Worst traffic impediments to good FE?
 

In your opinion, which traffic impediments are the worst in terms of affecting real world fuel economy?

Edit: I forgot to add that, if successful, the results of this poll will be used for a school project.

Since I can't find a way to limit voters to 3 choices (I can ask, but it's not concrete), you are free to select multiple choices from the above at your discretion. Just choose the worst offenders, and feel free to explain your answer(s).

Thank you for voting.

As most of my driving is done in the city, I have a feeling that unnecessary stop signs are a real killer to my FE. When there are consecutive stop signs at every street it is very tough to get good gas mileage. I cannot engine off coast in my car, and putting my car into neutral while I coast only raises my fuel consumption at speeds above 10-15 mph. As a result my routine when going through multiple stop signs involves a lot of braking, which indirectly kills my fuel economy.

Hello -

I picked the first one because I see the traffic light behavior change from city to city. Probably a money thing.

CarloSW2

Sprawl
 

Population growth.

Where I used to be able to cruise straight through (and I ain't THAT old) from A to B is now littered with intersections, stop signs, and stop lights which inevitably are red when approached. Cruise straight through = modest, constant speed in top gear = max fe vs. constant accel/decel, low gears, brakes, etc.

Then the traf**** density sometimes will prevent getting through a red on the first cycle which leads to even more idling and probably more intense jackrabbit starts.

The sheer quantity of firing cylinders at any given moment has forced the development of complicated and expensive computer emission controls (in some cases for the better and in some cases not).

The sheer demand for fuel forces prices higher for all, including those who don't flagrantly burn a lot of it.

The sheer volume and density of motorized vehicles operating, combined with society's acceptance of removal of mufflers, means that one's chances of finding a place where their right to enjoy their own property unspoiled has become increasingly elusive.

Combined with the increased volume of semi-truck traf**** needed to supply the increased amount of consumers with all the plastic disposable stuff they buy then discard a short time later means formerly relatively desolate "country" roads are now filled with trucks, commuters, and mufflerless joy riders. That leads to more waiting for merges, etc.

So, mustering up their best anti-logic, government, churches, and the general population of idiots decide that paying people to reproduce makes the most sense.

"Progress" :rolleyes:

Tell us how you really feel Frank!!!!!!!!
;););)

regards
Mech

In Wisconsin people with mental impairments design the traffic light systems.

In most every city in Wisconsin that i have gone to, the light instantly changes the instant a car shows up to a side street that has minimal traffic flow, many times when they are also turning right.

The result is a road that has maybe 10 cars an hour taking precedence over the main drag that probably has 600 or 800 cars an hour, causing 20 cars to come to a stop and wait watching the car drive away 1/2 a mile then the light changes in time for another car to pull up so the light only allows a couple cars through.

Although i hate Chicago, they at least have laws that dissallow the above situation by requiring traffic study and minimum cycle times along with "timed" lights. Around here the light can flash like a blinker if a car shows up from each way just perfectly, car one hits intersection, waits drives, 10 seconds later car 2 shows up and it flashes right back, nothing like forcing everyone to stop rather than leaving it green a while.

In Wisconsin there are traffic lights that are sometimes as little as 8 car length apart and of coarse they aren't even timed. one is red other turns green and vica versa.

A little common sense could save millions of gallons of fuel by simply fixing the totally broken traffic light system by keeping lights timed, by providing a logical timed delay to side streets (aka keeping one car waiting 5 minutes is less wastefull than keeping 20 cars waiting 1 minute)

I wonder who i can send my complaints to in the Wisconsin gov/dot?
They could learn something about actually controlling traffic lights instead of making do just random crap.

Ah well.

How about parallel parking? It's not traffic per say, but it's so wasteful!

Today, my car was so badly stuck between two other cars, on a hill!!!
I took me 2-3 mins to get out without scratching my car. I had to do like 5-6 S-turns. I didn't even want to look at the ScanGauge to see how much that little exercise cost me...

And the clutch must hate me now:p

P.S. And there's a boulevard in Montreal where at night, all the lights become stop signs (permanent blinking red)... How retarded...

I would vote for All or most of the other vehicles on the road :D
if it were an option.

With 46 traffic lights in a 40 mile round trip, stupid light timing is my greatest aggravation. The roads here are mostly east to west main arteries since it is basically a peninsula between two rivers, with few bridges.

I64, route 143, route 60 all are east to west main arteries. While the roads that intersect those main arteries are significant they are in no way reliant on any timing for traffic flow. Most of the lights get timed eventually, but every time they add a new one, it takes them a year to get it working in sync with the rest.

