Diverging Diamond Intersection at FM 60 & 2818

techno-ag
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Wowzers. Check out the video.

http://www.kbtx.com/content/news/FM-60-at-FM-2818-being-closed-Wednesday-to-create-diverging-diamond-489659961.html


halibut sinclair
How long do you want to ignore this user?
91_Aggie
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
That looks great but will probably confuse many people until they get used to it.

What is option for if you exited off of I40 but made a mistake and want to get back on I40 (in that example), or if you were at a place of business on the access road past the entrance ramp for I40 but you wanted to get on I40?

Looks you'll have to go right on the perpendicular road until you can Uturn and come back.
Tonto Goldstein 93
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
People in this town can't figure out a roundabout.

I'm looking at you Broadmoor and Nash
I love beer.
duffelpud
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Quote:

The new diverging diamond interchange (DDI) traffic pattern will be completed before the students return to the A&M Campus in mid-August

"What's this button do?"
techno-ag
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
duffelpud said:

Quote:

The new diverging diamond interchange (DDI) traffic pattern will be completed before the students return to the A&M Campus in mid-August


No kidding. Look at the increase in wrecks and general confusion when they changed the exit ramps on the bypass.
techno-ag
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
This video shows a simulated drive. Essentially, traffic stops and crosses over to the other side, then returns to the right side of the highway on the other side of the intersection. Do a YouTube search on diverging diamond interchanges to see more like this if interested but looks like TxDot made this one specifically to show how our Intersection will look when complete. Go through about the first minute and a half to see how the intersection is supposed to work.

BQ_90
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
techno-ag said:

This video shows a simulated drive. Essentially, traffic stops and crosses over to the other side, then returns to the right side of the highway on the other side of the intersection. Do a YouTube search on diverging diamond interchanges to see more like this if interested but looks like TxDot made this one specifically to show how our Intersection will look when complete.


I kept watching waiting for the SimCity music to start playing.
duffelpud
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
What could possibly go wrong?
"What's this button do?"
chigger
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
We drove through one a number of times in Missouri in June. It really wasn't that big a deal.
duffelpud
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
chigger said:

We drove through one a number of times in Missouri in June. It really wasn't that big a deal.
Uh huh - was it located next to one of the largest universities in the nation and were fifty-thousand students rolling into town all trying to use their cell phones at the same time?
"What's this button do?"
Tim Weaver
How long do you want to ignore this user?
They have some of these around the san marcos/kyle area now too. They're stupid.

Why is this any better than a regular intersection?
91_Aggie
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Tim Weaver said:

They have some of these around the san marcos/kyle area now too. They're stupid.

Why is this any better than a regular intersection?


Did you watch the video? It's better because it removes left hand turns from crossing oncoming traffic.
Rex Racer
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
It's not bad at all. I have driven one several times in Charlotte, NC.
redd38
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
91_Aggie said:

Tim Weaver said:

They have some of these around the san marcos/kyle area now too. They're stupid.

Why is this any better than a regular intersection?


Did you watch the video? It's better because it removes left hand turns from crossing oncoming traffic.


By adding 2 stop lights.

The same can be done with 2 lights in a traditional configuration too. Except in a traditional configuration nobody would have to stop at a light during non-peak hours (aka most of the day), whereas with a ddi cars going straight will have to stop at one light or the other.

This was a big waste of time and money, it could have been fixed in a weekend by just adding 2 properly timed lights.
BQ_90
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Quote:

properly timed lights
In this town
nought
How long do you want to ignore this user?
91_Aggie said:

Did you watch the video? It's better because it removes left hand turns from crossing oncoming traffic.


So instead, if you want to just go straight, you cross oncoming traffic twice and are forced to stop at least once by a stoplight no matter what.

Brilliant.
Tim Weaver
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Yep. Nothing like protecting us from ourselves by adding more control devices.


I'll just leave this here....

https://bigthink.com/articles/want-less-car-accidents-get-rid-of-traffic-signals-road-signs
91_Aggie
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
There was a video posted in the past that showed computer simulations of all types of intersections and how many cars per minute would move through them. This was one of the most efficient.

It is pretty darned hilarious to watch some of you who look at something you haven't seen before and because it is different you immediate become traffic flow experts and condemn it. Likely most of you would have called electricity the work of Satan back in the early 1900s.
91_Aggie
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Here you go.


