🚀 go-pugleaf

"Larry Scholnick" <ljscholnick@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message 
news:%Z35h.3645$IR4.3373@newssvr25.news.prodigy.net...
> City takes a light approach in new battle to ease traffic bottlenecks
> Improved signal timing and other measures help to improve the flow at 
> intersections across L.A.
> By Jean Guccione, Times Staff Writer
>
> November 10, 2006
>
> Shoppers driving to The Grove might not notice the few seconds they save 
> turning into the parking structure. But traffic signals on Beverly 
> Boulevard eastbound at The Grove Drive have been tweaked to get them there 
> a little quicker.
>
> Traffic flow improved at the intersection, which has been identified as 
> one of the city's most congested, with such small fixes as extending the 
> amount of time the signal lights stay green.
>
> Across the city, similar improvements were made at 33 intersections, 
> saving commuters on average 22 seconds each.
>
> Over a year, those seconds can add up to two hours for each improved 
> crossing a motorist enters daily during the worst traffic.
>
> "We all know that every second counts when you are stuck in traffic," Los 
> Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa said Thursday at a news conference 
> announcing the improvements.
>
> Since January, the city Department of Transportation has identified 100 of 
> the most clogged intersections as part of Operation Bottleneck, its 
> traffic congestion relief initiative.
>
> Rush-hour delays have been reduced up to 78% at a third of the worst 
> cross-streets in Hollywood, the San Fernando Valley, Crenshaw and on the 
> Westside.
>
> Besides better signal timing, some intersections have had traffic officers 
> assigned to them. Others have been re-striped or had dedicated turn lanes 
> added.
>
> "Taken all together, these improvements are saving Angelenos 670 hours per 
> day, over 244,000 hours per year as they travel along our busiest 
> corridors," Villaraigosa said.
>
> Councilwoman Wendy Greuel, who is the chairwoman of the council's 
> Transportation Committee, said the changes should improve quality of life.
>
> "When you're driving down the street and you have to stop at every single 
> light that is not synchronized, that can affect your daily commute," 
> Greuel said.
>
> Last week, city officials announced that 71 more traffic signals in the 
> San Fernando Valley had been synchronized, shaving minutes off the drive 
> on Van Nuys Boulevard and surrounding streets.
>
> Villaraigosa and others hope that the state infrastructure bond issue, 
> which was approved by voters Tuesday, will provide the $150 million needed 
> to synchronize all the city's 4,300 traffic signals. About 77% of the 
> signals already have been timed.
>
> Bond money also will go toward resurfacing miles of city streets and 
> possibly overhauling more intersections.
>
> Gloria Jeff, who heads the city Transportation Department, said that as 
> many as 65 more clogged intersections needed additional work, such as 
> widening streets and adding turn lanes.
>
> As the mayor spoke about relieving traffic congestion in known hot spots, 
> traffic engineers, sitting around him in the city's Automatic Traffic 
> Surveillance and Control Center, were checking for unexpected vehicle 
> backups elsewhere.
>
> They scanned giant flat-screen monitors for streets temporarily blocked by 
> construction, traffic collisions, signal malfunctions and other problems.
>
> Eric Maya got a radio call from the San Fernando Valley, alerting him to 
> cars backing up at Burbank and Reseda boulevards. The left turn signal on 
> one of the streets was supposed to stay green for 45 seconds, he said. But 
> it turned red after only 10 seconds.
>
> From his chair, Maya adjusted the traffic signal, giving left-turning 
> vehicles a few more seconds. Then, a closed-circuit camera at the 
> intersection showed the clog dissipating.
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Since January, the city's traffic congestion relief initiative, known as 
> Operation Bottleneck, has reduced rush-hour delays up to 78% at 33 of the 
> city's most clogged intersections by improving traffic light signaling and 
> restriping streets.
>
>  1 - Roscoe Blvd. & Topanga Canyon Blvd. (Canoga Park)
>  2 - Roscoe Blvd. & 405 Fwy.(North Hills)
>  3 -  Sepulveda Blvd. & Sherman Way (Van Nuys)
>  4 - Sepulveda Blvd. & Vanowen St. (Van Nuys)
>  5 - Lankershim Blvd. & Victory Blvd. (North Hollywood)
>  6 - Calabasas Rd. & Valley Circle Blvd. (Woodland Hills)
>  7 - Coldwater Canyon Ave. & 101 Fwy. (Sherman Oaks)
>  8 - Laurel Canyon Blvd. & Ventura Blvd. (Studio City)
>  9 - Highland Ave. & Hollywood Blvd. (Hollywood)
> 10 - De Longpre Ave. & Highland Ave. (Hollywood)
> 11 - Santa Monica Blvd. & Western Ave.
> 12 - Highland Ave. & Melrose Ave. (Hollywood)
> 13 - Alvarado St. & Glendale Blvd.
> 14 - Beverly Blvd. & Stanley Ave.
> 15 - Beverly Blvd. & La Brea Ave.
> 16 - 3rd St. & Rossmore Ave.
> 17 - Alvarado St. & Temple St.
> 18 - Sepulveda Blvd. & Wilshire Blvd. (Westwood)
> 19 - Veteran Ave. & Wilshire Blvd. (Westwood)
> 20 - Pico Blvd. & Robertson Blvd.
> 21 - La Cienega Blvd. & Pico Blvd.
> 22 - Pico Blvd. & Westwood Blvd.
> 23 - Cadillac Ave. & La Cienega Blvd.
> 24 - La Brea Ave. & Washington Blvd.
> 25 - Hoover St. & Venice Blvd.
> 26 - Beaudry Ave. & Wilshire Blvd.
> 27 - National Blvd. & Westwood Blvd.
> 28 - Jefferson Blvd. & La Cienega Blvd.
> 29 - Long Beach Ave. & Washington Blvd.
> 30 - Olympic Blvd. & Soto St.
> 31 - Crenshaw Blvd. & Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd.
> 32 - Lincoln Blvd. & Washington Blvd. (Marina Del Rey)
> 33 - Figueroa St. & Vernon Ave.

