Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Remove left turns for less dangerous city traffic

theconversation.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 174 posts

Re: Remove left turns for less dangerous city traffic

#151

Post by Lammy »

drran wrote: post #146
phobosanomaly wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They can have multiple free-of-charge parking garages on the outskirts that are associated with a light rail system. So you park, hop on the metro, and head into the city without having to worry about the nightmare of parking or the stop-and-go traffic. I never, ever drive into LA. I use the free parking at an outlying metro station and ride the train in (20 min). You can even leave your vehicle overnight so you can…

Why not just extend a light rail system to suburbs? It will be much faster to have point-to-point rail than car + rail.

> Why not just extend a light rail system to suburbs?

The question we should be asking is more like "why did we tear them all up"? Lots of US metro areas did have this until demographics changed in the mid-20th-century and anti-growth/anti-housing/anti-mobility mindsets took over.

You see it in eastern cities, like the Cincinatti Subway that was canceled forever in 1928: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cincinnati_Subway

Why their change in attitude? "[Cincinnati's] strategic location also provided a prime destination for migrants, who did not desire to go too far north and wanted to maintain some proximity to their southern home. Additionally, Cincinnati was not as large as some other northern cities, and thus it offered cheaper housing prices for migrants. By 1930, 34264 of Cincinnati’s African American residents were Southern-born, constituting 71.4% of the city’s Black population." https://jackdelisiohist415.wordpress.com/the-great-migration...

The Bay Area is a similar story and had several electric(!!) interurban rail systems:

- Until 1934: the Valley connected to San Jose and to the Southern Pacific main line at Mayfield (Palo Alto): https://rodsinks.com/images/1915map.png https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peninsular_Railway_(California...

- Until 1941: most of Marin County connected to San Francisco via ferry from Sausalito: https://i.imgur.com/GR4Trvv.jpg https://www.mendorailhistory.org/1_railroads/nwp/interurban....

- Until 1948: Contra Costa cities connected to San Francisco via ferry and eventually the Bay Bridge: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Key_System https://www.foundsf.org/index.php?title=Key_System_and_March...

- Until 1941: San Francisco connected to Oakland, Berkeley, Walnut Creek, Pittsburgh etc, then rail ferry over Suisun Bay, then on to Sacramento, Woodland, Yuba City, Oroville, and as far north as Chico! https://www.american-rails.com/images/4320087869038472230602... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sacramento_Northern_Railway

Meanwhile back in 2021 are just now electrifying the Caltrain corridor, and the same areas that shut down their original electric rail systems also successfully fought off BART in the '60s:

- This was the planned first phase of BART: https://i.imgur.com/hVT6fya.jpg

- And this was the way it was imagined to expand: https://i.imgur.com/TQ3PNL0.jpg

What changed around 1940 and made Bay Area voters hate transit and housing? Same old, same old :( https://belonging.berkeley.edu/sites/default/files/blacks_ch...

Re: Remove left turns for less dangerous city traffic

#152

Post by dolmen »

Zababa wrote: post #88
burlesona wrote: post #51

One of the best ways to eliminate left turns is to replace four way intersections with roundabouts. This has the advantage of working even where there isn’t a grid to facilitate the “3 right turns” strategy. For a great description of why this is so effective, see the recent freakonomics podcast: https://freakonomics.com/podcast/roundabouts/

As a French, it's really surprising to see how other people from other countries aren't used to roundabouts. I really like how diverse roundabouts are here. Some are arranged like gardens, some have flowers, some have sculptures, some have decorations made by the local school. A funny anecdote: we used to go to Pontarlier from time to time because our grandparents had a house here. Every time we went, we saw that [1]…

Place de l'Etoile in Paris is one of the most famous roundabout.

http://www.champselysees-paris.com/images/sightseeing-images...

Re: Remove left turns for less dangerous city traffic

#153

Post by neolog »

dionidium wrote: post #117
acd wrote: post #69

Actually to have safer cities remove cars from the traffic equation. A city without cars will be safer and cleaner for pedestrians and bikes. Air quality will also be better.

And quieter . You'll often hear that cities are noisy places, but they aren't, really; it's just that cars are very loud.

Trains and buses are loud too.

Re: Remove left turns for less dangerous city traffic

#154

Post by Zababa »

jethack wrote: post #149
rjsw wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The French are not very good at using roundabouts IME, they don't indicate which exit they intend to use.

