|
|
| Re: A a Vision Zero Town Hall Meeting (292277) | |
 |
|
| Home > BusChat | |
[ Post a New Response | Return to the Index ]
|
Page 3 of 3 |
||
|
| (295577) | |
Re: A a Vision Zero Town Hall Meeting |
|
|
Posted by Wakefield-241st Street on Thu Jul 17 13:23:59 2014, in response to Re: A a Vision Zero Town Hall Meeting, posted by RIPTA42HopeTunnel on Wed Jul 16 16:53:01 2014. Because as far as I know, every intersection has a stop sign or a traffic signal. The only places where there may be a yield sign instead is if it is an entrance to a highway, and many of them also have stop signs. I have not seen any totally unmarked intersections in the city or even in the suburbs.RIPTA showed examples in Brooklyn, how about I show you some in the Bronx? East 224th Street and Eastchester Road East Gun Hill Road and Pearsall Road - also intersections of Gun Hill and the following: Wilson Ave, Seymour Ave, DeWitt Place and Eastchester Road just to name a few. East 222nd Street and Bruner Ave (west intersection only) Tillotson Ave and the New England Thruway southbound service road I could go on and on - would you like a spreadsheet? :-D |
|
|
| (295588) | |
Re: A a Vision Zero Town Hall Meeting |
|
|
Posted by BrooklynBus on Thu Jul 17 17:18:18 2014, in response to Re: A a Vision Zero Town Hall Meeting, posted by RIPTA42HopeTunnel on Wed Jul 16 16:53:01 2014. Maybe i wasn't clear. I wasn't talking about a small one way street intersecting with a large two way on one side at an odd angle where there is no reason to put a stop sign on the two way street.I was referring to an ordinary intersection meeting at right angles with another street where both streets cross each other but there is through traffic only on one street because traffic on the other street consists only of turning vehicles. If you find one of those, I will ask DOT if the sign could be removed. I guarantee you, they will say no, and that it is there for the safety of pedestrians. The example by Wakefield of 224th Street and Eastchester has a traffic light a few feet away. |
|
|
| (295590) | |
Re: A a Vision Zero Town Hall Meeting |
|
|
Posted by Wakefield-241st Street on Thu Jul 17 17:32:39 2014, in response to Re: A a Vision Zero Town Hall Meeting, posted by BrooklynBus on Thu Jul 17 17:18:18 2014. The example by Wakefield of 224th Street and Eastchester has a traffic light a few feet away.There is a bypass lane, look at it more closely. |
|
|
| (295605) | |
Re: A a Vision Zero Town Hall Meeting |
|
|
Posted by BrooklynBus on Thu Jul 17 19:48:14 2014, in response to Re: A a Vision Zero Town Hall Meeting, posted by Wakefield-241st Street on Thu Jul 17 17:32:39 2014. So if you are going north on Eastchester and the signal is green, you can make right onto 224 St without stopping. There is no stop sign, but there is a stop line, so if the light at Laconia is red, you still have to stop before making a right into 224 Street.I don't see anywhere else at that intersection where you are not affected by the traffic signal. Also, since it is technically a T intersection, someone crossing 224 Street doesn't have the right of way when crossing if a car is turning onto 224 Street. Certainly, nothing like the intersection I was talkling about and much more complicated. |
|
|
| (295608) | |
Re: A a Vision Zero Town Hall Meeting |
|
|
Posted by RIPTA42HopeTunnel on Thu Jul 17 21:29:08 2014, in response to Re: A a Vision Zero Town Hall Meeting, posted by BrooklynBus on Thu Jul 17 17:18:18 2014. Maybe i wasn't clear. I wasn't talking about a small one way street intersecting with a large two way on one side at an odd angle where there is no reason to put a stop sign on the two way street.Yes, it wasn't cleat that by "as far as I know, every intersection has a stop sign or a traffic signal" you meant "every intersection of a certain specific type of which I believe there is only one in New York City." FWIW, I know of several such configurations in the Boston area that have no STOP signs or traffic signals, but you're right, I can't think of one in New York off the top of my head. |
|
|
| (295638) | |
Re: A a Vision Zero Town Hall Meeting |
|
|
Posted by BrooklynBus on Fri Jul 18 10:21:49 2014, in response to Re: A a Vision Zero Town Hall Meeting, posted by RIPTA42HopeTunnel on Thu Jul 17 21:29:08 2014. Okay, I just looked at Google maps and found another one without too much trouble. Avenue H and E 51 St in Brooklyn, and there is no stop sign or traffic signal and traffic on E 51 leads away from Avenue H in both directions.I can write to DOT but I am not sure what to ask them. If I suggest it's removal, they will probably either say it is for pedestrian safety or the community wanted it. Any suggestions on how I should phrase the question? Should I just ask them why it is there? |
|
|
| (295645) | |
Re: A a Vision Zero Town Hall Meeting |
|
|
Posted by Wakefield-241st Street on Fri Jul 18 13:17:51 2014, in response to Re: A a Vision Zero Town Hall Meeting, posted by BrooklynBus on Thu Jul 17 19:48:14 2014. I don't see anywhere else at that intersection where you are not affected by the traffic signal.WAAR - - Gunther Ave at Barnes Ave, just before Nereid Ave - - the "Love Story" Barnes Ave intersection from the 1970 film |
|
|
| (295648) | |
Re: A a Vision Zero Town Hall Meeting |
|
|
Posted by BrooklynBus on Fri Jul 18 13:56:01 2014, in response to Re: A a Vision Zero Town Hall Meeting, posted by Wakefield-241st Street on Fri Jul 18 13:17:51 2014. How am I wrong? You just found another intersection similar to the other one, but you also have to stop at the stop line when the signal is red, so the traffic signal does apply.Anyway, see my response to RIPTA. I found another intersection in Brooklyn like the one I was talking about, no odd angles and all traffic leading away from the intersection on one of those streets. And RIPTA was correct, there are no traffic devices there, unlike your examples. |
|
|
|
Page 3 of 3 |
||