New Traffic Signal - Memorial Drive and Endicott Street - Cambridge, MA
ITSGuy2001
operational. I assume most of you remember my posts about it a while ago. I
stll feel that signal is ridiculous. The one time I saw it, it was giving
Endicott the green light, even though it did not have even a single car on it.
While traffic on Memorial Drive had to wait. And people using the stupid
U-turn lanes seemed to be clueless and were just honking their horns. That new
traffic light is ridiculous. Especially now that they banned left turns in all
directions. Why do you need a traffic light for a right turn that no one uses
anyway? And before you politically correct people tell me the signals are for
pedestrians, I want to inform you that I did not see even one pedestrian trying
to cross Memorial Drive. While the drivers on Memorial Drive had to waste more
of their already limited time waiting for a ridiculous traffic light, increased
waiting time increases the amount of pollution in the area, drivers that
previously used the left turns now have to find alternate routes, requiring
them to waste even more time using a circuitous route, and causing more
pollution in the process, and workers forced to donate a chunk of their
paycheck in the form of taxes, which get wasted on that stupid traffic light.
I just don't understand that. Virtually no one crosses Memorial Drive there.
And even if they did, there are other places that need a traffic light far more
than that intersection. Why do they have to put up that traffic light to
accomodate the maybe 3 people a day who cross the street.
The other ridiculous new traffic light - Memorial Drive and Wadsworth Street is
still on flash mode. Does anyone have any clue as to the point of that traffic
light, given that left turns are also banned there? Is EB Memorial Drive going
to get a red light only when a pedestrian hits the push putton (which will
never happen since no one crosses the street there), or are they going to make
them stop on every cycle so that we can waste more time and money and cause
more pollution? I am still adamant about one thing - The Memorial Drive / Ames
Street intersection should allow all turns in every direction, and have a
traffic signal; and they should just forget about Wadsworth Street.
Ben Brosgol
> Why do you need a traffic light for a right turn that no one uses
> anyway?
> Why do they have to put up that traffic light to
> accomodate the maybe 3 people a day who cross the street.
>
> The other ridiculous new traffic light - Memorial Drive and Wadsworth
Street is
> still on flash mode. Does anyone have any clue as to the point of that
traffic
> light, given that left turns are also banned there?
My advice to answering these questions is "follow the money trail" :-) See
which contractors are benefiting from installing these new lights, and then
check their relationship to Cantabrigian pols. In recent years I have seen
traffic lights sprouting like mushrooms at various Cambridge intersections
that were just fine before (e.g. Garden and Linnaean, Oxford and Everett) so
I just assumed that the signal construction frenzy was a result of standard
corruption.
Ben Brosgol
bro...@world.std.com
ITSGuy2001
than the city of Cambridge, so your answer very well may be correct. But I've
been told that MIT paid for these traffic lights. It was probably a way of
shutting up the rich parents of a few freshmen who said they won't allow their
daughters (MIT only cares about female students) to go to MIT unless they put
up those new traffic lights since they cannot bear the thought of their
daughters either walking on the MIT side (rather than the river side) of the
street, or they can't bear the thought of their daughters taking some
responsibility and looking both ways before crossing the street. I am guessing
the answer is probably a combination of what you said, and what I said.
Michael J. Saletnik
> street, or they can't bear the thought of their daughters taking some
> responsibility and looking both ways before crossing the street. I
For some reason I find this really, really funny, since crossing many
sections of Memorial Drive does not even require looking both ways.
:-)
--
{michael}
Helen Rose
> But I've been told that MIT paid for these traffic lights. It was
> probably a way of shutting up the rich parents of a few freshmen who
> said they won't allow their daughters (MIT only cares about female
> students) to go to MIT unless they put up those new traffic lights
> since they cannot bear the thought of their daughters either walking
> on the MIT side (rather than the river side) of the street, or they
> can't bear the thought of their daughters taking some responsibility
> and looking both ways before crossing the street.
I thought you were a troll before, but now I know it must be true. To
think that MIT only cares for female students is ludicrous.
--Helen
(I don't speak for MIT)
ITSGuy2001
>think that MIT only cares for female students is ludicrous.
Female graduate students are virtually guaranteed housing. Male grad students
(like myself) have almost no chance at all. The two best on campus buildings
are female only. There are no male only buildings. There is a room called the
Cheney Room (in Building 3) that any female is allowed in at any time, and I've
been told has showers and day beds and a piano. A female can theroretically
live in that room for free. Men are not even allowed in that room, and there
is no similar room for men. MIT accepts virtually any female undergraduate who
applies to the school. Professors give females a lot more slack in their
classes. Female masters students are virtually guaranteed admissions into the
PhD program. Male masters students (like myself) are not. Female grad
students usually get fellowships - meaning they get free money and total
freedom as to what research they do. Male grad students (like myself) usually
get research assistantships, meaning we're the slave of a professor.
Why do you think I am a troll?? Because I resent the fact that one segment of
the population gets EVERYTHING handed to them for free?? Because I disagree
with you on two traffic lights, which are illegal anyway. I would love to see
if someone gets killed or injured at one of those two traffic lights and sues
MIT. MIT will almost certainly lose the suit.
David Z Maze
> Because I disagree with you on two traffic lights, which are illegal
> anyway. I would love to see if someone gets killed or injured at
> one of those two traffic lights and sues MIT. MIT will almost
> certainly lose the suit.
Almost certainly, though, these lights are the result of MIT lobbying
the MDC to have them installed, after a student was killed crossing
Mem. Drive several years ago. Dying and subsequently suing MIT,
sadly, seems to be an excellent way to achieve your particular political
goals (*cough freshmen-on-campus cough*).
--
David Maze dm...@mit.edu http://www.mit.edu/~dmaze/
"Theoretical politics is interesting. Politicking should be illegal."
-- Abra Mitchell
ITSGuy2001
>the MDC to have them installed, after a student was killed crossing
>Mem. Drive several years ago. Dying and subsequently suing MIT,
>sadly, seems to be an excellent way to achieve your particular political
>goals (*cough freshmen-on-campus cough*).
But how could anyone possibly have sued MIT because their daughter was killed
crossing Memorial Drive? Memorial Drive is an MDC road, it is not owned by
MIT. Now, since MIT paid for the traffic lights, I could see MIT possibly
being liable in these cases. But before the stupid traffic lights were
installed, MIT had no responsibility for Memorial Drive. Also, the Tech claims
that the new traffic light had nothing to do with the girl that was killed at
Memorial Drive and Endicott Street in 1997 (but partially because of some girl
that hit and barely injured in 2001). Also, this does not explain the traffic
light at the intersection of Memorial Drive and Wadsworth Street. As far as I
know, know one (not even any female undergraduate MIT students) have been
killed at that intersection.
Just so everyone knows, I am not in any way disrespecting the family of the
girl that was tragically killed at Memorial Drive and Endicott Street in 1997.
I just do not feel that traffic lights should be used at intersections where it
is unwarranted. The girl could have gotten killed crossing Memorial Drive at
some random location. Would they then put a traffic light at some random,
non-intersection location? If a girl got killed crossing Amherst Alley, would
they put a traffic light on Amherst Alley (for those who don't know, Amherst
Alley gets virtually no traffic). I feel that there is so many other things
that MIT could spend money on to improve student life, rather than 2 traffic
lights on Memorial Drive. And I feel that now anyone who is killed or injured
on Memorial Drive now has a legitimate cause to sue MIT. But before, I do not
see how MIT could possibly have any liability on a road that they do not own.
On a side note, does anyone think that a roundabout at the Memorial Drive /
Massachusetts Avenue interchange would be a good idea? Similar to the
interchange at Memorial Drive / BU Bridge / Brookline Street interchange.
Clearly the current configuration of the Mass Ave. / Mem Drive interchange is
deficient, but MIT paying for a traffic light at that intersection would be the
final blow to rational traffic engineering in Cambridge.
John F Carr
ITSGuy2001 <itsgu...@aol.com> wrote:
>>Almost certainly, though, these lights are the result of MIT lobbying
>>the MDC to have them installed, after a student was killed crossing
>>Mem. Drive several years ago. Dying and subsequently suing MIT,
>>sadly, seems to be an excellent way to achieve your particular political
>>goals (*cough freshmen-on-campus cough*).
>
>But how could anyone possibly have sued MIT because their daughter was killed
>crossing Memorial Drive? Memorial Drive is an MDC road, it is not owned by
>MIT.
MIT has let the world know that it will cave in to meritless lawsuits.
--
John Carr (j...@mit.edu)
Stephen Peters
> >I thought you were a troll before, but now I know it must be true. To
> >think that MIT only cares for female students is ludicrous.
>
> Female graduate students are virtually guaranteed housing.
I think that would come as a surprise to most of the people working in
my lab :-)
> Male grad students (like myself) have almost no chance at all. The
> two best on campus buildings are female only.