If these figures are accurate, and these are actual net savings, not savings 
gained at the expense of other drivers waiting longer, then good job DOT.

brink 

brink wrote:
> "Larry Scholnick" <ljscholnick@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
> news:%Z35h.3645$IR4.3373@newssvr25.news.prodigy.net...
> > City takes a light approach in new battle to ease traffic bottlenecks
> > Improved signal timing and other measures help to improve the flow at
> > intersections across L.A.
> > By Jean Guccione, Times Staff Writer
> >
> > November 10, 2006
> >
> > Shoppers driving to The Grove might not notice the few seconds they save
> > turning into the parking structure. But traffic signals on Beverly
> > Boulevard eastbound at The Grove Drive have been tweaked to get them there
> > a little quicker.
> >
> > Traffic flow improved at the intersection, which has been identified as
> > one of the city's most congested, with such small fixes as extending the
> > amount of time the signal lights stay green.
> >
> > Across the city, similar improvements were made at 33 intersections,
> > saving commuters on average 22 seconds each.
> >
> > Over a year, those seconds can add up to two hours for each improved
> > crossing a motorist enters daily during the worst traffic.
> >
> > "We all know that every second counts when you are stuck in traffic," Los
> > Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa said Thursday at a news conference
> > announcing the improvements.
> >
> > Since January, the city Department of Transportation has identified 100 of
> > the most clogged intersections as part of Operation Bottleneck, its
> > traffic congestion relief initiative.
> >
> > Rush-hour delays have been reduced up to 78% at a third of the worst
> > cross-streets in Hollywood, the San Fernando Valley, Crenshaw and on the
> > Westside.
> >
> > Besides better signal timing, some intersections have had traffic officers
> > assigned to them. Others have been re-striped or had dedicated turn lanes
> > added.
> >
> > "Taken all together, these improvements are saving Angelenos 670 hours per
> > day, over 244,000 hours per year as they travel along our busiest
> > corridors," Villaraigosa said.
> >
> > Councilwoman Wendy Greuel, who is the chairwoman of the council's
> > Transportation Committee, said the changes should improve quality of life.
> >
> > "When you're driving down the street and you have to stop at every single
> > light that is not synchronized, that can affect your daily commute,"
> > Greuel said.
> >
> > Last week, city officials announced that 71 more traffic signals in the
> > San Fernando Valley had been synchronized, shaving minutes off the drive
> > on Van Nuys Boulevard and surrounding streets.
> >
> > Villaraigosa and others hope that the state infrastructure bond issue,
> > which was approved by voters Tuesday, will provide the $150 million needed
> > to synchronize all the city's 4,300 traffic signals. About 77% of the
> > signals already have been timed.
> >
> > Bond money also will go toward resurfacing miles of city streets and
> > possibly overhauling more intersections.
