"Backwards" engineering
US 71
Six months ago, a traffic signal was installed at the intersection of Main
St and Wilkerson... the ONLY major intersection in town.
Main and Wilkerson is a 3way intersection, but a 4way light was installed
for a 3plex at the intersection. Of course, since both streets are only
2lanes wide, traffic quickly backed up as people attempted left turns from
WB Main to SB Wilkerson. So the signal was changed to a 4way protected left
so each side has to wait their turn for the green and the left.
R R
Y Y
G G
<<
So traffic STILL backs up waiting for the light. NOW the intersection is
being widened to 3lanes, which IMO they should have done before putting in
the traffic signal. To me, they did it all backwards.
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.515 / Virus Database: 313 - Release Date: 9/1/03
Chascsq
be widened from 2 to 4 lanes with in the next 3-6 months...yes they had to
rip out the brand new one recently, and install a another one that was set
far enough back for the new roadway edge to begin widening.
mitsguy2001
news:yb57b.3708$Yt....@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net...
On Memorial Drive, in Cambridge, MA, near the MIT campus, they installed, in
2002, 2 new, completely useless traffic lights. One was at the intersection
of Memorial Drive and Endicott Street, the other at Memorial Drive and
Wadsworth Street. Before the signal was installed at Endicott, that
intersection allowed left turns in all directions, unprotected. When the
traffic light was installed, left turns were banned in all directions at
that intersection, making the traffic light completely useless. Why were
left turns allowed when there was no light, but then banned when the light
was added?
The intersection at Wadsworth always banned left turns from Wadsworth to Mem
Drive, and the left turns are still banned even after the light was added.
However, a block away, left turns are allowed, with no traffic light at all,
from Ames Street (a much busier street than Wadsworth) to Mem Drive. Why
are left turns allowed at an intersection with no light, but banned at an
intersection with a light? And why was the light put at such a minor
street, with a much busier intersection a block away? Also, the MIT sailing
pavilion is directly accross the street from Ames Street, so there would be
more pedestrians wanting to cross at the Ames Street intersection, rather
than at the Wadsworth Street intersection (the light at Endicott was
supposedly for pedestrians crossing to the boathouse, although the
pedestrian buttons at both intersections don't work, and the timing of both
signals are absurd, and inconvenient to pedestrians).
If that's not enough, a year after these lights become operational, in 2003,
the MDC (Metropolitan District Commission, the agency that owns Memorial
Drive, a park agency that hates cars) starts a major reconstruction project
on Memorial Drive, where 1 eastbound travel lane is being removed, and
parking being removed, to allegedly increase park land along the river.
That will almost certainly require completely redesigning and moving the
traffic signals, since the road will be moved, and these lights were only a
year old when the construction started. Also, the only turns that these
lights "protect" are the U-turns on Memorial Drive. But, the reconstruction
of another nearby intersection (Memorial Drive and Massachusetts Ave) will
make these U-turns unnessesary. The newly redesigned intersection will also
have a traffic light (again, to help pedestrians), which would make it less
nessesary for pedestrians to cross at Endicott or Wadsworth (neither of
which are particularly convenieint anyway). Also, removing parking on the
eastbound (river) side will also further reduce the need for U-turns, since
people will no longer circle around looking for a parking space. If some
advance planning was done, there would not have been the need to waste so
much money on these signals.
Steve
<snip the ranting>
You're wrong about Mass Ave and Mem Drive. There will only be one
additional movement, Mass SB to Mem EB, a signalized left turn. Yes,
traffic signals are going up, but remember that this interchange is
grade-separated as is - thus, people currently can cross without a
problem. In short, this intersection is completely irrelevant to the
other two, and the U-turns will retain their necessity.
As for the left turns being banned at Endicott, everything that was done
there was in the interest of pedestrian safety, misguided/mis-engineered
or not. The fewer movements traffic is making, the easier it is for
people to cross - for example, if traffic is making a left turn from
Endicott to Mem, people can't cross on either the left or right side of
the street without having to watch for turning traffic.
And finally, why Wadsworth and not Ames? Simple - Wadsworth is two-way.
Ames will never be two-way because then traffic from Mem Drive would
use it as a cut-through directly to Kendall Square, whereas traffic on
Wadsworth would get all hot and bothered trying to do the same (you
really need to know the streets to use that one). There is a left turn
allowed at that intersection, in order to get cars onto campus, and that
left turn is protected. Should there _also_ be a signal at Ames? Yes -
it should allow turns from Ames at the same time the signal allows turns
onto Wadsworth, thus functioning as one long intersection more or less.
--
Steve
GO YANKEES!
Civil Engineering (Course 1) at MIT
mitsguy2001
"Steve" <smal...@mit.edu> wrote in message news:3F5D26DA...@mit.edu...
> mitsguy2001 wrote:
>
> <snip the ranting>
> You're wrong about Mass Ave and Mem Drive. There will only be one
> additional movement, Mass SB to Mem EB, a signalized left turn. Yes,
> traffic signals are going up, but remember that this interchange is
> grade-separated as is - thus, people currently can cross without a
> problem.
But they cannot cross Mass Ave safely, and there is a (very dangerous)
marked crosswalk, since it's part of the recreational path along the river.
It's also kind of dangerous crossing the Mem Drive ramps, since traffic is
turning and not paying attention to pedestrians. I have at least one friend
who prefers illegally jaywalking accross Mem Drive, than to cross the ramps
at Mass Ave.
> In short, this intersection is completely irrelevant to the
> other two, and the U-turns will retain their necessity.
That would eliminate the need for the U-turn at Endicott: currently traffic
wanting to go from Mass Ave south to Mem Drive east has to turn right onto
Mem Drive, and then U-turn at Endicott.
> As for the left turns being banned at Endicott, everything that was done
> there was in the interest of pedestrian safety, misguided/mis-engineered
> or not. The fewer movements traffic is making, the easier it is for
> people to cross - for example, if traffic is making a left turn from
> Endicott to Mem, people can't cross on either the left or right side of
> the street without having to watch for turning traffic.