Snort. McCormick is hardly one of the best on-campus buildings,
unless it's REALLY been improved over the past few years. :-)
> There is a room called the Cheney Room (in Building 3) that any
> female is allowed in at any time, and I've been told has showers and
> day beds and a piano. A female can theroretically live in that room
> for free.
Except for all the pesky rules against overnight stays in that room.
> Professors give females a lot more slack in their classes.
Things must have improved since my wife was told that she was too
young and female to make it through MIT.
> Why do you think I am a troll?? [...] I would love to see if
> someone gets killed or injured [...]
I think you're a troll because you want someone to die to satisfy a
Usenet argument.
--
Stephen L. Peters por...@portnoy.org
PGP fingerprint: A1BF 5A81 03E7 47CE 71E0 3BD4 8DA6 9268 5BB6 4BBE
"Poodle: The other white meat." -- Sherman, Sherman's Lagoon
Christopher C. Stacy
Michael A. Foley
"Christopher C. Stacy" <cst...@theworld.com> wrote in message
news:u664av...@theworld.com...
> How do you feel when you send your children off to school?
>
I've got a kid on the way. I'm hoping I can teach him/her to
look both ways and be a responsible individual and not some
litigious slime.
mike
Christopher C. Stacy
Michael> "Christopher C. Stacy" <cst...@theworld.com> wrote in message
Michael> news:u664av...@theworld.com...
>> How do you feel when you send your children off to school?
Michael> I've got a kid on the way. I'm hoping I can teach him/her to
Michael> look both ways and be a responsible individual and not some
Michael> litigious slime.
When you send your child to kindergarden, will you not feel that
the school is accepting responsibility for the safety of your kid?
Do any of the pontificates here have children whom they have sent away
to college? If so, what responsibility did you feel the school had?
I'm not interested in hearing hypotheticals of the form: "..if I had a kid..."
ITSGuy2001
>the school is accepting responsibility for the safety of your kid?
>
MIT is a university. Not a kindergarten. Kindergarten students are minors.
Because the parents are not present, the school takes the role of parents (in
loco parentis), and is responsible. MIT students (well, most of them) are
adults, and are responsible for their own actions.
ITSGuy2001
> look both ways and be a responsible individual and not some
> litigious slime.
Good. Glad to see there is at least 1 parent who will raise his / her child
with some morals. It is is litigious slimes that are ruining American life.
Christopher C. Stacy
>> When you send your child to kindergarden, will you not feel that
>> the school is accepting responsibility for the safety of your kid?
ITSGuy2001> MIT is a university. Not a kindergarten.
ITSGuy2001> Kindergarten students are minors.
ITSGuy2001> Because the parents are not present, the school takes the
ITSGuy2001> role of parents (in loco parentis), and is responsible.
ITSGuy2001> MIT students (well, most of them) are adults, and are
ITSGuy2001> responsible for their own actions.
We're talking about people who were in high school yesterday.
Legally, some (but by no means all) of them are considered
adults for some (but not all) purposes. But I think if you
asked their parents, as they were sending them off, you would
find that they still considered them children in many ways,
and I think you would find that MIT would agree with you;
society and the law also agrees that the school bears more
responsibility towards such children than towards older people
or mere customers.
ITSGuy2001
But my point is that Memorial Drive is not owned by MIT. Just because it is
located adjacent to MIT does not make it owned by MIT. If a female
undergraduate drowned in the Charles River, would MIT be responsible? What
about if someone was killed trying to cross Commonwealth Ave (which is not
adjacent to campus) or Huntington Ave (which is also not adjacent to campus).
Or what about someone who gets killed crossing a street in California. Where
do you draw the line? What about someone who jumps from a plane while flying
over MIT, and dies?
Christopher C. Stacy
ITSGuy2001> But my point is that Memorial Drive is not owned by MIT.
I think that by high-school or college age, at least, children should
be able to safely cross a road, or know better than to try. If you
read my post, this was not the point that I was responding to: I was
replying to general assertions that a college has no responsibility
for the kids in its care, with reference to recent suicides and
alcohol deaths and so forth. (Why do I always have vertical whitespace?)
David Chesler
> We're talking about people who were in high school yesterday.
I was allowed to cross the street by myself when I was in high school.
--
- David Chesler <che...@post.harvard.edu>
http://www.geocities.com/chesler.geo/
Dan Peltier
Well, actually, the legal principle of _in loco parentis_ applies to
universities as well. Sad, but true. It will be interesting to see how this
gets interpreted and / or altered if university populations continue to
become older and more independent. For the time being, though, I get the
feeling that the pendulum is swinging away from student responsibility and
towards administrative coddling at elite universities... probably because
the trend towards older, mid-life, and/or part-time students hasn't had as
much affect on these institutions.
Dan
ITSGuy2001
>Date: 3/7/2002 1:25 PM Eastern Standard Time
>Message-id: <748c49e1.0203...@posting.google.com>
I may be wrong, but I thought in loco parentis applied only to students who are
under 18 (who would be only a tiny minority of MIT students). Because in loco
parentis means "in place of parents", and if you are 18 (as are the vast
majority of MIT students) you are legally an adult. And the point that I am
still missing is that since Memorial Drive is an MDC road, and is not owned by
MIT. Would MIT be responsible if a student was killed crossing a street in
California? Or would they pay for a traffic light in California if a student
was killed there? The question is, where do you draw the line?
Christopher C. Stacy
David> "Christopher C. Stacy" wrote:
>> We're talking about people who were in high school yesterday.
WHich has nothing to do with what I was talking about...
Christopher C. Stacy
ITSGuy2001> And the point that I am still missing is that since
ITSGuy2001> Memorial Drive is an MDC road, and is not owned by MIT.
ITSGuy2001> Would MIT be responsible if a student was killed crossing
ITSGuy2001> a street in California? Or would they pay for a traffic
ITSGuy2001> light in California if a student was killed there? The
ITSGuy2001> question is, where do you draw the line?
Was there anyone at all on this newsgroup who disagreed with you,
or are you just determined to have a good rant? Why don't you
take it up with the MDC or MIT or someone, assuming they have
a contrary position?
John F Carr
ITSGuy2001 <itsgu...@aol.com> wrote:
>The other ridiculous new traffic light - Memorial Drive and Wadsworth Street is
>still on flash mode.
I drove through that intersection this morning, turning left off of
Memorial Drive eastbound. After a double lane change (see below)
I turned and came to a stop sign and a red light. The signal was not
flashing. I chose to obey the stop sign rather than the signal and
drove through. Then I walked back and watched the intersection in action.
Although there appear to be vehicle sensors on Wadsworth Street the
light acts pretimed. The cycle is long, probably 90 seconds. There
are no sensors on the other two approaches.
Memorial Drive has a green for about 75 seconds.
Wadsworth and the median turnaround have a green light for about 10-15
seconds.
The WALK signal to cross Wadsworth is on for about the first 20 seconds
of the Memorial Drive green but for most of the cycle pedestrians are
not permitted to cross in any direction.
During light traffic this signal is worse than useless. Once it turned
red for Memorial Drive just before a pack of cars arrived. It held five
cars for 30 seconds in the median when there was no cross traffic.
Some drivers were reluctant to make left turns onto Memorial Drive
westbound while the light was red. This is a legal one way to one
way left turn. One SUV made the turn on red without stopping.
Pedestrians ignore the signal -- when there are no cars in sight why
should they wait a minute? I did not try pressing the pedestrian
actuator buttons.
The double lane change: I used to be able to get in the left lane of
Memorial Drive eastbound when I approached MIT and stay there until I
turned left onto Wadsworth. (I usually pass other vehicles and may
legally use the left lane.) The MDC has closed the left lane before
the turn onto Wadsworth, so a car in the left lane wanting to turn
must change into the middle lane and then move back into the left
lane. Maybe somebody knew there would be long traffic jams waiting
for the signal with cars backed up into the travel lane? (Then
they should have added a storage lane like they did at the other
new signal.)
Next week I appeal to the Public Records Division to overturn the
MDC's refusal to provide the engineering records related to this
signal.
--
John Carr (j...@mit.edu)
ITSGuy2001
Mitsguy2001
Anyway, since I go to MIT I should probably just walk down to the signal and
observe it. But I have a few questions for you, since I'm lazy.
>I turned and came to a stop sign and a red light. The signal was not
>flashing. I chose to obey the stop sign rather than the signal and
>drove through.
Is there any law regarding whether a red signal or a stop sign takes
precedence?
>Although there appear to be vehicle sensors on Wadsworth Street the
>light acts pretimed.
I think the MDC only uses pretimed, uncoordinated signals. Or they are often
intensinally out of sync to slow traffic down. Which I beleive is illegal.
>are no sensors on the other two approaches.
Often, when traffic volumes are very lopsided, as in this case, where Memorial
Drive gets a huge amount of traffic, and Wadsworth Street gets virtually no
traffic (espeically SB), only the side street gets loop detectors.
