, power boats yield to sailboats, and everyone else yields to power boats.  But for road traffic we do the reverse!  I've never understood that.  It seems to me that it would be safer to have pedestrians, who can stop immediately, yield to vehicular traffic, which can't.  To me, having it the opposite essentially makes the statement "pedestrians are more important", and assertion which I've never understood.  It feels like cars are being treated more and more like second class citizens by planners and politicians, and as someone who won't be giving up her car as her primary/only means of transport in the next few decades, that stings.

Small boats are small versions of big boats.  Pedestrians are not small versions of cars. 

The law necessarily protects pedestrians because pedestrians have much more at stake.  They are much more likely to die than automobile operators when the two conflict.  All other distinctions take a back seat. 

Moreover, this imbalance being the case, pedestrians will ultimately need a path carved out for them by regulation, since motorists with less at stake are unlikely to provide it.  Pedestrians would hardly ever make it across the street in too many cases.  It is similar to how we protect children and minorities even though it is inconvenient, because they also are vulnerable to a majority that has proven it would not protect them otherwise.

You've repeated that you don't make being a pedestrian a big part of your life, and therefore you may be under the misapprehension that without the right of way over pedestrians, motorists are at a disadvantage.  I assure you, with lots of time spent on both sides of this one, that they are not.

QuoteI tend to avoid driving in cities specifically for this reason, but it really sucks when I do have need to go in one.  It's not a case of being in a hurry either - even if I have plenty of time, it drives my brain nuts to deal with constant stop and go or to sustain a speed lower than what I would have selected for the roadway condition.  I'm not a patient girl.

Urban driving makes evident the isolating and personal-needs-elevating effect being locked in a metal box can have.  There is much more expressed hostility between motorists than between pedestrians (speed and isolation better protect motorists from the consequences of their behavior).  It is an environment that requires a lot of cooperation between actors so that it all works smoothly at all.  This means subordinating one's desires from time to time.  This, in my opinion, is valuable practice for life in general.

QuoteIt's what I was taught in drivers ed and what the police were enforcing with the duck in Fort Lee, NJ.

From what I heard, people were driving right by the duck when it was in the crosswalk.  The duck was probably not a great exercise to make a lot of difference, because while it was obvious, it also freaked people out.

There are lots of plainclothes-officer crosswalk stings here.  But they don't matter–you just have to be a frequent pedestrian to know that you can frequently be halfway across and some isolated driver's desire to be someplace quickly will prevail over your safety.

kkt

Last night's adventures in How Not to Cross a Street:

I am driving on a busy city street, in a school zone about 6:00 PM.  A pedestrian is standing in a crosswalk, one step into the street, waiting to cross.  I stop for him.  Cars coming toward me do not stop.  Pedestrian continues to stand on the right side of my line, still waiting to cross.  Not a single car coming towards me stops.  He and I are sitting there for about 5 minutes before there's enough of a break in traffic for him to cross.  Who's at fault?

- Me, for stopping for a pedestrian in the crosswalk as the law and safety requires?
- Pedestrian, for not advancing to the left side of my lane and being more aggressive about forcing the oncoming drivers to stop?
- About 300 drivers who were all required to stop and didn't?


Laura


Quote from: kkt on January 08, 2015, 07:17:10 PM
Last night's adventures in How Not to Cross a Street:

I am driving on a busy city street, in a school zone about 6:00 PM.  A pedestrian is standing in a crosswalk, one step into the street, waiting to cross.  I stop for him.  Cars coming toward me do not stop.  Pedestrian continues to stand on the right side of my line, still waiting to cross.  Not a single car coming towards me stops.  He and I are sitting there for about 5 minutes before there's enough of a break in traffic for him to cross.  Who's at fault?

- Me, for stopping for a pedestrian in the crosswalk as the law and safety requires?
- Pedestrian, for not advancing to the left side of my lane and being more aggressive about forcing the oncoming drivers to stop?
- About 300 drivers who were all required to stop and didn't?