But the ridiculously long time the pedestrians have to wait for their walk
signal, and the fact that the pedestrian push buttons don't work make this
worse for pedestrians. A driver who is crossing an unsginalized crosswalk
with a pedestrian legally has to stop. A driver approaching a green light
feels a sense of empowerment, and will want to go before it turns red.
> And finally, why Wadsworth and not Ames? Simple - Wadsworth is two-way.
> Ames will never be two-way because then traffic from Mem Drive would
> use it as a cut-through directly to Kendall Square,
What is wrong with that? Ames Street is not a residential street, so it
should carry traffic. And it would decrease vehicle-miles traveled, since
traffic would leave Mem Drive earlier, and would not have to use Wadsworth
and Amherst at all, and would have a more direct route with fewer stops.
Fewer stops means less pollution. Also, Wadsworth has Eastgate, where
families with children live. Ames just has East Campus and Senior House,
which, first of all, you pass anyway using Wadsworth, Amherst, and Ames.
Secondly, everyone living in East Campus and Senior House are adults, and
can cross the street safely.
whereas traffic on
> Wadsworth would get all hot and bothered trying to do the same (you
> really need to know the streets to use that one). There is a left turn
> allowed at that intersection, in order to get cars onto campus, and that
> left turn is protected.
Rather than getting people lost, they should just allow people to use Ames,
and sign it. Using either of the detours (Wadsworth, Amherst, Ames; or
Binney) increases vehicle-miles traveled, congestion, and pollution.
Should there _also_ be a signal at Ames? Yes -
> it should allow turns from Ames at the same time the signal allows turns
> onto Wadsworth, thus functioning as one long intersection more or less.
That just sounds weird. I'll have to think more about it.
Steve
> "Steve" <smal...@mit.edu> wrote in message news:3F5D26DA...@mit.edu...
>
>>mitsguy2001 wrote:
>>
>><snip the ranting>
>>You're wrong about Mass Ave and Mem Drive. There will only be one
>>additional movement, Mass SB to Mem EB, a signalized left turn. Yes,
>>traffic signals are going up, but remember that this interchange is
>>grade-separated as is - thus, people currently can cross without a
>>problem.
>
>
> But they cannot cross Mass Ave safely, and there is a (very dangerous)
> marked crosswalk, since it's part of the recreational path along the river.
> It's also kind of dangerous crossing the Mem Drive ramps, since traffic is
> turning and not paying attention to pedestrians. I have at least one friend
> who prefers illegally jaywalking accross Mem Drive, than to cross the ramps
> at Mass Ave.
But we're not _talking_ about crossing Mass Ave, we're talking about
crossing Mem Drive. And the traffic light at Amherst serves 75% of
people just fine; the rest can tough it out and wait for a break in traffic.
>
>
>> In short, this intersection is completely irrelevant to the
>>other two, and the U-turns will retain their necessity.
>
>
> That would eliminate the need for the U-turn at Endicott: currently traffic
> wanting to go from Mass Ave south to Mem Drive east has to turn right onto
> Mem Drive, and then U-turn at Endicott.
Mem Drive west to Mass Ave south still uses it.
>
>
>>As for the left turns being banned at Endicott, everything that was done
>>there was in the interest of pedestrian safety, misguided/mis-engineered
>>or not. The fewer movements traffic is making, the easier it is for
>>people to cross - for example, if traffic is making a left turn from
>>Endicott to Mem, people can't cross on either the left or right side of
>>the street without having to watch for turning traffic.
>
>
> But the ridiculously long time the pedestrians have to wait for their walk
> signal, and the fact that the pedestrian push buttons don't work make this
> worse for pedestrians. A driver who is crossing an unsginalized crosswalk
> with a pedestrian legally has to stop. A driver approaching a green light
> feels a sense of empowerment, and will want to go before it turns red.
>
I acknowledge that it wasn't implemented correctly, but the idea itself
is sound.
>
>>And finally, why Wadsworth and not Ames? Simple - Wadsworth is two-way.
>> Ames will never be two-way because then traffic from Mem Drive would
>>use it as a cut-through directly to Kendall Square,
>
>
> What is wrong with that? Ames Street is not a residential street, so it
> should carry traffic. And it would decrease vehicle-miles traveled, since
> traffic would leave Mem Drive earlier, and would not have to use Wadsworth
> and Amherst at all, and would have a more direct route with fewer stops.
> Fewer stops means less pollution. Also, Wadsworth has Eastgate, where
> families with children live. Ames just has East Campus and Senior House,
> which, first of all, you pass anyway using Wadsworth, Amherst, and Ames.
> Secondly, everyone living in East Campus and Senior House are adults, and
> can cross the street safely.
I challenge that east campus people are adults, I live among them. ;)
And the problems with Ames St.:
1) a TON of people cross between building 66 and the Med center.
2) Not wide enough to accomodate all the Mem-Kendall traffic.
3) almost as many tons of people cross at EC and Senior (Amherst)
>
>> whereas traffic on
>
>>Wadsworth would get all hot and bothered trying to do the same (you
>>really need to know the streets to use that one). There is a left turn
>>allowed at that intersection, in order to get cars onto campus, and that
>>left turn is protected.
>
>
> Rather than getting people lost, they should just allow people to use Ames,
> and sign it. Using either of the detours (Wadsworth, Amherst, Ames; or
> Binney) increases vehicle-miles traveled, congestion, and pollution.
>
Using Binney DECREASES congestion - there's a channelized left turn, and
there are four underutilized lanes, versus two at Ames (and people
crossing the street, whereas no one's really crossing Binney). And
pollution is negligible - this would be the truck route to Kendall
anyway, and trucks contribute most of the pollution. Finally, vehicle
miles add up to another .5 - if that concerns you, walk.
> Should there _also_ be a signal at Ames? Yes -
>
>>it should allow turns from Ames at the same time the signal allows turns
>>onto Wadsworth, thus functioning as one long intersection more or less.
>
>
> That just sounds weird. I'll have to think more about it.