>Wadsworth and the median turnaround have a green light for about 10-15
>seconds.
I may be wrong, but wouldn't the median U-turn conflict with right turns from
Wadsworth to Mem Drive? Also, does EB Mem Drive get a red light during this
phase? If so, why, because there is no conflicting traffic, except
pedestrians, and pedestrian phases should only be called when the push button
is pushed.
>The WALK signal to cross Wadsworth is on for about the first 20 seconds
>of the Memorial Drive green but for most of the cycle pedestrians are
>not permitted to cross in any direction.
But does EB Memorial Drive have a red light during the time where no one can
cross? If so, then it makes no sense since there is no legal movement that
conflicts with EB Memorial Drive. And why is a pedestrian signal needed to
cross Wadsworth Street anyway? It is about as useless as the pedestrian signal
to cross Amherst Street (at the Mass. Ave. intersection), when it is actually
safer to to cross on Don't Walk. And doesn't the right turns from Wadsworth to
Mem Drive (the only legal movement from Wadsworth) conflict with the pedestrian
signal anyway, making it useless. And if the purpose of this signal is to help
pedestrians, then what is the point of needlessly inconveniencing pedestrians,
and motorists, so that both pedestrians and motorists learn to disrespect
traffic signals in general. Just like the signal at the Kendall Square
crosswalk.
>During light traffic this signal is worse than useless. Once it turned
>red for Memorial Drive just before a pack of cars arrived. It held five
>cars for 30 seconds in the median when there was no cross traffic.
Agreed!
>Some drivers were reluctant to make left turns onto Memorial Drive
>westbound while the light was red. This is a legal one way to one
>way left turn.
I'm not sure if that really is legal in this case. Memorial Drive is 2-way.
Whether or not a judge would accept the WB lanes of Memorial Drive as a 1-way
street is questionable. And whether or not the turning lane in the median is
considered to be a 1-way street is also questionable. It would depend on the
cop and the judge. And in my opinion, itis not worth the 60 seconds saved to
take the chance. If the intention is to allow the left turn on red, the MDC
should post a sign saying "Left turn on red permitted after stop." Is left on
red even legal in Massachusetts? And since the MDC hates drivers, can they
make their own laws banning left on red on their roads?
>Pedestrians ignore the signal -- when there are no cars in sight why
>should they wait a minute? I did not try pressing the pedestrian
>actuator buttons.
That is the problem with signals such as this one, and the signal at Memorial
Drive and Endicott Street, and the Kendall Square crosswalk signal on Main
Street. When people realize that a signal is ridiculous and useless, they
disobey it, and they learn to disrespect traffic signals in general. I would
hate to see someone who is new to Cambridge see all these ridiculous signals,
and then disobey signals that are actually reasonable, such as the pedestrian
signal at 77 Mass. Ave. As it is, I have nearly gotten hit many times at that
signal (and at the Mass Ave. / Amherst signal) by motorists who have learned to
disrespect red lights.
> Maybe somebody knew there would be long traffic jams waiting
>for the signal with cars backed up into the travel lane? (Then
>they should have added a storage lane like they did at the other
>new signal.)
Actually, then they should have thought twice before adding this new signal. I
personally feel that this intersection functioned fine before the
"improvements." I am surprised they put a signal here, and not at the Memorial
Drive / Ames Street intersection.
>
>Next week I appeal to the Public Records Division to overturn the
>MDC's refusal to provide the engineering records related to this
>signal.
Good for you! That sounds like it is public information that they should not
be allowed to withold.
On a side note: why is the other new signal, at Memorial Drive and Endicott
Street flashing again? Did someone from the MDC realize how ridiculous the
signal is (in my opinion, even stupider than the one at Wadsworth) and decide,
after wasting a lot of money, to abandon it? Or is it just broken, and is a
low priority? I've also been told that this signal has bicycle sensors. Why??
Sounds like another waste of money. First of all, is it that hard for a
bicyclist to push the pedestrian button, given that he / she will almost
certainly have to stop anyway? Secondly, I was under the impression that the
MDC banned bicyclists from their roads. I never see bicyclists on Memorial
Drive (no one in their right mind would even attempt it even if it was legal),
I always see them using the sidewalk (which is probably also illegal).
Thirdly, if a bicyclist wants to use the path on the river side of Memorial
Drive, I would think they'd have enough sense to walk it accross.
2 more Cabmridge traffic signal questions:
1. I remember a few months ago, for almost a week, the signal at Massachusetts
Ave. and Amherst Street was flashing. Was that a test to see if traffic flowed
better without it? Was the singal just broken and was a low priority to fix it
(since Amherst gets virtually no vehicular traffic and only serves MIT), or was
it disabled due to constructoin?
2. Is the signal at Broadway and Hampshire Street going to flash forever? Or
is it ever going to become a real signal? Maybe they are waitint for
Technology Square construction to be finished.
And on a side note, I figured out another way to make traffic flow better on
Massachusetts Avenue. Remove the signal at 77 Mass. Ave. Give the signals at
both Mass Ave / Vassar Street, and Mass Ave / Amherst Street an all-red phase
so that no one can turn from either Amherst or Vassar on to Mass Ave for a long
enough period of time for pedestrians to cross at 77 Mass. Ave. As it is, the
safest time for a pedestrian to cross at 77 Mass Ave is when the Amherst and
Vassar lights are both red, but the 77 Mass Ave light is green, so no one can
get to 77 Mass Ave, during that time (unless they turn from either Vassar or
Amherst), giving pedestrians a safe, but illegal time to cross. Removing the
signal would make this legal, and it would reduce traffic delays on Mass. Ave
by having 1 less signal. The all-red phases would eliminate the problem of
turning vehicles hitting pedestrians crossing Mass. Ave. EB Vassar Street
should be no right on red, or have a red, right arrow during the all-red phase.
The time needed for the all-red phase should be taken away from Mass. Ave,
because removing a signal from Mass. Ave would more than make up for taking
away a few seconds at another intersection. At the Amherst intersection, the
green time should be taken away from Amherst, given that the signal there is
primarily for pedestrians anyway, who will be obviously allowed to cross during
the all-red phase. Amherst gets virtually no vehicular traffic. And the small
amount of traffic it gets will still be allowed to turn right on red, so only
left turns (or right turns behind someone turning left) would have only delay
at all, and would be minimal. I am tempted to say remove the signal at Amherst
and leave the signal at 77 Mass. Ave, but in that case there is no way to
protect the Amherst Crosswalk. The 77 Mass Ave crosswalk is easily protected
since it is so close to 2 other signals, but it would be impossible to protect
the Amherst crosswalk since there is no signal south of there for quite a
distance, and traffic speeding accross the Harvard Bridge would be hazardous to
pedestrians crossing there. Although I do have to admit that I saw virtually
no problems at that intersection during the week that the signal was on flash
mode. Although the professors that park in the Kresge lot (the most
"prestigious" professors in the school) would have a fit if "their" signal was
removed.
>--
> John Carr (j...@mit.edu)
John F Carr
Mitsguy2001 <mitsg...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>>I turned and came to a stop sign and a red light. The signal was not
>>flashing. I chose to obey the stop sign rather than the signal and
>>drove through.
>
>Is there any law regarding whether a red signal or a stop sign takes
>precedence?
The MUTCD prohibits stop signs at signalized approaches. See
http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/HTM/millennium/12.28.01/four_highway_traffic_signals/MUTCD_4A-4D.htm#section4D01
>
>>Although there appear to be vehicle sensors on Wadsworth Street the
>>light acts pretimed.
>
>I think the MDC only uses pretimed, uncoordinated signals.
I think there are two actuated signals on the MDC's 100+ miles
of road: one on Centre Street and another on Memorial Drive near
Harvard.
>>are no sensors on the other two approaches.
>
>Often, when traffic volumes are very lopsided, as in this case, where Memorial
>Drive gets a huge amount of traffic, and Wadsworth Street gets virtually no
>traffic (espeically SB), only the side street gets loop detectors.
It would make sense to have sensors on the side streets and assume
that Memorial Drive always wants a green.
>And why is a pedestrian signal needed to cross Wadsworth Street anyway?
If the MDC did a proper engineering study (unlikely) and found that the
signal was warranted due to pedestrian volume and delay, then the MUTCD
requires pedestrian signals.
>>Some drivers were reluctant to make left turns onto Memorial Drive
>>westbound while the light was red. This is a legal one way to one
>>way left turn.
>
>I'm not sure if that really is legal in this case.
I'm sure it is. The purpose of the restriction on left-on-red turns
is to prevent conflicts. There is no traffic turning from Memorial
Drive WB into the median and there is no traffic eastbound on the
westbound roadway, so the left turn does not require crossing the
path of other traffic. It is just as safe as a right turn on red.