Half of them could be eliminated altogether with right turn only intersections and a u turn 50 yards down the road. The rest would do fine for establishing separation of groups of traffic for those entering the main artery.

12 seconds of green light on a over 1 minute total cycle is ludicrous. The left turn on green only is the same time length. When the interstate gets backed up due to an accident, the overflow overwhelms the light and the traffic will back up for 20 plus cycles. I have seen it so bad it took an hour to go 1 mile, with the light allowing about 8 cars per cycle. That light should be on 75% of the whole cycle.

regards
Mech

I voted for the first two because you really can't argue with the impact that idling and speeding has on fuel consumption. I've actually started to change my driving routes based on speed as much as anything else. Through exhaustive research, I've been able to determine that my car uses less fuel at 40-45 mph than it does at 65 mph.

The county recently put up a new light on my commute route. Now the intersection went from tolerable to worse. -Anytime the government gets involved with anything it instantly goes to hell.

-and just because of a few impatient or incompetent drivers getting in an accident they have to go and put up a signal so the other 99% has to suffer.

I usually try to change my route when encountering dumb signals, but sometimes there are no options. :(

Un -synced stoplights are the ultra badboys here. If you travel to different towns, you can anticipate the light at the top of your game, and still get messed up.

Unfortunately, re-syncing by the powers that be, seems be be all too infrequent. Supposedly; this is an expensive task that many cities, and towns just.... don't want to go there!

Maybe we should all try to clone ourselves; to put better drivers on the road. It might
make Frank's day a little cheerier!

Even more drivers on the road?!?

This, x1000. But since it isn't an option on the poll, I have to choose unnecessary lights/stop signs. There are plenty of intersections around here that would be much better served by roundabouts where the majority of cars could coast through without stopping.

Lights and signs get my vote. There's no way to time a stop sign, it pulls you to a complete stop every time, but traffic lights generally affect a larger number of people.

It's the same situation here in the suburbs of NY City. The perverse logic is that if two stops signs are good for an intersection, then 4-way stops must be even better. In the past 40 years I've facetiously mused that I'd eventually see the day when they would put a stop sign in the middle of a block. That day has arrived, and these are now often seen at a cross street that does not pass through, being in effect a three way intersection. The neighborhoods that are worst in haviong abundant stop signs are usually those that want to drastically reduce all vehicular traffic - so the residents lobby to erect a stop sign on literally every corner. It does nothing to improve traffic safety, but it does give a sense of empowerment to those who push to keep all traffic out of their domain. And of course, as with most laws, once implemented they are never repealed - nor are stop signs ever removed, once erected.

Most stop signs could be replaced with yield signs. But there are several reasons why this will never happen. First, most brain-dead American motorists either cannot read English or can't comprehend what 'yield' means. Also, since running a yield sign and causing an accident is a 'prima facie' case, most lawyers would be opposed to it because there is nothing to argue about. Most police departments would not appreciate this either, as the opportunity for 'revenue enhancement' in monitoring stop sign violations would be reduced.

I can remember when permitting a 'right turn on red' was introduced here. It was seen as radical, dangerous and fiercely opposed by some at the time. Guess which side of the political spectrum opposed it most vehemently? :rolleyes:

I might be wrong, but this poll seems to pertain specifically to those things that a civil engineer would have some level of control over. I can think of dozens of other things that would have a major impact on fuel consumption but that are outside the sphere of influence of someone who is designing traffic ways.

In my opinion, one of the biggest offenders that is not listed in this poll is carpool lanes. In my experience, carpool lanes are responsible for the greatest number of freeway traffic jams. Granted, it is the drivers' faults, but they are enabled by poorly engineered roads.

I think I listed the worst ones.

I was just assuming that "of the following" was omitted. It is a poll, after all.

I do like the idea of restricting people to only driving certain days of the week. That way, people could be forced to carpool or take public transportation. :p

Too many lights and bad timing are the same deal here in Phoenix as well. Having 2 or 3 and sometimes more small lights in between the major ones is very annoying especially when it seems that alot of them are timed to change so that driving the speed limit causes you to stop at each one.

I dont know if anyone else has them but since its not on the poll: Metered freeway on ramps. worst invention ever. Imagine a fully loaded semi truck that has to stop at the top of a ramp and wait for the light to turn green, then because it had to stop toward the end of the ramp, there is only a very short distance before this truck going much slower then the other cars has to try and merge in. To be able to merge in even with a car, you have to bury your foot in it to be able to match the speed of traffic and merge safely. Dumb. AZDOT, Dumb.