>
>
>
Look at the setup. Two-way road (but incoming traffic must turn right)
at Wadsworth. To the east, a one-way outgoing road. If we ignore the
right-turning traffic coming off Wadsworth, we have a flipped two-way
road, essentially, except there's queueing room between the two sides.
Thus left turns can be made from both Ames and Mem-Wadsworth at the same
time, and right turns from Ames can wait at the Wadsworth light.
mitsguy2001
"Steve" <smal...@mit.edu> wrote in message news:3F5D37E...@mit.edu...
> mitsguy2001 wrote:
> > "Steve" <smal...@mit.edu> wrote in message
news:3F5D26DA...@mit.edu...
> >
> >>mitsguy2001 wrote:
> >>
> >><snip the ranting>
> >>You're wrong about Mass Ave and Mem Drive. There will only be one
> >>additional movement, Mass SB to Mem EB, a signalized left turn. Yes,
> >>traffic signals are going up, but remember that this interchange is
> >>grade-separated as is - thus, people currently can cross without a
> >>problem.
> >
> >
> > But they cannot cross Mass Ave safely, and there is a (very dangerous)
> > marked crosswalk, since it's part of the recreational path along the
river.
> > It's also kind of dangerous crossing the Mem Drive ramps, since traffic
is
> > turning and not paying attention to pedestrians. I have at least one
friend
> > who prefers illegally jaywalking accross Mem Drive, than to cross the
ramps
> > at Mass Ave.
>
> But we're not _talking_ about crossing Mass Ave, we're talking about
> crossing Mem Drive.
But the new signal (which I agree is needed) will be for pedestrians
crossing Mass Ave.
And the traffic light at Amherst serves 75% of
> people just fine; the rest can tough it out and wait for a break in
traffic.
Obviously the MDC doesn't agree with you.
> >> In short, this intersection is completely irrelevant to the
> >>other two, and the U-turns will retain their necessity.
> >
> >
> > That would eliminate the need for the U-turn at Endicott: currently
traffic
> > wanting to go from Mass Ave south to Mem Drive east has to turn right
onto
> > Mem Drive, and then U-turn at Endicott.
>
> Mem Drive west to Mass Ave south still uses it.
But there is no legitimate reason why that left turn can't be allowed, since
there is no oposing traffic, the ramps are one way.
> >>And finally, why Wadsworth and not Ames? Simple - Wadsworth is two-way.
> >> Ames will never be two-way because then traffic from Mem Drive would
> >>use it as a cut-through directly to Kendall Square,
> >
> >
> > What is wrong with that? Ames Street is not a residential street, so it
> > should carry traffic. And it would decrease vehicle-miles traveled,
since
> > traffic would leave Mem Drive earlier, and would not have to use
Wadsworth
> > and Amherst at all, and would have a more direct route with fewer stops.
> > Fewer stops means less pollution. Also, Wadsworth has Eastgate, where
> > families with children live. Ames just has East Campus and Senior
House,
> > which, first of all, you pass anyway using Wadsworth, Amherst, and Ames.
> > Secondly, everyone living in East Campus and Senior House are adults,
and
> > can cross the street safely.
>
> I challenge that east campus people are adults, I live among them. ;)
They are (almost all) over 18, and therefore are legally adults, regardless
of their maturity level. And besides, Ames Street has MUCH LESS traffic
than Mass Ave or Mem Drive - the 2 roads that the vast majority of the other
dorms are on. So if the rest of campus can deal, so can those 2 dorms.
> And the problems with Ames St.:
> 1) a TON of people cross between building 66 and the Med center.
But that crosswalk is north of Amherst Street, so the traffic that uses the
Wadsworth-Amerst-Ames detour still passes it anyway, so your argument is
irrelevant. And anyway, if that crosswalk becomes too much of a problem,
just put a traffic light there. Cambridge has traffic lights at pedestrian
crosswalks with even less pedestrian traffic than that one.
> 2) Not wide enough to accomodate all the Mem-Kendall traffic.
It is no more narrow than Wadsworth or Amherst.
> 3) almost as many tons of people cross at EC and Senior (Amherst)
But traffic still goes that way, turning from Amherst to Ames.
>
> >
> >> whereas traffic on
> >
> >>Wadsworth would get all hot and bothered trying to do the same (you
> >>really need to know the streets to use that one). There is a left turn
> >>allowed at that intersection, in order to get cars onto campus, and that
> >>left turn is protected.
> >
> >
> > Rather than getting people lost, they should just allow people to use
Ames,
> > and sign it. Using either of the detours (Wadsworth, Amherst, Ames; or
> > Binney) increases vehicle-miles traveled, congestion, and pollution.
> >
> Using Binney DECREASES congestion - there's a channelized left turn,
That turn has a ridiculously long red arrow, you have to wait forever to be
allowed to turn there. Just like all the other left turns on Mem Drive.
> and
> there are four underutilized lanes, versus two at Ames (and people
> crossing the street, whereas no one's really crossing Binney).
Why was Binney built with 4 lanes anyway?
> And
> pollution is negligible - this would be the truck route to Kendall
> anyway, and trucks contribute most of the pollution.
The truck route should stay on the current Binney Street routing.
> Finally, vehicle
> miles add up to another .5 - if that concerns you, walk.
That is 0.5, times every vehicle who wants to go from Mem Drive to Kendall
Square.
>
> > Should there _also_ be a signal at Ames? Yes -
> >
> >>it should allow turns from Ames at the same time the signal allows turns
> >>onto Wadsworth, thus functioning as one long intersection more or less.
> >
> >
> > That just sounds weird. I'll have to think more about it.
> >
> >
> >
> Look at the setup. Two-way road (but incoming traffic must turn right)
> at Wadsworth. To the east, a one-way outgoing road.
What are you talking about?? Wadsworth is 2-way, and is east of Ames. The
next "street" to the left is the Longfellow Bridge, also 2-way. and Binney
is next, and is also 2-way.
> If we ignore the
> right-turning traffic coming off Wadsworth, we have a flipped two-way
> road, essentially, except there's queueing room between the two sides.
> Thus left turns can be made from both Ames and Mem-Wadsworth at the same
> time, and right turns from Ames can wait at the Wadsworth light.
Right turns from Ames don't go past Wadsworth. A right turn takes you west,
and Wadsworth is east of Ames.
I suggest you walk or drive down to this area, and take a look at it. If
you can't do that, I suggest you learn how to read a map.
Steve
But... forget it.
>
> And the traffic light at Amherst serves 75% of
>
>>people just fine; the rest can tough it out and wait for a break in
>
> traffic.
>
> Obviously the MDC doesn't agree with you.
They're doing this for traffic, not for pedestrians.
>
>
>>>>In short, this intersection is completely irrelevant to the
>>>>other two, and the U-turns will retain their necessity.
>>>
>>>
>>>That would eliminate the need for the U-turn at Endicott: currently
>>
> traffic
>
>>>wanting to go from Mass Ave south to Mem Drive east has to turn right
>>
> onto
>
>>>Mem Drive, and then U-turn at Endicott.
>>
>>Mem Drive west to Mass Ave south still uses it.
>
>
> But there is no legitimate reason why that left turn can't be allowed, since
> there is no oposing traffic, the ramps are one way.
I agree. I asked someone in the MDC why only five movements were
allowed. The left turn from Mass Ave NB to Mem WB would back up traffic
on the bridge, which I understand, having seen rush hour. From Mem onto
Mass Ave, I'm guessing the issue is queue space between the two sides of
Mem.
>
>
>>>>And finally, why Wadsworth and not Ames? Simple - Wadsworth is two-way.
>>>> Ames will never be two-way because then traffic from Mem Drive would
>>>>use it as a cut-through directly to Kendall Square,
>>>
>>>
>>>What is wrong with that? Ames Street is not a residential street, so it
>>>should carry traffic. And it would decrease vehicle-miles traveled,
>>
> since
>
>>>traffic would leave Mem Drive earlier, and would not have to use
>>
> Wadsworth
>
>>>and Amherst at all, and would have a more direct route with fewer stops.
>>>Fewer stops means less pollution. Also, Wadsworth has Eastgate, where
>>>families with children live. Ames just has East Campus and Senior
>>
> House,
>
>>>which, first of all, you pass anyway using Wadsworth, Amherst, and Ames.
>>>Secondly, everyone living in East Campus and Senior House are adults,
>>
> and
>
>>>can cross the street safely.
>>
>>I challenge that east campus people are adults, I live among them. ;)
>
>
> They are (almost all) over 18, and therefore are legally adults, regardless
> of their maturity level. And besides, Ames Street has MUCH LESS traffic
> than Mass Ave or Mem Drive - the 2 roads that the vast majority of the other
> dorms are on. So if the rest of campus can deal, so can those 2 dorms.
The "vast majority" of dorms are on AMHERST ALLEY - regardless of their
actual addresses, that is where the entrances are, and that is where the
people walk. Simmons is on lightly traveled Vassar, and only Random and
Bexley are on Mass Ave.
>
>
>>And the problems with Ames St.:
>>1) a TON of people cross between building 66 and the Med center.
>
>
> But that crosswalk is north of Amherst Street, so the traffic that uses the
> Wadsworth-Amerst-Ames detour still passes it anyway, so your argument is
> irrelevant. And anyway, if that crosswalk becomes too much of a problem,
> just put a traffic light there. Cambridge has traffic lights at pedestrian
> crosswalks with even less pedestrian traffic than that one.
Why would people use a backwards detour? One that isn't even signed as
a detour? I've seen about three cars a minute make the turn, and I bet
if it were signed for Kendall Square, a lot more would. And the problem
with a traffic light at Ames and the x-walk is that too many people need
to use it too frequently - you run into the situation at Mass Ave, where
people are constantly dodging traffic, trying to run to class. Not good.
>
>
>>2) Not wide enough to accomodate all the Mem-Kendall traffic.
>
>
> It is no more narrow than Wadsworth or Amherst.
The Mem-Kendall traffic uses BINNEY - follow the signs.
>
>
>>3) almost as many tons of people cross at EC and Senior (Amherst)
>
>
> But traffic still goes that way, turning from Amherst to Ames.
Not that much. Ever stood there?
>
>
>>>> whereas traffic on
>>>
>>>>Wadsworth would get all hot and bothered trying to do the same (you
>>>>really need to know the streets to use that one). There is a left turn
>>>>allowed at that intersection, in order to get cars onto campus, and that
>>>>left turn is protected.
>>>
>>>
>>>Rather than getting people lost, they should just allow people to use
>>
> Ames,
>
>>>and sign it. Using either of the detours (Wadsworth, Amherst, Ames; or
>>>Binney) increases vehicle-miles traveled, congestion, and pollution.
>>>
>>
>>Using Binney DECREASES congestion - there's a channelized left turn,
>
>
> That turn has a ridiculously long red arrow, you have to wait forever to be
> allowed to turn there. Just like all the other left turns on Mem Drive.
True - but the cars are given ample room to stack up. I do think they
could do away with the red left, after all, Land Blvd. W clears out in
about 20 seconds and the light's more like 45-50.
>
>
>>and
>>there are four underutilized lanes, versus two at Ames (and people
>>crossing the street, whereas no one's really crossing Binney).
>
>
> Why was Binney built with 4 lanes anyway?
Through truck route for I-90 hazmats. And it looks purty.
>
>
>> And
>>pollution is negligible - this would be the truck route to Kendall
>>anyway, and trucks contribute most of the pollution.
>
>
> The truck route should stay on the current Binney Street routing.
That's what I said, sorry if it were unclear.
>
>
>> Finally, vehicle
>>miles add up to another .5 - if that concerns you, walk.
>
>
> That is 0.5, times every vehicle who wants to go from Mem Drive to Kendall
> Square.
>
Unless you own every vehicle, this is not significant.
>
> What are you talking about?? Wadsworth is 2-way, and is east of Ames. The
> next "street" to the left is the Longfellow Bridge, also 2-way. and Binney
> is next, and is also 2-way.
>
Sorry, I had the two mixed up in my head for some reason. You're
right... but that doesn't change the fact that it would work just fine
if both were signalized together.
mitsguy2001
"Steve" <smal...@mit.edu> wrote in message news:3F5D43CE...@mit.edu...
> mitsguy2001 wrote:
> > "Steve" <smal...@mit.edu> wrote in message
news:3F5D37E...@mit.edu...
> >
> >>mitsguy2001 wrote:
> >>
> >>>"Steve" <smal...@mit.edu> wrote in message
> >>
> > news:3F5D26DA...@mit.edu...
> >>>>And finally, why Wadsworth and not Ames? Simple - Wadsworth is
But the dorms all face Memorial Drive, and therefore they are subject to the
noise of the Mem Drive traffic. I lived in Tang Hall (550 Mem Drive),
facing Mem Drive and the river, during the 2001-2002 school year, when there
was a lot of construction on Mem Drive. Whenever a car would drive over the
metal plates, at 4 AM, my building would almost shake, making it impossible
to sleep. If I had to deal with that, then the people living on Ames can
deal with far less traffic than I (and most others) had to deal with.
> Simmons is on lightly traveled Vassar,
Vassar probably has about the same level of traffic as Ames. Both of them
have a light at Main Street, both of them (if you include Gallileo Gallileii
Way as part of Vassar) have a light at Broadway. Neither of them have a
light at Mem Drive. And Vassar intersects Mass Ave at a major intersection,
Ames goes nowhere near Mass Ave.
> and only Random and
> Bexley are on Mass Ave.
That doesn't negate the fact that Mass Ave has far more traffic than Ames
Street.
> >>And the problems with Ames St.:
> >>1) a TON of people cross between building 66 and the Med center.
> >
> >
> > But that crosswalk is north of Amherst Street, so the traffic that uses
the
> > Wadsworth-Amerst-Ames detour still passes it anyway, so your argument is
> > irrelevant. And anyway, if that crosswalk becomes too much of a
problem,
> > just put a traffic light there. Cambridge has traffic lights at
pedestrian
> > crosswalks with even less pedestrian traffic than that one.
>
> Why would people use a backwards detour?
Why is that a backwards detour? It's much shorter than the Binney detour.
And Binney has too many long lights on it. And it's maddening how the light
at Binney and Land Blvd is not synchronized with the light at Binney and 1st
Street. Binney and 3rd Street wastes too much time with it's protected left
arrows.
> One that isn't even signed as
> a detour?
The left turn onto Wadsworth is signed. Or at least it was when I was a
student at MIT. I don't think the sign was removed.
> I've seen about three cars a minute make the turn, and I bet
> if it were signed for Kendall Square, a lot more would.
It is signed for Kendall Square.
> And the problem
> with a traffic light at Ames and the x-walk is that too many people need
> to use it too frequently - you run into the situation at Mass Ave, where
> people are constantly dodging traffic, trying to run to class. Not good.
But, again, Ames has far less traffic than Mass Ave.
> >>2) Not wide enough to accomodate all the Mem-Kendall traffic.
> >
> >
> > It is no more narrow than Wadsworth or Amherst.
> The Mem-Kendall traffic uses BINNEY - follow the signs.
As I said 100 times, there is a sign on Mem Drive to turn left onto
Wadsworth for Kendall Square.
> >>3) almost as many tons of people cross at EC and Senior (Amherst)
> >
> >
> > But traffic still goes that way, turning from Amherst to Ames.
> Not that much. Ever stood there?
How does that prove your point? I think it defeats your point.
> >>>> whereas traffic on
> >>>
> >>>>Wadsworth would get all hot and bothered trying to do the same (you
> >>>>really need to know the streets to use that one). There is a left
turn
> >>>>allowed at that intersection, in order to get cars onto campus, and
that
> >>>>left turn is protected.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>Rather than getting people lost, they should just allow people to use
> >>
> > Ames,
> >
> >>>and sign it. Using either of the detours (Wadsworth, Amherst, Ames; or
> >>>Binney) increases vehicle-miles traveled, congestion, and pollution.
> >>>
> >>
> >>Using Binney DECREASES congestion - there's a channelized left turn,
> >
> >
> > That turn has a ridiculously long red arrow, you have to wait forever to
be
> > allowed to turn there. Just like all the other left turns on Mem Drive.
> True - but the cars are given ample room to stack up. I do think they
> could do away with the red left, after all, Land Blvd. W clears out in
> about 20 seconds and the light's more like 45-50.
What is needed is a law allowing a left on red at a protected left arrow
:-)
> >>and
> >>there are four underutilized lanes, versus two at Ames (and people
> >>crossing the street, whereas no one's really crossing Binney).
> >
> >
> > Why was Binney built with 4 lanes anyway?
> Through truck route for I-90 hazmats. And it looks purty.
But that's a waste, since the truck route uses a 2-lane section of Main
Street, and what is effectively a 2-lane section of Mass Ave (only 2 through
lanes).
> >> And
> >>pollution is negligible - this would be the truck route to Kendall
> >>anyway, and trucks contribute most of the pollution.
> >
> >
> > The truck route should stay on the current Binney Street routing.
> That's what I said, sorry if it were unclear.
>
> >
> >
> >> Finally, vehicle
> >>miles add up to another .5 - if that concerns you, walk.
> >
> >
> > That is 0.5, times every vehicle who wants to go from Mem Drive to
Kendall
> > Square.
> >
> Unless you own every vehicle, this is not significant.
How does the effect on pollution matter depending on who owns what car? Do
only cars owned by me cause pollution? You make no sense.
> > What are you talking about?? Wadsworth is 2-way, and is east of Ames.
The
> > next "street" to the left is the Longfellow Bridge, also 2-way. and
Binney
> > is next, and is also 2-way.
> >
>
> Sorry, I had the two mixed up in my head for some reason. You're
> right... but that doesn't change the fact that it would work just fine
> if both were signalized together.
I agree. But there is no need for a signal at Wadsworth. I don't beleive
in protected-only left turns (except in extreme cases), since people should
take responsibility for themselves and learn when it's safe to make a left
turn, rather than having the government dictate to them when to do their
turn, while wasting green time in the process.