>signal at 77 Mass. Ave. As it is, I have nearly gotten hit many times at that
>signal (and at the Mass Ave. / Amherst signal) by motorists who have learned to
>disrespect red lights.
I have had pedestrians run in front of my car when I had the green, so
it is only fair that some drivers ignore the signal.
>I never see bicyclists on Memorial
>Drive (no one in their right mind would even attempt it even if it was legal),
>I always see them using the sidewalk (which is probably also illegal).
Bicycles are permitted to use sidewalks outside of business districts.
Cambridge posts signs where the prohibition applies, in Harvard and
Central Square. (Small circle/slash over bike symbol.)
>And on a side note, I figured out another way to make traffic flow better on
>Massachusetts Avenue. Remove the signal at 77 Mass. Ave.
You can't leave 77 Mass. Ave. with a crosswalk and no signal, even if there
are long red phases at nearby signals. There would be too many conflicts
because there is no way other than a signal to deter pedestrians from crossing
the street.
Instead I propose: coordinate the rest of the signals along
Mass. Ave. (only Vassar and Albany seem to be coordinated now)
and make the length and frequency of the 77 Mass. Ave. walk phase
dependent on time of day (more walk at class breaks, and flashing
yellow with no pedestrian signals when pedestrian traffic is
very light).
--
John Carr (j...@mit.edu)
Mitsguy2001
>>
>>>I turned and came to a stop sign and a red light. The signal was not
>>>flashing. I chose to obey the stop sign rather than the signal and
>>>drove through.
>>
>>Is there any law regarding whether a red signal or a stop sign takes
>>precedence?
>
>The MUTCD prohibits stop signs at signalized approaches. See
>
>http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/HTM/millennium/12.28.01/four_highway_traffic_si
gnals/MUTCD_4A-4D.htm#section4D01
But clearly the only reason the stop sign is there is because the MDC hasn't
gotten around to removing it yet. So, what is the law in that case? Are both
the traffic signal and the stop sign invalid?
>>And why is a pedestrian signal needed to cross Wadsworth Street anyway?
>
>If the MDC did a proper engineering study (unlikely) and found that the
>signal was warranted due to pedestrian volume and delay, then the MUTCD
>requires pedestrian signals.
First of all, I seriously doubt this signal is warranted due to pedestrians.
MIT may say that it is in order to be politically correct, but I seriously
doubt the volumes warrant it. And even if they did, the pedestrian signal
would be needed to cross Memorial Drive, not Wadsworth Street.
You still haven't answered 2 of my other questions.
1. How are conflicts between traffic turning right from Wadsworth to Mem
Drive, and traffic doing u-turns in the median, if they both have the same
green?
2. When the median u-turn and right turns from Wadsworth have the green, but
the pedestrian signals are all Don't Walk, does EB Memorial Drive have a red
light? And if so, why, since there is no conflicting movement?
>>signal at 77 Mass. Ave. As it is, I have nearly gotten hit many times at
>that
>>signal (and at the Mass Ave. / Amherst signal) by motorists who have learned
>to
>>disrespect red lights.
>
>I have had pedestrians run in front of my car when I had the green, so
>it is only fair that some drivers ignore the signal.
That is why unwarranted signals are so dangerous. Because of all the
ridiculous signals in Cambridge, both motorists and pedestrians learn to ignore
signals, and can cause problems even at signals that are warranted (as I
suspect this one is).
>>I never see bicyclists on Memorial
>>Drive (no one in their right mind would even attempt it even if it was
>legal),
>>I always see them using the sidewalk (which is probably also illegal).
>
>Bicycles are permitted to use sidewalks outside of business districts.
>Cambridge posts signs where the prohibition applies, in Harvard and
>Central Square. (Small circle/slash over bike symbol.)
But that is still not a reason to need bike sensors. Why can't they just hit
the pushbutton?
>>And on a side note, I figured out another way to make traffic flow better on
>>Massachusetts Avenue. Remove the signal at 77 Mass. Ave.
>
>You can't leave 77 Mass. Ave. with a crosswalk and no signal, even if there
>are long red phases at nearby signals. There would be too many conflicts
>because there is no way other than a signal to deter pedestrians from
>crossing
>the street.
Then keep the signal there. And have it give the walk signal (and the red on
Mass. Ave) only during the appropriate time to cross. But the signal won't
matter, because when it is red, virtually no traffic would legally reach it
anyway under my plan. Unless the motorists do something screwey.
>Instead I propose: coordinate the rest of the signals along
>Mass. Ave. (only Vassar and Albany seem to be coordinated now)
>and make the length and frequency of the 77 Mass. Ave. walk phase
>dependent on time of day (more walk at class breaks, and flashing
>yellow with no pedestrian signals when pedestrian traffic is
>very light).
Actually, that is a VERY good idea!
On a side note, when I first started MIT, when everyone else would be talking
about quantum mechanics, I'd talk about how the traffic lights on Mass. Ave are
our of sync. Unfortunately, no one else notices or cares. And I found out
quickly that talking about the traffic lights was an easy way to turn women
off. I think I need to read up on quantum mechanics if I even want any female
friends at this school :-(
>--
> John Carr (j...@mit.edu)
John F Carr
Mitsguy2001 <mitsg...@aol.com> wrote:
>>Mitsguy2001 <mitsg...@aol.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>I turned and came to a stop sign and a red light. The signal was not
>>>>flashing. I chose to obey the stop sign rather than the signal and
>>>>drove through.
>>>
>>>Is there any law regarding whether a red signal or a stop sign takes
>>>precedence?
>>
>>The MUTCD prohibits stop signs at signalized approaches. See
>>
>>http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/HTM/millennium/12.28.01/four_highway_traffic_si
>gnals/MUTCD_4A-4D.htm#section4D01
>
>But clearly the only reason the stop sign is there is because the MDC hasn't
>gotten around to removing it yet.
That's an explanation, but not an excuse.
> So, what is the law in that case? Are both
>the traffic signal and the stop sign invalid?
There is no definitive statement in law or precedent.
I think it is reasonable for a driver to pick which
he wants to obey. I could make a case that neither
signal nor sign need be obeyed.
>1. How are conflicts between traffic turning right from Wadsworth to Mem
>Drive, and traffic doing u-turns in the median, if they both have the same
>green?
As long as cars turn into the near lane there will be no conflicts.
There is nothing unusual about left turns conflicting with right
turns by opposing traffic. If they can't share, the right turning
car gets to go first.
>2. When the median u-turn and right turns from Wadsworth have the green, but
>the pedestrian signals are all Don't Walk, does EB Memorial Drive have a red
>light?
There is a red phase for Memorial Drive EB. I don't remember the
pedestrian signal indication.
--
John Carr (j...@mit.edu)
Mitsguy2001
>There is nothing unusual about left turns conflicting with right
>turns by opposing traffic. If they can't share, the right turning
>car gets to go first.
Given the quality of drivers on Memorial Drive, I'd love to see how drivers
deal with this. I seiously doubt they'd turn into the proper lane. I still
don't understand what the purpose of this signal is.
Daniel Salomon
> I've also been told that this signal [Mem Drive and Endicott Street] has bicycle sensors. Why??
> Sounds like another waste of money.
I think that the official standards for loop detectors now call for
bike sensing ability. It's not that difficult to do -- it just
requires some adjustment of the sensitivity of the loop, and an
indication to the cyclist where the loop is. Also, state and federal
laws require bicycle and pedestrian accommodations.
> First of all, is it that hard for a
> bicyclist to push the pedestrian button, given that he / she will almost
> certainly have to stop anyway?
It's an annoyance to have to do this -- it could require dismounting
and wheeling the bike sideways to get to the button.
> Secondly, I was under the impression that the
> MDC banned bicyclists from their roads. I never see bicyclists on Memorial
> Drive (no one in their right mind would even attempt it even if it was legal),
> I always see them using the sidewalk (which is probably also illegal).
Is there an actual MDC regulation banning bikes from Mem Drive, or do
police just arbitrarily decide to harass cyclists? State law, which
supersedes MDC regulations, says that bikes are allowed on every road
except for state-maintained expressways where signs indicating a bike
ban have been posted (MGL 85-11b). Mem Drive might count as a state
road, but it's definitely not an expressway and there sure aren't any
signs. Cyclists who have been arrested for biking on MDC roads have
been charged with things like disorderly conduct and disobeying the
orders of a police officer.
-Dan
Mitsguy2001
>police just arbitrarily decide to harass cyclists? State law, which
>supersedes MDC regulations, says that bikes are allowed on every road
>except for state-maintained expressways where signs indicating a bike
>ban have been posted (MGL 85-11b). Mem Drive might count as a state
>road, but it's definitely not an expressway and there sure aren't any
>signs.
If state law superseeds MDC laws, then why can the MDC put up illegal traffic
signals that violate codes. Also, isn't the MDC a state agency? So their laws
would be state laws?
