For example, coming from 16th onto northbound Deerfoot, if you're going at least 100 when you hit the dotted line, there's no problem because everyone can make the required lane changes at freeway speed.
Where the problems occur is when the person at the front of the pack is only going 60 when they hit the dotted line, and there's about a half dozen vehicles stacked up behind them. In that case, people on Deerfoot who want to go to 32nd have to slam on their brakes to get down to the 60km/h that the traffic in that lane is moving, which in turn slows down the right lane on Deerfoot. Then, you also have all the people who are stuck going 60 behind that idiot try to get around him which causes additional dangerous lane changes.
I totally agree with this post. That feeder lane is so long, there should be no excuse for cars not to be up to the 100KM/H mark by about 3 quarters of the way before it even opens up to Deerfoot. It GMFG when some timid driver in front goes 60KM/H on there, screwing everyone behind them over.
I think I would like to see if the city or province has ever filmed Deerfoot from a helicopter at the transition from into rush hour to see when, where, or what is the wrench that gets thrown into the gears of Deerfoot, and is it just a snowball effect from there? Like a single accident where everybody in the adjacent lane has to slow to 60 for the emergency vehicles, causing the whole system to come to a halt.
I think I would like to see if the city or province has ever filmed Deerfoot from a helicopter at the transition from into rush hour to see when, where, or what is the wrench that gets thrown into the gears of Deerfoot, and is it just a snowball effect from there? Like a single accident where everybody in the adjacent lane has to slow to 60 for the emergency vehicles, causing the whole system to come to a halt.
Short merges, someone can't get in because volume is too high, has to slow down, causing people behind them to slow down. Traffic in next lane slows down in case someone darts out because the other lane is slow.
Most days it probably isn't anything specific. It's just a matter of too many cars trying to use the road at once.
Location: Close enough to make a beer run during a TV timeout
Exp:
Quote:
Originally Posted by You Need a Thneed
Perhaps Southland could be removed if Blackfoot connected to the Bow Bottom/Anderson/Deerfoot Interchange somehow.
I had suggested to the Provincial Roads guru that maybe they should close the access from Southland onto SB Deerfoot. Force everybody on SB Blackfoot to use Glenmore. It wasn't well received.
I had thought of Travis' idea; have a dedicated lane that goes right from 17th past Anderson. Kind of a "poor man's" version of collector roads. However I would like to see the 2nd left lane not be allowed to exit to Anderson/Bow Bottom. As I mentioned to the guru it seems odd that there are 2.5 lanes for Anderson/BB, and 1.5 lanes for SB Deerfoot.
I think I would like to see if the city or province has ever filmed Deerfoot from a helicopter at the transition from into rush hour to see when, where, or what is the wrench that gets thrown into the gears of Deerfoot, and is it just a snowball effect from there? Like a single accident where everybody in the adjacent lane has to slow to 60 for the emergency vehicles, causing the whole system to come to a halt.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to yads For This Useful Post:
Short merges, someone can't get in because volume is too high, has to slow down, causing people behind them to slow down. Traffic in next lane slows down in case someone darts out because the other lane is slow.
Most days it probably isn't anything specific. It's just a matter of too many cars trying to use the road at once.
I've always wondered how much closer we can get to the theoretical capacity of the road if every single person could merge properly (and how much money would have to be invested into training/awareness in order to achieve this).
I see it every day. Someone tries to merge into a lane that's going 80km/h at 40 km/h. The 80 km/h people are like WTF, slow down to 40. The guy going 40 freaks out, goes 20. Suddenly the whole lane has come to a complete stop, which will take hours to sort itself out as the increasing traffic from rush hour means that there really isn't much of a reprieve from the shock.
I've always wondered how much closer we can get to the theoretical capacity of the road if every single person could merge properly (and how much money would have to be invested into training/awareness in order to achieve this).
I see it every day. Someone tries to merge into a lane that's going 80km/h at 40 km/h. The 80 km/h people are like WTF, slow down to 40. The guy going 40 freaks out, goes 20. Suddenly the whole lane has come to a complete stop, which will take hours to sort itself out as the increasing traffic from rush hour means that there really isn't much of a reprieve from the shock.
It would certainly increase, but I think for that to happen, computers would have to control vehicles.