Steve
> "Steve" <smal...@mit.edu> wrote in message news:3F5D43CE...@mit.edu...
>
>>The "vast majority" of dorms are on AMHERST ALLEY - regardless of their
>>actual addresses, that is where the entrances are, and that is where the
>>people walk.
>
>
> But the dorms all face Memorial Drive, and therefore they are subject to the
> noise of the Mem Drive traffic. I lived in Tang Hall (550 Mem Drive),
> facing Mem Drive and the river, during the 2001-2002 school year, when there
> was a lot of construction on Mem Drive. Whenever a car would drive over the
> metal plates, at 4 AM, my building would almost shake, making it impossible
> to sleep. If I had to deal with that, then the people living on Ames can
> deal with far less traffic than I (and most others) had to deal with.
changing the subject.
>
>
>> Simmons is on lightly traveled Vassar,
>
>
> Vassar probably has about the same level of traffic as Ames. Both of them
> have a light at Main Street, both of them (if you include Gallileo Gallileii
> Way as part of Vassar) have a light at Broadway. Neither of them have a
> light at Mem Drive. And Vassar intersects Mass Ave at a major intersection,
> Ames goes nowhere near Mass Ave.
Again, we're talking about people. Ames would have more traffic if it
could pass from Mem to Kendall. GG Way is more traveled than Vassar
west of Mass Ave, too. Who cares that Ames doesn't intersect Mass Ave?
Irrelevant.
>
>
>>and only Random and
>>Bexley are on Mass Ave.
>
>
> That doesn't negate the fact that Mass Ave has far more traffic than Ames
> Street.
My god, this is irrelevant. You said the vast majority were on Mass Ave
and Mem Drive. I pointed out they're not, at least for the purposes of
people walking to them. Where are you going?
>>Why would people use a backwards detour?
>
>
> Why is that a backwards detour? It's much shorter than the Binney detour.
> And Binney has too many long lights on it. And it's maddening how the light
> at Binney and Land Blvd is not synchronized with the light at Binney and 1st
> Street. Binney and 3rd Street wastes too much time with it's protected left
> arrows.
Yes, but not only is it the signed route to Kendall Square, it's wider
and more obvious a route. If you don't know your way around, you won't
take Wadsworth.
>
>
>>One that isn't even signed as
>>a detour?
>
>
> The left turn onto Wadsworth is signed. Or at least it was when I was a
> student at MIT. I don't think the sign was removed.
It's not signed to Kendall Square, as far as I've ever been able to tell.
>
>
>> I've seen about three cars a minute make the turn, and I bet
>>if it were signed for Kendall Square, a lot more would.
>
>
> It is signed for Kendall Square.
>
Again, I have not seen this. Next time I walk down Mem Drive I'll look
at it, but it's always appeared to me that the green signs were all
referring to the Longfellow Bridge ramp.
>
>> And the problem
>>with a traffic light at Ames and the x-walk is that too many people need
>>to use it too frequently - you run into the situation at Mass Ave, where
>>people are constantly dodging traffic, trying to run to class. Not good.
>
>
> But, again, Ames has far less traffic than Mass Ave.
Not if it's made two ways. And I'm pointing out that a traffic light
would invite people to cross against it when they're rushed.
>>
>>The Mem-Kendall traffic uses BINNEY - follow the signs.
>
>
> As I said 100 times, there is a sign on Mem Drive to turn left onto
> Wadsworth for Kendall Square.
I'll see.
>>Not that much. Ever stood there?
>
>
> How does that prove your point? I think it defeats your point.
The fact that almost no traffic is turning at that intersection? It
proves that it's not a much-used route to Kendall.
>>
>>True - but the cars are given ample room to stack up. I do think they
>>could do away with the red left, after all, Land Blvd. W clears out in
>>about 20 seconds and the light's more like 45-50.
>
>
> What is needed is a law allowing a left on red at a protected left arrow
> :-)
I'd love that.
>>
>>Through truck route for I-90 hazmats. And it looks purty.
>
>
> But that's a waste, since the truck route uses a 2-lane section of Main
> Street, and what is effectively a 2-lane section of Mass Ave (only 2 through
> lanes).
Well the looking pretty often takes precedence here. And I could be
wrong, but I believe at least part of it was built on I-695 ROW.
>>
>>Unless you own every vehicle, this is not significant.
>
>
> How does the effect on pollution matter depending on who owns what car? Do
> only cars owned by me cause pollution? You make no sense.
I'm talking about vehicle miles. As I already said, the pollution
released by however many cars traveling a half mile is negligible
compared to all the other sources of pollution coming out of Cambridge
alone.
>>
>>Sorry, I had the two mixed up in my head for some reason. You're
>>right... but that doesn't change the fact that it would work just fine
>>if both were signalized together.
>
>
> I agree. But there is no need for a signal at Wadsworth. I don't beleive
> in protected-only left turns (except in extreme cases), since people should
> take responsibility for themselves and learn when it's safe to make a left
> turn, rather than having the government dictate to them when to do their
> turn, while wasting green time in the process.
>
>
This is for people to cross, as well. That's why the light was put in -
the left turn is really a gift from the MDC to the city of Cambridge.
(That and, there's no practical U-turn after that.) I agree that there
should also be lefts permitted on the red, but there is no precedent for
such a law. (Or have a green/yellow/blinking red?)
mitsguy2001
"Steve" <smal...@mit.edu> wrote in message news:3F5D5245...@mit.edu...
> mitsguy2001 wrote:
> > "Steve" <smal...@mit.edu> wrote in message
news:3F5D43CE...@mit.edu...
> >
> >>The "vast majority" of dorms are on AMHERST ALLEY - regardless of their
> >>actual addresses, that is where the entrances are, and that is where the
> >>people walk.
> >
> >
> > But the dorms all face Memorial Drive, and therefore they are subject to
the
> > noise of the Mem Drive traffic. I lived in Tang Hall (550 Mem Drive),
> > facing Mem Drive and the river, during the 2001-2002 school year, when
there
> > was a lot of construction on Mem Drive. Whenever a car would drive over
the
> > metal plates, at 4 AM, my building would almost shake, making it
impossible
> > to sleep. If I had to deal with that, then the people living on Ames
can
> > deal with far less traffic than I (and most others) had to deal with.