Also, what definition of "expressway" are they using"? Under the technical
definition, Memorial Drive may be considered an expressway. It is partially
controlled access, has no driveways (except for Chuck Vest's house), and has
grade seperations at major cross roads.
Cyclists who have been arrested for biking on MDC roads have
>been charged with things like disorderly conduct and disobeying the
>orders of a police officer.
That's ridiculous! Did that actually hold up in court? I would sue for false
arrest if I was in that situation.
>-Dan
Hub Frog
> > Secondly, I was under the impression that the
> > MDC banned bicyclists from their roads. I never see bicyclists on Memorial
> > Drive (no one in their right mind would even attempt it even if it was legal),
> > I always see them using the sidewalk (which is probably also illegal).
>
> Is there an actual MDC regulation banning bikes from Mem Drive, or do
> police just arbitrarily decide to harass cyclists?
It is legal to bike on Mem Drive. This was discussed in a Boston
Globe article about a year ago. It's a common misconception among
police that it's illegal to do so. The article featured a bicyclist
explaining this to a surprised officer who was trying to pull him
over; the cyclist knew the law inside and out, as he had helped write
it.
-Hub Frog
John F Carr
Mitsguy2001 <mitsg...@aol.com> wrote:
>>Is there an actual MDC regulation banning bikes from Mem Drive, or do
>>police just arbitrarily decide to harass cyclists? State law, which
>>supersedes MDC regulations, says that bikes are allowed on every road
>>except for state-maintained expressways where signs indicating a bike
>>ban have been posted (MGL 85-11b). Mem Drive might count as a state
>>road, but it's definitely not an expressway and there sure aren't any
>>signs.
>
>If state law superseeds MDC laws, then why can the MDC put up illegal traffic
>signals that violate codes. Also, isn't the MDC a state agency?
The MDC doesn't care about the law. They have lots of friends in the
legislature. They just do whatever they want, whatever seems most
politically advantageous at the time. What do they have to lose?
>So their laws would be state laws?
Agency regulations have the force of law if authorized by the enabling
legislation, consistent with the constitution and statutes, and adopted
following the procedure of chapter 30A of the General Laws (which doesn't
apply to traffic regulations posted on signs). (The regulation must also
have some conceivable rational basis, but you won't get a court to overturn
bicycle exclusions on that basis.)
>Also, what definition of "expressway" are they using"?
It doesn't matter, because Memorial Drive and the other MDC roads are
not "state highways". State highways are roads controlled by the
Highway Department.
It also doesn't matter because, as I said here a few months ago, a
regulation excluding bicycles from the road does not conflict with
state law if bicycles are allowed to use a parallel sidewalk or bike
path.
--
John Carr (j...@mit.edu)
Daniel Salomon
> It also doesn't matter because, as I said here a few months ago, a
> regulation excluding bicycles from the road does not conflict with
> state law if bicycles are allowed to use a parallel sidewalk or bike
> path.
The courts disagree with you. Brighton District Court, Massachusetts,
Commonwealth vs. Allen, February 8, 1984, Serial 27268 said that MGL
85-11b does apply to MDC roads, and it voided the MDC's bike ban
regulation (at least according to a post to the Massbike email list,
archived at http://tdc-www.harvard.edu/massbike/email/archive/200006/0084.html
).
-Dan
(IANAL, TINLA)
John F Carr
One court, not "the courts". A district court judge in a criminal
case isn't setting binding precedent about the legality of a regulation.
I doubt there was a full hearing including the issue I raised. Minor
cases don't get a lot of attention from police and prosecutors and it
takes some legal research to realize what 11B means.
I hear there is a case in the courts now which should resolve the issue.
I think the if MDC goes to court, shows that there is a bike path next
to the road, and cites the Supreme Judicial Court opinion saying that
bike paths count as part of the road, then the court will find in favor
of the MDC. (On the other hand, if the MDC's lawyers are as good as
their traffic engineers they haven't got a chance in court.)
--
John Carr (j...@mit.edu)
John F Carr
>hate to see someone who is new to Cambridge see all these ridiculous signals,
>and then disobey signals that are actually reasonable, such as the pedestrian
>signal at 77 Mass. Ave. As it is, I have nearly gotten hit many times at that
>signal (and at the Mass Ave. / Amherst signal) by motorists who have learned to
>disrespect red lights.
Today I saw my first red light running accident. A car pulling out
of Amherst Street got hit by a car headed towards the river on Mass.
Ave. When I looked up from the cars to the signal, Mass. Ave. had
a red light, and since I was about fifth in a line of northbound
cars at that light I think it had been red for a while.
(It had everything you want in a crash -- the honk of a horn, the
squeal of tires, the crunch of metal, debris flying through the air,
and no blood.)
--
John Carr (j...@mit.edu)
John F Carr
John F Carr <j...@mit.edu> wrote:
>In article <20020301173540...@mb-fo.aol.com>,
>ITSGuy2001 <itsgu...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>>The other ridiculous new traffic light - Memorial Drive and Wadsworth Street is
>>still on flash mode.
>
>I drove through that intersection this morning, turning left off of
>Memorial Drive eastbound. After a double lane change (see below)
>I turned and came to a stop sign and a red light. The signal was not
>flashing. I chose to obey the stop sign rather than the signal and
>drove through.
See http://www.mit.edu/~jfc/signs.html
A driver approaching Memorial Drive on Wadsworth can see
1. A green light
2. A STOP sign
3. Two one way signs pointing right
4. Two DO NOT ENTER signs prohibiting straight movement
5. A word sign saying "RIGHT TURN ONLY"
6. A symbolic "RIGHT TURN ONLY" sign
7. A right turn pavement marking
8. A sign that falsely suggests "BICYCLE STOP ON LINE FOR GREEN"
(it doesn't matter where they stop -- the sensor isn't in use)
9. "NO PARKING"
(Following Massachusetts practice, there is no street name sign
for Memorial Drive.)
There is not always a red light for eastbound traffic when westbound
traffic is stopped. I suspect the red is pedestrian actuated but
delayed to fit into the light cycle. Because the WALK signal does
not provide instant gratification, it is ignored. The picture just
before the one on my web page shows pedestrians crossing against the
light. They probably hit the button, didn't get a WALK, and crossed
five lanes plus the median before the light changed.
--
John Carr (j...@mit.edu)
Mitsguy2001
:-)
I've noticed the following pattern. People, such as myself and John Carr, who
own cars, feel these new signals are ridiculous. People, such as Helen, who
only walk or ride bikes, like these new signals. Also, I notice that females
seem to be more likely than males to like the new signals (probably since
females are generally less likely to understand traffic engineering).
Daniel Salomon
> A driver approaching Memorial Drive on Wadsworth can see
> 3. Two one way signs pointing right
I like how even after this intersection was reconstructed, an
old-fashioned one way sign with tailfins is still present.
-Dan
Michael J. Saletnik
> 1. A green light
Your photo shows a green ball where you can only turn right. Can't
they do *anything* right?
--
{michael}
Joe
Huh? The ball means that vehicles can enter the intersection. It
doens't necessarily mean one can go straight or (not) turn in a
particular direction. It just so happens that at this intersection,
right turns are only permitted. Signal Arrows shouldn't be used to
indicate which way a given intersection allows turns, even though it
seems to be a Massachusetts thing to do this. An even goofier situation
is when there are arrows that point straight ahead.
Arrows indicate protected turns. Using signal arrows to attempt to
indicate which way turns can be made at an intersection gets confusing
fast, because soon there are arrows pointing every which way, and the
small arrows are difficult to ascertain at a distance, especially in
poor lighting situations (sunset, sunrise) versus the venerable ball.
When turns are restricted at an interesection, better solution is to
paint the arrows on respective lanes (gasp!) in the pavement, as well as
(gasp!) clearly marked standardized signs.
ChEx
All your points are wonderfully well-taken. As someone who works and
parks right off Wadsworth street, in the Hayward lot, and takes Mem
drive everyday when I drive to and from work, I too, and highly
annoyed by these 2 lights, espically the Wadsworth street light.
j...@mit.edu (John F Carr) wrote in message news:<3c8a5c7a$0$3940$b45e...@senator-bedfellow.mit.edu>...
>
> I drove through that intersection this morning, turning left off of
> Memorial Drive eastbound. After a double lane change (see below)
> I turned and came to a stop sign and a red light. The signal was not
> flashing. I chose to obey the stop sign rather than the signal and
> drove through. Then I walked back and watched the intersection in action.
I have not been driving to work much these past few weeks the light
has been in action, but when I have, I drive right thru the red light
as well, obeying the Stop Sign as you say. I wonder if this light
will get a Menino red-light traffic camera?? I almost never turn
around to go east, but I forgot about the left-on-red on one-way
travel rule, and will keep that in mind. Will the MDC put up a no
turn on red sign soon??