About 3:28 Mark is what I think is this configuration
Sailor
How long do you want to ignore this user?
This type of intersection is at 21 and I35 in San Marcos. Works VERY well getting traffic through there.
Txanon
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Look up Knooppunt Leenderheide you snowflakes.
redd38
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
91_Aggie said:

There was a video posted in the past that showed computer simulations of all types of intersections and how many cars per minute would move through them. This was one of the most efficient.

It is pretty darned hilarious to watch some of you who look at something you haven't seen before and because it is different you immediate become traffic flow experts and condemn it. Likely most of you would have called electricity the work of Satan back in the early 1900s.


It's even more darned hilarious to see some people just accept that a chosen solution is necessarily the best solution.

Oh, you saw a video on YouTube? I didn't realize you were an expert, my bad.
Tim Weaver
How long do you want to ignore this user?
redd38 said:

91_Aggie said:

There was a video posted in the past that showed computer simulations of all types of intersections and how many cars per minute would move through them. This was one of the most efficient.

It is pretty darned hilarious to watch some of you who look at something you haven't seen before and because it is different you immediate become traffic flow experts and condemn it. Likely most of you would have called electricity the work of Satan back in the early 1900s.


It's even more darned hilarious to see some people just accept that a chosen solution is necessarily the best solution.

Oh, you saw a video on YouTube? I didn't realize you were an expert, my bad.


Hahahahaha.

Right on. I don't pretend to know much about traffic engineering, but I do know that in Waco you can cruise down the main streets there at the speed limit and never get stopped by a light. They are timed properly and have been for decades. Where can you drive in BCS and not get stopped by a light?

So why is it that places with properly timed lights don't have the congestion problems we do? Why are we trying to solve this congestion by adding more lights at more complicated intersections? Why do we feel the need to spend millions of dollars on something that isn't really a problem?

Yes the old intersection was backed up during game days, but thats due to the volume of traffic, not the style of intersection....
pants
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Tim Weaver said:

redd38 said:

91_Aggie said:

There was a video posted in the past that showed computer simulations of all types of intersections and how many cars per minute would move through them. This was one of the most efficient.

It is pretty darned hilarious to watch some of you who look at something you haven't seen before and because it is different you immediate become traffic flow experts and condemn it. Likely most of you would have called electricity the work of Satan back in the early 1900s.


It's even more darned hilarious to see some people just accept that a chosen solution is necessarily the best solution.

Oh, you saw a video on YouTube? I didn't realize you were an expert, my bad.


Hahahahaha.

Right on. I don't pretend to know much about traffic engineering, but I do know that in Waco you can cruise down the main streets there at the speed limit and never get stopped by a light. They are timed properly and have been for decades. Where can you drive in BCS and not get stopped by a light?

So why is it that places with properly timed lights don't have the congestion problems we do? Why are we trying to solve this congestion by adding more lights at more complicated intersections? Why do we feel the need to spend millions of dollars on something that isn't really a problem?

Yes the old intersection was backed up during game days, but thats due to the volume of traffic, not the style of intersection....

Have you compared the traffic volume data on the arterials you're comparing in B/CS and Waco? There might just be such a heavy volume here that there is no good signal timing. I'd be careful making generalizations about traffic signal timing unless you have specific and comparable data or know someone who times the signals.

We did a travel time study in college about 10 years ago from Ireland and University to University and Hwy6 where we drove back and forth several times between 4:00 and 6:00 PM. Those signals are definitely coordinated because pretty much every group and every trial showed that driving out of town was faster. I suspect the signals are timed properly, but the volume is crazy high. I have no data other than our speed study to back up my suspicions, though.

One issue I know we have here is the lack of an alternate N/S arterial to Texas. E/W is tough also, but N/S seems worse.
pants
How long do you want to ignore this user?
91_aggie's post was at least based on a secondary data source. It at least used numbers. We don't know what assumptions were put in that simulator, but if they were all the same, this newer design is clearly a good one.
BCStalk
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Engineering, designing, and Ritalin...Exhibit A.
91_Aggie
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
redd38 said:

91_Aggie said:

There was a video posted in the past that showed computer simulations of all types of intersections and how many cars per minute would move through them. This was one of the most efficient.

It is pretty darned hilarious to watch some of you who look at something you haven't seen before and because it is different you immediate become traffic flow experts and condemn it. Likely most of you would have called electricity the work of Satan back in the early 1900s.


It's even more darned hilarious to see some people just accept that a chosen solution is necessarily the best solution.

.