I would also vote for "Other Vehicles."

In this state I only see them on parkways where large trucks are not permitted. But I agree that they are a bad idea.

And what if you need to go to a doctor or have an urgent need to buy something? Will we need to get a special permit from the government to be granted dispensation to drive on certain days or justify our wants and needs?

Using force is usually the worst possible solution to any problem.

I think you would probably make it to the hospital even faster as I assume emergency vehicles would love this policy.

Some lights are difficult to judge (stale green, can't tell if traffic has pulled up to change the light, no crosswalk signs)...and a few are located at the top or bottom of hills. Not fun to hit them.
Stop signs could be replaced with yield signs on off-ramps, particularly those with high visibility.
And I like the idea of replacing unnecessary or complex traffic signals with roundabouts. A roundabout replaced a complex intersection in Carthage, MO, and eased traffic and reduced accidents.

Yes. More or less I was thinking about physical revisions that would alter traffic flow. But this thread has been pretty enlightening, and I think all of the listed components - including and excluding poll options - are interesting to consider.

Thanks to the participants so far, and keep 'em coming!

Do you travel by ambulance every time you need to go to an appointment with a doctor? I'll bet you don't...:rolleyes:

I usually schedule my appointments.

Imagine what the encumbrance to an appointment schedule would be like if people were not permitted to drive on certain days.

#1 Unnecessary stop signs. Unlike the poll leader (poorly timed traffic lights), stop signs stop you every time.
#2 Too high a speed limit. John and Jane Doe use the PSL as their minimum speed, so they get 28 mpg driving 75 mph v. 40 mpg driving 60 mph. That's a 42% FE loss because of the state's speed limit decision.
#3 Poorly timed traffic lights.

If cities were properly planned and the "local" mentality would be enforced it would not be an issue. If public transport actualy existed in a real way appointments would be a non-issue and if cities were properly planned I could bike or walk there safely.

Perhaps we need motivation to eliminate the (1) 10,000 bed subsidized hospital 30 miles away with the mega Chinamart on the outskirts and maybe use some sort of impedus to have smaller local businesses to reduce the amount of travel people have to do to get anywhere usefull?

Europe nicked this is the bud years ago for the most part.

I would be willing to pay a couple cents more to have a local grocer.

That assumes a lot. For starters not everyone lives in a city, and not everyone wants to live in one.

Name where there is such a facility. Or do you just like to be dramatic by making wild exaggerations?

If Walmart were such a terrible idea no one would shop there. They'd be out of business.

Since you like Europe so much and think it is better than America, you should move there.

If there were a market for it, there would be one. If you were entreprenureal (instead of being critical of successful business) you could start one yourself.
If any business is what people want, it will be successful. If it's not what people want they should not need to be forced to accept it.

Wow, an ad hominem argument. How compelling. You made up an extremely exaggerated hypothetical example in order to shoot down the idea of restricted driving days, but you cry foul when someone else uses another, exaggerated example? Please.

My suggestion would be to separate the ideas from the people making them. I'm sure we'll all get a long better that way. Thus far, little else has been done to promote carpooling, ride sharing, and public transportation. People might moan at first, but when they encounter free-flowing traffic on routes and at times that normally would be congested, they'll soon stop complaining.

And in terms of rural areas, there are fewer traffic problems, so they should need fewer restrictions/regulations, no?

Actually they, even with the china price advantage have had issues with sales which they are slowly working out, if they did not have government healthcare subsidizing their employees their existence would be impossible. If laws were pre-nixon they also could not exist today.

You catch on quick, I do have a tendancy of responding to things in kind. Like drama it makes the point, I make it wild so everyone knows it is not factual but an example that I believe (insert word here) is excessive in the way I expouse. In this area for example we have the equivalent of a 10,000 bed hospital far in excess of what would ever get used but divided between multiple hospitals all in mostly distant areas of the county. They are oversized and nearish population areas but would be far more effective if a little more distribution were possible.

And no I didn't much care for the NECA 40-point plan movie.

Which part? I prefer northern Canada or Brazil personally. :) And yes I have been thinking strongly about making sure I can move should I find things going down the pipes more than I can swalllow.

Northern canada I would probably burn more wood than gas.