> We're not talking about noise, we're talking about people walking. Stop
> changing the subject.
But noise is a major part of the equation of the degradation of quality of
life caused by traffic. You need to see the whole picture, not just 1
detail. That's a problem that MIT students have.
> >> Simmons is on lightly traveled Vassar,
> >
> >
> > Vassar probably has about the same level of traffic as Ames. Both of
them
> > have a light at Main Street, both of them (if you include Gallileo
Gallileii
> > Way as part of Vassar) have a light at Broadway. Neither of them have a
> > light at Mem Drive. And Vassar intersects Mass Ave at a major
intersection,
> > Ames goes nowhere near Mass Ave.
>
> Again, we're talking about people. Ames would have more traffic if it
> could pass from Mem to Kendall.
All that would happen is that the northbound traffic would be the same level
as southbound. And southbound traffic is not especially high either.
Everyone uses Ames Street to exit Kendall Square. Kendall Square just isn't
that big a traffic draw, therefore there isn't that much traffic on Ames
Street. No reasonable person uses Binney Street to get from the campus to
Kendall Square.
> GG Way is more traveled than Vassar
> west of Mass Ave, too. Who cares that Ames doesn't intersect Mass Ave?
> Irrelevant.
My point is that Vassar intersects Mass Ave at a major intersection that is
often gridlocked. Try walking or driving down there at rush hour, now that
Vassar is 2-way again. And my point is that Vassar intersects Mass Ave,
which is a huge traffic generator, and probably has even more traffic than
Main Street and Broadway combined, so it is reasonable to assume that Vassar
would have more traffic than Ames, and if not, it would be very close.
> >>and only Random and
> >>Bexley are on Mass Ave.
> >
> >
> > That doesn't negate the fact that Mass Ave has far more traffic than
Ames
> > Street.
> My god, this is irrelevant. You said the vast majority were on Mass Ave
> and Mem Drive. I pointed out they're not, at least for the purposes of
> people walking to them. Where are you going?
My point is that the vast majority of dorms are on either Mem Drive OR Mass
Ave. You need to learn some Boolean logic. I did not say that most are on
Mass Ave. I said that most are on either Mem Drive OR Mass Ave, meaning it
has to be on at least one of those streets (or both, in the case of Ashdown)
to qualify. Amherst Alley is barely even a street. The only reason it
exists was because, at the time the dorms were built, the Charles River was
basically a sewer, and it was dirty and dangerous, so the dorms had their
"main" entrances on the alley, so that people didn't have to walk along the
river. If they were built today, their main entrances would almost
certainly be on the river side, and Amherst Alley wouldn't even exist.
> >>Why would people use a backwards detour?
> >
> >
> > Why is that a backwards detour? It's much shorter than the Binney
detour.
> > And Binney has too many long lights on it. And it's maddening how the
light
> > at Binney and Land Blvd is not synchronized with the light at Binney and
1st
> > Street. Binney and 3rd Street wastes too much time with it's protected
left
> > arrows.
> Yes, but not only is it the signed route to Kendall Square, it's wider
> and more obvious a route. If you don't know your way around, you won't
> take Wadsworth.
If you don't know your way around, you will turn left onto Wadsworth, as the
sign suggests, and then you'll likely get lost, further contributing to
congestion, pollution, and road rage.
> >>One that isn't even signed as
> >>a detour?
> >
> >
> > The left turn onto Wadsworth is signed. Or at least it was when I was a
> > student at MIT. I don't think the sign was removed.
> It's not signed to Kendall Square, as far as I've ever been able to tell.
Was the sign recently removed? By the way, I think the sign may have been
on SPUI's web page.
> >> I've seen about three cars a minute make the turn, and I bet
> >>if it were signed for Kendall Square, a lot more would.
> >
> >
> > It is signed for Kendall Square.
> >
> Again, I have not seen this. Next time I walk down Mem Drive I'll look
> at it, but it's always appeared to me that the green signs were all
> referring to the Longfellow Bridge ramp.
No. A sign pointing to the left there would put you onto the Longfellow
Bridge, with no way to get to Kendall Square (short of a U-turn after
crossing the river).
> >> And the problem
> >>with a traffic light at Ames and the x-walk is that too many people need
> >>to use it too frequently - you run into the situation at Mass Ave, where
> >>people are constantly dodging traffic, trying to run to class. Not
good.
> >
> >
> > But, again, Ames has far less traffic than Mass Ave.
> Not if it's made two ways. And I'm pointing out that a traffic light
> would invite people to cross against it when they're rushed.
That is the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard in my life. If there is
no light, people will always cross unprotected. With a light, only certain
people will choose to cross unprotected. You make no sense.
> >>The Mem-Kendall traffic uses BINNEY - follow the signs.
> >
> >
> > As I said 100 times, there is a sign on Mem Drive to turn left onto
> > Wadsworth for Kendall Square.
> I'll see.
>
>
> >>Not that much. Ever stood there?
> >
> >
> > How does that prove your point? I think it defeats your point.
>
> The fact that almost no traffic is turning at that intersection? It
> proves that it's not a much-used route to Kendall.
Every time I've been there, there was always a lot of people on Amherst
turning right onto Ames. Much more traffic than some of the "emergency
arteries".
> >>True - but the cars are given ample room to stack up. I do think they
> >>could do away with the red left, after all, Land Blvd. W clears out in
> >>about 20 seconds and the light's more like 45-50.
> >
> >
> > What is needed is a law allowing a left on red at a protected left arrow
> > :-)
> I'd love that.
>
>
> >>
> >>Through truck route for I-90 hazmats. And it looks purty.
> >
> >
> > But that's a waste, since the truck route uses a 2-lane section of Main
> > Street, and what is effectively a 2-lane section of Mass Ave (only 2
through
> > lanes).
> Well the looking pretty often takes precedence here. And I could be
> wrong, but I believe at least part of it was built on I-695 ROW.
