Saturday, May 10, 2003

going around in circles

Doug Mattson article back on May 7, covering proposal to put a roundabout aka rotary in at Idaho-Maryland and East Main St. intersection, also mentioning that CalTrans is thinking of putting one at Gold Flat / Hwy 20. I hope they'll do the same at Gold Flat/Ridge/Zion/Nevada City Highway intersection, where 11 9 cars could all be "next" to go although in that case my memory typically goes first.

The official distinction between roundabout and rotary is that rotary is big, roundabout is small, and that roundabout is empirically? better. But the ultimate in roundabouts, if you keep shrinking, is a blind intersection, and that is not so good, so size can't be the whole story. Rotary seems to me better, since the increased circumference gives you more space for merging in.

One surprising statement in the article was that signal lights were 'deemed' cheaper. How can that be - after all it's just a round road with dirt in middle - unless part of already-built-up neighboring property is needed for roundabout. Note to NC (county? city?) officials- not all of the GF/R/Z/NCH intersection is built up yet, act now please.

No comments:

Post a Comment

Welcome, and thanks for caring enough to donate your time and thoughts toward greater collective wisdom...

Terms of engagement:
* Please be civil.
* * * * Please do not post anonymously * * * (I'd remove this choice if I could, and I may remove your comment if you do) - instead, do this:
Click on the 'Name/URL' radiobutton, then enter your real name (if you're brave) or a pseudonym (if you're not). (You can leave the "URL" field blank.)
Or go ahead and click "Anonymous", but put your name in your comment.

* The Management reserves the right to delete comments (Moderation Certificate can be found here). You can always post it on a blog of your own.

If you run into technical difficulties, please a) accept my apologies, then b) email your comment to aherror2011 at gmail.com with "Comment for [name of this blog]" in the Subject line.

New policy re climate contrarianism comments as of 11/11/2009:
Comments questioning the climate science community's understanding of climate change (97% of active climatologists now believe that the earth is currently warming and that it's human-caused - link) will be deleted unless the commenter:
a) is local
b) uses his real name
c) provides link(s) to substantiate his claim(s)/inference(s)
d) is willing to collaborate on constructing an argument tree, to get us past the usual sterile point-counterpoint-countercounterpoint.
(For people who can't read the above, a summary:
1) Be civil;
2) Don't post w/o giving at least a pseudonym;
3) Don't espouse climate-denial crankery unless you're local and willing to stand behind it.)

Caveats:
1. Comments could be delayed: they are being moderated, and I'm sometimes away from the computer for a day or more.
2. : Perfectly legitimate comments are sometimes miscategorized (by the blogging platform) as spam, & not published. If this happens to yours, please notify me, else I might not notice for a day or two.