Was there a median? Not saying the drivers were right, but if there was a median, they probably assumed that they didn't need to stop until the ped was there.


iPhone

jeffandnicole

Quote from: Laura on January 09, 2015, 07:17:28 AM

Quote from: kkt on January 08, 2015, 07:17:10 PM
Last night's adventures in How Not to Cross a Street:

I am driving on a busy city street, in a school zone about 6:00 PM.  A pedestrian is standing in a crosswalk, one step into the street, waiting to cross.  I stop for him.  Cars coming toward me do not stop.  Pedestrian continues to stand on the right side of my line, still waiting to cross.  Not a single car coming towards me stops.  He and I are sitting there for about 5 minutes before there's enough of a break in traffic for him to cross.  Who's at fault?

- Me, for stopping for a pedestrian in the crosswalk as the law and safety requires?
- Pedestrian, for not advancing to the left side of my lane and being more aggressive about forcing the oncoming drivers to stop?
- About 300 drivers who were all required to stop and didn't?

Was there a median? Not saying the drivers were right, but if there was a median, they probably assumed that they didn't need to stop until the ped was there.


iPhone

Could the other drivers see the pedestrian? 

Based on the exact description you provided, the pedestrian was at fault for not crossing.  Here's Washington State's law:

QuoteThe operator of an approaching vehicle shall stop and remain stopped to allow a pedestrian or bicycle to cross the roadway within an unmarked or marked crosswalk when the pedestrian or bicycle is upon or within one lane of the half of the roadway upon which the vehicle is traveling or onto which it is turning.

If the pedestrian was still in the shoulder area, that is not within one lane of the half the roadway, and the opposing traffic still had the right to cross the roadway.

Since you mentioned this was city traffic, generally they tend to be more aggressive, and the pedestrian would have had to definitely start walking across in order to get one of the drivers to stop.  Sure, there's some assholes out there that won't stop no matter what, but out of 300 vehicles, you're going to find that most of them would stop for an approaching ped.

02 Park Ave

What is an "unmarked" crosswalk?  How is one expected to know of its existence?
C-o-H

Pete from Boston

We have officially abandoned the subject of this thread.

"Unmarked crosswalks" are apparently any corner, etc., where pedestrians cross that is not marked.  The implication is that if you're at an intersection and there are sidewalks along the cross street ending on either side of you and no painted crosswalk, you're supposed to infer that if a pedestrian is trying to cross in such a situation, you need to stop.

I don't like the vagueness, though I get the intent.

Zeffy

Quote from: Pete from Boston on January 09, 2015, 09:02:35 AM
We have officially abandoned the subject of this thread.

Yeah, that's... pretty true. Can we try to go back to the original topic on hand? Thanks!
Life would be boring if we didn't take an offramp every once in a while

A weird combination of a weather geek, roadgeek, car enthusiast and furry mixed with many anxiety related disorders

GCrites

What if they had to be built today, but with 1950s design standards? Would the narrower R/Ws, tighter radii turns, shorter ramps etc. help their cause much cost- and impact-wise significantly? Or not really? Obviously the old standards would be cheaper to construct but there are a lot of other factors at play.

Pete from Boston

We would spend years just arguing over the funding.

cpzilliacus

Quote from: Pete from Boston on January 09, 2015, 12:08:13 PM
We would spend years just arguing over the funding.

Not if urban freeway construction was funded the right way - with toll revenue bonds, and with variable pricing set to encourage free-flow conditions at all times?
Opinions expressed here on AAROADS are strictly personal and mine alone, and do not reflect policies or positions of MWCOG, NCRTPB or their member federal, state, county and municipal governments or any other agency.

jeffandnicole

Quote from: cpzilliacus on January 09, 2015, 01:53:51 PM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on January 09, 2015, 12:08:13 PM
We would spend years just arguing over the funding.

Not if urban freeway construction was funded the right way - with toll revenue bonds, and with variable pricing set to encourage free-flow conditions at all times?

Toll rates would be multiple dollars per mile in a true urban (city) environment.

cl94

Quote from: jeffandnicole on January 09, 2015, 01:55:42 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on January 09, 2015, 01:53:51 PM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on January 09, 2015, 12:08:13 PM
We would spend years just arguing over the funding.

Not if urban freeway construction was funded the right way - with toll revenue bonds, and with variable pricing set to encourage free-flow conditions at all times?

Toll rates would be multiple dollars per mile in a true urban (city) environment.

Heck, just look at Highway 407 in Toronto. Might only be 50 cents/mile, but that's on the outskirts. Little congestion, but you certainly pay for it, plus a $3-4 surcharge if you don't have a transponder.
Please note: All posts represent my personal opinions and do not represent those of my employer or any of its partner agencies.

kkt

Quote from: cpzilliacus on January 09, 2015, 01:53:51 PM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on January 09, 2015, 12:08:13 PM
We would spend years just arguing over the funding.

Not if urban freeway construction was funded the right way - with toll revenue bonds, and with variable pricing set to encourage free-flow conditions at all times?

When one party is certain that their way is the Right Way, the arguments can definitely last for years or decades.

GCrites

Quote from: Pete from Boston on January 09, 2015, 12:08:13 PM
We would spend years just arguing over the funding.

It helped that the decision to do the interstates was made during the U.S. quasi-fascist experimental years between The Depression and 1960. And I don't mean that pejoratively.

roadman65

In reality some areas would benefit the most if freeways were built, as there are some regions with too many cars and not enough roads along with lengthy stop lights that a major freeway would improve an area greatly.
Every day is a winding road, you just got to get used to it.

Sheryl Crowe

Brandon

Quote from: 02 Park Ave on January 09, 2015, 08:52:56 AM
What is an "unmarked" crosswalk?  How is one expected to know of its existence?

It's a any corner, anywhere, as I told the asshole bicyclist who damn near ran me down at one in Chicago.
"If you think this has a happy ending, you haven't been paying attention." - Ramsay Bolton, "Game of Thrones"

"Symbolic of his struggle against reality." - Reg, "Monty Python's Life of Brian"

kphoger

Quote from: Brandon on February 17, 2015, 01:36:06 PM
Quote from: 02 Park Ave on January 09, 2015, 08:52:56 AM
What is an "unmarked" crosswalk?  How is one expected to know of its existence?

It's a any corner, anywhere, as I told the asshole bicyclist who damn near ran me down at one in Chicago.

Please, let's not derail this thread again.  But I should point out one exception.

Last time I looked at Illinois's laws, there is one type of corner that doesn't count as an unmarked crosswalk.  A T-intersection at which the terminating road has no sidewalks is not to be understood to have an unmarked crosswalk extending from the curb line to the other side of the continuing road.  It's a loophole in the wording of the law.

He Is Already Here! Let's Go, Flamingo!
Dost thou understand the graveness of the circumstances?
Deut 23:13
Male pronouns, please.

Quote from: PKDIf you can control the meaning of words, you can control the people who must use them.

Zmapper

Quote from: kphoger on February 17, 2015, 02:00:14 PM
Quote from: Brandon on February 17, 2015, 01:36:06 PM
Quote from: 02 Park Ave on January 09, 2015, 08:52:56 AM
What is an "unmarked" crosswalk?  How is one expected to know of its existence?

It's a any corner, anywhere, as I told the asshole bicyclist who damn near ran me down at one in Chicago.

Please, let's not derail this thread again.  But I should point out one exception.

Last time I looked at Illinois's laws, there is one type of corner that doesn't count as an unmarked crosswalk.  A T-intersection at which the terminating road has no sidewalks is not to be understood to have an unmarked crosswalk extending from the curb line to the other side of the continuing road.  It's a loophole in the wording of the law.
Interesting exemption - do you have a reference?

In another thread I asked if unmarked crosswalks technically exist at 3/4 intersections (and thus the relevant road authority would need to have ADA-compliant curb cuts), with no resulting consensus.

NE2

Quote from: kphoger on February 17, 2015, 02:00:14 PM
Last time I looked at Illinois's laws, there is one type of corner that doesn't count as an unmarked crosswalk.  A T-intersection at which the terminating road has no sidewalks is not to be understood to have an unmarked crosswalk extending from the curb line to the other side of the continuing road.  It's a loophole in the wording of the law.
The law is ambiguous enough that different courts have interpreted it differently.