I truly believe the merging at speed thing only applies to certain extent... that extent being that the volume of merging traffic has to have sufficient gaps to merge into the right lane even if everyone is a perfect driver and can perfectly pick gaps. Is that even possible with the amount of traffic merging northbound from McKnight. Not sure.
I think I would like to see if the city or province has ever filmed Deerfoot from a helicopter at the transition from into rush hour to see when, where, or what is the wrench that gets thrown into the gears of Deerfoot, and is it just a snowball effect from there? Like a single accident where everybody in the adjacent lane has to slow to 60 for the emergency vehicles, causing the whole system to come to a halt.
That would be interesting, but a practical problem of being able to film that is the approach and departure paths for runway 16/34 at the airport overlapping with Deerfoot in multiple spots.
However when the new parallel runway opens the original will be closed for a year for a major overhaul. That could be a good chance to do what you propose.
Only knew about this because the u of A prof was one of mine.
Quote:
Conclusions
The observation that simple, purely deterministic traffic models possess jamiton solutions indicates that phantom traffic jams are not necessarily caused by individual drivers behaving in a "wrong" way. In fact, they can even occur if all drivers behave by the exact same laws. In the considered traffic models, two key effects work towards the occurrence of phantom traffic jams: first, denser traffic travels slower; and second, it takes a certain "adjustment time" for drivers to react to new traffic conditions. These effects are counter-acted by a certain tendency of the drivers to drive preventively. In light traffic, the good effects dominate. In heavy traffic, the bad effects prevail. Hence, phantom traffic jams are a feature of traffic flow that is not completely avoidable.
Benefits of a better understanding of jamitons
Real traffic possesses jamitons. Hence, a better understanding of their structure can be beneficial for the simulation and prediction of real highway traffic. Furthermore, the research can be one step towards answering the key question "how can the occurrence of phantom traffic jams be avoided". The occurrence of jamitons depends on the model parameters, such as road capacities, speed limits, and driving behavior. A deeper understanding of jamitons may give indications on how to lower peak densities, and how to shift the critical threshold density at which jamitons occur upwards. The latter may be achieved by electronic driving assistence hardware that helps drivers (in a subtle fashion) to accelerate and decelerate more smoothly, and thus to make the occurrence of jamitons less likely.
Sorry for the delayed reply, but this post is... hard to categorize. Misguided? Crazy? Devoid of reason? They all apply I guess. Prompts a reply though, even if it is hard to untangle a web like this. I don't mean to be insulting because I generally like the poster, but Holy Christ.
Quote:
Originally Posted by stampsx2
The Deerfoot needs an elevated lrt that runs along it and into downtown. There should only be one station at crossiron mills and another at around 22x (maybe seton). Commute time to downtown would likely be around six minutes since the lrt could travel about 150 km/h, there are no stops.
It would only operate during peak hours to minimize costs and be profitable. There should be more cars per train, say 7 or 8 to lower how often they leave the station.
Profitable? This thing would be a boondoggle that would provide utility to few current and few future Calgarians at an enormous cost. Well, unless you could somehow charge into the hundreds of dollars per trip, which you couldn't. Nevermind the fact that public transit doesn't set out to make a profit anywhere in the world save for the perfectly-conditioned Hong Kong. Any private provider wouldn't even touch such a proposal.
You just took the SE LRT route, chose to keep the most expensive portion (accessing downtown, ostensibly via an elevated route (all but impossible due to Plus 15s and other factors) or the underground one (ala current SE LRT routing)), took the least expensive portions, made them more expensive (elevating instead of primarily at-grade, increasing top speed which necessitates exponentially more expensive vehicle technology and route infrastructure) and lengthened the route requiring more infrastructure (at increased cost of course), while simultaneously cutting catchment (and therefore ridership), utility and access to amenities (all stops between Seton and downtown).
Quote:
Originally Posted by stampsx2
I don't have the numbers but I notice most lrt users always travel to the last few stations on each line. Hardly anyone gets out near downtown.
This is a problem that plagues the current system, but is best solved through capacity increases on existing lines (which are actually achievable, let alone conceivable) . The south line especially is over capacity, which results in the riders from the areas near the terminus having a monopoly on the scarce resource of capacity. Riders from further in will utilize the system more when capacity is provided.
