Efficient Transportation

[ferronsfunctionals]

Every city has their transportation issues surrounging them. This is the third major city I have lived in - Seattle and Phoenix are the others. I have noticed a couple of fundamental differences in all three cities. Phoenix is the most geographically unconstrained, while Seattle is by far the most geographically constrained. Houston is significantly closer to Phoenix in Geographic constraints, but for some reason their traffic is much worse.

It used to take me 25-35 minutes to get to work in the mornings, and 35-45 minutes to get home. They changed the signal timing of the lights and it shaved 10-15 minutes off my commute time each way. This may not be the norm, but I work downtown, and live out toward the Galleria area.

Installing signal sensors, and retiming the lights around the city could likely improve traffic by 15-30%.

I haven't ever lived in a city where building new roads is the first resort of fixing traffic problems. It is costly, and disruptive to say the least.

I would be in favor of building new roads if I didn't see reports on the news about how the city doesn't want to pay for a study to be done on the signal timing, but is willing to spend billions of dollars on a lite rail?

I haven't ever lived in a city where the lights randomly go out and start flashing red, or where the lights are routinely burnt out.

Why do we put up with such sub-standard transportation on surface streets, at seemingly the same cost as other states?

Engineering and intelligence does improve things as well - not just building more roads. Think about every time you sit at a light, and there isn't any other traffic around in any direction except yours. 90-seconds later the light turns green, and 15 additional cars have stacked up behind you. If a sensor were installed, that traffic could be alleviated. It may seem small, but imagine every intersection working EFFICIENTLY....little by little the car buildup would be smaller. Imagine every light working more efficiently where there are 2 or 3 fewer cars built up because of excessively long or short lights.

What does Red Light running do to traffic? A study was done a few months ago that concluded if the city were to increase the length of yellow lights by 2-seconds, it could cut down red light running by 70% - but the city decided against this action. Why not? approximately 75 people die per year in the US from being struck by lightning. Approximately 200 people die per year from changing lanes in the US. Approximately 250 people die per year from running red lights in HOUSTON alone.

WHY?

[YakuzaIce]

I would be in favor of building new roads if I didn't see reports on the news about how the city doesn't want to pay for a study to be done on the signal timing, but is willing to spend billions of dollars on a lite rail?

I haven't ever lived in a city where the lights randomly go out and start flashing red, or where the lights are routinely burnt out.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Just curious are you against rail, or are you just against spending on that and not studies for signal timing?

Also when you say "I haven't ever lived in a city where" I guess you are not counting Houston. Never in all my years living here have I seen a light just go out or start flashing red. I have seen them, but never was I at the light when it happenned and usually it was raining when I saw it. Also I have seen very few burnt out lights. Maybe I just don't drive enough.

[MaxConcrete]

WHY?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Unfortunately the city of Houston traffic department is a poor performing department. In fact, I would go as far to say that they have made neglible forward progress since around 1962, when Ralph Ellifrit stepped down as head of planning. Street design has changed little, if any, since then. How about 2 left turn lanes at busy intersections? How about right turn lanes? Bus turn-outs? Better-designed medians for traffic channeling? Consistent synchronization of lights? Forget about it. You're not going to see it from the city of Houston (except when the streets are built by another agency, like TxDOT).

I'm sure the traffic department will claim to have made progress since 1962, and of course they will have justifiable points. But Houston street planning and management is way behind other cities, especially leaders like Phoenix, South Orange County (CA), and Dallas-Fort Worth area cities.

In fact, the city of Houston's poor planning and management of the street system is one reason we need bigger freeways. The arterials just can't carry very much traffic, forcing more vehicles onto the freeways. To a certain extent I think this is a cost shifting ploy by Houston: shift the responsibility for moving cars to other agencies (TxDOT, HCTRA) so the city of Houston can do things on the cheap.

[Jeebus]

Speaking of Phoenix, I've spent sometime there. The fact that Phoenix is big is ONLY an illusion. There is an almost non-existant rush hour. ALL the streets are 4 lanes or wider. ALL the streets are in a square-grid with numbered streets in all directions, along with major intersections at each square mile.

Until you get to Scottsdale - there is no landscape, much less trees. I've never been to Seattle, but I can say from experience that Phoenix is nothing like Houston infrastructure-wise.

[ferronsfunctionals]

Just curious are you against rail, or are you just against spending on that and not studies for signal timing?

Also when you say "I haven't ever lived in a city where" I guess you are not counting Houston.  Never in all my years living here have I seen a light just go out or start flashing red.  I have seen them, but never was I at the light when it happenned and usually it was raining when I saw it.  Also I have seen very few burnt out lights.  Maybe I just don't drive enough.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Actually - I am not against rail - except when cities don't embrace it, or even modestly support it. Unfortunately I moved here after any voting on this, so I don't know if I am speaking out of context. However, in my discussions, and obversations, people like to drive 10's of miles each way, even though there is significant undeveloped land very close to the city. My core issue is rather that the most expensive options are being employed prior to some simple fixes and purely functional design changes to the standards.

I don't know what is put into the ground when the roads are torn up - but where I came from they used crushed gravel instead of the clay/native soil. It compacts better, and lasts much longer. Sure it may add 3% to the project cost, but it lasts much longer.