None of the streets on the truck route look even remotely pretty. Which
ones do you think are pretty? You need new glasses.
> >>Unless you own every vehicle, this is not significant.
> >
> >
> > How does the effect on pollution matter depending on who owns what car?
Do
> > only cars owned by me cause pollution? You make no sense.
> I'm talking about vehicle miles. As I already said, the pollution
> released by however many cars traveling a half mile is negligible
> compared to all the other sources of pollution coming out of Cambridge
> alone.
>
> >>
> >>Sorry, I had the two mixed up in my head for some reason. You're
> >>right... but that doesn't change the fact that it would work just fine
> >>if both were signalized together.
> >
> >
> > I agree. But there is no need for a signal at Wadsworth. I don't
beleive
> > in protected-only left turns (except in extreme cases), since people
should
> > take responsibility for themselves and learn when it's safe to make a
left
> > turn, rather than having the government dictate to them when to do their
> > turn, while wasting green time in the process.
> >
> >
> This is for people to cross, as well. That's why the light was put in -
> the left turn is really a gift from the MDC to the city of Cambridge.
> (That and, there's no practical U-turn after that.) I agree that there
> should also be lefts permitted on the red, but there is no precedent for
> such a law. (Or have a green/yellow/blinking red?)
Unprotected left turns are very common. In fact, the vast majority of
intersections have unrprotected left turns. Look at Mass Ave and Vassar.
What makes you think there is no precedent for them?
Steve
backwards engineering, not MIT roads.
Oh, and take debate. You need it.
mitsguy2001
"Steve" <smal...@mit.edu> wrote in message news:3F5E89AF...@mit.edu...
> I've had enough bashing my head against the wall. The subject is
> backwards engineering, not MIT roads.
But it is backwards engineering how left turns were allowed in all
directions at the Mem Drive / Endicott intersection when there was no light,
and now they are banned, with the light.
It is backwards engineering that Wadsworth gets a signal at Mem Drive when
Ames does not, when Ames has far more traffic, and allows left turns onto
Mem Drive, while Wadsworth doesn't.
It is backwards engineering how left turns from Mem Drive to Ames are not
allowed, when that is the most direct route.
It is backwards engineering that Gallileo Gallileii Way gets 4 lanes, when
the other, far busier roads along the truck route have only 2 lanes.
It is backwards engineering how these lights were installed before the major
reconstruction job.
Does anyone disagree with me, besides you?
mitsguy2001
"mitsguy2001" <mitsg...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:4fw7b.131623$Ay2.27...@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net...
>
> "Steve" <smal...@mit.edu> wrote in message
news:3F5E89AF...@mit.edu...
> > I've had enough bashing my head against the wall. The subject is
> > backwards engineering, not MIT roads.
>
> But it is backwards engineering how left turns were allowed in all
> directions at the Mem Drive / Endicott intersection when there was no
light,
> and now they are banned, with the light.
>
> It is backwards engineering that Wadsworth gets a signal at Mem Drive when
> Ames does not, when Ames has far more traffic, and allows left turns onto
> Mem Drive, while Wadsworth doesn't.
I also forgot to mention that it's backwards engineering that left turns are
banned from Wadsworth to Mem Drive, when there is no conflicting traffic
during its green phase.
SPUI
> mitsguy2001 wrote:
>
> <snip the ranting>
> You're wrong about Mass Ave and Mem Drive. There will only be one
> additional movement, Mass SB to Mem EB, a signalized left turn.
west/3 north) was going to be added.
mitsguy2001
"SPUI" <sp...@mit.baaedubaa> wrote in message
news:3f5fb277$0$578$b45e...@senator-bedfellow.mit.edu...
I thought so to, but Steve says otherwise. Honestly, what Steve says makes
more sense from a traffic point of view, since the left turn off the bridge
can easily be done using Amherst Street and Danforth Street, whereas the
left turn from Mass Ave southbound has no easy route. But of course,
Cambridge and the MDC and MIT hate cars, so I doubt they'd do it.
>
>
Steve
I emailed the MDC and they said only one new movement will be added, and
that's s-e not n-w.
mitsguy2001
"Steve" <smal...@mit.edu> wrote in message news:3F5FCE83...@mit.edu...
> SPUI wrote:
> > Steve wrote:
> >
> >>mitsguy2001 wrote:
> >>
> >><snip the ranting>
> >>You're wrong about Mass Ave and Mem Drive. There will only be one
> >>additional movement, Mass SB to Mem EB, a signalized left turn.
> >
> > I thought the left turn off the bridge (Mass Ave north/2A west to Mem
Drive
> > west/3 north) was going to be added.
> >
> >
>
> I emailed the MDC and they said only one new movement will be added, and
> that's s-e not n-w.
I guess the MDC finally made at least one good decision. But I still think
it's a shame that they couldn't figure out a way to add either of the left
turns from Mem Drive to Mass Ave.
SPUI
> SPUI wrote:
>> Steve wrote:
>>
>>> mitsguy2001 wrote:
>>>
>>> <snip the ranting>
>>> You're wrong about Mass Ave and Mem Drive. There will only be one
>>> additional movement, Mass SB to Mem EB, a signalized left turn.
>>
>> I thought the left turn off the bridge (Mass Ave north/2A west to Mem
Drive
>> west/3 north) was going to be added.
>>
>>
>
> I emailed the MDC and they said only one new movement will be added, and
> that's s-e not n-w.
Interesting. I distinctly remember the Tech Talk article showing the turn
from northbound to westbound. Unfortunately I can't find the article online
or my saved copy.
Mitsguy2001
>From: "SPUI" sp...@mit.baaedubaa
>Date: 9/11/2003 12:14 AM Eastern Daylight Time
>Message-id: <3f5ff6af$0$568$b45e...@senator-bedfellow.mit.edu>
I remember that too, since I remember how ridiculous it was. You may remember
that I posted about it on ne.transportation, back in April. Of course, the
liberals in that group defended the MDC and attacked me. Perhaps the MDC
realized how ridiculous their idea was, and decided to change it.