As far as the double lane change, I have always traveled in the far
left lane, and the slowly slowed down to make the left turn around to
Wadsworth. Now that they painted the new ywllow 'dont travel' lines,
I have not changed my behavior, confident that in a few short monnths,
the lines will be worn off, and it will take the MDC a few years to
get around to repainting the lines, or they will forget about the new
configuration and just make it the 3 dashed white lines that were
there before.
ahhh the joys of lazy roadway maintenance.
I greatly look forward to the results of your report search. Keep us
posted.
- Stefan in Allston
>
> Although there appear to be vehicle sensors on Wadsworth Street the
> light acts pretimed. The cycle is long, probably 90 seconds. There
> are no sensors on the other two approaches.
>
> Some drivers were reluctant to make left turns onto Memorial Drive
> westbound while the light was red. This is a legal one way to one
> way left turn. One SUV made the turn on red without stopping.
>
Michael J. Saletnik
> right turns are only permitted. Signal Arrows shouldn't be used to
> indicate which way a given intersection allows turns, even though it
> seems to be a Massachusetts thing to do this.
I've seen this outside of Massachusetts as well.
Right now this is an intersection cluttered with signs, all indicating
in some way or another the need to turn right. If a driver is
approaching the intersection while the light is a green ball, he/she
is overwhelmed with information to try to find (the signs are all in
different locations). By using right green arrows, the driver
immediately knows what he/she can do. It is, in effect, a protected
turn, even though it's the only option.
> An even goofier situation
> is when there are arrows that point straight ahead.
Sometimes. There are certainly situations where they're not used
correctly; however, at some intersections they provide a valuable
indicator from a greater distance than is visible by signs or than
would make sense to have pavement arrows, that said intersection
either doesn't allow turns, or is crossing a one-way. The Back Bay is
a good example of a use of such arrows.
This is just my opinion - one or two green arrows on the signal pole
are a far clearer indication to a driver than a green ball on the
signal pole with signage posted in different places throughout the
intersection.
> small arrows are difficult to ascertain at a distance, especially in
> poor lighting situations (sunset, sunrise) versus the venerable
These days they're putting up LED green balls and arrows that are so
bright that at night I have to shield my eyes and in the rain
completely wash out my field of vision. As long as such stupidity
continues, I wouldn't be concerned about seeing such lights at a
distance. Especially green. I would be more concerned about making
sure red lights are visible. But that's just an opinion.
:-)
--
{michael}
J Mello
> >Joe <j...@joe.joe> writes:
> >
> > An even goofier situation
> > is when there are arrows that point straight ahead.
>
> Sometimes. There are certainly situations where they're not used
> correctly; however, at some intersections they provide a valuable
> indicator from a greater distance than is visible by signs or than
> would make sense to have pavement arrows, that said intersection
> either doesn't allow turns, or is crossing a one-way. The Back Bay is
> a good example of a use of such arrows.
Except in this instance, the right and left arrows prevent
synchronized pedestrian phases and actually put pedestrians in great
peril from speeding vehicles making turns.
The signals in the City of Boston should only use balls. Pedestrian
phases should be coordinated with the parallel traffic phase AT ALL
INTERSECTIONS!
Michael J. Saletnik
> Except in this instance, the right and left arrows prevent
> synchronized pedestrian phases and actually put pedestrians in great
> peril from speeding vehicles making turns.
I truly doubt that any Boston driver is more attentive to pedestrians
when turning from a 1-way onto a 1-way with a green ball as opposed to
an arrow.
As it is, I know very few people other than myself who look when
turning to see what the pedestrian signal shows.
--
{michael}
Joe
>
> Joe <j...@joe.joe> writes:
>
> > right turns are only permitted. Signal Arrows shouldn't be used to
> > indicate which way a given intersection allows turns, even though it
> > seems to be a Massachusetts thing to do this.
>
> I've seen this outside of Massachusetts as well.
>
> Right now this is an intersection cluttered with signs, all indicating
> in some way or another the need to turn right. If a driver is
> approaching the intersection while the light is a green ball, he/she
> is overwhelmed with information to try to find (the signs are all in
> different locations). By using right green arrows, the driver
> immediately knows what he/she can do. It is, in effect, a protected
> turn, even though it's the only option.
They do need better signs, but this does not necessarily translate into
a larger quantity of signs. Signs and markings in the road should be
there though.
>
> > An even goofier situation
> > is when there are arrows that point straight ahead.
>
> Sometimes. There are certainly situations where they're not used
> correctly; however, at some intersections they provide a valuable
> indicator from a greater distance than is visible by signs or than
> would make sense to have pavement arrows, that said intersection
> either doesn't allow turns, or is crossing a one-way. The Back Bay is
> a good example of a use of such arrows.
>
> This is just my opinion - one or two green arrows on the signal pole
> are a far clearer indication to a driver than a green ball on the
> signal pole with signage posted in different places throughout the
> intersection.
I disagree---if the signs and road markings were done properly it would
be quite clear without misusing signal arrows. But Boston/Eastern
Massachusetts seems highly incompetent at doing that too. Sigh.
>
> > small arrows are difficult to ascertain at a distance, especially in
> > poor lighting situations (sunset, sunrise) versus the venerable
>
> These days they're putting up LED green balls and arrows that are so
> bright that at night I have to shield my eyes and in the rain
> completely wash out my field of vision.
I agree completely. The LEDs are a good idea in general, offering
brighter lights, more reliability, and less energy consumption. But
they really do need an LCD light sensor dimmer circuit to reduce the
intensity at night for green. Red isn't a problem, since it doesn't
hurt night vision that much, but that green can really dazzle you.
As long as such stupidity
> continues, I wouldn't be concerned about seeing such lights at a
> distance. Especially green.
Ahh, but that's the problem here too. The green dazzles so much, that it
can obscure what the arrow is, making it harder to read.
>I would be more concerned about making
> sure red lights are visible. But that's just an opinion.
> :-)
Many states do not permit red arrows for that reason. (Red arrows are
much less visible than red balls). There is really no need for red
arrows, since ideally they would only be found in the Left Turn Lane
anyway, on the signed Left Turn Signal. I don't really have too much
opinion on this though, and the LED red arrows are much more visible
than before.
Mitsguy2001
>> in some way or another the need to turn right. If a driver is
>> approaching the intersection while the light is a green ball, he/she
>> is overwhelmed with information to try to find (the signs are all in
>> different locations)
I am still adamant that given that the ONLY legal maneuver is a right turn, the
traffic signal is unnessesary. Again, pedestrian volumes at this intersection
are extremely light.
On a side note, a few weeks ago, I saw a bunch of elementary school students
(probably 1st or 2nd grade) on a field trip with their teacher. They were
crossing Main Street at the Kendall Square crosswalk (which has light traffic
and light pedestrian volumes), when they had the don't walk signal. So,
because Cambridge and the MDC place so many ridiculous traffic signals, these
elementary school students were taught by their teacher that it is ok to cross
when you have a don't walk signal.
John F Carr
J Mello <jo...@allston.org> wrote:
>Except in this instance, the right and left arrows prevent
>synchronized pedestrian phases and actually put pedestrians in great
>peril from speeding vehicles making turns.
If there are turn arrows the pedestrians are putting themselves
in danger by crossing against the light.
>The signals in the City of Boston should only use balls. Pedestrian
>phases should be coordinated with the parallel traffic phase AT ALL
>INTERSECTIONS!
The Herald reported on April 22, 2001:
In a move that could eliminate push buttons and seemingly
endless waits for the walk light, Boston is considering a new
approach to the timing and operation of pedestrian traffic
signals.
The technique, termed a "leading pedestrian interval" by
traffic engineers, allows walkers to cross streets safely
with traffic and represents a major shift in thinking by
Boston transportation officials.
--
John Carr (j...@mit.edu)
Dan Peltier
> >"Michael J. Saletnik" <mic...@ties.org> wrote in message >news:<863cywh...@anxiety-closet.michael.ties.org>...
> phases should be coordinated with the parallel traffic phase AT ALL
> INTERSECTIONS!
That's crazy talk. There are plenty of intersections in Boston that
require a separate pedestrian phase. (See discusssion of Columbia Rd at
I-93 ramps :-) The geometry of many intersections is just too complicated.
But they should be the exception, rather than the rule. In most places, the
separate pedestrian phase just wastes time for both drivers and those
few pedestrians who actually wait for it.
Dan
COBrien
actually seen people WAIT for the pedestrian phase at an intersection. More
times than not the scenario is as follows:
Person(s) walk to intersection, press Walk button on traffic pole and then
almost immediately walk/run across the street. Then the pedestrian phase at
the intersection kicks in and there isn't anybody waiting to cross. Traffic
just sits there.
-COBrien
"Dan Peltier" <dpel...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:748c49e1.02032...@posting.google.com...
> jo...@allston.org (J Mello) wrote in message
news:<115967b1.02031...@posting.google.com>...