Actually I probably have as much real entrepreneurial experience as you do, if you did have as much as you appear to believe, you would understand that as things stand today most enterprises are doomed to failure unless they are propped up by heavy government support (indirectly or directly) or heavy foreign cash, even twenty years ago during some of my more successful years this simply wasn't necessary.
AKA what I mean is you need ABSOLUTELY NO ENTREPENURIAL EXPERIENCE TO BE SUCESSFULL TODAY, you do need the skills to play politics and play money games, aka be a panderer if you will, its more about who you know today than any paticular skill. Few successful businesses actually make anything, they instead are good at being resellers or money shufflers, which to me is not a true entrepreneur. An investor is no longer an entrepreneur and today there really are very few who build anything themselves, dare I say few even have the entrepreneurial skills to do it. Instead they just strip cash off husks and toss them into bankrupcy, then sell their overseas lineup that they buy off a totally independantly managed foreign firm and have relabled here. Historically those practices would have had heavy public reaction, even jailtime and at the least those individuals would never be allowed to operate in business again because they would have been considered complete and total failures, since they were unable to make the actual business profitable and functional, which should be the goal, not just the act of making money for oneself with no regard for the brick and mortor or the people.

But I digress. Now to the thread closing and being banned forever :(

If you recall, you began the (rather off-topic) contention in this thread by injecting the tangential remark:

Your proposal shows an authoritarian mindset – where the end justifies the means. Undeniably you are advocating reshaping society by restricting freedom of movement and by using ‘force’.

There is nothing exaggerated in my observation made in response that this would result in people being greatly inconvenienced in the imposition of rearranging their schedules to fit your proposed, government dictated plan of rationing days on which they would not be permitted to drive. It shows the draconian inconvenience imposed in the tyrannical nature of your proposal, not to mention the abrogation of personal freedom and choice. Such would be the consequences of your idea, and anyone advocating such things is a despot.

You sound like an aspiring dictator or at least a wannabe transportation czar. I'm not backing down from calling a spade a spade, and if you want to whine and moan that this is an ad hominem attack, so be it. I am pointing out that you have cloaked yourself in the mantle of advocating authoritarianism. Wear it with pride, if you will, as you cannot deny it.

Our little town has one traffic light... and it hates me. I hit red most of the time, not sure how. But it easily turns a one minute trip to the store into a two minute trip.

Actually, I was referring to your use of a personal attack against rmay635703 rather than focusing on his argument. But, I guess, following that up with another is just in keeping with your character. If you want to argue the point that restricting days on which people can drive is despotic and dictatorial without resorting to hurling insults at the proposer (for instance, I could, instead, have just called you stupid for your inability to cogently construct and communicate a counterpoint... after all, a spade is a spade, no?), then that's fine. I can do that. But I'm done with these personal attacks as a substitute for a healthy, productive debate.

Driving is a privilege, NOT a right. Owning a car (personal property) is a right, but driving it whenever, wherever, and however I want is not. The idea that individuals have unlimited and unrestricted freedom to do what they want when they want is patently wrong, even in the freest of societies. Your personal freedoms end where the personal liberties of others and the greater good of society begin. I have a horse, but you won't see me stamping in protest because I'm not permitted to ride her down the interstate. :turtle:

The people own the roads, and if the people decide that a particular road is too congested, they may choose to restrict it in anyway they deem necessary. A more realistic manifestation of my argument would probably be to turn the entire interstate/freeway system into a carpool lane. Having a single lane provided to carpoolers, people with yellow stickers, and cheats is not effective, in my opinion. It causes too many buildups and traffic jams due to people attempting to take advantage of it. Now, on the other hand, if we were to restrict the entire freeway system to use only by those individuals who are traveling two or more per car, traffic and congestion would reduce by up to half. The removal of a privileged carpool lane would reduce the number of traffic jams and accidents further.

So in practice, my snide but relevant remark might actually have some merit, and it is not without historical precedent. Remember when people could only fill up with gasoline based on their license plate numbers? Seat belt laws? Motorcycle helmet laws? Those were apparently dictatorial too, right? Restrictions are often put in place by our government, and they are sometimes unpopular. I'll grant you, this is a touchy subject, and many Americans would be very upset to realize that they are spending almost a year's wages on something that could be made to be essentially useless.

Personally, Volume is the biggest problem (what Frank said). The roads simply can't handle the volume. Call it what you will (not enough lanes, poorly timed lights, etc.), its all driven by too many people with not enough road.

The other big one (but not that big) is speed limits too low. I spend about 30% of my commute on roads with a speed limit of 35mph. I usually go 40mph if nobody is in front of me (impossible), but sometimes I get stuck behind someone going exactly the speed limit. This means on every little hill my car will downshift to 3rd. When this happens once or twice a minute, it is beginning to have a significant impact on economy I'd assume.

My car actually likes it best at about 35-40, but I'm probably much lower geared than you. Hence why my highway mileage suffers so much.