"See also Ellis v. Glenn (Ky.) 269 S.W. 2d 234, where the Court held a pedestrian was within an unmarked crosswalk when crossing the through street of a T intersection within what would be an extension of the sidewalk lines of the street forming the stem of the T."
http://nc.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.19680112_0040632.NC.htm/qx

but http://az.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.19830913_0040177.AZ.htm/qx
"... Since the 'T' intersection here did not have a sidewalk on the 'opposite side' of the highway, there are no lateral lines to 'connect' to each other in order to form an unmarked crosswalk...."

Arizona responded by changing the law to say "within the prolongations or connections of the lateral lines of the sidewalks".
pre-1945 Florida route log

I accept and respect your identity as long as it's not dumb shit like "identifying as a vaccinated attack helicopter".

kphoger

Quote from: Zmapper on February 17, 2015, 03:35:04 PM
Quote from: kphoger on February 17, 2015, 02:00:14 PM
Quote from: Brandon on February 17, 2015, 01:36:06 PM
Quote from: 02 Park Ave on January 09, 2015, 08:52:56 AM
What is an "unmarked" crosswalk?  How is one expected to know of its existence?

It's a any corner, anywhere, as I told the asshole bicyclist who damn near ran me down at one in Chicago.

Please, let's not derail this thread again.  But I should point out one exception.

Last time I looked at Illinois's laws, there is one type of corner that doesn't count as an unmarked crosswalk.  A T-intersection at which the terminating road has no sidewalks is not to be understood to have an unmarked crosswalk extending from the curb line to the other side of the continuing road.  It's a loophole in the wording of the law.
Interesting exemption - do you have a reference?

In another thread I asked if unmarked crosswalks technically exist at 3/4 intersections (and thus the relevant road authority would need to have ADA-compliant curb cuts), with no resulting consensus.

Taken from Illinois's definition of "crosswalk":

Quote from: (625 ILCS 5/1-113) (from Ch. 95 1/2, par. 1-113)
Sec. 1-113. Crosswalk. (a) That part of a roadway at an intersection included within the connections of the lateral lines of the sidewalks on opposite sides of the highway measured from the curbs or, in the absence of curbs, from the edges of the traversable roadway, and in the absence of a sidewalk on one side of the highway, that part of the highway included within the extension of the lateral line of the existing sidewalk to the side of the highway without the sidewalk, with such extension forming a right angle to the centerline of the highway;




Quote from: NE2 on February 17, 2015, 05:44:25 PM
Arizona responded by changing the law to say "within the prolongations or connections of the lateral lines of the sidewalks".

How is that any better, since "sidewalks" is still plural?




And . . . now we've derailed the thread again.

He Is Already Here! Let's Go, Flamingo!
Dost thou understand the graveness of the circumstances?
Deut 23:13
Male pronouns, please.

Quote from: PKDIf you can control the meaning of words, you can control the people who must use them.

NE2

Quote from: kphoger on February 17, 2015, 07:24:43 PM
Quote from: NE2 on February 17, 2015, 05:44:25 PM
Arizona responded by changing the law to say "within the prolongations or connections of the lateral lines of the sidewalks".

How is that any better, since "sidewalks" is still plural?
There's one sidewalk on each side of the trunk of the T. "prolongations or" was added.
pre-1945 Florida route log

I accept and respect your identity as long as it's not dumb shit like "identifying as a vaccinated attack helicopter".

slorydn1

But, one might ask: Are there (or would there be) any sidewalks with conflicting intersections on any of these existing (in real life) but still needing to be built (for the purposes of this thread) major freeways across the US?  :)
Please Note: All posts represent my personal opinions and do not represent those of any governmental agency, non-governmental agency, quasi-governmental agency or wanna be governmental agency

Counties: Counties Visited



Opinions expressed here on belong solely to the poster and do not represent or reflect the opinions or beliefs of AARoads, its creators and/or associates.