<snip>
> But they should be the exception, rather than the rule. In most places,
the
> separate pedestrian phase just wastes time for both drivers and those
> few pedestrians who actually wait for it.
>
> Dan
Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY **
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.usenet.com
Daniel Salomon
> They do need better signs, but this does not necessarily translate into
> a larger quantity of signs. Signs and markings in the road should be
> there though.
The Science Center Underpass just got the
throw-warning-signs-at-the-problem treatment. They added curve
warning signs, 14'0" signs once it's too late to do anything about it,
and chevron signs on each pole.
What this intersection really needs is some signs that show STREET
NAMES. It would help if these signs were visible long enough ahead of
time so that a driver can make an informed decision. Right now the
only signs are the newly installed MA 2A signs, as well as a few old,
faded white-on-green signs that are found in 2 places (Quincy Street
southbound, and Cambridge Street eastbound after the split at the fire
house), don't provide the names of streets, and are too small and
close to the intersection to be useful.
Signs need to be posted for the following movements:
Mass Ave northbound: Keep left for Mass Ave (2A) northbound and Garden
Street. Keep right for Cambridge Street, Kirkland Street, and
Broadway. Then keep left for Garden Street and Mass Ave southbound,
keep right for Mass Ave northbound. Lane control signs before the
first split would be useful.
Mass Ave southbound: Keep left for Cambridge Street, Kirkland Street,
and Broadway. Keep right for Garden Street. Straight ahead for Mass
Ave.
Garden Street southwestbound: Straight ahead for Mass Ave northbound,
Cambridge Street, Kirkland Street, and Broadway. Keep right for Mass
Ave southbound.
After going through the underpass eastbound: Keep right for Broadway
and Quincy Street southbound. Keep left for Cambridge Street. Turn
left for Quincy Street northbound to Kirkland Street. (There's
currently a sign *after* the firehouse split indicating where you get
if you take the left split.)
After the underpass westbound: Keep left for Mass Ave southbound and
Garden Street. Keep right for Mass Ave northbound.
Broadway westbound: Turn right, then left to get to Mass Ave or
straight ahead to Kirkland Street.
Quincy Street southbound: Turn right to get to Mass Ave. (There's
currently a sign pointing to Mass Ave and Harvard Square to the right,
and Inman Square to the left.)
I've already complained once to the Cambridge traffic engineer about
this -- maybe it's time to do it again.
-Dan
AbsolutelySean
"Daniel Salomon" <danielk...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:2261f53b.02032...@posting.google.com...
> What this intersection really needs is some signs that show STREET
> NAMES.
Street signs are banned in Boston, didn't you know that?
John F Carr
>Next week I appeal to the Public Records Division to overturn the
>MDC's refusal to provide the engineering records related to this
>signal.
Today I received a summary of the engineering study.
The short version -- I'm not going to go so far as to advise
people to ignore the signals, but they clearly did a bad job.
The signal warrant analysis is from 1999. (MIT says they did a
followup study in 2001, but I don't have a copy.)
The signals are not for pedestrians -- pedestrian warrants were not
met, not even if MIT could be considered a school zone. They are
based solely on vehicular volume.
The following is their (Bruce Campbell & Associates for the MDC)
analysis, and my counteranalysis using their volume data and the
2000 MUTCD (which went into effect in Massachusetts after the
1999 study but prior to installation of the signals).
Wadsworth Street:
The left/U turn movement from Memorial Drive Eastbound is considered
the minor street, with Westbound Memorial Drive the major street.
Volume exiting Wadsworth Street is trivial.
eight-hour vehicular volume warrant
This warrant is used when the average volume is high.
Their analysis: volume exceeds 420 VPH on the main approach and 105
VPH on the minor approach for eight consecutive hours. These
thresholds are 600/150 reduced by 30% because the approach speed
exceeds 40 MPH.
My analysis: their analysis used the warrant for a one lane cross
street but there are two lanes in the median and the left and straight
movements are nearly equal. That means the minimum volume must be
140 VPH. This volume met for only six consecutive hours, not eight.
If the effective volume reduction for left on red is at least 5%,
the volume only meets the warrant for three hours per day.
Interruption of continuous traffic
This warrant is used to prevent excessive delays to minor street traffic.
The minimum volumes are 630/53 or 630/70 instead of 420/105 or 420/140.
This is met for at least ten consecutive hours per day, more than the
eight hour minimum.
80% combination warrant
This warrant is used when the previous two warrants are almost
met (to 80% of the warrant volume) and less disruptive remedial
measures have been tried and failed.
Their analysis: the warrant volumes may be reduced by 20% if both
the volume and interruption warrants are met. They do not say what
alternatives had been tried.
My analysis: the new MUTCD makes clear that you can not apply both
the 20% combination reduction and the 30% high speed reduction.
I don't know if this was standard practice under the old rules.
Four-hour vehicular volumes
This warrant is clearly met.
Peak Hour Volume
"This signal warrant shall be applied only in unusual cases. Such
cases include, but are not limited to, office complexes, manufacturing
plants, industrial complexes, or high-occupancy vehicle facilities
that attract or discharge large numbers of vehicles over a short
time."
I don't think MIT counts because it doesn't have such a highly
peaked traffic pattern. If MIT is unusual, the volume meets
the warrant.
So I count two warrants instead of five.
If left turns are allowed at Massachusetts Avenue, then volumes drop
at Wadsworth and all the warrants become marginal. They say several
are still met, but I'm not sure any are.
At Endicott Street the critical conflict justifying signals is
U turns from Memorial Drive Westbound vs. through traffic on
Memorial Drive Eastbound. If you neglect left on red, the
volume is clearly sufficient to consider signals. Presumably
a lot of these cars are taking the next right and can not
safely weave across high speed traffic.
The study recommended coordinating the new signals. The MDC did not
do that. If I read the timing diagram right the signal periods differ
by a few seconds out of a nearly 90 second cycle so periods of
disrupted traffic will alternate with periods of free flow in about a
two hour cycle. (The diagram doesn't seem to exactly match the
installed signals, but it is close.)
The signals should be put on flashing mode or a shorter cycle during
off peak hours, but there is only one timing diagram so I assume they
didn't do that.
--
John Carr (j...@mit.edu)
Mitsguy2001
>the minor street, with Westbound Memorial Drive the major street.
>Volume exiting Wadsworth Street is trivial.
I don't think that's allowed, since it's all part of Memorial Drive traffic.
>The signals are not for pedestrians -- pedestrian warrants were not
>met, not even if MIT could be considered a school zone.
So basically the arguement that the politically correct transit / bicycle /
pedestrian people give, as well as the arguement that MIT gives, is null and
void. And I think a school has to have at least one grade below 10th to be
considered a school zone, so as you say, MIT does not count. Although some
people (transit / bicycle / pedestrian people) want to lower the speed limit on
Massachusetts Avenue and Memorial Drive to something ridiculous, since they
think it's a school zone, and they do not care about the rights of
motorists.>My analysis: their analysis used the warrant for a one lane cross
>street but there are two lanes in the median and the left and straight
>movements are nearly equal. That means the minimum volume must be
>140 VPH. This volume met for only six consecutive hours, not eight.
>If the effective volume reduction for left on red is at least 5%,
>the volume only meets the warrant for three hours per day.
So basically, since they screwed up or cheated, their study is null and void.
> Interruption of continuous traffic
>
>This warrant is used to prevent excessive delays to minor street traffic.
But the new signals cause excessive delays and backups to u-turn traffic. Even
when there is no traffic going the other direction on Memorial Drive, the
u-turn / left-turn traffic must wait. Protected-only left turns like these
should never be used, because they needlessly delay traffic in all directions.
In my opinion, compund protected / permissive left turns are far better.
> 80% combination warrant
>
>This warrant is used when the previous two warrants are almost
>met (to 80% of the warrant volume) and less disruptive remedial
>measures have been tried and failed.
>They do not say what
>alternatives had been tried.
How about allowing left-turns at a few intersections to decrease the demand for
needless u-turns? Maybe a roundabout at the Massachusetts Avenue / Memorial
Drive intersection. The MDC thinks that putting up a No Left Turn sign solves
all their problems. Truth is, a No Left Turn sign doesn't erase the traffic,
it re-routes it, in this case through u-turns, and the use of side streets,
such as Amherst Street, Vassar Street, and Wadsworth Street. If certain
intersections (such as Memorial Drive and Ames Street) have problems when all
turns are allowed, then put signals at them. Allowing left turns from Memorial
Drive to Ames Street would eliminate a lot of needless traffic by giving a
reasonable route to get to Kendall Square.
>If left turns are allowed at Massachusetts Avenue, then volumes drop
>at Wadsworth and all the warrants become marginal. They say several
>are still met, but I'm not sure any are.
Then use a roundabout at the Memorial Drive / Massachusetts Avenue
intersection, and eliminate these two needless traffic lights.