> >
> > Gloria Jeff, who heads the city Transportation Department, said that as
> > many as 65 more clogged intersections needed additional work, such as
> > widening streets and adding turn lanes.
> >
> > As the mayor spoke about relieving traffic congestion in known hot spots,
> > traffic engineers, sitting around him in the city's Automatic Traffic
> > Surveillance and Control Center, were checking for unexpected vehicle
> > backups elsewhere.
> >
> > They scanned giant flat-screen monitors for streets temporarily blocked by
> > construction, traffic collisions, signal malfunctions and other problems.
> >
> > Eric Maya got a radio call from the San Fernando Valley, alerting him to
> > cars backing up at Burbank and Reseda boulevards. The left turn signal on
> > one of the streets was supposed to stay green for 45 seconds, he said. But
> > it turned red after only 10 seconds.
> >
> > From his chair, Maya adjusted the traffic signal, giving left-turning
> > vehicles a few more seconds. Then, a closed-circuit camera at the
> > intersection showed the clog dissipating.
> >
> >
> > --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > Since January, the city's traffic congestion relief initiative, known as
> > Operation Bottleneck, has reduced rush-hour delays up to 78% at 33 of the
> > city's most clogged intersections by improving traffic light signaling and
> > restriping streets.
> >
> >  1 - Roscoe Blvd. & Topanga Canyon Blvd. (Canoga Park)
> >  2 - Roscoe Blvd. & 405 Fwy.(North Hills)
> >  3 -  Sepulveda Blvd. & Sherman Way (Van Nuys)
> >  4 - Sepulveda Blvd. & Vanowen St. (Van Nuys)
> >  5 - Lankershim Blvd. & Victory Blvd. (North Hollywood)
> >  6 - Calabasas Rd. & Valley Circle Blvd. (Woodland Hills)
> >  7 - Coldwater Canyon Ave. & 101 Fwy. (Sherman Oaks)
> >  8 - Laurel Canyon Blvd. & Ventura Blvd. (Studio City)
> >  9 - Highland Ave. & Hollywood Blvd. (Hollywood)
> > 10 - De Longpre Ave. & Highland Ave. (Hollywood)
> > 11 - Santa Monica Blvd. & Western Ave.
> > 12 - Highland Ave. & Melrose Ave. (Hollywood)
> > 13 - Alvarado St. & Glendale Blvd.
> > 14 - Beverly Blvd. & Stanley Ave.
> > 15 - Beverly Blvd. & La Brea Ave.
> > 16 - 3rd St. & Rossmore Ave.
> > 17 - Alvarado St. & Temple St.
> > 18 - Sepulveda Blvd. & Wilshire Blvd. (Westwood)
> > 19 - Veteran Ave. & Wilshire Blvd. (Westwood)
> > 20 - Pico Blvd. & Robertson Blvd.
> > 21 - La Cienega Blvd. & Pico Blvd.
> > 22 - Pico Blvd. & Westwood Blvd.
> > 23 - Cadillac Ave. & La Cienega Blvd.
> > 24 - La Brea Ave. & Washington Blvd.
> > 25 - Hoover St. & Venice Blvd.
> > 26 - Beaudry Ave. & Wilshire Blvd.
> > 27 - National Blvd. & Westwood Blvd.
> > 28 - Jefferson Blvd. & La Cienega Blvd.
> > 29 - Long Beach Ave. & Washington Blvd.
> > 30 - Olympic Blvd. & Soto St.
> > 31 - Crenshaw Blvd. & Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd.
> > 32 - Lincoln Blvd. & Washington Blvd. (Marina Del Rey)
> > 33 - Figueroa St. & Vernon Ave.
>
> If these figures are accurate, and these are actual net savings, not savings
> gained at the expense of other drivers waiting longer, then good job DOT.

