Roadgeek Hot Takes

[webny99]

Primarily because those cars should be able to turn right on red anyways

Which is true whether there's a right-turn lane or not...

... but when there's a right-turn lane, the arrow applies to everyone in that lane. When there's a shared thru/right lane, the arrow may not apply.

[kphoger]

... but when there's a right-turn lane, the arrow applies to everyone in that lane. When there's a shared thru/right lane, the arrow may not apply.

Correct.  Glad we're in agreement, then. 

[1995hoo]

... I suppose an arrow would eliminate the need to stop ....

In my observation, a lot of drivers would be astonished to learn that they are required to stop before turning on red.

[wanderer2575]

most arrow-equipped intersections should have right-turn arrows.

I think it depends on whether there are right turn lanes. If there are ... of course they should have arrows. If there aren't, arrows aren't really necessary

I'm curious to know why you think that.  I can think of signalized intersections with no right-turn lane but at which a majority of right lane traffic is indeed turning right.  It seems to me that having a green right-turn arrow would be beneficial during those phases in which there are no conflicting movements.

I don't know if it's in the MUTCD or another official-looking source, but I once read that right-turn arrows should be used only if there is a dedicated right-turn lane.  If the right lane is shared by thru and right-turning traffic, no arrow.

[kphoger]

In my observation, a lot of drivers would be astonished to learn that they are required to stop before turning on red.

[Buster Cannon]

Cloverleaf interchanges suck. I think they're okay if they have collector/distributor lanes, but the vanilla versions of them are drastically outdated in terms of usefulness.

They're enormous (especially a lot of the ones here in Maryland), merging in and out of the lanes is chaotic, and said merging can cause backups for miles unnecessarily. DDI's do their job so much better for connections that aren't freeway/freeway.

[kphoger]

Cloverleaf interchanges suck. I think they're okay if they have collector/distributor lanes, but the vanilla versions of them are drastically outdated in terms of usefulness.

They're enormous, merging in and out of the lanes is chaotic, and said merging can cause backups ...

That's not a hot take.  That's been conventional wisdom for at least a couple of decades by now.

[Buster Cannon]

Cloverleaf interchanges suck. I think they're okay if they have collector/distributor lanes, but the vanilla versions of them are drastically outdated in terms of usefulness.

They're enormous, merging in and out of the lanes is chaotic, and said merging can cause backups ...

That's not a hot take.  That's been conventional wisdom for at least a couple of decades by now.

That's fair, I'm so used to hearing the opposite when talking to people locally lol. Our county is getting our first DDI within the next couple of years, and there's so much pushback. Any interchange with a traffic light present is considered a step backwards, despite the opposite being true in practice.

My hotter take is that I'd be fine with tolling the entire interstate system. Not the expensive, privatized, dynamic tolls like in VA/IL, but a smaller fee that helps to self-fund the system. Like what the MDTA does, but applied nationally.

[kphoger]

I'm so used to hearing the opposite when talking to people locally lol. Our county is getting our first DDI within the next couple of years, and there's so much pushback. Any interchange with a traffic light present is considered a step backwards, despite the opposite being true in practice.

Well, you'll notice that I removed the part of your post about it being a DDI.  Thinking a DDI is an improvement is more of a hot take, because a lot of people dislike DDIs.

[hbelkins]

Cloverleaf interchanges suck. I think they're okay if they have collector/distributor lanes, but the vanilla versions of them are drastically outdated in terms of usefulness.

They're enormous (especially a lot of the ones here in Maryland), merging in and out of the lanes is chaotic, and said merging can cause backups for miles unnecessarily. DDI's do their job so much better for connections that aren't freeway/freeway.

Low-volume cloverleafs, like the WK Parkway-Green River Parkway Natcher Parkway I-165 interchange in Kentucky, aren't bad.

[pderocco]

I'm so used to hearing the opposite when talking to people locally lol. Our county is getting our first DDI within the next couple of years, and there's so much pushback. Any interchange with a traffic light present is considered a step backwards, despite the opposite being true in practice.

Well, you'll notice that I removed the part of your post about it being a DDI.  Thinking a DDI is an improvement is more of a hot take, because a lot of people dislike DDIs.

DDIs are counterintuitive. So are modern roundabouts, especially multilane ones, which is probably why they're sometimes crash-prone. Any accident stats on DDIs yet?

[Rothman]

Despite the disorientation, I'd imagine accidents are still rare for DDIs.

[kphoger]

Despite the disorientation, I'd imagine accidents are still rare for DDIs.

They force you onto the correct side of the median barrier, after all. 

In all seriousness, though, the conflict points themselves are more typical:  stoplights and off-/on-ramp merges.  Thus, even if the geometry may be unfamiliar, avoiding collisions should still be a more familiar process.

[pderocco]

Despite the disorientation, I'd imagine accidents are still rare for DDIs.

They force you onto the correct side of the median barrier, after all. 

In all seriousness, though, the conflict points themselves are more typical:  stoplights and off-/on-ramp merges.  Thus, even if the geometry may be unfamiliar, avoiding collisions should still be a more familiar process.

I just worry that some drunk passing through the light would think, Oh gee, I should be over there on the right side, and make turn right into that lane.

[Scott5114]

Despite the disorientation, I'd imagine accidents are still rare for DDIs.

They force you onto the correct side of the median barrier, after all. 

In all seriousness, though, the conflict points themselves are more typical:  stoplights and off-/on-ramp merges.  Thus, even if the geometry may be unfamiliar, avoiding collisions should still be a more familiar process.

I just worry that some drunk passing through the light would think, Oh gee, I should be over there on the right side, and make turn right into that lane.

I used to worry about that before I actually saw a DDI in person. The way they're usually designed makes it feel so unnatural to even think about making the forbidden right turn that I'm not sure even an impaired driver would consider it.

[PColumbus73]

I'm so used to hearing the opposite when talking to people locally lol. Our county is getting our first DDI within the next couple of years, and there's so much pushback. Any interchange with a traffic light present is considered a step backwards, despite the opposite being true in practice.

Well, you'll notice that I removed the part of your post about it being a DDI.  Thinking a DDI is an improvement is more of a hot take, because a lot of people dislike DDIs.

In the long run, DDIs might make it difficult to reconfigure if there is a future need to do so. It's not like a diamond where you could convert it to a par-clo.