Just making sure this isn't a misunderstanding: Roundabout signaling laws and conventions vary between countries, and in some countries you're supposed to signal your intent both entering and exiting the roundabout, while in some you only signal at the exit. I'm not sure about French conventions, but in some European countries (Germany, some Eastern European countries, probably others) indicating before the roundabou…

French conventions are to signal when you're exiting at the next exit.

Re: Remove left turns for less dangerous city traffic

#155

Post by PaulDavisThe1st »

AtlasBarfed wrote: post #141
PaulDavisThe1st wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Also common in several parts of NJ, notably driving up US1 between Phila and NYC.

New Jersey does jughandles where you do a right turn after the intersection and then a mini-cloverleaf. Detroit/Michigan go through the intersection in the left lane, u-turn after the intersection, then turn right at the light. Have lived substantial years in both states. New Jersey has the driver drive through the same intersection twice. Michigan has three intersections: the first one you drive through, the second…

e.g (google maps)

https://www.google.com/maps/place/Princeton,+NJ/@40.3667281,...

Re: Remove left turns for less dangerous city traffic

#156

Post by cuddlybacon »

mattlondon wrote: post #22
somehnacct3757 wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's this awful route Google Maps will give you, through the twisty back roads of SF because it thinks it can get you to the 101 faster. But it's sending everyone that way, so there's huge traffic on these narrow neighborhood roads. It's not a shortcut if everyone knows about it. I think map apps should be optimizing for something more complex, like least amount of directions within a five minute arrival window. S…

Agreed - a "least hassle" route would be better. Google maps has sent me on some really werid routes with endless turns left, right right left right right right left left right left etc etc vs just staying on a main road with only one or two turns for only an extra couple of minutes minutes more I'd be more than happy to stay on the easy main roads and turn once or twice rather than hack through the backstreets just…

I've found Apple Maps better for that.

Before I switched, I found Google maps really liked to have you turn left one street early, then turn right then turn left. I guess it was trying to eliminate the delay from the left turn at the busier intersection. It was pretty much always worse.

Re: Remove left turns for less dangerous city traffic

#157

Post by eyelidlessness »

dionidium wrote: post #119
tw04 wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was waiting for this response. As someone who doesn’t live in the city center, and has no easy means of mass transportation to get there, my response is: fine I just won’t go then. You lose my money. In NYC or Chicago that’s probably not a big deal. In the vast majority of the rest of the US, that’s how you kill a city center. I can tell you in my case, given the homelessness issue that’s been getting worse the las…

This is what mid-sized American cities have been saying for about 75 years, most of which adopted this plan with zeal. And it's been a total failure. It turns out you can't save Downtown by making it easier for suburbanites to get there. Whatever you think of that approach from first principles, the evidence at this point is overwhelming. It does not work.

Moreover, suburbanites largely don't want to visit the city, they either do by necessity or for special occasions like a big game or a designated social event.

I see this in Seattle so much. People complain about their version of what they think my city is, swarm in for a big football game or whatever and have a great time once every few months, then swarm out to complain more about a city they’re not even in

Re: Remove left turns for less dangerous city traffic

#158

Post by benrbray »

neolog wrote: post #153
dionidium wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And quieter . You'll often hear that cities are noisy places, but they aren't, really; it's just that cars are very loud.

Trains and buses are loud too.

Buses take the place of 20-40 cars. Trains take the place of hundreds of cars, are quieter than the highway they replace, and only pass by every 5-15 minutes, compared to the constant drone of highway traffic.

Re: Remove left turns for less dangerous city traffic

#159

Post by bombcar »

arrosenberg wrote: post #127
bombcar wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Roundabouts can be made to handle high-traffic - supplemented by stop lights if necessary - satellite view Tijuana for some examples. The thing is until people are used to them - which can take years if not decades - they can be slower. And they can be hard to retrofit into older locations. In cities it may be better to turn streets to one way (making all turns “right turns” effectively).

CDMX as well, although some of their roundabouts move in both directions, which is both insane and appeared to be the worst of all worlds.

Reminds me of that study showing you could have computer controlled cars weave through an intersection without stopping and it worked fine but the passengers couldn’t stand it.

So devise an automated devil’s traffic circle with cars going in all directions.

Post reply on HN