They are probably net savings.  Some drivers might have their trip
times increased, but if one driver's trip time increases by a minute,
and 10 others' decrease by a minute, that is a net gain of 9 minutes.

Generally with coordinated signal systems, you might have to wait
longer to initially get onto the road....as the signal will not turn
green to service a detector call on the side street immediately like it
might have in an un-coordinated system.  But after an initial delay
getting onto the main road, you should be able to cruise the corridor
without hitting many more reds, which is where the savings come from.
Look at it this way, youmight save time when passing through 5 or 10
signals, but you only have to turn onto the main corridor once.

> 
> brink

"Mike Tantillo" <mjtantillo@yahoo.com> wrote in message 
news:1163267706.216958.211170@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
>
> They are probably net savings.  Some drivers might have their trip
> times increased, but if one driver's trip time increases by a minute,
> and 10 others' decrease by a minute, that is a net gain of 9 minutes.
>
> Generally with coordinated signal systems, you might have to wait
> longer to initially get onto the road....as the signal will not turn
> green to service a detector call on the side street immediately like it
> might have in an un-coordinated system.  But after an initial delay
> getting onto the main road, you should be able to cruise the corridor
> without hitting many more reds, which is where the savings come from.
> Look at it this way, youmight save time when passing through 5 or 10
> signals, but you only have to turn onto the main corridor once.

Yeah, a definite pet peeve are the places where major arterials are 
intersected by side roads -- the retail exits, the minor side streets, and 
the driveways -- where a car can cruise up to a signal and sometimes nearly 
instantaneously stop the flow of the heavy cross flow traffic so they can do 
something as basic as turn *right* (which they should have been doing on red 
in the first place anyway).

It's not the driver's fault, if the loop detector so quickly changes the 
phase, what's he gonna do?  I actually have a signal like this in my 
neighborhood, a small neighborhood street intersects a major E/W arterial 
and the signal is really weird...  there are times where the second your car 
hits that loop detector, the phase will change, apropos of nothing.  It 
doesn't seem to be related to crossing volume nor time of day.  It's good 
for me because I'm the one who benefits from the quick change, but it's bad 
for the overall flow of traffic...

brink 

"Scott en Aztl�n" <scottenaztlan@yahoo.com> wrote in message 
news:0kpel290b4aqq8n06rj1h950ohg69tks35@4ax.com...
> "Larry Scholnick" <ljscholnick@sbcglobal.net> said in
> misc.transport.road:

> Making Peter wait 22 seconds more in order to reduce Paul's wait by 22
> seconds ain't gonna do JACK when MILLIONS of new cars will be flooding
> onto SoCal roads over the next decade. Minor tweaks and optimizations
> are not going to solve our transportation problems. All it's going to
> do is MAYBE give Mayor Villaraigosa's constituents a warm fuzzy and
> (he hopes) get him re-elected to another term.

Decreasing wait times at stoplights increases capacity.  So it could help 
adding significant capacity by decreasing delays at all stoplights.

We also have hard data that building rail transit did absolutely nothing 
increase capacity after spending more than $7B with no percent market share 
increase of rail transit users.

The most cost effective way to add capacity is to remove all stop lights 
with the interchanges every mile or so by going around the block to go a 
different direction.   That should effectively do the equivalent of doubling 
the number of freeway lanes in the LA area.    Cheap electronics that is 
coming along will more than double again the capacity of existing lanes.

The analysis in Santa Clara County of removing all stoplights with new 
infrastructure proved it was the most cost effective way of increasing 
capacity at this time.

Just remember with your apocalyptic pronouncements that you seem to have no 
understanding at all of what problem solving approaches are possible or the 
financial considerations for the different approaches.  People are 
developing solutions, but you are not one of them. 