>At Endicott Street the critical conflict justifying signals is
>U turns from Memorial Drive Westbound vs. through traffic on
>Memorial Drive Eastbound. If you neglect left on red, the
>volume is clearly sufficient to consider signals.
Again, since all that traffic is on the same street, I do not think that you
can count u-turns as a side street?
>Presumably
>a lot of these cars are taking the next right and can not
>safely weave across high speed traffic.
You are referring to the right turn onto Massachusetts Avenue. Again, a
roundabout at the Memorial Drive / Massachusetts Avenue intersection would
eliminate that problem.
>The study recommended coordinating the new signals. The MDC did not
>do that.
The MDC never coordinates signals. In fact, many of their roads have signs
that say "Signals timed for frequent stops" (which is almost certainly
illegal).
>The signals should be put on flashing mode or a shorter cycle during
>off peak hours, but there is only one timing diagram so I assume they
>didn't do that.
>
Ideally, these signals should just be removed. However, if they will not be
removed, then they should be traffic actuated. If there is no traffic on the
side street, no u-turn traffic, and no pedestrians, then Memorial Drive through
traffic should always get the green light. And ideally permissive left turns
and u-turns should be allowed.
Since there does appear to be sensors that don't work, is it possible that the
cars angle-parked at the frat houses on Endicott Street constantly call the
sensors. Virtually every time I walk past this area, Endicott has the green
light, with no traffic, and Memorial Drive traffic is backed up. Is parking
even legal on Endicott Street? Perhaps Endicott Street should just be
dead-ended (since it is virtually useless, especially now), and turned into a
parking lot. Especially now, both Danforth Street and Fowler Street get more
traffic than Endicott Street, which is not saying much. Endicott Street is
most likely the least heavily traveled street in Cambridge.
John F Carr
Mitsguy2001 <mitsg...@aol.com> wrote:
>>The left/U turn movement from Memorial Drive Eastbound is considered
>>the minor street, with Westbound Memorial Drive the major street.
>>Volume exiting Wadsworth Street is trivial.
>
>I don't think that's allowed, since it's all part of Memorial Drive traffic.
It is not plainly unreasonable, because the median makes the
intersection act like two one way streets.
>>The signals are not for pedestrians -- pedestrian warrants were not
>>met, not even if MIT could be considered a school zone.
>
>So basically the arguement that the politically correct transit / bicycle /
>pedestrian people give, as well as the arguement that MIT gives, is null and
>void. And I think a school has to have at least one grade below 10th to be
>considered a school zone, so as you say, MIT does not count.
I don't know if the 10th grade limit applies to traffic signals,
but MIT is clearly not a "school" for purposes of the pedestrian
warrant.
>
>> Interruption of continuous traffic
>>
>>This warrant is used to prevent excessive delays to minor street traffic.
>
>But the new signals cause excessive delays and backups to u-turn traffic. Even
>when there is no traffic going the other direction on Memorial Drive, the
>u-turn / left-turn traffic must wait. Protected-only left turns like these
>should never be used, because they needlessly delay traffic in all directions.
>In my opinion, compund protected / permissive left turns are far better.
There is not a "NO TURN ON RED" sign so left turns on red are allowed.
The Wadsworth signal really needs to be actuated.
>The MDC thinks that putting up a No Left Turn sign solves
>all their problems. Truth is, a No Left Turn sign doesn't erase the traffic,
>it re-routes it, in this case through u-turns, and the use of side streets,
>such as Amherst Street, Vassar Street, and Wadsworth Street.
MIT and the MDC know this, and are considering a signal at Massachusetts
Avenue to allow left turns. They want to take traffic off of Vassar Street
before MIT and Cambridge make it a permanently unpleasant place to drive.
> If certain
>intersections (such as Memorial Drive and Ames Street) have problems when all
>turns are allowed, then put signals at them. Allowing left turns from Memorial
>Drive to Ames Street would eliminate a lot of needless traffic by giving a
>reasonable route to get to Kendall Square.
The study found that several signal warrants were met at Ames Street.
If turns onto Ames Street were allowed they would definitely not need a
signal at Wadsworth.
>Then use a roundabout at the Memorial Drive / Massachusetts Avenue
>intersection, and eliminate these two needless traffic lights.
Vehicle and pedestrian volumes are too high, there isn't room,
and construction would be expensive.
>Since there does appear to be sensors that don't work, is it possible that the
>cars angle-parked at the frat houses on Endicott Street constantly call the
>sensors. Virtually every time I walk past this area, Endicott has the green
>light, with no traffic, and Memorial Drive traffic is backed up. Is parking
>even legal on Endicott Street? Perhaps Endicott Street should just be
>dead-ended (since it is virtually useless, especially now), and turned into a
>parking lot. Especially now, both Danforth Street and Fowler Street get more
>traffic than Endicott Street, which is not saying much. Endicott Street is
>most likely the least heavily traveled street in Cambridge.
During the measured evening peak hour in 1999, four cars turned right
onto Endicott, one car turned left from Endicott, and one turned right
from Endicott.
The cycle chart I got says
52 second green for Memorial Drive (both ways)
4 second yellow
2 second red clearance
10 to 17 second green for cross traffic
3 second yellow
2 second red clearance
10 to 15 second green for Memorial Drive eastbound
It is not clear what controls the duration within the 10-17 and 10-15
second ranges. Pedestrians crossing Memorial Drive are supposed to get
a 9 second walk and an 8 second flashing don't walk, which is inconsistent
with the 10 second minimum red.
--
John Carr (j...@mit.edu)
Mitsguy2001
>>>
>>>This warrant is used to prevent excessive delays to minor street traffic.
>>
>>But the new signals cause excessive delays and backups to u-turn traffic.
>Even
>>when there is no traffic going the other direction on Memorial Drive, the
>>u-turn / left-turn traffic must wait. Protected-only left turns like these
>>should never be used, because they needlessly delay traffic in all
>directions.
>>In my opinion, compund protected / permissive left turns are far better.
>
>There is not a "NO TURN ON RED" sign so left turns on red are allowed.
But no one ever turns left on red there. And I think the MDC is ignorant to
the fact that left on red is even allowed. In the case of the Wadsworth
intersection, the traffic turning left onto Wadsworth clearly cannot turn left
(or straight) on red.
>The Wadsworth signal really needs to be actuated.
Both of the signals do.
>MIT and the MDC know this, and are considering a signal at Massachusetts
>Avenue to allow left turns.
Putting a signal there would be a final blow to rational traffic engineering in
Cambridge. First of all, a signal there will almost definitely back up onto
the Memorial Drive mainline. And they would severely back up Massachusetts
Avenue, which is already ridiculously backed up. There is currently 4
uncoordinated traffic signals in rapid succession. If traffic signals are
added at both of the Memorial Drive ramp / Massachusetts Avenue intersections,
that will be 6 (almost certainly uncoordinated) traffic signals in rapid
succession. The only way it would be even remotely feasible is if a traffic
light is used on only 1 ramp, if the signal at Amherst Street is removed, and
the signals are all coordinated (which will never happen).
>They want to take traffic off of Vassar Street
>before MIT and Cambridge make it a permanently unpleasant place to drive.
It already is an unpleasant place to drive, or walk. Vassar Street is an
embarassment to MIT and to Cambridge.
>> If certain
>>intersections (such as Memorial Drive and Ames Street) have problems when
>all
>>turns are allowed, then put signals at them. Allowing left turns from
>Memorial
>>Drive to Ames Street would eliminate a lot of needless traffic by giving a
>>reasonable route to get to Kendall Square.
>
>The study found that several signal warrants were met at Ames Street.
>If turns onto Ames Street were allowed they would definitely not need a
>signal at Wadsworth.
Then why didn't they put a traffic light at Memorial Drive and Ames Street?
And why did they put a traffic light at Wadsworth Street?
John F Carr
Mitsguy2001 <mitsg...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>>MIT and the MDC know this, and are considering a signal at Massachusetts
>>Avenue to allow left turns.
>
>Putting a signal there would be a final blow to rational traffic engineering in
>Cambridge. First of all, a signal there will almost definitely back up onto
>the Memorial Drive mainline. And they would severely back up Massachusetts
>Avenue, which is already ridiculously backed up. There is currently 4
>uncoordinated traffic signals in rapid succession. If traffic signals are
>added at both of the Memorial Drive ramp / Massachusetts Avenue intersections,
>that will be 6 (almost certainly uncoordinated) traffic signals in rapid
>succession.
The study says that long queues will be rare; the average volume
can be handled but at least one approach will be over capacity at
95th percentile volume. I don't think they predicted backups onto
Memorial Drive. The ramps are long, have two lanes, and for
eastbound traffic one travel lane is already exit only.
If the study assumed an isolated signal its conclusions are suspect.
--
John Carr (j...@mit.edu)