I know you are upset because your armchair analysis was proven completely wrong. And don't try to change the argument. You and the other chicken littles are screaming that this will be a total disaster with the only reasoning provided by you and Mr Weaver being "well this looks very odd and I don't understand it and because I don't understand it I think it is very bad"

I never said it was the BEST solution. I said if you looked at the video I provided it shows you how it works in comparison to others.

But don't throw up a straw man so you can be an internet tough guy, sparkie
redd38
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
91_Aggie said:

redd38 said:

91_Aggie said:

There was a video posted in the past that showed computer simulations of all types of intersections and how many cars per minute would move through them. This was one of the most efficient.

It is pretty darned hilarious to watch some of you who look at something you haven't seen before and because it is different you immediate become traffic flow experts and condemn it. Likely most of you would have called electricity the work of Satan back in the early 1900s.


It's even more darned hilarious to see some people just accept that a chosen solution is necessarily the best solution.

.


I know you are upset because your armchair analysis was proven completely wrong. And don't try to change the argument. You and the other chicken littles are screaming that this will be a total disaster with the only reasoning provided by you and Mr Weaver being "well this looks very odd and I don't understand it and because I don't understand it I think it is very bad"

I never said it was the BEST solution. I said if you looked at the video I provided it shows you how it works in comparison to others.

But don't throw up a straw man so you can be an internet tough guy, sparkie


How did you prove my analysis wrong? You did no such thing. I'm eagerly awaiting someone to prove me wrong!

For the vast majority of the day, a traditional configuration of 2 lights would prevent any car from stopping at a red light, while a DDI will require that one of the straight lanes stop every time. Prove me wrong.
Rexter
How long do you want to ignore this user?
The whole issue of left turns could have been solved with having 2818 traffic go under the bridge and turn left. This would have had the cost of a few signs and some striping instead of a few million bucks.

I noticed in the video that it shows 3 lanes in each direction on 60 and 2818. When is that going to happen, and how much more will it add to the bill? It looks like just two lanes would negate the benefit of continuous flow for right-turning traffic.
91_Aggie
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
If the flowrate is higher than it is now then it doesn't matter if you might have to stop.

Your entire argument is "well, on some occasions if the timing is right on a normal intersection then I don't have to stop at a red light here, but now I will have to stop every time. "

Essentially you are basing your analysis on how this personally affects you because you like the fact that sometimes you can get lucky at an intersection an NOT have to stop.

Not a very scientific approach to analyzing traffic flow rates.
91_Aggie
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Rexter said:

The whole issue of left turns could have been solved with having 2818 traffic go under the bridge and turn left. This would have had the cost of a few signs and some striping instead of a few million bucks.

I noticed in the video that it shows 3 lanes in each direction on 60 and 2818. When is that going to happen, and how much more will it add to the bill? It looks like just two lanes would negate the benefit of continuous flow for right-turning traffic.


That video was an example of that type of intersection. Even had a visual showing an I40 interstate sign. Sheesh people sure want to scream about how bad this is going to be and aren't even paying attention to anything actually going in the video.

redd38
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
91_Aggie said:

If the flowrate is higher than it is now then it doesn't matter if you might have to stop.

Your entire argument is "well, on some occasions if the timing is right on a normal intersection then I don't have to stop at a red light here, but now I will have to stop every time. "

Essentially you are basing your analysis on how this personally affects you because you like the fact that sometimes you can get lucky at an intersection an NOT have to stop.

Not a very scientific approach to analyzing traffic flow rates.


I'm not saying sometimes I'd get lucky and not have to stop, I'm saying I'd NEVER have to stop. Luck has nothing to do with it, you don't seem to understand the intersection. Their flow rate analysis is irrelevant for 90% of the day when there's not enough traffic for it to matter.

You've still not proven me wrong, but feel free to take another stab at it once you actually understand the situation a bit better.
91_Aggie
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Ah. So you never wanted that intersection to change. You never wanted lights to go up for the traffic on hwy 60?
I see now.

I would imagine that lights were going to go up and they decided to use this model of intersection instead of one that we are more familiar with.

With the growing population, the medical school, and Rellis campus that intersection was not going to stay the little ol' country road it used to be.

Lights were going up whether they did it this way or with a more familiar method.
pants
How long do you want to ignore this user?
To redd38: You always make both green lights on diamond interchanges?

I get the point about always having to stop at at least one light on the new design, but with a traditional design, you will get stopped sometimes.
Page 1 of 5
 
×
Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.