On Sun, 12 Nov 2006 16:44:07 -0800, "Jack May" <jack.may@comcast.net>
wrote:

>
>"Scott en Aztl�n" <scottenaztlan@yahoo.com> wrote in message 
>news:0kpel290b4aqq8n06rj1h950ohg69tks35@4ax.com...
>> "Larry Scholnick" <ljscholnick@sbcglobal.net> said in
>> misc.transport.road:
>
>> Making Peter wait 22 seconds more in order to reduce Paul's wait by 22
>> seconds ain't gonna do JACK when MILLIONS of new cars will be flooding
>> onto SoCal roads over the next decade. Minor tweaks and optimizations
>> are not going to solve our transportation problems. All it's going to
>> do is MAYBE give Mayor Villaraigosa's constituents a warm fuzzy and
>> (he hopes) get him re-elected to another term.
>
>Decreasing wait times at stoplights increases capacity.  So it could help 
>adding significant capacity by decreasing delays at all stoplights.
>
>We also have hard data that building rail transit did absolutely nothing 
>increase capacity after spending more than $7B with no percent market share 
>increase of rail transit users.

Given that you can get hard figures on most of the rail lines that
indicate they carry from one to several thousand people per hour in
the peak direction depending on the line, they obviously are adding to
the capacity in the corridors they serve.  Of course you don't seem to
understand simple math. 
>
>The most cost effective way to add capacity is to remove all stop lights 
>with the interchanges every mile or so by going around the block to go a 
>different direction.   That should effectively do the equivalent of doubling 
>the number of freeway lanes in the LA area.    Cheap electronics that is 
>coming along will more than double again the capacity of existing lanes.
>
>The analysis in Santa Clara County of removing all stoplights with new 
>infrastructure proved it was the most cost effective way of increasing 
>capacity at this time.
>
>Just remember with your apocalyptic pronouncements that you seem to have no 
>understanding at all of what problem solving approaches are possible or the 
>financial considerations for the different approaches.  People are 
>developing solutions, but you are not one of them. 
>

"Clark F Morris" <cfmpublic@ns.sympatico.ca> wrote in message 
news:tomfl2dv2rubehcg195jd8c7t6ugjto4t9@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 12 Nov 2006 16:44:07 -0800, "Jack May" <jack.may@comcast.net>
> wrote:
>
>>
> Given that you can get hard figures on most of the rail lines that
> indicate they carry from one to several thousand people per hour in
> the peak direction depending on the line, they obviously are adding to
> the capacity in the corridors they serve.  Of course you don't seem to
> understand simple math.

That would only be true if the transit was attracting people out of their 
cars to increase capacity.   What typically really happens is that when a 
new transit line starts, people shift from one route to the new route if it 
is faster for their particular destination.

If people just switch transit routes, there is no increased capacity being 
used by people.    Capacity is what people are actually using, not what 
people could use but don't use.

The data is very clear that after the initial first day or two of people 
switching transit routes, the new very expensive routes do not increase 
ridership faster than car travel is increasing.  You get a relatively 
constant percentage of people using transit as total travel increases. 
Often in cities and in Europe, the total number of people using transit 
stays fairly constant which means the percent market share for transit 
drops.

This low increase of transit use in Europe is shown in the graph in the URL 
below

http://www.highways.org/Mar06-speaker-slideshows/Schwartz.ppt#10

Further car travel in Europe is increasing about the same rate as in the US. 
Europe care usage is behind the US but they will be about where we are in 20 
years as shown in the URL below

http://www.highways.org/Mar06-speaker-slideshows/Schwartz.ppt#11

On Mon, 13 Nov 2006 21:26:11 -0800, "Jack May" <jack.may@comcast.net>
wrote:

>
>"Clark F Morris" <cfmpublic@ns.sympatico.ca> wrote in message 
>news:tomfl2dv2rubehcg195jd8c7t6ugjto4t9@4ax.com...
>> On Sun, 12 Nov 2006 16:44:07 -0800, "Jack May" <jack.may@comcast.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>> Given that you can get hard figures on most of the rail lines that
>> indicate they carry from one to several thousand people per hour in
>> the peak direction depending on the line, they obviously are adding to
>> the capacity in the corridors they serve.  Of course you don't seem to
>> understand simple math.
>
>That would only be true if the transit was attracting people out of their 
>cars to increase capacity.   What typically really happens is that when a 
>new transit line starts, people shift from one route to the new route if it 
>is faster for their particular destination.

What is so hard to understand about the idea that if before rail the
highway and street mix was carrying 20,000 people per hour in the peak
hour and after rail started and carried 4,000 people per hour in the
same peak hour with no reduction in the highway volume, the total
carried is now 24,000 people per hour?  Rail has added capacity to the
corridor.  Depending on the corridor, rail may have been the cheapest
way of adding 4,000 people per hour in the peak.   
>
>If people just switch transit routes, there is no increased capacity being 
>used by people.    Capacity is what people are actually using, not what 
>people could use but don't use.
>
>The data is very clear that after the initial first day or two of people 
>switching transit routes, the new very expensive routes do not increase 
>ridership faster than car travel is increasing.  You get a relatively 
>constant percentage of people using transit as total travel increases. 
>Often in cities and in Europe, the total number of people using transit 
>stays fairly constant which means the percent market share for transit 
>drops.
>
>This low increase of transit use in Europe is shown in the graph in the URL 
>below
>
>http://www.highways.org/Mar06-speaker-slideshows/Schwartz.ppt#10
>
>Further car travel in Europe is increasing about the same rate as in the US. 
>Europe care usage is behind the US but they will be about where we are in 20 
>years as shown in the URL below
>
>http://www.highways.org/Mar06-speaker-slideshows/Schwartz.ppt#11
>
>

brink wrote:
> "Mike Tantillo" <mjtantillo@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1163267706.216958.211170@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> >
> >
> > They are probably net savings.  Some drivers might have their trip
> > times increased, but if one driver's trip time increases by a minute,
> > and 10 others' decrease by a minute, that is a net gain of 9 minutes.
> >
> > Generally with coordinated signal systems, you might have to wait
> > longer to initially get onto the road....as the signal will not turn
> > green to service a detector call on the side street immediately like it
> > might have in an un-coordinated system.  But after an initial delay
> > getting onto the main road, you should be able to cruise the corridor
> > without hitting many more reds, which is where the savings come from.
> > Look at it this way, youmight save time when passing through 5 or 10
> > signals, but you only have to turn onto the main corridor once.
>
> Yeah, a definite pet peeve are the places where major arterials are
> intersected by side roads -- the retail exits, the minor side streets, and
> the driveways -- where a car can cruise up to a signal and sometimes nearly
> instantaneously stop the flow of the heavy cross flow traffic so they can do
> something as basic as turn *right* (which they should have been doing on red
> in the first place anyway).
>

In the middle of the night, or anytime with low traffic volume,
"instant service" tends to work best (provided it doesn't happen too
often...there should be a minimum amount of time before the same side
street is serviced again).  During high volume times, the signals
should be coordinated, meaning they can only turn green every XX
seconds.

In NC, many signals have a delay in the loop detector in the right turn
lane...meaning it will not actually send the call to the signal
controller until the car has been sitting on the detector for 10 or 15
seconds, to give the car time to turn ROR.  Some signals have another
way of dealing with it.  THe detector call comes immediately, and the
mainline signal turns yellow, then red.  If in that time, the car makes
a RTOR, the mainline signal goes back to green.  Can lead to fatal
results for those who are following the car that turns right, and see
the signal on the main road go to red, but as they pull up to the
intersection at full speed, the green they were expecting never comes
(I actually saw this happen once, lucily there was no traffic on the
main road!).

> It's not the driver's fault, if the loop detector so quickly changes the
> phase, what's he gonna do?  I actually have a signal like this in my
> neighborhood, a small neighborhood street intersects a major E/W arterial
> and the signal is really weird...  there are times where the second your car
> hits that loop detector, the phase will change, apropos of nothing.  It
> doesn't seem to be related to crossing volume nor time of day.  It's good
> for me because I'm the one who benefits from the quick change, but it's bad
> for the overall flow of traffic...
> 
> brink