As far as the red lights flashing, I haven't ever seen it turn to red sitting there either - I was implying that they start flashing in general. As far as the burnt out lights are concerned - I would say I see about 3/week, and there are several lights that are so old that they have burned a black spot in the middle of the lights.

If I can find my digital camera I may include a picture at some point.

My main issue seems to be a general reluctance toward an exploration of less costly alternatives.

[ferronsfunctionals]

Speaking of Phoenix, I've spent sometime there. The fact that Phoenix is big is ONLY an illusion. There is an almost non-existant rush hour. ALL the streets are 4 lanes or wider. ALL the streets are in a square-grid with numbered streets in all directions, along with major intersections at each square mile.

Until you get to Scottsdale - there is no landscape, much less trees. I've never been to Seattle, but I can say from experience that Phoenix is nothing like Houston infrastructure-wise.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

you are right about the way the infrastructure is set up. my point is more about the fact that both Houston & Phoenix are virtually flat and there aren't the same obsticles there are in seattle such as rolling hills, very large lakes and major bodies of water to create the landscape.

I was really disappointed when the city of Houston or the State of Texas turned down the red light cameras. Phoenix employed them and now red light running is virtually non-existant. At one point they were considered the worst in the nation. But when I move here I was appauled at how bad the red light running is in Houston.

here is an anacdotal example: I observed a car run a red light that was red for at least 2-seconds, and this was crossing the light rail line on main street downtown.

Anyway my general feeling here, which is pointed out to me each day when I look at the transportation infrastructure, is that poeple think taxes here are lower, and for that we pay a price in services provided. However, my feeling is that we pay $.95 in taxes compared to other places for $.80 in services. Another example of poor planning is the downtown construction. They recently finished the street next to the Hyatt Hotel a few months ago. Within 2-month they sawcut a 6'-ish cut into the nice new sidewalk because of some oversight that wasn't planned for - with planning that could have been prevented.

you illustrate my point perfectly about Arizona and Houston - both cities have similar elevation changes - but one city planned for growth, while another did not. you are right about All streets there having numbers etc.....but those are CHOICES that the city makes. The city here is too cheap or lazy to put St. Ave. or DR. on any of the streets. I have to guess what the street is - and there doesn't appear to be any rhyme or reason to if it is a street, drive, road or avenue.

[Jeebus]

Welcome to the "lazy-south". The "southwest" doesn't start until you get to San Antone'

[kjb434]

Well, if the red light camera's come to Houston and I happen to get tagged (It was dark yellow, not red), I would pay.

Some Phoenix citizens realized they don't have to pay the red light tickets since they aren't being served by an officer of the law.

The same premise can apply to Texas. Some may say that the tollroads have the same system as the red light cameras in case you run through and not pay, but it's a different situation. The toll road is a private road built by the county and paying customers get to use it. In the rules that apply to the toll road, you accept the use of the cameras when you drive on it.

IMO, I think the downtown reconstruction was quite well planned and organized. Not only did the project have to replace city infrastructure, but also much of the infrastructure for telecommunications was replace by private companies in the process. None city infrastructure were also relocated and rebuilt. It was an organization nightmare, but it was realized that if everybody gets involve at once to handle everything, then the new roads won't have to be torn up later. Downtown also has now a new fiber optic upgraded telecommunications infrastructure.

The signal timing here in Houston is alot better now than it used to be. The existing network is finally being utilized to time lights and provide easing of traffic congestion. The city is now efficiently using their traffic control systems where they weren't before. They have an advance system in place that wasn't being used.

[dbigtex56]

What does Red Light running do to traffic?  A study was done a few months ago that concluded if the city were to increase the length of yellow lights by 2-seconds, it could cut down red light running by 70% - but the city decided against this action.  Why not?  approximately 75 people die per year in the US from being struck by lightning.  Approximately 200 people die per year from changing lanes in the US.  Approximately 250 people die per year from running red lights in HOUSTON alone.

WHY?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

(emphasis added)

I agree that a longer yellow light might reduce red light running. However, the additional time should be in conjunction with the green light. In other words, a couple of seconds before the green light goes out, the yellow light comes on; they're on at the same time.

This gives you notice that it's going to be green for only a few more moments. When the green light goes off, the yellow remains on for the usual amount of time.

Merely extending the length of the yellow light as signals currently function will train people that they have even more time to run a red light.

[ssullivan]

I for one can't wait until we get the red light cameras -- latest news on that I've heard is they should start appearing early next year. And I don't think increasing yellow light times will help. People will still run the reds just the same. A longer yellow means that the guy who would have run a red now runs a yellow; the guy two cars back who would have stopped at a red light now runs it because it turns red just as he gets to the intersection. I fail to see the difference.

[travelguy_73]

I for one can't wait until we get the red light cameras -- latest news on that I've heard is they should start appearing early next year.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

They are good and bad. If they deter red-light running, then that is great. But the reality is that many, many cameras are either out of adjustment or intentionally problematic, and the result is unwarranted tickets that the average motorist either pays or unsuccessfully disputes. And there is a documented increase in the number of rear end collisions in intersections that do have cameras. These things are nothing but a new revenue stream for municipalities.

Here is an interesting blog/link The Newspaper--The politics of Driving