Quote:
Originally Posted by stampsx2
Having just two stations plus the one downtown would have low construction costs.
Certainly, but that isn't overly relevant. Stations do not comprise the lion's share of construction costs. Taking the proposed SE LRT for example, most of the cost is on the route downtown, track and way, and right of way construction. Incremental station costs are small by comparison, especially when taking into account the increased utility they provide. In your proposal, incremental station costs would be miniscule when compared to the (elevated!) right of way and downtown access along a longer route).
Quote:
Originally Posted by stampsx2
Doesn't mean there should be no SE lrt, but it would buy a bit of time to come up with proper financing.
If the concern were financing (which it is), your proposal would never see the light of day. On the scale of ease-of-financing-this-project, the currently proposed SE LRT would be far above your proposal. In between might fall Oscar Fech's mayoral campaign and a statue depicting the Dig Em frog.
Quote:
Originally Posted by stampsx2
How does this benefit people living downtown? It doesn't, and neither does the ring road.
Outside of easier movement of goods and (potential) relief of inner-city roads such as 16th Avenue anyway. Not to say I'm a huge ring road fan. Either way, the use of this example is off-the-mark in support of a crazy proposal such as yours. The ring road is actually not a hare-brained fantasy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by stampsx2
The airport doesn't benefit people that don't travel, the west lrt doesn't benefit people in the east, the airport tunnel doesn't benefit people in the south......too bad it's part of city living, suck it up.
Other than the positives they bring to the city's economy, that is.
Quote:
Originally Posted by stampsx2
Not everybody wants to live downtown.
True that. This is due to a balancing of pros and cons both monetarily tangible and not.
Many people don't want to live further out partly because it produces a conundrum such as what you are living with regard to commuting. Housing is cheaper there due to the fact that it has less pros that are a function of its location. You found a place to live that is cheap and new (which you would likely count as pros - who wouldn't).
Please, please, please though, own up to the cons. You are saddled with a commute that is either long and expensive or cheaper but even longer. This is a direct result of where you have chosen to live. Closing that gap (though improved commuting options of any sort) requires, on balance, exponentially more money than it would be for areas that weren't a farmer's field or open prairie 10 years ago. No one is willing to pay for that in a world of finite resources and the existence of projects with far more benefit.
Last edited by photon; 11-12-2012 at 06:29 PM.
The Following 18 Users Say Thank You to frinkprof For This Useful Post:
Calgarypuck has Thanks, which is great, it's a nice feature. We really should have some sort of "High Five!" button as well. You get one a week, that's it, you use it sparingly when something really grabs your attention.
Giving Thanks isn't enough when frinkprof makes a post like that one.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to MrMastodonFarm For This Useful Post:
.......Please, please, please though, own up to the cons. You are saddled with a commute that is either long and expensive or cheaper but even longer. This is a direct result of where you have chosen to live. Closing that gap (though improved commuting options of any sort) requires, on balance, exponentially more money than it would be for areas that weren't a farmer's field or open prairie 10 years ago. No one is willing to pay for that in a world of finite resources and the existence of projects with far more benefit.
Of course my post was just a pipe dream. It doesn't take a transportation engineer to know that my idea would never work. It was completely hypothetical and meant to encourage discussion and ideas. I don't hide the fact that i know nothing about transportation infrastructure and feasibility, i'm just your daily commuter wishing that every intersection was an overpass.
But at least my post got a response out of you, because it was "crazy"" far fetched"
Someone also mentioned flying cars, also a very good idea. Now let's discuss the feasibility....
Calgarypuck has Thanks, which is great, it's a nice feature. We really should have some sort of "High Five!" button as well. You get one a week, that's it, you use it sparingly when something really grabs your attention.
Giving Thanks isn't enough when frinkprof makes a post like that one.
I guess i hurt some peoples feelings in the transit discussion thread.
I guess i hurt some peoples feelings in the transit discussion thread.
Not really, the comment I made wasn't about you. frinkprof brings a wealth of knowledge and information about the Transit system to this forum that few in the city of Calgary probably have.
Thought the Deerfoot LRT idea was just horrible...
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to MrMastodonFarm For This Useful Post:
