|
|
| Re: Queens Blvd (1327547) | |
 |
|
| Home > SubChat | |
[ Post a New Response | Return to the Index ]
|
Page 4 of 5 |
||
|
| (1328415) | |
Re: Queens Blvd |
|
|
Posted by terRAPIN station on Tue Dec 16 11:15:42 2014, in response to Re: Queens Blvd, posted by Spider-Pig on Tue Dec 16 10:50:55 2014. The problem is when the highway is congested, it may be difficult to move back and forth so much. |
|
|
| (1328428) | |
Re: Queens Blvd |
|
|
Posted by WMATAGMOAGH on Tue Dec 16 11:38:54 2014, in response to Re: Queens Blvd, posted by BrooklynBus on Mon Dec 15 19:49:08 2014. The implication that the speed limit that was suitable in 1922 is still suitable today is not ridiculous. I don't have any more body armor than I would have had in 1922 in case a car collides in to me. |
|
|
| (1328434) | |
Re: Queens Blvd |
|
|
Posted by Fisk Ave Jim on Tue Dec 16 11:50:30 2014, in response to Re: Queens Blvd, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Tue Dec 16 08:50:55 2014. They are rare indeed. But when you come upon them, sometimes you have to do some fancy needle threading to go where you want to go.What comes to mind is the intersection of I-80 & I-81 N/B in PA. & I-78 to I-278 N/B in NJ. Both are examples of left laned exits & entrances.Also,the merge & junction of I-87, I-278 & Rt 17 at the NY-NJ state line, with many left handed exits deserve honerable mention. Those are some of the busiest highways in the northeast. And in the rain & in the left lane slowing for your exit & your surrounded by tractor trailers, fighting off the spray from those in front & behind you, one is right on your ass, out come the white knuckles. I don't know where poor highway design rates as the cause of accidents, my guess is that its in the top five. |
|
|
(Sponsored) |
iPhone 6 (4.7 Inch) Premium PU Leather Wallet Case - Red w/ Floral Interior - by Notch-It |
|
| (1328447) | |
Re: Queens Blvd |
|
|
Posted by Spider-Pig on Tue Dec 16 12:30:20 2014, in response to Re: Queens Blvd, posted by WMATAGMOAGH on Tue Dec 16 11:38:54 2014. It is ridiculous as there were fewer traffic controls and less pedestrian experience with motor vehicles. |
|
|
| (1328452) | |
Re: Queens Blvd |
|
|
Posted by terRAPIN station on Tue Dec 16 12:33:15 2014, in response to Re: Queens Blvd, posted by Fisk Ave Jim on Tue Dec 16 11:50:30 2014. And in the rain & in the left lane slowing for your exit & your surrounded by tractor trailers, fighting off the spray from those in front & behind you, one is right on your ass, out come the white knuckles.I don't worry about traffic behind me, unless it's one of those situations where you're traveling at or above the speed limit on a highway and you come upon completely stopped traffic ahead. Otherwise I trust that most drivers, including of trucks, can anticipate and handle someone making a left exit from a highway. |
|
|
| (1328454) | |
Re: Queens Blvd |
|
|
Posted by terRAPIN station on Tue Dec 16 12:34:26 2014, in response to Re: Queens Blvd, posted by Spider-Pig on Tue Dec 16 12:30:20 2014. And fewer car safety technologies. |
|
|
| (1328455) | |
Re: Queens Blvd |
|
|
Posted by terRAPIN station on Tue Dec 16 12:34:38 2014, in response to Re: Queens Blvd, posted by WMATAGMOAGH on Tue Dec 16 11:38:54 2014. I disagree. |
|
|
| (1328470) | |
Re: Queens Blvd |
|
|
Posted by Stephen Bauman on Tue Dec 16 12:44:30 2014, in response to Re: Queens Blvd, posted by Spider-Pig on Tue Dec 16 12:30:20 2014. there were fewer traffic controls and less pedestrian experience with motor vehicles.All reasons for speed limits to be reduced from when Queens Blv was planned (1922). |
|
|
| (1328477) | |
Re: Queens Blvd |
|
|
Posted by WMATAGMOAGH on Tue Dec 16 12:49:10 2014, in response to Re: Queens Blvd, posted by Spider-Pig on Tue Dec 16 12:30:20 2014. I can't say those "improvements" have made the situation better in some cases. |
|
|
| (1328495) | |
Re: Queens Blvd |
|
|
Posted by RIPTA42HopeTunnel on Tue Dec 16 13:37:15 2014, in response to Re: Queens Blvd, posted by terRAPIN station on Tue Dec 16 12:34:26 2014. And fewer car safety technologies.Very few cars have safety technologies that help pedestrians, and most of those technologies just slow the car down without driver intervention. |
|
|
| (1328497) | |
Re: Queens Blvd |
|
|
Posted by terRAPIN station on Tue Dec 16 13:47:20 2014, in response to Re: Queens Blvd, posted by RIPTA42HopeTunnel on Tue Dec 16 13:37:15 2014. Very few cars have safety technologies that help pedestriansTaking the Hit: How Pedestrian-Protection Regs Make Cars Fatter and most of those technologies just slow the car down without driver intervention.What's wrong with that? In any event, I wasn't referring to pedestrians, though I see now that maybe I should have been. I was referring to car safety technologies in general that allow cars to operate safely at higher speeds than before. |
|
|
| (1328502) | |
Re: Queens Blvd |
|
|
Posted by RIPTA42HopeTunnel on Tue Dec 16 14:03:48 2014, in response to Re: Queens Blvd, posted by Stephen Bauman on Mon Dec 15 23:40:33 2014. Queens Blvd, Elmhurst 1922. Where have all the horses gone?Continental Avenue, 1924  Vernon & Jackson, 1922  Northern Boulevard, circa 1922 
|
|
|
| (1328509) | |
Re: Queens Blvd |
|
|
Posted by gp38/r42 chris on Tue Dec 16 14:43:55 2014, in response to Re: Queens Blvd, posted by RIPTA42HopeTunnel on Tue Dec 16 14:03:48 2014. Ahhh...the old Forest Hills Theater..... |
|
|
| (1328523) | |
Re: Queens Blvd |
|
|
Posted by RIPTA42HopeTunnel on Tue Dec 16 15:57:03 2014, in response to Re: Queens Blvd, posted by gp38/r42 chris on Tue Dec 16 14:43:55 2014. Ahhh...the old Forest Hills Theater.....And the Vernon! |
|
|
| (1328538) | |
Re: Queens Blvd |
|
|
Posted by Spider-Pig on Tue Dec 16 17:27:06 2014, in response to Re: Queens Blvd, posted by Stephen Bauman on Tue Dec 16 12:44:30 2014. Yes. But not today. |
|
|
| (1328544) | |
Re: Queens Blvd |
|
|
Posted by BrooklynBus on Tue Dec 16 18:07:01 2014, in response to Re: Queens Blvd, posted by WMATAGMOAGH on Tue Dec 16 11:38:54 2014. Cars are safer today. Roads are safer, better marked and better lit with better signage. Crosswalks are better marked. People are making longer trips and there at more people who need to get places in reasonabe periods of time. And most of all the mass transit system as barely expanded. We now have the IND but lost many elevated lines. Streetcars are gone. Buses are slow and need to go faster than 20 mph.There are any reasons for speed limits higher than 20 mph. Chances are if you are crossing the street where you supposed to, there is very little chance you will be hit. Also, lowering the speed limit does not ensure anyone will drive slower especially when that slow limit makes zero sense. Absolutely no one is ever driving at 30 mph on perpetual Gowanus work zone area. No one will abide by a Queens Blvd 20 mph limit if it were in effect. |
|
|
| (1328556) | |
Re: Queens Blvd |
|
|
Posted by N6 Limited on Tue Dec 16 19:08:41 2014, in response to Re: Queens Blvd, posted by BrooklynBus on Tue Dec 16 18:07:01 2014. Exactly. |
|
|
| (1328558) | |
Re: Queens Blvd |
|
|
Posted by N6 Limited on Tue Dec 16 19:14:52 2014, in response to Re: Queens Blvd, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Tue Dec 16 08:49:35 2014. Actually traffic would move much better if they allowed the faster vehicles to pass in the middle and left lanes, roadway capacity would actually increase due to increase efficiency. |
|
|
| (1328560) | |
Re: Queens Blvd |
|
|
Posted by N6 Limited on Tue Dec 16 19:18:33 2014, in response to Re: Queens Blvd, posted by Spider-Pig on Tue Dec 16 10:50:55 2014. If there is a lot of traffic merging on you move to the middle lane so that you can pass them and for them to easily merge into the highway.One of the issues that I notice all the time is that people don't realize that you're supposed to accelerate on entrance ramps, not cruise onto the highway at 25mph and then casually glance into your side view mirror to see if the coast is clear, then realize you're going to slow to merge in smoothly so you slow down even more or stop and wait for an opening. |
|
|
| (1328569) | |
Re: Queens Blvd |
|
|
Posted by italianstallion on Tue Dec 16 19:54:21 2014, in response to Re: Queens Blvd, posted by Fisk Ave Jim on Tue Dec 16 11:50:30 2014. As highway intersections are reconstructed, more and more left exits are being eliminated. I believe the Feds require this for new funding. |
|
|
| (1328578) | |
Re: Queens Blvd |
|
|
Posted by WMATAGMOAGH on Tue Dec 16 20:26:45 2014, in response to Re: Queens Blvd, posted by italianstallion on Tue Dec 16 19:54:21 2014. There is a pretty easy workaround for that. VDOT claims the Springfield Interchange doesn't have any left exits, but I don't think the average driver would consider this not to be a left exit. |
|
|
| (1328579) | |
Re: Queens Blvd |
|
|
Posted by WMATAGMOAGH on Tue Dec 16 20:32:39 2014, in response to Re: Queens Blvd, posted by BrooklynBus on Tue Dec 16 18:07:01 2014. Chances are if you are crossing the street where you supposed to, there is very little chance you will be hit.Actually, it is "safer" to cross where there is not a marked crosswalk in many places because drivers don't pay attention or look out for pedestrians in crosswalks looking to cross legally. The FHWA says that crosswalks are pretty much ineffective in areas where people drive more than 40 MPH or if the speed limit is above 40 MPH. You claim people drive 50 on Queens Boulevard. That is way too fast, no matter where the pedestrian is crossing. The chance of a pedestrian dying after being hit by a car also goes up exponentially as speed increases. Do all speed limits need to be lowered? No. Artificially low speed limits are a problem. But your ongoing crusade against pedestrians is just that and not based on the reality that before automobiles came along, pedestrians owned the streets, and you continue to advocate policies that favor vehicular traffic over everything else. |
|
|
| (1328581) | |
Re: Queens Blvd |
|
|
Posted by Andrew Saucci on Tue Dec 16 20:37:05 2014, in response to Re: Queens Blvd, posted by BrooklynBus on Tue Dec 16 18:07:01 2014. "No one will abide by a Queens Blvd 20 mph limit if it were in effect."Not true. I will, and anyone who doesn't like it can go to the City Council and ask to have it changed. And yes, I'm the guy who was driving through the Gowanus work zone, and the Staten Island Expressway work zone, and the Belt Parkway work zone, the I-78 work zone in New Jersey, and the US 1 work zone in Pennsylvania, and whatever one comes to mind at whatever the posted speed limit was while all the lawbreakers passed me. And I suffer through slow speed orders too when I am in the subway. |
|
|
| (1328582) | |
Re: Queens Blvd |
|
|
Posted by italianstallion on Tue Dec 16 20:44:57 2014, in response to Re: Queens Blvd, posted by WMATAGMOAGH on Tue Dec 16 20:26:45 2014. When an interstate splits off into 2, the designation of which side is the "exit" is pretty much arbitrary. |
|
|
| (1328585) | |
Re: Queens Blvd |
|
|
Posted by RIPTA42HopeTunnel on Tue Dec 16 21:08:52 2014, in response to Re: Queens Blvd, posted by BrooklynBus on Tue Dec 16 18:07:01 2014. Cars are safer today.Primarily for their occupants. People are making longer trips and there at more people who need to get places in reasonable periods of time. And most of all the mass transit system as barely expanded. Because for the last 60+ years we have been spending public money on wider, faster roads at the expense of making travel for pedestrians and transit riders inconvenient and dangerous. That attitude is finally changing. |
|
|
| (1328589) | |
Re: Queens Blvd |
|
|
Posted by RIPTA42HopeTunnel on Tue Dec 16 21:25:10 2014, in response to Re: Queens Blvd, posted by WMATAGMOAGH on Tue Dec 16 20:26:45 2014. There is a pretty easy workaround for that.There is; it's called a design exception. VDOT claims the Springfield Interchange doesn't have any left exits, but I don't think the average driver would consider this not to be a left exit. I-95 is the primary route and is supposed to be on the left. The special challenges at the Springfield interchange are discussed in the article Designing Complex Interchanges in the Nov-Dec 2009 issue of FHWA's Public Roads. |
|
|
| (1328592) | |
Re: Queens Blvd |
|
|
Posted by WMATAGMOAGH on Tue Dec 16 21:39:10 2014, in response to Re: Queens Blvd, posted by RIPTA42HopeTunnel on Tue Dec 16 21:25:10 2014. Many drivers there don't consider 95 to be the primary route, no matter what the FWHA standards say. |
|
|
| (1328593) | |
Re: Queens Blvd |
|
|
Posted by WMATAGMOAGH on Tue Dec 16 21:40:11 2014, in response to Re: Queens Blvd, posted by italianstallion on Tue Dec 16 20:44:57 2014. Sometimes yes, sometimes no. I always find it strange that I have to exit to stay on 295 at the interchange with 76 in New Jersey. |
|
|
| (1328594) | |
Re: Queens Blvd |
|
|
Posted by gp38/r42 chris on Tue Dec 16 21:46:21 2014, in response to Re: Queens Blvd, posted by N6 Limited on Tue Dec 16 19:14:52 2014. Seriously? Like people don't do that anyway. |
|
|
| (1328596) | |
Re: Queens Blvd |
|
|
Posted by gp38/r42 chris on Tue Dec 16 21:51:25 2014, in response to Re: Queens Blvd, posted by WMATAGMOAGH on Tue Dec 16 20:32:39 2014. Do all speed limits need to be lowered? No.Actually....the need to be raised. 55, for example, is ridiculous on the LIE, Sunrise in Suffolk, seaford-oyster Bay, etc. |
|
|
| (1328597) | |
Re: Queens Blvd |
|
|
Posted by gp38/r42 chris on Tue Dec 16 21:53:01 2014, in response to Re: Queens Blvd, posted by RIPTA42HopeTunnel on Tue Dec 16 21:08:52 2014. Eider faster roads? What would pedestrians be doing on the expressways, etc anyway? |
|
|
| (1328599) | |
Re: Queens Blvd |
|
|
Posted by rkba on Tue Dec 16 21:56:30 2014, in response to Re: Queens Blvd, posted by gp38/r42 chris on Tue Dec 16 21:51:25 2014. yes...yes it is.hah. |
|
|
| (1328600) | |
Re: Queens Blvd |
|
|
Posted by Fisk Ave Jim on Tue Dec 16 22:07:24 2014, in response to Re: Queens Blvd, posted by gp38/r42 chris on Tue Dec 16 21:51:25 2014. "...55, for example, is ridiculous on the LIE, Sunrise in Suffolk"Agreed! You do 55 on those roads & you'll be blown off them & actually become a hazard as traffic maneuvers around you...especially if you're doing 55 in the left lane, which is not all that uncommon out there, biggest offenders being local delevery trucks from my expierience. On The Sunrise around the south fork pinelands (exists 61-66) in the summertime, the wannabe high rollers in their Beamers & Benzes (who can't afford commuting by helicopter), you do 55 & they will pass you like u r standing still, & rarely seem to get pulled over. |
|
|
| (1328604) | |
Re: Queens Blvd |
|
|
Posted by BrooklynBus on Tue Dec 16 22:24:35 2014, in response to Re: Queens Blvd, posted by WMATAGMOAGH on Tue Dec 16 20:32:39 2014. If crosswalks are ineffective where Peope drive at 40 mph, does that mean they shoud be eliminated? And what does ineffective mean anyway?I never claimed people drive or should drive 50 on Queens Boulevard. I said 40 would be safe in the main road where there are service roads if the ambers were lengthened so there was ample time to stop at 40. Yes the chance of pedestrians dying increase at that speed, but they have no business trying to cross mid block anyway especially since much of the area now has fencing to prevent it. Let them cross where they are supposed to cross and they won't get hit by someone doing 40 mph, maybe by vehicles turning at 20, but not by cars going aster than that. You say artificially low speed limits are a problem and that's exactly what 20 mph on the main roadway of Queens Blvd woud be -- artificially low and a bad idea. I have no ongoing crusade against pedestrians. I have a crusade against non-drivers believing they know what is best for everyone. So you want the automobile abolished and streets to all become pedestrian malls so pedestrians can once again wn the streets. Sorry, but it's a little too late for that. |
|
|
| (1328607) | |
Re: Queens Blvd |
|
|
Posted by rkba on Tue Dec 16 22:26:25 2014, in response to Re: Queens Blvd, posted by Fisk Ave Jim on Tue Dec 16 22:07:24 2014. you should see people on ocean parkway during the evening commute...even with all the deer... |
|
|
| (1328609) | |
Re: Queens Blvd |
|
|
Posted by WMATAGMOAGH on Tue Dec 16 22:32:02 2014, in response to Re: Queens Blvd, posted by BrooklynBus on Tue Dec 16 22:24:35 2014. Read the FHWA standards, you might learn a thing or two.Does Queens Boulevard have lights at intervals such that saying pedestrians should never cross mid-block is actually feasible? Or does it dramatically increase the distance pedestrians must walk to cross the street? I'm not a non-driver. I have driving licenses from two different countries. I'm not opposed to cars and I don't think every street should be turned in to a pedestrian mall. However, I do think you have no idea what you're talking about in this and many other threads, and many of us are on a crusade to point out the faults in your logic. |
|
|
| (1328614) | |
Re: Queens Blvd |
|
|
Posted by fdtutf on Tue Dec 16 23:24:42 2014, in response to Re: Queens Blvd, posted by terRAPIN station on Tue Dec 16 13:47:20 2014. The whole point is what you mean by "safely." As WMATA... has pointed out elsewhere (at least I believe it was he), the safety you're talking about is mainly for the occupants. All that does is increase drivers' sense of invulnerability and warp their judgment as to what is safe. |
|
|
| (1328631) | |
Re: Queens Blvd |
|
|
Posted by N6 Limited on Wed Dec 17 02:18:09 2014, in response to Re: Queens Blvd, posted by gp38/r42 chris on Tue Dec 16 21:46:21 2014. Have you driven lately? Bunch of clueless motorists cruising in the left and middle lanes. |
|
|
| (1328635) | |
Re: Queens Blvd |
|
|
Posted by gp38/r42 chris on Wed Dec 17 06:50:45 2014, in response to Re: Queens Blvd, posted by N6 Limited on Wed Dec 17 02:18:09 2014. With all the traffic we have you expect people to not drive in the middle lame? Like l |
|
|
| (1328636) | |
Re: Queens Blvd |
|
|
Posted by MainR3664 on Wed Dec 17 07:19:55 2014, in response to Queens Blvd, posted by Union Tpke on Wed Dec 10 15:59:32 2014. Wow...they actually had a color plan...thank you for sharing. |
|
|
| (1328637) | |
Re: Queens Blvd |
|
|
Posted by RIPTA42HopeTunnel on Wed Dec 17 07:23:03 2014, in response to Re: Queens Blvd, posted by gp38/r42 chris on Tue Dec 16 21:51:25 2014. Actually....the need to be raised. 55, for example, is ridiculous on the LIE, Sunrise in Suffolk, seaford-oyster Bay, etc.We're talking about streets with pedestrians. |
|
|
| (1328643) | |
Re: Queens Blvd |
|
|
Posted by RIPTA42HopeTunnel on Wed Dec 17 07:27:47 2014, in response to Re: Queens Blvd, posted by BrooklynBus on Tue Dec 16 22:24:35 2014. If crosswalks are ineffective where Peope drive at 40 mph, does that mean they shoud be eliminated?No, it means speed limits should be lower on streets with pedestrians. Funny that your brain immediately goes to eliminating the pedestrians to accommodate higher speed limits. I said 40 would be safe in the main road where there are service roads if the ambers were lengthened so there was ample time to stop at 40. That actually reduces capacity; more yellow means less green. |
|
|
| (1328644) | |
Re: Queens Blvd |
|
|
Posted by RIPTA42HopeTunnel on Wed Dec 17 08:11:08 2014, in response to Re: Queens Blvd, posted by WMATAGMOAGH on Tue Dec 16 21:39:10 2014. Many drivers there don't consider 95 to be the primary route, no matter what the FWHA standards say. Hence: The AASHTO Green Book provides additional guidance on designing to achieve consistency with this principle: "In the process of maintaining route continuity, particularly through cities and bypasses, interchange configurations need not always favor the heavy movement but rather the through route. In this situation, heavy movements can be designed on flat curves with reasonably direct connections and auxiliary lanes, equivalent operationally to through movements." The ITE Freeway and Interchange Geometric Design Handbook provides additional advice: "It is the through facility (the designated route) that should always maintain its directional character. However, any predominant movement separating from the freeway should form a well-aligned exit on the right, operationally equivalent to the through movement." In other words, I-95 is supposed to be a "left exit" at that interchange, even though it technically isn't an exit. |
|
|
| (1328645) | |
Re: Queens Blvd |
|
|
Posted by RIPTA42HopeTunnel on Wed Dec 17 08:14:17 2014, in response to Re: Queens Blvd, posted by gp38/r42 chris on Tue Dec 16 21:53:01 2014. What would pedestrians be doing on the expressways, etc anyway?Queens and Woodhaven Boulevards aren't expressways. Expressways themselves simply present barriers to pedestrians. |
|
|
| (1328653) | |
Re: Queens Blvd |
|
|
Posted by GIS Man on Wed Dec 17 09:02:31 2014, in response to Re: Queens Blvd, posted by R36 #9346 on Thu Dec 11 21:23:53 2014. Right, but its basic direction is still east. Note that the streets parallel to it in Forest Hills (e.g. Austin St) number south.Bob |
|
|
| (1328666) | |
Re: Queens Blvd |
|
|
Posted by WMATAGMOAGH on Wed Dec 17 11:32:35 2014, in response to Re: Queens Blvd, posted by RIPTA42HopeTunnel on Wed Dec 17 08:11:08 2014. Right, but the public doesn't understand why the signs indicate they "exit" by taking the road that continues straight. There was a fatal crash (I think involving a drunk teenage driver) where the parents were upset at VDOT's claim that there were no left exits within the interchange and while I wouldn't take every word the bereaved parents say as fact, there was a general disagreement among others with regards to VDOT's response to the parents.At the College Park interchange, on the outer loop of the Beltway, there is no exit number posted. On the inner loop, the ramp for I-95 north is marked as Exit 27. For traffic coming south from Baltimore on I-95, only drivers going on to the outer loop which is signed only as I-495 take a numbered exit ramp, the traffic going to the inner loop which is signed as both I-95 and I-495 is the "through route." Far fewer issues there if you ask me with that setup. |
|
|
| (1328680) | |
Re: Queens Blvd |
|
|
Posted by terRAPIN station on Wed Dec 17 13:11:42 2014, in response to Re: Queens Blvd, posted by gp38/r42 chris on Wed Dec 17 06:50:45 2014. You don't understand. |
|
|
| (1328681) | |
Re: Queens Blvd |
|
|
Posted by terRAPIN station on Wed Dec 17 13:11:48 2014, in response to Re: Queens Blvd, posted by N6 Limited on Wed Dec 17 02:18:09 2014. Exactly. |
|
|
| (1328682) | |
Re: Queens Blvd |
|
|
Posted by terRAPIN station on Wed Dec 17 13:12:12 2014, in response to Re: Queens Blvd, posted by N6 Limited on Tue Dec 16 19:18:33 2014. IAWTP |
|
|
| (1328685) | |
Re: Queens Blvd |
|
|
Posted by terRAPIN station on Wed Dec 17 13:16:43 2014, in response to Re: Queens Blvd, posted by Andrew Saucci on Tue Dec 16 20:37:05 2014. What is your reasoning for driving at exactly the speed limit? |
|
|
|
Page 4 of 5 |
||
