Talk:Ramp meter

Better Photograph?

The second photograph in the article, "Metered Ramp", shows a metered ramp off in the background; however, this isn't terribly evident without looking at the full-sized picture. The focus of the photograph is on the interstate, and that's what people will be drawn to when viewing the thumbnail in the article. Is there another image that could more clearly illustrate a metered ramp (aside from the one right under it) ?

Nevistar 14:18, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

NPOV

This article seems like more of an argument against ramp metering than a neutral discussion about ramp metering. Recommend moving the argument to a separate article (perhaps "Arguments against ramp metering") and keeping this article objective. Ioates 17:55, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

NPOV Response

Thanks for your comments. Perhaps I have presented information in a passionate manner, rather than simply and cooly stating facts. Although everything stated is indeed factual. I've been studying meters for six years with forays into the literature, DOT records, DOT staff meetings and correspondance, studies, and contact with nationally recognized experts such as Adolf May of UC-Berkeley, Tim Lomax of the Texas Transportation Institute, and numerous others. What is very striking is that not one of these sources, when objectively and scientifically analyzed and/or queried, can perform even a simple calculation or present a coherent and consistent explanation of how ramp meters work. Because there are no independent voices in this area a fact based article is needed. At present all information about meters eminates from vested parties and is published in the media without scrutinization. Very different than the response several years ago when success in "kitchen sink cold fusion" was claimed. The pure science community immeditely sought to verify and replicate. Are there particular statements that strike you is incorrect? I assure you that I have supporting data for everything presented. Again thanks. I will modify the tone of my contributions. Ristrockett 22:48, 21 July 2006 (CST)

NPOV

Hello, I think that the changes recently made are a step in the right direction. However, I still feel that the gist of the article is that it is an argument against ramp metering, versus simply a description of ramp metering. The argument is an excellent one--it just needs to be framed as such. I will post another message on this talk board with a rough draft of an abridged version--essentially, what I think should be kept in. I'd move almost everything else to an "Arguments against ramp meters" page. Ioates 05:59, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Rough draft of abridged article

A ramp meter or metering light is a device, usually a basic traffic light or a two-phase (red and green, no yellow) light, that regulates the flow of traffic entering freeways according to current traffic conditions. The effectiveness of ramp meters is disputed. [Link here to your argument]

Ramp meters are claimed to reduce congestion (increase speed and volume) on freeways by reducing demand and by breaking up platoons of cars. [Note: it seems like claims #1 and #3 are essentially variants of "reduction of demand."]

Also include sections:

  * Ramp meter types
  * Ramp metering in North America
  * Ramp metering in Australia
  * External links

NPOV Response

Thanks, I am making more revisions and will move my arguments. If you would be so kind, how do I make an argument page? I am new to Wikipedia. You are correct #1 and #3 both are about demand reduction, but #1 is presented by proponents with the implication that the "sophisticated control scheme" of the meters is able to orchestrate the flow as needed to prevent over-capacity conditions, without specifically discussing demand rates, while #3 does talk about changing the number of drivers who access the freeway by increasing the price they must pay to use it (ramp queue delay). Proponents usually pull the diversion explanation out when they realize that they cannot explain how a meter which does not change the number of cars allowed access, can still change congestion. Then they'll say, "We usually don't like to bring up diversion because it's a sensitive, politically charged, subject". Thanks again for your help.

NPOV Response

Do you think the non-NPOV should be removed now? Ristrockett 13:21, 26 July 2006 (CST)

NPOV Response

Hi, you did a great job of breaking apart the objective and subjective parts of the article. I'll remove the neutrality dispute box right now. Thanks for working on this! Best, Ioates 04:39, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

NPOV Response

Thanks much for your help. Do you have an interest in meters, or were you just surfing? Ristrockett 16:37, 27 July 2006 (CST)

Man in Black: Please feel free to add facts and insights, but also allow people to read as many facts as possible so that informed opinions can be made. Thank you.--Ristrockett 17:53, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Facts are good. Unsourced original research essays pushing a particular bias are not. Please don't write an essay about whether ramp meters are good or bad on Wikipedia. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 09:03, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Man in Black: OK, I'll look to see where the bias is and try to make everything factual with support. I have been changing tone in response to your comments. I appreciate your help.

Congratulations for the civil discussion on the subject. I just did a few restructuring and took out the tone template, substituting for a road-stub.Mario J Alves 13:57, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Algorithm Additions

I've started to add in some information about algorithms used to control ramp metering.Kabba3111 15:44, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Question

On the entry to US Route 9 North from NY 113, in Poughkeepsieat the end of an exit ramp, there is a traffic light. So, normally, this would be considered a ramp meter. However, the traffic light also controls entry into a parking lot accross US 9 from the ramp. So, is it still a ramp meter? Smartyllama 19:25, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

'Platoons' link

The second paragraph of the introduction mentions "... breaking up platoons of cars." in order to reduce congestion, and has a link to the article Platoon (automobile) which is about creating (different sorts of) platoons of cars in order to reduce congestion. In other words, this link is not really going to the same subject. I am thinking that this link is not appropriate, or maybe I have missed the point?? FrankSier (talk) 23:51, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Seems to me a platoon is a tool, as a concrete slab is a tool. People can create it in a place where it serves a purpose, and smash it where it goes against the purpose. Merging a platoon into a limited access highway is a difficult task, so in such a merging place something can be done to break something that was good on a street with many intersections and few mergers, but bad on the ramp. Jim.henderson (talk) 18:49, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Shameless Copypasta

Much of the article is copy-pasted from other sources. For example, section "Ramp metering signal controls" is copypasted from WSDOT's website (as blatantly obvious in the last paragraph of the section). The second paragraph of the lead and the "Impacts" section seem to be copypasted from a MARC.org document. I've not checked the rest of the article, but this is a serious issue. Ronjoe223 (talk) 23:26, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

It looks like I cleaned it up, please feel free to reinsert the template if more is found.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:21, 8 April 2013 (UTC)